[starman2003]

There was a Reuters report recently that US domestic production is dropping and US dependence on foreign crude rising. Rather consistent with my scenario.

[Sapper]

Here's a link:

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArt ... on=finance

U.S. domestic oil production has dropped five percent since this year's peak in February and near-record oil prices are unlikely to inspire drillers to slow the country's deepening dependence on foreign oil, experts say.

U.S. production often falls in the summer as workers repair Alaskan oil infrastructure during the thaw. But rarely has the summer production droop been so deep.

Starman's "Role of the Mideast in Reversing Current Values and Institutions".

[CCJ]

This is because the oil corperations and automobile companies are working together to lobby congress in order to stop it from giving money to scientists to research alternate methods. Also, they refuse to research themselves. Thus, the U.S. will be screwed in 50 years time, if not earlier.

[starman2003]

This is because the oil corperations and automobile companies are working together to lobby congress in order to stop it from giving money to scientists to research alternate methods. Also, they refuse to research themselves. Thus, the U.S. will be screwed in 50 years time, if not earlier.

Sounds extremely foolish inasmuch as oil reserves are finite. But, if true, it is another VERY serious indictment of democratic government. Current "leadership" ensures we remain dependent on foreign-largely Arab-oil because of its inability to compel reduced demand through e.g. rationing or fewer gas guzzlers. And according to the above, current, elected "leaders" accept bribes to stifle develpment of altrnatives to oil! Then, after making sure we remain highly dependent on Arab oil, present government ensures continued pro-Israel policy which threatens to oneday alienate that very source of foreign oil! The result will be economic collapse and the fall of the foolish democratic system.

Btw, Sapper: Great post and sig!

[New Era]

America depends too highly on Arabian countries, Arabs have control of 7 % of American economy. That alone is frightning, but if Arabian countries would unite and target the US, the US would have a hard time facing this threat. The superpower that depends on the rich class

[starman2003]

America depends too highly on Arabian countries, Arabs have control of 7 % of American economy. That alone is frightning, but if Arabian countries would unite and target the US, the US would have a hard time facing this threat. The superpower that depends on the rich class

Certainly the critical economic importance of the Arabs should be very frightening to the zionist crowd running Washington now, but I see it as a key factor promising to shatter the present system, and bring about a new Wholist regime. But once Wholism triumphs, the Arabs-who will be badly pummeled along with Israel in the culminating war-will quickly lose their power, because a Wholist regime can for once compel the sacrifices needed to end our addiction to foreign oil, AND ensure adaquate resources for development of alternative energy sources.

[New Era]

I wonder what will you do with the countries that remained neutral to US policy like Belgium. We haven't aided nor condemned your policy on Iraq. What will you do with the neutrals and we have a history of being neutral so our response to the war on Iraq wasn't a major change, we stayed loyal to our past.

[starman2003]

I wonder what will you do with the countries that remained neutral to US policy like Belgium. We haven't aided nor condemned your policy on Iraq. What will you do with the neutrals and we have a history of being neutral so our response to the war on Iraq wasn't a major change, we stayed loyal to our past.

The war on Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with the Wholist agenda, even if it is a reflection of US dominance even under democracy. Essentially the US can do whatever it wants. But the Iraq war stemmed from the harebrained notions of zionists who wanted to crush Hussein to make the region supposedly safer for Israel, in part by propagating democracy. Even the Israelis doubted it would work.

[Clovis]

This is because the oil corperations and automobile companies are working together to lobby congress in order to stop it from giving money to scientists to research alternate methods. Also, they refuse to research themselves. Thus, the U.S. will be screwed in 50 years time, if not earlier.

No, many oil companies are researching alternative fuels. They know that fossil fuels are a finite resource and they don't want to go out of business when oil runs out. The reason that they oppose federal (ie. public) research is that it is just that -- public. Any company can take the results and compete. The oil companies want proprietary research so that they, not others, are in a position to benefit in the future.

Don't worry, plenty of research is going on. Shell, ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, BP, and others are positioning themselves as energy, not oil, companies

[Comrade Ogilvy]

This is because the oil corperations and automobile companies are working together to lobby congress in order to stop it from giving money to scientists to research alternate methods. Also, they refuse to research themselves. Thus, the U.S. will be screwed in 50 years time, if not earlier.

That must be why the government is now squandering $3 billion annually on hydrogren research.

US oil output peaked in 1971 at about 4.6 billion barrels annually, and is now at about 2.1 billion barrels annually (number three in the world, after Russia and Saudi Arabia). That number will likely surge up over the next ten years as very large amounts of oil have been discovered off the Continental Shelf, but then it will drop again. Of course, the US consumes about 7 billion barrels annually, thus requiring us to import more.

Also, I like how none of you guys have any idea what you're talking about. Oil isn't just going to suddenly run out. Oil production in any given field follows a bell curve, and global oil production follows more or less the same model. The question then is not when oil will run out, but when oil ouput starts to decline. As the United States exploited its truly tremendous oil reserves very early, it was the first major oil producer to peak. World oil output will peak between now and 2040, depending on whom you believe (my guestimate is in about a decade). Of course, demand is going to continue to rise, so in all likelihood, we've already reached the threshold were supply no longer outgrows demand (from 1921 to 2000, US gas prices have, on the average, continuously dropped, despite onerous gas taxes).

As oil will not SUDDENLY run out, and since we know that its production is (or will be) declining, the market is already working on it. Many bright entrepreneurs and scientists are exploring venues as an alternative to oil. A good solution would net the creator literally billions, so the incentive is there. Alternative engines are being researched, alternative methods of deriving oil, synthetic oil, hydrogren, natural gas, etc. Already, a large number of alternatives now exist, though they are more expensive than conventional technology--for now. Basically, the only reason to worry is if government starts interfering excessively (an all too likely scenario).

[starman2003]

I never said oil would suddenly run out, just that the US is likely to become more dependent on imports since foreign, mainly Arab, proven reserves greatly exceed what is left here. Heightened dependence on Arab oil will make pro-Israel policy all the more imprudent and dangerous. But the pro-Israel lobby is so strong that purely US interests are secondary; we are headed for disaster. Current democratic government will be largely to blame for it, and the ultimate casualty. First it ensures we remain dependent on foreign oil since it can't compel rationing or an early switch to more fuel efficient cars instead of gas guzzlers. Then its pro-zionist foreign policy will cost us the very source of oil it ensures we depend on in the first place.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

What's so dangerous about a "dependency" on foreign oil? You don't see politicians in Japan railing against this, despite the fact that Japan imports ALL of its oil. It's a problem that's purely political in nature. Granted, our continued support of Israel (or, more accurately, the Likud Party) could lead to serious problems down the line, and our perceived coziness with the Al Sa'ud family, likewise. I definitely agree with you that the current demagogic mass democracy is to blame for it, though I not sure it'll vanish if a crisis results. In any case, removing our "dependency" is simply not possible--we have to cut consumption by well over 15 million barrels a day, which is more or less impossible.

[starman2003]

What's so dangerous about a "dependency" on foreign oil? You don't see politicians in Japan railing against this, despite the fact that Japan imports ALL of its oil. It's a problem that's purely political in nature. Granted, our continued support of Israel (or, more accurately, the Likud Party) could lead to serious problems down the line, and our perceived coziness with the Al Sa'ud family, likewise. I definitely agree with you that the current demagogic mass democracy is to blame for it, though I not sure it'll vanish if a crisis results. In any case, removing our "dependency" is simply not possible--we have to cut consumption by well over 15 million barrels a day, which is more or less impossible.

Back in late 1973, a Japanese diplomat in effect boasted that whereas the US got hit with an oil embargo because of zionist influence on its Mideast policy, Japan, which had no jews, could formulate policy without such detrimental influences. It is true that democracy didn't vanish in the oil crisis of 1973-74. But since then US dependence on imported oil has grown, heightening the potential impact of a supply interruption. Years ago, Schlesinger said another embargo "would mean the end of the free world." We might not be able to totally eliminate dependency now, but in theory they could probably get it down to the point where we wouldn't depend on the most "politically volatile" or Arab sources. Of course that won't happen under democracy. Its failings in energy and foreign policy are/will be responsible for a disaster, and logically it will be a casualty.

[Sapper]

Totalitarianism can work in solving the energy crisis. Although this may be a ppor example (the USSR was communist, etc.), the USSR was able to convert the electricity generators from oil to gas within a few years. This would not have been possible under democracy/capitalism because it was very expensive (hence no profits) and required capital goods (compressors, pipes, etc.) such that were not produced in the USSR, and so had to imported from Western nations.

Although the USSR failed to cut consumption of oil, this was not because of totalitarianism, but rather because of democracratic ideals -- the people wouldn't like it (Brezhnev and Gorbachev, bleh).

[Comrade Ogilvy]

THERE IS NO ENERGY CRISIS. "Solving" the problem will only exacerbate it, as it will impair industrial performance, transportation efficiency, and consumer satisfaction. What should be done is the elimination of government interference with energy markets and, most importantly, a strict policy of non-intervention when it comes to the Middle East. I'm with the Platonists that the source of these problems is the democratic system.

[starman2003]

It would take a military coup to break zionist dominanated democratic government, and there aren't too many libertarians in the officer corps of the armed forces.

[Reichsführer Wilhelm]

THERE IS NO ENERGY CRISIS. "Solving" the problem will only exacerbate it, as it will impair industrial performance, transportation efficiency, and consumer satisfaction. What should be done is the elimination of government interference with energy markets and, most importantly, a strict policy of non-intervention when it comes to the Middle East. I'm with the Platonists that the source of these problems is the democratic system.

A quick question. If fossil fuels will eventually run out, what's wrong with imposing artificial constraints to force the market to produce an alternative now, rather than waiting until supplies do fail?

[New Era]

I don't mind that America depends too much on foreign supplies, if you would go expansive on the rest of the world, the supplies would end, great sums of money withdrawn of your banks and you would have been defeated before the war ever started.

[starman2003]

I don't mind that America depends too much on foreign supplies, if you would go expansive on the rest of the world, the supplies would end, great sums of money withdrawn of your banks and you would have been defeated before the war ever started.

As I posted before, the upshot of dependence on Arab oil will likely be to wreck US democracy. By supporting Israel, democratic government will incur those consequences and die before a truly hegemonistic, Wholistic regime arises. Thereafter the better regime can tackle US energy problems more effectively.