On May 1, 9:06 am, forbisga...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Apr 30, 7:22 am, 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
year=
s ago.
> > > > If we persist, we will be even worse off in a decade or two. The
fir=
st
> > > > 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
pr=
oven
> > > > U.S. reserves today) and 80 trillion cubic feet or more of natural
g=
as
> > > > (compared with about 200 tcf of proven reserves).
>
> > > > What keeps these areas closed are exaggerated environmental fears,
s=
trong
> > > > prejudice against oil companies, and sheer stupidity. Americans
favo=
r both
> > > > "energy independence" and cheap fuel. They deplore im****ts -- who
wa=
nts 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
panderin=
g
> > > > (probable). The United States now im****ts about 60 percent of its
oi=
l, 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
m=
bd in
> > > > 1990. (...)
>
> > > > The best we can do is to try to influence the global balance of
supp=
ly 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
fr=
om
> > > > restricted areas won't make the U.S. self-sufficient, it might
stabi=
lize
> > > > output or even reduce im****ts. No one knows exactly what's in
these =
areas,
> > > > because the exploratory work is old. Estimates indicate that
product=
ion
> > > > from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge might equal almost 5
percen=
t of
> > > > present U.S. oil use.
>
> > > > Members of Congress complain loudly about high oil profits ($40.6
bi=
llion
> > > > for ExxonMobil last year) but frustrate those companies from using
t=
hose
> > > > 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,
coun=
tries
> > > > have less need to expand production. Undersupply and high prices
the=
n 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
produc=
tion.
> > > > What they couldn't get from prices they'd try to get from greater
sa=
les.
>
> > > > On environmental grounds, the alternatives to more drilling are
usua=
lly
> > > > worse. Subsidies to ethanol made from corn have increased food
price=
s and
> > > > used scarce water, with few benefits. If oil is im****ted, it's
vulne=
rable
> > > > to tanker spills. By contrast, local production is probably safer.
T=
here
> > > > 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
i=
s 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.
>
> Do you sup****t the notions that cor****ations have rights?
>
> Governments are cor****ations 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.
Incorrect. One of the fundamental aspects of Libertarianism is the
ability to make contracts with another so long as it is reached
voluntarily, freely, and without force and fraud. If the govt is the
owner of ANWR, and they reach an acceptable agreement with oil
companies regarding exploration there is no interference in another=92s
life through force or fraud.
> 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.
Common sense would be having the ability to make a point without
talking in riddles. Just what is it that you are trying to say? I
know you are trying to come off all intellectual like, but really,
speak clear concise English so we can have a coherent discussion here.
> 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.
>
And when stores are running out you look for similar stores,
particularly if they are available, and/or you look for other stores
to sustain yourself once the original stores have run out.
> 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.
|
