<p>First, oilman T. Boone Pickens comes up with an energy plan, saying, “These [presidential] candidates do not understand. They don’t understand how critical this all is." Then Al Gore says, "The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk.” </p>
<p>Now a group of 27 ex-policymakers—including Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger, and six former secretaries of state or defense—has sent an open letter to both presidential candidates and all members of Congress saying “the country faces a long-term energy crisis that threatens the security and prosperity of future generations if swift action isn’t taken.”</p>
<p>For those still not convinced we’re near the tipping point, watch this TV segment that includes an interview with veteran energy insider Matt Simmons. Since I can’t post a YouTube link, here’s a link to the story that includes the YouTube link:</p>
<p>Too few people realize how dependent our standard of living is on the price and availability of cheap energy. The world will have 7 billion people by 2012 all of them interested in consuming as much energy as possible. Either the production of all energy must increase or rationing (by price) will occur.</p>
<p>“Either the production of all energy must increase or rationing (by price) will occur.”</p>
<p>The other option is for consumption to decrease, of course. I think that option is the one most Americans (and citizens of other countries, as this will affect all of us) can do the most about right now.</p>
<p>The only solutions are painful, or, at least, uncomfortable, ones. And what politician has ever been elected by telling the voters something they do not want to hear?</p>
<p>Razor, how long do you think it would take to bring any oil into the market if offshore drilling were to start tomorrow? How much would we need to pump per year to make a difference? And how long do you think those oil fields will last?</p>
<p>Connecting high gas prices with the coastal drilling ban is the WMD of the current energy debate. A basis for sneering denunciation of the people who actually understand the issues, even though it has no rational basis. Remember “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud”? The difference today may be that enough of us understand how well doing nothing about our dependence on oil after the last energy crisis turned out. Squeezing the last few drops of petroleum out of America’s parks and coastal waters won’t solve the problem - or even put a significant dent in it. Turning to alternatives which don’t involve burning more fossil fuels will.</p>
<p>Oil companies already hold leases on 68 million acres of federal lands, both onshore and offshore, that they havent even begun to explore. If oil were discovered offshore tomorrow, its estimated that it could take up to ten years to bring to market.</p>
<p>Rep. Roscoe Bartlett recently gave a peak oil presentation in the House of Representatives. Its very interesting because it presents loads of information that hasnt been widely published. In particular, it discusses four major studies commissioned by the federal government that conclude peak oil–whether already here or imminent–is a certainty:</p>
Oil from ANWR could be brought to market in fewer than five years. The existing Alaska pipeline at Prudhoe Bay is operating at approximately 50 percent capacity. It could easly handle oil from ANWR. From other oil fields, it depends on how quickly the oil is found. In other words, we won’t know until we know despite the nonsense the Democrats are saying about this issue. </p>
<p>
Zero. Yes, I said Zero. Your question falsely assumes that oil does not affect the market price until it is pumped and reaches the market. The price of oil today includes what economists call a “scarcity rent”. In other words, market makers know that oil is a depleting asset. We are consuming three barrels of oil for every one barrell that we discover. If we announce that we will be drilling everywhere we can, the market price of oil today will decrease dramatically without even one drop of oil being put into the supply. Why? Because the scarcity rent will decrease on the expection of additional future supplies. The market price recently decreased a little bit simply on the announcement that President Bush would delete his prohibition on drilling on certain federal laws.</p>
<p>
Depends on the oil field. Most oil fields do not peak until after 30 years depending on how they are drained.</p>
<p>
No, Kluge is wrong. At this point in time, alternative energy is a pipe dream. Solar does not fill an auto’s fuel tank. Wind does not fill and auto’s fuel tank. Corn based ethanol is not an efficient source of fuel and cannot replace oil by any standard. It will be the next generation of cellouse ethanol that has the potential of replacing oil, but that will take ten years.</p>
<p>The last word on GM’s Chey Volt is that is might be in production in 2010 at a price of $40,000 for a fairly small car. No one will buy it until it drops dramatically in price and that may take until 2015 or longer. </p>
<p>The answer is simple. Drill now, drill here, so we can pay less. At the same time we should recognize that what we find will be for a transition period and we should continue to invest in alternative energy.</p>
<p>It is also a pipe dream to suggest we can conserve our way out of this crisis. Conservation at a high level means a reduction in out standard of living and wealth; not to mention a dramatic increase in unemployment.</p>
<p>President Bush was right all along when he said in 2000 that we should start drilling. Unfortunately, the Al Gore’s of the world won out and now we are in an energy crisis.</p>
<p>I agree, razorsharp. In fact, I think we should have opened all federal lands for drilling years ago to help ease our transition from oil. I’m not in agreement that it will make a measurable difference in price unless the US stops trading oil globally. The world’s increasing thirst for oil will continue to soak up excess supply. In China alone, auto sales are up almost 17% this year, while its economy is growing more than 10% year over year. </p>
<p>This doesn’t even take into account the estimated one million barrels of oil per day that are lost to depletion on a global scale.</p>
<p>I think it will take everything currently at our disposal and then some to see us through this transition period from fossil fuels: increased drilling, conservation, higher CAFE standards, wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, incentives, and plug-ins. Unfortunately, there is no panacea. I also believe Americans can conserve in a meaningful way without reducing our standard of living too much. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Theres enough blame to go around everywhere, including the following:</p>
<p>You propose that we push the problem back another decade or two, and let them deal with it? Terrible idea. Haven’t you learned anything from the oil crisis of today and the 70’s?</p>
<p>The fact is we need [substantial] investments in alternative energy. Hundreds of billions need to be spent in this area. This is what both of the presidential candidates simply do not understand. They act as though “green”, “alternative sources of energy”, and “less burning of fossil fuels” are just easing sound bites, nothing more. </p>
<p>Until then, we should diversify this nations energy production(wind, solar, wave, etc.). Investors don’t put all their eggs in one basket; we shouldn’t either.</p>
<p>Its my understanding that oil companies already have hundreds of wells in Alaska that are drilled, proven, and capped, in addition to the 68 million acres of leased federal lands that the oil companies havent even begun exploring.</p>
<p>Not only that, but oil companies dont have any large identified offshore oil fields. Exploration, drilling, and infrastructure construction take time, and delays are commonplace in the industry. Ive read that all the offshore oil rigs currently in existence are reserved several years out.</p>
<p>The (DOE) report makes two points that indicate that drilling in ANWR won’t do much to decrease energy prices any time soon. First, the report states that drilling wouldn’t add to domestic production for at least 10 years, and peak production can’t be expected until the 2020’s. Meanwhile, under the middle-of-the-road estimate for output, oil prices would be expected to decline by only 75 cents a barrel in 2025. If there’s less oil than expected in ANWR the reduction in prices would be 41 cents per barrel in 2026, and if there’s more than expected the drop in prices is seen around $1.44 per barrel in 2027. That would translate into a reduction in gas prices between just one cent and four cents, according to an alaysis prepared by Congress’s Joint Economic Committee.</p>
My proposal does not push back te problem another decade, it prevents us from doing into depression while we make a transition to alternative energy. Alternative energy is a dream now, it cannot come even close to replacing oil or natural gas for even the next 30 years. Your proposal is that we stick our heads in the sand and let gasoline prices rise to 10 or 12 dollars per gallon until somehow alternate enerngy magically saves the day. Unfortunately, the consequences will be depression and it will affect the poorest people in our nation. I don’t like using oil either, but I dislike 20 percent unemployment rates even more. </p>
<p>Our economy depends on cheap energy to continue to grow. Oil has been cheap for years but it is running out. We need more oil to sustain the several decade transition period to other sources of energy. </p>
<p>We can also use that oil as a source of tax revenue to fund alternative energy instead of just relying on private equity investors.</p>
<p>I won’t even begin to pretend that I have either knowledge or expertise on this issue, but I do have a question: Why haven’t the oil companies done anything with all those millions of acres of federal land leases it holds?</p>
<p>We are where we are because of caving in to environmental extremists. There is a plan to put solar panels in the desert that could fuel a huge percentage of our household and business energy, and the environmentalists, who oppose oil, drilling, nuclear, coal, etc., are already holding this up by wanting us to spend millions on an environmental impact study. Enough already. They just don’t want any energy. And then there are those who are saying that the world is waiting for us to take the initiative to become green. Right! That’s why China is opening a new COAL plant every three weeks. Because they want to close them in a couple years after we become the energy conservation leaders? No, so we lose ground and they move ahead. Yes, going green is important to help us affect in a lesser manner the natural cycle of global warming and cooling, but not to the extent of becoming a lesser country and destroying people’s lives and the economy. We need a short-term plan and a long-term plan, and as long as Pelosi and her ilk stay in the hip pockets of the extremist environmentalists nothing will happen.</p>
The last figure I read was that China was opening a new Coal plant every week. A lot of coal plants are built without the Central Government’s approval because the people in various provences need the energy. Al Gore is busy blaming America for its greenhouse gas emissions when he should be focusing on China. China will begin suffering long term health problems for its people because of the pollution there.</p>