sleeper;1056079 wrote:Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries have already come out and said they will cover any barrels lost from Iran blocking the straight. If Oil goes to $150 or $250 a barrel, this will hurt no doubt in the short term.

The Saudi's and OPEC would love to sell us oil at $150-$200 a barrel. They would make a fortune. It would me a massive transfer of wealth.

sleeper;1056079 wrote:However in the long term, this will quicken the diffusion of alternative energies and this is something OPEC and other oil producing countries DO NOT WANT.

A viable alternative energy replacement will not happen in our lifetimes. We are talking a disruption in supply not destruction of proven oil reserves. The world holds plenty of oil.

sleeper;1056222 wrote:There won't always be a market for oil, we are going to run out eventually. Nice try though. There eventually will be a time when oil is too expensive and we have to rely on the market to come up with a solution to the problem. I'm one of those people that prefers to solve a problem now rather than push it off into the future for my children to deal with.

In a free market when the earths oil reserves begin to run out that is when a market will develop for alternative energy. By then we will be mining Mars.

majorspark;1056223 wrote:The Saudi's and OPEC would love to sell us oil at $150-$200 a barrel. They would make a fortune. It would me a massive transfer of wealth.

In the short term they would love that, in the long term they'll be eating sand while America is zipping by on free solar/wind/nuclear/hydrogen energy. If OPEC really wants the price of oil to be $150-$200 a barrel, what's stopping them? All they have to do is vastly decrease the supply of oil.

A viable alternative energy replacement will not happen in our lifetimes. We are talking a disruption in supply not destruction of proven oil reserves. The world holds plenty of oil.

Link?

majorspark;1056223 wrote:The world holds plenty of oil.

The United States alone holds plenty of oil.

Oil shale in the U.S., for example, contains more than 3 times the known oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. The problem is the advancement of technologies to easily and economically extract the oil. Plus the environmentalist loons block those efforts at every opportunity.

I guess it's far better to allow the Saudis to spoil their environment and transfer our wealth to a politically unstable source of relatively cheap oil than work towards true energy independence while responsibly maintaining the environment.

Apparently it's not possible to do both?

There eventually will be a time when oil is too expensive and we have to rely on the market to come up with a solution to the problem. I'm one of those people that prefers to solve a problem now rather than push it off into the future for my children to deal with.

No duh...did you think of that all by yourself? The discussion on this thread relates to short term views on oil and its importance to our economy, and the candidates viewpoints. Please don't try to lecture me on oil...I have been posting on it since back at JJ. We have at least enough 'easy' oil on the planet to last 70 years. The problem immediately relates to its location and the geopolitical problem it presents. Moreover, you would be a fool to think that China and India are not moving strategically to protect their supply of oil to fuel their burgeoning economies. I am with you 100% if you feel that the U.S. has to develop alternative sources. We've had 40 years to contemplate it and have done little, comforted by the open spigot we've enjoyed. Doing this however, cannot be accomplished overnite, and will take a coherent, bipartisan national energy strategy....that's not going to happen anytime soon given the political climate in Washington.

Oil shale in the U.S., for example, contains more than 3 times the known oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. The problem is the advancement of technologies to easily and economically extract the oil. Plus the environmentalist loons block those efforts at every opportunity

Not to disagree with you...but unless we develop a miracle technology, that oil will be available, but cost a lot to produce.

HitsRus;1056307 wrote:Not to disagree with you...but unless we develop a miracle technology, that oil will be available, but cost a lot to produce.

I think it can be done. The problem is as long as relatively cheap and abundant sources of foreign oil are available (despite the political instability associated with it) it's simply not attractive at this point to invest the resources towards making it a reality.

Ron Paul has never said anything about keeping our navy in the docks and having no presence in the world. People who don't understand that don't want to believe that Bill O'Reilly is lying to them. He has said before that he likes the idea of using submarines instead of stationing thousands of troops in foreign lands. He has also said that he would keep a presence in the Persian Gulf, he would just back them out in to international waters. If Iran was to close the Strait of Hormuz, that must mean they would attack any of our ships traveling those international waters, which would obviously be cause to defend ourselves and destroy the Iranian navy in the area. Then the people, through Congress, decide if we go to war, as the law states. It isn't that difficult to figure this out. And also, with Paul as president Iran would have no reason to close the Strait because we would be in diplomatic contact with them.

As far as oil prices, the main reason oil is as high as it is has nothing to do with Iran and everything to do with the Federal Reserve. A President Paul's policy to allow competition in currencies would force the Fed to strengthen the dollar or risk people not using Federal Reserve Notes. Not to mention we would be free to drill for oil anywhere in this country. Oil prices would crash.

sleeper;1056235 wrote:in the long term they'll be eating sand while America is zipping by on free solar/wind/nuclear/hydrogen energy

Link?

sleeper;1056235 wrote:If OPEC really wants the price of oil to be $150-$200 a barrel, what's stopping them? All they have to do is vastly decrease the supply of oil.

We protect them. See Gulf War I. They would be southern Iraq. We buy their oil at reasonable prices. If anyone screws with them, well we will make sure they are taken care of.

sleeper;1056235 wrote:Link?

People have to take note the difference between "proven" oil reserves vs recoverable reserves. Proven reserves are those economically feasible to extract at the time. That is what private investors are putting their money on. Other geologically valid categories of oil reserves are ignored. They are too costly to extract. But as the cost of oil rises unconventional oil supplies become increasingly economically feasible to extract and refine. This is why Venezuala and Canada are becoming bigger players in the world oil market. The middle east may eating sand but we may not be riding the wind and lavishing in the rays of the sun. We may still be zipping by powered by the black stuff.

There are 6 pages in the links. You might find it interesting. Check out part 5 (history) of oil reserves. Its applicable.

http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/

HitsRus;1056303 wrote:No duh...did you think of that all by yourself? The discussion on this thread relates to short term views on oil and its importance to our economy, and the candidates viewpoints. Please don't try to lecture me on oil...I have been posting on it since back at JJ. We have at least enough 'easy' oil on the planet to last 70 years. The problem immediately relates to its location and the geopolitical problem it presents. Moreover, you would be a fool to think that China and India are not moving strategically to protect their supply of oil to fuel their burgeoning economies. I am with you 100% if you feel that the U.S. has to develop alternative sources. We've had 40 years to contemplate it and have done little, comforted by the open spigot we've enjoyed. Doing this however, cannot be accomplished overnite, and will take a coherent, bipartisan national energy strategy....that's not going to happen anytime soon given the political climate in Washington.

Why do you want so badly to pass the problem onto the next generation? The long term matters as much as the short term, but short sighted selfish people like you are a part of the problem not the solution.

believer;1056294 wrote:The United States alone holds plenty of oil.

Oil shale in the U.S., for example, contains more than 3 times the known oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. The problem is the advancement of technologies to easily and economically extract the oil. Plus the environmentalist loons block those efforts at every opportunity.

You would enjoy the link I posted. Goes right to this point. Lets not forget that the earth is continuing to produce oil and other fossil fuels. It has been doing so for billions of years. The idea that the human race can come along and suck it dry in a mere hundred years or two is ludacris. Next we will worry about draining the sun's energy. You know too many solar panels are contributing to global cooling. I mean climate change. Don't shit yourself. If solar energy ever becomes the main source politicians seeking power will cry it from the roof tops in order to get their power grubbing hands on it.

majorspark;1056347 wrote:Link?

Google economics. It's a new science. One does not need to take anything more than basic economics that when prices rise, consumers will look for an substitute. The more prices rise, the more viable and affordable those substitutes become.

We protect them. See Gulf War I. They would be southern Iraq. We buy their oil at reasonable prices. If anyone screws with them, well we will make sure they are taken care of.

Protect them? From what? We can't even afford to protect ourselves.

People have to take note the difference between "proven" oil reserves vs recoverable reserves. Proven reserves are those economically feasible to extract at the time. That is what private investors are putting their money on. Other geologically valid categories of oil reserves are ignored. They are too costly to extract. But as the cost of oil rises unconventional oil supplies become increasingly economically feasible to extract and refine. This is why Venezuala and Canada are becoming bigger players in the world oil market. The middle east may eating sand but we may not be riding the wind and lavishing in the rays of the sun. We may still be zipping by powered by the black stuff.

There are 6 pages in the links. You might find it interesting. Check out part 5 (history) of oil reserves. Its applicable.

http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/

This doesn't answer my question. I hope the price of oil rises so we can finally get the alternative renewable energies that we so desperately need. The quicker we ween ourselves off of oil, the better off we will be.

sleeper;1056362 wrote:Google economics. It's a new science. One does not need to take anything more than basic economics that when prices rise, consumers will look for an substitute. The more prices rise, the more viable and affordable those substitutes become.

And that substitute will first be previously economically unfeasible supplies of fossil fuels. This oil is aleady hitting the market. Good luck on your solar venture. I hope it pays off for your children.

Why do you want so badly to pass the problem onto the next generation?

What part of my post didn't you get???
I specifically said," I am with you 100% if you feel that the U.S. has to develop alternative sources. We've had 40 years to contemplate it and have done little, comforted by the open spigot we've enjoyed."

BGFalcons82;1056140 wrote:Back to my original question....and it is an extremely fair question to aks Dr. Paul...how would President Paul react to economic threats in the Straits or in the Suez?

My big issue with Paul has always been his idealistic approach to our aggressive involvement in the world. We be nice and they will be nice. The world will be a happy place. The US and Isreal the two big world aggressors have had a brief existence as nations in the last 2,000 yrs. Yet the world still ripped each other up. He is wrong on this.

That said I do not fear Paul will leave us to the wolves in these instances. The Straits of Hormuz though not international waters are split between Iran and Oman. The straits are passable through Oman's territorial waters alone. Though shipping would be greatly hindered. Iran would have to invade a neighboring nations territorial waters to completely shut down the shipping lanes. They would open up a world of shit if they did so.

Commercial and naval vessels would attempt to pass in Omans territorial waters. If Iran were to lay a finger on one of them they would invite war upon themselves. Not just by the US. I can not see Paul not protecting American commercial and naval shipping lanes in Oman if the nation of Oman wants them open to international travel. He would likely order naval escorts of American commercial vessels through Oman's territorial waters. If Iran attacked them they would be under orders to respond defensively. This would be an act of war against the US. Paul would ask congress for a declaration of war to secure the shipping lanes at the least if not seize the whole strait in order to accomplish it.

^^^I have heard several conservatives remark this very thing...that the realities of office would force him to act just like every other Prez (including Obama). Ron I think, is good at shooting from the hip...and not having to actually take responsibility for his decisions....mainly cause nobody ever listened to him or took him seriously:laugh: If he actually had to take responsibility...might be a different scenario.

HitsRus;1056416 wrote:What part of my post didn't you get???
I specifically said," I am with you 100% if you feel that the U.S. has to develop alternative sources. We've had 40 years to contemplate it and have done little, comforted by the open spigot we've enjoyed."

I read it. Like I said, I'm one of those people that wishes for large oil shocks. The short term pain would be well worth the long term gain.

HitsRus;1056664 wrote:^^^I have heard several conservatives remark this very thing...that the realities of office would force him to act just like every other Prez (including Obama). Ron I think, is good at shooting from the hip...and not having to actually take responsibility for his decisions....mainly cause nobody ever listened to him or took him seriously:laugh: If he actually had to take responsibility...might be a different scenario.

On the opposite side of that coin, he could think that if nobody takes him seriously, nobody is really paying attention to him, which would mean that he could vote in his own best interest or even in ways that people are explaining as popular.

The short term pain would be well worth the long term gain.

You've never been thru hard times. You cannot make that judgement with a straight face.

On the opposite side of that coin, he could think that if nobody takes him seriously, nobody is really paying attention to him, which would mean that he could vote in his own best interest or even in ways that people are explaining as popular.

Whole different ball game being the prez vs. a rep from the house..

HitsRus;1056703 wrote:Whole different ball game being the prez vs. a rep from the house..

That's kind of my point. If someone was ever going to act in self interest (standing with the popular vote), knowing that fewer eyes were on them, it would be in Congress, where you are one of hundreds. However, someone who has stood on principle when fewer eyes were on him is certainly more likely to do so when all eyes are on him.

HitsRus;1056703 wrote:You've never been thru hard times. You cannot make that judgement with a straight face.

The worst recession of all time? I think we are headed for hard times regardless of what we do with Iran. Maybe I should be endorsing war with Iran, because that will certainly push the US into bankruptcy far quicker.

^ I was referring to you personally.

sleeper;1056719 wrote:The worst recession of all time? I think we are headed for hard times regardless of what we do with Iran. Maybe I should be endorsing war with Iran, because that will certainly push the US into bankruptcy far quicker.

Sorry, you just proved his point, this recession, no matter how bad the media/politicians want to make it sound to bash Bush, is not worse than what we went through in the late 70s.

sleeper;1056356 wrote:Why do you want so badly to pass the problem onto the next generation? The long term matters as much as the short term, but short sighted selfish people like you are a part of the problem not the solution.

We have at least 2 centuries of natural gas right here, right under our feet. It is the cleanest fuel around. Yet, we have radical enironmentalists hell bent on putting it all off limits. When these whackos regain their senses, maybe we can have a discussion.

jmog;1056811 wrote:Sorry, you just proved his point, this recession, no matter how bad the media/politicians want to make it sound to bash Bush, is not worse than what we went through in the late 70s.

Really? We've never had unemployment this high linger this long. We've never had our long term debt outlook equal 4 times our GDP and only getting worse. The recession still isn't over, if anything it will only get worse. I didn't prove his point.