| Botnst |
05-27-2008 08:07 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by tompaah7503
(Post 1866740)
About 58,000 days of US consumption (based on estimated reserves in giant and supergiant oilfields). Why are you asking?
There's a lot of people screaming right now in the US that "we have vast oil reserves and could supply our own needs for [insert number here] decades if it weren't for those envirofascists!".
That is not true, nor will it be regardless of how much money you pour in it or what areas you will open up for exploration.
.....
|
OOps, my bad. I meant to ask a more parochial question: If we removed every pool of oil 500 days or less from US production, etc. My point being that much of available oil in the US is in smaller pools than the vast formations of the Arabian Gulf or Venezuela, etc.
Concerning oil sands, shales and what not, with oil prices as high as they are, there is tremendous incentive for innovation in all areas of energy production and utilization. I think in the next 3-5 years we will see tremendous advances in sources and systems. More than a few will be in alternative methods. One of those will be nuclear, IMO, this country has been bamboozled by an environmentalism rum amok, resulting in burning carbonaceous material rather than nuclear fission. I'd like to see policy and perception shift in that regard. Maybe one of the 2 geniuses running for office will rediscover it and push for changes in the laws and in perceptions.
I believe we can all agree that the planetary oil supply is finite. Where people seem to begin their disagreements is whether oil should be controlled by some centralized authority or whether it should be uncontrolled, other than the forces of a free market. In my own experience, and I believe a long view of human history will support me, when people institute controls on markets, mischief ensues. Conversely, when markets are most free, the people make the greatest advances.
B |
