"John Galt" <whoisjohngalt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:S91Sj.73232$Uf4.17738@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Sid9" <sid9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:xt%Rj.61174$rC6.58046@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>> "Geo" <taxpayer779@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
news:b9bfd394-c1d4-4962-9490-381c909ee634@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Apr 30, 9:45 am, "Sid9" <s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> "John Galt" <whoisjohng...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:AgWRj.123983$Tj3.106837@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/start_drilling.html
>>>>
>>>> > Article Highlights (well, almost all of it is a "highlight"):
>>>>
>>>> > (...) The truth is that we're almost powerless to influence today's
>>>> > prices. We are because we didn't take sensible actions 10 or 20
years
>>>> > ago.
>>>> > If we persist, we will be even worse off in a decade or two. The
>>>> > first
>>>> > thing to do: Start drilling.
>>>> > It may surprise Americans to discover that the United States is the
>>>> > third-largest oil producer, behind Saudi Arabia and Russia. We
could
>>>> > be
>>>> > producing more, but Congress has put large areas of potential
supply
>>>> > off-limits. These include the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and parts
>>>> > of
>>>> > Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. By government estimates, these areas
>>>> > may
>>>> > contain 25-30 billion barrels of oil (against about 30 billion of
>>>> > proven
>>>> > U.S. reserves today) and 80 trillion cubic feet or more of natural
>>>> > gas
>>>> > (compared with about 200 tcf of proven reserves).
>>>>
>>>> > What keeps these areas closed are exaggerated environmental fears,
>>>> > strong
>>>> > prejudice against oil companies, and sheer stupidity. Americans
favor
>>>> > both
>>>> > "energy independence" and cheap fuel. They deplore im****ts -- who
>>>> > wants to
>>>> > pay foreigners? -- but oppose more production in the United States.
>>>> > Got
>>>> > it? The result is a "no-pain energy agenda that sounds appealing
but
>>>> > has
>>>> > no basis in reality," writes Robert Bryce in "Gusher of Lies: The
>>>> > Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence.'"
>>>>
>>>> > Unsurprisingly, all three major presidential candidates tout
"energy
>>>> > independence." This reflects either ignorance (unlikely) or
pandering
>>>> > (probable). The United States now im****ts about 60 percent of its
>>>> > oil, up
>>>> > from 42 percent in 1990. We'll im****t lots more for the foreseeable
>>>> > future. The world uses 86 million barrels of oil a day, up from 67
>>>> > mbd in
>>>> > 1990. (...)
>>>>
>>>> > The best we can do is to try to influence the global balance of
>>>> > supply and
>>>> > demand. Increase our supply. Restrain our demand. (...)
>>>>
>>>> > Increasing production also is im****tant. Output from older fields,
>>>> > including Alaska's North Slope, is declining. Although production
>>>> > from
>>>> > restricted areas won't make the U.S. self-sufficient, it might
>>>> > stabilize
>>>> > output or even reduce im****ts. No one knows exactly what's in these
>>>> > areas,
>>>> > because the exploratory work is old. Estimates indicate that
>>>> > production
>>>> > from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge might equal almost 5
percent
>>>> > of
>>>> > present U.S. oil use.
>>>>
>>>> > Members of Congress complain loudly about high oil profits ($40.6
>>>> > billion
>>>> > for ExxonMobil last year) but frustrate those companies from using
>>>> > those
>>>> > profits to explore and produce in the United States. Getting access
>>>> > to oil
>>>> > elsewhere is increasingly difficult. Governments own three-quarters
>>>> > or
>>>> > more of proven reserves. Higher prices perversely discourage other
>>>> > countries from approving new projects. Flush with oil revenues,
>>>> > countries
>>>> > have less need to expand production. Undersupply and high prices
then
>>>> > feed
>>>> > on each other.
>>>>
>>>> > But it's hard for the United States to complain that other
countries
>>>> > limit
>>>> > access to their reserves when we're doing the same. If higher U.S.
>>>> > production reduced world prices, other countries might expand
>>>> > production.
>>>> > What they couldn't get from prices they'd try to get from greater
>>>> > sales.
>>>>
>>>> > On environmental grounds, the alternatives to more drilling are
>>>> > usually
>>>> > worse. Subsidies to ethanol made from corn have increased food
prices
>>>> > and
>>>> > used scarce water, with few benefits. If oil is im****ted, it's
>>>> > vulnerable
>>>> > to tanker spills. By contrast, local production is probably safer.
>>>> > There
>>>> > were 4,000 platforms operating in the Gulf of Mexico when
hurricanes
>>>> > Katrina and Rita hit. Despite extensive damage, there were no major
>>>> > spills, says Robbie Diamond of Securing America's Future Energy, an
>>>> > advocacy group.
>>>>
>>>> > Perhaps oil prices will drop when some long-delayed projects begin
>>>> > production or if demand slackens. But the basic problem will
remain.
>>>> > Though dependent on foreign oil, we might conceivably curb the
power
>>>> > of
>>>> > foreign producers. But this is not a task of a month or a year. It
is
>>>> > a
>>>> > task of decades; new production projects take that long. If we
don't
>>>> > start
>>>> > now, our future dependence and its dangers will grow. Count on it.
>>>>
>>>> Conservation, alternative energy sources
>>>> to reduce America's dependence on im****ted
>>>> oil will have a greater affect on energy supply
>>>> than more drilling.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, the op****tunity was lost 27
>>>> years ago when Reagan became president
>>>> and reversed Carter's energy policies to the
>>>> current "Let the good times roll"
>>>>
>>>> Now we pay for Republican short sightedness.
>>>
>>> We are not going to conserve our way out of this. That said, why not
>>> just open ANWR, coastal regions, tar sands, nuclear development,
>>> expand coal mining and processing, do away with dumb regulations like
>>> having to cook up any number of fuel formulas for any given time of
>>> year. All this is within our capabilities. All of it is available.
>>> We could have started years ago and been in a much better position
>>> today. Instead, we let the sky is falling enviro-wacko crowd (Al Gore
>>> for instance) dictate energy policy that leads to goofy initiative
>>> like curly lightbulbs and ethanol. It is truly amazing how common
>>> sense has taken a back seat to the needs of this nation. Look where
>>> environmentalist eco-nuttism has got us: $3.65 for gas where I am, a
>>> complete reliance on foreign oil, ever growing prices for food - all
>>> directly as a result of that policy. Thanks libs. Thanks a pant
load.
>>
>>
>> We need to conserve,
>> we need to use and develop
>> alternate energy sources.
>>
>> We went to the moon and
>> back. With real leader****p,
>> instead of oil company executives
>> running our government,
>> we CAN DO do it.
>
> You know, I'm writing this from Bangalore, where industrialists are
still
> respected for their ability to lift standards of living. I'm trying to
> figure out how Americans became so jaded that they forgot that little
> fact.
>
> The guys running the oil companies did one thing -- they bought low and
> they're selling high. The reason they bought low is because they have
> foresight that most people don't have.
>
> If you think they're the bad guys, America is doomed. What's your
> solution? Break up Exxon, Conoco, and Chevron, and let Lukoil,
Petrobras,
> and CNOOC call the shots worldwide? You'd prefer a Russian, Brazilian,
and
> Chinese CEO be Top Dogs in the energy business rather than three
> Americans?
>
> Geez. Come on.
>
> JG
>
>>
>>
>
>
They are neither bad nor good.
At present they have control of our government and energy policy.
We'll fix that in November
|
