Friday, May 16, 2008

How Much Longer on the Foreign Teet?

This is an excerpt from an AP story today, my comments follow:

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) -- Saudi Arabia's leaders made clear Friday they see no reason to increase oil production until customers demand it, apparently rebuffing President Bush amid soaring U.S. gasoline prices.

It was Bush's second personal appeal this year to King Abdullah, head of the monarchy that rules this desert kingdom that is a longtime prime U.S. ally and home to the world's largest oil reserves. But Saudi officials stuck to their position that they will only pump more oil into the system when asked to by buyers, something they say is not happening now, the president's national security adviser told reporters.

"Saudi Arabia does not have customers that are making requests for oil that they are not able to satisfy," Stephen Hadley said on a day when oil prices rose above $127 a barrel, a record high. "What the Saudis wanted to tell us was we're doing everything we can do ... to meet this problem, but it's a complicated problem."

The Saudi oil minister, Ali al-Naimi, announced that the kingdom decided on May 10 to raise production by 300,000 barrels at the request of customers, including the United States. He said that increase was sufficient.

"Supply and demand are in balance today," he told a news conference. "How much does Saudi Arabia need to do to satisfy people who are questioning our oil practices and policies?"

So how much longer does the United States, the UNITED STATES!! have to bow down to these countries that support terror, and treat women as animals? We are (though you could certainly question it) the most powerful nation on the planet, yet we let dictators tell us how we are going to consume and how much we are going to pay for energy.

What is it going to take to get the democrats that bow to the neo-liberals and the environmentalist that will need to stop blocking efforts for the United States to exploit it's own energy reserves. Such as in the Gulf Coast, off the coast of California, and in ANAWR?

I know, I know, everyone says "This is why we need alternative energy" but we can't even get these wacko's to pass legislation to put that in place. Wind energy, to many NIMBY voices. Nuclear, Might as well suggest burning kittens in their eyes. Hydro, oooh kills the fishys. These people are NUTS I tell you.

Not to mention that I don't think ANYONE has any idea just how much "alternative energy" sources it would take to satisfy just the residential and commercial energy needs of this country.
We'd have to build nearly 900 nuclear plants or 103,000 wind farms to meet 100% of our energy needs. Completely unrealistic.

In addition when you start talking about alternative vehicle energy, you open an whole new can of worms regarding delivery infrastructure or the just plain fact that unless someone figures out how to make current gas using vehicles run on something else with say a conversion that cost less the $100, then people WILL NEVER GIVE UP THEIR GAS USING TRANSPORTATION. I mean come on even if you made energy so cheap that you could give it away, and therefore people could plug in electric cars and get the energy the need to move them at no cost, unless you gave the cars away for free also, how long do you think it would take before everyone would be able to or afford to get rid of their old gas cars and buy new electric cars. I'd imagine a pretty long time.

So that leaves us friends with one option. Oil. This country's infrastructure is built on it, for better or worse and we better wake up to the fact that we need it in order to enjoy the lifestyles this country has for the last 100 years. No amount of tree-hugging denial is going to change that.

1 comment:

J. Mitchell Bowles said...

Could we not do what President Palmer would do on an episode of 24? ...you know...Tell the Arabs that they and their business practices are a direct threat to the National Security of the United States and it's economy and give them 1 week to turn over control of the oil field to us or we will strategically place a few nuclear warheads in certain orifices?