Can We Do Without Saudi Oil?

The Weekly Standard ^ | 11/19/2001 | Irwin M. Stelzer

[timestax]

bump

[chuckles]

With all the smart people here at FR, can anyone tell me if oil can be made into ethanol, not METHANOL?

[danmar]

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.

Beg to differ on that point. Have anyone noticed the gas prices going down lately? you know why?...it is because we just signed a deal with Kazachstan to start pumping oil out of their grounds and as we speak talks between Chevron and Unical are ongoing, about tapping the unlimited resources of the Caspian Sea and Siberia in Russia.

The Russians have allready said they are not interested in the OPEC spiel of manipulating oil prices, all they want is the good ol'green back 'cause their people are starving.
See,... they do not have the technology of exploration we have, therefore they need us to harvest the oil.If you want more info check the Chevron.com web page, is very interesting. This is the very reason the oil prices are going down, and the ol' rag heads are freaking out that their well beign is going to be negatively affected by the recalcitrant Russians.

According to Chevron web site there is absolutely no shortage of oil supply, as a matter of fact there is in excess of one trillion barrels+ of oil reserve and untapped.

So this guy's expose' is just plain bunk...nothin' but waste of paper/bandwidth, he just did not do a real research to back it up.(typical liberals what do expect?).

[timestax]

I don't know. bUMPITY UPITY

[timestax]

bttt

[maestro]

Thanks for posting this post!!
Yup, # 175
Sums it up in my opinion.

[timestax]

bump

[backhoe]

We only "can't do without it" if we refuse to develop our own resources. It is a political problem, not a technical problem.

Precisely!

Over a year ago, when prices started ratcheting up, I wrote all my "critters" in DC & Atlanta, and told them, "We need to drill like crazy in Alaska, offshore, and on the continent, we need to take the chains off nuclear power production, we need to exploit our vast coal reserves, we need to encourage gasahol and conservation... etc., etc.

It is not a scientific, technical, or engineering problem- it's a political problem.

[timestax]

"We need to drill like crazy in Alaska, offshore, and on the continent

DITTO, on that. We are 50 states, and Alaska must contribute also. And from what I have read, most Alaskans want oil drilling also to help their state economy.

[timestax]

bttt

[Wonder Warthog]

"It would still take years to build all the new nuclear reactors and meanwhile we'd be depended on Saudi oil."

Sorry, but wrong. The reason it takes "years" to build new nuclear plants is regulatory, not physical. Remove the huge and ridiculous state-imposed barriers, and reactors can be built far more quickly.

"What I don't understand is why no serious effort has been undertaken to develop the technology to control the nuclear fusion reaction for use in power generation."

There has been HUGE investment in fusion research. It turns out to be REALLY DIFFICULT to initiate and control a fusion reaction outside the gravity field of a star.

[foreverfree]

bump

[Wonder Warthog]

"Drill Anwr, dammit. When the first well comes in, we'll meet at my house for some roast spotted owl and throw darts at Barbra Streisand and Diane Feinstein posters."

We probably don't need to drill the ANWR. There is probably sufficient extra oil yet to be found off the coasts of Florida and California, BUT THEY WON'T LET ANY WELLS BE DRILLED. Oil wells have been producing for decades off the coast of Louisiana and Texas without significant negative environmental impact, but FL. and CA. are "too good" to have such activity take place off THEIR "pristine" coasts (never mind the fact that natural oil seeps off shore of California emit far more oil than an oil platform ever will).

Eco-dumbasses!!!

[timestax]

Bump==we gotta do somthing, and NOT those idiotic battery run autos that get 100 miles per charging, and go like 50 mph tops.

[Wonder Warthog]

"WIth current U.S coal reserves we could make enough synthetic oil to last us almost 100 years."

I think the US has far more coal reserves than a 100 year supply. What Saudi Arabia is to oil, the US is to coal.

[timestax]

bump

[Wonder Warthog]

"Most of which require more energy than they produce, especially photovoltaics."

While that may be true for photovoltaics produced from boule-grown and sawn silicon used in the space program, I don't believe that it is true for the various thin-film solar cell types. If you have data to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Bump==we gotta do somthing, and NOT those idiotic battery run autos that get 100 miles per charging, and go like 50 mph tops."

For the short term, I like methanol. Current gasoline-powered cars can be converted to burn it without too much pain, and there is a new type fuel cell (the DMFC -- direct methanol fuel cell) which can convert it directly to electricity for electric cars. It can be produced from almost any source of carbon (natural gas, coal, garbage, agricultural product waste, etc., etc.),and can be stored and distributed using the same system for gasoline that we already have in place.

I think the long-term ultimate answer is a photovoltaic+nuclear+hydrogen economy.

[timestax]

We should be able to come up with something. It's the 21st century, for Petes' sake!

[Eva]

Not in the Northwest. We are still paying some of the highest rates in the country (thanks mostly to BP). And now we have two docks at two refineries destroyed during a storm. That should increase the price on the west coast.