DNRE - Why won't this work???

CGSTL · #1 06-27-2008, 01:11 AM

What do you think of this solution?

SITUATION
Fuel costs for every personal driver and trucker has doubled in the past 3 years.

PROBLEM
Rising fuel costs are crippling the economy and putting a strain on families.

IMPLICATION
The high cost of fuel has a self sustaining negative impact on our economy:
-->Prices of food/goods rise due to transport costs.
----> Families have fewer dollars to allocate to food/goods, which are more expensive.
------> Merchants of food/goods fire employees becuase they are selling less.
--------> Some families have out of work members so they buy even less goods.
----------> Increasing number of Americans require government assistance.
------------> Taxes rise to support increasing transfer payments.

SOLUTION
Summary: Provide low-cost commodity fuel using United States natural resources to renew prosperity through low-cost transportation energy and thousands of jobs.

Establish the Department of Domestic Natural Resource Energy and organize it as a not-for-for profit agency that would do the following:
1. Explore and drill for oil in US Territory - Wet and Dry.
2. Refine Oil into fuels that would be sold into the retail market at net cost (gas, heating, jet, diesel).
3. Provide jobs for thousands of laborers and skilled workers alike.

Impacts:
1. Low cost fuel entering the retail market will directly compete with private companies trying to sell in the US (Exxon, BP, Shell, etc...). These companies may no longer see the US as a profitable customer as gas will now be sold at cost. Tough to compete with a net cost provider. "Big Oil" may now only sell to the world market, which is still fighting over Oil that those companies can drill under their existing lease agreements.

2. Massive job program, yes, but it is providing a commodity that directly fuels the growth of our country.

3. Helps ensure national security; drives economic prosperity; removes the US from the world bidding game for oil.

4. The return to $1.00?

So? Would it work?

Sponsored Links

MrLabGuy · #2 06-27-2008, 01:26 AM

Sounds great...Here is something you never hear from our news media in response to Democrats and the NO DRILLING crowd.

When Obama stands there and says Drilling today won't lower the cost of gasoline on cent for the next 10 years I'd like someone in the media to ask this question.

Well Barrack, How many years will it take to lower gas prices if the US moves to alternative fuels like wind, solar and new technologies which have yet to be invented or perfected?

Can you imagine the dead silence from behind the podium...LOL

Truth is Oil is the fuel of right now...Any effort NOW to drill would send a chill down the Middle East so fast you would see the price of oil drop significantly. Last thing Saudi Arabia wants is us to end our dependence on Saudi oil.

Secondly, we could mobilize as a Nation and make this happen in three years or less with a united front as we did in WWII and the rush to build our military forces.

Lastly, technology is far away from sustaining our need for energy and in the last 20 years we have a foundation to build on but not much more in terms of right now clean energy. Nuclear yes...But that is not what Obama and the Left is looking at as a solution.

Make an announcement Tomorrow that we are embarking on wide scale drilling and were back to $2.75 a gallon gasoline at this time next year.

JCL · #3 06-27-2008, 01:43 AM

So, if I follow your proposal, the government goes into the oil exploration, drilling, production, refining, distribution, and retail sales business?

Since the US reserves will be able to provide, let's say 25% of the requirement, and the Big Oil companies stop selling there, then you reduce consumption four times?

And to fund this massive investment program, the government does what? Raise taxes, or print money? Since they will be so much more efficient than private enterprise, I suppose they could do either without impact.

Where do these ideas come from? For a free-enterprise country, this doesn't sound much like free enterprise.

Why not recognize that all change comes with some pain, and until the US reduces its dependence on artificially cheap fuel, there will be pain. The best plan would be to count on continuing high fuel prices, as it will drive more sustainable behaviours.

CGSTL · #4 06-27-2008, 02:01 AM

Interesting questions. Here are some answers:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL

So, if I follow your proposal, the government goes into the oil exploration, drilling, production, refining, distribution, and retail sales business?
NOT the retail sales businesses. There are plenty of generic retail fuel outlets. I think the Gov't role ends once the refined fuel is pipelined to the current regional storage farms.

Since the US reserves will be able to provide, let's say 25% of the requirement, and the Big Oil companies stop selling there, then you reduce consumption four times?
The US reserves will be able to buy 20-30 years of time while the world competes to develop non-fossil fuel sources (a la hydrogen, electric, etc...) Meanwhile, the US' ability to compete worldwide on a general scale increases due to renewed prosperity and strengthed US dollar from lower energy costs.

And to fund this massive investment program, the government does what? Raise taxes, or print money? Since they will be so much more efficient than private enterprise, I suppose they could do either without impact.
That's a tougher nut to crack. I will let smarter folks than me figure that one out.

Where do these ideas come from? For a free-enterprise country, this doesn't sound much like free enterprise.
The idea came from me. It just hit me. The massive work program concept was used in the past to bring the US out of a depression (1930's) but it didn't have quite the dividend compounding this this may have. It was called the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). Providing essential energy at a commodity price fuels free-enterprise.

Why not recognize that all change comes with some pain, and until the US reduces its dependence on artificially cheap fuel, there will be pain.
The gas price in the US was not artifically cheap. It was market price. Now that the world demand has greatly increased, each country may wish to strengthen their internal economies using their own cheap energy. The US has the natural resources; we should use it. The world's prices at the pump have been high for so long due to the high taxes to support socialism. Your prices are artifically high.

The best plan would be to count on continuing high fuel prices, as it will drive more sustainable behaviours.
IMO, the greatest sustainable behavior a government should encourage is innovation and prosperity. The US did not emerge as a strong nation in a relatively short time because it managed behaviors and operated as a socialist society. It encouraged and reawarded innovation. The result was economic strength.

Eric5273 · #5 06-27-2008, 02:22 AM

You do realize what you are suggesting is socialist in nature, right?

CGSTL · #6 06-27-2008, 02:31 AM

Call it what you like. In generic terms I tend to think of socialism as taking from those who have more and giving it to those who have less.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

You do realize what you are suggesting is socialist in nature, right?

MrLabGuy · #7 06-27-2008, 03:03 AM

Eric??? Why has this not been asked or answered?

When Obama stands there and says Drilling today won't lower the cost of gasoline on cent for the next 10 years I'd like someone in the media to ask this question.

Well Barrack, How many years will it take to lower gas prices if the US moves to alternative fuels like wind, solar and new technologies which have yet to be invented or perfected?

Eric5273 · #8 06-27-2008, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CGSTL

Call it what you like. In generic terms I tend to think of socialism as taking from those who have more and giving it to those who have less.

You misunderstand socialism then. The perfect socialist country would have no taxes at all. Instead of taxing the people, the government would raise money from profits on major industry which would all be nationalized. A good example of this is Venezuela with their oil, or Cuba with their sugar & tabacco. In a country with so much natural resources and wealth, we would not need any taxes at all if we had a system like that. But instead, we allow large multinational corporations to claim ownership of all of our resources, so we are left with nothing. Our country basically owns nothing at all, which is why the US dollar keeps falling.

Eric5273 · #9 06-27-2008, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLabGuy

Eric??? Why has this not been asked or answered?

When Obama stands there and says Drilling today won't lower the cost of gasoline on cent for the next 10 years I'd like someone in the media to ask this question.

Well Barrack, How many years will it take to lower gas prices if the US moves to alternative fuels like wind, solar and new technologies which have yet to be invented or perfected?

There has been no effort to invent or perfect these technologies.
There are a million different tax incentives if you want to invest in oil or coal. Yet there are none if you want to invest in solar, wind, or other renewable technologies. Why do you suppose that is?

It's because nobody has figured out a way yet to put a meter on the wind or the sun, i.e. nobody has figured out a way to limit the supply of these things and thus make it as profitable as coal or oil can be. I'm sure you know your basic economics...... If there is an unlimited supply of a resource, then what will its price be? Answer: zero.

If they could figure out a way to put a meter on the air you breathe, Corporations would claim ownership of the air, and you would have to pay to breathe. Then we would be debating on whether your taxes should pay for some poor lazy bastard to breath, or if he deserves to suffocate, instead of debating the real issue which is whether or not anyone really has a right to own the air, or if it belongs to all of us.

MrLabGuy · #10 06-27-2008, 11:05 AM

But wait Eric...Obama clearly states that the reason not to drill is because it won't lower gas prices for 10 years and thus it is not an option. Yet he does not tell us how many years will it take to lower gas prices if the US moves to alternative fuels like wind, solar and new technologies which have yet to be invented or perfected.

Reason...He does not care that gas prices are high and he's accidentally let that slip when he mad made the comment that he was unhappy that the price went up so fast...Not that it went up.

So if America was clear that Obama has no problem with gas prices being 4, 5, 6 dollars a gallon and has no intention of bringing that price down because he knows it will be YEARS for alternative fuels HE WILL LOSE THE ELECTION. PERIOD.

Wake up America.

Sponsored Links