Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can We Do Without Saudi Oil?
The Weekly Standard ^ | 11/19/2001 | Irwin M. Stelzer

Posted on 11/10/2001 4:44:11 PM PST by Pokey78

Alas, no.

SO NOW WE KNOW: The Saudi Arabian regime is no friend of ours. Sure, they sell us oil and tell us that they keep the OPEC cartel from pushing prices through the roof. But their refusal to go along with OPEC price hawks is self-serving. They have huge wealth stashed away in investments here and in other Western countries, which means that they don't want oil prices to go so high as to trigger a serious recession that would depreciate the value of those investments.

So the Saudis grumble when oil prices hit a "low" of $20 but keep selling the oil that costs them somewhere between $2 and $5 per barrel to find and produce. And they worry that even that level of exploitation of the world's consumers--a profit of $15 per barrel isn't exactly chopped liver--is not enough to support the lifestyles of thousands of indolent princes, while at the same time continuing to bribe the country's work-averse young masses with the free telephones, water, almost-free gasoline, and other goodies that keep them from overthrowing the monarchy. Saudi Arabia's budget, which counts on oil exports for 70 percent of its revenues, will be in deficit this year, in good part because of princely payments to the royal family and handouts to the restless and unemployable Ph.D.s in Islamic studies being churned out by the nation's religious schools.

As Prince Bandar, the kingdom's ambassador to the United States, pointed out in an unguarded moment--of which he has very few--when a democracy's leaders lose touch with the people, they lose their jobs; when a monarchy's leaders lose touch with their subjects, they lose their heads. Which is why the royal family (numbering by some estimates as few as 7,000, by others as many as 30,000) got so nervous when Sheikh Hamoud al-Shuaibi, a Saudi cleric, seemed to include the royals in his recent declaration of a holy war against "whoever supports the infidel"--a category that might well include a regime that allows American soldiers to be stationed in Saudi Arabia, even if they are there to protect the country from being overrun by Iraq.

And which is why, as a number of devastating articles in the weeks since September 11 have made clear, the rulers of this land that sits atop 25 percent of the world's proven reserves of oil have been playing a double game. Even as the Saudi regime has accepted American protection and nurtured its longstanding relationship with Washington, it has also been playing footsie with the organization that murdered thousands of Americans in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

This means that when we finish with our work in Afghanistan, if we take seriously George W. Bush's pledge to root out those who harbor terrorists or support them in any way, we will eventually have to decide what to do about Saudi Arabia. We will have to take seriously Crown Prince Abdullah's August letter to President Bush, in which the Saudi ruler wrote that "a time comes when peoples and nations part. . . . It is time for the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to look at their separate interests." Great idea.



BUT WHAT ABOUT that oil? If push comes to shove can we do without it? Not a chance. America consumes almost 19 million barrels of oil every day, and produces fewer than 8 million. The balance comes from overseas suppliers, with Canada and Saudi Arabia each providing some 15 percent of our imports, Venezuela 14 percent, Mexico 11 percent, Nigeria about 8 percent, and Iraq about 6 percent.

We are, it should be noted, dependent not only on those countries from which we buy oil directly. Oil is a fungible product, and a shutdown of production in any country, even one from which we buy little oil, will affect the price we pay our own suppliers.

To say that not all of the nations on which we rely are exactly friendly to the United States is an understatement. The Saudis can be counted on so long as the regime in place is one that needs the money from oil sales. But it is not clear that the valves would remain open were bin Laden's crowd, or its equivalent, to take over. To those folks, cash would be less attractive than injuring the United States: They seem, for instance, to prefer caves to palaces. We know that Iraq, second to Saudi Arabia with almost 11 percent of the world's known oil reserves, wishes us ill, and periodically manipulates production to raise prices. Venezuela, which ranks with the Saudis in importance as a source of our imported oil, is run by a president whose hero is Fidel Castro, who is dedicated to bringing down "Western imperialism," and whose support of bin Laden is so overt that Washington has been compelled to recall our ambassador "for consultations."

When we look further down the ranking of countries blessed with significant reserves, we find that Iraq is followed by the United Arab Emirates and by perhaps the world's most famous ingrate, Kuwait, each with a bit more than 9 percent of the world's known reserves. We have less than 3 percent of the world's known reserves, about the same portion as neighboring Mexico. Canada, although rich in natural gas, has relatively small known reserves of oil that are economically recoverable at anything like current prices. Russia, the new "hot" area for oil exploration, has substantial reserves and, with large-scale investment, can significantly expand its production. But lacking sufficient pipeline capacity, Russia can't increase exports significantly before several billions are spent and at least five years pass. Besides, it is not unreasonable to question the wisdom of developing a new energy policy that markedly increases our reliance on a country that has yet to establish itself as a reliable geopolitical partner.

Even these figures understate our dependence on the Saudis. Enough oil is known to exist in the United States to maintain current production levels for about 10 years, and in Canada for about 8 years; the Saudis can tap their reserves for over 80 years without slowing output. There is worse: It is well known that the Saudis haven't really attempted to explore for new reserves because they already know precisely where some 260 billion barrels are located. "You don't plant potatoes when you have a cellar full of spuds," a grizzled denizen of America's oil patch once told me. Not only are the Saudis sitting on the world's largest known reserves, they are also the only country with existing excess capacity, and therefore the only country in a position to increase production quickly should some other supplier withdraw from the market or be knocked out of action.

In short, Saudi Arabia is and will remain the kingpin of the oil world, able to pump enough oil to satisfy America's thirst if it chooses. But should this regime come to believe that its survival requires unsheathing the oil weapon, or should a regime less wedded to cash flow come to power, supplies might be cut off. In the latter case, analysts would suddenly find themselves following the words of a bin Laden oil minister more closely than those of Alan Greenspan when they prepare their forecasts of the course of the American economy.



IN THE LONG RUN, then, if things continue as they have, we will increasingly be dependent on a shaky, despotic regime that uses the proceeds of its oil sales to support the gangs that aim to destroy us, and to educate its young to hate us, after skimming off enough to support its princes' penchant for yachts, women, and Johnny Walker Black Label. In a worse case, we will see our supplies controlled by a regime driven more by hatred than by greed.

This is not a new problem. Post World War II history is replete with efforts by administrations, Democratic and Republican, to free America from dependence on Saudi Arabia and its cartel colleagues. As I have noted in an essay for the Hudson Institute, when the Arabs first unsheathed the oil weapon in October 1973 in response to America's support of Israel during the Yom Kippur War, President Nixon responded: "Let us set as our national goal . . . that by the end of this decade we will have developed the potential to meet our own energy needs without depending on any foreign sources."

Not to be outdone by his predecessor, President Ford pursued the illusory goal of self-sufficiency by attacking both the supply side--encouraging greater use of coal and providing greater incentives for domestic exploration--and the demand side (auto fuel efficiency standards), while at the same time creating a Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a buffer against another shortage.

Jimmy Carter proved that failure to craft a successful "energy policy" is bipartisan. He created the Department of Energy to wage what he unfortunately termed "the moral equivalent of war" (which quickly became known by its acronym, MEOW, and didn't strike terror into the hearts of OPEC). The usual mix of supply-side subsidies and demand-side constraints followed, notwithstanding the failure of such efforts in the past, as President Carter appeared, sweater-clad, to urge Americans to shiver a bit more in the winter and sweat a bit more in the summer--and to do without hot water in federal facilities such as the restrooms of airports.

By the end of the 1980s, we were more dependent on imported oil than ever before. So George Bush the elder decided to meet the threat to our oil supplies created by Saddam Hussein's march into Kuwait en route to Saudi Arabia in a more direct fashion. He sent half a million troops and several aircraft carriers to the Gulf to defend a corrupt, despotic regime in which we would have no interest were it not sitting atop a large pool of oil (100 million barrels already found, much more awaiting exploration), and athwart the road to Saudi Arabia.

And there things have stood, with only trivial changes in U.S. policy in the decade since. The new Bush administration's attempt to develop an energy policy turns out to be, like many before it, a stew concocted to please pressure groups from the nuclear, oil, and coal industries, with side dishes to delight supporters of energy from renewable if not terribly reliable sources such as the wind and the sun. It is perhaps best described by the line attributed to that great philosopher Yogi Berra: "I came to a fork in the road, and I took it."

The best that can be said for this latest grand scheme for America's energy future is that it was developed before the terror attack on America made business as usual in oil markets more risky even than before. Now we know that it would be imprudent in the extreme to assume that the Saudi royal family will remain in Riyadh, rather than pulling up stakes and moving to the South of France and to London's Dorchester Hotel on a permanent, year-round basis. This introduces a further degree of uncertainty into an energy supply situation in which we are already in perpetual danger of a sudden cut-off of crucial oil. The unfortunate fact is that God saw fit to put the oil in places run by a lot of people who just don't like us.

In the post-September 11 world, we can forget about all of the subsidies the administration's plan would provide to increase electricity production. The market reaction to the short-term California shortage last summer--enough new capacity to produce a glut of electricity and a price collapse--shows that this is an area the government had best leave to the market. Besides, few generating plants any longer rely on oil as a fuel. The supply of natural gas can also be left to market forces: It is extraordinarily responsive to price changes, as the spurt in drilling when prices rose clearly demonstrates.

Oil is where the rubber hits the road in terms of national security. As far ahead as we can see, it is oil, refined into gasoline, that will keep the wheels of the economy turning. Nuclear can substitute for coal, and natural gas for both and for oil in stationary uses--like power generators--but it's safe to assume that engines that run on something other than gasoline will not be significant for a good long while. And this irreplaceable gasoline accounts for about 45 percent of all our oil consumption.

Those who think that we can reduce our dependence on the Saudi royals should think again. Sure, it is a good idea to increase the pace at which we develop our own reserves. But consider the possible contribution of the much-contested Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The best guess is that there are some 10.3 billion barrels of reserves to be had there and in abutting state and native lands, of which the pessimists guess about 4 billion are recoverable at today's prices, a figure that optimists would double. Applying a variety of rule-of-thumb estimates about how much can be produced and shipped in any year from a field that size, Howard Gruenspecht, resident scholar at Resources for the Future, estimates that at prices of around $20 per barrel we would get maybe one million barrels per day from ANWR. And that won't be until somewhere between 2010 and 2020, even if Congress acts promptly to open the area to drilling. By then, our consumption of oil, now running at about 19 million barrels daily, will have increased by a good bit more than what we will be getting from ANWR.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do all that we can, consistent with a market-based environmental policy, to increase domestic production. And we should of course diversify our supply sources, especially if we can persuade neighboring Mexico to allow us to invest in its oil industry, which is now a state-run morass so short of capital that it has allowed its known reserves to fall in half in the past decade.

But in the end, there is almost nothing that we can do on the supply side that will enable us not to care about the future of Saudi Arabia. Nor is there much relief in prospect on the demand side. Gruenspecht, who has more data about the oil demand and supply situation at his fingertips than any other expert, has run through some interesting calculations about the savings to be had by mandating tighter fuel efficiency standards, one of the centerpieces of any conservation program.

There are some 200 million cars and light trucks (the latter include SUVs, minivans, and pick-ups) on America's roads, with an average life of roughly 15 years. Vehicles seven years old or newer account for about half of all the vehicle miles traveled in any year. This means that eight years down the road, any tightening of standards now will still be affecting only half of the miles being driven. Only new vehicles, of which there are some 16 million produced in any year, would be subject to tighter efficiency standards, and not immediately, since those new standards would have to be phased in to give manufacturers time to adjust. Do some quick arithmetic and it turns out that a 25 percent increase in efficiency standards phased in over five years, now set at 27.5 miles for cars and 20.7 miles for light trucks, would, in a little over a decade, reduce consumption by a bit more than one million barrels per day. The full effect, which would not be felt until two decades from now, would be twice as large.

Throw into the policy mix Gruenspecht's pet program--auto insurance rates that reflect miles driven rather than being set without reference to how often you expose yourself and your vehicle to insured risk--and a 50 cent per gallon tax on gasoline, and you will reduce consumption immediately, but not by enough to change the hard fact of our dependence on Saudi oil. "It is hard to imagine that the world would be in good shape without Saudi Arabia," concludes Gruenspecht.

This leaves us with very few options. We can continue to ignore the Saudis' support of terrorists, and remain guarantors of the regime's survival, not abandoning it as we did the shah in Iran when the mullahs took over. We can, of course, throw in a bit of exhortation about democratic reforms, to which the response will undoubtedly be that such a path was what led the shah to his hasty exit. Asked some years ago what our energy policy is, I replied "aircraft carriers." That is as good a description as any of our present predicament. And it is about all we have to rely on at the moment.

It also leaves us with one overriding strategic imperative: We must make clear that in the event of an upheaval in Saudi Arabia, we will take control of, protect, and run the kingdom's oil fields, which American oil companies originally developed after paying substantial sums for the right to do so. This may be a difficult policy to defend in the post-imperialist era, but that doesn't make planning for this contingency any less necessary. Our State Department is creative; surely, if called upon, it would be able to figure out an arrangement for operating the oilfields that would safeguard our supply and win the blessing of a revenue-hungry regime with a stake in the continued flow of oil. And surely such a regime, if it did not exist, could be invented.

Before dismissing this as fantasy, consider that it is not very different from what we did in Kuwait, when we seized the oil fields from Saddam Hussein and put them in the hands of a friendly regime, one that remains dependent on us for its survival. In the end, we need the oil, they need the money, and, most of all, whoever is in power in these countries needs America to protect it from the Saddams and bin Ladens who are breathing down their necks.

We can do all the good things: increase domestic production, diversify sources of supply, finally learn how to set up an adequate Strategic Petroleum Reserve that does not discourage private companies from carrying inventories, and decrease our reliance on oil by conserving and pushing technologies that use fuels other than oil. Programs once deemed too costly to pursue might well make sense in this new era of heightened threats to our oil supplies.

But do all of these things, and we still end up with our future tied to Saudi oil. Unless, of course, we are willing, really willing, to pay the price of independence by raising and re-raising the price of oil, taxing imports and taxing them some more, until they are so expensive that we just don't import much oil, and are therefore free to set our foreign policy independent of coalitions that undermine our war on terrorism and seek to force us to abandon Israel to the tender mercies of Arafat and his Arab allies. Something around $5 per gallon should do the trick.



Irwin M. Stelzer is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, director of regulatory studies at the Hudson Institute, and a columnist for the Sunday Times (London).


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 221-226 next last
To: R W Reactionairy
Your are correct. The economy is slowing down, natural gas is once again the preferred boiler fuel and OPEC is cheating on quotas. What a short term oversupply doesn't translate to is an indication of anything long term.

I think I read on OILNEWS.COM that they cheat about 1.7 million barrels per day. That is 19 dollar oil. Imagine how much they would cheat for 30 dollar oil. They don't have the discipline to hold the coalition together and maintain high prices. When prices go up demand goes down pretty quickly and before long all the oil storage tanks get filled up and there is a glut, kind of like we have right now.

101 posted on 11/11/2001 5:55:12 AM PST by biblewonk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
If push comes to shove

If push comes to shove, it's All Over for the Mid-East.

102 posted on 11/11/2001 5:58:57 AM PST by lds23
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine
"What gives?"

If they are like my company, we could not react fast enough to recover the costs as they spiked upward literally within hours at one point.

Although I lowered the surcharge,to 2%, it will still take something like 6 months at current rates to recover the costs I absorbed when prices initially went up.

When most companies operate on less than 5% net profit, there is no room to eat any costs such as fuel, taxes, and the cost of regulation compliance. As usual, the consumer is the one who pays in the end.

103 posted on 11/11/2001 6:31:34 AM PST by wcbtinman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Let's just bomb the shi+ out of them and take it for free. The world would be better without the terrorist punks.
104 posted on 11/11/2001 6:49:20 AM PST by boycott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: David
I think Canada has more shale oil in Alberta than the Saudis have oil. In Australia an experimental plant running at 60% capacity is making a profit with oil prices around $30bbl. They have some environmental probs but think they'll overcome them soon.

I think this threat is what's keeping oil prices below $30.

105 posted on 11/11/2001 6:56:22 AM PST by anapikoros
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RichardW
Yes, indeedy, and all we need is to implement a centrally planned socialist economy to have all these nice things. Sorry, not buying it.
106 posted on 11/11/2001 7:38:58 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

Comment #107 Removed by Moderator

To: monkeyshine
Fed-Ex?
108 posted on 11/11/2001 8:05:08 AM PST by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred; razorback-bert; Carry_Okie; Teacher317; aruanan
"It is all about money and power though, not the good of the country."

That's exactly right, dear lady.
What puzzles me when this subject is broached is the passing attention to natural gas as if it's not important.
It is, in fact, the only thing that IS important!
We have enough natural gas deposits on the North American continent to be completely independent of foreign sources of energy.
We need to shift the focus from oil to natural gas.
There has been no widespread effort to advertise the advantages of natural gas, and it doesn't have public recognition as THE alternative energy supply.

I guess if the public weren't innundated with pictures on TV of government vehicles blowing up as the result of natural gas explosions, there would be more acceptance.
Sarcasm off.

109 posted on 11/11/2001 8:14:01 AM PST by COB1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #110 Removed by Moderator

To: Hamiltonian
gas-to-liquids (GTL) project.

There are several companies working on this sort of thing. Also, there are companies working on ways to upgrade heavy grades of crude oil into more useable grades.And there is at least one company that has developed an oil well pump designed for low producing wells like we have in the US. The new pumps can pump from these wells at a cost competitive with the current price of oil, and get many wells in the us that have been capped back into production.

111 posted on 11/11/2001 8:45:02 AM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: COB1
I'm not a big fan of highly pressurized gas. Explosions aren't the only risk. As I recall, it can be converted to propane and IMO that would be the better fuel for public distribution. I know that you are aware of how much gas Clinton locked up with his EOs.
112 posted on 11/11/2001 8:50:06 AM PST by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Bump
113 posted on 11/11/2001 8:53:09 AM PST by Fiddlstix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrTEJ
I like methanol too. We can make it from coal, natural gas, or biomass. We already have flexible fuel vehicles that can run on 85% methanol. Methanol fuel cells are in development for cars too.
114 posted on 11/11/2001 8:57:49 AM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

Comment #115 Removed by Moderator

To: Carry_Okie
When I speak of natural gas I'm referring to all the components of natural gas such as methane, propane, butane, ethane, isobutane, etc.
I don't know which component is used in powering the various federal, state and local vehicles, but I'm sure it's one of the heavier ends of the natural gas mixture.
There is really only one reason that natural gas hasn't gained wide spread acceptance - Big Oil doesn't want it.
Although they have many gas wells, they also have many refineries here which depend on the supply of oil, and they have many foreign holdings of oil in places which are enemies to the U.S.
116 posted on 11/11/2001 9:19:34 AM PST by COB1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: DrTEJ
And methanol is the only new fuel can we can transition into easily. A flexible fuel vehicle can run on M85, but it can also run on gasoline, so a driver can still drive anywhere, but take advantage of methanol where it is available. Other vehicles that use fuels like compressed natural gas or hydrogen can't do that without having two different tanks.
117 posted on 11/11/2001 9:39:47 AM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda
Bump.
118 posted on 11/11/2001 9:43:04 AM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Son: Who's Saudia Arabia?

Father: Oh, that's now called southern Israel.
119 posted on 11/11/2001 9:43:33 AM PST by hsszionist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrTEJ
At least 60% of the crude oil pumped out of the ground since we first started is still there, in the ground - and that's after water flooding, steam flooding, and liquid carbon dioxide flooding. Some pioneering surfactant chemistry has recently become available which could very well revitalize all the wells which have been shutdown for the last century. This will cost money and require environmental relief (which has been a political tool for the increasing government takeover of the oil industry for way, way too long; and, this has nothing to do with the environment). Just having the technology available would have a very tempering effect on any future US/Middle East political relationships.

Actually the technology was developed during the first OPEC/Arab embargo. At that time TOSCO, Exxon and Mobil (pre-merger) devoted considerable effort, involving dozens of researchers and top executives attemptint to steal it without paying the inventors and those who developed it. An offering was floated to develop it independently of them and the money was escrowed. The Saudis pulled the plug by dramatically lowering prices in 1981 and the money was returned and the project put on the back shelf.

Afterwards the inventor and his company used the technology for other purposes involving cleaning industrial waste streams, particularly in the industrial laundry industry, food processing and, with the military, cleaning up AFFF firefighting foam, TCE, PCE, carrier waste (also can clean MTBE, it appears). In each case there were either NIH blockages, suppression attempts and even outright attempts at technology theft.

When the price of oil again began to rise at the end of 1998 and into 1999, the inventor was asked to revive the process and pursue strategic partnerships to develop it. We have just spent over a year working with and encouraging him in doing just that, since our original revelations about it in WND, and will continue to do so but with other tactics as well as with other breakthrough energy technology. The WND articles, BTW, were posted here where they met with some of the most ignorant and destructive attacks imaginable, but then uninformed scepticism is an incurable disease. Those who "know" an existing inferior technology are always experts on why a new technology that displaces that with which they are familiar won't work, just as the buggy manufacturers knew that the automobile would not work.

Unfortunately, a year of extensive negotiations has revealed that the oil business has not changed. The majors don't want the existing applecart upset and will steal and obstruct to prevent displacing technology, just as Bell fought the touchtone dial technology successfully for 27 years. What we have encountered repeatedly, at the final bargaining stage are inevitably offers to put the inventor under the "charge" of the non-productive R&D department of the oil or oil service company for an undefined number of years (an obvious stealing situation) or, worse, an insistence on two "stealing" clauses, the first of which would give the inventor/entrepreneur, supposedly, U.S. income, while "reserving" the right to steal from him in the rest of the world and the second of which would reserve to the oil or oil service company the right to do "parallel research". Don't you just love the brazen arrogance of it.

The message is clear: oil rules and you, the public be damned.

We will continue these efforts, now shifting to negotiations with related industries, relatively minor and hungry players and those in seemingly unrelated industries who might wish to enter and dominate OPEC and its allies Exxon/Mobil, Schlumberger, Halliburton and their ilk.

We have also educated and informed a substantial number of political officeholders and appointees, though we have yet to see whether they will lead by assisting the development of this technology and others complementary to it, which, had they not been obstructed, would have no doubt prevented the present troubles.

What we did not understand was how widespread the practice of obstructing what has come to be called "disruptive technology" if it cannot be stolen, has become. In fact the business writers who have identified the problem have made their living assisting the larger corporations in the obstruction by advocating internal so-called destructive remaking of the corporation which creates a culture even more destructive to paying those inventors who do develop the technology for it. It is not just oil, it infects many industries, and big government and big education.

We are now taking the facts about what has happened during this period of quiet negotiation public and it will be interesting to see how you, the public react, to actual knowledge of how your "leadership" has failed at so many levels when it could easily have prevented the Oil Weapon from being seized by OPEC, Chavez, the Arabs and the communist Chinese.

It is clear now that only concerted public will will correct this situation.

By the way our program has attracted other inventors who have had similar battles, some of whom, such as Bill Talbert, the actual inventor of the reformulated gasoline monopolized, in a pirated version, by UNOCAL, have inventions directly complementary to the surface chemical technology you mention and others of whom have breakthrough technology more indirectly related, such as that which would take us off hydrocarbons altogether. Suffice it to say, that you can almost be assured that that which is currenly touted as "the answer", such as wind mills, or fuel cells as presently advocated, are not the answer.

Nor is it the case that it would be expensive to deploy these new technologies and environmentally unsound. Quite the opposite: Complete deployment, for example, of the surface chemistry technology of which you speak so as to give us total Oil Independence in three years, would, as far as start up capital, be a fraction of the current subsidies for fuel alcohol and, if done for strategic reasons, a fraction of the cost of a single one of our most expensive bombers. Put another way, it would be less than one-sixth of the most recent quarterly loss of U.S. Air.

On the environmental side, two notes: the surface chemistry principles of which you speak, applied to oil production, would actually produce a totally clean substrate, suitable for an aquifer, so that in the most obvious applications, for example, use in mining tar sands in the arid West, useful crops could be grown and livestock supported where such is presently not the case. The CO and CO2 problems of the current technology would be eliminated. Most importantly the 300 plus square mile holding pond at the present mining sites in Alberta, which, if it bursts, would destroy the technology of the Hudson's bay, could cleaned up at a profit and the creation of such disasters waiting to happen eliminated. Moreover, Bill Talberts advanced reformulation technology would greatly reduce air pollution across the board in your car and allow us to go off diesel altogether, eliminating the worst source of NOX pollution.

Have a nice day.

120 posted on 11/11/2001 10:09:07 AM PST by AmericanVictory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 221-226 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson