|
Inmate Central Inmate Central, where civil and family-friendly discourse about off-audio topics (other than religion and politics) is welcome. |
For Sale Ads |
Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.
Original Message
You have to be willing to think beyond the next election cycle
Posted by Dave_K on May 12, 2022 at 05:01:35:
This is a decision for the long term and it would have no effect on the market in the short term.
Once you start leasing the Cook inlet, it would be hard to stop. It would require building underwater pipelines and other infrastructure in the upper part of the Cook inlet, which is the most populated part of Alaska and has the most tourism. It's also a key salmon fishery. A major spill would be a total disaster there, much, much worse than the Exxon Valdez because of its location.
If the area were leased, it would be take years before it started having an effect on the oil supply, and the overall impact on supply would be so small that it wouldn't move prices. By then, the short term oil price shock we're in right now would be long gone.
I think the administration would have gone forward with the other lease in the Gulf of Mexico, but that was blocked by a judge and the clock ran out in this 5-year cycle. I expect that will come up again and will be leased.
If you think in the very short term and are so politically minded that you see everything in the context of the next election, then I understand why you think Biden is shooting himself in the foot. But I don't like voting for politicians who only care about being popular and getting elected. I want my politicians to use their time in office to make good decisions for the long term.