SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: MKTBUZZ who started this subject9/17/2001 5:18:49 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (2) of 769667
 
US Energy Sufficiency

In light of expected turmoil in the middle east and Persian gulf regions, it may be time to revisit our energy policies from a national security point-of-view. I'm ignoring all other energy sectors for now in this post, and just focusing on oil. Perhaps it is time for a balanced national consensus.

Check out this link about the Athabasca oil sand reserves.

dailyreckoning.com

Now, if Congress will only condition approval of drilling in the ANWR, with:

1) a raising of CAFE standards and
2) the building of a pipeline through Canada and the Alberta region (as Canada has offered - yet again) to the energy short markets of the American midwest (Chicago, where numerous other pipeline distribution routes terminate)

then the US can be made very much less reliant upon Middle Eastern supplies.

These are very big "ifs". When development of North Slope oil was first debated in the early seventies, Canada offered the US free right-of-ways to build a pipeline through Canada to get the North Slope Oil to the mid-western markets which were in greatest need of it.

The oil companies nixed the deal - persuading Congress to run a shorter pipeline to an Alaskan port. The real reason they did this (and lied directly to the American public about it) was because once they could put the oil on tankers (remember the Exxon Valdez?) it could be sold at other ports (read: Japan) which brought a higher price for the cargo.

Very much better for the oil companies' profit margins, but not in the national interests of US energy sufficiency... and also not so good for the environment.

They are at it again. Watch the national debate... if the Canadian pipeline option is not supported, then the US might be better off just leaving the oil in the ground for now. "In the bank", as it were. 20, 30, 50 years from now when oil is priced at $100, $150+ a barrel, the oil will still be there, available for our use.

The ANWR is estimated to potentially have a reserve equal to 6 months of US imports... raising CAFE standards 2 or 3 miles per gallon (and extending them to light trucks... which are currently exempt from the standards) would gain us far more than exploiting the ANWR alone, and the benefits would be long lasting. Logically, we should do them both in conjunction. And the pipeline should go to the midwest, or not at all.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext