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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (244462)	4/2/2002 1:54:04 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

Interesting point... the 'devil is always in the details'. One point I've made previously, is that which pipeline route is chosen also makes a difference. Canada offered the US free right-of-way for a pipeline from ANWAR, across Canada, and down to the upper mid-west pipeline distribution nexus in the US. Note: even Dick Cheney's energy proposal acknowledges that the American mid-west (rust belt) is the only US region where chronicly insufficient supply can impact oil prices - causing them to rise. Logically, if we are to bring in oil from the North Slope, it should go to the region that needs it the most. Both US coasts are adequately supplied by tanker imports. During the first Great Debate over a North Slope pipeline - held in the '70's - Canada also offered a free right-of-way to the midwest (where most of the experts thought it should go). But the Oil companies wanted the first pipeline to run to Valdez Alaska. Once there they load it on tankers (a process inherently subject to spills). Once on tankers they can steam to any port in the world where they can get the best price. During the 1980's most of the oil pumped from the North Slope was actually sold and consumed in Japan. This fattened the bottom line for the Oil Companies but did nothing to achieve the stated goal of 'energy independence' in he US. American oil sold and consumed overseas doesn't reduce our oil imports any. The Big Oil companies and their mouthpieces in Congress are at it again... the same deceptive games 2 1/2 decades later. They want the ANWAR pipeline to go through Alaska (to port again, naturally...) so they can sell the production overseas. They - and the Bush White House - have shut down all discussion of the Canadian pipeline route... which would guarantee that ALL of the oil was consumed in the US... and thus is the only pipeline proposal that has any claim on 'promoting energy security'. (Probabily - as you pointed out - the oil companies couldn't get as good a price at the mid-western refineries as they think they can overseas. Big surprise!)