How poetic. Though to understand someone else it always helps to drop your own preconceptions first. If you want to see what is really there that is...

To be understood, one must strive for clarity. You settled for snarky.

Not in my first post, most of which you ignored and the rest you took out of context and/or sniped at. Like I say, if you want a serious debate on this matter then I'm game. Instead it sounds as though the article in question made you angry and you've stayed that way.

Another rather obvious point that we seem to have overlooked is that the graph Steve posted is total hydrocarbon reserves, not oil reserves. There's no way that China is the fourth biggest oil producer in the world. What they do have is massive deposits of coal, as does Russia and the US. For oil reserves the situation is rather different, as I found out with 10 secs of googling:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_o ... l-reserves

# 1 Saudi Arabia: 262,700,000,000 barrels
# 2 Canada: 178,900,000,000 barrels
# 3 Iran: 133,300,000,000 barrels
# 4 Iraq: 112,500,000,000 barrels
# 5 United Arab Emirates: 97,800,000,000 barrels
# 6 Kuwait: 96,500,000,000 barrels
# 7 Venezuela: 75,590,000,000 barrels
# 8 Russia: 69,000,000,000 barrels
# 9 Libya: 40,000,000,000 barrels
# 10 Nigeria: 36,000,000,000 barrels
# 11 Mexico: 33,310,000,000 barrels
# 12 Kazakhstan: 26,000,000,000 barrels
# 13 Angola: 25,000,000,000 barrels
# 14 United States: 22,450,000,000 barrels
# 15 China: 18,260,000,000 barrels

As you can see, the only countries in the top 10 for oil reserves that are not either in the Middle East or a traditional rival of the US are Canada and Nigeria, and the latter is still a very volatile country. There you go Steve, that's why you're still an importer.

Sassenach wrote:Another rather obvious point that we seem to have overlooked is that the graph Steve posted is total hydrocarbon reserves, not oil reserves. {snip}. There you go Steve, that's why you're still an importer.

Well, I think Steve was talking about more then just oil Sass. He specifically mentions large natural gas reserves and what aren't we using them.

Steve,
Coming from a state that is having the natural gas debate right now, I think it comes from a combination of lack of infrastructure and enviornmental concerns.

For the lack of infrastructure the concern is on natural gas powered cars. You can buy a CNG powered engine that is very fuel efficient. You can get about 300 miles to tank. The cost is signifacantly less then gas and it is much better for the environment. However, very few buy the cars because were will you fill up. Many Fleets, i.e. municipal, school bus and mass transit buses, in this area are currently switching to CNG but not much private ownership. It is a kind of chicken and egg thing.

The environmental concern is from the method of extratraction. We can get the gas from the Marcellus Shale through a method called Fracking. Fracking is a kind of hydrolic mining that uses a mixture of water and highly toxic chemicals to dissolve the shale and release the gas. There is a lot of concern about the chemicals leeching into the ground water. It is my understanding there was an article in the NYTimes about a week or two ago about fracking the Marcellus Shale.

Javelin wrote:Not in my first post, most of which you ignored and the rest you took out of context and/or sniped at. Like I say, if you want a serious debate on this matter then I'm game. Instead it sounds as though the article in question made you angry and you've stayed that way.

Look, this "taking me out of context" thing can be interpreted a number of ways. If you are demanding every word be analyzed, fine. If you have specific examples, lay them out.

Otherwise, all you've done is taken my (alleged) sniping and sniped back.

Sassenach wrote:Another rather obvious point that we seem to have overlooked is that the graph Steve posted is total hydrocarbon reserves, not oil reserves. There's no way that China is the fourth biggest oil producer in the world. What they do have is massive deposits of coal, as does Russia and the US. For oil reserves the situation is rather different, as I found out with 10 secs of googling:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_o ... l-reserves

# 1 Saudi Arabia: 262,700,000,000 barrels
# 2 Canada: 178,900,000,000 barrels
# 3 Iran: 133,300,000,000 barrels
# 4 Iraq: 112,500,000,000 barrels
# 5 United Arab Emirates: 97,800,000,000 barrels
# 6 Kuwait: 96,500,000,000 barrels
# 7 Venezuela: 75,590,000,000 barrels
# 8 Russia: 69,000,000,000 barrels
# 9 Libya: 40,000,000,000 barrels
# 10 Nigeria: 36,000,000,000 barrels
# 11 Mexico: 33,310,000,000 barrels
# 12 Kazakhstan: 26,000,000,000 barrels
# 13 Angola: 25,000,000,000 barrels
# 14 United States: 22,450,000,000 barrels
# 15 China: 18,260,000,000 barrels

As you can see, the only countries in the top 10 for oil reserves that are not either in the Middle East or a traditional rival of the US are Canada and Nigeria, and the latter is still a very volatile country. There you go Steve, that's why you're still an importer.

Let's look at oil reserves. There is a different picture available:

While the US is often depicted as having only a tiny minority of the world’s oil reserves at around 28 billion barrels (based on the somewhat misleading figure of ‘proven reserves’) according to the CRS in reality it has around 163 billion barrels. As Inhofe’s EPW press release comments, “That’s enough oil to maintain America’s current rates of production and replace imports from the Persian Gulf for more than 50 years”

Now, some of that may not exist. Some of it may be difficult to extract. However, one thing is very clear: the US is not making a concerted effort to drill for more oil domestically. In fact, our government is doing all it can to slow or prevent such drilling.

That is why we are still an importer. One observer goes on to note:

19,000 jobs and 1.1 billion in earnings have been lost since the imposition of the administration’s moratorium. Both former Presidents Bush and Clinton have spoken out against the delays. And the administration remains in contempt of a court order which ordered them to speed up the permitting process. As a result the EIA has estimated a loss of 74,000 barrels a day of production due to the moratorium this year.

Meanwhile our President touts foreign oil, our investment in it and claims we’ll be its “best customer”.

As Glover says:

Meanwhile US energy policy persists in pursuing the myth that renewables are the economically viable future, with fossil fuels already, as the president said in January, “yesterday’s energy”. With 85 percent of global energy set to come from fossil fuels till at least 2035 no matter what wishful thinkers may prefer, current US energy policy – much like European – is pure political pantomime.

Couldn’t agree more. We sit on a veritable treasure trove of natural resources which could actually make us energy independent and we have an administration which is doing everything in its power to not just keep us dependent on foreign oil, but to increase our dependence.

I understand there is no way President Obama can change this overnight. However, instead of helping the situation, he is making it worse. Future Americans will be more dependent on foreign oil than ever because of his actions.

I'm not really convinced by these numbers for potential oil reserves. Oil companies routinely exaggerate their reserves as it is. When Shell was recently forced to downgrade estimates of it's reserves the share price plummeted. Similarly, governments also exaggerate their reserves. Saudi's reserves have apparently been unchanged for about the last 20 years despite pumping like crazy for the whole time, and if the recently released Wikileaks memo has any truth to it then Saudi reserves may actually be 40% lower than the official figure. If that applies to proven reserves then what does it say about unproven, speculative reserves that may or may not actually exist ?

Sassenach wrote:I'm not really convinced by these numbers for potential oil reserves. Oil companies routinely exaggerate their reserves as it is. When Shell was recently forced to downgrade estimates of it's reserves the share price plummeted. Similarly, governments also exaggerate their reserves. Saudi's reserves have apparently been unchanged for about the last 20 years despite pumping like crazy for the whole time, and if the recently released Wikileaks memo has any truth to it then Saudi reserves may actually be 40% lower than the official figure. If that applies to proven reserves then what does it say about unproven, speculative reserves that may or may not actually exist ?

This is entirely logical. If Saudi Arabia has fewer reserves, we must also have fewer reserves. And, if we have fewer reserves then we ought not drill for them.

Perfectly clear--and proven beyond any doubt. After all, you don't believe the numbers. That's good enough for me.

steve

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.

True. But When did the US have a coherent energy policy?
The development of energy resources hasn't been guided by anything but international conglomerates for over 40 years. For that reason alone, cheaper to produce foreign reserves were preferred over the "development" of American resources. International conglomerates don't care that wealth flows from the US to foreigners, only that they maintain the highest possible profit margin.
And a "coherent effective energy policy" that would require government involvement in the energy sector is a fairly direct way. The French govenrment was directly involved in the production of their nuclear...Same with other countries who've developed "alternative sources".. That kind of direct government involvement wasn't politically possible in the States since 80 or even earlier...

You are also right about strategic development. But when oil conglomerates, due to cost, resist the kinds of protections that Norway has in place for deep sea drilling, needlessly putting at risk the fishing and tourist industries in the Gulf of Mexico, it isn't "strategic development". Strategic development ensures that benfits out weigh the risks for everyone in the region or country. Not just drillers.
One major benefit of strategic development of domestic oil, would be the elimination of the trade deficit..but if an ecological deficit follows you havn't benefitted.Thats why caution is required for developments like Frakking which may destroy valuable water resources. A resource which is limited in much of the US. And thats also why coal isn't an answer, at least as it is currently consumed. There is no such thing as "clean coal".
I never knew you were prepared to accept direct government involvement in econmic policy Steve.

I see both sides and frankly, I'm rubbing my eyes, it would appear as if our possibly most conservative poster here is acting down right liberally. He's calling for forced energy independence, forced policies of all kinds. He seems to be ignoring proven supply and demand principles, ignoring the economies of things that Javelin has quite clearly spelled out. Steve is our newest liberal????

...honestly, I really am somewhat shocked.

Steve, you asked for a specific example, here is how you concluded your initial post:

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.

Now, go back and read the article you cited. It is a commentary upon an article which states that the US has huge energy reserves yet has an incoherent energy policy. I read that article, and its commentary, and agreed with many of its conclusions - though I did seriously question some of its factual data. My post was based on that article and my background knowledge, nothing else.

Read it carefully. Yes, it is biased, it has a certain political slant. But it is also completely hard headed and coldly logical regarding its subject matter. In that article there is no mention of ANY environmental issues whatsoever. No concerns about Greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, or even an allusion to any fringe loonies who take up arms over such issues. So why do you?

Seriously, I'm not out to get you here. I just want you to take a step back and see that the article that you have cited has NOTHING to do with the viewpoint of yours which I quoted. Nothing at all.

rickyp wrote:steve

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.

True. But When did the US have a coherent energy policy?

Two points:

1. So this would be an excuse for not formulating one now--how exactly?
2. This is a great argument for dismantling the Department of Energy. It was formed nearly 40 years ago to handle this problem and has proved a waste of money.

One major benefit of strategic development of domestic oil, would be the elimination of the trade deficit..but if an ecological deficit follows you havn't benefitted.Thats why caution is required for developments like Frakking which may destroy valuable water resources. A resource which is limited in much of the US. And thats also why coal isn't an answer, at least as it is currently consumed. There is no such thing as "clean coal".

Sorry, I can't get past the word "may" and when I contrast it with "no such thing as 'clean coal,'" I see a potential contradiction. At the very least, I think this is an area that demands more study, not just a blanket policy to put the coal industry out of business (which Obama once alluded to).

I never knew you were prepared to accept direct government involvement in econmic policy Steve.

Um, newsflash: it is the direct government involvement of this Administration (blocking drilling), and other politicians (blocking wind, solar, and nuclear) that I am protesting.

GMTom wrote:I see both sides and frankly, I'm rubbing my eyes, it would appear as if our possibly most conservative poster here is acting down right liberally. He's calling for forced energy independence, forced policies of all kinds. He seems to be ignoring proven supply and demand principles, ignoring the economies of things that Javelin has quite clearly spelled out. Steve is our newest liberal????

...honestly, I really am somewhat shocked.

Don't believe the hype!

As I've said, we don't have a free energy market. Government intervention has and is distorting it.

I am also saying the lack of a coherent policy is a national security issue.

Javelin wrote:Steve, you asked for a specific example, here is how you concluded your initial post:

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.

Now, go back and read the article you cited. It is a commentary upon an article which states that the US has huge energy reserves yet has an incoherent energy policy. I read that article, and its commentary, and agreed with many of its conclusions - though I did seriously question some of its factual data. My post was based on that article and my background knowledge, nothing else.

Read it carefully. Yes, it is biased, it has a certain political slant. But it is also completely hard headed and coldly logical regarding its subject matter. In that article there is no mention of ANY environmental issues whatsoever. No concerns about Greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, or even an allusion to any fringe loonies who take up arms over such issues. So why do you?

Seriously, I'm not out to get you here. I just want you to take a step back and see that the article that you have cited has NOTHING to do with the viewpoint of yours which I quoted. Nothing at all.

Well, I can at least see what the problem is. You presumed my comment was about the article or something you said. It was not.

However, it is not some unrelated thought. It is directly on the forum topic: Why Are We Importers? In part, it is because of the obstructions of partially-insane "save the planet" extremists.