RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Unfolding Universe (discovery channel)

["Ross, Matt" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> I would say your first two sentences are refuted by the 
> remainder of the 
> paragraph. "Need OPEC" and "could last" are judgmental terms. 

Given the volume of oil used each year and the volume of recoverable oil in
the reservoirs we've closed off over  the years, its not a judgement call.

> If you are 
> judging in the absolute sense, yes you are right. However, if 
> you look at 
> it relative to the economy, then the answer is not so simple.

I'm not saying the economic issues don't demand we put up with OPEC.  Our
gas prices would be about $2-3/gal already if we weren't dealing with OPEC
and others like them, simply due to the benefits of overseas resources
driving down the assumed value of local resources.  I was referring back to
an earlier comment that Venezuela didn't export much oil.  My point is that
we don't need as much oil as we think we do.

> We need OPEC to keep the supply at a rate where the capped 
> wells US remain 
> capped, at least until primary extraction is nearing 
> exhaustion for a large 
> portion of reserves.

The US wells are capped to avoid competing with OPEC.  Its more profitable
right now to sell OPEC oil than to keep a minor well inside the US running.

> The US could last, but at what cost? Look at what has 
> happened in the last 
> couple of years. Greenspan kept cutting interest rates, but 
> couldn't slow 
> down the economy. What did? Rises in oil prices. Do I believe 
> that our 
> government is content to allow our economy to be at the whim 
> of oil prices. 
> No way. So it could last, but it won't. They will chose to 
> send our kids 
> off to war first.

True, but where is the threat if we open up our own wells instead of
depending on others?  Even in a war economy, we could wage at least 30 years
of war without expending our currently known-and-unused oil resources, let
alone the resources we're currently using, and those we have yet to
discover.

> This will eventually happen anyway, as the tertiary 
> extraction process has 
> a higher cost to business than the value of a human life.

Tertiary extraction is a long way off.  It won't be worth doing until we
find a cheap emulsifier.  We're likely to be digging 3 mile deep strip-mines
to get to the oil before we become dependant on tertiary extraction.

> Funny thing is that it wasn't supply or demand imbalances 
> that spurred the 
> increase in 2001. It was the perceived imbalance, which was 
> promoted by our 
> administration and corp. media. As soon as the report came 
> out that there 
> was actually a small surplus, the price dropped that day.

Which is exactly the point.  There is a LARGE surplus available, but the oil
companies want to keep the price high, and environmentalists want to keep
the demand low.

--
To unsubscribe, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/