Oil Realities

Every now and then I read something in the paper that accurately describes something when nearly everyone else seems not to even get it. This time it was a column by the Waco Tribune-Harold writer, John Young. Waco as in Texas, where they understand the oil business.

“Hear the drill-at-all-cost chorus and it will tell you that exploration in ANWR is about ‘energy security’ or ‘energy independence.’

“No.... It’s about money. Not a drop of the oil that would be harvest in ANWR is ‘ours.’

“It’s the world’s. It’s as much the dread Russkies’ as yours or mine. That’s the definition of a global market. Any free-market conservative ought to be able to explain it to you. ANWR oil would go in the same collective vat as any other oil.”

He goes on to agree that, sure, it would, in a broad general sense, make some slight improvement in global supply, but it probably would not lower prices as much as reducing supply.

Similarly, just recently, Iraq signed a contract providing $3 billion worth of oil to the Chinese. I bring this up, in particular, because I’ve always found the “No blood for oil” slogan puzzling. It was never explained how our soldiers’ blood was supposed to produce oil for us. It might in fact have been a good idea if somewhere along the line we might have asked for some oil in repayment for ruining our economy over the war. But, while there have been contracts here and there with Western oil companies, obviously, Iraqi oil is even less “ours” than the ANWR oil.

If it were really only or even mainly about oil, obviously the thing to do would have been to simply settle up with Saddam, remove all sanctions, and carry on as before.