Did you know Americans spend $200,000 per minute on foreign oil? Did you know that 50% of that goes to the Arab world? Did you know that we are currently using 12 billion barrels of oil a year more than we are finding? NRDC has a really good in depth article, recommended reading for all.

http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/aoilpolicy2.asp

A very interesting read, thanks Timber. Conspiracy theories aside, I doubt that reducing US oil needs will ever happen in the near future due to the vested oil interests...

Fascinating paragraph, near the end of the article, on non-Arab U.S. oil suppliers:

I'd no idea that Venezuela supplied so much oil to the US, and I lived there for over a year!

*edit* Asked a stupid question which I answered myself 30 secs after posting :D

[ 11-01-2004, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: aleph_null1 ]

<font color = lightgreen>This is why we need to have a two-fold strategy for freeing ourselves from any sort of foreign control. 1) Open up any and all possible offshore locations for oil exploration, as well as locations in Alaska, regardless of current wildlife status. 2) Find ways to make hybrid fuel-cell cars more attractive to people (I plan on buying one the next time we go to purchase a car).
It is only because those in power in the Middle East like American money so much that we haven't seen another "oil crisis" like what happened in the late 70s.</font>

Disagree on opening up US offshore locations and Alaska. The US has 23 billion barrels of known reserves, Alaska would only add 7-8 billion. This is really a drop in the bucket, and makes almost no difference. The solution is greater efficiency (incl. hybrid) and carrying through on the types of new technology we have available.

At 23 billion barrels reserves, 31 billion counting Alaska, and based on our 10 million barrel/day usage, the US will have enough reserves to guarantee our own oil supply for 6.3-8.4 years in the event of an emergency. If the spigot from Arab nations is shut off for some reason, forcing us to adapt or go take their oil from them by force, 6.3-8.4 years of reserves is the least I'm comfortable with. No, we should not use these reserves -- it's a dire national security need. We should build what is needed to be poised and ready to tap these reserves quickly and at a moment's notice, but we should not let our US companies' desire for a quick buck let us make a stupid decision about national security.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
[qb] Disagree on opening up US offshore locations and Alaska. The US has 23 billion barrels of known reserves, Alaska would only add 7-8 billion. This is really a drop in the bucket, and makes almost no difference. The solution is greater efficiency (incl. hybrid) and carrying through on the types of new technology we have available.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">Kind of overlooking the obvious aren't you? If you don't look for it, you won't find it...as in, the Exploration is needed to find out what the reserves really are...that figure you quote is a low ball guess based only whats already been explored....the high estimate is over 100 billion barrels....at least be intellectually honest in your debates on the issue dude.
</font>


At 23 billion barrels reserves, 31 billion counting Alaska, and based on our 10 million barrel/day usage, the US will have enough reserves to guarantee our own oil supply for 6.3-8.4 years in the event of an emergency. If the spigot from Arab nations is shut off for some reason, forcing us to adapt or go take their oil from them by force, 6.3-8.4 years of reserves is the least I'm comfortable with. No, we should not use these reserves -- it's a dire national security need. We should build what is needed to be poised and ready to tap these reserves quickly and at a moment's notice, but we should not let our US companies' desire for a quick buck let us make a stupid decision about national security.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">If Bush opened up the US strategic oil reserves, it would bust the price of oil...right now Oil is near $50 a barrel not because of lack of oil....but because of massive hoarding and stock piling by Nations like China and the USA but also because of a Massive surge in commoditites speculation....if Bush dumped oil the price per barrel would deflate rather dramaticly. Its a Wall Street thing guys. (Clinton did thate same thing and hwile it had nearly no effect on gas prices...it did cause the price per barrel of oil to be slashed nearly in half at the time.)</font>

[ 11-02-2004, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Actually, I believe President Bush released oil from the Strategic Reserve in March of this year to try and hold down prices.

The biggest problem is simply a lack of alternatives though. Hybrid cars are nice, but really only another drop in the ocean. I can't see any other solution than nuclear power at the moment, but apparently it's not too popular in the US. Above all, we need to stop squabbling over where to locate the new Fusion plant and get it up and running. If we can get that working, our energy problems are over.

MagiK, you may hint at vast oil reserves sitting under the pristine wilderness, but I've not seen anyone other than you alleging facts to back that up. Additionally, I feel pretty certain exploration is occuring in Alaska already -- but not all exploration is intrusive in nature. If we knew we had 100 billion barrels more, for certain, then maybe we could open up some. I'm not foreclosing that possibility. Of course, rather than 6 to 8 years of spare oil on hand, wouldn't it be nice to have 10 or 12? True security.

Shamrock, hybrid cars, even the new SUV lines, increase fuel efficiency by 50-75%. Over all of America, that would be HUGE. It would also satisfy completely our commitments under Kyoto, as an added bonus, without any harm to industry. ;)

The problem with Nuclear power is that it is not economically viable and must be subsidized. A Nuclear plant is the only kind of plant that costs more to build and maintain than you can sell the energy for. Nuke plants are completely codependent on the gummint and cannot ever make money in any sort of free market.

Ah, I hadn't realised that cars took up such a large proportion of pollution. I mean, I knew it was big, but compared to industry and the generation of power I thought that it was fairly insignificant. I stand corrected [img]smile.gif[/img]

That's true, but only because the free market doesn't allocate costs correctly in cases like this. I would have a guess that if the true cost (including environmental damage) of a coal power station were known, then the subsidies given to support nuclear power would probably look quite reasonable in comparison...