"Sid9" <sid9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:Lj1Sj.66837$vr3.21861@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> "John Galt" <whoisjohngalt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:S91Sj.73232$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
How? The world can function (differently, but function) if the US were to
shatter into 50 different countries. Life would still go on.
However, it couldn't function without Exxon.
There is precisely ZERO chance that anyone of any party (well, assuming
the
Greens don't stage an upset and win the White House) will do anything
substantively restrictive to the oil majors. Even the wildest eyed leftist
in the House knows that any substantial regulation of our own majors just
invites the Russians to control our destiny, and any sort of "windfall
tax"
drives the independent vote the Democrat needed to win the White House
into
the hands of the GOP, insuring that the Democrat is a one-term pony.
Take off the sunglasses. The world is a lot bigger than Democrat vs.
Republican.
JG
>
>
|
