Why drill for oil? To catch up with imports? But suppose Anwar, offshore California and the Gulf—plus the continental shelf could make us the world’s largest producer of oil? What would be the effect on our dollar or our deficit? Shouldn’t this be our goal? Supply would drive the price of oil downward. Is this any less important a goal than the Manhattan project?
When T. Boone Pickens points out that we give $400 billion per year to friends and enemies alike for oil we can’t produce—reverse the equation! What if with Anwar, offshore and the continental shelf, we were exporting $400 billion of oil to China, India, and other emerging economies? Would we not be once again the economic leader of the free world? Why do environmentalists have a hate of carbon at the expense of our national interests? Hasn’t global warming been disproved?
Regardless, how do we stop India, China and other developing nations in their pursuit of carbon? All our failures—banks, autos, and energy--can be traced to our loss in leadership in oil production starting in the 1940s. The Saudi sands were easy to drill. The continental shelf was unthinkable. But, technology changed—led by the United States. How did Al Gore’s greenies steal the march?
It is our technology propelling Petrobras, Russia, and even countries sympathetic to Chavez. Technology moves market to market. Oil in the ground is static. We must control crude oil in the ground in order to control the market.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Monday, July 7, 2008
A Blog for NAFTA
The thrilling rescue of Ingrid Betancourt and three American engineers makes our commitment to NAFTA more important. The potential axis of Colombia, Chile, and Brazil as counterweight to Hugo Chavez's spread of Marxism throughout South America is compelling. Let Bush-McCain stand up for Colombia and freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
