Growing Scandal: US Democratic Congress Keeping Fuel Supply Artificially Low to Raise Price of Oil and Gasoline, Political Peak Oil
[Leftists (AF)] in particular have insisted for years that the world is approaching — or has passed — the point of "peak oil." This is the idea that we've hit the maximum rate of global oil extraction, so the supply will steadily diminish, causing prices to rise. I'm not personally convinced — ...Ronald Bailey, may be right that we've reached the point of "political peak oil," which is to say that various [intentional (AF)] political inefficiencies mean we can't keep up with demand.
Either way, [leftists (AF)] should be rejoicing. High oil prices...lend credence to the "peak oil" argument that we need to wean off petroleum... _Source
We at Al Fin have been subtly suggesting that the US Democratic Party controlled Congress has an agenda to create political peak oil, and artificially raise the price of energy. We suggested that the Boxer and Pelosi congress does this, knowing full well that the US economy will suffer as a result. Here is early confirmatory evidence that Al Fin's viewpoint is not only correct, but probably understated:
In an interview with Bloomberg TV's "Money and Politics" last night, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., explained Democrats don't want to increase supplies of oil and gasoline because they want to wean Americans off of petroleum products.Al Fin is as much in favour of weaning the world off of petroleum- jihad juice -as anyone. But these things must be done in a rational, measured way. The US Congress of Boxer and Pelosi want to force the US off of petroleum "cold turkey." Such a plan is designed to cause the maximum pain and economic damage as possible.
Asked point-blank if Democrats in the Senate would consider how increasing the supply of oil would lower the prices that are pinching U.S. consumers, Cantwell replied: "Oh, we definitely want to move beyond petroleum. And so there will be a supply side offered by the Democrats and it will include everything from battery technology to making sure that we have good home domestic supply, and looking, as I said about moving faster on those kind of things like wind and solar that can help us with our high cost of natural gas."
The point was underlined by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who said Democrats are not even permitting debate on legislation and amendments designed to increase the supply of oil and gasoline to U.S. consumers.
"Today, the appropriations markup that was going to include amendments that would open up the outer continental shelf and maybe even shale in Colorado and Utah was canceled," she told the same Bloomberg interviewer. "It wasn't postponed, it was canceled. So that indicates to me that the majority is not going to try to have an open debate, but I hope I'm wrong. If they have an open debate, and we're allowed to have amendments, and we have a balanced plan that includes production in all the sectors, then I believe we can meet this problem in a bipartisan way, and that's what we should be doing for America." _Source_via_TomNelson
The fact that this Democratic Party "scorched earth" policy toward the US economy is taking place in the runup to a US Presidential election, should tell US voters about the main motivations of the Democratic Party in their country.
Boxer, Pelosi, and the rest are hoping that US voters will not notice what they are doing. They are hoping that Senator John McCain is too much of a gentleman to press the point in the remaining months of the campaign. Well, actually, they are hoping that McCain will not change his stance, which until recently was aligned with Boxer and Pelosi's anti-oil platform.
Voters in democracies have very short memories. As Audacious Epigone points out frequently, in a multicultural, multiracial society, voters do not vote on the basis of issues. They vote instead on the basis of race, culture, religion, etc. Democracies are not very intelligent. That is why politicians such as Boxer and Pelosi find it so easy to feather their nests, secure in the belief that no one will ever bring them to an accounting.
Al Fin and Oynklent Green [OTC:OYNK] would like to see them proven wrong.
Labels: oil
posted by al fin at 9:17 am
5 Comments:
"Political peak oil", that is an interesting concept.
Of course, politicians want to communicate that they are "doing something about it" so they go after the speculators instead of increasing supply and restoring the value of the dollar.
See: Our inalienable right to low gas prices
AF,
Congressional Republicans and big name conservative media figures (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity) are hitting Democratic restrictions on increased drilling pretty hard. Does political peak oil represent a rubicon that once crossed, is crossed forever, or do you think Republicans can harness this populist issue to gain (what would be deserved) political advantage?
"We suggested that the Boxer and Pelosi congress does this, knowing full well that the US economy will suffer as a result."
The suffering of the US economy is certainly not of interest to them given their low estimation of their fellow Americans. But what I want to know is if they have considered that this does to the economies in developing nations over the long-term where economic matters are a matter of life and death in some cases. Do they not care? Or is the prospect of keeping the poor in the form that God intended - that of charity recipients - an unintended side bonus of this policy.
Aschwin: Just as you say, increasing supply and restoring the value of the dollar are the rational choices, so the government does the opposite.
AE: If Republicans were smart they would hit the issue hard. But Republicans, like Democrats, are not known for their intelligence.
Baron: A poor voter is a Democratic voter. Creating more poverty by whatever means necessary is a useful way of growing the Democratic party.
The Dems are trying to stop the development of heavy oil reserves (shale, oilsands, bitumen, etc)"
[Democrats counter that none of those actions would lower energy costs in the short term and that more must be done to develop alternative energy. In the case of shale, some argue, too many uncertainties exist to move forward aggressively.
"The administration is trying to set the stage for a last-minute fire sale of commercial oil-shale leases in western Colorado, despite the fact that we are still years away from knowing if the technologies for developing oil shale on a commercial scale are even viable," said Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar. ]
Ken Salazar should check a small company called Ivanhoe Energy. They have a pilot plant out in California that coverts heavy crudes into medium crude (HTL). Their process requires no natural gas or expensive catalysts. It uses the waste products of the process (petroleum coke) as a source of energy.
Ivanhoe's website have some technical papers and vids on their site for those who are interested.
http://www.ivanhoe-energy.com/s/HTLVideo.asp
I am sure there are other companies working on improved processes to refine previously uneconomic sources of petroleum.
Post a Comment
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” _George Orwell
<< Home