Let Them Drink Oil

Great Debates
1

I have had to reconsider every aspect of American involvement in the Middle East and can only arrive at one conclusion.

As Americans, we must divest ourselves of every single interest that we have in the Arabian Peninsula. Our pseudo-dependency upon oil is in the very worst interests of our nation. However much the Middle East might become even more destabilized by our complete withdrawal from military or economic need of petroleum, I do not see how our nation’s interests are served by remaining in bed with these madmen.

The Saudi Arabians that we courted for so long have turned out to be the wellspring of Wahabbist clerics who tutored the Taleban and their legion of maniacs. With our advanced fuel cell, solar and hybrid propulsion technologies we must quickly and irreversibly chart a course that dislocates us from any further dependence upon Arabian oil. Again, however much this might serve to destabilize the Middle East, we are obligated to extract ourselves from the deleterious entanglements that have continued to inhibit our advancement as a superpower and status as a nation independent of such Theocratic autocracies.

We have repeatedly witnessed the price paid for our involvement, be it in Beirut, Somalia, Saudi Arabia or New York. The time has come to end all such alliances with these dubious and questionable “allies.” The sooner that we divest ourselves of such detrimental codependencies, the sooner we shall rise above the disgusting responsibilities that arise from our complicity with these repressive regimes.

That our withdrawal might spark instability or unrest in these propped up regimes is of little importance compared to the need for America to, for once and all, relieve itself of any reliance whatsoever upon this horrible source of energy. Our industry has not only the means but the ability to forever divest itself from such a compromising source of motivation. We must escape from such a dubious alliance and only look back in amazement at our previous folly.

2

Why?

Afghanistan has oil that isin’t being drilled. The countries that are selling oil to us didn’t try to attack us with terrorists. If we suddenly stopped buying oil the countries would be much more likely to become more like Afghanistan. How could us stopping the purchase of oil possibly help anythng?

3

Just remember two things before this gets rolling: First, oil’s not just for motor transportation. Petrochemicals derived from oil make up an enormous number of things used in our day-to-day lives - like this laptop I’m typing this from.

Second, oil makes up a very insignificant fraction of the US electrical power generation, so no loss there. I just thought I’d head that one off before someone posted that stopping the flow of oil would put our electrical reserves at risk…

4

And I do agree with the OP, but not specifically for the reasons in the OP. It would be nice to see a concerted National effort to reduce our oil consumption to half of what it currently is, IMO.

5

Won’t we still have the Israel/Palestine thing to contend with? Even if we reduce or eliminate our dependence on oil (which I wholeheartedly support), it’s still in our best interests to have stability in the Middle East. We’ll still need to be involved somehow, won’t we?

6

Hmmm…if I recall pre9/11 correctly, George’s entire agenda centred on isolating the US so he could go ahead with his domestic oil agenda unhindered by international opposition. His family background, his business career, his political career and financial supporters …everything’s soaked in the stuff. I thought increasing consumption was the main reason he was in Office.

Thus, I wonder if he might have problems with his re-election funding if he were to change from poacher to gamekeeper. Perhaps that’s a false memory.
I also think it’s worth restating the view of some, IMHO, particularly astute observers. According to that school of thought:

Bin Ladin’s primary objective in all he does – including 9/11, assuming he was involved – is to dislodge the Saudi Royal family from power and have them replaced with a popular, politically more fundamentalist regime. That’s not to say he doesn’t have other important objectives but he won’t do anything that lessens the chance of his primary goal being achieved.

Why ? – Well, he has his own personal beef with them for taking away his citizenship (in, I think, '94) but it’s mainly related to allowing US bases so close to the two centre’s of Islam: Are they there to protect the oil fields or the Royal Family ?

That he has positioned himself as the rallying flag for dissent by saying and doing things against the US that even moderate Muslims, including moderate Muslim politicians, only dare think, can only help him in his primary goal and other objectives. There is certainly dissent in Saudi but it’s difficult to gauge the extent from outside because it’s errr…not encouraged.

To pull out of the region entirely would only underline the view he and other extremists are fond of postulating i.e. that the US is cowardly – and he illustrates that with the withdraw from Lebanon after the Marine Barracks bombing, Somalia, USS Cole/Oman and making war from the air rather than as ‘Men’ (Iraq, Kosovo and now Afghanistan)

It also, obviously, plays into his hands utterly if that view of his primary objective is accurate.

7

And it all comes down to the bottom line, anyway. Americans won’t support turning our collective backs on all that nice cheap oil if it means five-dollar-a-gallon gas. Heck, if it means two-dollar-a-gallon gas.

Forget about the plastic for laptops, we can make do with pencils and yellow legal pads, but if we can’t fill up the Caravan for 20 bucks we’re going to have to have some changes made… :smiley:

8

Okay, Zenster…But, what are you planning to do on the demand side of the oil equation? What sort of car are you driving and what you buy for your next car? Are you driving less and bicycling or taking public transportation more? Do you support a gradual increase in taxation of gasoline to bring the price up to something more closely resembling the real costs of its use (say, $4 /gallon to err on the low side)?

If so, welcome to the cause!!!

9

How much gasoline do we use? According to the EIA, in 2000 we took delivery of 8,472,000 barrels a day of finished motor gasoline - at 42 gallons per barrel, we have 355,824,000 gallons per day usage. This does not include diesel, kerosene, or jet fuel. AT 365 days per year, this gives us 129.88 billion gallons of gasoline per year which was delivered. Unless there is a substantial effort to stockpile this, that is roughly our consumption for 2000.

In 2000 also, we took in an average of 5,822,000 barrels per day of domestic crude oil, and imported an average of 9,071,000 barrels per day of imported crude oil. This equates to a 60.9% dependence on foreign oil. It also equates to 228.3 billion gallons of crude oil used per year. Both of those numbers are a bit scary.

Ignoring the effects of refining, losses, etc., one can say that roughly 56.8% of our crude oil goes towards gasoline.

Say someone comes up with a plan, that gets bipartisan support - a $1 a gallon gasoline tax, that is used under a perfect, benevolent, non-corruptable government to develop super-high mileage vehicles, hybrids, electric cars, IGCC energy and fusion power (for the electric cars), etc. How much does this give us for R&D? Well, the first year, likely $129.88 Billion. Note that this is excluding diesel, kerosene, and jet fuel.

Think of the research that could be done with a well-managed $129.88 Billion a year. But note also all the qualifiers I’ve put in here as well.

Makes one wonder.

10

First: Thank you Anthracite. Our economy has billions of dollars available to facilitate designs for alternate transport modes. They are being wasted on cupholder designs and new automobile paint schemes to please whatever cosmetic desires the consumer’s fickle eye beholds. Let us avoid indulging in (however valid) conspiracy theories concerning the Bush administration’s love of big oil campaign donations. Instead, let’s examine the sheer inertia of Detroit’s automotive manufacturers and their devotion to the internal combustion engine. Their incipient servitude to the petroleum industry’s own lobby is enough to conjoin them in a fashion surpassing all of the Siamese twins born in all history.

If we rationally approach what remotely resembles a ten year plan, some sort of road map towards non-petroleum based vehicle propulsion systems must be plotted. Let us immediately dismiss one notion at the onset. Any petrochemically derived polymer compounds can readily be obtained from existing domestic oil reserves. They are sufficient to supply us into the next century if devoted only to our plastics supply. Long before exhausting any national oil supply, we will have easily made strides towards nanotechnology that can molecularly disassemble our vast solid waste middens and give over all the plastic compounds we shall need for centuries. Ergo, let us now and not later begin a complete and final divesture of any dependence upon petroleum based vehicle propulsion.

Second: I am uncomfortable with any wholesale disengagement in the Middle East. So long as Israel is a democratically run nation, the US should rightfully be comitted to assisting in their continued existence. This is so only for as long as they actively pursue a concilliatory policy with their Arab neighbors. If they are unwilling and incapable of reaching some sort of accord that generates a degree of stability in the region, then we should give them the heave ho like so much excess (psychic) baggage.

Third: Hi OPEC! But seriously folks… Whatever our ability to disentangle ourselves from the supply side economics of Middle Eastern oil, we are nonetheless obliged to maintain some sort of mediation in the region’s fractious politics. If only because we carry a sufficiently large club to direct the rest of these bellicose loonies towards some remote semblence of peacable existence.

I am quite plainly sick of having to devote ourselves to any sort of commitment towards the hypocritical and schizoid Theocracies of that region. We need to gain a sufficient degree of moral high ground in order to better administer the nightstick our nation wields in its rightful role as the world’s most qualified policeman. The further dissemination of democratic values is far too valuable a notion to have it diluted by any capitalist self-interest.

For fun, add a mere 1/10 of a cent to the price of deisel and jet fuels to utterly negate any of the admitted offsets in Anthracite’s projections.

11

Well said, Zenster and Anthracite.

Imagine if the billions of military tax dollars spent protecting our oil habit over the past 30 years had been put into R&D for alternative fuels – we might not be using gas stations today.

But what politician is going to stand up to Detroit and Exxon, the world’s largest company?

…
" I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer - a gangster for capitalism." – Major General Smedley Butler, USMC

12

Oil is NOT only used for to make gasoline and petroleum-based plastics. Only 20% of a barrel of crude oil goes into making gasoline. The following chemicals are also produced and is by no means a comprehensive list. I’ve taken the liberty to bold some of the lesser known products. Most information taken from Shell Chemical, the guys that basically sign my paycheck :slight_smile: (so I know a bit about this).

Phenol: major component of the phenolic adhesives used in wood products such as plywood and oriented strandboard. It is also used to produce phenolic resins, which are used in the moulding of heat-resistant components for household appliances, counter-top and flooring laminates, and foundry castings. In addition, it is a valuable intermediate in the manufacture of detergents, agricultural chemicals, medicines, plasticisers, and dyes.

Acetone: used extensively in the production of various commercial products such as acrylic plastics, which are used for glazing, signs, lighting fixtures and displays. It is also one of the most widely used solvents in the world, and is found in many everyday products, including paints, cleaning fluids, fingernail polish remover, and adhesives.

Toluene: used to make isocyanates which are, in turn, used in combination with polyols to manufacture polyurethanes. Polyurethanes are then used in the manufacture of a wide variety of goods such as foams for furniture and bedding, coatings for floors and furniture, artificial sports tracks, ski suits and waterproof leisure wear. Toluene is used to make phenol, particularly in Europe, and it is also an important solvent.

Aromatic Solvents: Pure aromatics are widely used in paints, adhesives and printing inks. Other applications include extraction, degreasing, as components in insecticides, and as chemical intermediates (eg toluene diisocyanate). Some grades are also used in the manufacture of paints and agricultural formulations. Other grades have many other uses where high solvent power is required such as printing inks, household applications, cleaners and wood preservatives.

Propylene glycol: most important end use is in the production of unsaturated polyester resins. Other end use application areas are paints and coatings; **airplane de-icers / anti-icers; antifreeze and industrial coolants; detergents; hydraulic fluids; tobacco humectant; and cosmetics. **

I could go on, but my point is that it is not as simple as alternative fuel sources. It is very difficult to do anything without involving petroleum based products. From drinking coffee from the local store (styrofoam cups), to writing down a note on a post-it note (both the pen and the post-it), driving your car (the gas, the paint, the manufacturing of the brake shoes and about a dozen other uses), to putting on and taking off make-up (lipstick and anil-polish remover), to wearing clothes (the don’t call it polyester for nothing).

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for cleaner enviorment and alternative fuels. But even that electric car needs the plastic body which needs to be painted and fitted with brake shoes.

13

If in 2000 we took delivery of 8,472,000 barrels per day of finished motor gasoline, and we produced and imported a total of 5,822,000 barrels per day and 9,071,000 barrels per day respectively, and the EIA claims that in 2000 we only imported 427,000 barrels per day of finished gasoline, how do you arrive at your “20%” figure?

Look here for gasoline figures.

Look here for crude oil figures.

As a cite for “20%”, you link to Shell’s home page. Would you care to share a more exact link? I think it’s interesting that I put “gasoline” into the Search function on the main page of the Shell Chemicals link, and got “The product finder cannot find what you are looking for.”

14

Thank you for an excellent and informative post Mayor Quimby. As a person who works in the high technology sector I am keenly aware of how many petrochemical products are required in semiconductor fabrication. I still maintain that meticulous recycling and conversion to hydrogen fueled cars would reduce our dependency upon foreign oil in a dramatic fashion. If the United States were able to purchase oil from the North Sea and other sites outside of the Middle East it would help to disentangle us from what I see as highly questionable alliances in that region. If we were no longer reliant upon their resources we might be better able to influence the adoption of Democracy in some of these turbulent countries. Our being in bed with these repressive regimes serves no legitimate American interest and must end immediately.

I would almost welcome bin Laden or the Taleban taking over Saudi Arabia. I believe that we would have the moral right to go in and depose them by force. We could then help to install democracy in that new country and be rid of several breeds of tyranny at once. America has the technological ability to obsolete gasoline based vehicle technology. Current internal combustion engines can be made to run just fine on hydrogen gas. Find a copy of the video program Element One if you want an eye opening glance at how simple it would be for us to convert our automotive fleet to hydrogen based fuel.

I am unable to believe that the Bush administrastion would ever act against their own self interest by advocating what is the most logical migration path away from oil dependency. Until we have an administration that is not in the pocket of big oil and the car manufacturers I have little hope for this vital and critical shift in America’s transportation technology. Detroit’s glacial inertia and self protecting avoidance of such a move flies directly in the face of our national interests. There needs to be a brilliant spotlight turned upon this and the Bush administration’s near treasonous attitudes regarding this topic. Sadly, the current crisis will merely camouflage the relatively direct connections our current fight against terrorism has with the roots of our Nation’s addiction to oil.

15

I agree with Anthracite…Your numbers sound fishy, Mayor Quimby. For one thing, just compare the relative weights of the petroleum products you use, which to first-order, will give you a rough measure of the amount of crude oil it took to make them.

I have often thought about this because I have wondered how much I am saving if I bicycle to play ultimate and eat afterwards, as I did today, but then end up taking home leftover food from the restaurant home in a styrofoam container. When I make the rough estimate, I find that the amount of petroleum product in that styrofoam container is probably only a tiny fraction of what I would have used had I driven today.

At any rate, I know that a more scientific study has been done by a couple people at Union of Concerned Scientists about relative environmental effects of various consumer choices [in the book “Consumer’s Guide to Effective Environmental Choices”] and their conclusion is that people need to worry about the big ticket items (with their choice of transportation being Big #1) relative to little things like their use of disposible plastic products, diapers, etc.

So, unless you can show me some hard verifiable non-misleading numbers, I ain’t gonna believe propaganda from the oil industry!

16

P.S.—Just to clarify the weight issue a bit…a gallon of gasoline weighs about 8 pounds [and produces about 3 time that amount in CO2, by the way!]

17

In response to the oil hijack…

Very interesting article about the future of oil here

Bottom line is that we are going to have to come up with something different anyway, since oil production is going to peak at * some * point between now and 2010, after which begins the rapid descent into oblivion, oil wise.

It’s pretty scary, really. The modern world as we know it simply could not have come into being without oil. The question is…can it continue to exist without it?

I think I’ll go watch Buffy and have a nice snack…

18

Okay, here are the facts, according to the American Petroleum Institute, which is (needless to say), not someone on my side [may they rot in hell :wink: ]: API | 404 Page Not Found

A barrel of crude oil is 42 gallons but yields 44.2 gallons of fun stuff due to “processing gain”. Of this, 19.5 gallons are gasoline. Furthermore, another 9.2 gallons is “distillate fuel oil” which includes both home heating oil and diesel fuel. Finally, another 4.1 gallons is “kerosene-type jet fuel” and 2.3 gallons is “residual fuel oil” used in industry, marine transportation, and for electric power generation. That leaves less than 10 gallons for everything else! As near as I can tell, all the “cool” plastic products and stuff that people talk about falls “other” which accounts for only 0.3 gallons!!!

Moral of the story: roughly half of a barrel of crude is used to power our cars and trucks (just as Anthracite claimed, I believe), and about another quarter is used for other transportation, heating, and power generation…leaving less than a quarter for everything else, of which only a tiny, miniscule fraction is the “cool” petrochemical products that people like to point to.

19

They sound fishy because they are. The 20% number was typo. It should have been 50%, and that is into making of pure gasoline. Sorry about that, too busy checking my bolding and missed that number.

Gasoline and Diesel run engines. Fuel oil, while used in transportion, is not used to power the vehicle per se. Half goes into strickly power producing fuels, the other half are for other things (including lub oils and additives that go back into gas)

My whole point it that petroleum products aren’t simply for powering vehicles, it is much more complicated that that. There is no simple solution (alternative fueled vehicles included).

And you didn’t find gasoline on Shell Chemical’s page because they don’t produce gasoline. Gasoline additives, yes. But for gasoline, you’d have to check out Shell Oil’s website, which I don’t know.

20

Zenster wrote, in the OP:

[QUOTEWith our advanced fuel cell, solar and hybrid propulsion technologies we must quickly and irreversibly chart a course that dislocates us from any further dependence upon Arabian oil.[/QUOTE]

Um … about fuel cells:

Fuel cells run on hydrogen and oxygen. Oxygen we can get for “free” in the air, but hydrogen we can’t. You can’t pump hydrogen out of the ground or grow it. You can only produce hydrogen by electrolysis, i.e. running an electric current through water and collecting the hydrogen (and oxygen) gas given off.

You have to put at least as much electric energy into the electrolysis process as you will eventually get out of it when you use the hydrogen in a fuel cell. And you have to generate this electric energy somewhere. By switching cars over from gasoline-powered engines to hydrogen-powered engines, you don’t eliminate the need for energy. You merely shift our dependency on petroleum to a dependency on electric power generation.

A great deal of the electric power in the U.S. is generated by natural gas. The U.S. already consumes more natural gas than it produces. If we switched over to hydrogen-powered cars, we’d need that much more electric power, which means we’d need that much more natural gas. Sure, we would not be as dependent on Middle Eastern petroleum, but we would be more dependent on Russian natural gas.

Sorry, but I’m not a very big fan of robbing Peter to pay Paul.