6/12 By the way, the Government estimates that the outer continental shelf,
(the one they said no to yesterday), has 76 billion barrels of oil in
it that are recoverable and that's with today's technology. Let me put
that into perspective. 76 billion barrels is enough to replace every
single barrel of oil that we import from everywhere outside of North
America for the next 34 years at our current pace. That's in the one
place, one, that congress said we couldn't go into yesterday.
\_ oil is the ultimate strawman. the MSM websites harping on oil are
part of the conspiracy all over the internet to conceal the nature
of an exponential function. search for a graph of Moore's Law, the
quaint rule that the number of transistors on a chip doubles every
18 to 24 months, you will see a graph of a linear function, ie a
straight line, see this wiki page for a 'censored' graph of Moore's
Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Moores_law.svg
however if this were a true linear function, the scale of the
y-axis would increase in regular increments, 10,000 then 20,000
then 30,000... etc... instead the y-axis of every Moore's Law
Chart you see increases in increments 10,000 then 100,000 then
1,000,000... making an exponential function appear to be a linear
function. I imagine this is to avoid general societal panic.
for a comparison of a linear graph and an exponential graph see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_equation
and for an exponential function here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function
the graph of an exponential function at some point will veer
sharply up into infinity. before the powers that be began to
censor the true appearance of the Moore's Law chart on the internet
it was apparent that the singularity would occur in the year 2032,
when the chart veers sharply up into infinity. so the singularity
clearly occurs in the year 2032. CASE CLOSED.
\_ "The projections in the [Outer Continental Shelf] OCS
access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic,
and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant
impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or
prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than
2012, and production would not be expected to start before
2017."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200806090012?f=h_latest -tom
\_ Because Clinton banned it until at least 2012. And he vetoed
ANWR in 1994 saying it wouldn't extract oil until 2007. What a
shame we don't have that 1M barrels per day right now. -emarkp
\_ We're using over 20 million barrels per day and importing
over 13 million of that. Maybe there would be a 10%
difference in the price of gas, maybe it would have been
a few months longer that would could pump out more
carbon emissions with impunity. So what? Pumping more
oil is not a long-term strategy and it's not even an
effective stopgap. Our oil production is down by 24%
since 1985 and our consumption is up by 10% in the past
10 years. Cheap gas just drives consumption, which only
delays the inevitable while causing further environmental
damage. -tom
\_ So we now know where you stand. The higher the gas price
the better, right? Right now demand is outstripping supply
by about 1 million barrels perday, which would be exactly
filled by ANWR. Go away tom, you're anti-civilization.
-emarkp
\_ Maybe he's anti-civilization-as-we-know-it, which is
unsustainable. Can the whole world live like us?
\_ The U.S. uses 25% of the world's supply of oil, and
produces 25% of the world's carbon emissions. Do you
really think that's necessary for civilization? -tom
\_ Right now, yes. We need to move away from burning
the oil (I'd rather it be used for plastic anyway),
but it's going to take decades. We need more oil for
now to sustain civilization until we can make the
switch. -emarkp
\_ How are we going to make the switch without the
crucial signal that higher prices provide? Do
you propose using legislation like the CAFE
rules and perhaps more? -ausman
\_ No, we need the higher prices, but the current
shock to the system is too fast. We need to
have a buffer to help it rise gently. (This may
be the one thing I agree with Obama about.)
-emarkp
\_ Okay, we are in agreement here. But if we had
say, ANWAR on line, I doubt that the oil
\_ Okay, we are in agreement here. But if we
had say, ANWAR on line, I doubt that the oil
companies would moderate the amount they
drill to try and control price shocks. Such
pump to try and control price shocks. Such
behavior would probably even be considered
illegal price fixing. Our best bet is to
try and talk the Saudis into pumping more.
I am not really sure why they are not doing
that already. Perhaps they don't really have
any more to pump. -ausman
\_ Oil companies don't have to moderate it,
the market will. Global demand and the
extraction of all the cheap oil is going
to push up the price. The artificially
capped supply, and the huge amount of it
in unstable regions is what is causing
the current spike. -emarkp
\_ In 1990, George H.W. Bush, calling himself "the environmental
president," signed an order putting virtually all the U.S.
outer continental shelf's oil and gas reserves in the deep
freeze.
\_ What does this have to do with the Global Warming Hoax?
\_ Yeah! We should tear that shit up and ignore the consequences!
Global Warming's a lie! The environment is out to get us! Kill!
Kill!
\_ Excellent false dichotomy sir! The Dem-controlled subcommittee
killed this yesterday, saying oil production off the continental
shelf isn't important. The NAS found that the offshore industry
is among the safest industrial activities in the United States.
Outer continental shelf operations are more than five times less
likely to cause a spill than oil tankers who are importing oil.
-emarkp
\_ "safest industrial activities": what does this have to do
with the environmental impact of offshore drilling? Cutting
down trees is safer than blowing them up with dynamite; so
therefore cutting down trees has no environmental impact?
\_ Actually, cutting down trees with dynamite is probably
safer. You can be far away when it falls down.
\_ Just come out and say that you favor high gas prices if
that's what you want. It's a reasonable position.
Claiming the 76b barrels of oil is insignificant is not.
\_ The environmental impact is less than shipping the oil. As
I wrote above. And, natural seeps account for 150 to 175
times more oil in the ocean than outer continental shelf
oil and gas operations. -emarkp
\_ It doesn't matter how much load the system is able
to handle. What matters is what happens when you
push them too far and the system falls down. A lot of
environmental issues work that way. It's classic
thrashing behavior.
\_ And other environmental concerns apart from leaks?
\_ Which are? (Serious question here. I could guess
what your concerns are, but would like rather to know
what you're thinking of.) -emarkp
\_ Drilling too deep might awaken Cthulhu.
\_ Drilling discharges; habitat impact; concerns
related to construction of oil-processing and
offshore drilling support infrastructure.
\_ Drilling discharges are currently less than
natural seepage. What habitat impact?
Drilling is in a very small area compared to
the coastline. Support infrastructure isn't
more than loading oil shipped from other
countries. -emarkp
\_ Your statement on drilling discharges is
not accepted as canon. Habitat is not a
function of size of geo. area but the
ecosystem in question. Your last statement
implies that we have to support offshore
continental shelf drilling somewhere so
it might as well be here. This is a false
choice. If there comes a time when drilling
can be done with no or even minimal impact
to the environment, I'll be much more likely
to support it. Until then, no.
\_ here's a more pragmatic question. At what oil price level
do you think all these environmental concerns will break down
and the stuff get extracted anyway?
\_ Your math is wrong, or your source is. The US imports 13.5M bbls/
day, which works out to 4.8B/yr, so 76B only lasts 16 years.
Even if you charitably throw Canada in there, we still import 4B/yr. |