Home (Post) ND News Mobile Say Anything Forum Contact Register Login

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Will Dorgan and Conrad Hold Up Business For This?

Government admits improper farm payments
WASHINGTON - The Agriculture Department on Wednesday acknowledged making improper payments to farmers worth more than $2.8 billion last year.

Officials explained that most of the payments involved missing or incomplete paperwork.

“We take this very seriously,” said Chuck Christopherson, the department’s chief financial officer. “We know this is something that we can address and that we can fix.”

Federal law requires agencies to track erroneous payments, such as checks sent to farmers who were not eligible for a particular program, or payments for the wrong amount of money.

The amount of improper payments in fiscal 2006 was about 11 percent of farm program payments, the department said. The fiscal year ended on Sept. 30.

[...]

Separately, the department found $1.6 billion in improper payments made through the food stamp program. That amount was about 5.84 percent of all payments, Christopherson said, down from 5.88 percent a year before.


If we can track erroneous payments, why not just make the process a little more stringent?

Dorgan and Conrad will shut down the Senate to get more money for farmers, will they shut down this waste of money?

Trent Lott - ‘Minority’ Whip?

Blogger advocates blowing up the State Dept.

Not very civil of her...would this constitute an act of treason in American law?

Media Yawn as Climate Center Reports Continued Global Cooling

Noel Sheppard, in The American Thinker:

At roughly 11:00AM Eastern Time Wednesday, the National Ocean & Atmospheric Administration announced that for the second straight month, America saw below-average temperatures. As a result, regardless of how warm July was, it now appears unlikely that 2006 will surpass 1934 as the hottest year on record. Yet, a Google News search suggested that not one news agency bothered to report this announcement. Not one.

For those not in the media who might be interested (emphasis mine throughout):

  For the second consecutive month, temperatures across the continental United States were cooler-than-average, according to scientists at the NOAA National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Drought conditions improved in some areas, but large parts of the nation remained in moderate to extreme drought. October ranked as the 12th wettest October when compared with historical precipitation records for the month.

The announcement continued:

  The October 2006 temperature for the contiguous United States (based on preliminary data) was 0.9 degrees F (0.5 degrees C) below the 20th century average of 54.8 degrees F (12.7 degrees C). After a record warm January through August period, this was the second consecutive month of below average temperatures.

  The combination of a cooler-than-average September and October dropped the year-to-date national temperature from record warmest to third warmest for the January through October 2006 period. The record warmest January through October occurred in 1934.

Hmmm. So, let me get this straight. The globe supposedly has been warming for decades as a result of man-made greenhouse gases. Yet, the warmest year on record is still 72 years ago. That doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense, does it?

[...]

Alas, this shouldn’t surprise us, for it has always seemed obvious that the same people that buy into global warming are the ones that also believe the economy is just as bad today as during the Great Depression. What is it about radical liberalism that destroys a person’s math and science skills?

The NOAA report is here.

More “Y2K” global warmingist thinking:  When the facts don’t agree with your hypothesis, just ignore them and keep preaching your scareology.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Time For ND Republicans to Earn Their Majority

Now that the elections are over, there is still one major task that the citizens and voters of this state must undertake.  We must tell our representatives that we will not accept a 12.7% increase of the total state budget again; and that we will not accept such a large overall increase while the education budget is increased by only 3.5%. 

During the last legislative session spending on quote “general government” increased by 26.3% ($79million) while funding for education increased by 3.5% ($31 million).  While the document these figures are cited from does not define “general government,” it is certainly not a stretch to say these numbers are a little lopsided and should probably have been reversed. 

If the current majority wants to prove that it still is a vehicle for fiscal conservatism it will make actual cuts in the cost of “general government;” actual cuts, not just cuts in the rate of growth.  These cuts can then be added to the governors plan to increase education funding without a tax increase and without tapping the surplus.

There are still reasons that North Dakota votes for Republicans, and it is not to increase spending by 12.7%.  The voters of this state must not allow their elected representatives to squander their money.  It is bad enough that the taxpayers of this state were overcharged in the first place, but the surplus must not be used to pump up the ongoing budget outlays for the state, in turn causing future increases in taxation to be needed.

One priority for the surplus must be used to relieve property taxes by increasing funding to education. That increased state funding must be tied to local subdivisions either cutting property taxes or developing their own rainy-day fund.  Any state relief must be tied to the understanding that the funding is not for new spending.

A portion of the surplus must also be used to stem the skyrocketing cost of college tuition.  If the rate of tuition is not restrained the state will lose the competitive advantage of cost over schools in Minnesota and elsewhere.

No matter what the surplus is spent on, our representatives must be held responsible.  If the surplus is squandered on pet projects and obscene increases of spending, it can be assured that the current majority party will lose even more seats than it did last Tuesday.  The people elected them as conservatives, now it is time for them to be conservative.

Newsweek Editor Admits Journalistic Judgements Are Not Infallible

Michael Rule, in NewsBusters:

On Tuesday’s “Imus in the Morning,” Newsweek editor Jon Meacham opined that George H.W. Bush, the 41st president, had been vindicated by history. He suggested that Newsweek runs stories based on partisan preferences, i.e. we helped defeat President Bush in 1992, but in hindsight, George H.W. Bush was right. Meacham also revealed that journalists often make hasty judgements and treat those judgements as “infallible.” In the same segment, Meacham admitted that journalists are wrong. Meacham offers as an example the coverage of President Bush 41 during the 1992 campaign and before:

  “What’s important is journalistically, one of the mistakes we make is we kick people in the shins and we tend to make instant judgements and act as though our judgment is infallible and absolute. It’s not. See ‘wimp factor,’ see the mistakes and the misperceptions of the first Bush at the time when everybody was saying he was out of touch and was no good. Now we see with hindsight that he’d done pretty well.”

[...]

  “I think that everything he did that got him beaten in 1992, that only got him 37% of the vote, only slightly more than you or I would have gotten that year, has been proven in the light of history to have been the right thing to do.”

In January 1992, Newsweek contributor Howard Fineman suggested that Bush 41 ought to run on a platform of higher taxes and of asking the American people to sacrifice. In the August 24, 1992 issue Fineman portrayed Bush as out of touch with the American public on domestic issues. A look at the Bush 41record suggests he was out of touch with conservative voters. Bush 41 raised taxes and the economy soured. Bush 41 refused to topple Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War, and let the problem fester for future administrations. And Bush 41 gave David Souter a seat on the Supreme Court, and he has turned out to be one of the most liberal justices. So by whose historic standards is Bush 41 vindicated? Apparently the standards of liberals.

Bush 41 was attacked by Newsweek in 1992 not because he was a conservative. He was attacked to elect Bill Clinton. An objective look at the Bush record show’s the Newsweek attacks to be politically motivated.

Read the whole thing.

Well, Duh!  After 14 years of this kind of crap, he admits one of his many mistakes.
Justice delayed is justice denied.

Shameless Self-Promotion

My career as a political commentator resumes tonight at 7:30 PM Central, where I’ll be be participating in a debate on whether our troops should remain in Iraq. Readers on the eastern half of the state can listen live by tuning in to 105.5 KMAV; for everyone else, there’s a live webcast that you can access here. Enjoy!

War On Christianity, Christmas 2006 Edition

By Jerry Kronenberg

Jesus doll’s not for Tots, charity says

Toys for Tots is taking the Christ doll out of Christmas.
    The charity has rejected a California toymaker’s gift of 4,000 talking Jesus dolls, arguing that the 12-inch action figures would offend non-Christian recipients.
    The decision has local pro-Christmas activists fuming.
  “This is just more proof that there’s a war on Christmas and Christianity in this country,” said Robert Marley of the Coalition to Save Christmas in Massachusetts.
  Toys for Tots, which is run by the Marine Corps Reserves, already bans toy guns and other gifts it believes promote violence.


  But the group has also decided to take a pass on Jesus dolls from Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Co.
  “We can’t take a chance on sending a talking Jesus doll to a Jewish family or a Muslim family,” said Bill Grein of Toys for Tots, which gives poor kids of all faiths gifts for Christmas and other winter holidays.
  The dolls - which normally cost $20 - come complete with beards, long hair and hand-sewn cloth robes and sandals. They recite New Testament passages such as, “No one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”
  The decision doesn’t directly affect the Bay State, as each Toys for Tots chapter collects its own gifts.
  But Marine Sgt. Paul McCawley, who heads the charity in western Massachusetts, said his chapter would have “regretfully declined the offer” had it occurred here.
  Why? “Basically, political correctness,” McCawley said. “We can’t go out and give a Muslim child a Jesus doll. It’d be like giving a boy a makeup kit.”
    Toys for Tots’ move drew mixed local reactions yesterday.
  Bennie Becker of the Jewish War Veterans’ Braintree Post called the decision “a good thing.”
  An Air Force veteran who once had an offer to serve in Saudi Arabia withdrawn because he’s Jewish, Becker said he opposes mixing religion with the military.
  But Bilal Kaleem of the Muslim American Society’s Boston chapter said he had no objection to giving Jesus dolls to Christian kids. “There are many Christian children in need,” he said.

Every time they get away with this kind of discrimination, the anti-Christian lefties get bolder.  PC must go!

North Dakota Republicans in Legislature Must Hold the Line on Spending

Last session, the legislature managed to increase the budget by 12.7%. That huge increase was during the Republican Super-Majority, and without knowing about the $527 million surplus.

What is going to happen now that the seats are a little tighter and they have the suplus to spend?

As you can see, “general government” (whatever that entails) increased 26.3% while education funding increased 3.5%.

Something is definately wrong with that picture.

Here is a chart of how the last legislature showed very little restraint on spending:

Free Image Hosting at allyoucanupload.com

Free Image Hosting at allyoucanupload.com

Original File Here

Defeat in Iraq has Wide Ranging Consequences

The thoughtful person can not be happy with the decline of American influence in the world, a development exposed and energised by the misadventure in Iraq. Anthony Giddens has some thoughts on what may lay ahead.

Where Are The Progressive/Feminist Protests?

A few days ago women and girls were openly sexually assaulted on the streets of Cairo.

Punitive gang rapes for perceived moral violations are common.

Women are buried to the waist and stoned to death for adultery. This includes if they are a rape victim.

Women can’t drive. Women can’t vote. In some cases women can’t leave the house without a male escort.

Women must be covered head to toe at all times. To expose any part of the body or face can mean beatings, jail, or even death. A leading cleric justifies the rape of women who aren’t totally covered, calling them, “uncovered meat.”

A man may beat his wife if she needs it as long as he doesn’t get too carried away.

Welcome to the ultra-misogynistic world of Islam. In today’s world the attitude toward women in the Islamic culture is almost surreal. My question is: Where are the protests? Where are the feminist voices howling in protest over the brutal treatment - and make no mistake, it is brutal - of their sisters under the veil? After the well documented women’s struggles of the past century you would think that our enlightened feminists and liberals would be vociferously protesting what’s happening to those women.

Why aren’t they? Where are they?

My answer to that is simple. I don’t know. I can’t figure out why the usually screeching liberals aren’t baying at the moon over this issue. Is it because they may find themselves unwittingly allied with a perceived right wing cause (the war on terror) and they simply cannot have that, no matter what the cost? The two issues are very separate so that shoudn’t be the case.

We’re not shooting terrorists because they’re misogynistic neanderthals. We’re shooting terrorists because they want to shoot us.

Is it because there are just so many other abused women in the world that they just can’t find time, what with all the other protesting they’re doing. Nope. I haven’t seen any other protests concerning women’s rights lately, at least on any kind of medium-to-large scale. The only serious liberal protests I’ve seen have been against religion, ROTC, conservatives, the war in Iraq, Bush, gay rights, and anything else that doesn’t fit the liberal agenda.

Except this. Except that everyday in Islam women are abused on a scale not seen in centuries and nobody is uttering a peep about it. Not one little peep.

I guess maybe if the Islamists were to register as Republicans, then maybe they would get the kind of attention that they deserve for the brutality they mete out.

Until then our liberals and feminists apparently have better things to do.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Left Behind

hehe

Myth Busting

..
Here are seven myths rapidly gaining acceptance among conservatives, liberals or both:

  — Republican losses were in keeping with typical setbacks for a party holding the White House in the sixth year of a presidency. Conservatives reassure themselves that the “six-year itch” has cost the party in power roughly 30 seats on average since World War II, so this year’s losses aren’t remarkable. But as liberal blogger Kevin Drum points out, most of the big “itches” came prior to the past 20 years when gerrymandering got more sophisticated. Reagan lost only five seats in his sixth year, and Clinton only five (although he had already suffered a wipeout in 1994). For Democrats to win 29 seats despite all the advantages of incumbency enjoyed by the GOP is a big deal.

  — The conservative base, discouraged by the GOP’s doctrinal impurity, didn’t show up at the polls. This is the bedtime story conservatives are telling themselves to show that whatever ails the party will be cured simply by becoming more conservative. In 2004, however, conservatives were 34 percent of the electorate and liberals 21 percent. In 2006, the numbers were almost indistinguishable — conservatives were 32 percent of the electorate and liberals 20 percent. The GOP didn’t lose the election with its base, but with independents, who broke against them 57 percent to 39 percent.

..
— The election was a great victory for conservative and moderate Democrats. If Democratic leaders gave their candidates leeway to take socially conservative positions, this year’s new crop of Democrats still isn’t a departure from the party’s overwhelming liberalism. A few attention-grabbing, successful Democratic House candidates, Health Shuler of North Carolina and Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, are truly conservative. But only about five of the 29 Democratic winners in the House can be considered social conservatives. They will be lonely.
..

Thought I Share

I found the following comment/analysis/assessment in this thread over at Redstate.com so interesting, I thought I should share it with people here. 

...
Some conservatives seem to think simply following the policies they advocate will result in winning. Libertarians and social conservatives both seem to believe that their ideas are popular enough to win elections if politicians would just have the guts to stand for something. Well, President Bush has certainly stuck to his guns on a number of issues (the war, immigration, tax cuts, education, etc.)but that hasn’t made him popular.

What makes it complicated is that “moderates” and “centrists” are different across the country and even within regions. Some moderates dislike overly-zealous conservatism both economic and social. Others tend toward cultural conservatism but have a strong tendency towards economic populism (minimum wage, more school funding, etc.) Establishment Republicans and grass roots conservatives seem to be at each other’s throats these days but both blocks are needed in many states to win elections.

Yes, small but effective government is something that can unify the GOP but agreement on individual policies are much more difficult. I also think it is significant that many economic conservatives are supply siders but the public at large is much more prone to economic populism and even protectionism. Economic libertarianism seems very rare in the public at large from my perspective but are populaar online.

Yes, we need to rededicate ourselves to our principles but we also need leaders who can effectively communicate why these ideas are best for all Americans. We also need better candidates and campaigns so that we strategically re-build a regionally diverse majority. Good policy isn’t always universally popular.
...

[comment #14]





I think its somewhat of what Mary Matalin meant with "Dressing Conservatism Up Like Britney Spears" comment.

Peak Oil Rebuttle

Rep Bartlett of Maryland gave this testimony before congress on March 14, 2005. Read the whole thing here.


...the 1940s and the 1950s when a scientist by the name of M. King Hubbert, a geologist, was working for the Shell Oil Company. He was watching the discovery and the exploitation and final exhaustion of individual oil fields. He noticed that every oil field followed a very typical pattern. It was a little slow getting the oil out at first, and then it came very quickly and reached a maximum, and then it tailed off as it became more difficult to get the oil out of the ground.

  This followed a bell curve. Here is one of those bell curves. Now, bell curves are very familiar in science, and in life, for that matter. If we look at people and how tall they are, we will have a few people down around 4 1/2 or 5 feet and some up to 7 1/2 feet; but the big mass fall in the middle, clustered around 5 1/2 to 6 feet.

  Looking at a yield of corn, a few farmers may get 50 bushels per acre, some may get 300, but the big mass today it is somewhere around 200 bushels per acre for corn.

  Hubbert noticed when the bell curve reached its peak, about half of the oil had been exhausted from the field. Being a scientist, he theorized if you added up a lot of little bell curves, you would get one big bell curve, and if he could know the amount of reserves of oil in the United States, and he was doing this in the 1940s and early 1950s, and could project how much more might be found, he could then predict when the United States would peak in its oil production.

  Doing this analysis, he concluded that we would peak in our oil production in 1970. This curve is what is known as Hubbert’s Curve. The peak of the curve is what is known as Hubbert’s Peak. Sometimes this is called the ``great rollover’’ because when you get to the top, you roll over and start down the other side. It is frequently called ``peak oil.’’ So peak oil for the United States occurred in 1970, and it is true that every year since then we have pumped less oil and found less oil. The big blue squares here are the actual and Members see they deviated a little from the theoretical as M. King Hubbert predicted, but not all that much.

  At the bottom, see the difference the big field in Alaska made, and see what that made in the down slope, that never increased production in our country. It just meant that we were not going down quite as fast. You can see that here on the curve. Notice that the Alaska oil production was not the typical bell curve. It should have been, but a couple of things meant it could not be. One was it could not flow at all until we had a 4-foot pipeline. So the fields were developed and they were waiting; then we got the pipeline on board, and it was filled with oil and oil started to flow, and Members see the rapid increase here. It could not flow any faster than through that 4-foot pipe, and so it levels off at the top. We have pumped probably three-fourths of the oil in Prudhoe Bay.

  Many people would like to open up ANWR. ANWR has considerably less oil than Prudhoe Bay, so the contribution will be significantly less. I want to note on this chart we also have the red curve, which is the theoretical curve for the former Soviet Union. It is a nice bell curve, peaking a little higher, they have more reserves than we do, and later because we entered the industrial age with vigor before the Soviet Union was quite there. Notice what happened when they came apart; notice how precipitously it fell here. After they got things organized, the fall stopped and now they are producing more oil. As a matter of fact, we might see a little upsurge in this; but the general trend is still going to be down.

  On the next chart, and we have here the same Hubbert Curve, but the abscissa is a little too long and the ordinate a little too compressed, so it is not the sharp peak that we saw before. That is the curve we saw before. It shows the Texas component, and it shows the rest of the United States; and it also shows some natural gas liquids. We learned how to extract those a little later. So if you were plotting that as a bell curve, it would peak about here. It is little and then it is much, and then it tails off.

  This is the contribution of Alaska, and you can see this not going to be our salvation to pump ANWR because ANWR contains probably not even half as much as Prudhoe Bay. And notice the small contribution that Alaska made. And that is not a bell curve for the reason I mentioned before because we had to develop the fields and they waited for the pipeline, and then it would surge through the pipeline when it was developed. So you do not see the tail getting greater and tailing off.

  This is gulf oil. Remember the hullabaloo about the big finds of gulf oil that were going to solve our problem? That is what it did. There never was a moment in time between the big Alaska oil find and all of the pumping discovery and pumping in the gulf, there never was a moment in time when it decreased the fall in our country. The peak occurred, as you see here, about 1970.  

  The red curve here shows the actual discovery of oil. Notice that that peaked. There was a big find here that distorted the curve a little but if you rounded that off, you would have the typical bell curve. It started somewhere back here off the chart, then it peaks, and then it is downhill and it tails off. These are the discoveries. The last find there is simply an extrapolation. We have no idea where it is going.

  We are, by the way, very good at finding oil now. We use 3D seismic detection techniques. The world has drilled, I think, about 5 million oil wells and I think we have drilled about 3 million of them in this country, so we have a pretty good idea of where oil is.

We held a couple of hearings and had the world experts in. Surprisingly from the most pessimistic to the most optimistic, there was not much deviation in what the estimate is as to what the known reserves are out there. It is about 1,000 gigabarrels. That sounds like an awful lot of oil. But when you divide into that the amount of oil which we use, about 20 million barrels a day, and the amount of oil the rest of the world uses, about 60 million barrels a day, as a matter of fact, the total now is a bit over the 80 million that those two add up to. About 83 1/2 , I think. If you divide that into the 1,000 gigabarrels, you come out at about 40 years of oil remaining in the world. That is pretty good. Because up until the Carter years, during the Carter years, in every decade we used as much oil as had been used in all of previous history. Let me repeat that, because that is startling. In every decade, we used as much oil as had been used in all of previous history. The reason for that, of course, was that we were on the upward side of this bell curve. The bell curve for usage, only part of it is shown on this chart. That is the green one down here, the bell curve for usage. Notice that we are out here now about 2005. Where is it going? The Energy Information Agency says that we are going to keep on using more oil. This green line just going up and up and up is a projection of the Energy Information Agency. But that cannot be true. That cannot be true for a couple of reasons. We peaked in our discovery of oil way back here in the late sixties, about 1970. In our country it peaked much earlier than that, by the way. But the world is following several years behind us. And the area under this red curve must be the same as the area under the green curve. You cannot pump any more oil than you have found, quite obviously. If you have not found it, you cannot pump it. If you were to extend this on out where they have extended their green line, even if it turned down right there at the end of that green line, the area under the green curve is going to be very much larger than the area under the red curve. That just cannot be. We will see in some subsequent charts that we probably have reached peak oil.

  Let me mention that M. King Hubbert looked at the world situation. He was joined by another scientist, Colin Campbell, who is still alive, an American citizen who lives in Scotland. Using M. King Hubbert’s predictive techniques, oil was predicted to reach a maximum in about 1995, without perturbations. But there were some perturbations. One of the perturbations was 1973, the Arab oil embargo. Other perturbations were the oil price shocks and a worldwide recession that reduced the demand for oil. And so the peak that might have occurred in 1995 will occur later. How much later? That is what we are looking at this evening. There is a lot of evidence that suggests that if not now, then very quickly we should see world production of oil peak.

  What are the consequences? What are the consequences of this depletion? The remaining oil is harder to get. It requires greater energy investment, resulting in a lower return on energy invested. That is the energy-profit ratio, which is decreasing. When we started out, you put in one unit of energy and you could get 30 out. Then that fell off, and then we found a few more fields and we got really good at extracting oil with better techniques. It looked for a little while like it was going up, but look what happened. It falls off to where it would have come anyhow if this curve had simply gone down. This is an inevitable consequence of pumping a field.

  Lower profits are not the only concern. When more energy is required to extract it than is contained in the recovered oil, that is, when this ratio is less than 1, notice, we are over there at about 1984, we have got to get now another 20 years, I am not quite sure where we are now when you plot that day. We are getting very close to the unit it takes as much energy to get the oil out as you get out of the oil. It may still seem profitable from a monetary perspective, but when you are using more energy to get oil out of the ground than you are getting out of the oil, then clearly you need to leave it there when we reach that point. I mentioned the bump there was caused by a few more discoveries and particularly by increased efficiency in pumping the oil.

  What is the current U.S. status? We have only 2 percent, between 2 and 3 percent, not really known for certain, but approximately 2 percent of the known reserves of oil. We use 25 percent of the world’s oil. By the way, we have about 8 percent of the world production. What that means is if we have only 2 percent of the reserves and 8 percent of the production, that means we are real good at pumping oil, does it not? That means we are pumping our reserves at roughly four times faster than the rest of the world. That means that this 2 percent will not stay 2 percent by and by because we are so good at pumping oil, we are going to be down to 1 percent of the known reserves in the world and we will still be using about 25 percent of the world’s oil. We are now importing about two-thirds of that. At the Arab oil embargo we imported about one-third of that. So we are now importing, relatively, two times more oil, actual quantity much more than that, but relatively about two times more oil.

  Chart 6 shows us that more drilling just will not

  solve the problem. This is a very interesting chart. This shows the difference between the amount of oil that you are finding and the amount of oil that you are pumping. Notice from 1960 on until about 1980, declining for sure, but every year except for one we found more oil than we pumped. The yellow line up here is drilling. You remember the Reagan administration and all the emphasis on drilling because we knew that we were approaching this flipover point where we were going to be pumping more oil than we found and so there was a rationale that if you just give them a profit motive and you have the right incentives, tax and regulatory incentives and so forth, they will go out and they will dig more wells and they will find more oil. Sure as heck they went out and dug more wells. But did they find any more oil? As a matter of fact, in 1982, more oil was used in looking for oil than the oil they found in 1982. Pretty consistently for every year after 1982, we have used more oil than we found. Today worldwide we are pumping at least six barrels of oil for every barrel that we find.

  Chart 7 shows that worldwide discoveries are repeating the U.S. pattern. This is a rough bell curve. You find a big find of oil and it is going to make a spike. This is average for 5 years. If you look at it on a year for year, it is really up and down as you find big reservoirs of oil. But generally it starts low and it goes up and it comes down. It follows roughly a bell curve. I would not pay too much attention to the figures on the ordinate here, because the area under this curve must equal just a little bit over 2,000 gigabarrels of oil. If I visually sum the area under this curve, it is going to equal something more, not frightfully more but something more than 2,000 gigabarrels of oil which from other sources we know ought to be the total amount of oil under the sun. Notice that we are tailing off to something very low. It is unlikely that we are going to find big additional finds in the future. Again, we are very good at that. We have dug about 5 million wells worldwide. We have done a whole lot more than that explorations with detonations and seismic and 3D and computers and we are very good at looking at the kind of geology where you might find oil. There is just no real expectation that there are going to be big additional fields of oil found out there. This dropoff in discovery is really in spite of very improved technology for finding oil.

  Chart 8. This is a very interesting chart. It has nothing to do with time, because on the abscissa here, we have the number of wells that are drilled, the cumulative oil caps, and on the ordinate, we have the amount of oil that was found. For any relatively big field, here we are talking about 50 gigabarrels. Remember, there are about 2,000 gigabarrels worldwide, so this is a meaningful part of the world reserves of oil. We see that that goes up and up and then it tails off. You cannot find what is not there. No matter how many more wells you drill, you are not going to find oil that is not there. The same pattern should be apparent on a world scale.

  Chart 9. This is a very interesting chart. It is a little too busy, but let me try to explain what is there. The oil companies for reasons of pricing and regulations and so forth have had the habit through the years of underreporting initially how much oil they found. Then later when it was appropriate to their license to produce more oil, they would report additional oil. They never found any additional oil, they simply reported oil they had found previously. By the way, you may have noted that three times in the last roughly 3 weeks, oil companies have admitted that their estimates of the reserves were exaggerated and have downscaled the reserves that they said were there. If you took the original reporting of the reserves, you might be able to construct a curve, a straight line curve which said we are just getting more and more. But if you backdated that to the actual discoveries, then you get this curve. This curve is asymtoting at a bit over 2,000 gigabarrels, which is about what the world’s experts say had been there. We have now pumped about half of that. We have about 1,000 gigabarrels remaining.

« First  <  1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 >  Last »
Page 1026 of 1046 pages