BP's "giant oil discovery"

[PandaBear]

Tempest, you keep insist that people are supporting corn ethanol when they are against it just because it is non-market. You are drawing a circle around you that everything you don't like are grouped into one called "commie/corrupt/socialist/corn ethanol/liberal". That is far from the case here.


About the tree chopping thing: do you think if someone own a mountain and he chop down all the trees, and causes mud slide during rain storm and results in property damage down stream is acceptable in a complete "capitalist" market? Sure, he owns the land, he can do whatever he wants, and is not responsible for the land downstream. If the government is not regulating certain damage that can cause safety issues like these, you are getting exactly the same damage as "no property right" in the tyranny that you call non-capitalist.

How do you cherry pick what is capitalist and not by picking only good examples, and disregard every side effect of your extreme believe, of an utopia of capitalist without government that doesn't exist?

The reality is far from this extreme, just like the believe of ideal communism is.

 

[Shannow]

Panda, when you live in a world that's black and white, there are only ever "you are this, or you are that", "with us or against us", "Live in a cave, or accept unlimited consumption".

Some people aren't rational enough to live in a world with shades of grey between the poles.

 

[Gary Allan]

The Universe does not exist only on the flatland of the X-axis playing tug-o-war ..or at least how one may approach it.

 

[MarkC]

The world is not running for us?!

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Thank you tempest, for telling me what a fool I am.

You are welcome.
Quote:
We must plan for the future with conservation, efficient alternatives, etc.

How much less oil should we be using than we are now?
Quote:
causes mud slide during rain storm and results in property damage down stream

This is what is known as damages. The owners of the damaged property have a right to compensation.
I have no problems with proper laws that prevent damage to others, that's what government is supposed to do.
And his example had nothing to do with individuals being wronged or damaged.
Quote:
utopia of capitalist without government that doesn't exist

If you could please show me a post where I have advocated the eradication of government, it would be most useful to support your incorrect assumption.
Quote:
Some people aren't rational enough to live in a world with shades of grey between the poles.

And some people have to see in shades of gray as it allows them to assign arbitrary values to conditions as they please, when they please. I wonder if those that see the world in their own shades of gray give the same deference to others that see in different shades of gray...

 

[Gary Allan]

Since you have no thoughts on conservation, you must feel that we should burn up as much oil as possible to spur advancement of its replacement. Pour it down the drain and light it on fire if necessary?

Just trying to look at things in your terms.

 

[fsskier]

Thanks to conservation, we have reduced demand to slightly below supply and oil prices have fallen to levels that MIGHT allow economic recovery. If we overrun the supply again, another recession seems certain.

So, a very capitalist idea, and one I like myself a lot....
Increased prices has given incentive for considerable conservation, people quickly learn how to do more with less.
The most successful nations will also be the most efficient, those that can do the most with the least.

When world demand exceeds supply prices rise rapidly and we become more efficient....but the revenue from that action mostly goes to other countries.

Economist's from both sides have often recommended an energy tax - certainly a gas tax much like in Europe - where the American people benefit from this revenue, instead of the middle east benefiting.

An offsetting income tax reduction could make this revenue neutral - although we need to re balance the budget for sure..

I am certainly disappointed that we let the budget surplus that we had 9 years ago be frittered away.

Much like my own budget, I have to earn more than I spend!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#World-wide_production_trends

The above link seems to be a fair and balanced look at the world energy situation.

Yes, I already know that about 3/4 of the posters on this forum have positive ideas about how to move forward, the other 1/4 will just tell me I am stupid.... but offer no ideas dealing with our future.

Those who will do the best in the future are those who plan for it!!

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
Yes, I already know that about 3/4 of the posters on this forum have positive ideas about how to move forward, the other 1/4 will just tell me I am stupid.... but offer no ideas dealing with our future.

Those who will do the best in the future are those who plan for it!!


I'd invert the numbers. This is a message board where people who worship the wonders of the machine dwell. Many are older and aren't going to experience any of the folly of their behaviors as the liabilities come to bear. Many equate freedom with $$$ and lifestyle, as much as they rhetorically place the origin in some other conceptual view. Anything that encroaches on their behaviors, regardless of how sensible they may or may not be, is not going to be adopted willingly.

Not only do they not understand that they're sawing their own legs out from under themselves ...they don't appear to care.

 

[fsskier]

Gary Allan, you are correct - resistance to change - and a victim mentality..."this is all somebody else 's fault, and they are evil people"... may interfere with many peoples judgement.

Social scientist's would mention "confirmation bias" a tendency of some people to hold up obscure blogs as gospel, while ignoring respected oil field journals, geologists and energy agencies.

I asked a previous poster to quote his sources for the "hundreds of years of oil left in the United States", he seems to have just disappeared. Perhaps he discovered that these claims were on a "tout sheet" for a penny stock pump and dump operation, and not grounded in any evidence.

Surely the attention showered on BP's and others relatively small discoveries - in difficult to recover areas... show us how desperate the situation may become in future years.

Mr. Tempest asked me "what is waste", for many situations the answer may be difficult, but let me try a few:

"Identical Condo's" in my neighborhood, 1200 sq feet each and selling for the same price. One set is superinsulated and cost about 50 bucks to heat during the coldest month of the year.
The others are heavily advertised and promoted but are at the bottom of the codes. Advertising costs eats up the construction savings... and their peak energy bills are close to $200 each winter. Even if the superinsulateds cost $4,000 more that would only increase the payment $24 a month, much less than the energy savings. Yes, new owners are money ahead the first month!!
Storms caused a 48 hour power failure, guess which ones had frozen pipes, ruined floors and ceiling and moved to Motels, and which owners just put on a sweater and had a peaceful evening by candlelight?

Boy down the street, warms up his 4wd truck for 30 minutes each morning for the 4 block trip to school. Parents are buying him a gym membership, as they are worried about his increasing weight.... some fit looking teenagers in my neighborhood walk and bike to school...

A midsized car I own, 4 cyl, 5speed, runs well over 30 mpg most of the time, an older 6cyl automatic that I inherited always runs about half that mileage. If I benefit in some way from that, it escapes me entirely.

If I had just built my house reversed - mirror image - I would have wound up with all my glass facing south for considerable solar gain.... absolutely free energy just by swapping the home orientation. Yes, I built this place many years ago.

The list is probably endless, and there are still better alternatives in each category.

 

[Gary Allan]

I'm a little more concerned that conservation will not work here. Throw out the economics for the moment... the mass resources required to wean the population off of liquid energy WHILE PROVIDING FOR THEIR FUNDAMENTAL NEEDS ..I think that we'll hit a collision of required resource allocation and resource availability/affordability.

There's also a time component involved. Availability/demand etc. can change radically in a relatively short amount of time, yet this level of reinvention is something equivalent to a world war type effort. We may not have any gradual slope to adapt to. I expect exactly the opposite.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Those who will do the best in the future are those who plan for it!!

And since you obviously are into planning for the future, you should be able to easily answer my question as to how much less oil we should be using?

And exactly who do you think should be doing all of this planing and based on what information?

 

[fsskier]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Those who will do the best in the future are those who plan for it!!

And since you obviously are into planning for the future, you should be able to easily answer my question as to how much less oil we should be using?

And exactly who do you think should be doing all of this planing and based on what information?


An answer that allows for all the variables could take pages....
We are now finding oil reserves at 1/4 the rate we are consuming them. If I was spending money at 4 times the rate I was earning it, the solution would be simpler...

First, choose the most economical vehicle that will perform the duties that you require.

Almost all energy is interchangeable, natural gas can run fleet vehicles, plug in hybrids via electricity production, etc
Homes with no real cost penalty -that use 1/4 the heating & cooling energy are being built, this makes LNG available for other uses. Replacing our housing stock is a slow process, why did we not begin this in 1973 after the first Arab oil embargo??. Wind, Solar, Nuclear, Hydro, conservation, all will play a role.

Fluorescent bulbs use 1/4 the electricity of conventional bulbs, LED bulbs promise to be as good or better.

My answer: do all YOU can, it will put money in your pocket, help improve the national economy (balance of trade) and put less money in the pockets of our antagonists.

Balance of trade: Market Watch says we were 40 billion dollars negative last month, with imported oil being about half of that.


Part two: Who should decide: YOU AND I, our elected leaders, the Department of Energy and others who SHOULD represent our best interests.

Who should not decide: Lobbyists for various corporations desiring short term profits and personal advantage. Perhaps I should add "those who yell loudly with little information" .
Since they cling to reports that tell them what they want to hear - they seem to be easily led by corporate misinformation, talk radio, lobbying business's disguised as research organizations, etc. (Heartland Institute, many others).

 

[Tempest]

So you don't have an answer as to how much less we should be using?

If not, then how do you determine if the deciders are doing a good job at conservation?

 

[Shannow]

Tempest, what is so wrong with wanting efficiency ?

Surely if oil is finite, and we have to use it, we should use it as efficiently as possible, and not waste it flying lettuce to Paris in winter because it's cheap enough to do so.

 

[fsskier]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
So you don't have an answer as to how much less we should be using?

If not, then how do you determine if the deciders are doing a good job at conservation?


A black and white number?? OK, here it is: Some less is good, even less is better!! How many transistors should we put on one chip?? We tried to do 4, then 10, then 50, then 100, now we do many thousands - a laptop outruns the original IBM "Barn computer" without even trying. Why put a limit on efficiency or alternative and renewable energy??
Just think we are paying $1.25 less per gallon than at the peak - only because we are consuming a little less!!


The deciders: You and I are the deciders. We decide how many energy spikes, resulting recessions, a struggling economy, middle eastern dependency issues, trade balance issues we can stand and then act accordingly.

I have personally reduced:
Electricity - from 750 KW per month to about 200
Natural gas (coldest month) 250 ccf to 90
Gasoline: 13 mpg avg to 30 (and in more comfortable vehicles!)
Boat -ski -Gas: New Etec's cut it in half!!

Better yet windows are becoming available, better refrigerators,
Central air's ground loop heat pumps, superinsulation,
HCCI cars, etc. Newer v6's outpull older v8's with better mileage, and low-pressure ecoboost turbocharged 4 cyls from Ford, GM, others promise to do better yet. Aerodynamics, low rolling resistance tires, perhaps computer interfaces with signals and intersections.... throw in a little hybrid stuff, maybe flywheel energy storage....

Why set your sights low?? The technology in your future could be exciting.

Or we can sit at the pumps with our belching gas guzzlers fighting with the rest of the world over $10 gas.... and finding somebody else to blame.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
So you don't have an answer as to how much less we should be using?

If not, then how do you determine if the deciders are doing a good job at conservation?


1st question: as much saving as we can get that is realistically practical: i.e. 20mpg for truck, 33mpg for passenger cars, 42mpg for compact cars, 60mpg for hybrids, etc. Give research and production tools incentive if you like "bail out", increase fuel tax while reducing toll charge if you like "tyranny", whatever. Remember, these are realist and is available for cheap today, and for a good 5 years already, no reason for anything less.

2nd question: when people are not fighting it just because "I want it all and this is un-American", then you know it is a success. and when people don't need the subsidize to do it, and will actually buy more efficient stuff to save money, then you know you have succeed.


Example: some apartment owner I know buy inefficient fridge that is on discount rather than more efficient ones, because they are not going to pay for the electricity. The same goes for gas water heater and furnace. Tenant won't buy these appliances on their own so they are stuck using inefficient ones. If the government mandate a certain standard, then these situations won't exist.

Originally Posted By: Tempest

Quote:
causes mud slide during rain storm and results in property damage down stream

This is what is known as damages. The owners of the damaged property have a right to compensation.
I have no problems with proper laws that prevent damage to others, that's what government is supposed to do.
And his example had nothing to do with individuals being wronged or damaged.

Quote:
utopia of capitalist without government that doesn't exist

If you could please show me a post where I have advocated the eradication of government, it would be most useful to support your incorrect assumption.


http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1518969

 

[Samilcar]

Is that really the thread to which you wanted to link?

Tempest objecting to the banning of incandescent light bulbs equals a desire for the eradication of all government?

I guess that means I'm an anarchist then.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Tempest, what is so wrong with wanting efficiency ?

Can you please show me where I am saying efficiency is bad?

What was that about not being able to see between the poles??

 

[Shannow]

You are the one demanding that people tell you exactly how much oil should be cut/saved/used, and then belittling them for saying that they want it "better".

You argue that the market delivers efficiency, when in thermal efficiency terms, it's blatently not so...e.g. lettuce flown to Paris in winter.

 

[Tempest]

"The deciders: You and I are the deciders."

That's a little different from the first post you made on the subject:
Quote:
Part two: Who should decide: YOU AND I, our elected leaders, the Department of Energy and others who SHOULD represent our best interests.

The bolded entities have much more to do with the deciding than do you or I.

Quote:
Why put a limit on efficiency or alternative and renewable energy??

If you could state where I have said this?

Reducing your energy use is just fine. It keeps your bill down and to some degree, everyone's bill down. If you simply want to preach "conservation" as a "social" goal, I have no quarrel with it, but that is very gray area thinking and tends to lead to gray area solutions.

What I do have a problem with is arbitrary mandates that force resources to be used on costly and inefficient sources of "alternative" energy, just because it is the "right thing" to do. Your first post made it quite clear that OTHERS are indeed to make that determination.

If you can't even establish a goal and rational, it is impossible to determine success. Simply doing "something" because "something" must be done, leads to bad things.