Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PMS Witch who wrote (40061)	3/28/2000 6:08:00 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Respond to of 74651

RE:"Same reason they can't control narcotics. North American demand for petroleum outstrips supply; hence, we import energy. We have two alternatives: Use less, or produce more. Increasing our own production reduces our dependence on imports, and has been the policy of choice. This 'Suck America Dry First' has the unpleasant side effect of reducing our long-term negotiating strength when dealing with OPEC." Well, 1. we could always open up offshore drilling and drill in the arctic wildlife refuge. 2. Threaten to pull our warships out of the Persian Gulf 3. Back Saddam 4. Cut off some foreign aid In light of this...better get used to $2.50/gal gas this summer.

To: PMS Witch who wrote (40061)	3/28/2000 6:48:00 PM
From: Valley Girl	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

OT (Oil): The US's reserve-to-production ratio is a scant 12 years. Estimates of the remaining domestic reserves show quantities that wouldn't run the USA for month. The world-wide R/P ratio is 41 years. Although it's been steady at around 40 for the past few years, the figure underestimates future demand increases. Of course, it also doesn't count potential new discoveries and technologies that have increased the ability to extract oil from existing fields. The picture for natural gas is worse still. Aggressive movement away from more sustainable alternatives such as nuclear power has expanded demand faster than reserves and lowered the R/P ratio from 100+ years to just 60ish. My source is the excellent BP World Energy report, available at BP's web site. One way or another, we can't count on running civilization on oil for another 100 years. Within the lifetimes of our children we will have to shift fixed-point power generation to nuclear power and renewables, shift personal transportation to something much more efficient such as fuel-cell-powered electrics, move cargo over long distances by train and not by truck, and of course conserve as much as possible. We need to save petroleum to continue operating aircraft and to use as a feedstock for our chemical and plastics industries. In short, you don't have to believe in global warming to recognise that continued dependence on fossil fuels is a serious long-term problem. Of course we won't do any of this; we'll squander our planet's treasure-trove of stored energy until it becomes painfully obvious what we need to do, then, with oil at $60/barrel triggering a global recession and far less remaining for the other purposes than we should have saved, we'll finally summon the courage to shout down the misguided anti-nuclear luddites and the equally-misguided petroleum wasters and do the right thing. We should be using this as an opportunity to engage the public on an issue that's ordinarily difficult to build political support for. O, where is the politician with the courage to use greedy Arabs as a stalking horse for an aggressive programme to reduce fossil dependency? VG (formerly employed at a major petroleum company)