Food Price Riots Popping Up Around The World

[Doug50]

I don’t believe that is correct. Doug?

for the datas he gave I’d say that’s close to inflation adjustments. The highest inflation adjusted price paid was 1980 due to oil shortfall casues by the Iran/Iraq war. Both the oil embargo a few years earlier and this war caused gas lines at the pump. $103adjusted for inflation to that of 1980 was where oil prices went to new record highs. ricmat and myself are both 70’s brats although he might be a little older. I can remember the gas lines and once driving in Dallas rush hour with friends. One of them commented sarcastically, “look at all these cars! yea we’re never going to run out of oil. Is the world running out, Doug?” Me: “it’s going to run out some day.”

ricmat, I’ve said this in the past: With all we now know about global oil fields from what we knew back then the world is pretty picked over. Any new fields found will be like the Brazilian 33 billion that they MIGHT have. I would bet there’s oil there but the cost of getting it out alone with the time involved isn’t going to make your pump price cheaper. It’s like T Boone Pickens said about the Chevron Jack II well estimated to IP (initial production) 6000 barrels per day, wells like these have to make those volumes just to breakeven due to drilling and production costs. economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11043022&fsrc=RSS

ricmat, Here’s the heart of the problem. The following is a partial trascript to this news video feed abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20060710/default_full_mac.htm
JONATHAN HOLMES: But even they admit that at least outside the Middle East the era of cheap oil - oil that flowed abundantly from wells all over the world, at a cost to its producers of $3 or $4 a barrel - is almost over.

GUY CARUSO, US DEPT OF ENERGY: Oh, we would agree with that. You know, the low-cost, high-reserve finds, that era’s probably over.

CLAUDE MANDIL, EXEC. DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY: I think that this oil probably is not far from peaking, I agree with that. Now, if you take all the oil which is not of easy access today, because very deep offshore or in the arctic ocean, I think that there is still plenty of oil to be discovered. And we have to keep in mind that technical progress makes extraordinary reserves.

JONATHAN HOLMES: The technology is certainly impressive. This is the Noble Therald Martin, one of 62 marine drilling rigs and ships owned by the Noble Corporation of Texas, and deployed all over the world. The Therald Martin is drilling an exploratory well 200km out in the Gulf of Mexico. It looks and feels as solid as an island, but in fact it’s floating on giant submerged pontoons, anchored to the seafloor 3,500ft - or more than a kilometre - below the surface.

10 years ago, drilling in such depths was impossible. By today’s standards, says Noble’s CEO, it’s almost shallow water.

JAMES DAY, CHAIRMAN & CEO NOBLE CORPORATION: Deep water, a decade ago, was 1,000ft. People used to think 1,000ft would never be passed. We drilled a well recently at 9,000ft of water. We’ve got rigs that are designed for 10,000ft of water, which is about 3.2km, something of that nature.

JONATHAN HOLMES: The precision of modern rigs is extraordinary. Starting at the seabed 3km down, the drill bit can be guided through a further 10km of rock, gradually changing direction, until it’s travelling horizontally. It’s aimed at a sweet spot in a reservoir that’s been mapped by three-dimensional seismic surveys. The target may be no more than a couple of metres square. But all this technology comes at a cost.

My guide on the Noble Therald Martin was the man after whom it was named - senior Noble executive and lifelong oilman, Therald Martin. He manages all Noble’s deep-water rigs in the Gulf.

THERALD MARTIN, DEEP WATER DRILLING SUPT., NOBLE CORP: You can take a land rig, the whole land rig total might cost you $10 million. One single piece of equipment on a semi could cost you more than a total land rig can. The cranes that you see on the rig, these cranes are $2 million a piece to operate them.

JONATHAN HOLMES: A rig like the Therald Martin would cost half a billion dollars to build. All this expense is passed on to the oil companies that hire the rigs, and, ultimately, to the customer at the petrol bowser.

So what are your customers having to pay per day?

JAMES DAY, CHAIRMAN & CEO NOBLE CORPORATION: Well, they have to pay for - for, our increased investment. Day rates range from $300,000 to $600,000 per day.

JONATHAN HOLMES: So if they drill a dry hole, that’s a very expensive exercise?

JAMES DAY, CHAIRMAN & CEO NOBLE CORPORATION: It is indeed, and that’s why high oil prices will have to stay in place for a while, because of the cost involved in drilling for that product.

JONATHAN HOLMES: Therald Martin assured me that in the world’s deep waters, he believes there are vast reservoirs of oil waiting to be found. But his boss, James Day, is not so optimistic.
JAMES DAY, CHAIRMAN & CEO NOBLE CORPORATION: The people that I trust and believe - geophysicists, geologists - say the days of the big fields are gone.

JONATHAN HOLMES: Only a tiny proportion of the deep ocean floors are thought to cover substantial reservoirs of oil - mainly on the fringes of the South Atlantic, and in the Gulf of Mexico.

JAMES DAY, CHAIRMAN & CEO NOBLE CORPORATION: While we can drill off West Africa, and they have significant reserves, or Brazil, or the deepwater US Gulf, they’re just going to be replacing what we’re currently consuming. But that’s just treading water. That assumes that we’re not increasing consumption.

 

[Doug50]

People like to latch on to stuff like Brazil or the Bakken but producers/engineers are more skeptical since their the ones who’ll be putting the money up. Even it the Bakken can give up the 3-4 billion barrels the USGS estimated it’ll take a lot of years…and at what costs. I’ve plugged wells that were still making oil because the cost of operating was higher then the sales income. Those wells, today, would make a positive (if modest) return. I know guys pumping 1/2 a barrel/day from shallow wells and truning a slight profit.

 

[Doug50]

I, for one, kind of appreciated the rant. Some of this doomsday stuff reminds me of the old mythical story about the exceptionally civilized people of Alexandria. One day a horde of savages laid siege to the city. Day after day after day, the savages remained, threatening every manner of death to the citizens. Doom threatened, and the residents could practically feel the blades of their cimitars on their throats. Then one day, inexplicably, the savages left. Just went away. The people of the city were disappinted. Massacre would have been better than nothing.

Sometimes it really does seem some of the prognosticators of doom actively want it. Perhaps, to some, it would be better than nothing.

What does rhetoric and ranting have to do with realism? I’m a realist. If you pull the data to solve the volumes of engery the this century is needing I’ll change my skepticism. The fact is cultures do and have fallen because they ignored the reality that was facing them.

 

[peregrinus_WA]

I, for one, kind of appreciated the rant. Some of this doomsday stuff reminds me of the old mythical story about the exceptionally civilized people of Alexandria. One day a horde of savages laid siege to the city. Day after day after day, the savages remained, threatening every manner of death to the citizens. Doom threatened, and the residents could practically feel the blades of their cimitars on their throats. Then one day, inexplicably, the savages left. Just went away. The people of the city were disappinted. Massacre would have been better than nothing.

Sometimes it really does seem some of the prognosticators of doom actively want it. Perhaps, to some, it would be better than nothing.

This is my take on the doomsday cult under another name: Link

 

[ricmat]

for the datas he gave I’d say that’s close to inflation adjustments. The highest inflation adjusted price paid was 1980 due to oil shortfall casues by the Iran/Iraq war. Both the oil embargo a few years earlier and this war caused gas lines at the pump. $103adjusted for inflation to that of 1980 was where oil prices went to new record highs. ricmat and myself are both 70’s brats although he might be a little older. I can remember the gas lines and once driving in Dallas rush hour with friends. One of them commented sarcastically, “look at all these cars! yea we’re never going to run out of oil. Is the world running out, Doug?” Me: “it’s going to run out some day.”

ricmat, I’ve said this in the past: With all we now know about global oil fields from what we knew back then the world is pretty picked over. Any new fields found will be like the Brazilian 33 billion that they MIGHT have. I would bet there’s oil there but the cost of getting it out alone with the time involved isn’t going to make your pump price cheaper. It’s like T Boone Pickens said about the Chevron Jack II well estimated to IP (initial production) 6000 barrels per day, wells like these have to make those volumes just to breakeven due to drilling and production costs.

Doug, of course we will run out of oil some day, or it will be so expensive that we can’t afford to burn it. But I agree with those who believe that energy alternatives will be found, so the gloom and doom with regard to overpopulation is mostly unwarranted. As I pointed out before, doom sayers were wringing their hands over the lack of whale oil until we started pumping oil from the ground.

Side issue: I vaguely recall that back when oil was $20 a barrel, that the Canadian oil shale was supposed to be economical at something like $45 per barrel, and we’re well beyond that now. Not sure what happened to that plan…

In any case, my prediction that my 1973 Datsun would be the last gas powered car I ever bought (based on Club of Rome’s gloom and doom, Future Shock, The Overpopulation Bomb, etc.) turned out to be wrong, and wrong, and wrong…(lost count). My next car will also be gasoline powered. And the one after that…if the state still allows me to keep driving

 

[Doug50]

Is the US army a doomsday cult? See page 8
stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A440265&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

“Petroleum Trends
The oil market will remain fairly stable in the very near term, but with steadily increasing prices as world production approaches its peak. The doubling of oil prices from 2003-2005 is not an anomaly, but a picture of the future. Oil production is approaching
its peak; low growth in availability can be expected for the next 5 to 10 years. As worldwide petroleum production peaks, geopolitics and market economics will cause even more significant price increases and security risks. One can only speculate at the outcome from this scenario as world petroleum production declines. The disruption of world oil markets may also affect world natural gas markets since most of the natural gas reserves are collocated with the oil reserves.”

Is the now Sec of Defense, Robert Gates part of a doomsday cult? secureenergy.org/reports/oil_shock_report_master.pdf

If you haven’t notice the US is hoarding oil into the SPR.

 

[Carolinagirl411]

I apologize if I’m repeating but it is hard to read all posts when there are more than 200.

The first few posts making light of this situation frightens me. Granted most of Americans have plenty to eat but we are a Global society. What happens in other parts of the world will eventually come around to bite us in the rears. Kind of like ripples in a stream.

Oil prices are raising which will make food more expensive

The deteriorating value of the dollar will make it more difficult for poor and middle class to afford the rising cost of food

People could go hungry. This is a serious matter and people spent a lot of the thread discussing CiCi’s pizza lol

Ribo! I’m right there with you!!! Although I think the first horseman refers to the Anti-Christ…I may not agree with Bush and what he has done to our country but I don’ t think he qualifies as an Antichrist… But i do think we need to be more aware of what is going on

 

[Ridgerunner]

What does rhetoric and ranting have to do with realism? I’m a realist. If you pull the data to solve the volumes of engery the this century is needing I’ll change my skepticism. The fact is cultures do and have fallen because they ignored the reality that was facing them.

Perhaps levity is unwelcome, or even unrecognizable in this grim-faced crowd?

My grandfather plowed behind a mule when he was a young man. He was happy to change to a tractor later, but he didn’t invent the tractor. I am not obliged to invent the solution to energy needs to have a right to talk about it.

But one more example of why I have faith in humanity. When I was a teenager, I had a job in a Savings and Loan as a teller. We had this brand-new invention, called the window posting machine. It was marvelous. Took two men to lift it and it wasn’t easy for two men. It was full of the most beautiful gears and wheels you ever saw; a real work of art, I thought. It was powered by a good-sized electric motor. It had a hand crank to take it through its cycle and return it to “start” if the power failed or it shorted out, but you could barely turn the crank, it took so much power to operate. I think maybe that’s why they hired me. I could crank it, if it came to it, but the women in the office couldn’t. And, I could pull it out (not lift it alone) to plug and unplug it. (They didn’t leave it on at night because the motor ran all the time whether it was operating or not.) The whole counter vibrated when it went through its cycle. I was truly impressed by this miracle of modern technology.

It’s function was to calculate interest, add it to principal and deduct the payment to get a new balance. It held the day’s totals in a mechanical “memory”, to “download” at the end of the day. Calculators will do that now on the amount of energy a light bulb 15 feet away will shed on a receptor no bigger than a square inch. I’ll bet on the ingenuity of the human race to work with energy, no matter what the oil supply is.

 

[Doug50]

Doug, of course we will run out of oil some day, or it will be so expensive that we can’t afford to burn it. But I agree with those who believe that energy alternatives will be found, so the gloom and doom with regard to overpopulation is mostly unwarranted. As I pointed out before, doom sayers were wringing their hands over the lack of whale oil until we started pumping oil from the ground.

A couple of points: I have no real reason to give your argument any credibility unless you can put forth what those alternatives will be. When you say “I believe alternatives will be found” you are basically telling me some of your faith is directed. Two: we actaully have more science knowledge (physics) than what was around during the whaling days. People have known about and have been using petroleum for five thousand years. The only new energy resourse to come in modern times is nuclear. Going from wood to coal to oil as the main energy supply running society was always a step up in efficiencey. Going to wind or biofuels and heavier relience on coal is a step down in efficiency.

Side issue: I vaguely recall that back when oil was $20 a barrel, that the Canadian oil shale was supposed to be economical at something like $45 per barrel, and we’re well beyond that now. Not sure what happened to that plan…

In any case, my prediction that my 1973 Datsun would be the last gas powered car I ever bought (based on Club of Rome’s gloom and doom, Future Shock, The Overpopulation Bomb, etc.) turned out to be wrong, and wrong, and wrong…(lost count). My next car will also be gasoline powered. And the one after that…if the state still allows me to keep driving

Are those $45/barrel tar sand inflation adjusted? No. I owned drilling rigs. As oil prices climb so to does drilling and extraction costs. The US uses ~20 million barrels per day (~7 billion per year) or 1/4 of the oil produced. The tar sands make 1 million per day and it’s hoped to get them to 3 million by 2015. It take natrual gas to produce these oil sands. Canada is discussing the use of nuclear plants to process the oil out of the sands. Only 20% of the sand can be strip mined.

I didn’t know about the Club of Rome then and don’t have an interest in them now. I know what Hubberts peak is about but what’s more relavent is current field production and their associated decline cruves along with large projects to come on line. If you know are can estimate those two things you can resonably predict a supply cruch. Chris Skrebowski researchs those two things and, after being a skeptic to peak oil, now believes there will be a cruch around 2012. The IEA now says the same thing and accuses it to a lack of above ground investment. To the consumer it won’t matter. IEA sees oil supply crunch after 2010

 

[Doug50]

Ridgerunner, technology doesn’t create energy. It uses it. And we, however, use technology to figure out how to use energy more efficeintly.

What is the cheapist most energy efficient commute around? What we’re doing right now, telecommuting. As fuel and electric cost become more expensive this form of energy conservation will become more prevalent. At least that seems to be the most logical for those who push paper. Some times I wonder when I see rush hour traffic just how many of those commuters could’ve been working from home? If more people did that, gas prices would fall, and food prices would follow oil downward.

 

[ricmat]

A couple of points: I have no real reason to give your argument any credibility unless you can put forth what those alternatives will be. When you say “I believe alternatives will be found” you are basically telling me some of your faith is directed.

So you don’t agree that the gloom and doomers were wrong in the past? And those who believed alternatives would be found turned out to be right (even without being able to list alternatives in advance?)

I’m not sure what you mean by my faith is directed — if you mean do I have faith, then the answer is yes. But if I had to make any bets right now, I’d bet that nuclear (fission) makes a big comeback. And they may yet solve the fusion thing.

Two: we actaully have more science knowledge (physics) than what was around during the whaling days. People have known about and have been using petroleum for five thousand years. The only new energy resourse to come in modern times is nuclear. Going from wood to coal to oil as the main energy supply running society was always a step up in efficiencey. Going to wind or biofuels and heavier relience on coal is a step down in efficiency.

Lower efficiency means higher costs, but not necessarily astronomically higher costs. And technological advances in other areas might raise the standard of living such that the higher cost is easily absorbed. Of course, this is difficult to predict. NO, I take that back…it’s easy to predict, just not easy to predict correctly.

Are those $45/barrel tar sand inflation adjusted?

Good point. No, it’s probably not an adjusted figure. But at the point when the adjusted figure does go above $45 (or whatever the actual number is these days), the tar sand/shale will become cost effective. I don’t know how much there was of it, but at the time I read about it, it seemed like a lot. You probably know a lot more about this than I do (I respect your opinion on the oil side of this argument). But at this point in time, I still have my (unfounded) faith that things will not be as bad as predicted.

On general principles, I am against SUV’s , Learjets, driving when one could walk, etc. since this is just plain wasteful. But at this point, I don’t feel it is justified to plan on a population reduction plan (unless it can be achieved solely by abstinence).

 

[Ridgerunner]

Wish I had all those facts and figures at my command; the amount and cost of oil in Colorado’s oil shale; Canadian tar sands, deep sea deposits, and how much we can get out of algae and so forth.

But I don’t. I’m not entirely sure anyone does.

I only know what I know. Maybe ranchers will help those Canadians who use natural gas to extract oil from tar sands.

Because of the high cost of commercial fetilizer, ranchers around here anyway have cut back on it a lot. Without getting tedious and boring all the city folk with it, I know for a fact that their petroleum use has plummeted due to using smarter ways of doing things. Suffice it to say that it takes a lot of natural gas to produce ammonium nitrate fetilizer, but ranchers around here have found ways to do without it. So there you are, Canada.

None of that stuff saves the world, and I don’t have the answer for row crop farmers, let alone commuters in L.A. But there are ways of doing lots of things other than heavily using petroleum to do them. It’s a matter of ingenuity and sharing technical knowledge. People have gotten used to cheap petroleum, and I think lots of small changes can make more difference than some think. Suppose everybody in the U.S. reduced his/her consumption by half or more in the next ten years? Bet we could. I know I could, though it would take some investment to do it. As petroleum-based energy gets more and more expensive, I’ll bet we’ll find the ways.

But I still think the oil prices we’re seeing has as much to do with Greenspan’s inflationary policies as anything else. It’s going to be painful for quite some while to disinflate, and everybody will overreact to that, but that’s what has to happen. In the meanwhile, if people find ways to use less energy, then that’s good.

 

[Doug50]

Sure people have been crying wolf about oil peaking but as the saying goes the wolf did finally show up and it’s not the same boy crying it.
Go here and double click on the photo/interview with Dr Robert Hirsch
abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20060710/default_full_mac.htm

Hirsch was commissioned by the DOE to do a study on oil peaking
netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf

Faith. I put my faith in God and the teachings of the Catholic Church. I don’t put it in human ingenuity to solve all problems. We are limited.

There’s a saying about fusion, it and oil will always be the energy of the future. There are PhDs with Nobel prizes in physics who don’t believe fusion will be solved in this century. Will the next generations mine the moon for helium 3?
No future for fusion power, says top scientist

Will the standard of living raise high enough to offset the cost of petroleum? For the typical US citizen or for those in developing countries? It doesn’t matter because the answer to both is “no”. And the reason is because cheap and abundant oil is what drove the economic expansion of the 20th century. That’s the gestalt view. Higher oil prices mean higher inflation rates but continued growth so long as supplies increases. Remember the 70s? If your oil supply stagnates you get stagflation – no economic growth but increasing prices. Just look at the US, it was a creditor nation loaning $s to other nations then oil in the US peak and went on decline. We’ve been a debtor nation since.

I’ve read that because the natural gas used is stranded (has no readily available market) the tar sands are economical to produce.
moneyweek.com/file/21765/are-canadian-tar-sands-the-answer-to-our-oil-needs.html
Restrictions on natural gas supply
Production of “oil” from the tar sands is a very energy-intensive process. Production estimates for 2025 are that the energy (name removed by moderator)ut will require between 1.6-2.3 billion cubic feet (bcf) of natural gas per day, approximately equal to the planned maximum capacity of the proposed Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline (1.9 bcf/d) out of northern Canada, or about one-fifth of anticipated daily Canadian gas production.
Pipelines or no, the energy requirements of the projects planned for tar sands development already exceed the amount of available natural gas from the entire Mackenzie River project. Virtually all estimates for natural gas usage in tar sands operations by 2015, just 10 years hence, exceed the projections for available amounts of natural gas. Something has got to give.

BTW natural gas in North America has peaked. We are now going after unconventional shale gas plays….and they’re huge but they’re expensive, slow recoveries. It may be possible to reverse the peak in gas production, at least for a time. The US uses 60 billion cubic feet of NG every day.

Petrus is only arguing for abstinence.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The problem is, we are not out of oil.

We have potentially huge reserves on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and off the coast of Florida – but the environmentalists won’t let us drill there. They can’t stop the Chinese, however, who are drilling off the coast of Florida with license from Cuba.

We have oil in the Arctic – and we can’t even do an up-to-date survey, thanks to the environmentalists.

If we produce the oil, we lack the refinery capacity. We haven’t built a refinery in about 30 years, thanks to the environmentalists.

We haven’t build a nuclear plant in 30 years, thanks to the environmentalists.

The US, which invented nuclear power, is about 17% nuclear. France is about 75% – and they have newer, safer reactors than we do.

 

[ribozyme]

The problem is, we are not out of oil.

We have potentially huge reserves on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and off the coast of Florida – but the environmentalists won’t let us drill there. They can’t stop the Chinese, however, who are drilling off the coast of Florida with license from Cuba.

We have oil in the Arctic – and we can’t even do an up-to-date survey, thanks to the environmentalists.

If we produce the oil, we lack the refinery capacity. We haven’t built a refinery in about 30 years, thanks to the environmentalists.

We haven’t build a nuclear plant in 30 years, thanks to the environmentalists.

The US, which invented nuclear power, is about 17% nuclear. France is about 75% – and they have newer, safer reactors than we do.

Do you have any evidence that it is solely to the environmentalists? I do not think the environmentalists are the only ones against nuclear power.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Do you have any evidence that it is solely to the environmentalists? I do not think the environmentalists are the only ones against nuclear power.

So tell us, who else is against nuclear power? And what are their arguments?

We are waiting with bated breath.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Zubrin in his book “Energy Victory” describes the fusion research program in some detail.

www.energyvictory.net

On pages 214ff, he writes about the fusion research budget … and how it was cut in 1986 and cut to pieces in 1995. For all practical purposes, in the United States fusion research has stopped.

There is a European effort, but they are apparently moving very slowly … the bureaucracy is having problems picking the color scheme for the road sign at the driveway entrance. Or finding a restaurant to meet for lunch.

 

[ribozyme]

So tell us, who else is against nuclear power? And what are their arguments?

We are waiting with bated breath.

It is not so much the stupidity of the elites, but the lobbies of big oil companies, who made sure that they get subsidies, while sabotaging alternative energy sources. The integral fast neutron reactor was an good invention, but as soon as its feasibility was demonstrated, its financing was immediately canceled because the anti-nuclear groups worried that this might encourage new interest in nuclear energy. The anti-nuclear groups are not the only simply the environmentalists: the oil companies are also included, and paradoxically, the uranium mining industry also does not like the fast neutron breeders like the molten salt reactor, because this would mean that since the long term byproducts of the fission are burned as extra fuel, only 1 % to 1.5 % of the usual uranium fuel would be needed (this is more than 60 times more fuel efficient.) This would be a disaster for uranium miners. The coal miners also don’t like it for obvious reasons. So it is not the stupidity of politicians, but actually the special interest groups their lobbies who own the politicians

I do agree that generation IV reactors should be used… but over time, it is not sustainable in the long run. There is only a finite supply of available uranium (and it might not last for more than a few centuries.) Of course, uranium is not renewable as it is only produced during the r-process (during supernova explosions,) but it should stall for some time when fusion or solar power (it’s fusion too) becomes widely deployed.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I do agree that generation IV reactors should be used… but over time, it is not sustainable in the long run. There is only a finite supply of available uranium (and it might not last for more than a few centuries.) Of course, uranium is not renewable as it is only produced during the r-process (during supernova explosions,) but it should stall for some time when fusion or solar power (it’s fusion too) becomes widely deployed.

I love the part about the “Big Oil Companies” sabotaging nuclear power. (Dat ol’ debbil, “Big Oil.” ) Most “Big Oil Companies” are really energy companies, and are as interested in promoting nuclear power as anyone else.

As for only a few hundred years of nuclear fuel – let me point out that is longer than the Industrial Revolution has lasted. Give us a few hundred years of nuclear power, and we will have developed alternatives.

Choke off our access to oil (as the environmentalists have), prevent us from building nuclear power plants, and we will starve to death long before then.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Viscerally, I don’t go wild for nuclear or for the waste of petroleum that goes on.

But I am also troubled a lot when environmentalists oppose, and with quite a degree of success, just about every measure that could increase the energy supply. I won’t quibble with those who claim “Big Oil” also joins in preventing nuke plants, though I have not seen any evidence of it. But indisputably, “Big Oil” does not oppose exploration in the arctic, off the Pacific coast or the eastern Gulf Coast. The arguments are always environmental, joined by a chorus of people of the same stripe, saying it won’t help enough anyway (without knowing. The proof is in the result).
Same thing with refineries. Can’t do them either, and that’s not the sort of thing “Big Oil” would have a problem with.
So, I suspect blaming “Big Oil” for the lack of nuke plants is misplaced.

What really bothers me a lot, though, is that practically all my life I have heard this doomsday prediction or that one, and somehow it always comes around to population control. Need to push birth control, or abortion, or condoms or family limitation in some way. It’s always that.

I’m not paranoid enough to believe that, e.g., the Club of Rome or the Bilderbergers or some such outfit tells all its agents to go out and push population reduction. But after a lifetime of hearing this stuff, even when population in many parts of the world is very close to major reduction, it does make me wonder what the promotors of global doomsday scenarios are really pushing. Is it to discredit the Church; to make everybody believe the Church is hardhearted and will cause them to starve? Is it to encourage us to think the Church is just irrelevant to modern practical problems?

When those predictions turn out to be wrong, time after time, and yet come back to life like Dracula even so, and particularly when a stable state of technology is always assumed in the scenarios, I can’t help but wonder.