Thread: Crude Awakening By Oliver North

Crude Awakening
By Oliver North
January 4, 2008

The frozen water pipe this morning was a rude awakening. I managed to thaw the pipe without bursting it, thus saving the cost of a plumber. However, a few hours later, I opened our bill for home heating oil. At $2.70 per gallon, it was a blunt reminder that, with petroleum at $100 a barrel, the future cost of keeping fuel in our furnace -- and gasoline in our cars -- will make the plumber's price pale in comparison.

According to the "experts," those of us who drive to work will be paying $4 per gallon for motor fuel soon, and we all will be paying more for electricity, consumer products, air travel and to heat our homes. Happy New Year.

Depending on which "experts" you believe, these ever-higher prices for energy are because:

A. Violence in Nigeria, Africa's No. 1 oil-producing nation, threatens exploration and deliveries.

B. Mexican oil depots and on-load ports are threatened by bad weather.

C. The government in Tehran has threatened to cut off oil production if sanctions are imposed over Iran's nuclear weapons program.

D. Turkey's attacks on Kurdish militants threaten deliveries of Iraqi oil.

E. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries says demand for crude oil threatens to outstrip OPEC production by 2024.

Note that "threat" appears in each of the explanations for this week's price spike. Note, as well, that all these "threats" -- and the century mark for the price we pay for crude oil -- come just two weeks after President Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. In its Dec. 19 news release, the White House said the new law will "help reduce U.S. dependence on oil." The new law sets higher fuel economy standards for automobiles, mandates the production of 36 billion gallons of biofuel by 2022 and requires higher energy efficiency in everything from household appliances to light bulbs.

This new law doesn't mean we will be paying less for fuel to propel motor vehicles, heat our homes or to light our streets and buildings. No one in his right mind argues that synthetic or renewable biofuels will be less expensive than those that are petroleum-based. While it may make farmers in the Midwest happy to know that soon we will burn more corn in our cars than we eat, it doesn't do anything to reduce the global demand for oil -- or the flow of petrodollars to finance the jihad being waged against the West.

This week, when crude oil topped the $100-per-barrel mark, White House press secretary Dana Perino was asked whether President Bush planned to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to drive down the price of home heating fuel -- as Bill Clinton did in September 2000, when he released 30 million barrels in an effort to prop up Al Gore's faltering presidential bid. She responded, "This president would not use the SPR to manipulate (prices), unless there was a true emergency."

Unfortunately, that's the wrong question and the wrong answer. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created in the aftermath of the 1973 Mideast war and the ensuing Arab oil embargo. Worldwide, oil prices had risen from $3 per barrel to more than $11 per barrel, triggering a global recession. The following year, the SPR was created, not as a way to manipulate prices but as a means of ensuring the U.S. had sufficient oil available to avoid economic collapse.

Today's record oil prices simply reflect that demand -- much of it from China and India -- is outstripping supply. This problem isn't going to be solved by the new energy law. It will not go away, no matter how many new light bulbs we screw in -- or how much of our food we turn into "renewable" motor fuel.

The solution to this problem isn't just "energy independence" for Americans; it's "independence from oil" for the whole of the planet. This week's new high in the cost of petroleum should have triggered a "crude awakening" among our political leaders, instead of just more finger-pointing rhetoric. Those who wish to lead this nation in the future need to put more than hot air into solutions such as clean, safe nuclear energy for electricity and hydrogen fuel-cell technology for propelling people and products around the planet.

Regrettably, none of those running for president this year has been willing to seriously address the problem of how we get there from here. Perhaps now that the candidates have moved beyond Iowa -- and the Corn Belt -- one of them will announce a real energy plan.

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/onorth ... 1041.shtml

" Perhaps now that the candidates have moved beyond Iowa -- and the Corn Belt -- one of them will announce a real energy plan"

Not holding my breath

Those who wish to lead this nation in the future need to put more than hot air into solutions such as clean, safe nuclear energy for electricity and hydrogen fuel-cell technology for propelling people and products around the planet.

Nuclear power might be sensible in civilized countries (I used to work in a nuclear plant so I am not overly concerned about potential safety issues) but to place these in unstable, developing countries will continue the high level security anxiety we have been experiencing for the last five years. Not only do we have enough trouble trying to corral N. Korea's and Iran's dangerous nuclear projects, Iran has also talked about exporting such technology to regions like Somalia. What kind of nightmare would this become??

These countries are going to want to modernize so the best thing would be to stimulate research on alternative power, bring the costs down and turn that into our new exportable product. One good place to start would be in Bi-Lateral (US-Canada) windpower projects in the Great Lakes region.

So then why aren't we getting our oil from ANWR or the Gulf?

I am not sure what constitutes a stable country these days.

Countries in Europe are erupting and right now, a spark could set of something awful here in this country.

I am not sure how I feel about nuclear energy. I know it has worked well for some countries and I think it could work here. The problem is, however, for many years now, there has been no accountability for poor construction, or bad management of any company.

I don't want corner-cutting, illegal-hiring, bottom-line-is-all-that's-important, politician-owning, companies building those plants - and to say the government will have inspections, etc., is a joke.

I think all these reasons for expensive oil are totally bogus.

We are supposedly fighting in Iraq to 'perserve our interests' why are gas prices so high?

We could have taken the trillions we have spent on this war and gone a long way down the road to energy independence - and we aren't through spending yet. If we had done that rather than waging war, the results would have been lasting. This war probably will never end and we already have others looming on the horizon - with trillions more being needed.

It is silly to put the oil companies in charge of finding alternative fuel. What this president did was put big agribusiness and big oil in partnership to make sure no cheaper alternative was found.