Breaking the Oil Chain

[Timber Loftis]

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

[shamrock_uk]

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...

[aleph_null1]

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

Or Venezuela: The United States receives 13 percent of its daily oil imports from Venezuela, slightly less than our imports from Saudi Arabia. ... More recently, Chavez suddenly increased taxes on foreign oil producers from one percent to 17 percent, claiming that "We are no longer going to give away our oil." Venezuela produces 2.99 million barrels of oil per day and holds 6.8 percent of the world's proven oil reserves.

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

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

[Azred]

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.

[Timber Loftis]

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.

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.



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.

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.)

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

[shamrock_uk]

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.

[Timber Loftis]

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.

[shamrock_uk]

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...

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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. Nope you mischaracterize what Im saying. IM saying neither YOU nor I nor any one else knows whats there because the greenies won't let them go look. If we found out for sure what was there then the debate could be more accurately held and everyone would have hard data to work with, instead of wild speculations. 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. You haven't addressed how to meet the electrical demands this would cost...new power plants and electrical generation systems would have to be built, increased infrastructure to carry the increased laods, and the oil would still be burned to produce the electricit...Hybrids and Electric cars are not yet an answer to oil dependance...you over look the costs just like they did with the Gasohol...it the sheer scale and quantity was not scrutinized in the cost/benefit calculations. 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. The problem with Nuclear power is that it has waste products, however newer nuclear technologies, such as the Pebblebed reacotrs pioneered by American companies in South Africa show great promise for increasing Plant safety by huge amounts while enabling the handlingof the waste material more safely....however...you still end up with waste material.