The USA consumes 20.3 billion barrels of oil per year. So offshore drilling and ANWR could provide one year's worth of oil.

wow. tense.

Quoting eric: Someone who thinks those who disagree with them are all liars aren't very interesting, because they don't address key issues. It's just, "you're a shill for big business". Not very enlightening.

Lowest EQ ever.

So in the year between his bloggingheads appearances, Matt still hasn't learned to have a civil conversation with someone. What a jerk. I'm only 10 minutes in, but this is on track to be one of the biggest trainwrecks in bloggingheads history (after the Althouse meltdown and Stoller's last appearance).

Don't.

Thanks, Brendan, I owe you one.

Matt, I will concede, was extraordinarily obnoxious and may not be a good example for the point I want to make, but it seems to me this chat is an excellent illustration of the debate a few days ago on "why blogs suck." Here are two regular guys off the street, each of whom has done a little reading on the subjects of global warming, peak oil, tax breaks for corporations, etc. -- presenting themselves as experts on virtually all subjects. Just like Matt Yglesias can become an expert on water issues at the drop of a hat. So we now have a self-propagating and self-referential blogosphere that sustains itself on clickety-click insubstantial opinionating. Note how Conn boasts about all the other self-important bloggers who linked to his "article, er, post" on Brazilian, Italian and German energy plans. Wouldn't we be a lot better informed if a) (forgive the expression) a real journalist did some in-depth professional reporting on these issues, or b) we had a Bheads discussion between leading environmental scientists, policy experts, economists, etc.? I'm the first to admit that I do a lot of opinionating based on my own observations and convictions and love to engage

Wow-- Matt Stoller is weird. He's a better writer than speaker.

Quoting formivore: The USA consumes 20.3 billion barrels of oil per year. So offshore drilling and ANWR could provide one year's worth of oil.

Really? That's a lot! Plus we annoy environmentalists, which truly makes it worth our while.
There is nothing better than witnessing an environmentalist foaming at his mouth. Just watch this diavlog!

Quoting ga73: Wow-- Matt Stoller is weird. He's a better writer than speaker.

Speaking publicly (yeah, I know, this is a "diavlog", but there are similarities) as part of a "conversation" is quite a different skill than writing. On other topics - US consumes between 20 and 21 million barrels of liquid fuels per day. That works out to be over 7 billion barrels per year. Liquids includes biofuels, which are a pretty small portion of the overall total, but are a good reason to use the term "liquids" rather than "oil". See the EIA webpage for all the details. The Energy business is one of the largest in the world, with thousands upon thousands of companies/entities involved in the processes. If anyone thinks a simple slogan ("drill now") will suddenly make gushers of oil spring from the ground then they are deluded. Sadly, the electorate wishes to often remain ignorant of the details of complicated technical or economics problems. That may sound elitist - but it is true. Energy production is one of those areas where a voter's emotions means little, yet those emotions are the clay from which politicians must mold their election strategies.

Uggghhhh. Wish I'd read bjkeefe's admonition about watching this diavlog -- "Don't" -- before I started. Rarely will you encounter such a vivid display of profound ignorance as in Matt Stoller. Before I stopped watching, the only true thing he said was that "weather is a complex system." Unfortunately for him, it refutes the point he was trying to make. Conn should get some award for keeping his cool....In fact, let's propose the Conn Carroll BH.tv Award: For gallantry and patience in the face of bad mannered badgering and utterly uninformed windbaggery.

The idea that the problem is, as Carroll suggests, simply the fact that we are suffering from excessive regulation cramping the poor oil companies seems bizzare. Another interpretation is that the inevitable corruption resulting from the coupling of big money with our political system has provided Big Oil with incredible sweetheart situations. Oil companies do not, after all, produce (conventional) oil. That was done long ago. They simply drill wells and move the stuff around. They provide a service not unlike that of the driller who sinks a well in your yard to provide you with access to the water underneath your property. You certainly don't give him a lease on the property, assign him ownership of the water, and buy it back day to day at an ever increasing price. I submit that it would substantially change the positions of a lot of the folks involved, including the politicians, pundits, and shills, to whatever extent one considers the latter group seperate from the former, if we treated oil and other resources for that matter like we generally treat water. All oil on public land and offshore belongs to the US citizenry

I tried to listen for about ten minutes, after seriously debating whether I should even bother watching this diavlog. I was so wrong! bhTV, do we have enough proof now that this feature, the week in blog, needs a rethink and reformatting, preferably with new 'heads? I can think of two conservative' heads who have offered good links and had a pleasant demeanor. I've praised them before. The task is to find a liberal 'head who can do the same. But, really, doesn't Wright and Kaus perform this function? Didn't Corn and Pinkerton do similarly? So, why do we need this feature? (After, of course, everyone returns from vacations!) And, for the love of quixotic appeals against looming juggernaut-building, this was an opportunity wasted! All the brief topics bhTV touches on, like energy, foreign and security policy, Asia, and food, that deserve an entire diavlog, are squeezed out because of this weekly embarrassment?! If election crap has to dominate, then something has to give - there's only so much hack crap I can deal with in a week.

After watching this, I think you should have used caps, profanity, and favicons!

So, as far as the bhTV format is concerned, every topic needs two diavlogs: the issue; and, the politics. Many issues are like this, and deserve the same treatment.

Quoting Wonderment: Matt, I will concede, was extraordinarily obnoxious and may not be a good example for the point I want to make, but it seems to me this chat is an excellent illustration of the debate a few days ago on "why blogs suck." [...]

Nope. You're right to say that this serves as an excellent supporting example. The sad thing is, I look at Open Left from time to time, and usually find it pretty thoughtful and instructive. Can't say for sure if I've read anything about energy policy there that I remember, but generally, I find a fair amount of meat. This diavlog, though, seemed to bring out the worst in both participants -- too many topics (or, too broad a topic), too many half-remembered factoids, too much looking for the next opportunity to play gotcha!. The reading back and forth to each other from "authoritative sources" made the word tedious sound like something I'd really enjoy. Hell, root canal was starting to seem appealing after a while. Argh. Both had obvious agendas, both knew the other sides' talking points well enough to anticipate them, neither could really go any deeper ... and ... wait a minute ... wasn't this supposed to be a report

I just heard every head at the Heritage Foundation and AEI go BLAM!. Good post, cragger. I admit I'm a little dubious about putting your plan into action. Essentially, it sounds like what you're proposing is nationalizing the oil industry. I know that you're careful to leave room for private enterprise to compete to provide the relevant services, but do you think that will really work? Won't there be not really that many people interested in making those relatively few bucks for services rendered, especially after the first few rounds of contracts are let? And another thing: how would you keep your proposed system from becoming like, say, Russia, where it appears as though they've got the people (nominally) owning the resources, but the real money is going into just a very few pockets, and the real power (control over the resources) is held by a very few people? Are, say, Venezuela and Mexico more or less like this, too? This is all moot, of course, since we'll be out of oil worth pumping long before we wrest control out of the current oligarchy's hands, but I'd be interested in hearing your answers, anyway.

Stoller worked on the Draft Clark movement to bring Wesley Clark into the nominating race for President of the United States.
Even given his tender age, Stoller won't have enough years to live that down.
What's next, Draft Dylan Avery?

Quoting Sgt Schultz: Stoller worked on the Draft Clark movement to bring Wesley Clark into the nominating race for President of the United States.
Even given his tender age, Stoller won't have enough years to live that down.
What's next, Draft Dylan Avery?

What was so bad about Wes Clark? Not that I thought he was El Fabuloso, or anything, but he didn't seem especially heinous to me. By the association with Dylan Avery, are you suggesting Clark was a conspiracy theorist or some other kind of nut?

Wow. Matt Stoller was bad. Pompous, dismissive, & snotty. Unfortunately for him his arrogance is undeserved. Conn Carroll got the best of him. On substance: Liberals are right that US ANWR and offshore fields just aren't large enough to move oil prices much, because oil prices are determined by global supply. Conservatives are right that more supply does mean lower prices, and that no one can accurately predict how much lower the proces would be. Advantage conservatives. The public wants lower prices and they want us to produce as much oil as we can. Fighting ANWR and offshore exploration in a time of $140/barrel oil is tilting at windmills. Liberals should give it up and choose their battles wisely.

Tom: Just as a thought experiment, let's stipulate that the DOE predictions are ballpark-correct, that throwing open Alaska and all off the offshore sites would result in a price drop of a few cents per gallon at the pump. Suppose further that nothing else happens to drive down the price significantly, which doesn't seem completely unreasonable. Finally, I think we can agree that the first barrels of oil won't get out of the ground and into the pumps for at least five years. Probably longer, but let's say five. Given that, do you still think it makes sense to drill? If so, why? And if so, suppose I add another supposition that also does not seem unreasonable: In the time it takes the ANWR and offshore oil to become available at the retail level, other factors add to the price per gallon. Could be increased worldwide demand, could be further instability in the Mideast, could be something else. Still say drill? If so, why? My suppositions lead me to think that what we'd be doing is letting a few people make a pile of money while risking serious environmental damage to sensitive areas. Is this really "Advantage: conservatives."? If I'm way

My conservative and libertarian friends, are your sensibilities so delicate that you cannot abide to look upon a single red-faced liberal with a passionate point-of-view? I've been living my whole life surrounded by right-wing animus towards liberalism. Now that the Representative Men (cf. Emerson) of conservatism -- Bush, Delay and Hastert -- have disgraced your movement and ruined the country, liberals aren't really in much of a mood for the smug sophistries that Conn Carroll has to offer. Granted, Matt is obviously an inexperienced debater. Attacking the sincerity of your opponent rarely comes off as a position of strength. If you're going to do it at all, you must employ irony and sarcasm (cf. Robert Wright). Either that or acquire the power to turn off your opponent's microphone. An occasional outburst of awkward emotion is human and healthy. It is not going to kill civility. So quit your whining.

The public wants lower prices and they want us to produce as much oil as we can.

There are other considerations besides consumer desires, and even more than environmental concerns. Firstly, the national energy grid needs reform. Secondly, the commercial transportation system needs an overhaul. Thirdly, transportation based on the internal combustion engine and the POV is not consonant with demographic trends and urbanization. A new economy requires more than just better cars, trains, highways, and oil-fired electricity plants. It requires a radical rethink of how, where, and to and from whom energy is delivered and disposed of.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man." (George Bernard Shaw) "Acquiescence is the road to tyranny." (Me)

Regarding your first point, there doesn't seem to be any shortage of companies that now compete to provide services for large construction contracts. Powerplants, tunnels, bridges, skyscrapers, lots of billion dollar construction gets done that isn't owned by the building company. The model is in fact in place in some places for oil. Kuwait for example owns its oil, and contracts to oil companies to drill and pump it. I agree that there would be an issue regarding ensuring the oil belonging to the people of the US as it should, as opposed to belonging to the government. That is to me a reflection of a basic problem of the out of control balance of power between the citizenry and the government in general - a whole other problem. I guess I would make two points regarding the examples you give of "nationalized" oil production. The first is that just because something should work well doesn't mean that any given group of people will make it do so. Governments throughout recorded history have tended to serve the interests of the wealthy and powerful disproportionally, often entirely, in corrupt and symbiotic relationships. We need to

I generally agree with Matt Stoller about peak oil and global warming but man, Conn just drank his milkshake.

Thanks, cragger. I certainly don't find anything to dispute in your answers. I particularly agree about the oft-unstated reality that petroleum products are crucial for so many uses besides fuel. Also, sadly, I particularly agree that we're going to have to deal with the problem with the oligarchy we have. No realistic way around that.

Reading through the comments so far I'm struck by how badly I failed at moving the debate beyond oil. Wonderment asks "wouldn't we be a lot better informed if (forgive the expression) a real journalist did some in-depth professional reporting on these issues" Well Andrew Revking blogs (and writes) for the New York Times, so I guess he qualifies as a "real journalist." He doesn't have quite the partisan take I do on the energy debate, but read this post and you'll see that I am not the only one noting that there is a growing energy gap that needs to be addressed.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ate-challenge/ Remember, even the James Hansen's of the world are honest enough to admit that people are going to burn every last ounce of carbon fuels:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/20...+energy&st=nyt The question for U.S. policy makers is whether we will develop and benefit from those resources, or will we borrow to send cash to the Hugo Chavezes and Vladimir Putins of the world. Coal is going to get burned. Do we want it burned in advanced US plants, or less efficient plants in India and China? Do we want to embrace nuclear like

Quoting Trevor: I generally agree with Matt Stoller about peak oil and global warming but man, Conn just drank his milkshake.

I heard Conn making assertions without too much regard for whether they had any basis in fact, and Mat sputtering back at him in shock. He definitely lost the exchange, but not, as far I can see, because he didn't know what he was talking about, but by not being prapared for Conn's debate tactics.

conncarroll don't interject reality into this this form it will lose it's reputation.

If you believe that about water you should spend some time out west.

Wonderment asks "wouldn't we be a lot better informed if (forgive the expression) a real journalist did some in-depth professional reporting on these issues" Well Andrew Revking blogs (and writes) for the New York Times, so I guess he qualifies as a "real journalist."

Conn, I apologize for the "real journalist" crack, but I think this episode of "The Week in Blog" went badly awry. Kudos for taking the civil high road when Matt basically called you a dumb liar. I will check out the links you provided.

Quoting Wonderment: Conn, I apologize for the "real journalist" crack, but I think this episode of "The Week in Blog" went badly awry.

Kudos for taking the civil high road when Matt basically called you a dumb liar.

I will check out the links you provided.

I don't think Conn took the high road today. The first words out of his mouth were baiting. Matt is obviously not as smooth as Conn, or comfortable in the format. As a regular, it would have been nice if Conn had chosen to be gracious instead of playing gotcha. http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/130...00:37&out=1:06

Wonderment requested:

Wouldn't we be a lot better informed if a) (forgive the expression) a real journalist did some in-depth professional reporting on these issues, or b) we had a Bheads discussion between leading environmental scientists, policy experts, economists, etc.?

Aside from the snide insult at your favorite straw targets, Libs/Progs and the Gray Lady (for neither of which I hold any particular reverence) and the insinuation that all anyone here would read is the NYT ( I rarely ever), you conveniently clipped the quote. Unless one views the Stoller-Carroll performance as an example of why scientists need to develop transporter technology - to transport Washington to a frontier outpost on Mars or the Moon with the pundits included, this topic is best fielded by a pairing of those 'heads Wonderment included, or as an episode of Science Saturday. Wright-Kaus, or Corn-Pinkerton are more entertaining, too. Also, there are blogs, which is what YOU are supposed to be emphasizing. I know that doing Blogometer-like work is now beneath, but YOU (and Stoller) are beneath BhTV standards. I did debate in college, and annoying participants like you never passed the B-range. I allude to The Oil Drum Energy Bulletin The Energy Outlook Now, I could have read these with my breakfast, but I like to go

I apologize for the "real journalist" crack

There are some people for whom civility and second chances are wasted.

Quoting Baltimoron: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man." (George Bernard Shaw)

This only serves to prove that GBS was himself an unreasonable man and, beyond that, proves he did not understand the true meaning of "progress." EW

Quoting bramble: ...are your sensibilities so delicate that you cannot abide to look upon a single red-faced liberal with a passionate point-of-view?

... liberals aren't really in much of a mood for the smug sophistries that Conn Carroll has to offer.

Granted, Matt is obviously an inexperienced debater.

... An occasional outburst ... is not going to kill civility. So quit your whining.

This pretty much nails it. Yes, Stoller needs to lighten up a little, but he's only 30, so he's still got a little time. As it stands, he hurts his own cause with the "interrogator from the moral celestium" mode and actually makes Conn look like the good guy (no mean feat!) Folks are over-reacting. I watched the whole thing and it never really got out of control so much as it just got stuck and failed to move on through the wider library of topics which could have been covered. Conn, look in the frying pan: "This is your brain on Conservatism. Any questions?" EW

This only serves to prove that GBS was himself an unreasonable man and, beyond that, proves he did not understand the true meaning of "progress."

That's only if one presupposes a teleological view of progress. Any change created by dissent from the perspective of an unjust state is progress.

...on through the wider library of topics which could have been covered.

Many diavlogs are just too fat. There is just too much discussion of the politics of an issue, instead of exploration of the issue itself. It's prudent to recall, that the political system in both the US and the UN creates its own reality, but, without fresh input and ideas, the political cockpit would degenerate into a horrible nightmare of mercenary prize fighters bludgeoning each other for their lobbying keepers. If there's any hope for a solution to the law of collective action other than dictatorship, it has to be through a virtuous consensus based on creatively intelligent debate. I do not need to hear the boxers' PR hacks, which is all that diavlog gave us, when the keepers themselves never fail to announce their intentions. I'm rapidly beginning to believe all Bob does want is a liberal Crossfire, and I'm cutting back the time I listen to bhTV. I've already started picking out threads in particular diavlogs, instead of watching whole diavlogs. Any more of Stoller-Carroll, and I might just use bhTV for background noise.

Kudos to Conn for getting through this Diavlog and remaining cool and civil. As for Matt, I wouldn't mind his arrogance and belligerence if he could back it up with anything other than ideology. The lowlights include Matt telling us that weather is "Complex" and asking Conn if he lives next to a Coal plant. I hope Bob has a quota of 1 Matt appearance per year. Why not have a couple real experts discuss this topic?

Quoting Baltimoron: Many diavlogs are just too fat. There is just too much discussion of the politics of an issue, instead of exploration of the issue itself. It's prudent to recall, that the political system in both the US and the UN creates its own reality, but, without fresh input and ideas, the political cockpit would degenerate into a horrible nightmare of mercenary prize fighters bludgeoning each other for their lobbying keepers. If there's any hope for a solution to the law of collective action other than dictatorship, it has to be through a virtuous consensus based on creatively intelligent debate. I do not need to hear the boxers' PR hacks, which is all that diavlog gave us, when the keepers themselves never fail to announce their intentions.

I'm rapidly beginning to believe all Bob does want is a liberal Crossfire, and I'm cutting back the time I listen to bhTV. I've already started picking out threads in particular diavlogs, instead of watching whole diavlogs. Any more of Stoller-Carroll, and I might just use bhTV for background noise.

This isn't "Expertheads.tv." I think you're crediting an agent as an explanation for an accident. People talk about the politics of issues, for a lot

Quoting Trevor: I generally agree with Matt Stoller about peak oil and global warming but man, Conn just drank his milkshake.

It would have been better to have a better pro-peak oil person debating Conn.

Conn, Thanks for bringing up the power gap. Too bad Matt didn't want to address it. As you stated, we have 2 separate problems. The cost of Oil and a future shortage of power plants. Oil consumption is really a transportation issue. More Nuclear & Coal is needed to meet our increased demand for electricity. We'll probably need a massive increase in the price of home gas and electricity before the problem is addressed. Maybe I'll go and buy some ConEd stock.

Quoting piscivorous: conncarroll don't interject reality into this this form it will lose it's reputation.

As the second-most prolific poster, pisc, you might want to think about what you just said there.

I have to say I don't think Matt Stoller is a great debator. But blogging heads discussions aren't really supposed to be debates are they? They are supposed to be discussions in which the two speakers and the audience becomes more informed. I think most of what Stoller said was true. The war in Iraq is obvioulsy harmful to the economy. Climate change is real, leads to extreme weather patterns and will not be solved by free markets without extablishing a price on CO2 emmisions. Moreover fossil fuels are heavily subsidized much more so than alternatives. Liberals such as Matt Yglesias are more than willing to establish a price on CO2 emissions and then let markets decide which sources of energy we use. Carroll wants to sell off public lands and then let private interests decide whether to save it or destroy it for short term gain. That seems like a bad idea.

People talk about the politics of issues, for a lot of reasons, ranging from where we happen to be in the presidential cycle, to the fact many of the folks in the pool available to BHTV have politics as the raison d'être underlying either their day job, or their blog writing.

What has generally made Carroll's performances unsatisfactory - and I agree not as bad as Stoller's in this instance - is that he clearly prefers to debate talking points for cheap points rather than offer a range of links, which are debatable. He can do that adequately, and has, but not consistently. The format of the feature is an accounting of the blogosphere's activity, like the Blogometer or Slate's daily blog feature. There is always a spin to the selection, but with Carroll the selection takes a back seat to the message. I said it before, when I was trying to be fair, that Carroll needs to step in on a polemical diavlog where he can just spin, even take first chair. At least one other conservative stand-in, William Beutler, gives much better performances on this feature, and another, Jon Henke, was also more proficient. Both I would say are

Liberals such as Matt Yglesias are more than willing to establish a price on CO2 emissions and then let markets decide which sources of energy we use. Carroll wants to sell off public lands and then let private interests decide whether to save it or destroy it for short term gain. That seems like a bad idea.

The problem with both sides of the debate as you frame it is, that other issues, like transportation, urbanization, food production, and security, intersect with the energy issue. Markets and government regulation are just tactics in broader strategies. Conservatives' and Liberals' emphasis on government regulation of the energy sector becomes a means to winnow out tactics and strategies pols, unions, CEOs don't favor, instead of as a means to implement a national strategy. Regulations are meant to discourage business activity for the public interest, not to foster corruption and provide golden parachutes. The entire notion of a national strategy has disappeared and has been replaced with corporate and union laundry lists.

This Diavlog was a disaster. Please do not invite Matt on again. Or please send him to etiquette class first. He was rude and obnoxious. He also showed himself to be an intellectual lightweight on the technical details of the subject at hand. His Global Warming argument was incoherent. He spent the entire Diavlog whining and yelling at Conn for not believing the same things as him. Bloggingheads administrators, this is not up to the quality I expect out of your commentators.

Wow, Stoller is really obnoxious. And I agree, for the most part, with his underlying point (I think). Sheesh.

Was Matt being a little condescending?

yes, there was some pigeonholing there. The Conservative did assume that the Liberal was using one theorist as support and made a weak source credibility attack. Sadly, the Conservative was correct, there are problems with environmental groups and anti-nuclear groups blocking a lot of Alt Fuels in this country, possibly because they're waiting for the day when fusion becomes available as a power source. Sadly, that day may never come as physicists continue to bang their heads on TOKAMAKs which may never work, but are so elegant that we think it's so elegant it must work and we're just not smart enough to make it work, lets try X,Y, and Z configuration. Continental North America drilling, in the US in particular and in the OCS is like telling a pot addict that her/his problem isn't weed itself but the price of weed. On the other hand, I do have to get on to the liberal for sounding like a young democrat on the quad with a 40 of Mickeys than a serious commentator.I half expected his rebuttal (2AR) to be a belch.

Theories == Facts. (If their Stoller's theories.) Facts == Lies. (If their Carroll's facts.) You basically have to accept Stoller's worldview before you can have a conversation with him. Otherwise you're an evil lying liar. Stoller beclowned himself. What a dick.

Eric Alterman says ... can you guess? Of course you can. But read it anyway, especially the parts about the rightwing talking heads lying and the MSM letting shills onto the air to pose as "experts" without disclosing their connections. (Now where have we heard something like that before? Oh, yeah.) And then there's the bad part. Everyone, even the pro-drilling lobby, acknowledges that no yields will be had from new drilling for a long time. What's not made as clear is that even if permission were granted tomorrow, the drilling itself wouldn't even begin for years. So what's going on with the "rush?" Eric links to a NYT editorial from which he grabbed the following line. It's everything you need to know, all in one sentence, about what's really at work here.

The only real beneficiaries will be the oil companies that are trying to lock up every last acre of public land before their friends in power — Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney — exit the political stage.

I sometimes wonder how Conn sleeps at night.

I sometimes wonder how Conn sleeps at night.

Maybe, he doesn't have to. This is like a reprise of the NYT story about military consultants. The same basic plot could probably be used for any number of issues and their respective corporate lobbies. This is why a vigilant electorate needs good media-to stop spin. Of course, also, there's that egregious argument about money equaling free speech getting in the way.

I'm opposed to more drilling for most of the obvious reasons, but I'm not sure that allowing drilling now won't lower gas prices, even if we won't start producing oil for another 5-10 years. As I understand it, the existing price of oil is based partially upon future speculation regarding supply/demand. So it's reasonable to argue that enabling future drilling will reduce current gas prices somewhat. Of course, the reduction we're talking about is maybe 25 cents per gallon. I don't think that's nearly enough to warrant action now. Gas prices are going to continue to rise, and we aren't anywhere near the point of true desperation. Moreover, drilling now will likely impede current efforts to pursue non-oil based sources of energy.

Quoting bjkeefe: ...

Everyone, even the pro-drilling lobby, acknowledges that no yields will be had from new drilling for a long time. What's not made as clear is that even if permission were granted tomorrow, the drilling itself wouldn't even begin for years. So what's going on with the "rush?"

But here’s what truly floored me: Shell decided Brutus’s location in the gulf would be profitable for drilling in April 1999. The company then built the massive oil platform, transported it to the right location in the gulf, anchored the floating leviathan onto the seafloor 3,000 feet below, drilled 17,000 feet below that, and began producing oil in July 2001. It took only two years to get Brutus online.

Your argument also denies the fact that there are already producing oil fields, off the coast of California, that thanks to the moratorium on drilling are underdeveloped and under producing. Slap a drilling rig on one of the already producing platforms, spend a couple of months drilling some new wells and presto you have increased production. Not 10 years not 5 years not 2 years but under one year. If there is already a rig sitting on one of

Quoting piscivorous: Your argument also denies the fact that there are already producing oil fields, off the coast of California, that thanks to the moratorium on drilling are underdeveloped and under producing. Slap a drilling rig on one of the already producing platforms, spend a couple of months drilling some new wells and presto you have increased production. Not 10 years not 5 years not 2 years but under one year. If there is already a rig sitting on one of those platforms doing well maintenance, because well maintenance is still allowed, it is a matter of how long it takes to drill a new hole or two in the ground to the requisite depth.

Yeah, but really, how much more would we be getting, compared to how much we consume? And how much of that additional oil would just go out onto the world market? And what about all of the areas where the oil companies already hold leases, already have permission to drill, and aren't doing squat? I'll grant that there could be some psychological reaction to stories about new drilling projects, resulting in some easing of the price at the

some psychological impact. Jul 15, 2008 President Bush remove executive order restricting offshore drilling oil 147/bl. Today spot price 122/bl. Coincidence? Possibly but it does seem strange that just the mere inference that we might start actually doing something about supply and we have a 17% drop in price. I'm rather sure that consumption is down but it's not down 17%.

Quoting piscivorous: some psychological impact. Jul 15, 2008 President Bush remove executive order restricting offshore drilling oil 147/bl. Today spot price 122/bl. Coincidence? Possibly but it does seem strange that just the mere inference that we might start actually doing something about supply and we have a 17% drop in price. I'm rather sure that consumption is down but it's not down 17%.

I don't think it's a pure coincidence, but I don't think it's the entire cause, either. I suspect that reduced end-user consumption is a more important factor, if not the most important. Also, have we seen a 17% price drop at the pump over the same time period? I don't think so. According to the AAA's "Daily Fuel Gauge Report," the national average for a gallon of regular unleaded today is $3.93. A month ago (sorry that they don't give the data for two weeks ago), it was $4.09. So, the retail price is down only about 4%, and again, we also have to keep in mind the simple and important fact that people have been buying less gas. Note the time series graph on the AAA page. Over the past two or three months, there does not appear to be any correlation

Quoting bjkeefe: I don't think it's a pure coincidence, but I don't think it's the entire cause, either. I suspect that reduced end-user consumption is a more important factor, if not the most important.

Current driving statistics say there has been a decrease of a little over 3.2%. So whats that 1.6% decrease in demand?

Quoting bjkeefe: Also, have we seen a 17% price drop at the pump over the same time period? I don't think so. According to the AAA's "Daily Fuel Gauge Report," the national average for a gallon of regular unleaded today is $3.93. A month ago (sorry that they don't give the data for two weeks ago), it was $4.09. So, the retail price is down only about 4%, and again, we also have to keep in mind the simple and important fact that people have been buying less gas.

Note the time series graph on the AAA page. Over the past two or three months, there does not appear to be any correlation at all between either the price of crude or the wholesale price of gasoline, and the price at the pump. Granted, there's friction between wholesale and retail prices that causes lags between changes in the respective quantities, but

Quoting piscivorous: Current driving statistics say there has been a decrease of a little over 3.2%. So whats that 1.6% decrease in demand?

You'll have to elaborate here. I don't get your point.

The infamous let me introduce a strawman and try and deflect the argument to the devine evil of the greed of the oil companies because the price at the pump does not immediately reelect the price on the spot market.

Nope. I said nothing about the morality of the oil companies and I stipulated to the lag. As I was careful to point out, you were the one who wanted to talk about psychological effects. I'll add that you really should stop crying, "Straw man! Straw man!" every third post. It's boring, and besides, in the few cases where it actually might apply, you're running into the boy-who-cried-wolf problem.

But there are actually two psychologies that are important in the oil price debate. That of the investors/speculators and that of Joe Six Pack. The disproportional drop in the spot price as compared to the drop in demand shows that investors/speculators have, at least for the moment, lessened their belief that $200.00 per barrel is eminent and

Quoting bjkeefe: ... The rise in gas prices isn't the fault of the Democrats in Congress. ITS ALL BARRAK HUSSAINS FAULT!!!1!

I'd stop mentioning strawmen them if you would stop using them.

Quoting piscivorous: I'd stop mentioning strawmen them if you would stop using them.

I didn't. Just because you squawk "straw man!" to everything you don't have another answer for doesn't make it so.

I would draw different conclusions, Cato Institute's Jerry Taylor agrees with your observation:

The point here is that even rather small changes in petroleum supply and demand can have a major impact on crude oil prices, and hazarding to forecast those changes is a fool's errand. While past may not be prologue – there are a number of plausible narratives to suggest that scarcity is finally beginning to manifest itself in oil markets have a century-long hiatus – there is surprisingly little concrete evidence for that proposition at present. Policy makers should keep this in mind when going about the grand job of re-engineering the energy economy.

I would argue, that if now every hurricane or coup is going to send the oil market into convulsions, then re-engineering the energy economy, at least to reduce dependency and increase reserves is needed. Removing risky ventures, like offshore platforms in the hurricane-prone Caribbean, or paying top dollar to prop up dictators who will likely fall is a waste of taxpayer money. A better investment would be helping developing states with their economies. Also, that WaPo graphic about the source of American oil

Balt: I think the Cato guy is exaggerating a little bit to say that policy makers will be "re-engineering the energy economy." There are so many competing interests pulling in different directions that nothing so massive will happen. We'll be lucky to ease a little the stranglehold Big Oil has on the government, and gain a little bit of support for alternative energy ideas. Not much to argue with as far as your remarks go, even though you say we draw different conclusions. One quibble: you say we don't need to "obsess" over the Mideast. I grant that we get most of our imported oil from other regions, but still, 30% is 30%, and there's also the reality that a lot of the rest of the world depends on stability in that region, too.

Is it true Al Gore Places Infant Son In Rocket To Escape Dying Planet

A couple comments. First, since the oil market is global it doesn't really matter where the gas in your tank came from. If we (the US) bought every drop from countries outside the mid-east then the current buyers of that oil would in turn get their supply from the middle east. No net change. The less trivial point regarding resistance to "engineering our economy"- our current economy has been politically engineered to give us our current dependance on oil, and is sputtering since the design relies on cheap oil to work. For our economy to be truly market oriented, every dollar spent on building roads and bridges, repairing them, plowing snow off them, paying that portion of the law enforcement budget that goes into policing them and so on, as well as all of the external costs such as pollution and global warming's coming effect on coastal regions and farming due to transportation related energy use would have to be borne by the gas taxes. Pending correction I submit we aren't anywhere near close to that. The same holds for air transport. Do air transport specific taxes pay for

cragger: Good post. I'd just add to your list of costs that aren't borne by the price of gas this: a non-trivial fraction of the DoD's budget. And that's not counting George and Dick's excellent adventure in Iraq (most of which isn't in the budget anyway, but that's an irritation for another day).

First, since the oil market is global it doesn't really matter where the gas in your tank came from. If we (the US) bought every drop from countries outside the mid-east then the current buyers of that oil would in turn get their supply from the middle east. No net change.

If you go straight by the numbers, that is. But there are many factors involved with a refined tank of premium. Firstly, geography rules. Venezuela's hydrocarbons are difficult to refine, and are different than Saudi crude. Refiners have to adjust to the raw materials. Secondly, depending on where one's refineries are located, there are more or less efficient ways to transport your imports. I think that's why ROK is putting so much effort into seizing Liancourt Rocks in the Sea of Japan (along with the resulting name-changing), because even methane clathrate in one's own backyard is more reliable than crude oil shuttled by pipeline from Kazakhstan. For the same reason, the US needs to put more diplomatic effort into keeping Canada and Mexico happy, because importing really won't get any cheaper or safer. The poor little African statelet stuck with importing Russian crude

Meant to ask you before, piscivorous: Where did that quote about "Brutus" come from? [added] Was it from this article?

No. I didn't mark the specific link but there are many links to it that convey the same info essentially.

Quoting piscivorous: No. I didn't mark the specific link but there are many links to it that convey the same info essentially.

Well, it looks like the various places that have that excerpt all grabbed it from the same source, an article by Mark Hemingway. In any case, it probably would have been helpful to others had you supplied the link to your quote's source. There are a few inconvenient truths that undercut your let-us-drill-and-in-

Not 10 years not 5 years not 2 years but under one year.

-we-all-get-ponies claim. For example, we'll take Hemingway's word (or that of his hosts, the American Petroleum Institute) that the Brutus rig was up and running in two years. Note, however, how quickly its yield dropped:

Brutus produced [as of late 2007, he implies -- the time of his visit] over 100,000 barrels of oil a day — down from over 300,000 at its peak capacity.

Pretty bad. Well, it gets worse. A lot worse. Hemingway is right about the yield dropping precipitously, but he's way wrong about the absolute numbers. It turns out that he appears not to know how to read a graph -- he seems to have read the number off the y-axis for a bunch of platforms' yields added together, when he should have read the dark region

For California what better place to start than with with the US Department of the Interior Minerals Management Services own estimates. It is an older report 2000 but it is the most current one I could find. Since there has been a freeze in development and exploration since 1982 I don't think things have changed much since 2000; if any thing the estimates would probably have to be increased as recovery methods and management has improved since the data was collected and the estimates made. It's a 54 page pdf but lots of graphs and tables. P.S Ill get to Brutus and a response to your sighting of the peek-oil freak Gail Tverberg as an authoritative source shortly.

piscivorous: Thanks for the CA link. I'll take a look.

P.S Ill get to Brutus and a response to your sighting of the peek-oil freak Gail Tverberg as an authoritative source shortly.

I look forward to it. I'll be keeping the following in mind. I hope you will, too.

Quoting piscivorous: Cant argue the merits attack the source? When will these games cease?

Quoting piscivorous: Broad ad hominem attacks because you don't like the man and his policies, is not conducive to discussion but of return of equal vitriol.

Before you waste a lot of time on those ad hominem attacks you claim to so dislike, consider that: 1. Hemingway effectively cited him as a source, too, by linking to his chart, even if Hemingway didn't read it right. 2. Whatever Tverberg's larger views are concerning the state of the global reserves, I don't think you can argue with the few facts he presented that I quoted, unless you think he misreported what the oil company people told him. If you read his whole post, it seems clear to me that he's an advocate of drilling, too, so I'd hardly think he has much reason to.

Thanks for helping redeem this diavlog!

I think I was more in rant mode belaboring the obvious but thanks.

To Quote Mrs Gail Tverberg

One of the first things I asked was how much Brutus was producing. I had read in the literature that it began operation in 2001, and was designed with a maximum capacity of 100,000 barrels of oil and 150 million cubic feet of gas per day.

To say the the platform itself is capable of producing any amount of oil or gas in a day is not really correct. The physical restraint in production is the size of the pipes that carries either, oil or the gas, and connects it to the infrastructure that transports either to the various storage and processing facilities. In Brutus's case there is a 20" pipeline for liquid products and a 20' pipe for gas connected to the seabed wellheads via the manifold that aggregates the ouput from the wellheads. Since size and pressure are the determining factor in volume that the "platform" can produce it seems it is a subsurface infrastructure that controls production capacity. Her statement

I was told that the previous day's production was 28,000 barrels of oil and 40 million cubic feet of gas

actually

piscivorous: Thanks for the effort that you put in to your reply. I learned quite a bit. It seems like you're trying to change the subject into a debate over the validity of the peak oil hypothesis. I am not interested in so changing. The responses I made earlier were in the spirit of questioning how much oil there is available offshore and how quickly it could be obtained. I also wanted to note that the excerpt you used to bolster your claim that we could start getting oil quickly came from an article that did not, in toto, really support your claim, both because the author showed some faulty understanding of numbers and because the rest of his article went on to point out that there are many caveats to hopes of quick returns from new drilling. The peak oil debate is another matter, it seems to me, and I am of the impression that this remains an unsettled question, even among those most knowledgeable. That said, I'll respond to some of your points, just for the hell of it. I've omitted chunks where I either accepted what you said or didn't

You are correct about the math but the basic primes still holds I believe. The reason peek-oil keeps coming up is because it is fundamental in understanding where the arguments of Gail Tverberg are coming from and the color of the lens that one must view, I believe, her arguments through.

Quoting piscivorous: For California what better place to start than with with the US Department of the Interior Minerals Management Services own estimates.

Having looked at it, I am inclined to say, "Almost any other place." Gawd, what classic case of getting paid by the pound. Before I lost patience, it was my impression that the report indicates production/capacities on the order of tens of thousands of barrels per day, possibly low hundreds of thousands of barrels per day. It wasn't clear to me how much of this is already being realized, and how much awaits new permissions. This seems like a drop in the proverbial. It is my understanding that the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil per day. (ref1, ref2, ref3). That is, unless I'm misunderstanding, the California resource you talk about represents about 1/2 of 1% of our consumption. I am willing to be corrected, but I am not willing to spend any more time reading that report.

Quoting piscivorous: You are correct about the math but the basic primes still holds I believe. The reason peek-oil keeps coming up is because it is fundamental in understanding where the arguments of Gail Tverberg are coming from and the color of the lens that one must view, I believe, her arguments through.

Sorry, but I'm still not clear about your point. Assume Tverberg believes in that we have passed the point of maximum daily extraction of oil. That is my understanding of what is meant by "peak oil," that we cannot get oil out of the ground as fast as we used to be able to, pretty much no matter what. Here, by "we" I mean everyone in the world, added together. I don't see why Tverberg's belief in peak oil, correct or not, would bias the localized analysis that she gave regarding Brutus and the rest of the GOM operations. More importantly, I don't see what any of this has to do with the debate that I'm trying to stick to -- that there is probably not a huge amount of oil offshore of the US, and that it will take years to get at any

"Peak Oil" in the larger sense refers to world aggregate production as you suggest as it is often used. The term has come into common usage due to the fact that various oil folks think we are at or near the peak of production, and have burned roughly half the conventional oil we will get. The same concept describes the production of individual oil fields, national production, etc. There are lots of mature and declining fields, and it has been shown that field and national production follows the theory pretty closely. The exact real-world production curves of course show noise and production is affected by economic booms and recessions, sometimes by above-ground political events, etc. If interested you can find information at ASPO and other websites. ASPO often has real production data. Of course, just as you can find a "real scientist" with a degree, a white lab coat and everything, insisting that cigarettes are good for you, you can find websites dedicated to opinion pieces on the upcoming oil-related Mad Max societal collapse, others insisting that oil will never run out and prices are all somebody else's fault, and probably sites claiming

Quoting cragger: "Peak Oil" in the larger sense refers to world aggregate production as you suggest as it is often used. The term has come into common usage due to the fact that various oil folks think we are at or near the peak of production, and have burned roughly half the conventional oil we will get.

The same concept describes the production of individual oil fields, national production, etc. There are lots of mature and declining fields, and it has been shown that field and national production follows the theory pretty closely.

Thanks, cragger. Greatly appreciated.

I guess the difference is that when I was a child I was taught that every penny counts. I realize that other can only see a that if is not a 100% solution it is to be trivialized and discarded. One small question. How many millions of dollars a month does this diminutive dollop represent that doesn't go to support regimes that neither you or I think are very pleasant. If we go further and that dollop becomes a drop that takes even more money away and when it reaches a trickle others will begin to take notice when it is a small stream it begins to bite. Unfortunately petroleum is primarily used for transportation, synthetic material manufacture and heating not electrical power generation so petroleum is going to be with us no matter the amount of alternative energy sources we turn to. With more vehicles that run on distillates than there are Americans to believe that replacing them with anything we currently have, in any reasonable amount of time, is at best wishful thinking at worst delusion. So yes we can continue to exist under

Have you heard the latest one that is going around. Oil is the result of microbial/bacterial like action, deep within the earth, that is responsible for the continual manufacture of petroleum and so that is really a renewable resource and we never need fear running out. It's a serious hypothesis, decried by most, but there is a group of scientists that takes it seriously. Stranger things have happened, hell they are using algae to produce petroleum in the desert. Now tell me if that doesn't sound weird. While I was at A&M id did some simple modeling and analysis for some guys that were growing this spiral algae, from Africa, to produce a distillate and they were trying to optimize the feeding mechanism for optimum production. Now they are using gene splicing to customize the distillate produced.

piscivorous:

I guess the difference is that when I was a child ...

I started trying to reply to this, but gave up. You're just throwing around slogans now, which left me no way to respond but in kind, which means it looks like we've reached the end of the constructive debate. Thanks, though.

Quoting piscivorous: Have you heard the latest one that is going around.

No linkee, no trustee.

Try looking Discovery backs theory oil not 'fossil fuel'

Pisc, if the publisher of the article is selling advertising featuring chicks in "conservative" T-shirts it might not be a publication whose primary goal is scientific. If you can't find something to cite from a less biased source, it's probably a sign that you shouldn't cite it at all.

Once again it's all about the source and not the information contained therein. Have you ever told a joke that started out "Have you heard this one..." Draw your own conclusion.

Quoting piscivorous: Once again it's all about the source and not the information contained therein. Have you ever told a joke that started out "Have you heard this one..." Draw your own conclusion.

Dude, your sources are impeachable. You can't argue science if everything you cite is drawn from primarily political sources. I'm perfectly justified in drawing conclusions based only on the sources you cite, because there's a consistent, detectable bias. Make it harder for me, find sources without obvious preferences for a particular conclusion, and I won't pick on them. (Or at least it'll be a lot harder to do so.)

Has your ideology, or is it your insecurity, that does not let you see that I am not presenting as an argument that I agree with or for that matter give any credence to. Lighten up find the humor in life. It's there you just have to be able to see it! DUDE

Quoting piscivorous: Has your ideology, or is it your insecurity, that does not let you see that I am not presenting as an argument that I agree with or for that matter give any credence to. Lighten up find the humor in life. It's there you just have to be able to see it! DUDE

Please: enlighten. I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Are you saying that what you argue passionately for on an continuing basis on this board is in fact just a private joke?

I suppose part of the confusion is my fault. The comment I left tat starts this chain was meant to be a response to this

Quoting bjkeefe: No linkee, no trustee.

but I inadvertently replayed to the original BHTV thread starter. I interpreted the response from bjkeefe to have understood it facetious nature from both the brevity of his comment and it's contents.
I reproduce my original comment here

Quoting piscivorous: Have you heard the latest one that is going around. Oil is the result of microbial/bacterial like action, deep within the earth, that is responsible for the continual manufacture of petroleum and so that is really a renewable resource and we never need fear running out. It's a serious hypothesis, decried by most, but there is a group of scientists that takes it seriously. Stranger things have happened, hell they are using algae to produce petroleum in the desert. Now tell me if that doesn't sound weird. While I was at A&M id did some simple modeling and analysis for some guys that were growing this spiral algae, from Africa, to produce a distillate and they were trying to optimize the feeding mechanism for optimum production. Now they are using

Quoting piscivorous: I suppose part of the confusion is my fault. The comment I left tat starts this chain was meant to be a response to this but I inadvertently replayed to the original BHTV thread starter. I interpreted the response from bjkeefe to have understood it facetious nature from both the brevity of his comment and it's contents.
I reproduce my original comment here I figured the bit about "Have you heard the latest one..." as a bit of a giveaway.

I didn't anticipate the discontinuity that might arise from the mislocation of the comment and apologize for the misunderstanding that has now become obvious as I review the current chain.

Fair enough. You're right, I misread the context.

This has long been a hobby horse of mine. There are two things we have in greater abundance than anything else: raw solar energy, and water. I don't know how close this technology is to supporting the process on an industrial scale, but I take the development as cause for optimism.