Posted on 03/19/2011 8:03:22 AM PDT by Lakeshark
In recent days, oil prices have climbed above $100 per barrel. As chaos spreads through the Arab world, we could soon see much worse.
According to recent testimony given to Congress by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, the current soaring oil prices are no reason for concern. According to the stock market, which has dropped hundreds of points each time oil prices have edged up another dollar or two, the situation is a five-alarm emergency. Who is right?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
But isn't threatening the crash a good thing? Isn't it better than threatening the recovery?
Thanks Lakeshark. Is this the “Mars Direct” Robert Zubrin? Regardless, he’s correct here.
Even opening (honestly, not just lip service) the deepwater Gulf of Mexico back up would help, and the go-ahead to drill ANWR and other areas currently verboten would lower the tendency for speculation that our supply was going to fall short of the mark, which would provide some long-term price relief.
Moratoria on drilling have the effect of trying to put out a fire with gasoline.
Does he want to drill on Mars too?
:-)
Yes, if you look at the tagline you’ll see his company: “Pioneer Astronautics”.
You got that right, and unless we get rid of Bambi in 2012, it'll be six more years of no drilling, and an energy policy that will continue to frustrate our economic development.
One would have to be living below surface at Cydonia, Mars
to not know that pRes_ _ent Obama is destroying the
US economy, little by little, and in greater pieces
when he can.
The hungry economy eater though, is the idea of Federal Regulation of hydrofracking, something which should be regulated and supervised at the State Level. We have that here, through the North Dakota Industrial Commission, and there have been very few problems--none involving the pollution of groundwater aquifers through the actual frac process.
We don't need, nor would Federal Regulation be desireable, because every state's geology is different, and one size fits all regulations would not.
If a State has no regulations, perhaps they should get in touch with the NDIC's Oil and Gas Division and use that as a model, adapted to their own needs and the geology of their state. It isn't as if they have to reinvent the wheel.
The reason Federal Regs on hydrofracking will be a problem if implemented, is simply this: the unconventional oil and gas resources which are being tapped today require fracking to be economically viable. The reservoirs have too low permeability to be productive without it, despite horizontal drilling. Both the natural gas resources of the Marcellus Shale and the oil and gas resources of the Bakken and Three Forks have this in comon with the other oil and gas reservoirs out there either being drilled or coming up as future plays, including the Eagle Ford, the Haynesville Shale and the Niobrara, to name a few.
It is only by controlling the processes which make these resources viable that the government can shut down the industry, which is moving ahead in spite of the government at the moment, creating wealth and jobs.
If the government were truly in the pocket of 'big oil' as claimed, they'd be letting the majors drill offshore and in ANWR where wells produce multiples of what the wells currently being drilled do (Think 20,000 bopd vs. 1,500).
Hey, now, don’t be hatin’ on my boy Bob! He can run NASA and the Energy Department at the same time, as far as I’m concerned.
He sucks, but in this case he’s correct.
I’d gladly kick in some bucks to send him to Mars one-way.
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.