Posted by AuntieMel on March 4, 2005, at 14:54:33
In reply to Re: U.S. Does not follow the rules of NAFTA, posted by gromit on March 3, 2005, at 16:34:15
Well, my family does make it's living from the oil biz. I'm in software, so I'm sure I could find employment somewhere else, but I love geophysica and would die a slow death in databases. I'm not too worried about my own bank account actually. I'm fifty and don't expect to work much longer.
And for less selfish reasons I'd love to see the domestic industry turn around. I keep saying it, but nobody seems to grasp that the industry has lost hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country since the early eighties. And what is left of the work force is aging. Average age is around fifty last I heard. Schools aren't putting out replacements because the students think the market is too volitile.
As to limits of where to extract, the driving force seems to be 'not where I can see it.' Offshre Cal and Fla are out because it won't look pretty.
Kind of 'we'll have our cake and Texas can eat it.'
And if you pay attention you'll see that most of the natural disasters coming from spills are frin tankers - a result of shipping it in.
But - back to limits for exploration. I'm not fond of the idea of more exploring in Alaska, though I'd need more details to be completely against it. The new technology is so amazing - you can set up the drilling rig a very long way from where you are actually exploring - there are now steerable bits. So if one place is environmentally sensitive there could be a spot a half mile away that isn't as big an issue.
So - my bank account asside - I think there are serious reasons to try to rely less on foriegn resources. So I would do:
Convert many electric plants to natural gas. It burns much cleaner than oil and is largely domestic.
Convert any remaining fuel oil systems to gas. If it takes government subsidies or tax breaks so be it. We would all breathe easier.
Meanwhile beef up the domestic exploration because - right now - it's the only game in town. Depending too much on foriegn sources increases our vulnerability.
And while we're making ourselves more self sustaining this way (taking care of the present), we should look at alternative forms of energy in order to take care of the future.
After the Arab Oil Embargo (1970s) we *were* determined to do more domestic exploration *AND* there were tax writeoffs for anyone using solar, wind, or whatever. I think the Reagan "simplification" took that away, but I'm not sure.
Fact is people in this country think they are entitled to cheap energy.
You might also look at the declining dollar for a reason the price of oil is high. Oil is priced worldwide in dollars, so a high - to us - cost is really not much change at all in other countries.
As to govt ties to Hal and others? I was very surprised when Cheney got that job there, but figured they wanted him to use his contacts in the state department to their advantage. Which is totally legal. I think everyone was surprised when he ended up on the ticket for VP.
But maybe you are talking about the contracts in Iraq that Hal got, with little or no bidding.
One thing to remember is that Hal is the parent company of Brown & Root (now combined with Kellogg to make KBR). B&R has done government work on a cost plus basis for years and years. My first memory of them was the construction work done in the early 70s in Vietnam [remember the tiger cages?] They are the only group I know of that can mobilize a large work force to go into warlike conditions. But - they've got lots of experience in this vein.
So - I wasn't at all surprised they got those contracts. On the oil side they are our competitors, but on that type contract they have little competition.
poster:AuntieMel
thread:465800
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050122/msgs/466526.html