Long-term thinking re. fossil fuels
"if the fossil fuels in question are so important for the national security why do we not keep them in the ground when the need is far greater?"
I agree, Firn.
For over 40 years the US has wished for/aimed at a reduction in oil imports. In numerous War College theses, etc we see military analysts arguing for energy independence, freedom from dependence on MIddle East oil, etc.
But surely it would make better sense in the long term to maintain a reasonably viable domestic oil (& gas) industry while relying on oil imports as well. USA and Canada need a domestic industry which is available, competent and ready to expand should something interfere with our regular supply of affordable imports.
But the degree to which we can deplete someone else's finite supply while preserving our own oil & gas reserves should be to our long-term benefit, one would think.
But we rarely hear this view expressed, even among military analysts.
OPEC spare capacity questioned
Ron Patterson picks up on Steve Kopits' presentation and questions whether OPEC is capable of responding when called upon to produce more oil:
http://peakoilbarrel.com/can-depend-...c-opec-peaked/
Fracking gas to Europe: not a full answer
Maeda asked:
Quote:
I don't really want to derail this thread into one on energy, but there are claims that the US can replace Russia with gas from fracking to supply Europe. Do calculations actually bear out? (If this has been discussed before, link(s) to relevant thread(s) is/are appreciated)
I thought Firn (our resident economics guru) had posted on this, but a search found fracking has been mentioned - though not an answer to your question.
What I have read elsewhere suggests that there is no capacity in the USA to export such amounts as Europe would require, nor the capacity to bring it ashore either.
There are threads on Energy Security and the economic aspects of the Ukrainian crisis, which have various posts on European reliance on Russian gas supplies.