This thought occurs to me about our dependence on foreign oil...

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Lately in the newspaper editorials I have been reading about how part of the big problems that face the U.S. is our dependence on foreign oil.

Well, columnist Ron Wiggins in his column in The Palm Beach Post suggests that "If ever there was a cause to 'throw money at,' it is the cause of energy independence for the United States."

And that got me to wonder...

If the U.S. is already criticized for its gluttony, AND it is already criticized for helping around the world only when it feels it will personally benefit, AND it is already constantly reminded that tiny developing foreign economies depend heavily on trade with the U.S., what would happen if one day we could thumb our noses at small, oil-rich countries because we were now using ecologically-friendly, renewable resources for energy? What would happen if the trillions of dollars spent on foreign oil suddenly dried up to a trickle, or dried up entirely?

Wouldn't the rest of the world BITCH AND WHINE that we were no longer supporting the economies of these countries that produce nothing that we want, but sit on oil reserves that we currently need to purchase from them? When the bottom drops out of their economies because we one day find better sources of energy, what are they going to do? Will that be yet another reason to wage a jihad against the Great Satan, who unfairly sought to improve its own situation, as well as the ecology of the earth?

I wonder...

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Gravitymaster 0]

Jeffrey..you should know by now that the US is evil and it doesn't matter what we do it will be criticized.
I agree with you that much of the world would be plunged into economic chaos if the US found other sources of energy.
I suspect this is one of the reasons the Libs don't want drilling in Anwar. I mean the Caribou..give me a break. I wonder how many tourists per year actually visit Anwar. That and the fact they think the oil companies are evil. Of course they become less evil if you own stock in them.
Oh, and GWB is evil too.

[Gawain 0]

Good thoughts.

You're not the first to look at it from this vantage point (or from the neighborhood).

The answer, I believe, is more intertwined. Decades ago, designs were tested for automobile fuel systems that enabled 60-80+MPG. They weren't pretty, but it was breakthrough technology. The auto makers and oil companies own the patents to those designs. That is one enabling factor on our dependence.

The other is this: it is a good thing that the US primarily imports oil rather than begin mass exploitation of our own reserves while simultaneously begins to develop alternate power source technologies. Why? We maintain the largest strategic reserves and can afford to not drill at ANWR (et al) while we can institute price controls (to a degree) and provide a market for the product, we are preserving our own supply -- for when the world runs out, Russia, Canada and the US will have the "black gold" which will be sought by the world.

The countries that export it now, and rely solely on that product will have nothing but their "fotunes" to plunder when their docks are empty and their pipelines run dry -- as they have nothing else to offer. Their "chokehold" on the world economy is not as great, in the long-term, as many may think.

Just conjecture on my part...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[tunaplanet 0]

Bert and Ernie were so fucking funny. Do you think Ernie was gay? I personally think he putted from the rough.

Forty-two

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Bert and Ernie were so fucking funny. Do you think Ernie was gay? I personally think he putted from the rough.

I think it's bedtime for bonzo...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Good thoughts.

The countries that export it now, and rely solely on that product will have nothing but their "fotunes" to plunder when their docks are empty and their pipelines run dry -- as they have nothing else to offer. Their "chokehold" on the world economy is not as great, in the long-term, as many may think.

Just conjecture on my part...

Um, isn't what you're saying about "buy theirs til they have no more, then we're golden and they're fucked" part of what gets the U.S. hated more and more each day, supposedly? I mean, YES, it is the Arab world's short-sightedness to depend on nothing but the decayed dinosaurs under their barren, desolate landscapes, but WE will still be blamed, somehow, for their lack of foresight. It will be said that we should have been over there giving them aid and education and some sort of program for their future, rather than delighting in the fact that some day they'd be out of oil and we'd still have waited to use ours.

It has been said and will continue to be said: the world loves to blame the U.S. no matter what we do.
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"what would happen if one day we could thumb our noses at small, oil-rich countries because we were now using ecologically-friendly, renewable resources for energy"

Do you really think that is going to happen in the foreseeable future?
America led the resistance to the Kyoto accord which was aimed at reducing CO2 emissions from burning hydrocarbons. Russia followed suit, all to Europe and Japan's dismay.
The situation is a lot more perilous than many think. Not only are HC reserves dwindling rapidly, world consumption is actually increasing.
World production will peak next year, after that it will only get worse as areas such as India, Asia/Pacific become more developed their demands will sky rocket. With economic development comes increasing demand.

The US will have to exploit the reserves in environmentally senitive areas (North Slope, and Prudhoe Bay are examples where this is already occurring), other similar regions are having to progress the same thing. EG Kashagan field in Khazakhstan is slap bang underneath the sturgeon spawning grounds. The problem is providing reliable technology to ensure 'zero emissions' from this type of project.

I have lots of graphs and projections for this sort of thing (its used to justify investment in renewable technology), but its a 1 meg file if anyone is interested.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

I didn't say that it was going to happen in the foreseeable future. Why should its likelihood of actually happening be a prerequisite for you responding to the hypothetical question I posed?

If I asked, "Which would fly faster at terminal, me or a watermelon?" would you refuse to reply to the question just because I'm not at all likely to skydive with a watermelon?

It seems that the goal of a good many people IS to get us off our dependence on foreign oil. You yourself point out the looming disaster of not doing so; therefore I must conclude that you think we are going to have our backs to the wall some day and will have to do just that. I think either it's unlikely we will get off foreign oil or we will develop the problems you say -- in which case we will then have to get off foreign oil,contradicting your initial statement.

Really, though, I tend to think that the wondrous miracle that environmentalists crow about our desperate need to effect would very likely destabilize the entire world economy.

I do, however, think it NEEDS to be done, and we should fix the economy once the actual safety of our long-term energy supply is addressed, and the ecology is safeguarded. And I think it is DEPLORABLE that there DOES exist better energy technology, owned by the very people who refuse to let it be developed and employed because it would harm their profits. That's totally fucked up. It's also fucked up that various people who developed such technology SOLD it to companies like detroit auto manufacturers. That's a case of, "I want mine now, and the rest of humanity can go fuck itself while I spend my millions." Truly fucked up greed.
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Erroll 80]

If one considers the real ecomic successes of countries like Taiwan, Singapore and Japan, I suspect it is presumptuous to assume that the presently oil-rich countries will simply shrivel up and die when their oil runs out. The above mentioned countries have never had natural resources of any kind.

Quote

It will be said that we should have been over there giving them aid and education and some sort of program for their future, rather than delighting in the fact that some day they'd be out of oil and we'd still have waited to use ours.

Throughout the OPEC countries education is mostly free and of a very high standard. They don't need you to educate them.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

If one considers the real ecomic successes of countries like Taiwan, Singapore and Japan, I suspect it is presumptuous to assume that the presently oil-rich countries will simply shrivel up and die when their oil runs out. The above mentioned countries have never had natural resources of any kind.

Quote

It will be said that we should have been over there giving them aid and education and some sort of program for their future, rather than delighting in the fact that some day they'd be out of oil and we'd still have waited to use ours.

Throughout the OPEC countries education is mostly free and of a very high standard. They don't need you to educate them.

They may not need us to educate them now, but what will their economy be based on when their oil runs out -- and WILL they blame the U.S. if the U.S. ever obviates its need for their oil?

The other countries you cite are bad examples specifically because of what you yourself pointed out -- their economies were NEVER based on some reserve of a precious commodity sitting under their soil. From the get-go, they had to be movers and shakers. Not so with oil-rich Arab countries.

I just heard on NPR today about Chad, which they said was about the most backward country in the world. They said that when oil riches come to Chad (as they are beginning to) it will likely fuck them up even more. They mentioned how at one point that happened (in Chad or somewhere else I don't remember) and with the money the public had, they took baths in beer, and men bought dowrys for wives, only to run out of money and have nothing but big families they could not support.
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[kallend 2,150]

Another straw man argument from the Right

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,120]

>When the bottom drops out of their economies because we one day
>find better sources of energy, what are they going to do?

Sell oil to China. Even if we really started to switch to alternatives in a serious way, the market for oil would increase due to increasing demand from Europe and rapidly increasing demand from developing countries in Asia.

Not to say they wouldn't bitch, of course, but they wouldn't come close to losing the market for their favorite export.

[billvon 3,120]

>The countries that export it now, and rely solely on that product will
> have nothing but their "fotunes" to plunder when their docks are
> empty and their pipelines run dry -- as they have nothing else to
> offer. Their "chokehold" on the world economy is not as great, in the
> long-term, as many may think.

This is the primary reason I am against drilling new places in the US, like ANWR. There are products made from oil we simply can't live without (drugs, plastics) and even if we switch to alternatives for energy we will need oil for the forseeable future. There will come a day that there is no cheap oil left anywhere in the Middle East - and on that day, we better pray we have an ANWR or two left that we haven't drilled yet.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

The point is...the time is coming, and its coming soon, that there will be no more cheap oil .....anywhere.
Exploiting areas such as ANWR will be feasible, its just expensive to do it and comply with regional licensing agreements and peculiarities.
My rate of pay (I'm an engineer in the petrochemical industry,a contractor of negotiable loyalty) is directly linked to oil prices so I really don't give a rats ass. The less cheap oil there is around the better for me and my loved ones. Burn what there is left as fast as you can.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

I wonder how many tourists per year actually visit Anwar.

I've been there. It's very nice. Oh that's right I was working for an oil company.

[rjf98 0]

Quote

The answer, I believe, is more intertwined. Decades ago, designs were tested for automobile fuel systems that enabled 60-80+MPG. They weren't pretty, but it was breakthrough technology. The auto makers and oil companies own the patents to those designs. That is one enabling factor on our dependence.

I'm no pattent attorney, but pattents run out. Especially if they aren't used. IF the technology was really that accessible then why hasn't someone brought it to the market? We have what? 100,000 active skydivers. Bill Booth's patent on 3 rings was used ASAP once someone else could. You can bet the skyhook will be the same way. There definetly isn't as much money to be made here as there is in a car that gets 80 miles to the gallon.

I think we are just starting to see the technology in a usable form. Does anyone really think GM cares if Mobile Oil goes under? I don't. Isn't that kind of like arguing that Oscar myer cares if electricity, propane, or charcoal is used to cook their hotdogs? Especially when states like CA are implimenting programs requiring multi fuel and low emission vehicles GM wants to grab the market share RIGHT NOW. The reason these vehicles haven't been massed produced is because the technology couldn't provide what the consumer wants. Not very many people want a vehicle they have to plug in every night that can't go 65 and can only travel for 100 miles before it needs to be re-charged for 8 hours. No one wants propane because it's a pain in the ass to go and fill up your tank. What we are seeing now is electric gas hybrids that don't cause the consumer to change their habits and provide all the creature comforts and performance of pure gasoline vehicles. That is the technology being far enough advanced to cause a change. A few more years and it will be in a place where it's not more expensive for the initial investment and MANY more people will buy them. I like new toys, and I'm looking at them now.
I DO think in our lifetime that we will see a drastic reduction in US dependence on Foreign oil. I do think it will cause the oil prices to drop to ridiculous low levels due to our consumption and yes, we will be blamed and end up spending trillions to help transform oil dependent economies.

[billvon 3,120]

>Decades ago, designs were tested for automobile fuel systems that
> enabled 60-80+MPG. They weren't pretty, but it was breakthrough
> technology. The auto makers and oil companies own the patents to
> those designs. That is one enabling factor on our dependence.

Y'know, I hear that a lot, but it just ain't true. "The 100mpg carburetor" was one of the most persistent myths of the 70s and 80s, how the oil companies were supressing that technology to prevent other people from getting it.

The funny thing was that the carburetor was a dead end anyway. The innovations that really have changed fuel efficiency - fuel injection, stratified charge combustion, computer control, friction reduction, idle kickers, and now hybrids - haven't been 'supressed' or controlled. It's just taken a long time to get them to work right.

And now we _do_ have a 70mpg car. You could buy one today. Most people won't, because they want a big car, and the Insight isn't that big. And I have a feeling that even if some genius had made a carbureted car get 70mpg back then, essentially built a 1971 Insight, about the same thing would have happened. Why buy an Insight when gas is 35 cents a gallon?

[souleh 0]

Quote

Why buy an Insight when gas is 35 cents a gallon?

73p ($1.32) a litre here (and I'm in a cheap part for fuel).. so that's equivalent to us paying $5.00 a gallon, just over 14x more than you!

Yet another reason why I *love* Gordon Brown..

Sorry

'buttplugs? where?' - geno

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The point is...the time is coming, and its coming soon, that there will be no more cheap oil .....anywhere.

Actually, haven't they been saying that for about 100 years now? People just get better and finding oil and getting it.

And, as the price of oil rises, demand will be less. Then, the price and availability will drop. We saw it in the 70's. Mileage improved, oil was not as scarce, price dropped. Woo hoo.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,120]

>so that's equivalent to us paying $5.00 a gallon, just over 14x more than you!

Gas hasn't been 35 cents a gallon in the US since about 1970. It's averaging around $2.20 a gallon in my area now. So we're creeping up on half your price. Still pretty sobering when you listen to people here complain about how expensive gas is.

[billvon 3,120]

>Actually, haven't they been saying that for about 100 years now?
>People just get better and finding oil and getting it.

Well, but you can't escape from the fact that the supply is finite and our usage is rising exponentially. The normal laws of supply and demand will drive the price higher as the cheaper sources of oil are exhausted and sources like tar sands become profitable. Eventually we will be able to synthesize gasoline at some price level ($20 a gallon?) but at that point natural gas will be cheaper both to drill for and to synthesize, and the market will switch to that due to price reasons. And by that time we will need the oil far more for plastics than for fuel.