MaxedOutMama spanked me for fretting that falling crude oil prices could lead to market failure in non-Arabian fuel development investments. In defense, I note that I welcome the return to cheap energy (oil fell below $40/barrel on Wednesday). I've always dismissed calls for "energy independence" as both impossible and foolish. And I don't subscribe to the populist tendency to blame the oil companies.
Further, I remain convinced that the free market resolves the lion's share of any energy crisis. So, in theory, oil companies convinced that crude prices will increase over time should have continued incentives to invest. And, like M_O_M, I see Congress' blocking U.S. oil share/sands development as absurd. Meaning I also agree that subsidizing Canadian fields when we're blocked from exploiting domestic shale and sands is a non-starter.
Still. . . how about lifting the ban on domestic shale and sands production and appropriating Federal government forward supply purchases from them? I recognize this borders on alternative universe speculation, but M_O_M doesn't explain the flaw in such an approach, especially were it part of the incoming Administration's planned efforts to prime the infrastructure pump in order to lick the recession.
1 comment:
> especially were it part of the incoming Administration's planned efforts to prime the infrastructure pump in order to lick the recession.
1) It ain't the Fed's job.
2) If oil is not going to go above $100+ a barrel and STAY there, most of the non-ANWR, non-coastal oil (i.e., shales and sands) is not sufficiently cost effective as to be worth getting yet.
> MaxedOutMama spanked me
And well she should. Hopefully, you didn't enjoy it too much. :oP
Post a Comment