Skip to comments.Leave It To The New York Times To Gin Up A Downside To The American Oil Boom
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 were set to enjoy energy independence from the the rest of the world.
In their eyes, America wont get to enjoy this energy independence at all. Rather we will suffer the consequences of it. Thats because Americas 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 ...
You mean the ones who hate us and want to kill us?
Well, it’s easy to see they’re playing for the other team now, isn’t it?
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.
You sir, win the Bill Maher award: “Liberal Bullshit”
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.
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.
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.
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.
the same ones that send their terrorists to kill us, you mean??
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.
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!
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.
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.
Aren’t these the same people that have been pushing alternative energy so we won’t be dependent on those countries?
It happened in the 80’s and libs were happy as little clams that the oil industry in the USA was practically destroyed.
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.
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.