Problem with Bush's Oil Proposal

adios · #1 11-08-2002, 08:22 AM

Could be wrong but I believe that President Bush is basically proposing that we create more supply for oil by doing new drilling in Alaska for instance. The problem with this approach is that it is intended to shift the supply curve to the right if you will. This will probably lead to lower oil prices and a HIGHER rate of oil consumption than exists now. It seems to me that shifting the demand curve to the left if you will, would be much more effective in lessening our reliance on Mid East oil. Perhaps a little of both, shift the demand curve to the left some and the supply curve to the right some.

#2 11-08-2002, 10:47 AM

Bush is in it for his oil pals to make money. He couldn't care less what things will be like by 2009, unless he declares a national emergency and refuses to leave office.

HDPM · #3 11-08-2002, 11:15 AM

What's wrong with lower prices and higher consumption? Ideally we would have lower prices and lower consumption, which could happen with alternative fuels and hybrid engine technology. There is more to it than Bush's oil cronies, there is national security and international progress. If we could eliminate the need for mideast oil the political dynamics will be hilarious. A bunch of tinpot Taliban types will go back to governing nothing. The rich Saudi's will be OK with their international holdings, but we can crush the most dangerous area of the world by eliminating the prices on their only product. Then we'll worry about the Chicoms and North Koreans. [img]/forums/images/icons/smirk.gif[/img]

adios · #4 11-08-2002, 01:02 PM

The problem I see with higher consumption is that we will maintain our reliance on foriegn oil sources.

MMMMMM · #5 11-08-2002, 07:07 PM

How about all of it together? Higher oil supply + more alternative sources and lower prices. Hope that's somehow responsibly feasible, environmentally speaking.

Also, what about this Caribbean drilling idea? Supposedly, there are huge reserves there? I don't know anything much about it, but if environmentally and economically acceptable (to a degree, of course) it would give us more alternative supplies just in case terrorists find a way to disrupt the Alaskan pipeline somehow.

Anyway, I'm all for anything reasonable that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Ray Zee · #6 11-09-2002, 12:32 AM

the alaska deal would give us a six month supply of oil at best. at a cost of billions for us and a windfall for the oil companies yet we destoy a valuble wilderness area. or a so called wasteland if you look at the pictures they show you of the place in winter.

adios · #7 11-09-2002, 06:05 AM

Basically what you propose is what I would propose as well. What we need now from Washington is leadership and a long overdue coherent policy and plan. Unfortunately and I know this is bringing out my cynicism, we're not likely to see any kind of coherent policy or plan anytime soon out of Washington.

adios · #8 11-09-2002, 06:08 AM

Yep 6 months is a blip on the radar screen. I really believe that the majority of USA citizens are opposed to what Bush is proposing.

Ray Zee · #9 11-10-2002, 12:53 AM

problem is we cant do much about it now. the next few years the big companies get to write their own tickets. bush is even recinding the snowmobile ban in yellowstone park and raising the amount of them allowed by 30% over the current useage. while at the same time the national park service is issueing their rangers at the gate respirators so they can breath. true story.

Jimbo · #10 11-10-2002, 01:53 AM

Hopefully we will get at least 6 more years of W. Bush then 8 of Jeb. By then we may have enough inertia carrying us so strongly in a healthy direction for our country that the democrats will be unable to harm us with a 4 year blip in the white house.

Guess I better buy some stock in a respirator manufacturing company. Wonder if I can find one that makes snowmobiles as well. [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

Jimbo