Infinite MonkeysTuesday's edition of USA Today includes a mostly sensible editorial on the need for policymakers to embrace domestic oil exploration. The editorial is worth highlighting mostly for the novelty of a liberal newspaper departing from environmentalist orthodoxy on the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve and off-shore drilling. (Though, to be fair, USA Today has long favored opening ANWR to drilling.)
But the piece makes a point that can't be repeated enough: Even the relatively small contribution that ANWR oil would add to the overall U.S. supply would reap huge dividends for national security. "Estimates are that the area could eventually produce about a million barrels of oil a day for 30 years. That's nearly 5% of the 21 million barrels a day Americans consume, and almost as much as the United States imports from Venezuela — where the money Americans spend for oil enriches a leader who bitterly opposes U.S. interests and helps fund an armed insurrection against U.S. ally Colombia."
I would take issue with one point, however. The editors, in an effort to appear fair, assert the following:
Both parties share the blame. Democrats, fearful of offending the environmental lobby, have led the effort against ANWR and offshore drilling. Republicans ganged up late last year to kill a smart but modest proposal that would have required the nation's utilities to produce as much as 15% of their electricity with renewable energy such as solar, wind and biomass by 2020.
Truth is, the Republicans share no blame. Drilling in ANWR is actually possible. Mandating that private companies produce energy in ways that certain interests would prefer -- regardless of feasibility or profit potential -- is not a serious plan.
Posted by Ben at June 10, 2008 01:39 PMPlus, has anyone in Congress ever figured out how *bluffs* work? Even if they didn't want to dril to -- er -- actually use our resources, they should at least pass a bill authorizing drilling.
Just saying so, would cause a correction in the oil market. I'd bet two cookies on it.
Posted by: Wry Mouth at June 12, 2008 02:40 PMMake it three cookies. I'd bet that oil would drop $20 in three days after Congress allowed drilling in ANWR and the outer continental shelf.
Of course, I might as well bet my first born, my car, my lucky T-shirt and my soul -- because the conditions for this bet will just not happen.
Posted by: Dr. Zaius at June 12, 2008 05:14 PMLoL ... pass a bill authorizing, now where else is that familiar from? Just another week or two and maybe +.50 cents national and those traitors (ooops capital T) Traitors will crack on some authorizations. ANWR for some reason is their Alamo though. I don't know how many cookies on $20 in three days.
It seems to more depend more on how, why, and when firms like Goldman Sachs et al decide to play it since their driving speculations are making up about half the current valuation. That is, the real value right now (supply/demand)is about $70. It seems that congress should be reinstating restrictions that were greatly reduced in late 90's that limit the percentage of investment that firms like GS can make in critical commodities. This would surely drive oil down quickly ... maybe too quickly, for as Soros was telling congressional hearing the other day, a catastrophically rapid bubble burst would likely impose damage to pension funds, etc. LOL, I couldn't tell if it was a benign warning or a a flat out threat.
This whole game is more interesting actually than the Obama/HRC drama recently ended (maybe).
I did hear some dimwit demwit exclaim in an interview something like "this whole bubble has happened faster than it was supposed to ..."
How many cookies on $5.25 national by July 4?
another question: how much egg does it take a dem to have on his/her face before he/she notices?
Posted by: john b at June 13, 2008 01:19 AM