Part of that drop in production you mention is the fact that in the 70’s we stopped pumping oil off the coast of California, and blocked all attempts to drill of the coast of Florida. We know that there are 10 billion barrels of oil just in the Santa Barbara costal oil fields that were shut down in the 70’s would that not account for some of the decline? Older fields are drying up because they have been pumped, new fields are supposed to go on line but don’t because of regulation. The only place we can get the oil is from less restrictive countries.



In the Dakotas we have known the oil was there since the 50’s but it was too expensive to drill at that time, now it is cheap yet we can’t bring it on line due to regulations that prevent it.







Okay you say these in conjunction with what we are already pulling out of the ground is not enough. According to you we can not drill our way out of the problem, what is your solution to the problem? How can we fix this YOUR way?



All right! Now I see, it all becomes clear now. You are insane. I mean no disrespect but you have to be crazy to propose this solution without knowing what you are talking about. Yes, the European way is a good first step and over decades they slowly changed over one small town at a time. With populations of under a hundred million you can move a bit quicker.

With the United States that has a population of over 300 million not including illegal’s changing over the country will not be easy or quick. Europe started its change over in the 70’s and they are no where near finished. Your solution is to make the same change in less than ten years. This is not impossible but it is impossibly expensive. The cost of changing over the California school system to CFL’s and putting up solar panels was costing them more than they were saving. The cost was so high it broke the budget and they had to call a halt to the transition because they had reached the point where they could not pay the electric bill and pay teachers. That is just one district in one state only dealing with school property. To then tear down the shopping malls and all the buildings and build it in the European style would halt all progress in the country.

What you may not have noticed is oil is not the only thing that there is a world wide shortage of. I have a real estate business. There has been a world wide shortage of cement for the last ten years. This is one of the things that have driven up the price of homes because China and India are also on a building spree. One of the reasons they use up so much gas is building up their infrastructures so while the demand has not risen more than expected for the rest of the world China and India are both working at an accelerated pace stripping away supply that no one anticipated and creating demand. Food is also becoming of short supply because of misguided legislation to solve the fuel crisis. But I digress, the point is that there is not enough cement to build new buildings without increasing the cost by a factor of 4 and there is not enough fuel to tear down anything just to build it better. Your solution will take at least 50 years per state to do it in a cost effective method.

This leaves us back to the only solution is to drill for more oil because we have the technology to continue to improve on what we have but nothing else is anywhere near ready to go online.

They also can walk all over the country since it is so small. bad comparison.

Didn’t they once try to have it carpeted but could not decide on a colour?   

Hey! I resemble that remark.

Well, it's more complicated than that. For starters, Europe has over 700 million people, more than twice the population of the U.S. One of the main reasons why their lifestyle uses so much less gas than Americans goes back to a split in policy decades ago. If you ever go to Europe (and yes, this is a blanket generalization so it's not like this EVERYWHERE on the continent) you will see that there is reliable train travel most places you go. Years ago it was decided in the U.S that the main modes of transportation would be automobile and airplane, with trains relegated to hauling mostly freight. So massive amounts of public money was spent to build the highway system, while in Europe those funds went more to train systems.

Also, thanks to much older cities with smaller roads and more population density, there's not much of a market in Europe for big SUV's and trucks that get 15-20 mpg (on a good day). Instead smaller cars are preferred and they tend to have much better mileage so they get more bang for their buck. Sure, Germany has the Autobahn but as you drive along it you'll see solar panels at regular intervals throughout.

Here in north America, we haven't made any changes to our lifestyle, in fact in the last 15 years it's gotten worse. Some genius decided that the way to go was with the "big box" concept of shopping areas... instead of shopping malls, now we have the massive waste of space that are outdoor complexes. You know, a Walmart, with giant parking lot. Next to it is a Chapters or Home Depot, with big parking lot. And so on, with a bunch of other big-name brand stores, a movie theater, the requisite Chilli's or Montana's or Outback Steakhouse. So why am I rambling on about this pointless nonsense?

Well, these areas are almost exclusively located in such a way that you need a car to get there, with little to no public transit options. Or if they do exist, you'd be taking an hour and a half on 2 buses to get there, which almost no one will choose. And on a weekend you sit in traffic congestion just to get into the parking lot.

Due to the fact that we can't just up and rebuild our entire infrastructure (I agree with you on that) the next logical step is to develop and embrace new technologies that will use less gas or no gas at all. These alternatives already exist, we just need to start mass producing them in order to make them economically feasible. Drilling for more oil, on the other coin, will solve nothing and leave us in the exact same place we are today!

And that is the main reason. YOu have twice the people in less space, so public transportation is viable. And in the US, in some places like the big cities, it is viable as well. But not for the vast majority of people.

The problem with the democrats is just that. They are trying to apply European solutions to American problems when the sources and solutions are vastly different.

Clean up other countries but allow us to continue pollution.


Such as all those reserves for the disappearing SUVs.


Why? The train engineer still had to give up his shovel despite the abundance of coal.

Nevertheless, the average American mileage is only 90 per week.

Is that a Polish joke applied to Belgium?  

Miles per week? Try about 200+ - 12k/52 = 231. The 12k is the "low" side of an average car usage.

But regardless, America (and Canada which is just as bad per capita) is very spread out. Europe is packed in.

Here is where we disagree. First if we have the ability to pull more oil out of the ground it will reduce the price of gas. Speculators are betting that the supply will remain stable or fall off so they bet that the price will go up in the future. If more oil enters the market they will be stuck paying more for oil then it will be sold for on the open market. They lose a lot of money. 600 billion at last count. With cheaper oil and gas the economy will have more disposable income allowing companies to make more money and hire more workers and make more products.

Although alternatives are available none are going to solve the problem. Solar is good in some places nuclear is good in most places wind is a disaster and burns more oil than not having them at all.

Until we have a nuclear powered train they will continue to run on diesel fuel. Electric trains are not feasible for long haul travel. You can’t have air travel without jet fuel. There are no electric air planes that carry passengers. So for long distance travel you still have to have petro fuel.

Power plants require oil, or coal because we have not exploited nuclear power. If we started yesterday to build one it would take 10 to 25 years before the first volt of electricity would be sold.

Wind power, everyone without a brain wants wind power. Did you know that for wind powered generators to work you have to have an oil fired power plant running and burning fuel because wind is not constant or predictable? When the wind turbines turn they produce electricity but when the wind stops the oil fired power plants kick in. since it takes about six hours to get one fired up they have to keep them running day and night to supply electricity and the power generated by the wind is sold on the grid to help buy more fuel.

Solar power requires one thing that is hard to get and very expensive. Sand! Silicon dioxide if you want the scientific name. The same silicon used in making computer chips. The best quality silicon is used to make both computer chips and solar fuel cells. Because there is more demand than supply the price keeps going up. I was speaking to a producer of solar power cells last January and he told me that they now have a power cell that can generate as much power at a 12 inch square as they used to need a three yard square. The problem is that they need high quality silicon and computer chip makers have cornered the market on it. That’s right the “evil” computer companies are keeping us from having cheap solar power.

The problem with solar power is it only works in sunlight and when the sun goes down so does your electricity. For nigh time you need dirty batteries that pollute the planet to store energy to use when the sun is not shining. Once again solar power is not reliable because if you have a cloudy day you don’t get as much energy.

So all the alternative fuels and power sources are not as great at they are touted to be, and the only reliable power source we have is oil. Had we not stopped building nuclear power plants in the 70’s we would have been able to convert most of our coal and oil fired power plants to nuclear plants and reduced a lot of pollution. Tell me what alternative power sources are there that is available and reliable? Until we have that we have to drill and keep drilling for oil. you may not like it but what choice do we have?

That says it all, and is why congress is so freaking clueless! SPeculators do not control the odds, they bet them! The good ones do so intelligently. The bad ones lose. But in the end, they have as much effect on price as the gopher rats do.

In simple terms - speculators do not control the price. As they are just bidding on future contracts that SOMEONE has to use. They can bid up the price to a gazillion dollars, but if no one is going to pay that for the actual product, they lose.

Just a clarification: Diesel trains power electric motors that drive the trains, this makes them very efficient. I do know what you were getting at though, electrified rails of some sort and agree. just wanted to point that out for readers that might not have known.

Yes a total blunder--like Gov. Cuomo buying a plant for $1 then demolishing an extraordinary state of the art nuclear power plant.  

Thanks to Jimmah Cawtaw.

Where did you get this statistic?

I only work 6 miles from home - that's very very close for a typical American.  That's 60 miles just during the work week assuming I only go to and from work.  And I'm no where near average.

The "average" American drives about 12,000 miles per year. About what I drive every month.

The nit has been picked.   



President James Earl Carter Jr. a part of the nuclear Navy with tons of knowledge of nuclear reactors allowed our ability to deal with the fuel crisis of his time to dwindle to nothing. He stopped drilling, he stopped the nuclear industry. But he was a man of peace.

I concede it's a stretch; it's probably calculated as percapita driver rather than vehicle. That is, you might drive six miles and your wife ten. If the vehicle averages 200 miles p/wk for two drivers it's halved.

I think you may have brushed the truth - per capita. Meaning every many woman and child. Since children dont drive, that does lower it somewhat - not including truckers.

Insurance companies figure your rates based on 12000 miles a year. I walked to work for three years meaning my yearly mileage came out to 600 miles a year and they still figured it on 12000, miles.