>>"Actually, it is you who should be embarrassed as you have "shown" nothing of the sort. The "peak" you are referring to in the U.S. has nothing to do with how much oil is in the ground either in the U.S. or the world."<<

You are a confused little puppy aren't you, Dan? I have shown you several facts which you seem to have confused. One of them is that oil production in the US peaked about 1970 as Hubbert predicted in the 50's. That peak has everything to do with how much oil is in the ground in the US and only a complete fool would deny this fact. A massive drilling boom in the late 70's and early 1980's had almost no effect on the declining US production and the current boom will also have no effect. US oil production will continue its inevitable decline.

The reason Hubbert predicted the US peak in 1970 was because discoveries seem to have peaked in the 50's while giant field discoveries had peaked even earlier. The production peak should lag the discovery peak by decades which is exactly what happened.

I gave you this graph which shows the worldwide oil discovery rate which peaked in the mid- 60's:

planetforlife.com/oilcrisis...ation.html

Giant field discoveries peaked even earlier, just like we saw with the US. This is simply undeniable historical data, Dan. This is data that you choose to ignore, forget, and try to pretend does not exist. The rate of oil discoveries has declined and continues to decline worldwide. The fact that there are new discoveries every year, does not change the fact that there are fewer discoveries than in the past. From a mathmatical standpoint, once the discovery rate peaks, the oil production rate must also peak; the only question is exactly when the peak will occur; something that will also be influenced by how much oil we are using.

In this light, your statement; "Neighboring countries who are drilling in waters adjacent to ours are finding massive oil deposits. This is evidence that massive oil awaits our discovery in deep wells off our coasts and in the gulf." simply displays your ignorance. Quite a bit of exploration off our coasts and in the gulf has been done already. There have actually been many new discoveries in the deep water Gulf of Mexico and in the "sub-salt" section of the Gulf of Mexico that has opened up much potential area to explore. Many offshore California fields have been found and more drilling would surely find many more. Exploration off the Atlantic coast has not been successful, except in Canada where several fields have been found. There is a chance more drilling off the Atlantic coast will find oil, but this does not really look like a good bet at this time. There are hot new exploration plays taking off now in the Rocky mountain region where there have been several significant discoveries opening up new exploration plays. No matter how successful any or all of this exploration may be- it won't reverse the US production decline. Part of the reason for this is that all of these new exploration plays are extremely expensive and time consuming and there is only so much the oil industry as a whole can afford to expend on exploration in any given year. The other part is that most of the really big fields have been found- the cheap and easy oil has already been found and this cheap and easy oil accounts for something like 2/3 of our current production.

>>"I am not concerned about the "near future"."<<

The near future is all that matters in terms of current supply/demand and oil price.

>>"I am not naive enough to believe that wind power and sun power are going to sustain our economy in the future"<<

But you are naive enough to believe there is essentially an endless supply of oil.

If the money we have wasted in Iraq had been put to use trying to establish alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power, we might already be energy independent. One massive solar array spread over some relatively small part of the Nevada desert, for example could theoretically supply the power needs of the entire US electrical grid.

You might find this article interesting:

www.power-technology.com/proje...solar/

It suggests .1% of Nevada's land, put into solar arrays could supply all the state's energy needs at a cost of "as little as 7 cents/kWh, better than new fossil and nuclear plants." They have a small plant now that "generates enough electricity to power 40,000 households during the day, generating electricity at a competitive 9–13 cents per kWh." Mass production would lower the cost.

Also, solar energy technology is advancing. My brother-in-law is involved in developing a new solar panel that is 30% efficient; more than double anything commercially available. This technology will soon go into production and will first be used by power companies to build more solar power plants.

There is a wind power boom right now in the area where I live; West Texas. Giant wind turbines have popped up all over the place. If you drive west from Abilene, you will see hundreds of them... not as many as you see oil pumpjacks, but they are more noticeable. The wind rights in West Texas are quickly becoming as valuable as the oil rights and many ranchers out here are cashing in.

It is far past the time for this country to agressively pursue energy independence through alternative energy. We should have begun when US oil production hit its peak in 1970 and we would be far better off now. It is not too late to start and the fact is that the technology is already there for the most part- what is lacking is the political will to do what is needed.