New drilling, US energy independence and insanity
Betting on the future isn't always easy
The faster technology advances, the less predictable the future
Holy fricken crap. Am I turning into an oil hawk? Do I have some kind of weird Dick Cheney envy? Suddenly, I think I know how The Jerk felt. Is it 4:20 or something? Seriously, I think I’m losing my mind.
When it comes to energy policy, I’m starting to buy the “drill, drill, drill” mantra of conservative America – at least to some extent. Maybe it’s just too much CNBC.
Could be the IPA. I do live in California. Might even be a little March Madness. Cuz I have a little insanity on the brain for sure.
Then again, what kind of “drill, drill, drill” American hates gas guzzlers and kinda thinks the car is evil, even if you plug it in?
Nevertheless, I can’t help but believe that the quickest path to US energy independence will largely have to be the most cost-effective path – at least initially – and that almost certainly seems to suggest new drilling of some kind. Maybe not, but if we’re serious, don’t we have to at least be open to the possibility?
Hence, dare I ask, does new drilling have to be evil?
I used to think so, but I’m not so sure.
Even the President is willing to help the Brazilians deep water drill for oil while assuring them that the US will be one of their best consumers. How is that really any different than US drilling in the same conditions? Is it all just politics?
I’m befuddled. For the sake of argument, if we drilled our own oil, couldn’t we at least put in place better environmental regulations than anyone from whom we import?
If you buy clothes made in a sweat shop, does the country of origin matter?
OK. I apologize. I’m afflicted by tangential thoughts. All I really need is this chair I’m sitting in……And the computer I’m typing on. And, maybe the table the computer is on. Plus, the electric outlet. But that’s it. That and my coffee cup. And my IPA.
Anyway, if you could, just as one example, convert shale, oil tars or natural gas into some kind of fuel – something like methanol for instance – while capturing the extra CO2 emissions of this conversion process and also turn those emissions into methanol, does that have to be such a bad thing? Ultimately, methanol is a fuel that could be used by conventional cars, hybrids, plug-ins and fuel cell vehicles alike. Wouldn’t that be better than the dirty foreign oil we import every day from foreign countries? Are shale and oil tars evil no matter what?
What if such a technology evolved into some sort of artificial photosynthesis where all human-caused CO2 in the atmosphere could be harvested and turned into cheap, clean energy in a decade or so?
Hearsay!? Drilling could never lead to such a thing? Two negatives can never turn into something positive?!?!
Maybe. Still, the numbers keep ringing in my head. Over and over.
1/3 of a $trillion. That’s how much America will send overseas to cover the cost of US foreign oil imports this year, and that’s the most conservative estimate possible.
$300 BILLION+, minimally, every year. Plus, all kinds of hidden security costs.
In 10 years that’s an easy $Trillion, an easy sleazy trillion. And really probably far more. Chump change to the average American politician, obviously.
Still, just for fun, how much would it cost to make the US energy independent by 2020 using any combination of US resources? How ’bout by 2030?
What’s the cheapest and fastest path to US energy independence? Just for the sake of argument, just for fun and games?
Is that such a dangerous question?
How much would it even cost just to answer such a question? I know for a fact Congress spends far more on far more trivial questions.
Could a TRILLION dollars set in motion a plan to achieve energy independence by 2020? By 2030? If not, how much would it cost?
Likewise, how much would it cost using ANY combination of the above resources without increasing pollution, especially CO2 emissions? How much more if CO2 emissions were reduced by 10, 20, or 30 percent, while scaling even lower every decade?
Would every possible plan cost more than a $1 TRILLION? More than $3 TRILLION?
Seriously, if the average American can finance a 30 year mortgage as a path to financial security, it has to be cost-effective for the government to finance up to $3 trillion – probably a lot more – to end US foreign energy dependence as quickly as possible considering the payback of energy independence.
Besides, how many jobs would be created if the US sought to be energy independent by 2020? What would that be worth?
Wouldn’t it be better to spend $300 billion every year in the US maintaining energy independence, rather than sending that money to foreign countries – many of whom want to see the US crushed? Once achieved, couldn’t we scale towards ever more efficiency, ever cleaner and greener energy independence?
I know, it’s so obvious that another 30 years of US foreign oil dependence will just work its way into the right solution, and I’m not sure where all this crazy talk is coming from. Just a momentary lapse of insanity I think. Another IPA and everything should be OK.
Here’s to another 30 years of US foreign oil dependence. Salute!
I think those kind of local fuels will be used more and more, DG.
[...] last week’s New drilling, energy independence and insanity I largely argued the [...]
Why not Dynamic Fuels in Lousiana? They take chick fat from Tyson and make Diesel. Why cant we take those Obama bucks and make more facteries like that?
Like getting a handle on the US debt, becoming energy independent is a key to future success of our country. Unfortunately we didn’t take it more seriously in the 1970’s when we first experienced OPEC flexing their oil strength over our economy. I consider my self to be a conservative, I believe there are much larger issues facing the global community then man-made global warming (peak water and food for one) and I do believe in “drill here and drill now”. However, I read your blog every week, I follow the development of plug-ins and hybrid’s, and I think our policy must recognize that we have passed peak oil and we must transition to other forms of domestic energy and stop sending money to people we have to fight with.
Your strategy of drilling with a transition in mind is something that we all could agree on and work towards because it will make our country cleaner, safer, and financially successful.
Thanks for your thoughts and keep up the good work.
Drilling locally won’t make a substantial difference in the price of oil. The question is, how much wealth do we want to transfer to people in other countries. To $300 billion in wealth sent away has to be created by some other economic activity. If a substantial portion of that was not loaned back, we’d be in real trouble.
The only thing that makes foreign oil more acceptable environmentally is that we don’t see the results. It’s up to other regions to set their own local standards. I have no idea how well they are doing it in Venezuela, but I’d expect it to be done cleaner in the US.
We are all benefiting by damaging mining of rare earths in China, but no one cares until they start to say “enough” and restrict the supply.
In considering a railroad contract, Abraham Lincoln is said to have said: If we buy the trains from Europe, we’ll have the Railroad; if we buy from America we’ll have the railroad and the money.
I have been reading about some of these new drilling techniques as well. Especially the technique of pumping water to extract oil from oil shales in ND and TX.
Estimates are this could reduce foreign oil dependence by anywhere from 25% to 50%.
Environmentalists aren’t too crazy about these techniques, but I am. My primary focus is where the oil comes from……