On Thu, 01 May 2008 06:31:38 -0700, Geo wrote:
> 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
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.
>>
>> 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's
> life through force or fraud.
(snicker) You seem to assume that the body politic is in agreement with
such a "deal". The PEOPLE own (and the word owner****p is just as close
as we can get to your world) the ANWR. At present we have "The Best
Government Money Can Buy", and the people are not actually represented by
those who are entering into the contracts. Therefore it is a 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.
Let us say that if the US government actually represented the VAST
majority of the people then the US government could act for the people and
enter into a binding contract with the oil companies. But as things
currently exist, that is not the case.
>> 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.
Sure.... We need to look for SUSTAINABLE stuff as opposed to pockets of
"STORES"; As opposed to running from one "store" to the next.
>> 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.
The oil in the ANWR the North Slope and all offshore oil belongs to all
voting members of the United States sovereignty EQUALLY. I would extend
this to the oil under the Texas rancher's ranch. The oil can be recovered
without damage to the rancher and if some damage occurs then the rancher
is certainly entitled to compensation. That is why GEO Libertarians are
actually acceptable persons. That are truly about Liberty and Justice as
opposed to corpotopia and authoritarianism.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
|
