Date:   8/20/2004 1:31:49 PM ( 20 y ago)
Hits:   680
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=269655

Skybae had several points in the reply to my original post, so I broke this one out to debate it better. there may be a forum for this elsewhere, but lets go at it here.

quote: "Regarding oil...I would definitely like to see us completely independent of other countries as tightening supplies is the equivalent of a firm grip on the gonads of American society. I believe Bush understands that, whether or not he earns from the Texas teapots. That would, however, require us drilling which is against what environmentalists want. So where do we go with this? The American lifestyle is very dependent on crude and until you are able to turn our lifestyle around that is not going to change and would take decades. So what is the acceptable solution? As for Bush, please point me to the web site where it shows his earnings from oil. I want to see the proof in dollar amounts."

-----
K - you are right that change to domestic supply of energy would take decades for America. Thats why they delayed change all these years, we knew this exact scenario in the 1960s, exactly the same running low on crude, go to other nations and make wars was what we were hoping to avoid back then. Hmmmm.

so it cannot be done, so we must go abroad.
No, that is not right, it is merely the way they want uis to think, that we have to.

You see, the way the Bush and other Americans can make money at oil these days, as they are no longer the producers of it, is to import it and refine it. Those two steps have allways had the greatest profits since the American supply of crude tightened up.
They would not see these huge profits if the price went down below $13/bbl, or if alternative energy sources came on line.

Drilling the game preserves in Alaska will only supply America for a short while. it does have the added incentive of making money from the production side again tho, a very attractive prospect for a few oil barons.It doese not make sense to do it in terms of supply - other new discoveries are much more capable of supply than the alaskan oils and gases.

Tar sands oils use one -third the energy to proidcue it as they will get from it. Thats not efficient at all, but again it is domestic and that has appeal to a few.

Globally there is nationalisation of Venezuelan oil now, and Iraq has shown that that is the way they would choose to go if they had choice. Saddam did it that way, and that why the Americans were angry with him mostly. {{Did we not hear much about that on the mainstream news eh??]
\\ Govt owning the natural resources, and giving the revenues to its people for education and health care isn't such a radical idea, and the American resistance to any nation trying that is telling. Telling us that ELITES WANT CONTROL OF ALL ENERGY SUPPLY.
We the people are leting them do it, and its not for our benefit unless it is all nationalised. Some things that we all need like energy and phones and water should be done by governments.

--
oh my, there is so much more to this debate, I gotta stop there for now.
Lets talk eh?>
Karlin.

 

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.03 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=269655