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.