Alaskan Oil Abundance Versus Washington's Wasted Billions

The case for new oil drilling in Alaska and off America's coasts

Oil imports now count for almost 80 percent of American consumption and cost some $300 to $400 billion yearly. They wreck our trade balance, subsidize many of our enemies, and add to our already mountainous foreign debt.

For political reasons, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Mexico—all major sources of U.S. oil imports—have suffered precipitous declines in production, with scant hope of recovering soon. Russian oil production is limited by government incompetence and lack of re-investment. Iraq's vast oil potential is paralyzed by political strife. At any moment, Iran might be attacked by Israel or America which would shut down its production. Further, Iran has threatened to retaliate against any attack by blockading the narrow passage in the Arabian Gulf through which most Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti oil flows.

Analysts are already forecasting 100-dollar-a-barrel oil within a year. Yet the Obama administration is still blocking offshore drilling in America—even though it was approved by Congress last year—and wants to raise taxes on oil companies. Several years are needed to get major new production on line, even without anticipated environmental lawsuits designed to stymie or at least harass and delay any drilling of new wells off of America's east and west coasts.

In Alaska, we have a pipeline which could flow another 1.5 million barrels per day—worth nearly $50 billion per year—from vast oil resources waiting to be drilled. Oil appears to be abundant all the way across Northern Alaska from the Canadian border, where British Petroleum (BP) spent a billion dollars for new Canadian leases, to the shallow Chukchi Sea near the border with Russia, where test drilling is planned for next year.

New oil drilling in Alaska and off America's coasts would create hundreds of thousands of American jobs and billions of dollars in real tax revenue for Washington. Compare that to government spending to create jobs, which costs some $200,000 per job. Furthermore, administration claims for alternative energy rarely mention the billions of dollars in subsidies, lost tax revenue, and new government debt they require.  

For example, solar power involves billions of dollars in costly subsidies which add to the ballooning budget and trade deficits, as many of the panels are imported. A 30 percent tax credit comes right off an installer's income taxes. Giant companies such as Florida Power & Light, for example, now pay much lower income taxes mainly because of the credits.

Wind farms receive a 30 percent cash subsidy from the government in a program estimated to soon cost taxpayers some $10 billion, according to the Wall Street Journal. And billions more in government financing will still be needed to build transmission lines from out-of-the-way locations. Ethanol was similarly hyped by Washington—another gigantic political boondoggle with severely damaging consequences for food prices and tens of billions of dollars of wasted resources. Making gasoline economically from switch grass and other plants remains another pipe dream.

Major technological breakthroughs make vast new oil production possible—once Washington permits it. Natural gas is already abundant and promises to stay cheap into the foreseeable future (see my previous article at Reason.com, "The Coming Energy Abundance"). Many trucks, buses, and taxis could be easily converted to run on natural gas, costing less than a dollar a gallon for the energy equivalent of gasoline or diesel oil. According to USA Today, there exists tremendous potential for natural gas in auto and truck engines, which consume some 20 percent of all the fuel used on highways. Still, nothing compares to oil products for most transport needs. They are relatively safe, easy to store and divide up, and easy to transport.

For oil, extended reach drilling has made vast new production possible. BP is now drilling eight miles out from a manmade island off Alaska's shallow Arctic coastal plain. Artificial islands might even allow new wells to reach under the potentially vast ANWR oil fields from offshore, although less costly exploratory wells would first have to be drilled from sites on the ANWR preserve.

Horizontal drilling allows wells to reach out into oil reserves as never before and to produce far more oil from each field. Multiple extensions can also be drilled sideways out from a single vertical well. Until a few years ago all oil wells were vertical. For comparison, a traditional vertical well might expose 2 to 300 feet of reservoir rock. A new well using multiple horizontal sections can expose over 20,000 feet of reservoir rock, according to the BP's publication Arctic Energy. The process is called coiled tubing drilling. It is vastly increasing production and lowering costs.  

The 800-mile-long Alyeska Pipeline from Northern Alaska is now flowing at 600,000 barrels per day-its original capacity was over 2 million. BP expects its new offshore island to produce at least 40,000 barrels per day while the new Alpine field of Conoco Phillips Company is already producing some 110,000 barrels per day. The companies are also working on producing some of the billions of barrels of unused heavy oil from Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, trying to develop technologies to mix it with lighter hydrocarbons so it can flow through the pipeline. These numbers give some idea of how the pipeline might again be filled to capacity, assuming that ANWR production is permitted by Washington.  

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is a prisoner of its "base," which includes extreme environmentalists doing all they can to delay and handicap new oil and gas drilling. If just a fraction of the $700 billion stimulus bill was spent on subsidizing natural gas fueling facilities at interstate truck stops, America could use more of its natural gas to avoid tens of billions of dollars of oil imports.

Moreover, none of the above addresses the new technology in nuclear electric power generation.  Small, factory built reactors could be operational by 2018. They could supplement or replace costly giant plants which now take 10 years for approval and construction. Low cost energy abundance is again well possible for America.

Jon Basil Utley is associate publisher of The American Conservative. He was a foreign correspondent for Knight Ridder newspapers and former associate editor of The Times of the Americas. For 17 years, he was a commentator for the Voice of America. In the 1980s, he owned and operated a small oil drilling partnership in Pennsylvania.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Chad||

    I have no problem with drilling in Alaska, with the following to caveats:

    1: We tax the piss out of the oil companies that we allow to drill OUR oil. The royalty system should be set up so that WE keep the upsides, not them. They are just hired contractors and should be treated as such.

    2: Every penny we make up there should be re-invested in renewable energy and public transportation, so that when the oil wells DO start going dry, we have invested in what we will need next.

    Btw, the author was talking about another possible ~1 million barrels per day in capacity. This is about what we lose every three months world-wide. Drilling in Alaska is not a "solution" to the problem...it is a single quarter punt.

  • jasno||

    Meh.. wait til the price goes up. We might as well use other country's cheap oil while we can.

  • ||

    We tax the piss out of the oil companies that we allow to drill OUR oil.


    What's with this "WE" business, Kimosabe?

  • Tricky Prickears||

    The problem with Alaska, BP discovered many years ago at Prudhoe Bay, is that the viscosity of crude oil is highly dependent on temperature. Yeah, you can pump a little off the top, but the bulk of it is sludge-like. There's a shitload of non-free flowing oil still in Prudhoe Bay, that just can't be pumped. So, the geniuses at BP decided it might be a good idea to pump steam into the ground to heat the oil and make it free-flowing. Do you know how much steam is necessary to heat the frozen ground in Alaska? I don't. I don't even want to guess.

    And offshore? Stay the fuck off the east coast canyons. My state's economy is highly depedent on shore tourism. Any small accident could wipe out tourism for years. It's bad enough we have to deal with the occasional hypodermic syringe washing down from NYC. The state and many private groups have spent a lot of time and money trying to restore wildlife and have had amazing results. We're not going to stand by and let the oil companies fuck it up. The state of NJ has already threatened to revoke the licenses of the oil refineries on the Delaware River and in Newark.

    There's other solutions; Jatropha and microalgae. We'll just have to get used to driving diesels. BP is under contract with the DoD for producing jet fuel from algae. Why? It's a national security issue.

  • nobody||

    Awwww, Chad's adorable. Goochee-goochee-goo.

  • ||

    BP is under contract with the DoD for producing jet fuel from algae. Why? It's a national security issue.


    I don't thin so - public choice theory would lead me to think otherwise. Most likely, someone at BP greased enough gears at the DoD for that deal...

  • Tricky Prickears||

    Most likely, someone at BP greased enough gears at the DoD for that deal...

    That may be true. But if you check the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) website, you'll find that the three, BP, DoD and DoE are working in conjunction. But good luck finding any real details. It's very hush hush. National Security and all...

  • lunchstealer||

    Meh.. wait til the price goes up. We might as well use other country's cheap oil while we can.

    srsly.

    Let's let the price of oil get on up there before we start expanding our drilling operations.

  • @||

    "New oil drilling in Alaska and off America's coasts would create hundreds of thousands of American jobs and billions of dollars in real tax revenue"

    It's all true, but leftist politico-economic theory demands that we retract--not expand--our economic base. The United States will, somehow, manage to improve the general welfare of all citizens while simultaneously throttling the motive power of the nation. The "developing" countries of the world understand that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. But we're past all that naive capitalist nonsense. We'll damn-well insure every American against the vagaries of reality while choking off the engines of commerce. Good luck with that.

  • ||

    It's all true, but leftist politico-economic theory demands that we retract--not expand--our economic base.

    I believe the ideology behind leftist politicians is nothing more than a pretext to impose fascism - a Business-Government binomial

  • Chad||

    FTG | September 22, 2009, 6:27pm | #
    We tax the piss out of the oil companies that we allow to drill OUR oil.


    What's with this "WE" business, Kimosabe?


    You know, WE the PEOPLE of the United States of America, who happen to own the oil up there. Duh.


    It amazes me how libertarians defend selling public property for a song, but that is exactly what we have done in the past. Our royalty rates are a joke, and we don't even enforce them but rather allow all sorts of loopholes that lower the effective rate even further.

  • @||

    FTG | September 22, 2009, 7:03pm | #

    I believe the ideology behind leftist politicians is nothing more than a pretext to impose fascism


    If by "fascism"* you mean a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition, then you are right.


    * "Merriam's"** dictionary

    ** Obama doesn't trust ole Merriam

  • Tricky Prickears||

    I believe the ideology behind leftist politicians is nothing more than a pretext to impose fascism

    FIFY

  • @||

    Tricky Prickears | September 22, 2009, 7:26pm | #

    the ideology behind politicians is nothing more than a pretext to impose fascism


    You think all politicians are fascists, TrickPrick? That's just dumb.

  • ||

    Chad technically the natives "own" all the oil up there. But seeing as neither you, me, nor the natives could get the oil out the ground up there, I don't see how we can claim the oil. Moreover, if you "tax the piss out" of the oil companies, they cease to have any incentive to get that oil. While the profit motive might be an alien concept to you, it is nearly the only reason anything ever gets done on this planet. Your are basically suggesting nationalizing the oil companies and the oil fields (since no oil company will drill there for zero profit). Of course countries that do have nationalized oil fields and companies tend to have crappy oil fields (since, as we all know, government screws up everything it touches). Without profit, companies can't invest in new (and cleaner) technology, nor exploration for new sources of energy. Nor dump tons of money into pipe dream "green energy" projects.

    Also, why ought those taxes be invested in make believe technology and public transport. Technically the taxes are also "our" property. I don't want them squandered on windmills and solar panels. And why the hell should I be forced to take public transit?

    Drill, drill and drill some more.

  • Tricky Prickears||

    You think all politicians are fascists, TrickPrick? That's just dumb

    Is it? It's no dumber than to say all leftist politicians are fascist. Even FDR who was a Corporatist wasn't fascist. Mussolini and Hitler were fascist. I don't know of any contemporary American politicians that are fascist. Both parties employ their own brand of Corporatism. Corporatist economic principles are not necessarily fascist, nor is there any indication that they are a precursor.

    http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/corporatism.htm

  • Tricky Prickears||

    I'm sorry, I do know of one fascist contemporary American politician - Lyndon LaRouche. And Rick Santorum is awful close.

  • @||

    "I don't know of any contemporary American politicians that are fascist."

    Trickster, it was you who said:

    Tricky Prickears | September 22, 2009, 7:26pm | #

    I believe the ideology behind leftist politicians is nothing more than a pretext to impose fascism


    So which is it?

  • Tricky Prickears||

    Of course countries that do have nationalized oil fields and companies tend to have crappy oil fields (since, as we all know, government screws up everything it touches)

    Really? Norway seems to be doing a pretty good job. Not that that would work here.

    I don't want them squandered on windmills and solar panels.

    I wouldn't call investing, squandering. If it wasn't for government investing in optical fiber telecommunications with Bell Labs through the DoD, you probably wouldn't be hooked up to a high speed internet connection. And I imagine the same could be true of satellite communications as well, and the cell phone network, and practically all digital applications.

    Sure, government wastes money on bullshit. But investing in future energy sources is prudent. Investing in energy sources we know will eventually run out, is unwise.

    Now, if you want to argue about cap and trade, you'll get no argument from me. That's going to turn out to be one giant clusterfuck. Simple 5 year subsidies should suffice.

  • Tricky Prickears||

    @

    I guess I should have put a flag or something. It seems every person on the left thinks everyone on the right is fascist and vice versa. It's ridiculous. People throw around the term as some sort of scare tactic or something. The contemporary definition, regardless of what Merriam says, is so deluded, and diluted, it really has no real meaning anymore, just like calling someone a racist or a communist or a socialist, it's all bullshit for "I don't know how express my opinions".

  • ||

    Oil imports now count for almost 80 percent of American consumption and cost some $300 to $400 billion yearly.



    How can that be? The best minds from both parties have been working towards energy independence for close to 40 years.

    Maybe we should have another government program.

  • ||

    The problem with Alaska, BP discovered many years ago at Prudhoe Bay, is that the viscosity of crude oil is highly dependent on temperature. Yeah, you can pump a little off the top, but the bulk of it is sludge-like. There's a shitload of non-free flowing oil still in Prudhoe Bay, that just can't be pumped. So, the geniuses at BP decided it might be a good idea to pump steam into the ground to heat the oil and make it free-flowing. Do you know how much steam is necessary to heat the frozen ground in Alaska? I don't. I don't even want to guess.

    Why do I suspect you have brown eyes?

    Temperature increases as you go deeper into the earth. Most high school freshmen are aware of this fact and the temperature of the earth 5 kilometers below the arctics surface is about the temerature of the earth a 5 kilometers below the surface in Texas.

  • Tricky Prickears||

    The best minds from both parties have been working towards energy independence for close to 40 years.

    Yes. And we're getting closer. The only thing really holding us back is the relatively cheap price of oil. But what happens when those prices spike again and when the world's supplies dwindle? Alternatives are practically ready to be mass produced. We now have the technology. Watch this video.

    http://www.nrel.gov/learning/advanced_vehicles_fuels.html

  • Tricky Prickears||

    Temperature increases as you go deeper into the earth. Most high school freshmen are aware of this fact and the temperature of the earth 5 kilometers below the arctics surface is about the temerature of the earth a 5 kilometers below the surface in Texas.

    I don't know. It was a documentary. Are you really going to make me look for it? I got to go get smokes.

    Texas is quite a different climate than the Arctic circle.

  • Chad||

    TQ | September 22, 2009, 7:40pm | #
    Chad technically the natives "own" all the oil up there. But seeing as neither you, me, nor the natives could get the oil out the ground up there, I don't see how we can claim the oil. Moreover, if you "tax the piss out" of the oil companies, they cease to have any incentive to get that oil. While the profit motive might be an alien concept to you, it is nearly the only reason anything ever gets done on this planet. Your are basically suggesting nationalizing the oil companies and the oil fields (since no oil company will drill there for zero profit). Of course countries that do have nationalized oil fields and companies tend to have crappy oil fields (since, as we all know, government screws up everything it touches). Without profit, companies can't invest in new (and cleaner) technology, nor exploration for new sources of energy. Nor dump tons of money into pipe dream "green energy" projects.


    No, we don't need to nationalize them. We just need to charge high royalties and take as much of the money for ourselves as we can...just like any private entity would do. I am sure you would fight for every nickle if there was oil on your own personal property, rather than letting the oil company run roughshod and keep almost all the profits.

    Also, why ought those taxes be invested in make believe technology and public transport?

    As I said, that is exactly what we will need when our last wells start running dry.

    Using our last oil and it's associated profits to build the things we need when the oil is gone is common sense.

  • Tricky Prickears||

    Perhaps I was partially wrong. It's not the temperature, its the density of the oil. But, it is not free flowing, yes they tried steam, now they're trying a couple new methods. Perhaps money would be better spent developing these fields, than looking or drilling for more. However, I don't think cross drilling works with this heavy oil.

    Here's a link.

    http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/opinion/alaska-oil-fields-5516.html

  • ||

    We tax the piss out of the oil companies that we allow to drill OUR oil.

    Can you show me your deed to the land they're drilling on? No? Then STFU.

    -jcr

  • ||

    The best minds from both parties have been working towards energy independence for close to 40 years.

    Bullshit. They've been making noise about it for 40 years. If they actually cared about "energy independence", they wouldn't fight tooth and nail against domestic oil production.

    -jcr

  • Tricky Prickears||

    they wouldn't fight tooth and nail against domestic oil production.

    Drilling for domestic oil won't reduce our dependence, because the oil gets sold on the commodities market. There's nothing keeping it here, nor should there be. We would only be adding to the "world pool".

  • Chad||

    Oh, drilling would do *something*. ANWR is perhaps 3 months of oil, the off-limits areas of the oceans, perhaps six.

    Just asking the drillbabydrill crowd what their plan is for NEXT year.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "It amazes me how libertarians defend selling public property for a song, but that is exactly what we have done in the past. Our royalty rates are a joke, and we don't even enforce them but rather allow all sorts of loopholes that lower the effective rate even further."

    LOL

    You never have or will accomplish anything in your life that proves you even remotely resemble an authority on what royalty rates should be.

    Of course that's no surprise. You haven't accomplished anything that proves you are any sort of authority on anything else either.

  • ||

    It's funny that the largest arguement against Alaska drilling is wildlife preservation. Apparently, they don't realize the best possible way to keep animals unendangered: farming. Think about it, why would we let an animal go extinct if there was a huge market for its meat? We wouldn't. And caribou might be good. So fucking eat it. Then suck the oil from the ground with a bendy straw.

  • Chad||

    Gilbert Martin | September 22, 2009, 10:32pm | #

    Of course that's no surprise. You haven't accomplished anything that proves you are any sort of authority on anything else either.


    I've accomplished far more than you. How about we just pick what, say, Norway picks. They seem to be a good job with their oil money.

  • J D||

    If Washington's incompetency prevents drilling in Alaska or off the east coast, then government has accomplished something.

  • ||

    "We just need to charge high royalties and take as much of the money for ourselves as we can."

    But how much of that royalty reaches the American people directly? If I actually owned a piece of land that had oil underneath, I suppose I could sell it to oil the company for money or charge them royalty for extracting oil from my property.

    In the case of ANWR, my guess is that the royalty or tax will go straight to the government. The money will reach us indirectly when the government uses it to fund their social projects, like building admin biuldings for schools, ending childhood obesity, some anti smoking measures, or solar and wind power, and on other costly measures that really doesn't benefit us.

    The stimulus works in a similar way. You're just moving money around (often taking it away from the private sector) to create some arbitrary, short term jobs. The trillions of dollars aren't being injected to the economy or to the hands of ordinary citizens.

  • j.i.am||

    We tax the piss out of the oil companies that we allow to drill OUR oil.

    Chad:

    Who is the 'WE' here that has an interest in taxing the piss out of oil drilling companies?

    It's certainly not the wealthy group of people who manage oil exploration companies. It's not the working people who's retirement accounts are invested in them. It's not employees of the drillers. It's not suppliers of products and services rendered to the drillers. It's not consumers who pay for refined product the drillers deliver.

    Who is the 'WE' that is left?

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    If Washington's incompetency prevents drilling in Alaska or off the east coast, then government has accomplished something.

    Yes, it's successfully increased the price of oil. Which ultimately becomes a taxable product(s) and so it increases tax revenues.

    See, it all makes perfect sense if you just think about it. This is how they plan on paying for Obamacare and Medicare and whatever they decide to care about next.

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    but leftist politico-economic theory demands that we retract--not expand--our economic base

    Yeah, because we all know that civilization is way over rated.

    Kill baby kill!

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    Yes. And we're getting closer. The only thing really holding us back is the relatively cheap price of oil.

    Tell me you aren't so dumb that you really believe this statement. Tell me it was a giant typo. Tell me you didn't mean it and you were just pulling all of our legs.

    Otherwise, the best we can assume is that you are massively technology-ignorant.

  • ||

    "Perhaps I was partially wrong. It's not the temperature, its the density of the oil. But, it is not free flowing, yes they tried steam, now they're trying a couple new methods. Perhaps money would be better spent developing these fields, than looking or drilling for more. However, I don't think cross drilling works with this heavy oil."

    The simple problem is that while at a depth of 5 km the temperature of the in-situ fluids may be more or less equivalent, when you try to pump those fluids to surface conditions you run into problems.

    SAGD, (Steam Assisted Gravity Drive) tends to be a net energy sink, but its profitable because oil is such a neat format to store your energy in and you can use other sources of energy to get your steam.

  • Chad||

    j.i.am | September 23, 2009, 3:14am | #
    We tax the piss out of the oil companies that we allow to drill OUR oil.

    Chad:

    Who is the 'WE' here that has an interest in taxing the piss out of oil drilling companies?

    It's certainly not the wealthy group of people who manage oil exploration companies. It's not the working people who's retirement accounts are invested in them. It's not employees of the drillers. It's not suppliers of products and services rendered to the drillers. It's not consumers who pay for refined product the drillers deliver.

    Who is the 'WE' that is left?


    Wow, pure brilliance. Why doesn't the government just increase what it pays for everything by, say, 20%, so that we can line corporate profits? After all, it would help our 401ks and retirement plans.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "I've accomplished far more than you. "

    You haven't accomplished anything.

    All you've done is run your mouth.

    That's all you've ever been capable of doing.

  • ||

    The author states that directional drilling is new technology. It is not. He says that there are political reasons we can't get all the oil in Nigeria and Venezuela. Does the author propse we take these countries over? I was surprised he didn't gush over how small an area it would take on slope to mine the oil. This is the usual propaganda to cloud the real problems. All his tripe is just sad bull ____. We have squandered our resources to the point that we now quibble about a couple of months supply. Consider the slant of this writers work and decide, but also get some non-biased, straight information also.

  • ||

    What was that energy meeting about that Dick Cheney had to keep so secret? Did it work?

  • ||

    Addressing the author of the article, I would like to say that several of his arguments motivating the issue are nonsense:

    Arguing about an excess of oil imports as some of threat to economy has no basis in economics outside of marxist and other allied schools. Trade deficits don't hurt an economy unless the economy has some sort of regulated exchange rate regime, which the US doesn't (thankfully). Otherwise, this is simplistic protectionist nonsense. Protectionism makes people poorer (possibly excepting the minority special interests), whether it is a national policy bias against foreign oil or foreign shoes.

    The author doesn't take a clear stand as to why we should be so afraid of foreigners and their oil. I suppose the author worries about production volatility, because the US Government can't single-handedly assume responsbility for the America's oil supply. Considering that the crux of this article concerns the American Government's present policy of mismanaging the oil reserves within its territory and energy policy in general, I fail to see how the author thinks moving more of America's oil supply under the direct jurisdiction of the American government will lessen supply volatility.

    Regarding the 1970s Oil Crisis scenario, that was more a result of bad, interventionist, unnecessary foreign policy on the part of the American Government than of some undue reliance on foreign oil.

    The author also refers to oil imports as somehow contributing to "our already mountainous foreign debt." Unless the author is referring to purchases made by the US Government, purchases of foreign oil by private American refineries do not add to my foreign debt or the debt of Americans in general. The government has not nationalized all debt, so the average American is no more threatened by the debt disposition of a neighbor than the asset value of that neighbor's collectible plates.

    Arguing that oil drilling creates jobs like government spending creates jobs employs the same make-work fallacy behind the stimulus package. No one gets richer via the simple act of working, and, in the absence of foolish booms and busts in employment abetted by bad monetary policy, arbitrarily "creating" one job just moves a worker from one job to another. In fact the point of the economy is not to create work for work's sake; it is to facilitate consumption. Of course, Keynes said we could just as well bury old bottles full of currency in abandoned coal mines to stimulate employment and thence the economy in general. He, as opposed to the Mr. Utley, was perceptive enough to follow his assumptions to their logical conclusions.

    In the author's concluding paragraphs, he laments, "If just a fraction of the $700 billion stimulus bill was spent on subsidizing natural gas fueling facilities... America... could avoid tens of billions of dollars of oil imports." In all instances subsidies are waste, a sop to special interests, and distort economic incentives. In this case the subsidy has protectionist motivations to boot, making the entire sentence a failure in economic reasoning.

    On the whole I found this article a poor rehash of Mr. Utley's August 2008 article on the same subject, but with more errors of economic reasoning. I blame the editors for that. Do better!

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Regarding the 1970s Oil Crisis scenario, that was more a result of bad, interventionist, unnecessary foreign policy on the part of the American Government than of some undue reliance on foreign oil.


    It also had a lot to do with price controls.

  • ||

    Kooky, absurdly segregated price controls, no less.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Unlike health care, price controls on gas have the side effect of people using more at lower prices.

  • abercrombie milano||

    Kooky, absurdly segregated price controls, no less.

  • D.Brooks||

    ****Update---I talked to Canon, to make a long story short, this camera is a bit finicky about which cards you put in it. Both kingston class 6 (fastest class) had problems, tried a kingston micro class 4 (slower) 4 gig and it worked fine, tried 2 Polaroid/pny 8 gig class 4's CMOS Digital sale

  • nike shox||

    is good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement