That does not surprise me in the least. It'll make an interesting front-pager if it happens.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Joint Venezuela-Russian naval exercises
- Thread starter fusu
- Start date
That does not surprise me in the least. It'll make an interesting front-pager if it happens.
The Russian's have got to be more full of sabre-rattling crap than ANY Arab-world dictator EVER has been.
Because the reflexive conservative response to any sort of alternative energy plan is "offshore drilling". In the short term this fails, because the marginal increase in production won't even be enough to disturb oil prices. More dangerously, conservatives use it as a reason to reject alternative energy. Assuming we can even get our reserves out of the ground fast enough, is only delaying the inevitable.
If we can get our energy needs routed to alternative sources, then we have reduced oil from an essential commodity to just another piece of crap we dig out of the earth - which plenty of people around the world happen to be selling. The only reason Russia and OPEC hold power over oil is because the world uses so damned much of it. We imported titanium from Russia during the height of the Cold War - because we didn't need it badly enough for them to hold it over our heads.
Just the flux-capacitor!
AJB37
Well-Known Member
Are you telling me this sucker's NUCLEAR!?!?!?
The funny thing about that is we could conceivably get energy from decomposing waste, feces, and other sewage... granted not at a high enough efficiency to send a flying car to the future, but it could be a good system to power remote areas and third world countries.
Or a smart way of eliminating trash.
No, it's pretty much true:
Data comes from the US DOE. You're looking for the "unavailable for leasing" numbers.
I really don't know what point you are trying to make. The chart from "ecogeek.org" is totally misleading, and probably intentionally so.
The "new offshore drilling" in that chart obviously does not tap into this:
squorch2's article said:
18 Billion barrels of crude oil can go a long way.
Similar to a reason why gasoline prices are so volatile. Oil plays a part in the price, but the real culprit lies in the lack of refining capability. We haven't built a new refinery since the 70's. With demand skyrocketing, we will piss and moan about gas prices, but no one is willing to put a nasty industrial park in to help the issue. Corpus has a bunch, they are ugly, but I don't see gas stations putting signs out that say "no gas here" or gas at a dollar a gallon more than the rest of the country a la Atlanta.
The ability of a few people to essentially sue progress to a standstill is absurd.
Ah, the old "I don't agree with the info, so I'll just attack the source" trick. How exactly is it "misleading" or even "intentionally so", sir? All the ecogeek picture do was superimpose the DoE data on global production, which is what is relevant when considering prices. This was the original DoE data:
Do you have any experience in the oil industry to back up your gut instinct, or are you just going to say it doesn't "feel" right? You are aware the data comes rom the same article? Because the article goes on to say (.gov publication - not copyrighted so I can quote)
You say it's misleading but don't say how. But that's okay, I'll do the research.
From http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf, page 1:
The key number there is actually the 7.7 billion. From the DOE site I linked earlier, there are about 18 billion barrels estimated to be in the "unavailable for leasing" areas that the GOP would like to open up for exploration. That's about 2.3 times what's estimated to be in ANWR.
Now from the executive summary of the above PDF:
I'll be generous and go with the high oil case. 2.3 times $1.44 = $3.31. That's how much the price of a barrel of crude would come down if you were to "drill here, drill now" - and that's not until 2027. For comparison, the price of crude rose about $16 today to about $120. So in 2027, assuming oil prices stay the same, you would have a savings of about 3% on crude. At its peak.
I would say lets work on alternative energy sources and ways to power the economy that are renewable - but hey, I posted a misleading chart, so what do I know?
(on preview, I see mmx1 did a bit of research as well.)
I have never heard any legitimate energy expert say that we could wean ourselves off of foreign oil with domestic oil and gas production. The oil shale reserves in the US are likely not easily recoverable or very economical if they are.
Eighteen billion barrels would only replace about 4 years of petroleum imports to our country. We can't drill our way out of it.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/STE...onth=1&endYear=2009&endMonth=12&tableNumber=9
My wife's mother is a Geophysicist who works for Exxon Mobile. Her job is to evaluate whether or not to drill at potential sites due to chances of oil actually being there. Her husband is also big in the oil biz but I am not sure what he does. After having long talks with them about everything that is going on it Flash's statement is basically dead on to what they have said. Oil is getting harder and more expensive to find and will continue that way for ever. The only question is how much are we going to be willing to pay in the end...
