> "Global oil demand has so far absorbed the extra U.S. crude barrels, limiting the impact on prices"
This slightly curbs my optimism.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-oil-exports-study/sha... (Shale oil growth to overwhelm U.S. refiners, fuel exports: study)
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17/shale-oil-has-a-refining-pro... (Shale oil has a refining problem, and Morgan Stanley thinks investors can profit)
If you want to lessen your dependency on middle east energy, switch to electric cars, trucks, and busses faster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Fifth_Fleet
> Well, even a blind pig finds an acorn once in awhile. While working on a recent piece on how to cut $1 trillion from the $7-trillion-plus U.S. defense budget over the coming decade, I stumbled upon a provocative analysis by Roger Stern, an economic geographer at Princeton University. He says the U.S. has “mis-allocated” — others might say “wasted” — $8 trillion since 1976 protecting the oil flow from the Persian Gulf that fuels much of the global economy. Especially since in 2010, when the U.S. was the destination of less than 10 percent of the oil flowing out of the Gulf.
> The U.S. has insisted, since the days of the Carter Administration, that the oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf is a vital national-security interest of the U.S. Beyond that, Presidents and the Pentagon have said, the narrow Strait of Hormuz is a vulnerable bottleneck for shipping headed out of the Gulf. Any troublemaker — especially Iran — could bring the U.S. and world economies to their collective knees by shutting it down by sinking a couple of tankers as they pass through. Consequently, the U.S. has poured tons of money into the region since then, including three wars. It has bulked up its military forces in the neighborhood — including the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet, headquarters in Bahrain, smack dab in the middle of the gulf — to keep the oil flowing.
http://nation.time.com/2011/04/24/a-question-for-the-obama-a... (Have we wasted $8 trillion defending the Persian Gulf from a non-existent threat?)
No doubt Trump would love to recall rhe fleet, if possible, but it’s not. Unless he’d like to see chaos in the world economy.
Like trade wars usually tend to cause?
"oil is fungible on the world market"
In the medium term, these two statements contradict each other. If all it takes to avoid a 1970s-style OPEC crisis is to update the facilities at a few refineries, that job will get done. Actually, that job will probably get done anyway, because after all, shipping oil overseas isn't free.
Anyway, you're right that decreasing oil demand will lessen dependency on foreign oil. You're wrong that our current approach "isn't feasible". Our oil imports from Saudi and worldwide are falling. See: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0...
No, facts are facts. Your own citation shows the US is still importing 3 million/barrels a day from OPEC (~33% of US daily consumption), and has held somewhat constant at that level since 2013. The price of oil would rise if those 3 million/barrels a day weren't on the world market, or if the US was required to source those barrels elsewhere.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6
Not a lot of electrical generation sources in the US run by authoritarian governments compared to oil producers. If it's not Saudi Arabia, it'll be another government attempting to control energy supplies. Can't control a country's electrical generation so easily, and therefore it makes the most sense to incentivize the rapid electrification of transportation.
Really? As a European, I feel much closer to Iran's history and culture than Saudi Arabia's. My understanding is that the US chose a side a long time ago (cf. ARAMCO foundation) and decided to go "all in", even if it goes a long way against its interest. And things are getting worse with time.
This is naive. When you cut off Saudi Arabia, you cut off all OPEC. And that would devastate America, even at the current levels of domestic production.
curious what else
It's the snake that bites its own tail, because these all go back to oil.
About the alleged common "distaste for Iran", for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization_of_the_Iranian...
I don't see how the coup in 1953 means that we don't have a distaste for Iran today. Obviously it's an important part of recent history, but the government is not the same. The US and the UK used to fight in wars, but now we are allies.
Arms deals don't go back to oil because it benefits the American military industrial complex, not the energy industry.
Edit: Clarified statement on coup.
Edit again: I clicked on your old unedited link so I replied to a false understanding of what your point was, now my reply looks dumb.
>Iran wants to spread its sect of Islam, and that is at odds with a lot of the Arab world
That had nothing to do with the US.
>I don't see how the coup in 1953 means that we don't have a distaste for Iran today
I understand that the Iranian Revolution is an obvious reaction to the 1953 coup, which made the two nations distaste one another for a gooood time. Without oil, no coup. Without the coup, one less big reason for Iranians to put Islamist to power and chant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America
All these things became complicated because of oil. Switching to renewables would slowly but surely simplify all of this.