[subeeds]

I think a moratorium should be imposed until all wells are inspected by qualified-key word here is qualified-inspectors and if they are found to be safe, allowed to begin operating again. I hate the idea of innocent people who are working on the rigs being unemployed simply because BP cut corners and now we have this debacle to deal with. As for that judge who made the ruling-he should have recused himself . I hope he is brought up on ethics charges (yes I would still feel that way even if he had ruled in favor of the moratorium) because he was biased from the start. That's a major no-no.

[opiet70]

I just watched a scary History Channel program about world oil supply, and regardless of new wells, the writing is on the wall that we're basically doomed:

There will never be enough oil to meet upcoming world demands, and unless we start getting away from it ASAP, the human race is finished.

You are right - although the science behind it varies as widely as the global warming debate and "doomed" is a pretty interesting word to use. Essentially, the estimates of the global oil supply that we now know varies from as low as 20 years to up to around 150-180 years at projected consumption rates. It has been a while since I read them (google them to read yourself), but I don't believe it contained estimates on shale oil and such.

So, long story short we will run out of oil. That's a fact and one of the problems of basing a world economy off a consumable supply (the 'left's' main argument in many situations). But, I disagree with the president's recent ban because I don't believe he understands the repercussions of his actions on our still struggling economy. I also don't believe one should simply stop something so vital to our world without viable alternatives.

As a side note, don't give me that liberal crap about how electric cars and such are going to save the world - they are a piece but that is it. They also have been around since almost the inception of the automobile (check out Detroit Electric back in the 20s and 30s). If they haven't made 'the' difference in 90 years, I doubt they will save the world now...

A viable alternative is one that is easily 'harvested,' a lifespan of at least 1000 years, either environmentally neutral or positive, and can be relatively easily integrated into our current infrastructure.

As another side note, I married into a family of liberals and we have some healthy debates on this very subject. I don't disagree with the need - I do disagree with the way in which it is portrayed and the serious lack of concise/consistent facts on something so important.

[Phil1]

Well said.

Last I heard there are about 3,500 wells in the Gulf with a pretty good track record. They produce roughly 30% of our domestic production. (I think that is about right). The only issue is deep water rigs and the failures of the BP rig are pretty well understood. That would include major federal screw ups. I should not take 6 months to clear most all the issues up and get back to work. Six months was an Obama reach around and pulled it out of my butt scheduled. Much like the back tracking now being done on Afganistan, Iraq, Gitmo and add your own here..............>

[Ira]

Oh my... You have just demonstrated in glorious technicolor the thought process' of the Left. Never mind that you don't understand what others are telling you, you are quite prepared to throw the full weight of your support behind something based only on faith. What happens if you are wrong? You don't care do you? The premise fits your "world view" so you automatically believe it. Do you see how silly that makes you look? Rhetorical question...

I believe you have, by your own words, excluded yourself from all logical discussion. Don't worry, you will still be able type away to your heart's content here because there are so many Libs here that logical discussion almost never takes place...

Ginge, ever hear of something called science? I know this kind of stuff bothers those of you with a right-wing political agenda--but do you care to debate this logically? I know logic has nothing to do with that mind of yours, nor science, but let's try it. Okay?

When you say yes, I'm ready to pursue to this. In the meantime, all I hear is your big right-wing mouth which is spewing nothing but nonsensical garbage.

Let the games begin, Einstien!!!

Oh--one more thing:

Let's decide on a day and a timeframe for this. You right wingers just LOVE to link to Murdoch pages, which, as everyone knows, mean nothing. Rupert Murdoch is one step above Larry Fein.

So, with everyone in attendance here watching, we will devote one hour or two to this debate. Only one hour or two.

Do you have the cojones for this?

I doubt it, because all you really have is a big mouth.

Give me a day and time, and I'll be there.

Will you?

---------- Post added 06-27-2010 at 04:48 PM ----------

You are right - although the science behind it varies as widely as the global warming debate and "doomed" is a pretty interesting word to use. Essentially, the estimates of the global oil supply that we now know varies from as low as 20 years to up to around 150-180 years at projected consumption rates.

It is a fact that production from available reserves started declining a few years ago, DRASTICALLY, and regardless of new drilling, this new drilling dwarfs future demand.

It is also a fact that our scientists now know what turned our great oceans into acid, which created the oil we use today. (Dead plankton and other life.)

Of course, Ginge knows better. He's a real SCIENTIST, you know!?

Ginge, if you want to play the ignorant right-winger and risk your grandkids' future, have a ball. But I'm sorry:

I can't let your backward thinking affect the future of me and mine. Okay?

But we're still friend's, right?

On second thought, forget it. What's the point?

---------- Post added 06-27-2010 at 04:58 PM ----------

But, I disagree with the president's recent ban because I don't believe he understands the repercussions of his actions on our still struggling economy. I also don't believe one should simply stop something so vital to our world without viable alternatives.

Come on.

The President's ban has nothing to do with long-term energy policy. The 6-month ban only has to do with this DISASTER in the Gulf. And only offshore, deep-water drilling:

The jury is in that this isn't safe, and that the oil companies bullshitted us. They're using the same safeguards since the 70s.

What would happen if this happened again a few months down the road, and Obama hadn't pushed for this ban? They would be hanging him up by his you know what.

1) Drilling in the U.S. or buying elsewhere doesn't bring the price down one penny.

2) It doesn't bring prices down because oil is a fluid (pardon the non-pun) commodity. It doesn't matter where the oil comes from--prices are based on world prices.

3) BP is a British company. If we're so concerned about energy independence, why are we contracting our fields out to foreign companies?

[GingeM]

Ginge, ever hear of something called science?

Yes, I have. Unlike you though when I don't understand it I research it so that I can grasp the concept(s). I do not blithely state that I support it and believe it. That is such unabashed naivety that you don't even deserve a vote. What you basically said is that if someone says this is science and it fits your agenda you will believe it. As a famous American once said "There's a sucker born every minute".

As to your "challange" - forget it. One cannot argue with faith because faith has no basis in logic nor reality.

[gokenin]

It
is a fact that production from available reserves started declining a few years ago, DRASTICALLY, and regardless of new drilling, this new drilling dwarfs future demand.

Peak Oil Depletion - Charts for Prediction & Projection of Peak Date, Rate & Decline

Ira if you look at the first two scenerios it shows that in fact production is not in a drastic decline but expected to increase until 2024 or 2030 then production will decrease and will be at current levels of production again by 2042 or 2052 with oil production droping to final production levels of 5 million barrels per day in either 2300 or 2388 .

[Oldschool]

Peak Oil Depletion - Charts for Prediction & Projection of Peak Date, Rate & Decline

Ira if you look at the first two scenerios it shows that in fact production is not in a drastic decline but expected to increase until 2024 or 2030 then production will decrease and will be at current levels of production again by 2042 or 2052 with oil production droping to final production levels of 5 million barrels per day in either 2300 or 2388 .

Unfortunately, demand will not stay constant. Even as we become more efficient in the US and Europe, demand is rising much faster in growing economies such as China, Brazil, and India. I'm not worried about my lifetime, we'll have enough oil. I'm worried about my children and their children. If we don't develop alternative energy, prices will continue to rise long term, our security will be compromised, and our standard of living will be lower. This is a long term problem, but we have to start soon.

[opiet70]

It is a fact that production from available reserves started declining a few years ago, DRASTICALLY, and regardless of new drilling, this new drilling dwarfs future demand.

It is also a fact that our scientists now know what turned our great oceans into acid, which created the oil we use today. (Dead plankton and other life.)

Point one is already answered by another post - but get your facts straight or disprove the facts already posted please.


You should look at this for your second point. It does not state any of the acidity you stated. I believe your 'facts' are overstated significantly. If I am wrong, please provide the facts as I have not found them in my searching nor have I heard about the oceans turning to acid 150 million years ago due to oil production.

Discover petroleum Info bank
The Energy Story - Chapter 8: Fossil Fuels - Coal, Oil and Natural Gas
EIA Energy Kids - Oil (petroleum)
Petroleum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You also said: The President's ban has nothing to do with long-term energy policy. The 6-month ban only has to do with this DISASTER in the Gulf. And only offshore, deep-water drilling:

The jury is in that this isn't safe, and that the oil companies bullshitted us. They're using the same safeguards since the 70s.

What would happen if this happened again a few months down the road, and Obama hadn't pushed for this ban? They would be hanging him up by his you know what.

1) Drilling in the U.S. or buying elsewhere doesn't bring the price down one penny.

2) It doesn't bring prices down because oil is a fluid (pardon the non-pun) commodity. It doesn't matter where the oil comes from--prices are based on world prices.

3) BP is a British company. If we're so concerned about energy independence, why are we contracting our fields out to foreign companies?

Please provide the facts around each of your three posts. My quick responses are:
1) theory of supply and demand...monopolies...capitalism
2) actually, look at the markets. you are right in that it is a world commodity, but oil prices can and do vary by region
3) the simple answer is we should not - so I agree with you

The regulations BP should have been following was to be enforced by the government - Obama's now, but frankly Bush's for the previous 8 years while this rig most likely was being set up. Stopping for 6 months is a knee-jerk reaction to a problem. I expect more out of my commander in chief - whether it be Obama or anyone else. I expect a comprehensive plan on how he would ensure the government follows it's own rules. I expect GRAFT to be eliminated. I expect people who work for the government who don't give a crap to be run out of their jobs on a rail. I don't think this too much to expect.

[gokenin]

The regulations BP should have been following was to be enforced by the government - Obama's now, but frankly Bush's for the last 8 years while this most likely was being set up. Stopping for 6 months is a knee-jerk reaction to a problem. I expect more out of my commander in chief - whether it be Obama or anyone else. I expect a comprehensive plan on how he would ensure the government follows it's own rules. I expect GRAFT to be eliminated. I expect people who work for the government who don't give a crap to be run out of their jobs on a rail. I don't think this too much to expect.

That last part is just silly that would never ever ever happen. We continue to re-elect the same old people into office term after term and it never will change. Civil servants will never be run out on a rail they will take the graft and hope that they will get a job in the industries that they are supposed to be contolling.

[opiet70]

That last part is just silly that would never ever ever happen. We continue to re-elect the same old people into office term after term and it never will change. Civil servants will never be run out on a rail they will take the graft and hope that they will get a job in the industries that they are supposed to be contolling.

Yeah, but I have this crazy thought that the government should work for us, not us work for the government. I realize my ideas are crazy in today's current environment, but I guess I'll just have to be crazy.

I will NOT bow down to my commander in chief unless I am in the military - I hired him. I will NOT accept piss poor decisions and performance from my elected officials and their appointees - I hired them. I will NOT allow my court system to mandate policy - I hired the people who are supposed to manage this by passing good laws. I will NOT pay for extravagance - I can't afford it in my household, why should I expect my government to do less?

I know these are crazy thoughts and I am not the first to say I don't trust either the government or the media, but it has to start somewhere and that somewhere is with me.

[shooz]

2.4 million barrels and counting.

[Ratmagiclady]

"the estimates?"

So, long story short we will run out of oil. That's a fact and one of the problems of basing a world economy off a consumable supply (the 'left's' main argument in many situations). But, I disagree with the president's recent ban because I don't believe he understands the repercussions of his actions on our still struggling economy. I also don't believe one should simply stop something so vital to our world without viable alternatives.

The *moratorium* is because there has been way too much corporate influence in its own regulation, and it needs to be made darn sure that there aren't more such disasters waiting for Halliburton to touch off.

As a side note, don't give me that liberal crap about how electric cars and such are going to save the world - they are a piece but that is it. They also have been around since almost the inception of the automobile (check out Detroit Electric back in the 20s and 30s). If they haven't made 'the' difference in 90 years, I doubt they will save the world now...

That kind of simplistic thinking seems to ignore the fact that I used to have to carry a battery pack for my flash on its own strap, and now batteries are such that we can run little computers in our camera bodies.

Frankly, what needs to happen is we need to stop organizing our lives around going around in circles in private automobiles every day, period. But, yes, electrics are simply more efficient, (And really always have been, in some ways.) The reason they didn't catch on so well, is in large measure because that's not how the corporations built the infrastructure. Nonetheless, electrics were in use a lot longer than people generally know, with fleet trucks and the like.

I do disagree with the way in which it is portrayed and the serious lack of concise/consistent facts on something so important.

Sometimes, as once was famously complained, 'The facts have a liberal bias.'

While I agree that we'll be needing the oil one way or another in the future, whether it's wasted through burning or applied to some more sustainable tasks, (Petroleum's really too useful to just burn the longer chains of molecules in a car orfurnace, anyway)

As for 'What liberals say,' ... well, I was saying this months ago.

And I said, when Obama proposed to open some more places for exploration, that's what I said, too. And, specifically, if oil companies want to claim it's so important totake our ecosystems in their hands for more of the stuff, (and money from profits and government subsidies both) then they need to be under *draconian* safety regs.


Cause just this kind of stuff can happen.

The GOP, once again, tries to blame someone else when their own policies literally blow up in our faces and mess up the country, and then demand 'More of the Same! We're the Party That Tries To Prove Government Doesn't Work By Getting In The Way of It Ever Working, Then Blaming Someone Else!'

---------- Post added 06-28-2010 at 10:56 AM ----------

Unfortunately, demand will not stay constant. Even as we become more efficient in the US and Europe, demand is rising much faster in growing economies such as China, Brazil, and India. I'm not worried about my lifetime, we'll have enough oil. I'm worried about my children and their children. If we don't develop alternative energy, prices will continue to rise long term, our security will be compromised, and our standard of living will be lower. This is a long term problem, but we have to start soon.

This is something that just keeps getting ignored. "All or nothing, now, now, now," that's how some people want us to think.

This is a long term problem that we should have started on long ago.

And, frankly, it's the main reason I'm not for shorter term limits: Especially when the media makes our government a constant election campaign, long-term problems are so rarely dealt with as it is.

[Nesster]

Then again, maybe Drill baby Drill is a foxy strategy to bring matters to a true crisis point, one which even the most reactionary conservative will acknowlege: destruction of wilderness (or, for the conservatives, the destruction of its commercial potential), the huge price jumps on oil products (for the conservatives: market forces in action), resource wars, and so on. Nothing like an economic precipice to bring out American ingenuity.

RML - I agree with your analysis of the current status quo requiring centralized mass production and distribution. Wishing it were otherwise won't make it any different, so I see one or more new technologies rapidly putting the current carbon coterie out of business at some point.

[Nesster]

... and one thing mystifies me, and I'd truly like to understand what the problem is...

Price on carbon, aka cap and trade, is a market driven attempt to address the dependency on oil issue (as well as environmental). As such, this sort of thing used to be a great Republican idea - put across with derision of the contrasting liberal regulation approach - that used free market forces to achieve social ends.

But now, this seems to be thought of as some kind of harebrained liberal socialist democrat idea? What gives?


Cap and trade history
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Presence-of-Mind-Blue-Sky-Thinking.html

John B. Henry was hiking in Maine's Acadia National Park one August in the 1980s when he first heard his friend C. Boyden Gray talk about cleaning up the environment by letting people buy and sell the right to pollute. Gray, a tall, lanky heir to a tobacco fortune, was then working as a lawyer in the Reagan White House, where environmental ideas were only slightly more popular than godless Communism. "I thought he was smoking dope," recalls Henry, a Washington, D.C. entrepreneur. But if the system Gray had in mind now looks like a politically acceptable way to slow climate change—an approach being hotly debated in Congress—you could say that it got its start on the global stage on that hike up Acadia's Cadillac Mountain.

People now call that system "cap-and-trade." But back then the term of art was "emissions trading," though some people called it "morally bankrupt" or even "a license to kill." For a strange alliance of free-market Republicans and renegade environmentalists, it represented a novel approach to cleaning up the world—by working with human nature instead of against it.

Despite powerful resistance, these allies got the system adopted as national law in 1990, to control the power-plant pollutants that cause acid rain. With the help of federal bureaucrats willing to violate the cardinal rule of bureaucracy—by surrendering regulatory power to the marketplace—emissions trading would become one of the most spectacular success stories in the history of the green movement. Congress is now considering whether to expand the system to cover the carbon dioxide emissions implicated in climate change—a move that would touch the lives of almost every American. So it's worth looking back at how such a radical idea first got translated into action, and what made it work.



Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Presence-of-Mind-Blue-Sky-Think...#ixzz0sAZ3PPzk

[gokenin]

... and one thing mystifies me, and I'd truly like to understand what the problem is...

Price on carbon, aka cap and trade, is a market driven attempt to address the dependency on oil issue (as well as environmental). As such, this sort of thing used to be a great Republican idea - put across with derision of the contrasting liberal regulation approach - that used free market forces to achieve social ends.

But now, this seems to be thought of as some kind of harebrained liberal socialist democrat idea? What gives?


Cap and trade history
The Political History of Cap and Trade | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine

I may very well be wrong but my take on it is this. When a large power utility or business gets hit with the cap and trade bill for their pollution as with all things they pass it on to the end users. So the bill is absorbed by a larger pool. Now when you get the bill for your car, electricity,home heating oil who has to pay for it you and ONLY you. Never mind that that you are also paying those hidden cap and trade bills for the other guy. I also think its a little sleazy that the government is double taxing but hey what else would you expect from them. Like I said I could be wrong but I think its the idea that these taxes would then be used as incentives for others not to pollute? thats the part that is seen as a redistibution of wealth thing,