Looks like you guys could do with a primer on energy:
Last week America used 19m barrels (bbl) per day of oil products :
8.5m bbl/day of gasoline for cars
1.5m bbl/day jet fuel
4.5m bbl/day petrochemical feedstock
3.5m bbl/day diesel fuel for trucks, trains, farm vehicles, etc and heating oil for space heating
1m bbl/day fuel oil for power plants and ocean going ships.
Note that most of the oil is used for transportation fuels. Coal, nuclear, natural gas, solar aren't alternatives for fueling your car. The oil burning power plants are likely to be replaced by natural gas power plants in the near future, because natural gas is a cheaper source of energy. Almost all US natural gas comes from the US and Canada.
The bottom line is that points 2 and 3 in the letter are totally irrelevant to the problem of oil supply.
As for point 4 there is no need to waste money researching synfuels from coal or oil shale. The technology already exists, but it would cost about $50 / bbl to produce fuel this way. This would add about 60c/gal to the price of gasoline.
Point 8 is a similar story. The government already spends plenty of money researching alternative energy, and the technologies which produce electricity are irrelevant to oil supply issues.
Points 5 and 6 show that the writer of the letter is ignorant of the fact that there is a world oil market. It doesn't matter wether our oil comes from Iran or not. If the Iranians stop producing, and nobody makes up the difference, then the price of oil for all consuming countries will go sky high. The question that the writer should be asking is would it be possible for the US to disconnect ourselves from the world oil market? Could we source all our oil from within the Western hemisphere?
Point 1, to develop domestic oil , is a great idea, but it brings us face to face with one of the leading causes of our increasing dependence on imported oil. This is the ignorant, devious and obsessive US environmental movement. A great example of the lies they tell is the claim that the coastal plain of ANWR is an American "Serengetti", and is comparable to the Everglades or Yosemite National Park. This about a place which in winter is colder than the inside of your freezer...and just as dark. A place which, in summertime, is about as scenic as...Texas...except with giant mosquitos. A place which is among the most barren and hostile environments on earth. The ANWR controversy is nothing to do with protecting the environment...it is just a political power struggle...a political virility test for a political movement which has grown used to getting its own way. A vote on ANWR is imminent in the Senate, and most Democrat senators oppose it. OPEC hates to see non-OPEC production rise, and a vote to open ANWR would send shivers down many spines in the Arab world.
The other thing that OPEC really hates is fuel efficiency measures, particularly in a large consumer like the US. Increasing gas taxes by $1-2 per gallon would be the best way improve fuel efficiency, because it would encourage people to drive less as well as buying more fuel efficient cars. Increasing fuel efficiency standards (known as CAFE standards) is less effective, but is probably more realistic politically. A vote to increase fuel economy would be a real slap in the face for the Arabs, so I think that you should mention this in the letter.
Finally you should encourage your Congressman to appropriate money to add oil to the SPR. This is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and it will help to buy time if the Arabs cut the oil off. |
