By John Ransom
Sunday, June 02, 2013
DagNabbit wrote: Ransom cracks me up: This is the same
guy that screams "Burn more oil!" at the top of his lungs every week.
You want to F the Saudis? Stop buying their oil. (PS: Now I'll make the Sunday
edition where he goes on and on about how the Keystone pipeline will free us
from the Saudi trap. Hint: It won't).
Dear Comrade DN,
I don’t scream, “Burn more oil!”
I scream: “Drill more oil.”
Comrade, it may come as a big surprise, but despite the
wishes of liberals like you, our economy depends upon oil. That’s not a fact
that’s likely not to change much in the next fifty years.
There are two ways to face this issue: 1) Use less oil;
or 2) Find more oil.
I have no issue with using less oil if you can give me an
economical alternative, but you can’t. Every policy that you and your liberal
cadres want involves me opening up my checkbook and paying for energy schemes
that don’t work, cost jobs and lead to higher prices.
And by the way, I don’t want to screw the Saudis, as you
suggest I should. I was objecting to Saudi nationals being here who hate
America. I also object to paying $95 per barrel of oil when the economy should
be supporting prices closer to $55 per barrel. The $40 difference is mainly
attributable to Obama and his nutty professors like Dr. Stephen Chu who thinks
$5.00 a gallon gasoline would be a swell idea.
But here’s the main point. We got a lot of oil here. Five
years ago liberals teamed up with the “settled science” crowd to claim that we
didn’t have enough oil and gas here in the United States to make a difference
in our dependence on foreign sources of oil.
But that’s not true, as even scientists now have to
admit.
A new report from the UK research team at Price
Waterhouse and Cooper confirms what we knew all along: We’re right and they’re
wrong.
Really wrong; once-in-a-lifetime, disastrously wrong if
grading on the scale the rest of us are subject to.
Grading on the liberal scale, however, it’s just normal,
everyday, run of the mill errors in judgment, math, worldview, physics and
fluid mechanics that liberals deal with all the time in an effort to “wish” the
world to Utopia while their leaders are busy creating Dystopia for all but a
select few.
This latest discovery that we are right and they are
wrong, shouldn’t shock us.
Here’s the frightening truth: “Shale oil (light tight
oil) is rapidly emerging as a significant and relatively low cost new
unconventional resource in the US,” writes PWC in its February, 2013 report
Shale oil: the next energy revolution. “There is potential for shale oil
production to spread globally over the next couple of decades. If it does, it
would revolutionise global energy markets, providing greater long term energy
security at lower cost for many countries.”
PWC estimates the GDP increase to be between 2-5 percent
in the US. Using today’s GDP figures that’s between $300 billion and $750
billion, with my estimate being a nice midway point in the PWC estimate.
As I have pointed out all along, the Keystone pipeline
issue isn’t about the safety of a pipeline. Obama and enviro-whacko friends
know that if they allow Canadian tar sands oil to be developed via the Keystone
pipeline, that the US will also start to develop their own tar-sands and shale
oil. The US contains well over 600 years of known reserves and that would allow
the US to be a net exporter of oil. If that happens, the “green” economy ruse
that the left has sponsored, already reeling from bankruptcies and cronyism,
would collapse.
It would show that there is no shortage of oil and
“green” energy can not compete with fossil fuels.
And of course the Left cannot afford that kind of
nonsense. Jobs and economic growth?
Peace and prosperity? Where does it all end?
I can tell you this much Comrade Dag: In the future, it’s
going to suck to be a liberal like you.
No comments:
Post a Comment