Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
Is that bad news?
Published on March 11, 2005 By Dr Guy In Current Events

The sub title is a loaded question.  The answer depends upon who you are.  If you are an SUV owner who commutes 100 miles a day to and from work, you bet your bippy it is!

If you are an environmentalist, you can about guarantee they are jumping for joy as the higher prices will inevitably force conservation and inevitably reduce consumption.

But who are the other stake holders in this run up of prices?

One that many would scream as being the recipients are the oil companies and indeed they will profit well in the short term.  But like a candle burning at both ends, it will burn bright for a short while, but not burn as long.

In the end, the clear cut winners will be alternative energy sources, and ...... yes, the US.

The first victor in this run up of oil prices is easy to see.  The reason Alternative energy sources have not gotten a lot of notice or use is one of simple economics.  Oil was just too cheap and the alternatives not cost effective.  But with Oil over $50/barrell and threatening to go higher, all of a sudden Hydrogen, Electricty created by non-petroleum generators and solar power (to name a few) are becoming more competitive.  And indeed they will now be more research and exploration on how to make those and others a viable alternative.

But how is the US going to profit from this situation?  That is not as clear, but the answer is also as simple.  For the simple fact is that oil is not only used for fuel, but in the construction of almost all plastics, so weening the world from total use of oil is not going to happen for a long time to come.

So where are the alternative sources of oil going to come from?  From Shale Oil (that is not a clam shell oil company by the way).

Shale oil is a misnomer.  It is not really shale and it is not really oil.  Instead the 'oil' is actually kind of like 'unborn' oil.  It has not undergone all the geological stresses to make it into a useful fuel source (altho it is being used in some countries as a dirty and sooty one).  It must be treated first, and that will require a lot of heat and water.  Hence the reason it has  not been exploited before.

But as the cost of processing the shale oil into a viable energy source has gotten (relatively) cheaper and the price of crude has gotten more expensive, it is rapidly becoming a viable alternative and one that the proven reserves dwarfs that of all known crude reserves.

And who is sitting on over 50% of the proven shale oil reserves?  The Energy monster called the USA!  Yes, this energy dependant (and some would say wasting) industrial behemouth called America is sitting on a potential gold mine of energy resources.

Is this a big secret?  Do you really think that Saudi Arabia was trying to help reduce the cost of crude for OUR benefit?  No, it is widely known, and Saudi Arabia, perhaps alone among OPEC, knows that if other sources of energy are developed, their stranglehold on world markets will evaporate over night.

Is this a perfect scenerio?  Not by a long shot.  The industry to extract the oil from shale will need to be ramped up, so it will not happen over night.  And as the old cliche goes, it is going to get a lot worse (price wise) before it gets better.  Plus there are environmental issues that will have to be addressed and solutions created to get this pre-born oil.

But in the long run, what no environmentalist, democrat or republican has been able to do, i.e. ween the USA from dependance on foreign oil, simple Market forces are going to do for it.  Yes, some may say that China, finally emerging into the 20/21st century is playing a big part.  But that was only a matter of time as well (you cannot keep 1.5 billion people living in the dark ages for ever).

So the next time you go to the pump and pay that $2, $2.25, $2.50 (or like in most european countries) $5 and $7 per gallon, remember.  It is actually a good thing. But like medicine to cure the disease, it will not taste good going down.


Comments
on Mar 12, 2005
Great article!!

To me $55/barrell oil tells us that it is time to arch our collective back and pull our pilot chute, or burn in and take our changes with the ground. In other words, it's time we woke up and realized that gravity of the situation.

If we had have made the hard choices 30 years ago, we would be making breakthroughs in development sometime about now and there would have been "either/or" choices. Since we let the lessons of the oil embargo disappear with the contrails, we're left with nothing but this AND that.

What is the "this and that?"

We need to open domestic drilling up again as wide as we can. That will break the unstable hold OPEC has on the market and stabilize the price of oil. Then our research and development gurus need to go into overdrive working out the bugs of alternative energy sources.

Of course energy is only a part of what we get from oil, but it is also an area we can exploit for reduction in our addiction. Even a junkie will settle for an alternative drug if he can't get his heroin.
on Mar 12, 2005
"If you are an environmentalist, you can about guarantee they are jumping for joy as the higher prices will inevitably force conservation and inevitably reduce consumption."

Presumptuous bullshit

"
In the end, the clear cut winners will be alternative energy sources, and ...... yes, the US."

I sure hope this is true, but where in dubya dummy's budget did he make any significant appropriations for alternative energy sources? I'm really wondering, because I get the impression that he's merely funding more of the same - Iraqi oil sources and drilling up ANWR and other places. Do tell. I'd really like to know.
on Mar 13, 2005
I know Dr. Guy ignores my replies, even though he's not been blacklisted on my site for months. But some of you others read these, so I'll post here anyway.

I've written an article about this subject. Please check it out: Link

Hydrogen is a joke. Never going to happen. I've got the reasons why here: Link

Methanol and ethanol are great, but to replace only 10% of our fuel usage with these sources we'd have to plant nearly all of our arable land with corn (ethanol) or wood (methanol). It's not feasible. To replace all our fuel with these sources, we'd have to plant the entire continent of Africa with these crops.

Pholtovotaic (solar) cells are great, unless you consider that the world is undergoing a silver shortage -- and silver is necessary for those solar cells.

No alternative fuel source is going to help the other areas of the economy that use petrochemicals. Sorry.
on Mar 13, 2005

We need to open domestic drilling up again as wide as we can. That will break the unstable hold OPEC has on the market and stabilize the price of oil. Then our research and development gurus need to go into overdrive working out the bugs of alternative energy sources.

You See Ted, there are 2 fatal flaws in this.  The first is that the reserves the Environmentalist are denying us from drilling are a stop gap.  They will not fix the problem, just prolong the solution.  There simply is just not enough in ANWR and other places to make up for the demands of the Chinese.  Sure it will help in the short term, with reducing our dependance on foreign oil and moderating prices, but again, just short term.

Second, the reason no one has done serious research into alternatives is simple economics.  It was not cost effective.  Sure they exist!  But if it costs $100/barrel to replace oil with Solar or Ethanol, that just is not worth it.  But if it costs $50 per barrell, then there is profit and it will be done.  We did not do it in the 70s for that reason.  Relatively speaking, oil was still just too cheap.  Even today, it is still relatively cheap.  But with no let up in sight, and only the sky as the limit, these alternatives are looking better.

It will take 100 years or more to wean the world Economy from Oil.  But as the 'end is near' seems to be coming true with the emerging economies of China and others, all of a sudden, it makes economic sense to look at the alternatives.

What most fail to see, and their myopia prevents them from seeing, is that there is no viable alternative today.  But that is because no one has looked into it and ways to make it viable. So while Hydrogen, Solar and Grain are not viable under today's technology, they will prove to be under future technologies as the ultimate result of capitalism is not greed, but finding a way to make a buck where none has existed before.  So the myopics will again poo poo the whole situation, and as with every situation in the past, be proven wrong again.

It is like the skeptic.  You cant prove to him what you want until he is willing to open his mind.  And you cant find an alternative for Oil until there is no alternative. That day is not tomorrow, but I think we are seeing the beginning of it today.

on Mar 13, 2005

"If you are an environmentalist, you can about guarantee they are jumping for joy as the higher prices will inevitably force conservation and inevitably reduce consumption."

Presumptuous bullshit

That statement indicates 1 of 3 things. 

1: The purveyor is contemptous of anything a conservative has to say about environmentalist, and will dismiss them out of hand with no facts, or rational to debate it.

2: The purveyor is hopelessly ignorant of the stated goals of environmentalist (I would then suggest they read the stated goals).

3: The purveyor is simply stupid and wants to start a flame war.  in that case, I would sugest they Blog their myopia on their own as they do not know what the hell they are talking about, but then that is not an exception when it comes to prejudice against an ideology.

on Mar 13, 2005

I sure hope this is true, but where in dubya dummy's budget did he make any significant appropriations for alternative energy sources? I'm really wondering, because I get the impression that he's merely funding more of the same - Iraqi oil sources and drilling up ANWR and other places. Do tell. I'd really like to know.

If you read this with an open mind, and not one of a small minded bigot, you would have noted that I did not mention ANWR (short Term Solution) or Bush and his budget.  Why?

if you ask the last question, you missed the point entirely.  No government program or money is going to solve this issue.  It is purely and simply, profit.  FRom a capatalistic perspective.  The ability to make a profit will solve the issue.  No government program.  Iraq is not even a factor.  It has oil, it is producing Oil, it will until its oil runs out.  And it will make no difference, even if you cant understand that no one is stealing it, or even thought to.

Try READING instead of pontificating.  You sound ignorant when you ask questions not on the material supplied, or worse when you get on an agenda that was not introduced.