Posted by gromit on March 5, 2005, at 10:06:19
In reply to Re: U.S. Does not follow the rules of NAFTA, posted by AuntieMel on March 4, 2005, at 14:54:33
> Well, my family does make it's living from the oil biz. I'm in software, so I'm sure I could find employment somewhere else, but I love geophysica and would die a slow death in databases. I'm not too worried about my own bank account actually. I'm fifty and don't expect to work much longer.
Ahhh, death by brain numbing years spent optimizing meaningless SQL. I'm glad to hear you are comfortable and won't have to worry too much about money. Dealing with M.I. is bad enough without adding financial troubles. I'm speaking for myself since I don't know you, for all I know you are only here for the sparkling conversation ;^)
> And for less selfish reasons I'd love to see the domestic industry turn around. I keep saying it, but nobody seems to grasp that the industry has lost hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country since the early eighties. And what is left of the work force is aging. Average age is around fifty last I heard. Schools aren't putting out replacements because the students think the market is too volitile.
It's sad to see good people lose their jobs. Was this caused by cutting production or is it more automation in the process? Maybe a combination of the two? I think when it becomes more obvious that these are high paying jobs with a good future and a shortage of qualified replacements there will be more students pursuing them. Fossil fuels are a dead end though, it's just a matter of when.
> As to limits of where to extract, the driving force seems to be 'not where I can see it.' Offshre Cal and Fla are out because it won't look pretty.
Well here in CA and probably at least as much in Florida, we get a lot of revenue from tourists who come to relax and enjoy the warm weather and the beaches. I doubt they want to look out at the ocean sunset thru oil rigs, I know I don't. It's bad enough every time it rains we have to close the beaches because of raw sewage in the water.
> Kind of 'we'll have our cake and Texas can eat it.'
That's one way to look at it. Another is we give out of state companies rights to come and setup rigs offshore, there is no danger of polluting *their* coastline, they just rake in the profits.
> And if you pay attention you'll see that most of the natural disasters coming from spills are frin tankers - a result of shipping it in.
>
> But - back to limits for exploration. I'm not fond of the idea of more exploring in Alaska, though I'd need more details to be completely against it. The new technology is so amazing - you can set up the drilling rig a very long way from where you are actually exploring - there are now steerable bits. So if one place is environmentally sensitive there could be a spot a half mile away that isn't as big an issue.I know nothing about oil drilling, it sounds interesting, but we're talking about an absolutely huge area here. Half a mile may be enough when you're forced to avoid the nesting place of a pair of whatevers <Damm, I tried to come up with something funny but I got nothin>.
> So - my bank account asside - I think there are serious reasons to try to rely less on foriegn resources. So I would do:
>
> Convert many electric plants to natural gas. It burns much cleaner than oil and is largely domestic.
>
> Convert any remaining fuel oil systems to gas. If it takes government subsidies or tax breaks so be it. We would all breathe easier.
>
> Meanwhile beef up the domestic exploration because - right now - it's the only game in town. Depending too much on foriegn sources increases our vulnerability.
>
> And while we're making ourselves more self sustaining this way (taking care of the present), we should look at alternative forms of energy in order to take care of the future.It all sounds good but I don't see this administration providing funding for any of it. They don't even pretend to care about the environment anymore. Maybe in another 4 years.
> After the Arab Oil Embargo (1970s) we *were* determined to do more domestic exploration *AND* there were tax writeoffs for anyone using solar, wind, or whatever. I think the Reagan "simplification" took that away, but I'm not sure.
I remember alternating days but only from carpool ladies and watching the steam coming out of my dad's ears. You would think it would have sent us running full speed away from foreign oil. If you say Reagan basically killed it I'll take your word for it, it certainly fits the pattern. That last sentence, heh, there could be a lot of material but I won't go there. We need to start these programs again ASAP, the money spent now will payoff down the road.
> Fact is people in this country think they are entitled to cheap energy.
>
> You might also look at the declining dollar for a reason the price of oil is high. Oil is priced worldwide in dollars, so a high - to us - cost is really not much change at all in other countries.I have a really hard time believing in supply and demand when it comes to oil, as soon as the price drops production seems to follow, any shortage is artificial but that's just my impression. And the dollar is not *that* volatile to explain the prices I was paying last summer.
I think the reason people feel they are entitled is it's been that way for so long, and our economy is so dependant on cheap energy.
> As to govt ties to Hal and others? I was very surprised when Cheney got that job there, but figured they wanted him to use his contacts in the state department to their advantage. Which is totally legal. I think everyone was surprised when he ended up on the ticket for VP.IMO there is a difference between what is technically legal and what is right or wrong. When it comes to business otherwise good people seem to think anything goes, stab your friend in the back for a promotion, screw people living on fixed incomes, hey nothing personal it's just business.
> But maybe you are talking about the contracts in Iraq that Hal got, with little or no bidding.
That is what I meant but Microsoft comes to mind.
> One thing to remember is that Hal is the parent company of Brown & Root (now combined with Kellogg to make KBR). B&R has done government work on a cost plus basis for years and years. My first memory of them was the construction work done in the early 70s in Vietnam [remember the tiger cages?] They are the only group I know of that can mobilize a large work force to go into warlike conditions. But - they've got lots of experience in this vein.
I don't remember the tiger cages, but I've read a lot about that war and even retained some of it. I remember running around the house shouting "the war is over", I think my mom was surprised I even knew there was a war going on. Maybe Hal. really was the only company who could have done the job, it just all seems very suspicious. As much as I disagree with this administration I think they believe they are doing the right thing. IMO Cheney is all about the money, right or wrong doesn't even enter the equation. After the Supreme Court voted *along party lines* to impose Bush on us the little faith I had in our government is almost gone.
I enjoy talking with you, thank's for replying and enduring my scattered writing style.
poster:gromit
thread:465800
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050122/msgs/466919.html