If verified, it will prove that the price of oil has very little to do with the supply, and more to do with the cabal.

report released april 10 by usgs = 3.6 billion barrels.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

I guess airplanes will continue to fly for another generation or two!

may be high thinking u.s. uses 20 million barrel/day?= 180 days.
@ 10 million/day= 1 year?

Yeah, that’s right - but since the extraction is over a long period of time, it is probably more like 10-20 years of 500,000 B/D

Which is a nice addition to what we import from Canada, Mexico and other sources. Takes some pressure off.

Let’s see - a 737 uses about 40 BBL per hour - so that means 200 barrels for across the country. So 500,000 per day, would allow for a heck of a lot of flights!
Where’s my Hearth.com Gulfstream?

Can’t forget about Gull Island

Tinfoil goodness!

All of these new sources of petrol are good no doubt but the fact remains that world wide demand is skyrocketing. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that while the price may dip here and there, we are probably at the new “floor” for oil prices. In addition, these new finds are increasingly more costly to extract which will add to the upward pressure on pricing.

Wood is where it’s at my friends.

gram drude - 14 April 2008 08:16 AM

How will this new discovery factor in?

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

Probably have to go on reservation land to get the stuff.

Whoopee, the white man gets to stick it to the indians once again!

Why is it so hard for people to cut back?

J.P.

SmokinJoe - 14 April 2008 11:27 PM

Why is it so hard for people to cut back?

J.P.

No one asked them to?

Bush said “go shopping” as the response to 9/11.

Oil hit 113.00 today. A year or two ago, we would have said this was impossible. The way I see it, people will not cut back unless there is a reason - like:

1. Price - over $4 a gallon we might see some conservation...over $5 we will see a little more
2. A national effort - Bush or the next prez could have a fireside chat with us (next to an efficient wood stove) and set a goal of conservation, which would be updated every week as a challenge....sort of a national game or goal.

But the current situation is just too PROFITABLE to too many people to stop on it’s own. We still think it is our birthright to consume 2 to 10 times as much energy as the rest of the world, and as long as the main thrust of our military efforts are to secure oil, we will lose the game (some would call it winning, but it is a costly win).

Prices will keep rising and as they do we’ll see less demand. The trouble is that the reduced demand will come from folks at the bottom that can’t afford to consume fuel. It might be that old lady on SS that can’t fill her HHoil tank or the single mom cashier at walmart who is barely making it at today’s prices. I am a little less worried about the gasoline (transportation) prices than I am about the fuel prices since propane, NG, and fuel oil heats homes and runs powerplants to make electricity. By the time that enough of the population is ready to make real changes, these bottom folks will be greatly damaged.

I just hope that we choose to go nuclear while we still can afford to build the plants. Electricity is how we are going to replace oil. We might use the electricity to make hydrogen or charge batteries but we need the electricity, the root energy.

Nuclear seems like another “buy now, pay later” routine because it cannot even exist without government guarantees and insurance. If the technology was sound, the industry would be able to indemnify itself (like airlines, doctors, auto makers and everything else). The fact that it cannot scares me. If we are going to talk about “sustainable”, that cannot include something where the entire waste problem has not even started to be solved (despite promises).

It is time that we looked at stuff like this over the long run. If the problem of nuclear waste is not significant, then they (the industry) should prove it by solving it! Maybe it will triple the actual cost of nuclear power when a real solution to the waste is found...and, if so, wouldn’t it do better to invest that same money in solar, tides, wind or something else where the entire life cycle is calculated in?

Webmaster - 15 April 2008 11:29 AM

Nuclear seems like another “buy now, pay later” routine because it cannot even exist without government guarantees and insurance. If the technology was sound, the industry would be able to indemnify itself (like airlines, doctors, auto makers and everything else). The fact that it cannot scares me. If we are going to talk about “sustainable”, that cannot include something where the entire waste problem has not even started to be solved (despite promises).

It is time that we looked at stuff like this over the long run. If the problem of nuclear waste is not significant, then they (the industry) should prove it by solving it! Maybe it will triple the actual cost of nuclear power when a real solution to the waste is found...and, if so, wouldn’t it do better to invest that same money in solar, tides, wind or something else where the entire life cycle is calculated in?

Could not agree more Craig. Gubmint’ subsidy of any kind creates a false picture of what something really costs. We’ve done too much of that and are now beginning to see the results of that line of reasoning. It’s going to bite us in a lot of different places ranging from energy costs to Social Security and Medicare. The bills from those to programs alone will bankrupt this country by 2025.

We simply have to buckle down as a nation and accept the fact that our whole economy is predicated on energy costs that are artificially low.

The piper has been playing and now it’s time to pay him. Unfortunately it seems that no one at either state or federal level, seems to have the balls to come out and call a spade a spade. It’s probably time for those three guys in the picture from 1776, the guys marching with the drum, fife and flag to be reincarnated and start another revolution.

Webmaster - 15 April 2008 10:26 AM

SmokinJoe - 14 April 2008 11:27 PM

Why is it so hard for people to cut back?

J.P.

No one asked them to?

It just seems a little crazy.  How long can folks walk around thinking that the world can provide endless resources?

I am no doom and gloom prophet, or an eco fanatic, but common sense just says moderation.

I guess most folks do really need to be told what to do.

J.P.

PS.  I don’t think anyone could seriously sit by their radio, or i-Pod and listen to George W. Bush give a fireside chat.  8 years of this blubbering goon is enough.

It’s hard for people to cut back because they don’t know how.  Case in point, my dad has a 2000 Silverado truck with the 5.3L engine.  It got 19MPG when he got it.  When I drove it home to borrow while working on my own truck I drove it 130 miles, got 19MPG driving it easy, right in line with what fueleconomy.gov claims at 14/19.  How many people would be able to get better mileage in that truck?  Not many.  Just by reprogramming the computer (bought EFI Live to do it) I was able to get it up to 24MPG for the drive back.  5MPG difference just off programming, and it’s a helluva lot faster now to boot.  If my dad follows my suggestions on parts to change, then lets me get back in it for a couple more runs, I’ll be able to get him to 29+MPG at 75MPH average speed with an investment of 1500 dollars in parts (electric fans, tonneau cover, long tube headers with true dual 2.25 inch exhaust).  This will be about a 60 percent improvement in mileage, and what’s really bad is GM could have made these changes themselves.  Just with the programming I netted him a 26 percent improvement in MPG with no other changes and no effect on durability, reliability, and only a positive effect on power.  The truck still runs on 87 octane, too.  If GM were to have made the same program I’ve got in there now in all their trucks (and believe me, if I can get 24MPG with simple tools they can get 30MPG) then a million trucks on the road going 20K miles average would save 220 million gallons of gasoline per year.  A co-worker with a 2003 or thereabouts supercharged Grand Prix claims to have tuned his to the point that he’s pushing 40MPG and is faster than he was when he started.  These cars get 16/25 according to fueleconomy.gov.  He’s currently rebuilding his engine to gain power and thinks that with the parts he selected 40MPG should be an easy target to hit. 

1 million trucks * 20,000 miles / 19MPG = 1,052,631,579 gallons used
1 million trucks * 20,000 miles / 24MPG = 833,333,333 gallons used
1,052,631,579 gallons - 833,333,333 gallons = 219,298,246 gallons saved

1 million trucks * 20,000 miles / 19MPG = 1,052,631,579 gallons used
1 million trucks * 20,000 miles / 24MPG = 689,655,172 gallons used
1,052,631,579 gallons - 689,655,172 gallons = 362,976,407 gallons saved

Unfortunately most people don’t even know how to change their spark plugs, much less reprogram their rigs, so they have to depend on those that do know how to sell them cars that get the better mileage from the get-go.  Unfortunately, it would add about 300 bucks to add the right parts to most cars, and the manufacturers up to now have had no incentive to get better mileage when it’s a lot cheaper to just announce loudly and often that they are already at the theoretical limits of what they can achieve. 

What I’d like to see is true diesel electric cars, not hybrids, out on the roads.  If a General Electric locomotive can move thousands of tuns while getting 3 gallons to the mile, then surely a small car or truck would be able to see 100+MPG while having no acceleration or tow issues at all.

Why won’t people conserve?  It affects how they live their lives.  People are like a body in motion, they will stay in motion. And, like a body moving in space, they will not change speed or direction unless an outside force acts upon them.

On nuclear, the breeder reactor is the most sustainable solution as when the nuclear fuel is spent, it is reprocessed into new fuel for the same reactor.  Theoretical limit for use with reprocessing is 500 years.  Within 500 years, provided we start now, surely we can come up with a solution to waste disposal, even if the solution is a rocket into the sun where it would become about 1/99999999999999 of a second’s worth of nuclear fuel for the sun.