

Center of gravity in oil world shifts to Americas  - cwan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/center-of-gravity-in-oil-world-shifts-to-americas/2012/05/25/gJQAjeuVqU_story.html

======
mkramlich
I had two reactions.

First, I found it odd that in the entire 2 pages there wasn't a single mention
of any sort of environmental or health downside to shale oil extraction (the
strip mining and toxic chemical ponds, etc.) or of fracking, or carbon
emissions and thus no mention of the relationship between fossil fuels and
what the overwhelming majority of scientists are saying is a climate change
crisis. Even though they clearly cited the increase in fracking and shale oil
as a big component in the global oil shift. Instead, just a focus on the money
upside for various producers and geostrategic implications like Iran/Hormuz.

Second, I saw what I've come to expect in the comments below the post, on
their site. I have this theory that there are rightwing groups that pay for
people to astroturf (sometimes called sock puppets) by posting comments at the
bottom of articles on major media websites. Because so many of them seem too
well organized, hit too many buzzwords and talking points, as if all following
the same script but given a little leeway to improvise. The ridiculous
demonizing of Obama backed up by nothing specific, the apparent total naivete
and ignorance about the shared positive health purpose of the EPA specifically
and government regulations in general (hint: they're not out to oppress oil
companies and rednecks, they're out to hopefully minimize the amount that
fellow citizens, perhaps even one's own family or neighbors (or potential
customers!), get sick and die from toxic pollution. Or to prevent the killing
off of entire ecosystems needed for plants, insects and animals to live,
creatures that we in turn depend on for our own survival.) If astroturfing IS
truly happening, and there was a technical means of preventing it, and I had
the power to do it, I would make it impossible. It worsens our society. Swamps
signal with noise. Reduces our ability to trust others, etc. If such comments
are NOT astroturfing, then it's depressing to think that with our current
voting system in the US, everyone's vote is weighed exactly the same. Whether
a logical thinker or not. Whether well read in history or ignorant. Whether
you know a lot about human health or very little, a lot about biology or
nothing. Whether you picked your beliefs out of thin air one day or arrived at
positions after many years of careful observation and analysis: doesn't
matter, all votes count the same and can cancel each other out. And then if an
election can be split along some other line, perhaps more superficial,
abstract or emotional issue or false dichotomy ("gubmint bad, Bible good!"),
our voting process is cheapened even further.

But yeah, the US getting less oil from Mideast and/or OPEC is good. Still
needing it is bad. But since the piece was written in such a way that it
seemed to be carefully tip-toeing around saying anything that could be
construed as "renewable good, fossil bad" or "pollution is bad" one can't help
but suspect they wanted to stay on the good side of various people in the oil
industry. Perhaps they weren't ass-kissing the oil industry. Perhaps they just
wanted to focus. But why would you focus on the more trivial aspects, and
leave out the elephant(s) in the room?

~~~
avocet
I hate astroturfing too, but one part of your response bothers me.

"it's depressing to think that with our current voting system in the US,
everyone's vote is weighed exactly the same. Whether a logical thinker or not.
Whether well read in history or ignorant. Whether you know a lot about human
health or very little, a lot about biology or nothing. Whether you picked your
beliefs out of thin air one day or arrived at positions after many years of
careful observation and analysis: doesn't matter, all votes count the same and
can cancel each other out."

I'm certainly not in favor of bigoted or ignorant people voting, but that
doesn't make it any less their right to have an equal voice. If one is going
to reduce someone's voting rights based on some criteria, how can one measure
objectively "logical" or "well read"? The minute the government declares
"these special criteria reduce a vote's weight!" someone is going to skew
those criteria to marginalize others for political gain.

This idea creates more problems than it solves. It reminds me of the Three-
Fifths Compromise (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise>), an
example of voting weight adjusted for political gain (in this case, for the
Southern US).

~~~
mkramlich
Two citizens go to the voting booth and choose between electing candidates 1
or 2 to the Presidency. Call these citizens A and B. But at some point
previous to this day both of these citizens had taken a test to gauge general
intelligence. The test is not perfect but is better at ferreting out signal
than having nothing at all. Here's that test (for sake of argument):

The test describes an apparent murder case. Here are the known facts. The
victim was found dead by bullet wound. Seven different witnesses claim they
saw suspect X enter the victim's house carrying a gun, then heard a gunshot,
then saw suspect X leave the house and _flee_ the scene. One neighborhood
resident, a 90 year old man with dementia, told an officer he thinks suspect Y
did it. When asked his reasons, he said, "Because he's a bad man!" though
admits he did not personally see or hear anything directly related to the
murder scene or time. The test then asks the test taker: without knowing for
sure, in an omniscient way, who committed the murder, and without any
additional data or evidence, who do you think is more likely to have commited
the murder, suspect X or Y?

Citizens A and B take this test. Citizen A indicates X. Citizen B indicates Y.

Now someone chimes in on the Internet to say that tests are unfair and it's
impossible to test for intelligence, that the government can skew tests, etc.
Then election day comes. Citizen A votes for candidate 1. B votes for
candidate 2. Since everyone's vote weighs the same, these two votes
effectively cancel each other out.

Do you think that's a smart system? Do you think that system produces better
or more "fair" results than a system in which each vote can be weighed
differently? I've already obviously said which I think to be true. I just
wanted to give a concrete example of how we can devise tests or filtering
mechanisms that can score or filter for desirable qualities, and that the
current system allows dumb votes to cancel out smart votes. The current system
can be even worse than that if there are more "dumb" people than smart ones
(where for sake of argument assume dumb/smart is a generalization across a
wide set of qualities and signals.) To continue my example, what if there were
a lot more people who thought like citizen B, than A? Do you think that would
produce smarter results for the country? Or dumber results?

And yes we can objectively measure and compare between two people to determine
who is more logical or well-read. Again, not in some perfect ideal way in
every single possible situation -- the world is messy and imperfect -- but in
enough cases and in broad enough strokes that yes we can better filter for
signal over noise. I know it is possible.

Also the government chooses special criteria and devises lengthy and arbitrary
rules already, all the time, for all sorts of things. You can't do D unless E,
F and G are true. You're not allowed to do J unless you've previously done K
and L. Lots of precedent, both in government and in the private business
sector, clubs, pretty much everywhere in society. But for some reason when we
go to the voting booth (figuratively speaking) everyone's vote counts the
same. When serious money is on the line or someone's life we don't go take a
poll of every Tom, Dick and Harry in your neighborhood, instead we go to
experts or at least to people who we have a reasonable expectation will give
us smarter, better advice than the average Joe. Suddenly when millions of
lives are on the line, and trillions of dollars in spending (when it comes to
voting on national-level political issues or candidates) we abandon that
system and dramatically loosen and worsen our standards. I say it's a
hilariously bad design. So obviously bad that perhaps it just might be _by_
design and intent. But regardless, I know we can do better. So let's try.

Thank you for your feedback though!

------
maukdaddy
Highly disappointed in the WaPo. This read like a PR piece released by the oil
industry and/or their lobbyists. No mention of the environmental disaster
looming from the tarsands? No mention of the effects from fracking? No
discussion about how this will only delay much needed investment in renewables
by the US Government?

~~~
gringomorcego
very odd to not mention the downsides of fracking. a quarter of the article is
about it, and it seems like the crux of the argument of the new dependency on
america comes from resources attained through fracking.

very biased reporting.

~~~
joe_the_user
Well...

I'm more a corporate hater than a corporation lover.

But while the downside of tar sands are real and horrific, the downsides of
fracking so far seem speculative. I haven't heard any strong argument why
North Dakota fracking would have the same effect as the fracking described in
Gas Lands.

If anything, fracking seems possibly scary but not something with clear,
proven downsides. It may be, for example, that pipelines carrying oil
extracted using fracking and that could cause damage somewhere and that does
more damage than the actual fracking.

If anyone has a reference to prove me wrong, I'd love to see it (well, maybe
not love but appreciate it).

------
redwood
Check out these INCREDIBLE aerial photos of the Alberta tar sands operations:
[http://www.businessinsider.com/canadian-oil-sands-
flyover-20...](http://www.businessinsider.com/canadian-oil-sands-
flyover-2012-5) I think mega-infrastructure like this that we're _all_ relying
on to some degree or another needs to be _seen_

~~~
EliRivers
All of us? All of you, perhaps.

~~~
redwood
In an international commodity market we all are connected "to some degree".
Think of it this way: as North America imports less Middle Eastern oil,
there's more middle eastern oil for _you_

------
aurelianito
Wow! I didn't expect Argentina to be at the lead! Now I understand the recent
statization of the national oil company (YPF).

------
ajtaylor
Part of the reason these new fields are being developed is that the price of
oil will now support them. I wonder what these newer, more expensive methods
of production will do to the long-term price of oil? Anything to break the
near-monopoly of oil from the Middle East is good, but will it come at a
price?

~~~
InclinedPlane
As production from a new method ramps up the cost typically goes down, due to
amortization of initial fixed costs and efficiencies developed through
experience.

------
adaml_623
There's a line in the article about the 'unstable' Middle East. My perception
is that Central and South America has it's own stability problems that are
different but just as serious.

Sadly I guess that the US sending troops into the Americas (again) is likely
in the next few decades. This is one of the reasons why renewables (despite
their problems) seem more sensible to me. The ethical and human cost of
chasing the petroleum economy seem too high.

------
yaix
So basically what this is saying is, insteat of burning trillions of dollars
in Iraq, killing over a hundred thousand human beings and ruining the
credibility of the US on the way, it would have been sufficient to just take
100 billion or so and invent new drilling technologies? Talk about a bad
decision.

~~~
incredimike
Well, the USA hasn't been a beacon for great decision making in recent years.
I feel as though oil-wars were fueled by other agendas outside of the simple
need for crude. Also, look at alternative energy markets and how they've
barely gained any traction outside of grass-roots until recently. There were
even cables released on wikileaks showing that USA was supporting the
International Renewable Energy Agency being hosted by the UAE (4th largest
producer of oil). Counter-intuitive isn't even the word.

------
ojbyrne
That whole Peak Oil thing seems slightly ludicrous now.

~~~
darkestkhan
Not exactly - it is just another (and more expensive) source of oil, but
inevitably there is still a limit to it (and while prolly there is more shale
gas in world than oil I doubt it even triples the time before oil supply will
end). Inevitably we will have to use biofuels, solar, wind [and in future also
thermonuclear].

~~~
modeless
Yeah, except there will be another (more expensive) source of oil after this
one, and another after that. Gradually solar will become cheaper than the
cheapest oil available, and the world will move to solar, and that will be it.
Nobody's saying solar isn't the future, we're just saying there won't be any
sudden end to oil. There will be no global catastrophe.

~~~
incredimike
Solar still has a number of big draw-backs that need to be overcome (namely
storage and time-to-recharge), but I suppose we have more time to work it out
now. It's kind of a same, though.. I'm not sure the environment can tolerate
much more burned fossil fuels.

~~~
ojbyrne
As long as coal is still in use, anything that replaces it is a big win.

