If we drill for oil in Alaska or offshore or wherever, that oil is not automatically ours. It is the property of the oil companies that have spent the money to drill for it, and those oil companies will sell that oil to the highest bidder, probably China. The same goes for the timber harvested in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. Forests are cut down and logs loaded onto ships so Asia can make plywood for buildings, plus much of the lumber is being held at the bottom of cold lakes in reserve for the highest bidders.

Can we require the oil and lumber companies to sell to the U.S.

Well it would bring in revenue, regardless of who buys it. And a lot of the trees in the west are standing dry timber, either trees that have been burned over or died from insect attacks or some other cause. No sense in just letting them rot, if they are already deadwood. Other than guns and bombs and weapons of mass destruction and mostly pornographic movies, our country doesn't produce a whole lot else to sell overseas to get money. That's why we have a trade deficit.

But the idea I got from listening to various politicians speak is that drilling for Alaskan and offshore oil will make that oil ours in the U.S. and will lower our gas prices with the increased supply.

Here in Alaska, many of the trees that are harvested are dead/dying spruce trees (many of which have been destroyed by the spruce beetles and infestation).

I believe if you cut it down it should be replaced, but you can not grow trees fast enough to replace the old ones.

Since we already drill for oil in Alaska and the majority of it is exported, I don't believe it will change if/when we begin to drill for more oil.

Economically it makes sense to citizens to keep oil in our country... but financially export has shown to be more lucrative.

http://www.gov.state.ak.us/trade/Major_Export_Products.pdf

It has to do with currency exchange rates. If we produce little, our dollar is worth little overseas when we want to buy from other countries. Supply and demand says that if we increase supply prices go down, just like if everybody has tomatoes and squash you can't give them away, but in the dead of winter they will pay a lot. So if we produce more of our own oil, the outsiders have less of a corner on the market

A lot of the big timbewr companies plant trees for their own use, just like farmers plant corn. A lot of the southern pulpwood is all commercially grown trees, not "wild" timber. And in the Northeast they say that the old growth forest that was here when the colonists washed ashore has regrown, even though it was clearcut back in the 1920's and 30's

I understand that...

It takes a good 10 years for a birch tree up here to reach 2" in diameter...

The demand is too high to keep up with the need/speed of replacing cut down trees in some areas.

If 60 years ago they had started replacing cut down trees then they would have good stock to cut from now and continue the cycle.

Problem is in most areas, trees are taken... and never replaced. Or where I live... cut down and then the property is developed in to neighborhoods... but that's just privately owned land.

And if I'm not mistaken only 1% of land in Alaska is privately owned.

I have commented on this issue elsewhere so I will c/p my response.

We could stipulate that it is for domestic use ;but it would still be subject to world market prices. But it really would not matter . Let's say it all gets sold to foreign sources. It still has a positive impact on the economy because it is an export that would help in the balance of trade.

If we added domestic oil to the market then it would have an instant impact on the trade deficit as petro-dollars would come into the country instead of leaving the country .This would have the effect of strengthening the dollar... Which in itself would help on the prices of all goods and services in the US.

Drilling and increased refining would add jobs... high paying jobs... "jobs Americans will do " . So I do not understand the Democrat resistance . To me it is a no brainer . It will buy us time to transition to a time when their panacea of a petro-carbon fossil fuel free energy source is viable (if ever ).

Seemingly every country that has any supply at all is exploiting it. We buy oil from sand imported from Canada. Canada and Mexico are 2 of our 3 largest suppliers. Why shouldn't we exploit our own resources ?

Drilling domestic oil would only make us energy independent if it is part of a comprehensive approach that includes oil, natual gas ,coal ,nuclear.. as well as investing in future technologies. ( although I would reconsider this idiocy of turning food into fuel) We cannot achieve energy independence by drilling alone. But drilling and refining in tandem with conservation;increased efficiency in autotechnology ,nuclear power ;clean coal ;natural gas ;certain sensible biofuels (converting corn into fuel not being one of them) and development of the renewable future energies is the path we should take.

Even the threat of drllling has had to a small degree ,an impact on the prices because commodities investors are betting on future supplies. To me it is a no-brainer to increase domestic production , in concert with increasing refining capacity .

As far as timber goes I have not studied the issue as much . However ;it is my understanding that logging has a place in forest management .

Well wood can be made into wood alcohol just like grain is made into grain alcohol. Or waste wood or cardboard or garbage for that matter, we are not drinking it ourselves, just burning it in our cars, so who cares. I'm a little worried over wind power. I mean wind is there to do something, and if it's being used to run wind turbines it can't do o0ther things. Like when I defrost my freezer, I put a fan in front of it to make the ice melt faster. If wind melts ice, does that mean wind power could affect global warming? Also I want to see wind turbines in the median strips of major highways! Ever stand out there changing a tire and a tractor-trailer blows past you? We could use the draft from our cars to generate electricity!

If we drill for oil in Alaska or offshore or wherever, that oil is not automatically ours. It is the property of the oil companies that have spent the money to drill for it, and those oil companies will sell that oil to the highest bidder, probably China. The same goes for the timber harvested in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. Forests are cut down and logs loaded onto ships so Asia can make plywood for buildings, plus much of the lumber is being held at the bottom of cold lakes in reserve for the highest bidders.

Can we require the oil and lumber companies to sell to the U.S.?
First of all, using Alaska as an example, the PEOPLE of Alaska get a regular check from the Alaskan state government as payment for oil drilled out by the oil companies. The oil really does belong to the people, and the oil companies pay for that oil to a government-run fund, and qualified Alaskan residents receive that money on a regular basis. That is how the Alaska Permanent Fund works.

So while the oil may not stay here, the MONEY for that oil DOES stay here, and it goes DIRECTLY to the people.

Furthermore, there is no way to decrease oil prices in the USA without decreasing oil prices in the world market. The oil market is a worldwide phenomenon, not a national one. The point of digging for oil is to decrease the price of oil worldwide, which means selling it on the world market.

Finally, the key to energy independence is to have the SOURCE of the oil here, and have the REFINERY capacity here. That way if other countries decide to cut us off, we can still support ourselves.

We already have about 28% of the entire world's refinery capacity in the USA. We control the refinery market because we have the refinery capacity. Even Russia, which has the second-largest refinery capacity in the world has less than half our capacity. We have more refinery capacity in the USA than most entire CONTINENTS. The refinery market is OURS to control. (Though we still need to expand refinery capacity in order to become COMPLETELY independent.)

What we lack at this moment is DRILLING capacity... the ability to dig for unprocessed, unrefined oil. We have the resources. They exist in Alaska, the Gulf region, and off the coasts of various states. They also exist as oil shale in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. In fact, the department of energy has estimated that we have more oil resources in the USA than the entire OPEC and Venezuela combined. More than enough to run our economy for the next 100 years, during which time we can create all the alternative fuel sources we want.

Having oil to dig isn't the issue. Refining the oil once it is dug up isn't the issue. The only thing preventing us from having that oil is the government's refusal to let us dig for it.

Selling that oil on the world market isn't a problem... it would just help the rest of the world be able to afford energy. And incidentally, it would decrease the value of Saudi Arabia's and Russia's most valuable asset, which is also not a terrible thing from a purely strategic point of view. And if we ever ended up at war with a major oil-providing nation, we would still be able to support ourselves from our own resources.

That is the meaning of energy independence... self reliance, not hoarding of fuel for ourselves.

Now... I'm not an expert on lumber. But it seems to me that any harvester that doesn't plant top replace trees for the future is looking to be out of business in a relatively short time. THat's just economics.

Elliot

Hello:

Before "free trade", our lumber was milled into finished products. But, since then, the American worker is competing with the Chinese worker for the jobs. Let's see... Chinese workers are willing to work for about a buck or two a day. So, we're not going to win that race. All the mills - the ones that supported small towns in Washington and Oregon, are all closed down.

Same thing happened with MOST of our jobs. The good news is, Walmart is hiring.

Yes, we need to drill, but that ain't going to do it. Republicans hate the word "conserve", but without it, we ain't going to make it. They also don't like the words "wind, solar and green", but that's part of it too. Obama likes nuclear energy. Me too.

excon

I think our plan is, wait until the others run out and we have all that's left. Then we can charge whatever we want to them!

Same thing happened with MOST of our jobs.

Last I heard, unemployment was about 6%. Which "most" are you talking about?

Last I heard, unemployment was about 6%. Which "most" are you talking about?Hello again, El:

Those who DID have good jobs, but now work at Walmart.

excon

Unemployment 6%...

Do they count those of us that have been forced to stay at home because we can't afford to work?. (By that I mean my daycare costs $2300 per month)

Just wondering out loud...

Which good jobs do you refer to?

Last I heard, former lumberjacks now working for Walmart don't seem to be all that troubled at having to work fewer hours, at a less hazardous job for roughly the same pay. But maybe we have different definitions of "good jobs". You were referring to lumberjacks, weren't you? Those are the lost jobs you were referring to above, were they not?



Elliot

Hello again, El:

No, I'm talking about mill workers. Lumberjacks are still cutting trees. We're just sending whole trees over to China instead of sending plywood.

Are you insinuating that you don't see a rust belt developing across the middle of this great country where once stood mighty factories??

Really?? Are all you righty's this blind?? Ok, dumb question.

excon

Yes, we need to drill, but that ain't going to do it. Republicans hate the word "conserve", but without it, we ain't going to make it. They also don't like the words "wind, solar and green", but that's part of it too. Obama likes nuclear energy. Me too.


Perhaps you missed this part of my response :


Drilling domestic oil would only make us energy independent if it is part of a comprehensive approach that includes oil, natual gas ,coal ,nuclear.. as well as investing in future technologies. ( although I would reconsider this idiocy of turning food into fuel) We cannot achieve energy independence by drilling alone. But drilling and refining in tandem with conservation;increased efficiency in autotechnology ,nuclear power ;clean coal ;natural gas ;certain sensible biofuels (converting corn into fuel not being one of them) and development of the renewable future energies is the path we should take.


Obama's nuclear program is a canard. He put the caveat in his acceptance speech. The program would advance if he thought that waste disposal was safe. He will never be convinced it is.

I like nuclear but I don't really think it will go too far here. Too much NIMBY ;too much propaganda about safety ;and it costs a lot of money to construct a nuke plant. No utility will build one themselves without government assistance.

Which good jobs do you refer to?

Last I heard, former lumberjacks now working for Walmart don't seem to be all that troubled at having to work fewer hours, at a less hazardous job for roughly the same pay. But maybe we have different definitions of "good jobs". You were referring to lumberjacks, weren't you? Those are the lost jobs you were referring to above, were they not?



Elliot
We are old enough to remember GOOD jobs, roughly the Reagan administration. Overtime, fully paid benefits and health plan, pension when you retire. For their 25th wedding anniversary, my parents bought a brand new house on one income. My wife and I are lucky if we can afford dinner and a movie (coming up on our 50th:eek: )