Quote:
Originally Posted by danjarch
CD, Your using dooms day math. It assumes that all hell breaks loose and we can no longer get any foreign oil. Reality check, if Chavez decides to cut of the USA, he has to sell the oil some where. Whoever buy his oil won't be buying someone else's oil. Do to the economics involved. We ship millions of barrels of oil to Japan, and import this same millions from Mexico.
|
Dooms day math? Dooms day:
Dictionary.com: given to or marked by forebodings or predictions of impending calamity; esp. concerned with or predicting future universal destruction (I took out the part about Nuclear, God forbid, but possible. Yet, that is for another discussion).
Dooms day implies the end and something that, though possible, is likely not to happen. Let me give you some dates:
1967 Oil Embargo
1967 Oil Embargo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1973 Oil Crisis
1973 oil crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The 1973 oil crisis began on October 17, 1973, when the members of Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC, consisting of the Arab members of OPEC plus Egypt and Syria) announced, as a result of the ongoing Yom Kippur War, that they would no longer ship oil to nations that had supported Israel in its conflict with Syria and Egypt (the United States, its allies in Western Europe, and Japan).
1979 Iranian Revolution
Iranian Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1990 Persian Gulf War
Gulf War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2005 Hugo Chavez (Venezuela): "Oil is a Geopolitical Weapon."
Countless other comments too numerous to mention from Chavez, Iran, etc about using oil as a weapon and specifically cutting off the United States and/or getting OPEC to cut off the United States.
Dan,
THis is not doomsday (I sincerely hope). This is reality and history. History WILL repeat itself here. The Middle East is no more stable (argueable less stable) today than it was in the 70's. Could you argue that S America is less stable now than it was in the 70's (with regard to the potential for us to lose our oil imports)?? I think you could make that argument pretty easy. In fact, I feel the potential for this to happen is more real today than 10 years ago... or thirty. If nothing else, because we use more oil and have fewer options.
After the Oil Embargo of 1973, the US pushed back from its oil consumption. However, we have now surpassed that consumption of foreign oil again. We have put it to the point that we cannot supply enough of our own oil with our current needs to be self sufficient. Using your Dooms Day term, it does not generally happen with a lot of warning. If you get weeks/months warning, it will be a miracle. Now, compare that to this reality: In order for us, as a nation, to make any real difference on oil, will take 10-20 years. YEARS!!! (I can quote some US Government articles if you wish, but I think you know this already). Once that "dooms day" comes, you won't have time to find alternatives. You will either be forced to concede to points that are not in your best interests as a nation and likely hurt your national security, or (and more likely) you go to war. That is the only chip we keep on the table - a massive military.
You also mentioned Chavez or other countries cutting us off and selling to other countries. They already sell to other countries and meet their needs. He sells to us out of necessity. Surely you do not dissagree with that?? He sells to us because with the present economy, he needs our money as bad as we need his oil. In biology, we call that a symbiotic relationship. However, don't think for a second that if he could sell that oil to another nation, for equal or greater price, that he would not do so. If he could keep his social/communist) policies in place while cutting us off, he would do it in a heartbeat and dance all the way to the bank.
Then what would you do? Saudia Arabia is already nearly at maximum production. Go buy it from Iran? Strip Iraq? What options are on the table but giving up your national interests or going to war? Becuase there is no way you can "flip a switch" and make your country run until you find alternatives.
That is why they put in place the Strategic Oil Reserve:
DOE - Fossil Energy: U.S. Petroleum Reserves
That is, about 702 million barrels. Assuming we do not get totally cut off, it still does not give you much time to find an alternative, short of war or unfathonable national concessions. My bet, personally, is that the 700 whatever barrels are just enough to keep our navy and military running to reach any part of the world and do what we would be forced to do... unfortunately. I don't think it is meant for the civilian consumer, per se.
So, how can you have security or economic independence with foreign oil dependence? Seems impossible to me.
I have tried to show or prove my points with facts. Those facts are:
1) We cannot currently produce enough oil to be self sufficient.
2) We cannot, anytime in the foreseable future, produce enough to be self sufficient.
3) Even if we do produce enough, it (even with unrealistic estimates) will only be able to supply the US for some months.
4) Oil is reaching a plateau.
5) Oil has, can, and will (with all likelihood) be used as a weapon against us.
6) It will take years or several decades for anything we do today to be useful for tomorrow. This includes non-hydrocarbon and hydrocarbon solutions.
7) Oil is not a renewable resource.
I have intentionally avoided sources that are not US Gov sponsored links. I do not feel Exxon (or Shell, as was one article) or Green People (or whatever they were called) give an unbiased opinion. That is why I have tried to use the links or US Gov sponsored links (with the exception of Sailaway's link that he presented) to present my facts. It is not to say they are right or would not skew some data, but it seems the most credible of the information.
With the 7 points above, how can you feel that it is in our best interests to drill without a sincere and direct effort ot get OFF foreign oil and, in essenece, get off oil alltogether?
Please explain to me what facts you base your information off of so I can review them and re-evaluate my view. I (honestly, sincerely, I swear) am not trying to simply grab points of view and give one side only to make sure that I am right. I promise. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. I have done it, publically on this board alone. But this article has spurred an interst in me to reserach the matter further. As such, without other facts upon which to consider your conclusions, I cannot see how anyone would agree with your proposed course of action. It honestly makes no sense to me.
- CD
PS THis is not a debate to be won or lost. It is simply a review of opinions for future actions. I simply ask you to stand back and review the facts and keep an open mind upon the direction you suggest.