You are still apparently confused.

It is impossible to predict the price of fuel tomorrow, much less 20 years hence. If the price is unpredictable, then so is the impact, or lack thereof, of new sources of oil.

B

The other thing to note is that it is impossible to predict the effect of the oil we have because:

1. We don't know what we will have in 20 yrs. Lets call it a swag.
2. We don't know what the world will have in 20 yrs. Lets call that SWAG

Therefore, all we have percentage wise is swag/SWAG*100

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

We have a pretty good idea. It's not like we don't know at all.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

How would we know? Do you know what a given oil field will produce in 20 years? Do you know what technology will be present that might make it more profitable and so continue extraction? Oil fields once thought "dry" are coming back to life because cost and technology has made extraction more profitable today. Is that factored into their equation?

Without all these and probably more, what we have is just a guess as opposed to a pretty good idea.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Yes, because the relative impact of US offshore drilling is unlikely to be affected by improvements in oil extraction technology as those improvements will occur globally. The only way US offshore drilling would have a significant impact is if the other major oil producers started running out of extractable oil before we do, but based on current estimates that's extremely unlikely and you wouldn't want to experience that kind of impact anyway as it would likely lead to a global depression unless alternative energy becomes mainstream by then.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Then there are the onshore rig builders trying to keep up demand for Haynesville Shale prospectors.

http://www.haynesvilleshales.com/, No one knows for sure just how big the Haynesville Shale natural gas field is. But they do know it's big!

Companies like Chesapeak and Petrohawk have invested millions into the project.

But, how big will the economic impact be? A new well that hit last month in south Bossier parish is producing almost 17 million cubic feet per day. Translated, that's about $6 million dollars a month.
http://www.ktbs.com/news/Haynesville-Shale-Economic-impact-14215/ http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/SPECIALPROJECTS02/805040320

And the thousands of small landowners, like moi, who are getting leased and who may receive royalty checks for decades (ask me what that's like, I'm getting between $100 and $300 per month and have been for 37 years. Ha!).

We were talking about oil, not natural gas, but since you brought it up, the US does have plentiful NG fields which could be used to make synthetic motor fuels, thereby significantly reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Ideally biomass would gradually replace NG as the source to make these fuels.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

It's all good. I don't think anybody but a complete freaking fruitcake argues for only one energy source.

B

Then most republicans in congress are those freaking fruitcakes. Why else would they support tax breaks for the oil industry but not for alternative energy? This kind of stuff just pisses me off.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

I dunno about no Repos. I guess when people start talking about special taxes and special tax incentives and all I start thinking about treating everybody equally. That is a concept neither party seems to take especially seriously. Instead they warp and twist the markets to suit whatever whimsy floats into little under-developed brains.

Tax all people equally, remove all corporate taxes, remove all employer-paid health care and make all health care paid by the consumer, kill SSI, kill quasi-government agencies, return the government to regulating trade, not making trade.

House approves offshore drilling
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer
12 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The House has voted to allow oil drilling off the nation's Atlantic and Pacific coasts if states agree — but only 50 or more miles out. Republicans called the bill a ruse, saying that's well beyond where most of the estimated 18 billion barrels of oil is located.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the bill — approved late Tuesday 236-189 — marked "a new direction in energy policy" because of its emphasis on alternative energy.

The bill rolls back $18 billion in oil industry tax breaks and imposes new oil and gas royalties, while giving tax incentives for wind and solar industries and for conservation. Even before the vote, the White House said President Bush would veto it if it passes Congress.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House moved toward a vote Tuesday on whether to allow oil drilling off the nation's Atlantic and Pacific coastlines — but only 50 or more miles out, well beyond where most of the estimated 18 billion barrels of recoverable oil is believed to be located.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the bill "represents a new direction in energy policy" as it also funnels billions of dollars collected from new taxes and royalties on large oil companies to promote alternative fuels and energy efficiency in an attempt to move the country away from fossil fuels.

But Republicans called it a ruse to provide political cover to Democrats feeling pressure to support more drilling at a time of high gas prices and maintained it would not lead to more oil production.

Pelosi, who not long ago characterized Republican demands to lift the ban on offshore drilling a hoax, shifted gears in recent weeks and conceded some drilling measure would have to be part of any energy package.

Expanded offshore drilling has become a mantra of GOP energy policy that has been felt on the presidential and congressional campaign trails, despite wide agreement that lifting the drilling ban — in place for 26 years — would have little if any impact on gasoline prices or produce any oil for years.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain's vowed at the recently concluded GOP convention to push for new offshore oil and gas drilling amid delegate chants of "drill, baby drill" and his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, said he supported more drilling as part of a broader energy package.

The Democrats' bill would allow drilling in waters 50 miles from shore almost everywhere from New England to Washington state as long as a state agrees to go along with energy development off its coast line. Beyond 100 miles, no state approval would be required. The drilling ban would remain in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

But Republicans lashed out at the Democratic concession and accused Pelosi of trying to deceive the public and simply provide cover from Democrats this election year with a vote on offshore drilling.

They cited Interior Department estimates that 88 percent of the 18 billion barrels of oil believed to be in waters now under drilling bans would remain off limits because they are within 50 miles of shore. And they said few states would likely agree to drilling since the bill does not provide states with any of the royalties from the new energy production.

It's a bill "written in the dark of night" that won't do a thing about the supply of energy, said House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio. "It's a hoax on the American people. This is intended for one reason ... so the Democrats can say we voted on energy."

Republican anger punctuated the floor debate as Democrats refused to allow any amendments to the 290-page bill, keeping GOP leaders from to bring up a much broader drilling proposal that would open waters as close as 12 miles from shore if states agree.

Democrats derided what they called Republicans "drill only" response to the country's energy problems.

"America needs an oil change," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., "They keep saying on the Republican side, `Drill, baby, drill!' What we're saying is `Change, baby, change!' and they can't change."

Pelosi also garnered the support of oil-state Democrats.

People "can no longer insist that it's my way or the highway" when it comes to energy legislation, said Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas., who often has sided with the oil industry on energy measures, but spoke in support of the legislation.

The Democratic bill also would:

• Roll back $18 billion in tax breaks for the five largest oil companies and requires energy companies to pay billions of dollars in royalties avoided because of an Interior Department contracting error.

_Require the release of oil from the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve to try to push down gasoline prices.

_Make it a federal crime for oil companies holding federal leases to provide gifts to government employees, a response to a recent sex and drug scandal involving the federal office that oversees the offshore oil royalty program and energy company employees.

_Provide tax credits for wind and solar energy industries, the development of cellulose ethanol and other biofuels.

_Require utilities nationwide to generate 15 percent of their electricity from solar, wind or other alternative energy source.

_Give tax breaks for new energy efficiency programs including the use of improved building codes and for companies that promote their employees use of bicycles for commuting.

Meanwhile the Senate planned to consider its own offshore drilling proposal.

At least three proposals were being developed, including: a Democratic measure calling for limited drilling; a plan crafted by a bipartisan group of 20 senators that would open waters from Virginia to Georgia; and a Republican plan that would lift all of the drilling bans and allow states to permit energy development off their coastlines.

Not saying whether it is right or wrong but look at it this way. One has enough money to buy influence and the other is Mr Nobody at this time. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

.

All the chanting I have heard so far is

" Drill, Drill, Drill "


Have yet to hear

" Multifacated approach to solving our energy problem,
Multifacated approach to solving our energy problem,
Multifacated approach to solving our energy problem"

__________________

When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
Jimi Hendrix

So because you think things might change in 20 years we should continue
to do the same thing over and over that has not worked.

Brilliant !

I wonder what Einstein would have to say about that ?



RichC

.

__________________

When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
Jimi Hendrix

Wrong. The relative impact is much more predictable than the actual price. I can't believe you're even arguing about this.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL