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: J.B.C. who wrote (289761)	8/23/2002 3:20:41 PM
From: J.B.C.	Respond to of 769670

IRAQ's Air Force equipment listed near the bottom: lcweb2.loc.gov Jim

To: J.B.C. who wrote (289761)	8/23/2002 3:25:59 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Re : "There is nothing wrong with having the ability to export oil." >>> Right. Nothing wrong. It's just that selling oil overseas doesn't increase our 'US energy security' (except marginally, by increasing the total supply of oil world-wide), which is one of the main claims put forward as justification for drilling in ANWAR. >>> However, if ANWAR oil is delivered to the lower 48 by pipeline, then it's delivery can't be disrupted by war in the middle east. That's what people mean when they say 'energy security': non-disruptable supplies. Re: "Thanks for the write up it was detailed. But, what I don't understand is are you saying we export oil to Japan at a higher price then import to California at a cheaper price?" >>> Yes. This was clearly established in the late seventies (I believe it was 1978...) Congressional hearing when the Legislators got all pissed off to find out that national crises didn't mean squat to the big multi-national oil firms... they sold oil for where ever ihn the world they could get the most for it. Mostly, Alaskan oil went to Japan (despite the promises made by the oil companies in the early seventies when the pipeline routes were under debate. >>> Congress was so pissed off that they banned the sale of Alaskan oil overseas for a few years to spite the oil companies (who had admitted in their testimony that they had lied). >>> This turn of events really shouldn't have been a surprise to Congress (I doubt it was) because in the early seventies pipeline route debates over the two right-of-way finalists (Canada to the US midwest, or cross Alaska to the ocean port at Valdez) many economists and industry analysts pointed out that the supposed recepient of Alaskan oil (the US west coast) wasn't short of oil supplies (only the midwest was, and still is), and lacked proper refinery capacity to properly handle all that Alaskan oil anyway. >>> The Valdez route was a scam the oil companies pulled on the American public to fatten their bottom lines - all the while loudly proclaiming that their actions promoted 'energy security' (while secretly scotching the one pipeline route that really would promote energy security). >>> I'm afraid they are doing it again. Canada is STILL offering free-right-of-way to get ANWAR oil to the US midwest (where there is ample refinery capacity, and numerous other pipeline terminate... which would allow the oil and refined products to be efficiently distributed to where it is needed in the US). Re: "Supply / demand economics tells me not to limit my demand capability, otherwise it doesn't make sense. Yes I want ANWAR sources to be available world wide..." >>> I repeat: ANWAR oil is owned by the American public because it is on public lands. >>> I want it to promote AMERICAN ENERGY SECURITY AND INDEPENDENCE... not merely fatten the profits of some big multi-nationals who couldn't care less about America being self-sufficient in energy production. >>> Think like a patriot here, and don't fall for the same lies they told in the '70s, and are now recycling for the 'second pipeline'. Re: >>but it DOESN'T DO ANYTHING FOR ENERGY SECURITY.<< "Yes it does, drilling it and putting it into the supply chain helps us. It's not drilling it at all where we as US citizens are not served." >>> No. By that definition, it doesn't do anything more for American Energy Independence than oil drilled ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD... Norway, Australia, Iraq, China... you name it, because oil drilled anywhere raises total world production. >>> But oil delivered by pipeline to the midwest (because, after that, it wouldn't be economic to run it to some port, put on a tanker, then export) is 100% consumed in AMERICA, so it 100% contributes to American energy independence.