One can see the government's stupidity in transit planning and construction! Just look at RAV (I know the RAV supporters pee their pants when I mention light rail), we are getting a politcally prestigious metro/subway system instead of a workhorse LRT system. For the Cost of RAV/subway (From Vancouver to the airport & # 3 Rd. & Westminster Hwy.), we could have built LRT from downtown Vancouver to Steveston AND Ironwood Mall (Steveston Hwy. & # 5 Rd.) AND LRT from UBC to BCIT along Broadway.

Which system would offer a more attractive service to motorists! The more motorists use transit = less gas used in cars! But no, LRT impedes gas guzzling cars (as claimed by TransLink with no proof given) so all transit must be grade seperated at huge costs. Modern LRT/public transit philosophy includes impeding the car, (push pull theory of Transit) to push more people out of cars and onto transit. Guess what, it works!

Our current carrot and stick planning doesn't, as the carrot (better transit) is always less attractive to motorists and the stick (more & higher taxes) which enrages motorists, taxpayers etc. Carrot and stick don't work!

We need viable and affordable alternatives to the car. Like a regional railway service from Vancouver to Whistler and to Prince George. But Campbell sold off the damn railway!

We need to thnk years ahead for transit solutions not what will it do for us in the next election! or how can we funnel more of the taxpayer's money to our friends Bombardier & SNC/Lavalin.
Electric service vehicles must be used in city centres, enforced by law.

I don't see why every house can not be mandated (by code) to have solar power. Not that it would solve the problem, but a solar powered outlet for lighting or light appliances would save a lot of energy through out the region.

Nice one (again) Rafe.

The solutions to this problem obviously lies with individuals. We can't wait around for governments. But like little piggies at the trough, we find it hard to step back and say "Drive less, consume less, work less".

It's a message we better learn damn quick. Start teaching it in schools. Turning concepts like "progress", "achievement" and "wealth" on their heads ain't gonna be pretty. But it could be fun.

Where do you think the material in the pellets comes from, how much energy is used in their production and packaging, where does the packaging come from and what energy is used to get them to your house?

"The answers are not hard to list - methane, natural gas or liquefied natural gas, wind power, tidal power and on the list goes."

Two items on your list are not answers! Anything that depends on natural gas is also in trouble! North American production has already peaked, and the costly and potentially dangerous plan to ship it in special insulated tankers only delays the inevitable!

But that's a nit. Otherwise, great job!

"It is much easier to write on this matter than find solutions..."

The most lucid solutions are coming from people like Richard Heinberg. It will involve "re-localization" -- learning how to live locally again. At the Community Solution to Peak Oil conference last September (http://www.CommunitySolution.com), Heinberg mentioned this was a "great opportunity" for redressing many of the world's ills. The Beast is going to starve!

So if you aren't planning for the coming peaks in many natural resources, don't worry -- they will take care of you.

"I was reminded that energy is energy."

Wrong. In the sense that your access to different forms of energy have different costs and consequences. People need to look at different types of energy consumption so they can make the best, most responsible choices. People who's view is "energy is energy" are generally trying to stop the debate on alternate forms of energy so that their personal interests are satisfied.

Grumpy says, "One can see the government's stupidity in transit planning and construction!" The word government refers to elected-representatives (politicians). Seeing as we have municipal elections this week according to the city of Surrey's website...

To qualify as a candidate for local government office, at the time of nomination a person must meet the following criteria:

1. Will be 18 years of age on general voting day;
2. Canadian citizen;
3. Resident of BC for at least 6 months prior to the date of nomination;
4. Not disqualified by any statute or law, from being nominated, elected or holding office.

Nominees must be nominated by two electors of the jurisdiction for which the person is nominated.

No where in the qualifications is there any mention of ability. "Listening ability" is cited by some as an important ability for politicians to have however simply passing a hearing test is not enough because the politician must be able to process the information in the brain that the ears are taking in. Without scientific-ability, or more specifically climatology, it is questionable how much information about methane, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide and other chemicals is being processed in the brains' of politicians.

raif mentions GM and the whole SUV production issue. i found it very interesting to note two stories in the Globe in the early summer. the first one mentioned GM's overcapcity in production of SUVs, along with the aggressive (and entirely disingenuous) 'employee pricing promotion to sell these monsters off to, well, pretty much complete idiots. (don't get me going on SUVs versus 4x4s and trucks - they are entirely separate issues). anyway, the second story said something like "Toyota Aims to Have Half Its Vehicles with Hybrid Technology by 2010". now, which company has a vision for the future that extends beyond third-quarter profits??
additionally, Toyotas are NOT cheap vehicles. the issue, primarily, is actually FINDING one, let alone getting any kind of 'employee financing.' yet people are flocking to them in droves. Clearly, the Japanese understand the North American market to a far greater degree than GM does. and, in yet another irony, quite likely a lot of those Toyotas will be manufactured at a new facility in Cambridge, ON.

So if you aren't planning for the coming peaks in many natural resources, don't worry -- they will take care of you.

Yep, I think we will have a good many surprised Liberals and some NDPers who are supporting twinning the Port Mann and expanding the freeway, when oil prices start to spike up.

Maybe this will cure the current congestion on the No. 1 and other places. Those who can't afford $800 a month to commute to work from the burbs will be crammed on inadequate little buses like sardines.

If Translink and our politicians were really looking to the future, they would be putting every available cent into building transit infrastructure now, while fossil fuel prices mean it is still relatively cheap to do so.

Peak oil evidence, a few days ago it was acknowledged that the world's second largest individual oil field, located in Kuwait, has now passed peak production.

http://www.ameinfo.com/71519.html

Although gasoline prices are taking a dip at the moment, I think we'll be looking back fondly at the time when it was only $1 a litre.

A dollar a litre! Ha! Embrace the zero cents a litre solution. The future is pedal-powered whether you like it or not.

A dollar a litre! Ha! Embrace the zero cents a litre solution. The future is pedal-powered whether you like it or not.

I like it, but it's not going to be for everyone, all the time.

In 1980 proven oil reserves were 645 trillion barrells. They are now 1.28 trillion barrells.
We aren't running out of oil by any stretch of the imagination. We are running out of refineries however.
The USA isn't drilling in 49 states. They are not drilling offshore in California or Florida. ANWAR is not being drilled. Why not ? Because it's not worth fighting eco-frauds and politically correct politicians. The USA is smart enough to know there isn't an oil shortage.
There is an excellent book title 'Black Gold Stranglehold' that debunks all of the BS that has been posted on this strange story.
Don't worry, be happy.

"but it's not going to be for everyone, all the time."

Maybe not by choice.

Ron:

Even if there's no oil shortage, there's a shortage of common sense surrrounding the way we waste it to transport meatsacks in comfort and convenience while we despoil the air, trash the land, and use up this incredibly precious resource for a silly purpose.

The hybrid is not the answer! First, it gets only fairly good mileage. Second, it has $8,000 worth of lead/acid batteries that have to be replace every 8 to 10 years. Yech!

All european car makers sell small cars with powerful, super efficient diesel engines. A Ford Fiesta 5-speed standard gets 4 litres per 100 km when driving the backroads at 100kph, 5 litres per 100 km at 140kph on the autobahn.

Raise taxes on gasoline, drop taxes on diesel, get people into these small economical cars, cut fuel consumption in half in 5 years.

OC

BTW peak oil on a per well basis and is the time that well produced its maximum flow; on a oilfield basis in the same result for the oilfield; on a country basis is the same result for the country. Contiguous 48 US states peaked in the 1970s. I think Simmons is saying that considering just easily extracted using current technology production Saudi Arabia has probably peaked and the falldown (means about the same as in the forest industry) could be very rapid.

OK Ronnie, I did have a look at "Black Gold Stranglehold", as you recommended. But you know Ron, when someone like you who regularly attacks any science that does not support the actual practicing scientific establishment view of the world (as opposed to the flavour of the moment scientific community view of the world) recommends a particular book touting a particular view of "science", I make it a point to find out who is paying for the work and who is promoting the "science" of which you speak. I urge anyone not yet immune to Erwin's nonsense to check out these websites to get a flavour of the "scientists" who are responsible for the book Ron touts, and the co-author of this "scientific" analysis.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/

http://www.swissamerica.com/

You can find an analysis of worldnetdaily's quality of "news" here:

conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2005/wndjunk.html

If you have a low gag reflex, suffice to say that the book touted by Rockin' Ronnie is a front for the religious/political right that is just shy of flat earth analysis. Try again Erwin.

In 1980 proven oil reserves were 645 trillion barrells. They are now 1.28 trillion barrells.

Oil reserves are not proven, they are estimates. And the book that Rafe was referring to states that Saudi and other OPEC estimates were inflated massively in the '80s for economic reasons.

Estimates of how much oil is left in the ground by different scientists and geologists vary quite a bit, but an average states that we are somewhere near using up half of all the crude oil that ever existed. Even the mighty Chevron has recently admitted this.

That might not seem so bad on first blush. We've been pumping oil since the late 1800s. But the bulk of that first half of the world's oil was used up in the most recent few decades, at an ever increasing rate.

The second half of all the oil that ever existed will go far faster, unless we can start to curb demand somehow. We're not really doing that in any serious way. With the massive demand starting to come from newly industrialized China and India, the time frame for the second half to last will be far shorter.

Now add to this that the first half of all the world's oil is the easy to get stuff, the second half gets increasingly more difficult to pump out of the ground. Some of the very first oil the came out of the ground required hardly any energy to pump out and refine. It was light and practically gushed out. In general the current oil we pump yeilds around 30 units to every 1 unit of equivalent energy we use to pump and refine it. Some of the earlier stuff was 100:1. Oil at the difficult end becomes uneconomic, it requires more energy to get it and refine it than it provides. I have seen estimates that say possibly 1/4 of that second half is uneconomic.

Another unknown percentage is just barely economic. Canada's massive oil sands are in that group. They require nearly as much energy to extract as they provide. They also have a huge environmental cost to extract, because massive amounts of fresh water are used and become polluted in the processes that retrieve the oil.

So really, once we have hit peak oil, the world really doesn't have a lot of extra oil left. Even if it really is 1.28 trillion barrels we may only be able to get at a small portion of that cheaply. At usage rates of 30 billion barrels/year currently projected to increase to 45 billion barrels/year by 2020 that would give the world something like 25 - 35 years of oil left, but that’s including all the uneconomic and barely economic oil. So we may have less than 2 decades left of easy to get oil.

Once it becomes generally recognized that we are at peak oil production, what will this knowledge do to prices? They will go insane. Recent price rises are merely the very tip of the iceberg that we are heading into. Oil is essential to running everything that our industrial society depends on, without it we will be in a fix, to say the least. Currently 40% of all energy in use comes from oil and 90% of all transportation energy.

(continued in next post)

(continued from last post)

Price rises will decrease demand somewhat and spur research into alternatives. But they cannot repeal the laws of physics. We need energy to exist and we have to get that from somewhere. There is no alternative energy source that exists that can produce energy as cheaply as fossil fuels, oil and natural gas (which is coming upon its own peak soon as well). Wind power and hydro power are decent at an energy return on energy invested (EROEI) rate of 4:1. Others are not so good, photovoltaic currently is uneconomic producing less than 1:1 as are biodeisel, although some believe these are slightly above 1:1. And the hydrogen economy is somewhat misleading. Hydrogen fuel cells are a storage medium for electricity only. Nuclear energy has another set of problems that many are familiar with, it very costly over the lifespan of reactors and is very dependant on fossil energy to build. As well world uranium supplies have peaked and are becoming scarce.

Another consideration is that massive spikes in oil prices will negatively affect the world’s economy, possibly spurring a situation where investment in alternatives in a big way is difficult, because our governments and industries don’t have the money. This is why we should invest massively in transit now, while fossil fuel energy required to build it is cheap and our government coffers are in good shape.

Our only answer is to start to develop low energy lifestyles, but there are no signs that we will actuallly do that until a crisis starts, when it will be too late. Once a crisis starts we may all have a low energy lifestyle forced upon us, as the cost of our energy wasting luxuries becomes more than we can afford.

Sorry for the long post, you can read much of this here:

Peak Oil Primer
http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php

It is already too late. We're eating, burning, wasting more resources than the planet can continue to produce.

The capitalist system requires that growth and profits must escalate relentlessly. Too bad, because we'll need to think collectively and protectively if we're to find a way of putting on the brakes.

Not only that, we'll need to do a lot of repairing and healing. Today, for example, they've found a chemical weapons dump in deep water off the west coast of Vancouver Island. Unlike Victoria, we can't continue looking the other way, pretending the dangers don't exist.

These last two posts make a lot of sense to me. To add to them I want to ask whether we want to free the greenhouse gases stored in the oil at all. Remember climate change? It seems to me that in the long term, this may be the most critical question.

Me? Oh-I bicycle.

Me Alcyon? I walk to work.

Thanks Wallace for the info on RE's reading recommendation. A more useful read is:
Twilight in the Desert by matthew simmons.
The oil estimates are only that and it's getting harder and slower to take it from the ground.

It is already too late. We're eating, burning, wasting more resources than the planet can continue to produce.

Although I've been fairly pessimistic about what our supposedly intelligent species has been doing to the earth for a long time, first hearing about this peak oil information a couple of years ago, made me horribly depressed for a while.

It still doesn't make me feel too great, but I think this is where we are heading and I had better get ready. Also I intend on telling as many people as want to hear about it.

The coming energy crunch may lead to economic instability and depression or even some kind of collapse, but I think it's an opportunity for us to really make some necessary social changes. Whatever emerges on the far side of this will be much better. If enough people get the message soon enough, maybe we can start to prepare ourselves for successful low energy lives and mitigate some of the problems to come.

Read Richard Heinberg. He lays out the problem and he suggests intelligent solutions.

It's really only those of us in the rich world who will have a huge problem adapting. And we are really the ones who are laying waste to the planet's resources. Three-quarters of humanity is already living a low energy lifestyle.

There is an excellent book title 'Black Gold Stranglehold' that debunks all of the BS that has been posted on this strange story.
Don't worry, be happy.

Thanks to Wallace for pointing to the whacko sites that push books like this. This book depends on the theory of abiotic oil for its contentions. The abiotic oil theory states that "there must be nearly limitless pools of liquid primordial hydrocarbons at great depths on Earth, pools that slowly replenish the reservoirs that conventional oil drillers tap."

Abiotic oil theory at present remains nothing more than a theory, based on some sparse and shaky evidence. If it was true there would be a rush of oil companies and governments of oil dependent countries tapping into this limitless oil. The oil industry and scientists in general ignore it.

In a recent book, THE LAST HOURS OF ANCIENT SUNSHINE, another useful observation emerges. The oil we have left, we need for the manufacture and maintenance of most of the green energy alternatives that are being touted. How do you lubricate a wind turbine? How do you manufacture solar panels? Etc. These all require oil. Simply burning the oil in its various forms is the worst of all uses.

Yes, the government should tax the use of carbon fuels mercilessly and reinvest the revenues into green energy solutions and research. Would there be corruption and fraud? Probably. But those exist already (consider Erwin's "enlightened" comments above). Roy Woodbridge in THE NEXT WORLD WAR: TRIBES, NATIONS, AND ECOLOGICAL DECLINE argues that nothing short of a worldwide mobilization to counter ecological decline will be sufficient to save us.

While the private sector and the corporate world have much to offer in the coming struggle for survival, governments better get off their duffs and start organizing and co-ordinating efforts rather than kissing Wall Street's rings and rolling over whenever Luis Ruykeyser snaps his fingers.

"Remember climate change? It seems to me that in the long term, this may be the most critical question."

I disagree. Climate change is a huge issue to be sure, but the biggest problem with burning fossil fues unnecessarily (using a 1500 pound metal cage to transport a single occupant for example) is the fact as stated by other posters that oil is far too valuable and versatile to waste as a fuel to support poor decisions regarding transportation of people and goods and power generation. So many current applications can be met by other technologies and better, renewable energy sources (which also address climate change). This is especially true of static power generation plants.

Thinking hydrogen fuel cells and ethanol can be adequate replacements to sustain the auto addiction is ludicrous as we know that it takes more energy to create those fuel sources than is provided by the end product.

Anyone who thinks that car culture can be sustained for much longer either has their head in the sand or jammed up an aromatic orifice usually found between two cheeks.

Yessiree Raif, we're burning the shingles off the roof to keep warm. We're also buying and selling real estate at obscene prices that proove to the young that there really is no tomorrow. And that guy Lovelock, who once had the quaint notion that the Earth was a living being, is telling us now that nuclear power is "our only hope". Welcome to the Dark Ages.

World population in 1900 (when oil became a basic energy source): 1.6 Billion

World population in 2000: 6 Billion

The population increased nearly four-fold, in large part because of cheap energy. Whatever takes the place of O&G by way of alternate energy, has to support the present population or it just won't fly. And the "surplus" population isn't about to "do the right thing" and lay down and die...........

Don't forfget Amory Lovin:
http://www.discover.com/issues/nov-01/features/featlovin/

Grumpy:

Not to mention up to Whistler, if we throw in the cost of "improving" the Sea-to-Sky Highway.

That RAV (or LRT) doesn't extend to Tswassen ferry terminal is sheer madness, what with the increase in foot traffic to and from Vancouver Island. Then there is the Pat Bay highway to get most foot traffic to Victoria...........

Wallce, I don't get wht you try to lead me to some websites that are nothing to do do with what I am talking about. I am not saying this one book has all the answers. I merely seen the author on CNN pointing out that there is doubt about what the oil reserves are.
What has this got to do with the religious right ? You are closed minded to new ideas.
The tactic of personally attacking a person to discredit their ideas is whimpy.
If you want to follow the party line that we are all screwed, the oil is running out, global warming will kill us ect. , go ahead. I don't care. I will continue to have an open mind and listen to all sides.

Oil shmoil. We gotta quit burning it sooner or later. Sooner would be better. Sooner is when we should be doing the studies on HOW to conduct this civilization without using petroleum products.

Can anyone suggest a book or a study which posits a model for environmental sustainability? I feel pretty sure it wouldn't include burning anything which results in fatal emissions.

I may be older than most posters, as I grew up in a world that used coal oil for lamps and lanterns, horses for travel and field work. A worls where we grew our own food and made our own entertainment. My great grandchildren may have to revert to those days - if there is any land left that is suitable.
As for poster R.E.I haven't read anything he has posted in the last 6 months.

Ken McKee, Salmon Arm.

RJK, you speak wisdom of our education system.

We will continue to consume more than we are capable of supplying as long as the typical 5-year-old child who enters kindergarten is already embroiled in his or her own personnal goal to accumilate the greatest number of toys of anyone in class.

It's another good reason to turf from schools all those pop machines, Coke or Pepsi gym clocks and other positive spins on this species' greatest danger (mindless consumerism).

I have friends who have investments in energy stocks. Their mantra, which I find shocking coming from otherwise intelligent and aware people, is just like RE's claim "there is no shortage").

When I sometimes challenge such brave forecasts for our collective future, the responses are often burried in the usual "oh, let the marketplace decide", which no matter how clear it is pronounced always seems to sound very much like "let them eat cake."

It's basically a case of greed, which for the wise practitioner of that emotion is best wrapped in the humble hues of ignorance.

Odd, however, how much it sounds like arrogance.

Allan, Heaven forbid that a 5 year old child has a personal goal to accumulate. I know you expect him to line up and be given what they are entitled to.
Why do you think I get so alarmed at some of the socialistic ideas posted ever too often on this site.
Theses ideas have been discredited for years, where have you been, in Venezuala ?

Geez Ronnie, get a grip! Trust me on this; I am not trying to lead you anywhere. Don't need that grief. I am however, fully prepared to point out where your posts are full of, well, Mr. Floaties material.

First you attempt to distance yourself from your own words, which were:

"The USA is smart enough to know there isn't an oil shortage. There is an excellent book title 'Black Gold Stranglehold' that debunks all of the BS that has been posted on this strange story." Your words Ron.

You later claim that:

"I merely seen [sic] the author on CNN pointing out that there is doubt about what the oil reserves are."

So Ronnie, why the backtracking? In the earlier post you clearly intended your comments to debunk the shortage issue with reference to a book as an authority, and now you want to present yourself as someone who is open to ideas and doesn't necessarily believe what you wrote?

On the issue of the websites, I suggested folks read them to get a sense of where such publications are coming from. My understanding after doing some research is that the book you recommend is junk science. Something about the earth must continually and quickly replace oil reserves because otherwise one would have to accept that the earth is only a couple of thousand years old. That does not fit some of the interpretation of Christian fundamentalists. I think you either knew that prior to touting the book, or you know it now. The latter, if you indeed visited the websites, would explain why you are now backtracking.

And, as to your comment about me attacking you personally, read your own posts. You are pretty thin-skinned brother.

Why do people keep responding to Ron Erwin?

A while back we created the ignore Ron Erwin club, so please join!

Wallace, I don't belive the earth is only a couple of thousand years old. I do question Darwin based evolution however. I mean why aren't there fish growing feet and walking out of the ocean as we speak ?
You seem to be thinking that the earth's development has been frozen for centuries. Why isn't it possible to believe that oil is still being produced by the forces of nature within the earth's core ?
It's your opinion that this book is junk science. Why should I not be suspicious of your opinion ?
It seems like your opinion is the same as most people. I think most people have been brainwashed.

" I mean why aren't there fish growing feet and walking out of the ocean as we speak ?"

Because evolution works within a very long time frame.

"You seem to be thinking that the earth's development has been frozen for centuries. Why isn't it possible to believe that oil is still being produced by the forces of nature within the earth's core ?"

Believe whatever you like RE. I believe the previous two statements prove that old adage "Better to be silent and thought a fool rather than speak and remove all doubt."

My gosh, you don't actually believe that nonsensical 'dribble' do you?

As reported last week on my rant about Canuck666 being a war monger....

Correction: That should not just be the US military guilty as charged. They admit it. It wasn't until 1972 that they banned the practice. This species has been sweeping trash under the rug since we invented the broom. Victoria sewage into the Juan de Fuca, toxins from pulp mills, agricultural run off from every continent. Even if the earth, moon and stars were made of oil we would still poison ourselves in a few more generations, sustainable stopped being an option at 2 billion. The best case scenario is disaster response. Better start hoarding twinkies like Ron....
C.I.R.E. "A revival!"

Sorry freebear. It is just too easy pointing out the inconsistencies.

Ronnie, you deflect.

Wallace:

I know, but I would do that with Erwin in person rather than on here where he/she can hide!

As long as primitive, feudal, religions promote uncontrolled breeding of humans as a virtue we will face the inevitable wrath of Malthus.

We could have a good life on a good planet with a good standard of living for all, if we could limit the population to a reasonable number.
There are too just many people.

The bird flue or something else will soon solve that problem for us.

C.I.R.E. what a noble concept.

Population experts agree. Paul Erlich who wrote the book "the Population Bomb" once said 500 million was the number he was comfortable with for sustainable human endeavors. The highest number I've read lately says 2 billion. Take into account technolgy change and presto room for more consumers! Of course some will say we grow enough food for 10 billion....it's just a distribution problem. I love that one. Like we just need to stop or start subsidies somewhere. Or the government of Parador is corrupt and keep the aid for themselves. Spin, spin, spin. Sorry, fact is, every major fishing ground on earth is in peril. Monsanto's method of agriculture is unsound and they just happen to control 80% of the world seed business. (Dr. Vendana Shiva) Terminator technology, so the farmer will forever be locked into a downward spiral. Soon the farmer is out of business, along with everyone else, holding out his hand waiting for the food aid that isn't coming because..... it's a distribution problem.... Chances for local self sufficiency disappear. Once you have the facts the conclusions are pretty simple. (Enter Merle Haggard) "Are we rolling down hill like a snowball headed for hell...."

Isn't "military intelligence" an oxymoron?

I somehow got the impression this is a fishing-oriented site. Don't bother fishing downstream from Alberta's Oil Sands.

Mary,

In the last days of oil, expect governments to give a little more than lip service to the environment. Until that crisis, they're falling over each other on that gravy train that we fuel at the gaspumps.

If the status quo remains, Mary's pessimism is well-founded, but it ignores something Web-power.

It is ironic that many of the oil economies also have greatest potential for solar power.
Were it not for withheld technology, the Middle East energy requirements could be totally satisfied by solar power - even to the distillation of salt water.

I recommend The Sun Betrayed by Ray Reece. He writes of the corporate seizure of U.S. solar energy development.

re Ron Erwin "There is an excellent book title 'Black Gold Stranglehold' that debunks all of the BS that has been posted on this strange story. Don't worry, be happy."

Ron, I hate to try to educate you but having a brother who was 15 years a field engineer for Schlumberger, and who confirms 'this stange story' (there is less drilling in the US and Canada because dry holes just don't pay, and what they do find is small potatoes) as do the other oil field engineers who worked with him, I am left with the sad but unavoidable conclusion that the BS you are writing about is in fact the book you mention. Anwar isn't being drilled because the majors aren't willing to touch it without government guarantees; which the Republicans were willing to provide. There isn't enough oil there to make money at it...

Don't get me wrong, I'd love there to be an infinite supply of energy on the planet which could be exploited without destroying the same, and ditto for no more wars and brotherhood of man and the lion and the lamb lying down in peace, (that will happen, but the lamb will be ... inside) yeah, and while we are listing, no more disease, hunger, or mental defectives yada yada yada...

But as my grandpappy was want to say, "She's a darned hard world, and a man'd be lucky just to get out of her alive..." Of course, food won't be a problem for a while... we'll eat each other.

With somethiing like a quarter of a million retired workers drawing a pension from GM, I wonder if the US govt. would let that company sink? Not that it either of these parties would really care, but think of the bad press.......