As I read this analysis of an article, i became more and more angry. How is it possible that nearly 40 years after we became acutely aware of what a problem our energy situation is we could still be struggling--given that we have MORE resources than anyone else?



The chart says it all. We have the resources. We have far better air quality than when I was young. What we ought to be doing is exploiting our own resources NOW to finance the development of the energy sources of the future. Instead, we hand-wring over every stray molecule of CO2 and spend billions on energy schemes of dubious economic benefit.

We have 100 to 400 years (maybe more) worth of natural gas? Why aren't we looking at ways to further our use of that? Why aren't we doing everything conceivable to lower our dependence on foreign oil?

This is not purely a partisan issue. Both parties have missed the mark. This is an issue between those who believe Man is special and those who believe Mother Gaea and every one of the insects and critters on the planet are as important as Man. I am not suggesting we destroy the planet. I am flat-out saying that a few extremists are causing vast harm upon innumerable impoverished people because they delusionally believe they are saving some spotted cricket somewhere.

You know things have reached a potential tipping point when the WaPo Editorials start sounding like something I might write:

WHEN WAS the last time an American president stood before an audience in a foreign country and announced that he looked forward to importing more of its oil? Answer: Just over a week ago, when President Obama joined political and business leaders in Brasilia in hailing the fact that their newly discovered offshore petroleum reserves might be twice as large as those in the United States. Americans “want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers,” Mr. Obama said. . . .

As for offshore drilling, Mr. Obama’s enthusiasm for punching holes in the ocean floor off Brazil is hard to reconcile with his decision, announced Dec. 1, to keep the waters off the East and West coasts and the eastern Gulf of Mexico off-limits to exploration indefinitely. His policy was a reversal of an earlier decision he had made to open some of those areas. We can understand that reversal, after the massive oil spill in the western Gulf last year. And, demonstrating a measure of flexibility even after the disaster, the administration has announced five deep-water drilling permits in the western Gulf since the spill.

The vast majority of U.S. shores, however, have remained off-limits for decades. This, too, is a policy made by two parties, with Republicans opposing drilling when it suited them; President George W. Bush prevented drilling off the Florida Gulf Coast in part to boost his brother Jeb’s 2002 run for a second term as governor. But it is tough to reconcile with U.S. eagerness to “help” Brazil pump oil off its coasts and ship it here. U.S. companies, enticed by government loan guarantees, are already lined up to sell Brazil drilling equipment and services. Forget the implications for U.S. dependency on foreign sources. What does this posture say about American regard for the natural environment outside U.S. territory?

That chart is missing some crucial data. It's all very well to say that oil is 'recoverable', but at what cost ? If it's 5 or 6 times the cost of extracting Saudi oil then it may as well stay in the ground until you really need it.

Sassenach wrote:That chart is missing some crucial data. It's all very well to say that oil is 'recoverable', but at what cost ? If it's 5 or 6 times the cost of extracting Saudi oil then it may as well stay in the ground until you really need it.

First, isn't that speculation? Especially with $100 a barrel oil prices?

Second, what exactly is the price we should be willing to pay to not have to rely on Middle East oil? What would our economy look and what would terrorism look like without the billions we funnel into those countries every year?

Oil extraction in America is in the hands of big businesses who are quite capable of doing the necessary cost/benefit calculations. They've obviously got an idea in mind of how high the price will need to go before it's economic to start tapping US reserves. Also, what makes you think that if you do start drilling more domestic oil it'll be used by Americans ? Surely it'll just go onto the world market and be sold to the highest bidder.

The way to reduce your dependance on the Middle East is to take concrete steps toward energy efficiency in the short term and to massively fund investment into alternative energy research in the medium term. The price of oil isn't going to come down no matter how much of your domestic supplies you start drilling.

Sassenach wrote:and to massively fund investment into alternative energy research in the medium term

You make an interesting point there. The point is that research and market availability for products based on new energy sources is handicapped by the oil companies, which cut with money any attempt to go further. I've heard that we'd already have fast electrical cars or even water-powered ones (although water is one of those precious resources we don't want to waste neither).

Sassenach wrote:Oil extraction in America is in the hands of big businesses who are quite capable of doing the necessary cost/benefit calculations. They've obviously got an idea in mind of how high the price will need to go before it's economic to start tapping US reserves. Also, what makes you think that if you do start drilling more domestic oil it'll be used by Americans ? Surely it'll just go onto the world market and be sold to the highest bidder.

Sure, but as the supply increases . . .

And, for those who say, "the oil cartel will cut production," I have two responses:

1. Fine. Less money going to them.
2. Isn't that a symptom of the real problem? We don't have energy independence--that is what gives OPEC its power.

The way to reduce your dependance on the Middle East is to take concrete steps toward energy efficiency in the short term and to massively fund investment into alternative energy research in the medium term. The price of oil isn't going to come down no matter how much of your domestic supplies you start drilling.

No amount of efficiency, based on current technology, is a meaningful solution. If we cut demand, they cut supply and price remains constant--with the same amount of money flowing overseas.

"Massive fund investment" into what "alternative energy?" So far, wind, solar, and nuclear have faced nothing but legal and technological hurdles. I don't care how much money anyone pours into these sources, tree-huggers are blocking each one.

Right now, "investing" on green energy is a colossal waste. Why? Because wind has proven to be too expensive--and gets blocked (see the Kennedy compound). Solar is too expensive--and gets blocked. Nuclear just gets blocked.

So, we spend all kinds of money on "efficiencies," like the Chevy Volt--that few are buying and that, ultimately, increase our dependence on an overburdened, inefficient electrical grid.

Don't forget (see above): Obama thinks Brazilian oil is wonderful. He just doesn't like American oil. Yes, yes, I know--oil production is at its highest in seven years. Terrific. Meanwhile, he is ignoring a court order and blocking all new permits in the Gulf. The President will, by sheer force of will, raise oil prices in future years by restricting domestic production.

Valsum wrote:

Sassenach wrote:and to massively fund investment into alternative energy research in the medium term

You make an interesting point there. The point is that research and market availability for products based on new energy sources is handicapped by the oil companies, which cut with money any attempt to go further. I've heard that we'd already have fast electrical cars or even water-powered ones (although water is one of those precious resources we don't want to waste neither).

Yeah, and there are cars that can run on air, CO2, and cat fur. If only those oil companies would just stop buying them up and suppressing their production. Why, oh why, can't President Obama crush the oil companies?

I've read about a car that can move in multiple planes of existence and runs on chocolate. It's called the Wonkamobile.

Sure, but as the supply increases . . .

Demand is also increasing, much faster than supply ever can. At best all you'd achieve by further draining domestic reserves would be a temporary respite from inexorably rising prices, although since Saudi oil is still far cheaper to extract even that may not be the case.

But really my point is that there's a global market for oil and American 'production' (I really don't like that term in this context) is a part of the greater whole. The reason you're an importer is that it's historically been cheaper to buy oil from abroad than it has been to extract your own. That's still largely the case, otherwise you wouldn't be doing it. the fact that oil can be drilled in Saudi Arabia then pumped onto tankers and shipped halfway round the world before being refined in US refineries when US domestic reserves are the biggest in the world says a lot about how much easier/cheaper Saudi oil is to extract. Being energy independent would only increase the cost of living for Americans right now, otherwise you'd be independent already.

No amount of efficiency, based on current technology, is a meaningful solution. If we cut demand, they cut supply and price remains constant--with the same amount of money flowing overseas.

What I'm talking about is things like better insulation of homes, greater fuel efficiency in the cars that you drive, investment in more efficient distribution networks for electricity, things like that. It isn't a silver bullet but surely America (and the rest of the wasteful Western world) could manage to shave 10-20% from our energy bills by taking a few steps toward more efficient use of resources. This is unlikely to have a serious effect on the world oil price because demand is still rising inexorably elsewhere, but it would go some way to cutting dependancy.

Massive fund investment" into what "alternative energy?" So far, wind, solar, and nuclear have faced nothing but legal and technological hurdles. I don't care how much money anyone pours into these sources, tree-huggers are blocking each one.

So start taking positive steps to overcome those obstacles.

But actually I wasn't referring to existing technology really. Currently functioning renewables are never going to provide for our energy needs. They'll need to be part of the mix, but they're nowhere near good enough to replace hydrocarbons. I mean that money should be poured into researching new technologies, be it hydrogen fuel cells or cold fusion or whatever else the boffins are working on.

Don't forget (see above): Obama thinks Brazilian oil is wonderful. He just doesn't like American oil. Yes, yes, I know--oil production is at its highest in seven years. Terrific. Meanwhile, he is ignoring a court order and blocking all new permits in the Gulf. The President will, by sheer force of will, raise oil prices in future years by restricting domestic production.

There's another way of looking at this of course. Couldn't it also be said that since oil prices are set to continue rising as global supplies continue to dwindle those countries which retain as much of their reserves as possible in the short term will reap the greater rewards later ? Successive American governments of whichever political stripe have preferred to tap foreign reserves than your own, maybe they knew what they were doing ? Just a thought.

Sassenach wrote:Being energy independent would only increase the cost of living for Americans right now, otherwise you'd be independent already.

I'm not convinced. In part, that is because we would not have quite so many military/security issues if we could basically ignore internal politics in the oil-rich regions.

What I'm talking about is things like better insulation of homes, greater fuel efficiency in the cars that you drive, investment in more efficient distribution networks for electricity, things like that. It isn't a silver bullet but surely America (and the rest of the wasteful Western world) could manage to shave 10-20% from our energy bills by taking a few steps toward more efficient use of resources. This is unlikely to have a serious effect on the world oil price because demand is still rising inexorably elsewhere, but it would go some way to cutting dependancy.

First, I doubt the accuracy of your estimate. Second, who should pay for it? As a homeowner, if it made sense, I would and probably will do it. However, why should I be forced to pay for someone else. Third, experience shows us we are repaid for "saving" with higher energy bills--because utility companies lose income! Fourth, I don't believe this will do anything toward reducing oil dependency.

Massive fund investment" into what "alternative energy?" So far, wind, solar, and nuclear have faced nothing but legal and technological hurdles. I don't care how much money anyone pours into these sources, tree-huggers are blocking each one.

So start taking positive steps to overcome those obstacles.

I would love to. I would also love to have a President who would. We don't.

But actually I wasn't referring to existing technology really. Currently functioning renewables are never going to provide for our energy needs. They'll need to be part of the mix, but they're nowhere near good enough to replace hydrocarbons. I mean that money should be poured into researching new technologies, be it hydrogen fuel cells or cold fusion or whatever else the boffins are working on.

We agree. However, most of the current excitement from the nattering nabobs of the ruling class is on solar and wind.

There's another way of looking at this of course. Couldn't it also be said that since oil prices are set to continue rising as global supplies continue to dwindle those countries which retain as much of their reserves as possible in the short term will reap the greater rewards later ? Successive American governments of whichever political stripe have preferred to tap foreign reserves than your own, maybe they knew what they were doing ? Just a thought.

I think that's way too much credit to the foresight of the short-sighted. I think it more likely we will have moved beyond oil and coal before we start properly exploiting them.

Autarky! we must have Autarky!

Checked out the article. There is a good deal of truth in it, and also a number of assumptions it makes or implies which are highly misleading.

First off, yes the US does have massive quantites of hydrocarbon resources. How much exactly is not known, but it is a lot. This is not new information, it has been known for a long, long time. When you get right down to it this is one reason why the US has not been especially proactive in alternative energy research nor very good at formulating long term energy strategies - it has such a large back up supply it barely needs to. Is it any wonder that Europe, which is not so well blessed in hydrocarbons, has pushed a lot harder for research into alternative energy sources? Trying to claim that it is purely a matter of your peculiar hybrid vision of hippies and tree huggers pushing these things forward solely to "Save the Planet" is to do the level headed and forward thinking members of this continent a serious diservice.

Second, the report assumes that "proven reserves" (which definately exist) and "Rest of America's recoverable oil" are equivalent. They are not. The proven reserves are obviously proven to exist, the rest of it is assumed to, going on clues from geology etc. Doubtless a good deal more oil will be discovered in US territory in the years to come, but until it is actually proved to exist it can't be counted on. Anyone who ignores this key distinction (between reality and mere potential) may well be guilty of skewing facts to suit their viewpoint. That is a dangerous position to try to make strategic plans from, to say the least.

Third, the report seems to assume that all of these hydrocarbon reserves are equivalent, which clearly they are not. Coal can be burned in power stations to produce electricity, but it can't be used to power cars - only oil can do that. And oil is not a singular commodity - some deposits of oil are of a much higher grade than others. Saudi Arabia is blessed not only with vast quantities of the stuff, but also very high quality stuff which is easy (and cheap) to refine into usuable products like gasoline. It is also under land and close to the surface, making it cheaper and easier to extract. America used up a good portion of the oil it had in similar conditions a long time ago - what's left is mostly lower grade stuff which requires much more refining (more expensive) to achieve the same effect, and/or is located in less convenient locations, such as under the Gulf of Mexico.

All of which brings us to the economic side of things. Much of the oil which is left in America's "proven" or "assumed" reserves is stuff which is more expensive to convert to usuable products like gasoline. This is part chemistry, part location. Bottom line is that if it costs more to exploit the stuff, why bother when countries like Saudi Arabia can provide mass quantities of high grade stuff so cheaply? Correct me where I'm wrong, but isn't this capitalism in action? Market forces tend to dominate where the money goes, and right now exploiting a good proportion of those reserves is not commercially viable. No US President can simply click his fingers and change that inexorable truth of market forces.

Here's an interesting point though Steve: let's look forward 25 years or so, to when many current oil producing countries have seen their reserves and production capacity dwindle. As various countries such as China and India develop and grow the global demand for oil will be as strong as ever if not stronger. Certainly, the cost of oil will rise, but a point will be reached when it does become commercially viable to exploit all of those low-grade reserves in hard to reach places the US is sitting on top of. Then you'll be sitting pretty, won't you? Sitting on top of all that oil that is no longer being undercut for price and quality by those pesky Arabs. Sound like a long term strategy to you?

Lastly, in a separate post you seem to castigate the current administration for wanting to buy oil from Brazil - a stable democracy growing into its place in the world. Isn't that one method of reducing US dependence on oil from often problematic areas of the world, such as the Persian Gulf or Venezuela? Shouldn't you be applauding this attempt to diversify American oil suppliers, and also try to get the jump on China who would otherwise swoop in to being Brazil's biggest customer? You can't have it both ways.

Javelin wrote: Trying to claim that it is purely a matter of your peculiar hybrid vision of hippies and tree huggers pushing these things forward solely to "Save the Planet" is to do the level headed and forward thinking members of this continent a serious diservice.

Do tell. Who is blocking the Wind Farm off Nantucket and the Solar Farm in the Mojave Desert?

That is a dangerous position to try to make strategic plans from, to say the least.

The most dangerous position is what we have--essentially no coherent energy policy or plan, so that our economy is hostage to the ever-stable Middle East.

Coal can be burned in power stations to produce electricity, but it can't be used to power cars - only oil can do that.

Right. However, what if coal-fired plants popped up all over the place? Could we put out enough electricity to power the cars Obama wants built? We have brown-outs all over the Western United States during the summer months because we don't have enough electricity. The solution? Shut down power!

This is part chemistry, part location. Bottom line is that if it costs more to exploit the stuff, why bother when countries like Saudi Arabia can provide mass quantities of high grade stuff so cheaply? Correct me where I'm wrong, but isn't this capitalism in action? Market forces tend to dominate where the money goes, and right now exploiting a good proportion of those reserves is not commercially viable. No US President can simply click his fingers and change that inexorable truth of market forces.

How often do we hear politicians of both parties say energy security is national security (or an equivalent)?

As for snapping his fingers, that's exactly what he's done to block drilling in the Gulf.

Then you'll be sitting pretty, won't you? Sitting on top of all that oil that is no longer being undercut for price and quality by those pesky Arabs. Sound like a long term strategy to you?

No. You give all the ruling class too much credit.

Their "strategy" is to appease their interest groups now--both left and right.

My strategy would be for us to need oil only for plastic in 25 or 30 years.

Lastly, in a separate post you seem to castigate the current administration for wanting to buy oil from Brazil - a stable democracy growing into its place in the world.

Thank you for including the word "seem." The rest of your post misses the point.

He is subsidizing in Brazil what he is preventing here. If it's safe there, why not here???

Well score one for me - I included that little snippet about "tree huggers" and "Save the Planet" as a test for you. I felt sure that you would seize on that tiny soundbite which was of minimal relevence to the rest of my post (didn't mention green issues/global warming at all) and highlight it. In doing so you could cast doubt on the quality of the rest of my post without even bothering to respond to it. You didn't dissapoint, instead giving it pride of place in your response. It is very irritating to me to have my carefully thought out posts either dismissed out of hand or twisted into a mockery of what I actually said, but it is what I have come to expect of you in these forums, to my continual irritation.

If you want to actually debate this matter then I'm game. Right now it sounds like you rather just snipe at viewpoints which aren't your own without trying to understand either them or even the actual facts they are based on. Shame. Oh, and please tell me the briliant details of your strategy to only require oil for plastic in 25 to 30 years: is that based on any tiny nugget of scientific understanding, or is it just a pipe dream? What technologies or alternate power source do you envisage being sufficiently mature in that time to replace the century old internal combustion engine? Cold Fusion plants and electrical cars, perhaps? And for that matter, why does someone who clearly doesn't take the issue of global warming seriously even care whether the oil is burned or turned into plastic?

One last thing. Given the fiasco of the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico last year, it would be politically very, very tough for Obama to do anything but support a moratorium on deep sea drilling right now. Don't see that he has much of a politically non-suicidal choice there.

Tom, your cleverness is so cloaked in incoherence as to be undetectable.