Cafe La Petit Roche

[johnnydr87]

Instead of spewing typical liberal talking points that are propaganda and have no facts to back them up, how about just saying something like "Drilling is out of the question because cheaper oil is not worth the possibility of damaging our precious landscapes or wildlife, and we need to cut fossil fuel use because of global warming, and high gas prices are the best thing to make that happen."

Everybody knows that 20 years figure is false (it seems like it keeps getting longer by the week). Oil companies say they could start pumping oil within 6-8 years, which is a heck of a lot better than the 30 years it would take to transition to an alternative fuel, and that is if we had something viable to start the transition today. Oil could be flowing in 3 years if it wasn't for government restrictions. Had we started drilling in 2001, we would have that oil now. If something like Bush lifting the ban on offshore drilling can cause oil to plummet by $16/barrel, just think what 3-5 million new barrels onto the market would do. The speculators that have bid the price up would bid it down because they would know there is a comfortable supply. Alternative fuels are the long-term goals, but its just that - long-term. We need relief in the near and mid-term if our society is to survive.

Wow, you are belligerently uninformed.

Care to read my most recent post?

All the figures I cited are from the US Government. The Energy Information Administration. Part of the Department of Energy.

Be informed and intelligent when you post, or go home.

Read my last post. Respond accordingly.

"If something like Bush lifting the ban on offshore drilling can cause oil to plummet by $16/barrel, just think what 3-5 million new barrels onto the market would do. "

First of all, 3=5 million is freakin' drop in the bucket. Second, the US government says at peak production, we'll save at MOST $1.44 per barrel. (I doubted you would actually go back and read my post.)

What do you think of that?

[EJC]

***If possible, it'd be nice to repost this in a coffeeshop discussion without deleting our posts***

So let's see, Mr. Skirby on the Urban Planet/ Little Rock Metropolitan Area forum thinks that the think tanks' estimates are "ridiculous." And, he would know better too, after all his common sense helped him arrive to the keen insight that global warming is not real a few years ago.

Skirby, what's your basis for coming to the conclusions you usually come to? What evidence do you have that supports your opinion (e.g., that global warming isn't real)? How much do you weigh whatever scant quasi-evidence you have against the scientific journal articles of thousands of scientists? Truth isn't distributed equally, and the ramblings of some average joe/random journalist is never on par with those of a scientist when it comes to scientific phenomena (referring specifically to global warming).

Similarly, what

[EJC]

Wow, you are belligerently uninformed.

Care to read my most recent post?

All the figures I cited are from the US Government. The Energy Information Administration. Part of the Department of Energy.

Be informed and intelligent when you post, or go home.

Read my last post. Respond accordingly.

"If something like Bush lifting the ban on offshore drilling can cause oil to plummet by $16/barrel, just think what 3-5 million new barrels onto the market would do. "

First of all, 3=5 million is freakin' drop in the bucket. Second, the US government says at peak production, we'll save at MOST $1.44 per barrel. (I doubted you would actually go back and read my post.)

What do you think of that?

You do also realize that the coal in Colorado is estimated to far exceed all the oil in Saudi right? That, my friend, is no drop in the bucket. The point is that we need start considering these other options instead of stonewalling against it. This is the bridge that takes us ot the long term alternative.

....and then once that starts, we'll undoubtedly have to come up with the long term alternative to that...

[bchris02]

Wow, you are belligerently uninformed.

Care to read my most recent post?

All the figures I cited are from the US Government. The Energy Information Administration. Part of the Department of Energy.

Be informed and intelligent when you post, or go home.

Read my last post. Respond accordingly.

"If something like Bush lifting the ban on offshore drilling can cause oil to plummet by $16/barrel, just think what 3-5 million new barrels onto the market would do. "

First of all, 3=5 million is freakin' drop in the bucket. Second, the US government says at peak production, we'll save at MOST $1.44 per barrel. (I doubted you would actually go back and read my post.)

What do you think of that?

I have read those and there are many other reports to the contrary. Maybe when you start talking hardcore supply and demand, 3-5 million bpd would only be a drop in the bucket, but we all know from this recent price spike that a lot more is involved in determining the price of oil than simply supply and demand. Anybody who thinks drilling is the be-all end-all solution is also very uninformed, but we aren't going to have a hydrogen infrastructure in 10 years and who knows what the price of oil will be at that time. Drilling will buy us the crucial time we need to transition over to alternative fuels.

[skirby]

johnny why can you not debate without changing your statements. Your first statement said it would take 15-20 years and gas would be $10 a gallon. Then you come back and say drilling would not have an effect for 10-15 years. Then you say in 30 years gas will be $12 a gallon. If this drilling will not effect the price of oil don't you think gas will not increase more than $2 a gallon over a 15-20 year period. You along with your collection of the highly educated keep saying that new drilling will have little or no effect to drop gas prices. Did you ever think what it will cost if drilling is not done? Does it not matter to you that gas produced in America will keep the U.S. from sending money to another country? "Every barrel of ANWR oil production reduces crude oil imports by about a barrel", Energy Information Administration. As for car batteries let me clear up my statement. I was talking about the batteries that will be in electric cars. Have you thought about how to dispose of those? As for you so-called correction about transmission lines going to the "the metropolises in East" you never did say east Texas. If you have ever lived in Texas you would know that none of the cities you listed are in east Texas. There is not a person living in Austin or San Antonio would ever consider themselves to be living in east Texas.

[johnnydr87]

johnny why can you not debate without changing your statements. Your first statement said it would take 15-20 years and gas would be $10 a gallon. Then you come back and say drilling would not have an effect for 10-15 years.

Skirby, we were originally talking about ANWR, but I also added offshore drilling to the discussion.

Still, these minute details are insignificant relative to the main point: drilling for oil will only marginally decrease our gas prices in many, many years.

To clarify:

ANWR: 10-15 years (according to Energy Info Admin, production wouldn't be in full swing until 2020)

Offshore: 15-20 years (around 2030, according to same government entity)

"Then you say in 30 years gas will be $12 a gallon. If this drilling will not effect the price of oil don't you think gas will not increase more than $2 a gallon over a 15-20 year period."

When I said gas will be $12 by 2030, I was being facetious (it's 22 years by the way). It obviously will be well over where it is now. Why? Because of several reasons, the most obvious is that it is a non renewable resource, meaning once we use it, it's all gone. Less supply means higher demand, means higher prices.

"As for car batteries let me clear up my statement. I was talking about the batteries that will be in electric cars. Have you thought about how to dispose of those?"

Skirby, I'll look into this. But I promise you if the brightest minds at schools like Caltech or MIT are working on the problem, then it will be solved. (In fact, one of the brightest Arkansans in the state--who set many math and science records--is now working in the alternative energy industry in California. He was the son of a UA professor, and I'm good friends with his cousin. Too bad that type of talent can't stay in-state.)

But can't they be recycled? Isn't that what we do now? This is a very minor problem relative to responding to climate change and our dependence on foreign oil.

"As for you so-called correction about transmission lines going to the "the metropolises in East" you never did say east Texas. If you have ever lived in Texas you would know that none of the cities you listed are in east Texas. There is not a person living in Austin or San Antonio would ever consider themselves to be living in east Texas."

I never, ever meant eastern US. I think that should have been pretty obvious from my statement. Why would TX approve of transmission lines from "west texas" to "east" [ern United States]?

I'm well aware where Austin and San Antonio are. In fact, I'm pretty sure so are the Washington post and Wall Street Journal. Houston and Dallas could be considered in the East. Austin and San Antonio are more center. But the point was that the wind farms in the west would hook up with metropolises in the east---all obviously within TX since that's the state that approved of the plans. Is there a point having this discussion if we have to quibble over points like this? Does this mean none of my key arguments filtered through?

"Does it not matter to you that gas produced in America will keep the U.S. from sending money to another country? "Every barrel of ANWR oil production reduces crude oil imports by about a barrel", Energy Information Administration."

EJC and Skirby, this is so far the only point that has rung valid in your arguments--that we would marginally decrease our dependence on foreign oil. So I have some questions for you:

1. Please tell me by what percentage we will reduce our dependence on oil. This means you need the expected gas consumption figures for 2020, and how much we can expect to pump per day from ANWR in 2020.

Calculation:

(# of Barrels drilled from ANWR + # of barrels drilled domestically elsewhere) / total number of barrels

= percentage of our oil that is domestic

(There are probably estimates on this somewhere.)

2. Even taking account your point and including it into my analsysis, we have reached production level for many alternative energy technologies: solar, wind, and geothermal. For cars, wind, fuel cell, biofuel, and electric. This means we could transition and ween ourselves off a oil so that we're actually consuming less than we are today. This means we'd be removing ourselves from our dependence of foreign oil.

But this points remains: According to the Energy Information Administration, drilling in ANWR/offshore will only reduce our prices marginally in over a dozen years. At that point, we don't know how much gas will be, but we know it will be far higher than today.

[skirby]

'"Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats adjourned the House and turned off the lights and killed the microphones, but Republicans are still on the floor talking gas prices." from Politico.com. " Looks like the Dems would rather go on a five week vacation than debate what to do about the price of gas.

[johnnydr87]

'"Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats adjourned the House and turned off the lights and killed the microphones, but Republicans are still on the floor talking gas prices." from Politico.com. " Looks like the Dems would rather go on a five week vacation than debate what to do about the price of gas.

Respond to my post.

[skirby]

After reading more from the Energy Information Administration website I have found out why it will take up to ten years before production could start in the OCS, thanks johnny for the website. It will take ten years, first of all, because the existing moratoria on leasing will not end until 2012. The good news is that it will take only five years for production to start after this. So, if the moratoria was lifted today then within five years possible production would be available. I guess that ten year window could be cut almost in half if the Congress would allow drilling.

[johnnydr87]

After reading more from the Energy Information Administration website I have found out why it will take up to ten years before production could start in the OCS, thanks johnny for the website. It will take ten years, first of all, because the existing moratoria on leasing will not end until 2012. The good news is that it will take only five years for production to start after this. So, if the moratoria was lifted today then within five years possible production would be available. I guess that ten year window could be cut almost in half if the Congress would allow drilling.

Great, that would mean 2016 or 2017 at earliest to start drilling. But don't forget, the Energy Information Administration said: "new oil from ANWR would lower the world price of oil by no more than $1.44 per barrel—and possibly have as little effect as 41 cents per barrel—and would have its largest impact nearly 20 years from now if Congress voted to open the refuge today."

So that was my fault; it's actually worse than I thought. Peak production would not be in 2020; it would be in 2028, 20 yrs from now.

Now, that you've responded to the timeframe (which, I'm proud, you used facts for), respond to this part: we would at best lower our oill costs by $1.44 a barrel, and possibly as low as ~$0.41 per barrel.

Also, since you were one of those declaring we'd significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil, please respond to that post, which you still haven't replied to. Personally, I'm interested in learning about this myself. I don't dispute it--at least yet. But since you made the claim, you have the burden of proof.

[skirby]

Great, that would mean 2016 or 2017 at earliest to start drilling. But don't forget, the Energy Information Administration said: "new oil from ANWR would lower the world price of oil by no more than $1.44 per barrel-and possibly have as little effect as 41 cents per barrel-and would have its largest impact nearly 20 years from now if Congress voted to open the refuge today."

So that was my fault; it's actually worse than I thought. Peak production would not be in 2020; it would be in 2028, 20 yrs from now.

Now, that you've responded to the timeframe (which, I'm proud, you used facts for), respond to this part: we would at best lower our oill costs by $1.44 a barrel, and possibly as low as ~$0.41 per barrel.

Also, since you were one of those declaring we'd significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil, please respond to that post, which you still haven't replied to. Personally, I'm interested in learning about this myself. I don't dispute it--at least yet. But since you made the claim, you have the burden of proof.

From my above post. ""Every barrel of ANWR oil production reduces crude oil imports by about a barrel", Energy Information Administration. " I assume this would also be true for OCS oil.

[bchris02]

Johnny, how old is your data about the price impact of drilling in ANWR? A $1.44/bbl cost reduction is actually a significant reduction when oil is trading at $12/bbl as it was in much of the 1990s and in the early '00s. Today we get moves of $5 or more on statements from banks like Goldman Sachs. A $15-20 drop in the price of crude is probably more realistic for today's prices.

Something that NEEDS to be done, but Republicans wont allow, is more regulation on energy speculation. Before 2003, speculators were required to take delivery of the crude. Today it is all on paper. Its no co-incidence that this price runup from $15/bbl to $150/bbl began in 2003 when nearly all regulation on speculation was lifted. Today the market can be freely manipulated by big banks like Goldman Sachs and nobody can do anything about it. Thanks George W.

[turboturtle]

Energy independence or "reduction of dependence on foreign oil" is the "gay marriage" issue of 2008 election. It is a bunch of BS meant to divide the electorate and create an opportunity for republicans to win in 08. Since it worked with gay marriage in 2000, then they have nothing to lose in trying this in 2008. The issue is a bunch of hooey.

This discussion amounts to a debate about whether removing kudzu would increase tourism in the south. It cannot be done effectively. Even if it did happen, it would not increase tourism.

[skirby]

Energy independence or "reduction of dependence on foreign oil" is the "gay marriage" issue of 2008 election. It is a bunch of BS meant to divide the electorate and create an opportunity for republicans to win in 08. Since it worked with gay marriage in 2000, then they have nothing to lose in trying this in 2008. The issue is a bunch of hooey.

This discussion amounts to a debate about whether removing kudzu would increase tourism in the south. It cannot be done effectively. Even if it did happen, it would not increase tourism.

Who is opposing energy independence? I know McCain is for it and Obama said yesterday that he would not oppose an increase in offshore drilling if it makes the country more "energy independent."

[EJC]

Energy independence or "reduction of dependence on foreign oil" is the "gay marriage" issue of 2008 election. It is a bunch of BS meant to divide the electorate and create an opportunity for republicans to win in 08. Since it worked with gay marriage in 2000, then they have nothing to lose in trying this in 2008. The issue is a bunch of hooey.

This discussion amounts to a debate about whether removing kudzu would increase tourism in the south. It cannot be done effectively. Even if it did happen, it would not increase tourism.

Not even remotely true. Reduction of dependence on foreign oil and concerns over prices are an everymans concern. There's no BS in the oil that is apparently available in this country, the only question is whether we're willing to allow someone to go get it or whether we think it's more harm than good. There is one party that has taken the tack that they won't even discuss it, because of environmental possibilities, and another party that says we should consider getting it. It's a huge issue whether you realize it or not.

[turboturtle]

Not even remotely true. Reduction of dependence on foreign oil and concerns over prices are an everymans concern. There's no BS in the oil that is apparently available in this country, the only question is whether we're willing to allow someone to go get it or whether we think it's more harm than good. There is one party that has taken the tack that they won't even discuss it, because of environmental possibilities, and another party that says we should consider getting it. It's a huge issue whether you realize it or not.

Your post proves my point. You and others want it to be a huge issue and for others to believe like you. This is a political strategy designed to divide an electorate, a wedge issue. This hyper-focus on "energy independence" and the "US addiction to foreign oil" is myopic and requires the followers to wear a very short-term lens. This POV has actually nothing to do with E=MC² and pre-supposes that humans (the America variety, in this case) cannot adapt to changing economic conditions.

Skirby, It would be political suicide for anyone to oppose energy independence. I believe a state of energy independence is unattainable. Even a reduction on foreign oil would be ephemeral. Energy independence exists somewhere next to the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. The closest "energy independence" will ever come to an instantiation will only occur in the political world. It may work to shape the political landscape for the next four years, just like the gay marriage issue did in 2000.

[Architect]

Your post proves my point. You and others want it to be a huge issue and for others to believe like you. This is a political strategy designed to divide an electoral, a wedge issue. This hyper-focus on "energy independence" and the "US addiction to foreign oil" is myopic and requires the followers to wear a very short-term lens. This POV has actually nothing to do with E=MC² and pre-supposes that humans (the America variety, in this case) cannot adapt to changing economic conditions.

Skirby, It would be political suicide for anyone to oppose energy independence. I believe a state of energy independence is unattainable. Even a reduction on foreign oil would be ephemeral. Energy independence exists somewhere next to the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. The closest "energy independence" will ever come to an instantiation will only occur in the political world. It may work to shape the political landscape for the next four years, just like the gay marriage issue did in 2000.

You CANNOT be serious. You don't believe that the "reduction of dependence on foreign oil and concerns over prices" isn't a significant issue to every person?! It sounds like you are the one trying to create a political wedge out of something that is SO VERY BASIC to every citizen, and is a HUGE concern of the electorate (though I do believe that the rise in cost is primarily due to futures speculation, and much less to do with supply-demand).

You also state that it isn't attainable? It was not only attainable, it was true until about 25 years ago! We were a net EXPORTER of energy! I guess we should remind everyone that the U.S. is the 3rd largest producer of oil in the world. Regardless, the United States - more than anyone - has the technology, money and ability to embrace energy conservation, renewable resources and alternative energy technologies. The U.S. has led every significant economic and technology shift of the past 100 years. Hopefully we can lead this shift as well.

[turboturtle]

You CANNOT be serious. You don't believe that the "reduction of dependence on foreign oil and concerns over prices" isn't a significant issue to every person?! It sounds like you are the one trying to create a political wedge out of something that is SO VERY BASIC to every citizen, and is a HUGE concern of the electorate (though I do believe that the rise in cost is primarily due to futures speculation, and much less to do with supply-demand).

You also state that it isn't attainable? It was not only attainable, it was true until about 25 years ago! We were a net EXPORTER of energy! I guess we should remind everyone that the U.S. is the 3rd largest producer of oil in the world. Regardless, the United States - more than anyone - has the technology, money and ability to embrace energy conservation, renewable resources and alternative energy technologies. The U.S. has led every significant economic and technology shift of the past 100 years. Hopefully we can lead this shift as well.

Your emphatic response IS humorous. What do you mean when you state, "I do believe that the rise in cost is primarily due to futures speculation, and much less to do with supply-demand?"

When I said this, "This POV has actually nothing to do with E=MC2 and pre-supposes that humans (the American variety, in this case) cannot adapt to changing economic conditions. " What I'm saying here is that the political argument, that the path to US energy independence is primarily through the reduction of US dependence on "foreign oil" by means of increased production of "US oil," is bogus. When I think of how Americans will adapt to the changing economic conditions, I pretty much have these in mind, "the United States - more than anyone - has the technology, money and ability to embrace energy conservation, renewable resources and alternative energy technologies."

Where this gets confusining is in the definition of energy independence. What I hear as the current political definition of energy independence is that it equates to tapping our natural resources to produce more oil immediately.

Lastly, you sneaked in 'concerns over prices' in double quotes... are you attributing that to me? If you are, you should retract it. If gas were $2/gal, how much fuel do you believe this topic would have during a election year?

[Architect]

Your emphatic response IS humorous. What do you mean when you state, "I do believe that the rise in cost is primarily due to futures speculation, and much less to do with supply-demand?"

When I said this, "This POV has actually nothing to do with E=MC2 and pre-supposes that humans (the American variety, in this case) cannot adapt to changing economic conditions. " What I'm saying here is that the political argument, that the path to US energy independence is primarily through the reduction of US dependence on "foreign oil" by means of increased production of "US oil," is bogus. When I think of how Americans will adapt to the changing economic conditions, I pretty much have these in mind, "the United States - more than anyone - has the technology, money and ability to embrace energy conservation, renewable resources and alternative energy technologies."

Where this gets confusining is in the definition of energy independence. What I hear as the current political definition of energy independence is that it equates to tapping our natural resources to produce more oil immediately.

Lastly, you sneaked in 'concerns over prices' in double quotes... are you attributing that to me? If you are, you should retract it. If gas were $2/gal, how much fuel do you believe this topic would have during a election year?

The quote was from the person you were addressing.

After considering your last post, I would concur in general with much of what you are saying...that the solution doesn't ultimately rest in drilling more oil (your original post I was referring to was not particularly clear in this regard). However, it would be irresponsible, if not naive to think that the near-term "bridge" to alternate resources shouldn't include consideration of both an increase in domestic oil resources along with reduced consumption. The next technology is not going to magically appear (unfortunately!).

Energy independence is attainable, and I would concur that it ultimately does not rest with drilling more oil. The U.S. can lead the transition to new sources of energy if we can commit the political will and the technological and ingenuity that has always defined our country.

[EJC]

The quote was from the person you were addressing.

After considering your last post, I would concur in general with much of what you are saying...that the solution doesn't ultimately rest in drilling more oil (your original post I was referring to was not particularly clear in this regard). However, it would be irresponsible, if not naive to think that the near-term "bridge" to alternate resources shouldn't include consideration of both an increase in domestic oil resources along with reduced consumption. The next technology is not going to magically appear (unfortunately!).

Energy independence is attainable, and I would concur that it ultimately does not rest with drilling more oil. The U.S. can lead the transition to new sources of energy if we can commit the political will and the technological and ingenuity that has always defined our country.

My comments all along have been that U.S. oil can be and should be a bridge to the future. The above poster ignores that and festers and bristles because it obviously IS an issue to the common man. Many of my relatives would be categorized as the Yellow Dog variety, and yet EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, states this as a primary concern and is extremely frustrated by the (government - they say govt because they'd like to blame ol' GWB again but they know this is one time they actually agree with him) inability to move on it. To state that this is a devisive issue created by folks pushing for the Republican party is ludicrous and shows a complete lack of touch with average Joe in America. It is a big issue because we could pursue oil and COULD reduce prices in the relative near term (yes, it's years, but it's far less years than ANY alternative), and it gets a angry monkey off our back. I remind folks again that this issue came up 10-12 years ago, and had we acted then, we'd already be in a different position today. Add to that the enormous about of oil sitting in Colorado, and we definitely have something to at least TALK about. But right now Congress is stonewalling it. Not good.

The U.S. can lead towards a new future, but understanding that this future lies decades away, choosing not to explore our own oil options is a dangerous option.

[ndark]

Crude just went below $120 per bbl. Maybe the bubble has finally popped. It seems as though $4 a gallon gas was the tipping point for Americans. It has been sliding ever since it reached that point in mid July. Down over $27 since then.

[Architect]

Crude just went below $120 per bbl. Maybe the bubble has finally popped. It seems as though $4 a gallon gas was the tipping point for Americans. It has been sliding ever since it reached that point in mid July. Down over $27 since then.

Let's hope it continues its slide...

[skirby]

Let's hope it continues its slide...

Don't think it will for long. If it keeps going down use will pick-up and the price will follow.

[Stormcrow]

Don't think it will for long. If it keeps going down use will pick-up and the price will follow.

This is nothing more than the same old song and dance I've seen for as long as I can remember. Here's a rundown on the process:

a) hike prices untile consumers scream

b) relax prices until consumers stop screaming

c) rest prices at a new, considerably higher plateau for a couple of years

d) rinse and repeat....

Gas prices in particular just seem to follow this same saw tooth plateau behavior over and over. The relaxation period is crucial because that's what conditions us to a new norm in prices.

[ndark]

This is nothing more than the same old song and dance I've seen for as long as I can remember. Here's a rundown on the process:

a) hike prices untile consumers scream

b) relax prices until consumers stop screaming

c) rest prices at a new, considerably higher plateau for a couple of years

d) rinse and repeat....

Gas prices in particular just seem to follow this same saw tooth plateau behavior over and over. The relaxation period is crucial because that's what conditions us to a new norm in prices.

Use will certainly pick up as prices go down but I would think it will not get back to what it once was. I have personally made many carpooling arrangements that I would have never made a few years ago and unless gas gets back to $1.50 a gallon I will keep carpooling. It is a huge money saver no matter how much gas is. It not only saves in gas but also depreciation on your car. I think there is a sizable portion of people that will continue this trend of conservation. I doubt consumers will stop screaming until the relaxation period is in the low $2's. People have seen how high gas prices can cripple the economy and households. I do agree with your cycle though. We went thru this same thing but with a smaller spike in prices a few years ago. I remember the good ole days of $1 gas not to long ago.