Posted on 09/02/2005 5:44:37 AM PDT by Herosmith
WASHINGTON — The United States has an oil reserve at least three times that of Saudi Arabia locked in oil-shale deposits beneath federal land in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, according to a study released yesterday.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
Dear HamiltonJay,
"I wouldn't get my panties in a bunch over it, ANWR production estimates would near completely replace current Saudi and Iraq supplies to the US for a period of 10 years on the mean. Now they say 7 years to tap, but if it got into a dire situation, believe me, it would be up and running far faster than 7 years."
Heck, maybe even only five years.
So, we have only five years of crisis. LOL.
However, ANWR ain't gonna do it. The problem is that it IS a world market, and the Saudis and Iraqis provide oil to more than just the US. Their decline (and that of other exporting countries that may be near "peak oil") will be a whole lot more than ANWR is going to provide.
In the meanwhile, if it takes another 30 - 50 years to get to "peak oil" in these places, then we're all treated to another 1/3 to 1/2 century of the instability of our foreign (and to some degree, domestic) policy, to having to manage crises with these nations (because we will have no choice - they will be too important to just ignore), and having to spend our blood and treasure to preserve order in these regions.
Let's face it, Saddam without oil over the last quarter century, next door to an oiless-Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, would have been little more than the equivalent of one of those warlords in Somalia. He'd have had a couple of jeeps and some AK-47s with which to invade Kuwait, although lacking the motivation of her oilfields.
"Not to mention, there are existing oil rigs in the continental united states already hooked up and could be turned on quickly.. but its currently cheaper and more efficient to just buy it from overseas."
Even at $50, $60, $70 per barrel? Heck, if they can be turned on that quickly, oil's been over $40 per barrel for over a year - why not turn 'em all on and make some dough?
I'm not sure they'd generate a million or two or three barrels per day.
No, what I see is that producers are straining to meet demand. Worldwide. And in our country, where there's plenty of oil to be produced if the price holds steady at perhaps $35 - $40 per barrel, no one's going to take the dive if prices oscillate between $20 and $70.
"We aren't there yet, all that is going on is a bubble in oil futures, its going to pop, and its going to be ugly when it does, and the folks who irrationally drove it up, will likely drive off in their sportscars leaving grandma and grandpa holding the bag, just like the last investment bubble."
Actually, I agree with you. As far as I can see, the last $20 - $25 per barrel of the current $70 per barrel is the result of FUD. And a lot of folks who are speculating may get their hands burned very badly.
In the meanwhile, we continue to operate with this inherently unstable system of procuring 60% of our oil, we continue to have periodic oil shocks, three of which have been causative factors in three of the last four recessions, and our foreign policy continues to be distorted by the fact that we have to deal with what are essentially failed states because they have lots of hydrocarbons under the ground directly beneath them.
I'm just looking at the alternatives to our current circumstances.
sitetest
LOL.
There is always a bad apple in every barrel.
I don't believe that the operation of the markets is the only yardstick by which to judge governmental, social, and economic decisions.
Nor do I, nor have I indicated that. The topic however is concerned with the markets.
However, I wonder whether this is a place where those generalitities might not apply so well.
That is always the rub. Markets work and are acceptable until they are inconvenient or politically unpopular. Then all of a sudden the judgment of the few is better than the judgment of the many. And force replaces voluntary arrangements which are mutually acceptable.
I'm in favor of freedom. I'm in favor of rights, property rights, free markets, small unintrusive government which defends the rights of it's citizens and otherwise leaves them alone. I'm in favor of individual liberty and personal responsibility, on all issues, everywhere and always.
In short, I oppose whacko communists and other busybodies who favor violent force be used to achieve a criminally insane redistrubtion of wealth.
Didn't know this was old news.
OK, I read popular science & popular mechanics as a kid. I must be real geeky to have known about oil shale fields at ten years old.
Shouldn't be a problem. The days of Liberal Democratic control are over. The Republicans control the House, Senate and Presidency.
LMAO!
Dear Protagoras,
" There is always a bad apple in every barrel."
LOL. Well, I always liked Mr. Hamilton.
Nonetheless, the point was that moderately protectionist tariffs have been used by the federal government as early as the 1790s.
"Nor do I, nor have I indicated that. The topic however is concerned with the markets."
Well, actually, I've been trying to expand the conversation beyond what is strictly about the market, to try to include the effects on our foreign and domestic policies. The topics all are interrelated, so certainly, the markets, the economy are part of the discussion.
"That is always the rub. Markets work and are acceptable until they are inconvenient or politically unpopular. Then all of a sudden the judgment of the few is better than the judgment of the many. And force replaces voluntary arrangements which are mutually acceptable."
Well, in a republican democracy, one hopes that decisions by the legislature, and backed by the executive, have some support among the people, so, I'm not sure, necessarily, that it's quite a matter of substituting the judgment of the few for the many.
There are certain sorts of decisions that can't be made individually. Tax and tariff policies are inherently policies that must be decided upon and implemented by governments. I can't individually choose to favor domestically-produced energy through a tariff. If most Americans favor that policy (and I'd be willing to bet that most Americans WOULD favor that policy), then the policy can only be implemented with government action.
That would actually be the judgment of the many, through representative democratic means. I'm sure, though, that there would always be a few (the minority) whose judgment would differ.
As for "force replacing voluntary agreement," well, part of the nature of government is that it is coercive, certainly.
sitetest
Yes.
At about $5.00 per gallon.
But then the evironmentalist wackos will kill that one too - just like the North Slope project which would produce cheaper fuel.
Before that $5/barrel oils get to us, there are lot's of additional costs:
Transportation - It should cost much less to move it from Montana vs. Saudi Arabia
Security/Military - We spend bundles of money on the Middle East that wouldn't be necessary should we not need their oil
Mark-up - The Saudi's make lots of money off us. Money that would be much better in some American's pocket.
Foreign Aid - We pay a lot of money (basically bribes) to help these governments. If we don't need their oil, we can tell them to pound sand (with which they are also blessed)
I'm sure there are others.
I suppose we all are, but then there is reality. What do we actually have and is there even a ghost of a chance of implementing Galt's Gulch?
Those are valid factors. With pipelines the transportation costs including ports will be about as close to zero as they can be.
You can hope that, but further examination would prove very disappointing to your hopes.
The decisions are made by politicians who are for sale to the highest bidder. Either for votes (exchange other peoples rights and money for power)or outright cash, like here in Chicago.
Unelected bureaucrats make the decisions for everyone else. The few making decisions for the many.
We live in a society where government thugs give subsidies to some and punishing tariffs and taxes and regulations to others depending on where the most power can be garnered.
Ethanol is a net energy loser, but farm states make lots of money from the subsidies and the votes there are essential to national politics. Unions control votes, the rest of us are forced to cow to them. There are tons of examples.
if the days of liberal democratic control are over, then how come we had so much trouble with all that filibuster "nuclear option" nonsense and Bolton's confirmation? A few bad apples still can cause a major mess. Hopefully, they'll be politicians enough to realize their re-election rides on their support of an initiative such as this, and their thirst for power and scrambling for what little influence they have left will overcome their normal anti-american bent and they'll keep their mouths shut for a change.
That was really smart of you to be interested in science.
That was only when I wasn't rcing go-karts or running my lawn mowing business. BTW, I got crappy grades because I refused to do homework, but got very high grades on tests. I infuriated my teachers & parents.
Do you disagree with the peak oil hypothesis?
Dear Protagoras,
Well, although I may admit that every one of your examples has at least some validity, nonetheless, on the whole, I'm a little more optimistic about our republican democracy.
I know folks who can detail the faults of representative democracy in exquisitely painful detail. Of course, then, those details tend to work against the notion that representative democracy is a good idea, at all.
Every problem you mention finds its roots in the essential difficulty of government. In fact, I'd say that the root of all these problems is ultimately original sin. Not having a cure for its effects in this life that can be easily applied to society at large, I think we're just stuck with muddling through as best as we can.
In any event, I'd be willing to bet that a tariff imposed on foreign energy, to provide a sufficiently-profitable environment for expanded domestic energy production, would gather majority support in the United States today.
That was sorta part of my original question on this thread, anyway.
I'm also confident that without majority support of the idea, it's far too controversial to be passed. It would be so controversial, I'm not sure it would pass WITH majority support of Americans.
sitetest
True, but this report was just recently released perhaps spurning renewed interest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.