It takes 10 years when the oil is 12,000 feet beneath the mudline in 5600 feet of water.  And you have to build a 70,000 ton semi-submersible platform to produce it.

I read that Pelosi was going to be on CNN Late Edition this morning.  Did she address whether they're going to pass drilling legislation?

[early 2001 liberals]

ANWR won't help solve the problem, it wont come online for like seven years!

[/early 2001 liberals]

They said the same thing in the 70's.  Then they said it in the 80's.  And they're still saying it now.  Fuck them, they can die with the fucking 3-toed titpenguins for all I care.

There is no substitute for petoleum. There never will be.

Nothing is so engergy dense, safe and easy to transport.

Fools.

Quoted: There is no substitute for petoleum. There never will be. Nothing is so engergy dense, safe and easy to transport. Fools.

attaboy

Quoted: There is no substitute for petoleum. There never will be. Nothing is so engergy dense, safe and easy to transport. Fools.

Agreed....

Alternative energy is typically a pipe dream, especially hydrogen.  That said, there are some technologies which really do have a future, such as supercapacitors.  

As for petroleum, my objection is and always has been that the most economical sources of petroleum are in actuality our natural enemies.  Muslims, for instance, in the Middle East and Africa, and Socialists in South America, and nationalist Russians.

To that end, I thin it worthwhile to pursue reducing consumption and shifting it over to other things.  Compression ignition natural gas, for instance, using natural gas and diesel from a gas to liquid process.  Coal gasification.  Things like that.

Also, I want to be explicit when I say that I think it makes perfect sense to engage all sorts of technologies which are marginal, but when taken as a whole can produce viable amounts of energy.  Anaerobic digesters will never be a sufficient source of natural gas, but when one considers that they dispose of waste as well, they are an economical way to generate methane.

Similarly, limited use of biofuels (as a lubricant for diesel and an octane boost for Otto engines) makes sense.

Solar makes sense for heating air and water, and for use in solar thermal applications.  Photovoltaics are much more limited.

Etc.

In 5 years, we will have forgotten this time of shortage.  And while E&Ps will be looking, lawmakers will be placing areas off limits to drilling.

Then in 10 years, we get to have another shortage.

Quoted: Remind these people that it specifically their refusal to act that has lead to two wars in which our servicemen have died to secure our oil supplies.  That's right, you won't drill so our young men die.  We have no other vested interest in the middle east beyond securing the free flow of oil.  That is why we are there and no other reason.  Without that reason, we would not have been in a position to be bothered by those who attacked us.

The irony is that we don't use ME oil, the Asians and Europeans do...

Quoted: Alternative energy is typically a pipe dream, especially hydrogen.  That said, there are some technologies which really do have a future, such as supercapacitors.   As for petroleum, my objection is and always has been that the most economical sources of petroleum are in actuality our natural enemies.  Muslims, for instance, in the Middle East and Africa, and Socialists in South America, and nationalist Russians. To that end, I thin it worthwhile to pursue reducing consumption and shifting it over to other things.  Compression ignition natural gas, for instance, using natural gas and diesel from a gas to liquid process.  Coal gasification.  Things like that. Also, I want to be explicit when I say that I think it makes perfect sense to engage all sorts of technologies which are marginal, but when taken as a whole can produce viable amounts of energy.  Anaerobic digesters will never be a sufficient source of natural gas, but when one considers that they dispose of waste as well, they are an economical way to generate methane. Similarly, limited use of biofuels (as a lubricant for diesel and an octane boost for Otto engines) makes sense. Solar makes sense for heating air and water, and for use in solar thermal applications.  Photovoltaics are much more limited. Etc.

You missed the only one that will make more than a percent or two of difference.

Nuclear.

Nuclear is a can of worms that I usually don't like to open.  I've been reading about the new reactors and I love them.  I also think that we need a commercial reprocessing industry here, as well.

Some people have an irrational fear of nuclear, which I think is funny, because as near as I can tell there is more radiation released from a coal plant than a nuke plant.

Quoted: There is no substitute for petoleum. There never will be. Nothing is so engergy dense, safe and easy to transport. Fools.

Alcohol based fuels could be but it would require the government to get out of the way as relates to farming and the revenue agencies.

Quoted: Nuclear is a can of worms that I usually don't like to open.  I've been reading about the new reactors and I love them.  I also think that we need a commercial reprocessing industry here, as well.

Human factor and the potential massive harm that might result.

Quoted: Quoted: There is no substitute for petoleum. There never will be. Nothing is so engergy dense, safe and easy to transport. Fools. Alcohol based fuels could be but it would require the government to get out of the way as relates to farming and the revenue agencies.

Alcohol fuels have 30-50% less energy and usually take more energy to make than they contain.  In fact, the only ones that make any real sense will be the cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel once some more technology is developed.

Quoted: Quoted: Nuclear is a can of worms that I usually don't like to open.  I've been reading about the new reactors and I love them.  I also think that we need a commercial reprocessing industry here, as well. Human factor and the potential massive harm that might result.

Highly overstated.  Highly.  Chernobyl is an example of designing the worst reactor that you can, with no safety measures and no containment, then turning al the levers up to see what happens.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Nuclear is a can of worms that I usually don't like to open.  I've been reading about the new reactors and I love them.  I also think that we need a commercial reprocessing industry here, as well. Human factor and the potential massive harm that might result. Highly overstated.  Highly.  Chernobyl is an example of designing the worst reactor that you can, with no safety measures and no containment, then turning all the levers up to see what happens.

An oil spill does not kill anyone, a coal mine collapse might kill 20 per year in bad times, refinery accidents might kill 10 per year, a nuclear incident at one of these plants has the potential to kill thousands.  Habitability of the surrounding land after said incident notwithstanding then there is the waste issue which is two part, moving it then storing it since there is apparently no safe way to destroy it.  

What kind of nuclear accident?  The last nuclear plant to go online was designed about 40 or 50 years ago.  Design has come a long way since then.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Nuclear is a can of worms that I usually don't like to open.  I've been reading about the new reactors and I love them.  I also think that we need a commercial reprocessing industry here, as well. Human factor and the potential massive harm that might result. Highly overstated.  Highly.  Chernobyl is an example of designing the worst reactor that you can, with no safety measures and no containment, then turning al the levers up to see what happens.

And using graphite as the moderator.  

In our water-moderated AND cooled reactors, loss of primary cooling water results in the reaction stopping because the neutron energy is too great to be captured and sustain the chain reaction.  It can partially melt, as evidenced in TMI but the control rods are designed to puncture such a damaged core.  And that is exactly what happened.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There is no substitute for petoleum. There never will be. Nothing is so engergy dense, safe and easy to transport. Fools. Alcohol based fuels could be but it would require the government to get out of the way as relates to farming and the revenue agencies. Alcohol fuels have 30-50% less energy and usually take more energy to make than they contain.  In fact, the only ones that make any real sense will be the cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel once some more technology is developed.

The crop you use determines the yeild per acre, corn (what the feds are pushing) is among the worst.  Converting the fleets and implements to be flex should help too.  Interesting footnote that I recently learned is that prohibition was most responsible for the death of Alcohol as a fuel, I never would have thought of that.  

I'm well of both of those things, I'm just pointing out the inherent limitations of ethanol.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There is no substitute for petoleum. There never will be. Nothing is so engergy dense, safe and easy to transport. Fools. Alcohol based fuels could be but it would require the government to get out of the way as relates to farming and the revenue agencies. Alcohol fuels have 30-50% less energy and usually take more energy to make than they contain.  In fact, the only ones that make any real sense will be the cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel once some more technology is developed. The crop you use determines the yeild per acre, corn (what the feds are pushing) is among the worst.  Converting the fleets and implements to be flex should help too.  Interesting footnote that I recently learned is that prohibition was most responsible for the death of Alcohol as a fuel, I never would have thought of that.

Ford has had Flex Fuel vehicles out for 10 years.  They were almost giving them away in early 2000.

And it was the discovery of the East Texas Oil Field in 1930 that forced the economy of oil over alcohol.

I want to see McCain push a proposal to replace oil fired furnaces with electric heat.  Electric generated by nuclear.  Why we still burn oil in homes when electricity is delivered to the house is beyond me.

The failure of our politicians to secure our energy supply to the degree it insulates us from volatile situations or hostile nations abroad is probably their greatest failure.  Ever since Nixon and the Yom Kippur War, top American leaders have been calling for and promising to do something about this key vulnerability, and they have never done a thing.  35 years of failure year after year after year.  

This could be a key strategy to make the GOP relevant again, because they support measures that will work, and liberals are only interested in indulging in fantasy and appeasing the environmentalists.  We could utterly wipe the floor with them if the GOP could deliver long-term energy security to America, and it wouldn't be that hard to do if we finally got serious about accomplishing it.

How though?  How?  Can we produce oil cheaply enough to compete without subsidies?

Keith, can you answer that one?

One thing that I've considered.  If we do conserve (and it would be fairly easy to start pushing oil demand down, if that was made a goal) then American will not be able to compete with foreign oil at those prices.

Lastly, electricity is an expensive way to heat.  I'm looking hard at solar heat right now in conjunction with four small electric heaters to heat a house.  I'm not yet convinced that it will be economical, but it may be.  Certainly not in Alaska, but eight hours of daylight may gather enough solar energy to offset 1800 dollars worth of electricity in the next 10 years, which is all that I'm asking for.

What oil subsidies?

There is a bigger dilemma.It is an ideological dilema.There would be no oil dilemma without it.IT started getting traction in the 60's .Now we are at the tipping point where an openly radical communist can run for pres in this country and be "popular".Until there is some progress in the ideological war there will only be half measures and outright sabotage . Think about the fact that there has been no nuclear reactors or refineries built in over a generation.In the mean time resources have also been locked up.We are being restrained , whether it is just "bad luck" or "intentional" , I don't know.At this point I would rather plan for "intentional" as I don't feel like being assimilated.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Nuclear is a can of worms that I usually don't like to open.  I've been reading about the new reactors and I love them.  I also think that we need a commercial reprocessing industry here, as well. Human factor and the potential massive harm that might result. Highly overstated.  Highly.  Chernobyl is an example of designing the worst reactor that you can, with no safety measures and no containment, then turning al the levers up to see what happens. In Russia, energy wastes you.

Quoted: What oil subsidies?

If demand were cut and the price of oil went back to 20/barrel, would that allow foreigners to gain market share?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Nuclear is a can of worms that I usually don't like to open.  I've been reading about the new reactors and I love them.  I also think that we need a commercial reprocessing industry here, as well. Human factor and the potential massive harm that might result. Highly overstated.  Highly.  Chernobyl is an example of designing the worst reactor that you can, with no safety measures and no containment, then turning al the levers up to see what happens.

Huge +1 Nukes need to be used.
If the japs and frogs can get it right, WE sure as hell can.

*edit:  As well as drilling like mad

Coal liquefaction is the answer.

It only needs oil above $40/barrel to compete.

We have enough recoverable coal to replace 100% of our oil needs and last about 250 years.

It works and has worked for 75 years.

The latest technology is American.

They are doing it in South Africa and China is installing a couple large plants now.

What the fuck are we waiting for?

Oh it would probably only produce about a couple million high paying jobs if we convert.

There is a lot of negativity to alternative energy here... like nothing will ever be as good as oil.  I DO agree, we WILL NEED oil for a very long time.  Transportation will depend on it.

But will we, as individuals, in our own homes NEED to stay dependent on getting energy from someone else?  I think not.  Solar and wind generation is making progress.  Several great discoveries have been made in solar power just this year.  Storage of energy is advancing.  I read recently that Eestor says they will have a commercial product available by the end of this year.  

Give those things a few years to mature and get into production, and the day will come when us homeowners can tap a little of our equity to have systems installed that can generate and store power for us, effectively unplugging us from the grid.  Let larger scale wind, solar and NUKES (MOAR NOOOKZ!!) make up the rest.  

With an abundance of electrical energy, we can then easily electrolyze water to generate hydrogen to use either in combustion or fuel cells for transportation.  

Electrifying vehicles will start with small commuter types first.  The USDOT finds that over 70% of people commute less than 40 miles total every day.  There are electric cars that can do that NOW.  Within a few years, there will be more.  We will be able to move ourselves away from petroleum.

In spite of all the above, we'll still (as a nation) use a lot of oil.  Big trucks will not be easy to fuel from any other source for a long time.  Most of our economy will depend on these trucks for a LONG time.   However, moving commuting and individual transportation to another power source, then that freed up oil should be cheaper again.

Quoted: There is no substitute for petoleum. There never will be. Nothing is so engergy dense, safe and easy to transport. Fools.

Well "there never will be" is going a bit far, but oil is certainly without a good or even okay substitute now and for the foreseeable future.

Wind and solar have no chance of replacing a significant percentage of our energy usage. Biofuels and alcohols would soak up massive amounts of farmland to even start to reach 1% of our national energy consumption. No other scheme that I've heard of even comes close to these inadequate substitutes, much less our actual energy usage. Conservation doesn't have much more to give and hydropower works but we're already using as much as we possibly can.

Only coal and nuclear power have the ability to move more of our energy consumption away from oil.

Highly overstated. Highly. Chernobyl is an example of designing the worst reactor that you can, with no safety measures and no containment, then turning al the levers up to see what happens.

No No and No. Electricity was a by product of a plant designed to churn out plutonium. The accident had SCRAM jumpers installed and tested a turbine below the design rod line for that power level without adequate engineering safety review, in this country called 10CFR50.59.
The reactor failed to scram on turbine stop valve closure as designed due to the jumpered trips.
Another major factor in the incident was that Chernobyl reactor type has a positive core void coefficient. When the turbine stop valves closed pressure increased lowering the water level (i.e. increasing voids). All this resulted in 2 power spikes and a kaboom. Fast neutrons, slow neutrons, moderator types all have an impact, and there's End Of Life considerations as well.

It can partially melt, as evidenced in TMI but the control rods are designed to puncture such a damaged core. And that is exactly what happened.

Puncture a core? No. Control rods are designed to do many things, but "puncturing" a core is not one of them. Gross fuel clad damage is not something you ever want to happen. The main damage to TMI's core came from overheating, that is above the 2200 f required to produce onset hydrogen from the zirconium fuel cladding. The hydrogen ignition is what caused the containment pressure spikes and burn evidence in the containment. Other plants were refitted with H2 recombiners and igniters to prevent such a build up. So you have a very hot core with damaged clad and then cold water 100 f is injected from ECCS, emergency core cooling systems. Thermal shock. Fuel as rubble lying in the bottom head of the reactor about 20% or so of it. At this point liquid neutron absorber is injected into the core in the form of Sodium Pentaborate.

Commercial reactors in the US have a negative void coefficient. Power goes down as water level is lowered and in some portions of the emergency plan the operators are directed to do exactly that in a failure of control rod insertion drill. Backups for the backups and triple redundant systems combined with operator training work and they work well. The TMI crew did not believe their instrumentation and this led to a course of study titled "Mitigating Core Damage."

Build 100 starting now with a moonshot priority. But they will not replace oil. We need all forms of energy available as each is suited to it's geographic location. No one source is some magic panacea for our energy ills. This is what energy markets would have you believe, and due to wheeling the cheapest source wins. The "One Big Facility" is not an answer.

Disclaimer- My experience is with Boiling Water Reactors and Pressurized Water Reactors are generally a mystery to me. Most people hear nuclear and have visions of mushroom clouds hanging over cities. They don't know how it works and don't want to know. Fission, fusion, what's the difference? Sorry for the diversion but it needs explaining.

Conservation doesn't have much more to give?

I just about spluttered when I heard you say that.

Why not double fuel economy in the next ten years, decrease the energy requirements of new buildings by 75% and reduce automobile passenger miles by 20%.  I think that is all easily done and quite profitable.

I know that my company is taking steps to save money on energy, and that we aren't in a particularly intensive business.

Conservation is cheaper than consumption.

Quoted: An oil spill does not kill anyone, a coal mine collapse might kill 20 per year in bad times, refinery accidents might kill 10 per year, a nuclear incident at one of these plants has the potential to kill thousands.  Habitability of the surrounding land after said incident ...

Exacty.  Just look at the Three Mile Island disaster.

Oh, wait...

[T]here are no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community which can be attributed to the accident.

Nuclear is the obvious answer, we as a nation just need to tell the environmentalists to STFU; we've tolerated their nonsense long enough.  

Quoted: Conservation doesn't have much more to give? I just about spluttered when I heard you say that. Why not double fuel economy in the next ten years, decrease the energy requirements of new buildings by 75% and reduce automobile passenger miles by 20%.  I think that is all easily done and quite profitable. I know that my company is taking steps to save money on energy, and that we aren't in a particularly intensive business. Conservation is cheaper than consumption.

Yes, we're conserving now.

ETA-it is something that goes on within the dilemma but ultimately will not be the solution.For the collective answer look to nuclear, coal, domestic oil&nat gas.On the individual level self sufficiency with turbines , solar panels, and algal oil will go a long way towards severing dependence.

From my perspective it is easier to replace a 75W incandescent with a 13W CFL and turn it off when the sun rises than to leave it on all night.  That will save me enough money to buy a nice dinner for two over the course of a year.

And that is just the beginning.  It costs me almost a hundred dollars a year to plug in a radio, DVD player and TV.  And I never turn those on.

And what about buildings that aren't even sealed, and places in Arizona that leave the front doors open all day to let customers in (and cool air out)?

There is plenty of room for conservation.

Quoted: From my perspective it is easier to replace a 75W incandescent with a 13W CFL and turn it off when the sun rises than to leave it on all night.  That will save me enough money to buy a nice dinner for two over the course of a year. And that is just the beginning.  It costs me almost a hundred dollars a year to plug in a radio, DVD player and TV.  And I never turn those on. And what about buildings that aren't even sealed, and places in Arizona that leave the front doors open all day to let customers in (and cool air out)? There is plenty of room for conservation.

The more we conserve the more will be available for those outside our conservation bubble.In essence , since the biggest source of energy is oil and it is a world market you will just make their energy cheaper.Something needs to be done on the supply side.I agree that it would help though.

I'd open source government funded technology, and tell the world what a great environmentalist I was, all the while drilling and nuking just as fast.

It's called having your cake and eating it too.

Quoted: Conservation doesn't have much more to give? I just about spluttered when I heard you say that. Why not double fuel economy in the next ten years,

Double? Not gonna happen. We've already improved a lot in the last 50 years or so; there's only so much more to give.

decrease the energy requirements of new buildings by 75%

Also not gonna happen. Maybe if you compare 1930s buildings to brand new, but we've been working on building efficiency for a long time, and improving 75% over today's state of the art isn't gonna happen.

and reduce automobile passenger miles by 20%.

Per capita? Possible, but the tourism and travel industries will suffer. And population growth will eliminate it in gross mileage soon enough anyways.

Hell, as long as we're making things up, why don't we double the fuel economy of our heavy trucks and cargo ships too? Hey, why double when you can triple? Tripling it sounds much better! It's all the same when you're pulling the numbers out of your ass.

I think that is all easily done and quite profitable.

It is easily done and profitable, which is why most of it has already been done. Efficiency is a game of diminishing returns - as you work more and more on it, you get less and less from your work. We've already done a lot of work towards efficiency; we can do more, but it isn't going to save enough energy compared to what we have now to offset our growth.

I know that my company is taking steps to save money on energy, and that we aren't in a particularly intensive business. Conservation is cheaper than consumption.

And death is cheaper than life. I know which one I prefer, though. Conservation is all well and good, but you can't conserve your way out of an energy crisis; you can only produce your way out of it.

Quoted: There is no substitute for petoleum. There never will be. Nothing is so engergy dense, safe and easy to transport. Fools.

Never is a loooooooong damn time.

Quoted: There is no substitute for petoleum. There never will be. Nothing is so engergy dense, safe and easy to transport. Fools.

You better hope we find a technologically feasible substitute for petroleum.
Because drilling or no drilling, conserving or not conserving ....eventually we will
use up the available petroleum.  The only question is when not if.   If we are lucky we
might have 50+ years to find that replacement if we can find ways to extract more oil from more marginal sources.   If we are not lucky we could find that we have only a couple more decades before petroleum becomes scarce.   And once our technologically
advanced oil dependent society runs out of oil to drive it we will no longer be able
support the infrastructure to find the oil that is really really hard to get at, and the easily used oil will be gone.  


The question is not will we run out of oil.  The question is how long before we reach a point where we can no longer produce enough oil to maintain our current petroleum based infrastructure.    There will probably always be oil available....in small amounts.
We need it in huge almost unfathomable large amounts....and in a continous stream.  

An intelligent species would understand these facts and take advantage of our current
advanced technology to find and implement the replacement energy sources before
the current source collapse taking the entire infrastructure back a couple centuries.

Of course to date homo sapiens has not shown evidence of intelligence....just cleverness.   There is a big difference.

Quoted: Quoted: There is no substitute for petoleum. There never will be. Nothing is so engergy dense, safe and easy to transport. Fools. Never is a loooooooong damn time.

Especially when you're talking about "petoleum"

Quoted: Quoted: What oil subsidies? If demand were cut and the price of oil went back to 20/barrel, would that allow foreigners to gain market share?

If the above happened then demand would skyrocket again and people would return to driving the big old gas hog SUVS and the cycle will repeat.  

Quoted: There is a lot of negativity to alternative energy here... like nothing will ever be as good as oil.  I DO agree, we WILL NEED oil for a very long time.  Transportation will depend on it. But will we, as individuals, in our own homes NEED to stay dependent on getting energy from someone else?  I think not.  Solar and wind generation is making progress.  Several great discoveries have been made in solar power just this year.  Storage of energy is advancing.  I read recently that Eestor says they will have a commercial product available by the end of this year.   Give those things a few years to mature and get into production, and the day will come when us homeowners can tap a little of our equity to have systems installed that can generate and store power for us, effectively unplugging us from the grid.  Let larger scale wind, solar and NUKES (MOAR NOOOKZ!!) make up the rest.   With an abundance of electrical energy, we can then easily electrolyze water to generate hydrogen to use either in combustion or fuel cells for transportation.   Electrifying vehicles will start with small commuter types first.  The USDOT finds that over 70% of people commute less than 40 miles total every day.  There are electric cars that can do that NOW.  Within a few years, there will be more.  We will be able to move ourselves away from petroleum. In spite of all the above, we'll still (as a nation) use a lot of oil.  Big trucks will not be easy to fuel from any other source for a long time.  Most of our economy will depend on these trucks for a LONG time.   However, moving commuting and individual transportation to another power source, then that freed up oil should be cheaper again.

Ahh     another person who gets it.  We need to take advantage of the current window in time to make the transition to multiple energy sources.  It is much easier to do it now before we "have to" then to wait till the 11th hour.  

Quoted: Quoted: Conservation doesn't have much more to give? I just about spluttered when I heard you say that. Why not double fuel economy in the next ten years, Double? Not gonna happen. We've already improved a lot in the last 50 years or so; there's only so much more to give. decrease the energy requirements of new buildings by 75% Also not gonna happen. Maybe if you compare 1930s buildings to brand new, but we've been working on building efficiency for a long time, and improving 75% over today's state of the art isn't gonna happen. and reduce automobile passenger miles by 20%. Per capita? Possible, but the tourism and travel industries will suffer. And population growth will eliminate it in gross mileage soon enough anyways. Hell, as long as we're making things up, why don't we double the fuel economy of our heavy trucks and cargo ships too? Hey, why double when you can triple? Tripling it sounds much better! It's all the same when you're pulling the numbers out of your ass.  I think that is all easily done and quite profitable. It is easily done and profitable, which is why most of it has already been done. Efficiency is a game of diminishing returns - as you work more and more on it, you get less and less from your work. We've already done a lot of work towards efficiency; we can do more, but it isn't going to save enough energy compared to what we have now to offset our growth. I know that my company is taking steps to save money on energy, and that we aren't in a particularly intensive business. Conservation is cheaper than consumption. And death is cheaper than life. I know which one I prefer, though. Conservation is all well and good, but you can't conserve your way out of an energy crisis; you can only produce your way out of it.

1) Fuel economy doubled between 1973 and 1983 and remained stagnant since then.

2) LEED and Energy Star buildings typically use 30-50% less energy, and greater improvements are possible.

3)  WAL-MART has committed to doubling the efficiency of their 18 wheelers in the next 10 years.

Well?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What oil subsidies? If demand were cut and the price of oil went back to 20/barrel, would that allow foreigners to gain market share? If the above happened then demand would skyrocket again and people would return to driving the big old gas hog SUVS and the cycle will repeat.

You aren't hearing me.  I'm concerned about another 1986 style bust that would kill the American oil industry and make us even more dependent on foreign sources.