 |
Hello:
Oil is a strategic commodity. Our armed forces cannot do war without it. Before we let private industry sell it all, we WILL seize the oil companies.
Given that we WILL do that, the question becomes when. I think right about now would be good. You?
excon
I think we need to wait for the Cesar Chavez/Fidel Castro Unity Party to come into power first - then we can natoinalize eveything all at once!
Seriously - the US is not going to be nationalizing anything that has as much political and economic clout as the oil companies. Before that comes rationing (as in WW II) and price controls (as in 1973 - and boy was that disaster!).
I think it would be a better idea is to get the congress to actually let us use the oil America has instead of stopping us from using it every chance they get. America has about 2 trillion barrels of oil in reserve that currently isn't being used.(Oil Shale Reserves - A Daily Reckoning White Paper Report) Environmentalist don't want cheap oil though because then people won't use less.
Surprising Ex, I thought you were a libertarian?
If the government "seizes" control of the oil companies, what other industry do you think they will want to "seize" next? How about gold or corn or coal...
Similar to my question earlier today, which no one has responded to.
How much does the price per barrel or gallon have to be, before we stop worrying about the spotted field mouse, and start using OUR OWN OIL?
Can you just see these other nations, laughing at us, and saying something along these lines:
Can you believe those stupid Americans! We've gotten the price up to $135 a barrel, and they STILL HAVE DONE NOTHING TO START USING THEIR OWN OIL!!
So, what's it going to take, $8 a gallon, $15... $20?
How is the government going to seize a global company anyway? They all ready control about 80% of the oil reserves in the US anyway. Unless of course you saying we should start invading OPEC countries for oil? :)
I share the sentiments of those who are begging (including those evil oil companies ) for us to open up our reserve areas for exploration . They wanted to do that when the price was low over 10 years ago and they were rejected . Now that the price is high they argue that it would take too long;at least a decade, to get the areas on line. Duhhhh , was it short term thinking 10 years ago to decline it ? And where will the price be in another decade if we don't ?
At very least if we have to pay high prices it should at least be going to domestic sources instead of the Russians;the Sheiks and the thug Hugo Chavez. It is absolutely ridiculous that off shore the Chinese are drilling away on behalf of the Cubans. It is absolutely ridiculous that we cannot explore in an area of Arctic Alaska the size of many big city airports when on the other side of the Arctic Ocean ,in the Barents Sea you could walk across the Russian rigs.
Lukoil’s shipping strategy for the Barents Sea
Not only that ;But Russia is frantically claimimg the Arctic territory ;planting the Russian flag under the North Pole , and fitting a nuclear ice breaker for drilling purposes.
Brazil has just found an off shore major deposit and will no doubt rush to exploit it.
Michaelb is correct that there is a massive reserve in South Dakota just waiting for us to tap into. Meanwhile we've turned the Alberta Canada town of Fort McMurray into a boon town.
Nah ;we don't need to nationalize . We need to unleash the great forces of capitalism again.
Hello again,
This has nothing to do with capitalism... I like capital. It has nothing to do with exploration or the idea that we shouldn't explore... We should. It has nothing to do with profits... I like profits. It has nothing to do with the ecology... I'm a green guy.
It has to do with the fact that oil is finite, and going to run out. It's pretty important to us. Did I say it WILL run out? Oil, is NOT like any other product in the marketplace. At some point, it will be in our national interest to guard the remaining supply where ever it is, as long as it OUR supply. THAT is going to happen as well it should.
Consider that I'm using words like "pretty important to us", in the context of today. Even though gas will cost $4 a gallon this summer, we're still going to drive. With all the cars on the road, you can't imagine a future without gasoline.
I can. I can imagine, within 5 years, oil at $1,000 a barrel and gasoline, where you can find it, at $25 a gallon. THEN, you'll be singing a different tune. All I'm saying, is lets not keep our heads in the sand. Lets do it now when it can do some good.
excon
The pricing will just keep escalating unless we decide to drill our own resources. Although we might get a little relief from OPEC just on merit bases alone, if our country doesn't vote another Republican back into the White House. That's the short term solution. But for the long term, at the same time, we have to keep up the challenge of discovering or processing for all alternative fuels. In fact, we have enough coal and H2O if the strict environmentalist could just compromise (I'd permit them supervision levels), then everybody would be more content. We have some of the brightest minds any University has ever produced, ready to serve, and there are very few circumstances when habitats can't be preserved while at the same time helping relieve the rising oil costs.
Good point about the coal Bobby . Liquification of coal is 1940s technology . WE have an abundant supply.
excon ;yes I see a future beyond our use of oil but we have to bridge that gap. Also as you recall I offered the theory a few posts back that oil is in fact a renewable resource.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...st-211991.html
Our energy problems will not be solved without keeping an open mind about all alternatives. Nationalizing is not taking a leadership position . I uderstand the temptation for nationalization but that would take us in exactly the wrong direction.
Look ; most of the price can be explained by speculators driving up the cost and the dollar value. Even if we just announced that we were going to aggressively exploit our own resources and add them to the world supply it would have an immediate impact on investor behavior. If President Bush would do more than just pay lip service to a strong monetary policy it would also have an impact. If Congress would restrain their spending just a little it would have an impact. Right now the difference between a balanced budget and deficit is the big agri-business welfare policy.
There are plenty ways to guarantee the energy supply at a reasonable cost without taking draconian measures we know do not work.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri..._08/gastax.jpg
World Tribune — The oil price crisis: Not so difficult to understandQuote:
The committee's Democrats attempted no response. They know that they are largely responsible for the current high price of gasoline, and they want the price to rise even further. Consequently, they have no intention of permitting the development of domestic oil and gas reserves that would both increase this country's energy independence and give consumers a break from constantly increasing energy costs.
Congress is standing in the way of our using all of our available resources. If your Rep & Senators don't support a real effort toward energy independence, vote the sucker OUT! Stop voting for your pork supplier!
Apparently there are a growing number of bitter, gun totin' survivalists out there preparing for the energy doomsday.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Quote:
Convinced the planet's oil supply is dwindling and the world's economies are heading for a crash, some people around the country are moving onto homesteads, learning to live off their land, conserving fuel and, in some cases, stocking up on guns they expect to use to defend themselves and their supplies from desperate crowds of people who didn't prepare.
The Dems have become the Church of Green.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Washington Wire - WSJ.com : Taking on OPEC, House Passes 'NOPEC' Bill
"House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers of Michigan, who introduced the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels (NOPEC) Act, argued that cartels like OPEC are partly to blame for today’s high gasoline prices. The bill sailed through 345-to-72a day after the Energy Department said the average pump price of regular gasoline was a record $3.218 a gallon. The bill would change certain laws, like the Sherman Act and Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, to BLOCK OPEC countries like Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela
from invoking IMMUNITY FROM US COURT ACTION relating to concerns about oil production"
This is congress' solution... WE WILL SUE YOU. I'm sure OPEC is laughing at us now. :D
This is from a congress and several administrations that have done nil toward energy independence since the 70s. If anything, Government is part of the problem, blocking drilling offshore, and in ANWR, nuclear energy, etc... :mad:
When the government no longer servers the will of the people it is the duty of the people to...
If only the majority of Americans actually knew how and had the will to complete that quote.
How do you measure the "will of the people" ?
Try this one :Every 4 years we have Presidential elections ;every 2 years every member of Congress is put to the test . Every 6 years a Senator's term expires. Change of government comes via the election cycle.Quote:
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes"
It is up to the people of course to decide if their will is being carried out or not. The problem with voting in this country is we are given the choice of either being kicked the head by a donkey or being sat on by an elephant. Neither of them is pleasant and I don't think picking either one is looking out for my best interest. Like in the case of oil. Democrats want high gas prices because it helps the environment. Republicans want high gas prices because it helps the oil companies that contribute to their party. So where does that leave the will of the people who want low gas prices, if it's not one of the choices we are given.
Michaelb,
Please show evidence of :
"Republicans want high gas prices because it helps the oil companies that contribute to their party"
Congressman John D. Dingell - Representing Michigan's 15th District
"**The .50 gas tax is in addition to what is derived from the per ton carbon tax in the previous bullet.
Phase out the mortgage interest deduction on large homes. These homes have contributed to increased sprawl and longer commutes. Despite new homes in and of themselves being more energy efficient, the sheer size, sprawl and commutes lead to dramatically more energy use – or to put it more simply, a larger carbon footprint."
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:36 AM. |