Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Leave It To The New York Times To Gin Up A Downside To The American Oil Boom
Forbes ^ | April 29, 2013 | Christopher Helman,

Posted on 05/02/2013 8:31:48 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

In a clunky op-ed in the Sunday New York Times called “The Dark Side of Energy Independence,” Benjamin Alter and Edward Fishman, staffers at Foreign Affairs, see all sorts of negative geopolitical effects resulting from an American oil industry that has become so good at extracting fossil fuels that we’re set to enjoy energy independence from the the rest of the world.

In their eyes, America won’t get to enjoy this energy independence at all. Rather we will suffer the consequences of it. “That’s because America’s oil and gas bonanza will drive down global energy prices, undercutting the foundations of petrostates everywhere,” they write.

Alter and Fishman cite the head of commodities research at Merrill Lynch who has suggested that oil could fall to $50 a barrel within two years. This price is so low, they write, that it would destabilize already unstable autocracies like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and even Russia, all of which rely on petrodollars to pay off restive elements and pacify the masses.....

(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: energy; oil; russia; shale
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 next last

1 posted on 05/02/2013 8:31:49 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
"undercutting the foundations of petrostates everywhere,”"

You mean the ones who hate us and want to kill us?

2 posted on 05/02/2013 8:32:59 AM PDT by Mr. K (There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and democrat talking points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Well, it’s easy to see they’re playing for the other team now, isn’t it?


3 posted on 05/02/2013 8:34:08 AM PDT by Clarence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
I read the article, and in a grand strategy sense they were right.

If we stopped buying oil, and the far East started using methane hydrates, the current oil producing nations would be hurt very badly.

They also made the point that the oil dollars flowing into those States distorted they economies,and set them up to fail long term. In other words, a nation that is a boom town.

Not as nuts as it sounds.

4 posted on 05/02/2013 8:34:59 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
That’s because America’s oil and gas bonanza will drive down global energy prices, undercutting the foundations of violent Moslem expansion everywhere,”
5 posted on 05/02/2013 8:35:27 AM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson ONLINE www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

You sir, win the Bill Maher award: “Liberal Bullshit”


6 posted on 05/02/2013 8:37:40 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright (Tokyo Rove is more than a name, it's a GREAT WEBSITE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
So if we don't keep overpaying for gas, the terrorists will come and get us?

Regardless of whether one approves of his methods, GWB at least tried to do something about this potential problem - and what did the Times have to say about that?

It often seems New York liberals think their city should be the only developed part of North America - that everybody else should live on cute little farms and use horses for transport and labor and be no nuisance to their betters in Manhattan who are making the big decisions for them.

7 posted on 05/02/2013 8:37:52 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves (CTRL-GALT-DELETE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

What BS. Energy demand will grow with supply. China and India will remain has major importers and their economies will rapidly grow with cheaper energy.
Developing countries with oil will be able to divert more of their energy supplies to domestic use..this is a net win for everybody. Fracking rules.


8 posted on 05/02/2013 8:39:30 AM PDT by Oldexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

From a long-term geopolitical view, I don’t see it as bad. For centuries, the Arabian Peninsula was more akin to the Middle Ages than the rest of the civilized world. Sand, camels, harems, tribes, etc.

Then came oil. Entire world strategies had to be devised to protect the oil. Lives and treasure were expended for that oil.

Their culture cannot, nor will it ever, support a Western-style government as long as their cult (some call it a religion) holds sway.

If the west becomes energy independent, the region will again revert to the Middle Ages, which is where they belong.

I see no downside.


9 posted on 05/02/2013 8:41:24 AM PDT by abb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
W/O oil, the zoo keepers will not have enough power or money to keep their crazies from killing them. Then once the true enemies come out of the tall weeds we can address the problem with the only thing they respect more than money.
Kaa-Boom
10 posted on 05/02/2013 8:42:17 AM PDT by phs3 (FUBO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldexpat

You are right - the Times is doing what liberals always do, which is running every scenario through a zero sum game mentality (not to mention the America is always wrong mentality too). No other way to reach their absurd conclusion.


11 posted on 05/02/2013 8:43:35 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright (Tokyo Rove is more than a name, it's a GREAT WEBSITE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Alter and Fishman cite the head of commodities research at Merrill Lynch who has suggested that oil could fall to $50 a barrel within two years. This price is so low, they write, that it would destabilize already unstable autocracies like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and even Russia, all of which rely on petrodollars to pay off restive elements and pacify the masses.....

the same ones that send their terrorists to kill us, you mean??

12 posted on 05/02/2013 8:44:43 AM PDT by cardinal4 (Constitution? What Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves

Excellent tagline.

Do these fools realize that petrodollars is the main reason the raghead terrorists are able to be terrorists at all? If we need no more oil from Muslim states, they become irrelevant no matter who is in charge. Let them crash and burn and go back to being goat herders and humpers and killing themselves, because they will no long have the monetary ability to kill us.


13 posted on 05/02/2013 8:45:26 AM PDT by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! You can vote Democrat when you're dead...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

Those countries don’t give a damn about us. Who gives a Shiite what happens to them? Those people take our money and rape and kill us!


14 posted on 05/02/2013 8:46:34 AM PDT by cardinal4 (Constitution? What Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The naval gazers are speculating that oil at $50 per barrel will some how destabilize countries. They are forgetting that as early as 2004, oil was LESS than %50 per barrel.


15 posted on 05/02/2013 8:46:35 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
In their eyes, America won’t get to enjoy this energy independence at all. Rather we will suffer the consequences of it. “That’s because America’s oil and gas bonanza will drive down global energy prices, undercutting the foundations of petrostates everywhere,” they write.

I call this the Wall Mart economics fallacy (Trademark by Tenaciou1).

Liberals insist that Wall Mart is bad for the American economy because they drive the price of staples lower (more affordable goods). What they really mean is that Wall Mart is an evil empire that rakes in too much money and doesn't pay enough taxes.

What they miss is that the standard of living is improved across the board when Wall Mart drives staple good prices down or when the price of energy goes down. There is more private disposal income available for consumer distribution when prices fall. The dollars go farther to drive the private economic engine.

The authors narrative presumes that the wealth of the state (government) is more important than that of the citizens. In America, our government does not own the fossil fuels and thereby cannot profit (revenue) from it except through taxation. There are a great many countries where the government does profit from fossil fuel sales. Saudi Arabian citizens do want energy costs to go up. It helps their country by pacifying their government.

Lower energy prices as traded on futures markets, ironically, would not necessarily improve the net profits of "Big Oil". The volume might go up but the revenue as prices drop may remain level at some point. HOWEVER, the diversity and reserves will drive OPEC to compete with a burgeoning private faction. At some point OPEC will have to cede control of market supply and start competing with each other again (in theory).

Any way you cut it, the authors are wrong on the impact to Americans.

16 posted on 05/02/2013 8:46:36 AM PDT by Tenacious 1 ("The British are Coming (to confiscate weapons)" - Paul Revere (We know how that ended))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Aren’t these the same people that have been pushing alternative energy so we won’t be dependent on those countries?


17 posted on 05/02/2013 8:46:41 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
I suppose its OK if the Saudis flood OUR market with cheap oil and almost destroy our energy production, right?

It happened in the 80’s and libs were happy as little clams that the oil industry in the USA was practically destroyed.

18 posted on 05/02/2013 8:47:47 AM PDT by KittenClaws (You may have to fight a battle more than once in order to win it." - Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I see no downside for the US to become totally energy self-sufficient and for the Islamofascist, terrorist-supporting oil producing states to go bankrupt.


19 posted on 05/02/2013 8:53:30 AM PDT by RightWingConspirator (Obamanation--the most corrupt regime since Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
The United States has benefited as much as any other country from the free exchange of goods, the safety of global sea lanes, the spread of democracy and the great-power stability that have characterized the entire post-World War II era. None of this could exist without the steadying hand of American power.

This was in the New Yuck Times?!!

I could have sworn that the NYT gospel was that the US might was the source of all evil and instability in the world.

20 posted on 05/02/2013 8:57:19 AM PDT by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson