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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ThirdEye who wrote (178193)9/6/2001 1:15:05 PM
From: Srexley  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Thanks for the response 3rd. I welcome anyone's input to my questions. I fired it off to flap because he is so pro union and pro demo I thought his answer would be interesting. Your answer is a good one imo and pretty close to how I see it.
Scott



To: ThirdEye who wrote (178193)9/6/2001 1:37:00 PM
From: H-Man  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
I can understand not trusting the Oil companies. I would favor some very close monitoring with explicit and exacting clean up instructions. Even to the point of establishing a trust fund (paid by the oil co) as they extract oil. Then when they are done, they clean it up, and get their trust fund money back. (This incase of bankruptcy etc.)

How much oil and what impact it has is debatable. I have heard that it only has a 200 day supply or some such. Assuming that is correct, (really is an unknown), That is if thats the only oil we used, so it is a misleading stat.

Looking at ANWAR singularly is also misleading. It is part of a larger strategy to increase the supply. A trillion barrels here a trillion there, soon you are talking about real supply. ;-)

As far as making decisions about energy consumption, I prefer to let the market work, without artificially constraining supply.

And it will work... At the point which, obtaining oil becomes more expensive than the alternatives, the alternatives will take over.