In 1944, the US accounted for 75% of global oil production. Economic impact?

Question

Today, it is roughly 10%.

Part of the reason, obviously, is that the denominator has increased --- there is more total oil produced globally.

Generally, global markets are relatively efficient and the "where" does not matter to businesses and consumers. But with today's energy, much of the global supply is located in regions with instable or unfriendly governments. That fact, coupled with energy-hungry, rapidly growing Asian economies seems to suggest that domestic energy creation is needed at home.


The question:
Should the United States undergo massive investment into energy infrastructure, along with targeting NSF grants toward developing new forms of energy?

Can we afford a massive investment, considering the retiree obligations looming in the next decade?

With the number of US scientists and engineers shrinking, would such investment even produce results?

Answer 1

You are talking about autarky, which is self reliance.
I think the US should invest in finding alternate "renewable" sources of energy, but looking for oil or gas might prove counterproductive (most easy deposits have already been depleted)

Answer 2

You should also keep in mind that the U.S. demand for oil production has outstripped both our ability to extract oil and our know reserves of oil. So, it wouldn't make sense to build up our extraction capabilities if we just use it all up in a couple of years.

Instead, we much think about gearing up for producing alternative fuels -- solar, wind, nuclear and biofuels. All of these have to be options, because any one of them alone will not provide us with enough energy.

This will have to a concerted effort much like our devotion to going to the moon back in the 1970s. The US government has to make a focused effort by setting up the right research institutions (just like we did with NASA) and it has to have sufficient funding to be successful.