>Keith, > >I made a new section about depletion, > > >Fossil energy depletion and emission. >http://energysavingnow.com/depletion/ > >Thought about posting on the list, when this discussion came up. > >It is very hard to see a scenario where US do not have to "beg OPEC", even >if they started with appropriate technologies yesterday. It is not a matter >of "getting worse before it get better", it is only the option of getting >worse. The other US option is securing supply by annexation, which is their >current line. Personally I doubt that US will pull that off, other then if >that themselves abandoned democracy. Very difficult situation.
You don't mention Russia, and I think this is somewhat important to mention. As you may know, there was a brief moment (in the 80s?) when statistically Russia was the world's largest single producer of petroleum, yes, including anyone such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, whatever. Russia was tops. But they fell off of that. I suspected that, with Russia Begging the US, and others, for money following the breakup of the Communist State, it was not too hard to envision the rise of the Russian Oil INdustry as a major sort of collateral. And with 9-11, I do believe that Bush went specifically and explicitly to the Russians and said, in effect, "Let's get going with anything you're going to deliver to us, because we need it now, this instant". I don't have much proof of that, just my recollection of Bush meeting with various people after 9-11, but I'm pretty sure this prominently included the Russians, on the matter of energy trade. You also don't mention coal, and I'm pretty sure that a big part of what the US is counting on is mining both coal and Natural Gas from various North American areas. These don't seem to be quite as controversial as drilling for Oil in ANWR, though certainly they're controversial. For example, although Candidate Kerry has strongly opposed drilling in ANWR in Alaska for Oil, I do believe he supports drilling in the Rockies, to some extent, for Coal and Natural Gas. I believe he said "because it's the right thing to do" or something. I'm not trying to oppose your important exploration of the question of what the US will do, just rounding out the picture I guess. > >Yes, US should have continued on the Nixon policy of strict energy >conservation and prohibition of using NG for electricity production. They >will be forced to do this anyway, but now it would be much more pain. I didn't know that at one time NG was prohibited for electricity production. Strange how things change. It seems like over the last 10-20 years it's been touted as "the" clean(er) answer. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
