[lotuseclat79]

Article here.

Here's one of the most important puzzles of global oil security: Since the late 1970s, Saudi Arabia has pumped the market with oil, fearing that high prices could hurt global growth, reduce demand for Saudi oil, and anger its protector, Uncle Sam. Now, oil has almost doubled in one year to more than $90 a barrel, and the Saudis have barely lifted a finger despite the fear that high oil prices could increase the likelihood of an American, and therefore a global, recession. Why? The answer may define oil in the 21st century – or at least underscore the reasons for the US to seek greater oil independence.

-- Tom

[BDACBT]

Looks like we definitely need to expand our own drilling operations in known fields for the short term and build more nuclear plants for the long term.

[AngyWebby]

That'll just force us to develop biofriendly fuels.

[linskyjack]

Originally Posted by BDACBT

Looks like we definitely need to expand our own drilling operations in known fields for the short term and build more nuclear plants for the long term.

Looks like we definitely need to conserve and develop alternative forms of energy. What percentage of the total amount of energy used in the US comes from electrical generating plants?

[lizard]

Don't know if further development of Alberta's oil sands would ease the problem for a bit. I think they're already going full tilt; exploration, development, and production. Really not sure what the picture is there.

The U.S. is intending to release the area off northwestern Alaska, the Chukchi Sea, for exploration.
Potential is 15 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas, according to the Interior Department. link

Points of contention, among others, are the threat to wildlife (Whales, Polar Bears...), and the risks of oil spills. link

[trekguy]

Why would they ease oil prices? Demand is never going to go down. We've proven time and time again that we are not interested in conserving. The ONLY way this country will move towards alternative fuels and more efficient vehicles is if it hits us in the pocketbook.

[lizard]

No, demand won't go down, but things do change...

It looks like the U.S. has been taking a lot of steps to seek greater oil independence from Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf.

Canada is the largest supplier of oil, natural gas, and electricity, to the United States.

Here's an interesting write-up on the status of supply, oil sands, Saudi Arabia, etc.

The source of US imports for both petroleum and related products has shifted during the years 2001 and 2006.

The trend is very interesting, in that oil imports from Canada now exceed imports from the entire Persian Gulf, and oil imports from Mexico now exceed imports from Saudi Arabia.

I came across articles claiming that United States oil imports have increased threefold over the last fifteen years.

[Sins]

Originally Posted by BDACBT

Looks like we definitely need to expand our own drilling operations in known fields for the short term and build more nuclear plants for the long term.

I agree but I have a concern about the nuclear plants. What do we do with the spent fuel rods? Oakridge, TN has (or had) a rather impressive collection of low and medium grade waste that begged for disposal and of course we create more at all our power plants. The Yucca facility in NV has come under questions for geologic stability. Nevada is the second most active geological state in the union. I've heard stories of a train with tons of waste that drives around with no acceptable destination because no one wants the stuff in "their" backyard.

I think the wind is a great intermediate step also and see that TX has put in huge megawatt generators out in west Texas mesa areas. I really think hydrogen is the ultimate answer as the oceans are the only "limitless" source of power available to us. It's an engineering and cost problem at this point and I'd love to see government put up serious money to fund the R&D costs to wean us away from oil.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by trekguy

Why would they ease oil prices? Demand is never going to go down. We've proven time and time again that we are not interested in conserving. The ONLY way this country will move towards alternative fuels and more efficient vehicles is if it hits us in the pocketbook.

That's exactly why they would ease prices (actually they don't ease prices, they just increase the supply, which reduces the price). They've (Opec) have been doing that for decades (i.e., controlling the prices). In fact, by keeping it cheap enough they've given liberals the political strength to block new drilling by the US (they are not stupid). The liberal is best friend to OPEC without even realizing it.

[WarC]

Hurraaay for Canada!

[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

That's exactly why they would ease prices (actually they don't ease prices, they just increase the supply, which reduces the price). They've (Opec) have been doing that for decades (i.e., controlling the prices). In fact, by keeping it cheap enough they've given liberals the political strength to block new drilling by the US (they are not stupid). The liberal is best friend to OPEC without even realizing it.

Hey Muldie,

You may have just called Bush Jr. a liberal! Remember the photo of him and the King of SA at his ranch in TX holding hands!

-- Tom

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Hey Muldie,

You may have just called Bush Jr. a liberal! Remember the photo of him and the King of SA at his ranch in TX holding hands!

-- Tom

Damn the wildlife, full profits ahead!

Natives, Conservationists Sue to Block Chukchi Sea Oil Leasing
JUNEAU, Alaska, February 1, 2008 (ENS) - A coalition of Alaska natives and conservation groups filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday challenging oil drilling in the Chukchi Sea, which lies above the Arctic Circle between Alaska and Russia.

Thirty million acres of polar bear, walrus, and whale habitat in the Chukchi Sea are scheduled to be opened to oil and gas companies on February 6, when the U.S. Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, MMS, plans to hold bidding for drilling leases.

The lawsuit alleges that in making its decision to hold the lease sale, MMS did not adequately weigh the impacts that oil and gas activities would have on wildlife like polar bears, or on native villages along Alaska's North Slope.


Map showing the Chukchi Sea, which takes its name from the Chukchi people who live along its Russian shores subsisting on fishing and hunting. (Map by Norman Einstein)
Randall Luthi, director of the Minerals Management Service, said Friday, "Energy production can occur while maintaining strong polar bear protections."

A coalition made up of the Native Village of Point Hope, the City of Point Hope, the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, and REDOIL (Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands) represent the Native Alaska plaintiffs in the case.

The plaintiff conservation groups include the Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological Diversity, National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, Oceana, Pacific Environment, Sierra Club, and The Wilderness Society.

"The MMS has admitted a substantial likelihood of oil spills in the Chukchi Sea," said Kristen Miller, legislative director for Alaska Wilderness League. "There is no proven method to clean up an oil spill in the Arctic's broken sea ice, or even to reliably clean up a spill in open water."

"The Chukchi Sea is our garden. We've hunted and fished in the ocean for thousands of years," said Jack Schaefer, president of the tribal council of the Native Village of Point Hope. "The ocean is what our history and culture is based on. One oil spill could destroy our way of life."

...http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2...8-02-02-01.asp

[Paquadez]

Get the story right.

The USA could drill oil wells to kingdom come and back.

The core problem is it lacks refining capacity.

One reason cited by Big Oil is too stringent EPA regulations.

Whilst this has some justification, in fact, it was a cheaper shot for Big Oil to import product as well as crude from the increasing raft of oil producers who set up mega-refining facilities 20 years ago.

Thus the US changed from self-sufficiency to imports: and then reliance on imports of both the upstream feedstock and the downstream product, to meet the rapidly increasing demand -led explosion in hydrocarbon sourced energy consumption.

Any alternative form of energy is light years away from reality: and in any case could only supply a tiny percentage of current total usage.

The big commercial problem which the Western world currently faces is rapidly increasing demand from China, India etc, as they expand their industrial bases.

One final structural point: major producers like Saudia use not only inceasing volumes to reduce prices, they also allow Big Oil long-term credit facilities. This might not seem like a large concession, but if you calculate the interest value of 250,000 tonnes of crude (A ULCC load) for a two week + journey to port of discharge, the amount becomes interesting!

Also, always remember that ARAMCO, the joint US-Saudi oil company which controls oil and gas prospecting, well development, lifting, pumping and sales, sets the post price along with PETROMIN, the Saudia Kingdom's Oil and Gas Ministry.

Whilst the Saudi government now owns most of Aramco's assets, it is still deeply involved with US majors, particularly Exon Mobil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Aramco

Important to also remember the duopoly of interest between Saudia and the USA. US war materiéls and military training allows the ruling family to perpetuate it basically feudal system and fend off internal and external demands for some form of democracy and human rights.

Thus Saudia will not set out to destroy the US economic base as to do so would be to destroy the very political-economic modus vivendi which allows the House of Saud its continuum.

So if that is so, then who is hiking the prices??

[lotuseclat79]

Hi Paq,

I hate to disagree with you, but I see the "core" problem as "dependence" on oil, and the intransigeant attitude toward moving as fast as possible to an independence upon it - both by industry and government policy.

-- Tom

[Paquadez]

Oh that was the core problem many years ago, Tom

The problem now is that the US economy, mired in the prototypical Western Post-Keynsian model, needs to achieve 2-3% GDP Growth each and every year, simply to stand still; in real terms.

And without the present super-high levels of imported crude, gas and product, the US economy dives into almost instant recession.

Even taking into account the SOR, the US can survive circa 6 weeks before the lights start to go out!

To change that dependence, holistically, will take years and years.

If the process had have started meaningfully, 25 years ago, then there would be some hope.

Now the only sole option is a continuum of the present status quo.