posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 03:20 PM
Of course there are at least two sides to this.
I certainly wish the US owned oil collectively, and sold leases to the best (price and cleanliness) developer.
One of the negatives of free enterprise is redundancy. As in forty brands of toothpaste at the supermarket. And four gas stations at every
But it also means better supply systems, and "competitive" pricing.
In the US, our problem is not access to crude. The crude market has multiple owners (of mineral rights) multiple developers (of wells) and multiple
dealers (buyers, sellers, and speculators at NYMEX.) The problem for US has been refining capacity which, through environmental regulation,
has been so tightly controlled as to become a "state-dictated" market. For instance, there has not been a new refinery built in US since 1976.
Even after Katrina, the US crude supply is back to about 75% of demand, which is saying a heck of a lot. The refineries in the rest of the country
didn't even notice the supply problems in Nawlins, because of the redundancy of free enterprise, suppliers in Oklahoma and TX stepped up to the
opportunity. Isn't it funny, that a week after Katrina, crude prices are back where they were before she formed in the Atlantic?
On the other hand, gasoline prices have headed nowhere but up . . . . because the state has not allowed any free-enterprise (redundancy) in
US's refining capacity.
So what could this mean for Canada?
Just that, in letting the govt. "streamline" operations, you also take redundancies out of the sytem--and redundancies are what let you survive
Also, governments usually tax a cash cow until it no longer produces. Then, a central govt executive "cuts a deal" and the people get nothing,
while the autocrat is building a new palace. Yes, I'm thinking of Saddam and the Emir of Kuwait. But it also applies to the previous government of
Venezuela. The present guy is having trouble building his infrastructure, since no one wants to move equipment to Venz that will end up being
I guess, in general, I would want a flat tax paid on each barrel extracted, and leave the rest in private hands. As long as it equals something like,
1 barrel deposited into a trust for every 10 pumped. Then, the public would be protected from changing value of the currency, and the price would
even out as the total oil sold was padded by 10% (representing the government's sales).
Of course, that'd never happen, since the fat-bottomed politicos couldn't "wheel and deal" while fleecing corporates, the public, and the
You know, don't you, that the politicos have just as much fun fleecing the corporate barons as they do ripping off the taxpayers, don't you? In
America, they called it a "windfall profits tax," and it drove most of the US oil companies out of business, leaving only the biggest and meanest to
survive. . . .