Why Increase Domestic Oil Production?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

This is directed to dhickey:

I find your unshaking faith in the free market frustrating. It seems like there is no circumstance in which you admit that intervention is necessary.

For a scientific analogy, bacteria in a petri dish over-exploit their food supply thus causing a population increase to unsustainable levels and then a huge population die off. However if the bacteria had had a centralized government that restricted their consumption, the population could have formed a stable point and the bacteria could have survived.

This is not directly analogous to our current situation, but my point is that disrupting the free market can possibly be what is needed. You seem to be of the mind that it is always bad all the time no matter what.

42

[quote]Gael wrote:
This is directed to dhickey:

I find your unshaking faith in the free market frustrating. It seems like there is no circumstance in which you admit that intervention is necessary.

For a scientific analogy, bacteria in a petri dish over-exploit their food supply thus causing a population increase to unsustainable levels and then a huge population die off. However if the bacteria had had a centralized government that restricted their consumption, the population could have formed a stable point and the bacteria could have survived.

This is not directly analogous to our current situation, but my point is that disrupting the free market can possibly be what is needed. You seem to be of the mind that it is always bad all the time no matter what.

[/quote]

We are not bacteria and the world is not a petri dish. People have been worried about overpopulation since the beginning of history. What makes you think a centralized government would have the correct answers as to when it will actually occur? What makes you think an all powerful centralized government as would be required would be trust worthy? Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

43

Well based on the bacteria analogy, there is nothing we can do about anything ever.

I am getting tired of this foolish discussion.

To repeat, we have 10 billion in ANWAR, untapped. 90 billion off of our coasts, untaped, 800 billion in shale, untapped and fully accessible at current technology. (And at under $20 a barrel.)

That is 900 billion barrels of oil. And these are conservative estimates.

At our current usage in America, that is over 120 years worth, and again all untapped.

Can anyone explain exactly how this is running out of oil right now?

44

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Gael wrote:
This is directed to dhickey:

I find your unshaking faith in the free market frustrating. It seems like there is no circumstance in which you admit that intervention is necessary.

For a scientific analogy, bacteria in a petri dish over-exploit their food supply thus causing a population increase to unsustainable levels and then a huge population die off. However if the bacteria had had a centralized government that restricted their consumption, the population could have formed a stable point and the bacteria could have survived.

This is not directly analogous to our current situation, but my point is that disrupting the free market can possibly be what is needed. You seem to be of the mind that it is always bad all the time no matter what.

We are not bacteria and the world is not a petri dish. People have been worried about overpopulation since the beginning of history. What makes you think a centralized government would have the correct answers as to when it will actually occur? What makes you think an all powerful centralized government as would be required would be trust worthy? Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
[/quote]

What makes you say that the situation requires government to be all powerful? Our limited government in its current form is capable of doing this. Drilling restrictions have the effect of limiting oil consumption.

Yes, A government may incorrectly estimate when and how much restriction is needed. But so what? If they do not restrict enough, the society fails, which it would have anyway. And if they restrict too much, it will hurt the economy but such damage is preferable to overall collapse.

Government is certainly not “trustworthy” – it must be watched and guarded. Again, the situation does not call for an all powerful central government.

45

[quote]Gael wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Gael wrote:
This is directed to dhickey:

I find your unshaking faith in the free market frustrating. It seems like there is no circumstance in which you admit that intervention is necessary.

For a scientific analogy, bacteria in a petri dish over-exploit their food supply thus causing a population increase to unsustainable levels and then a huge population die off. However if the bacteria had had a centralized government that restricted their consumption, the population could have formed a stable point and the bacteria could have survived.

This is not directly analogous to our current situation, but my point is that disrupting the free market can possibly be what is needed. You seem to be of the mind that it is always bad all the time no matter what.

We are not bacteria and the world is not a petri dish. People have been worried about overpopulation since the beginning of history. What makes you think a centralized government would have the correct answers as to when it will actually occur? What makes you think an all powerful centralized government as would be required would be trust worthy? Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

What makes you say that the situation requires government to be all powerful? Our limited government in its current form is capable of doing this. Drilling restrictions have the effect of limiting oil consumption.

[/quote]

Restrictions on crucial freedoms. Who can use energy and for what purpose. This is incredible stuff and you are so willing to casually cede control to a bunch of crooks. Unreal.

You just don’t get it. Society will not collapse if we all have to walk to the farm where we all work. It will just suck, except for the elite.

Of course it does. How else will they stop the illegal drilling and oil smuggling that is sure to occur. It already occurs with unimportant things like drugs. When energy, the life blood of our society is restricted who knows the extent people will go to get black market oil?

If you think the war on drugs is bad, just wait for the war on fossil fuels.

46

A) We have shit loads of oil.
B) Drilling here makes a whole lot more sense than doing business with our enemies. Why import a resource we have, this puts out fate in the hands of others. That is idiotic.
C) More oil means cheaper prices.

Hell, even Hillary gets it. So does Paris Hilton. This is simple stuff, not complicated.

47

Maybe the plan is to use up all the foreign oil, and then rule over the planet.

Muwahahahahaha!

48

[quote]pookie wrote:
Maybe the plan is to use up all the foreign oil, and then rule over the planet.

Muwahahahahaha!
[/quote]

No, that is exactly Gaels plan.

And, when we have preserved the oil reserves, fusion technology will come along and his attempt of planning the economy will have failed, like they all do, for lack of a crystal ball.

49

[quote]pat wrote:
A) We have shit loads of oil.
[/quote] Not enough to flood the world markets. Oil is after all essentially a fungible and easily transported good.[quote]

B) Drilling here makes a whole lot more sense than doing business with our enemies. Why import a resource we have, this puts out fate in the hands of others. That is idiotic.
[/quote]
Under all but the most extreme scenarios, our actual access to supply isn’t in question, whether we’re importing or even exporting.

Since the world market for oil is largely unified, the price we pay here is still subject to exogenous shocks and varied demand abroad whether we produce our own or not. It matters little to Iran if we buy a barrel of oil from them or from alaska; the effect in the market place is still the same for them.

They make the same either way unless we’re able to flood the world market to an extent that we can significantly depress prices. That won’t happen.

[quote]

C) More oil means cheaper prices.

Hell, even Hillary gets it. So does Paris Hilton. This is simple stuff, not complicated.[/quote]

True, but this issue is more about talking points than anything. If the bill proposed by the republicans had passed, it might have had a minimal effect eventually, but it wouldn’t change our situation much in the long run.

I’m not entirely opposed to changing the rules regarding drilling, but I think debate is intended more as a distraction than as a solution. It’s in our best interests to diversify our energy sources over the long run as quickly as is feasible.

I don’t just believe this for the cliche reasons, but also-- or even more so-- because much of the world is moving in this direction and there’s currently a technological land grab going on in the alternative energy field.

It’s conspicuous that the countries which have invested most heavily in specific energy sources also are home to major market players in those areas.

One other thing that comes to mind with this subject is that even if the federal government opened up off shore drilling, many of the states with significant reserves still wouldn’t open up drilling do to other more important local interests, eg tourism, property owners, etc

50

Well put, etaco.