<DrumBeat: January 12, 2009 The Oil Drum Introduction to a Series: Energy Policy Advice for The New Administration>

239 comments on Advice to Pres. Obama #1: An Actuary's Impractical Perspective

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

dunewalker on January 12, 2009 - 1:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Darwinsdog, you have to remember that Gail is a product of the oil industry. This is the same person who advocated in an article on Oildrum that we should drill ANWWR as soon as possible because of efficiency factors. Don't expect her to have an instant grasp of ecological factors.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nate Hagens on January 12, 2009 - 4:09pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Um - Gail is certainly no ecologist, but....product of the oil industry??? I assure you not!! (in fact there are only 3 of 25 on staff (Robert, Euan and Phil) that have ever even worked in oil industry -and none of them currently)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
dunewalker on January 12, 2009 - 5:50pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I stand corrected. I didn't necessarily mean that in literal terms but mostly was addressing her apparent bias toward the industry's interests.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on January 13, 2009 - 11:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

her apparent bias toward the industry's interests.

Bias or realistic observation that, like it or not, what we see around us is from cheap fossil fuels.

Look at this comment:
I think wind and solar should be called fossil fuel extenders, rather than renewables. Without fossil fuels, they will come to a screeching halt.

Wind/Solar don't need FF. But, with the large number of people and their high demand level - the only way to satisfy that demand level is with FF.

As the FF goes bye-bye either the demand level will drop, the people level will drop or both.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
enemy of state on January 12, 2009 - 11:06pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

you have to remember that Gail is a product of the oil industry. This is the same person who advocated in an article on Oildrum that we should drill ANWWR as soon as possible because of efficiency factors.

I think you conflate support for ANWR drilling with "enemy of the earth". I happen to agree with Gail on that subject. There are several potential benefits that might be obtainable if we did it right. Among them:

(1) A substantial stream of government revenue could be captured that should be earmarked for the transition away from fossil fuels.

(2) Under cut the drill-drill-drill political movement, which otherwise might manage to take over the political system, and would foolishly try to continue BAU.

(3) Somewhat reduced oil import bill during the transition.

(4) Buys a little bit of time on the Hubberts peak downslope.

Note, if (1) is achieved, that a net reduction in total fossil fuels burned is possible. But if (2) (anti 2 actually) is allowed to come to pass, than coal-coal-coal will accompany drill-drill-drill.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
diggstech on January 13, 2009 - 12:40am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

You are absolutely right. No serious planning for transition can take place without thinking of the short term political consequences. The drill drill drill movement will use any gas price increase to hammer their shortsighted agenda home. The polls in the last election clearly showed the impact of that mentality in the absence of a good strategy to neutralize their poison. Crafting an energy tax in the guise of a nativist production increase push is very clever. It looks even better in the current economic slowdown as it can be passed off as an attempt to create jobs in the drilling sector (or at least preserve jobs that would be lost due to shutdown of now uneconomic low production wells). Good thoughts.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Luke H on January 13, 2009 - 8:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Worry not, ANWR will be drilled someday, any other conclusion does not follow from a peak oil scenario. If this country is going to be as broke as many TOD posters think it will be in the not too distant future, the sooner we drill ANWR the cleaner--a poorer U.S. will have virtually no concern for the environmental cost of North Slope oil. If, on the other hand, you believe we aren't going to hell in a handbasket in the next decade, that oil certainly is not getting less valuable and we will be able to do a cleaner job of extracting it as our technology advances. What does your crystal ball say?

There is another factor pushing ANWR forward--the pipe that carries north slope oil to tidewater. That pipe is running at less than half capacity today. Building a new pipeline will have a much higher energy cost than using the one that is currently being maintained to a more or less decent standard.

Will we do a cleaner job of getting ANWR oil now or down the road? That oil will flow someday and probably in the pipeline that is already being used.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

239 comments on Advice to Pres. Obama #1: An Actuary's Impractical Perspective

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version