A far bigger concern against it is that I read some articles and basically extracting oil from Alaska would take almost a decade before it would hit the market, and also the fact that the oil could only account for 5%, at best, of America's consumption. It just doesn't seem worth the expense.

I think its time for humanity to focus on more renewable energy sources. Regardless of your views on man-made global warming, I don't think anyone can seriously argue that the man caused extinction of species is a good thing. Furthermore, it makes much more sense to rely on a renewable energy source than a corrosive, non renewable one.

Drilling oil IS a messy process that isn't as easy as going in, taking what we need, and getting out. I am in for both environmental reasons and economic reasons, but we have to push for alternative sources because that is our best chance for both environmental and economic solutions.

In the case of drilling, the amount of oil will only last for a couple years before the US drains most of it. Then again, I read that out of an AP Environmental Science book, which is completely biased towards going green. Nonetheless, they still brought up good points, but it all remains clear that we have to cut out our dependence for oil NOW. The fuckers who aren't complying are the oil companies, obviously.


OPEC can suck a fat dick, except Indonesia (cause they got Orangutans), United Arab Emirates (cause of Dubai), and Venezuela (cause of you're recent Miss Venezuelas)

I read that Alaska has about 10 billion barrels worth, and that America consumes about 21 million a Day. I would say that based on this, it wouldn't last us too long.

If that is so, then there is a fuckload of oil on the planet. I honestly didn't know there was THAT much.

Oi, oi. We need to remove our lips from the bloody chalice of oil, and seek something else to satisfy our energy appetites and requirements. It's no longer viable in anyway to continue down the current path - environmentally, economically, or politically.

Unfortunately, with the petrol industry being as monstrous as it is, and controlling as much of the flow of wealth and research as they do, and securing the patents/rights to anything that might jeopardize their profits, I don't see the reign of oil ending for quite some time. Hopefully I'm wrong.

Oil will never again be cheap in the traditional sense, and China's demand has very little to do with the Olympics. They will drive their cars in the future, too, Olympics or no Olympics.

What do you think are the best alternatives?

I don't really see oil companies being the big obstacle. If oil companies are so greedy and dominating, why wouldn't they be trying get control of alternative, cleaner energy? It's just that nothing else is cost effective right now. I think the oil companies realize that too. I believe we should be moving more toward nuclear energy for electricity, but the obstacle isn't oil companies; it's the extremist enviromentalists and stupid politicians (ok, it probably could be oil companies lobbying these stupid politicians so that they can keep their market share...).

Without taking any stand on the Alaska issue, I want to point out that all the new "big" fields found in the recent years have been smaller than what people think. Many of them have been extremely difficult to drill (deep seas, arctic areas), expensive and environmentally awful (tar sands), and most of them, in the final analysis, have enough oil for a few months of global consumption. That is the case with Alaska's fields: too little to really have an impact, expensive to extract and refine, and environmentally questionable.

There is a huge amount of oil left on the planet, but most of it is too expensive to use. That's the idea behind peak oil; the oil won't run out, but it gets too expensive to drill and use.

Oil will never again be cheap in the traditional sense, and China's demand has very little to do with the Olympics. They will drive their cars in the future, too, Olympics or no Olympics.

IEA worried about oil supplies, prepares forecast
By ANGELA CHARLTON – 3 hours ago

PARIS (AP) — A leading global energy monitor fears there may not be enough oil to slake the world's thirst — and is preparing a landmark forecast that could reverberate through the global economy even as major companies announce fuel-related cutbacks.

The International Energy Agency is studying depletion rates at about 400 oil fields in a first-of-its-kind study of world oil supply, chief economist Fatih Birol said.

"We are entering a new world energy order, " Birol told The Associated Press.

Market analysts call the Paris-based IEA the world's most reliable independent source of oil information and welcomed its decision to undertake a deep study of oil supplies.

But the IEA's new forecasts are likely to further upset markets. Oil prices hit an all-time high Thursday above $135 a barrel before falling back.

Less oil would mean even higher prices for everything from gasoline to food. Already, airlines squeezed by jet fuel costs are bleeding profits and predicting cutbacks and industry upheaval. Ford Motor Co. said Thursday it was cutting production of gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles and forecast more rough times ahead.

Birol said the IEA study, whose results will be released in November, was prompted by concern about the volatility of world oil markets and uncertainty about supply levels.

"The prices are very high, and demand did not respond in the last few years as much as one would have expected," Birol said. "The growth in terms of production was not great. We did not see enough investment."

The spurt in oil prices Thursday came after a report in the Wall Street Journal that the IEA was planning to lower its forecast for long-term world supply.

Birol would not speculate on whether the forecast, which will predict supplies through 2030, could go sharply downward. "We will see," he said.

The IEA's past forecasts put oil supply at about 116 million barrels a day in 2030, up from 87 million barrels a day now.

"Although the agency's official assessment isn't expected until later this year, the market's interpretation is that global supply may be significantly tighter than previously projected by the major oil market monitors," said Jim Ritterbusch, president of energy trading advisory service Ritterbusch and Associates in Galena, Illinois.

Birol said oil companies and governments have cooperated with IEA experts preparing the report, but added, "It is not an easy task. It is the first time this is being done in the public domain on such a scale."

Simon Wardell, oil analyst at Global Insight in London, was skeptical that the IEA would get a complete picture from "countries that are very closely guarded" such as Saudi Arabia, the No. 1 producer.

That is important because Birol said one of the key shifts coming up is that the world will become increasingly reliant on national oil companies instead of multinational ones.

"Up to now, we have seen that the international oil companies were responsible for bringing a big chunk of the oil to the markets. Now, in many cases, since existing reserves are declining, a big part of oil will need to come from national oil companies. And they have their own conditions, their own context."

Birol called for greater investment everywhere.

Wardell said the IEA report would have limited effect on investment. "It's not like oil companies aren't already looking around," he said.

But he said governments could take notice and "start thinking of policies that would ensure more oil."

Birol noted that, "Both on the demand side and supply side, we have new actors who change the rules of the game."

He said most demand now and in the coming decades will come from China, India and the Middle East. That is a stark shift from past decades, when the U.S. and Europe were demand-drivers.

The IEA is part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which brings together 30 rich nations. It has no links to OPEC, and its review may challenge the Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries' view that the world is well-supplied with oil.

Birol said the report is looking at onshore and offshore supplies — including hard-to-reach wells in the deep sea.

He noted that Brazilian state oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA said Thursday it has struck more oil in waters near the huge offshore Tupi field — but remained cautious about how much "good oil" such fields would produce.

Fears about fuel prices helped send shares in Europe's largest airline, Air France-KLM, down 9 percent Thursday after it announced a quarterly net loss and said it expects the coming year to be "challenging."

CEO Jean-Cyril Spinetta said the soaring cost of fuel means the industry is in for a "profound transformation," predicting capacity reductions, the acceleration of mergers and the exit of some players from the market.

Ford Motor Co. said Thursday it is cutting North American production of pickups and SUVs as car buyers eyeing record gas prices turn toward more fuel-efficient models. The automaker says it no longer expects to return to profitability by 2009 and didn't rule out layoffs and plant closures.

I read that Alaska has about 10 billion barrels worth, and that America consumes about 21 million a say. I would say that based on this, it wouldn't last us too long.

Wind and solar are good ideas, but as of now, neither generate nearly enough electricity for the cost. Two of the most effective energy sources are hydroelectric and nuclear, but there are now so many regulations in various places (California for instance) that actually prevent building new nuclear plants.

There is a major problem that seems to be overlooked a lot when it comes to oil and that is that it is still the most effecient and cost-effective energy source. It's more than twice as effecient as ethanol, it burns cleaner than coal, and the thing most people don't seem to know--oil is burned to make hydrogen cells and other technologies in hybrid cars. Cars that run on ethanol routinely fail emissions tests that gas-powered cars pass. The batteries used in electric/hybrid cars are actually more dangerous to the environment than burned oil--granted this is largely due to the the toxic chemicals inside the batteries which may leak into the environment upon disposal--if disposal isn't carried out in a responsible manner.


Wind and solar are good ideas, but as of now, neither generate nearly enough electricity for the cost. Two of the most effective energy sources are hydroelectric and nuclear, but there are now so many regulations in various places (California for instance) that actually prevent building new nuclear plants.

Ethanol is a joke and always has been. It only took off for political reasons. It's on the downswing now. Nuclear is the answer, but it somehow got connected in the American consciousness with nuclear weaponry. Not over in Europe, though.

People here are strongly against nuclear power. Why should we build plants that just blow up all over our faces in 5-10 years? Besides, you get electricity from power points, right?

Cons of democracy.

Fallacy. Any competently constructed power plant would withstand any but the most catastrophic meltdowns and manage to contain the radiation and blast. That said, the highly toxic and radioactive waste - much of which cannot be recycled, and it of course has a huge half-life - cannot be safely disposed of.

Fallacy. Any competently constructed power plant would withstand any but the most catastrophic meltdowns and manage to contain the radiation and blast. That said, the highly toxic and radioactive waste - much of which cannot be recycled, and it of course has a huge half-life - cannot be safely disposed of.

Erm, yeah. I was being sarcastic.

The staunch environmentalists say "no way" to drilling for new oil in Alaska as it would "damage the ecosystem" and "threaten the polar bear."
It's become an economics vs. environmentalist kind of war.

In my view, nature will learn to live around us. A few oil drilling plants isn't going to upset that damn much of a massive state like Alaska. We need to reduce our dependancy on foreign oil, and we need to bring these costs down. I say, get in, get the oil, get out. The sooner the better. Drill it all up and give the region back to the polar bears and seals and snow.

I figured as much, but thought it best to cover it no matter. It seemed you were speaking of uninformed people (of which I am now certain), and I supposed I was quoting you to highlight the fallacy more than to contradict you. If that makes any sense.

For once, I agree with you.



Nature living around us would take forever. We would drive the polar bears to extinction before they got out. Drilling takes a long time. I know this, my step dad is in the drilling industry (he sells chemicals that assist in softening the ground for drilling - he is about to be promoted to manager of the entire north american continent, so Ill be informed on the topic). Getting in and out would take way too long and would disrupt the enviroment so much. No more yukon territory unspoiled beauty.

We can place a value on the price of oil, lumber, and muinerals, but whay about the value of beauty, inspiration, solitude, and spiritual renewal?

Nuclear is the answer, but it somehow got connected in the American consciousness with nuclear weaponry. Not over in Europe, though.

i have a solution tothis problem about gas: USE AN ALTERNATIVE FUEL!!!!

i saw the compressed air car on the History channel's "Modern Marvels: Nature Tech" and it was a really good idea. 125 MILES on a $2.00 fill up is better than gas anyday

they have 'em in syria why not in the us? i think it's because of all the money politicians would lose and oil companies too.

greedy sons-of-bitches

i'm not for drilling in alaska. it will be our OWN downfall if we decide to keep using gas/oil when we can use other (more environmentally frinedly) fuels.