The US could be economically self-sufficient in oil.

Roy has raised a very interesting and very important topic with this debate. It lies at the heart of our ability as nation to survive. The 20th and 21st centuries are marked by our stewardship of energy.Pro initially framed the debate not in the broad sense of energy self-sufficiency but rather the specific topic of self sufficiency with regards to oil. First one must remember that the US has never produced as much oil as it did in 1971. In the ensuing 41 years of American history we have produced less and less oil from our own deposits. This despite our pioneering work in advanced seismic and well log analysis, exploration and exploitation. Our technological prowess is not producing more for us.And this is what we have wrought:http://www.energyvanguard.com...A stead decline in production. Even during various oil shocks. In the early 1970's we were facing gas lines and stations rationing petroleum.I must continue to take strong exception to Roy's characterization of "proven reserves" as "only releveant to the claims made to investors". Proven reserves lie at the heart of energy (and any resource) planning. It plays a part in valuation of companies for investors but that is hardly the only application of this concept. Strategic understanding of our resource amounts is critical to the country.Roy spent a great deal of time bolstering his argument of self-sufficiency by relying on unconventional oil sources such as oil shale. Both he and I found reference after reference that referred to the technology of the extraction of these materials as "in its infancy". This is a serious issue when assessing our ability to achieve oil self sufficiency. It cannot be understated that the professionals who are dealing with this material themselves point out the fact that this is still a new technology under development.Roy also wishes to decouple the "water issue" since, as he notes, it is not part of "oil self-sufficiency", however when he raised the issue of unconventional oil sources such as oil shale he implicitly opened the door on this topic. Since these materials cannot be recovered without the extensive use of water, water becomes a critical aspect to the discussion. Roy goes so far as to recommend importing water from Canada. That, unfortuantely, means we are not oil self-sufficienty. If we cannot get the oil without water and we have to get the water from a neighboring country then we cannot claim the oil as part of our "self-sufficiency".It is indeed possible that some recycled water can be used in this, but again, so much of this is theoretical and not yet proven. Can we say with any certainty that piling "possible scenario" on top of possible scenario will result in a clear path to self sufficiency? I doubt it.In addition while water cost may be factored in, I question if the true cost is really being factored in. How many millions of dollars are we now spending to remediate acid mine drainage for coal that was economical at the time of mining but now carries a heavy burden decades later? What if we factor in the real possibility of impacting limited water supplies. There is no debate whatsoever that water west of the 100th meridian of longitude in the U.S. is limited. The battles over the stewardship of water in the west go back over 100 years to the earliest days of settlements in Los Angeles. This would make for an interesting debate in and of itself. But it is hardly controversial that many of the oil shale plays are firmly planted in areas of limited water. Where populations exist on one aquifer. Damage that and you run the real risk of finding a cost much greater than anyone ever originally could have envisioned.The issue of "access" is another reservoir of "doubt" for Pro's side. It is the hope of things unseen. The U.S. government is acting as a steward for our public lands. Are we as a nation truly so desperate for oil that we must destroy all our lands to find every last drop? This might (and I stress "might") lead to something akin to a path to self sufficiency, but it is the act of desperation and ignores the reality of how lands are parcelled out.Some of the largest fields in American history were inefficiently used early on before oil companies realized there should be a rational spacing of wells (there are extensive discussions on optimum spacing of wells in a given pool). The idea of parceling the land is not simply a liberal concept, but more akin to resource management. However I will freely grant that some lands we have determined are simply too fragile to risk. ANWR is a great example. It appears to be of limited value to our "self-sufficiency" and exploiting it would only harm a sensitive area that likely could never recover if something went truly bad.This brings me to my summary. And for this I would like to paint an analogy, so please bear with.America is very much like a rich and powerful business executive. For fun the executive might spend a little money to buy some heroin. He only does it occasionally and he can easily afford high quality stuff. Then as time goes on the hunger grows to an addiction. He can still handle the cost as he has a 6 figure income.We've all seen the documentaries and movies: ultimately the cost of the habit grows. The executive can do without his Rolex and it is cashed in for more of his drug. The story plays out the same. Loss of the income, loss of the trappings of wealth until the only thing left is the need to score the junk. Family, friends, relations, destroyed in order to get the junk. But the junkie is able to supply himself with his fix each day. Running countless 'schemes' which he sells as just around the corner. This is "self-sufficiency". When the junkie is boosting car radios and digging through dumpsters to find used needles, he is being "self-sufficient". Destroying his entire life in service of the addiction. This seems hyperbolic, I realize, but when we are considering the following to provide a sense of "self-sufficiency":1. Giving up water to get oil (a MORE valuable resource traded for a LESS valuable resource)2. Grinding nature to dust in order to get the oil3. Relying on hopes and dreams of unproven sources and undeveloped technology to get the oil4. Going after lower and lower quality material at higher and higher costs (the eroi of the oil shales)are we really that different from the junkie listed above? Are we any different from the slave to his addiction who gets up in the pre-dawn hours digging through trash cans and dirty streets for an angry fix?I contend that this is not self-sufficiency but an indication of our failure in controlling our addiction and will ultimately end up being nothing like "self-sufficiency".