Bill:

I really appreciate your post. I have a hard time buying most of it. The basic premise that we are burning oil faster than we are discovering it is well taken, and the above mention that one of the Oil Major's 'suddenly' discovered that its reserves weren't as great as thought also gives one pause.

But I don't see a change in the structure of the economy coming out of this. Our economy (supply and demand, capital investment, time value of money) existed prior to the petrochemical age and is much more fundamental than it.

Rather, as stated convincingly above, we are NOT going to run out of oil, we are going to run out of CHEAP oil. The very economy in which we exist is helping us to define our terms and guiding us as we proceed through new events. Marrying well entrenched economic concepts of value with technological developments of solar, wind, hydro, nuclear will give us a way to evaluate the risk/ reward associated with alternative power sources and fuels.

This is no rosy scenario, and I am not saying: "Have no fear, the capitalist system will save us." That would be nonsense. Anyone who lived through the Tulip Craze, the Great Depression, and the High Tch Bubble, is well aware that people in groups can behave much more stupidly than any one person. Many believe we are doing that now, by not having a national program to face this very issue.

But the lines in your post about the abondonment of the 'work ethic' make no sense. Someone is advancing some weird agenda there and the groundwork for it is not included. It reminds me of the kind of stuff Marxist theorists used to advance. Good for a master's degree and a radio spot. Utterly without meaning otherwise.

Getting back to the world we find ourselves in, one thing that occurs to me again and again is that a great deal of fuel is used by the airline industry. Should the cost of fuel go up, I think we'd see a lot less flying, and a lot more train usage. Trains are much more efficient (The most efficient way to move loads on the planet, according to a 70's era Scientific America - bicycles came second). So, as energy costs go up, I think we would see more railroad development, purchases of fewer and smaller cars, larger and slower ocean liners, more nuclear reactors.

My point is that far from apocalyptical predictions of the end of "the world as we know it" we are faced with the fact that once again we are living in the good old days. Some things are going to cost more, new things will arise. Fewer business trips and way more on-line conferencing (which the oil company I knew best was getting into, anyway). People moving less far from home and vacationing via rail and ship. Warfare by cheap expendable lightweight robots. Space exploration by same (sigh).

Some other points you raise speak to my fears. I approve of some of what W has done, but as I mention above, I question his leadership and whether he 'gets it' meaning the new orientation that the world is taking around us. I felt that Clinton 'got it'.

Once again, this is where a real leader can be a real help. Lead the country into a competition towards efficiency. Spearhead technological research such as getting sulfur out of dirty coal, then sell that technology abroad. And pay attention to the needs of the state and preserve old railroad rights of way, 'cause we're gonna need 'em again.

It is way too early to make value judgements on the proposed re-positioning of 70,000 US Troops. There just isn't enough information. I don't think it is related to world oil.

Get It?

Robo