Larry Blanchard wrote: ...
If there were twice the supply (and particularly if that were a more diverse and/or stable supply (like domestic maybe?)), the magnitude effect of the threats would be far diminished, however...
And I have some ocean front property in Arizona, and if you'll buy that I'll throw the Golden Gate in free.
;-) Glen
...and they can't sit there forever. Oil tankers aren't free; somebody has to pay for the tanker, and at a rate that is equivalent or greater than the tanker owner would earn if it was doing its as-designed purpose of transporting oil.
A secondary problem here is we need more refinery capacity in addition to increased supply. The increased supply goes beyond just the additional oil, it also includes reduced dependency on foreign sources of oil. Domestic means not getting controlled by a bunch of oil sheiks in far-off countries.
But it will sure help for the future. Drilling now and getting oil in several years is much more logical than not drilling now and not getting any more oil in several years, yet the anti-capitalist politicians seem to think that the prospect of 0 barrels of oil in the future since they can't have it now is somehow better than starting now to get more oil in the future.
Sully up the planet? Puhleez. ANWR is going to use 2000 acres out of 19 MILLION acres -- that doesn't even come close to that loaded word. The amount of acreage used is the equivalent of a 1.5" square in a 12 foot by
12 foot room. Would you consider a bare room to be "sullied" if a 1.5" square area had a spot on it? Now, in reality, the real situation will be a bunch of thin lines throughout the whole area, but it's just not worth the additional work to embellish the illustration.HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.