Drill, drill, drill: The path to a stronger America
Let's drill our way to greatness!In the 1970's the US imported 24 percent of its oil. Today those imports have increased to 65 percent.
So, let's drill, drill, drill. Certainly, we can find enough oil here in the US to replace our current consumption, right?
OK. Maybe that's not realistic, but we can find enough oil to reduce pressure at the margins and bring down prices, right?
Maybe. In fact, let's say that's true. But, would that really help America?
About a year ago, Congress 'invested' more than $80 billion in the US auto industry. Why? Because it's a key segment in the US economy, right? Yet, if cheap oil is so good for America, why has the US auto industry been on the decline for decades?
Likewise, why hasn't cheap oil led to greater innovation and manufacturing success in the US if energy was so cheap?
Of course, that isn't totally fair. US foreign oil consumption has led to many amazing innovations in the military sector. Of course, have all the costs been worth this great military strength? Has America really become safer?
Perhaps more drilling could lead to some temporary, marginal improvement in pump prices. Inevitably, however, more drilling - and cheaper gas - would assuredly lead to the same technological complacency and national security risks that cheap oil has nurtured for the last few decades.
If America is to be anything more than a military state in the next couple of decades, isn't our potential greatness inextricably linked to ending our petroleum addiction?
Labels: Foreign Oil Dependency
posted by Dahcredyns at
10:27 AM
17 Comments:
This post has been removed by the author.
This is where "Peak Oil" comes in...
US oil "discoveries" peaked in the 1930's. Each year since the 1930's, we have discovered less oil than the previous year.
US oil "production" peaked in 1971.
Even if we drilled everywhere that we have discovered oil, we still could not achieve the level of oil prodution we had in 1971 because there is simply less oil available to produce.
US oil "consumption" peaked in 2008 to 4 times what it was in 1971.
Just to get back to where were in 1971, (24% imported oil) we would need to increase oil production to "4 times the 1971 peak level".
To gain full oil independence would take even more than that.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that it simply cannot be done......
there are about 190+ countries in the world. A good number of them have to buy oil on the world market and thus are "dependent" on "foreign oil" also.
That would include many of the other industrialized countries, Europe, Japan, China, India, etc.
Oil also comes from other places than the middle east. For instance, Canada, Mexico and Venezuela.. Indonesia, etc.
So I'm not sure why we think this country is much different in that regard or could do much different than other countries do to become less dependent".
Gasoline is cheaper in this country than all the other industrialized countries though.
and we use about twice as much per car owner that other countries.
drilling for new oil in this country - even if it did produce a net increase - it's been pointed out that, that oil would be sold on the world market for the going rate so I'm not sure it would lower our prices much at all.
"so I'm not sure it would lower our prices much at all."
This is the only issue the majority of Americans really care about..... The price of gas.
Americans only care about foreign oil dependency when it raises the cost of gasoline.
"Gasoline is cheaper in this country than all the other industrialized countries though.
and we use about twice as much per car owner"
Nothing needs to be added to this quote. It says it all...
Dahcredyns [said in part]
If America is to be anything more than a military state in the next couple of decades, isn't our potential greatness inextricably linked to ending our petroleum addiction?
Very well said!
While you made the above statement in the form of a question, it really does summarize what we have to look forward to unless we can find ways to significant change our energy outlook.
We can not drill ourselves to energy independence and this should become more self evident in just the next few years.
so I have a question.
the have discovered "new" gas; from what I understand a whole bunch
can we become energy independent by converting our cars to natural gas/propane gas hybrids?
Larry G said.[in part]so I have a question [I knew you would Larry LOL]. can we become energy independent by converting our cars to natural gas/propane gas hybrids?
Larry you know that according to T.Boon Picken's, natural gas is for trucks and electricity is for cars. Why else would we be building all these wind turbines and installing solar panels on houses?
Of course T.Boon Picken's and the Picken's Plan does make some sense especially when you add in West coast, East coast and Midwestern + Great Lakes wind AND Southwestern solar in the desert. Of course you already know that natural gas is popular in many countries in Asia.
From what I know - we BELIEVE we CAN or MIGHT be able to recover a few trillion cubic feet of natural gas but we haven't perfected the drilling techniques fully and there are still some concerns about groundwater contamination from the fracturing process according to what I read.
What do you think Larry? Do you look at natural gas as just another form of carbon based fuel? When we burn all of that up then what will we burn? Or should we just bite the bullet and start doing something renewable?
Your buddy
Tom G.
larry-
without doubt i think the new natural gas finds should be utilized if more cost-effective and cleaner than petroleum, even if its a little more expensive.
in the short term - if reality lives up to the hype - i think natural gas can release pricing pressure at the energy market's margins, while reducing numerous emissions. and, if new drilling techniques prove as cost-effective and environmentally safe as suggested, such as protecting groundwater as tom points out, then natural gas could probably put a significant dent in foreign oil dependency.
still, i think natural gas should be seen purely as an interim fuel, unless more sustainable forms of methane generation are developed.
likewise, coupled with hybrid and fuel cell hybrid technology, natural gas's lifespan could probably be significantly increased.
add in the possibility of sustainable methanogenesis and natural gas definitely seems worth some effort.
Tom - the major environmental organizations view natural gas as a "bridge" fuel - still carbon based but much cleaner than coal or gasoline/diesel.
The environmental organizations view the economic viability of solar and wind as not yet ripe/mature enough to be our primary sources of energy.
That's a practical/pragmatic view which I tend to put more stock in that the "do it now and damn the costs" approach.
We are in a position in the continuum of mankind/civilization where most of us KNOW that we must change and many of us believe that the longer we wait - the worse the potential harm might be - so we can't wait.
But the average person is not going to pay $500 a month for electricity and $10 a gallon for fuel is he has anything to say about it electorally.
so my question was hypothetical - along the lines of NOT with regard to the T. Boones path but rather a straight up replacement path CNG/Propane to replace gasoline.
T. Boones made his original proposal BEFORE we discovered how to get a lot more NG out of the ground but I really don't have a feel for the scope and I suspect most folks don't either.
Is a 100 year supply of natural gas used in the current paradigm equal to what in a total gasoline replacement scenario - 20, 30, 50 , 75 years?
I've said it before and I'll say it again - the problem that we are having is that people do not fully understand AND we have conflicting goals.
Some are concerned about the environment. Others are concerned about our foreign oil dependence.
Some think we should switch but only if the cost to us is the same.
Others ..SAY.. we should pay more but that group usually will not say how much more.
Is "more" $20 more a month for electricity and $1 more for fuel?
or is "more" $200 more a month for electricity and $10 more for gasoline?
so all of this "stuff" is flying around and there is no focus or cogent proposals (other than T. Boones Picket's)
so essentially, as a nation, we are standing at a crossroads having a group discussion about which direction we need to take.
Larry said [in part] so essentially, as a nation, we are standing at a crossroads having a group discussion about which direction we need to take.
Very good post Larry and I can't wait for the discussions to begin. My hope is that the WHEN is SOON and the discussions are based on facts.
Tom G.
Tom - we've already started the discussion but if you've noticed, we don't even agree on facts sometimes.
I agree. That's the first step - to agree on what the realities are (and are not) and then to use great dollops of pragmatism in judging which directions that our policies should be pointed - in the short and the long.
this is one of those areas where technology literacy is very important.
The less one understands about technology - the harder it is to come up with reasonable ideas.
this is one of my "faults", I freely admit to and I know it bugs others sometimes.
I ask Devil's Advocate questions frequently - to see if both sides of an issue have really been examined and we're just not using rose-colored glasses.
we really don't go forward until we satisfy enough of the skeptics anyhow - enough so that we have a solid majority that want to go forward.
but isn't the rub that we need a serious discussion like this coming out of washington?
likewise, regarding another concern of yours larry:
CO2 versus foreign oil dependency.
i say follow the consensus. the consensus in this country is driven by the later, yet reducing foreign oil dependency can also so easily lead to serious reductions in CO2 emissions.
a good football coach builds his offense around the capabilities of his team.
a good salesman tries to use the language and attitude that most resonates with each consumer segment.
foreign oil dependency resonates. likewise, many understand that innovation creates jobs. both these positions can naturally reduce CO2 emissions significantly without any obvious focus on global warming - a conversation that makes far too many irrational and partisan.
I'm of the opinion that Washington is a reflection of us.
They're supposed to lead, it's true but if the public is divided, not united, then the folks in Washington will also reflect that.
Jobs and taxes drive most people.
You're not going to convince them to pay more for GREEN or even energy independence if, in the end - they BELIEVE - it will cost them jobs or leave less money in their paycheck.
We've got folks up in Congress right now that want to make changes along the lines that we supported here in this blog, but we also have folks in Congress who say that come next election - they're going to work to get these guys who support GREEN - tossed out.
The folks that toss them out - are real folks... they vote...and those who feel more "enlightened" may well be - but in the end - those perceived as less "enlightened" have to be convinced - at least enough so that we have a majority - who, in turn, will elect to Washington folks that will pursue the policies that a majority want them to.
I know. Politics is such a bummer......
;-)
and my point is that making the focus 'green' is a driver of partisanship in this country.
foreign oil dependency however certainly resonates.
converting to a significant amount of natural gas, for instance, reduces foreign oil dependency, co2 emissions, while leaving more money in america and creating jobs.
according to every poll i've seen that resonates with a majority of voters.
now, perhaps, water issues will legitimately stymie natural gas. have a bi-partisan investigation and make the results public.
if a major move to natural gas is too threatening to clean water, let's get that on the table now. if it does hurt water, how does it compare to coal technology?
the fact is, according to what i've read is that many in congress, and even the president to some extent, had to make back door deals with the coal industry before election night, for instance.
i mean where is the open, transparent conversation about coal versus natural gas? i highly doubt that all factors considered, that coal is better than natural gas for the environment.
moreover, if congress cannot adjust its policies to our fast-moving, technologically-advancing world, how can they effectively legislate?
congress is beginning to seem like the same big ship that was the former GM.
the fact is that america is going to need a massive amount of coal until the renewable energy paradigm can replace it. that new paradigm is going to several decades to implement.
in the interim is coal and foreign petroleum really that much better than natural gas? that much greener?
or is it just a good wedge to keep the people divided and apathetic so the politicians can cater to the special interest groups funding their elections?
" i mean where is the open, transparent conversation about coal versus natural gas? i highly doubt that all factors considered, that coal is better than natural gas for the environment."
you'll find such discussions in the Environmental groups such as NRDC, EWG and ED and others...
The more moderate Green groups support NG as the LESSER of the evils - as opposed to some of the fringe GREEN groups who will, in a heartbeat, make "perfect" the enemy of "good".
Just reading how some environmental groups says that Solar is "destroying" valuable desert land... and wind turbines are "destroying" the last of the wild prairies.
This is the kind of thing that divides the country in my view, just as badly as the "drill, drill, drill" attitudes do.
Both sides make it clear that NO Compromise is acceptable.
The rest of us don't count - yet - apparently.
but this schism is reflected in Congress.
There are fewer and fewer Congressman that have a moderate.. compromising approach.
There are basically the two extremes and most of Congress aligns with one or the other with just a few taking middle ground approaches.
In my own district, we have an IDIOT who is also quite IGNORANT but he got voted in with 60%+ so what can I say?
I'd toss him in a New York Minute - unfortunately, we have a large bunch of right-wing rednecks who outvote ...
very frustrating...
"There are fewer and fewer Congressman that have a moderate.. compromising approach."
I think we proved this over the past week......
The polarization of this country will eventually lead to it's demize....
Together we stand. Divided we fall....
Post a Comment
<< Home