You guys REALLY don't want that Canadian oil pipeline?

[RandomGuy]

The USGS begs to differ...

Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Permian Basin Province of West Texas and Southeast New Mexico, 2007


3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate—


Assessment of Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources of the Bakken Formation, Williston Basin, Montana and North Dakota, 2008

Between those two sources alone, America could survive for about 40 years without importing any oil from anywhere else.

And, there's an estimated 2 Trillion barrels under the Rocky Mountains just waiting for a inexpensive technology to tap it.

I'd say 40 years is enough time to noodle that one out.

EVER is a long time RG.

Even non-existant inexpensive technologies take time to ramp up. If one optimistically assumes we can get all of this oil, we would be faced with the problem making up for other sources' depletion.

We are increasing our consumption globally at 2-3% per year, but over the last thirty years or so, have used more oil than we have globally discovered every year. This is a long term unsustainable trend.

Ultimately you can't cheat physics. That itself works against any technology.

There might be 2 trillion barrels of oil locked in shale rock formations in the Rockies, but if it takes 1.9 trillion barrels worth of energy to get that to a usable form, that doesn't help us much.

In any event, that oil will still be part of a global market, and my assertion about dependency on foreign supply still stands.

Are you worried about Iranians disrupting oil supplies or not?

[Yonivore]

Even non-existant inexpensive technologies take time to ramp up. If one optimistically assumes we can get all of this oil, we would be faced with the problem making up for other sources' depletion.

Which is why there has been a clarion call for "drill here - drill now" for quite sometime now.

We are increasing our consumption globally at 2-3% per year, but over the last thirty years or so, have used more oil than we have globally discovered every year. This is a long term unsustainable trend.

Ultimately you can't cheat physics. That itself works against any technology.

There might be 2 trillion barrels of oil locked in shale rock formations in the Rockies, but if it takes 1.9 trillion barrels worth of energy to get that to a usable form, that doesn't help us much.

There is at least 40 years worth of oil available with technology available today. I'm thinking we can develop a cost-efficient method for tapping the Rockies by 2051.

In any event, that oil will still be part of a global market, and my assertion about dependency on foreign supply still stands.

A whole lot of Kentucky windage in there, RG.

Yes, we will be part of a global market that we have the potential to increase the supply in by over 2 Trillion barrels. Just think what that will do to the global price of oil.

Are you worried about Iranians disrupting oil supplies or not?

Worried? No.

Convinced we need to tell the envirowhackos to STFU and start tapping our own resources? Yep.

And, we don't have to be totally self-sufficient, off the bat. How much of our imports are from that volatile regional of the globe?

[Yonivore]

Hey, RG! How much, per gallon, do Saudis pay for gasoline?

And, Why?

[CosmicCowboy]

I get it now RG. You want a carbon tax. That explains a lot.

[Yonivore]

A in Reid's armor...



Looks like at least one Democrat is tired of being part of an obstructionist Senate.

[RandomGuy]

Which is why there has been a clarion call for "drill here - drill now" for quite sometime now.

In the long run building infrastructure or things that make oil cheaper, means we use more of it, and therefore become MORE vulnerable to Iran's ing around with global supply.


Not sure you saw this part when I posted it four or five times in a row.

[CosmicCowboy]

i saw it rg...i just believe that a unilateral carbon tax is ing idiotic..

[RandomGuy]

I get it now RG. You want a carbon tax. That explains a lot.

I want to be less dependent on oil in general. A carbon tax is one means to that end.

I suggest that because I know you won't like it, even though it makes more sense economically than building new pipelines, *if* your goal is to reduce our exposure to foreign supply disruptions.

There are other things we can do, other than hope for non-existant technologies to appear that made currently inaccessable oil suddenly economical to produce.

[RandomGuy]

i saw it rg...i just believe that a unilateral carbon tax is ing idiotic..

What it does is picks winners, non-carbon energy forms, and losers, carbon energy.

Markets do this all the time.

What it doesn't do is pick the technologies or forms of non-carbon energy that win. You let the market do its thing.

It is the *least* invasive way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil supply disruptions.

If you have an alternative, feel free to present it.

[spursncowboys]

In the long run building infrastructure or things that make oil cheaper, means we use more of it, and therefore become MORE vulnerable to Iran's ing around with global supply.


Not sure you saw this part when I posted it four or five times in a row.

I didn't know canada was apart of OPEC.

[CosmicCowboy]

The market itself provides the financial incentive for people to seek alternatives. Four dollar gas is a good example. See Toyota Prius.

You realize that carbon taxes are incredibly regressive, right?

It hurts the ones least able to afford it the most.

how do you square that with your other progressive ideals?

[spursncowboys]

What it does is picks winners, non-carbon energy forms, and losers, carbon energy.

Markets do this all the time.

What it doesn't do is pick the technologies or forms of non-carbon energy that win. You let the market do its thing.

It is the *least* invasive way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil supply disruptions.

If you have an alternative, feel free to present it.

Markets do it a little more efficiently, than corrupt politicians.

This is as idiotic and illogical as requiring ethanol in gasoline.

[RandomGuy]

I didn't know canada was apart of OPEC.

I like donuts.

[spursncowboys]

The market itself provides the financial incentive for people to seek alternatives. Four dollar gas is a good example. See Toyota Prius.

You realize that carbon taxes are incredibly regressive, right?

It hurts the ones least able to afford it the most.

how do you square that with your other progressive ideals?

Flat tax if it is to manipulate the stupid average man who doesn't know what is best for him.

[Yonivore]

In the long run building infrastructure or things that make oil cheaper, means we use more of it, and therefore become MORE vulnerable to Iran's ing around with global supply.

Not sure you saw this part when I posted it four or five times in a row.

Would that not depend on how much we introduce to the market? Exploiting new found reserves and drilling in currently prohibited (for no good reason) reserves will increase the global supply so, unless Iran could affect a reciprocal amount of supply, your point is meaningless.

As it stands, if Iran cuts supply, we have no recourse. By fully exploiting domestic sources, we can mitigate those affects.

[spursncowboys]

I like donuts.

I would say that too if I knew Canada's unrefined oil had nothing to do with OPEC decided prices.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=OPEC+member+countries

[RandomGuy]

The market itself provides the financial incentive for people to seek alternatives. Four dollar gas is a good example. See Toyota Prius.

You realize that carbon taxes are incredibly regressive, right?

It hurts the ones least able to afford it the most.

how do you square that with your other progressive ideals?

The market will provide a ton of incentives with gas far more expensive than 4 dollars a gallon in about ten years.

A carbon tax will be regressive. It is also possible to mitigate the most regressive aspects. That is a definite cost.

The benefit is that we don't have to wait, as I have pointed out, for the 3-4 billion Asians and Africans whose incomes and populations are rising far faster than our, to out-bid us for a diminishing supply of oil.

That will be pretty regressive in and of itself, and have the same function, but we will have less ability to mitigate it.

I want to just get out ahead of the curve.

It is a lesser of two evils. Sorry, that is our choice box.

[RandomGuy]

I would say that too if I knew Canada's unrefined oil had nothing to do with OPEC decided prices.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=OPEC+member+countries

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

[RandomGuy]

Would that not depend on how much we introduce to the market? Exploiting new found reserves and drilling in currently prohibited (for no good reason) reserves will increase the global supply so, unless Iran could affect a reciprocal amount of supply, your point is meaningless.

As it stands, if Iran cuts supply, we have no recourse. By fully exploiting domestic sources, we can mitigate those affects.

Sigh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticity_(economics)

No, not really.

[RandomGuy]

... and by fully exploiting you mean pulling non-existant technologies out of the hat?

How is that different than simply encouraging the current trend of renewables towards cheaper units of energy?

[Yonivore]

Carbon Tax <> Free Market development of alternative energy sources.

To where does the Government direct the collected taxes?

That's right, they pick winners and losers so, instead of developing technologies to recover a viable energy source.

You end up with Solyndra.

Alternative energy sources will be developed when the free market sees the need.

[CosmicCowboy]

The market will provide a ton of incentives with gas far more expensive than 4 dollars a gallon in about ten years.

A carbon tax will be regressive. It is also possible to mitigate the most regressive aspects. That is a definite cost.

The benefit is that we don't have to wait, as I have pointed out, for the 3-4 billion Asians and Africans whose incomes and populations are rising far faster than our, to out-bid us for a diminishing supply of oil.

That will be pretty regressive in and of itself, and have the same function, but we will have less ability to mitigate it.

I want to just get out ahead of the curve.

It is a lesser of two evils. Sorry, that is our choice box.

It is not a choice.

It is economic suicide to do it unilaterally and the developing nations will never agree to implementing an equal carbon tax.

[spursncowboys]

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

OPEC's ability to control the price of oil has diminished somewhat since then, due to the subsequent discovery and development of large oil reserves in Alaska, the North Sea, Canada, the Gulf of Mexico, the opening up of Russia, and market modernization. As of November 2010, OPEC members collectively hold 79% of world crude oil reserves and 44% of the world’s crude oil production, affording them considerable control over the global market.[6] The next largest group of producers, members of the OECD and the Post-Soviet states produced only 23.8% and 14.8%, respectively, of the world's total oil production.[7] As early as 2003, concerns that OPEC members had little excess pumping capacity sparked speculation that their influence on crude oil prices would begin to slip.[8][9]

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

[RandomGuy]

Would that not depend on how much we introduce to the market? Exploiting new found reserves and drilling in currently prohibited (for no good reason) reserves will increase the global supply so, unless Iran could affect a reciprocal amount of supply, your point is meaningless.

As it stands, if Iran cuts supply, we have no recourse. By fully exploiting domestic sources, we can mitigate those affects.

The strait at its narrowest is 54 kilometres (34 mi) wide.[1] It is the only sea passage to the open ocean for large areas of the petroleum-exporting Persian Gulf. About 13 tankers carrying 15.5 million barrels (2,460,000 m3) of crude oil pass through the strait on an average day, making it one of the world's most strategically important choke points. This represents 33% of the world's seaborne oil shipments, and 17% of all world oil shipments in 2009.[2]

The US produces 10% of the worlds oil.

Iran can stop 17% or more from reaching world markets, just by hitting the straits. Call it an even 20%.

If you can find someone who thinks we can achieve, even with completely unrestricted drilling and magic technology, a three fold increase in our oil capacity, I would love to hear it.

Other places will step in, Canada, Brazil, and Veneula come to mind, but again, the issue of how long it takes to ramp up rears its ugly head.

Years.

The Iranians can affect this instantly.

Meh.

I would rather not bother being vulnerable at all.

, if we switched over our economy and drilled enough to export, that would make be happy.

Iran could with supply all they want, the only thing it woudl do is make our oil more valuable.

[Yonivore]

... and by fully exploiting you mean pulling non-existant technologies out of the hat?

Current technologies used to not exist. Necessity is the mother of invention -- not artificially inflated prices.

How is that different than simply encouraging the current trend of renewables towards cheaper units of energy?

Because we already know petroleum fuels can be produced in extremely cheap units of energy.

None of the proposed alternatives have yet proposed how they can be scaled up to meet the same energy requirements and not cost exponentially more. If they could, we would already be scaling them up.