Constructive gadfly
Published on August 13, 2008 By stevendedalus In Politics

 

 

The JU "controversy" should clear the air over offshore drilling. First off as Pelosi says let's start up the inactive licensed areas; then Congress for one dollar should permit all other areas to be explored for plausible oil reserves. When more or less proven, license at $1mil the oil companies to drill as long as it beyond horizons, and if not states in question must approve.

As for the use of the Arctic Ocean already under exploration and in competition with other nations, Congress should give its blessings and without costly licenses. ANWR should be issued permits--the usual $6mil eliminated--for $2mil subject to strict Environmental Protective Agency oversight. For all other licenses of areas that have not yet been activated a reduction of $5mil should be the rule as incentive to oil companies to get moving. It goes without saying that all new oil is not to be exported.

So-called "windfall profits" should be perceived as a strategy to get each company to prove that  50% of "excess" profit is being invested in non-oil based production or research.

We don't discuss the profits of Big Coal--we should--the excess profits of which should be returned for the purpose of cleaning up the industry via new technology and of that already developed.

On the other hand it is imperative that the current "rational enthusiasm" for alternatives not be sidetracked by falling prices which will only rise again when winter sets in. Nor should we be bamboozled by OPEC stratagems always lurking to undermine our independence.     

 

Copyright © 2008 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: Aug 13,  2008.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

http://www.lulu.com/rrkfinn


Comments
on Aug 13, 2008
On the other hand it is imperative that the current "rational enthusiasm" for alternatives not be sidetracked by falling prices


The "enthusiams" will not be, the investment will be. Not many people are going to "give" money away and until they can become cost effective (that means oil has to stay high), that is all it amounts to.

As for Pelosi, she has already shown that she does not know how to keep a promise or tell the truth. When she actually allows it, we can celebrate. But I would warn you against premature celebrations. There are no Oil headquarters in her district like the tuna ones.
on Aug 13, 2008
The "enthusiams" will not be, the investment will be. Not many people are going to "give" money away and until they can become cost effective (that means oil has to stay high), that is all it amounts to.


You might get an argument from Pickens and Gore. But you're right on sky high prices. There'd be no discussion if gas stayed at a buck fifty.
on Aug 14, 2008
I'll give Pickens credit for at least making an effort, but make no mistake, he intends to make big money out of his proposal, one that is premised on permanent federal subsidies to make it affordable. What that means, folks, is that while he makes good money, our taxes go up to subsidize his business. That's the closest thing to a 'windfall profit' I can imagine. Remember, gasoline taxes exist (in theory ) to pay for the consequences of gasoline consumption (roads maintenance & improvement) and, ostensibly, to discourage consumption of gasoline.
on Aug 15, 2008
As for Pelosi, she has already shown that she does not know how to keep a promise or tell the truth.


Where were you when Gongrich was Speaker--were you as harsh then?
one that is premised on permanent federal subsidies to make it affordable.


Sometimes necessary to kick start a new infrastructure.
on Aug 15, 2008
Key word was permanent. Kick start's another thing.
on Aug 15, 2008
Where were you when Gongrich was Speaker--were you as harsh then?


Is that a typo or a new slam term?

I was here. He kept at least some of his. Of the 10 promises, 7 were passed as promised (clinton of course killed some, and SCOTUS some more). Pelosi has done none.
on Aug 15, 2008

Pelosi has done none.

That's not entirely true.  She did get the minimum wage increased.  Everything else failed miserably. 

Although the most offensive thing that is find is that she promised to bring "bi-partisanship, compassion, and integrity" back to congress and instead she has been one of the most partisan leaders congress has ever seen, openly denies votes on bills that she doesn't like (drilling for oil, anti-fairness doctrine, etc) which is neither compassionate or showing of any amount of integrity.

on Aug 15, 2008
That's not entirely true. She did get the minimum wage increased. Everything else failed miserably.


My mistake. She gets a 10%.
on Aug 15, 2008

My mistake. She gets a 10%.

So, her success rate's higher than Congress' approval rating?  Well, that's not hard ... one hundred bored monkeys could bash on keyboards for 18 months and come out with more passable legislation than this Congress has in the same time period.

on Aug 15, 2008
one hundred bored monkeys could bash on keyboards for 18 months and come out with more passable legislation than this Congress has in the same time period.


Well she did not promise that, but I for one am glad of it!
on Aug 16, 2008
Is that a typo or a new slam term?


Typo--I'm not that clever.
she promised to bring "bi-partisanship, compassion, and integrity" back to congress and instead she has been one of the most partisan leaders congress has ever seen,


No such political animal--Speakers have always been partisan. It's a myth that Reagan and Skip O'Neill got along--they were just drinking buddis and jelly bean freaks. For every dollar Reagan got for defense, O'Neill got two for the domestic.
on Aug 16, 2008
No such political animal--Speakers have always been partisan


she promised to bring "bi-partisanship, compassion, and integrity


It is not that speakers are. It is her promise. or lie.