This is a brilliant paper.  Thank you.  The one question I have relates to the seeming fact that both options considered by Cheney (reduce dependence by finding new energy solutions vs. accept reality of need for increased foreign sources of oil) require very large investments.  What the paper doesn't discuss is why one type of investment over another?  At the heart of this dilemma is probably a matter of politics over anything else. 

If you listen to Willie Nelson, he will tell you how he drives his cars and tour buses on "bio-diesel" - using vegetable oil.  Very cheap.  But there's no infrastructure yet - where can you go to fill your car with cheap vegetable oil?  If it's so cheap, there's no profit and there won't be much of an industry for it.  Or, maybe there will be some innovative person out there who can figure this out, e.g., a Paul Allen type.  The point is that if cheap vegetable oil (a product that will never deplete) can be used to run cars and motors of all kinds, why aren't we pursuing that, or is it because there simply isn't a profit in it, or worse, that it's such a cheap commodity that just about anybody could get into the business (e.g., no chance for a monopoly)?