Replies

I recognize your problem in dealing with those who are not particularly interested in facts, but here goes . . .

Oil is a 'fungible' quantity. That means it can be moved from one place to another, and replaced with an equivalent quantity from another source with no loss in value. So, the situation is that there is or is not a barrel of oil sitting in Valdez. If there is, it doesn't matter if the Japanese buy that barrel and we use that money to purchase Venezuelan oil which is then shipped to refineries in Houston. Except that transporting Venezuelan oil to Houston is cheaper than transporting Alaskan oil to Houston, so the most efficient overall approach is to let the Japanese have Alaskan oil and Houston have Venezuelan oil.

The problem is that there aren't enough barrels of oil sitting in Valdez. World demand is increasing - primarily China and India - and the supply is not expanding to match. The oil is there, and it's readily reachable, but politicians have artificially constrained supply. The US has the greatest known petroleum reserves of any nation on earth, but we're prevented from using it by politicians.

So the question to ask your liberal (actually socialist - liberal is a noble political position but the term has been stolen by socialists) friends/relatives is: Why have politicians artificially limited the supply of American oil?

Answer: It's all about power. If politicians control a vital commodity like oil, then citizens lose freedom to make their own choices and government gains power. Ask your friends why they want a demonstrably failed economic system like government (socialist) control of all our decisions instead of allowing people freedom to make their own decisions.

The answer, if they are honest, is that the annointed don't think real people have the wisdom to make their own choices. Only government can choose wisely.

And that's the difference between Democrats and Republicans, in a nutshell. (Well, it would be except for the RINOs.)

You are correct. Add to the cost difference of transporting Alaskan oil to the west coast versus Venezuelan oil to Texas (Lake Charles, LA)the fact that Alaska to the west coast is Us to US port and therefore regulated under the Jones act requiring ships to be built in the US and crewed by US. That runs the cost up a bunch. Alaska to Japan is cheaper transportation costs in less expensive though just as good ships.

Used to be there was not enough refinery capacity on the west coast for Alaska oil but as the oil exported has declined ( some storage tanks shut down a Valdez already) I'm not sure that is a problem now.