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: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (289778)	8/23/2002 5:10:00 PM
From: J.B.C.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I think I'll say we agree to disagree: It doesn't matter where the oil goes when it's produced. The owner ( Alaska) get's paid. There is no one doing w/o fuel oils because Alaskan oil goes to Japan. Supply is meeting demand. If your saying that adding US produced oil into the supply doesn't add to our security. Then it also says that we can shut down all of our US oil production and will have no impact to our security. I believe that is wrong. There was no oil crises when the pipeline opened in 77/78 timeframe, in fact oil prices declined right through to the 90's until just recently. I DON't begrudge a business wanting to get the highest price for their product. If in turn they were forced to only sell that fuel to West Coast US. Their price goes down and their then forced to shut down Prodoe Bay becuase they can't get the going rate for oil. Then everyone suffers. A tanker going from Alkaska to Japan just means there is a tanker available to go from Saudi Arabia to New Jersey. But I can garentee you that California was not buying there oil for substantially less, it's just that the additional supply to CA didn't do anything for them. CA says to Exxon, yeah I'll be that 2nd tanker ( I don't need it) so I'll pay 20 % less for it, EXXON says: Well I can sell it to Japan for full price so I'm not selling at a discount. In the end everyone pays the essentially the same price for fuel, it's an inelastic market. Congress may have been pissed but there was no reason to be, and now Alaskan oil can go anywhere. >>>> 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'<< You really seem to have a problem with a global economy. There is no reason to force the oil from Alaska to go to exclusively to the US. In times of crises the US can control where that oil goes. Without drilling it you don't have that flexibiliy, it takes about 10 years to fully develop an oil field the size of ANWAR >>> 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.<< Yes it does, you can control where it goes when you need to, you can dictate how much per day gets pumped. I've noticed that we've not been invited to OPEC meetings to tell them how much per day we want pumped. In addition, oil pumped and exported INCREASES our balance of payment which also adds to our security (economically). Jim