Agreed.

And at a fundamental level both sides agree on this point, the eventual evolution of our energy base.

The key difference being, one side want to force the issue by shutting off our existing supply, forcing us to innovate in a climate of desperation,economic collapse and government control and subsidy.

The other side want to drill our way to a few decades of an oil glut, (or possibly a century) and at the same time develop new energy sources in a climate of prosperity and free-market based innovation.

that’s right; with sensible energy policies there is no energy problem at all; with sensible policies, we can get rid of all sorts of resource scarcity problems unrelated to energy … but none of it will happen if we don’t get smart about markets, and we haven’t been smart for quite some time now

Regardless, these estimates have questionable significance as there is a vast amount of unexplored territory. With a lifting of the bans we could see our proven reserves increase dramatically, as many in the industry believe. The other factor that renders these estimates nearly meaningless is the suspicion that OPEC states are over-reporting their reserves as this allows them to pump more under their own guidelines.

ProgM said: “correct .. but China and India are growing; the future is not about oil.”

Yes they are growing, though it is doubtful they can continue to grow at the current rate. Regardless, it is irrelevant as oil production has increased at an even higher rate, and this is with US production all but shut down. Open the taps by drilling and the supply will easily outstrip the most bullish estimates on growth.

And you say the “future is not about oil.” What future, 10 years? 30 years? 100 years? With the extent of unknown reserves a wild card no-one can accurately predict this. Add in the full use of Oil Sands and Shale and the “future” is certain to involve oil for the next 100 to 200 years, based upon known reserves alone. Also one must factor in the unknown future development of realistic “alternatives” such as nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, hydrogen and lets not forget our abundant coal. As these develop and come on line, the proven reserves are could last 1,000 years or more. With a sensible energy policy we will have an oil glut for at least the next couple of centuries.

Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) — Senator Jim Bunning said Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, by rescuing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is acting like China’s finance minister and both Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke should step down.

“I sincerely believe that Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke should resign,” said Bunning, a Republican from Kentucky on the Senate Banking Committee. “They have taken the free market out of the free market.”

Paulson and the federal regulator for Fannie and Freddie placed the two largest U.S. mortgage-finance companies in a government-operated conservatorship on Sept. 7, ousting their chief executives and eliminating their dividends. Treasury also may purchase up to $200 billion of stock in the firms to keep them solvent.

“We no longer have a free market in the United States, we have a government controlled free market,” Bunning said in an interview. Paulson, a former chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs Group Inc., “is acting like the minister of finance in China.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=alpUsTv3.upI&refer=home

Senator Bunning is right about government-controlled but he’s wrong about free …

you need to move the decimal point; we have about 1.6% of proven reserves by conventional measurements (CIA)

As far as China, India and the whole demand fallacy, do a bit of research, you will find that while demand has increased, supply has increased as well, more than the demand, thus supply and demand does not explain the high prices.

correct .. but China and India are growing; the future is not about oil