Anyone NOT Worried About the Upcoming "Crisis"?

[MrsPete]

As an example, I remember recently reading an article about a consumer confidence survey. It asked respondents 1) How do you think the economy is doing? The majority said "terrible." Then it asked 2) How is your personal economic picture? And the majority said "Great!" I think that disconnect can be traced to the media's effect on people's perceptions. They may be doing OK, but they've "heard" that everyone else is falling apart.

I think there's some truth to what you're saying . . . but I don't think it's the whole picture. My personal finances are fine; yes, I'm concerned about rising prices, but I'm not in trouble. However, I know 5-6 people -- intelligent, educated people with good work histories -- who've been laid off, and though they're actively searching they can't find work. So I do see these things personally; you could argue that they're blown out of proportion in people's minds, but they're not fictional.

I'm referring to things that our parents have and we will not . . . Medical benefits for life . . . eminent demise of Social Security

I'm two years older than you are, and I've heard for years that ours is expected to be the first generation of Americans who are expected to "have it worse" than our parents. Looking back across our country's short history, every generation has experienced an increase in income, availability of goods, new technologies . . . economists predicted years ago that we'd have less. I didn't really believe it -- but now I'm wondering if it's true. I really do think our generation will be devestated when we reach retirement age; so few are prepared.

The difference is you as a younger person can find a new better-paying job, or find a second or third job to supplement your income. What is a person, who is in their 70's, 80's or 90's, to do when they are too old for the job market?

You're painting with a broad brush. The younger person may not be able to afford job training for a better-paying job or may have family responsibilities that prevent him or her from taking a second job. In the meanwhile, the older person may own properties that could be sold off to raise cash. No, the term "fixed income" is just used incorrectly when it's used to describe someone who's retired or someone whose income is low. The vast majority of us have "fixed incomes".

 

[gina2000]

LOL! How do you know how old I am?

 

[mpls_mm]

I was looking through a magazine while at the car dealership today and I noticed there is a seminar on facing the labor shortage. I have been advertising for help and I know other business owners who still have a hard time finding good people. Labor is the hardest part of being a business owner or manager. I will routinely get at least 100 resumes of people who don't have a single qualification I am looking for, another 100 will look like crap and be full of mistakes. I had one with an attachment and the note said she would not come to work for me for less than 50K, she had no college and no skills that were useful in a business world. People are rude and demanding and rarely take the time to even find out about your company. They tell you drama stories and do things no one should do in an interview. Every interviewer can tell you stories you would not believe, but the fact is, it is no easier for me to find good help than it was 5 years ago, it is harder. Frequently when someone is out of work for a long time they either have obscure skills, are from a very specific sector or are doing something wrong.

 

[dvcgirl]

LOL! How do you know how old I am?

I think maybe Mrs Pete was referring to me....I said in another post that I was 40. So, how old are you anyway? Just kidding

 

[gina2000]

I think maybe Mrs Pete was referring to me....I said in another post that I was 40. So, how old are you anyway? Just kidding

Well, let's put it this way.....I remember the British Invasion....

 

[speedyf]

The U.S. consumes about 20 million barrels (3,200,000 m³) daily. If the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil reserves were used to supply 5% of the U.S. daily consumption -- most is imported from Canada (19%), Mexico (15%), Saudi Arabia (11.5%), Nigeria (10.5%) and Venezuela (10.5%)[11] -- the reserves, using the low figure of 4.3 billion barrels (680,000,000 m³), would last approximately 4300 days, or almost 12 years. Using the high estimate, the reserves would last approximately 11800 days, or 32 years. Using the increasing price of oil this supply (with 10.5 billion barrel mean and crude oil at over $120 a barrel) would be worth 1,260,000,000,000.00 ($1.26 trillion).

I totally agree with this assessment. Since I live in the actual heart of the energy corridor, I have seen the ups and downs. The port about 20 minutes from my home is responsible for servicing the oil fields that bring in about 28% of our oil domestically ... http://www.portfourchon.com/

Every time someone talks about drilling in Alaska or drilling off the east coast or west coast or Florida coast, the responses are always:

#1 - It will take at least 5 years before that oil production will come online
#2 - There is only enough oil to last for a few years, so it's not worth it

To address each:

#1 - If we had done it 10 years ago when Clinton vetoed the drilling in ANWR, it would be online today. I don't think we will be much better off in 5 years from now, so why not put it into action today to help us down the road. Just the announcement that the ANWR or other "off-limit" places will open up for exploration will cause the speculators to drive the price down or cause OPEC to increase production or both.

#2 - I agree that there is not enough oil to last us forever in the untapped fields. Drilling in these areas would decrease our dependence of foreign oil and give us a little more time to find alternatives.

Oil production is in decline and the demand is getting greater, but I can see that people will start looking to alternatives in the future and that the demand in the U.S. will peak at some point and start falling. Look at how well Hybrids are selling. The auto makers are testing hydrogen cars, electric cars, etc. People are looking at solar (this is pretty cool....http://www.nanosolar.comand wind energy (http://http://www.livescience.com/technology/ap_051024_wind_farm.html)

I think the answer would be to drill everywhere possible domestically while developing alternatives so we can lower our dependence on oil.

I'm not an oil expert, but I think some of the oil companies really moved away from drilling as much domestically because the price per barrel was too cheap to go through the legwork (environmental, poltical, financial) of exploring in the Gulf of Mexico. At $10 or $12 per barrel, it's easier to just buy from the Saudis. Now that the price is high, there seems to be more going on down in this area. Also, the technology to find oil keeps improving which brings the cost down when exploring.

I have also seen many bigger companies in this area expanding out into Brazil for the past few years. It seems that these guys probably knew that there was an oil reserve off the coast of Brazil waiting to be discovered.

As for the economy, it basically runs in cycles. I was a little young to really remember the shortages in the 70's, but I do remember the bad economic times for my area in the mid to late 80's when oil was around $9 or $10 per barrel. Companies that service the oil field down here were going bankrupt left and right and people were moving away. We owned a company in the area and actually shut down shop and moved to Tennessee where my dad took a job at $5 per hour and my mom worked a job at $3.35 per hour. We went from living in a 2300 sq foot brick home in Louisiana to living in a 14x70 mobile home in a trailer park in Tennessee.

I also agree that it will take some kind of revolution by the taxpayers before Washington gets fixed. It doesn't matter if we elect any of the 3 candidates running for President now and it doesn't matter who we elect to Congress, the problem will not be fixed by any of them. Partisan politics is not tearing the country apart. It's the lack of leadership because politicians are afraid of losing their jobs. They don't make decisions that help the country, they make decisions that help them get re-elected.

Speed

 

[loco4dis]

Actually, I believe Mo Yo is correct. Here's a link I wish you'd look at:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

This man has studied Peak Oil for some time and addresses everything you say. Simply put, at a certain point existing oil is just too expensive to bother with. Everything the site owner says is backed up with links including scientists. Actually, I think many politicians do use this issue to divide and confuse us.

The site you direct posters to promotes the theory of "peak oil" — that we are fast approaching a time when we will have used more than half the world's oil and will begin a downward spiral. I'm old enough to recall that we were going to reach "peak oil" in the 1970s (we also were on the brink of annihilation from global cooling back then). Then, peak oil was going to occur in the early 1990s. Then it was 2006. Now it's 2032. And each time, we have found new reserves and developed new technologies to secure oil. To simply give up on oil is absurd. It ensures future Third World status for the US (something, I might add, that many around the world would enjoy seeing). Though we've been drilling for oil for over a century, there is still much we don't understand about the nature of oil and the underground phenomena that lead to its creation. When oil is too expensive to get to, we have developed new technologies to get to it.

Yes, we must invest in alternative energies, but the "sky is falling" theories out there just don't hold up over time, and they create tremendous economic strife in their wake. We're fast becoming an "either you're for oil (and evil) or you're against oil (and virtuous)" nation. Such thinking empowers politicians to enact crippling policies like setting aside vast territories of land as "federal land" where drilling won't be allowed or making it illegal to drill off of our nation's shores. A member of Congress last week said she wants to nationalize the American oil industry, and barely anyone blinked! It's astonishing. Nationalize the oil industry? You'd be saying good-bye to virtually every pension fund in the nation — all of which invest heavily in the oil industry — not to mention the stock market, which would simply implode, and no one finds her remarks shocking at all because we've all bought into this "crisis" story. So, the government gets ahold of the vast resources of the oil industry (and the sheer power that comes with that), and what do we get? We get financially obliterated and therefore utterly dependent on — guess who? — the government! And they're doing a really fine job, these days, aren't they? I really think history will look back on these times and it will be amazing how such intelligent people were duped into giving up so much of their freedom and prosperity by simple scare tactics and hyperbole. I only hope my children and grand children will be able to wrestle some of it back when all is said and done.

 

[MrsPete]

LOL! How do you know how old I am?

Didn't you say in the part of the quote that I cut out that you're 40? If I've mixed up posters, then I'm sorry.

I think maybe Mrs Pete was referring to me....I said in another post that I was 40. So, how old are you anyway? Just kidding

Yeah, I think that's what I did.

 

[eliza61]

I totally agree with this assessment. Since I live in the actual heart of the energy corridor, I have seen the ups and downs. The port about 20 minutes from my home is responsible for servicing the oil fields that bring in about 28% of our oil domestically ... http://www.portfourchon.com/

Every time someone talks about drilling in Alaska or drilling off the east coast or west coast or Florida coast, the responses are always:

#1 - It will take at least 5 years before that oil production will come online
#2 - There is only enough oil to last for a few years, so it's not worth it

To address each:

#1 - If we had done it 10 years ago when Clinton vetoed the drilling in ANWR, it would be online today. I don't think we will be much better off in 5 years from now, so why not put it into action today to help us down the road. Just the announcement that the ANWR or other "off-limit" places will open up for exploration will cause the speculators to drive the price down or cause OPEC to increase production or both.

#2 - I agree that there is not enough oil to last us forever in the untapped fields. Drilling in these areas would decrease our dependence of foreign oil and give us a little more time to find alternatives.

Oil production is in decline and the demand is getting greater, but I can see that people will start looking to alternatives in the future and that the demand in the U.S. will peak at some point and start falling. Look at how well Hybrids are selling. The auto makers are testing hydrogen cars, electric cars, etc. People are looking at solar (this is pretty cool....http://www.nanosolar.comand wind energy (http://http://www.livescience.com/technology/ap_051024_wind_farm.html)

I think the answer would be to drill everywhere possible domestically while developing alternatives so we can lower our dependence on oil.

I'm not an oil expert, but I think some of the oil companies really moved away from drilling as much domestically because the price per barrel was too cheap to go through the legwork (environmental, poltical, financial) of exploring in the Gulf of Mexico. At $10 or $12 per barrel, it's easier to just buy from the Saudis. Now that the price is high, there seems to be more going on down in this area. Also, the technology to find oil keeps improving which brings the cost down when exploring.

I have also seen many bigger companies in this area expanding out into Brazil for the past few years. It seems that these guys probably knew that there was an oil reserve off the coast of Brazil waiting to be discovered.

As for the economy, it basically runs in cycles. I was a little young to really remember the shortages in the 70's, but I do remember the bad economic times for my area in the mid to late 80's when oil was around $9 or $10 per barrel. Companies that service the oil field down here were going bankrupt left and right and people were moving away. We owned a company in the area and actually shut down shop and moved to Tennessee where my dad took a job at $5 per hour and my mom worked a job at $3.35 per hour. We went from living in a 2300 sq foot brick home in Louisiana to living in a 14x70 mobile home in a trailer park in Tennessee.

I also agree that it will take some kind of revolution by the taxpayers before Washington gets fixed. It doesn't matter if we elect any of the 3 candidates running for President now and it doesn't matter who we elect to Congress, the problem will not be fixed by any of them. Partisan politics is not tearing the country apart. It's the lack of leadership because politicians are afraid of losing their jobs. They don't make decisions that help the country, they make decisions that help them get re-elected.

Speed

Just a quick question, after we've drilled all this so called oil from alaska, what do you propose we do with it? As a household with 2 people that work full time for a major oil company. We are at refinery max. Oil straight out of the ground will not do us any good. 2 major oil companies have for years been trying to build new refineries or expand the ones we already have, do you have any idea of the opposition to that. I believe India just finished building a huge brand new state of the art refinery, so once again demand by other countries is going to sky rocket.

 

[gina2000]

Didn't you say in the part of the quote that I cut out that you're 40?

That dog has come and gone.......

 

[DVC Sadie]

Just a quick question, after we've drilled all this so called oil from alaska, what do you propose we do with it? As a household with 2 people that work full time for a major oil company. We are at refinery max. Oil straight out of the ground will not do us any good. 2 major oil companies have for years been trying to build new refineries or expand the ones we already have, do you have any idea of the opposition to that. I believe India just finished building a huge brand new state of the art refinery, so once again demand by other countries is going to sky rocket.

I, agree!

I have often stated on these types of threads that just drilling will not solve any of our $$$ costs per gallon or per barrel until we invest in more refineries and other types of energy.


Until we are willing to drill, refine, drive less (smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles), find alternative energy sources and basically re-defne our needs from wants we will not be better off in 5 years than we are now.

Pretty soon the middle class will also be redefined which will come as a shock to a lot of us.

 

[nunzia]

I'm a pretty optimistic gal. I'm old enough to have lived through the turbulent 60's and this seems like a walk in the park as compared to those times. We waivered between worried about being blow to bits by the Russians, being killed in the riots over civil rights or being killed in Vietnam.
We will survive this also.

I'm with you! Yes..stuff is more expensive, but so far we haven't had to wait in an hour or two line for gas like the 70's..my stocks aren't great, but they aren't horrid either, our jobs are secure and we are doing fine..just watching it a little more.
Frugal (cheap) people always can get through it..we have more wiggle room I think.

 

[speedyf]

Just a quick question, after we've drilled all this so called oil from alaska, what do you propose we do with it? As a household with 2 people that work full time for a major oil company. We are at refinery max. Oil straight out of the ground will not do us any good. 2 major oil companies have for years been trying to build new refineries or expand the ones we already have, do you have any idea of the opposition to that. I believe India just finished building a huge brand new state of the art refinery, so once again demand by other countries is going to sky rocket.

There has always been resistance for building new refineries. People weren't really that worried about it when oil was $20, $30, $40 per barrel. Now that it's affecting the pocketbook, I would think that the oil companies have better leverage to be able to re-open their case to build a new refinery or two. Of course, the oil companies probably weren't pushing that hard to spend billions for new refineries when the price of oil was $20 per barrel. The margin that a refinery makes probably wasn't that high at the time. Now that they are making record profits and the price of oil is approaching $150 per barrel, they may want to look at building more refinieries again.

Again...I'm not an oil expert.....just been around the support industry pretty much all my life. I'm wondering how long it took for India to build that refinery. Everyone that even mentions "refinery" in the U.S. is always told it will take 15 years to build a new one. That goes along with the "5 to 10 years before we get oil out the ground and 15 years before we can finish a refinery to get a finished product."

Just doing a quick Google search, I found this article about U.S. companies investing in refineries abroad because of all the environmental and political BS in the U.S. Again....our politicians at work to "help us".

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06241/717209-28.stm

You want to talk about sending jobs and business overseas....there it is.

It's a 2006 article...but, it also talks about how they envision that the U.S. demand will eventually decline because of alternative fuels and hybrid vehicles. Wouldn't it be great to drill these "off limit" areas and at some point actually be a net exporter of oil....(I doubt it).

Speed

 

[MermaidsMom]

Just a quick question, after we've drilled all this so called oil from alaska, what do you propose we do with it? As a household with 2 people that work full time for a major oil company. We are at refinery max. Oil straight out of the ground will not do us any good. 2 major oil companies have for years been trying to build new refineries or expand the ones we already have, do you have any idea of the opposition to that. I believe India just finished building a huge brand new state of the art refinery, so once again demand by other countries is going to sky rocket.

This was covered while discussing the 5 year myth which is used to explain why drilling makes no sense. Politicians have been using the 5 year myth for 25 years. If they would simply BEGIN building a refinery, 5 years from now it would actually be done. We have all the oil we need right under our feet but politicians prefer donations into their campaign accounts from lobbyist who don't want drilling rather than fix the problem.

 

[nunzia]

This is one of the smartest posts I have ever read.

I would add that we are also not developing viable alternate energy sources in this country, and we certainly have the know-how to do it.

I agree here..I started whining about how we needed to get away from oil dependency in the 70's..and here we still are. You'd think people smarter than me would have figured out that the term non renewable resource meant, "start planning ahead!"

 

[MrMarv]

Outsourcing isn't going away until our tax codes, immigration policies, and legal system are all cleaned up and/or show some signs of balance and common sense.

Congress has created all of these problems, but they don't have the guts and/or willpower to fix them.

The fact that the Democrats have banned all drilling off our coasts for decades is no secret, but begging the Saudis to drill more under the threat of lawsuits is beyond asinine!!!

Of course, Democrats are universally noted for being ignorant from an economics standpoint, so wat else is new?

 

[runwad]

Ok sorry to be so clueless here but someone educate me. Just why do we not want to build any new refineries here???

 

[goodeats]

Ok sorry to be so clueless here but someone educate me. Just why do we not want to build any new refineries here???

NIMBYs don't want them.

I work near a few, and they are definitely an eyesore and make the air quality (in sight and smell) quite poor around them. Not to mention the potential danger.

It's easy to say build more over there, but what if you live over there?

 

[loco4dis]

NIMBYs don't want them.

I work near a few, and they are definitely an eyesore and make the air quality (in sight and smell) quite poor around them. Not to mention the potential danger.

It's easy to say build more over there, but what if you live over there?

Build them in remote areas — not so far that employees can't reach them, but far enough that the NIMBYs won't whine. There is lots of such land in the US. There are plenty of rural areas in this nation that would jump for joy if an oil refinery and its lucrative jobs landed in their back yard.

 

[runwad]

Ok what's a NIMBY?