Re: Samuelson on OIl Drilling

On Apr 30, 7:22=A0am, Geo <taxpayer...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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
b=
e
> > > 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
ma=
y
> > > contain 25-30 billion barrels of oil (against about 30 billion of
prov=
en
> > > 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,
str=
ong
> > > prejudice against oil companies, and sheer stupidity. Americans
favor =
both
> > > "energy independence" and cheap fuel. They deplore imports -- who
want=
s to
> > > pay foreigners? -- but oppose more production in the United States.
Go=
t
> > > it? The result is a "no-pain energy agenda that sounds appealing but
h=
as
> > > 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 imports about 60 percent of its
oil,=
 up
> > > from 42 percent in 1990. We'll import 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 important. 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
stabili=
ze
> > > output or even reduce imports. No one knows exactly what's in these
ar=
eas,
> > > because the exploratory work is old. Estimates indicate that
productio=
n
> > > 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
bill=
ion
> > > for ExxonMobil last year) but frustrate those companies from using
tho=
se
> > > 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,
countr=
ies
> > > 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
l=
imit
> > > access to their reserves when we're doing the same. If higher U.S.
> > > production reduced world prices, other countries might expand
producti=
on.
> > > What they couldn't get from prices they'd try to get from greater
sale=
s.
>
> > > On environmental grounds, the alternatives to more drilling are
usuall=
y
> > > worse. Subsidies to ethanol made from corn have increased food
prices =
and
> > > used scarce water, with few benefits. If oil is imported, it's
vulnera=
ble
> > > to tanker spills. By contrast, local production is probably safer.
The=
re
> > > 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
o=
f
> > > 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
s=
tart
> > > now, our future dependence and its dangers will grow. Count on it.
>
> > Conservation, alternative energy sources
> > to reduce America's dependence on imported
> > oil will have a greater affect on energy supply
> > than more drilling.
>
> > Unfortunately, the opportunity 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. =A0That 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. =A0All this is within our capabilities. =A0All of it is available.
> We could have started years ago and been in a much better position
> today. =A0Instead, 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. =A0It is truly amazing how common
> sense has taken a back seat to the needs of this nation. =A0Look 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. =A0Thanks libs. =A0Thanks a pant
load=
..

Do you support the notions that corporations have rights?

Governments are corporations though they don't always act
like individuals.

ANWR is owned by the US Government.  You talk about not intruding
into other's lives and yet here you are trying to do just that.
Your style of negotiation is to call certain parts of the individua's
body nuts and stupid.  You talk about common sense where you have
none.
For instance:

  It is aways easier to eat from one's store than to forage for
  new stocks.  It is harder to forage during the winter than during
  the summer.  Food stocks and stores can be depeleted.  One's
  time horizon affects one's notion of sustainability.

ANWR represents a food store.  Its formation took millions of years.
Do you intend to drain it at sustainable rates?  I doubt it.
I suspect you are looking at a time horizon of your life.
Governments don't last millions of years, or at least no human
government has done so so far, heck no civilization has last
that long but governments and civilizations have much longer
time horizons than humans.

While rotation on certain food stores makes sense I don't think
we have to worry about that for oil on any human time scale.
Spring isn't the right season to be depleting one's food stores
but rather the time to begin building them up.  The US goverment
is in the spring of its existence.