II just got done reading another right wing editorial about solving our energy woes by drilling more oil wells. (Investors Business Daily, “What Do the Democrats Take us For? – you have to have a subscription, but any damned fool could have written it for them, so don’t bother.) It’s inescapable logic, hence its appeal to the right, but also (typical of right wing thinking) overlooks a few things:
In peak oil terms, there’s a couple of hundred billion barrels left to be discovered, but they won’t come on line fast enough to offset the decline that is going to take place naturally as we use up existing reserves. That’s already happening. Has been for many years now. Drilling for oil and finding oil are two different things. ExxonMobil these days invests more money buying back its own stock than it does exploring. There’s a reason – most of the significant deposits have been found. The elephants are gone, rapidly depleting. What’s left to explore now are areas under polar ice (soon to be freed), and in Iraq, which deliberately set aside potential reserves for future development. That’s a big reason for invading – a very big part. The electric car, which was used in California for a short while before GM canned it, was developed in response to strict California regulations forcing development of zero-emission vehicles. The regulations were killed, the car vanished. Fact is, necessity does spur invention, and the market is slow to respond, since it waits for an emergency, while government can be ahead of the game and create necessity through regulation. If global warming is real … ah, don’t go there. Even successful drilling will not overcome the declining dollar and market speculation. In terms of the euro, the price of oil hasn’t gone up that much. And since most oil is held in futures contracts hidden behind a black curtain, we don’t really know what it would trade for in a truly free market.
Why the push now to drill drill drill? It’s a never ending saga. Corporations have lobbyists because they want stuff from government – stuff like subsidies, exemption from regulation and, in this case, cheap access to the commons – our public lands. They are using the current price run-up to pressure the public into allowing them to drill the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. That’s but one prize dangling before their eyes – others are protected offshore areas off our coastal areas. Drilling these areas won’t solve our energy problems – it will only extend the deadline by a few months. And it will be at least a decade before any new finds hit the market.
It’s public relations – the oil men are using current high prices to get the things they always want anyway. We need to hold the line. The real challenge right now is alternative energy, and it’s going to take a massive government effort to spur development. The private sector isn’t capable.
The private sector is not able to think long-term. They can’t see beyond next quarter’s results. Government, not subject to investor pressures to achieve instant results, can afford to think long-term.
Piece of Mindful 
Mark, the U.S. oil companies aren’t drilling in the leases they already have because, as you say, the big finds have already been found in them.
But you don’t recognize at all that new leases and exploration will cost $100’s of billions for those that doe the exploration and drilling. I don’t see the free lunch that your scenario portends.
Last, but not least, you buy into as much rhetoric about peak oil, etc. as you accuse conservatives of doing. Yet, there are arguments that you summarily dismiss (BTW there was discovered last week huge volcanic activity under the North Poll which scientist previously thought couldn’t happen. Could that be the cause of the melting ice? Scientific inquiry demands we look at it.)
Alternative energy is only 10% as efficient as fossil fuels today. That will change in time but, just like the current line of crap by hacks that new oil fields won’t produce for 20 years, it may take that long for alternative energy technology to become viable as an economic substitute for the working class. What do we do in the mean time, burn candles and ride bikes? Or maybe we all just ride a high horse as you’ve chosen to do.
LikeLike
I didn’t say anything about drilling existing leases.
I realize that new exploration will cost $100’s of billions of dollars. My complain is that they want to do it on the commons, and don’t want to pay up front for that right. It’s a monstrous asset that ought to draw a monstrous price.
I’ve been reading about peak oil for a long time, and will be surprised if the theory proves not to be true. What could throw it off? The methodology only measures what was available before the ice caps started melting. New oil under the dome is a new dimension.
Oil is by far the biggest payback in terms of energy return for energy invested.
Hadn’t heard about the volcano under the north pole. Why hasn’t it had any effect before now? Another in a long string of coincidences? But inquiry is needed.
You didn’t address market shortsightedness.
Don’t talk to me about high horses.
LikeLike
You’ll get no argument from me that oil leases should pay the government what the private market rate is. I’ve complained for years that the Fed has given away our natural resources be they stumpage fees or mineral rights.
About addressing shortsightedness, I think I did address that by posting the question of what we do in the mean time to ensure that the lower and lower-middle classes don’t get punished by an overly idealistic policy.
Idealist, in this case progressive environmentalists, are going to have to come to grips with the difficult trade-offs we face if we’re end the oil age. The hardest hit will be the poor in all outcomes I see. And the economic impact makes the integrated oil company profits look like a flee on a giant. So we have two proposed solutions; drill, drill, drill, and let’s make believe that we can divine new technologies that come close to an economic substitution for carbon based energy. It seems to me a false choice.
LikeLike
Peak oil theory makes drill drill drill seem idealistic by comparison. It seems that we ought to be doing something, and looking for more oil seems like the right something. Therefore drill drill drill for what cannot be found. Perhaps that is the wrong choice.
Global warming theory has not been disproven or discredited, and ought to factor in as well. It’s merely been denied and shelved by the right, but pretending it ain’t so don’t make it not so. If in fact the theory proves right, then drilling seems not only a poor choice, but a wrongheaded one as well.
LikeLike
Mark, tell me how you know there isn’t oil to be found in places that haven’t been explored. My best friend is a geophysicist who thinks you’re wrong.
Secondly, it would seem that you don’t really have any solution to help working class people over time. Let them eat cake.
LikeLike
Overt appeal to authority. Is this your black best friend too?
It’s kind of like what Hubbert’s theory is all about, and it will be tested. We are either in it right now, or he’s all wet. A good test will come in the next few years as Saudi Arabia tries to boost its daily output to 15 million barrels per day. I’m betting they can’t do it. But we’ll see.
I’ve seen systems of government that work much better than unregulated markets – in Europe, Chile, Argentina, Canada and other places. People seem to be doing quite well there. If you know better, don’t tell them!. Your way produces extremes, poverty, oppression and violence. Why is it that for your way to come about, there has to be a revolution from the top, ala Chile? Did Uncle Milty mean to kill all those people?
LikeLike
You’re insane. Do you want to discuss the issue or just cast aspersions? Do you want to keep to the subject at hand?
LikeLike
Not hardly. Sayeth thee:
What am I to make of that? I gave you solid examples, and then nasty examples of people traveling your highway.
By the way, M. King Hubbert was a geophysicist. You’re trumped.
LikeLike
Sorry Mark, I can’t find a single example of a solution anywhere here beyond you’re general collectivist prattle.
BTW, you should look up the fallacy of an appeal to authority. You have that one wrong too.
LikeLike
Yeah – what you did with your black best friend was just a debate tactic.
Stop and think about how densely stupid that statement is.
As per usual, you’re a moving target. My best friend, Hubbert, a geophysicist, thinks you’re wrong. He’s got a track record, and evidence seems to be slowly mounting that he might be right. That means we need a change of course, and markets will not help us here, as markets can only seek immediate profit, your only known bromide. It doesn’t work. You’ve got no solution.
More generally, you represent a philosophy that can only be imposed by means of brute force. You’re part of the dark side.
LikeLike
Mark, is it stupid to disagree with experts? Just asking. I’ve read Hubbert and he’s just one opinion amongst experts. Also, there is no argument in my statement other than the fact that you, and Hubbert, might be wrong. If I had said, “my best friend is a geophysicist, therefor I’m right.” that would be an argument. The fallacies that you continually point to often lack the requisites of an argument.
Secondly, your the moving target. I talk about interim energy solutions and you step off into collectivism and markets. That, my friend, is called the fallacy of a red herring. Look it up.
Newt, “you represent a philosophy that can only be imposed by means of brute force.” is summary bullshit. Show me where, anywhere, I have ever made that argument. I logical terms, the burden of proof is on you otherwise it’s an ad hominem fallacy. Look that up too since it appears you often don’t understand the logical rhetoric you’re using nor the ability to understand when a logical argument is made.
Now, back to the point and the question being argued. What is the solution for the intermediate energy need that will minimize the economic damage to the working poor.
LikeLike
You said
. Now you’re saying that it wasn’t an appeal to authority, even if mild. I then trumped your authority, and you’re saying that my authority, the originator of peak oil theory, is just one theory among many. Problem for you is he’s got a track record. Others don’t. His theory worked for US oil, has worked for other minerals, including uranium, and may well be being validated now with world oil markets. Time will tell.
You said
.
I took it to mean something larger. I love pointing out how your philosophy is given us at the point of a gun, or electric prods. You espouse a philosophy that has been imposed on other countries by means of brute force. You wish to separate yourself from the use of brute force, and therefore say you have nothing to do with the violence, only the philosophy. Nice try. He who says A must say B. You own B as well as A.
Finally, you offer up a solution that is no solution – finding more oil that is probably not there. We have to make new discoveries now just to offset current use, and even that is not being done. I’ve pointed to four aspects of the problem that have nothing to do with supply, and you harken back to supply as the only solution.
How to help the working poor with energy prices? It’s bonehead. Help them. Stop trying to feed the sparrow by passing subsidies through the cow.
You contradict yourself, detach yourself from contradiction, support violence and oppression, and all while espousing words sounding like this thing you call freedom, which usually translates into wealth for a few and poverty for most.
LikeLike
BTW – I keep poking you with your black geophysicist friend because it’s funny. It’s not often you make me laugh.
LikeLike
Mark, you miss the point – as usual. First, pointing out a fallacy when no logical argument has been made is rather obtuse. Do you understand the constructs of “an argument”:
Deductive arguments have three stages:
1. premises
2. inference
3. conclusion
When I mentioned my friend I was making a premise. Fallacies involve inferences that don’t fit conclusions.
Secondly, you still have no energy proposal other than “don’t drill”.
One last thing. Stop using red herrings going off topic.
LikeLike
I’m saying drilling is a waste of time if Hubbert is right, and he has put up an impressive case that it is time to move on.
The alternatives to fossil fuel are in early development, and it’s going to take massive effort to get them on line, and your “free markets” aren’t going to be able to help us, as they are caught, as usual, in the immediate profit cycle, aka drill drill drill. You so-called solution is short-sighted, and does not even necessarily address the problem. But it is all you know, so is all you can propose.
Your throwing of your geophysicist friend had no substance. If that’s your premise, it’s quite a dumb one. I think it received proper and just ridicule. Pardon me if I took too much pleasure in it. You’re quite pompous.
Staying on topic with you means that we rigidly adhere to a set of premises that allow you to ignore the horrors and evil that your philosophy has inflicted on the world. It’s only proper that we remind you now and then that your way doesn’t have enough political support to survive in the political market and has to be imposed from above by force and terror. I cannot separate the essence of Budgism from its ugly manifestations. You call it going off-topic. I say I’m holding your feet to the fire.
LikeLike