Oil, real numbers

[YoungMormonRoyalist]

Originally Posted by JohnBirchSociety

The United States produces approximately 8.4Million Barrels of oil a day. We use nearly 21Million Barrels of oil a day.

We EXPORT (Yup, I said EXPORT) approximately 1.1Million Barrels of oil a day. That leaves approximately 7.3Million Barrels a day, of our own oil, to use. So we export 13% of our daily oil production, which equates to .5% of our total daily usage.

Our leading foreign source of oil is Canada (2.6Million Barrels a day), followed by Saudi Arabia (1.5Million Barrels a day), followed by Mexico (1.4Million Barrels a day), and so on. We import 13Million Barrels a day, of oil. That is about 62% of the oil we use each day.

Considering we EXPORT 1.1Million Barrels of oil a DAY, we could reduce our dependence on imports by nearly 8% a day, but just stopping our exports. That's right. We could reduce our reliance on foreign oil by nearly 10%, IMMEDIATELY, by stopping the export of US oil.

If we take Canada and Mexico out of the equation (they've been generally friendly allies), then we're left with 9Million Barrels a day of oil from nations that are historically unfriendly with America (except for wanting our money). Now, again, if we immediately stopped exporting our oil, we'd only need to import 7.9Million Barrels a day from our enemies (for lack of a better term). That would be a decrease in current importation of 12%, with no need to drill for more oil.

Simply put, our politicians / eco-extremists / alarmists are wrong.

From public figures, we can actually "drill ourselves" out of this mess. Here's how:

1) Stop exporting our oil (1.1Million Barrels a day)
2) Drill now for our 40Billion Barrels of known oil (Standard sources, not shale or coal oils which would put us ahead of most, if not all nations in the world for total oil reserves)

So, we can immediately reduce our reliance on our enemies for oil by over 10%. And, we CAN drill ourselves out of all reliance on foreign oil.

What do you think?

We're just waiting till you guys let your guard down. Then the invasion of maple leafs begin.

But seriously, yes, developing nuclear power can be expensive. But overall it is far cheaper, and repays itself far quicker than one might expect. The reason people fear it is chiefly due to incidents such as Chernobyl. Now, Chernobyl happened for a number of reasons which could have been easily avoided, and wouldn't have happened in a developed country.

As for hydro? I love the stuff, a huge chunk (I think it's the majority, but I don't have the inclination to find anything official on it right now) of British Columbia is run on it. To make it better the government has ended its monopoly on the power industry and has allowed for privitization. The dam in our area was bought by a local man I know, and it has allowed much more competative ratings, and prices.

[austro-libertarian]

Originally Posted by JohnBirchSociety

Considering we EXPORT 1.1Million Barrels of oil a DAY, we could reduce our dependence on imports by nearly 8% a day, but just stopping our exports. That's right. We could reduce our reliance on foreign oil by nearly 10%, IMMEDIATELY, by stopping the export of US oil.

If we take Canada and Mexico out of the equation (they've been generally friendly allies), then we're left with 9Million Barrels a day of oil from nations that are historically unfriendly with America (except for wanting our money). Now, again, if we immediately stopped exporting our oil, we'd only need to import 7.9Million Barrels a day from our enemies (for lack of a better term). That would be a decrease in current importation of 12%, with no need to drill for more oil.

Simply put, our politicians / eco-extremists / alarmists are wrong.

From public figures, we can actually "drill ourselves" out of this mess. Here's how:

1) Stop exporting our oil (1.1Million Barrels a day)
2) Drill now for our 40Billion Barrels of known oil (Standard sources, not shale or coal oils which would put us ahead of most, if not all nations in the world for total oil reserves)

So, we can immediately reduce our reliance on our enemies for oil by over 10%. And, we CAN drill ourselves out of all reliance on foreign oil.

What do you think?

What I think is that this sounds a bit too much like "we" are a big club that can make these decisions. It is up to the individual companies to make these types of decisions. I think trade is beneficial and should not be arbitrarily defined by a country's borders. You could make the same argument of self-sufficiency within any geographic territory. Imagine Alaska decides not to export (i.e., trade) its goods to Washington; or perhaps Los Angeles doesn't want to export its products to San Francisco; or a community doesn't export to another community; or an individual decides not to export any of their products to anyone else. Sounds a bit silly to me . . . trade is mutually beneficial and prices help coordinate exchanges in the market.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Originally Posted by Traveler

I know you have a hard time with certain concepts but nuclear power is not cheap and the cost of keeping our nuclear fuels safe as well as disposing of spent fuel is escalating faster than medical costs. Coal fired power generation is much cheaper than nuclear. I guess the nuclear idea is okay if you are willing to pay for it. The cheapest form of power currently is hydro-electrical but that also has its down side.

In theory nuclear fusion has the greatest promise but in over 50 years of research we have never been close to making that even kind of safe.

The Traveler

You're right, it is not cheap.

Of course, why, is the question.

It is not cheap because it is mired in lawsuits / regulations that don't allow new plants to be built and greatly hamper the potentials of the ones we do have.

I'm for regulation of nuclear plants.

I'm not for the insane litigation one must go through to even begin to have a chance to build one. Especially when the litigation is almost always without merit.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Originally Posted by austro-libertarian

What I think is that this sounds a bit too much like "we" are a big club that can make these decisions. It is up to the individual companies to make these types of decisions. I think trade is beneficial and should not be arbitrarily defined by a country's borders. You could make the same argument of self-sufficiency within any geographic territory. Imagine Alaska decides not to export (i.e., trade) its goods to Washington; or perhaps Los Angeles doesn't want to export its products to San Francisco; or a community doesn't export to another community; or an individual decides not to export any of their products to anyone else. Sounds a bit silly to me . . . trade is mutually beneficial and prices help coordinate exchanges in the market.

Anyone who has read my threads knows that I'm a free-trade / free-market supporter.

The purpose of this thread was to demonstrate the absurdity of yelling about importing so much oil when we EXPORT oil. If those doing the yelling about "our dependence on foreign oil" would just get of their arse and start wondering why in the world we would EXPORT oil under the "dependence on foreign oil" rampage, we'd get somewhere.

If T.Boone Pickens would study a bit more, he'd not be so inclined to go for wind power, etc...

We ought not complain about importing oil if we are exporting what we produce.

It's nonsense.

Also, we can most certainly drill ourselves out of dependence on unfriendly foreign sources of oil. We have extraordinary reserves in both standard sources and in shale oil, etc.

Hydroelectric could be used more, for sure, if you could get around the eco-extremist who sue to have such things stopped.

It's just a mess, but we are barking up the wrong tree on solutions, and we don't even realize the facts behind the smoke-screen we are being fed.

[FunkyTown]

Nuclear energy is definitely clean. The problem with it is that nobody knows what to do with the waste. Dump it in a hole? Shoot it in to space? It can poison the area around it for a very long time if it isn't properly disposed and, should it get in to the water table, it can devastate an area(And has). People remember Long Island and Chernobyl, but forget the wonder of things like the CANDU reactors.

Frankly, I agree. Nuclear energy is the way to go. In terms of waste, I'm a fan of the 'Drill ridiculously deep and dump it down far, far below the water table.' crowd. While safety shouldn't be a concern for a reactor, disposal does need to be highly regulated.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Originally Posted by FunkyTown

Nuclear energy is definitely clean. The problem with it is that nobody knows what to do with the waste. Dump it in a hole? Shoot it in to space? It can poison the area around it for a very long time if it isn't properly disposed and, should it get in to the water table, it can devastate an area(And has). People remember Long Island and Chernobyl, but forget the wonder of things like the CANDU reactors.

Frankly, I agree. Nuclear energy is the way to go. In terms of waste, I'm a fan of the 'Drill ridiculously deep and dump it down far, far below the water table.' crowd. While safety shouldn't be a concern for a reactor, disposal does need to be highly regulated.

The safest geological formations we have available are under-ground salt mines. Put the waste there. No water a gone through those areas in millions of years.

Chernobyl was a horrible accident. It occurred because of shoddy construction, caused by communistic ineptitude.

Three Mile Island, which you refer to, was such a non-event it was absurd that it was reported to such a frightening scale. Precisely NOBODY was even remotely hurt or in danger during the entire "event". The total radiation released during the event was equivalent to about a chest ex-ray for one individual.

[JS_FAN]

Google the term "peak oil" and you will find out everthing you need to know about Americas and the worlds most important resource