Keith,
Do not worry, US cannot cut down on oil imports without considerable energy saving measures. It is absolutely impossible for them to cut, they have to instead increase quite a lot on short term. It is not easy to be President in US now, if you at the same time have to think about your buddies in the oil industry. They lost the imports from Iraq also, since the production now is a quarter of pre-war and it is less or equal than only the earlier US import from Iraq. This is probably the reason for the stubborn price level over $30. US R/P values is now around 7 years for natural gas and 10 years for oil, a very worrying situation. Even if they find maximum in Alaska, it will only add 5 to 10 years to the R/P values. To develop new wells in Alaska will take some time also and is not giving reliefs. The only short term fix available is Iraq, if the Saudis falter. With the failed coup in Venezuela etc., they must get the Iraqi oil flowing. The critical time line in Iraq was never how long the war would take, it is how fast the oil production and export to US can be restored and augmented. Bush have used WTC to whip up a hysterical US population. The 2,700+ fatalities (around half of them non US), is very low compared with the yearly fatalities directly caused by the signature from Bush on weaken the Clean Air Bill and other measures. You could call this gassing his own people. Europe and the rest of the world have lived with much larger terrorist threats than US for decades now, without fallen victim to the large economic fallouts from homeland security and wars. Some of these terrorist groups are supported from US and Europe did not invade US to fix it. LOL Hakan At 02:37 AM 8/29/2003 +0900, you wrote: >Hi MM > >Yes, a most deafening silence, in the mainstream at least, though >I've seen some interesting comment elsewhere. > > >http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CO/A3 > > > >Here we are, nearly one month since I started this thread, and Oil is > >still above $30 per barrel on some exchanges. I might add: with very > >little commentary from the public or the talking TV heads. > > > >This price is above the stated-goal trading range of OPEC, I believe, > >and I have come to think that this goal is not as serious as OPEC had > >led us to believe. They faked out some folks with their > >opening-of-the-spigots for the War, but now we don't see much > >hand-wringing over this persistence of $30+ per barrel. > > > >There are many short-term reasons for these high prices, and I'm not > >suggesting that we have some debate as to whether there's been some > >back-room cigar-smoking conspiracy over this. > > > >I'm simply pointing out that this seemingly high price has gone on for > >*quite* awhile, that the resultant damage has been done to the > >economy, whether anyone likes it or not, and that we've heard > >virtually not a single word from the Administration or their opponents > >about this. The silence is utterly deafening. The U.S. and other > >countires need to find a way to kick their oil habits, or at least > >find some way to relieve them partially. > > > >To be sure, I am certainly with those who see persistent higher prices > >as long-overdue and a big plus toward getting everday citizens to > >think about conservation and alternative fuels. And we've seen some > >evidence that this can and will occurr. So far as I'm concerned, in > >this sense, I'd like to see high prices persist, so we can make a > >*permanent* shift away from such high levels of Oil Importation, and > >not just a temporary short-memory TV-whining-and-shouting shift. > > > >This is all aside from the fact that, in my view, the monies the U.S. > >spends on oil imports are, in part, monies that make up a very > >significant portion of the funds that support those against whom the > >U.S. is fighting. There are undoubtedly many twists and turns that > >take place between the wallet of an American gasoline-purchaser and > >the wallet of a bomb-maker, but the connection, in my view is there. > >Even if someone were to voice an opinion that the bomb-maker has his > >points and that the U.S. is incorrect to portray itself as the perfect > >light of good fighting against black evil.... even under that way of > >viewing things, it is illogical and unproductive for a country to > >claim that it is fighting a war in earnest, but then to do > >less-than-it-could to examine whether it is stemming the flow of its > >own wealth to its stated enemy. I don't want permanently to stop > >doing business with people in Saudi Arabia or Iran or the like, but > >until we sort out this situation, I think the U.S., by its own > >position, should look to reduce business as much as possible when it > >is obvious that funding is getting to those against whom the U.S. > >fights. > >But it's Big Oil that benefits most, more so than the oil-producing >nations do. See my post yesterday, "War Pimps - A Confidence Game on >Iraq", and the links there, for another side to it (read what Rampton >and Stauber have to say about Saudi official links with terrorists, >as well as the most odd US response), and also what I was saying >about dumping on the poor of the world for a third side. And then >there's what William Blum et al say about how to deal with the threat: >http://www.counterpunch.org/blum08122003.html >William Blum: Myth and Denial in the War on Terrorism >August 12, 2003 > >Worth a read. > >It's because of all this that I've never had any sympathy for the >call in the US since 9/11 to cut down on foreign oil imports. Not >including you at all in this, but so much of it was accompanied by >anti-Arab jingoism and downright hate-mongering, less than helpful to >say the least, and shooting at quite the wrong target. This moreover >from purportedly environmentally-aware groups promoting biofuels in >some cases. > >So I'd say (and do!) cut down on fossil-fuel use, on energy use >generally, improve energy efficiency all-round, decentralize energy >supply, promote biofuels and all renewables - but NOT in order to >"fight terrorism" through cutting foreign oil imports. Different >problems requiring different solutions - cut the energy and fuel >wastage because it's profligate and unsustainable, and it makes the >US a really bad neighbour on what's only a small planet, and deal >with the terrorist threat by removing the cause. At long last. > >Everyone else, including the OECD, and including quite a few >Americans on this list, and including me, think US gas should be $5 >at the pump, and the sooner the better, for the reasons you state. My >only reservation about that is that it would pump even more billions >or trillions into Big Oil. Not exactly the best place to put it. > >Best > >Keith ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LIdGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
