West: Gas prices are skyrocketing. The national average is $3.43/gallon, and it’s increasing every day.
Middle East: Civilian deaths are skyrocketing. The estimate is in the thousands, and it’s increasing every day.
One might be much worse than the other--but they’re undoubtedly related. And unfortunately, it doesn’t appear either will be changing (for the better) anytime soon.
There are three basic possible responses.
One, we do nothing. This is the most likely, and frankly the most alarming. We make a few extremely delayed statements supporting the protesters, move a few navy ships around, and make it seem like we’re trying to help.
Two, we take an active and involved approach, sending aid to the rebels, in terms of equipment, money and/or manpower. I don’t see this administration sending troops, and honestly we’re probably better off that way, because once we do, we’ll have to send them everywhere in the region (some may say this process already started almost a decade ago, and I wouldn’t completely disagree). Most likely, we’ll send some money, and maybe some firepower. Then we’ll jump in and try to steer the course of the new government. And we’ve got such a great track record of that (Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro and Ayatollah Khomeini were all supported/installed by the US, either directly or indirectly) .
Three, we allow the people of the Middle East to handle their own revolutions--after all, they’ve all been saying they don’t like us or want our support anyway--and we begin to handle our gas price issue internally. I know, it’s a wild concept: people taking care of their own business first. And while I find this to be the most unlikely option, it’s certainly the common sense choice.
Middle East: Civilian deaths are skyrocketing. The estimate is in the thousands, and it’s increasing every day.
One might be much worse than the other--but they’re undoubtedly related. And unfortunately, it doesn’t appear either will be changing (for the better) anytime soon.
There are three basic possible responses.
One, we do nothing. This is the most likely, and frankly the most alarming. We make a few extremely delayed statements supporting the protesters, move a few navy ships around, and make it seem like we’re trying to help.
Two, we take an active and involved approach, sending aid to the rebels, in terms of equipment, money and/or manpower. I don’t see this administration sending troops, and honestly we’re probably better off that way, because once we do, we’ll have to send them everywhere in the region (some may say this process already started almost a decade ago, and I wouldn’t completely disagree). Most likely, we’ll send some money, and maybe some firepower. Then we’ll jump in and try to steer the course of the new government. And we’ve got such a great track record of that (Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro and Ayatollah Khomeini were all supported/installed by the US, either directly or indirectly) .
Three, we allow the people of the Middle East to handle their own revolutions--after all, they’ve all been saying they don’t like us or want our support anyway--and we begin to handle our gas price issue internally. I know, it’s a wild concept: people taking care of their own business first. And while I find this to be the most unlikely option, it’s certainly the common sense choice.
External Factors
The unrest in the Middle East is certainly the largest factor driving the cost of gasoline through the roof. Even though Libya produces a minor portion of the world’s oil, and virtually none of America’s, the 500,000-750,000 barrels a day they’re no longer producing has had a significant impact on the global market (Libya’s oil mostly goes to Europe).
The real issue lies in that big, oil-producing nation to the east. While Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and Bahrain are the protests in the media spotlight, Saudi Arabia is dealing with the beginning of its own uprising. It’s also (along with Iran) the most dangerous. While even prepubescent minds understand that Iran joining the fray means, at best, major regionalized destruction putting Israel in extreme danger, many don’t realize that a revolution in Saudi Arabia would cause an unbearable spike in oil prices that even a thriving economy would be unable to effectively circumvent.
In comparison, it’s mild in Saudi Arabia--right now. But that’s how they’ve all started. It started out small in Egypt on economic reasons. In Saudi Arabia, it’s religious.
And it’s coming:
The unrest in the Middle East is certainly the largest factor driving the cost of gasoline through the roof. Even though Libya produces a minor portion of the world’s oil, and virtually none of America’s, the 500,000-750,000 barrels a day they’re no longer producing has had a significant impact on the global market (Libya’s oil mostly goes to Europe).
The real issue lies in that big, oil-producing nation to the east. While Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and Bahrain are the protests in the media spotlight, Saudi Arabia is dealing with the beginning of its own uprising. It’s also (along with Iran) the most dangerous. While even prepubescent minds understand that Iran joining the fray means, at best, major regionalized destruction putting Israel in extreme danger, many don’t realize that a revolution in Saudi Arabia would cause an unbearable spike in oil prices that even a thriving economy would be unable to effectively circumvent.
In comparison, it’s mild in Saudi Arabia--right now. But that’s how they’ve all started. It started out small in Egypt on economic reasons. In Saudi Arabia, it’s religious.
And it’s coming:
"Activists have called on Facebook for a 'Day of Rage' on March 11 and for a 'Saudi revolution' on March 20." (http://bit.ly/ib9VHB)
Sounds awfully familiar.
Domestic Issues
Now it’s not the only issue--there is some price gouging going on in tourist locations. An ABC News article noted prices of $5.29/gallon outside Orlando International Airport. And President Obama’s de facto moratorium on offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico has only aided in handcuffing the industry’s ability to stiffle the economic impact of the Middle Eastern revolutions. In fact, Obama’s and Regulation Czar Cass Sunstein’s lockdown on the Gulf has had an almost identical effect on production in the Gulf as has the unrest on production in Libya’s oil fields.
Now it’s not the only issue--there is some price gouging going on in tourist locations. An ABC News article noted prices of $5.29/gallon outside Orlando International Airport. And President Obama’s de facto moratorium on offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico has only aided in handcuffing the industry’s ability to stiffle the economic impact of the Middle Eastern revolutions. In fact, Obama’s and Regulation Czar Cass Sunstein’s lockdown on the Gulf has had an almost identical effect on production in the Gulf as has the unrest on production in Libya’s oil fields.
 |
| Obama's Gulf "Moratorium" has had an eerily similar impact to the unrest in Libya |
That graph is scary if it holds true--and with the army of lawyers, engineers, rocket scientists, Supreme Court Justices and Bill Gates endowments it will take to obtain a permit from Czar Sunstein, it’s quite likely it will. And that’s sad considering the tens of thousands that are out of work in the Gulf region--not because BP wasn’t prepared for a unique catastrophe, but because of the stranglehold that has been placed on the industry.
ANWR and the Economy
(http://www.anwr.org/ANWR-Basics/Top-ten-reasons-to-support-ANWR-development.php)
First, you need to know what ANWR is--I didn’t until I researched it, myself. The ANWR region is a 19-million acre piece of land in northern Alaska. Okay, that’s not entirely true--the ANWR province is northern Alaska. This area, designated by President Jimmy Carter in 1980, is larger than 48 of the 50 states that make up this great nation (yes, the ANWR province is larger than the state of California). It is also where the answer lies.
The area is widely considered to have a vast amount of “light” oil residing underground (“light” oil is the purer, preferred form of oil). The northern-most segment of ANWR, known as 1002 or 10-02, is believed to be the richest in terms of oil. That section spans 1.5 million acres, only 8% of the region. A number of studies have given estimates of the oil contained under 1002, the least of which being between 4.3-11.8 billion barrels of oil.
The main argument against drilling in the ANWR region is the protection of wildlife. The 1002 specifically is home to a particular herd of caribou that is the focal point of most anti-drilling arguments. However, a similar herd of caribou has thrived despite migrating through the Prudhoe Bay oil field in Alaska, increasing by 1320% since the 1970s. Doesn’t seem like the threat is that great, does it?
However, the potential benefits of drilling in the 1002 section of the ANWR province are tremendous. Alaskans want it--virtually all elected Alaskan officials, on both the state and national level, support drilling in the region, and over 78% of Alaskans support the idea--most likely because it is estimated to create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
This would in turn help the government balance their budget, as it would expand the tax base. It would also aid the economy, by keeping the roughly $400 billion sent overseas to import oil inside our borders.
Oh yeah, and it would accomplish that bi-partisan goal of ending dependence on foreign oil (a top talking point in the 2008 Presidential Election).
So why haven’t we begun the process of producing our own oil?
Probably because it’s common sense.
(http://www.anwr.org/ANWR-Basics/Top-ten-reasons-to-support-ANWR-development.php)
First, you need to know what ANWR is--I didn’t until I researched it, myself. The ANWR region is a 19-million acre piece of land in northern Alaska. Okay, that’s not entirely true--the ANWR province is northern Alaska. This area, designated by President Jimmy Carter in 1980, is larger than 48 of the 50 states that make up this great nation (yes, the ANWR province is larger than the state of California). It is also where the answer lies.
The area is widely considered to have a vast amount of “light” oil residing underground (“light” oil is the purer, preferred form of oil). The northern-most segment of ANWR, known as 1002 or 10-02, is believed to be the richest in terms of oil. That section spans 1.5 million acres, only 8% of the region. A number of studies have given estimates of the oil contained under 1002, the least of which being between 4.3-11.8 billion barrels of oil.
The main argument against drilling in the ANWR region is the protection of wildlife. The 1002 specifically is home to a particular herd of caribou that is the focal point of most anti-drilling arguments. However, a similar herd of caribou has thrived despite migrating through the Prudhoe Bay oil field in Alaska, increasing by 1320% since the 1970s. Doesn’t seem like the threat is that great, does it?
However, the potential benefits of drilling in the 1002 section of the ANWR province are tremendous. Alaskans want it--virtually all elected Alaskan officials, on both the state and national level, support drilling in the region, and over 78% of Alaskans support the idea--most likely because it is estimated to create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
This would in turn help the government balance their budget, as it would expand the tax base. It would also aid the economy, by keeping the roughly $400 billion sent overseas to import oil inside our borders.
Oh yeah, and it would accomplish that bi-partisan goal of ending dependence on foreign oil (a top talking point in the 2008 Presidential Election).
So why haven’t we begun the process of producing our own oil?
Probably because it’s common sense.
...great read...I agree, for the most part. Im all about independence from foreign oil, but I think it'll only come when oil companies decided to stop with the greed, and supply the demand. Its fine now, cause high prices can be blamed on things out of the control of the oil companies, but if we're making our own, then the pressure is all on them; so it wouldnt surprise me not to see any domestic fuel production...
ReplyDeleteI think the larger issue with the ANWR drilling is not solely in the protection of wildlife, but in the building of the pipeline to the continental United States to make it profitable and function. It's not only the drilling aspect, it's that the pipeline would disrupt much of the natural area and require much infrastructure to both build and maintain. Rumors state he current ANWR pipeline doesn't go to the USA - it goes to Japan, but who knows the validity of that. Another thing to consider is the price of the pipeline - the 800mile linen from the ANWR region to the Port of Valdez (southern Alaska, near Anchorage), cost ~$8 billion.
ReplyDeleteI feel the problem is our dependence on oil - period. You and I may disagree on this based on political viewpoints, but finding another area to drill for oil doesn't fix the problem, it just delays its severity. I'd agree it'd be great to have and fix our dependency on foreign oil, but doing so by changing where we get it is not the answer.