Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1.    #1  
    A friend of mine wrote this email to a popular radio/TV personaility (Glenn Beck). I thought it was interesting, and responded back to him with my thoughts. I figured that alot of you guys enjoy different opinions, if for no other reason then to sharpen your own arguments. So I thought I would share his email and see what you guys think.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Background:
    Glenn Beck did a piece on why the U.S. needs to become oil self-sufficient. Apparently everybody's panicked because BP has rusty pipes in Alaska. Anyway, Glenn wants a harder push to oil alternatives and I don't quite agree (short term).

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Glenn, you're a bit wrong on the "oil problem".

    The reason: It is in the strategic interest of the United States to keep using world oil. It is NOT in our interest to end up in a situation where we switch to expensive alternatives to oil, while all our enemies have access to easy, cheap reliable oil energy.

    Let's remember that oil sells in a world market, at a world price. Nobody gets a discount on the world price. The U.S. consumer is in the best position of anyone on the planet to pay the high prices for that oil. If the oil price goes up, it hurts China and India far worse that us.

    With respect to world oil, I say let's buy it, let's use it, let's burn it. Let's leave our oil in the ground. Why should we use ours when we can use theirs????

    From a strategic point of view, here's the most important thing to do: WE NEED TO IMPROVE OUR ABILITY TO STORE IT. We should be building more tanks to hold it. We should have more refineries to make sure that we can convert it to gasoline, diesel, etc. Let's pump it out of the ground in the Middle East and stick it in tanks in the U.S.

    The worst strategy is to use up our own reserves of energy when cheaper easier to get reserves exist. If we end up in a conflict, and our access is cut off, we can rely upon storage to get us through. Therefore, the more storage the better.

    Now look down the road. How dangerous will Iran be when it RUNS OUT OF OIL. They'll be back to being camel jockeys.

    Let's burn THEIR OIL, NOT OUR OIL. The sooner we use up their oil, the sooner they stop being a threat.

    The reason we need to slap them down now is not because they have oil, it's because they are imperialist facists that want to destroy us. I don't care if we give them money, I just care that they do not use it to attack us. If they do attack us or other democratic nations, we need to attack them right back.

    In that regard, I agree with you. Let's let the current situation escalate and pound Iran now; not later. As Barney Fyfe would say, you gotta nip it in the bud.

    And one more thing on the energy side, we need to build nuclear reactors AND coal burning plants to get our electrical system off oil. Let's not worry about converting coal to oil, let's stop burning oil and natural gas in electical stations when we can burn coal AS IS! (no conversion required). That will leave more oil and natural gas to use in portable energy stations like cars and airplanes.
  2. #2  
    got plent thoughts on this - jUst can't repond now
  3. #3  
    The old 'Drain America First' energy strategy.
  4. #4  
    I don't do the whole politics thing... but that bit about building reactors doesn't make sense to me... Let's get all mad and issue an ultimatum to Iran to tell them to stop enriching uranium. And then immediately after start building nuclear reactors ourselves...

    There's something wrong with that logic...


  5.    #5  
    my question is how long would it actually take for THEIR oil reserves to dry up. I was told a while back that they will have oil for about 15-20 more years. Also, wouldn't they catch-on to our plan when we start buying more oil than we can use.

Posting Permissions