$2.36 Trillion:
Restrictions on oil and gas drilling will cost the U.S. economy $2.36 trillion through 2029, according to a study requested by state utility regulators and paid for in part by industry-sponsored groups.Drilling restrictions in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and off the U.S. coastline are blocking access to about nine years’ worth of U.S. oil and gas consumption, according to the report. Among sponsors are the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the industry-funded Gas Technology Institute, of Des Plaines, Illinois.
Logic and cost benefit have no place politics, Junker. You know that. :)
Not gonna sell oil and gas stock for a while. I don't know how they can restrict energy during a recession. Not planning on having any industry that can't be run off a windmill may be seen as..defeatest? We will suffer the fools complaining about our footprint. There are two kinds of footprints to avoid, one on the arse and the other on the forehed.
Don't ja know these rich oil companies just want to keep us workers poor. Look at the oil pipelines across Afghanistan. War for oil.
Make sure your firewall is turned on. Someone has attached a virus warning trigger to this page: http://www.turkishweekly.net/op-ed/2616/the-oil-factor-in-afghanistan.html
"The existence of a “Great Game” around the strategic oil and natural gas resources of the former Soviet republics of Central Asia and the South Caucasus is a geopolitical reality beyond dispute. This veiled conflict, initially confined to Russia and the United States, has been expanded with the entering of the European Union (EU) and China into the “game” in the mid 2000s. The geopolitical location of Afghanistan and the important role it plays in the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAP) gas pipeline project (also known as the trans-Afghanistan pipeline project), adopted under the Bush Administration in 2002, shortly after the Taliban’s defeat, have led some analysts to include the military operation in Afghanistan as a factor in that “Great Game” in Central Asia. But is that interpretation still relevant today?
To answer this question it is necessary to update the available information on oil and natural gas resources in Afghanistan in the context of Central Asian politics and economics and to re-examine the country’s potential as a transit route for energy exports."
So what's a trillion here or there between friends? The Chicoms will always lend to the Big Zero,won't they?
As I don't put much weight in left-wing lobby group's numbers, I do the same with those who have vested interests on the right.
This 2- plus trillion number is suspect IMO.
These resource assets are not lost if they are not developed in the near future. The only cost to the American economy is the possible opportunity cost - assuming oil will cost about the same or less in the future than it does now. If it is vastly more valuable a decade from now it will have cost the US if they were to extract and sell it now.
I think where the oil price is in the long term is too difficult to predict to make a reasoned estimate on the opportunity cost -it is the only cost in question mind you. Thus I think that to attach a dollar figure is just plain political optics.
That is not to say that these assets shouldn't be converted into cold hard cash and pronto. It is to say that the agrument for doing so shouldn't be made as a cost one, but rather that it just makes good business sense to do it now when we kow what we can get for it and more importantly for the positive international political implications it would have.
My point is that unless this study is only estimating the opportunity cost - which I very much doubt it is - then it is at the very least misleading.
Does anyone know why North Americans have become suicidal? Cut your nose off to spite your face!
Gord- Absolutely right. The oil and gas aren't going anywhere. It'll still be there when it's needed.
I don't see a problem with using up everyone else's oil first. The sooner the middle east oilfields dry up, the better off the world will be. Just sieze their assets, and send them back to the 7th century, once they've outlived their usefulness.
Gord: Then I guess Canada should do the same; save all our oil, natural gas, and coal until the rest of the world runs out ... hell, let's extend that to gold, copper, diamonds and all other resources. Great idea you have there.
sorry ... meant to respond to dp
The CNN had a blip that the Big O has approved two (2) nuclear Power Plants for Georgia.. Can’t find the story on the web… yet
Game Changer?
The is one key aspect to this that is not rocket science. While the reserves untapped do not deteriorate----the economy starved for energy and then crippled with taxes to service an obscene foreign debt have not been considered.
This defeats the merit in saving the resources for unrealized inflation in the value of those resources.
A MANHATTIN like project to speed development of breeder reactors has much merit.
RESIST THE NEW WORLD ORDER
"Gord: Then I guess Canada should do the same; save all our oil, natural gas, and coal until the rest of the world runs out ... hell, let's extend that to gold, copper, diamonds and all other resources. Great idea you have there."
Jerry....Jerry...this is the PLAN. What do you think the West has been doing for the past few centuries?
The justification is..."If we don't get that oil etc.., someone else will".
It's ALWAYS been a global hunt for everyone else's loot.
Apparently some did not read the entirety of my post -
"That is not to say that these assets shouldn't be converted into cold hard cash and pronto. It is to say that the agrument for doing so shouldn't be made as a cost one, but rather that it just makes good business sense to do it now when we kow what we can get for it and more importantly for the positive international political implications it would have.
My point is that unless this study is only estimating the opportunity cost - which I very much doubt it is - then it is at the very least misleading. "
IOW I think we in north America should extract these resouces ASAP if it is profitable to do so.
PGS - yes, saw the nuclear power plant thing too - finally - if Obama can do ONE good thing, it's getting acceptance of nuclear power for North Americans. Canadians too - since the average Canadian wouldn't trust Harper with nuclear (reality) - so if Obama came out strongly in favour of nuclear power that would offset a lot of his lousier decisions.
Yes Obama may be waking up...Dump Biden & move the Hillary to VP (this will offset Nancy P), offer John McCain the Sec of State (he is a Democrat)
That will shakeup the beltway....The UN/EU folks will go into hiding for another generation...Even California has seen the light of the on coming train...
Erik: there will be no permits granted for nuke or coal plants during obama's reign. Bet on it. Rhetoric during a sotu is meaningless.
Erik: there will be no permits granted for nuke or coal plants during obama's reign. Bet on it. Rhetoric during a sotu is meaningless.
Pgs: Obama likely will have two challnegers for his 2012 dem nomination: Hillary clinton and evan bayh. Both are moderates who represent the heart of the dem party. Bayh has already bolted by resigning as senator. Expect HRC to resign in the next 12 months - the only question is does she too revolt before nov in an attempt to help save the party from liquidation at the polls or dies she wait 'til the aftermath and resign and declare obamaism over simultaneously.
justthinkin
you wrote "Chicoms'....for a moment i thought you were referring to Chicago...and certain of it's denizens...
funny how one's mind works..