NationStates Jolt Archive

The flurry of talk surrounding oil right now is really just due to high prices. China's overheating market, a lack of US supplies for this summer, and OPEC's refusal to pump oil into the market are all contributing factors, but that doesn't mean the current situation will last forever. In the not-so-distant future, prices will collapse because of a global recession plus a Chinese depression, and it's economical to extract from tar sands and even shale oil.
This cycle of up-and-down will probably repeat a few more times, but for the most part, oil prices will stay up. In the time when they are nice and low, however, I'm afraid that we'll loose interest in preserving oil supplies. We need to conserve what we have left and find some alternative within, I hope, the next thirty years, and still allow room for the global economy to grow (yes, it'll be possible).
The US has this in their best interest to preserve and protect what is left, while finding something else. The European Continent, Russia, and China, which are the other big oil consumers, at least have easy land access to oil supplies. The US doesn't, and oil, I believe, can be cut from the US easily. The superpower of the world illusion is a myth. Yes, we are one in most every other aspect. But as long as we need to rely on foreign oil, the lifeblood of our nation, the world, and particularly OPEC hold a knife to our jugular vein.
Therefore, to ensure our survival as a world power into the 22nd century, I believe the following must be done.
1. Build the tanker fleet, as well as undersea pipelines for both oil and natural gas. While we're at it, we should impose restrictions on what tankers may enter this country. I’d say that to increase security, have all tankers either fly a US flag, or the country that the tanker is shipping the oil from. Why? Last year, pirates hijacked a tanker in the Strait of Malacca with known links to al-Qaeda. They commandeered the ship for an hour before the tanker was retaken by Singaporean troops. It’s led to fears that such a tanker with a suicide bomber onboard may stream into a harbor, and blow the tanker up. This would kill thousands, and if it happens in such a port as Singapore, world oil traffic will be seriously impaired. Therefore, we need one or two US naval guards on each ship entering this country, just like during WWII. Other countries should do the same.
2. Conserve. It’s easy to do, but it takes sacrifice. The CEO of GM, however, has an interesting idea. Tax each gallon of gas by $0.50, but exclude hybrids. An increasing number of conservatives, like myself, support such a measure. I myself see nothing wrong with it. After all, all sorts of hybrid vehicles are rolling off assembly lines, including hybrid SUVs. Also, use common sense, like turning off lights when not in a room.
3. Find an alternative. Even if there’s a zillion barrels of oil, there’s one problem: it’s not in the US. Anyone knows that, despite its power and wealth, the US’s dependence on foreign oil is its Achilles’ heel. There are multiple options to explore, like fusion, hydrogen, and even vegetable oil. This is, btw, the best way to use any taxes on gas.
4. Subsidize the energy industry. Even finding alternatives is just a long-term solution. A short-term solution is finding more reserves. However, oil companies must realize that, forty years from now, they’ll have to move beyond oil if they want to survive. At least some of our oil must be used to find alternatives, and the energy industry is in a fine position to lead the way, perhaps better than what governments can do. Also, the government should subsidize the electronics industry. They’ll use the money to develop energy efficient electronics, and hopefully, new, more efficient batteries, like chemical fuel cells.
5. Avoid chokepoints like the Straits of Malacca and Hormuz. Have tankers navigate near Australia if need be, but these two straits are too dangerous for such a precious commodity. I see, however, no threat in using the Suez Canal, where the Persian Gulf can easily transport their oil via pipelines. Besides, if anything happens in the Suez Canal, the US Sixth Fleet is in Italy, and the Fifth Fleet is in Bahrain.
Rudimentary suggestions, perhaps, but oil is becoming too precious to interrupt its flow, or to waste. We must plan for the long term. But I didn’t write this thread to scare people. I wanted to embolden people. We have many options, perhaps under explored, but options, nevertheless. Always remember that.

Yes, I would endorse the above. Flagging all tankers inbound to the US is impractical, of course, as the different tax regime and other regulations would eat into the operators' profit margin, but putting Coast Guard personnel on them once they enter territorial waters might be acceptable.

Building a couple of hundred large LNG tankers and several more gassification plants would be necessary as part of that, as US natural gas production is dropping fast, and US electricity is now very vulnerable.

And no question, the bottom line will be using a lot less oil.

Yes, I would endorse the above. Flagging all tankers inbound to the US is impractical, of course, as the different tax regime and other regulations would eat into the operators' profit margin, but putting Coast Guard personnel on them once they enter territorial waters might be acceptable.

Building a couple of hundred large LNG tankers and several more gassification plants would be necessary as part of that, as US natural gas production is dropping fast, and US electricity is now very vulnerable.

And no question, the bottom line will be using a lot less oil.
Well, Kuwaiti tankers were very happy to "reflag" in the eighties. After all, they were being attacked by Iranian gunboats, which is why I find the Strait of Hormuz dangerous. Even with the presence of the Fifth Fleet, a well-placed attack by Iran would wipe them out.
Of course, I've read some of your earlier posts. You said that something to the scale of a Five-Year plan would have to be done. I don't believe that. As prices inch higher, energy companies, whether oil or not, will find solutions. The LNG tankers would be quite easy to build. After all, the shipbuilding industry has been in a bit of trouble, so it's really a win-win, if prices go high enough.
Plus, if prices go high enough, "Saudi Arabias of the wind", as they are called, may come into being. There's a great potential for them. I saw a map courtesy of National Geographic. The electrical capacity of wind for North America is 139 billion kilowatt-hours. Not bad, really. Prices for wind mills have also decreased by a factor of ten since the seventies, and in the past few years, they've experienced rapid growth.
It's also why I think that a hydrogen economy is just practical. As the holy ERT of 1.01 is starting to be reached, it is becoming easier to store and transport. It'll probably see its first use in small electronics, but they're expected on the market sometime next year. There are options manifesting themselves everywhere. High gas prices are just the catalyst for these options to be exploited.

Not all the oil price hike can be blamed on OPEC production levels. Saudi Arabia has tried to help Bush out by increasing production, but unfortunately with the dollar falling in value it just doesn't buy as much any more. The USA could increase interest rates, but with so many people in America up to their nipples in plastic never-never that could have even worse consequences there.

Not all the oil price hike can be blamed on OPEC production levels. Saudi Arabia has tried to help Bush out by increasing production, but unfortunately with the dollar falling in value it just doesn't buy as much any more. The USA could increase interest rates, but with so many people in America up to their nipples in plastic never-never that could have even worse consequences there.
You're right. Despite that little conspiracy theory part about the Saudis, I mostly agree with you. The main reason that, for right now, prices are high is because of China. Just two years ago, they were a net oil exporter, and I'm sure that OPEC would have no objections if China joined then. Today, however, it's the fastest growing in oil consumption. 5 million barrels, second only to the US, are imported every day. The oil situation with China should get only worse. With the world's fastest growing trade deficit, an ever increasing affluent population, and a very weak, government based economic infrastructure, it's inevitable that China will have a recession in the next few years. Despite this, their affluence won't evaporate, and Beijing seems willing to keep China as an economic engine for Asia. So, they'll import just as much, or perhaps even more raw materials. Since most of their imported food, and quite of few of their industrial goods, come from the US, it'll inflate the market, driving the price of everything up, including gas. However, I'm not sure if wages can keep up with this new inflation.

To add to my initial list, btw, I have another way everyone can save some oil.
6. Eat less beef. They, of all livestock, consume the most grain, and therefore, oil. The point was driven home in this month's National Geographic. In it was a picture of a steer, standing next to how many drums of oil she needed to grow. It was six barrels of oil. No other animal needs so much grain, and therefore oil, per pound as a cow does.
I myself have not entirely given up beef, and I feel it's unrealistic. I'm just saying that cutting down is a good idea. At a resturant, order the chicken breast instead of the filet.

I don't know if you've considered this in your studies, Purly, but I came across this last night and it got me wondering. This posting by Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/004021.php) points out that the problem is that most of the oil producing countries are at or are very near capacity already, while demand continues to increase.

Here's part of the post.
Current demand for crude oil is about 80 million barrels per day.

There is practically no spare producing capacity anywhere in the world except Saudi Arabia. They have spare capacity of about 1.5 million barrels per day.

Demand for oil increases by about 2 million barrels each year.

When people talk about oil, the most common question is "How much do we have left?" The answer is "quite a bit," but unfortunately it's the wrong question. The right question is, "How much can we pump out of the ground per day?" And the answer is, "Not very much more than we're pumping now."

Twenty years ago the world had about 15 million barrels/day of spare pumping capacity. Ten years ago we had about 5 million barrels of spare capacity. Today we have close to none. There are ways of increasing this capacity, of course, but it takes time to build additional pumping, pipeline, and refinery capacity, and time is something we've run out of. What's more, although we can increase pumping capacity in the medium term, we will eventually run into an absolute limit on global pumping capacity, which is something on the order of 100 million barrels/day. We are probably within about ten years of reaching this absolute production peak.

In other words, even though there's a lot of oil in the ground, oil supplies are going to become permanently tight within the next couple of years and will become disastrously tight within the next decade or so. In the meantime, demand will continue to grow inexorably at about 2% per year, which means that over the next few years the price of oil is going to skyrocket and not everyone is going to get all the oil they want.

On a side note, I like the idea about cutting back on the beef eating.

I don't know if you've considered this in your studies, Purly, but I came across this last night and it got me wondering. This posting by Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/004021.php) points out that the problem is that most of the oil producing countries are at or are very near capacity already, while demand continues to increase.

Here's part of the post.
Current demand for crude oil is about 80 million barrels per day.

There is practically no spare producing capacity anywhere in the world except Saudi Arabia. They have spare capacity of about 1.5 million barrels per day.

Demand for oil increases by about 2 million barrels each year.

When people talk about oil, the most common question is "How much do we have left?" The answer is "quite a bit," but unfortunately it's the wrong question. The right question is, "How much can we pump out of the ground per day?" And the answer is, "Not very much more than we're pumping now."

Twenty years ago the world had about 15 million barrels/day of spare pumping capacity. Ten years ago we had about 5 million barrels of spare capacity. Today we have close to none. There are ways of increasing this capacity, of course, but it takes time to build additional pumping, pipeline, and refinery capacity, and time is something we've run out of. What's more, although we can increase pumping capacity in the medium term, we will eventually run into an absolute limit on global pumping capacity, which is something on the order of 100 million barrels/day. We are probably within about ten years of reaching this absolute production peak.

In other words, even though there's a lot of oil in the ground, oil supplies are going to become permanently tight within the next couple of years and will become disastrously tight within the next decade or so. In the meantime, demand will continue to grow inexorably at about 2% per year, which means that over the next few years the price of oil is going to skyrocket and not everyone is going to get all the oil they want.

On a side note, I like the idea about cutting back on the beef eating.
Fine. I'm not worried about literally running out of the stuff so much as who it's coming from. But, as the article noted, if new reserves are found, it'll take a while to develope them. In the mean time, prices will rise, and more and more scientists and businesses will start exploring our other options. I applaud the decision of my hometown company, Kodak, to assist in research for chemical fuel cells to put in electronics. I expect that as prices inch steadily higher, more actions like this will happen. But, I don't think that even we want to see OPEC futures for oil exceed $100/barrel.

Oh, I have one more suggestion.
7. To make sure the pain is equally shared, place tarriffs on coffee and tea.

Rather than eating chicken and putting a tarrif on tea and coffee (which would damage the economies of LEDCs) I think more fuel efficient cars would be a start. Taking a car from Ford's UK range I'm getting upwards of 30MPG (Ford Fiesta), it's a fairly average car in the UK. How many MPG does an average American car get? SUVs get, what, 8? (I'm guessing)

That would be a better place to look to conserver oil, although being more energy efficient as a whole can't go wrong.

I don't trust the market to deliver a timely solution. There is so much hot air about oil out there, by the time prices are really high, and people decide, yep, best come up with something new, world oil production will have begun its exponential decline in earnest. And with a constantly falling energy input to industry, implementing some as yet undefined technical fix will get harder. No, the only way we are going to have a hope of solving this is if governments act ahead of the market. Leaving it to the invisible hand of market forces is irresponsible, and is almost certainly a failing strategy. Heh, people are still saying the market will produce a solution. We should have started working on it many years ago. As things stand, we are already too late.

Rather than eating chicken and putting a tarrif on tea and coffee (which would damage the economies of LEDCs) I think more fuel efficient cars would be a start. Taking a car from Ford's UK range I'm getting upwards of 30MPG (Ford Fiesta), it's a fairly average car in the UK. How many MPG does an average American car get? SUVs get, what, 8? (I'm guessing)

That would be a better place to look to conserver oil, although being more energy efficient as a whole can't go wrong.
I knew a comment like this would come. And that's why I proposed it. Every time there's a suggestion to radically alter a society, it comes from from businesspeople, academia, liberal elites, and big shot politicians. See a common link? They're rich. They can afford radical change. This tax makes sure that they can't hide from their own solutions.

I don't trust the market to deliver a timely solution. There is so much hot air about oil out there, by the time prices are really high, and people decide, yep, best come up with something new, world oil production will have begun its exponential decline in earnest. And with a constantly falling energy input to industry, implementing some as yet undefined technical fix will get harder. No, the only way we are going to have a hope of solving this is if governments act ahead of the market. Leaving it to the invisible hand of market forces is irresponsible, and is almost certainly a failing strategy. Heh, people are still saying the market will produce a solution. We should have started working on it many years ago. As things stand, we are already too late.
If you majored in political science, TG, I'm almost certain that your favorite book was Leviathan.

If you majored in political science, TG, I'm almost certain that your favorite book was Leviathan.
I have not read it I'm afraid, but from what I have heard of it, I could well find it interesting, provided I could get to the end without falling asleep. :lol:

If you majored in political science, TG, I'm almost certain that your favorite book was Leviathan.
I have not read it I'm afraid, but from what I have heard of it, I could well find it interesting, provided I could get to the end without falling asleep. :lol:
So, you do believe that philosophy, that most men are wicked by nature?

So, you do believe that philosophy, that most men are wicked by nature?
Not exactly, it's a bit more complicated than that. I would say, requiring guidance, particularly at high levels of social complexity. Complex societies tend to undermine their interests if left to inertia, as this does not allow for discontinuities. Man may not be wicked, but society may not always know what is in its best interests.

I suppose it's a bit like a plane on autopilot, all very good while things are going well, but if there's a mountain in the way (for the sake of the analogy, one invisible to radar), you need someone to switch off the autopilot and swing the plane away, potentially hurting a lot of people in the back, in order to save the vehicle and its occupants.

Purly, this beautiful. I hope both you and I live to see these plans come into effect. If they do, they may very well save civilization. However, it will take a strong leader, or a series of strong leaders, around the world to make sure everything falls into place. For now, we can only hope.

Rather than eating chicken and putting a tarrif on tea and coffee (which would damage the economies of LEDCs) I think more fuel efficient cars would be a start. Taking a car from Ford's UK range I'm getting upwards of 30MPG (Ford Fiesta), it's a fairly average car in the UK. How many MPG does an average American car get? SUVs get, what, 8? (I'm guessing)

That would be a better place to look to conserver oil, although being more energy efficient as a whole can't go wrong.

SUV's generally get anywhere from 14-19 in city and 18-24 on highway. Cars will get from 21-28 in city and 25 to a possible 49 in highway, depending on engine type, type of fuel, and size of tires.

Yes, and thats one of the things that makes them status symbols. Not only can you afford to flush 20+ grand on your transportation, but you are also well off enough to not worry about the very large amount of money it will take to fill your gas guzzlers gas tank.

To add to my initial list, btw, I have another way everyone can save some oil.
6. Eat less beef. They, of all livestock, consume the most grain, and therefore, oil. The point was driven home in this month's National Geographic. In it was a picture of a steer, standing next to how many drums of oil she needed to grow. It was six barrels of oil. No other animal needs so much grain, and therefore oil, per pound as a cow does.
I myself have not entirely given up beef, and I feel it's unrealistic. I'm just saying that cutting down is a good idea. At a resturant, order the chicken breast instead of the filet.
Heh-heh. The sight of conservatives ditching beef for chicken in a bid to preserve "American power" is just too funny :lol:

To add to my initial list, btw, I have another way everyone can save some oil.
6. Eat less beef. They, of all livestock, consume the most grain, and therefore, oil. The point was driven home in this month's National Geographic. In it was a picture of a steer, standing next to how many drums of oil she needed to grow. It was six barrels of oil. No other animal needs so much grain, and therefore oil, per pound as a cow does.
I myself have not entirely given up beef, and I feel it's unrealistic. I'm just saying that cutting down is a good idea. At a resturant, order the chicken breast instead of the filet.
Heh-heh. The sight of conservatives ditching beef for chicken in a bid to preserve "American power" is just too funny :lol:

I can see it now...

Freedom Chicken & Fries! :P

I don't trust the market to deliver a timely solution. There is so much hot air about oil out there, by the time prices are really high, and people decide, yep, best come up with something new, world oil production will have begun its exponential decline in earnest. And with a constantly falling energy input to industry, implementing some as yet undefined technical fix will get harder. No, the only way we are going to have a hope of solving this is if governments act ahead of the market. Leaving it to the invisible hand of market forces is irresponsible, and is almost certainly a failing strategy. Heh, people are still saying the market will produce a solution. We should have started working on it many years ago. As things stand, we are already too late.
Rrright. Because the gov'ts are so good at running the economy. The example of statist regimes from Soviet Union to post-WWII Latin America with its import substitution policies is surely an example of that.

To add to my initial list, btw, I have another way everyone can save some oil.
6. Eat less beef. They, of all livestock, consume the most grain, and therefore, oil. The point was driven home in this month's National Geographic. In it was a picture of a steer, standing next to how many drums of oil she needed to grow. It was six barrels of oil. No other animal needs so much grain, and therefore oil, per pound as a cow does.
I myself have not entirely given up beef, and I feel it's unrealistic. I'm just saying that cutting down is a good idea. At a resturant, order the chicken breast instead of the filet.
Heh-heh. The sight of conservatives ditching beef for chicken in a bid to preserve "American power" is just too funny :lol:
I don't find it too out of the ordinary. America has eaten more chicken than beef since 1985.

So, you do believe that philosophy, that most men are wicked by nature?
Not exactly, it's a bit more complicated than that. I would say, requiring guidance, particularly at high levels of social complexity. Complex societies tend to undermine their interests if left to inertia, as this does not allow for discontinuities. Man may not be wicked, but society may not always know what is in its best interests.

I suppose it's a bit like a plane on autopilot, all very good while things are going well, but if there's a mountain in the way (for the sake of the analogy, one invisible to radar), you need someone to switch off the autopilot and swing the plane away, potentially hurting a lot of people in the back, in order to save the vehicle and its occupants.
I don't subscribe to that idea. I feel that man is inherently smart and mostly good. I guess my thinking is closer to John Locke in that sense.
Anyhow, man can solve his own problems. It's how our ancestors moved out of caves and into farming villages. But there's one thing man can't do: man can't work with other men (or women) in large groups. Thus, as the world's population boomed, it was only natural for capitalism to form. And it's only natural to think that the market will have a solution. After all, overall knowledge now doubles once a decade.

Purly, this beautiful. I hope both you and I live to see these plans come into effect. If they do, they may very well save civilization. However, it will take a strong leader, or a series of strong leaders, around the world to make sure everything falls into place. For now, we can only hope.
It doesn't need strong leaders, however. We have the basic knowledge of what will work, and how to work it. If prices go high enough, it'll surely be exploited. And at last, we won't be slaves of OPEC.

Here's a little article on just how fragile our oil supplies are.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5293518&pageNumber=2
This is what I mean by driving up prices. This event will no doubt do that, and will encourage further R&D into emerging energy alternatives. GE is a company involved in this incident, for example. They'd be wise to invest more into their new wind turbines they are building.

So I see no one's interested. That's fine. I'm confident this problem will work itself out. In any case, BUMP.

I feel like talking to a brick wall, so I will.
This is why I believe firmly in the market. It's from the neo-con's bible, and while I don't agree with it 100%, I agree with its underlying principles.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/global-20030923.htm

Another article about why I'm confident. And since this is happening in my hometown, I must be confident.
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/news/05280I4DPMI_news.shtml