131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

 

It seems the panic time for both green enthusiasts and peak oil pundits.

According to a new paper by two researchers at the University of California – Davis, it would take 131 years for replacement of gasoline and diesel given the current pace of research and development; however, world's oil could run dry almost a century before that.

The research was published on Nov. 8 at Environmental Science & Technology, which is based on the theory that market expectations are good predictors reflected in prices of publicly traded securities.

By incorporating market expectations into the model, the authors, Nataliya Malyshkina and Deb Niemeier, indicated that based on their calculation, the peak of oil production could occur between 2010 and 2030, before renewable replacement technologies become viable at around 2140.

The estimates not only delayed the alternative energy timeline, but also pushed up the peak oil deadline. The researchers suggest some previous estimates that pegged year 2040 as the time frame when alternatives would start to replace oil, could be “overly optimistic".

As I pointed out before, despite the excitement and hype surrounding a future of clean energy, a majority of the current technology simply does not make economic sense for regular consumers and lack the infrastructure for a mass deployment….even with government subsidies, tax breaks, and outright mandates.

In addition, the supply chain of renewable technologies is not as green as people might think. Most alternative technologies rely on rare earths for efficiency. However, the radioactive waste produced by rare earths mining process makes oil sands look like a green energy. This overlooked (or ignored) fact just now received some attention due to the sudden shortage caused by China’s embargo and export quotas on rare earths.

Another case in point – In China, the city of Jiuquan in Gansu province needs to build 9.2 gigawatts of new coal-fired generating capacity as backup power of the 12.7 gigawatts wind turbines due to be installed by 2015.  More wind farms would need more coal-fired power plants, with little or possibly no carbon reduction.

Capitalism means investment naturally flows to the more profitable proposition....and vice versa. With more data and information becoming available, not much could go unnoticed by the markets, particularly in a relatively new sector such as renewable energy. And this harsh reality is clearly reflected in this new study.

Now, in its latest long term outlook, the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that oil demand, prices and dependence on OPEC all set to continue rising through 2035, and that global oil supplies would be near their peak in 2035 as China, India and other emerging economies keep on trucking.

So the world needs to come to a common understanding that

The alternative energy is not mature enough to completely replace fossil sources any time soon. 

Energy security means a diversified and balanced portfolio inclusive of every bit of resource, fossil as well as renewables, just to meet the projected demand.
Real "green" energy is easier said than done. 

Furthermore, the increased rare earths dependency, and the latest food vs. fuel debate when the food industry slapped a law suit against the EPA over E15 ethanol, underline some of the unintended (we hope), yet nasty consequences that often come with ill-informed and poorly-planned policies.  (In the case of E15, the EPA is an easy mark considering one in eight Americans is on food stamps.)

All this requires a balanced and unbiased government policy to guide exploration and development of technologies to unlock the new fossil fuel reserves, expanding the R&Ds of emerging technologies, while effectively practicing and promoting energy efficiency and conservation.

Otherwise, we may literally witness $300 a barrel oil before the electric vehicle could even make one percent market penetration.  Unfortunately, there's no easy fix, and the clock is seriously ticking.

Related Reading: The Alternative Fuel Vehicle and $300 Oil

By Dian L. Chu, Economic Forecasts & Opinions

Community Talk

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

Kamer,

It had also crossed my mind that we were using up other nation's reserves before our own. But let's not forget, that the cost of production is mutiples times greater than in most, if not all other countries. That cost is then handed down to the end consumers i.e. you and me, driving the price of all other relative goods substantially upward. So the theroy has been, to keep the price of oil in check, thereby keeping a lid on inflation. But soon, it's not going to matter, because we are running out of oil faster than the pundits will admit. Furthermore, we have far less available oil in the middle east. The oil Venazuela has(that being heavy crude), we cannot use so they are not an option.

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

Bothwings I have always believed America is attempting to use of the world's oil before it begins tapping its own huge resources - the Bakken and Green River Basin have billions upon billions of barrels and are not being exploited. Why? I think these renewable energy companies need to find a solution sooner rather than later or institutions will begin giving up on them and simply emploring proven technolgoies.

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

Whenindoubt, Yes the purchasing powers of the U.S. will be hurt. It will cost more for most of the trash  that you have in your home that you really didn't need ( not you personally). Walmart wont be as busy.Will it cost more for energy?Yes,so exploit oil production through Canada, (NAFTA) whose dollar IMO will probably parallel the U.S.in the event of continued  U.S. dollar decline. You already mentioned Canada is losing exporting power to the U.S. by reason of  their high dollar. The two reasons  Canada's dollar has gained on the U.S. is, it is a lot better off than the U.S. as far as debt goes. Its economy is resource based which  as you know ,resources are doing quite well. IMO the dollars will be near par in the future with both in decline in comparison to BRIC nations,.and if they both continue to strategically lower their own dollars as others have been doing for years. As far as the oil sands .This is the key to one great problem. The Canadian and American companies will work towards total independence from the Middle East. The value of our dollars will not effect the purchasing power within NAFTA countries if all raw materials and manufacturing,refining etc is done within the borders . I think your not realizing that when NAFTA was created it meant the dollars of the 3 countries would eventually,hopefully lead to parody. (going to be quite a while longer for Mexico).  Canada and the U.S. can both prosper with declines in their dollars so far as its not massive. Thats been my point from the beginning. Canada has a chance to start exporting more and more to countries other than the U.S.  Oil to the Americans,  but  so many metals could be sold to the east.If measures to protect the great resource companies in Canada and the U.S. are run by people that have scruples we will all do just fine. Canadian companies do not have to move their manufacturing ,they simply have to greaten their sales to non NAFTA countries.If the resource sector has a lot of American involvement ,all the better for Canada  since our dollars will be similar and purchasing power in both countries will not change in the long term.NAFTA at one time was a first step to a common dollar between the 3 nations(not something I think is necessary) but it is interesting. I am thrilled to see a couple Canadian banks doing well down here in Florida . The sharing and the commitment to each other is real despite what self motivated people on Wall St. and Bay St. might say.The people are linked ,with differences,yes but common goals  will be achieved better, together rather than separately.One of those goals should be to keep our dollars relative parody while lowering our dollars buying power worldwide. This accomplishes two main things for me. It great-ens exports(obvious) and it tells us to be more productive from the raw stage to the finished product within our trade borders. A protectionist ATTITUDE, born from the people of the countries ,not protectionist laws. This is a far more powerful weapon than any amount of laws.  I guess a new slogan could be BUILD AMERICAN or BUILD CANADIAN,then sell it to someone else.

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

Southpen if the US dollar falls it doesn't matter who or where its trading partners are it'll hurt the country's purchasing power and help its exports. It doesn't matter if it is in NAFTA or not. Right now the Canadian dollar and US dollar are basically par. This is killing Candian exports to our biggest trade partners below us. Now we must move our business elsewhere and the US potentially loses one of the richest sources of natural resources it has.
I agree with your thoufghts on a cheap dollar increases tourism. No argument from me there. I believe strongly that it is in the best interest of the US they let the dollar drop even more. It's the only way they can get the economy going again.

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

SouthPen,

Very good points. The elite has an agenda for changing the structure of the economy and political power to one of ultimate power and control held by the few. Eventually, they will get what they want, including the removal of personal freedoms such as religion and free enterprize.

"Some would of course reason that the more people ,the more consumption which on balance is ridiculous." Maybe you can understand it this way: Say you have X resources that grows or replenishes itself at a rate of X^2. But simultaneously you also have Y population growing at a rate of Y^5. Most importantly, a factor of Y^5 is its rate of consumption, which is also represented by its self, Y^5. So simple math tells us that X^2 does not = Y^5. We know that Y^5 is consuming X^2. At some point, X^2 will cease to exist, because it as a resource has been completely consumed, leaving Y^5 either to find a replacement for X^2 which now = 0, or simply do without X^2 or its substitute, which could be dire, depending on what that resource actually was. Whether that resource was fresh water (Which is running out internationally), food, oil (this too is running out quicker than the Dept. of Energy will admit), etc. If this still seems rediculous, let's try it this way. We'll apply this principle on the micro level. Couple A has a combined income that easily supports themselves and two children. However, the couple continue to reproduce themselves to where the joint income is not enough to support three children comfortably. Nevertheless, they keep on having children they cannot support on their own, but the income has increased minimally. So tell me, why don't we encourage people to be like couple A? Because that would be rediculous. And you know as well as I that, although this scenario may be fictitious, it accurately describes quite a few people in our society. If you understand it at this level (I'm sure you do), then you can also see this on the macro level (international as well as national). There is a real reason to be concerned here. I should also add in the factor of the death rate being lesser than the birth rate, which we will call D^2. Even when you subtract the death rate from the birth rate, you still have the Y population's rate of consumption out stripping the reasource's ability to replenish it self. The resource is constantly being reduced until one day, it is at 0. Think about it a while, it will make sense to you. It's like enclosing a living thing that depends on oxygen in a jar without holes in the lid. Eventually, the organism consumes 100% of its resource (that being the oxygen in the jar) and afterward dies because of a lack thereof. Now in this paradigm, replace the oxygen with any natural resource of your choice that is important to the existance of everybody. Replace the living organism with yourself and everybody else. Replace the jar with the Earth. The same principle in the paradigm applies here. Eventually we run out of the resource(s) that is/are vital to sustaining our lives, if the population continues to grow unchecked.

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

   Bothwings   ''That same worker gets angry;joins or is part of a union that protests against the employer for higher wages,driving the cost to make that product upward'' This is a good point, and I believe I have been witness to this very scenario in the 70s 80s. Unionized auto worker demands,were the subject. These scenarios of yours have happened in various places in the world and will happen again ,right here,I don't deny that .I should  point out that if America does not go the route of what I and others suggest,then how will the next few years play out? Massive short term financial obligations will not be able to be met by our government unless of course new instruments are created.If we do not correct the trade imbalance created in the last 30 years by the  manipulation from a financial elite ,the result will be imo more devastating than peoples idea of a depression. Wheres the end? The plan that was conceived in the time of  Nixon ,probably never had an end game scenario,kinda like the German (political) Elite in WW2   (it was really suppose to ''just continue'' ) . Population is a subject that I have spoken about here on PD before,pertaining to Mexico. They really ought to  help themselves by making their population density/resources ratio go down. I think you  are correct in assuming population controls would greatly help economies worldwide. Some would of course reason that the more people ,the more consumption which on balance is ridiculous. It would seem that even China with all their regulations on population control is losing that battle however if they had no regulations I cant even think how out of control the situation would have become. With so many cataclysmic events unfolding in the world trade is the one constant that could give us a soft landing and that is linked to the moderate decline of our dollar,imo.

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

SouthPen,

I enjoy our intellectual discourse. I would not, and have not become bothered by your position on the dollar. I am only of an opposing viewpoint. Think about this for a moment: If we implement your economic theory, we may truly see significant increases in exporting and hopefully resulting in new job creation. However by consequence, if you create or rather increase demand for a product, what else happens? The value of that product is tied to its demand. Therefore, the price for the product rises in tandem with the demand for that product. Why? Because a free market requires and therefore demands price equilibrium between supply and demand. Subsequently, although you have created new jobs, you have also affected the price to make that product. So now, because of the  demand internationally, the price is much higher, and that worker who now has that new job, cannot afford to buy it for themselves because the dollar is so cheap (it cost more dollars to buy the product because of its demand). That same worker gets angry; joins or is part of a union that protests against the employer for higher wages, driving the cost to make that product upward. In this scenario, you "gain over there, but lose over here". Striking a balance is far easier said than done. The rate of demand is the rate of consumption or the desire for that product or resource. The rate and volume of consumption is a consequence of population growth. One of the biggest economic problems we have is the rate of population growth, in relation to the resources intended to sustain the general population. When resources are consumed faster than they can be replenished, we wind up with scarcity as a result of depletion of those resources. For as long as population growth is left unchecked, demand increases exponentially, outstripping supply. Although many may work, eventually very few will be able to afford those things that they work to produce for the highest bidder. The unintended consequence is massive poverty in epic proportions across the nation. What happens when people don't have enough and get tired of watching the few that do? The have nots begin to riot against the haves, and blames the haves for their economic troubles, hence a class war ensues. In an attempt to gain national political control, the government steps in and revokes its citizens' rights to freedom of enterprize, the right to own property, and eventually, one's rights to pursue one's own calling in life. I can see it coming, can you? One of the answers to dealing with the economy is aggressive, comprehensive population control. Seriously. And remember: These are two of the worse problems China has faced for a long time now. Their people are paying the price dearly. We do not want to immulate China in any sense. They do not have the answers.

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

Bothwings, My understanding is that the except able  level for dollar value in comparison to the yuan would be  a 15% ..reduction. I think 40% would make my  manufacturing bull run happen here in the U.S. that would set the world on fire.We would boom.However booms create busts so I would say a comfortable level for now would be a 20% reduction in our dollars value compared to the yuan. This would decrease imports here at home considerably and if properly  handled could greatly improve our exporting .The increased revenues from the employed would give us a chance to get to pay our short term (next year) debt payments .Americans are resilient and given a chance with fair trade practices we could open up some closed businesses in a matter of months .Concentrate on exporting for a while.Our dollar would slowly gain back its standing but hopefully we would put in place measures that would decouple it from being the reserve currency of the world.It just is not working as such anymore.I have said before,this was a temporary solution after WW2,along with the location of the United Nations to a world whose financial powers were in ruins.  Personally, I appreciate your saying ''there is no shame in accessing resources ,''to help financially'. We pay into everything at least as much as we are supposed to. Last year,my income was so low I did not use legal deductions to bring down what I owed for taxes . In other words I almost cheat in reverse so that I do pay into the system, Social Security and Medicare.I have never had a year go by that I didn't pay .(at very least the minimum)I think it is critical that everyone pay into the system even if you believe as I do that it could very possibly be gone by the time I am that age.Economically speaking ,Social Security  and Medicare are necessary for  the functioning of the country ,as we know it. Not paying into it hurts  the handyman ,like myself ,even short term.   ''I live in southern California,need I say more''  No , that and I suppose Nevada is where people can really understand just how bad the situation is in Florida. My connections in my business were hurt the year I was off ,sick.Bad Timing!, because the competition is relentless and the scammers are everywhere. I thought about buying a  (cheap)foreclosure and fixing it up but I honestly think at this point your going to lose. Investment in Real Estate here is great if you need a home but the competition to resell is astronomical. Hope you and Fastfoot do not get to bothered by my 20% scenario (dollar reduction) .Open to suggestions

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

SouthPen,

Thank you for your clarification. I have never saw you as an idiot. Far from it. However, yesterday the dollar was up, closing around 79 cents. Relative to the yuan, where would you say the dollar should fall to, putting it in what you feel would be acceptable market value territory? I'm sorry to hear about what has happened in florida. Thank God you had the fortesight not to live beyond your means, and save something for the "lean years". But as for the economy in Florida, with me, you are in good company. I live in southern California. Need I say more? The state is billions of dollars in debt; like Florida, people are losing homes in the thousands by the month. But here, many have taken superficiality to a whole new level. And then, there are some who posses a great deal of common sense, and have avoided economic calamity. By the way, if you have worked legitimately (not implying that you haven't), and have paid your share of taxes, and are now in need of help from the government, there is no shame in accessing that resource. Remember: that is one of the reasons for paying your taxes. Social security is another reason. These are "assurance policies" that you are entitled to in the future, and food stamps etc. if needed.

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

Bothwings,Fastfoot.   I dont remember when I said  that we were not already in a freefall. We have been in a downward spiral  for thirty years when a productive  couple of nations traded there ways for exactly the kind of life Bothwings describes ''the culture of vanity''  Bothwings also said ,''I tend to wait and pay for what I want with the cold hard ones''( I am guessing thats cash),if it is ,I concur. If I had any personal debt  I would be  in big financial trouble .While many people in this culture live in better houses,drive better cars and eat in better resteraunts,we live the opposite for the simple reason we saw this coming years ago and fought publicly about the government spending and the unregulated banking .I have been underemployed drastically for 3 years,1 year due to health and two years a collective of health and a crashing building economy. Florida is a nightmare if your in construction or maintenance.Most of us were self -employed which means no unemployment benefits. Some of us saved money or own things outright therefore are not eligible for food stamps or any social assistance which fits us fine because I would have none of it. The high dollar has caused this society to believe its infallibility. I dont want the dollar to crash .I want it to be valued fairly throughout the world.(and not be the reserve currency of the world)'' I want people to live within their means '',and if you agree with that statement then you should  agree with the dollar devaluing to a level consistent with its true net worth.

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

FastFoot!

You've not spoken truer. Call me old school, but I don't like debt. I tend to wait to pay for what I want with the cold hard ones. Because of the culture of vanity, (one of the doctrines of commercialism), many people have become far more concerned about what outward physical im- pression they can make, instead of developing substance of character. The combination of selling people on looking sexier as interpreted by what car you drive and what house you pull into the driveway of, with you can have it all right now through financing, has deceived many into signing their lives away to the gods of credit. Unfortunately, many have lost their economic lives, if not their minds completely!

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

Have to agree with you Bothwings -  we are indeed in a freefall.    Just how far we drop is anybody's guess!    The Middle Class is under attack -   ultimately so will the Upper Elite who will have to answer for all their GREED.    Common sense has disappeared for most.   The older generation used to refrain from buying almost anytyhing until they had the means -  that certainly doesn't apply to-day does it -   90% of what we think we need we really don't.     Jobs have gone over to the developing nations so the elite can make more money at the expense of the middle class.   Now clouds have appeared -  the thunderstorms ahead are scary!

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

Southpen,

You don't think we're in freefall already? Each day we are becoming a proverb to the economically lesser nations. (That's pretty much everybody else.) So far it's, "my, how the mighty have fallen". I sincerely see things becoming far worse economically, as we go the way of the cheaper dollar. The middle class is rapidly dimenishing into the ranks of poverty. Regardless of getting that new job, many will simply become the working poor.   Eventually, few will be able to afford a decent, dignified existence.  Please do quote me on this later.

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

Whenindoubt   Your sentence  IMO is not complete. ''  the bottom line is that a cheaper dollar will raise exports and increase the number of those employed'' (within the manufacturing sector)'' but it will  lower the standard of living in the country'' (in areas of the economy that depend on imports)  .  We might lose a few jobs in the retail area(Walmart) but then again even our service industry will become stronger in areas attached to tourism. A transitional phase would happen in manufacturing while industries that have been closed for years would reopen. We would see inflation in certain industries but as less imports became a reality inflation would  calm.The more products whose raw materials and manufacturing are born in the U.S.(or our closest trading allies in NAFTA ),the less imports.,thus the dollar value has less relevance. An economy whose consumption is 2/3  of GDP  cannot sustain any longer. The end result would be more balanced trade with those that are overwhelming our economy right now.The minds that developed this faux economy are the same minds that want it to continue status quo. This is crunch time for the middle class,in The U.S. and Canada. We must go the route that my argument suggests or  historians will  record this as the fall of the west and we will be a history lesson.

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

You are absolutely correct. The lowering of our living standards and general social existance is my concern, among other things. Believe it or not, one's freedom tends to be tyed to one's economic status. Spiritual freedom not withstanding.

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

The population of the world has doubled over the last thirty years and India has a $2500 car. You can read between the lines I hope.

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

The bottom line is that a cheaper dollar will raise exports and increase the number of those employed but it will lower the standard of living in the country.

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

Thanks Fastfoot, Bothwings and I have had a pretty good talk about things, that started about oil,.thats my specialty getting sidetracked but however we arrived at the dollar it does seem to be a topic that will change our lives and none of us really got a clue to whats going to happen which is why I like as much opinion as possible. Like you summarized ,POWER,Control& Selfish greed. that pretty much says it all.

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

You're right Lloyd -- slowly but surely the veil is being lifted & the naked TRUTH is being revealed -   it isn't a pretty picture & hopefully civil unrest in the form of rioting will not occur.    But one has to ask - when is enough enough?   How much can the public tolerate.    Government intervention in our lives has become far too excessive -  power is in the hands of too few.     All men were created equal -  or were they?

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

SouthPen,

You're certainly on to something. What supports your point about the FED and who owns it (the elite) is the fact that, if you make a decent, middle of the road income, but do not have a mortgage in which to shelter some of that income, you will pay higher taxes. However, if you are handing over a 1/3 or more of your net monthly income to a bank to pay your mortgage, then you can reduce your adjusted gross income and pay a lesser tax, if any at all. What does anybody paying a mortgage have to do with paying taxes? There shouldn't be a connection unless the two are one and the same entity or are very closely assosiated. Which at this point begs the question, "Who really owns and rules America"? The obvious answer would be the elite via corporations. And here in America where you have the marriage between the corporations and the state, you have FACISM albeit in secret. So we continue with the facade of democracy. The fact is, it doesn't matter who is elected to office. The choices are all owned and controlled by one or more cults the elite belongs to. They control all political seats of power. Whomever is installed into a seat of power will follow and serve the agenda of the cult(s), and not the people of this country. So there you have it. That's the big secret. But the cherade will only last for so long.

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

Southpen,  your post is one of the best I have  ever read on this forum.   Simply brilliant - the simple but real truth.    The World Elite versus the Middle Class -- that's what it's all about.   Power, Control & Selfish Greed.     Thanks for your terrific post --  hope all will read it!

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

Bothwings, I guess we are way off topic  but I felt I had to clarify my position on  dollar value. First off ,I am not a fan of the Federal Reserve . Its creation was a diabolical scheme of control and favors a very few  elite organizations. It was of course conceived with the intent in the publics eyes to save us from long term financial hardships for the people. I wont comment any further on the validity .It is what it is.It is our system,like it or not.My objection to this whole situation is that for the last 30 or more years the U.S. dollar has been overvalued. All you have to do is look at who owns the treasuries. Domestically ,mainly banks(big surprise),tied to the FED . Internationally ,it is an array of Eastern and Middle Eastern Nations and organizations within their borders. Why have they continued to buy treasuries from a country that has massive debt,and hard asset reserves that do not back those treasuries. ? Hard Asset reserves that are never asked to be verified.Why would they make such poor investments?The U.S. government treasuries are backed by the U.S. Governments assurance that the interest will be paid in U.S. funds aka DOLLARS,thats it. I say it again . What a bad investment?  The only reason that they buy treasuries is to keep the charade alive and well.They always have wanted the U.S. dollar strong. It gives us buying power (however,unreal) that buys their goods. Thats it. Our high dollar has been manipulated by our own elite and the elite of other nations. There really is no free market  Bothwings, if the rules are not regulated. Its like having a game of Monopoly every week and some stronger participants in the game change the rules every week. No International regulation means no free markets.No World Standard means massive manipulation can occur at any time. Government debt,held by FOREIGN entities means manipulation is almost assured. Let me use the example of a small resource stock. Two resource stocks could have near equal assets ,yet one has its PPS so much higher. The new investor ,being conservative and not wanting to take a chance follows the money. An institution has in invested heavily in Company A ,so will he ,even though Company B has the same assets,for less money . The perception is that the U.S.dollar must be ''the safe'' investment because its manipulated to be just that but in reality it is not. Is the manipulation just from our Federal Reserve? Lately,more so ,but for many years it has been more so from the countries I previously eluded to ,from the East in order to build their enterprises. Its not us against them,country vs.country. Its the elite in the world against the middle class. The poor just sit back and wait to side with who is  stronger(little else they can do) If we do not get a new system in place through the U.N. then the future for America and Canada is bleak. I am not talking about a Global Currency . I am talking about a standard based on RESERVES/GDP/DEBT/POPULATION orchestrated by the U.N.(not for admiration of that organization but because it is all  the world has to do such a massive restructuring of the worlds financial systems.) Until that time there is going to be currency wars. The latest 600 billion in print is in answer to  the corruption lead by China that the world seems to have a hard time blaming for anything. The U.S. ,as usual is the whipping post.Its a sad day when the newly elected in this country, unbeknown to themselves ally  with the foreign entities from the east and do not even understand who the monster is, all in the name of saving America. Lets see someone stand up in Congress and say ''Once we clear up foreign debt,I propose to never again allow U.S. treasuries to be held by any individual or corporation not a citizen or resident of this country.'' 

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

Thank you Southpen,

Your argument, (which I have enjoyed) will be put to the test soon, as the FEDs inject the economy with $600 billion dollars. Let's see exactly what effect this has on the economy as it will surely affect the dollar's value through this self induced inflation. I hope there are no unintended consequences. Surely, there will probably be some unwanted surprises. But hopefully not insurmountable. When it comes to economics, I tend to agree with Keane's theory. "Let the market correct and adjust it self." So far, that's not been allowed to happen. If a government consistently props up its economy, its people will eventually suffer loss of not only personal wealth, but ultimately human rights and dignity. There are some who feel this is really the aim of the government, and there means of ushering in the new world order. I realize thats's a whole different subject (although related). But I do believe like some, that there have been actions to restructure our economy, via the epic scandals of not only the mortgage crises, but the massive ponzi schemes while the SEC in each case looked the other way, allowing them to happen. This has much to do with changing people's perception about money, the economy, and personal freedoms that are embodied by our constitution, amendments, and civil rights. Everything that has happened, is happening, and shall happen is neither coincidental, nor for nought. Most people are totally oblivious to what is actually happening in the grand scheme of things. But stay tuned. There is a whole lot more being slowly eroded and taken away than what may seem obvious to some.

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

You agree that a cheaper dollar will increase exports which will translate into more jobs in America(I might add Manufacturing jobs)The job numbers  have increased are in the department stores,the last 20 years because of a public that spent on cheaper goods with a credit card. All this is due to just what it seems you and the high dollar support. Our standard of living will become more expensive in some ways,sure, but in others it will not.A low dollar will not effect the cost of goods made in our own country if we mine  the resources here and manufacture and distribute here. Buy American is not a catch phrase . Its a  counter to the reality of the present manufacture,distribute and retail system that is in place and that has crippled our country. Yes ,its true resources will go up which is why innovation of energy sources,(nuclear ,wind,solar) will be at a forefront of domestic development.This present system will lead us beyond bankruptcy. We will be dictated to by our bankers.,so long as our dollar stays strong. Have you ever considered how to pay such an enormous foreign debt. ? How about the short term debt payments? The only reasonable response is to devalue a currency that is grossly over valued. For years the rest of the world has made sure with treasury purchases that America kept believing it was not vulnerable,that we could continue this out of control lifestyle ,just because they told us we could and we believed.We were the addicts,they the suppliers. Well,now its time to curb the tide. Now,its time to live the way we should have been living so many years ago.We can pay the suppliers of our addictions with our currency at a rate that is fair. The alternative is much worse for the rest of the world.Financial Disaster has one last alternative. The world has to allow fair evaluation of currencies to balance trade ,therefore balance the world economic structure. If currencies were evaluated by  PM Reserves,GDP/DEBT Ratio and Population ,then it would be the beginning of something that is long overdue. Remember the key to my argument is not to be protectionist and have our people buy American because its the right thing to due ,but to buy American because its the best BANG FOR THE BUCK as you said.. Only a reduction in currency value can accomplish that. I am certainly not trying to emulate the Chinese economy.On the contrary. What I am suggesting is speeding up our economy and slowing theirs down which is exactly what the economists say has to happen.I do not want to run our dollar into the ground .I simply want it to be valued fairly.Its been over valued for 30 years. If our currency is not brought down slowly ,it will crash. that standard of living your so worried about is going to be a lot worse than what I suggest and in the end they will do exactly what I am suggesting now.Why go through a collapse? I see some of your views as valid but the big picture is too small with too few answers. If you have an idea ,lets here it. On a personal note,Bothwings your debating skills are good and I appreciate the dignified way you tell me I am wrong. Your a credit to this board. 

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

In theory, a cheaper dollar may increase exports which may in turn translate to more jobs. However, the otherside to that sword is that as a consequence to the cheaper dollar, the cost is higher to purchase those demestic goods. Human behavior dictates that we get the most bang for our buck. American companies know this. Hence, they produce overseas, and import there cheaper products, that in turn fuels your back to back sales that some of the more popular and successful department stores throw.  And guess what? It works. The appearance is that of a winning combination. The consumer wins because they get more for their money (but fewer jobs in the economy), and the producers and their merchants win, because they are selling products in greater volume and are capitalizing. I respect your opinion, but I prefer a stronger dollar. The reality behind the cheaper dollar is that the American market has been flooded with foreign imports. The flow of exports is dwarfed by the flow of imports, especially from China. Fact: The Chinese government subsidizes virtually all its manufactureing sector. This is the main way China manipulates its currency, keeping it nice and cheap. By these means, China is constantly stimulating its economy. However this has resulted in unfair competition against the U.S. for decades. This is one of the chief complaints Wash. D.C. has against China right now. So, your theory works for China, but it has hurt the U.S. for a long time. The only way the U.S. could compete with these very cheap imports might be to devalue the dollar until it is on par with the Yuan. But what will we give up in return? Our quality of living. That too would depreciate, far below where it is today. China's economic structure for the average working "Jo" is horrific. Believe me, you don't want that. I certainly don't. Case in point: the average masters degree graduate does not make enough to support themselves. We're not even talking about paying back any student loans. The people of China cannot afford to do a lot of things we in America take for granted, but you can blame their government's unscrupulous economic schemes for that. Its people are paying a much higher price in the end. Again, a cheaper dollar is not the way to go. It is exponentially costlier.

Take a look at this article if you get a chance.

http://worldmeets.us/globaltimes000032.shtml#axzz15i1wPuUT

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

(A stronger dollar means it has greater buying power .) For What?   Goods and services not born in the U.S. . A lower dollar would increase exports because of the new buying power other countries will have. A lower dollar will decrease imports because of the lack of buying power from U.S. citizens,therefore they will trend toward buying American. Its not a catch phrase to me.Employment short falls, in this country over the last 30 years has been in manufacturing. Thats whats wrong here. The reason businesses set up shop in other countries has to do with the high cost of labor here.Currency value has a direct impact on that fact. Please look into what I am saying further.Currency values are why the U.S., IMO must get off being the default dollar of the world. Its not a good thing. I want the dollar to lose value which will save this country. I do not want the value to CRASH. That will happen if things do not change. Have you ever wondered how to pay the foreign debt . We owe interest payments on that debt in U.S. dollars (thanks to Nixon) ,the dollar is not backed by gold. You cannot trade  your U.S. treasuries for GOLD. Not a penny. If someone wants their interest they can have it in dollars.(whatever its value) Employment will go up due to increased sales from exports,thus heightening our GDP then there will be greater revenues to the government to PAY the interest on the debt again being helped by a devalued dollar. One final helping hand to our economy is to definitely increase resource development which is where we came into this conversation. I want it to be done right because we have to allow foreign developers the same rights afforded to American companies. All these fees and the like are austerity measures that are necessary for the daily functioning of a capitalist society like the U.S.

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

SouthPen,

We're on the same page here. I want what you want. Fresh water is on the decline internationally. Especially in China, India, and here in the U.S. I certainly don't want methane hydrate coming out of my home faucets. The stuff is flamable! Fracking is not that old a method of getting natural gas out of rock. However, there is much room for improving the way they're doing it. I am not against regulations. They are necessary in defining anybody's area of liberty, operations, etc. But we have to compromise somewhere. We simply can't have it all. If we want cheap oil, fine. But then let's not cry when OPEC tweeks the production downward so they can charge us more for it. (Decrease the supply and increase the demand; one of the main games of OPEC.) They do the same thing here in the U.S. There has not been a refinery built since the '70s, yet we have increased our oil imports for dacades.

A stronger dollar means it has greater buying power. A weaker dollar means it will cost you more to buy those groceries, clothing, that new car that catches the gleam in your eye. Not to mention the adverse affect it has on the interest rate. It will cost you more to finance that same car, or buy that bigger home. And if the Fed injects the economy with $600b dollars, that will hammer the dollar's value downward even further, because of the inflationary effect this measure will have. The value of the dollar has no effect on the job market. A weaker dollar does not mean there are more jobs out there. More employers willing to produce their products here will mean more jobs. But why are manufacturers fleaing the country? Because the cost to produce things are much cheaper in Mexico, India, and China. Hence, that's where the jobs are. Again production abroad does not have the requirements that demestic production has. This is also true for film making. But you say buy American. People who say this tend not to want to pay the higher price for buying American. American manufacturers know this. The competition is steep. If your costs are higher to produce your goods than your competitors, guess who eventually goes out of business? At that point, it really won't matter, since you were not so concerned about the bottomline. Remember the big three auto-makers, lest we forget. But they also did themselves in by making inferior vehicles compared to their foreign competitors.

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

Okay Bothwings, We can agree that we both want a pro-energy ,while still clean environment.Simply put ,you can do it right from the start  or you have to pay for it later. The extra costs does not have to go to us. The costs  are projected to us because thats the way creative accounting works . CEOs of major oil companies like all DOW components have enormous powers and to except that the price of some guys fuel for his furnace is going to cost more because the EPA took the time to make sure the casing job was done right is altogether naive. Why do you want the U.S. dollar to go up?  WORST thing that could happen to the economy at present. Buy American . A low dollar will mean  more jobs here and more exports ,less imports. oil can be harvested in Canada at no more or little more cost to us Americans than to the Canucks. NAFTA. Its a mixture of Canadian and American companies anyway. No problem at all. Do we really need to destroy the greatest resource we all have (water) to get our oil and gas out of the ground a little and I mean a little, cheaper.NO!  Oil extraction in the Athabasca and Natural Gas extraction in the mid-west have the one similar problem. Destroying water. Lets get it right ,get our oil ,get our gas and keep our water good and plentiful. Technology is jobs. Technology is expensive just like developing a drug,the research and development that goes into finding better methods actually does exist and can be done and we have to regulate  it otherwise foreign companies will have the ability to kill our environment while reaping the profits of an unregulated industry. Remember the Chinese have an awful amount of money that yearns to be invested over here in Natural resources. They surely are losing interest in buying treasuries.I appreciate what your saying about costs but my advice ,for what its worth is not to believe costs projections that are so complicated, it would take a battery of accountants to figure out the truth.Ceo's of mega cap companies care about only revenues. Thats the bottom line that establishes their bonuses. He does not care what happens down the line. We have to make sure  he operates within our parameters ,not his.How much more government involvement due we get after the disaster?

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

SouthPen,

I apologize if I wasn't clear. Back in the late '80s to early '90s our energy sector hit the skids, like the housing market has done as of late. Back then,  regulations were as they are today.  The cost to produce 1 barrel of oil was approx. $8.00 compared to $2.00 per barrel in Saudi Arabia and other places in the middleeast. The cost was so high for dimestic production (4x) was because of EPA regs. It is still the same today. You do not have these hurdles in the middleeast. Then again, Saudi Arabia is vastly desert, where you do not have a lot of people living, unlike the U.S. So, it is more costly to produce domestic oil than it is to simply buy imported oil, where they do not have such stipulations. The more costly the production, guess who pays for that in the end? Look in the mirror to get a clue. However, the upside of that scenerio would be more U.S. jobs; housing would make a much quicker recovery because of the cost of land and building materials; the dollar would get stronger because of the value of the resource that is being exploited (I believe). But then, we would also have to factor in the opportunity cost of domestic production, i.e. what adverse impact would it have on the environment; hence the effect on people's health; precipitating even higher medical and insurance costs. It can get quite complicated. I'm all for protecting the environment, but I am also pro-energy and self-reliant. We (the U.S.) need to strike a better balance between these concerns, given the exponential growth of our population; hence the nation's ever expanding energy consumption needs.

Re: 131 = The Number of Years to Replace Oil

I mean more regulation and there is nothing holding back American companies from exploiting their reserves in this country. Regulation is not a bad word. Its is simply guidelines that all have to abide by in order to safely and effectively have an oil and gas business in this country that delivers a valuable resource and insures the resource to be uninterrupted. ie) if more regulations on offshore drilling had of been present the gulf oil disaster might never of happened. If VP Cheney had not deregulated the onshore American laws for natural gas ,we would not have thousands of lawsuits pending on companies using the fracturing technique which has proven to get into water supplies.A regulation would simply make casing a priority included in the safety factors of the fracturing technique. Thats really the way I see it, the only drawback to fracturing. The casing  breaks because of inferior material or bungled engineering and you have a disaster in the making.Its not necessary. I am a huge proponent of  a self sufficient gas and oil industry(away from OPEC) The Alberta Tar Sands can be exploited through more ISR methods . Water recycling has to be improved ,then regulated to make continued expansion possible. Regulation only incurs higher upfront costs. Once a well is producing (if done properly) ,regular maintenance is all thats required ,which is exactly the way it is anywhere in the world. We save to do things correctly enormous amounts of tax dollars and actually decrease government involvement. Proponents of Deregulation in politics are usually liars or just not very bright.