Oil is Oil is Oil: Domestic drilling does NOT contribute to our "energy independence"

[Towlie]

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/06/18/4527163-open-thread-the-crisis-is-oil-period

Politicians across the spectrum call for America's "energy independence." It may be the most agreed-upon issue in this country, this argument that we have to be free of foreign oil. The reason that never happens is that it's the wrong argument, the wrong debate, the wrong conversation. There is no such thing as a separate foreign oil supply and a domestic one. Oil drilled here gets trucked to the international market, where we buy it just like every other country.

Video of the entire segment from the Rachel Maddow Show:

c0--Q9_KmAY#t=2m50s
Shortcut to the main thrust of Rachel Maddow's argument (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0--Q9_KmAY#t=2m50s)

It seems to me that if we had a socialist government like Venezuela then the "drill for energy independence" argument might make sense, but we don't and it doesn't.

[Puppycow]

The more oil we drill, extract and consume in the US now, the less will be there later when other places in the world start to run out. That's why "drill here, drill now" is a short-term solution to a long term problem that will exacerbate the long term problem.

[Tricky]

I've been saying that for years. "Burn their oil first". I'm opposed to increased offshore drilling and drilling in ANWR simply because I want to save our reserves. We don't have the vast reservers that others have.

The problem is that foreign oil comes with other costs, one of which is getting entangled with foreign relationships and another is the fact that transporting oil is expensive and moderately dangerous. The reason oil companies (like my company, BP) can afford to drill in ultra-deep water and with new, expensive (and apparently not failsafe) technology is that the value of oil that is near its market is much greater than oil that is distant.

The real solution is to cut back. America needs to show some real spine and make significant effort to curtail their energy jones. It will hurt. A lot. But that hurt is going to get here sooner or later, and if we take some sooner, then the "later" won't hurt quite as badly.

And yeah, I work in the domestic oil industry. We need to make this transition as painless as possible, but we have to start the transition and start it soon. Don't worry about my job. I'll find another.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The US government is sitting on enough fuel to fill Americas needs for three thousand years (http://intellectualventureslab.com/?tag=terrapower).

Tricky's right. We need to start the transition sooner rather than later. It doesn't need to take long, or be any more painful than what we're going through now. All we need to do is to convince an administration that's throwing away 1.4 trillion dollars a year on useless feel-good @#$% to do something real and truly transformational with that money.

[funk de fino]

I drove from Lafayette, LA to Houston TX. My rental car was a Dodge pickup and it used more than 10 gallons on the trip there. More than twice what my car at home would have used.

That is absolutely ridiculous, and when I see adverts on TV where a car is seen to be fuel efficent and 30mpg is used as a selling point, that makes it even more laughable.

I work in the oil indistry but would like nothing better than to move into renewables. The USA has to change.

[T.A.M.]

Buy all of your oil from others now, and do not touch any ofyour own reseerves. Then in 50 years you will all be driving around in gold limos.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

The US government is sitting on enough fuel to fill Americas needs for three thousand years (http://intellectualventureslab.com/?tag=terrapower).

Tricky's right. We need to start the transition sooner rather than later. It doesn't need to take long, or be any more painful than what we're going through now. All we need to do is to convince an administration that's throwing away 1.4 trillion dollars a year on useless feel-good @#$% to do something real and truly transformational with that money.

A high speed transnational rail system would be a good start.

TAM:)

[WildCat]

A high speed transnational rail system would be a good start.

TAM:)
Why not bring back the Pony Express while we're at it?

High speed rail makes no sense in the US. Not enough population density to make it practical.

[WildCat]

The more oil we drill, extract and consume in the US now, the less will be there later when other places in the world start to run out. That's why "drill here, drill now" is a short-term solution to a long term problem that will exacerbate the long term problem.
The goal is to have alternatives in place before that happens. Squandering what we have and holding onto it until it becomes obsolete doesn't do us any good at all. It sure is good for the petro-states though, the vast majority of which are run by dictators, theocrats, and strongmen.

[WildCat]

I drove from Lafayette, LA to Houston TX. My rental car was a Dodge pickup and it used more than 10 gallons on the trip there. More than twice what my car at home would have used.

That is absolutely ridiculous, and when I see adverts on TV where a car is seen to be fuel efficent and 30mpg is used as a selling point, that makes it even more laughable.

I work in the oil indistry but would like nothing better than to move into renewables. The USA has to change.
So why didn't you rent a Prius or something?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

A high speed transnational rail system would be a good start.

TAM:)

You're preaching almost directly to the choir, TAM. My father is the Education & Outreach coordinator for the Alberta Chapter of the Canadian Nuclear Society. And he's a huuuuuuge train buff. He wants to lay down double tracks next to the trans-canada highway and put up an ACR-1000 reactor every five hundred miles.

[T.A.M.]

Why not bring back the Pony Express while we're at it?

High speed rail makes no sense in the US. Not enough population density to make it practical.

I am not so sure. The usa has scatterd pocket of high density populations, and high speed rail would be perfect for this. I am not talking about a railway with stops in springfield, i am talking getting from chicago to nyc in a Couple of hours.

TAM:)

[Towlie]

I'm pleased to see this thread getting some input, although nobody has actually addressed the subject I brought up yet.

The points about long-term benefits of saving our reserves vs. short-term benefits of using them now would be relevant if there actually were short-term benefits of using our reserves now, but the point is that there aren't any. Did any of you actually watch the video?

All we're doing is participating in the world's oil market, and any reduction we cause in the price of oil with our domestic drilling is so slight as to be unnoticeable, plus, it affects the whole oil-consuming world, not just us.

Oil is fungible (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fungible). Look it up, gang.

[quixotecoyote]

I am not so sure. The usa has scatterd pocket of high density populations, and high speed rail would be perfect for this. I am not talking about a railway with stops in springfield, i am talking getting from chicago to nyc in a Couple of hours.

TAM:)


But how often do people really need to do that? It seems like the need is for people to move between the industrial/commercial areas and the residential areas, as the city-to-city stuff is only really relevant to the smaller number of business travelers and vacationers.

[rwguinn]

But how often do people really need to do that? It seems like the need is for people to move between the industrial/commercial areas and the residential areas, as the city-to-city stuff is only really relevant to the smaller number of business travelers and vacationers.
And more and more, the business travel is being replaced, in part, by the likes of NetMeeting and teleconferencing.
As I said elsewhere--unless you live within walking distance from work, you need a vehicle.
We get around some of it with the Van Pool programs-where a large group who work at the same place gather in a certain place and take a large vehicle carrying 10-15 of 'em to work.But that only works well for shift workers. Salaried guys often need to come early/stay late.
Mass transit (city buses, etc) don't work well, because of the time factor. When I was in DC, I could take a bus to the transit station, then the train to within a couple of miles of work, another bus to work--total time, each way-3 hours (and that was at NRL!).
I could drive it in under an hour, traffic and all.

[Chaos]

But how often do people really need to do that? It seems like the need is for people to move between the industrial/commercial areas and the residential areas, as the city-to-city stuff is only really relevant to the smaller number of business travelers and vacationers.

Small numbers? You haven´t been flying in the same planes as I.

[rjh01]

Video of the entire segment from the Rachel Maddow Show:

c0--Q9_KmAY#t=2m50s
Shortcut to the main thrust of Rachel Maddow's argument (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0--Q9_KmAY#t=2m50s)

It seems to me that if we had a socialist government like Venezuela then the "drill for energy independence" argument might make sense, but we don't and it doesn't.

Just listened to the video. One of her arguments is that all the oil goes to the one market and then we buy it from there. So it does not matter if the USA drills for oil or otherwise. The USA still buys from this one market. But so what? She does not address the issue of should the USA just be a buyer or should it also be a seller? She never explained what would happen if the future depending on if the USA did have domestic oil production.

Yes, the USA should reduce the amount of oil it uses. But that is another argument.

[Arrow]

Yeah, agree, so long as foreign countries are willing to sell us their oil, we should be thankful that they do. It allows us to live the mobil lives that we do. To be foreign oil independent, as many politicians talk about, would create lots of pain - as others mentioned. We would need to cut demand by around 70% We use 18.7 million bpd and produce only 5.3 million bpd.

Enjoyed this Robert Rapier article on what it would take the nation to become oil independent. Also it has a humorous John Stewart video about the last 8 administrations declaring the need to weening the US off of foreign oil. For security reasons it would be nice to be independent from foreign oil. The free market though should decide what new energy sources will work and what will not. Ideas like government subsidized corn ethanol are losers in the long run.

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/06/19/the-cost-of-energy-independence/

[kevinquinnyo]

Just listened to the video. One of her arguments is that all the oil goes to the one market and then we buy it from there. So it does not matter if the USA drills for oil or otherwise. The USA still buys from this one market. But so what? She does not address the issue of should the USA just be a buyer or should it also be a seller? She never explained what would happen if the future depending on if the USA did have domestic oil production.

Yes, the USA should reduce the amount of oil it uses. But that is another argument.

I get what she's saying, but it's based on a protectionist argument, which is bogus on the grounds that policy that says you can drill there but not here, increases the price of oil for everyone, internationally, because it creates a shortage of crude oil available that otherwise would have existed.

But I, like you, am having a hard time grabbing onto what her argument is. It seems like she went off on a tangent about how it's dangerous, so NIMBY. So I guess she's arguing that a shortage of gasoline is a good thing, because I'd rather have disasters happen in other countries, and accept the higher price for oil?

[WildCat]

I am not so sure. The usa has scatterd pocket of high density populations, and high speed rail would be perfect for this. I am not talking about a railway with stops in springfield, i am talking getting from chicago to nyc in a Couple of hours.

TAM:)
With stops in Gary, Hammond, South Bend, Cleveland, Port Clinton, etc etc. Every Congressman with a district along the line will demand a stop.

"A couple of hours" would be more like 15 hours. Why not fly in 2 hours instead? I bet the airline fare would even be cheaper.

And high speed rail is ridiculously expensive.

[T.A.M.]

With stops in Gary, Hammond, South Bend, Cleveland, Port Clinton, etc etc. Every Congressman with a district along the line will demand a stop.

"A couple of hours" would be more like 15 hours. Why not fly in 2 hours instead? I bet the airline fare would even be cheaper.

And high speed rail is ridiculously expensive.

the train I am thinking about, similar to those in Asia, would travel at 250mph

if it followed the I-80 (distance 790 miles) it would take the train 3 hours and a bit to do the run. You are right, if every little town had to have a stop, the train becomes useless...or just as ineffective as a standard train.

TAM:)

[funk de fino]

So why didn't you rent a Prius or something?

I did not get a choice. Company rules. I once ended up with an even bigger trucck because that is all they had. It was almost as big as my house.

[funk de fino]

the train I am thinking about, similar to those in Asia, would travel at 250mph

if it followed the I-80 (distance 790 miles) it would take the train 3 hours and a bit to do the run. You are right, if every little town had to have a stop, the train becomes useless...or just as ineffective as a standard train.

TAM:)

Since privatisation train travel in the UK has got ridiculously expensive and still incomplete electric lines.

[Ohmer]

The real solution is to cut back. America needs to show some real spine and make significant effort to curtail their energy jones. It will hurt. A lot. But that hurt is going to get here sooner or later, and if we take some sooner, then the "later" won't hurt quite as badly.

An effective way to do this would be to ramp up the gas tax. If gas were $6 a gallon consumers would be demanding energy efficient cars and the auto industry would respond.

It would hurt, a lot, but it would work. It would also be political suicide to whoever did it.

[funk de fino]

An effective way to do this would be to ramp up the gas tax. If gas were $6 a gallon consumers would be demanding energy efficient cars and the auto industry would respond.

It would hurt, a lot, but it would work. It would also be political suicide to whoever did it.

I noticed the feeling last time it got to around $4 a gallon in Louisana. Many guys got rid of their big trucks if they could. On this last trip they had them all back again (some even bigger) at less than $3 a gallon.

I have seen more hybrid cars in NY than I have anywhere else which surprised me.

[Tricky]

An effective way to do this would be to ramp up the gas tax. If gas were $6 a gallon consumers would be demanding energy efficient cars and the auto industry would respond.
No, I don't think that would work unless it were phased in very gradually. We don't want to destroy the economy by going fuel-efficient. Also, things like gas taxes are very regressive, affecting poor people much more severely than other groups.

However, I could see imposing a very heavy tax on any car, air-conditioner or other appliance that doesn't meet efficiency standards. Heavy enough so that the more expensive energy-efficient stuff could compete. Revenue from these taxes would go to helping poor people afford energy efficient products.

Another thing would be to make all parking lots and decks give prime spots to fuel efficient cars. The distant and top-floor spots would be given to fuel hogs.

[Puppycow]

The goal is to have alternatives in place before that happens. Squandering what we have and holding onto it until it becomes obsolete doesn't do us any good at all. It sure is good for the petro-states though, the vast majority of which are run by dictators, theocrats, and strongmen.

You are assuming that oil will someday be "obsolete." Maybe it will, but I call that counting chickens that haven't hatched yet. Another possibility is that will be much more expensive due to its rarity in the future. If that is the case, then every barrel we save now will increase in value in the future.

[Tricky]

You are assuming that oil will someday be "obsolete." Maybe it will, but I call that counting chickens that haven't hatched yet. Another possibility is that will be much more expensive due to its rarity in the future. If that is the case, then every barrel we save now will increase in value in the future.
Oil will probably never be "obsolete". There are other sources of energy. There is not (as yet) another source of petrochemicals. At least, not one as versatile and universal.

[Darth Rotor]

Jobs and industrial base.

Some of you folks don't understand politics and economics, the interface, since you'd rather look at factors in isolation.