Posted on 11/19/2001 8:32:37 PM PST by Cuban123
Again, assuming your assertions, that all present/future benefits would be equal, and ignoring my assertions the "current economic needs" and "dependence from foreign dictators" issues... with Alaskans AND the American people AND the majority of their representatives wanting to drill... do you now agree that drilling should begin?
The only way I can see you saying "no" to that point is on the "ethics" argument ("If the majorities wanted slavery, it would still be wrong")... but I don't see what the ethical argument is here, if 99.98% of the land remains untouched for the use of future generations, and the fact that we produce MUCH more cleanly that the Middle East dictatorships. Otherwise, you would simply be against petroleum altogether, and the Industrial Age and the Computer Age have simply passed you by. (I address these arguments to anyone who might be lurking on our conversation, not just you, LfD)
But just to bite on the minor side-point of post #80 I just can't resist! Send help! =^): How should the $$ be divided? America is still a capitalist society, so the drilling rights should go to the highest bidder, the treasury getting the proceeds (and cutting my taxes) and the bidder would keep 100% of the proceeds. Period.
(Finally, ya gotta like the second half of this thread... days long, no disruptors, and some clean communication on both sides... not too many FR threads make it this many days without some black marks! Way to go, us!)
As for the 'current economic needs', there will always be a current need for more money and cheaper gas. Viewed historically, the U.S. economy is quite strong. This arguement reminds me of what a 35 year old guy in a bad job might think. 'If only I tap into my retirement account, I can take care of current economic needs and get more independence from my clients.' Yes, he would gain all those things, but only temporarily.
If we are so desperate for petroleum that we have to start drilling in our nature preserves, we should be paying a lot more attention to conservation and alternative energy source. But we aren't, because we are not that desperate. There is plenty of cheap oil around now. There is no shortage.
Have the Alaskan people or the American people taken a vote on ANWAR? If we voted affirmatively, then we can do whatever we like. But to base public policy on opinion polls is another matter.
As for the payment scheme, the owners of the oil, the citizens of the U.S., sell the lease to the highest bidder and also get a royalty on every barrel pumped. Any profits above and beyond the costs of production go to the drilling companies. Unless oil prices are high enough, there will be no profits.
Let's not ignore that 'dependence on foreign dictators.' Once we have used up the 30 billion barrels in ANWAR, the foreign dictators will still have an extra 30 billion barrels that we didn't buy from them, sitting in the ground. What kind of position will we be in then?
You're incorrectly assuming we won't find even more resources as our technology gets even better, and that we won't develop alternatives energy technologies. The point of the game is to keep putting off that 30 billion (or whatever amount possible) until it is worthless to the other guys... an economic war of attrition, so to speak.
As for the 'current economic needs', there will always be a current need for more money and cheaper gas.
The entire stock market has lost a good chunk of value since 1999, even outside of the dot-com bubble. Lower gas prices now becomes an investment for the future, since transportation costs reduce costs across the board. Your analogy of the man with the retirement account is apt... you're advocating letting the 'cash' (oil) sit idle, with no certainty of its value in the future. I'd suggest investing it in the capitalists in America, who have proven to be very good at wealth creation and growth.
If we are so desperate for petroleum that we have to start drilling in our nature preserves, we should be paying a lot more attention to conservation and alternative energy source. But we aren't, because we are not that desperate.
Agree and disagree... We aren't desperate... but there are plenty of capitalists out there trying to develop some alternative that will be more cost-effective than petroleum products, because the winner in that race will be worth more than all the Middle East dictators combined.
There is plenty of cheap oil around now. There is no shortage.
Agreed... but the point is independence and price reduction, and both of those require drilling everything possible. {Note: I could quibble here about you first asserting that the oil supplies are a finite commodity (a "scarce resource" from Econ 101) then turning around and saying there is no shortage, but I'll leave that for others}
Have the Alaskan people or the American people taken a vote on ANWAR? If we voted affirmatively, then we can do whatever we like. But to base public policy on opinion polls is another matter.
My point was that Sen. Daschle, who has seen the highly favorable polls, will not allow a vote to reach the Senate floor. They have now thwarted free-enterprise by buying the land with our money and passing laws that deny us the use of the lands... then they thwarted the democratic process by refusing a vote for change to be made.
As for the payment scheme, the owners of the oil, the citizens of the U.S., sell the lease to the highest bidder and also get a royalty on every barrel pumped. Any profits above and beyond the costs of production go to the drilling companies. Unless oil prices are high enough, there will be no profits.
LOL. If you really thought for one second that there would be no profits, you wouldn't have to stand in the way of drilling. There wouldn't be anyone willing to drill if there were no hope of profits. As for who gets what, I really couldn't care less... I just want more independence, cheaper gas, more jobs, Liberty 'allowed', and the resulting improved economy.
Finally, once again, the citizens do NOT own the oil. The government took our money, bought the land from the owners, passed rules keeping us from using it or even snow-mobiling near it, and have done yeoman's work to prevent us from using the political system to open it back up. The citizens will not see equal shares of the profits or the proceeds. How on earth can you see it as "our" oil after all that (other than in the short-sighted Communist sense that we all equally share ownership of everything the government has chained up)?
You're incorrectly assuming we won't find even more resources as our technology gets even better, and that we won't develop alternatives energy technologies. ...You're advocating letting the 'cash' (oil) sit idle, with no certainty of its value in the future. I'd suggest investing it in the capitalists in America, who have proven to be very good at wealth creation and growth.
You are incorrectly assuming we will find replacements for petroleum in the next 50 years. Personlly, I'd be willing to bet my inheritance that petroleum will still be a strategic commodity in 2050. What is it we are investing? The difference between the world market price of gas without ANWAR oil versus the cost of gas with it?
We aren't desperate... but there are plenty of capitalists out there trying to develop some alternative that will be more cost-effective than petroleum products, because the winner in that race will be worth more than all the Middle East dictators combined.
Capitalists and others have been working on a replacement for petroleum for a long while now. Which is a good thing because the day will come when we really need it. By keeping the ANWAR oil in the ground, we guarantee a future supply.
They have now thwarted free-enterprise by buying the land with our money and passing laws that deny us the use of the lands... then they thwarted the democratic process by refusing a vote for change to be made.
Finally, once again, the citizens do NOT own the oil. The government took our money, bought the land from the owners, passed rules keeping us from using it or even snow-mobiling near it, and have done yeoman's work to prevent us from using the political system to open it back up. The citizens will not see equal shares of the profits or the proceeds. How on earth can you see it as "our" oil after all that (other than in the short-sighted Communist sense that we all equally share ownership of everything the government has chained up)?
'They' bought the land from Russia. 'They' have owned it ever since. It has never been in private hands, except for the nomadic Inuits. The land and the oil on it are owned by 'them.' 'They' get proceeds from the lease sale and a royalty on whatever oil is drilled. All profits go the the corporations who do the drilling. Do you think that 'they' should get part of the profits? 'They' do, in the form of corporate income tax. What do 'they' do with the money? See for yourself, it is all right there in the Federal Budget.
If Daschle uses established parliamentary proceedures to quash a bill, that is hardly undemocratic. Parliamentary procedures are by definition democratic. A majority of legislatures elected him leader and approved of the rules.
If you really thought for one second that there would be no profits, you wouldn't have to stand in the way of drilling. There wouldn't be anyone willing to drill if there were no hope of profits.
Exactly.
"The National Geological Survey estimates there to be about 7.8 billion barrels of recoverable oil at a price of $25 a barrel. "
Which means that there will considerably less oil recoverable at the current price of less than $19 a barrel. This oil will be more efficiently drilled when the price is high enough to warrent recovering every barrel.
As for who gets what, I really couldn't care less... I just want more independence, cheaper gas, more jobs, Liberty 'allowed', and the resulting improved economy.
Yes, and you will always want those things. Spending the nation's birthright as quickly as possible will not assure you of those now or in the future.
Here are my basic questions for you:
Finally, I'd like to respond to more of your comments:
You are incorrectly assuming we will find replacements for petroleum in the next 50 years. Personlly, I'd be willing to bet my inheritance that petroleum will still be a strategic commodity in 2050.
Yes, I am. Just like your very good assumption that oil will still be worthwhile, I'll be willing to bet that oil will continue to be discovered (deep sea discoveries are basically totally untapped... 75% of the planet yet to be explored... hmmmmm)
What is it we are investing?
"WE" aren't investing anything. Again, you are thinking like a Communist. "WE" don't own the oil, and our insipid politicians should never have entered into the business of buying lands to prevent them from being used by Americans!
By keeping the ANWAR oil in the ground, we guarantee a future supply.
Again, when will this argument change? By labeling it as a 'future supply', you're actually guaranteeing that it will be left untouched until it is worthless. Your logic will waste billions, if not trillions, of dollars. "WE" (Communism) should not waste "OUR" (Communism) investment with spurious logic like that.
See for yourself, it is all right there in the Federal Budget.
Why on Earth is this a Federal Concern in the first place? I don't care who gets what... if our government were just, I'd be reading this info from some stock portfolio. They simply have no business keeping citizens from using the lands. There is no Constitutional reason for doing so. It makes no sense to bar the use of a few hundred acres of land so that the other neighboring billion acres can retain the moniker 'untouched'.
If Daschle uses established parliamentary proceedures to quash a bill, that is hardly undemocratic. Parliamentary procedures are by definition democratic. A majority of legislatures elected him leader and approved of the rules.
Yeah, I know... it just stinks when I'm on the short side of it! =^) And don't get me started on the number of odd ways the GOP's Senate races had to crumble to get the Dems to 50... like Ashcroft ceding to a dead man and a wife illegally filling in (she wasn't on the ballot so she cannot run, according to those same rules I was just lamenting and you were just touting), therefore the GOP has 51 Senators, and a majority... and Daschle isn't even in a place to demand Majority power when he only has a plurality... then there's Washington state... and Jeffords switch... *sigh*
As for the comments I made that I was looking forward to a reply to from you but haven't received the satisfaction yet: That was good_herb I was thinking of, not you... we're going pretty well with the point-by-point stuff. Thanks for that.
If not, then how can you assert that the amount we have NOW is the EXACT amount that should be drilled?
The corollary to that question is 'what should the price of oil be?' Should gasoline be $.35 a gallon, as I have seen some suggest? At that price there will be no demand for costly Alaskan oil.
How can you assert that we shouldn't drill when the majority of the polls show that the majority of the citizens want more drilling?
Policies should be made because they are right, not because a pollster calls up a thousand people who agree with him. If you are proposing that polls (which polls?) matter so much that the government should do whatever they indicate, then that is quite another topic.
(And again, why on earth should those polls even matter? If a company wants to buy the land and drill, how can you stand in the way and say that you support FReedom? I'd rather the companies that want to drill discuss where, when, and why to drill.)
OK, so the polls don't matter. What matters is this quarter's balance sheet at Enron? How about we make a policy that is right and good, not just desired by a campaign contributor.
Would you be similarly against using every other currently unused/newly discovered oil field? (And, yes, I DO assume we'll find more... because we haven't stopped finding them yet, and our technology for doing so gets better every year)
No. If we are going to be finding other fields then there is no need to drill in ANWAR.
How can you not see that your arguments could be used AGAIN 50 years from now, delaying the drilling yet again, ad infinitum, until the oil IS truly worthless?
Tell me again how oil is going to become worthless?
What is it we are investing?
"WE" aren't investing anything. Again, you are thinking like a Communist. "WE" don't own the oil, and our insipid politicians should never have entered into the business of buying lands to prevent them from being used by Americans!
.....
Why on Earth is this a Federal Concern in the first place? I don't care who gets what... if our government were just, I'd be reading this info from some stock portfolio. They simply have no business keeping citizens from using the lands. There is no Constitutional reason for doing so.
The oil in the ground belongs to whoever owns the land that the derrick sits on. The ANWAR belongs to the federal government of the United States of America. The person WE bought the land from was the Czar of Russia. It has never been in private hands. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the governments from holding property. In other North Slope drilling the state of Alaska has received 90% of the royalties. They distribute a large chunk of that money to state residents annually as a check. For the ANWAR the House energy bill changes the royalty formula to 50/50.
Your turn! (no rush)
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.