To The Highest Bidder - BusinessWeek

Free Markets.

Long revered as the single best way to grow jobs, profits, wealth for all (trickle down), and to insure the enduring success of corporations (and consequently, you) - free markets.

Less regulation with hands-off policies yields benefits for all.

And where could this be MORE obvious than in the struggle today over new oil drilling on our coastal shelves and Alaska? So, all the more SURPRISE that BusinessWeek would come out with an Emperor Wearing No Clothes piece this week on that very topic.

BusinessWeek cites reports that opening disputed areas to new drilling today would take until 2025 to impact world production BY ONE PERCENT! I'm no Macro-Economist, but I got a hunch that a 1% increase in production, especially 17 years out, would be like well, a drop in the bucket. Plus, I don't really have 17 years to wait for an impact on my fuel bills.

Do you?

What else did BusinessWeek report? Well, how about:

But while companies and their lobbyists are gunning for access, there's no guarantee they'd ultimately produce more fossil fuels. First, seismic exploration data have not been updated for more than a quarter century, and extensive testing would be required before companies made decisions on capital allocations. And any oil that is recovered would go into the global marketplace — not directly into U.S. consumers' cars.”

OUCH - oil would go into global markets?

That seems wrong. (Of course, John McCain thinks that's OK - he voted against retaining new US Oil Production for US Consumers.)

So, let's recap - BusinessWeek says a 1% improvement is 17 years away, the new oil would go to the highest bidder (like, oh, China?). What else?

Well, how about why this would take so long? They said it would "require years of extensive seismic research before a single rig could operate".

Finally, they reported:

If the oil ever does flow from U.S. coastal areas, its ultimate destination offers another wrinkle to the issue. Crude oil sloshes around a vast global marketplace, where energy producers aim to secure the best price. That means U.S.-sourced crude could be sold anywhere a consumer is willing to pay more. Former Vice-President Al Gore, who opposes lifting the moratorium [on new off-shore drilling], raised that point at a July 17 news conference on energy policy. "You take an oil deposit right off the coast of California—that's more likely to be sold to China" - said Gore.

So, my final question for you: is Gore really so much smarter than everybody else to see through these things, or, is everybody else too dumb (or too "interested" - read: financially motivated) to report the obvious?

Tell ya, I gotta hand it to BusinessWeek - the Emperor really IS bare-assed.

Other interesting topics:

One Commenter on this story says: "I'd rather we sell oil to China than see them burn more polluting coal." Shezz.

Then, there's the whole refinery thing - that being: there's really no place in the US to refine more oil (into Gasoline) - Oil Companies have been reducing Refinery capacity to "control costs", resulting in less production. Net-net, we import Gasoline as well as Oil into the US.

All of which leads me to conclude that this is a Stinking Mess that needs some better leadership in Washington than we've had in the last 25 years.

- JT

(See entire story.)