Oil Availability, Gas Prices, and National Security,

[Milton Bradley]

Wouldn't it be in the best interests of national security for our government to consider refining it's own oil to operate the war machine?


National security seems to be the number one concern on any range of topics that come up, yet I never hear things like this discussed in any public forum.


If the government were to refine it's own oil, I believe it could affect us in several ways.


1) By not tapping the civilian supply, it would reduce demand on those refineries, and therefore lower the price of petroleum products to the populace.


Lets face it, gasoline prices are not set by the oil prices alone, but also by local availability. By taking government out of this part of the equation, the domestic market would determine the price, not the supplies leftover after the strategic allocations are made.


2) The goverment would be able to have more control over supply, and availability in times of crisis. ( Which is perpetual in case you haven't noticed.) As mentioned before, with national security being such a large part of domestic policy, why would this not be an obvious first thought, or pre-emptive tactic of any government concerned ( to the level they claim ) about our ability to maintain a secure defense?


Am I missing something, or should this have happened in the distant past? ( Perhaps it did, and I am not aware of that fact? In that case, please enlighten me.)

[Scribbler1]

If you treat gasoline and diesel fuel as just another commodity the government/military uses, refining their own oil would be unprecedented. The military makes NOTHING of its own. Everything from tanks, planes and humvees to clothing, guns and MREs are made by private companies.

It might be a great idea but I don't see the government getting into making their own gas.

[Athena]

Quote by: Scribbler1 If you treat gasoline and diesel fuel as just another commodity the government/military uses, refining their own oil would be unprecedented. The military makes NOTHING of its own. Everything from tanks, planes and humvees to clothing, guns and MREs are made by private companies. It might be a great idea but I don't see the government getting into making their own gas.

I don't think it matters if the government consumes raw oil and refines it, or if it consumes already refined oil. Either way it is consuming oil. Besides it is not military consumption of oil that has driven the price over $70 per barrels. It is industrializing the rest of the world and making the rest of the world, consumers of oil. I do not understand the logic of those who thought this was a good thing. Sometimes I think we have an over rated opiniong of human intelligence.

[bishop]

the executive already controls the strategic oil reserves and if it were absolutely necessary could commandeer a refinery to produce whatever grade of gas they need.

they don't have their own refining capabilities because they don't need to have them.

[bishop]

Quote by: athena It is industrializing the rest of the world and making the rest of the world, consumers of oil. I do not understand the logic of those who thought this was a good thing. Sometimes I think we have an over rated opiniong of human intelligence.

so, these countries would've been better off staying banana republics mired in poverty?

industrialization isn't the problem - the fact that we are making very slow progress towards alternative energies (and related technologies) is the problem.. industrialization wouldn't be a problem if it were powered by solar/wind energy...

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Athena I don't think it matters if the government consumes raw oil and refines it, or if it consumes already refined oil. Either way it is consuming oil.

I believe Milton was talking about cost. If the government did its own refining the obscene profits of the oil companies are removed from the picture.

Besides it is not military consumption of oil that has driven the price over $70 per barrels. It is industrializing the rest of the world and making the rest of the world, consumers of oil. I do not understand the logic of those who thought this was a good thing.

It isn't one specific thing that controls the price of oil and whether it's military or domestic use makes no difference.

Also, we have no right whatsoever to tell other countries they can't industrialize. If they is a part of the problem we should have seen it coming a LONG time ago.

[Athena]

Quote by: bishop so, these countries would've been better off staying banana republics mired in poverty? industrialization isn't the problem - the fact that we are making very slow progress towards alternative energies (and related technologies) is the problem.. industrialization wouldn't be a problem if it were powered by solar/wind energy...

Why did you pick such a stupid argument? Of course the problem is energy. But what we have done is kind of like having enough dinner for 6 people and inviting the whole town for dinner. We slit our throats, by spreading industrialization before the energy issue was resolved. When there is not enough to share, perhaps we shouldn't have made whole world dependent on what there isn't enough of?

Ariculture can not support large societies, and sure can not provide things like our communication products and our medical products and services. For nations to have our standard of living, they must industrialize. But the whole world can not have our standard of living, at least not until the energy issue is resolved, and then we will realize other finite realities also stand in the way of the whole world having our standard of living, which is very temporary if we do not resolve the energy problem.

Like you think I do not understand what industrialization does to the standard of living? Clean water and medical care and mass education are wonderful, and people can not have these things if they can not pay for them. But finite reality, like the amount of food we have for dinner, puts limits on what we can do, and isn't it intelligent to base decisions on those limits? If we destroy our economy before the transition to new energy technology is made, we could end up destroying the whole world.

We have made war worse, and the likelihood of war, greater, with increasing the worlds demands and their ability to destroy. The expectations of people in oil rich countries are soaring as are their populations, and the wealth is very temporary, and we have no plan for how they will maintain wealth when the oil is gone. They will need that wealth even more in the future, because their populations will be larger and the people will expect so much. They will will need more, but their only means of getting more will be their military weapons which they are purchasing with the temporay wealth.

I am a bit horrified here. We are behaving like people who jump out of airplanes without parachuts and then wonder how to land safely? You have not thought things through, before making a foolish argument. We needed to resolve several problems before industrializing the world. A China equal to ourselves on a finite planet, is not desirable, before we learn to share the planet without war. China alone has cut our supply of oil in half and doubled the cost, simply because its consumption of oil equals ours. That cuts the time lift to find solutions in half. The solutions needed to come, before exhausting the supply of oil. This was known, but we greatly increased the demand for oil. This is a stupid thing to do. We have set ourselves up for a very nasty fight for survival, and because the nations who will be involved, have nuclean weapons, the whole planet may be destroyed. Why did we do this?

[Milton Bradley]

I beleive it's also important to consider the current situation. The reason for the private sector not building new refinereies is the NIMBY protesters. If government decided to use the ever popular Executive Order approach, there would be little use protesting that decision. It would just happen.


This would leave the private sector to deal with the needs of private interests. ( Which it can probably already accomplish with the existing infrastructure, thus no need for them to build another refinery, or make the "dreaded" investment.)

[Athena]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I beleive it's also important to consider the current situation. The reason for the private sector not building new refinereies is the NIMBY protesters. If government decided to use the ever popular Executive Order approach, there would be little use protesting that decision. It would just happen. This would leave the private sector to deal with the needs of private interests. ( Which it can probably already accomplish with the existing infrastructure, thus no need for them to build another refinery, or make the "dreaded" investment.)

More refineries will not resolve the problem. Only a new source of energy will resolve the problem. The problem is oil is finite and that makes the wealth of nations, that was built on oil, finite. The US has consumed its resources and spent its wealth, so it depends on its military for resources, instead of what was in the ground. This will happen even faster for the new oil rich countries, because we are consuming oil faster, and they do not have another source of income equal to oil. Think this through- What is going to keep oil rich nations rich, when the oil is gone? More refineries can only bring on disaster faster. We must reduce consumption to extend our time needed to resolve the problem.

[Athena]

Quote by: Scribbler1 I believe Milton was talking about cost. If the government did its own refining the obscene profits of the oil companies are removed from the picture. It isn't one specific thing that controls the price of oil and whether it's military or domestic use makes no difference. Also, we have no right whatsoever to tell other countries they can't industrialize. If they is a part of the problem we should have seen it coming a LONG time ago.

I need to leave this debate. The only way to reduce cost, is to reduce consumption. I thought you all understood supply and demand. Oil is finite and world demand has increased. Increasing refineries will not reduce the cost of oil for long, and would decrease the time before the end.

SUPPLY IS LIMITED.

DEMAND IS INCREASED.

COST WILL INCREASE AS THE SUPPLY IS DEPLETED AND THE DEMAND IS INCREASED. More refineries can speed this up, but will not resolve the problem in the long run. Arguing otherwise is crazy making.

[bishop]

Quote by: Athena Why did you pick such a stupid argument?

because of this stupid argument you posted suggesting that economic development is actually a bad thing.

Quote by: Athena Of course the problem is energy. But what we have done is kind of like having enough dinner for 6 people and inviting the whole town for dinner. We slit our throats, by spreading industrialization before the energy issue was resolved. When there is not enough to share, perhaps we shouldn't have made whole world dependent on what there isn't enough of?

here's some reality for you - we NEVER would have solved the energy issue if it never became an issue.. did people really give a damn in the '90's when gas was under a dollar/gallon in some places? hell no. i wonder if even you, with all your utopian naivete, were really fixated on the issue back then.

oil is by far one of the cheapest forms of energy and no other alternative energy comes close to oil's economic efficacy. the simple truth is that oil prices need to go even higher in order for people with money to get serious about investing in alternative energies.. and those who can will consume less oil because they don't want to pay for it. also, alternative energy companies have made substantial progress in these technologies over the past several years (i know because i invest in some of those companies), but they still have a long way to go.

and we also need this to become a leading national issue, because i think that the government will have to provide some financial assistance to help overhaul our oil-based infrastructure.


plus, this "need to reduce" consumption is such a hollow argument.. you think we're going to make india and china stop developing? good luck with that one.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Athena More refineries will not resolve the problem. Only a new source of energy will resolve the problem. The problem is oil is finite and that makes the wealth of nations, that was built on oil, finite. The US has consumed its resources and spent its wealth, so it depends on its military for resources, instead of what was in the ground. This will happen even faster for the new oil rich countries, because we are consuming oil faster, and they do not have another source of income equal to oil. Think this through- What is going to keep oil rich nations rich, when the oil is gone? More refineries can only bring on disaster faster. We must reduce consumption to extend our time needed to resolve the problem.

I was not only looking for a more immediate answer, I was asking why this, of all the issues being discussed these days, is not seen as a national security issue.


Me checking out a library book is in the interests of national security, but they don't care that there is not a single refinery that is protected by the military itself. Hmmmm...


I was thinking along the lines of an underground refinery near the strategic reserves.

[bishop]

there's a direct answer in post #4.