Everything you think you know about energy security and energy independence is wrong. All too often you hear that fossil fuels will soon reach their peak, that our consumption of oil causes global insecurity vis-a-vis rogue states and terrorist organizations, and that the United States would benefit tremendously from becoming completely energy independent. Under closer scrutiny, however, the alarmist scenarios, political correctness, and chic notions of sustainability that dominate today’s energy discourse simply do not stand up to actual realities.
The truth is fossil fuels will continue to dominate international energy supplies for the long-term simply because they are the least expensive and most pervasive fuel resources the world currently possesses. Indeed, the amount of natural gas and new sources of oil being discovered today is enough to overwhelm any assertion of peak oil or the need to transition to a zero-carbon energy policy. Consider the sheer amount of petroleum and natural gas found in the one month of September in 2009: BP discovered three billion barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico; Spanish energy firm Repsol tapped into the largest natural gas find in Venezuela’s history; Anadarko Petroleum announced the likely presence of hydrocarbon fuels for 700 miles along the west African coastline; and Petrobras of Brazil found even more hydrocarbon fuels in the Santos Basin (which several years prior was said to contain enough energy to make Brazil a global energy power). Simply put, peak oil alarmists and hydrocarbon declinists conveniently ignore the immense power of new technology to harness deeper, untapped sources of fossil fuels. What hydrocarbon engineers can do now no scientist a mere 50 years ago ever thought possible. This accounts for why date estimations for peak oil are continually getting extended.
Many U.S. politicians and security wonks are fond of the assertion that Americans contribute to insecurity at home and around the world by our dependence on foreign oil. By this line of reasoning, our addiction to energy from the likes of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela has effectively bought us our own enemies. This analysis fails to confront such realities that, as a 2009 RAND study concluded, terrorist attacks are so inexpensive that a decrease in Middle Eastern oil revenues would have virtually no impact on al-Qaeda’s fundraising capabilities. To see the irony in the dubious assertions that we fund our own enemies, imagine the kinds of retaliation a state like Saudi Arabia would engage in if we banned their imports. It is not difficult to picture King Abdullah reacting with such scorn and fury as to create an actual national security threat to the United States. Furthermore, two of the largest suppliers of crude to the United States are Canada and Mexico, among our staunchest allies and countries that are hardly terrorist breeding grounds. All of the talk about the benefits of choking malevolent countries from U.S. oil demand borders on ignorant isolationism. Because oil is a global commodity, prices are established globally and oil buyers will seek producers that boast the lowest cost. Thus there is no doubt that Venezuela could simply reap an equal amount of petroleum revenues from China in the event that the U.S. embargoed its oil supplies. The prospect of more Chinese involvement in our own hemisphere means that this is hardly a win-win situation.
More importantly, consuming energy that is only produced at home, as many in the “energy independence” debate are keen to propose, has implications that are at best unclear and at worst actually counterproductive. The gap between oil production and oil consumption in America is so immense that any effort to eliminate oil imports would force extremely costly new patterns of production and consumption on our parts. Declaring that we would no longer engage in the international oil trade, in other words, might very well cause more damage to the U.S. economy than improvement. Many people tend to overlook the fact that while the United States does import the majority of its oil, it is also one of the world’s biggest oil exporters. This is because oil is one of many goods that are being exchanged in a global marketplace. To entertain the notion that we can cease such trade relationships is to deny the inherent benefits of free trade as well as revert back to the import-substitution policies of the past that have well-known records of historical failure.
Many potential domestic sources of energy, such as the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, have their fair share of opponents. The ultimate irony in the American energy discourse today is that many of those who voice support for energy independence also oppose domestic petroleum production. You need look no further for evidence of this than the Obama Administration’s stated goal of decreasing oil imports and yet simultaneously maintaining the ban on offshore drilling in both the Atlantic and the Pacific.
The last and most prevailing argument for energy security revolves around climate change. This line of reasoning argues that countries must come together to find more sustainable and less carbon-centric forms of energy so that we may live in a cleaner, safer, and cooler world. No matter where one’s views lie on the global warming debate, imagine a world where the U.S. told powers such as China and India that the coal-based method of production that has allowed their economies to undergo historic transformations in recent decades is no longer permitted; if unstable countries such as Nigeria were to be deprived of revenue that fuelled their financial systems; and if energy consumption became much more expensive worldwide simply due to precautionary measures taken by global politicians. In short, the notion that we would be more secure if we fundamentally transformed our energy system in order to stave off climate change is short-sighted.
All of this is not to suggest that we should abandon hopes for a more renewable and sustainable energy future. Indeed, there are many promises in the prospects of renewable energies. Yet, we must not kid ourselves to think that we can transform a crucial part of the global economy overnight, nor that our reliance of fossil fuels creates more problems than it does solutions. Nearly every source of energy comes with its own risks. And with this in mind we can conclude that the risks posed by fossil fuels are far outweighed by their benefits. While this may come across as heretical, the cold truth is that for the time being, there is little to no cause for alarm in how we consume our current energy supply.
By. Quentin Cantu
Copyright 2006-2010 The Diplomatic Courier™. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
for detailed price charts.
Leave a comment
is dim dim distant past
a racial memory mostly myth
known to the shaman caste
i wonder what they'll think of us
when sitting by the fire
and hearing of the things we did
like gods but so much higher
"the great great gods of long ago
they walked upon the moon
they drank the very blood of earth
from death they were immune"
"they did not walk upon the ground
but through the air they flew
and everything there is to know
the ancient gods they knew"
i guess the stories that they tell
the children will devour
they'll dream that they were just like us
and had enormous power
i doubt they could imagine though
the real truth to tell
of how we raped their planet
and we made our lives a hell
they'll never know the polar bear
the tiger or the crane
and countless other creatures
to which we were the bane
they'll also never know the stars
because we stole their chance
because we'd rather party on
and live upon advance
oh what a sad sad species
we "gods" of planet earth
we stupid kings of overshoot
what really are we worth?
just look around at what you see
and ask yourself "where now?"
and if you have an answer
it better tell you how
'cause i can't see a future
that is anything but grim
and even bare survival chances
often seem so slim
i hope that future stories
are told around the fire
that kids enjoy just living
and old folk just retire
i hope we're not the last of us
i really really do
i hope that there's a future
for our sons and daughters too
pop
Repsol's natural gas find is not oil. Anadarko Petroleum's 'likely presence of hydrocarbon fuels' is not oil reserves. Petrobras of Brazil's find in the Santos Basin is not oil reserves. These are hoped for reserves - they mean nothing until they are being extracted.
September 2009 was over two years ago. What is the average monthly oil find? If it isn't 2 billion barrels (and it isn't - not even close), we are in trouble.
Keep dreaming that everything's going to be fine. Meanwhile oil prices go up and there's less chance to prevent a global economic meltdown. No one ever averted impending disaster by pretending everything was peachy.
Finite resource is finite. And EROI on new finds, as well as unconventional "plays" is abymsal. The issue isn't that we'll run out tomorrow, it's that our fragile global economic system runs on cheap energy, which allows endless debt expansion. Debt problems... ring any bells?
$200/barrel by summer 2013.
What happened after the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo? Automobiles got smaller, cleaner and more safe. Between then and now, we've forgotten why that happened.
The 1975 Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations (CAFE) have actually undermined what they were intended for, to improve fuel economy, (see below: Lee Iococca). The 2011 'revision' is no better. It is based on a vehicle's 'footprint'. As 'footprint increases, MPG requirements decrease.
Lee Iococca, was not the hero history paints him as. He was merely trying to find a way around CAFE regulations, when when he conceived today's sport utility vehicle (SUV), (not covered by CAFE), to replace the station wagon, (which was covered by CAFE). Chrysler's marketing strategy was genius. Convince everyone that the SUV was more safe. A lie that has perpetuated, to this day. [Traffic Safety. Science Serving Society. by Leonard Evans, (2004)].
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are at odds as to whether fuel efficiency, or safety is more important. Another look at statistics complied by, Leonard Evans, [Traffic Safety. Science Serving Society. (2004)], will show the NHTSA's point of view is entirely unmerited. Britain, Canada and Australia had decreasing vehicular fatalities, per capita and miles driven, despite having fewer SUV-type vehicles, between 1979 and 2002, (not to mention higher average highway speeds).
Even more idiotic is how the U.S. government gives incentives, (tax credits), to those who buy huge SUV's. Ever wonder why? It's all about the money.
Consider what would happen to the automobile industry, *if* a cost effective and viable zero emission electric platform were developed to replace gasoline.
Watch, "Who Killed the Electric Car?". It may be skewed, but it does tell some very disturbing facts, and shows that the 'big three', 'big brother' and, the majority, of consumers aren't ready to make the mass exodus to 'zero emissions' vehicles.
'Peak oil', is a moot topic until, the greed of the entire food chain, (read: after point of sale parts and service sector, the United Auto Workers union, NHTSA, and politicians who are lobbied to vote in favor of the first two), of automobile producers is quashed and the greed and ignorance that is consumerism, is no longer guided by those same automobile manufacturers.
We consumers really are 'sheep'.
If you contribute to a problem, don't complain about it. I have not driven, nor owned an automobile since, 1995. When we develop an orientation, we make sacrifices, not hypocrisies.
My new energy economics textbook should have been published, but something has gone wrong. However, the fact of the matter is that the oil chapter isn't needed any longer. The friends and neighbors have finally gotten the message. The oil story is a simple and easy story, and it still may not have reached our political masters, but for the first time I am optimistic.