Posted on 06/24/2005 12:59:13 PM PDT by nikos1121
WASHINGTON — With Congress poised to finally turn out an energy bill, a group of former officials from both parties and the intelligence community gathered in Washington Thursday to demonstrate how the world is flirting with disaster on energy.
The message in the exercise: If consumers don't like spending $2 per gallon for gasoline, they will probably like $5 per gallon even less.
In a sobering reminder of the need for a long-term energy strategy, a nonpartisan group forming the National Commission on Energy Policy held a simulated National Security Council meeting to grapple with a frightening sequence of events.
In this exercise, Nigeria (search), the fifth-largest oil supplier to the United States, suffers violent political unrest in December 2005 and U.S. oil companies evacuate, pulling 600,000 barrels a day off the global market.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
nick
Three dollars for a barrel of oil would be great.
Three dollars for a gallon of gas is more probable.
;->
And some people don't believe (or refuse to understand)that oil is going to be used as a weapon against the United States
"Three dollars for a barrel of oil would be great.
Three dollars for a gallon of gas is more probable."
The above scenario is likely to happen, sooner than later. $3.00 per gallon gas prices will be a reality by next Summer. I think the people are behind the president if he is going to lead us. I'm getting nervous, thinking this president is backing down from pressure in his own party and the obstructionist democrats.
nick
Just eliminate all taxes on gasoline.
That should take it down to around $1.40 a gallon.
That energy bill has a problem, namely, allowing the FERC to bypass the wishes of state governments in locating LNG plants
Irrespective of that though, there would be no energy crisis if it was not for the damn EPA. The US does have capacity, but we have to break environmental regulations to use it.
It really irks me that the State of Florida, which sits on on of the biggest offshore reserves on the planet, is now off limits to drilling, just cause some damn retirees don't want their view interfered with.
The fact is, if we could just operate all wells and refinerys at capacity, build some new refineries, and uncap all capped wells that still have oil, we'd end the damn problem
Has Schmuckie Chewmer called for the release of oil from our Strategic Oil Reserves yet this week?
Could you explain how the obstructionist democrats can stop a vote on the energy bill? They haven't filibustered it, AFAIK.
You're right, the democrats were all for drilling in Alaska, (sarcasm)
An energy bill has been debated and derailed since Bush's first term. I'm just as fed up with the republican senate.
It's almost as though we have to be in the middle of some crisis before anything is done.
true
In other words, if a party with a strong majority in both houses can't pass a bill, perhaps the time to blame someone else for that failure is over.
EVerything you say is true. Has anyone read OFFSHORE by Don Corace?
nick
If what you are saying is that we lack leadership in our Federal Gov't then I agree with you. This is frustrating. Many of us in this forum post daily on these subjects...it seems clear that we have people two people in public office; ie those that offer solutions and those who obstruct those that offer solutions.
That's part of what I'm saying. But what I'm really saying is that the GOP has solid control of every single branch of the Federal Government, and their whining about being 'obstructed' by the Democrats, even on issues (like the energy bill) where there has not been any extraordinary [i.e. filibuster, etc.] effort to stop a vote, reeks of nothing more than scapegoating of a weak, ineffective opposition for their own failure to get something done.
The second [Saudi condition], said former State Department Policy Planning Director Richard Haass, "is to stop discussing and stop investigating allegations that they're involved in money laundering and giving funds to Al Qaeda (search)."As much as the oil is needed, officials reject the conditions.
Not to be cynical, but we would accept the conditions (at least temporarily).
This I do believe would happen:
On top of it all, a few weeks later terrorists strike oil and gas installations in Saudi Arabia as part of a major terrorist attack. Damage is limited but another 250,000 barrels a day are lost to the markets.
Here's an example. They're putting the finishing touches on an energy bill to take back to the house and this dim-wit Durbin proposes the following, having no clue what this added measure will cost.
"Late Thursday, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, tried to put into the bill a provision that would require a nearly 50 percent increase in automobile fuel economy to a fleet average of 40 miles per gallon over the next decade.
He said, "Instead of moving forward, we have been going backwards" as automobiles become less fuel efficient.
Hey, maybe he really wants that, or thinks it is good policy. But if he doesn't have votes, who cares what he proposes? The fault for not passing a bill lies with those who have the votes to do so, and with no one else.
bttt
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.