It's about choices. There are tons of alternatives. Some are more feasable than others. Some are cheaper than others. Some are safer than others.

Jag's point is that of all the choices out there, shale oil is not a smart way to go. I have no knowledge of shale oil, so I won't weigh in on one side or the other of this argument, but Jag has made a pretty factual argument against the use of shale oil.

If you are going to attack him, attack his facts.

I personally am very interested in the chicken-guts-to-oil plants that Changing World Technologies already has up and running. If we can turn trash into oil as they claim, that would solve everything

while lookout looks for facts, refer to my little line of text.
I knew pre-emptive abuse would come in handy.

Here is a highly informative document put out, not by Michael Moore, nor by Rush Limbaugh, but by the United States Department of Energy:

http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reser...ificancev1.pdf

Among other things this document states that the US imports 60% of its liquid hydrocarbon needs (so much for that cute little chart being bandied about on this thread). The DOE projects that US imports may double by 2025 and that the vast majority of imports come from the OPEC nations. (big surprise!)

The DOE then goes on to discuss the impact of oil shortfalls on the US economy, citing the events which occurred in this country in the 70's due to the oil embargo put in place by the OPEC nations. The embargo drove oil prices sky high which led to high inflation, high unemployment, and high interest rates; all at the same time. The DOE states that America's vulnerability to oil price shocks has become even higher in the interim since the 70's.

Here's what I mean when I say its about oil, stupid; not 9/11. And I quote:


"The Department of Defense has a strategic requirement to maintain secure sources of liquid fuels to mobilize its aircraft, naval fleets, and land vehicles at home and around the
world. Heightened concerns over domestic security intensify the need for the military to
ensure that secure fuels are available to protect the Nation, to support U.S. forces positioned overseas, and to project force when it is deemed necessary to protect America’s strategic interests and global commitments. To support this strategic requirement, the military pre-positions fuel supplies in the United States and around the world. As these stocks are drawn down, the military purchases replacement
fuels from global markets. If replacement fuels are not available in a timely
manner, military capabilities are at least temporarily diminished. Domestic sources for
military fuels must be re-evaluated in the context of rising import dependencies and increasing vulnerability to supply interruptions. Of direct importance are:
Supplementing decreasing domestic production
Maintaining fuel performance for the legacy fleet
Keeping fuel costs as low as possible during peacetime to facilitate training."


AS far as oil fields replenishing themselves, I have my doubts, but lack the background in geology to make an intelligent reply. I do know that here in the West, water aquifers do not replenish themselves, and their is great concern as continued population growth depletes these precious water resources in the Western states. The DOE does not seem to have been let in on the secret of oil fields resupplying themselves, either. Here is their comment: "About 80 percent of the oil produced today flows from fields that were found before 1973, and the great majority of these are declining."

I am no fan of "the sky is falling" hysterics, myself, but I do believe in a reasoned consideration of a problem from best case to worst case scenario. It is foolish, as well as ignorent to ignore impending difficultities and sing ourselves to sleep with lullibies about how life is fair, and the family dog will never die and we'll never grow old and God will keep squirting petroleum into oil fields everywhere. The morning will come when we awake to discover the lines on our face, the dog dead and gone years ago, the bully across the street has just unfairly beat us up for about the 600th time, and when we crawl to our car to go to the emergency room, it has no gas.

And quite frankly, I could give a flying fuck whether the US remains a world "leader" or not. We are a big country with plenty of natural resources still, if only we would be good stewards of what we have been blessed with. The American people are good, hard working people and can take care of themselves. Let's become self sufficient again, have a military strong enough to protect our own borders without traipsing off to some third world hell hole, and let the rest of the world be damned.

Yes, and most of those imports are not from the Persian Gulf. The data for the chart also comes from the DOE by the way.

DUH

And not all OPEC members are in the Persian Gulf either.;)

The document I referred to and quoted in my post stated:
"the vast majority of imports come from the OPEC nations."


no comment

Even if true, that is meaningless. Oil is only slightly less fungible than cash.

http://api-ec.api.org/filelibrary/May03imp.pdf

Top ten US imports by country, Jan-May 2003:

Canada 16.9%
Saudi Arabia 16.2%
Mexico 13.2%
Venezuela 9.5%
Nigeria 6.9%
Iraq 5.0%
United Kingdom 3.7%
Angola 3.0%
Algeria 2.8%
Virgin Islands 2.1%

All OPEC countries 43.9%
All Persian Gulf countries 20.6%
Percent of consumed US oil from Persian Gulf (ie., percentage of both import and domestic oil): 14.0%

Percentage of consumed US oil from Persian Gulf 14%, top US imports by country... Saudi Arabia 16.2% Well, that's interesting. Maybe someone should go back and teach the guys who wrote that one up a little bit of elementary math.:p

I was trying to puzzle that out myself. Anyway, what is the meaning of these statistics?

20.6 is the percentage of all US oil imports that come from the Persian Gulf

14.0 is the percentage of all US oil, imports AND domestic, that come from the Persian Gulf

We are addressing Mari's notion that this was a war about oil.

People tend to stick to beliefs that support their own comfort zones, and disregard anything that is contrary to those. You tend to gravitate towards people who also share your beliefs, and steer away from those who don't. Ten years ago many people (including some scientists), did not want to believe in global warming, and there were many books published, pushing the argument that global warming is a myth. Now we know it is a fact, and whilst there is still debate on to what degree we humans have impacted on it, there is general agreement that it is real.

There is no doubt that the world is using its natural resources at an alarming rate, and anyone who thinks they will last forever is just deluding themselves.

Well, somebody somewhere is telling a whopping big lie. My figure of 60% came from an official DOE report. You'd think the boys in the government would at least get their stories straight. That to me is as suspicious as anything else. Go look at the site I posted above. They say 60%. I'm not making that up.

Silly me. How could I possibly make the connection between a military action in the Middle East and oil? We girls are just useless little bits of fluff!:rolleyes:

60% is the percentage of oil used by the US that is imported.

All the numbers fit together. Math is hard

Quick back to the Moore film - it turns out that he's pushing the theory that Afghanistan was all about an oil pipeline, the theory advanced by Ted Rall.

But I told you that was horseshit over a year ago