Posted on 03/16/2005 11:01:57 AM PST by BladeLWS
Nuclear would help a lot we need to have a "standard" reactor design approved that could be built in many places.
There is probably a lot of oil in the Gulf of Mexico off the U.S. coast but even some Republicans, Jeb Bush for example, are against drilling for it.
I'm not sure what the refining margins are right now, but I assume they're in the black. But good luck in building one on the west coast if you wanted to. I don't think you have to be a psychic to predict that the last new refinery in California has already been built.
ANWR: Another National (oil) Well Reservoir. The more, the merrier I say!
FOX News noted a minute ago that the increase in the price
of oil was attributed to a shrinking fuel supply in the U.S.Per Shepard Smith (I believe it was him) on Brit Hume's
Special Report.Just passing it along. :^)
I live in the real world. I think you misunderstood the thrust of my argument. I agree with you that companies do impede competition through government/enviro actions. No doubt. What I am saying is you put the blame on the companies. They are only acting in their self interest. The true blame lies with govt. "In an ideal world" the companies could lobby all day and night to Congress, but would be told to "go and compete." I think too many people point fingers at the marketplace, when it is the government that is all to happy to screw around with market forces for the right$$$. Sorry, I wasn't more clear. Again, I agree mostly with you point. I just put the blame on government instead of the basic capitalist system (which barely survives in the US) Thanks for your thoughts.
I'm afraid you are right. Judges are now America's dictators.
#80. Manhunter is 100% on track with his information ... been there, seen it.
Agreed. But in ways, Jeb is only reacting to public ignorance and envir-nut rantings. I have many conversative friends on the sun coast of Florida and when I mention it would be great to drill offshore they go nuts. I tell them that LA and Texas have many offshore rigs and there best fishing is found around them. I say that many would be over the horizon and not seen from the coast. They still think "an accident" could happen. It is astounding how many people don't want it in their backyard, but want the benefits. I remember sometime back that Louisiana produces about 60% of the countries natural gas and much of it gets pipelined to the Northeast. Sometimes, I just wish they shut the pipelines down and tell the Blue states to find their own oil. (I know that isn't capitalist of me, but it is fun to think about). How many Florida freepers are against offshore drilling off the West coast of Florida? I am curious.
YES!
The enviro-nazis have and will always label Bush a big polluter no matter what he does anyway.
It's GREAT to see him get this HUGE victory over them.
#122. I know Texans have this thing about Alaska being bigger than Texas, but the fact remains that WAY TOO MUCH of Alaska if Federal. Tell Connecticut that the FEDS are taking control of -what? - 80% of the land in their state and you'll hear from a lot of very upset people.
And it was Seward's Folly. He turned out to a very forward thinking person.
But why do we need to drill? Didn't we just invade Iraq for its oil?
Probably because none of the ANWR oil will reach the market for at least another 10 years.
Troll alert.
I would be so Pi**ed as would many. If that happens, Bush should say, "your edict is unconstitutional and I will therefore ignore it." Bush should then encourage the Senate to begin impeachment proceedings against said judge. Would that be fun to see? The left would call Bush a dictator for simply respecting the Constitution.
Okay, so it won't change anything, and so what if Alaskan crude ends up in Japan. Heh, it's the principal of it that counts, you know, the one about making libs cry.
TX, 1922... go AK, 2005!
Environmentalism has become a reactionary movement, and it gets today a deserved smack.
I did, and discovered that there has been some exporting of Alaskan crude, but no more than 7% of the production.
The bulk went to Korea (S) and the remaining to Japan. It was close to the amount our forces in their country consumed. I am assuming that it is payback for buying their oil.
BTW, AK crude is high sulphur, not very desireable on the world market. That is another reason why gas is so expensive on the west coast (refining costs).
Clinton approved some exporting of Ak crude, but the State of Alaska refused to waive the shipping of AK crude in any tanker except on U.S. flagged vessels, so the lifting of the ban was meaningless (much like Clintons presidency).
This is awesome news. Not only because we become more self sufficient but because it shows that the repubs are growing some nads. I've been holding off on any more contributions to them until I see this type of thing.
I'm still going to wait until they foil the dems plans to stop W.'s judge nominations though.
Oh, yeah. My first car I could fill up for $2. That is 10 gallons.
Actually, it doesn't make any difference if Alaskan crude goes to Japan. The world oil market is just that and it's the availability of crude supply to overall world demand that sets the price.
I can't find any evidence, though, that more than four tankers a week carry Alaskan crude to asia, less than 10% of Alaskan production.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
