Do you know any American citizen who is happy we are dependent on oil? (1 Viewer)

[B-Deep]

I am not saying we should. Just that at some point oil will not be the cheap energy. there is a lot of debate over when that will be. My impression is that a lot more money is being spent to keep oil as the main energy source than is being spent to find new ones. As such the result is what we see, oil does not seem to be in any jeopardy of being replaced on the top of the energy food chain.

If the resources spent were flipped, if more was being spent on new energy and less on getting more oil, the date might be sooner. That's not realistic, however.

I've said it before, but Big Oil is not dumb. They know oil is a finite resource. They want to be the one's that figure out the next big thing. I would guess that they are pumping more money into looking for an alternative than almost anybody. Although, that's just a guess on my part.

If they believe there is hundreds of years of oil like some do, that would mean current executives are making decisions based on what will be best for the company in 100 years. I do not think that is the case. Most people don;t bother worrying much about anything outside of their lifetime

 

[lod01]

I am not saying we should. Just that at some point oil will not be the cheap energy. there is a lot of debate over when that will be. My impression is that a lot more money is being spent to keep oil as the main energy source than is being spent to find new ones. As such the result is what we see, oil does not seem to be in any jeopardy of being replaced on the top of the energy food chain.

If the resources spent were flipped, if more was being spent on new energy and less on getting more oil, the date might be sooner. That's not realistic, however.

I've said it before, but Big Oil is not dumb. They know oil is a finite resource. They want to be the one's that figure out the next big thing. I would guess that they are pumping more money into looking for an alternative than almost anybody. Although, that's just a guess on my part.

If they believe there is hundreds of years of oil like some do, that would mean current executives are making decisions based on what will be best for the company in 100 years. I do not think that is the case. Most people don;t bother worrying much about anything outside of their lifetime

That's correct. The current CEO's could care less. Their objective is too keep us dependent on oil and padding their bank accounts.. The CEO at the time when oil is running out....now quite a long way away...well past our lifetimes, is the one that has to be forward looking.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I am not saying we should. Just that at some point oil will not be the cheap energy. there is a lot of debate over when that will be. My impression is that a lot more money is being spent to keep oil as the main energy source than is being spent to find new ones. As such the result is what we see, oil does not seem to be in any jeopardy of being replaced on the top of the energy food chain.

If the resources spent were flipped, if more was being spent on new energy and less on getting more oil, the date might be sooner. That's not realistic, however.

I've said it before, but Big Oil is not dumb. They know oil is a finite resource. They want to be the one's that figure out the next big thing. I would guess that they are pumping more money into looking for an alternative than almost anybody. Although, that's just a guess on my part.

You guessed wrong: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/big-oils-big-lies-about-alternative-energy-20130625

That article talked about how many billions of dollars they had invested so far. What other industries are investing billions in alternatives?

 

[OC Zed]

at all the conspiracy theorists in here that think there are magical energy alternatives out there already and that Big Oil is just holding them back... or that no one is spending any time or money trying to figure out cheaper, more efficient alternatives.

Folks, energy production is the biggest industry in the world and it will continue to be unless/until we can figure out a way to magically create some inexhaustible supply. There couldn't be any larger profit motive for private actors to tackle this. If there was a solution better than oil, we'd already be exploiting it. And the fact that we don't have that solution yet, doesn't mean we should pour millions/billions into subsidies for "green" energy. The subsidies just aren't necessary here (because of that insanely huge profit motive) and only serve to promote inefficient businesses, piss away tax dollars and drive up the end-user cost of everything related to the subsidies.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I am not saying we should. Just that at some point oil will not be the cheap energy. there is a lot of debate over when that will be. My impression is that a lot more money is being spent to keep oil as the main energy source than is being spent to find new ones. As such the result is what we see, oil does not seem to be in any jeopardy of being replaced on the top of the energy food chain.

If the resources spent were flipped, if more was being spent on new energy and less on getting more oil, the date might be sooner. That's not realistic, however.

I've said it before, but Big Oil is not dumb. They know oil is a finite resource. They want to be the one's that figure out the next big thing. I would guess that they are pumping more money into looking for an alternative than almost anybody. Although, that's just a guess on my part.

If they believe there is hundreds of years of oil like some do, that would mean current executives are making decisions based on what will be best for the company in 100 years. I do not think that is the case. Most people don;t bother worrying much about anything outside of their lifetime

That's correct. The current CEO's could care less. Their objective is too keep us dependent on oil and padding their bank accounts.. The CEO at the time when oil is running out....now quite a long way away...well past our lifetimes, is the one that has to be forward looking.

I disagree. These CEO's do not know when the end is near. So they have to plan. Or what happens if public sentiment shifts? These CEO's are easy to imagine pressing full steam ahead without looking for any icebergs on the horizon. But I doubt very highly that's the case. These people are making sure they are building the company to survive.

 

[Politician Spock]

I am not saying we should. Just that at some point oil will not be the cheap energy. there is a lot of debate over when that will be. My impression is that a lot more money is being spent to keep oil as the main energy source than is being spent to find new ones. As such the result is what we see, oil does not seem to be in any jeopardy of being replaced on the top of the energy food chain.

If the resources spent were flipped, if more was being spent on new energy and less on getting more oil, the date might be sooner. That's not realistic, however.

I've said it before, but Big Oil is not dumb. They know oil is a finite resource. They want to be the one's that figure out the next big thing. I would guess that they are pumping more money into looking for an alternative than almost anybody. Although, that's just a guess on my part.

You guessed wrong: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/big-oils-big-lies-about-alternative-energy-20130625

That article talked about how many billions of dollars they had invested so far. What other industries are investing billions in alternatives?

The Federal government "industry" has spent $154 billion on it over the past 40 years.

 

[B-Deep]

if you think there are 200 years of oil left, and you think CEOs now are looking to that issue. that's like thinking that Smith and Wesson was planning for today's gun sales in 1814

that's prolly what - 10-15 CEOs away

 

[timschochet]

Eventually we will. But first we have to agree on the alternative.

The alternative, in any form you propose, is more expensive energy.

So It's not even a matter of which alternative, but is instead whether or not we are willing to accept a lesser standard of living in order to afford more expensive energy.

And the transition to the more expensive energy will be a period of economic pain that will make the great depresion look tame. So people prefer to look away and pretend the issue does not exist.

I don't think it has to be this way. For a long time now I've thought the answer to this is for the President (any President) to announce an "Apollo Space" type effort to get us off of oil within the next decade. So what if we add trillions to our national debt? If we can get off oil in 20 years it will be worth it.

 

[B-Deep]

at all the conspiracy theorists in here that think there are magical energy alternatives out there already and that Big Oil is just holding them back... or that no one is spending any time or money trying to figure out cheaper, more efficient alternatives.

Folks, energy production is the biggest industry in the world and it will continue to be unless/until we can figure out a way to magically create some inexhaustible supply. There couldn't be any larger profit motive for private actors to tackle this. If there was a solution better than oil, we'd already be exploiting it. And the fact that we don't have that solution yet, doesn't mean we should pour millions/billions into subsidies for "green" energy. The subsidies just aren't necessary here (because of that insanely huge profit motive) and only serve to promote inefficient businesses, piss away tax dollars and drive up the end-user cost of everything related to the subsidies.

I certainly am not saying that

I am saying there is no reason Exxon should be looking for cheaper more sustainable options to their product. Thinking they should is ridiculous. Exxon exists to benefit itself and its shareholders, and the worst thing that could happen to them is something cheap and renewable that replaces their product. This does not mean they have the answer and are sitting on it. I just don;t think they are working their asses off to pioneer something that will jeopardize themselves.

If you are the CEO and you have 2 billion and you can spend it to research solar cars or research more efficient fracking, which would you spend your money on? It is kind of a no brainer. It does not make them evil, it makes them companies.

 

[OC Zed]

Eventually we will. But first we have to agree on the alternative.

The alternative, in any form you propose, is more expensive energy.

So It's not even a matter of which alternative, but is instead whether or not we are willing to accept a lesser standard of living in order to afford more expensive energy.

And the transition to the more expensive energy will be a period of economic pain that will make the great depresion look tame. So people prefer to look away and pretend the issue does not exist.

I don't think it has to be this way. For a long time now I've thought the answer to this is for the President (any President) to announce an "Apollo Space" type effort to get us off of oil within the next decade. So what if we add trillions to our national debt? If we can get off oil in 20 years it will be worth it.

Why do we need to waste more taxpayer money on this? Any company that can create/discover a viable alternative would already be insanely wealthy by virtue of the free market (ie, the gigantic worldwide demand). It's so comical for a guy that tells everyone he's a libertarian consistently espouse government intervention - even when there is no logical need for it.

 

[B-Deep]

Eventually we will. But first we have to agree on the alternative.

The alternative, in any form you propose, is more expensive energy.

So It's not even a matter of which alternative, but is instead whether or not we are willing to accept a lesser standard of living in order to afford more expensive energy.

And the transition to the more expensive energy will be a period of economic pain that will make the great depresion look tame. So people prefer to look away and pretend the issue does not exist.

I don't think it has to be this way. For a long time now I've thought the answer to this is for the President (any President) to announce an "Apollo Space" type effort to get us off of oil within the next decade. So what if we add trillions to our national debt? If we can get off oil in 20 years it will be worth it.

Please

If a president tried an Apollo Space effort today they'd get tossed out on their ear. We don;t have the beat the Soviets thing to galvanize us anymore. Now our biggest enemies are our political foes in Washington. No way does either side unite behind the other to get us off of oil. And neither side would let the other ring up that much debt.

AND then there's the massive amount of oil lobbying which presents a problem too. There were not a lot of Soviet Lobbyists trying to keep us from agreeing to go to the moon

 

[OC Zed]

at all the conspiracy theorists in here that think there are magical energy alternatives out there already and that Big Oil is just holding them back... or that no one is spending any time or money trying to figure out cheaper, more efficient alternatives.

Folks, energy production is the biggest industry in the world and it will continue to be unless/until we can figure out a way to magically create some inexhaustible supply. There couldn't be any larger profit motive for private actors to tackle this. If there was a solution better than oil, we'd already be exploiting it. And the fact that we don't have that solution yet, doesn't mean we should pour millions/billions into subsidies for "green" energy. The subsidies just aren't necessary here (because of that insanely huge profit motive) and only serve to promote inefficient businesses, piss away tax dollars and drive up the end-user cost of everything related to the subsidies.

I certainly am not saying that

I am saying there is no reason Exxon should be looking for cheaper more sustainable options to their product. Thinking they should is ridiculous. Exxon exists to benefit itself and its shareholders, and the worst thing that could happen to them is something cheap and renewable that replaces their product. This does not mean they have the answer and are sitting on it. I just don;t think they are working their asses off to pioneer something that will jeopardize themselves.

If you are the CEO and you have 2 billion and you can spend it to research solar cars or research more efficient fracking, which would you spend your money on? It is kind of a no brainer. It does not make them evil, it makes them companies.

Exxon and the other companies are ultimately energy producers. They are smart enough to realize that their industry is incredibly huge and therefore there is already a major incentive for someone to develop something cheaper/better. They can either choose to reinvest some of their profits into R&D in efforts to head off that competition or not. There's certainly a profit motive for them to do so.

 

[B-Deep]

at all the conspiracy theorists in here that think there are magical energy alternatives out there already and that Big Oil is just holding them back... or that no one is spending any time or money trying to figure out cheaper, more efficient alternatives.

Folks, energy production is the biggest industry in the world and it will continue to be unless/until we can figure out a way to magically create some inexhaustible supply. There couldn't be any larger profit motive for private actors to tackle this. If there was a solution better than oil, we'd already be exploiting it. And the fact that we don't have that solution yet, doesn't mean we should pour millions/billions into subsidies for "green" energy. The subsidies just aren't necessary here (because of that insanely huge profit motive) and only serve to promote inefficient businesses, piss away tax dollars and drive up the end-user cost of everything related to the subsidies.

I certainly am not saying that

I am saying there is no reason Exxon should be looking for cheaper more sustainable options to their product. Thinking they should is ridiculous. Exxon exists to benefit itself and its shareholders, and the worst thing that could happen to them is something cheap and renewable that replaces their product. This does not mean they have the answer and are sitting on it. I just don;t think they are working their asses off to pioneer something that will jeopardize themselves.

If you are the CEO and you have 2 billion and you can spend it to research solar cars or research more efficient fracking, which would you spend your money on? It is kind of a no brainer. It does not make them evil, it makes them companies.

Exxon and the other companies are ultimately energy producers. They are smart enough to realize that their industry is incredibly huge and therefore there is already a major incentive for someone to develop something cheaper/better. They can either choose to reinvest some of their profits into R&D in efforts to head off that competition or not. There's certainly a profit motive for them to do so.

some sure

but what is their focus

replace oil or find more?

if you argue the former I think you are fooling yourself. They'd like to be in a position that when oil is replaced they can survive, but they'll spend more trying to keep oil from being replaced. It only makes sense

 

[TheIronSheik]

I am not saying we should. Just that at some point oil will not be the cheap energy. there is a lot of debate over when that will be. My impression is that a lot more money is being spent to keep oil as the main energy source than is being spent to find new ones. As such the result is what we see, oil does not seem to be in any jeopardy of being replaced on the top of the energy food chain.

If the resources spent were flipped, if more was being spent on new energy and less on getting more oil, the date might be sooner. That's not realistic, however.

I've said it before, but Big Oil is not dumb. They know oil is a finite resource. They want to be the one's that figure out the next big thing. I would guess that they are pumping more money into looking for an alternative than almost anybody. Although, that's just a guess on my part.

You guessed wrong: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/big-oils-big-lies-about-alternative-energy-20130625

That article talked about how many billions of dollars they had invested so far. What other industries are investing billions in alternatives?

The Federal government "industry" has spent $154 billion on it over the past 40 years.

Well, that's why I said "almost anybody." I never said they were the biggest.

 

[OC Zed]

BP pulling back on alternative energy R&D after already investing $8.3 billion:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-03-19/bp-scraps-renewable-energy-target-after-investing-8-dot-3-billion

They put their money where their mouth is and realized that alternative energy is just way too expensive and unrealistic at this point. BP seems to be a rational actor here. Pissing away good money after bad isn't a good business model.

 

[timschochet]

Eventually we will. But first we have to agree on the alternative.

The alternative, in any form you propose, is more expensive energy.

So It's not even a matter of which alternative, but is instead whether or not we are willing to accept a lesser standard of living in order to afford more expensive energy.

And the transition to the more expensive energy will be a period of economic pain that will make the great depresion look tame. So people prefer to look away and pretend the issue does not exist.

I don't think it has to be this way. For a long time now I've thought the answer to this is for the President (any President) to announce an "Apollo Space" type effort to get us off of oil within the next decade. So what if we add trillions to our national debt? If we can get off oil in 20 years it will be worth it.

Why do we need to waste more taxpayer money on this? Any company that can create/discover a viable alternative would already be insanely wealthy by virtue of the free market (ie, the gigantic worldwide demand). It's so comical for a guy that tells everyone he's a libertarian consistently espouse government intervention - even when there is no logical need for it.

Because I'm convinced that the free market can't handle the transition. You need government investment- especially if you want to pursue nuclear energy. which I do.

 

[OC Zed]

Eventually we will. But first we have to agree on the alternative.

The alternative, in any form you propose, is more expensive energy.

So It's not even a matter of which alternative, but is instead whether or not we are willing to accept a lesser standard of living in order to afford more expensive energy.

And the transition to the more expensive energy will be a period of economic pain that will make the great depresion look tame. So people prefer to look away and pretend the issue does not exist.

I don't think it has to be this way. For a long time now I've thought the answer to this is for the President (any President) to announce an "Apollo Space" type effort to get us off of oil within the next decade. So what if we add trillions to our national debt? If we can get off oil in 20 years it will be worth it.

Why do we need to waste more taxpayer money on this? Any company that can create/discover a viable alternative would already be insanely wealthy by virtue of the free market (ie, the gigantic worldwide demand). It's so comical for a guy that tells everyone he's a libertarian consistently espouse government intervention - even when there is no logical need for it.

Because I'm convinced that the free market can't handle the transition. You need government investment- especially if you want to pursue nuclear energy. which I do.

Why not?

 

[jonessed]

Eventually we will. But first we have to agree on the alternative.

The alternative, in any form you propose, is more expensive energy.

So It's not even a matter of which alternative, but is instead whether or not we are willing to accept a lesser standard of living in order to afford more expensive energy.

And the transition to the more expensive energy will be a period of economic pain that will make the great depresion look tame. So people prefer to look away and pretend the issue does not exist.

If there is a finite amount of oil this will not always be the case. At some point if oil becomes harder to get and alternatives get more efficient one would think the lines would cross

but again, there's billions of dollars of oil industry who are incentive to delay this as long as possible, if they can

That is because there are decades and decades of oil reserves sitting on US land.

then in 30 or 40 years this may happenthe fact remains, it appears that oil is a finite resource, so unless we are planning for our extinction before oil runs out, at some point it will no longer be the cheapest form of energy. The quicker we develop other energy the sooner this will happen. If we spend our resources on getting more and more oil it will delay it longer. But it will happen no matter what either side thinks of it.

Unless we find out the oil supply is infinite

We ARE researching now.But at this time there is no reason to switch from cheap energy to expensive energy that can't do everything the cheap energy can do. Hopefully in 50 to 100 years we'll have figured that out. But why get off of cheap energy until then?

Because if the global warming people are right, we may not have that long. And because the Middle East is so unstable. These are the two main reasons.

Global extinction is no laughing matter.

 

[Politician Spock]

Eventually we will. But first we have to agree on the alternative.

The alternative, in any form you propose, is more expensive energy.

So It's not even a matter of which alternative, but is instead whether or not we are willing to accept a lesser standard of living in order to afford more expensive energy.

And the transition to the more expensive energy will be a period of economic pain that will make the great depresion look tame. So people prefer to look away and pretend the issue does not exist.

I don't think it has to be this way. For a long time now I've thought the answer to this is for the President (any President) to announce an "Apollo Space" type effort to get us off of oil within the next decade. So what if we add trillions to our national debt? If we can get off oil in 20 years it will be worth it.

Why do we need to waste more taxpayer money on this? Any company that can create/discover a viable alternative would already be insanely wealthy by virtue of the free market (ie, the gigantic worldwide demand). It's so comical for a guy that tells everyone he's a libertarian consistently espouse government intervention - even when there is no logical need for it.

Because I'm convinced that the free market can't handle the transition. You need government investment- especially if you want to pursue nuclear energy. which I do.

Why not?

Historically speaking, massive economic change tends to trigger revolutions, civil wars, and such.

 

[timschochet]

Eventually we will. But first we have to agree on the alternative.

The alternative, in any form you propose, is more expensive energy.

So It's not even a matter of which alternative, but is instead whether or not we are willing to accept a lesser standard of living in order to afford more expensive energy.

And the transition to the more expensive energy will be a period of economic pain that will make the great depresion look tame. So people prefer to look away and pretend the issue does not exist.

I don't think it has to be this way. For a long time now I've thought the answer to this is for the President (any President) to announce an "Apollo Space" type effort to get us off of oil within the next decade. So what if we add trillions to our national debt? If we can get off oil in 20 years it will be worth it.

Why do we need to waste more taxpayer money on this? Any company that can create/discover a viable alternative would already be insanely wealthy by virtue of the free market (ie, the gigantic worldwide demand). It's so comical for a guy that tells everyone he's a libertarian consistently espouse government intervention - even when there is no logical need for it.

Because I'm convinced that the free market can't handle the transition. You need government investment- especially if you want to pursue nuclear energy. which I do.

Why not?

How much does it cost to build a nuclear power plant? Know any private companies willing to make that investment?

 

[jonessed]

Eventually we will. But first we have to agree on the alternative.

The alternative, in any form you propose, is more expensive energy.

So It's not even a matter of which alternative, but is instead whether or not we are willing to accept a lesser standard of living in order to afford more expensive energy.

And the transition to the more expensive energy will be a period of economic pain that will make the great depresion look tame. So people prefer to look away and pretend the issue does not exist.

I don't think it has to be this way. For a long time now I've thought the answer to this is for the President (any President) to announce an "Apollo Space" type effort to get us off of oil within the next decade. So what if we add trillions to our national debt? If we can get off oil in 20 years it will be worth it.

Why do we need to waste more taxpayer money on this? Any company that can create/discover a viable alternative would already be insanely wealthy by virtue of the free market (ie, the gigantic worldwide demand). It's so comical for a guy that tells everyone he's a libertarian consistently espouse government intervention - even when there is no logical need for it.

Because I'm convinced that the free market can't handle the transition. You need government investment- especially if you want to pursue nuclear energy. which I do.

Why not?

Historically speaking, massive economic change tends to trigger revolutions, civil wars, and such.

How does that answer the question?

 

[Politician Spock]

Eventually we will. But first we have to agree on the alternative.

The alternative, in any form you propose, is more expensive energy.

So It's not even a matter of which alternative, but is instead whether or not we are willing to accept a lesser standard of living in order to afford more expensive energy.

And the transition to the more expensive energy will be a period of economic pain that will make the great depresion look tame. So people prefer to look away and pretend the issue does not exist.

I don't think it has to be this way. For a long time now I've thought the answer to this is for the President (any President) to announce an "Apollo Space" type effort to get us off of oil within the next decade. So what if we add trillions to our national debt? If we can get off oil in 20 years it will be worth it.

Why do we need to waste more taxpayer money on this? Any company that can create/discover a viable alternative would already be insanely wealthy by virtue of the free market (ie, the gigantic worldwide demand). It's so comical for a guy that tells everyone he's a libertarian consistently espouse government intervention - even when there is no logical need for it.

Because I'm convinced that the free market can't handle the transition. You need government investment- especially if you want to pursue nuclear energy. which I do.

Why not?

Historically speaking, massive economic change tends to trigger revolutions, civil wars, and such.

How does that answer the question?

How does it not?

 

[jonessed]

Eventually we will. But first we have to agree on the alternative.

The alternative, in any form you propose, is more expensive energy.

So It's not even a matter of which alternative, but is instead whether or not we are willing to accept a lesser standard of living in order to afford more expensive energy.

And the transition to the more expensive energy will be a period of economic pain that will make the great depresion look tame. So people prefer to look away and pretend the issue does not exist.

I don't think it has to be this way. For a long time now I've thought the answer to this is for the President (any President) to announce an "Apollo Space" type effort to get us off of oil within the next decade. So what if we add trillions to our national debt? If we can get off oil in 20 years it will be worth it.

Why do we need to waste more taxpayer money on this? Any company that can create/discover a viable alternative would already be insanely wealthy by virtue of the free market (ie, the gigantic worldwide demand). It's so comical for a guy that tells everyone he's a libertarian consistently espouse government intervention - even when there is no logical need for it.

Because I'm convinced that the free market can't handle the transition. You need government investment- especially if you want to pursue nuclear energy. which I do.

Why not?

How much does it cost to build a nuclear power plant? Know any private companies willing to make that investment?

Not in the current political environment. Way too volatile.I don't know see the government willing to do it either though.

 

[OC Zed]

Eventually we will. But first we have to agree on the alternative.

The alternative, in any form you propose, is more expensive energy.

So It's not even a matter of which alternative, but is instead whether or not we are willing to accept a lesser standard of living in order to afford more expensive energy.

And the transition to the more expensive energy will be a period of economic pain that will make the great depresion look tame. So people prefer to look away and pretend the issue does not exist.

I don't think it has to be this way. For a long time now I've thought the answer to this is for the President (any President) to announce an "Apollo Space" type effort to get us off of oil within the next decade. So what if we add trillions to our national debt? If we can get off oil in 20 years it will be worth it.

Why do we need to waste more taxpayer money on this? Any company that can create/discover a viable alternative would already be insanely wealthy by virtue of the free market (ie, the gigantic worldwide demand). It's so comical for a guy that tells everyone he's a libertarian consistently espouse government intervention - even when there is no logical need for it.

Because I'm convinced that the free market can't handle the transition. You need government investment- especially if you want to pursue nuclear energy. which I do.

Why not?

Historically speaking, massive economic change tends to trigger revolutions, civil wars, and such.

How does that answer the question?

How does it not?

If you believe revolution is a natural progression from this massive economic change (I do not), then why would government intervention be able to stop it? Government trying to redistribute wealth in whichever way it chooses may lead to further political stability - not discourage it.

 

[Politician Spock]

Eventually we will. But first we have to agree on the alternative.

The alternative, in any form you propose, is more expensive energy.

So It's not even a matter of which alternative, but is instead whether or not we are willing to accept a lesser standard of living in order to afford more expensive energy.

And the transition to the more expensive energy will be a period of economic pain that will make the great depresion look tame. So people prefer to look away and pretend the issue does not exist.

I don't think it has to be this way. For a long time now I've thought the answer to this is for the President (any President) to announce an "Apollo Space" type effort to get us off of oil within the next decade. So what if we add trillions to our national debt? If we can get off oil in 20 years it will be worth it.

Why do we need to waste more taxpayer money on this? Any company that can create/discover a viable alternative would already be insanely wealthy by virtue of the free market (ie, the gigantic worldwide demand). It's so comical for a guy that tells everyone he's a libertarian consistently espouse government intervention - even when there is no logical need for it.

Because I'm convinced that the free market can't handle the transition. You need government investment- especially if you want to pursue nuclear energy. which I do.

Why not?

Historically speaking, massive economic change tends to trigger revolutions, civil wars, and such.

How does that answer the question?

How does it not?

If you believe revolution is a natural progression from this massive economic change (I do not), then why would government intervention be able to stop it? Government trying to redistribute wealth in whichever way it chooses may lead to further political stability - not discourage it.

Throughout history, when the populace can't afford food, the #### usually hits the fan.

Energy is now a necessisty no different than food has been historically. Perhaps even more so because now the price of a food is a dirivative of the price of energy.

I'm not saying government WILL solve what could come. I'm saying leaving it to the free market is historically speaking not the wisest of decisions, and I doubt who ever is elected to government at the time would be willing to take that risk.

That being said, I expect them to #### it up, like governments always seem to do.

Yes, I think we are screwed, and it's unavoidable.

 

[timschochet]

You are such a downer Politician Spock. No matter what the issue, you always seem to expect the absolute worst to happen. Are you a happy guy in your personal life? I hope you are.

 

[OC Zed]

Throughout history, when the populace can't afford food, the #### usually hits the fan.

Energy is now a necessisty no different than food has been historically. Perhaps even more so because now the price of a food is a dirivative of the price of energy.

I'm not saying government WILL solve what could come. I'm saying leaving it to the free market is historically speaking not the wisest of decisions, and I doubt who ever is elected to government at the time would be willing to take that risk.

That being said, I expect them to #### it up, like governments always seem to do.

Yes, I think we are screwed, and it's unavoidable.

So are you saying, we need government intervention to help find alternative energies to head off the economic pain and the resulting political instability that will come when fossil fuels are exhausted? Again, there are already major incentives in place for any private actor to find a viable, cheaper solution to oil. Throwing government (taxpayer) money into the pot doesn't really change the equation any... it just promotes for more inefficiencies in the process. Also, fossil fuels are not expecting to reach exhaustion for many decades or even centuries. This is not an imminent problem. And it won't be like we wake up one day and all of the oil suddenly vanishes. Rather, the supply will gradually begin to diminish - likely over many, many years so there won't be much of a destabilizing shock.

And I believe the free market is exponentially more responsible for wealth creation in the free world than government intervention. I don't event think that's debatable.

 

[timschochet]

Throughout history, when the populace can't afford food, the #### usually hits the fan.

Energy is now a necessisty no different than food has been historically. Perhaps even more so because now the price of a food is a dirivative of the price of energy.

I'm not saying government WILL solve what could come. I'm saying leaving it to the free market is historically speaking not the wisest of decisions, and I doubt who ever is elected to government at the time would be willing to take that risk.

That being said, I expect them to #### it up, like governments always seem to do.

Yes, I think we are screwed, and it's unavoidable.

So are you saying, we need government intervention to help find alternative energies to head off the economic pain and the resulting political instability that will come when fossil fuels are exhausted? Again, there are already major incentives in place for any private actor to find a viable, cheaper solution to oil. Throwing government (taxpayer) money into the pot doesn't really change the equation any... it just promotes for more inefficiencies in the process. Also, fossil fuels are not expecting to reach exhaustion for many decades or even centuries. This is not an imminent problem. And it won't be like we wake up one day and all of the oil suddenly vanishes. Rather, the supply will gradually begin to diminish - likely over many, many years so there won't be much of a destabilizing shock.

And I believe the free market is exponentially more responsible for wealth creation in the free world than government intervention. I don't event think that's debatable.

It isn't. But that doesn't mean the government is unable to produce wealth creation or massive change. Look at the Manhattan Project and the space program. Would you deny that either produced massive wealth?

 

[Sarnoff]

You are such a downer Politician Spock. No matter what the issue, you always seem to expect the absolute worst to happen. Are you a happy guy in your personal life? I hope you are.

Because I always picture Communists as happy, smiling people.

 

[Politician Spock]

So are you saying, we need government intervention to help find alternative energies to head off the economic pain and the resulting political instability that will come when fossil fuels are exhausted?

To help find them? No. The free market is better at finding them than the government is. I am saying that the government is going to need to intervene in the cost that is going to be passed on to the people. If the government does nothing, the increased cost of energy would have the same impact as a regressive tax. It will hurt the poor far more than it will hurt the rich. If government says "so be it", this could cause the #### to hit the fan. That being said, taxing the rich to cover the increased cost so that the poor don't carry the costs could cause a different type of #### to hit the fan.

Again, there are already major incentives in place for any private actor to find a viable, cheaper solution to oil.

I'm well aware of this, and it is evidence of the point I'm making. There is no cheaper solution to oil. In fact there is no alternative similarly priced to oil. All alternatives to oil are more expensive. The shift to that is going to cause the #### to hit the fan one way or another.

Throwing government (taxpayer) money into the pot doesn't really change the equation any... it just promotes for more inefficiencies in the process.

I agree. I'm not saying the government can solve this. Only that they will try.

Also, fossil fuels are not expecting to reach exhaustion for many decades or even centuries. This is not an imminent problem.

That is arguable. It's not the point of exhaustion that is the critical point in time. It's the point where the price of energy tips society too far one way or another that is the critical point in time, and that will occure well before the resource is exhausted.

And it won't be like we wake up one day and all of the oil suddenly vanishes. Rather, the supply will gradually begin to diminish - likely over many, many years so there won't be much of a destabilizing shock.

I agree. But again, I'm looking at the market price of energy, not the supply of barrels still left.

And I believe the free market is exponentially more responsible for wealth creation in the free world than government intervention. I don't event think that's debatable.

The government's intervention will have nothing to do with wealth creation. It will be trying to keep the peace.

 

[Foosball God]

We only get ~13% of our oil from the Middle East. Most of it comes from Latin America and Canada.

 

[OC Zed]

Throughout history, when the populace can't afford food, the #### usually hits the fan.

Energy is now a necessisty no different than food has been historically. Perhaps even more so because now the price of a food is a dirivative of the price of energy.

I'm not saying government WILL solve what could come. I'm saying leaving it to the free market is historically speaking not the wisest of decisions, and I doubt who ever is elected to government at the time would be willing to take that risk.

That being said, I expect them to #### it up, like governments always seem to do.

Yes, I think we are screwed, and it's unavoidable.

So are you saying, we need government intervention to help find alternative energies to head off the economic pain and the resulting political instability that will come when fossil fuels are exhausted? Again, there are already major incentives in place for any private actor to find a viable, cheaper solution to oil. Throwing government (taxpayer) money into the pot doesn't really change the equation any... it just promotes for more inefficiencies in the process. Also, fossil fuels are not expecting to reach exhaustion for many decades or even centuries. This is not an imminent problem. And it won't be like we wake up one day and all of the oil suddenly vanishes. Rather, the supply will gradually begin to diminish - likely over many, many years so there won't be much of a destabilizing shock.

And I believe the free market is exponentially more responsible for wealth creation in the free world than government intervention. I don't event think that's debatable.

It isn't. But that doesn't mean the government is unable to produce wealth creation or massive change. Look at the Manhattan Project and the space program. Would you deny that either produced massive wealth?

No, I wouldn't say that the space program created massive wealth on a widespread scale. Did it help certain industries and advance certain areas of the sciences? Yes, but I also wouldn't say that those advancements couldn't have been achieved through research and investment in the private sector (whether dedicated to space exploration or not).

In terms of the Manhattan Project - how are you claiming that to be a wealth generator?

To be more blunt (and to clarify my earlier post), governments are incapable of truly creating wealth - they only serve to redistribute it (which they really shouldn't be in the business of doing in the first place).

 

[Politician Spock]

You are such a downer Politician Spock. No matter what the issue, you always seem to expect the absolute worst to happen. Are you a happy guy in your personal life? I hope you are.

I am happy when there is a solution. When there's not a solution, the truth sucks, but it's the truth. As an IT consultant, sometimes I have to tell my customer the solution they want does not exist. So perhaps having done that for years has made me callous about it. Whatever.

 

[timschochet]

Throughout history, when the populace can't afford food, the #### usually hits the fan.

Energy is now a necessisty no different than food has been historically. Perhaps even more so because now the price of a food is a dirivative of the price of energy.

I'm not saying government WILL solve what could come. I'm saying leaving it to the free market is historically speaking not the wisest of decisions, and I doubt who ever is elected to government at the time would be willing to take that risk.

That being said, I expect them to #### it up, like governments always seem to do.

Yes, I think we are screwed, and it's unavoidable.

So are you saying, we need government intervention to help find alternative energies to head off the economic pain and the resulting political instability that will come when fossil fuels are exhausted? Again, there are already major incentives in place for any private actor to find a viable, cheaper solution to oil. Throwing government (taxpayer) money into the pot doesn't really change the equation any... it just promotes for more inefficiencies in the process. Also, fossil fuels are not expecting to reach exhaustion for many decades or even centuries. This is not an imminent problem. And it won't be like we wake up one day and all of the oil suddenly vanishes. Rather, the supply will gradually begin to diminish - likely over many, many years so there won't be much of a destabilizing shock.

And I believe the free market is exponentially more responsible for wealth creation in the free world than government intervention. I don't event think that's debatable.

It isn't. But that doesn't mean the government is unable to produce wealth creation or massive change. Look at the Manhattan Project and the space program. Would you deny that either produced massive wealth?

No, I wouldn't say that the space program created massive wealth on a widespread scale. Did it help certain industries and advance certain areas of the sciences? Yes, but I also wouldn't say that those advancements couldn't have been achieved through research and investment in the private sector (whether dedicated to space exploration or not).

In terms of the Manhattan Project - how are you claiming that to be a wealth generator?

To be more blunt (and to clarify my earlier post), governments are incapable of truly creating wealth - they only serve to redistribute it (which they really shouldn't be in the business of doing in the first place).

I was once as much of a libertarian as you are now. But I've changed. We fundamentally disagree. If you can't acknowledge the tremendous wealth created by the Manhattan Project and the Space program, there's no point in continuing.

 

[OC Zed]

Throughout history, when the populace can't afford food, the #### usually hits the fan.

Energy is now a necessisty no different than food has been historically. Perhaps even more so because now the price of a food is a dirivative of the price of energy.

I'm not saying government WILL solve what could come. I'm saying leaving it to the free market is historically speaking not the wisest of decisions, and I doubt who ever is elected to government at the time would be willing to take that risk.

That being said, I expect them to #### it up, like governments always seem to do.

Yes, I think we are screwed, and it's unavoidable.

So are you saying, we need government intervention to help find alternative energies to head off the economic pain and the resulting political instability that will come when fossil fuels are exhausted? Again, there are already major incentives in place for any private actor to find a viable, cheaper solution to oil. Throwing government (taxpayer) money into the pot doesn't really change the equation any... it just promotes for more inefficiencies in the process. Also, fossil fuels are not expecting to reach exhaustion for many decades or even centuries. This is not an imminent problem. And it won't be like we wake up one day and all of the oil suddenly vanishes. Rather, the supply will gradually begin to diminish - likely over many, many years so there won't be much of a destabilizing shock.

And I believe the free market is exponentially more responsible for wealth creation in the free world than government intervention. I don't event think that's debatable.

It isn't. But that doesn't mean the government is unable to produce wealth creation or massive change. Look at the Manhattan Project and the space program. Would you deny that either produced massive wealth?

No, I wouldn't say that the space program created massive wealth on a widespread scale. Did it help certain industries and advance certain areas of the sciences? Yes, but I also wouldn't say that those advancements couldn't have been achieved through research and investment in the private sector (whether dedicated to space exploration or not).

In terms of the Manhattan Project - how are you claiming that to be a wealth generator?

To be more blunt (and to clarify my earlier post), governments are incapable of truly creating wealth - they only serve to redistribute it (which they really shouldn't be in the business of doing in the first place).

I was once as much of a libertarian as you are now. But I've changed. We fundamentally disagree. If you can't acknowledge the tremendous wealth created by the Manhattan Project and the Space program, there's no point in continuing.

I am elated to no longer discuss this with you. Thank you.

 

[Thunderlips]

The only way to beat foriegn oil is to get off of oil. You produce more in the U.S.. OPEC will hold some of theirs back. The U.S. has accepted AT LEAST 3.00 per gallon as the floor these days. Why would someone selling willingly give you something for less than that?

 

[jon_mx]

Throughout history, when the populace can't afford food, the #### usually hits the fan.

Energy is now a necessisty no different than food has been historically. Perhaps even more so because now the price of a food is a dirivative of the price of energy.

I'm not saying government WILL solve what could come. I'm saying leaving it to the free market is historically speaking not the wisest of decisions, and I doubt who ever is elected to government at the time would be willing to take that risk.

That being said, I expect them to #### it up, like governments always seem to do.

Yes, I think we are screwed, and it's unavoidable.

So are you saying, we need government intervention to help find alternative energies to head off the economic pain and the resulting political instability that will come when fossil fuels are exhausted? Again, there are already major incentives in place for any private actor to find a viable, cheaper solution to oil. Throwing government (taxpayer) money into the pot doesn't really change the equation any... it just promotes for more inefficiencies in the process. Also, fossil fuels are not expecting to reach exhaustion for many decades or even centuries. This is not an imminent problem. And it won't be like we wake up one day and all of the oil suddenly vanishes. Rather, the supply will gradually begin to diminish - likely over many, many years so there won't be much of a destabilizing shock.

And I believe the free market is exponentially more responsible for wealth creation in the free world than government intervention. I don't event think that's debatable.

It isn't. But that doesn't mean the government is unable to produce wealth creation or massive change. Look at the Manhattan Project and the space program. Would you deny that either produced massive wealth?

No, I wouldn't say that the space program created massive wealth on a widespread scale. Did it help certain industries and advance certain areas of the sciences? Yes, but I also wouldn't say that those advancements couldn't have been achieved through research and investment in the private sector (whether dedicated to space exploration or not).

In terms of the Manhattan Project - how are you claiming that to be a wealth generator?

To be more blunt (and to clarify my earlier post), governments are incapable of truly creating wealth - they only serve to redistribute it (which they really shouldn't be in the business of doing in the first place).

I was once as much of a libertarian as you are now. But I've changed. We fundamentally disagree. If you can't acknowledge the tremendous wealth created by the Manhattan Project and the Space program, there's no point in continuing.

I am elated to no longer discuss this with you. Thank you.

 

[jon_mx]

The US is probably the most oil rich country there is, but regulation makes us a oil poor country. Obama is a blatant liar on discussing this issue.

 

[cstu]

I strongly believe that we should break our dependence on foreign oil. Until I look to see how expensive it would be. And then I decide that foreign oil is just peachy.

The U.S. imports ~10 million barrels of oil a day at ~$100 a barrel. That's $1 billion a day, or $365 billion a year.

Assuming each car uses 50 barrels of oil a year (each barrel makes 19 gallons of gas) we would need to replace 73 million vehicles with non-gas vehicles.

This would not happen but the U.S. could give 73 million people $20k to buy electric cars at a cost of $1.46 trillion and we would be off foreign oil completely.

How does that $1.46 trillion compare to the war in Iraq?

 

[TheIronSheik]

We only get ~13% of our oil from the Middle East. Most of it comes from Latin America and Canada.

No one cares about facts that don't help their cause.

 

[jonessed]

I strongly believe that we should break our dependence on foreign oil. Until I look to see how expensive it would be. And then I decide that foreign oil is just peachy.

The U.S. imports ~10 million barrels of oil a day at ~$100 a barrel. That's $1 billion a day, or $365 billion a year.

Assuming each car uses 50 barrels of oil a year (each barrel makes 19 gallons of gas) we would need to replace 73 million vehicles with non-gas vehicles.

This would not happen but the U.S. could give 73 million people $20k to buy electric cars at a cost of $1.46 trillion and we would be off foreign oil completely.

How does that $1.46 trillion compare to the war in Iraq?

That would mean more natural gas fracking, coal, and nuclear.

 

[jon_mx]

You are such a downer Politician Spock. No matter what the issue, you always seem to expect the absolute worst to happen. Are you a happy guy in your personal life? I hope you are.

Is this the same Tim who on this very thread warned that we may not be around in 50 years because of global warming?

 

[cstu]

I strongly believe that we should break our dependence on foreign oil. Until I look to see how expensive it would be. And then I decide that foreign oil is just peachy.

The U.S. imports ~10 million barrels of oil a day at ~$100 a barrel. That's $1 billion a day, or $365 billion a year.

Assuming each car uses 50 barrels of oil a year (each barrel makes 19 gallons of gas) we would need to replace 73 million vehicles with non-gas vehicles.

This would not happen but the U.S. could give 73 million people $20k to buy electric cars at a cost of $1.46 trillion and we would be off foreign oil completely.

How does that $1.46 trillion compare to the war in Iraq?

That would mean more natural gas fracking, coal, and nuclear.

I have no problem with nuclear and there's also wind and solar.

 

[jonessed]

I strongly believe that we should break our dependence on foreign oil. Until I look to see how expensive it would be. And then I decide that foreign oil is just peachy.

The U.S. imports ~10 million barrels of oil a day at ~$100 a barrel. That's $1 billion a day, or $365 billion a year.

Assuming each car uses 50 barrels of oil a year (each barrel makes 19 gallons of gas) we would need to replace 73 million vehicles with non-gas vehicles.

This would not happen but the U.S. could give 73 million people $20k to buy electric cars at a cost of $1.46 trillion and we would be off foreign oil completely.

How does that $1.46 trillion compare to the war in Iraq?

That would mean more natural gas fracking, coal, and nuclear.

I have no problem with nuclear and there's also wind and solar.

Once we get the nuclear power plants up and the windmills built we can start on your plan. Should be any century now.

 

[DiStefano]

And the good thing about electricity is that it grows on trees. So we don't need power plants burning all that oil and gas and coal.

 

[timschochet]

You are such a downer Politician Spock. No matter what the issue, you always seem to expect the absolute worst to happen. Are you a happy guy in your personal life? I hope you are.

Is this the same Tim who on this very thread warned that we may not be around in 50 years because of global warming?

In 50 years it may be too late to do anything about global warming. That doesn't mean we won't be around, just that life may be a lot more difficult...but one way or another, we'll figure it out.

 

[Gianni Verscotchie]

I thought the plan was for the US to burn through the world's oil reserves while preserving our own stash. When the other countries wither and die, we profit. No?

 

[Ted Mullins]

Didn't see this posted anywhere else yet, seems relevant

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/07/16/a-35000-tesla-model-iii-is-coming-in-2017/

Tesla aiming to have a $35K model with a 200 mile range in 2017.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Didn't see this posted anywhere else yet, seems relevant

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/07/16/a-35000-tesla-model-iii-is-coming-in-2017/

Tesla aiming to have a $35K model with a 200 mile range in 2017.

This is a good start. I think Tesla definitely could be the company that forces others to innovate. Of course, electricity still comes from burning fossil fuels. So. There's that.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Obama opens Eastern Seaboard to oil explorationST. AUGUSTINE BEACH, Fla. (AP) -- The Obama administration is reopening the Eastern Seaboard to offshore oil and gas exploration, approving seismic surveys using sonic cannons that can pinpoint energy deposits deep beneath the ocean floor.

Friday's announcement is the first real step toward what could be a transformation in coastal states, creating thousands of jobs to support a new energy infrastructure. But it dismayed environmentalists and people who owe their livelihoods to fisheries and tourism.

The cannons create noise pollution in waters shared by whales, dolphins and turtles, sending sound waves many times louder than a jet engine reverberating through the deep every ten seconds for weeks at a time. Arguing that endangered species could be harmed was the environmental groups' best hope for extending a decades-old ban against drilling off the U.S. Atlantic coast.

The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management acknowledged that thousands of sea creatures will be harmed even as it approved opening the outer continental shelf from Delaware to Florida to exploration. Energy companies need the data as they prepare to apply for drilling leases in 2018, when current congressional limits expire.

"The bureau's decision reflects a carefully analyzed and balanced approach that will allow us to increase our understanding of potential offshore resources while protecting the human, marine, and coastal environments," acting BOEM Director Walter Cruickshank said in a statement.

Sonic cannons are already used in the western Gulf of Mexico, off Alaska and in other offshore oil operations around the world. They are towed behind boats, sending down pulses of sound that reverberate beneath the sea floor and rebound to the surface. Hydrophones capture the results, which computers translate into high resolution, three-dimensional images.

"It's like a sonogram of the Earth," said Andy Radford, a petroleum engineer at the American Petroleum Institute, an oil and gas trade association in Washington DC. "You can't see the oil and gas, but you can see the structures in the Earth that might hold oil and gas."

The surveys also can map marine habitats and identify solid undersea flooring for wind energy turbines. But fossil fuel mostly funds this research, and corporations keep the data secret, disclosing it only to the government.

"They paid for it, so I can see why they don't want to share. These things are not cheap," said John Jaeger, a University of Florida geology professor.

Oil lobbyists say drilling for the estimated 4.72 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 37.51 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that lies beneath federal waters from Florida to Maine could generate $195 billion in investment and spending between 2017 and 2035, contributing $23.5 billion per year to the economy.

These estimates describe the total amount of energy "technically recoverable" from the nation's outer continental shelf, but the Atlantic seabed from New Jersey through New England remains off limits for now. While some states have passed drilling bans, Virginia and the Carolinas asked for the surveys, bureau officials explained Friday.

"I honestly feel we can go offshore and harvest the energy that's out there," said South Carolina state Sen Paul Campbell. "I think we're kind of foolish not to."

In any case, the area to be mapped is farther offshore in federal waters, beyond the reach of state law.

The sonic cannons are often fired continually for weeks or months, and multiple mapping projects may operate simultaneously. To get permits, companies will need to have whale-spotting observers onboard and do undersea acoustic tests to avoid nearby species. Certain habitats will be closed during birthing or feeding seasons.

Still, underwater microphones have picked up blasts from these sonic cannons over distances of thousands of miles, and the constant banging - amplified in water by orders of magnitude - will be impossible for many species to avoid.

Whales and dolphins depend on being able to hear their own much less powerful echolocation to feed, communicate and keep in touch with their family groups across hundreds of miles. Even fish and crabs navigate and communicate by sound, said Grant Gilmore, an expert on fish ecology in Vero Beach, Fla.

"We don't know what the physiological effects are. It could be permanent hearing damage in many of these creatures just by one encounter with a high-energy signal," Gilmore said.

More than 120,000 comments were sent to the government, which spent years developing these rules. The bureau's environmental impact study estimates that more than 138,000 sea creatures could be harmed, including nine of the world's remaining 500 north Atlantic right whales.

These whales give birth and breed off the coast of Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas.

"Once they can't hear -- and that's the risk that comes with seismic testing -- they are pretty much done for," said Katie Zimmerman, a spokeswoman for the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League based in Charleston, S.C.

"Even if there were oil out there, do we really want that? Do we really want to see these offshore rigs set up?" she asked.

By federal law, scientists can't approach marine mammals without following careful protocols, and yet this decision will pervade their environment with noise pollution that could have a long-term impact on their population, said Scott Kraus, a right whale expert at the John H. Prescott Marine Laboratory in Boston.

"No one has been allowed to test anything like this on right whales," Kraus said. "(The Obama administration) has authorized a giant experiment on right whales that this country would never allow researchers to do."

Some exploratory wells were drilled before the U.S. Atlantic seabed was closed to exploration in the 1980s, but they never produced much. The latest seismic technology should change that.

"One thing we find is, the more you get out and drill and explore to confirm what you see in the seismic -- you end up finding more oil and gas than what you think is out there when you started," Radford said.

More than 16 communities from Florida to New Jersey passed resolutions opposing or raising concerns about seismic testing and offshore drilling. In north Florida's St. Augustine Beach, tourism and fishing fuel the economy, and rare turtles come ashore to lay eggs.

"Florida has already felt the devastating effects of an uncontrolled oil release with the Deepwater Horizon event of which cleanup efforts are still on-going," said John Morris, a county commissioner whose constituency includes the beach town. "Any oil spill, large or small, off the coast of St. Johns County, would greatly affect the county's economy."

http://news.msn.com/us/obama-opens-eastern-seaboard-to-oil-exploration?ocid=ansnews11