The Argument for More Oil Production
Written by YellowJacket on June 16th, 2008I think this comment, and my response, is front-page worthy regarding the oil situation we are facing:
“Ryan”: How exactly does drilling here help us in the long term? It does not. It keeps us dependent on fossil fuels while available reserves are not infinite. The American people are so short sighted in their vision that sometimes I wonder how we have survived for so long.
The American people are to blame for being so dependent on the fossil fuel economy and drilling for more oil is an act of denial of the future.
My response:
Because drilling and refining more here increases the supply, thus bringing down the price. It also helps our energy security.
The “energy crisis” or “petroleum crisis” is a fraud. There is no shortage of oil, only shortsightedness of our politicians in Washington who want to handicap the free market forces from provided accessible, cheaper energy resources.
I’m not only talking about oil here. It’s also about nuclear energy. Heaven forbid we open more nuclear power plants! France has 80% of their energy provided by nuclear power for crying out loud.
I don’t necessarily buy into the “peak oil” argument. Oil is a naturally recurring resource, and around the world new shales of oil unknown of before are constantly discovered (see the offshore shale discovered last year near Brazil).
Should we have a better variety of energy production? By all means, yes! In the short term, oil isn’t running out any time soon. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t increase the availability of it now to help American consumers, and it certainly doesn’t mean we can’t get more involved in nuclear energy. Hell, we can’t even build a wind farm up in Massachusetts because it would hinder the sight of the bay for Edward Kennedy and his spoiled family.
The American people may be to blame for electing politicians who ignore the laws of economics to Washington, but not for being dependent on oil. Oil is a very efficient resource for energy, and even plastics production. Give me a break.
Could it run out someday, far down the road? The honest answer is, we don’t know. Should we take steps to open up alternative sources of energy? Yeah! Go for it! But in the meantime, don’t hinder oil production so you hurt the American consumer, and quit the nuclear power boogeyman argument. Seems to me that politicians in Washington and enviro-whacko advocation groups want to have their cake and eat it too.
[UPDATE]: An article at RealClearPolitics that offers some similar views, and some differing.
16
PM
Both the question and answer miss several key points in the energy debate (which is a massively complicated one). While it would take pages to answer properly, ill summarize here.
Ryan’s question is, of course, grown from utter ignorance. If we have enough oil in the USA to last us 150 more years, is it reasonable to expect that we will have solved the problem by then? Of course. Why cripple our economy and embolden and finance our enemies? Why not allow the creation of jobs and the strengthening of our economy, currency, and security?
Second, focusing on Nuke energy is a losing battle. Despite the correctness of it, most americans are put off by the idea, and you may as well scream at the rain. Clean coal is an outstanding energy source, and the US has the bulk of the worlds coal in the Powder River basin (i.e. we are the “Saudi Arabia of coal”). A decade or two of cushion with our own oil would allow the creation and production of realistic alternatives like wind, hydrogen, solar, wave, and potential other forms of energy that scientists have not yet conceived.
Overall, our pathetic government has failed to follow its Constitutional mandate of providing for the common defense by putting us in this position. Personally, I sometimes want the american consumer to be crushed so that they understand what impact their vote has when they send some asshat to DC. I dont feel one bit of sorrow for devoted democrats who are complaining about fuel prices and the related increase in other goods. Their votes are coming right back home to them. The republicans may have slightly better energy policy, but they are such a useless bunch now, it doesnt matter.
McCain was out this weekend blaming oil companies for not developing alternative energy, and saying he was “angry about their profits”. If that isnt a sign that the republican party is lost without a map, then I dont know what is. McCain is really just not useful at all, other than as a placeholder.
16
PM
By the way Dave, I don’t think saying that nuclear power is not politically viable with the regard to the American people is really proving a point. My point was that the nuclear boogeyman needs to stop being thrown about by people. Only then will Americans wake up and realize that nuclear energy is not something to be afraid of.
17
AM
My point was that it wont actually get us anywhere right now because the fear machine is so effective. If I were to propose a nuke plant in your neighborhood, there are about 100 avenues that various groups/people could use to stop its construction for at least 20 years by tying it up in court. So while nuke energy is very effective, its just not going to solve our problems. But it does provide a nice talking point for republicans to use in a feeble attempt to appear as effective legislators.
17
AM
I think you guys seriously missed the point of what I was saying. Yes I am for basically any alternative to oil at the moment including other fossil fuels, but I think we need to be very responsible with how we use our resources. This means not being wasteful.
Do we know if we are going to run out of fossil fuels? We do not know for sure, but some scientists think it is likely. Why shouldn’t we be prepared for all reasonably possible scenarios? Not being prepared for reasonable scenarios is pathetic in my opinion.
The American people and the government we elect has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on non-sense that could have been better spent by the private sector or even a reasonable government on solving this problem, but we have let the fossil fuel based economy continue to sputter along. This is definitely an issue of national security and the fact we have went so long without a strategy from either side shows how pathetic our political leadership has become.
The Republicans should have had a plan years ago using free market principles to push forward energy independence. After the oil shock of the 1970s, we should have went ahead and freed ourselves from this dependence, but the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations let cheap oil get in the way of national security foresight. In many respects, the blame falls on them more than the current political leadership because if they acted, we would probably have some solutions to the situation we face now.
17
AM
I agree Ryan, totally. But the current govt is also failing us and we should continue to tear them to shreds at every chance.