Re: "[we need] more investment in energy"

Since I'm angry today that ExxonMobil just made a profit higher than the GDP of many third world (developing) countries, I'm going to continue here.

Beyond conservation, which is a good idea, what does more investment mean? The oil companies have already given up on most of that. There aren't any more promising prospective areas for new discoveries anymore. A lot of you folks here at TOD might pay attention to what I'm about to say. Bubba and, before him, the legendary J, industry insiders, have made this abundantly clear. So does all subsequent research. More investment does not translate into more discoveries and production. So, what could more investment mean? -- a list of suggestions below.

Invade Iraq? ANWR? A war with Iran? Drill a wildcat in my living room in Boulder, Colorado? Coal bed methane in the Western States? Oil Shales? Make Alberta, Canada the 51st state? Exploit the (diminishing) reserves in the Gulf of Mexico? Assassinate Hugo Chavez? Exploit the Wolverine field in Utah (less than 1 bbo)? Take a serious military interest in Azerbaijan, Khazakhstan and the entire Caspian region? Tell the Chinese to stop using so much oil? Screw the Indians? Bribe Putin? Disarm the Nigerian rebels? Use our Navy to patrol the Gulf of Guinea? Take over Saudi Arabia? or failing that, Kuwait, the UAE and Quatar? Pray? I think you get the idea.

Perhaps you might reconsider your idea of what "investment" is all about at this point.
hey dave....i feel the same frustration that you do...but i also understand the reality of the situation...TODer's are an idealistic bunch...but the reality is that this country and most certainly it's administration are not of our mindset...so i would say everything on your list is within the scope of "action" for those bozos...heil bush!