backtop


Print 441 comment(s) - last by elgueroloco.. on Aug 11 at 5:34 PM


A color-coded map of undiscovered Arctic oil deposits. Darker areas of green indicate more oil.
Race to claim begins

The Arctic may hold far more oil than previously thought; as much as 90 billion undiscovered barrels according to a new study released today by the US Geological Survey.   The new amount, equivalent to nearly 20 years of US foreign oil imports, is worth over $11 trillion dollars at current oil prices.  One third of the amount may lie in Alaska alone, according to the study's authors.

The region also holds nearly 1,700 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, 27% of known world gas reserves.  Counting known deposits already surveyed, total oil and gas deposits in the Arctic are more than 410 billion barrels.

The study, known as CARA -- Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal -- included only those deposits that could be tapped with current technology.  Future advances would likely boost the number further.  Researchers in Denmark, Greenland, Canada, and Norway contributed data to the study.

According to project chief, Donald Gautier, "The extensive Arctic continental shelves may constitute the geographically largest unexplored prospective area for petroleum remaining on Earth."

A geopolitical scramble for the resources is beginning.  Russia has taken steps to secure rights to the region, last year sending a nuclear-powered ship to map a possible undersea connection between Siberia and the North Pole.  This would allow the nation a rationale to circumvent the UN 200-mile limit of offshore resource claims. 

Seven other nations have claims for the area, including Norway, Sweden, Canada, and the U.S.  Earlier this month, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the nation intends to "defend" its sovereignty in the Arctic, backing up the statement with a plan to divert 8 military patrol ships to the region, along with a new deep-water port.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Greetings Dr. Falken
By puckalicious on 7/24/2008 12:16:35 PM , Rating: 5
"Shall we play a game?"

"Global thermonuclear war."

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"

Or, how about we invest our time/money in renewable resources for long term prosperity instead of throwing away everything we have for the short term gain?




RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By michal1980 on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By vapore0n on 7/24/2008 12:40:29 PM , Rating: 5
I think he is saying:

instead of eating all the bread in front of you, just use as much as you really need and try and find another source for food.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By danrien on 7/24/2008 12:52:51 PM , Rating: 2
exactly. while americans have had very unhealthy diets for a long time, that hasn't stopped researchers from looking for new ways to make healthy foods. they didn't tell people to stop eating, but they did say give us some money so we can figure out how to make just as tasty food that won't give you a heart attack in 30 years. the present energy situation is the exact same in that respect, and is why research into resources not so easily depleted is so important.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By xsilver on 7/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Spuke on 7/24/2008 3:02:07 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It might not be the same for energy but even if 1 in 10 people think like this then we're in trouble.
Regular people don't engage in these types of discussions. They're too busy living. Life must be good if we're able to have these discussions though. That means we're not worried about where our next meal is coming from or where we'll sleep tonight.

I'm actually happy that we aren't the one's in charge. I'm glad the one's doing most of the buying, decision making, etc are just regular people. Sure, it may not make for the best decisions but I'd rather have it this way then to have the more radical (us geeks) in charge. Thank God for the tyranny of the majority!


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Jim28 on 7/25/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Ammohunt on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By BruceLeet on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By kenferg1 on 7/24/2008 8:59:50 PM , Rating: 5
I find it odd that Europeans are quick to condem Americans for oil gluteny. After all, European economies are as oil bound as any. I also find it rather interesting that Europeans are virtual silent on fossil fuel consumption by China, India, and other previously third-world nations.

Do you really think that China is going to give up oil as well as the wealth and power that it builds? Do you think India and China will accept or abide by any accords that limit their production of the trace gas CO2? The Asian giant is awakening and the Indian subcontinent will not be denied. They want what the West has had for the past 150 years: economic progress, a seat in world politics, and military power to back both.

So, while I whole heartily agree that a search for alternative energy supplies is not only smart but a moral imperative, I also acknowledge the fact that right now oil is what drives the world economy. To deny drilling for a resource that is necessary today, would be to deny the economic prosperity and technological gains that will one day make oil obsolete.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By danielg001 on 7/24/2008 11:13:01 PM , Rating: 4
Europeans find it odd that Americans are yelling and screaming bloody murder over gas prices. Your petrol is about twice as cheap as it is in Europe. Its truly bizarre to to watch. Sort of like someone earning 20k watching someone earning 40k saying that the sky is falling.
The current problem with America, imho, is based around the old saying "to someone with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail".
BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China ) all these countries are on the way up. You can thank the aggressively US pushed free trade for that. While its true the US has the only military that can sit around and consider how to stop this, it really isn’t a solution, its only a possible action. The big issue is that, there is no answer, you can drill and drill all you like, but all the easy oil is gone, even if there is some mysterious deposits we find, its only a delay, its not a solution. "Just because we haven't hit the ground doesn't mean we aren't falling". If you look in the cupboard and see 10 cans of food left, do you blame your house mates you have to share with... or find more food? If there truely was no more food ( alternate energy), that is one thing. However, I’m not sure who would deny alternate energy is available.. its only that its much harder to get. But of course, remembering how good things were doesn’t make things in the future any better :)
America is the one country that has the finances to do something, almost any problem America could solve (or at least give it the best shot any country could hope). However, too much rhetoric is used to gain politic support, its poisoned the minds of the public. Its too easy to blame someone else, if you can point your finger at something and say thats the problem... hey thats easy, anyone can sell that. However, going back and saying.. wait... this isnt the whole issue, we also have to go back and change. That is suicide.
Europe is good in the sense that the power is much less controlled, you don't find the EU going down such dramatically routes because each country can parry against each other to balance the point of view, no country leader commits political suicide by going against another country (which in America is the accepted wisdom), its the benefit of localized propaganda, you don’t have the whole EU being sold on one idea.
However, its also a weakness, when a good idea comes around, its almost impossible to execute it like America could. Even with 100% support, the EU doesn’t have the same sort of money available. The US could sink 1 trillion dollars into some idea per year if required, and they have the infrastructure and talent to use it. Not like the Mideast or BRIC when they get money, but have to outsource everything because they don’t have the infrastructure or talent.
How you can turn the country into supporting such a bold investment, which tacitly admits the country is in big, big trouble, I have no idea. I wish people could stop being so polarized by opinion. Is peak oil real? Is global warming real? From what I read, I don’t see how it can be false. However, I don’t care if its false, its great if its false. I just don’t get what people who are devoted to it being false have to gain? You are right and we are fucked or you are wrong and we aren’t? It makes no sense to me, sit on the fence, reserve judgement. That takes a lot more balls than choosing some position they think makes them right. You just have nothing to gain by being against it... more pollution at the least, is that something to be proud of? Best case scenario is we aren’t fucked? Seems weird to me *shrugs*... but im happy to hear it proved wrong, honestly. IMO, that’s the best position to have, but vigorous debate on the issues is very important, just don’t let it devolve to insults and yelling.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By NullSubroutine on 7/25/2008 6:39:20 AM , Rating: 5
Your price of fuel is also increased by the taxes that pay for things like health care and I think education. You cannot look at both prices in a vacuum and say 'oh bloody hell they are a bunch of whiners'.

Both Europe and the US have an economy and financial sector setup on a certain price of things, regardless of the disparity between other countries. Wages, income, prices for products, etc all are dynamic as in they are based on the costs of other things. Yet, they are rather static when looking at a traditional long term trend of gradual increase (inflation).

However, when you introduce a certain market which is a backbone the economy like gas (you need oil for everything) this unbalances and disrupts the homeostasis of the (our) country. Gas prices doubling in such a short period in time has made it so many cannot afford transportation - and not everywhere is there public transportation. There are many places in the rural areas of the US where citizens make the lowest median wage and have to drive 80 miles a day to get to work. Add in the fact these individuals can't afford hybrid cars or newer cars that can get 30-50MPG(US gallon) on the highway. What you have people barely able to make ends meet just by the increase of 1 commodity.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By clovell on 7/25/2008 11:23:44 AM , Rating: 5
Bear in mind the following:

Domestic oil production in the US crashed two decades ago.
There are large reserves that are untouched in the US.
The percentage of oil imported into the US has almost tripled in the last three decades.
There hasn't been a new refinery built in the US since I've been alive.

Americans scream bloody murder over gas prices not because they're high - they scream bloody murder over gas prices because they're high and we can do something about that problem, but aren't.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By BZDTemp on 7/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/25/2008 9:23:16 AM , Rating: 4
> "The US is using twice the amount of energy per capita than any other industrialized nation "

Eh? Many nations have a higher per-capita energy usage than the US. Canada, for one, along with Iceland, Luxembourg, Bahrain, Kuwait, and a few others.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 11:08:32 PM , Rating: 2
We are also the largest, most populated, most developed, and most wealthy first world country. (Canada is bigger landwise but not population.)

What would the EU be in a similar situation? Most like the same. If cars and fuel were not taxed to death in the EU more people would have cars and the situtation would be very similar on a per capita basis.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By fibreoptik on 7/25/2008 8:44:11 AM , Rating: 2
umm I think you meant "whole heartedly" rather than "whole heartily".


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By plinkplonk on 7/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By bodar on 7/27/2008 7:33:08 PM , Rating: 2
I thought the Amish weren't allowed to use the internet? We need to find a realistic alternative to oil BEFORE we give it up, otherwise we are back to 19th century transportation and production methods.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Moohbear on 7/24/2008 12:32:11 PM , Rating: 5
Let me see. On one hand, we have: preserving the ecosystem and solving the oil short/medium term shortage by developing costly or unproven alternatives and making a lot a very influent, very rich people angry.
On the other hand, we have $11,000,000,000,000 lying in the ground.
Now, try to guess what the jury will decide ;)


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By vapore0n on 7/24/2008 12:44:06 PM , Rating: 3
If true about these findings, then the choice is obvious. Drill the arctic. Maybe this will give us enough time to develop the alternate fuel at price that most can afford.

Cant say that oil is the only way. We still need to go to an alternate source of energy. Its only a matter of time....and money.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By foxtrot9 on 7/25/2008 4:01:45 PM , Rating: 4
While in a perfect world that sounds nice and all - it won't happen. If we drill and find another abundent source of oil, the focus will turn away from finding alternative sources. It will be much easier to just use what we have and let future generations worry about the problem. It's the same idea as our national debt and problems with social security - "don't fix the problem now because when it really becomes a big issue I won't be in office and it won't matter to me"


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By plinkplonk on 7/26/2008 12:53:02 PM , Rating: 2
its a shame but that's pretty much how the world works now


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By xti on 7/24/2008 12:46:40 PM , Rating: 5
one of those zero's just winked at me.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By lifeblood on 7/24/2008 1:41:28 PM , Rating: 5
The silly thing is, most everyone knows the best solution. Drill the oil while diversifying your current energy sources (nuclear, solar, wind, etc) and looking for new or improved sources of energy.

The problem is, if oil is plentiful then we won't seriously look for new or improved energy sources. It seems we only get serious when are wallet is getting hurt.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By porkpie on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By isorfir on 7/24/2008 2:30:38 PM , Rating: 5
Oh, that's why we're just now looking for viable alternatives when we've had 100+ years of no oil supply problems? Heck, early on we burned off natural gas just to get rid of it because we had so much oil. Yeah, having a lot of something really makes us look for ways to get more of it.

Necessity is the mother of invention.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 2:41:03 PM , Rating: 1
> " that's why we're just now looking for viable alternatives when we've had 100+ years of no oil supply problems?"

Eh? Both your statements are incorrect. We've been researching wind and solar for many decades...the first concentrated solar plants were built in the 1980, and we've utilitized wind mills for power long before we began using oil. Hydrogen production has been explored for decades as well, with our largest advances made in the 1990s, when gas was $1.50/bbl.

Furthermore, we've had much worse oil supply problems in the past. In the 1970s, the US had to institute price controls and rationing....people were only allowed to fill their cars on alternate days. In the 1920s even, President Coolidge convened an emergency council to solve the 'crisis', under the belief the world would be utterly out of oil within the next 10 years.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By isorfir on 7/24/2008 2:57:50 PM , Rating: 5
Sorry, by "viable" I meant that we're actually trying to bring them to market now, not just research them. If the oil price is low, it drives alternatives of out the market. The point that porkpie is making is that we'd spend more money researching alternatives when we're oil rich, which is plain wrong.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/2008 4:34:39 PM , Rating: 5
i can't believe people are arguing against you isofir, your point is so obviously correct to me and I would hope many others.

sure, there have been alternative energy interests and research for a long time, but have you ever before seen the US as a whole so interested in reducing our dependency on oil? No. Why? 'cause no one likes paying $4 a gallon.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By grenableu on 7/24/2008 4:42:50 PM , Rating: 5
There's a difference between "interested" and "able". The more expensive oil gets, the more interested we are in not using it, but the less able we are to afford developing any alternative.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/2008 4:48:20 PM , Rating: 5
sure, but again, the proof is in the pudding. never before has gas cost so much, and yet never before have we seen the interest and $ spend on R&D for alternative energy sources. this idea that we need the money saved on spending for gas to fund alternative energy is a very weak point. there might be a grain of truth in it, but it's insignificant. the money spent on alternative energy will come when enough people demand it, simple as that.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By grenableu on 7/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 5:07:10 PM , Rating: 5
> " what about the number of solar panels installed this year vs. last year? "

Your examples deal with implementation rather than research. Acts like installing solar panels based on current technology don't help the situation. We can *never* solve our energy needs with such. They're a waste of time, money, and resources, plain and simple. A symbolic gesture valuable for emotional reasons perhaps, but not a practical advance.

What we need is a solution that works. Nuclear power is a viable solution for non-fossil fuel electricity generation, but there is no current solution for non-petroleum based transportation. None. Spending money on alternatives that aren't ready for prime time doesn't help us in the long run.

What's a better option...to spend $200M on a solar farm that produces power at 5X the cost of nuclear (or 40X the cost, if one has to store energy for night)....or that same money, spent on researching how to make cells cheaper and more efficient? Or an energy storage technology that's actually practical? Or better batteries for EV cars?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 7:21:41 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
and I still don't think you're giving solar enough credit. ask anyone in the solar industry how much of a difference their products make on their customer's energy bills and I'm sure you'll get some decent figures.

Ask those same customers how much they spent for those savings. $30K? $40K? $50K?

Justifying solar power by the so-called "savings" is kind of like when someone tells you how much they "saved" at the mall buying things.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/2008 10:21:30 PM , Rating: 1
no, it's not. energy savings pay you back constantly. there is an upfront cost, but over time they pay for themselves and eventually turn a profit.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By TomZ on 7/25/2008 9:17:17 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
no, it's not. energy savings pay you back constantly. there is an upfront cost, but over time they pay for themselves and eventually turn a profit.

Have you ever done a break-even analysis for solar? I did one last year, using a solar industry web site, and the cost break even was like 25 or 30 years!

This is why, in my opinion, you only see a tiny fraction of our energy being generated by solar power. It will stay that way until those economics change.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By s12033722 on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By eldakka on 7/24/2008 10:00:52 PM , Rating: 2
While I tend to agree with you regarding ground-based solar not really being a solution (unless they come up with practical, room-temperature superconductors for power transmission and solar farms located all around the world...) what about space-based solar power?

A large (technically possible at the moment, but really, really expensive ;) ) space based array would get sunlight 24*365, undiluted by earth's atmosphere and unaffected by weather.

Of course, the initial costs and build times (even simple satellites take years to assemble) would be incredible...But probably less than trying to make huge ground-based solar farms...

As for nuclear, I think it IS a current, viable solution, all it lacks is political will by the pollies to allow it.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Starcub on 7/26/2008 5:17:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're throwing a red herring here. Nuclear is viable. All it takes to build the plants is the will to do so. One stroke of a pen on the right desk, and the problem is solved.

Solar isn't viable, however, for very real, technical reasons.

Solar is viable, even with tech currently commercially available here in the US (the EU is a larger customer of solar). Several southwestern states have already built solar farm plants, and here in Florida where I live, they are planning to build one as well (and unfortunately also a nuke plant). Do you think that they would do this if the evidence failed to promote solar's viability?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By danielg001 on 7/24/2008 11:54:38 PM , Rating: 2
Your reply is good, because it exposes the understanding problem.

Energy... how do we use it, how do we need it.

Petrol in cars is not really energy as we think of it, its a battery, its a frigging amazing battery. If oil ran out, youd look back at the days you can poor essentially free liquid into your car and it just drives for ever with amazement. The industrial revolution... modern life, is built of this amazing energy source. Factories and all industrial prosperity is grown based on using the energy the planet stored for millions of years as fossil fuels.

Alternate energy isnt exactly an amazingly easy enegy we can just use as we want, we already have that energy, its coal and natural gas and crude oil. However, when we supply a few percent via alternate already without a significant GDP investment, its hard to see why we couldn't supply almost all of it. Supplemented with nuclear or whatever, even fossil fuels, doesn't matter, if we use a lot less, it lasts much longer. However, this is for POWER, the grid. Your house, your office, anything stationary.

Alternates are hard for transport, its a completely different issue. Hydrogen isn't an energy source, its a battery, but its not anywhere as good as oil. Fuel cells have a great energy density but... lets look...

kw/kg kWh/l
Hydrogen, gas (300 bar) 33 0.7
Petrol, liquid 13 8.7

http://www.fuelcell.no/hydrogen_mainpage_eng.htm

That is key, its something < 10% of the energy that oil has, and fuel cells are far more delicate than just slushing some petrol into your tank and driving away allows. They require a lot of energy to make, rare materials, they don't last very long (cars might break down, but your gas never does, its simplicity is deceptive, but oil is amazing).

Unless oil estimates are wrong, and completely amazingly stupidly wrong (20-100% underestimates just buy time, even then, they are much harder to extract), I dont see how cars will exist as they do in they future. About 25% of corn in the US next year will be used for a few percent of the car fuel? I cant see a solution, even if you created clean, unlimited fusion energy. Made all the hydrogen you needed, can you imagine the effort to convert all the cars and petrol stations in the world to use this? It would be hundreds of trillions or more, and thats only if the market doesnt collapse with the news we are going to only get less and less oil year over year.

Though... on the other hand.. its pretty easy to imagine (at least in larger cities), converting roads to rail, solar powered trains running all the time in stead. Farms built in hydroponic skyscrapers, all in walking distance.. humans have already been able to travel a few km a day with ease, just by eating the same daily food. When we have to drive a 1 ton car 20km to get food for 70kg of person, its easy to see the problems (not that I want to go back to eating whatever comes from a local farm, but it sure is efficent).

Im equally surprised how easy some huge improvements could be made compared to the huge issues that could face us if we really did run out of oil. The big problem my brain has is that I pretty much never see humans doing anything, on a large scale, pro actively. If it all goes to shit, sure, the effort we would apply would be hard to imagine. It just seems like we need to put ourselves in a position where when we do dig in and do something, it can actually have an effect. If nothing is done, oil peaks without us believing it, oil hits $500 a barrel, too expensive for trucks to deliver food. Inflation explodes, food runs out, Im not sure what could be done unless we are already moving in the right direction.

On the flip side, if you have a few solar panels on your farm and a bunch of dvds. Life would probably be about the same :)


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Lugaidster on 7/28/2008 5:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
If you want an example of what would happen if oil just disappeared and you had no more money look at Cuba and how things changed when the USSR disappeared. Suddenly there was no way to get oil so people had no means of transportation. Without which there was barely any means to deliver food or produce electricity. There were blackouts almost every day. And you couldn't even get basic raw resources, so if you wanted to build something wood was practically your only alternative. People starved and deflected to other countries USA being the most popular. People got used to walk as there were no alternatives. There weren't many imports because of the embargo. And so on...

I just hope that this doesn't happen to the rest of the world and we find other ways to produce energy (besides using food, because that's almost the same thing). Otherwise, population will go back to 19th century numbers.

I say leave that oil buried in the arctic and use the money to research other alternatives.

---

On the subject of saving oil for flights I would say that planes are probably the easiest problem to solve if we were oil constrained (or at least oil constrained enough to come up with a solution). After all, planes enjoy the flexibility that the car industry doesn't have. Given that R&D takes time, if we really need a specific technology, time won't be as much of an issue (otherwise look at war times as an example).


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 11:16:17 PM , Rating: 2
Hybrids are not alternative to fossil fuel cars, it is a convervation method.

A true alternative to fuels would be electric and hydrogen-fuel-cell electric for example.

You can't replace traditional power plants with AF of 80-90% with something that has an AF of 30-40% and costs more. That just does not make sense! I have worked in the power industry. Alternative sources are poor choices for the grid due to their variability. Balancing the grid is hard enough due to the dynamic nature of the electrical load, and that is when you have a stable reliable set of power generation to tap.

If the alternatives performance figures were equal to or better than fmore traditional methods and the cost was similar, than now we are talking.

Be more pratical and make sure the solution does not perform worse and/or cost more than the problem.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By plinkplonk on 7/26/2008 12:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
are you?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By mmatis on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By epobirs on 7/24/2008 4:18:24 PM , Rating: 3
Uh, no. There was nothing requiring us to institute price controls and rationing. That was an idiotic outburst of socialistic thinking that has thankfully not been repeated.

Price controls created a situation where gas station owners found themselves required to sell for less than their cost. Not being stupid, they decided it was better to run out until they could buy more supply at a reasonable price than to actively lose money on every gallon sold.

This was an incredibly stupid policy on the part of the government that created an artificial shortge. The problem was the rising price driven by OPEC, not a lack of supply. It would have far better to let prices at the pump rise to whatever the market dictated. This would have gotten more than a small minority deeply interested in purchasing cars that got much better mileage. If Detroit couldn't or wouldn't do it, the rewards would go to whoever offered a better choice.

No hamfisted government intervention needed.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 4:24:31 PM , Rating: 2
> "This was an incredibly stupid policy on the part of the government that created an artificial shortge"

Of course. I never disputed that. The fact remains that the 1973 oil embargo was a more severe situation than the price escalation we see today. With OPEC refusing entirely to sell to the US and several other nations, oil prices went almost overnight from $3/bbl to $15/bbl, then continued rising over the next few years up to $40/bbl.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By William Gaatjes on 7/24/2008 6:31:04 PM , Rating: 1
Are the time frames you are naming coincidence ?

1970 oil supply problems.
1980 alternative energy source like solar plants where being taken to production if i understan correclty.
Now given that research takes some years that would not seem like a coincidence.

If it is or not, you have to agree that when the oil get scarce it is more of a push in the direction of alternative energy sources. Our infrastruture depends on oil and that infrastructure would only change if it is necessary. When there is enough oil, nobody would go through that trouble.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By SiliconAddict on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Solandri on 7/25/2008 12:37:26 AM , Rating: 2
No company can be at the forefront of every potential technology. It would just cost too much. So they essentially place their bets on which technology they think will win out. The Japanese car companies gambled that hybrids would be the next big thing. They won. The American car companies gambled that hydrogen fuel cells would be the next big thing. They lost. That's the way the market works. I remember reading an article around 2000 where a Japanese car company CEO said that they were 5-10 years behind the Americans on fuel cell research, and if the fuel cells won out they were in big trouble.

And it's really ironic that you posted what you did as a criticism of American car companies not conducting alternative fuel R&D. The environmental groups condemned hybrids when they first showed up because they got all their energy from gasoline. They wanted electric and fuel cell vehicles, not something that just used gasoline differently. The American car companies were doing what the environmental groups wanted. It ended up costing them, and now you're condemning them for not developing hybrids?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By FITCamaro on 7/28/2008 2:36:13 PM , Rating: 2
Well said. And then guys like him also give credit to Honda for releasing a "production" fuel cell car despite GM having done something similar over a year before.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 2:42:32 PM , Rating: 3
The flaw in your argument is that alternative energy R&D didn't just start when oil prices shot up this time around. It's been going on for many decades already.

People are always looking for and working on alternatives; they just become more attractive, relatively speaking, when the cost of traditional energy sources increases.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By 4play on 7/24/2008 2:51:41 PM , Rating: 2
R&D existed, but it never amounted to anything. Are you seriously going to argue that if gas was dirt cheap, people would look to EVs and Hybrids?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Spuke on 7/24/2008 3:05:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
R&D existed, but it never amounted to anything.
It didn't? How so? Explain.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/2008 5:04:27 PM , Rating: 1
I'll explain since you're enjoying playing the dumb game. Who knew what a Hybrid car was 5 years ago vs. how many people know now?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 5:09:25 PM , Rating: 3
Public awareness is not the same as research and development.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/2008 5:52:28 PM , Rating: 2
and yet it "amounts to something". the fact is interest drives funding, and larger amounts of interest come from necessity than anything else. pinch the gas prices and people will demand electric cars. pinch natural gas prices and people will demand geothermal heating and cooling


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 5:55:03 PM , Rating: 2
> "pinch natural gas prices and people will demand geothermal heating and cooling "

But people aren't demanding geothermal heating right now. They're demanding cheaper natural gas. Look at the article I posted above.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/2008 6:15:56 PM , Rating: 2
that's 'cause they don't know about geothermal!

give people an alternative that they understand and that's cheaper and they'll jump to it, guaranteed.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 7:02:50 PM , Rating: 2
> "give people an alternative that they understand and that's cheaper and they'll jump to it, guaranteed. "

Of course. The problem is those alternative sources *aren't* cheaper...and only further R&D can make them so.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/2008 7:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
a well designed geothermal heating and cooling system in your home can save you 70% on your energy bills and totally remove your dependence on natural gas. it may not be cheaper to install at first, but it will pay for itself within a few years in most cases, even faster in some.

http://waterfurnace.com/benefits.aspx
http://waterfurnace.com/how_it_works.aspx


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Solandri on 7/25/2008 1:04:44 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, I priced several heating/cooling systems for a construction project at my last workplace. Initially it was supposed to be eco-friendly, but budget costs forced it to standard construction. We already had some of the eco-friendly options priced out, and geothermal actually ended up being cheaper than regular heating/AC within I think it was 3 years.

Don't confuse it with geothermal energy, which is only viable near volcanoes and hot springs. Essentially a geothermal heat pump is the same thing as a regular heat pump (which operates cheaper than heating/AC for efficiency reasons), but uses the ground as a temperature sink instead of the air. That makes it a lot more efficient than a regular heat pump (since the ground is a lot warmer than the air in Winter, cooler than the air in Summer). The only drawback is you need to dig up the lawn. But the payback is relatively quick, nothing like solar. It's one of the few eco-friendly options I consider to be viable right now.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 3:08:02 PM , Rating: 2
> "Are you seriously going to argue that if gas was dirt cheap, people would look to EVs and Hybrids? "

If gas is dirt cheap, it implies its plentiful and not in short supply. If such is the case, why would we need to be driving around more expensive hybrids and EVs? Doesn't it make more sense to save that money, and instead spend it on something more useful...like more research to improve the alternatives?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By isorfir on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 3:56:19 PM , Rating: 2
If we're spending the money on gas, we CAN'T spend it on anything else. Wealth creates progress, plain and simple.

Seen Zambia fund much alternative energy research lately? Only a wealthy nation can engage in such endeavors...and if oil continues to rise, the US will no longer be such.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By 4play on 7/24/2008 4:09:12 PM , Rating: 2
Gasoline in Europe is far more expensive than in the US, they are also a leader in alternative energy. Coincidence?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Noya on 7/24/2008 4:25:52 PM , Rating: 3
That's because EU countries tax their fuel considerably more than the US does = that's what subsidizes the alternative energy research/sources.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 4:53:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Gasoline in Europe is far more expensive than in the US, they are also a leader in alternative energy.

I'd like to know how you reached that conclusion. When I look at Europe, compared to other developed nations, I see basically the same energy sources.

Nearly all vehicles are powered by oil (diesel or gas), and nearly all infrastructure powered by oil, coal, nat. gas, nuclear, and hydro. All developed nations have just a tiny fraction generated by "alternative" energy sources like wind, solar, etc.

So how is Europe a "leader" exactly?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By DanoruX on 7/24/2008 5:28:36 PM , Rating: 2
They're a leader in R&D.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By 4play on 7/24/2008 5:36:40 PM , Rating: 2
@ TomZ:

Germany is up to getting 14% of it's electricity from renewables http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/40791/54...

maybe 14% is considered a "tiny fraction" but you need to start somewhere.

heres a wiki link as well :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:European-union-...


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 5:50:23 PM , Rating: 2
> "@ TomZ: Germany is up to getting 14% of it's electricity from renewables "

Yes they are:

quote:
BERLIN'S POLITICAL CONUNDRUM
Voters Furious over Surging Energy Prices

In 1997, the Germans spent €69 billion ($107 billion) on electricity, heating and fuel. By 2007 -- a year with a warm winter -- that combined figure had increased to €95 billion ($147 billion)...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518...


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By foolsgambit11 on 7/25/2008 4:09:20 PM , Rating: 2
Well, considering that US natural gas prices have doubled since 1997, and gas and diesel prices have more than doubled, I wouldn't be surprised if the US figures showed at least a proportional rise in energy costs. And that without serious investment in alternatives. So from this admittedly small sample, you could conclude that investment in renewables is not causally linked to Germany's energy prices.

In fact, the article you link to specifically cites traditional energy sources (natural gas and oil specifically) as being the source of the increased energy costs. Quoting out of context, for shame!


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 11:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
If they are such leaders in alternative energy, then why are new coal plants being built there?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 5:59:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
maybe 14% is considered a "tiny fraction" but you need to start somewhere.

If you want to play the game of cherry-picking statistics, I'll give you Washington State, which generates 84% of its electricity from renewable sources.

http://www.energyatlas.org/PDFs/LowRes/atlas_state...

Hopefully Germany will catch up sometime in the future... :o)


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By foolsgambit11 on 7/26/2008 2:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
Being from Washington State, I wish that I could be proud of that statistic. In fact, since 83% of that energy comes from hydroelectric plants, it doesn't really demonstrate an energy policy that will work anywhere. It also doesn't reflect any sort of commitment to developing 'green' technology. Hydro has been a major source of power for decades in Washington because it makes economic sense, but recent decades have seen a backlash against increasing the number of dams due to their environmental impact on Washington's watersheds, and especially their impact on spawning salmon.

And the PDF you link to doesn't actually classify hydro as a renewable energy source. It also says that California has more installed capacity (although I bet as a percentage of power usage, Washington comes out ahead). I can understand why you wouldn't choose California as an example of a successful energy policy, though. After all, their energy costs are roughly double Washington's ($.1282/kWh versus $.612/kWh)


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By isorfir on 7/24/2008 4:24:18 PM , Rating: 3
I understand that if the US is crippled by oil prices then it doesn’t have much to spend on alternatives. I may have been mistaken, but it seemed like the idea was if we had cheap oil prices we would already have alternatives, which doesn't make sense because there would have been no necessity for it. If the price of oil is low the market won't support more expensive alternatives just because "it's the right thing to do."

There was a problem with oil in the 70s, as you said, because of the embargos, but yet once the prices came down again we (the public) all but lost interest in alternatives. History as proven that if you alleviate the pressure, then we won't change course. How quickly we forget.

Too many people get on the either/or boat where you can either get more oil or develop viable alternatives. Obviously we need both. More oil can only be seen as a band-aid until we get something better. If oil prices do come down (which I hope it does) we need to make sure than the public doesn’t forget that everything’s not alright.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 4:27:31 PM , Rating: 2
> "but yet once the prices came down again we (the public) all but lost interest in alternatives"

We didn't lose interest in researching and developing alternatives, we lost interest in implementing them. As well we should. Had we tried to implement EVs or some other alternative with 1980s technology, it would have been a multi-trillion dollar boondoggle with no real results.

But the research continued anyway and -- as long as an oil crunch doesn't cripple our economy today -- it still will. At some point, those alternatives will make sense.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Solandri on 7/24/2008 5:01:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I understand that if the US is crippled by oil prices then it doesn’t have much to spend on alternatives. I may have been mistaken, but it seemed like the idea was if we had cheap oil prices we would already have alternatives, which doesn't make sense because there would have been no necessity for it. If the price of oil is low the market won't support more expensive alternatives just because "it's the right thing to do."

I think the point is that artificially raising the price of gasoline doesn't make alternatives cheaper. It just makes them more affordable relative to gasoline. Certainly having a market for alternatives generates interest and increases the installed base. But it doesn't change the basic fact that the price of alternative energy is still higher than for gasoline minus the taxes.

In other words, the downward pressure on alternative energy prices doesn't increase simply because you tax gasoline. You have to actually fund R&D to drive alternative energy prices down. And you can do that with or without gasoline taxes. Not only that, the gas taxes (in and of themselves) could actually discourage research which drives down the prices of alternative energy, since it'd be sustainable at the artificially higher price point.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/2008 4:53:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If we're spending the money on gas, we CAN'T spend it on anything else.


EXACTLY! so now that gas is expensive, we're finally starting to THINK about how to spend the rest of our money, and that's why people are looking to alternatives.. they realize this is a real problem when they're having a hard time at the pump.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 11:23:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yes but then you have killed the goose that laid the golden eggs, and without those eggs no more research money. (Duh!)


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By epobirs on 7/24/2008 4:42:59 PM , Rating: 5
So that would explain why electric cars have been touted as coming Real Soon Now throughout my life.

There is more than fuel prices driving alternative energy research. Pollution has been a high concern for many decades, with increasingly stringent laws compelling businesses to make their products and processes cleaner. This in turn means a company that makes a major advancement in cleaner technology can make major profits.

Likewise, there have always been buisness opportunities in new technologies that perform the same task as an existing product but in a differnt that, the producer hopes, makes it more desirable.

Just because a viable technology has failed to emerge doesn't mean nobody has been trying. For instance, there is considerable interest in better battery technology to enable electric vehicles to master a list of requirements: range, rapid recharge, ease of recycling, etc. But none of that is new developments for the battery industry. You can eliminate electric vehicles as a potential market and there would still be a multi-$Billion demand for better batteries possessing all of those qualites for the well established markets of portable computing, entertainment, communication, and medical devices. All of those products have constantly demanded better batteries or alternate power sources without a dramatic rise in fuel prices.

This is also why conspiracy theorist who think the oil industry is suppressing better batteries are simply insane.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By porkpie on 7/25/2008 9:52:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can eliminate electric vehicles as a potential market and there would still be a multi-$Billion demand for better batteries possessing all of those qualites for the well established markets of portable computing, entertainment, communication, and medical devices. All of those products have constantly demanded better batteries or alternate power sources without a dramatic rise in fuel prices.

This is also why conspiracy theorist who think the oil industry is suppressing better batteries are simply insane.
But. . . but. . . I saw Who Killed The Electric Car and it told me it was all a giant conspiracy! It has to be true!


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By 4play on 7/24/2008 4:05:08 PM , Rating: 2
I know your views on AGW so I won't argue with you on that one.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 3:08:22 PM , Rating: 3
How much did gasoline cost, per gallon, when EVs and hybrids were developed and introduced to the market?

For example, the current generation of hybrids were introduced to the market in the late 1990's, when gas prices were less than 1/2 of what they are now.

The data doesn't support your argument.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By 4play on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By mvpx02 on 7/24/2008 2:58:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Necessity is the mother of invention.


we did not NEED airplanes, they simply are a better solution than cars & trucks in some instances

we did not NEED cars & trucks, they are simply a better solution than trains in some instances

we did not NEED trains, they are simply a better solution than horses & wagons in some instances

don't doubt humanity's ability to improve its tools... we've been doing so (out of both necessity and convenience) for thousands of years

There are plenty of scientists/companies who are (and have been) working on improvements to all aspects of life (including energy).

profit is almost as powerful a motivator as necessity.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By isorfir on 7/24/2008 3:08:01 PM , Rating: 2
Everything you listed fulfilled a need: Travel. They were better than the previous ones, which was needed. If you’re going to travel around the world, you need something better.
quote:
profit is almost as powerful a motivator as necessity.

Make something that is not needed and tell me how much you profited from it. The reason the profit exists is because the invention was needed.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By mvpx02 on 7/24/2008 3:53:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Make something that is not needed and tell me how much you profited from it. The reason the profit exists is because the invention was needed.


Be careful not to confuse luxuries with necessities. If humanity has been able to survive up until this last century without the luxury of flight, it must not have been a dire necessity. Many of today's perceived "needs" exist because there's a solution available... my boss wouldn't say "I need you to be at the meeting tomorrow in NYC" if flight weren't an option... people wouldn't expect to be able to contact me at any time day or night if I didn't have a cell phone.

Most things that fit into the category of entertainment/recreation are, by definition alone, not needs. Do you think Sony/Sharp/Samsung/Etc. are making 60" TV's because people NEEDED something bigger than 50"? Do you think that people NEED things like drugs & alcohol? Do you think people NEED a Corvette that goes 200MPH when there's almost nowhere (in USA) to drive it at that speed (legally)? All of these things were developed, produced and sold for the purpose of profit.

I'm not arguing a person's need to be entertained and to relax, those necessities are undeniable. However, the means by which we currently fullfill those needs are not necessities.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By isorfir on 7/24/2008 4:03:21 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say survival needs. I'm talking about what the market demands, a market based need. Nothing more.

Need, noun
"2 a: a lack of something requisite, desirable , or useful "

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/need


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By mvpx02 on 7/24/2008 4:58:21 PM , Rating: 2
So you're saying if the market demands cheaper oil, it only makes sense to increase supply if possible. I can agree with that.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Solandri on 7/24/2008 5:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
I'd rephrase the old adage as efficiency is the mother of invention. Anything that's desired (whether a need or a want) motivates improvements in the efficiency of how those things are acquired.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JakLee on 7/24/2008 5:56:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Make something that is not needed and tell me how much you profited from it. The reason the profit exists is because the invention was needed.

Pet rock.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_rock
"The fad lasted about six months, ending with the Christmas season in December 1975. During its short run, the Pet Rock made Dahl a millionaire."

No one needed a pet rock - lots of people wanted one. People do lots of stupid things when money is involved. Profit pushes people in different ways then neccessity - the want to be rich makes people try new things too.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By MrBungle123 on 7/24/2008 5:30:19 PM , Rating: 2
maybe we didn't NEED those items when they were first developed, but if you get rid of trains, and trucks, and tractors now people would starve to death until our numbers dropped to a point where the magnification of work capacity provided by those items is no longer needed to support the population. So we may not have needed them before but we NEED them now.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By elgueroloco on 8/11/2008 5:34:32 PM , Rating: 2
You're wrong. Henry Ford and George Washington Carver teamed up and investigated the soy bean as an alternative fuel source, but decided it was not viable. Read the wiki on GWC.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By 4play on 7/24/2008 2:44:47 PM , Rating: 2
Is that why we had all those electric cars, hybrid vehicles, efficient solar panels in the 80's and 90's?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Spuke on 7/24/2008 3:06:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is that why we had all those electric cars, hybrid vehicles, efficient solar panels in the 80's and 90's?
We still don't have them now. LOL!


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By 4play on 7/24/2008 3:54:57 PM , Rating: 2
LOL good point!


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Maud Dib on 7/24/2008 4:37:53 PM , Rating: 3
You are correct...

It takes PAIN to move humans..

Those that disagree with what you have said are failures of nature.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Nik00117 on 7/26/2008 2:53:04 AM , Rating: 2
One thing you are forgottening, whose to say that this Oil reserve is going to bring down the price of gas? Maybe the cost of drilling etc, will just make it more stable. Who knows, I however believe that the logitics to get this oil will keep the cost up. I mean we aren't exactly talking about finding oil in some field next to I-75.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By jay401 on 7/25/2008 8:11:13 AM , Rating: 2
It's not an either/or situation, it's an "and/both" (grammatically wrong, but that's apparently what it's called).

We can do both.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By clovell on 7/25/2008 4:06:57 PM , Rating: 2
The jury? There are real consequences on either side of the aisle - renewable fuels has raised food prices and hurt everyone - particularly the poor. Oil has provided cheap, affordable energy for those same individuals.

Forget the lofty morality of all this for a second and remember Jimmy Carville - 'It's the economy, stupid.'


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By epobirs on 7/24/2008 4:23:04 PM , Rating: 3
Meanwhile, back in the real world, alternatives to petroleum are not remotely ready to replace it. If they miraculously became so tomorrow there would still be many years needed to change over the infrastructure to use it.

This means exploiting more untapped petroleum locations is critical to our continuing economic wellbeing. There is simply no getting around it.

Considr also, while high energy prices provide an incentive to conduct more R&D for alternatives, it also hampers that R&D by making it, like everything else, more expensive.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Fubar0606 on 7/24/2008 11:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
I agree man, couldn't have set it better


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By jay401 on 7/25/2008 8:09:06 AM , Rating: 2
No reason we shouldn't be doing both, Joshua.


LOL at Canada
By Sylar on 7/24/2008 12:25:22 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Earlier this month, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the nation intends to "defend" its sovereignty in the Arctic, backing up the statement with a plan to divert 8 military patrol ships to the region, along with a new deep-water port.


Is it me or would they be defenseless if they moved their entire army to the region? Time to invade!!! :P




RE: LOL at Canada
By FITCamaro on 7/24/2008 12:28:19 PM , Rating: 5
http://www.code7r.org/Bintoons/canadian_navy.jpg

Hey Canada is a force to be reckoned with!


RE: LOL at Canada
By rivercat on 7/24/2008 12:34:21 PM , Rating: 5
I want that boat. The only problem is that the boat will go backwards when you fire that .50 cal. Hey, maybe it's a French boat! It automatically retreats when you fire the weapon!


RE: LOL at Canada
By DASQ on 7/24/2008 12:39:56 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think that coat of arms on the side is French or Canadian.

I'm guessing the owner of that boat is some guy from Louisiana who decided it would be fun to strap an M2 to a $30 bathtub with a hair dryer as an offboard motor. I mean he's wearing a flight helmet for God's sake.


RE: LOL at Canada
By RjBass on 7/24/2008 12:48:26 PM , Rating: 5
That coat of arms if from the U.S. Coast Guard. How funny.


RE: LOL at Canada
By rivercat on 7/24/2008 12:52:36 PM , Rating: 3
Notice the patch on his sleeve. IIRC, that's a US Army TRADOC patch!


RE: LOL at Canada
By DASQ on 7/24/2008 4:54:29 PM , Rating: 2
Downrated because I was right :(


RE: LOL at Canada
By clovell on 7/25/2008 4:09:17 PM , Rating: 2
Hey! I resemble that remark!!!


RE: LOL at Canada
By omnicronx on 7/24/2008 12:39:16 PM , Rating: 1
Although they are obviously not equipped the way your US forces are, Canadian forces are basically special forces when compared to US marines or the US army, not to mention we have the best snipers in the world.


RE: LOL at Canada
By jarman on 7/24/2008 1:22:52 PM , Rating: 1
right...


RE: LOL at Canada
By Goty on 7/24/2008 1:28:22 PM , Rating: 1
Sources?

=P


RE: LOL at Canada
By Inspector Jihad on 7/24/2008 1:30:44 PM , Rating: 1
sources, who needs sources on the intarwebs??


RE: LOL at Canada
RE: LOL at Canada
By Alexstarfire on 7/24/2008 3:43:03 PM , Rating: 1
Well, that's nothing. I'm sure the US will reclaim the title whenever they get out that new sniper rifle. Supposed to be a semiautomatic .50 cal sniper rifle with little to no recoil and can break a cinder block wall at close to 2 miles.


RE: LOL at Canada
By HrilL on 7/24/2008 4:48:40 PM , Rating: 2
We are also working on the laser sniper rifle that uses chemicals and will be able to take people down 5 miles away.
http://www.dailytech.com/Portable+SolidState+Pulse...


RE: LOL at Canada
By DASQ on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: LOL at Canada
By omnicronx on 7/24/2008 4:40:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I haven't heard much about the CF training, but I assume the infantry is more or less about as train as most first world countries.
Completely untrue, sure we have a tiny military compared to just about any first world country and if it came down to a one on one fight, Canada would obviously be in trouble, but the our basic infantry are better trained and equipped than the US. Just so you know what I am talking about, the basic rifle is essentially an automatic m16 with a sight.... something a basic marine with his 3 shot burst m16 probably envies.


RE: LOL at Canada
By DASQ on 7/24/2008 4:53:35 PM , Rating: 3
I'm well familiar with the Diemaco copies of the M16/M4 used in the CF, the C8/C7 flattop with an Elcan sight.

The only reason we DON'T have the 3 round burst selection limitation on our rifles is because we don't engage in as much widespread fighting as the US does, and that 3 round burst means you save a lot of ammo (Saves money, saves logistical PITA). Lessons learned from Vietnam, where marines would simply empty an entire magazine at the slightest hint of a shadow. The burst limitation forces controlled, aimed fire. Marksmanship.

Of course, the full automatic switch has it's own uses too.


RE: LOL at Canada
By threepac3 on 7/24/2008 1:36:18 PM , Rating: 2
...but who's snipers have the most war experience.


RE: LOL at Canada
By dgingeri on 7/24/2008 3:11:41 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
..but who's snipers have the most war experience.


That would be the British snipers.


RE: LOL at Canada
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/24/2008 3:28:46 PM , Rating: 1
Hmmmmm....I don't recall the British being one of the options. So you are the weakest link...Good bye. :P

Really, I know British have good snipers but I thought top dog was Russia?


RE: LOL at Canada
By napalmjack on 7/24/2008 3:56:20 PM , Rating: 1
"Aha ha ha. Oh, gosh that's funny. That's really funny. Do you write your own material? Do you? Because that is so fresh. You are the weakest link goodbye. You know, I've never heard anyone make that joke before. Mmm. You're the first. I've never heard anyone reference that outside the program before. Because that's what she says on the show right? Isn't it? You are the weakest link goodbye. And yet, you have taken that and used it out of context, to insult me in this everyday situation. God what a clever, smart girl you must be, to come up with a joke like that all by yourself. Mmm, that's so fresh too. Any titanic jokes you want to throw at me while we're hitting these at the height of their popularity? Hmm? Cause... I'm here. God you're SO funny."


RE: LOL at Canada
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/24/2008 4:09:08 PM , Rating: 2
Stewie are you having a bad day?

You forgot to add, British comment so British created show joke. How did you miss that angle?


RE: LOL at Canada
By JWalk on 7/25/2008 2:23:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yikes. Talk about an utter meltdown. For future reference, writing a 300 word essay, just because someone made a goofy joke, might be considered overreacting. Just putting it out there.


RE: LOL at Canada
By Aloonatic on 7/25/2008 4:36:32 AM , Rating: 2
During the second world war, the Russians were pretty handy, not sure about now but they would be used to the cold, probably?

The truth is, most countries have snipers and they are all trained to a high level, the odd one or 2 mite be better on one day or another, but it's numbers and experience that counts.

I would have thought that America has the highest number of trained and battle conditioned "veteran" snipers out there in the field though, with all the current conflicts that are going on.

They might get a bit chilly in Canada mind you but most countries are clever enough to train their troops in many different conditions, or buy gloves.

For extra assistance, maybe the Norwegians or Alpine nations could be drafted in with the promise of some shiny US silver dollars or the odd barrel of oil, if sniping ids really what it's all about?

Or perhaps there is a use for all of those kids who like sniping on HALO3, CoD4 etc etc? It's all falling into place.


RE: LOL at Canada
By sld on 7/24/2008 4:11:59 PM , Rating: 2
...but who is snipers have the most war experience.

hmm...


RE: LOL at Canada
By Suntan on 7/24/2008 1:57:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Canadian forces are basically special forces when compared to US marines or the US army, not to mention we have the best snipers in the world.


Hey!... Hey!... We’re important too!...

…Look up here! We’re important darn it!!!

-Suntan


RE: LOL at Canada
By jimbojimbo on 7/24/2008 3:41:11 PM , Rating: 2
You guys better quit making fun of him or they're all going to go on strike! They'll all want more money.


RE: LOL at Canada
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/24/2008 3:36:10 PM , Rating: 2
not to mention we have the best snipers in the world.

What, both of them, Captain Richards and Lt. First class Anderson?


RE: LOL at Canada
By Aloonatic on 7/25/2008 4:27:57 AM , Rating: 2
You're all forgetting that fighting is useless.

Russia has planted a flag under the North Pole already.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6927395.stm

Games over, checkmate.

There's no arguing with a flag, the oil's theirs.


More hype
By Bazra on 7/24/2008 12:45:23 PM , Rating: 5
Gotta love these misleading topics. USGS has not found anything but simply put out an estimate using their models. To quote Matthew Simmons: "To pretend anyone could guess at undiscovered resources in such precision is as naive as banks lending mortgage money to folks with no money."

Also, I don´t think one can overstate how difficult it will be to produce oil from such sites, it´s going to be gigantic effort to reach good flow rates.




RE: More hype
By porkpie on 7/24/2008 12:50:19 PM , Rating: 1
You're right, there's no oil up there we can possibly get to. That's why so many countries are already fighting over it.

/sarcasm

quote:
To pretend anyone could guess at undiscovered resources in such precision is as naive as banks lending mortgage money to folks with no money."
That cuts both ways, friend. They could easily be underestimating the amount of oil up there as overestimating.

Still, I'll take their estimate over yours.


RE: More hype
By RjBass on 7/24/2008 12:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking something along those lines. For the last couple years, multiple attempts from several energy companys to find natural gas and oil have come up empty in the artic.


RE: More hype
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 1:00:34 PM , Rating: 1
Eh? Exxon and Gazprom both have made major finds in the Arctic...part of the 300+ billion barrels of oil and gas already known and charted in the region.


RE: More hype
By xsilver on 7/24/2008 2:04:19 PM , Rating: 2
Quick question, is all this oil still from decomposed organic matter (plants+animals)?
With all these large numbers floating around, Im having trouble calculating if there is even enough animals+plants in the history of the earth to make this stuff.

Is it possible for sludge at the bottom of the sea to turn into oil?


RE: More hype
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 2:31:54 PM , Rating: 1
> Is it possible for sludge at the bottom of the sea to turn into oil? "

That's the primary source, in fact. Unlike the popular conception of "dead dinosaurs", most petroleum is formed from decayed phytoplankton in the sea.


RE: More hype
By xsilver on 7/25/2008 12:23:59 AM , Rating: 2
cool, thanks for confirming that. It was a guess on my part.
No idea why u got modded down though. I guess people dont like to know where their gas comes from.

Maybe to make people use less there should be a sticker on the bowser that says "stolen from the mouths of whales to feed you" :P

My leading question would then be: has there been any research into the formation of said petrochemicals? eg. was there a large dropoff in production after dinosaur extinction or some other seismic activity?


RE: More hype
By Ammohunt on 7/24/2008 2:41:30 PM , Rating: 2
Thats why there is a school of thought that Oil is a mineral resource(Abiotic) similiar to the hydorcarbon lakes that exist on titan.


RE: More hype
By Sazar on 7/24/2008 2:55:51 PM , Rating: 2
IT'S PEOPLE.

SOYLENT GREEN IS MADE FROM PEOPLE !!!

Sorry, just had to :)


RE: More hype
By Bazra on 7/24/2008 12:55:33 PM , Rating: 5
To illustrate here is a snippet of the study itself:

"Because of the sparse seismic and drilling data in much of the
Arctic, the usual tools and techniques used in USGS resource assessments, such as discovery
process modeling, prospect delineation, and deposit simulation, were not generally applicable. Therefore, the CARA relied on a probabilistic methodology of geological analysis and analog modeling. A world
analog database (Charpentier and others, 2008) was developed using the AUs defined in the USGS World Petroleum Assessment 2000 (USGS World Assessment Team, 2000)."

In other words, they don´t really know what´s out there and are just guessing at this point.


RE: More hype
By porkpie on 7/24/2008 1:55:52 PM , Rating: 3
They're "just guessing" in the same way astronomers are "just guessing" about the reason the sun is hot, or what the surface temperature of Jupiter is. They're looking at actual maps and geologic formations, and judging how similar they are to oil-bearing deposits we've already found.

If they're similar enough to mean a 10% chance of oil being there, then on the average, 10% of those deposits will contain oil. There's a big difference between a scientific analysis like that and "just guessing".


RE: More hype
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 11:28:14 PM , Rating: 3
Don't forget they are just guessing like those AGW scientists. So it is ok to follow the guessing for AGW but not for oil?


RE: More hype
By redsquid5 on 7/24/2008 3:03:26 PM , Rating: 1
NO oil was "discovered". This is simply a WAG.

And I quote: " Because of the sparse seismic and drilling data in much of the Arctic, the usual tools and techniques used in USGS resource assessments, such as discovery
process modeling, prospect delineation, and deposit simulation, were not generally applicable. Therefore, the CARA relied on a probabilistic methodology of geological analysis and analog modeling."

Fancy words for WILD A** GUESS.

Come on, Asher, wheres your integrity? None, zip, nada, eh? Did you even read the article?
I'm with T Boone Pickens, lets get the hell off the Oil drug and mine the wind. Let the rest of the world go to war in the Arctic.


RE: More hype
By dgingeri on 7/24/2008 3:33:18 PM , Rating: 2
Have you ever heard the term "hypothesis"? It means "educated guess", not "Wild @## Guess", as you so mildly put it. This means they do know what they are talking about a whole lot more than you do.

Why don't you stick to what you know and let them stick to what they know. Someone educated and practiced at oil finding geology is much more likely to find oil using these methods than you are with your methods. You have no place to criticize their methods unless you are actually educated in the same way they are and have as much experience and success in the field as them.


RE: More hype
By redsquid5 on 7/24/2008 4:31:51 PM , Rating: 1
NO OIL WAS FOUND.
I absolutely respect the scientists that conducted this study and their conclusions. I performed research for years and was responsible for publishing. Many of MY hypothesis were WAG. and WRONG. I proved them wrong myself.
( did you know, one definition of hypothesis is: a mere assumption or guess. )

Asher stated : Geologists FIND 90 Billion New Barrels of Oil in Arctic.
Not "Geologists, not able to use their usual methods, have conducted a statistical aproximation of the resources, that, based on the probability of similar formations actually containing oil, might exist."

And then, somehow, the study gets released just when it might be help to justify offshore and Alaskan drilling. How convenient.

>> NOBODY FOUND ANY OIL. The headline is a lie. There are huge costs in actually exploring for oil in places that "statistically" it should be and often isn't.

( Hypothesis: a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts. )


RE: More hype
By grenableu on 7/24/2008 4:45:35 PM , Rating: 3
Oil was found by analyzing geologic features against a probabilistic model, rather than the old techniques. Call it a wild guess if you want, but these geologists know what they're doing.


RE: More hype
By grenableu on 7/24/2008 5:14:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I'm with T Boone Pickens, lets get the hell off the Oil drug
T Boone Pickens loves alternatives because he sold his oil holdings and is now investing billions in government-subsidized wind farms. "Getting off oil" will make him even more obscenely rich than he is now.


RE: More hype
By clovell on 7/25/2008 4:16:46 PM , Rating: 2
The point being what? That because T Boone Pickens would profit from the idea, it must suck?


RE: More hype
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 11:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
No but his word is certainly suspect as he would get the most from it.

I believe that is called a conflict of interest, or maybe bias or something like that?


LOL @ Oil
By gamerk2 on 7/24/2008 1:26:34 PM , Rating: 1
A) Even though there's a ton of Oil there, how quickly can we get to it? And how many barrals/day will we get? If it a number like 500,000 day, then the oil won't even ding global supply.

B) Even if we CAN get the oil, we're talking 5 years minimum before prices react as a result.

C) The US is at refining capacity, and has been for some time. More drilling means more refinarys must be built.

On average, refinaries cost around $25-$50 Billion, which is why most are co-owned by multiple oil companies, because no single company can afford the price tag. And I doubt we won't end up paying some of the tag...

If the cost of oil is such a big problem, power thw US by filling Nevada with solar generators, and make a giant windfarm outside Chicago. With the extra power, you could shut off all the oil electric power plants in the US. That should halp with prices.

Also, its possible, today, to make 100% power efficant houses. I live in one, and out power company pays US for the extra power we provide (not much, but its an extra gallon of gas a month :D). There's a solution to fix oil prices.

Instead, people want a quick fix, that will cost close to $75 Billion (rigs + refinaries), that will take a minimum of 5 years to get, for a resource that we don't NEED to use, if people are willing to change the way they do things a bit.




RE: LOL @ Oil
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: LOL @ Oil
By gamerk2 on 7/24/2008 1:47:20 PM , Rating: 2
A: I'm not getting into another debate on this topic...Investers will react to the news, and prices will slightly lower...until the next oil spill (like the one yesterday on the missippi) drives up the price again.

B: Refining capacity is at 87% because demand has dropped significantly. Once that demand raises again, refinaries reach upwards of 95% capacity (sometimes higher). Either way, 13% capacity won't be enough if the oil in the artic comes out in any meaningful way.

C: So...Spending $75 Billion to make rigs and extra refinaries, + cost of oil transportation + cost of new oil rigs + cost of exploration (repeat each time a new oil well is found) is LESS EXPENSIVE than a one time cost for total energy independence?


RE: LOL @ Oil
By ksherman on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: LOL @ Oil
By fibreoptik on 7/24/2008 1:53:57 PM , Rating: 5
Not THE solution, but PART of the overall solution, which will most likely include marine energy, geothermal and biomass technologies.


RE: LOL @ Oil
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 2:24:47 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, solar and wind is a part of the solution - the 1% part. :o)

Sorry, solar and wind power are stupid to think about on a large-scale basis. They only make sense when government tax rebates and other incentives are applied. By themselves, they don't come even close to being anything other than a niche, high-cost energy source.

So let's quit flapping our lips about solar and wind, and focus on actual, practical sources of energy. Like drilling and refining more oil, more gas, more nuclear. As long as energy prices are relatively high, this is a powerful incentive for R&D investment into alternative energy sources that have not been developed yet.


RE: LOL @ Oil
By HrilL on 7/24/2008 5:14:24 PM , Rating: 2
Since we are talking about oil. Wind and Solar are able to take over the amount of power that is generated by just oil here in the US. Thats only around 4% of our total engery. That might help drop the prices a little at least until growing demand out paces what was saved by the 4%. But also I believe the oil they are burning is not the same oil they like to use to make gas.


RE: LOL @ Oil
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 5:19:45 PM , Rating: 2
Where did you get that 4% figure from? Seems like the real figure is a lot higher:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh/frame.html


RE: LOL @ Oil
By FITCamaro on 7/24/2008 1:53:08 PM , Rating: 3
You're acting like a massive solar farm and wind grid would never need maintenance or replacement. And solar is only good when the sun is out, wind is only good when its windy. Those two things are never guaranteed. So you have to have the ability to generate the nations power by other means when those two sources aren't operational.

Unless you plan to build several hundred miles worth of batteries to store enough energy to get through say a month of cloudy skies.


RE: LOL @ Oil
By clovell on 7/25/2008 4:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
... or used pumped water storage - just sayin'...


RE: LOL @ Oil
By FITCamaro on 7/28/2008 2:31:18 PM , Rating: 2
Great idea when droughts are becoming an issue...


RE: LOL @ Oil
By mvpx02 on 7/24/2008 2:00:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
C: So...Spending $75 Billion to make rigs and extra refinaries, + cost of oil transportation + cost of new oil rigs + cost of exploration (repeat each time a new oil well is found) is LESS EXPENSIVE than a one time cost for total energy independence?


Ok, rather than spending $75 billion to make 90 billion Barrels of oil available, how do you propose we spend that $75 billion to GUARANTEE that we'll have enough "clean", "efficient", & convenient energy to take the place of this oil? (excluding Nuclear power, since the liberals won't allow new plants to be built in the United States)

Finding & using more oil isn't going to stop the research/development for alternative fuels, rather its going to enable us to more comfortably wait until those options are viable, rather than adopting prematurely.

Also, these oil companies are in business to make money. They re-use as much of their equipment as possible. Deep sea drills & such are used to drill wells, then move on to new locations.


RE: LOL @ Oil
By gamerk2 on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: LOL @ Oil
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 2:20:23 PM , Rating: 1
> "Again, I point out, my house is solar powered. And yes, we have plently of electricity at night. The extra power gets stored, and moonlight is still an effective source of light"

Sorry, but I have to call BS on this. "Moonlight" isn't enough flux to generate appreciable sources of power...it's roughly 14 orders of magnitude fainter than sunlight. That's 100,000,000,000,000 times weaker, by the way.

I sincerely doubt your house "stores" electricity either. Battery arrays capable of storing thousands of watt-hours are prohibitively expensive...and fairly dangerous too for in-home storage.

> "no one in the US cared about alternatives until the price of gas skyrocketed."

Eh? We've been researching solar and wind power for more than 50 years, and our largest advances yet on hydrogen were made in the 1990s, when gas was $1.50/bbl.


RE: LOL @ Oil
By croc on 7/24/2008 8:10:55 PM , Rating: 2
OK, cut the BS. When was gas / oil ever at 1.50USD / bbl? And who is this 'we' you keep talking about?

A 'good' (not necessarily unbiased) website about oil
prices / trends.

http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

While I'm not saying that the USGS is biased, I would say that some of their data models are a bit optimistic.

And how much of this undiscovered, untapped resource is drillable by the US without raising an international mess? 30% of the oil? 20% of the gas? 20% of the gas liquids? Note by 'drillable' I mean wells that are shallow enough, in water that is polite enough to make them economically viable. Then you have the issue of transporting this resource to the POS. A bit difficult to get somewhat fragile tankers through ice, so now what? Overland pipelines? Through CANADA?

This whole 'report' smells of a shrub's last gasp at getting more drilling approved in Alaska.


RE: LOL @ Oil
By TomZ on 7/25/2008 5:31:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
OK, cut the BS. When was gas / oil ever at 1.50USD / bbl? And who is this 'we' you keep talking about?

Obviously the OP meant US$1.50/gallon - it was probably a typo.


RE: LOL @ Oil
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 2:23:01 PM , Rating: 2
> "The US was getting below market value for oil for ages; the price we have now is more in line to what other countries have been paying for years. "

Err, every country in the world pays the same price for oil...except for a very few socialistic oil-producing nations (e.g. Venezuela) which divert their own production from the free market.

The price difference you see in gasoline is the result of widely varying tax structures.


RE: LOL @ Oil
By Starcub on 7/26/2008 4:56:39 PM , Rating: 1
As I've pointed out to you recently, there is no world price for oil. The world bank's own global commoditiy price lists break down the prices for different commodities on a per nation, and in the case of crude, a per company basis (and, of course they are different). The price indicies listed are also average prices which suggests further differential within companies and nations. The differentials consumers pay are sometimes due to largely to taxes, but taxes are not the whole story.

And those free trade agreements you like to promote come at a high cost to the people of the countries they are made with. These less developed countries don't have the economic might to subsidize thier industries like the US can. Wonder why Chavez gets elected despite the fact he uses questionable means to maintain power? It's because the people who were historically economically depressed by crime and bad/bought government put him there. Unfortunately, here are the options South America faces:

Independence. Or,

The consequences of NAFTA, which even Mexico's world bank rep has admitted haven't yielded the promised economic benefits. Why? because US companies are there after increased profit margins, not to develop the local economies in the same way that the stronger members of the EU did for the weaker nations to make them competitive in the global marketplace. The US industries who do business in Mexico don't provide good wages or benefits, and aren't required to abide by govermet regulations which they view as overly restrictive. Or,

Subversive attempts to gain market share and access to local resources. I'm talking about the kind of activities between the US and third world nations that are commonly set up by 'economic hitmen' working secretly for the state department, like John Perkins as you can read about in his book. Now that the NAFTA provisions have reach full maturity, Mexican political leaders are about to meet with US corporate reps in closed door meetings regarding the future of their economies. Needless to say, thier people aren't happy about it. Read more here: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5152 -- caution -- it's eye opening.


RE: LOL @ Oil
By mvpx02 on 7/24/2008 2:29:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
High prices are the only incentive for people to change what they do. Thats why I support doing what Europe did, and putting a mandatory $6 a gallon floor on gas prices, until the US is running on at least 30% alternative energy.


So you want people to be inconvenienced now (when its not necessary) to prevent possibly being inconvenienced years down the road when we'll be technologically better suited to deal with the problem?

When oil becomes unreasonably expensive, people won't need anybody's help persuing alternative options, they'll do it all by themselves.

Eventually oil will run out, and as it does, prices will go up all by themselves. If you can justify and afford making yourself less energy dependent ahead of time, I'm happy for you. However, most people cannot, and it's selfish to impose additional expenses and inconveniences on people now simply because YOU think that they should have to deal with them and that they should have to deal with them now.


RE: LOL @ Oil
By badmoodguy on 7/25/2008 2:48:20 PM , Rating: 2
wrt C: Absolute dollars isn't actually a factor in most cases. Not everybody has the same priorities as you and to think they are wrong/stupid because they hold different priorities that you evaluate differently is conceited.


RE: LOL @ Oil
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 11:30:52 PM , Rating: 2
forgive me but how is it a one time cost? I guess these things last forever?


3 year supply
By excelsium on 7/24/2008 2:06:15 PM , Rating: 1
30+ billion barrels of oil is consumed globally every year, this isn't a big deal.




RE: 3 year supply
By walk2k on 7/24/2008 3:07:53 PM , Rating: 1
exactly. woo-hoo.. let's destroy the arctic so I can drive my Escalade XXXLT for 3 more years!


RE: 3 year supply
By porkpie on 7/24/2008 3:18:04 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you don't realize the food you eat is grown with fertilizer produced with oil, and harvested by machines run off oil.

Yeah, its not a big deal if we run out of oil. No problem if a few billion people starve to death. That would just reduce our carbon footprint right?

You people are frightening.


RE: 3 year supply
By Spuke on 7/24/2008 3:25:05 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think he thought of that when he posted like most ignorant posts here.


RE: 3 year supply
By walk2k on 7/24/2008 4:20:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yes and?

All that still happens if we don't develop alternate fuels & energy, it only happens 3 years later, big whoop.


RE: 3 year supply
By grenableu on 7/24/2008 4:48:26 PM , Rating: 2
You ecochondriacs always pull the same trick. A find in the Arctic? Only 3 years, big deal. A find in Brazil? 1 year, big deal. A find off the Florida coast? another year, big deal. But when you add up all the oil that's been found in the past 10 years, it turns out to be more than we've used in that time.

That is a big deal


RE: 3 year supply
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 3:38:23 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly and that is the name of the game!

Every find won't be as big as Ghawar, but it is still worthwile to go get.


RE: 3 year supply
By 4play on 7/24/2008 3:40:29 PM , Rating: 2
3 years if you use the oil from this field ONLY. All fields add up to hundreds of years or reserves.


RE: 3 year supply
By excelsium on 7/24/2008 6:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
first part correct.. proven conventional oil = only 30 years left, less if the consumption of oil grows, MAYBE if hard oil is included (terrible process of harvesting tar sands etc) it would last a few hundred years however its doubtful that oil could be extracted fast enough to meet global demand, the process of harvesting the oil consumes a lot of oil in itself.


In that case
By FITCamaro on 7/24/2008 12:31:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Russia has taken steps to secure rights to the region, last year sending a nuclear-powered ship to map a possible undersea connection between Siberia and the North Pole. This would allow the nation a rationale to circumvent the UN 200-mile limit of offshore resource claims.


In that case the US has sovereignty rights to every other place on earth because the ocean floor connects us to them.




RE: In that case
By danrien on 7/24/2008 12:57:16 PM , Rating: 2
indeed.... what we really should do is form our own little OPEC with Canada, Russia, norway, et al, drill that stuff up and show those money grubbing bastards in the middle east (and Venezuela) how it feels.


RE: In that case
By 4play on 7/24/2008 1:25:20 PM , Rating: 2
I hope that was sarcasm. Either way it cracked me up!


RE: In that case
By danrien on 7/28/2008 10:59:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I hope that was sarcasm. Either way it cracked me up!


Only partly.


RE: In that case
By Etsp on 7/24/2008 1:30:43 PM , Rating: 2
We don't have a mountain range that connects us to them. That was the point of the russian mission, to see where one of russia's mountain ranges ended underwater. The reasoning is because of how the UN determines what counts as "International Waters" (I think, not 100% sure.) and using those rules they could lay claim to the ocean in that area.


RE: In that case
By FITCamaro on 7/24/2008 1:49:43 PM , Rating: 2
We're just at the flat top of a very tall mountain range that goes down several miles.


I may be a DB but....
By foxtrot9 on 7/24/2008 2:36:01 PM , Rating: 1
I honestly hope that we don't find any more significant supplies of oil. It has been a horrible addiction of this country. W/o oil we wouldn't be sending $700B over seas each year to...well to put it blatenly, very bad countries. If we find more oil then it will just perpetuate our addiction and we will never be forced to find a better source of energy - because you know our politicians won't do anything until they have to and it affects the short run - they will not do it because in the long run (after they are out of office) it would have been the best thing to do. We need to get off oil for so many reasons.




RE: I may be a DB but....
By Noya on 7/24/2008 4:32:43 PM , Rating: 2
Are you kidding me? Have you ever heard of the "petrodollar"? Oil is what made this country.


RE: I may be a DB but....
By andrinoaa on 7/24/2008 7:52:37 PM , Rating: 2
Says something about the country, doesn't it?


RE: I may be a DB but....
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 3:43:41 PM , Rating: 2
I guess it says something about everycountry as the EU is trying very hard to make the euro the petroeuro.

If you think that the US alone has ambitions like this, you don't know the real world at all.


RE: I may be a DB but....
By foxtrot9 on 7/25/2008 3:57:50 PM , Rating: 2
First off oil is not what made this country my friend, oil is what feeds the machine that is our country. Back when, much of that oil was coming from our own soil, now we pay other nasty countries to feed our over-consuming machine. This is not a sustainable model and hence we need to get off the oil kick. The sheer fact that oil is denominated in dollars has given us some economic clout, but it happened because we have the best economy...it didn't happen the other way.

Besides, who really gives a .... what made this country...what is going to keep this country going? I can tell you it's def not sending $700B a year abroad - it will be energy advancement.


Here is a thought...
By Arctucas on 7/24/2008 12:56:37 PM , Rating: 3
Why don't all you libeal, socialist, ex-hippie-from-the-sixties, dope-smoking, granola-eating, sandal-wearing, tree-hugging eco-fascists go off somewhere (like the moon, or the bottom of the sea) and develop a Prius that runs on fresh air and sunshine and let us realists have all that dirty oil until you do?




RE: Here is a thought...
By oTAL on 7/25/2008 9:00:11 AM , Rating: 1
That idea would actually be nice, if we could separate both groups on a different planet so that the consequence of burning fossil fuels with no thought on the possible consequences would not affect the ones that choose not to.

It's the horrible dilemma of making an investment where someone else collects the profits. For example, in Europe you tend to have much better social services, free education, and opportunities for young people. However, that costs high taxes for the ones actually generating money to feed the economy. In the US you have lower standards for social programs and you tax less. This means that a visionary entrepreneur will rapidly acquire fortune and reinvest in the economy creating a fast growing economy. But it also means that a black child born in a ghetto will likely end up in prison, even if he has a curious mind and tries to learn something in school. This leads to a social Darwinism that is not necessarily bad... just a different take on the same problem. (disclosure: I prefer the European way)

Now this would be swell with the two approaches competing in a free market until one of those proves superior but.... Europeans can take the provided opportunities, get their free education, and go work in the US, getting the best of both worlds and making the US economy profit from the European investment... see the similarities?


RE: Here is a thought...
By Solandri on 7/25/2008 11:15:33 PM , Rating: 2
It goes both ways. Europe gets to buy and use technology developed in the U.S. by its fast-growing economy.

From an ideological standpoint, it would be interesting to fork reality and have one run with the pro-environment view, the other with the pro-business view. In a hundred years I would suspect the pro-environment fork would be cleaner, while the pro-business fork would be several decades more advanced technologically.

But we're stuck with each other. And instead of throwing out ultimatums and absolutes to try to stop those you oppose in their tracks, we're better off figuring out ways to compromise and work with each other.


RE: Here is a thought...
By wordsworm on 7/27/2008 11:04:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
while the pro-business fork would be several decades more advanced technologically.


Ironically, it's the environmentalists who're inspiring technological advancement with their ideologies of conservation and finding cleaner technologies to accomplish the same tasks as the inefficient and dirty technologies that you are content with.


Meanwhile
By wordsworm on 7/24/2008 12:34:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the nation intends to "defend" its sovereignty in the Arctic, backing up the statement with a plan to divert 8 military patrol ships to the region, along with a new deep-water port.


Meanwhile, Harper's minister of defense has declared that someone stole the navy's oars, and it will therefore be sending Canadian polar bears to scare off the Russians instead.

In other news, the Canadian Navy has demanded that the West Edmonton Mall release the submarine it has. MacKay has released this statement: "Since acquiring the West Edmonton Mall submarine, the Canadian Navy has effectively been able to double the size of its fleet, and triple its firepower."




RE: Meanwhile
By DASQ on 7/24/2008 12:40:54 PM , Rating: 2
Oh Jesus Christ, not the bear cavalry!


RE: Meanwhile
By fibreoptik on 7/24/2008 1:50:58 PM , Rating: 2
They are not just any bears! They are bears with LASERS attached to their heads.

Bears are the #1 Threat to America you know... It's all there on the Dept. of Homeland Security website.

Oh wait, that's the Colbert Report. My bad.


addicted...
By danrien on 7/24/2008 12:42:52 PM , Rating: 5
i would post something intelligent and meaningful if only it didn't feel so good to know that my addiction can continue... yes....... feels... so.... good.......




re: LOL @ Canada
By PascalT on 7/24/2008 2:34:17 PM , Rating: 1
People making fun of our army (which is used for peaceful purposes around the world btw, not to invade countries for oil) are short-sighted idiots. Americans for sure.

We might not spend trillions on missiles, but somehow I'd much rather have a healthcare system for everyone, cheap education, and a better overall quality of life. =]

Also, the world doesn't hate us!




RE: re: LOL @ Canada
By rcc1 on 7/25/2008 4:31:31 PM , Rating: 2
I'm happy for you. It's always nice to have a neighbor to look out for your interests and defense when you don't want to do it for yourself.

Talk about your self-righteous hypocrits.

We won't even get into the other party line spewage in your post.


RE: re: LOL @ Canada
By wordsworm on 7/27/2008 11:25:36 AM , Rating: 1
As a Canadian who doesn't really care for his country, I'd like to spew some crap on both sides.

First off, you should know that Canada went to the European party long before the US got its invitation. In both WWs, the effect of the Canadian military was greater in Europe than was the American impact. What many folks in both Canada and the US miss about the Canadian military is that it sports more generals per soldier than any military on earth. That might seem silly to you, but consider how long it takes to educate a soldier to get ready for combat vs. how long it takes to educate a general on how to use those soldiers.

Another aspect to the Canadian war machine is that Canada's ability to produce munitions and tanks is competitive with the US. Ontario's auto-manufacturing plants are quite capable of being converted into tank building plants. They produce millions of cars every day for export to the US. For the initial punch, Canada has always been lackluster. If WWI and II are to be taken into account, then one could say it takes Canada about 6-12 months to get itself into full battle mode.

In any case, the comment that the other Canuck made is equally moronic. Morally, there was no reason to back England. The crap it was doing to India at the time when Hitler was invading France, et al, was reprehensible to say the least. What the gov't did to Natives in those years, stealing their land to give it to war vets, what it did to Asian people - throwing them into concentration camps and selling off all their belongings, make us as despicable as anyone. We were not too far off from being no better than the Nazis we laud ourselves as heroes for fighting.

It wasn't until I read 1984 that I even realized Armistice Day (aka Remembrance Day) was our version of Hate Week and how politicians use it to manipulate the people into fighting whatever target the gov't sees fit for the day.

When it comes to wars, we're all fools for believing the hate that politicians drudge into our hearts and souls. Nonetheless, here we are... competing for that one thing man hasn't quite managed to invent or manufacture: power over land.


Sweden?
By ganjha on 7/25/2008 4:54:27 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder on what basis Sweden is claiming rights to the arctic. Sounds silly to me.

The only countries that I see having any claims to the arctic would be Canada, Russia, Greenland, Norway and the U.S. and Iceland trying to argue that it has rights as well.




RE: Sweden?
By wordsworm on 7/27/2008 11:30:51 AM , Rating: 2
Greenland is not a country. Denmark is a country of which Greenland is a part.


where is this Global Warming ? Just politics ?
By swizeus on 7/25/2008 12:50:24 PM , Rating: 2
Earth : [Self Destruct mechanism activated]

Self Destructing in year 2050

or

maybe faster




By dickeywang on 7/25/2008 1:23:17 PM , Rating: 2
"The earth will be fine, we are the ones that are leaving." -- by Jon Stewart.


Arrogance.
By andrinoaa on 7/24/2008 7:50:11 PM , Rating: 3
The shear arrogance of you guys. Its a WORLD resource and already the greedy rich are trying to carve it up to suit themselves. I'd rather pull the plug! Its disgusting.

Its rather pitifull that Dr Strange Love is alive and well too!




Bush will invade the artic !!!
By bokwa on 7/24/2008 9:21:26 PM , Rating: 1
Bush Administration will suddenly declare that their intelligence information reveals that the polar bears are building weapons of mass destruction.

Also some of the polar bears are members of the Al Qaeda and that the polar bears are killing their own countrymen (the seals)




RE: Bush will invade the artic !!!
By swizeus on 7/25/2008 12:58:14 PM , Rating: 2
an ultimate joke i've ever read about the bush... absolutely correct. Hey, bush is just the administrator and executor, see who's behind it.


New Oil in Arctic
By Bucky Beaver on 7/27/2008 11:21:33 AM , Rating: 3
"Geologists Find 90 Billion New Barrels of Oil in Arctic"

So much better than finding 90B barrels of used oil :).

I often wonder where all that old motor oil goes..




Build Fast
By bobcpg on 7/24/2008 1:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the nation intends to "defend" its sovereignty in the Arctic, backing up the statement with a plan to divert 8 military patrol ships to the region, along with a new deep-water port.


Well they better hurry and build 7 more patrol ships.




By eyebeeemmpawn on 7/24/2008 1:25:12 PM , Rating: 2
With all this worry of coming conflict stemming from potential oil territory conflicts, sounds like the cost of oil will continue to rise. Perhaps instead of senselessly chasing oil into WW3, we should focus even more on discovering alternative means of powering our transportation, and let the rest of the world duke it out.




Tangential thinking
By andrinoaa on 7/24/2008 7:40:20 PM , Rating: 2
In case no one else got the wording correct. The auther did say MAY. He didn't specifically say HAS. More vapourware and useless arguements going nowhere.