[clue-talk] oil...

[Angelo Bertolli]

Jed S. Baer wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:12:05 -0400
> Angelo Bertolli wrote:
>
>   
>> It's not about profits, it's about limited resources.  It's obvious
>> that we have something of great value here.  Why should we just open it
>> up and hand it off to them without putting some conditions on it?
>>     
>
> Conditions? And who is this "we"? The people who have the money, time,
> expertise, and other resources necessary to actually do the work of
> exploring, drilling, refining, and all the other things necessary to
> actually accomplish something productive, or a bunch of bureaucrats
> sitting in offices who risk nothing and face no consequences irrespective
> of the success or failure of their rules? Or voters? Are voters financing
> the production of energy products?
>
> While a lot of people seem to think that oil is a limited resource, the
> truth is that all resources are limited in some way or another. In many
> cases, a limiting factor is price (as it should be, in a market-based
> economy). Some people think biofuels would be "unlimited", but that's a
> pipe dream, because we don't have unlimited ability to process organic
> matter and transmute it into whatever sort of wonder-fuel we can dream up.
>
> I hope you aren't thinking of the whole "peak oil" fallacy that's been
> debunked time and time again. Because the truth is that our ability to
> extract petroleum-based fuel from the earth is nowhere near exhausted. It
> is, however, limited by plain economics. For example, oil products from
> oil shale are more expensive. As long as we can continue to use crude oil
> to produce all the various products which come from it, for less than it
> would cost to use oil shale, nobody will want to use oil shale, because
> it would be a waste of money.
>   
Well yes, I am thinking of that,  but since I don't think that would 
change your opinion anyway we can put that aside.  So it's fair that you 
ask who the "we" is and yes, I am assuming that the oil in certain 
public areas belongs collectively to the American people.  That's how I 
roll, dawg.

So in that case, you haven't really answered my question:  why should we 
hand over the resource that we own to companies that are privately 
owned?  At least without some kind of guarantee that we will get 
something back out of it.  And I'm totally on board with an answer like, 
"the government should work a deal and get a stake in the arrangement."

Angelo