A moronic OpEd piece at Collegiate Times is calling for the nationalization of US oil fields. This opinion writer honestly believes that nationalize profits means more money for the people, when in fact it is proven over hundreds of years that government profits are just squandered on government cronies. On top of that, government corporations seem unable to attain the efficiencies that competitive businesses do — meaning less oil would be drilled at a greater cost, leaving the chance that profits might be negative, which would bring a tax burden on the people nationalization is supposed to help.

We’ve seen nationalization occur time and time again throughout the world, especially in South American commodities. The truth is that government can not supply what the market already provides. If we want cheaper oil, what we need to do is get government out of the program entirely. Reduces regulations, lower taxes and less war would mean cheaper oil for everyone.

USNews.com has a great 6 page article on the future of oil, including the oil shale and oil sands research being pushed full steam by various oil companies.

The article seems fairly neutral in the political and environmental views that we usually hear in most pieces from USNews.

The article has some good quotes:

Within a decade, all unconventional sources will account for some 35 percent of world oil supply, up from 10 percent in 1990, say oil consultants at Cambridge Energy Research Associates.

and:

First, bitumen, the thick, sticky form of crude found in the earth here, must be extracted from a complex mix of sand, water, and clay. The heavy syrup is either drawn out with heat or mined with machinery and then heated to transform it into usable oil. The production cost per barrel, $10 to $20, makes it competitive with conventional oil in the United States.

As oil shale and tar sands production becomes more efficient (and more competitive), we should see the price fall even further.