This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Here's How We Get to Energy Independence

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by Brad Schaeffer

Here's How We Get to Energy Independence

Respected columnist and author Thomas Friedman has been among the most audible voices in warning the USA about our dependency on foreign oil and our need to end our addiction to this commodity post haste. But his latest call for a $1.00 per gallon gasoline tax to curtail our fuel consumption, the proceeds of which would go towards deficit reduction, misses the mark.

First of all, where Mr. Friedman is absolutely correct is his concern itself which is well founded. Consider: in 1970 the USA imported 30 percent of its crude oil. That figure has effectively doubled in the last thirty years to just shy of 60 percent.

Not since the ill-fated Axis powers of World War II has such a powerful nation so relied on foreign entities to supply its daily energy needs. This is a potential national security nightmare. (Indeed, as much as losses in the field, Germany and Japan were brought to their knees by choking off their energy supplies and causing their military machines to grind to a halt.)

However, Mr. Friedman’s proposal of imposing altered behavior on consumers via a $1.00 gallon gas tax, even one phased in over time, will unduly penalize many lower and middle class workers who have little choice at this time but to commute (this is not like a voluntary consumption tax on soda) and for whom their annual fixed costs would increase anywhere between $500-$1,000 depending on the location and vehicle gas mileage.

Moreover, his idea places inordinate faith in the federal government to properly spend any new tax revenues they do receive with any modicum of discipline needed to pay down the deficit.

Imposing a draconian gas tax at this time, with 15 million already unemployed, with the economy in a precarious position, is not quite the medicine needed at the moment. In fact, it could make matters much worse. I don’t think it takes an economics guru to conclude that $1.00/gallon on top of an already high $3.18 national average could negatively impact consumption in other areas (and we are still very a much a consumption-based economy).

In just one example, an interesting study done by the Center For Business And Economic Research at Ball State University simulated the impact of a $1.00 price increase from a benchmark of $3.00 gallon (not via taxes, just a market rise) on the economy of Indiana. It concluded that the economic activity in that state would be lower by almost -2% and employment by roughly -1.3 percent.

It also offered that tax revenues would decline by -.5 percent. When economic activity falls, tax revenues do as well. Human behavior is unpredictable and it is not a given that $1.00 tax on gasoline will translate into a $1.00 net increase in revenues to Uncle Sam. There is the law of unintended consequences to consider.

I admit that this is just one report in one state, but I suspect similar studies will show the same. Even though numbers can be tortured to say anything to support a policy initiative, common sense dictates that a dollar steered towards higher commuting costs will have a negative impact on the rest of consumption and thus the overall economy all else being equal.

The most far-fetched component of Mr. Freidman’s “one little gasoline tax” proposal is that the extra revenues (should they materialize) will be diverted towards “paying down the deficit.” A noble idea, but if Mr. Friedman honestly believes that Congress will take this windfall and actually use it to for its intended purpose rather than employ clever accounting tricks to steer the cash to their favorite pet projects, well, I have a Social Security “lock box” stuffed with IOUs I’d like to sell him.

Still, if there was no other alternative to Mr. Friedman’s proposal, then I would give it serious consideration. But the fact is, we do have alternatives, both to give us some short-term relief and long-term stability.

As of yesterday we need to immediately open up ANWR and the shallow off-shore regions to exploration and drilling. I love caribou as much as the next person, but this must be done. Even the most conservative estimates tell us that by 2018 if development were green-lighted today, ANWR could be producing as much as 780,000 and then slowing to 710,000 barrels a day by 2030. Also it is estimated that 18 billion barrels of crude oil are contained in areas currently off-limits to drilling for environmental reasons. No nation has denied itself so much abundance of its own domestic natural resources as has the USA.

To be sure, there are environmental risks to an aggressive drilling policy. But environmentalists need to consider the consequences of the USA being cut off from 2/3 of its energy needs...unrealistic given that friendly Canada is our single largest outside supplier, but not impossible. There is no greater killer than the effects of poverty resulting from a collapsed economy.

Rationing the transportation of goods due to lack of petrol means limited delivery of food to our cities, medicines to rural areas, heating oil for homes and businesses in the northeast during the winter, etc. The humanitarian and health consequences would soon be apparent to even the most ardent of green advocates.

Beyond “drill baby drill” our real pathway to true energy independence lies in resurrecting the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program. This program which began with such fanfare under Jimmy Carter was cancelled under the Reagan administration.

The reasons were ostensibly that it was against free-market principles but the real factor was that oil prices had collapsed and the immediate economic peril had passed. Reagan’s vision was myopic and based on the false premise that arose from the oil glut of the 1980s that oil would be inexpensive well into the next century. But now with turmoil all across the Mideast before us, global demand expanding, and oil trading at $100bbl and climbing, we find ourselves in the position of pouring literally trillions of dollars into the coffers of some potentially hostile regimes with whom we are in an economic and military death embrace.

Although I harbor a conservative’s mistrust of government in my DNA, I do know that government does have its role. Those F-15s that give us top cover while we drive on our interstate highway system demonstrate that. Of course what do these examples have in common? They fall under the auspices of national security. And energy independence must be treated as a national security matter and at least partially funded with tax dollars as we fund our armed forces.

Consider: the USA has more coal than the Middle East has oil. Furthermore, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), an agency of the Dept. of Defense (DoD) has estimated the cost of a 100,000 barrel per day 21st Century Coal-to-Liquids (CTL) synthetic fuels plant will be about $6 billion.

Other private sector estimates place the figure higher at $10 billion. Even that higher figure is about the cost of one and a half months of the Iraq war. (A war we are waging primarily because there is oil there remember.) So for the price of the Wall Street bailout—$700 Billion—the DoD could have been on its way to building between 70 and 100 new CTL plants, which would produce up to ten million barrels of synthetic CTL fuel per day.

That is still a high price tag for initial investment. And like many national security initiatives, there is little profit to be made from being the first mover of the technology. (Although in this case the technology goes back almost a century, but it would be a new implementation in this country on a mass scale).

Thus relying solely on the private sector to innovate and invest our way out of this energy dependence problem is problematic for now. That is, unless the government subsidizes the initiative through direct investment. This could even be a profitable venture. Estimates vary as to the profitability break-even cost of CTL, natural gas to liquid (NGL) or biomass refining. Some firms show the profit point to be $45 per barrel. Other estimates vary above and below this level by roughly $10bbl.

Carbon capture technology for cleaner conversion that might be part of any legislation pushes that level even higher.

Still, unlike in the 1980s, clearly we are now above the break-even threshold and thus are the conditions ripe for a hybrid semi-public entity model that could be subsidized by the feds to make up the shortfall should the price of oil dip below that $45bbl level.

Most analysts see this as most unlikely unless the oil producing nations purposefully flood the markets to kill such initiatives to protect their franchise. But they have their own problems in their streets at the moment. If anything, as Mr. Friedman also points out, the price of crude oil will continue to rise.

The current administration is so focused on touting the merits of a ‘new green economy’ that it is missing the potential of an old fashioned synfuels economy already within our grasp. The construction and plant employment opportunities, the increase in economic activity as a new industry emerges from the ashes of our industrial blight, as well as the incredible potential windfall of a ‘mid-east oil independence dividend’ down the road by no longer maintaining a military presence in the regions from which so much of our current energy needs flow is self-evident.

Every month $20 billion of our treasury goes just to maintain our low intensity combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the staggering financial drain of supporting bases on the periphery.

And there is no end in sight to our involvement in the Mideast without first eradicating our reason for even caring what goes on there…which means an addiction to the commodity we import from the region. Unlike many other ‘shovel ready’ projects that were anything but, synfuels development presents a very real and beneficial investment on many levels.

There is historical precedent that shows the viability of a synfuels program.

But for Allied bombings, Germany was on its way to producing 60 million bbls of synfuels annually into 1946. (A small amount relative to today’s consumption, but scalability is there). Again, when South Africa was the target of punitive sanctions because of Apartheid, they implemented via Sasol a massive synfuels program out of necessity…proving that where there’s a will there’s a way.

And we need not replace all imported oil of course. We currently import a little over 3 million bbls a day from nations in the Mideast and Africa. This amount is quite replaceable by synfuels. I do not mind importing from such stable and friendly nations as Canada for example.

Rather than trust it with a satchel of new gasoline taxes, the federal government could be better utilized through the DoD. In fact, the military is already making strides in synfuels development. The Air Force has already run successful synfuels tests on converted B-52s and have put forth an aggressive goal to have 70 percent of its aviation fuel coming from coal-based sources by the year 2025. They get it. Thomas Friedman does too…even if his solution is off-sides.

Today, there are currently 700 automobiles for every 1,000 Americans; 500 for every 1,000 Europeans. There are only 30 for every 1,000 Chinese. But that figure is expected to balloon to 240 per 1,000 by the year 2035. The world’s thirst for oil is only going to increase, and with it the price. $100 crude is not an anomaly.

It is a harbinger of things to come. Increased exploration of our abundant proven reserves, combined with a sweeping synfuels program to utilize other energy resources within our borders are our surest bets to achieving attainable energy independence.

Certainly more so than a whimsical $1.00/gallon tax (a number the very roundness of which implies to me that it’s the result of whimsical caprice rather than any serious analysis) that would hamper if not kill an already teetering recovery while diverting yet more capital away from the private sector and into the black hole of “deficit relief.”

Like Thomas Friedman, I wonder if history has ever seen such a time where so much of a nation’s own capital was handed over to its enemies for them to use against it—in order to import a product it already has plenty of at home.

Taxes should not be used to change our collective behavior by weaning us off the candy through making it prohibitively expensive; this ignores just how vital oil is to our daily lives. With a more realistic viewpoint that our 19 million bbl per day appetite for oil cannot be just taxed away, I propose we simply take an existing, available and proven century-old technology and ramp it up to make the candy ourselves. More drilling and synfuels may not be sexy or hip solutions.

But they are real and, most important, a part of the here and now. Not the distant future…a future over which we will have little control should the status quo remain unaltered.

Bradley P. Schaeffer is C.E.O./Principal of INFA Energy Brokers, LLC


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:11 | 998118 trav7777
trav7777's picture

STFU, idiot.

ANWR, 700kbpd?  Where do the OTHER TWELVE mbpd come from?  Your ass?

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:15 | 998132 Devout Republican
Devout Republican's picture

I didn't realize just anyone can post on ZH!  This is awesome!  Where do I contribute my story about how monkey's fly out of my butt?

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:28 | 998171 narapoiddyslexia
narapoiddyslexia's picture

Is it possible this is a troll diary meant to distract less-focused readers from the somewhat obvious fact that ANWR will change nothing, and that even discussing it puts off discussing peak oil.

This sounds like an ExxonMobil troll, is this not so?

Oh, and how many got past the name Thomas Friedman? Extra credit for holding your gorge if you did.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:29 | 998179 Mad Max
Mad Max's picture


Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:31 | 998185 Moric
Moric's picture

Eh OP has troll written all over him. His number one energy solution is to open up a sensitive issue when the solution is just to use more farts in our daily life. Not only good for keeping loved ones at bay but indispensable when you realize the extent of America's shale gas assets. 

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 23:33 | 998948 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

i think the technology to use the farts (actually sewage to methane) is likely to be cheaper and less polluting than the development of the shale oil, particularly pricing the clean water used therein at a true replacement price.

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 02:23 | 999227 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

There's not enough shit in the sewage to make even a minor dent in the energy supply problem.  Sludge gas barely powers the compressors and whatnot in a modern treatment plant.

South American countries are using a lot of  natgas to power their cars.  High pressure gas mains are common in many American cities.  It's a no-brainer, cheap compared to the alternatives, including especially electric cars.


Sat, 02/26/2011 - 15:12 | 1000054 DosZap
DosZap's picture

South American countries are using a lot of  natgas to power their cars.  High pressure gas mains are common in many American cities.  It's a no-brainer, cheap compared to the alternatives, including especially electric cars.


Been screaming that for 20yrs,if your going to raise a tax of a $1.00 a gallon, divert 100% of it to building Nuke Plants.

France gets 90% of their energy from them, why can't we?.

Build 24/7/365 a day, and we have as much or more Nat Gas as ALL of the Middle East combined.

Fracking the shale is going to have to stop, our water supply is more important than what we're getting from Bakken.

Here in Texas they are screwing up the undergroung aquifers the same way.

Ever get a mouthful of gasoline?.

Tastes like shit, and deadly.

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 00:44 | 999062 samsara
samsara's picture


Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:32 | 998190 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

Nice! :)

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 19:10 | 998346 Michael
Michael's picture

"Reston, VA - North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation.

A U.S. Geological Survey assessment, released April 10, shows a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered compared to the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil.



Technically recoverable oil resources are those producible using currently available technology and industry practices. USGS is the only provider of publicly available estimates of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources.

New geologic models applied to the Bakken Formation, advances in drilling and production technologies, and recent oil discoveries have resulted in these substantially larger technically recoverable oil volumes. About 105 million barrels of oil were produced from the Bakken Formation by the end of 2007."

History of Bakken Oil Generation Estimates

A landmark paper by Dow and a companion paper by Williams (1974) recognized the Bakken as

a tremendous source for the oil produced in the Williston Basin. These papers suggested that the

Bakken was capable of generating 10 billion barrels of oil (BBbls). Webster (1982, 1984) as part

of a Master’s Thesis at the University of North Dakota further sampled and analyzed the Bakken

and calculated hydrocarbon generation capacities to be about 92 BBbls. This data was updated

by Schmoker and Hester (1983) who estimated that the Bakken was capable of generating 132

BBbls of oil in North Dakota and Montana. Price (unpublished) used a more complete database

and estimated that the Bakken was capable of generating between 271 and 503 BBbls of oil with

an average of 413 BBbls. New estimates of the amount of hydrocarbons generated by the Bakken

were presented by Meissner and Banks (2000) and by Flannery and Kraus (2006). The first of

these papers tested a newly developed computer model with existing Bakken data to estimate

generated oil of 32 BBbls. The second paper used a more sophisticated computer program with

extensive data input supplied by the ND Geological Survey and Oil and Gas Division. Early

numbers generated from this information placed the value at 200 BBbls later revised to 300

BBbls when the paper was presented in 2006.


Fri, 02/25/2011 - 19:19 | 998384 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

Mikey-u post good stuff.  do u look it all up or do u have a fleet of minions to copy this?

just wonderin'

- Ned

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 19:29 | 998400 Michael
Michael's picture

I'm a one man wrecking crew. I have resources all over the world. Someone should really offer me a job. I don't mess around.

Here's a pretty picture of the  Bakken formation.

Billions of gallons of oil in North Dakota, Montana

Geological Survey calls find largest reserves outside Alaska


Fri, 02/25/2011 - 19:47 | 998468 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

 The Bakken is a wonderful field, but it isn't a game changer. It buys a little time, nothing more, nothing less. 

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 20:57 | 998647 Michael
Michael's picture

Here's plenty more.

Great discussion here; Gull Island Oil: The Search for Truth Continues There is no question Gull Island exists and it’s right in the middle of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Further investigation only reveals something doesn’t sound right.


This from Lindsey Williams;


If Gull Island Didn't Blow Your Mind—This Will!

Gull Island just proved what the oil companies have believed for some time. It authenticated the seismographic findings. Seismographic testing has indicated that there is as much crude oil on the North Slope of Alaska as in Saudi Arabia. Since the Gull Island find proved to be seismographically correct, then the other testings are correct also. There are many hundreds of square miles of oil under the North Slope of Alaska.

To clarify what I am about to say, let me first re-emphasize that the government permitted the oil companies to drill and prove many sites (subsequently making them cap the wells and keep secret the proof of the finds), but they do not allow them to produce from the wells. This is why I have referred (below) to a number of wells having been drilled (after I left the North Slope). The only production permitted is from the small area of the North Slope.

Gull Island is located five miles off shore from Prudhoe Bay. It is in the Beaufort Sea.

The chemical structure of the oil at Gull Island is different from that of the oil in the Prudhoe Bay field and the pressure of the field is different, proving that it is a totally different pool of oil from that at Prudhoe Bay.

The Gull Island burn produced 30,000 barrels of oil per day through a 31/2 inch pipe at 900 feet.

Three wells have been drilled, proven, and capped at Gull Island. The East Dock well also hit the Gull Island oil pool (you can tell by the chemical structure). For forty miles to the east of Gull Island, there has not been a single dry hole drilled, although many wells have been drilled. This shows the immensity of the size of the field.

The Gull Island oil find is even larger than the Prudhoe Bay field, which is presently producing more than two million barrels of oil every twenty-four hours.

Where is the energy crisis? It surely is not on the North Slope of Alaska, so it must be only in Washington, D.C.!

Now—just in case Gull Island didn't blow your mind, try this on for size! Only recently, just west of Gull Island, the Kuparuk oil field has been drilled.

Again, this is a totally separate pool of oil from either the Prudhoe Bay field or the Gull Island field. The chemical make up of the field and the pressure of the field is different from the others, proving it to be a totally separate pool of oil.

In an entirely different area of the North Slope than the 100-square-mile area of the Prudhoe Bay field, the Kuparuk field is approximately 60 miles long by 30 miles wide and contains approximately the same amount of oil as the Prudhoe Bay field.

The oil in the Kuparuk field is at a 6,000-foot depth and there is 300 feet of oil sand. The field pressure is 900 lbs. at well head, and test wells have flowed at 900 barrels a day at normal flow pressure.

It is projected that 800 to 1,400 wells will be drilled into the Kuparuk field.

From 1973 through 1980 we were being told continually that America was in the midst of a major energy crisis, yet no oil production was allowed from the Kuparuk field. It wasn't until 1981 that permission was finally granted for production. Why the delay—if there really was a crisis?

The reason Mr. X made the statement that there is as much crude oil on the North Slope of Alaska as in all of Saudi Arabia is because the oil companies have drilled all over the North Slope and have proven that there is as much oil there, but still they are only allowed to produce from the small area.

The North Slope is everything in Alaska North of the Brooks Mountains. Prudhoe Bay is a very small portion of this enormous area (just remember the size of Alaska, as we illustrated earlier in the book).

After the first edition of this book was printed, many people requested additional technical data. This added chapter is a result of those requests.

As I was dictating this additional material, I had the opportunity of being with a gentleman who is a speculator in oil leases. He made the statement to me as he looked over the oath I was making public, that every oil speculator in America who is interested in Alaskan oil leases should get a copy of this, because he had never seen such pertinent information in print before. So what you have just read will excite many oil speculators and cause them to search the maps and watch for the latest leases.

Possibly you, have heard it stated that the Alaskan crude oil has such a high sulphur content that it cannot be refined by most oil refineries in the U.S. We are being told that this is the reason why the Alaskan oil is not helping to solve America's energy crisis. This is also the excuse that is being used for shipping Alaskan crude oil to other countries. It has also been reported that major power companies are even telling this to their customers (in their monthly statement inserts), using it to justify their need for rate increases.

Well, here is a statistic that should silence those false claims and blow the lid off of that phony excuse of too much sulphur in the Alaskan crude. An August 11, 1980, analysis of the Prudhoe Bay crude oil, which is flowing in the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline, reads as follows:

Sulphur content - 0.9%
Flash point of the oil - 35 °F
Wax content - 6%
Asphalt content - 2%
Crude oil freeze temperature (better known as pour point) - 15 °F

The sulphur content of the Prudhoe Bay Alaskan oil is low in comparison to oil from other sources in the U.S., as well as many foreign oils.

The Alaskan Prudhoe Bay oil can be refined by any major refinery in America without damage to the ecology.

This means, then, that the widely publicized excuse of too high a sulphur content is simply not true. Therefore, it is just one more link in the long chain of falsehoods that we are asked to believe as Americans.

An energy crisis??????

More Recent Facts—A Comparison

The following is a comparison between the three oil fields on the North Slope of Alaska which have been drilled into with numerous wells, tested, and proven. Prudhoe Bay can produce two (2) million barrels of oil every 24 hours for 20 to 40 years at artesian pressure. Imagine what the production of the Kuparuk and Gull Island fields could be.

Field Pay Zone Oil
(Average depth of oil pool)
 Area of Field
Prudhoe 600 Ft. of pay zone  100 square miles
Kuparuk  300 Ft. of pay zone Twice the size of Prudhoe
Gull Island  1,200 Ft. of pay zone At least four times the size of Prudhoe . . . Estimates are that it is the richest oil field on the face of the earth.

Peak Oil Hoax -
The Energy Non-Crisis


By Lindsey Williams

They make this place very difficult to search on google maps.

Gull Island in North Slope County, Alaska, USA.,-148.365&spn=0.05,0.05

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 21:17 | 998711 creviceCaress
creviceCaress's picture



i think its confirmed now.


micheal, you are a douche.


take your bakken drivel and stick it in yer one man wrecking crew ass.  get a job as a politician, thats what you smell like.


you have no concept what bakken/anwr is about do you?  i really dont fully understand why you irk me and i dont get into online jousting....but i see you as a tool and a believer in the spectacle....bakken. seriously?

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 22:15 | 998837 Michael
Michael's picture

You will get your comeuppance at $200/barrel.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 23:38 | 998952 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

$200 a barrel and it is a relatively dirty (polluting), relatively inefficient (great heat loss) technology (internal combustion).  why hold on to this dying (and killing, cf. the middle east, etc. though the post above would have us ignore the zionist entity and its prime mover status) energy paradigm longer than we have to?

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 00:43 | 999069 Triggernometry
Triggernometry's picture

Indeed, online jousting is an exercise in futility, as is any "solution" to a looming energy crisis that does not address the crisis itself: our increasing dependency on a decreasing resource.

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 02:58 | 999284 snowball777
snowball777's picture


Fri, 02/25/2011 - 22:10 | 998822 freedmon
freedmon's picture

Interesting, mike. Can you shed some light on the sort of technical advancements that would have to be made to get and keep the oil flowing all the way through the Alaskan winter? What are the risks of supply interruption due to inclement weather conditions? How much would that extra expenditure raise the extraction cost per barrel of alaskan oil vs. oil from say, Saudi?

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 00:09 | 998999 Michael
Michael's picture

You fill the storage tanks in the summer and you enjoy the fruits in the winter.

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 08:52 | 999469 Treeplanter
Treeplanter's picture

They worked that out nearly forty years ago.

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 00:59 | 999101 prophet_banker
prophet_banker's picture

you seem to be using a straw man tactic in your rebuttal that peak oil isn't real, and use Lindsey William's as source; when he also utilized this said straw man tactic of mislabeling peak oil as meaning running out of oil in the ground.  This is a mis charactization of truth, it is all about RATE OF EXTRACTION, And we peeked 5 years ago already in conventional extraction, and are now on the down side of the bell curve.  It has only been non conventional extraction, tar sands, liquid coal; that is making up the difference.  But make no mistake about it, exponential growth rates of extraction are over, get ready for zero growth

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 00:35 | 999043 samsara
samsara's picture

Flak Tell them the Flow rate of Bakken. 

It's so depressing hearing people talk about how much gazillion there is in 'Reserves" some where.


What's the Flow baby?

We're drinking 15 - 20 million a day.  And the bakkens gives us how much per day?  500,000?   Have they sustained 6 digits in their 20 year history of pumping from there? 

Is there ANY projection of them producing multiple millions of barrels per day?  

Didn't think so.

Hey,  Ya got a 100 million dollars in this bank account,  but you can never draw out more than 1000 dollars a month. 


It's like living in Argentina  only with oil.

(sorry, Just looked it up, Bakkens does about 200,000 per day.  REALLLY GONNNA HELP )

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 23:52 | 998965 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Do the fucking math: 6 MONTHS. That's NOTHING.

Tue, 07/26/2011 - 20:01 | 1496364 Taint Boil
Taint Boil's picture

Some good links here about the Bakken Field Myths that seem to going around.


Remember folks we use 16,000,000 barrela a day.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 23:23 | 998939 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Nice indeed. Till you really put your mind to it and realize, conclusively that the age of petroleum is OVER.
Finished. It was a blessing that became a curse and has now, conclusively began to consume us.
Our state of be-holden-ness to it's convenience is quite stunning. It's been many years in the making, but the motor-vehicle is now THE aspirational society poster-child.
And every day and in every way, motor vehicles kill, maim, pollute, from cradle to grave, from hole in the earth through the burn.

It's over people. Seriously. It and this whole explosive industrial paradigm is finished.
We are at the stage when the snake is now eating it's own tail.
The more you can do, every day, to get used to this idea, the better.


Sat, 02/26/2011 - 02:26 | 999234 Cardinal Fang
Sat, 02/26/2011 - 00:50 | 999077 samsara
samsara's picture

It's easier to spot them by which tactic number they use.

Numerous #'s 4,5 & 6's

We had # 13 with the Hydrogen Decay thingy

#19 numerous times  and #20 more times than you can count inconjunction with #22.


Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:59 | 998275 hambone
hambone's picture

This author and article really are the height of idiocy.  Drill more.  Great.  Won't change the price of oil in any significant way...unless you are advocating the US should nationalize this or all oil within our borders (all energy...anything else?) and subsidize the costs to Americans?  Or do you feel that the price of oil based on an 83million barrel day global usage (and growing) will be seriously driven down by gradually bringing on less than a million barrels a day (while new demand far outstips that offered)? 

I don't care if you open up to more drilling or not, (if fact, hell, please do so we can then move on to serious efforts to resolve our energy shortcomings and insecurity).  Just be secure that this idea we'll just drill more will not solve the issue, not even on the margin.  The oil will go to the highest global bidder at the highest price. 

Also, this kind of supply side thinking that the world has infinite resources and no need to address the demand side is really fucking annoying and stupid.  I expect more on ZH.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 19:15 | 998372 Capitalist10
Capitalist10's picture

We've been hearing the same lame argument that "opening up ANWR won't influence oil supplies for 5 years" for something like 30 years now.  If we had put a stop to this tree hugger obstructionism at any point in the past, we would be producing oil from ANWR now.

The argument that ANWR won't supply all our energy needs is a red herring too.  No single source will, but every barrel produced in ANWR is a barrell we don't need to buy from some Middle Eastern dictatorship.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 19:41 | 998410 hambone
hambone's picture

Great - go for it.  But understand the money goes to corporate interests and likely foreign to boot (BP, Shell, Total, whatever).  Guessing the corporate taxes on this will be "not so much".  So, if it's approximately the same price and the money probably leaves the country either way...what the fuck is the difference? 

Now could be an interesting discussion around nationalizing these resources essential to our national economy and security and running them ala utilities.  If this was "our" resource for "our" use, then this is a different conversation.  Until that happens, we're just lining somebody elses pocket on Wall Street or Riyadh and it's all the same to me cause both are engaged in destroying our society.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 19:48 | 998474 Capitalist10
Capitalist10's picture

Thanks for informing us all that oil is produced by *gasp* oil companies.  Is it produced by unicorns in the Middle East?

The difference is that our overreliance on Middle East oil leaves us vulnerable to embargoes, supply interruptions, cartels, price shocks and political extortion.  Sure, the oil companies make money, regardless of where they produce the oil, but some of the money is also retained by the producing country.  In the Middle East that money supports dictatorships that are hostile to our interests and it also supports terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 20:19 | 998550 hambone
hambone's picture

I don't buy it - we buy very little of our oil directly from the Middle East - mostly Africa and Western Hemisphere.  But oil is a global commodity and the price is unaffected by who buys it.  All that matters is that it's a global market for energy and the highest bid wins (some caveats when moved by fixed pipelines).  Middle East will get their money regardless if we buy direct or eat up capacity elsewhere that forces that region to buy more Middle East oil. 

I see the greater threat to the US is the internal threat - theft, graft...greater than any external threat from Al Qaeda or whoever.  Look at the damage being done to the US from the economic collapse driven by Wall Street / DC / and apathetic citizens.  Al Qaeda can only dream of such devastation.

There is no power that could destroy us but ourselves and we're doing a fine job giving away everything of value for nothing in return.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 20:41 | 998627 BigJim
BigJim's picture

When a company produces something in a competitive market, it is not the only entity profiting from the deal - so is the buyer.

The more people producing a commodity, the better it is for the consumer.

As for wishing to nationalise production - have a look at what happens when governments directly get hold of the enormous revenues generated thereby: untold cronyism and corruption.

If you think the US is bad in this regard, take a look at Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, etc, etc. I know they're not directly comparable, given their different histories and cultures, but frankly I'd prefer to keep as much money away from governments as possible - it only encourages them.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 21:13 | 998702 hambone
hambone's picture

Big Jim,

Think of oil corporations producting oil in N. America have everything against them vs. Saudi Arabia, eg...higher labor, higher regulatory, higher exploration, higher extraction, sell this oil back into the global market @ $50 barrel these companies make much lower margins in N. America than Saudi's at $5 barrel. 

My point is these corporations are really in a competitive disadvantage vs. Saudi and the we pretty much give 'em the oil for free and lay little liability for anything going wrong on their feet.  We thought this is good cause they employ us, pay taxes, build infrastructure.  But trouble is corporations are more and more not paying taxes, outsourcing functions, employees, and HQ's overseas.

These corporations and ourselves no longer have the same interests in mind.  They will move with the wind to the most fertile soil and leave us w/ the great dust bowl. 

If we want energy independence and security, it's going to take a quasi state / market approach.  That's why I throw out the utility model as an option.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 21:41 | 998758 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture


I don't know what planet you've been living on for the past 5 years but your "quasi State / market" approach has already been tried on US property, US education and US banking. Where has your model got you???

Yes 3 of the biggest bankrupt disasters in global economic history. 

What are you pickling your brain in, Valium!!

Only a free open competitive market works. It never fails. The only models that fail are State and "quasi State / market"  models. Go and suck hard and long on some housing, education and banking for a few years and when you've swallowed the miserable bitter bankrupt taste of your incompetent modelling then we can talk again

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 00:07 | 998981 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

first off, where is the widespread, excellent private education (k to phd) of which you speak?  the u.s. had a great public education system until about when the property tax referendum in california blew up what was an excellent state university system and similar priorities began sapping the rest of the nation.  if your ideology keeps you from seeing this, what else does it blind you from seeing?  

second, the "property" (real estate?) and banking markets' failures were themselves, in the main, failures of free, open, competitive (and vastly fraudulent) markets.  greenspan himself said he couldn't believe the executives of companies would so casually sacrifice the firms' long run well being for the executives' short run advantage.  again if ideology makes you think less regulation (i.e. fraud law enforcement) would have fixed things, what else does it make you think?  good markets require good regulation.  consumers have little information and are at enormous disadvantage against corporations or even sellers in a rug bazaar.  

it is the shameful, criminal, economically disastrous world control fraud and its coverup/bailout by the governments of the world that have destroyed belief in the usefulness of corporations or governments.  it may be their nature or it may be the particular stewards we endure.  i can't tell.  but it has been better during other times.  it may be so again. 

Sun, 02/27/2011 - 14:36 | 1001816 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture


Regards the previous "great" public education can you define its greatness? I can assure you nothing the State has ever done is great, it is always without exception 2nd-3rd rate in every quality measure and 3 to 10 times more expensive to deliver.

One reason the State dominates a market is to avoid any and all comparisons with private competition because it is so crap and quality goals and achieving them with any commercial discipline such as return on capital employed, input costs, effective use of technology etc

It's also hard to tell where the private education system is because the State has so many dumb rules and Regs and qualifications and standards which stick a spanner in the works of both State and private schools and of course the free market developing its own course. You mention the Californian property tax yourself doing precisely that to the previous "great" public education.

The US property and real estate markets were not examples of a free market, but examples of State misdirected mal-investment which is what happens in every market where Govt subsidises. We can add the same carnage in trains and transport, corn ethanol subsidies, green energy and other previous free markets now running into the ground due to State misdirection such as energy (no new US oil refineries in 30 years).

Regards Greenspans comments about short-termism amoung greedy executives the problem seems to be Govt bailing them out.  Because the free market would resolve such issues with bankruptcy forced by a free competitive market that is ruthless with wasters who do not run efficient operations. 

Good markets do not require "good regulation". I refer you to the black market, wholly unregulated, un-policed with zero consumer protection legislation. It delivers $Billions of top quality product to its end-users day in day out, year after year for decades. It's a totally free market free from any and all Govt and works on the pure competition and pricing mechanisms. It is self-regulating because of these mechanisms.

I've no idea where you think a free market "disadvantages" the consumer and would lead to a "rug bizaar". Maybe in the past 2,000 years of markets you can give 1 solitary example?

Your disenchantment with govt and corporations i can assure you are entirely Govt made. Nowhere the free market operates is there anything like you mention. Simply because when there is the competition mechanism gives consumer the choice (power) to walk away from a crap corporation and choose another.

All the problems come when Big Govt and Big Corps shut down the free market and shuts down smaller rising competitors to deny consumers choice (power) and try to monopolise markets. Have you seen a new entrant in the oil market or garage chain to deliver your petrol in the past 50 years? How about energy? How about water? How about pensions? How about mortgages?

All these markets have been systematically rigged, systematically hoarded into the national central committees of large corporations rather than allowed small competitiors to emerge as any healthy free market would welcome. The constant emergence and 'churn' of new young entrants to put the big old diseased dinosaurs to a deserving grave.

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 00:36 | 999053 Ahmeexnal
Ahmeexnal's picture

Riiiight. Just like the free open competitive stock markets.

The State is now only a puppet of the "free markets" in most countries.

Sun, 02/27/2011 - 14:49 | 1001843 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture


The Stock Markets are not 'free markets', they are monopolised by a few boards such as the NYSE and Nasdaq who are competitors in name only. There is all sorts of rigging going on to favour the big players in the casino against the small retail investors such as their advance order info computer systems.

Of course if a free market existed many of the Big diseased WS dinosaurs who the Indexes are rigged for would no longer be here still rigging the Indexes because the free market would have allowed them to go bankrupt. Blame your normal culprits for all disease, Big Govt bailing out Big Corps.

Same as my post to Jeff above I refer you to the black market to see how smoothly free markets work and in the interests of both consumer and producer day in day out, year after year for centuries (no Govt, law, lawyers, consumer protection or regulation required). Or visit a farmers market, car boot sale or a bazaar when you're next abroad. 

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 10:40 | 999564 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

As for wishing to nationalise production - have a look at what happens when governments directly get hold of the enormous revenues generated thereby: untold cronyism and corruption.

If you think the US is bad in this regard, take a look at Nigeria,


Just like Uganda, Nigeria national oil company is small. Most of the oil extraction is operated by private corporations. Contrary indeed to Libya, Saudi Arabia etc

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 22:14 | 998832 Seer
Seer's picture

The "solution" is to more rapidly exhaust limited resources?  Strength through exhaustion?

The ONLY solution this is is to the wealthy for something to pad their pockets (at the expense of everyone else).  One has to love corporate socialism!  Reagan was a genious for really launching this kind of crap to new heights! (and the idiots still swallow that swill!)

I wonder how folks are going to scapegoat Mother Nature when she no longer puts out...

BTW - You failed to mention "Communists."

God bless the US and its high regard for life and liberty esp when trying to eradicate hobgoblins (Operation Northwoods, 9/11), and for Edward Bernays!

Sun, 02/27/2011 - 02:03 | 1001178 kayl
kayl's picture

How about this solution--We take the oil leases away from the MFers who held on to leases but failed to develop the oil since the 70s. We put these fields online with nationalized producers and have the oil refined in nationalized US refineries. Open up jobs in the oil sector like it used to be.

Parallel to this operation, open up development of nuclear power facilities and alternative energy. Cut through the red tape and adopt plans that don't take 30 years to implement.

Why is there no common sense left in this radical environmentalism-tree hugger, PC culture!

Sun, 02/27/2011 - 10:40 | 1001524 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Buddy, you are just blowing smoke re: leases and oil... The US is the most pin-cushioned country in the world, they are for all intents and purposes getting blood from a stone. Given the proven and probable resource base, the US is massively overproducing relative to the rest of the world.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 19:48 | 998459 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Yes we need to ask the US Govt why US oil production has declined so radically over 30 years?

Could it be the stinkingly corrupt US Govt has been strangling its own supply? Could it be the stinkingly corrupt US Govt run a protection racket for monopoly oil companies to prevent oil exploitation by smaller, faster, more efficient oil companies???

Take a Chinese Oil Co's offer for one of the small US companies. The US Govt stopped the sale for 'security' reasons. Exxon picked up the same company with shareholders having to take $300m less than the Chinese offer. Big Govt, Big Corp, Big Stink

This is the patent history of the stinkingly corrupt US Govt who are 100% responsible for both the 30 year decline (strangulation) in US oil and the fact no oil refineries have been built in the US for nearly 3 decades (you want jobs, as the fuking US Govt where they're sending US jobs go).

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 19:47 | 998475 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

  Could it be that your head is so firmly up your ass that you fail to realize that the great US oil fields were found in the 1930's and they have been pumped dry?

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 20:58 | 998666 hardcleareye
hardcleareye's picture

These post are very funny....  in a sick sort of way... 

How do we address our problems? "Why get rid of government and regulations, it's the source of all evil!!!!!!"  "Do away with government and those tree hugging environmentalist and all the oil problems go away.... it's a big conspiracy to screw you over..."

Gee, what about protecting "the commons"?  

I know this might come as a novel idea but you could be wrong (the conspiracy thing)!!  Maybe your grandkids might really need that oil.... 

The hubris is just over the top....

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 21:24 | 998731 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture


Nobody needs a "conspiracy" about the US Govt, it's patently in your face reality what is going on to anyone who lives in the real world. Just take the Chinese offer for a US oil company blocked by the Govt fleecing its shareholders of $300m when (surprise surprise) Exxon then came in and bought it up.

As for your love of Govt planning and Regulation take a look at US banking. Take a look at the shambles of US healthcare or the complete wasteland they made of US property. 

As for "novel ideas" the US might try one called the "free market". It's the ONLY mechanism that has worked throughout history at providing both producer and consumer with satisfaction guaranteed. A stark contrast to the carnage, shambles and complete bankruptcy the US State and its totally incompetent regulators 'manage'.

You're clearly a fuking idiot 


Fri, 02/25/2011 - 22:21 | 998846 Seer
Seer's picture

Can you please inform everyone what the benefit is for the "US government" to reduce oil supplies/production, for the past 30 years?

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 00:17 | 999013 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

or how the u.s. gov't doing exxon's bidding somehow should make us have more faith in private corporations and the fabulous (on paper) "free open and competitive markets"?  about here is where to insert that quote by adam smith to the effect that people of the same trade seldom meet together except that the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public.  those with great faith in corporations (or in any institution) probably didn't work at the decision making level in that institution.  just a guess.

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 11:44 | 999630 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

The US gov't is owned and controlled by an international Power Elite.  That should be obvious to anyone that is somewhat conscious.  There is no better way to control the proletariat than control of their energy supplies.  Without cheap energy, they starve, freeze and can't get to their ball games for the tailgate parties.  The Anglo-American Power Elite controls the major portion of the planet's useful energy supplies.

Got it now?

Tue, 07/26/2011 - 20:10 | 1496365 Taint Boil
Taint Boil's picture

\___ Thanks

\___ No Thanks

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 11:37 | 999624 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

If you're referring to the Unocal shareholder robbery, it was Chevron that stole it with the help of a congressman that they, surprise-surprise, donated a lot of money to, not Exxon.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 21:16 | 998710 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture


The US has many times larger oil reserves than Saudi. Period. The only reasons you don't exploit them are twofold: Saudis is cheaper; the US Govt is so utterly corrupt it strangles exploitation for the specific purposes of a protection racket for large US Oil companies to prevent and pervert competition.

The US Govt has banned nearly all onshore, shallow water exploitation and nearly banned deep water too with the BP spill. They have also banned ANWR for "environmental" reasons which is of course total bollocks because ANWR is a frozen fuking wasteland with zero wildlife to protect. In addition oil is totally environmentally friendly, spillage is rarer than hens teeth.

The US Govt stinks, end of fuk face 

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 00:48 | 999086 Ahmeexnal
Ahmeexnal's picture

Your brain is a frozen fuking wasteland with zero neurons to connect.

Take a swim in the gulf near the BP spill site. Then tell us how enviromentally friendly it is.

You are a BP lackey. 

When TSHTF and $200 a barrel oil comes, the US will nationalize oilfileds (just as every other country that has not done so already). Same when gold/silver shoots through the roof: nationalization of PMs below ground. 

It will be a great time to short BP, ABX and similar parasites.

Sun, 02/27/2011 - 13:48 | 1001742 Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture

Nationalization of OIL/PM's is happening now, right under our noses !!

 - start at 3:25

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 00:22 | 999022 samsara
samsara's picture


Earth Science/Physic/Chemistry wasn't very good to these people. 

It's sad to listen to "Our Energy Solutions" from so many that have not a single clue what the first 3 laws of thermodynamics are or their effects on this discussion.  But the Bakken with save us.

It's Jiminy Cricket time

Ending with a up close and personal experience with The Kübler-Ross grief cycle


Fri, 02/25/2011 - 20:42 | 998630 Devout Republican
Devout Republican's picture


Sat, 02/26/2011 - 06:19 | 999387 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Also, this kind of supply side thinking that the world has infinite resources and no need to address the demand side is really fucking annoying and stupid.  I expect more on ZH.


Extremistic demand. Most people operating here are US citizens,  people who are impregnated with the myth of pushing the frontier, that is a society that stole successfully over a short period large amounts of land, dramatically increasing the inputs, the supply side of their economy.

A US driven world has no limits.

This leads to wild imbalances like stressing technological advancement, supposedly higher cognitive faculties when all of this only gave birth to ways to consume even faster oil.

The world led by the US is on one way track. Dont expect a change not even in direction or slow down. The only change possible is faster and faster toward the depletion cliff. 

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 12:33 | 999687 Thorny Xi
Thorny Xi's picture

I'm going to submit my piece about how to build a zero-point-magnet-powered-perpetual-motion-generator, since it's fairly obvious that ZH needs stupid fodder for the overnights when they'll run Bakken tight oil and pump the ANWR tripe. 

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:34 | 998143 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

There are about 1.6 trillion (yes trillion with a 't') barrels of oil in the Athabaska oil sands. Thats over 5 times what the Saudis 'claim' to have.

At current prices there are around 300 billion barrels or so that are recoverable.

Sure it's a bloody environmental nightmare in progress there right now but with some enhanced regulation and planning...


Energy security and self sufficiency?

Invade Canada. They deserve it! :)

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:38 | 998213 Moric
Moric's picture

Have to show my teeth on this one. Invade Canada? We have been on our knee's economically for awhile now. The worst part is we are tearing up the Oil Sands primarily for the States, and they are giving us crap about our "Dirty Oil".


Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:49 | 998249 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

And by law they have to continue shipping their oil to the USA even if they incur supply interuptions from their prefered energy suppliers in the Middle East!

But what is the potential for trouble in the Persian gulf anyway? Ha ha ha ha!

A country full of oil with nary a drop for itself... tards!

Oh hell we own it all anyway.. except the parts you sold to the Chinese!

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 19:01 | 998314 Moric
Moric's picture

Gotta love that free trade agreement, sure made a lot of sense. Eh the parts sold to China are just dirty hedges anyway. China just wants to make sure you had all you can eat so they can chow down too, they is hungry. I'd rather feed them farts too...

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:40 | 998229 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

gubmint's already on it kitty!

"U.S. & Canada Agree to Common "Perimeter"

pesky "security & prosperity partnership" thingy dubya was working on appears to be still breathing, NAFTA 2.0, ayup!

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:49 | 998262 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

While the children were sleeping CA!

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:47 | 998253 Common_Cents22
Common_Cents22's picture

I've been to lake athabasca fishing a few times and the sand dunes coming up to the lake are pretty cool.  Best fishing I ever had too.  47" northern pike and a 49.5 inch lake trout.

It's so freakin remote, theres plenty of room to work the sands and not worry about recreation.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:53 | 998257 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

Two headed pike or three headed?

They look tasty don't they?

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 20:39 | 998618 hardcleareye
hardcleareye's picture

These numbers sound great but what you need to consider is that the EROI of oil sands is very different that the EROI of WTI or some of the oil from the Saudis.  So you may indeed have 300 billion barrels of "recoverable oil" in the Athnbasca sands but (for purposes of example) it will cost you 200 billion barrels of that oil to produce the 100 billion..... this is what "peak oil" is all about.....

From Gail the Actuary on the oil drum regarding EROI of oil sands

"The EROI of in situ processes will vary. The SAGD process I saw claimed an EROI of 6, but it left out so much that it was clearly lower. One reader wrote to me and suggested 3 was a better estimate. Part of the problem is that the energy used in the calculation was only the natural gas portion; another problem was that the end product was only bitumen."

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 22:37 | 998869 Seer
Seer's picture

Nothing like wasting perfectly good energy (NG) to make crude energy...  And in the process screw up a LOT of water!

T. Boone Pickens was right to promote NG for transporation and push alternative power for electricity production.  He acknowledged that NG would only be for transition, and in that regard I view him as being quite sane: I believe that we'll just continue the slinky march down the staircase, but such suggestions could make the descent less jolting, perhaps.

Mother Nature doesn't like careless disregard of the laws of thermodynamics...

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 20:49 | 998649 trav7777
trav7777's picture

5x the reserves for 1/5 of the production rate...welcome to Peak Oil, pal

Sun, 02/27/2011 - 06:47 | 999383 falak pema
falak pema's picture

The arch duke of Vancouver wouldn't agree. He's touting the 4 west canadian states as the only remaining Shangrila after the world meltdown. You are spoiling his dream with your USA, USA rally. Get the tally? You must go live on that pacific island that is full of Sarah Palin garbage and is a very continent in itself. Ask her for directions, its somewhere out there under the deep blue, not very deep. It's got 'made in USA' marked all over it. Happy hunting for brand new continent. Take Sarah with you by the way. And leave the poor duke of Van to drink his martini dry, shaken not stirred!

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:45 | 998245 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture


and he forgot all the oil sands as well... Fuck Rudolph the red nosed raindeer!!!



Fri, 02/25/2011 - 19:38 | 998427 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Trav,couldn't agree more. Using one bad argument to promote another bad argument. Tell you what, you want good cheap oil? Take over Saudi Arabia. Easy, but you will still have to deal with peak oil.

Tyler, how did this author make it past the capcha?

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 21:22 | 998728 creviceCaress
creviceCaress's picture





thank you, i can sleep now.

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 06:21 | 999389 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Tell you what, you want good cheap oil? Take over Saudi Arabia.


Saudi Arabia? But SA has been taken over for decades now. The Saudis seldom express their own interests if ever. They express the US best interests and this at a discount compared to US citizens who would live and occupy physically Saudi Arabia.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 20:06 | 998525 hardcleareye
hardcleareye's picture

According EIA it is 700 million barrels per year... for mean production years 2 & 3...  700 m/365ays per year... you all can do the math....  

Regardless of units there is still a substantial shortfall using today's import number and your point of were does the balance come from is well taken.

By the way current import is around 8,631 thousand barrels per day were did the 12 mbpd "Number" come from, total US consumption?

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 20:11 | 998538 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

 Count the net imports of refined products...

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 02:55 | 999275 Freddie
Freddie's picture

Really - I mean f*ck Thomas Friedman and the NY Times.  The guy is not respected by anyone.  He is an AH.  

Illinois is not a major coal state but they have more coal (diesel) than Saudi Arabia has oil.  It can be converted to diesel for $35 a barrel by lots of companies including Sasol which is a large oil company.  Major coal states probably have 2 to 3 times the Saudi reserves.

Allow companies to switch over to diesel and the cars with modern direct injected diesels can get 40 to 50 mpg -EASY.  It is clean and the cars are fast with mega torque.

In addition - the United States has more natural gas than any country in the world and it has come online in a big way in the past 5 years.   We have a major glut of nat gas.

This isn't even counting offshore, ANWR,  permafrost hydrate methane, coal diesel from other states, probably 300 to 400 billion barrels of shale oil, nuclear which can use other fuel soruces besides uranium and the list goes on and on .    All of these sources can be developed QUICKLY at $35 a barrel to use a comparision to oil prices.  This development creates jobs, wealth and tax revenues too.

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 10:57 | 999582 Newtons Lawyer
Newtons Lawyer's picture

The US has roughly a 150yr. supply of nat gas, 200+ yr. supply of coal, and plenty of proven oil reserves that are off limits due to environmental regulations.  One can make the environmental argument but its hard to deny that we have a huge supply of fuels.  If tomorrow, the feds said drill anywhere, you can bet your ass that oil prices would drop, if not immediately, very quickly.  And the technology required to extract from shale oil reserves will continue to  improve and come down in price.  The solution isn't taxes, its opening oil fields.

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 19:15 | 1000518 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Do you like to make up stuff as you go along? You do realize that Q means fuck all and it is dQ/dt that matters, right? And that if you quote a reserve lifetime that the value of 1/Q dQ/dt may be a useful number for mental bookeeping, but that it has essentially zero predictive ability for estimating future supply?

And for the record, can you describe what you mean by shale oil reserves?

Also, if you didn't understand the first paragraph, then simply STFU. You are in way over your head.

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 18:54 | 1000496 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture


America won't be energy independent ever.  Energy dependence is too profitable.

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 19:29 | 1000528 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

America won't be energy independent ever.  Energy independence is   impossible given our current consumption patterns.


There, that was easy to fix.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:24 | 998164 Zeroexperience2010
Zeroexperience2010's picture

The chinese are starting a program to develop thorium MSR:


Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:42 | 998225 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

Love thorium

Don't forget the potential of methyl hydrates however.


Reserves of traditional natural gas that can be extracted with current technology are predicted to last about 60 years at current consumption levels. Though these reserve estimates total about 370 trillion cubic meters (tcm), rough estimates of methyl hydrate deposits range from 2,800 tcm to 8.5 million tcm, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution estimates that the United States alone has as much as 8,500 tcm. If a reliable technology can be found to harvest natural gas hydrates, it could hugely increase world reserves.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:47 | 998248 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture

now if we could only stick a straw under the perm frost and suck out all that natural power!!!! Wowie!!!

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 19:27 | 998390 ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

JW... if the US military is owned by the citizens of the United States how come they keep invading countries for their oil reserves and then hand them off to connected corporations like BP and friends?

If it only costs $3 to lift a barrel of middle eastern light crude why do we pay $100?

That extra $97 dollars just goes to our dictato.... err Autocratic friends and their terrorist allies doesn' it? Doesn't that mean that we are actually funding these Islamic terroristas?

Shouldn't we revert back to our forefathers ethos of... "to the victor goes the spoils" ?

I'll bet you gasoline at 50 cents a gallon will go a long way to solving Americas problems... just sayin' :)

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 22:12 | 998821 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture

I agree... kill it, keep it!

I was adding not detracting.. sorry Bro!


But now that the people are under the impression (in the middle east) that change they can believe in will be installed for thier common good... we just need a re-start / do over / mulligan button.. like an easy button but different.


Let engineers handle the books... let scientists handle the VC monies... the one thing lil Bush part duex in technicolor has right is matching dollors for untility sized projects, plus a 30% kick back going forward... but plus 8 years of Bush Jr. fucking us over @ $9B a month (sorry $12B - $14B a month) ignoring the obvious.. fix it at home! not fix it abroad???


We need more nukes, yes those too.. but I mean power plants and solar and wind and wave and what the fuck ever gets us off the middle easts oil tit. the only thing I am not a fan of is the $60B a year in food for fuel... fucking monkey fucking a football that is.


Honestly, with China having a stronger currency, with China not giving a fuck where or who they buy thier energy from... where as we are a monkey fucking a football country, have our work cut out for us in the short an long run.


China has heavy / sour crude production available in spades as compared to our addiction to the good stuff... lite sweet crude.


We are fucked some many different ways that it is hard to really decide on which way we will be hit hardest.


Sorry Bro, I didnt mean to go long... it just kept coming out of me..


Fuckum All!!! Power to the People... or at least Fight!! Club!!!

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 02:48 | 999268 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Wrong supposition -- the US military is NOT owned by America's citizens.  It's owned and controlled by an international Power Elite that also owns and controls the planet's main energy resources, i.e. the fossil fuels and the uranium/plutonium resources.  They do NOT want any competitors!  One of the most important jobs of the U.S. military is to protect this franchise.   It is not in their best interest to allow oil prices to decrease by such things as ANWR.

The Power Elite took control of the American military in 1917 and has kept control ever since.  Why else would those dumb fucking Yanks go to France to be killed in someone else's imperial war?

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 05:16 | 999362 ft65
ft65's picture

ZeroHead, it could be that JW n FL works for the military industrial complex he pretends to hate. HB Gary / MacDill is not the only sock-puppet project!

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 19:26 | 998401 Moric
Moric's picture

I drink your slushie? I DRINK IT UP!

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 22:54 | 998899 Seer
Seer's picture

"at current rates of consumption"

EVERYONE, read That closely.  If you do not read a similar statement in a given claim then discount the entire claim!

The point being, if you're going to promote something then the LAST thing that's going to happen is for the rate of consumption to stay the same!

That 60 year level of supply is reduced to 1/2 in only 10 years if growth rates were a mere 7%.  Strength through exhaustion, baby!

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 01:16 | 999129 prophet_banker
prophet_banker's picture

and don't forget the fracting extraction method of natural gas here in the usa, its ruining the ground water, and there is a video of a victim of this on you tube lighting his tapwater faucet on fire

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:29 | 998178 Mad Max
Mad Max's picture

Thorium reactors are about 1,000,000 times more interesting and potentially helpful than the tired tripe about ANWR etc.  Good links.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:35 | 998197 Big Ben
Big Ben's picture

I agree that Thorium MSRs show a lot of promise. If we were a rational country we might have adopted them 30 years ago.

But unfortunately the baby boomers have spent their entire adult lives equating nuclear energy with everything that is evil. So I don't think that we will see them in the US until the baby boomers have passed from the scene. Perhaps if gasoline went to $15/gallon, it might change some people's thinking.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:43 | 998237 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

But unfortunately the baby boomers have spent their entire adult lives equating nuclear energy with everything that is evil.

luckily boomer-spawn are beyond evil, heh.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 21:21 | 998725 Big Ben
Big Ben's picture

luckily boomer-spawn are beyond evil, heh.

Well the young (bless their little hearts) are always willing to reexamine and sometimes discard their parents' most cherished beliefs. I think the post-boomers are nervous and somewhat sceptical about nuclear energy (which is natural because their parents and/or grandparents have been ranting against it for almost 50 years). But they would at least be willing to discuss the issue.

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 19:56 | 1000570 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

Boomers embaced nuclear energy.

Rabid leftist environmentalists rejected it and wielded enough political clout to shut it down.

Now we burn coal spewing mountains of pollutants into the air, completely negating environmentalists' stated goals.

... proving they were working for the coal industry the whole time.

The fossil fuel cartel is responsible for America falling 50 years behind in energy independence and the approaching energy collapse in America to go along with the banking-cartel-created economic collapse in America.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 20:09 | 998535 Fred Hayek
Fred Hayek's picture


Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are much less dangerous than the reactors we use now.  Thorium itself is nearly harmless.  We've got massive amounts of it in the U.S. and you could hold a lump of the stuff in your hands without injury.  We had a set of frigging reactors running on it in the 60's but when the Feds realized that they couldn't get any material for bombs out of a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, they lost all interest in it.  You wouldn't have to build a massive facility with massive security requirements the way you have to with our present reactors.  And by some estimates the U.S. has a thousand goddam years of thorium practically lying around waiting to be used.

There's no better example of how incredibly stupid the Obama administration is.  They could be touting LFTR's and they'd have a sales pitch ready made for them.  It's already written by the history of it.  A wonderful technology ignored out of fixation on Cold War imperatives to build nuclear weapons. 

But he and his worthless maid, Chu, do nothing about it.  Nothing.  So frustrating that the teleprompter in chief postures and preens and has the lame stream press constantly gushing about him being smart when so many of his decisions are so incredibly stupid and shortsighted.  And the refusal to push LFTR's is way up there among them.


Fri, 02/25/2011 - 23:10 | 998919 Milestones
Milestones's picture

Good post!! Had the perfect tone growl to it.     Milestones

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 12:09 | 999656 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Obama is a tool of the international Anglo-American Power Elite.  This should be obvious by now.

How will thorium reactors and the energy they produce be controlled by the PE?  The non-proliferation argument for using the US military to prevent construction of thorium fueled electricity generation is too nonsensical for even the current useful idiots to swallow.  Thorium fueled generation has too much promise of really being too cheap to meter.  How is that going to allow the PE to remain in control of the proletariat's energy supplies?

Fortunately for the PE (not the rest of us), there is still considerable R&D expense needed to develop thorium as a viable energy source.  The PE are trying (and succeeding so far) to make sure that this doesn't happen.  China and India may be the wild-cards though.

Sun, 02/27/2011 - 01:37 | 1001140 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

It's about energy dependence.  Where else can the slave grid find their power?

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 21:39 | 998668 born2bmild
born2bmild's picture

I used to think governments were actually trying to help people until I joined the military and every related illusion fell away. Unemployment and hunger will probably help in the incentive department. So many options, oil maybe the worst.

Stuff like this happens daily:

And so on.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 23:29 | 998945 Seer
Seer's picture

This is a multi-dimensional issue.  Energy by itself is of minimal value.  What gives it value is it's action on the physical.

I was once a big proponent of hot fusion (much like all the folks who are big on other things happening today), until I realized the above.

We have had extremely cheap and easy energy- oil, and look at what we've done with it: nothing that's really going to last without increasingly more and more energy.

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 00:31 | 999042 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Absolutely spot on Seer. i wrote something exactly to that point some time back.

i called it the Curse of Free Energy.



Sat, 02/26/2011 - 01:17 | 999061 born2bmild
born2bmild's picture

If you don't mind paying $1.50 more / gallon (today) than CNG, trashing your motor, fucking up the air quality in your town (I'm not talking C02), drilling the most pristine wilderness in the US and paying some of the most corrupt people on earth for the pleasure...  I started boycotting businesses I can't stand when I was 18 and I'm doing fine. Electric cars will in the very near future probably out perform all forms of ICE's. From my cng van it already looks like horses vs donkeys. I can only imagine the step up level going electric.

Electric drag racing vid:

Last week an English university prototyped a car battery similar to the zinc air batteries in hearing aids that react chemically with air and just keep producing energy - they are charged by the air.

I'll find the link but in the meantime here are two other examples:

This is a good link to let you know if CNG will work for your travel patterns:

Yes I know fracking pollutes groundwater but I also know biogas is increasingly mixed into our national grid which lessens the blow.

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 01:19 | 999134 prophet_banker
prophet_banker's picture

and don't forget the pick up truck that runs on water



Sat, 02/26/2011 - 03:43 | 999244 born2bmild
born2bmild's picture

I can't even get people off of their donkeys for a horse and you're talking about pegasus.

Honestly, why not though? Blacklight Power has been replicated and varified by Rowan University 3 times, they claim multiple energy levels between chemical and nuclear:

Hydrinos, Hydrogen, Brown's Gas, it's all amazing and people work around the clock on it every single day.


And the modern Pierce Arrow:

Back EMF, that's this:

I made one of the more simple versions of the chargers, neat stuff, ni-cad batteries would recharge and would take less time each time they re-charged and they slightly gained capacity. I didn't understand it and ruined a lot of cordless tool batteries fooling around with it but I could make it work in a limited way.

"An inventor is simply a person who doesn't take his education too seriously. You see, from the time a person is six years old until he graduates form college he has to take three or four examinations a year. If he flunks once, he is out. But an inventor is almost always failing. He tries and fails maybe a thousand times. It he succeeds once then he's in. These two things are diametrically opposite. We often say that the biggest job we have is to teach a newly hired employee how to fail intelligently. We have to train him to experiment over and over and to keep on trying and failing until he learns what will work."
Charles F. Kettering


Sat, 02/26/2011 - 11:58 | 999643 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Electric cars mostly run on coal or natgas fired turbine powered generators.  This electricity is transported at great expense and substantial losses to the charging points.  How is superior to the ICEs that currently power cars?

It should take less natgas to power a car directly in its ICE than indirectly through generated electricity.  But then the local power company wouldn't be able to get their pound of flesh, eh?

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 14:07 | 999823 born2bmild
born2bmild's picture

I did the napkin calcs for the Tesla Roadster, it was about a quarter the price/mile of my (albiet heavier) CNG vehicle if you didn't factor in replacing the batteries every 100k miles. Batteries are getting better or you could just go with ultracapacitors (which almost never wear out). I, personally have to wait for the price to come down (Tesla's new sedans are about $60k though) or somehow gain enough time to build an electric vehicle myself to participate. Compressed air cars are even more efficient than electric but the current selection of vehicles - in the US, isn't compatible with my line of work. I'm a little busy right now to get into it but here's the wikipedia version: According to the U.S. EPA, the Roadster can travel 244 miles (393 km) on a single charge[7] of its lithium-ion battery pack, and can accelerate from 0 to 60 mph (0 to 97 km/h) in 3.7 seconds. The Roadster's efficiency, as of September 2008[update], was reported as 120 mpgge (2.0 L/100 km). It uses 135 Wh/km (21.7 kW·h/100 mi, 13.5 kW·h/100 km or 490 kJ/km) battery-to-wheel, and has an efficiency of 88% on average.

I wish Tesla would go with the ultracaps but I'm sure there's a reason I can't see even if it's just something like their cozy relationship with the battery people. I'm not knocking Tesla, I'm super proud of and impressed by anyone willing to take on Detroit. Elon Musk lives across town from me, everyone I know that has worked for Tesla loves it and him.

Also, you could make the energy you need to power your car at home, I have rants all over these pages about that.

Sun, 02/27/2011 - 01:51 | 1001158 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

You should like this.  From the original Tesla and the original Pierce Arrow: a wireless electric powered car.

Just keep it to yourself tho

Don't want the Peak Aether trolls showing up to ruin the party....

Sun, 02/27/2011 - 12:59 | 1001669 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Crawled out from under your rock I see...What will it be today? Abiotic oil? Zero-point energy? Cold fusion?

Sun, 02/27/2011 - 19:07 | 1002292 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

Ask and ye shall receive.

I forgot you are a peer reviewed troll no retrospect, the last time we tangled your scalp wasn't worth all the effort tho I guess it appears it still stings.

You disappoint and I guess you know it.  So why not continue to share your limits and negativity with all?  That's productive energy!

I was polite last time, you should appreciate that and not be so insulting.
But seriously, let's hear you arguments on how the EROI of the aether is the

What I think is fascinating is the amount of time you dedicate to these energy threads with the same mantra of resource are over playing your hand either for the sake of clients or because you are either obsessed or professionally compelled for other's beginning to become apparent and eventually people will tune you out.  Too preachy.

Remember science poses the question What if? and dogma slavishly accepts What is...

That dogma don't hunt dude. 

You're way over your

Sun, 02/27/2011 - 19:21 | 1002383 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

First I tend to focus on stuff I *really* understand and usually don't comment on things I feel I can't add relevant content or a deeper understanding. I have been a student of energy issues for many years so I am qualified.

Second, from the posters here, there is a lot of misconception about our true energy state and its role in the economy. That is in so small part due to the mis-information being spread by posters like you and the bull shit articles that are contributed.

The funny thing is that despite the efforts of many people, no one has been able to dispute my posts on a factual verifiable basis. That, my friend, is the tell.


Sun, 02/27/2011 - 20:34 | 1002452 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

Fantastic.  You're a disciple of the obvious.  Kudos to you.

The tell on you is that you do not admit or entertain possibilities of energy generation or distribution outside of what you know yet you pile in anyways, like responding to my comment above.

Stick to what you know, the information you provide on the state of our dwindling energy infrastructure is insightful, your negative dismissal of things you admit you know nothing about but which yet reinforce the doom of your construct serves only a one-dimensional meme, so accordingly, it is not helpful.

If you have something constructive to say outside of what you know a comment is welcome, similarly a post of facts in conflict to the proposition or consideration is welcome without the ad hominem and conflation of two-bit disinfo.

Zero point energy and other alternatives are worthy considerations.  Much of Tesla's work is still cloaked in secrecy.  It is important to the future of energy possibilities.  It is only recently that dark energy and dark matter have been accounted for in the universe and my how the scientist theorize to remove it as a bias...

Like I said, the negative energy of unobjective dogma does not serve you or the topics at hand.

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 02:13 | 999214 Cardinal Fang
Cardinal Fang's picture

Tera Watts...

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 11:12 | 999333 born2bmild
born2bmild's picture

Seer, as for your last sentence, I thought the point was to become ever more efficient to the point we are using less and less of everything. The amount of energy consumed in this video is about what it takes to air up a mountain bike tire:

How much energy would that task have taken 5 years ago?

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 06:29 | 999393 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

We have had extremely cheap and easy energy- oil, and look at what we've done with it: nothing that's really going to last without increasingly more and more energy.


In addition, this behaviour has grown as being the ultimate exhibition of intelligence: people/ethnies/races or whatever who have been the engine of this trend to the cliff are considered the most intelligent and should be rewarded for their efforts. Whiz kids whose main contribution has not been to extend the tracks for the train to keep rolling but has been to make the train going faster and faster...

This side of the story calls the big question: will there be enough untelligent people to cushion the fall, will they have resisted long enough so that, once being eliminated, the transition can be absorbed by most intelligent people, who are of course intelligent and self infatuated enough not to claim their responsibility in the making of the disaster and pour it on unintelligent people?

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 19:27 | 998406 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

Ol' Coot:

I'd appreciate you looking into the distance (time, money, research, mind-share, regulatory understanding, etc.)

'cuz, for whatever reasons (and they spot up around power density)-thang a'int close.  Like not closer to "drill-baby-drill" to get us through Trav's correct assessment.

- Ned

{do you know the old Maina's recipe for "Boild Coot"?} ;-)


Sat, 02/26/2011 - 18:17 | 1000439 the rookie cynic
the rookie cynic's picture

Here's my take on thorium posted a few weeks ago:

If ChairSatan and the PTB really had a clue (or cared about your future), they'd take a few of these currently worthless POMOs (unless you're a big banksta that is) and get some prototype LiFTeR reactors!!!

Shale, tar sands, ANWR, and "clean coal" are not a long term solutions. They're a thermodynamic wash. These sources yield little if any net energy, not unlike ethanol, not to mention the amount of water needed to extract joules from shale and sand is enormous. We all get focused in on oil as the "master resource", when in actuality, water is. Don't forget about peak water! If water goes into sands and shale, lots of people starve.

In short, we should be using our current infrastructure and oil reserves to bridge us to a sustainable, clean energy future and to a time when the human race is less myopic, foolish, and greedy. (Yeah, I know...ain't gonna happen, but I'm in a particularly optimistic mood today.)


Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:17 | 998139 tellsometruth
tellsometruth's picture

bakken gulf island and shale under rockies... thought that would do at current levels till 2045ish...but hey just what i have heard and read, and oil isn't my bag babby! whatcha you heard???

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:21 | 998154 trav7777
trav7777's picture

i have heard should hear STFU.

The writer thinks a paltry little 18BBbl is going to produce how much?  ROTFL...that's a miniscule little resource.  KSA had 250GBbl and the entire nation of it from a shallow reserves layout can't fill our production deficit.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 19:03 | 998321 CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture


Even the most conservative estimates tell us that by 2018 if development were green-lighted today, ANWR could be producing as much as 780,000 and then slowing to 710,000 barrels a day by 2030. 


Not true.  My conservative estimate is ANWR contains what NPR-A was found to contain -- 10% of previous estimates after exploration wells drilled -- and most of that is gas, not oil.

So there's a more conservative estimate, Rufus, how about ZERO.  As in none.  You won't pump jack from ANWR and not because I give a shit about carribou.  Drill all the fuck you want.  You won't get shit from ANWR.

How's energy independence look now?

Conservation?  Stupid.  Burn all you want. It won't matter.

If you really want to do something to address this problem, then it's time to plant some mushroom clouds in China because demand suppression -- someone else's demand --  is the only path to continued American dominance.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 19:29 | 998415 hardcleareye
hardcleareye's picture

"My conservative estimate is ANWR contains what NPR-A was found to contain -- 10% of previous estimates after exploration wells drilled -- and most of that is gas, not oil."

What did you base that on?  With all due respect "My conservative estimate" is NOT a creditable source.......... unless you care to share your resume.

And your last sentence earned you a junk....


Fri, 02/25/2011 - 20:51 | 998652 equity_momo
equity_momo's picture

You junked someone for suggesting the possibility of a hot war between the US and China due to energy shortages? 

Join the dots. Mankind in the relative short term has options , i shall tell you what they are :

1) living like we did pre-industrial revolution

2) inventing a reknewable affordable energy source that will allow exponential population growth and therefore credit growth

3) losing a few billion people at least (this correlates with option 1)

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 22:37 | 998854 CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

You are clearly not up to speed.  NPR-A was drilled and explored with results announced more or less just weeks ago, and the answer was There Is Damn Near No Oil There.  Estimates were 10s of billions of barrels.  It's not there.  Unproven reserves are leaned on and not understood.  Attempts to prove Can Fail.

ANWR is the same geology in the same seismic zone.  Alaska has earthquakes.  Millions of years of them.  They crack caprock over reservoirs.  A few million years later, the oil is gone.

NPR-A was declared to have only 10% of previous estimates.  It was a crushing blow.  All you have to do is read.


Fri, 02/25/2011 - 19:16 | 998369 hardcleareye
hardcleareye's picture

Back of the napkin figures...

First it takes 10 years from the time legislation is approved till oil flows.. earliest impact would be 2021.....

First year ANWR EIA mean production would offset imports by 43%.

Two and Three ANWR EIA mean production offset imports by 22%.

Four to twelve ANWR EIA mean production offset imports by 11%.

Boneheaded math error or incorrect assumption (don't wail on me for EIA numbers used for rough illustration only, but please do tear EIA apart)???

EIA (if you believe those numbers) estimates, mean production out of ANWR to be 4,210 million barrels over 12 years, first year of production 1,370 million barrel per year, next 2 years 700 million barrels per year and 360 million barrels for the remaining 9 years.  I believe the article said it was heavy crude, refining capacity??? 

US currently imports 8631 thousand barrels per day times 365 days per year is 3,150 million barrels per year of crude oil import.

EIA assesment of EROI  (rolling eyes)

"First, Alaska oil fields have always been more expensive to develop than lower-48 oil fields due to the North Slope’s remote location, harsh winters, and the environmental requirement to maintain the permafrost layer.  Second, in the current market environment, where producers are completing for scarce oil field equipment, drilling rigs, and skilled labor, the remoteness of the Alaska North Slope and its limited drilling season works to its detriment, causing oil field development costs to increase more than that witnessed in the lower-48.  In the lower-48, a drilling company might move a land rig only a couple of miles, or at most, a couple of hundred miles to another drilling site.  In contrast, the deployment of new rigs to the Alaska North Slope requires that they be transported many thousands of miles without any option for quick redeployment."

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 19:23 | 998392 hardcleareye
Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:18 | 998142 ruffian
ruffian's picture

we've got NG coming out of every pore in this country. Can power every vehicle in america...oh but sorry that would make too much sense and make us too energy independent...what was I thinking

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 19:05 | 998329 CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

No, it can't.  You don't understand physics.  

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 19:35 | 998432 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

Please crash-

and you don't understand just in time, development, cost of <xxx> and well, it can all be under the umbrella of physics and even the Laws of Thermodynamics.

might not be under the laws of the aclu and the nay-saya'z

- Ned

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 23:45 | 998958 Seer
Seer's picture

Two-dimensional thinking...

We CAN power EVERYTHING right now with what we have.  As a matter of fact, we could crank it all up and party like there's no tomorrow, except for one important fact (that isn't under the control of your hobgoblins): TIME!

Yeah, anyone who fails to account for the time dimension is doing shallow thinking.


Strength through exhaution.

Like someone else has been saying, go ahead, burn it all up NOW so we can put this silly debate (from two-dimensional thinkers) to rest once and for all (thought they'll still blame the fact that the lights are out and their SUVs won't move on commies, Al Qaeda, socialists, environmentalists [geez, starts sounding like the Nazis going after all the non-conformists!]), bad behaving unicorns ...).

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 00:42 | 999065 goldsaver
goldsaver's picture

So your point is that NG can not power every vehicle in America because is against the laws of physics? Shit, who knew all those fucking NG powered buses were able to defy the laws of physics. They must be owned by Goldman Sacks.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:20 | 998151 Ragnarok
Ragnarok's picture

What a load of MSM horseshit. 


Things we can do today:

1. Pass the open fuel standard (mandates all vehicles can run of gasoline, ethanol, methanol)

2. Remove the ethanol tariff, hell all energy tariffs.

3. Promote CNG vehicles, especially trucking.

4. Drill and mine everywhere, just make sure the permits are legit!


Things we should aim for in the future:

1.  Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, the most abundant element in the universe and every element decays to it.  Try and see the Chinese corner that market.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:22 | 998158 trav7777
trav7777's picture

have brain eating zombies attacked the ZH posters?  Because anyone believing in "hydrogen," nevermind that "every element decays to it" (WTF!?!?) has no brain

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:27 | 998173 Mad Max
Mad Max's picture

Glad you're on the case trav.

It seems that we need a "captcha" that filters out mindless zombies brainwashed into thinking that endless free energy is just sitting around not being used because of some Left-wing/right-wing/oil-industry/NWO/Soros/Daffy Duck conspiracy against it.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:36 | 998202 Ragnarok
Ragnarok's picture

thinking that endless free energy is just sitting around not being used


Jesus, I said this is what we should aim for.  Hydrogen is a better store of potential electric energy than batteries.  It's abundant, unlike rare earth metals, and all you need is a cheap way of producing the electricity, whatever that might be.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:48 | 998256 Matt
Matt's picture

Hydrogen is a means of storing energy, not producing it, it has fairly low energy density, and it is difficult to store. With nanotechnology, common metals like Iron and Copper, along with Carbon, may be able to replace rare earths for many applications, possibly including batteries.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 19:02 | 998322 Ragnarok
Ragnarok's picture

Shit, I'm game as long as we are not replacing one strategic resource (OIL) for another (REE).

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 00:20 | 999019 Seer
Seer's picture

It's the same as aiming for the cliff!

What you and every other new-wave energy-junkie appears to miss is that this is ALL about GROWTH.  You're all advocating the coninuance of perpetual growth on a finite planet.  And if people can't figure out what the outcome will be then I guess we're just doomed to face a mass-extinction event.

"and all you need is a cheap way of producing the electricity, whatever that might be."

Look at your electrical bill.  Do you think that electricity is expensive?  Now then, look at your income.  As a percentage of your total income, how expensive is that electricity?  Anyone still wanting to complain should do this math for 2/3 of the world's population, which lives on $3/day or less!

And with your "cheap electricity" you are going to produce more garbage, destroy more land, screw up more water, and then, when That "cheap electricity" is no more, Then what?

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 00:45 | 999075 goldsaver
goldsaver's picture

So is your solution that we all become Amish or that we return to the caves? Cause without cheap energy, thats the future Skippy.

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 17:17 | 1000293 born2bmild
born2bmild's picture

Western pop' is levelling off, US and Euro births are way down. With things going the way they are economically and with war - everything is changing. Ultimately It's boat that decides how many passengers it will hold not the passengers.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 19:03 | 998177 Ragnarok
Ragnarok's picture

every element decays to it" (WTF!?!?)


Radioactive decay, given enough time and no suns to create more complex matter.


My point being we will never run out and it is not a strategic resource.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 19:24 | 998397 trav7777
trav7777's picture

sigh...I'm amazed there are any other elements in the universe.

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 19:37 | 998439 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

Trav-of course there are.  They will last well beyond peak <fill in your blank here>. - Ned

Fri, 02/25/2011 - 20:54 | 998660 trav7777
trav7777's picture want an example of idiocy in play?

Helium is the 2nd most abundant element in the universe.  Basically infinity cf of the stuff.

Yet helium production here on earth peaked in '02.  Go figure.

Sat, 02/26/2011 - 09:52 | 999515 Ragnarok
Ragnarok's picture

I concede and I'm wearing my dunce cap.


Before I go shooting my mouth off I'll make sure my brains are loaded next time.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!