I read that the United States is producing as much oil as it did in 1992. By 2018, we're on track to produce as much oil as we did at our previous peak in the early 1970s. We're also learning to squeeze a lot more GDP out of a barrel oil than we did twenty or forty years ago, so our demand is going down. That means we can kiss the Middle East goodbye and stop subsidizing oil with trillions of dollars of military spending, right?
[Energy expert Michael] Levi warns against overestimating the political and economic benefits of lower U.S. imports, however. Because the oil market is global, a supply disruption in the Middle East would send prices higher everywhere — including for U.S. consumers — even if the U.S. imports no oil from the Middle East. For that reason, the U.S. will still need to help maintain stability in the region ["Growth in US, Canadian oil production reducing imports, pushing Middle Eastern oil to Asia," AP via Fox News, 2013.05.14].
Sometimes I wonder if there's just no winning against Big Oil. They to take our land and water for pipelines and fracking, promising that their projects will bring us energy independence. But then as we make concrete steps toward that independence (still slurping, mind you, their addictive, poisonous potions), we still have to send our kids to fight and die for Middle East oil, for the sake of the stability of the global petro-economy.
So what's easier: disengaging completely from fossil fuels, or remaining the global corporations' volunteer security force?
If you believe in capitalism, let the markets dictate the oil price, if you believe in militarism, let the military control the situation, and if you believe in socialism let the governments control it. Each will be sure they are correct, and each will be narrow minded.
Mainly, let the markets decide. But do not let the government us the militay as a power trip like rich kid Bush did.
Yup. We can drill, drill, drill and it won't make much difference. If we pumped enough to lower the price of oil appreciably, pumps that aren't profitable at that price get shut down and other oil producers just slow down. Supply goes down, prices go back up. Or, if you pump more to lower the price you encourage more use, which catches up to production, which produces an increased price. If prices go down appreciably social unrest in oil producing areas increases, and the instability drives up prices. Republicans don't seem to understand basic economics.
You might not be able to totally disengage from fossil fuels in the near to middle term, but you can go on a path to make the inevitable price increases less damaging to the economy. That means alternatives.
Some people don't understand basic economics. I try not to put global labels on people myself. It shows intolerance of others and small-mindedness.
On price, the AP article notes that "Average oil prices have been remarkably flat over the last three years. The price of oil averaged $95 per barrel in 2011, $94 in 2012 and $94 so far this year. That has kept average U.S. gasoline prices relatively stable too — averaging between $3.51 and $3.63 per gallon over the last three years. Tuesday's report had little effect on daily oil markets — oil closed down less than one percent to just over $94 per barrel." Another analyst sees prices staying around $90 a barrel for at least a couple more years.
The AP article also notes that if prices were to drop below $70, we'd see the Bakken-frackin' and Alberta tar sands oil scale back, because it's so expensive to produce.
Then again, Russia, China, India, and even Brazil are starting to flex more power-projecting muscle. If the U.S. can back away from protecting Big Oil with big guns, do we want to see other countries fill the vacuum and build up strength that they could use against us elsewhere?
The only, albeit exceptionally remote, chance the US has to unleash itself from the world oil market is alternatives to that market. There likely is not one but several are necessary. The first key is conservation - which the oil companies sniff at but its responsible for declining demand in the US. The second key is American energy for Americans. Exporting fossil fuels is foolish - whether its coal, LNG, or oil. The oil companies, most being multi-nationals and all being corporations must, by law, maximize shareholder value - i.e., maximize profits - so they want to export American energy today, for a larger profit today - and let tomorrow take care of itself. The third key is alternatives.
In the US the market is and has been nearly irrelevant for in oil for generations. Companies do not internalize their costs but pass them on to all of us. They write-off all drilling costs. They pay nothing for our policing of the international waters, or the forward stationing of our military. It would be great in the US if the market determined the oil price - but such a move would likely throw the US into depression.
Given the political entrenchments its unlikely, short of world war, the US will change from its Middle East entanglements for oil. Instead the US will continue muddling through making incremental tweaks to an outdated economic liquid fueling system.
These are just the high points but it sure got me to thinking about the real cost of driving a car. Im not sure the green tech industry is getting a fair shake when everything else is considered.
You can read the rest here.
http://www.progress.org/gasoline.htm
The true price of gasoline is as high as $15.14 a gallon, according to a new report released by the International Centre for Technology Assessment
Artificial, anti-free-market subsidies don’t end at the federal level, as the group said most state income taxes are in turn based on oil firms’ lower federal tax bills, which result in companies paying $123 million to $323 million less in state taxes.
In addition to tax breaks, the federal government provides up to $114.6 billion to the wealthy industry in giveaways and subsidies annually that support the extraction, production and use of petroleum, such as research and development and export financing.
The federal government also spends up to $1.6 billion yearly on regulatory oversight, pollution cleanup and liability costs connected to the oil industry, the group said.
In addition, U.S. military spending allocated to guard the world’s petroleum resources totals $55 billion to $96 billion a year, according to the group.
The Blindman
Even more evidence of more rapid global warming is turning up. The US should be spending billions on ways to cut reliance on fossil fuels to near zero. Wind and solar need to be greatly expanded. Thorium salt reactors need more research and development. The jokes about Disneyland East Dakota shore and Disneyland West Dakota shore may not be all that funny to coastal regions.
One might think self-preservation would lead some coastal dwellers to consider seriously the needs for more socially and environmentally responsible energy policies.
It's vastly easier and cheaper to continue operating as big oil's security force than to eliminate fossil fuel use. It's difficult to even grasp the value, size, and importance of oil.
Tony Amert, it is not at all hard to grasp the size and importance of oil. It is also not hard to grasp the political power that such incredible industry profits buy in Washington and other world capitals.
Not going beyond that however perverts use of government and military assets and may be destroying earth as we live in it. Just because oil is an 800 pound gorilla, doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything possible to put it out of our misery.