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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Oil & Gas Price Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rajaggs who wrote (338)	12/16/2000 12:45:13 PM
From: jackie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 350

On these assumptions: There was a large number of people contributing to this study. A study sponsored by a government agency. Whenever there is a large number of people involved in a sensitive analysis, even without the watchful eye of a politically engaged overseer, one is forced to form a consensus. I have nothing against a consensus when we are talking about where we're going for dinner or what movie to watch. But when we are looking for an objective truth, in this case, just how much NG is available now and in the forseeable future, you can't have consensus. You have to have someone call it like it is, no matter what. Too many people have careers hanging on not offending some boss, particularly in government. Naturally all of these people are going to try and set inoffensive assumptions, such as, NG staying around $3. Or, yes we have the technical abilities to find enough gas to keep the prices down. Etc., etc., etc. Let's face it. The cheap stuff has been found and burned. The easy answer of dropping nuclear, ignoring fusion, rejecting serious conservation, abandoning coal, and embracing NG to the exclusion of all else leads us to the situation we are at now. Democracies do not address problems until they are a crisis. People don't want to address ugly truths about themselves until it is forced down their throats. That's the way it is and nothing is going to change it. But that's not going to stop people from pretending. So, let's pretend we can produce NG at $3 market. Fine. Gather a collection of wise men and make it so. But the markets proved them wrong in 40 days didn't they? California is always the harbinger state when it comes to big social events. The inhabitants there practiced NIMBY coupled with a no limits self indulgent lifestyle based on the assumption of limitless energy resources. Cheap limitless energy resources. Too bad for them. And too bad for us, as the only difference between them and the rest of western civilization is one of degree. On an international level, it gets even more interesting. The US won the cold war. Now everyone wants to live like an American. The American lifestyle is based on cheap, plentiful energy. How long do you think the fiction will be maintained in a world where everyone wants to live like 5% of its population, a 5% consuming 25% of the world's energy? In a world where even the energy rich countries are straining to produce as much oil as they can now? Eagerly awaiting the next 'study' by the wise men. I wonder how long that will stand the test of time? A year? Or will they acknowledge some serious decisions will have to be made? Regards, Jack