>>>Who ever said US wanted the oil all to themself. How about oil at fair market price for all.
>
>>Ah. The altruistic U.S. is having it's own sons and daughters die for my good? Thanks, but I'll take a pass.
>
>I don't know about Canada, but oil is the only viable energy source we have. Isn't much of wourld's economy dependent on oil? We need oil to travel, to tranport goods, heat our homes, to run our cars etc.... What would actually happen if our oil supply was severely resticted by a hostile regime?
>
>Would one make light of oil supply if all of sudden gas become too expensive. Or if companies close down becuase of lack of energy source? Or if thousands of people loose their jobs because of oil?

Actually, Sam, this has happened twice in my lifetime, when OPEC decided to flex its muscles.
And I remember that some President - I think Nixon - said that the solution was to develop energy-efficient replacements for all oil-consuming products. It was actually a great idea, a way to put growth into a badly suffering economy while at the same time helping to make your (and ours and the world's) future much brighter. But it never amounted to anything as the oil embargo was lifted quite soon after and we all went back to our normal lives.

>
>I'm not just asking you, but I'm just asking in general. Yeah we could produce other source of energy, but how long would that take? Can our economy survive long enough to convert to other source of energy?

Too bad the early 70's program of the President wasn't followed.
Too bad President Bush's alleged program to emphasize development of hydrogen as a fuel seems to have died quietly.
Too bad Walter Cronkite and his rich buddies don't want a wind farm 20+ mile off Nantucket even though it would be barely visible. With help like that nothing is going to happen very soon. NIMBY is alive and well.
So it's much easier to "secure" your oil than it is to develop alternatives. And that will work until the day the shipped oil volume starts to drop permanently, which they say is sooner than we think. Then we'll face the problem you expose above, probably no more ready than we are today.

>
>I agree that there are lot of slime balls in the oil business, but isn't the assurance of fair market price of oil worth fighting for? After all oil is worlds blood line, isn't it?

Fair market price? Hah!
Katrina proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that "fair market price" is a myth!
Oil prices spiked HUGELY "because of Katrina" and the "normal market forces of supply and demand". Yea, right. NO ONE STOPPED BUYING GAS DURING THAT TIME. There was no way anyone could just stop cold-turkey, and they didn't. But there was NO SHORTAGE, and anyone who went to a pump got his fill. So "fair market price" simply doesn't exist anymore when it comes to oil/gas. It is wholly dependent on what profit the oil company wants to make today. And $25.4 billion PROFIT for the first 3 quarters of 2005 should tell you something!
As regards the slime balls... I continue to be amazed that corporate executives happily/wilfully screw their customers at any opportunity to make a few more cents profit YET THEY PERSONALLY SEE VIRTUALLY NONE OF THAT PROFIT IN THEIR OWN POCKETS. What is it that drives these people????

cheers


>
>Please tell I'm wrong so I can use other readily available source of energy.
>
>
>>Well, quite a number of sections of the Millenium Declaration to which both Britain and the U.S. were signatories. The U.N. are supposed to make these kinds of decisions, not the U.S. The U.S. signed and then said "stick it".
>
>Another vague document they can't/won't enforce. What else is new?
>Declarations and ultimatums are only as effective as those that are willing to enforce them. And history of UN on enforcing human rights and genocide won't impress anyone.