Both Chris and Ralph totally miss the point or don't have a point. First of all, wrt America's oil reserves, it was not the "whacko environmentalists" who put in the current restrictions on oil drilling. California's off shore bans were placed by the then governor Ronald Reagan - a republican. Florida's anti oil laws were in part set by Jeb Bush, the brother of the current president. Lastly, the national bans oil drilling in places like Alaska were set in place by G.Bush Sr, the current president's father. Anyone who calls these guys whako environmentalists, is probably a bigger whako himself!
As far as some of the so called oil reserves such as shale oil, the issue is cost and yield. One only has to look at the richer tar sands in Alberta. They are profitable only when oil prices are greater than 80-100$ as is the case now. Current world oil consumption today is around 88 million barrels per day, while actual production from these tar sands is in the hundreds of thousands range - a drop in the barrel so to speak. These marginal sources will not make much of an impact in overall prices. WRT Ralph's comments on the US suffering from high oil prices, one needs to realize that the US economy is extremely dynamic and will adjust to this shock. There is no need for government policy for it to change. In just a year and half, US oil demand has dropped by 1/2 a million barrels a day. This rate of decrease is more than the increase in production that is being generated in places such as the tar sands in Alberta. If prices remain high, we can expect this trend to continue. I can also assure you that the seeds for the next technological revolution in alternative energy are being set in the US, and specifically in the Silicon Valley right now. This is all inspite of the anti-technological policies emanating from Washtington, such as its recent attempt to halt the construction of new solar energy facilities as well as its failure to pass the clean energy bill, while still supporting a $18 billion tax subsidy for the "poor and suffering" oil industry. The real issue with the US economy is not oil, but its three pillars of deficits - much of it caused by big government. The first pillar is the large federal deficit, thanks to a government that went on a largest increase in spending in over 40 years. This year, the budget deficit is due to cross 500 billion dollars and it does not include the cost of the poorly executed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which when done will have cost the US tax payers approximately 2 trillion dollars. Next, there is the trade deficit, which this year will be around 800 billion dollars. The VP Dick Cheney once commented that deficits do not matter. With the dollar down by 40%, I wonder what this jackass would say now! Lastly, there is consumer debt. In 2006, the US savings rate reached a negative value for the first time in recent memory. With all these deficits, the fundamental cause was excess money in the system - either the government (treasury) injecting too much of money into the system (low interest rates), or the federal government spending too much money, leading to bubbles such as the property bubbles, excessive consumer spending etc. Net result: high inflation and a rapidly deflating dollar. As far as I am concerned the US political system in broken and it does not matter which of the two parties come into power. For all practical purposes, the two parties have morphed into one giant immobile morrase. The US federal government which sucks in around 70% of its citizens taxes, needs to have its powers and spending severely curtailed. The departments of the treasury, education, energy, defence need to be slashed. Social security, medicaid and other unsustainable services that future generations will not be able to use, need to slashed, if not totally eliminated. It is absolutely ridiculous that the present generation has to pay for these services that it will never get to use. The biggest enemy of the US is its own federal government. Marlon --- Chris Vaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In oil shale deposits, there is more than 1 trillion > barrels of oil. -- > about four times the total reserves of Saudi Arabia! > And if estimates of > shale reserves as high as 2 trillion barrels are > true, that would be a > 300-year supply of oil just from shale. > > In addition, according to the American Petroleum > Institute, Federal lands > hold 651 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough > to fuel 60 million > households for 160 years. It is pure politics by > the irresponsible Democrat > Party to please their environmental wacko lobby that > these resources remain > untapped and the country remains vulnerable to > pariah petrostates > As far as the remark that "America will become > poorer and therefore have > less to squander on invading the rest of the world" > -- a reminder. It was > the liberation of Europe by the United States that > all of Europe doesn't > speak German as their universal language. And fifty > million Iraqis and > Afghans also call it "liberation" not "invasion" as > has been suggested.... > > ----- Original Message ----- > > 2008/7/5 ralph rau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> There are some definite "benefits" including: > >> > >> (1) America will become poorer and therefor have > less wealth to squander > >> on invading the rest of the world. > >> > >> (2) America and the rest of the world will just > have to use less oil. > >> This means less CO2 emmissions. Humankind will > get some relief from > >> global warming. > >> > >> (3) The world will finally be incentivised to > develop alternate > >> technologies which have been postponed for too > long due to dirt cheap oil > >> which just 7 odd years ago was below $ 20. After > all,t oil production has > >> peaked and the world will run out of oil in less > than 100 years - maybe > >> in 50 or 75 years. > >> > >> Oil at $ 200? Yes...bring it on. > >> > >> Ralph Rau > >> Dubai