Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (7494)	10/25/2001 10:40:09 AM
From: Condor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

US Oil Independance Achievable Dateline: Oct. 25, 2001 By: AKAC As posted on this thread before, Canada has 300,000,000,000 bbls. (300 billion) of oil in its tar sands that are located in the northern central provinces of the country. It has been presented that from a realistic and practical standpoint that 60 billion are certainly recoverable. Unfortunately it is expensive to recover. If I remember, I believe that $45/bbl. was the cost. This resource is not pie in the sky. The tar sands have been producing for many years and it is/was a huge operation. 60 billion bbls. would provide perhaps 15? yrs. of North American consumption. Of course, supplement that with other sources of oil in North America and friendly parts of the world other than Saudi and you have (to a large degree) freedom from mid-east oil. The issue, of course, becomes " Does the US et al have the balls to eat higher energy costs in the interest of National Security, or does the $ rule absolute even in regards to national security? It would seem to me that, at least, an orchestrated program of standby oil production/supply should be created and YES this would mean a lot of money committed to the plan. An approach of this nature would, presumably, preclude being held hostage by the ME. Production from the standby facilities may take one year to bring on line in emergency conditions. If so, then the immediate goal might be to have one years immediate supply stockpiled. Thats a lot of oil. It would fill a few mined out open pits in North America. Obviously, my plan has many pitfalls but y'all get the drift....a plan is needed. I would also propose that something of this nature would perhaps stabilize world oil costs as the threat of immediate oversupply as controlled by the US would allow the US to set the global price. Imagine...US controlling world oil. Now thats an incentive. AKAC Member 7235712 www.authorknownascondorakac.com

To: Ilaine who wrote (7494)	10/25/2001 11:46:06 AM
From: LLLefty	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>>>Can the world survive without Saudi oil?<<<<< I can't help but wonder about our priorities and common sense in the dangerous era we have entered since 9/11. The Admnistration says we should go about our business in a "normal" manner. Yet, we about to embark on huge spending for beefed-up civil defense, the military, subsidize the airlines, reduce taxes for those who least need it, try to save our vital Postal Service from disruption. The line of lobbyists with hat out winds around the Capitol. On top of that, many states find themselves in sudden deep financial trouble. Even on this board, composed of probably the best informed 5-10 per cent of our population, I don't think anyone has come close to suggesting that we raise gas taxes and, as a minimum, levy taxes on those who can't live without a gas-guzzling SUV. (Many European nations thrive despite gas at $5 a gallon). Flying a flag on a house may be a nice gesture but patriotism must mean more than that. The cost is going to be high and, if anythng, we need leadershp that is prepared to tell the American public that times have changed. We had in the yesteryear leaders who thought "spin" was a child's top, a pollster was a drunk wrapped around a telephone poll and that Washington wasn't second only to the USSR as evil. We need a political Lion around today to take Cheney's energy proposals, shake them up and come out with a real energy bill, and as a starter, combine serious inducements for conservation with penalities for wasteful use. And a dime a gallon tax increase in gas at the pump. Is there a single Senator or Congressman who has yet raised a voice for an increase? Don't think so. Maybe it first has to come from the White House. How about a penny ante to get the pot going?