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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (398473)	7/13/2008 8:17:39 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575612

John, BTW, what do you think of the argument that we should preserve our oil because it's an increasingly precious resource, and will be worth more later than now? That as long as we can buy it, and keep our own, we should do it? That is precisely the reason why I was against drilling in ANWR when oil was in $20-$30 range, and why I changed my opinion to favor it now. 20 years from now, the price of oil can still be high, or even higher, but, IMO, oil as a percentage of our energy needs will be a fraction of what it is now, so it will be of lesser strategic value. Joe

To: Road Walker who wrote (398473)	7/13/2008 8:25:52 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1575612

I support him removing the exec order immediately. As I'm sure most Republicans do. You have no business criticiing the Democrats (especially since the Reps have been just as involved in te drilling ban). That isn't true at all. Bush at least says he wants to end the leasing ban. The Congressional Democratic leadership is militantly against it. Not only is the Congressional leadership against drilling in our own country, but they want to restrict oil imports from Canada: The author of this bill, Waxman, explicitly states it's to keep Canadian oil sands out of the U.S. The problem is that tar sands oil is co-mingle with all the oil coming out of Canada, the largest supplier of oil to the U.S. With this law in place, U.S. refiners won't accept it in case it can't be sold. That means the Dems are closing the tap on our biggest supply of oil in order to stop global warming (explicitly cited by the dems) and to remove incenstives to stay on oil. It also has the prospect of gutting NAFTA. freerepublic.com theglobeandmail.com Obama's fight against 'dirty oil' could hurt oil sands http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=610810 BTW, what do you think of the argument that we should preserve our oil because it's an increasingly precious resource, and will be worth more later than now? That as long as we can buy it, and keep our own, we should do it? The argument if valid would mean we should totally shut down our domestic energy industry and import 100% of our energy. Does that make sense? Among other things the argument ignores the effect on our balance of payments, jobs and domestic economy.