About Time!!!

[metis]

Actually, since the costs spiked more recently, demand has been dropping. It hasn't simply fallen off the edge of a cliff, but demand *IS* dropping.  The most recent dates in the figure you posted are from 2003... a lot can happen in 5 years.

"The demand side of Peak oil is concerned with the consumption over time, and the growth of this demand. World crude oil demand grew an average of 1.76% per year from 1994 to 2006, with a high of 3.4% in 2003-2004. Demand growth is highest in the developing world.[10] World demand for oil is projected to increase 37% over 2006 levels by 2030, according to the US-based Energy Information Administration's (EIA) annual report."-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_consumption#Demand_for_oil

[Thorolf]

Perhaps... in the last few months, demand has begun to decrease in the US.

[metis]

Perhaps... in the last few months, demand has begun to decrease in the US.

Yes.

[jacknky]

Acumen,
"Most articles I've read estimated 8-12 years for reaping the benefits of ANWR."

Gosh, by that time we could develop more fuel efficient and alternative technologies.

[metis]

Gosh, by that time we could develop more fuel efficient and alternative technologies.

Or maybe the Amish were right and we should have stuck with the horse and buggy. 

[Thorolf]

Gosh, by that time we could develop more fuel efficient and alternative technologies.

Good... then when ANWR starts producing, we will have no need for foreign oil.

You don't think there won't be ANY need for oil in 10 years, do you?

[Acumen]

Acumen,
"Most articles I've read estimated 8-12 years for reaping the benefits of ANWR."

Gosh, by that time we could develop more fuel efficient and alternative technologies.

I must admit, I don't understand the liberal mind on this issue.  Repeatedly, I've heard this circular reasoning that we shouldn't drill because it would take to long for the refineries to go online.  In other words, we should never drill because it takes time to see a product.  How long does it take to build a freeway in the downtown of a metropolitan area?  Here in Milwaukee, they've been at it for years -- and they still have a long way to go. 

Second, your statement assumes that there will be no immediate benefits for drilling now.  Our experts tell us that we can reduce gas prices simply by the congressional announcement that we plan to drill somewhere.  Speculators drive up the prices if they perceive an increase in demand without a proportional increase in supply.  If there is a prospect for increasing the supply, the prices will drop.

And third, we can do both.  We can drill and invest in alternative fuels at the same time.  This is a dichotomy that liberals have been hesitant to accept with open arms -- and I really don't know why.  If Clinton hadn't vetoed the ANWR bill in 1995, we would be online today and gas prices wouldn't be as high.     

[jacknky]

"And third, we can do both.  We can drill and invest in alternative fuels at the same time.  This is a dichotomy that liberals have been hesitant to accept with open arms -- and I really don't know why.  If Clinton hadn't vetoed the ANWR bill in 1995, we would be online today and gas prices wouldn't be as high. "

I don't know enough about this topic to have strong opinions but doing both would be my general choice. Obviously we're going to need oil for quite awhile. Any change will be gradual but it seems to me that until now our primary focus has been on drilling with little concern about alternatives because oil has been cheap. I don't think anyone here really thinks we'll return to the days of cheap gas, do they? This liberal just wants to help move us out of the mindset that drilling, drilling, drilling is the only way. We are basically using 100 year old technology with the oil-based combustion engine. It's time to use our great Yankee ingenuity to make changes.

[metis]

This liberal just wants to help move us out of the mindset that drilling, drilling, drilling is the only way. We are basically using 100 year old technology with the oil-based combustion engine. It's time to use our great Yankee ingenuity to make changes.

Something to go along with what you posted here, on the news a couple of days ago they mentioned that the oil companies own or have leased 38 million acres of land in the U.S. alone for exploration and drilling.  So it seems to me that all this hype about the supposed necessity of having off-shore drilling is a political canard.  Now, mind you, I'm not opposed to off-shore drilling per se, nor am I opposed to the development of more nuclear power plants, but these are more long-term items that have very little to do with where we're at right now. 

Matter of fact, our "problem" of high priced gas is more of an illusion than a reality.  Most Europeans would love to have to pay only $4 a gallon.  What I do feel sorry for, of course, is people here getting caught off-guard and having to make cut-backs that may hurt them and their kids.  But I do have to say that the experts for years have told us over and over again that cheap energy for us is going the way of the dinosaurs.

[Acumen]

Something to go along with what you posted here, on the news a couple of days ago they mentioned that the oil companies own or have leased 38 million acres of land in the U.S. alone for exploration and drilling.  So it seems to me that all this hype about the supposed necessity of having off-shore drilling is a political canard.  Now, mind you, I'm not opposed to off-shore drilling per se, nor am I opposed to the development of more nuclear power plants, but these are more long-term items that have very little to do with where we're at right now.

Part of the problem is that these "38 million acres" of land the democrats so proudly proclaim to the world have already been surveyed by the oil companies and have been determined not to contain sufficient quantities of oil.  It's very expensive to drill, and therefore it's critically important to drill in areas that have been predetermined, by surveying, to contain large quantities of oil.

But this is besides the issue.  Right now, the democrat party is the only entity standing in the way of drilling for oil on the continental shelf.  Clinton vetoed the ANWR bill in 1995, which has prevented us from drilling in Alaska and therefore reaping the benefits of cheaper gasoline today.  And just yesterday, the democrats resoundingly rejected Bush's advice to start drilling for oil on the coastline.  Why?  How high to gas prices need to get before the democrats wake up and discover the very people they are supposed to enable are hurting at the pumps?  Where are the unions when you need them?  How many union jobs must be lost, due to soaring gas prices, before the unions demand more drilling from the democrats? 

Matter of fact, our "problem" of high priced gas is more of an illusion than a reality.

 


Tell that to the lower and middle classes that are making the tough decision either to drive to work or to reduce their food supplies to make ends meet -- the same thing goes for all industry that is transportation or shipping based. 

I think we can all agree that Europe has a different way of life.  They have a different transportation network, and they have already adapted to higher gas prices.  However, elevating gas prices almost two dollars a gallon in the past two years is difficult to adapt to.  And if I recall correctly, when the democrats took control of congress two years ago, they promised to offer real solutions to the high gas prices.  And since then, a gallon of gasoline increased $1.60.