<From an Insider: Rig Prices, Rig Depth, and How to Get a Job The Oil Drum Sunday Open Thread>

209 comments on Saturday Open Thread

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

BaSE on April 1, 2006 - 3:08am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
  In 361 pages only three references to peak oil are found all of which deny "evidence" that peak oil is eminent.  Lee Raymond is especially optomistic in saying that their studies show increasing oil production through to 2030.  He further says that legislation would be premature in regards to peak oil.  The two senators that I care about were only worried about excessive profits.  Natioanal security was brought up 54 times, which I think should be the center piece of any disscussion on energy.
  I have only skimmed the document, but do you feel, that other than gouging, that congress has their finger on this?  Have they understood what two more hurricanes this summer might bring about?  What if a terrorist attack on a Ryadh refinery succeeds the next time.  Will NATO open their SPRs to us again?  We have 26 days before the Security Council reports back to the UN on Iran and Iran has just sucessfully tested an MRV ICBM.  How can we afford to risk taking Iranian oil off the market?  I know that Iran and Iraq don't sell oil directly to the US, but fungability means that the loss of their oil will be felt globally.
  What exactly are you so proud of in this document?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Oil CEO on April 1, 2006 - 4:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Well, I could take the easy way out and say that I was kidding, which I was - but I'll take a different approach. I'm proud that I live in a country where at least the possibility of open debate exists and where at least one other person(you) will take the time to at least skim through this document. I had actually watched the entire original hearing. This particular document includes about 200 pages worth of additions in the form of written responses to questions posed by the senators. There is alot of very important information included which is coming directly from the professionals in this case.

The senators in general seem like a pretty clueless lot, and I hold them (as I do for most issues) responsible for the problems this country faces oil-wise. Gutless wonders. The chairman Domenici and Wyden demonstrate complete ignorance and are just a disgrace professionally and in the manner in which they treat the witnesses.

One issue I have is the delay (5 months) in releasing the transcript. This seems to be normal as far as these transcripts go. I normally don't think on a conspiratorial level, but I have to wonder how much of that delay is intentional to allow media interest to fade(not that there is much to start with.

As far as the CEO's go. Honest. Forthcoming. Smart. Informed. Of course, there will be those here who disagree, but I think overall they are doing their jobs well and deserve the salaries and bonuses detailed in the transcript.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on April 1, 2006 - 1:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Hi Guys,

First post here, although I am a long-time lurker. My CEO was at the hearing (I am a chemical engineer), and I agree that they did well. I thought the senators came off looking clueless for the most part.

I did enjoy this exchange (paraphrasing):

Senator Domenici: How is the price of oil set?

Lee Raymond: The price is set by willing buyers and sellers on the open market.

Senator Domenici: I don't think my constituents will understand that.

That's the real problem here. The majority of the population does not understand basic economics.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
louGrinzo on April 1, 2006 - 10:29pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"That's the real problem here. The majority of the population does not understand basic economics."

With all due respect, baloney.

People understand economics plenty well enough, and they also understand the corrupting influence of power, whether that power is influence over a market, political, sexual, or something else.

The major disconnect with mainstream consumers right now is that they know almost nothing about the peak oil concept, so they assume (incorrectly) that higher prices are caused by greedy corporations, not by supply and demand.  It's not that they don't know how supply and demand work, it's that they don't see the connection between that staple of economics and what they pay on their gasoline and heating bills.  So they look for the best alternative explanation, and they wind up blaming the "big, greedy, evil" oil companies, a group that's, in the mind of consumers, all too easy to blame for anything, whether deserved or not.

I've had I don't know how many discussions, some at relatively high volume levels, with mainstreaners about this issue, and I've had a very hard time convincing them of the scope and serious of the fundamental situation.  

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Twilight on April 1, 2006 - 11:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
In fact, I think the outrageous oil profits are helping to convince people that PO is not real, that it's all just a scam.  I think this is especially true in liberal circles, where I see a lot of doubt about PO.  
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
davebygolly on April 2, 2006 - 12:13am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
There are two true things:

1 The oil companies profiteer.
2. Oil is at or near peak.

In addition:

1 is old and has always been true.
2 is new.
2 is going to make 1 even more true.
1 should be dealt with, yes, taxation, regs...
2 needs to be dealt with even more.
2 IS being dealt with, but in the worst possible way.

Final truth:

3. We're in the deepest conceivable doo.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on April 1, 2006 - 11:37pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
There is great resistance to accepting the concept of Peak Oil because (IMHO) 1) the implications for the assumptions that people have built their lives on is too great and 2) there is no trustworthy "solution".

My Electrification of Transportation is aimed at #2.  I know that it is NOT a complete solution, but it is a big chunk of one.  Generally understandable (I think).

Coupling "bad news" with a way out should reduce the level of denial.  Again IMHO.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

209 comments on Saturday Open Thread

Comments can no longer be added to this story.