The American Spectator : Energy Myths of the Left

Text Size

Energy Myths of the Left

By Ross Kaminsky on 5.27.11 @ 6:09AM

For starters, we don’t use 25 percent of world oil production while holding only 2 percent of world reserves.

From confused “peak oil” theorists to confused Congressmen, it’s all but impossible to hear a discussion of US energy policy without hearing the left’s tired refrain: “The United States currently uses 25% of the world oil production but has only 2% of world reserves.” The left uses this misinformation to argue against domestic oil drilling, claiming that with only two percent of the world’s reserves, we can’t possibly have enough oil in the ground to matter.

It’s a line which reminds me of Mark Twain’s wisdom (which he attributed to Benjamin Disraeli) that “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.” Twain would be proud of these haters of fossil fuels whose “statistics” fall apart upon examination of a couple of definitions and a few pieces of data.

First, the word “reserves.” As the Congressional Research Service notes, there are several different types of reserves, classified based on their official discovery, as well as “concentration, quality, and accessibility.” The top of the “resource pyramid” is made of “proved” reserves, namely reserves of oil, natural gas, coal, or other fuel “which geological and engineering data demonstrate with reasonable certainty to be recoverable in future years from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions.”

This is the most limiting definition of reserves, and of course it is the one which the left relies on when saying that we have “only two percent of the world’s oil reserves.” Specifically, the U.S. has 20.7 billion barrels of proved crude oil reserves as of the end 2009. (That’s actually up from 2008 numbers which by itself should be a clue how meaningless the left’s two-percent argument is.)

The problem with the use of the “proved reserves” statistic is that it ignores the many more billions of barrels of oil which we know exist and are likely to be recoverable on American land and just off our coasts. Since our government prevents exploration, there are massive deposits of oil (and other fuels) which are prevented from being measured adequately to be defined as “proved.” But that doesn’t make them less real.

A broader measure of fossil fuel deposits is UTRR, undiscovered technically recoverable resources. Marcus Koblitz, energy analyst at the American Petroleum Institute, sent me this “short” definition of the term: “UTRR are estimated by USGS and/or BOEMRE using advanced modeling techniques that apply knowledge of geologic formations and technical access capabilities to currently unexplored formations that are similar to producing formations in order to determine the amount of oil and natural gas in a specific area or basin.”

The UTRR numbers are remarkably high for the United States; indeed they demolish the left’s anti-drilling pseudo-logic. Or they would if the media’s talking heads would stop just accepting the 2% lie-statistic.

In particular, the United States’ UTRR for onshore oil is currently about 38 billion barrels, with the offshore technically recoverable resources coming in at a stunning 86 billion barrels. (Of this, just over half is in the Gulf of Mexico, a third in Alaska, and the rest off our Pacific and Atlantic coasts.) Our real but not “proved” resource of oil is thus about 125 billion barrels. Furthermore, the offshore numbers are based on a report that used data from 2003, at which time oil discovery and drilling technology were far behind what they are today, the BP disaster notwithstanding. It is likely that a new survey would conclude with a substantially higher UTRR number.

Even with the outdated offshore figures, the U.S.’s total technically recoverable oil, including current proved reserves and 10 billion barrels of natural gas liquids, is estimated by our government at 163 billion barrels, eight times the number thrown around by the left.

Yes, our total recoverable oil reserves (including proved) are at least eight times our proved reserves alone. It’s just that government keeps us from proving them. And if that’s not enough, our UTRR for natural gas is five times our proven reserves of that resource.

Using only the proved oil reserve number of 20.8 billion barrels, the U.S. ranks 12th in the world in that category. However, America’s UTRR of oil and natural gas combined is likely the largest in the world. (Although Saudi Arabia has more oil than we do, the majority of it is already classified as proved.) Current data for other nations is difficult to find, but a U.S. Geological Survey report from 2000 (and again, this is likely to be pessimistic from a U.S. perspective) showed the U.S. to have about one-eighth of the world’s UTRR of oil, and even a larger share of the world’s natural gas UTRR.

Thus, ranking by UTRR would put the U.S. roughly around fifth in the world for oil alone. Including all fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), the U.S. probably has the world’s largest total energy resources and is certainly in the top three. I bet you won’t hear that from a Congressman anytime soon (or at least not a Democratic Congressman). Unfortunately, you won’t hear it even on “fair and balanced” news channels, allowing an important distortion in the critical debate over our nation’s energy policy.

There are broader discussions to be had about substitution possibilities among natural gas, oil, and coal and the appropriate use of the three. What needs to be remembered, however, as we discuss an “all of the above” energy strategy for the nation is that America has abundant endowments of each. For at least a generation the U.S. will not and cannot substantially reduce its use of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel made from oil. It’s fortunate, then, that we have so much more oil than the anti-drilling left would like us to believe since solar, wind, and biomass will not and cannot be competitive with the reliability or efficiency of fossil fuels. (Nuclear power is, but following the disaster in Japan, that debate is probably off the table for at least a couple of years.)

Now let’s address the other part of the liberal misinformation, namely the statement that America uses 25% of the world’s oil. It’s true that total consumption of energy by the U.S. hovered around 24% from 1990 through 2000. It’s been steadily declining since then as India and China’s economic growth increase their absolute and relative share of energy use. In 2007, the U.S. used about 20.5% of the world’s energy. It’s estimated to drop to 18% by 2020 as the developing world actually develops.

But the energy use figure tells you almost nothing by itself. After all, energy is used to do things and to make things. It’s the key input into economic output. Therefore, a sensible question is: “What percentage of the world’s GDP does America produce?”

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (345) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Darin| 5.27.11 @ 6:57AM

Liberals can't be bothered by things like facts. The end justifies the means. It's why "climate scientists" are upset about FOIA requests to see their raw data and analysis methods. Having the facts will prove the end result is a lie or based on such wacky assumptions that it could only exist in Never Never Land.

WHT | 5.27.11 @ 9:47AM

The only careful analysis is found in the online book "The Oil Conundrum". All the data is there.

GHung| 5.27.11 @ 10:54AM

These folks don't want careful analysis, Web. Read the comments. They just dance to the piper as he leads them down the road of no return. All we can do is wave goodby :-/

GHung| 5.27.11 @ 10:56AM

""Ross Kaminsky is a professional derivatives trader ..."

Enough said...

Doorgunner| 5.27.11 @ 11:07AM

...so,because he's one of those eeevil corporate types, all his arguments are lies to keep the people oppressed, man!

An excellent example of the ad hominem attack, GHunglikeagnat! What's next, dress up in something pink and march with Madea and the girls?

GHung| 5.27.11 @ 11:42AM

Jeez, Doorgunner, I just copied and pasted from this site. Thanks for making my case so well.

Yes, I question the bias of a derivatives trader, and what they do will make our energy situation moot. With the estimated $1.5 quadrillion derivatives/CDS bubble hanging over the global econony (~$200k per person on the planet), it won't matter how much oil there is. You won't be able to afford it. Yet Mr. Kaminsky wants to pick nits about whether the US uses 2% or 5% of the world's energy and how much oil is really left: all designed to discredit those who would oppose his agenda of wealth accumulation. See my "piper" comment above.

Perhaps you would be better served frequenting The Automatic Earth (economics) or The Oil Drum (Energy) where the only skin most folks have in the game is to ferret out the real numbers., and where the posters have the character to admit when they're wrong.

More on derivatives: http://www.siliconvalleywatche.....of_der.php or simply search for "derivatives". Lots of stuff out there, if you have the constitution for it. And remember:

The search for someone to blame is always successful. -Robert Half

Keophus| 5.27.11 @ 12:01PM

Of course the Sierra Club et. al. are utterly unbiased. The fact that they will have no source of income if there is no "crisis" is irrelevant. Unlike the oil companies, I might add...

txn4ever| 5.27.11 @ 12:07PM

"...all designed to discredit those who would oppose his agenda of wealth accumulation."

Pull your skirt down. Your socialism is showing. And it ain't pretty.

GHung| 5.27.11 @ 12:30PM

Not even close, though the name calling goes on, solving nothing, and the reality of the situation doesn't care. The fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer may not concern you, but it is still wealth redistribution. And when the poor get poor enough, they tend to storm the castles (e.g. : the ongoing MENA situation). History is pretty clear on this one. In the end, no place to hide when the peons forge their plowshares into swords.

Maybe more of you folks should have stayed awake in your math and history classes.

Darin| 5.27.11 @ 1:06PM

Your logic assumes wealth is a finite resource. Witness your use of the term "wealth distribution" rather than wealth earning. Wealth is not finite. Just because person A increases their wealth by $10 does not mean person B decreases their wealth by $10. Your logic assumes this is true. In fact, person A may increase by $10 and person B by $4. And in your minds eye, such is "wealth redistribution" because both did not increase by the exact same amount.

GHung| 5.27.11 @ 1:48PM

Wealth must have an ultimate basis in resources. "Vapor-wealth" always vaporizes, then what's left is real wealth: those basics that we depend on to survive. As our real wealth declines (and it is in many ways), its ratio to vapor-wealth (fiat money) declines. All bubbles must burst, and we humans have blown the mother of all bubbles.

I occasionally visit both conservative and liberal sites, not expecting enlightenment, but to take stock of things. Whether left or right, the blame game goes on. Liberals think that regulation, socialist policies and an alternative agenda will solve things. Neocons insist that if government and liberals just get out of the way, America, et al, will revert to some past greatness, that growth can continue and all will be well. What they have in common is that their denial is complete. Why? Fear, really: Fear for your lifestyles; fear for your "values"; fear for your children; fear for yourselves. Most folks are too scared to look at how basic and overwhelming are the problems we humans are facing.

The only viable 'solutions' are equally frightening: Fewer people; less energy; less monetary wealth; less stuff. There are examples in history where societies saved themselves, transitioned back from their overshoot conditions, though this time may be different. We, the people of the 21st century, have much farther to fall, much less to fall back on. Most of you sense this. I can almost smell it, the fear.

So..... you log onto whatever website makes you feel better, like a warm bed, pull the covers over your head, and say the Monster Words, the ones your favorite pundits taught you. It's like comfort food: it may kill you in the end, though you feel much better for a time, discounting the future, discounting your fellow human beings even more.

Herbert said it well: "Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.

InLineFour| 5.31.11 @ 2:25PM

how smug

emo| 5.27.11 @ 6:39PM

""The fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer may not concern you, but it is still wealth redistribution""

Totally incorrect. Want me to list the developing nations with higher GDP growth than the OECD average??
China, India, Pakistan (yes even Pakistan), Philippines, Brazil, South Africa, Thailand, Central Asian republics, Colombia etc etc etc. The poor nations are not getting poorer overall and this that are are socialist and marxist.

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 11:27PM

Well, Braniac, when you start with a low GDP and you are expanding, your GDP growth is a measure of your expansion - it is easier to grow fast when you start at a low starting point. Just like big corporations don't grow by double digits as easily as startup companies. But that has nothing to do with the "rich getting richer or the poor getting poorer" . You would have to compare the per capita income between those nations to see who's poor and who's rich.

Travis| 5.27.11 @ 12:29PM

GHung,

Thank you grounding this conversation. To state this another way, it's don't matter how much oil/gas we still have in the ground (1 trillion or 2 trillion barrels). For our modern market driven energy dependent economy, the price that oil can be delivered at is the primary factor. Energy Return On Energy Invested has been steadily declining with fossil fuels for years, and at some point the EROEI of wind and solar will overtake that of fossil fuels. Our standards of living will decline too. We (the people on the left) don't really know when and how this will actually shake out, but some of the possibilities are pretty grim. Why risk these possible grim outcomes when we could plan (an in adjust policy) a future that has a higher probably in turning out more successful.

~Travis

Drunken Sailor| 5.27.11 @ 12:52PM

OK all you "Alternativie Energy is the only answer" types. I would like to know what your plans are not just for the oil to refine gas. For arguments sake, lets say electric cars, solar panels and windmills suddenly supply all our needs. Now please tell me your answer to replace petroleum products in the use of plastics, paints, glues or any of the other 6000 items produced with petroleum.
http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products from Petroleum.htm

Todd S| 5.27.11 @ 1:59PM

Let me know when solar and wind power can be delivered to the market competitively without giant subsidies and mandates by the government Travis. Until then, you are talking bs. Jimmy Carter told us wind and solar were the future over 30 years ago, how has that worked out? You are just repeating liberal talking points and don't care to look at the reality and the data available. Anyone who claims that wind and solar are the future of energy is clueless. Nuclear power along with coal will always be far more efficient use of energy than wind or solar, it is the physics of energy mass that cannot be changed.

GHung| 5.27.11 @ 2:17PM

Classic, Todd!

Let's ignore the various "subsidies" that fossil fuels have enjoyed, the obscene cost overruns that nuclear has realized (and the govt. mandated liability limits, plus the yet unpayed bill of dealing with the waste), not to mention the very real environmental costs. Oh, yeah, let's ignore the nightmare in Japan while we're at it, along with the massive financial, social, and the "dead zone" costs. That way we don't have to have an honest conversation about these issues.

Todd S| 5.27.11 @ 2:59PM

Who is it that doesn't want to have an honest conversation GDung? And who is responsible for the cost overruns on nuclear plants? Maybe all those greenie Marxists and lawyer buddies making lawsuit after lawsuit? And how is it that France is able to store all of their nuclear waste safely in one building while getting over 70% of their energy needs from nuclear power? You care to compare the so-called subsidies fossil fuels receive (more Marxist propaganda) on a % basis compared with wind and solar? Let us not let facts get in the way right GDung?

As for Japan, just like a liberal to exploit a crisis from a freak tsunami. Has anyone ever been harmed in the US from nuclear power or in France for that matter? Simple enough to avoid what happened in Japan, don't build nuclear power plants near major earthquake fault zones and bordering on major population centers. Your idea of apparently wanting to close all nuclear power plants is like shutting down all airlines and airports after one bad plane crash. Or banning all deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico because we can just generate our energy needs from wind and solar instead right? Just get used to having rolling blackouts and getting a couple hours worth of electricity per day like a good 3rd world country. So you don't want to drill for oil or use nuclear or coal power plants right GDung? Explain to me how your energy policy would work exactly?

You hear about that town in New England that voted to "invest" in windmills like good liberals only to learn that it really sucks to live close to a windmill and it doesn't generate anything close to the promised power? That is called liberal fantasy crashing on the rocks that is reality.

GHung| 5.27.11 @ 3:52PM

Since we are ultimately judged by the company we keep, I'll move on, lest I be judged poorly.

Todd S| 5.27.11 @ 4:10PM

So you don't have a valid argument to make, I guess you should go back to the Daily Kos where all you need is liberal propaganda. So long GDung!

GHung| 5.27.11 @ 7:05PM

Since you're resorting to name calling (which makes you look bad and gains you points only with fools), I see no reason in continuing, but, I'll give it one more try. You know nothing about me, yet you call me liberal. Lets go see:

1. I'm for much smaller government

2. I'm a lifelong member of the NRA and a Vet.

3. I 'm for real tax reform, fair tax, perhaps.

4. Having been an engineer and in the nuclear industry, I'm fully aware of the costs, capabilities and long term consequences of nuclear power, including availability and costs of various fuels, the very long term, very expensive problem of dealing with wastes, and the role that the various industry and enviromental groups have played, especially in cost escalation. I approach these problems from an engineering/economic point of view. No liberal or conservative kneejerk bias, unlike many here.

5. I have no political party affiliations.

6. I cross-check my sources religiously so I don't come across as an ignoramous. I never parrot a party line.

7. I can speak with authority on alternate energy, specifically PV and passive solar, since I've been living with it, off-grid for 15 years. I designed and installed my own home and systems, have recieved no tax credits or incentives, nor have I persued any. I don't expect you to to subsidize my lifestyle, though I resent the foulness that your consumption likely adds to mine. Unlike most here, I live within my means. I know that alternatives will not solve your energy problems because you don't want them to. Working nicely for me, though. It goes to differences in expectations.

8. I don't recycle; I save, reuse and sell, like all true conservatives should. If I have to throw it away, I don't need it or pay for it. I like plastic bags; I use them for all sorts of things.
I'm against genetically engineered crops because they are patented, and farmers are being forced to grow them or forced out of business. We're going to need all of the farmers and variety we can get. We also have a long history of unintended consequences: I hate paying for other's mistakes, which seems to always happen. For the same reason, I'm for reasonable banking/financial reform and enforcement. Their greed should never result in my loss. This is what small, effective govt. should do. I don't want/need/use credit cards. Cash is fine, barter is better. My transactions are nobody's business unless there is a fair tax liability involved (see#3, above). I avoid shopping where I need an 'advantage' card to get a sale price.

9. I hunt and love to eat meat.

10. I trust none who seek political office, especially above the local level, as this would be stupid. Govt. is a necessary evil, nothing more. Today's political and media dialogue is designed to : gain my vote, my money, my consent, likely all of the above. They care little for my welfare beyond my ability to provide the above.

12. I'm convinced that climate change is an important issue. Besides the obvious, as an engineer, I understand that our planet is a closed system and that ~7 billion humans burning stuff as fast as they can get it out of the ground or cut it down is certain to have an effect. It really is that simple. It's the only planet we have. Anyone in denial of these simple facts either has a counter-agenda, is stupidly blind, or too distracted to care. I am not deluded enough to think we'll change our behavior much, collectively, but that doesn't prevent me from changing mine. Humans will keep burning stuff, until they can't.

13. I'm all for sustainable forestry practices, but exchanging what remains of our forests for one more generation of 'growth' is short-sighted and stupid. I, for one, care how I'm remembered. Besides, as much crap as we put in the atmosphere, we need all the trees we have. Common sense.

14. I only feel entitled to get out of "entitlement programs what I've put in. Same with healthcare. I calculated last year that my family has put in excess of $300,000 into private health insurance and medicare (not including employers contributions). Our total claims = less than $12,000. Since the company my wife and I worked for went bankrupt (after defaulting on their share of our healthcare), we have been priced out of the health insurance system (I refuse to/can't pay $16,000/year for a $5000 deductutible and co-pay) since we're over 50, though healthy. You're damned right I expect to see the system reformed, be it socialized or not. Or give me back the balance: $288,000, keep the change and interest, and we'll call it even. What's "liberal" about that? Anything else is flat out stealing.

15. I love American (and most all) people, but don't trust them. They, collectively, have demonstrated terribly poor judgement, most are intellectually lazy, easily distracted, wasteful and their hubris is a danger to us all. I'm not an elitist, though I do make a point of paying attention, questioning everything; especially the "feel good" stuff and over-simplified solutions. I take great pains to cut through the liberal/conservative crap, because they're really the same: deluded. A conservative is anyone who doesn't want to be called a liberal, a liberal is anyone who disagrees with a conservative. A realist doesn't care what either thinks. He doesn't dumb things down or waste time with people who do (though, in your case, I'm making an exception). He understands little of his hyper-complex world, but at least he tries, and he's not trying to sell you anything, for you have nothing that he wants.

skip| 5.27.11 @ 7:35PM

One thing easily understood is your fear of intelligence and honesty; an easily understood example of this is 12. above in light of the petition at petitionproject.org, though to be fair the plethora of drivel provided allows for a plethora of just as easily understood examples.

chuck| 5.27.11 @ 8:59PM

Ghung,
If you truly are an engineer, you must surely understand that to model worldwide climate is impossible. There are far too many variables, and the equations are unsolvable. Just way too much interaction between all the variables. BTW, the earth is not a closed system, as heat from the sun is collected, and dissipated back into space.
Kind of makes me wonder about the rest of the crap you are spewing.

Todd S| 5.27.11 @ 10:08PM

GHung is what you call a know-it-all blowhard and really quite illogical. He says he is for much smaller government but he wants the government to regulate carbon emissions based on junk science that like you said is impossible to model? Also he goes on about how great solar is but everyone knows they are nowhere near cost effective on a large scale basis as a replacement for fossil fuels. So you want to tell us you are for cap and trade and massive subsidies for solar and wind but you are for much smaller government? This is your typical I am smarter than you "Independent" that help elect the Marxist fool we have in office now.

GHung| 5.28.11 @ 10:29AM

Gosh, Todd, at least you stopped calling me "GDung". It's a start.

You said "He says he is for much smaller government but he wants the government to regulate carbon emissions .." Where did I say that? Waiting.....

For clarity: "I'm convinced that climate change is an important issue." is what I said.
Your bias filters are overheating, Todd.

You also said: "Also he goes on about how great solar is ". Again, where did I say that?
Waiting ........
I said: "I know that alternatives will not solve your energy problems because you don't want them to. Working nicely for me, though." ...and they are. Including all costs, our systems have long since paid for themselves, in many ways. Enjoy your rising utility bills, Todd.

You go on to to say: "This is your typical I am smarter than you "Independent" that help elect the Marxist fool we have in office now."

I won't comment on being smarter or more independent than you are (assumptions/insinuations/distortions seem to be your area of expertise, I'll grant you that) but I'll always strive to be more honest.

As for the "Marxist Fool", I'll guess you were refering to your President and his economics. Since his office has been a revolving door system of Wall Street/Big Bank/Fed heavys, and his policies have clearly benefited them more than most folks, you may want to rethink that assumption as well.

Todd S| 5.28.11 @ 3:18PM

You deserve to be made fun GHung when you come here acting like an arrogant know-it-all ass. So did you hear about the massive oil field discovered in Texas right from the NYT's? Seems like Ross Kaminsky knows what he is talking about, we have massive oil reserves that just need to be exploited and discovered if the government will just get out of the way. As our technology increases, we are much better able to do so. There are massive shale oil reserves in the rockies as well so I don't see oil running out anytime soon whatever the Luddites want us to believe.

So what is exactly your basis for believing in man-made global warming? The UN's report has proven fraudulent in many instances and some of the biggest names in climate science (see Michael Mann) have been caught lying about the data in order to achieve desired political ends and to continue to receive massive government grants. If it makes you feel better to put solar panels on your house, by all means go ahead but I have yet to see any evidence that solar panels are anywhere close to being cost effective. Those solar panels you bought were hugely subsidized by the government so that is funny coming from someone who says they are for much smaller government.

Obama is clearly a Marxist by up-bringing and belief (spreading the wealth is good for everyone) but of course there is very little support for outright Marxist government so he has to be sly about it. He clearly supports big businesses like GE and GM that he can control for political purposes like pushing "alternative energy" and electric cars that cannot compete in the market without massive government regulation and subsidies. Time to rethink some of your assumptions GHung if you are as intelligent and truth seeking as you claim to be.

Negro X| 5.30.11 @ 7:19PM

Sorry Dung, I am an engineer, unlike you who only plays one on the AS board. Please enlighten to the secrets of our 100% PV off grid system? Are you using a reactor for a backup? Where are you living that you get 24 hours a day of sunlight? Hit the road troll boy.

GHung| 5.31.11 @ 8:47AM

Uh, that would be "'Hung".

Lead acid batteries (perhaps new to you?) for electrical storage (12- 2 volt forklift cells)44KWH total), and, when we need backup (long cloudy periods), besides just turning things off (foreign concept here, I know) we have a small diesel genny, fueled with B-100 from a local co-op.

BTW: You folks continue to make dishonest implications, as in "100% PV system". If you read my posts you'll see references to passive solar. We also have a small wind generator (a toy really), solar DHW (domestic hot water), and a 450 gal. water tank for heat storage (DHW, radiant floor). In the spirit of full disclosure, we have propane for cooking , DHW backup and radiant floor backup (all required by code). Our propane bill is about $140/year or about 55 gals. There are no power lines (or easements/ROW) on the property.
We heat with wood part time (passive solar provides most heat). The wood heater also makes hot water for radiant floor/DHW. The system also recovers waste heat from the generator.
Potable spring water is solar-pumped to a 1200 gal. tank on the ridge above the house, gravity flow from there provides about 38 psi to fixtures. We have all of the normal appliances: washer/dryer, microwave, dishwasher, regular fridge/freezer, TV, toaster. Most things in the house are on switched outlets to reduce phantom loads, two of three inverters 'sleep' at night and when unloaded, the third stays on for lighting and fridge. (Trace and Outback inverters, Outback charge controllers).

Costs? Doing most of the work ourselves, including designing/building the house, with careful planning, the house (about 2300 sq ft) came in well under $100/sq ft., including all installed RE equipment.

Gosh NX, I'm not sure why you folks are so skeptical. Well over 1 million Americans are reported to be living off grid. It's no big deal. I'd be glad to answer any more questions. If your desire is to debunk my choices, all I can say is that success speaks for itself, and most of you live lifestyles much easier to criticise from an energy/economics standpoint. As I've said earlier, I don't try to foist my choices on other folks, so why are they so critical of mine. I suppose it must be threatening to some, having their assumptions proven wrong; something I usually welcome. I'd rather stand corrected than remain ignorant.

Again: None of you helped pay for any of this.

Mutch Moore | 6.1.11 @ 12:15AM

GHung, as an engineer, what have you demonstrated for the cause of alternative energy? OK, you outspent everyone in your well landscaped subdivision to prove that it (grid free energy and ultra frugality) can be done. So what? With your working prototype household you are an island unto yourself. DESIGN A MULTI UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING that incorporates practical alternative energy that does NOT require government subsidies nor incoming power grid wires and THAT would be an engineering fete! And I dunno if showers with 38 psi water would garner much enthusiasm - it kinda gives a new meaning to '"trickle down economics." As if someone can live large while living frugal. Really? Creepy screen name and all, you're a fun read here GHung with all your adroit prose, tons of links and data and apparent empirical knowledge but, in the final analysis, what precisely are you promoting or advocating or objecting to on this well written Ross Kaminski page? Can you succinctly recap? And finally, while I'm at it, what energy conservation benefit can be gleaned by shooting a coyote? If they posed a real threat to your chicken coop, I suggest it is ill designed.

GHung| 5.31.11 @ 9:48AM

"Hit the road troll boy."

Troll: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory[citation needed], extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

While remaining on topic (energy), and not intent on provoking an "emotional response", it's clear that this site was well populated with trolls (according to the above definition) prior to my posting here. Emotional responses and off-topic remarks remain the responsibility of their authors. If posters here find challenges to their assumptions and unsubstantiated claims "disruptive", then so be it.

Mutch Moore | 5.29.11 @ 2:25PM

Great rebuttal and cogent thoughts by Todd S! I was beginning to assign some credence to that GHung fellow until you opened my eyes and some incongruities were noticed in his online, open resume' purporting to be qualifiers for conservatism - this while he quickly dispatched the qualifications of the author, Ross Kamanski asserting he is a derivatives trader. He doesn't like the "GDung" moniker but dismisses solid conservative discourse as "crap." Enjoyed your post Todd S! You educed enough from this self professed, "off the grid" hyper loquacious GHung bloke for him to paint himself back onto the grid (in the proverbial corner of it). Having said all that, it would be admirable and enviable if one is really able to liberate themselves from the electricity grid. I gotta wonder just how many folks are able to harness alternative energy to do that? If it's feasible, then why aren't more folks off the grid? If it's not feasible, then what is he demonstrating; that he can outspend his neighbors with solar roofing, etc.?

Todd S| 5.29.11 @ 9:12PM

Thanks Mutch, as a frequent reader sometimes I feel the need to call out posters like GHung (or GDung if you prefer) who denigrate the intelligence of readers here and act like they are so much smarter. You can see from his reply he is a bundle of contradictions and his logic is very confused. He doesn't even seem to get the concept of insurance by complaining he has paid in more than he has received. Now there are logical reasons to complain about insurance being more expensive than it needs to be (mainly due to government regulations, indirect payments and litigation costs) but his argument is based on none of that. Like complaining about paying for fire insurance when his house never burned down.
He probably he thinks he explained himself in a very logical manner with his 15 point manifesto thats congratulates himself for being so much smarter than the average American and living in such a "sustainable" manner but it is quite laughably incoherent baloney. Thinks of himself as quite the independent thinker but buys into the climate change/global warming propaganda lock, stock and barrel.

GHung| 5.29.11 @ 10:02PM

The fact that you are so easily swayed, Mr. Moore is telling. Todd continues to provide blatantly false arguments, yet your willingness to accept them is typical of those who fear inevitable change. Todd insists that my PV system was subsidized by our Govt.:
"Those solar panels you bought were hugely subsidized by the government so that is funny coming from someone who says they are for much smaller government."
At the time I purchased most of the components of our system, there were no Federal or State subsidies available to me, and I wasn't interested. Utilizing Govt. subsidies or tax credits makes my business their business, something I'm not comfortable with. The bulk of our system's PV panels (3kw of 3.7kw) were built by a Japanese company in Malaysia. I actually tried to source US made panels, though (very much due to lack of subsidies at the time), they simply weren't available.

Todd calls me an ass. It's clear that his M.O. is to project his own asinine sense of things onto anyone or anything which challenges his hubris. In this case he is accusing me of being a liar (or didn't even read my post). I suggest that you and others persue dialogue with those who at least exibit a basic level of honor. To repeat, no subsidies, none of your tax dollars, have gone into my system or lifestyle choices , voluntarily. I've even chosen to not file for the few tax credits that were eventually available to me. It matters not to me if Todd accepts this. He has demonstrated that he is beneath the level of constructive dialogue. This reflects badly upon the character of this forum. Should the moderators of this site wish to actually achieve useful discourse (something I'm doubting), they should (a word I rarely use) discourage the type of posts Todd provides. In short, he's a jerk who insists on bringing everyone down to his base level. So jump right in, Mr. Moore! As I said, you are judged by the company you keep.

Purely for clarity, I'll assume that the NYT article Todd refers to is this one:
Shale Boom in Texas Could Increase U.S. Oil Output
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05.....sq=massive oil field discovered in texas&st=cse

"Massive?" This is shale oil, only profitable for oil companies when per barrel prices rise to current levels (well above $80/barrel). The energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) is low compared to historical levels due to the need to utilize fracking, horizontal drilling, steam/water/co2 injection schemes, etc. Only in an environment of very high oil prices will "the Oil Patch" even consider these plays. As I noted above, it isn't only how much oil we have, it's the costs of bringing it to market and the ultimate costs to consumers for the many products which oil provides. Once again, Todd not only doesn't provide links to his insinuatory claims, it's clear that he doesn't have the capacity to understand the complexities of the arguments he attempts to utilize to make his shrill, shillish points. More likely, he's just a lazy bully. Whatever: easily dismissed.

Any readers here who are actually interested in factual, ongoing discussions about oil, energy, and their effects on our economies/environment are encouraged to check out http://www.theoildrum.com, daily posts and discussions by serious folks who actually work in and have expertise in all aspects of these subjects. No derivatives traders making weak assumptions about things they have little or no background in. Courteous discourse, comments, challenges are invited.
ToddS not invited.

Have a happy Memorial Day! I'm out of here....

Todd S| 5.29.11 @ 10:56PM

I don't need to provide links to headline stories GHung, anyone with google can find it in a matter of seconds if they are interested. My point is with technology advancing, oil that was not available before in a cost effective way is now becoming so like it states in this article. You want to bash oil shale for being only profitable at $80/barrel (debatable as $60-$70 is the range I have heard) but that is still far more efficient at that price for producing energy than wind or solar. I never made the point that we can expect oil to become cheap by historical standards by these discoveries but that we will not be running out of oil anytime soon and it will still be a far better alternative than "alternative" energy. I can provide links for that easily enough but everyone has google can find it. Still wondering what makes you such an expert about oil GHung? I covered an oil company as a Research Analyst so I am sure I am at least as well informed as you think you are.

Btw nowhere did I call you a liar and your whining to the moderator is rather pathetic, rather thin skinned for somewhat who makes blanket insults to readers of this site. What I know is that solar power is being heavily subsidized by the government through tax breaks to customers and subsidies to producers, your particular case is of no interest to me. I asked you earlier if you care to compare the so-called subsidies oil companies receive compared with wind and solar companies receive on a % basis. Where is the link to back up your claim GHung? Also if you are living "off-the-grid" like you say, where are you getting your Internet connection from?

GHung| 5.29.11 @ 11:22PM

"Also if you are living "off-the-grid" like you say, where are you getting your Internet connection from?'

Jeez!....Anyone else care to field this dumb question? (I mean really dumb!)

GHung| 5.29.11 @ 11:29PM

OK, Todd, my neighbor's tractor has an internet connection.

GHung| 5.30.11 @ 12:05AM

"I asked you earlier if you care to compare the so-called subsidies oil companies receive compared with wind and solar companies receive on a % basis."

From thr IMF:

Petroleum Subsidies on the Rise, Says IMF

Subsidies could reach almost $740 billion by end of 2010
Mostly benefit higher income households.

Such “tax-inclusive” subsidies, as labeled in the IMF study, more than doubled between 2003 and mid 2008, from $400 billion to nearly $1 trillion. Although subsidies fell sharply in the second half of 2008, they started to increase throughout 2009, and are projected to reach about $740 billion by the end of 2010 (see chart).
http://www.imf.org/external/pu.....50410A.htm

And from the Texas State Comptroler General (admittedly somewhat dated- 5 years-but still considered valid).
http://www.window.state.tx.us/.....subsidies/

Total Federal Subsidies:

Ethanol: 34.6% (something I've opposed)
Oil & Gas: 25.7%
Coal: 20.2%
Nuclear: 8.7%
Wind: 3.4%
Solar: 2.8%
Hydro: 2.2%
Biomass: 1.5%
Biodiesel: 0.7%
Geothermal: 0.2%

Any questions, folks? I just hate being lied to. It's that simple :-/
BTW: I have many more links to official data which corroborates the above, but the system tells me I'm limited to two.

Todd S| 5.30.11 @ 1:06PM

I have heard the Democrats and Obama go on about the oil "subsidies" of $4 billion but what these "subsidies" consist of are tax write-offs for exploration costs so not really a subsidy at all. Every industry is allowed to write-off exploration costs so it is not accurate to label it as a subsidy. Do you know what % Exxon pays in taxes on its net income?

http://money.cnn.com/galleries.....lls/2.html

Well over 40% as do many of the oil producers so not exactly like they don't pay their "fair" share whatever that is suppose to be. We can agree on ethanol which is a stark example of the government subsidizing failure and waste for some ill-thought out environmental reason.

Do you know why GE paid no income taxes last year? There is a reason they spend so much money lobbying politicians and that is because they get a great return on that investment. No one in the corporate world has pushed climate change and alternative energy like GE has and their reward is tax breaks on everything imaginable, particularly with wind turbines.

So I am not sure what lies you are referring to GHung. The IMF is not exactly an impartial authority unless you approve of organizations run by socialist French rapists that waste billions of dollars of taxpayer money to bail out the failures of socialism. You have any links about climate change from the UN you want to share as well because we know how impartial they are right GHung? I think I have proved my point enough with you so I will enjoy the holiday now.

GHung| 5.31.11 @ 9:16AM

"So I am not sure what lies you are referring to GHung."

Uh, those would be lies of omission and ignorance.

The single largest energy "subsidy" (as I posted above) is ethanol:

45 Cent per Gallon Ethanol Tax Credit Is Important Tool
http://www.ksgrains.com/ethanol/regcredits.html
The Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit, also known as VEETC is a credit of $.45 for every gallon of pure ethanol blended into gasoline.

This is a tax credit, 45 cents for every gallon of ethanol that goes into the gas you buy (unless you can find ethanol free gas) That would be 4.5 cents for every gallon of E-10 sold in the US. "A registered blender is the only individual eligible for the credit." That would be oil companies. It exceeds, by far, all of the other renewable subsidies combined.

Todd S| 5.31.11 @ 12:56PM

Because the oil companies that blend the oil are required by law to buy the ethanol GHung, not because they want to. Basically a refund for having to buy the more expensive ethanol, they are not making money off it really at all. The ones who make the money are the ethanol companies that the government created a false market for. You will have to do better than that GHung.

GHung| 5.31.11 @ 7:05PM

So we come full circle. Whether or not it is mandated by law, whether or not you agree with ethanol credits as a 'subsidy' for the oil industry, farmers, or ADM (really a subsidy for American drivers and their inefficient vehicles), subsidies for wind and solar pale in comparison. Complaining about puny credits for PV is like bitching at someone for farting downwind of a pig sty.

This is all academic, IMO. US and global debt are so beyond the possibility of repayment, the only realistic conclusion is the big reset. Be prepared for third world status. Stagflation and austerity measures will mean that those who oppose subsidies (for anything) will have their wishes granted. See you on the slopes.
Enjoyed ;-)

Mutch Moore | 5.30.11 @ 2:01PM

GHung, Happy Memorial Day to you as well. It appears you're a good sport in the criticism. I don't fault Todd S nor anyone for not loading links and excessive case study support to this forum on any given topic. It's only an exchange of ideology. As for gov. funding: sound advances in alternative energy should be able to penetrate the market on their own merit, without any subsidies. Whether a D or an R is on your Representative's name, we all want clean, inexpensive energy. I am not willing to depart from conservative core values to subsidize anything. Do do so, we invariably get that now famous shrimp-on-a-treadmill (see today's news) frivolous sort of study masquerading under the imprimatur of valid scientific research. In sum, I applaud your effort, even if unsuccessful, to obtain grid free energy, but your stated position here as an NRA conservative are suspect and not really necessary at all to even mention to gain confidence of the readership. I like to think the American Spectator crowd (this is not FOX), though decidedly Liberal loathing, would possess the eclecticism to be receptive to some of your brilliance (no sarcasm here).

GHung| 5.31.11 @ 10:12AM

Well, thanks Mutch ;-)

"In sum, I applaud your effort, even if unsuccessful, to obtain grid free energy, but your stated position here as an NRA conservative are suspect and not really necessary at all to even mention to gain confidence of the readership."

As for my "unsuccessful attempts", see my response to "Negro X", above, for details on my lack of success.

And as to my status as an NRA member; all I can say is I love my guns, man! A well placed .223 up a coyote's butt goes a long way toward success with chickens.

As for being conservative or liberal? Choosing sides, especially politically, interferes with my preferences for problem solving. I seek clarity and sleep well.

GHung| 5.28.11 @ 9:50AM

Right you are Chuck. Considering energy, there is essentially no such thing as a closed system that I know of (excepting the universe itself, perhaps) . When refering to matter (as in emmissions from burning things) the Earth is enough of a closed system to make that distinction, but I think you understood this.

Modeling? While getting better, it likely will never be possible to model climate perfectly, yet trend analysis is very possible. One doesn't have to be able to model the progression of cancer perfectly to know one is sick, dying perhaps.

I'm not trying to convert anyone here. As I said, I'm convinced that humans will keep burning stuff well beyond the point that it is blatantly obvious that we are seriously degrading the biosphere. We're doing it now; the signs are easy to see if one only gets head out of butt and pays attention. I was discussing my personal choices, based on my own version of common sense. We're pretty much stuck with ourselves and whatever foulness we produce. To consider this a 'liberal' point of view is childish, branding, and dismissive. To foist our waste onto the yet-to-be-born is to discount future humanity (setting aside other species for now). Choose life?

One note: I'm an uninvited guest here, and most of you seem like regulars. It's notable how often you guys violate the site's guidlines: ("Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful.") as in "GDung" (ToddS)" and "Kind of makes me wonder about the rest of the crap you are spewing." It's telling me that, rather than having a productive discussion, your participation here is more about boosting your egos and reinforcing your personal bias'. Just food for thought.... this is one way that folks justify the things they do. It seems like it's easier to make excuses for one's behavior than to actually change it. Just sayin' .....

skip| 5.28.11 @ 11:56AM

Comments like "I was discussing my personal choices, based on my own version of common sense" tell me that rather than have a productive discussion, your participation here is more about boosting your ego and reinforcing your personal bias rather than, for instance, responding to the petition at petitionproject.org.

GHung| 5.28.11 @ 12:12PM

I don't need to reinforce my personal bias. It's quite complete,,, and it's you I wasn't responding to.

Omri| 5.30.11 @ 9:20PM

"If you truly are an engineer, you must surely understand that to model worldwide climate is impossible"

If you truly are an engineer, you must understand that to call something "impossible" is to invite someone to come and do it. And it's been done. We've had weather satellites gathering data for decades, added historical data and prehistorical using various means, and guess what: the climate is being modeled. Because it can be done and it's important to do

Pzkfw| 5.28.11 @ 4:03PM

Great post. Don't leave this site. Intelligent dialog is refreshing. Often too much drama and childlish name calling.

skip| 5.31.11 @ 7:28PM

(From the comments section of the article "Religiously 'Conflicted' Over Memorial Day" by Mark Tooley on 5.31.11 at 'The American Spectator')

Pzkfw | 5.31.11 @ 1:21PM:

"Prove it fool."

Drunken Sailor| 5.27.11 @ 3:57PM

you forgot all the subsidies for Solar power going all the way back to the Carter administration.

And you still haven't told us what you plan on replacing petroleum with in plastics, etc.

GHung| 5.27.11 @ 7:29PM

"And you still haven't told us what you plan on replacing petroleum with in plastics, etc."

I don't. No plan. We aren't "running out" of petroleum. This is one more over-simplification of a complex set of problems. But continued levels of use, much of it frivolous and discretionary, will result in plastics and other things being very expensive, prohibitively so for many, and soon. Waste not, want not. Humans can either wean themselves from current levels of oil consumption, or they will be weaned by supply constraints, lower quality/harder to get stocks, requiring more energy to process, and greater competition for what's left. Oil geoligists have been telling us this for years. Nobody wants to hear it, and many don't want you to believe it.

It's human nature to believe what we want to hear, not so with bad news.

The refudiator| 5.28.11 @ 12:31AM

Your posts are good. I have tried to explain here before that the problem isn't reserves, it is extraction rates & EROEI. The audience here isn't very receptive as everything is political here. These screaming chimpanzees are about to get a lesson in geology and the exponential function. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 11:30PM

Neither nuclear or coal, oil, gas are renewable. When they are gone, they are gone - forever. You want to wait until we have none left? There isn't anymore oil, coal, nuclear fuel, gas being produced on Earth. We have all we are going to get - unless u want to wait a few 10's of millions of years to burn those energy sources until more is made. We are using is faster than it can be replaced - eventually the bowl is empty and there is no more. Is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

Minuteman| 5.30.11 @ 8:03PM

Todd S- The kernel ofyour paragraph can be summed up in two words: Energy Density. I am at the point that don't respond to anyone on energy issues who does not comprehend this characteristic when comparing energy sources. (By the way, I am actually trying to get the obtuse to understand your excellent point).

Todd S| 5.31.11 @ 1:01PM

You are correct Minuteman, energy density is very key and is why solar and wind can never approach oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear power no matter how much money we throw at it. Solar and wind have been discussed as a panacea of the left since the Carter days but nothing really has changed since then despite the incredible advances in technology.

voted against carter| 5.28.11 @ 3:54PM

DRILL BABY DRILL!!!!
the BIG LIE.
by Steve McCann (Full article at americanthinker dot com)

Yet the United States is sitting on the world's largest untapped oil reserve. A natural resource that would not only mitigate the over $400 Billion sent overseas to other countries but could create untold millions of jobs and put the country on a sound financial footing.

The untapped reserves are estimated up to 2.3 Trillion barrels, nearly three times the reserves held by the OPEC countries and sufficient to meet 300 years of demand, at today's levels -- for auto, truck, aircraft, heating and industrial fuel, without importing a single barrel of oil.

The US could become the single largest exporter of oil and oil related products in the world, thus potentially eliminating its trade deficit, and increasing the national standard of living as well as making a massive dent in the national debt.

Here is a look at some of the largest untapped reserves:

The Bakken Fields in North and South Dakota. New drilling and oil recovery technology is making the capture of this oil feasible and some development is now underway. It is estimated that there is at least 200 Billion barrels of oil in this region. At a price of $100 per barrel the value of this find is $20 Trillion.

The Outer Continental shelf. It is estimated that around 90 billion barrels of oil sit beneath the ocean bed 50 to 100 miles off the shore of the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts. The value: $9 Trillion.

The Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. About 10 billion barrels are locked up here with a current value of $1 Trillion.

Tar Sands: Around 75 Billion barrels of oil could come from these areas which are similar to the Canadian tar sand fields and which now produce about 2 million barrels per day. The value: $7.5 Trillion

Oil Shale. This is the most massive area of potential oil production in the world with an estimated 1.5 Trillion barrel potential. The technology necessary to extract this oil is now in place and being operated on a pilot project basis. The value of this resource: $150 Trillion

There also the very real potential that further finds will be discovered as technology continues to improve.

In total the value of the potential oil reserves of the United States listed above exceeds $187 Trillion. The current national debt is $14.2 Trillion or less than 8%.

Despite the protestation of President Obama and the environmentalists the world and particularly the United States is not running out of oil. Their foolish tilting at windmills and solar will never produce energy sufficient to operate a $14Trillion and hopefully growing economy. It will be decades if not the rest of the 21st Century before any meaningful substitute for fossil fuels will be developed and additional time and investment will then be necessary to distribute the product.

Jim| 5.30.11 @ 6:23PM

Don't be moron all your life. Derivative trader or not, his FACTS are taken from sources that have nothing to do with trading of any kind. Grow up, stupid! Oh, sorry, one is not supposed to be unkind, so perhaps I should have said, "Sir Stupid."

Occam's Tool| 5.27.11 @ 1:48PM

I dunno, I seem to recall that we have LOTS of shale oil reserves available, now economically accessible. But hey, we have an energy company former exec here blogging---Ken, can you give me an idea of what we actually have, sir?

The refudiator| 5.28.11 @ 12:39AM

not enough water. The Canadians are running into the same bind with the tar sands which are way easier to deal with. Probably EROEI negative anyway.

victor| 5.28.11 @ 3:10AM

There is another alternative that does not reqire water:

http://www.raytheon.com/busine.....cf_pdf.pdf

https://alum.mit.edu/discuss/thread.jspa?threadID=1425

We have at least two TRILLION Barrels of shale oil in the US.

Why are you in favor of leaving it in the ground?

victor| 5.28.11 @ 3:10AM

There is another alternative that does not reqire water:

http://www.raytheon.com/busine.....cf_pdf.pdf

https://alum.mit.edu/discuss/thread.jspa?threadID=1425

We have at least two TRILLION Barrels of shale oil in the US.

Why are you in favor of leaving it in the ground?

victor| 5.29.11 @ 2:24AM

Occam's Tool:
"can you give me an idea of what we actually have, sir?"

Matt 7:7

"Ask and it shall be given you seek and ye shall find"

Here tis':

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40872.pdf

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 10:34PM

You are so right.... The salesman selling us a pack of it.

victor| 5.29.11 @ 2:18AM

GHung:
"Enough said..."

GHung is a professional wrestler in Mexico:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.....bowing.jpg

Nuff said, eh?

GHung| 5.30.11 @ 12:48AM

Everyone needs an outlet Victor ;-)

Alan Brooks| 5.30.11 @ 7:53PM

Christian eschatology-nuts think the world as we know it will end.
You all deserve each other.

Doorgunner| 5.27.11 @ 7:19AM

But the adults keep telling us that their version is reality-based.

Darin| 5.27.11 @ 8:41AM

They just never say their "reality" is akin to the Matrix.

SonOfSam| 5.27.11 @ 8:57AM

Whoa there Darin, don't be dissing Neo and Morpheus. I'm reasonably certain that their ship ran on something other windmills and unicorn powder

Ken (Old Texican)| 5.27.11 @ 8:06AM

I just get so sick of beating our heads against the wall of purposeful arrogant ignorance combined with the lies.

SonOfSam| 5.27.11 @ 9:00AM

Then its time to start beating them at the polls and in the courts. I think we should bring a class action suit against individual bureaucrats for impoverishing every American who's been put out of work because of some idiotic restriction against drilling for our own oil and mining our own coal

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 10:37PM

Do you know how oil was created? Do you know how long it took to make? Do you know we will run out some day? You're all too quick to scream bloody murder because under Obama that National Debt has rose - even though 30 years of Republican deficit spending is the real problem and NOW at the end you care. You want to do the same with oil? It's a fact there is an end to the oil in the entire world. Or do you dispute that too?

T H Huxley| 5.28.11 @ 1:55AM

Many of the troglodytes that post here take the Bible literally. No amount of scientific evidence will convince these numskulls that oil is a limited resource. In fact, many of these dunces don't believe in science even though they use microwave ovens, use cell phones, watch plasma-screen TVs, get vaccinated, have their cancer treated, take drugs for high blood pressure, watch the space shuttle blast off, get their electricity from a nuclear power plant, or benefit from a million other scientific advances. Science and logic are lost on these dupes. It’s laughable that these Neanderthals often regard politicians as scientific authorities. Many of these chumps probably thought the world was going to end last Saturday.

victor| 5.28.11 @ 3:12AM

We have at least 300 YEARS worth of oil at this point.
Kinda hard for you to say that we are running out, eh?

Purpleguy| 5.28.11 @ 8:28AM

So not that long ago gas prices were 1.50. Are you saying the gas prices rise because we have soooo much oil? Really? Speculation is a large part of the price of gas today - but speculation only works on the fear of a shortage - a shortage because we have soooo much oil. Really? Wanna think that through again Chuckie?

Vic| 5.28.11 @ 1:42PM

Market correction to a falling dollar value is where most of the inflation in everything comes from, including fuel. I remember $0.25 gas, but it went together with $1.65 hr. wages, $0.10 cokes and $2500.00 cars.

victor| 5.29.11 @ 2:30AM

PurpleDood:
"Are you saying the gas prices rise because we have soooo much oil? Really?"

Gas prices are rising because your boy Barry has been cruising on the QE2 lately, devaluation of the dollar and not the liner.

There are nearly 150 oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico being held up by the EPA .

Alaska has been put off limits by the EPA for CO2 emissions.

And a refinery in New Mexico is being put on hold for a bleedin' lizard?

Get ready for 5 and 6 dollar a gallon gas boy.

Can't wait to hear how overjoyed you will be when that happens.

Purpleguy| 5.29.11 @ 4:03AM

oh, I will - then maybe you right wingers will see the light and get off of oil.

victor| 5.29.11 @ 5:33PM

PurpleDood:
"oh, I will - then maybe you right wingers will see the light and get off of oil."

Not on your bloody life.
If you had any sense, and you don't, you'd see that oil would save our economy.

We have untold reserves of oil, all we need is the backbone, at least some of have if, to drill it and sell it on the open market.

We have 100-150K out of work oil guys that you would apparently want to sit home and grow moss.

Even if we drilled only 1% of the 2- 5 Trillion barrels of oil that would be 20 TRILLION dollars that would go straight in our economy and pay royalties and taxes to your beloved Dear Leader and his Government.

Millions of people would be put back to work because of oil, but you and your like-minded statists would prefer that we stagnate into oblivion.

You still have not told us what magic potion will get us out of this mess.

voted against carter| 5.28.11 @ 3:56PM

Ok . YOU sir are a CONCERN TROLL look it up.

DRILL BABY DRILL!!!!
the BIG LIE.
by Steve McCann (Full article at americanthinker dot com)

Here is a look at some of the largest untapped reserves:

The Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. About 10 billion barrels are locked up here with a current value of $1 Trillion.

There also the very real potential that further finds will be discovered as technology continues to improve.

In total the value of the potential oil reserves of the United States listed above exceeds $187 Trillion. The current national debt is $14.2 Trillion or less than 8%.

JP| 5.27.11 @ 8:19AM

If the world truly arrived at "Peak Oil", that is a definite, finite number of barrels of oil left in the ground, the price of oil would go through the roof. And by the roof, I mean like $500/barrel for starters. It would soon replace Gold as the most sought after commodity.

And just 3 years ago, oil was selling at a record $150/barrel. Within 4 months it would fall to below $38/barrel before going back up again in early 2008 (thanks largely to the efforts fo the Fed to weaken the dollar and promote QE). The weakness of the dollar has more to do with the daily/monthly price fluccuations of oil than supply and demand. And one gets the feeling that there is more to that story than our "minders" let on.

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 11:31PM

Ha - wait around Chuckles, you might just see it happen in your lifetime. Dollar fluctuation and speculation surely determine the price of oil - but not the scarcity of it. Not yet - but it's coming.

voted against carter| 5.28.11 @ 4:00PM

hey concern TROLL,

MAKNG stuff UP does NOT make it TRUE

we have enough oil to run America at 5 time to days energy use for the next 300 years. At least you will have been DEAD for 225 years of it.

Stupid libratard. go play at huff po.

Purpleguy| 5.29.11 @ 4:05AM

prove it moron ... saying it doesn't make it so. How much will it cost to get all the oil that exists? idiocracy u prove.

victor| 5.29.11 @ 5:34PM

YOU tell us, Chicken Little.

Redstateboy| 5.27.11 @ 8:20AM

All I had to do is read the Subject Title - I didn't even need to read the piece yet (I will) to recall this Quote: "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
Ronald Reagan

SonOfSam| 5.27.11 @ 9:02AM

The trouble with our liberal friends is that they are neither "liberal" nor are they friendly. They are ObamaNazi scum who hate America in general and us in particular.

We will never be free until every ObamaNazi is in the ground, in prison or in exile

canuckistani| 5.27.11 @ 3:41PM

So when Junior sent Rummy to Turkmenistan during the Iraq war, that was pure patriotism?

When Cheney's alma mater Halliburton pulled up stakes and moved to Dubai, that was pure patriotism? Even after accepting billions in DoD contracts?

When Junior's NSC recommended Karzai, the lackey of Unocal, to be president in order to secure the TAPI gas line, was that pure patriotism?

When Unocal welcomed the Taliban to Houston, was that pure patriotism?

We've spent over $1T on these "patriotic" follies - enough to invest in alternative technologies that we would have OWNED and been able to sell to the world as easy oil declines. Instead the Chinese and even Koreans are a decade ahead of us and we continue to bitch about our innovation and manufacturing capabilities.

Patriots, wake up.

Nick| 5.27.11 @ 4:35PM

Canuckistani,

You don't have that down correctly. It's not "Halliburton." It's:
[Froth, drool, spittle]
HALLIBURTON!!!!
[Froth, spittle, drool, froth, froth]

voted against carter| 5.28.11 @ 4:04PM

"alternative energy technologies"
ARE a LIBRATARD fantasy.

IF they could be achieved , THAT ALREADY WOULD HAVE been and we WOULD BE USING THEM.

were are they?? Well libratards????

WISHING for stuff DOES NOT WORK.

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 11:11PM

Spoken like a true American... the Founding Fathers are turning over in their grave with your exhibition of tolerance, democratic principles and promotion of the general welfare. Somalia needs a man like you.

victor| 5.28.11 @ 3:19AM

Hey PurpleSchmooze,
Why don't you tell us what Madison really meant by the phrase, eh?

Try this:

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison

Purpleguy| 5.28.11 @ 8:35AM

You tell me - and then how will we dismantle the unconstitutional Interstate Highway System - or the unconstitutional TransContinental Rail System to name 2 industrial improvements impossible under the U.S. Constitution.
The Constitution is not being read literally, nor has it ever been, except in the case of explicit specific details that are spelled out like the number of years of service for a Senator, Congressman or President. Or the age of attainment for a US officer to serve. You want to reverse 200 years of interpretation and doctrine? Idiot.

skip| 5.28.11 @ 11:48AM

You want to continue 200 years of misinterpretation of the constitution and continue producing faulty doctrine anyway? We've been screwing up a couple centuries now, so let's keep it up? Idiot.

Purpleguy| 5.29.11 @ 4:06AM

Oh, yeah, let's change what created the most powerful, richest country the world has ever seen. Yep, let's change 200 years of progress - because YOU say so. imbecile.

skip| 5.30.11 @ 1:38PM

The most powerful, richest country the world has ever seen was created by the socialist progress of 200 years of massive federal taxation and regulation, crippling the forces of free market capitalism, and ignoring the constitution, as even idiots and imbeciles should know? You give stupid liars an undeserved reputation.

voted against carter| 5.28.11 @ 4:06PM

Typical LIBRATARD,.. reframe the disagreement in to SOMETHING it IS NOT.

CONCERN TROLL back to Huff PO

victor| 5.29.11 @ 2:38AM

PurpleDood:
"unconstitutional Interstate Highway System - or the unconstitutional TransContinental Rail System to name 2 industrial improvements impossible under the U.S. Constitution."

Actually, the Interstate Highway system was designed by Eisenhower to carry troops and military supplies.

From Wiki:
"Eisenhower gained an appreciation of the German Autobahn network as a necessary component of a national defense system while he was serving as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II. He recognized that the proposed system would also provide key ground transport routes for military supplies and troop deployments in case of an emergency or foreign invasion."

The same could be said about the TransContinental Rail System.

They were both deemed to be Constitutional under Article I, Section 8:
"provide for the common Defence"

Taking over the auto or oil industries does not fill the bill.

Purpleguy| 5.29.11 @ 4:11AM

Nope - wrong Bozo. Nothing in the Constitution gives the Federal Govt the right to make States cooperate to build across state lines - unless you INTERPRET the Constitution the way it has been. There is nothing written.
By your reckoning, because everything can be construed as "common defense", the Feds can do what they want ... Healthcare for all is a national security emergency - a healthy population is able to defend itself better than an unhealthy nation. .... the right to abortion is a national defense debate - people have been killed over it. And so on ... thank you for not being a "strict constructionist" - which has always been bulls***

victor| 5.29.11 @ 5:35PM

Defense is in the Constitution, healthcare is NOT!

Mike Hawk| 5.27.11 @ 8:30AM

The diry little secret is, Oil is abiogenic and thus not a 'fossil fuel. It is formed in the pressure cooker under the earths mantel, which is why the pools are found largly around fracture zones (or once active zones) where it percolates to the surface. That is also why 'depleted" reserves 'mysteriously" refill in those active areas. It is an undeniable truth, but the Libs won't accept. it.

Mike Hawk| 5.27.11 @ 8:31AM

You might say oil is Gaia's renewable energy source.

YeloStalyn| 5.27.11 @ 9:37AM

Admiting that I'm making this uber-elementary... you're right.

If it took 1000 years (just picking a number) to make a dinosaur turn into oil (he dies, his carbon based material eventually gets covered up, pressure and heat build, and he goes all black and gooey... eventually) then in 1000 years, we will all be oil too. We will be oil that didn't exist before us.

So yes... peak oil is a farce. The earth will always produce some amount of oil every day (given the amount of carbon life that has died years ago and has continued to die on a daily basis).

Roger Pol | 5.27.11 @ 10:07AM

YeloStalyn, In spite of the many Geologists who disagree with you, but assuming you are right and you use a more realistic number like 100,000 years, the problem is that we are consuming much faster than the earth is producing. I continue to maintain that we do not have a supply problem, we have a recovery and refinement problem.

I think reality dictates that we continue to develop alternatives because the cost of oil will continue to rise.

JP| 5.27.11 @ 10:29AM

As I stated above, the price of oil for the last 3 years is more a function of the dollar value, and hence a product of monetary policy.

And, in the large scale, the global rate of change in oil consumption hit a peak circa 2006-2007. The delta T (change in oil consumption with respects to time) has decreased. And if one takes global demographics into account (a rapidly aging world), the consumption of energy will probably hit a peak in the next 15 years before it begins a slow but steady decrease. An agin society consumes less energy and resources than a young and vigorous one.

YeloStalyn| 5.27.11 @ 10:46AM

Don't get me wrong... I'm all for alternative fuels. And, yes... 1000 years was simply to make it a VERY simple illustration.

The point was that oil is not finite. That doesn't mean we can't consume it faster than it's produced... but the world does not hold a "finite" amount of the stuff. It will come back... eventually.

But even if we are consuming faster than the production... we have to still consume what has been produced already before we start using the "newly produced" amounts (granted, we may actually find these pockets first... but in terms of just numbers on paper...). And the amount that is still available along with what is produced during that time will give us enough time to find other cleaner, cheaper, effective means of fuel.

Jed Clampett | 5.27.11 @ 1:30PM

"...we do not have a supply problem, we have a recovery and refinement problem." Well, I'd try to get cured of that, if I was you. If only we could all disabuse ourselves that profligate consumption can be reconciled with a simple bump in recovery and refinement. Putting conservation back into the equation does not preclude being a good conservative. Just saying no to 5000+ pound personal transportation devices (SUVs) will not brand you as a tree hugger. Mark Twain has a witticism to cover you.

canuckistani| 5.27.11 @ 3:45PM

Agreed. I do believe there has been exactly zero refineries built in over thirty years, and exactly zero are independently owned.

Wake up.

Jed Clampett | 5.27.11 @ 6:25PM

More refining capacity in the U.S. would be great for the oil companies, but would provide only minuscule relief at the pumps. The reason, of course, is because any uptick in production/supply goes online for world market consumption to the highest bidder. So, whose asleep at the awareness wheel?

victor| 5.28.11 @ 3:28AM

That's because of people such as yourself that are against the building of more refineries.

http://pearce.house.gov/press-.....lly-lizard

Jed Clampett | 5.28.11 @ 12:11PM

Unless and until the refineries and oil companies themselves are nationalized, like Venezuela and to some extent Russia, all this banter about increased production means zilch to the American consumer. Meanwhile, for God sake - or for the sake of your own survival if you prefer - let's get rid of the dinosaur age land yachts known as SUVs, dual wheel pick up trucks with shiny unused beds and assorted other 5000+ pound personal transportation appliances.

voted against carter| 5.28.11 @ 4:11PM

sigh,.... head shaking sadly,....

"alternative energy technologies"
ARE a LIBRATARD fantasy.

IF they could be achieved , THAT ALREADY WOULD HAVE been and we WOULD BE USING THEM.

were are they?? Well libratards????

WISHING for stuff DOES NOT WORK.

Stan Redmond| 5.27.11 @ 12:45PM

Gaia's Diarhea maybe?

Mike Hawk| 5.27.11 @ 1:43PM

Anybody remember when plate tectonics theories were new in the late 50s and early 60s. "Scientists" were sceptical. Turned out to be to be another undeniable truth.

Jed Clampett | 5.27.11 @ 2:10PM

...and therefore? You left me anxious for the corollary. Advances in understanding plate tectonics notwithstanding, we're stuck in the dinosaur age with current human transportation technology. I suspect Federal motor fuel tax has a lot to do with it somehow. With lost corporate tax revenue, us gasoline purchasers are stepping up to the plate (of a non tectonic variety) to fund the gubmint.

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 11:12PM

It's not renewable by Mother Earth or anyone else. Do you know how Oil was made? When it was made? How long it took to make? Go look it up and weep over your lack of knowledge.

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 11:17PM

OMG - your ignorance is astounding. Oil is an organically derived compound - derived from the Carboniferous Era - over 250 million years ago, before the Dinosaur Age - by plant material that died and as you say "cooked" under high pressure. Fossil fuel refers to the length of time it took to create - like how long it takes to fossilize a dinosaur skeleton - it's millions and millions of years. Go learn something.

Mike Giles| 5.30.11 @ 1:38PM

It has been a basic tenet of Geology since Hutton, that the same geological processes operating in the past are operating to day, and will do so into the foreseeable future. Is there some reason that you believe the plant and animal life are no longer dying, being covered by sediment, and carried down into the heat and pressure of the Earth? Why do you believe that the Earth stopped producing oil at some point. Earlier posters who complained that we are using it faster than it is being replaced, at least are making a logical argument. The idea that it stopped being produced at some point is simply asinine. It has been produced since the arrival of large scale carbon life on the planet, and will continue to be produced as long as there is large scale carbon life on the planet.

Omri| 5.30.11 @ 9:34PM

"It has been a basic tenet of Geology since Hutton, that the same geological processes operating in the past are operating to day, and will do so into the foreseeable future."

And if you take a dive in the Gulf of Mexico, right by the mouth of the Mississippi, you can see sediment accumulating that will in a few million years form into a deposit of oil. It is going on right now as we speak, but we are consuming 80 million barrels a day, and the earth is not producing anywhere near that amount. And when you consume more than you produce, you eventually run out.

BackToBasics| 5.29.11 @ 12:03PM

From Mike Hawk's post - " That is also why 'depleted" reserves 'mysteriously" refill in those active areas."

I've read the same and it certainly seems plausible. I've also read about one theory that the giant meteor that hit the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico ages ago has microfractured the earth's crust throughout much of the Gulf of Mexico. This allows the oil taken from there to be replenished in the same way as in the fault zones. Of course many countries are taking advantage of the oil in the Gulf of Mexico except for America since Obam took office.

Liberals protest about our reliance on oil but forget the human eqaution in that argument. The human equation is that most nations will get the oil if and where they are able but liberals still want America to stop drilling for new sites. If this is allowed to play out they way they want the effective result will be a reduced American economy and national suicide.

They will argue about unproven global warming in their defense but the national suicide will occur long before any hypothetical global warming catastrophe. In the event of America's national suicide, if China, India, Brazil, etc. are the superpowers, does any liberal really think they will be AS CONCERNED about the environment as America has been? Therefore from a liberal's perspective, America's national suicide is tantamount to cutting of their nose to spite their face, ecologically speaking. But they don't seem to realize even that.

Omri| 5.30.11 @ 9:35PM

"In the event of America's national suicide,"

If we use up and piss away what little oil we have left, and do nothing to enable our country to function without such high levels of oil dependency, that will be national suicide. Which is precisely where the Republican party has taken us.

Redstateboy| 5.27.11 @ 8:35AM

when ya think of it.. Liber-ulism Must be a Mental disorder - They cannot tolerate anything like "facts" that'll interfere with their Fairyland world perspective and if one does present them with facts - It's been my experience they react to facts in the same way Dracula reacted to the site of a Crucifix.

SonOfSam| 5.27.11 @ 9:04AM

Hey that makes sense. Picture this: if one unwashed person stands on a street corner spouting disconnected nonsense, we would say that he's mentally ill and off his meds. If thousands of such people gather, they would be carrying signs saying "Bush lied" and then they're "demonstrators"

Nunya| 5.27.11 @ 4:47PM

It's been my experience that when one presents a die-hard liberal the truth and some facts, they openly state that it's a lie, and often times they get angry. I've had that experience a few times, since I'm not one who easily backs down (one might say there are certain things that I find non-negotiable). Anyway, more than once I've had someone lose their temper when presented with pointed questions or facts that dispute their liberal world view. It's actually kind of fun when I stay calm and watch them get all red faced.... :-)

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 11:18PM

Facts? Name a fact you have indulged in lately ...

John Navratil| 5.27.11 @ 8:46AM

Excellent article and I'm glad it included the energy content of production. Energy is the multiplier of our efforts. Could we build Boeing jet aircraft without the energy to refine the aluminum? Absolutely not! The myth is that all this energy is wasted heat.

Except in the South where air conditioning is king, the largest energy consumer in the household is the refrigerator. I'd like to see the Luddites do without that. Perhaps we should start an "unplug from the refrigerator" movement as a form of assisted suicide.

Arch Stanton| 5.27.11 @ 8:54AM

Thank you Mr. Kaminsky. You just gave me and my retired, petroleum gelogist colleagues our morning chuckles. Now go back to your political treehouse club and stop attempting to talk science.

John Navratil| 5.27.11 @ 9:02AM

Arch Stanton,

Could we trouble for a factual refutation?

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 11:34PM

And what facts would you believe? Facts aren't a belief - you don't have to believe it - you will live it in time enough ... too bad the ship has to sink for you to realize the iceberg was coming.

John Navratil| 5.28.11 @ 2:49PM

Purpleguy,

Thank you for helping me with the distinction between fact and fancy. I'm quite sure I needed to by stirred from my intellectual torpor.

The Peak Oil THEORY is a story of economics. No one is arguing that oil is infinite, just that the amount available is dictated by more than the number of molecules present within the earth.

The world has been driver by energy crises. Scarcity of wood in Britain drove iron smelting to the colonies were the supply was cheap. Coal brought it back to Britain. Oil fueled the 20th Century and now gas.

We've come a long way from gathering sticks to heat our caves and will go further as we develop economic ways to solve the transportation fuel problem without oil. You do not have to worry about running out of oil it will ultimately be replaced. That is, unless you libs start commanding the energy economy like you are commanding the medical one.

Purpleguy| 5.29.11 @ 4:38AM

Oh, thanks for the history lesson according to YOU. Most enlightening ... did u miss the corporate control of everything in your life? Did you?

John Navratil| 5.29.11 @ 9:24AM

Purpleguy,

Dispense with the conspiracies. Just point out where I am wrong.

Pecos Pete| 5.27.11 @ 9:03AM

Arch, seems to me that you ought to supply us with some facts instead of a "cute" comment. Otherwise you will be happily ignored.

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 11:34PM

Ditto from above.

John Navratil| 5.28.11 @ 2:49PM

Don't exert yourself. You might snap something.

The Big E| 5.27.11 @ 9:13AM

Mr. Kaminsky was not attempting to talk petroleum science or geology. He was analyzing statistics provided EXCLUSIVELY by our own government. If you wish to refute those statistics, then you should provide others, cite their sources, and explain why the statistics Mr. Kaminsky used are incorrect. And if you were actually a "retired petroleum geologist," as you claim, and if you were aware such contradictory statistics existed, then that is exactly what you would have done. However, since your response to the article was entirely ad hominem, that leads me to believe that your claim of specialized knowledge in the subject was, in fact, a lie.

Now, either prove Mr. Kaminstky wrong by producing the contradictory statistics and demonstrating your claim of specialized knowledge, or go away.

Arch Stanton| 5.27.11 @ 9:22AM

The USGS and the API (merely a front group) have no data to speak of. If the USGS had the data a

major oil firm had, they would also have a budget rivaling that of the DoD. Petroleum

geologists/geophysicists/engineers will only discuss the impending oil crisis AFTER they retire

because they are traditionally fired if they do so beforehand. For some basic facts, I would check

out Jeremy Gilbert's recent presentation given to ASPO (you can find it online), an association

composed mostly of petroleum geologists/geophysicists/engineers. I would dismiss the opinions of

journalists/economists/politicians except for, perhaps, Rosoce Bartlett, an man of science and a

conservative. It is disheartening to hear politicians debating drilling in the Arctic w/o even

mentioning the KIC-1 well. That alone points to the information deficit our leaders have. So

long.

John Navratil| 5.27.11 @ 9:30AM

Arch Stanton,

You all you've got to say is that peak oil is real? You went around your elbow to scratch your ear as the article was about the misuse of statistics to state that the U.S. has but 2% of the world's reserves. The only mention to peak oil was in passing.

Did I miss something?

Arch Stanton| 5.27.11 @ 9:43AM

I'm sorry, but "confused 'peak oil' theorists" hardly qualifies as "passing" or even neutral. Yes,

you missed something. And again, sorry, but every oil field peaks, as well as the cumulation of

all fields. I know, I worked in the Expolitation Department in my day, trying to squeeze a few

more drops out of old fields, field that were long past peak. Clearly, your heart belongs to the

spirit imbuing the culture that underlies "The American Specator". I wish you well. Now, so long,

and good luck.

John Navratil| 5.27.11 @ 9:55AM

Arch Stanton,

Your opinions, while welcome, are not nearly as informative to me as the facts upon which they are based. If you have anything to say, I am all ears.

However, you contradict yourself when you say you spent you time trying to squeeze a few more drops out of old fields. Was the field empty? Or was it not? Did technology have anything to do with it? What was secondary or tertiary recovery all about? Did the price of oil have any input in the decision? Enquiring minds want to know.

I'm glad you know my heart so well. Good luck to you.

Drunken Sailor| 5.27.11 @ 10:07AM

You use a name from a Clint Eastwood movie and dance around the "Peak Oil" theory but you have not proven that the statistics Mr. Kaminsky uses are wrong. Basically you have only attempted to disprove one commenters post, while dismissing the article and providing no facts to back up your dismissal.

Then you want to disparage the "culture that underlies" American Spectator yet expect us to take you seriously? Sorry that dog won't hunt.

Ross Kaminsky | 5.27.11 @ 10:34AM

Arch,

Just because any particular oil field can peak does not mean that "peak oil" theory is correct except in some far-future hypothetical scenario.

Worldwide reserves seem either stable or on the increase over years or even decades of oil use.

I would also note, as other readers of my article have, that you have done NOTHING to address the statistics which I not only mentioned but provided the links to so that you could check their veracity or my conclusions from them.

TrueBlue| 5.27.11 @ 1:30PM

I could personally care less if each field has a limited amount of oil or not. The fact remains until other forms of energy production are developed to a level that makes them more efficient than the use of oil and natural gas that we currently have available, not using what we have RIGHT NOW is just plain asinine.

Use what we have, don't impoverish the nation in an attempt to force the change, and develop other EFFICIENT forms of energy production. If the nation has little to no cash then there won't be any money spent on development, it'll be spent on what we need NOW first.

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 11:37PM

Proven reserves are the coin of the realm - all other "reserves" have a level of risk of being real that reduce their usefulness in calculations of your energy future. Of course, Kaminsky succeeded in muddying the issue - which was his purpose of course.
If you make a certain wage/hour you know what your "proven" wages will be. If you expect a raise in the future, will you spend the raise before you get it? You wouldn't if your prudent and smart. Yet you believe all his tripe presented here. Really?

dnha14| 5.27.11 @ 9:09AM

Well, this is very coherent and believable information. The problem is, how does one explain this to the ignoramuses that voted for Obama? Many if his supporters are cerebrally incapable of understanding the nuances of statistics. This is why we are in such deep trouble as a nation and why statistics are at the top of Twain's/Disraeli's list. They are so easily manipulated by the intelligent and so misunderstood by the masses. I guess that's why statistics was one of the most difficult courses I took in college, but it was worth it.

Nunya| 5.27.11 @ 4:58PM

dnha, I took a graduate statistics course, and the first day of class our professor made that same statement about "lies, damned lies, and statistics" (and he also had a 'hat tip' to Disraeli) . He also made the comment that if we didn't learn anything else in his class, that before we just took a statistical result for granted, to determine "who paid for the study". If one can't analyze the data themselves (i.e., we students), then who paid for the study will often times tell you why the numbers came out as they did.

People's lack of knowledge of statistics can also often times be used to mislead them--for example, stating the "average" home price versus the "median" home price is often confusing to those with limited exposure to stats. One large multi-million dollar home sold can skew the "avearge" upward, while the "median" barely moves, if at all.

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 11:39PM

Proven reserves are the coin of the realm - all other "reserves" have a level of risk of being real that reduce their usefulness in calculations of your energy future. Of course, Kaminsky succeeded in muddying the issue - which was his purpose of course. Using statistics as you point out.
If you make a certain wage/hour you know what your "proven" wages will be. If you expect a raise in the future, will you spend the raise before you get it? You wouldn't if your prudent and smart. Yet these people believe all his tripe presented here.

Dee See| 5.27.11 @ 9:17AM

"The deindistrilization, the in place police
state, and the swifly approaching 'awe-stare-IT-he'
(remember we're the ITs) ---and incremental
extermination was all planned, talked about
way, way back in the 1930's by the RIIA and
CFR. I have their very books.
They were planning it then. We've all
been living through a script and a business
plan . Really."
-ALAN WATT
'Cutting Through the Matrix'
(the bravest, most detailed and informed
coverage to be found online)

REALLY

DonW| 5.27.11 @ 10:04AM

Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Iran fund their statist governments and theocracies on oil revenues. It is nonsense to conclude that American statist are the only statist in the world that hate oil. The common denominator for all statist are that they hate capitalism and freedom.
This is further illustrated in our regimes funding of Braziliam oil drilling. They will cut oil drilliing deals with other statist, but not with free market capitalist U.S. businesses. But if the regime is successful nationalizing oil drilling, they will drill like banshees since the profits will be nationalized.

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 11:40PM

Huh?

victor| 5.28.11 @ 3:32AM

Why is your boy Barry giving 5 BILLION Dollars to Brazil?
Why is he promising to buy their oil?
Why is he keeping 100,000 oil workers unemployed?
Why is he keeping brazillians working?

We have 300 years worth of our own oil. why are you and he keeping it in the ground and stagnating our economy?

Purpleguy| 5.28.11 @ 8:40AM

Go tell it to Exxon and Chevron and BP and Shell about the 300 years of oil. I'd rather get off of oil altogether as national security imperative, but alternatively I'd rather give our oil dollars to friends like Canada and Mexico and Brazil, even Venezuela instead of Libya, Iran, or Iraq.

victor| 5.29.11 @ 5:39PM

PurpleDood:
"alternatively I'd rather give our oil dollars to (others)" rather than fellow Americans.

I, and millions like me, would rather that everyone else give cold hard cash for OUR oil, don't you think, or don't you?

Richard Baker| 5.27.11 @ 10:25AM

Wonder if these leftist critics agonize about oil useage/reserves when they drive their personal automobiles?

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 11:41PM

No.

Skippy| 5.30.11 @ 7:03PM

Wow.
What a shock.
A liberal who doesn't give a rat's ass who he hurts, so long as he is true to his Messiah.
First to bitch; first to starve.
You should have given that gun-control position a tad more thought.

JP| 5.27.11 @ 10:35AM

And then there is always coal. Yes, turning coal into petrol is expensive. But the per capita costs decrease the more it is used. And NG is a great alternative for power generation and urban vehicles.

But, I think when one considers the demographics of the world (a demographic that is rapidly aging), all of this Strum und Drang is a smoke screen. Aging societies, and societies that have dwindling populations, consume less energy with every passing year. Currently, the globe enjoys the last vestiges of the post-war Baby Boom. But the demographic momentuem is losing steam. With 15 years or so, global demand for energy will peak and then decline.

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 11:41PM

Are you from the twilight zone?

George S| 5.27.11 @ 10:38AM

It's funny... liberals tell us we use too much oil, thereby threatening future generations running out of oil. Yet they think nothing of saddling them with unsustainable debt that would preclude them from even affording to buy the oil we "conserved" for them.

TrueBlue| 5.27.11 @ 1:33PM

Or flying around in private jets, or driving around in multiple huge gas-guzzling vehicles. Not that there is anything wrong with either, it's just massively hypocritical on their part to speak about how evil it is, and then being the worst offenders.

Nunya| 5.27.11 @ 5:01PM

Algore is a perfect example of "do as I say and not as I do", typical liberal BS.

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 11:44PM

And, true to form you will wait until the oil is almost gone before you worry about it - just like the right didn't worry about Reagan's deficits, Bush I's deficits, and Bush II's deficits. You worry about it now when there's a Democrat in the WH. And now, the R's want to bankrupt the government. let their paychecks be the first to go please. Typical right-wing BS.

Dick Cheney| 5.28.11 @ 12:51AM

Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter.

victor| 5.28.11 @ 3:34AM

PurpleJam:
"And, true to form you will wait until the oil is almost gone before you worry about it"

You expect to be around in 300 years or so when the last drop is allegedly gone?

Purpleguy| 5.28.11 @ 8:42AM

You believe your own propaganda? That's instrumental in how the right-wing thinks. Belief is everything, facts are pesky little devils that get in the way. It's not the amount of oil available - it's what is economically retrievable that matters. Go learn something.

victor| 5.29.11 @ 1:56AM

PurpleDood:
"It's not the amount of oil available - it's what is economically retrievable that matters."

Retrievable or not, you're dead set against any and all drilling.

"economically retrievable"

Here's some "economically retrievable" oil right now:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05......html?_r=1

"Go learn something."

Yeah, maybe you should, eh?

Purpleguy| 5.29.11 @ 4:43AM

No, I'm not against drilling (but nice try putting words in my mouth - not liberal btw) - but if we have to go into deep water for oil and inaccessible places - doesn't that tell you something? Doesn't it just concern you a bit? Just a little?
It's just stupid not to encourage alternative energy sources, when the end of economical oil is on the horizon. The combustion engine would have gone nowhere without encouragement (= seed money) when it was young. Same with renewables now.

victor| 5.29.11 @ 5:45PM

PurploeDood:
"(but nice try putting words in my mouth - not liberal btw)"

Where did I say you were a flamin' Liberal, eh?

" but if we have to go into deep water for oil and inaccessible places - "

We can drill off shore and out in th eopen places such as ANWR, Bakken, New Mexico, Texas, Rockies. Take your pick.

"The combustion engine would have gone nowhere without encouragement (= seed money)"

Are you saying that government somehow financed Ford, Dodge, Chevrolet and the other 2-3 thousand automakers?

They raised money on their own and built cars on their own. And when the got into trouble, they went out of business or were bought up by someone else.

Go read some history.
You're bothering me, Boy.

Gordon W.| 5.27.11 @ 10:47AM

This article has by far the most red herrings and straw man arguments I have ever read stuffed into one article. In attempting to combat "energy myths" it uses numbers that are not yet proven, "myth." Of course these reserves that are not yet proven are totally real, but forgets to compare the US's unproven reserves with foreign ones.

Then there are conclusions about energy efficiency and what environmentalists desire. I am pretty sure the only desire is clean air, clean water and more healthy animals to be able to eat in the future. At least that is at the heart of everyone I have ever talked to. Unfortunately this ridiculous conclusion forgets about national sovereignty, jurisdiction and many other principals which the conservative base believe in.

Why not make an argument that doesn't tread on every principle the base you are preaching to believe in. It makes for a better argument.

Pete| 5.27.11 @ 11:10AM

"I am pretty sure the only desire is clean air, clean water and more healthy animals to be able to eat in the future." Pass the pipe, please.

Butch | 5.27.11 @ 2:33PM

Do you actually think anybody here is buying that line, Watermelon?

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 11:45PM

Of course you don't, because you don't consider the common good - only your own sorry a*

victor| 5.29.11 @ 2:02AM

PurpleDood:
"the common good"

The common good is when gas is cheap so as not to be worried about, you can buy whatever car or truck you want to buy and not what the government wants you to buy:

http://inhabitat.com/all-elect.....or-the-uk/

On second thought, some people may buy this one:

http://www.doobybrain.com/2007.....ck-wheels/

Greg Hunter| 5.27.11 @ 10:51AM

Rosoce Bartlett, an man of science and a conservative. It is disheartening to hear politicians debating drilling in the Arctic w/o even
mentioning the KIC-1 well. That alone points to the information deficit our leaders have. So long.

Thanks Arch and he provides enough citation in this paragraph to refute Mr. Kaminsky. The people who denigrate the left on this issue really have no idea about oil formation, production and the politics that surround it. Mr. Kaminsky appears to want to get GOP sponsorship as well as ads from oil companies and the people that make comments on this site are looking for a lazy, easy excuse to lean back on their own bias.

Americans deserve the government they have because they are ignorant and are too easily led by empty suits and pandering journalists.

I will have hand it to GWBush as he knew where the prize was and got it for Corporate (not American) interests which the American Taxpayer will pay dearly in defense dollars, price at the pump and supporting the broken souls that did the dirty work as patriots.

PS The bigoted stuff is still present Mr. Kaminsky but that is part of the plan right? Fan latent racism, too bad you cannot work in homophobia and abortion for a Superfecta. Bum.

fmm| 5.27.11 @ 11:18AM

When you have a coherent thought, please post it.

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 11:47PM

Thank you for making his point abundantly clear.

Drunken Sailor| 5.27.11 @ 11:35AM

I was waiting for the "War for Oil" statements and I was not dissapointed. I have one question. If we went to war for oil where is our share?

Oh yea, and your a idiot.

Dustoff| 5.27.11 @ 12:30PM

I guess that explains O-dumbers war in Libya? (-:

Drunken Sailor| 5.27.11 @ 12:47PM

What's worse than going to war for oil? Going to war so someone else can get the oil. See Libya.

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 11:48PM

Ummm - did you miss the part where Iraq has all their oil, we have none of it, nor any American company is even involved extracting it. Now, who in the world arranged that one? Hmmm?

Ammo Guy| 5.27.11 @ 3:17PM

Yeah, when we were rooting around in search of an appropriate operational name for our effort to rid the world of Saddam, I suggested "Operation Iraqi Liberty" rather than the eventual "Operation Iraqi Freedom." Still can't figure out why my idea was rejected.

glenny| 5.27.11 @ 5:42PM

Sailor, good comment. I always wondered why the lefties call the Iraq war a "War for Oil". If there was to truly be a war for oil, why invade Iraq. Why not Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar or Bahrain? They're much smaller and defenseless compared to Iraq. glenny

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 11:50PM

Duh - because that's what Paul Wolfowitz said - we would pay for the war by selling Iraqi oil.... Did you miss his hearing with Congress on C-Span? Y'all might learn something if you listened to the real people actually speak instead of what Rush tells you they said or meant.

GHung| 5.30.11 @ 1:02AM

-30:

"And oh ~~yea~~ yeah, ~~your~~ you're a an idiot."

Al Adab| 5.27.11 @ 11:10AM

Never let the facts get in the way when there is political advantage to be gained. This is not about energy policy, it is solely about control and raw political power. Central control of the energy sources for the nation reduces the entire economy to subservience. That is the goal.

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 11:52PM

Break oil's grip on our economy, and the control evaporates - and you all don't want freedom?

victor| 5.28.11 @ 3:36AM

90% of the world's oil is owned by governments.

Why do you want our government to own our oil?

Purpleguy| 5.28.11 @ 8:45AM

I want us to shove foreign oil up their a*. But if y'all don't get off of oil for transportation and heating, we never will. This is a national security imperative. Why are you dilly-dallying around with who's philosophy of oil is correct? We are not self sufficient in energy and we need to be for the sake of national security.

victor| 5.29.11 @ 2:05AM

PurpleDood:
"We are not self sufficient in energy and we need to be for the sake of national security."

And you don't call 300 YEARS worth of OIL "not self sufficient"??

Dood, you need to come in out from the sun.
Your brains, what little you had, are FRIED!!

Purpleguy| 5.29.11 @ 4:48AM

300 years of oil? that is ridiculous. you can only count on proven reserves - the rest is a maybe. what an idiot. You probably believed the world was going to end last week, didn't you? And, you were to be raptured, huh?

victor| 5.29.11 @ 5:49PM

PurpleDood:
"you can only count on proven reserves - the rest is a maybe"

Here, read this, maybe you'll learn something, eh?

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40872.pdf

That is, if you can read something more complex than a takeout menu.

voted against carter| 5.28.11 @ 4:15PM

Typical LIBRATARD,.. reframe the disagreement in to SOMETHING it IS NOT.

"alternative energy technologies"
ARE a LIBRATARD fantasy.

IF they could be achieved , THAT ALREADY WOULD HAVE been and we WOULD BE USING THEM.

were are they?? Well libratards????

WISHING for stuff DOES NOT WORK.

Ken (Old Texican)| 5.27.11 @ 11:43AM

Al Adab
you nailed it.

Ken (Old Texican)| 5.27.11 @ 11:44AM

By the way Al Adab,
have you checked out my nifty new blog site?
www.txbooks.blogspot.com
Lots of neat stuff there on all the pages.

Al Adab| 5.27.11 @ 12:35PM

I shall. I need to read the "Said no" series.

Are you planning to join for the steak house meeting?

Richard Eis| 5.27.11 @ 12:02PM

Oil does not come from dinosaurs, nor does it miraculously appear out of the earths crust.

Arch Stanton is right, it is too much effort to try to get you to understand...yet... but let me ask you, do you think all oil is equal? That the stuff in Alaska is going to flow from the ground like the first American wells?

Ray| 5.27.11 @ 12:14PM

Since most of America's first wells were non-productive, were considered "dry," until refinements in extraction methods were developed and allowed for the efficient extraction of oil, I would have to say: let's hope not! I would hate for an oil company to abandon a well simply because it wasn't one of the "gushers" of old.

Richard Eis| 5.27.11 @ 2:24PM

Don't worry, America is pulling plenty of oil from oldareas that got abandoned earlier. Sometimes whole 10's of barrels per day. It's merely unfortunate that population increases and the slow drying up of the larger wells is cancelling any increase from them to get America back to its "golden age".

Todd S| 5.27.11 @ 4:34PM

And yet we make off-limits fresh new sources of oil sitting off our coast and in the arctic wasteland? Does that make sense to you Richard or are we just better off paying other countries for our oil and making oil more expensive at the same time. Are you also one of those logically impaired people that really believes that solar and wind are the future for our energy uses despite all facts to the contrary?

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 11:54PM

Why do you want to stay with the buggy and buggy whip, when the combustion engine is staring you in the face - the electric car vs oil based transportation that is?

victor| 5.28.11 @ 3:38AM

How many electric power plants are going to be needed if every one of us has an electric car, eh?
How far do they go before needing a charge?
And how much are you willing to pay for those increased electric rates?

Purpleguy| 5.28.11 @ 8:50AM

If there is a viable alternative to oil-based transportation and energy production in this country, why don't you think the prices for that energy will drop? If we don't need as much, the price drops. Ever here of supply and demand? Market forces? Competition? Ring any bells? 150 years ago oil was barely heard of. How did we get here -> there were subsidies and support systems in place to enable the oil and gas industries to grow while they were small and automobiles were new. Given the same support for renewable energies, we can create true alternatives to oil-based fuels, or should I say carbon-based fuels. Competition = Price reduction - Right? Simple, isn't it?

InLineFour| 5.31.11 @ 4:12PM

Perp,
Name those government subsidies. Specifically.
A "subsidy" is a cash handout of public money by govt to a private person or entity. What cash handouts was our government giving the oil companies and auto companies in their infancy, 100 years ago, that the lack thereof today, you argue, is preventing alternative energy sources from competing with "carbon-based" fuels?

voted against carter| 5.28.11 @ 4:16PM

Typical LIBRATARD,.. reframe the disagreement in to SOMETHING it IS NOT.

Purpleguy| 5.29.11 @ 4:49AM

Wow, now that was a real strong rebuttal there Chuckles.

Ray| 5.27.11 @ 12:09PM

"But the energy use figure tells you almost nothing by itself."

Yes, like how that energy is generated. What percentage of total energy is derived from oil?

Ken (Old Texican)| 5.27.11 @ 12:53PM

Ray,
please stay away from meaningless details. Now read carefully...
Most of our UNPROVEN reserves have been mapped accurately below ground in 3 dimensions with the new technologies.
Over the last ten years we have discovered OCEANS of oil never even imagined before.

My geologists tell me we have five hundred years worth of oil and gas in American territory.

I would like to see us converting to compressed natural gas for our auto fuel.
The oil is too precious for making plastics etc.

Occam's Tool| 5.27.11 @ 1:52PM

Thank you, Ken.

And, by the way, I love Ruth's Chris in B'ham, and it can kill two birds by allowing me to visit my 'Bama in-laws....

Al Adab| 5.27.11 @ 2:18PM

I don't know OT. Asking a Longhorn like Ken to visit Crimson Tide territory is a stretch. Of couse if RCV is buying it will be worth the trip.

Ken (Old Texican)| 5.27.11 @ 3:16PM

Ruth Chris is wonderful...........BUT...
Taste of Texas will leave pecker stains in your undies.
RCV has an open invitation on my dime, as do you guys.

Al Adab| 5.27.11 @ 3:51PM

RCV will be buying after the election. Is there a good steak house in Liberal Kansas? LOL :)

Where is Taste of Texas? How about meeting in Fredricksburg for German dinner?

Nunya| 5.27.11 @ 5:05PM

Ken, I'd love to join you one of these days. Where is it?

Occam's Tool| 5.31.11 @ 6:01PM

You are a fantastic guy, Ken...

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 11:55PM

And, yet it will run out. Thanks for showing how shallow your care of America is - is 500 years your limit? After that f* everyone?

the refudiator| 5.28.11 @ 1:06AM

he needs to talk to some different geologists. 500 years x 20 million barrels/day (US daily use) x 365 days/year = 3.65 x 10 to the 13th power, or 1.53 x 10 to the 14th gallons. That is about 150 cubic miles of oil. That is bigger than Lake Erie.

victor| 5.28.11 @ 3:40AM

That's why the oil is under the ground., Where you cannot see it.

victor| 5.28.11 @ 3:41AM

Now we know that you are certifiably insane.

Ray| 5.29.11 @ 12:46PM

What's your suggesting, stop using it before it "runs out," a kind of "f**k everyone today" situation?

Ray| 5.29.11 @ 12:44PM

What's s "meaningless" about my question? Until we know that answer, it's difficult to determine how long any given amount of reserves is going to last.

Omri| 5.30.11 @ 9:17PM

"My geologists tell me we have five hundred years worth of oil and gas in American territory."

Do they talk to you through the fillings in your teeth?

Ore Gone| 5.27.11 @ 1:56PM

If you judge the accuracy of the article by the number of troll hits and then consider how close it is to the main mantra of the left I would say that your article is spot on. The energy crisis is their favorite tool of the day.

Purpleguy| 5.29.11 @ 4:51AM

And, yet, I am not the left ... but the arguments are stupid regarding plentiful oil ... it ain't so.

Ray| 5.29.11 @ 12:48PM

That's the same argument people made 30 years ago, when it was predicted that we'll run out of oil in 20 years due to the "proven" reserves versus consumption rates.

Oldefarte| 5.27.11 @ 2:03PM

My substantial lifetime has witnessed the environmental wackos increasing stranglehold upon the imbecilic looney liberal Democratic Party representatives, and the corresponding economic/financial decline resulting from same's deprivation of desperately needed domestic energy supplies from our economy and its producers. There is simply abundant resources of oil etc supplies in this country, but oil companies are prevented under penalty of law from producing same. The current dictator-in-chief, El Chosen One, is by far the most extreme/radical of these lunatic Democrats who is blatently using his corrupted power of government to prevent this production by oil companies, so that he can obtain his desired gold star from the Sierra Club and/or Greenpiece. If not so prevented, this country could possibly be enjoying $.50/gallon of gasoline from the humongous supplies of oil/gas that are within our midst. But oh no, we can't allow those dirty ol oil company and their greedy bastard capitalists from providing us consumers with what we desperately need and want, now can we? We have to instead be dumbars Gore lemmings following these Democrats off of the cliff of insanity and stupidity. Oh additionally, we must completely empower our moronic friends [truthfully ENEMIES that seek daily to destroy us] in Russia and the middle east, since these idiots only means of financial wealth is their natural resourced oil [without same, these dumbsrsses would starve to death, since they are incapable of producing, manufacturing etc anything of economic value other than the oil that is in their undergrounds]. If we were ever smart enough to figure out that we could completely destroy these countries by completely producing our emmense oil supplies domestically, maybe there would not also be a need to send our twenty years olds military members into these countries to become injured and die. But oh no, we must preserve and protect the spotted owl and the karabu at all costs, even if same results in $20/gallon of gasoline to get us to/from work, to run our factories and utilities, tow power our trains and planes, etc. God forbid, we should ever bismirsh the glorification of King Al and El Chosen One by not going GREEN, but one bright result may be that a lack of adequate oil ingredient for cosmetics may cause SF's Nance the Pig's cosmetic facelift to crack into a million pieces!!!!!!!!!!

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 11:57PM

Immature gibberish

Oldefarte| 5.28.11 @ 12:56PM

STICK IT, PURPLE EXCREMENT FAG!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 5.28.11 @ 12:59PM

PS: Your non-expression is a classic case of """"""""""""""""""""""""ACTING/STATING..
STUPIDLY""""""""""""""""!!!!!!!!!

Purpleguy| 5.29.11 @ 4:52AM

Wow - and your rebuttal is oh so intelligent ... my, my you told me ... don't cry now.

Oldefarte| 5.29.11 @ 10:16AM

Yeah, it was about as intelligent as was that of MORON president'similar statement, that you so lovingly adore[Purpleguy| 5.29.11 @ 4:52AMWow - and your rebuttal is oh so intelligent], huh???????

voted against carter| 5.28.11 @ 4:17PM

Typical LIBRATARD,.. reframe the disagreement in to SOMETHING it IS NOT.

Choey| 5.27.11 @ 2:37PM

I keep hearing people talk about CNG for auto fuel but no mention of solving the problem of very limited range on an auto sized tank (typically 50 to 70 miles). I can see it used on vehicles big enough to handle very large tanks, such as semis, buses and large vans and maybe even locomotives. But, until you can figure out how to liquefy CNG at "normal" temperatures it is no better in cars than batteries.

Also I keep seeing references to the KIC-1 well but you provide no information about what was discovered. Chevron is not saying what they found and the state of Alaska is having to sue them for the data so I have to assume that not even those of you who mention it know anything about it. If you do, please inform us.

Ken (Old Texican)| 5.27.11 @ 3:20PM

Choey,
You have been lied to.
Compressed natural gas in a ten "gallon" (sized) tank is good for four hundred miles.
(heh, you just gotta' compress it a little more.)

Thom| 5.27.11 @ 3:40PM

Ken,
You might want to revise you estimate there a bit. The Honda Civic NG can hold about 4.3 gallons equivalent safely at pressures allowed by law in more space than that 10 gallon gas tank. Because of the requirements to protect that compressed gas, aka a bomb a ready state, said compressed tank has to be moved deeper into the car taking up some useable space. Technically you are correct as the Honda Civic will get 40-50 mpg off that fuel but to get 10 gallons equivalent into the same space as that 10 gallon tank is going to require something much stronger, heavier and under considerable pressure that under current laws would not be allowed on the road let alone near a tunnel, etc. There are issues with compressed NG use for long distances.

InLineFour| 5.31.11 @ 4:28PM

So oil (gasoline) wins again. Drat!

Which brings us back to the immutability of oil that Perp tries to obfuscate with his every post: for its energy density and fungibility (bang for buck), nothing touches oil.

Ray| 5.29.11 @ 12:52PM

"heh, you just gotta' compress it a little more."

Yo may not be aware of this, but gasses, any gasses, can only be compressed to a certain pressure, where they condense into a liquidize. Adding more pressure into the system isn't going to compress that condensed, liquefied gas any further, unless you're talking about MILLIONS of "atmospheres" of pressure, like you find in the core of a star.

Steve A| 5.27.11 @ 3:09PM

Ladies & gentlemen. Here is what we are up against.

The other day I was at the grocery with my 14 yo daughter. She informed me that we needed to buy some balloons for her science project. When I asked her the details, she informed me that she had been instructed to build a model car powered by balloons. Needless to say, this caused me to pick up a 12 pack of beer along with the balloons.

I agreed to get her the materials under the condition that I be allowed to contribute 1 small component to the project. After she completed her car, I took a little box, taped it to the back of the car & labeled it ( "gas (use if you actually want this car to move)).

Purpleguy| 5.28.11 @ 12:01AM

Nice. Teach 'em young to be stupid.

Oldefarte| 5.28.11 @ 1:00PM

Or to be a PURPLEFAG!!!!!!!!

Purpleguy| 5.29.11 @ 4:52AM

Is that like an OldeFag?

Oldefarte| 5.29.11 @ 10:19AM

Oh, I thought that '''''PURPLE''''' was the preferred color [not red, not blue, but something indistinguishable and in the middle] of you liberals, as in PEACOCKS??????????

gary siebel| 5.27.11 @ 3:17PM

So are you opposed to, and/or abandoning the pursuit of renewable energy resources? Whether accurate or not, your entire argument seems to be geared towards increasing our dependence on oil, rather than decreasing it.

Ken (Old Texican)| 5.27.11 @ 3:24PM

Duh!
right, gary!
NUCLEAR is the answer to fixed-base energy. Natural gas is good for a couple of thousand years for mobile uses alone.
Get your head out of you're ass.

Al Adab| 5.27.11 @ 3:47PM

Get 'im Ken!

We could even use the natural gas lines at our homes (with a pressure converter) to fill our cars (I once had a propane powered Bronco) right in our driveways. Bill it through the meter already there. Nuclear would make enough electricity (if we'd quit regulating the costs into the stratosphere) to cover our needs forever.

They will never get it Ken, because it's not about facts and reality but only about control.

Purpleguy| 5.28.11 @ 12:08AM

are you really that dumb. The Arctic is melting in front of our eyes - but there's no climate change in your mind. U need to get urs out of ur a*

Oldefarte| 5.28.11 @ 1:01PM

'THERE YOU GO AGAIN'.....PURPLEFAG!!!!

Purpleguy| 5.29.11 @ 4:55AM

You really don't get it, do you? I knew Ronald Reagan, and You sir, are no Ronald Reagan.

Oldefarte| 5.29.11 @ 10:21AM

The only Reagan that you would know has the name Ron Jr. Are you also a ballet dancer and a YOUKNOWWHAT??????????

skip| 5.30.11 @ 1:54PM

You are really dumb to refuse to acknowledge the earth is currently between ice ages at the mildest stage of climate ever during the entire 4.6 billion years of earth's existence.

You are really dumb to refuse to acknowledge constant climate change during the entire 4.6 billion years of the earth's existence.

You are really dumb to post unintelligence and dishonesty repeatedly.

i| 5.27.11 @ 4:15PM

The article omits a few salient facts. For instance, 21 billion barrels of oil is less than 3 years of supply at current consumption rates of approximately 9 billion barrels a year. The USA and its coasts have been fairly well surveyed. There is some oil there, but not enough for energy independence, nor will there ever be.

The second point is that oil scarcity has little to do with the quantity of oil. This is counter-intuitive, but true. While we have a great deal of oil, it's not the light, sweet crude that's cheap to get and cheap to refine. What we have available is the consistency of tar, or molasses, full of sulfur and expensive to extract (e.g. deep water drilling). It's there, but at some point, it's going to take more energy and money to get the oil then the oil is worth. At that point, we're done with domestic oil production as we now know it.

Not that we shouldn't drill domestically, expand our production base, change our import sources to Canada and Mexico and explore new technologies for extraction and oil production from other hydrocarbons, but we must do so with the reality-based understanding that it won't be enough to sustain our current levels of energy consumption forever, or even for very long.

Purpleguy| 5.28.11 @ 12:10AM

Excellent post - but the ditto heads won't get it. They intend to follow their beliefs - not the facts facing them. Just like "deficits don't matter" per Reagan and Cheney - until they do.

Oldefarte| 5.28.11 @ 1:03PM

They didn't so much matter THEN, but they sure as hell so NOW[since they have increased 300% in the last two years due to HOPE and CHANGE bullexcrement]......PURPLEFAG!!!!!!

Purpleguy| 5.29.11 @ 5:00AM

Nice propaganda - Bush left office with fewer jobs and more unemployment than when he started. He tripled the national debt and left the country with TARP bailout, the Auto bailout, AIG bailout, and losing 750,000 jobs a month as he left office, 2 wars not on the budget btw - and you continue the man who is saving your sorry a**, creating 2 million jobs since he came into office, saved the auto industry, has recovered TARP funds, and is continuing to grow the country and now has to protect Medicare from Paul "Throw Grandma off the Cliff" Ryan. Typical rightwing response when you don't get ur way. Now don't cry....

Oldefarte| 5.29.11 @ 10:40AM

Nice propaganda - Bush left office with fewer jobs and more unemployment than when he started. BS! WE'LL TAKE BUSH'S 5% UNEMPLOYMENT ANYDAY COMPARED TO BARRY'S 10% [AND 15-20% AMONG MINORITIES].
He tripled the national debt and left the country with TARP bailout, the Auto bailout, AIG bailout, and losing 750,000 jobs a month as he left office. BS! BUSH ONLY BAILED OUT THE BANKS, AND BARRY EXPLODED TARP TO GIVE WELFARE TO THE AUTO COMPANIES DUE TO HIS LABOR UNION BLOWBUDDIES IN DETROIT, JUST AS HE'S DOING IN SC WITH THE NLRB' HARRASSMENT OF BOEING.
2 wars not on the budget btw - and you continue the man who is saving your sorry a**. YEAH, MORON, 'SAVING' BY TRIPLING THE DEFECIT/DEBT IN 2 YEARS, CAUSING MASSIVE UNEMPLOYMENT, STUPIDLY SPENDING HIS NON-STIMULUS ON STATE GOVERNMENTS' LABOR UNIONIZED EMPLOYMENT MAINTENANCE, AND DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY[THAT'S REALLY 'SAVING' MORON]
creating 2 million jobs since he came into office. HE DIDN'T 'CREATE' EXCREMENT AH, HE ONLY PREVENTED THE RIGHTFUL TERMINATION OF STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES DUE TO HIS FAVORED LABOR UNION FELLATIOS
saved the auto industry. YEAH IDIOT, HE SAVED THEM ALL DUE TO THEIR AFL-CIO UAW LABOR UNIONIZATION
has recovered TARP funds.HE DIDN'T RECOVER EXCREMENT MORON----THE BANKS HAVE PAID BACK THEIR BORROWED DOLLARS 100% WHEREAS GM ETC STILL OWE THE TAXPAYERS $11 BILLION DOLLARS
and is continuing to grow the country and now.'GROW THE COUNTRY'? THAT'S AN ASININE STATEMENT AND HAS NO RELEVANCE TO ECONOMICS WHATSOEVER. YOU'RE CORRECT IN THAT HE HAS GROWN THE COUNTRY IN THE SENSE OF ENLARGING THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT BY 300% IN 2 YEARS.
has to protect Medicare from Paul "Throw Grandma off the Cliff" Ryan. THAT ASININE COMMERCIAL IS ABOUT AS STUPID AS YOU ARE.THE RYAN PLAN WILL SAVE MEDICARE FROM DESTRUCTION THAT BARRY/DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPOLISH BY STEALING $500 BILLION FROM SAME AND GIVING SAME TO MEDICAID/WELFARE.
Typical rightwing response when you don't get ur way. Now don't cry....NO, IT'S INTELLIGENT, UNLIKE YOUR 'HOPE' AND 'CHANGE' BS WHICH IS TYPICAL EXCREMENT COMING FORTH FROM THE BEHIND OF A STUPID LIBERAL BARRY SUPPORTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

John Navratil| 5.29.11 @ 12:56PM

A few salient facts. The proven reserves fluctuate, but have remained stable. That three years supply would have been used up a couple of decades ago, if not.

All oil comes in various grades. The price per barrel paid at the field contains a price inflater or deflater to compensate. Not all oil is sweet and not all is sour. The high-sulphur stuff is generally from Venezuala.

Your observation that, at some point the oil take more money to recover than it is worth is true, but ignores the dynamic of technological changes. The same thing occurs with all sorts of minerals. Old mines are reopened, for example. Twenty years, or so, ago, the mine tailings from gold mining operations going back one hundred year became valuable again as recovery technologies advanced. The price signals also force substitutions, for example to substitute CNG or battery powered vehicles. How many people would buy a Prius is gasoline was still $0.19 a gallon?

You should be aware that our principal oil suppliers are already Canada and Mexico. Saudi Arabia comes in at number three.

http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas.....mport.html

ABNCP| 5.27.11 @ 4:22PM

We are dealing with invincible ignorance from much of the political left in this country and their progressive/Marxist mission to change Americafrom a free market world power to a country whose people are under total government control. Why don't we utilize the energy resources we have? One reason is that Obama and his administration refuse to allow us to do that. But, he encourages Brazil to drill for oil and even tells them we will be their biggest customer when they do! That only make sense if we understand his agenda.
However, we have in this countys borders:
8 times as much oil as Saudi-Arabia
18 times as much oil as Iraq
21 times as much oil as Kuwait
22 times as much oil as Iran
500 times as much oil as Yemen
Stansbury Report, 04/20/2006!!
Hidden beneth the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. More than 2 trillion barrels of oil!!
10 years ago the left was insisting that in 10 years alternate energy sources would solve our energy problems. Yeah right. Well that was 10 years ago and during that period if we had been drilling for oil, gas, developing shale oil extraction processes and developing nuclear energy we would be driving our vehicles with about fuel costing about $ 1.00 per gallon. Thanks you left wing A.H. And yet about 50% of this country votes for Democrat
politicans who support this insanity. God help us.

Purpleguy| 5.28.11 @ 12:12AM

So who stopped drilling over those 10 years, weasel-nuts? The easy oil is drying up. Amount of oil isn't the only issue. It will end, but we can't get it all anyway.

Oldefarte| 5.28.11 @ 1:05PM

Who stopped drilling? Well PURPLEMORON, try ya BOY, his boy at Justice and his other boy at Interior and his IT at Homeland Security, that's who, dumbars!!!!!!!!!!

Purpleguy| 5.29.11 @ 5:01AM

Go look up drilling leases granted lately - u can google it - yes, even you can...

Oldefarte| 5.29.11 @ 10:46AM

I'm very familiar with the Louisiana offshore drilling situation, since I've spent 25 years in that area, dumbars! And as you know, Barry has only recently increased permits issuance due to several court rulings by Judge Feldman in NO forcing him and Interior to so so. Still numerous oil drilling company have now left Louisiana due to Barry's terrorists' policies and have taken their well paying jobs with them. You're a partisaned dumbars!!!!

Mutch Moore | 5.29.11 @ 3:01PM

Another SALIENT FACT: Unless oil from within U.S. borders is designated specifically for U.S. consumption (not to be co-mingled with the U.S. strategic reserve,) any benefit will fall onto Global entities who will sell it on the futures market to the highest bidder. Unless you want Russian or Venezuelan type nationalizing of the oil, no relief is possible to U.S. consumers.

Omri| 5.30.11 @ 9:24PM

It takes more energy to extract oil from oil shale than is IN the oil shale. This is pathetic.

InLineFour| 5.31.11 @ 4:44PM

Uhhh, isn't the Bakken oil formation in N Dakota an oil shale formation? And hasn't there been a drilling boom going on up there for several years now, thanks to horizontal drilling and slick frack technologies that have made extracting oil from shale formations PROFITABLE?

Too Many Tims| 5.27.11 @ 4:24PM

Affectionately, where did you learn to speak Ebonics?
"...at which time oil discovery and drilling technology were far behind what they is today... "

Purpleguy| 5.28.11 @ 12:12AM

and your point is?

Oldefarte| 5.28.11 @ 1:07PM

Purplefag is an imbecile!!!!

Purpleguy| 5.29.11 @ 5:02AM

What's this penchant for "fag" in everything you write? why is that on your mind, hmmmm?

Oldefarte| 5.29.11 @ 10:47AM

The TRUTH hurts, huh, PURPLEFAG??????

Michael L. Hauschild| 5.27.11 @ 4:32PM

The real issue here about “reserves vs. renewable” is a manifestation of geologic timescales and “real time.” All energy except a small amount of radioactive decay in the earth’s core is solar in nature. The current crop of “renewable” sources is utilized only in “real time;” they are residual effects of the “solar constant.” It is what is reaching the earth right now and what is not re-radiated or reflected is converted to heat.
That heat drives the motion of air which is very inefficiently converted to electricity by propellers, direct solar radiation is converted directly but it is even more “dilute.” Contrast this with the three hundred million years of Missisipian and Pensylvainian capture of sunlight that it took to carbonize all that rainforest and jungle. When you say “reserves of fossil fuel” you are talking of something that took, again, three hundred million years to convert to fuel. The scale of magnitude between these two sources of electricity is so vast that comparison is laughable. Look at it this way, how many light bulbs (even those inefficient infra-red creating tungsten filaments of yesteryear) would it take to replace your natural gas furnace (those light bulbs in order for this to be fair must be shining through one of your windows).
Capturing sunlight in real time, whether it drives the wind in your sails or juices your solar panel, palls in comparison. You probably burn up several thousand years worth of dinosaur bones to heat your house every night.

Thom| 5.27.11 @ 4:50PM

What is it, about 44 watts per square meter of earth's surface at the equator is what the Sun delivers per hour?

Michael L. Hauschild| 5.27.11 @ 6:41PM

Thom,
Realize this "constant" (it is not constant) is measured at the outer envelope of the atmosphere. More than ninty five percent of the radiation entering the atmosphere is "attenuated" (reflected, absorbed or black box re-radiated as lower energy wavelengths). The "absorbed" powers the circulation machine producing "wind" but the actual solar direct conversion via "solar panels" is miniscule. You are not going to power or maintain the industrial complex with "real time" energy sources. You have to "raid the bank account" of fossil fuel if you want things to keep operating.

Purpleguy| 5.28.11 @ 12:14AM

that's why you magnify the radiation from the sun - and you're fine.

Michael L. Hauschild| 5.28.11 @ 12:29PM

You cannot "magnify" radiation. You can "concentrate" it, lenses do this. But you always have less than you started with due to the rules of thermodynamic conversion. Try to think of it this way, you entering into this conversation is like a child shouting to get attention, you are "magnifying" your voice but you still remain an incoherent dumbass.

Purpleguy| 5.29.11 @ 5:03AM

Yes, concentrate is the right word. The rest I'll ignore, since you dropped into Rush-speak.

Oldefarte| 5.28.11 @ 1:08PM

You're magnifying your lack of intelligence!!!!

Mutch Moore | 5.29.11 @ 3:05PM

"You probably burn up several thousand years worth of dinosaur bones to heat your house every night." But, weren't oil deposits formed PRIOR to the dinosaur age? Or was the analogy metaphorical?

Thom| 5.27.11 @ 4:39PM

Strikes me Peak Oil Geologist and Global Warming/Climate Scientists have several things in common. When their theories don’t pan out in practice they invent or change the name of the problem and then claim to be the only experts on that too….. When asked for “proof” they make unsupported claims, resort to name calling or question your ability to challenge their expertise….. All the while not providing “proof” of their claims. I use “proof” in the scientific sense meaning that the theory has absolute proof and can be tested and verified…..by anyone.

My profession either invented or borrowed the phrase, “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with Barbra Streisand…. I see both approaches regularly used by people who put their faith based beliefs in hoaxes but insist that those who disagree with them prove a negative…..like prove there is more oil…. The known reserves of oil have increased since the first discovery of oil and its mass production use 100 years ago. No one can actually say how much oil there is regardless of the weight of their degrees. A tiny fraction of the surface of the planet has actually been surveyed and over 70% is covered with water.

It takes 10 seconds to blow the Peak Oil theory out of the park. Fill a class of water, insert one straw and suck that water out as fast as you can, record how long it took…. Recover repeat with two straws….and compare the times. The amount of oil we can extract from a known location can always be increased by putting more “straws” into the pool of oil. The determining factor in how many straws we put in a given square mile area is a function of the cost of each new straw and the expected pay back for said new straw outflow. The Government controls or contributes the most to the actual cost of the straws we put into Mother Earth particularly on land thus the oil companies started shifting their effort off shore where the fishes had less constituents to pay legal cost over in order to simply drill a hole in the ground. What some people call “peak domestic” production just happens to coincide with the creation of the Environmental Police Force. Like nuclear power but with additional risk factors, if the EPA drives up the cost of each hole drilled several times the number of holes drilled and where is going to shrink accordingly.

One TAS contributor said we have a “recovery and refinery” problem. There is truth to that in that the number of refineries has been cut in half due to EPA rules and associated cost of bringing them up to today’s standards and thus all the expansion of refinery capacity had occurred on existing sites. As has also been shown expanding existing sites are blocked by EPA based lawsuits and so to meet our shortfall in refineries we import finished product from Canada….. All this drive up the cost of production.

Recovery technology advances in the 80s through slant drilling increased the number of straws and reduced production cost considerably along with production amounts. The latest technology has given us affordable means to extract shell oil but the EPA is doing everything it can do to shut that down too. If it were actually possible to map where all the oil was in the US or world for that matter we still couldn’t extract it or develop the means to economically extract it under current EPA rules and practices. The Oil companies really don’t care what the price of a barrel of oil is as long as their net revenue covers their cost and they have enough profit to put back into finding more “product”. When the government makes it impossible to satisfy that requirement or drives up the cost of a barrel of oil beyond what people are willing to pay and thus reduce their net revenues below their operating cost they will just add more of their cost on the price the host country gets for their oil. The Oil companies aren’t going to go out of business because of the nonsense that is US policy but they will leave the US proper if things get much worse. The practical impact of that will bankrupt all three domestic automotive companies over night and reduce our standard of living to that of Mexico where we get a lot of oil along with Canada. Indeed the bulk of our imported oil comes from just across the north and south borders not the Middle East.

When you boil all this down most of our supply problems are self-inflicted stupidity brought about by political agenda’s that just can’t allow free enterprise to provide the best mix of products and services at several price points. The relative flat production rates in the continental US are the byproduct of government regulations interfering with free market processes. Like everything government tries to “control” the price sores out of control and the quality and/or quantity are reduced. Oil production is no different. It is just another source of wealth government wants to steal from and what better way to do that than make it scarce and drive up the price and thus the profits it derives taxes from….. The government gets the largest cut of those “obscene” profits oil companies report when prices spike….

Follow the money….. Who gets the biggest benefit from constrained supplies of energy?

Omri| 5.30.11 @ 9:22PM

"It takes 10 seconds to blow the Peak Oil theory out of the park. Fill a class of water, insert one straw and suck that water out as fast as you can, record how long it took…. Recover repeat with two straws….and compare the times."

That has got to be the most monumentally stupid thing said here. Because no matter how many straws you put in the glass, the amount of water in the glass is the same. More straws means the glass empties out faster. But it still empties out.

Todd S| 5.27.11 @ 4:48PM

You can try explaining that to the brainwashed drones like GHung (I prefer GDung) but it is beyond their comprehension because they just "know" renewable energy like solar and wind can replace oil, coal and nuclear if we just subsidize it more and make the other cheaper sources more expensive via regulation like the liberals are busy doing. Like Obama said, electricity will necessarily skyrocket but don't worry about that because we will just raise taxes on the rich and corporations to subsidize everyone else. Basically the Venezuela model is where they want to take us where they now have rolling blackouts and out of control inflation. If Obama gets another term, that is where we will be headed.

Purpleguy| 5.28.11 @ 12:15AM

Good, maybe your computer will shut down for a while

victor| 5.28.11 @ 3:44AM

as well as yours, eh?

Oldefarte| 5.28.11 @ 1:10PM

Maybe you'll GO TO HADES, leave this site permanently and do us all a tremendous favor!!!!

Omri| 5.30.11 @ 9:15PM

Wow, you really don't like being confronted with facts, eh?

Todd S| 5.31.11 @ 1:11PM

Purpleguy doesn't have any facts just like you. Troll elsewhere

john dubose| 5.27.11 @ 8:21PM

It may not be easy for some to see. But all sorts of energy is available if one is willing to pay a little more. Mainly heavy oil and conversion of coal to gasoline. Raise the price some more and algae based fuel will be an economic winner. Except for politics ( mostly middle east rivalries ) and environmental issues, everything is OK. We have energy enough for centuries. It just takes work and brains to go get it.

Todd S| 5.27.11 @ 10:17PM

Algae based fuel is a joke though probably not much more stupid than Ethanol. We have more than enough energy to go around at a reasonable price as long as the government stays out of the way and allows private enterprise to develop it. But Obama and his Marxist fellow travelers want to attack oil and coal companies and cause gas and electricity prices to skyrocket and make us believe in global warming and solar and wind power.

darth| 5.27.11 @ 8:53PM

This article totally misses 2 points:

1. It doesn't matter how much oil is in the ground, only how fast you can get it out. The easy oil is mostly gone, the rate of pumping is unsustainable that is what 'peak oil' means.
2. If we burn all the fossil fuel in the ground, climate change will devastate our grandchildren's world no matter what political party they are.

GHung's comments are the best here - he is a true conservative in the old fashioned sense. Keep up the good work GHung!

Here's another take on US oil reserves, which actually quotes numbers very similar to those in the article. The problem is of course the rate of production and the EROI which is declining.

See this article:

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/44870

Todd S| 5.27.11 @ 10:23PM

You are a clown Darth, you obviously have not been paying attention to the fraud that is man-made global warming. Are you also like GHung and for a much smaller government but support massive government regulation through cap and trade and massive subsidies for solar and wind power while punishing oil and coal companies? And do you also support banning offshore drilling and drilling in ANWR? Why do you explain exactly how we are going to meet our growing energy needs since you think you and GHUng are so much smarter?

Purpleguy| 5.28.11 @ 12:17AM

So what's your alternative to oil, smart a*?

Oldefarte| 5.28.11 @ 1:12PM

There is NO alternative, dumbars! The whole economic world runs/depends upon oil!!!!

victor| 5.29.11 @ 2:14AM

PurpleDood:
"So what's your alternative to oil, smart a*?"

What's yours big mouth and how or what you gonna run all the trains planes trucks and automobiles, eh?

Purpleguy| 5.29.11 @ 5:05AM

Oh, I don't know - I guess we should just surrender to Big Oil and shut up. Ever hear of the ostrich? Your life will change and you will have no say in how it changes. and that's okay with you ? Really?

Oldefarte| 5.29.11 @ 10:50AM

Go ride your bicycle to your administrative job at Mickey D's, Purple [or maybe drain the gasoline/oil from your UGO, install a windmill on its roof and sail away]!!!!!!!

Jack London| 5.28.11 @ 7:22AM

Here's an easy to understand fact sheet about global warming from NASA. What exactly don't you accept about it? And if it's all wrong (and please show how), why would agencies such as NASA put their scientific reputations at stake - which after all is their only real value?

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Oldefarte| 5.28.11 @ 1:16PM

What has/should NASA have to do with the BS of global warming [which exists only in Al-The-Sex-Poodle's mind anyway]? Oh wait, I forgot, El Chosen One has now destroyed NASA by turning it into some kind of a welfare agency, instead of it's originally intended purpose [which was/is worthless to begin with anyway]!!!!

Jack London| 5.28.11 @ 1:50PM

Even the global warming skeptics don't deny it's happening you silly olde foole - it's the contribution of man they question. As for worth, government investment in agencies like NASA has led to countless commercial spin-offs that you use everyday. You really are a fool, aren't you? At least the ones they used to have in Europe were funny.

victor| 5.29.11 @ 2:11AM

Jack Nodnol:
"Even the global warming skeptics don't deny it's happening"

Course we deny "global warming", except, we call it WEATHER!

"it's the contribution of man they question."

Here's a contribution you can question:

If CO2 is truly a noxious pollutant as the EPA says it is, what are they doing or going to do about the 6 pounds or so that every man, woman and child exhale, each and every day?

Gonna make us wear face masks or SCUBA?

Oldefarte| 5.29.11 @ 10:56AM

BS! NASA is/was a completely waste of taxpayers' hard earned money. Scientists for decades have know that, if space flights are beneficial, that unmanned ones are cheaper and capture more data than do the much more expansive manned flights. NASA was just the 'stupidly' political idea of JFK [similar to most of his ideas, ie the Bay of Pigs invasion]. NASA is the first governmental agency which should be completely defunded and eliminated after the November 2012 elections [after these liberal morons are removed from controlling this country]!!!!!!!

Jack London| 5.29.11 @ 5:38PM

You need some new medication old man - dementia seems to be taking hold of you.

Oldefarte| 5.30.11 @ 2:57PM

Typical liberal inability to effectively/intelligently argue, and instead personally attack the opponent. As Forrest Gump once said..........!!!!

Jack London| 5.30.11 @ 6:14PM

I'm trying to be kind by assuming you are ill.

Have you seen the latest CO2 figures? Worldwide CO2 emissions from the energy sector reached a record 30.6 gigatonnes in 2010 - this will mean we will struggle to contain global warming, not to mention poisoning the oceans, an often overlooked effect.

Negro X| 5.30.11 @ 7:21PM

Jack, your stupidity never ceases to amaze. How many tree have you planted this week, why are you using a computer?

Skippy| 5.30.11 @ 7:56PM

Let me be perfectly clear:
I. Don't. Care.
The snapshot worldview AGW believers use(things as they are at this second is how they will be forever) is beyond false and deceptive.
100, 300, 500 years from now, this entire debate will have all the significance of early 20th century fears of human blood boiling at speeds exceeding 60mph.
AGW is a political debate solely, as all our efforts will result in a natural evolution in technology.
The only reason to go all Manhattan Project on this is to disrupt and destroy American liberty.
We will not run out of oil anytime soon.
Freedom, on the other hand...

Jack London| 5.31.11 @ 7:59AM

Is there anything that we do to the environment that would actually worry you?

skip| 5.31.11 @ 3:16PM

You are an idiot.

You cite a source that is a governent agency run by political appointees that has been charged by the dithering idiot liar in chief to focus on muslim outreach.

Check out the petition at petitionproject.org (and also at petitionproject.com) where thirty one thousand four hundred eighty seven actual scientists provide their names and qualifications while debunking manmade global warming.

I challenge you to response with intelligence and with honesty to a source of 31,487 real scientists, in rebuttal to your cited source of a political agency charged with reaching out to a demographic the majority of which is still to this day existing without the benefit of indoor plumbing.

I predict if will not respond with intelligence or honesty, as every other comment you have posted on AmSpec has revealed.

You are an idiot.

Occam's Tool| 5.31.11 @ 5:52PM

Actually, I question it: the data sucks, as it was collected inappropriately and falsified. No proper data, no proper conclusions.

Todd S| 5.27.11 @ 10:24PM

don't explain, not do explain

Ore Gone| 5.27.11 @ 10:43PM

I don't understand why the environmentalist global warming earth faith healers aren't willing to put their bodies in the ground in order to offset the carbon that is being released by the volcanoes erupting today. It is a centuries old solution that is coming back in to vogue. No sense in wasting virgins when the true believers should be willing to voluntarily jump in to the ground as a means of carbon offset. The Dark Ages re-emerge!

Purpleguy| 5.28.11 @ 12:17AM

Idiot

Oldefarte| 5.28.11 @ 1:17PM

Don't talk about YOURSELF like that, MORON!!!!

Omri| 5.30.11 @ 9:08PM

We're a little busy. See, some of us live in areas that used to have deep frosts every winter. Now that those deep frosts aren't coming, the trees are getting infested with bugs and dying. See, northern tree species count on the winter to control bugs. So we have to replant with species from further south. Which part of the world, you might ask? Oh, all of the Rockies, and New England, and many other locations. As soon as we've taken care of this, we'll get ourselves buried. Capisce? While you idiots sit in denial, adults have to act on this problem.

Occam's Tool| 5.31.11 @ 5:50PM

Not Minnesota.

Dee See| 5.28.11 @ 2:58AM

ALERT!

CHECK OUT on youtube/online

'The Long History of EUGENICS'
-ALAN WATT

Essential!

"That's the whole trouble with the past,
it isn't even past---"
-William Faulkner

-----------------CHECK IT OUT! ----GO!

YOU WILL SEE----------------------------

Intelligent Design| 5.28.11 @ 12:31PM

A great article by Ross Kaminsky. The left's lies about energy remind me of their similar lies about global warming. If you ask the average American if he thinks greenhouse gases are harmful, he will automatically say Yes, and be wrong. Greenhouse gases are essential to keeping the earth warm for human life and growing crops. The most prevalent greenhouse gas is water vapor (think "rain"). The greenhouse gas considered most evil by the left is carbon dioxide, but it is only present in the atmosphere in trace amounts -- currently about 380 parts per million. Further, as we know, CO2 is part of living and breathing animal and plant life. Over millions of years, there have been naturally occurring cycles (roughly every 1,500 years) of warmer and colder weather, caused by activity on the sun and the path of the earth as it orbits the sun. The impact which humans have on these cycles is minimal compared to the influence of natural phenomena. Anthropomorphic global warming is socialist political science. For example, a thousand years ago Greenland was warm enough to grow grapes. A couple of good books on the subject: Climate Confusion by Roy Spencer, and Un-Stopable Global Warming - Every 1,500 Years - by Dennis Avery and Fred Singer.

Jack London| 5.28.11 @ 1:37PM

I see you're a fellow traveller on the intelligent design spaceship from the Planet Zog like Roy Spencer. I think anything you say is anti-science - there is nothing you can usefully contribute here or anywhere else for that matter.

Occam's Tool| 5.31.11 @ 5:49PM

Of course, Jack, the fact that the whole Global Warming foofaraw is based on bogus falsified data submitted by scientists who had their grants to lose were there no warming means nothing. Also, the fact that they kept chanting like a mantra "the science is settled." Please.

voted against carter| 5.28.11 @ 4:25PM

HEY STUPID LIBRATARDS,.. you know who you are,... AND so do we,... go back to HUFF PO.

You are an idiot. STOP proving it with every statement you make.

why are you here??

Why do libratard TROLLS hang out at conservative sites and toss bombs????

I do NOT go read any HUFF PO crap.

I know everything they post is libratard drivel.

I do not go to ANY libratard sites and toss bombs.

Why would I ?

Am I going to change their minds???

NO. What would be the point?

Stupid will STAY stupid.

I care NOT as long as Stupid leaves me the heck alone.

Which unfortunately IT won't with things like obamacare etc.

So we as conservative will change thing through the election process.

Which brings me back to my Question. Why are you libratards here???

Are you trying to change my mind on an issue???

NOT going to happen.

OR are you JUST trying to SHUT UP opposing view points????

Omri| 5.30.11 @ 9:05PM

If evidence that you are flat out wrong is what you call "trying to shut you up," then yes, the whole world is trying to shut you up.

Tenn Slim| 5.29.11 @ 8:20AM

UTTR or any other measure = nothing.
IF, and the IF is driven by the Obama admin, the EPA is allowed to continually delay, divert and deny permits, the entire debate stalls.

Until we, the US Citizenry get educated, informed and know what the H.. we are speaking clearly about, we will continue to slip down the Cloward - Piven slope to living in mud huts.

I see no end to the slide.
Semper Fi

angelboy | 5.29.11 @ 11:02PM

This is really the perfect piece of content! We now have book marked it and sent it out to virtually all of my buddies mainly because I know they should be intrigued, thank you very much! replica gucci prada handbags

guccicoco | 5.29.11 @ 11:03PM

Outstanding info it is surely. My father has been searching for this information.Replica Handbags & wallet

Replica Handabags&wallet; | 5.30.11 @ 12:06AM

Thanks for the nice article. It was very useful for me. Keep sharing such ideas in the future as well. This was exactly what I was looking for, and I am glad to be here!
www.shop-bag.net
a kind of brands

Wes in MT| 5.30.11 @ 10:00AM

Since "the smartest people in the room" here seem to embrace the conventional wisdom of peak oil and AGW, it is plain to see that it does not matter one's education, you are still able to be a fraccin' idiot. Tell me, anyone of you geniuses, just exactly how many tons of dead plants and dinosuars went into making the 135 billion barrels of oil that is estimated that we've used since oil's discovery. Now add to that the estimated 1.25 trillion barrels estimated worldwide to still be in the ground. Sorry, but that's alot of plants and animals that went into making that volume of oil (in all it's forms, that does not take into account the plants that went into making coal). So as the russian scientist stated, it does not pass the absurd test. Meaning, is it even possible. The conventional western wisdom of the transitional form known as kerogan(?) cannot be duplicated in the lab. Sorry, but much like evolution, just because enough people are repeating it does not make it fact. The russian view of oil's origin (abiotic) have led to great discoveries in locations where oil was said couldn't be found if western wisdom was considered. It would also explain the replenishing of fields that should have already run out. One thing that both peak oil and AGW policies promote is higher taxes and restricted freedom. When any schlub can fill up his beater and drive anywhere he pleases when he pleases, well, that must just drive the liberal statists nuts.

Omri| 5.30.11 @ 9:04PM

Wow. Right wingers promulgating a theory first proposed in the Soviet Union in the era of Trofim Lysenko. First it happens as tragedy, then as farce. Look, if there is abiotic oil, then you should be able to find it in locations that conventional theory says are without oil. Go find some. Nobody's found a single drop of this "abiotic" oil.

Jim| 5.30.11 @ 6:25PM

Technology ALWAYS saves us. Look at the Malthusians throughout the ages. We'll run out of trees to burn, we'll run out of whale oil, we'll run out of coal, we'll run out of oil, etc., etc. Wise up./

Omri| 5.30.11 @ 9:02PM

"Technology ALWAYS saves us" That's like a bunch of turkeys saying "the farmer ALWAYS comes with a sack of feed." Until the day he comes with an ax.

The Bruce| 5.30.11 @ 11:53PM

I disagree with you, but that analogy made me laugh out loud. I'll have to remember that one.

skip| 5.31.11 @ 8:00PM

...said the sanctimonious narcissistic turkey, who is certain has earned the daily feed provided to him by others, for of all things pecking away at bugs on trees, as the day rapidly approaches when there will not be any feed, but rather cold hard razor sharp steel on the end of a piece of hickory.

Omri| 5.30.11 @ 9:01PM

You are of course neglecting the inconvenient detail that most of that oil would take more energy to extract, than it actually contains.

Nite| 5.30.11 @ 9:59PM

Dems have become the biggest liars in the world. Anyone should think twice about believing anything that they say. Texas just found huge oil fields. Rick Perry will see that it is developed. Lots of jobs will be going to Texas. If the US wants to be energy independent, then toss the Dems and Obama out of office the next election. If you don't, then gasoline will go up to $5 per gallon or much higher if they manage to get those energy taxes passed.

dee see| 5.30.11 @ 11:17PM

---interesting piece.

BTW, for those who missed it, David Rockefeller
is calling publicly for MASSIVE and RAPID
'depopulation' (ie genocide) by 'any and all
means' ------even as

CHEM-trailing (going into its 12th year),
the RED China Globalist TREASON
op, and the greatest world nuclear disaster of
all time ----Fukishima, are nowhere to be found
anywhere in our 'benny violently' controlled
media.

The Bruce| 5.30.11 @ 11:50PM

It's too bad that the stupidity in DC can't be bottled and turned into a viable energy source. Were that the case, these debates over other energy sources would be moot, as stupidity out of DC would fuel this country for at least the next five hundred years.

anon| 5.31.11 @ 10:15AM

The U.S. "invented" oil - along with nuclear power etc. ARAMCO, most other Middle Eastern and Mexican oil fields etc. etc. were all nationalized - which is another word for stolen - from American or European countries.

So WHO CARES if we use some or all of our invention? I'm bothered that we don't use a higher percentage and charge some sort of royalty for it.

Our continual gifting of extremely powerful intellectual property that couldn't be developed elsewhere is a very, very dangerous habit.

Occam's Tool| 5.31.11 @ 5:46PM

Off in "Newly Liberated" Egypt, which some morons believed would be going Democratic and Secular, from Debbie Schlussel's Blog:

"A senior Egyptian general admits that “virginity checks” were performed on women arrested at a demonstration this spring, the first such admission after previous denials by military authorities.

The allegations arose in an Amnesty International report, published weeks after the March 9 protest. It claimed female demonstrators were beaten, given electric shocks, strip-searched, threatened with prostitution charges and forced to submit to virginity checks.

At that time, Maj. Amr Imam said 17 women had been arrested but denied allegations of torture or “virginity tests.”

But now a senior general who asked not to be identified said the virginity tests were conducted and defended the practice.

“The girls who were detained were not like your daughter or mine,” the general said. “These were girls who had camped out in tents with male protesters in Tahrir Square, and we found in the tents Molotov cocktails and (drugs).”

The general said the virginity checks were done so that the women wouldn’t later claim they had been raped by Egyptian authorities.

“We didn’t want them to say we had sexually assaulted or raped them, so we wanted to prove that they weren’t virgins in the first place,” the general said. “None of them were (virgins).”

This demonstration occurred nearly a month after Egypt’s longtime President Hosni Mubarak stepped down amid a wave of popular and mostly peaceful unrest aimed at his ouster and the institution of democratic reforms.

Afterward, Egypt’s military — which had largely stayed on the sidelines of the revolution — officially took control of the nation’s political apparatus as well, until an agreed-upon constitution and elections."

Good. Beatings and Virginity checks, with hurried elections so that only the most organized parties (the Moslem Brotherhood, for one) will be ready.

More Islamic Republics coming right up! The "Arab Spring" will be "Springtime for Hitler."

And these clowns have the land where our oil is, or surround it.

This is why we can't afford to be isolationist now, and why we need to open up the number of refineries AND drill. It's the economy, stupid.

ティファニー通販 | 6.1.11 @ 3:23AM

oh no

stas peterson| 6.7.11 @ 6:39PM

It was delightful to read someone else trying to debunk the Left's conventional and erroneous wisdom. The Left repeats, ad nauseum, half truths for two reasons. They are too ignorant and too lazy to obtain the Truth, and it suits their anti-American agitation to make America look bad.

If Mr.Kaminsky would like to dispell another myth, he could explore the "need to cut America's CO2 emission". What utter drivel! The real fact is, and undisputed in peer reviewed scientific papers published by teams of scientists working at Princeton University, is that North America is a NET CO2 sink.

We absorb every gram of CO2 Nature and Mankind emits in North America and a substantial amount from elsewhere in the world, like Eurasia. Therre is absolutely no need for Americans to cut CO2 emissions at all.

Perhaps a case can be made that Europeans or Asians need to do so; but have completed our job long ago.

It is thanks to our American Exceptionalisim in commiting vast areas to multi-use land set-asides, one of which uses, are as a bio-sequestration sites.

If you haven't heard of these CO2 land set-asides it is because we call them by other names. National Parks, National Forests, Grasslands, and Wilderness are more familiar terms. Other names arre as common as private farms, private silviculture forests, and federal lands, off limits to humanity and administered by the BLM. It is all thanks to American Exceptionalism.

stas peterson| 6.7.11 @ 7:01PM

All this discussion was produced before the US Geological Survey issued it latest report to the Congress, and requested by DEMOCRAT Byron Dorgan, hardly a right wing Republican.

USGS has now raised the amount of oil in recoverable status with existing technology of fracking and horizonatal drilling, from a mere several hundred million barrels, to 8 times all the OIL Saudi Arabia has ever had.

It is sufficient to supply the US from the Bakken/Williston formation, which covers the large area of Minnesota, the Dakota, and into Montana and Wyoming at its it current rate of use for 2041 years!

Plus a major new field was just proved at Eagle-Ford, Texas which may be as big as Spindletop.

WHT| 6.24.11 @ 10:41PM

Weird thinking on the spectator front.

John DeMatteo| 7.11.11 @ 4:01PM

My property yields about 2500 barrels a day. I have no intentions of being told what to do with what is mine. We will pump what we want. They can go pound sand!!! It is MINE and I intend to live as a FREE man in my country and my land. To hell with their fabricated rules. Who the heck do they think they are? God bless America. Live free people, live free. Take you country back!

The American Spectator

The Energy Spectator

Energy Myths of the Left

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (345) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Darin| 5.27.11 @ 6:57AM

WHT | 5.27.11 @ 9:47AM

GHung| 5.27.11 @ 10:54AM

GHung| 5.27.11 @ 10:56AM

Doorgunner| 5.27.11 @ 11:07AM

GHung| 5.27.11 @ 11:42AM

Keophus| 5.27.11 @ 12:01PM

txn4ever| 5.27.11 @ 12:07PM

GHung| 5.27.11 @ 12:30PM

Darin| 5.27.11 @ 1:06PM

GHung| 5.27.11 @ 1:48PM

InLineFour| 5.31.11 @ 2:25PM

emo| 5.27.11 @ 6:39PM

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 11:27PM

Travis| 5.27.11 @ 12:29PM

Drunken Sailor| 5.27.11 @ 12:52PM

Todd S| 5.27.11 @ 1:59PM

GHung| 5.27.11 @ 2:17PM

Todd S| 5.27.11 @ 2:59PM

GHung| 5.27.11 @ 3:52PM

Todd S| 5.27.11 @ 4:10PM

GHung| 5.27.11 @ 7:05PM

skip| 5.27.11 @ 7:35PM

chuck| 5.27.11 @ 8:59PM

Todd S| 5.27.11 @ 10:08PM

GHung| 5.28.11 @ 10:29AM

Todd S| 5.28.11 @ 3:18PM

Negro X| 5.30.11 @ 7:19PM

GHung| 5.31.11 @ 8:47AM

Mutch Moore | 6.1.11 @ 12:15AM

GHung| 5.31.11 @ 9:48AM

Mutch Moore | 5.29.11 @ 2:25PM

Todd S| 5.29.11 @ 9:12PM

GHung| 5.29.11 @ 10:02PM

Todd S| 5.29.11 @ 10:56PM

GHung| 5.29.11 @ 11:22PM

GHung| 5.29.11 @ 11:29PM

GHung| 5.30.11 @ 12:05AM

Todd S| 5.30.11 @ 1:06PM

GHung| 5.31.11 @ 9:16AM

Todd S| 5.31.11 @ 12:56PM

GHung| 5.31.11 @ 7:05PM

Mutch Moore | 5.30.11 @ 2:01PM

GHung| 5.31.11 @ 10:12AM

GHung| 5.28.11 @ 9:50AM

skip| 5.28.11 @ 11:56AM

GHung| 5.28.11 @ 12:12PM

Omri| 5.30.11 @ 9:20PM

Pzkfw| 5.28.11 @ 4:03PM

skip| 5.31.11 @ 7:28PM

Drunken Sailor| 5.27.11 @ 3:57PM

GHung| 5.27.11 @ 7:29PM

The refudiator| 5.28.11 @ 12:31AM

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 11:30PM

Minuteman| 5.30.11 @ 8:03PM

Todd S| 5.31.11 @ 1:01PM

voted against carter| 5.28.11 @ 3:54PM

Jim| 5.30.11 @ 6:23PM

Occam's Tool| 5.27.11 @ 1:48PM

The refudiator| 5.28.11 @ 12:39AM

victor| 5.28.11 @ 3:10AM

victor| 5.28.11 @ 3:10AM

victor| 5.29.11 @ 2:24AM

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 10:34PM

victor| 5.29.11 @ 2:18AM

GHung| 5.30.11 @ 12:48AM

Alan Brooks| 5.30.11 @ 7:53PM

Doorgunner| 5.27.11 @ 7:19AM

Darin| 5.27.11 @ 8:41AM

SonOfSam| 5.27.11 @ 8:57AM

Ken (Old Texican)| 5.27.11 @ 8:06AM

SonOfSam| 5.27.11 @ 9:00AM

Purpleguy| 5.27.11 @ 10:37PM

T H Huxley| 5.28.11 @ 1:55AM

victor| 5.28.11 @ 3:12AM