Tap U.S. oil reserves, then go green

[RandomGuy]

Here is an op-ed from the Christian Science Monito, written by one Democrat and one Republican. It makes a lot of sense, and would be something I could go for.-RG


--------------------------------------
By Jim Marshall and Roscoe Bartlett
Tue Sep 9, 4:00 AM ET


WASHINGTON - The controversial bans on drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge have preserved precious oil and natural-gas reserves owned by the public. Thank environmentalists for this unintended gift.

But for these bans, we would have wasted the reserves without a strategic plan. Leasing and drilling would have lowered world oil prices by a few cents, benefiting more foreign consumers than Americans. The federal revenue from royalties, lease payments, and taxes would have been used to meet current federal expenditures. And our remaining publicly owned oil and natural gas would be substantially depleted. Consequently, our dependence on foreign energy sources would be even greater than it is – and it is likely that the current commodity price crisis would be worse.

We hope this price crisis prompts the adoption of a strategic plan to use the remaining value of our federally owned oil and natural-gas reserves to fund a clean, affordable, and independent energy future for America, a goal worthy of short-term environmental concessions and risks. Virtually all general drilling bans should be lifted. We should permit drilling offshore and in the ANWR and require that it be done with appropriate care.

Before granting additional drilling rights, however, we should fundamentally change the terms of future oil and gas lease agreements to ensure that taxpayers capture more of the revenue from our remaining reserves. Today's agreements provide exceptional profits for leaseholders when prices rise, so much so that leaseholders have a significant financial incentive to delay production until prices rise. That must change.

To achieve a net win for the environment, the federal revenue from future oil and gas production should be placed in a trust fund and used to foster a clean energy future for America. This must supplement, not replace, other environmental commitments we have made. We should jump-start the necessary federal investments for this secure energy future by immediately issuing bonds against this expected revenue. Doing so would guarantee that our remaining oil and natural gas revenue is actually used to establish energy alternatives. The bonds would have to be repaid with that revenue.

Opinions vary concerning the volume of remaining federal oil and gas reserves and the amount of federal revenue they would produce. In a sharp break from current practice, none of this revenue should be shared with host states. Most host states already enjoy revenue from oil and gas production on state lands. They have no legal or inherent claim to federal revenue, and the drilling bans have removed any practical expectation of revenue from the areas they affect. Lifting those bans would still give host states windfall benefits from jobs, economic stimulus, and tax revenue related to federal production. Most important, host states would directly benefit from federal expenditures used to secure America's energy independence. Diverting revenue to states would hamper our national effort.

Simply adopting a plausible US strategic plan for energy independence would have a positive impact on world oil prices. And absent a significant supply disruption, oil's economic stranglehold would be eliminated if domestic demand stayed flat or grew only slightly while US consumption of alternatives to oil, including natural gas, increased by a few percentage points a year. With prompt federal action, we could quickly achieve these demand and growth rates and greatly reduce oil's pressure on prices.

The United States can be virtually free of fossil-fuel use within a few decades – if we pursue this goal aggressively. To meet such an objective, we would turn principally to solar and wind energy. Nuclear should be in the mix as well. We should rethink biofuels, discouraging those that compete with food production or degrade the environment while encouraging those that capture energy from waste. We are intrigued by the possibility of building a direct current superhighway that would permit the efficient transmission of nuclear, solar, and wind power throughout the nation. But we should adopt a strategic plan before making any such tactical decisions. Clean energy technologies developed with federal funding should be federally owned and strategically shared with other nations.

Taking these steps promptly would avoid an economic train wreck while greatly improving our national security. America would again be leading the world, this time toward a sustainable future.

• Jim Marshall (D) of Georgia and Roscoe Bartlett, (R), of Maryland are representatives in Congress. ??2008

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080909/cm_csm/ymarshall

[RandomGuy]

Nuthin?

God forbid one should actually talk about, say, policy in an election year.

I guess we can go back to lying about each other's candidates now. :^/

[DarrinS]

The price of gas is being driven by nerds on PC's speculating about the future.

[RandomGuy]

The price of gas is being driven by nerds on PC's speculating about the future.

Stoopid candy makin' gas go higher.


http://www.katfm.com/images/80s_nerds/Nerds_Candy.jpg

[DarrinS]

Stoopid candy makin' gas go higher.



I believe in going green, but we're going to need oil for quite some time.

[101A]

Here is an op-ed from the Christian Science Monito, written by one Democrat and one Republican. It makes a lot of sense, and would be something I could go for.-RG


--------------------------------------
By Jim Marshall and Roscoe Bartlett
Tue Sep 9, 4:00 AM ET


WASHINGTON - The controversial bans on drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge have preserved precious oil and natural-gas reserves owned by the public. Thank environmentalists for this unintended gift.

But for these bans, we would have wasted the reserves without a strategic plan. Leasing and drilling would have lowered world oil prices by a few cents, benefiting more foreign consumers than Americans. The federal revenue from royalties, lease payments, and taxes would have been used to meet current federal expenditures. And our remaining publicly owned oil and natural gas would be substantially depleted. Consequently, our dependence on foreign energy sources would be even greater than it is – and it is likely that the current commodity price crisis would be worse.

We hope this price crisis prompts the adoption of a strategic plan to use the remaining value of our federally owned oil and natural-gas reserves to fund a clean, affordable, and independent energy future for America, a goal worthy of short-term environmental concessions and risks. Virtually all general drilling bans should be lifted. We should permit drilling offshore and in the ANWR and require that it be done with appropriate care.

Before granting additional drilling rights, however, we should fundamentally change the terms of future oil and gas lease agreements to ensure that taxpayers capture more of the revenue from our remaining reserves. Today's agreements provide exceptional profits for leaseholders when prices rise, so much so that leaseholders have a significant financial incentive to delay production until prices rise. That must change.

To achieve a net win for the environment, the federal revenue from future oil and gas production should be placed in a trust fund and used to foster a clean energy future for America. This must supplement, not replace, other environmental commitments we have made. We should jump-start the necessary federal investments for this secure energy future by immediately issuing bonds against this expected revenue. Doing so would guarantee that our remaining oil and natural gas revenue is actually used to establish energy alternatives. The bonds would have to be repaid with that revenue.

Opinions vary concerning the volume of remaining federal oil and gas reserves and the amount of federal revenue they would produce. In a sharp break from current practice, none of this revenue should be shared with host states. Most host states already enjoy revenue from oil and gas production on state lands. They have no legal or inherent claim to federal revenue, and the drilling bans have removed any practical expectation of revenue from the areas they affect. Lifting those bans would still give host states windfall benefits from jobs, economic stimulus, and tax revenue related to federal production. Most important, host states would directly benefit from federal expenditures used to secure America's energy independence. Diverting revenue to states would hamper our national effort.

Simply adopting a plausible US strategic plan for energy independence would have a positive impact on world oil prices. And absent a significant supply disruption, oil's economic stranglehold would be eliminated if domestic demand stayed flat or grew only slightly while US consumption of alternatives to oil, including natural gas, increased by a few percentage points a year. With prompt federal action, we could quickly achieve these demand and growth rates and greatly reduce oil's pressure on prices.

The United States can be virtually free of fossil-fuel use within a few decades – if we pursue this goal aggressively. To meet such an objective, we would turn principally to solar and wind energy. Nuclear should be in the mix as well. We should rethink biofuels, discouraging those that compete with food production or degrade the environment while encouraging those that capture energy from waste. We are intrigued by the possibility of building a direct current superhighway that would permit the efficient transmission of nuclear, solar, and wind power throughout the nation. But we should adopt a strategic plan before making any such tactical decisions. Clean energy technologies developed with federal funding should be federally owned and strategically shared with other nations.

Taking these steps promptly would avoid an economic train wreck while greatly improving our national security. America would again be leading the world, this time toward a sustainable future.

• Jim Marshall (D) of Georgia and Roscoe Bartlett, (R), of Maryland are representatives in Congress. ??2008

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080909/cm_csm/ymarshall

Sounds like a reasonable plan. Trust fund scares me, however. Congress has a track record of not taking such funds seriously. Have a board of trustees (selected from academia, business and ex-govt; maybe some judges) on the account, unelected, and require THREE signatures on the check.

[RandomGuy]

I believe in going green, but we're going to need oil for quite some time.


yup. This proposal pretty much outlines that.

We'll see how much we "need" oil when it is $200 per barrel.

My off-the-cuff guess as to when that will happen: 2018-2020.

Assumes about a 6-7% year-to-year increase in the price from about $100 per barrel today.

Given that known fields are depleting faster than we are finding new deposits, this seems fairly reasonable, if not understated.

About the time my first son is ready to learn how to drive, gas will be too expensive for him to do much driving. Oh Frabjuous day... :lol

Maybe get him a nice bicycle or bus/train pass.

[101A]

yup. This proposal pretty much outlines that.

We'll see how much we "need" oil when it is $200 per barrel.

My off-the-cuff guess as to when that will happen: 2018-2020.

Assumes about a 6-7% year-to-year increase in the price from about $100 per barrel today.

Given that known fields are depleting faster than we are finding new deposits, this seems fairly reasonable, if not understated.

About the time my first son is ready to learn how to drive, gas will be too expensive for him to do much driving. Oh Frabjuous day... :lol

Maybe get him a nice bicycle or bus/train pass.


It's looking like Oil and Social Security are gonna blow up about the same time - the same time boomers start dying and it ain't their problem. Baby Boomers - The Weakest Generation.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I believe in going green, but we're going to need oil for quite some time.
people don't realize how much we're dependent on petroleum and petroleum products. i don't see us being weened off in 10 years like obaMESSiden proclaims even if we started today.

[RandomGuy]

people don't realize how much we're dependent on petroleum and petroleum products. i don't see us being weened off in 10 years like obaMESSiden proclaims even if we started today.

Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

[RandomGuy]

Eliminate Our Need for Middle Eastern and Venezuelan Oil within 10 Years
• Increase Fuel Economy Standards.
• Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015.
• Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles.
• Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
• A “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases.
• Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy


Actual policy is to REDUCE oil consumption, not eliminate it.

[RandomGuy]

John McCain seems to agree on a few points.


Taking Action Now To Break Our Dependency On Foreign Oil By Reforming Our Transportation Sector

The Nation Cannot Reduce Its Dependency On Oil Unless We Change How We Power Our Transportation Sector.
John McCain Will Encourage The Market For Alternative, Low Carbon Fuels Such As Wind, Hydro And Solar Power.
John McCain Will Establish A Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R&D
(just a few things, more can be found at the link below)


http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm

[DarrinS]

I only think going "green" makes sense for economic reasons. I'm not a global warming catastrophist.

[RandomGuy]

Oddly enough for a candidate derided for not having substance, Obama's plan is much more detailed than McCain's overall.

[101A]

I only think going "green" makes sense for economic reasons. I'm not a global warming catastrophist.

[101A]

Oddly enough for a candidate derided for not having substance, Obama's plan is much more detailed than McCain's overall.


Eliminate Our Need for Middle Eastern and Venezuelan Oil within 10 Years
• Increase Fuel Economy Standards.
• Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015.
• Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles.
• Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
• A “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases.
• Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural GasYou think that is detailed?

I love the "fuel economy standards" - like that is DOING anything. Gonna change the laws of physics to go along with that - or reduce safety requirements, airbags, etc...to allow cars to cost and weigh less.

Plug in Hybrids? Great. One million cars is a country of how many? Ford has a diesel for sale in Europe RIGHT NOW that gets 65mpg. Isn't here because of govt. restrictions on the fuel.

What is a "Low Carbon Fuel Standard" and what does it do? Sounds green; not sure what it does to lower oil consumption.

This doesn't sound like detail, or like nearly enough; and neither is McCain's, for that matter. The article you posted was detailed. I'm not given either candidate an "attaboy" for those proposals.

[101A]

Oh yeah, the $7,000 tax credit - where's that coming from, and can rich people get it, or only poor?

[RandomGuy]

But there are features of both plans that I like.


John McCain Will Propose A $300 Million Prize To Improve Battery Technology For Full Commercial Development Of Plug-In Hybrid And Fully Electric Automobiles.

Today, Isolationist Tariffs And Wasteful Special Interest Subsidies Are Not Moving Us Toward An Energy Solution. We need to level the playing field and eliminate mandates, subsidies, tariffs and price supports that focus exclusively on corn-based ethanol and prevent the development of market-based solutions which would provide us with better options for our fuel needs.
John McCain Will Effectively Enforce Existing CAFE Standards.


Unfortunately, Obama's plan is detailed in an 8 page pdf file that I can't copy and paste from easily.

Require 10 Percent of Electricity to Come from Renewable Sources by 2012.
Getting More from our Existing Oil Fields. (Enhanced oil recovery (EOR)
using carbon dioxide offers an immediate to mediumterm opportunity to produce more oil fromexisting fields. And in the EOR process, large quantities of CO2 can be sequestered underground,reducing global warming pollution.)
Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline.

Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.
o Bakken Shale in Montana and North Dakota which could have as much as 4 billion
recoverable barrels of oil according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
o Unconventional natural gas supplies in the Barnett Shale formation in Texas and the
Fayetteville Shale in Arkansas.
o National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) which comprises 23.5 million acres of federal land set aside by President Harding to secure the nation's petroleum reserves for national security purposes.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy


Actual policy is to REDUCE oil consumption, not eliminate it.



And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: In 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.


http://www.nowheremangraphics.com/glog_images/Vive_Le_FlipFlop.jpg

[RandomGuy]

You think that is detailed?

I love the "fuel economy standards" - like that is DOING anything. Gonna change the laws of physics to go along with that - or reduce safety requirements, airbags, etc...to allow cars to cost and weigh less.

Plug in Hybrids? Great. One million cars is a country of how many? Ford has a diesel for sale in Europe RIGHT NOW that gets 65mpg. Isn't here because of govt. restrictions on the fuel.

What is a "Low Carbon Fuel Standard" and what does it do? Sounds green; not sure what it does to lower oil consumption.

This doesn't sound like detail, or like nearly enough; and neither is McCain's, for that matter. The article you posted was detailed. I'm not given either candidate an "attaboy" for those proposals.

No.

This is detailed, the part you quoted was a bullet point summary:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf

McCain does not have an equivalent write-up:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm

I don't think it is unfair to say that an 8-page, seperate document with a more comprehensive plan is more detailed than a simple one or two page html write up on a webpage.

I'm really not trying to ding McCain on this, merely point out that the "spin" on this issue doesn't quite match the reality, as usual.

[Anti.Hero]

A lot of that article is basically common sense.


No oil blah blah blah though. No way I am getting rid of the things I love for some p.o.s. vehicle. I'm already researching 5.7L cummins swap into a JK. :lol Maybe by then, the government will have quit raping people on diesel prices.

[RandomGuy]

I think I found a gotcha moment, but really just demonstrated my lack of reading comprehension.


Not all of our oil comes from the middle east. We get our oil from many sources.

Therefore if we ELIMINATE our need for oil from the middle east, we have REDUCED our overall oil needs.

The statements are logically congruent.

Perhaps you can point out some data that says we get all of our oil from the middle east? Hmm?

(If you like, I can spoon feed you the link to the department of energy .xls file that shows this information)

If we don't get all of our oil from the middle east, your assertion that it is a flip flop is incorrect.

[cool hand]

educate yourself before you believe any stupid, quick solutions brought to you by oil cartels.

http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

i'm not distorting anything. i'm not an oil loving person, but obamessiden simply saying he's going to get us off of oil in 10 years is simply ridiculous. say what you want, but how does he expect to make up for all the products that petroleum is needed for besides fuel? huh? wanna get us off oil in 10 years? yes. i'm all for it. believe me i am, but simply saying it in front of thousands of people doesn't make me hard. go ahead and tell me what you would do for or say to anyone of people, and their families, in the following industries once you say you want to be off oil in 10 years. that their job has 10 year countdown that starts now.

Diesel
Motor Oil
Bearing Grease
Ink
Floor Wax
Ballpoint Pens
Football Cleats
Upholstery
Sweaters
Boats
Insecticides
Bicycle Tires
Sports Car Bodies
Nail Polish
Fishing lures
Dresses
Tires
Golf Bags
Perfumes
Dishwasher
Tool Boxes
Shoe Polish
Motorcycle Helmet
Caulking
Petroleum Jelly
Transparent Tape
CD Player
Faucet Washers
Antiseptics
Clothesline
Curtains
Food Preservatives
Basketballs
Soap
Vitamin Capsules
Antihistamines
Purses
Shoes
Dashboards
Cortisone
Deodorant
Footballs
Putty
Dyes
Panty Hose
Refrigerant
Percolators
Life Jackets
Rubbing Alcohol
Linings
Skis
TV Cabinets
Shag Rugs
Electrician's Tape
Tool Racks
Car Battery Cases
Epoxy
Paint
Mops
Slacks
Insect Repellent
Oil Filters
Umbrellas
Yarn
Fertilizers
Hair Coloring
Roofing
Toilet Seats
Fishing Rods
Lipstick
Denture Adhesive
Linoleum
Ice Cube Trays
Synthetic Rubber
Speakers
Plastic Wood
Electric Blankets
Glycerin
Tennis Rackets
Rubber Cement
Fishing Boots
Dice
Nylon Rope
Candles
Trash Bags
House Paint
Water Pipes
Hand Lotion
Roller Skates
Surf Boards
Shampoo
Wheels
Paint Rollers
Shower Curtains
Guitar Strings
Luggage
Aspirin
Safety Glasses
Antifreeze
Football Helmets
Awnings
Eyeglasses
Clothes
Toothbrushes
Ice Chests
Footballs
Combs
CD's
Paint Brushes
Detergents
Vaporizers
Balloons
Sun Glasses
Tents
Heart Valves
Crayons
Parachutes
Telephones
Enamel
Pillows
Dishes
Cameras
Anesthetics
Artificial Turf
Artificial limbs
Bandages
Dentures
Model Cars
Folding Doors
Hair Curlers
Cold cream
Movie film
Soft Contact lenses
Drinking Cups
Fan Belts
Car Enamel
Shaving Cream
Ammonia
Refrigerators
Golf Balls
Toothpaste
Gasoline

http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm

be an ass all you want, but i'd like to know what he has in store for these American.

[RandomGuy]

educate yourself before you believe any stupid, quick solutions brought to you by oil cartels.

http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/

Hightower for president?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Not all of our oil comes from the middle east. We get our oil from many sources.

Therefore if we ELIMINATE our need for oil from the middle east, we have REDUCED our overall oil needs.

The statements are logically congruent.

Perhaps you can point out some data that says we get all of our oil from the middle east? Hmm?

(If you like, I can spoon feed you the link to the department of energy .xls file that shows this information)

If we don't get all of our oil from the middle east, your assertion that it is a flip flop is incorrect.

well he is against drilling...................
your turn

[RandomGuy]

i'm not distorting anything. i'm not an oil loving person, but obamessiden simply saying he's going to get us off of oil in 10 years is simply ridiculous.

Obama is not proposing we get entirely off oil in ten years.

He is proposing a plan to eliminate PART of our oil consumption equivalent to what comes from the Middle East and Venezuala.

I'm really trying not to be snotty here, but you just don't seem to be comprehending that distinction.

Your own quote from Obama says "Mideast Oil"

Not "Oil"

[RandomGuy]

Originally Posted by obamessiah's 2008 acceptance speech

And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: In 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East. [emphasis is RG]

Not all oil, but rather oil from one particular source.

I don't think the distortion was intentional, but is was still a distortion, nonetheless.

[Anti.Hero]

Obama is not proposing we get entirely off oil in ten years.

He is proposing a plan to eliminate PART of our oil consumption equivalent to what comes from the Middle East and Venezuala.

I'm really trying not to be snotty here, but you just don't seem to be comprehending that distinction.

Your own quote from Obama says "Mideast Oil"

Not "Oil"

He only recently added the "in the middle east" part to his USA oil independent. Probably realized how stupid he sounded without going into much detail.

No prob though, he's been doing that a lot lately.

Hannity has been saying for 6 months now that we could send a big FU to the middle east if we tapped all of our resources over here. Oh snapz

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Obama is not proposing we get entirely off oil in ten years.

He is proposing a plan to eliminate PART of our oil consumption equivalent to what comes from the Middle East and Venezuala.

I'm really trying not to be snotty here, but you just don't seem to be comprehending that distinction.

Your own quote from Obama says "Mideast Oil"

Not "Oil"


Not all oil, but rather oil from one particular source.

I don't think the distortion was intentional, but is was still a distortion, nonetheless.


ok. he's against drilling, so where is this oil coming from?

[RandomGuy]

He only recently added the "in the middle east" part to his USA oil independent. Probably realized how stupid he sounded without going into much detail.

No prob though, he's been doing that a lot lately.

Hannity has been saying for 6 months now that we could send a big FU to the middle east if we tapped all of our resources over here. Oh snapz

We haven't tapped all of our resources because middle east oil is simply cheaper.

Why should we pay more for deep sea oil that requires billion dollar platforms subject to hurricanes to extact?

Does he want us to have higher gas prices?

Obama has not "recently" added the "in the middle east" bit.

It has been on the energy section of his website from the get-go.

To be fair:

Obama can't pick and choose where the oil actually comes from any more than Hannity can, the market does that.

Both Hannity and Obama (and McCain for that matter) seem to imply that if we did X, we wouldn't have to buy from these places or be vulnerable to disruptions from them, and that simply isn't the way the market works.

[RandomGuy]

well he is against drilling...................
your turn

is he really?

In this post I pointed out two very specific bits where he talks about encouraging more drilling. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2760698&postcount=18)

He isn't for a total "free for all" though, and neither am I. I would rather not get the temporary boost from oil, only to lose whole fishing or tourism industries forever to an oil spill because someone got careless.

I doubt the people who own $5,000,000 costal homes would particularly like a few tons of crude oil washing ashore. That is one of hte reasons that Florida doesn't like near-coastal drilling. One big spill and the loss of capital from coastal property values plummeting is enough to give state and local governments who depend on property taxes nightmares.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

is he really?

In this post I pointed out two very specific bits where he talks about encouraging more drilling. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2760698&postcount=18)

that must be the latest flip flop. it's kinda hard to keep up actually. i think the bush tax cuts are the latest, but i'll stay on task.




He isn't for a total "free for all" though, and neither am I. I would rather not get the temporary boost from oil, only to lose whole fishing or tourism industries forever to an oil spill because someone got careless.
well the valdez happened because it was being shipped here. the dude being drunk didn't help. if we drilled that would almost totally wipe out oil spills. do some research on natural oil seepage also.


is he really?
I doubt the people who own $5,000,000 costal homes would particularly like a few tons of crude oil washing ashore. That is one of hte reasons that Florida doesn't like near-coastal drilling. One big spill and the loss of capital from coastal property values plummeting is enough to give state and local governments who depend on property taxes nightmares.

if they agreed these refineries would be more than 10 miles offshore. you couldn't even see them with the naked eye. i think in the unfortunate and/or unlikely chance we did have a spill we would be able to clean it up before it reached the shore or be visible from the shore.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

well, RG, i just finished watching the oreilly obama interview. oreilly gave a teaser..........well i'll just let you hear him. i dont want x y to confuse z to the 3rd power.

advance to 9:43
oJiBDu5gWtc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJiBDu5gWtc

[RandomGuy]

well the valdez happened because it was being shipped here. the dude being drunk didn't help. if we drilled that would almost totally wipe out oil spills. do some research on natural oil seepage also.



if they agreed these refineries would be more than 10 miles offshore. you couldn't even see them with the naked eye. i think in the unfortunate and/or unlikely chance we did have a spill we would be able to clean it up before it reached the shore or be visible from the shore.

1) Seepage is one of those misleading bits that oil companies and their supporters like to trot out that sounds "gee whiz" but is really misleading.

The figures for seepage they use are for VAST areas and represent very small amounts being slowly released. It is released at a rate that the biological and physical environment has contended with for billions of years.

This is vastly different than concentrating vast amounts of oil in a tanker or oil platform storage and then having that spill at a concentrated spot all at once.

"seepage" will not cover hundreds of thousands of birds and mammals in fatal goo, or form a oxygen-proof barrier over vast amounts of sea, or cover hundreds of square miles of coastline in goo that won't go away for decades.

[RandomGuy]

if we drilled that would almost totally wipe out oil spills.

"If we just drove more, that would end car crashes altogether." ???

I know you are trying to say "if we just extracted all of that oil, it would end the seepage", but that statement really looked odd.

Oil spills are a certainty with oil production. It is not if, but when and how much. Insurance companies, the government experts that study this stuff, and the oil companies themselves know this.

What you miss is that there would still be seepage from all the oil deposits that we will never find, or are too hard to get the oil out of, and that woud still be vast amounts of oil.

Again, seepage isn't a problem. The environment can take this kind of release.

BUT

If you increase drilling and extraction, you will have more spills. This is a statistical certainty.

I personally am willing to live with a bit of environmental damage, as long as steps are taken to mitagate it, and put the costs of that damage where it belongs, on the producers where the true costs of the good can be readily seen.

[RandomGuy]

if they agreed these refineries would be more than 10 miles offshore. you couldn't even see them with the naked eye. i think in the unfortunate and/or unlikely chance we did have a spill we would be able to clean it up before it reached the shore or be visible from the shore.

I am not the one you have to convince. I do not own hundreds of billions of dollars of coastal real estate, nor do I depend on fishing or tourism for a living. People who do will invest hundreds of millions of dollars in fighting this stuff, and these business people and and property holders will be joined by the "envirowackos" that the right loves to bash, as well as the state governments involved, if you try to force too much drilling.

Like it or not, the lawsuits that WILL come out of unrestricted drilling will drive up costs for extracting that oil, just as surely as the sun rises.

As for:
"in the unfortunate and/or unlikely chance we did have a spill we would be able to clean it up before it reached the shore or be visible from the shore"

With all due respect, I call "bullshit". You don't know and can't prove that. It is a bit like saying "in the unlikely event that I have a car crash, I will only be going 30 miles per hour or less."

[101A]

well, RG, i just finished watching the oreilly obama interview. oreilly gave a teaser..........well i'll just let you hear him. i dont want x y to confuse z to the 3rd power.

advance to 9:43
oJiBDu5gWtc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJiBDu5gWtc

Damn, I wish Presidential debates would be in that format. McCain and Obama, facing EACH OTHER - talking it out; We would learn MUCH more about their respective intellectual dexterity - Obama more than held his own with O'Reilly in that segment.

[RandomGuy]

Damn, I wish Presidential debates would be in that format. McCain and Obama, facing EACH OTHER - talking it out; We would learn MUCH more about their respective intellectual dexterity - Obama more than held his own with O'Reilly in that segment.

I agree.

Makes one long for a "Lincoln/Douglas" style debate.

In today's TV world, it would never happen. It would take too long. The candidates would spend all their time trying to hit each of their "talking points" and never get into actually TALKING to each other.

Hell, we should as a nation just draw lots. Pick eleven people, rent a bar for an evening, sit the two guys down with the 10 people and a few pitchers of beer.

At the end of the night, let those eleven people cast their vote for who should be president.

[101A]

I agree.

Makes one long for a "Lincoln/Douglas" style debate.

In today's TV world, it would never happen. It would take too long. The candidates would spend all their time trying to hit each of their "talking points" and never get into actually TALKING to each other.



Don't know if it's about talking points; what would happen would be a decisive victory, IMO. Which would effectively end the campaign. The big, expensive, all kinds of people from all over the place making money, campaign.

[101A]

Hell, we should as a nation just draw lots. Pick eleven people, rent a bar for an evening, sit the two guys down with the 10 people and a few pitchers of beer.

At the end of the night, let those eleven people cast their vote for who should be president.

That would be cool (they should also be able to pick one of the eleven, if he/she was superior to one of the other schmoes.)

[Viva Las Espuelas]

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy


Actual policy is to REDUCE oil consumption, not eliminate it.


Oddly enough for a candidate derided for not having substance, Obama's plan is much more detailed than McCain's overall.


Not all of our oil comes from the middle east. We get our oil from many sources.

Therefore if we ELIMINATE our need for oil from the middle east, we have REDUCED our overall oil needs.

The statements are logically congruent.

Perhaps you can point out some data that says we get all of our oil from the middle east? Hmm?

(If you like, I can spoon feed you the link to the department of energy .xls file that shows this information)

If we don't get all of our oil from the middle east, your assertion that it is a flip flop is incorrect.


Obama is not proposing we get entirely off oil in ten years.

He is proposing a plan to eliminate PART of our oil consumption equivalent to what comes from the Middle East and Venezuala.

I'm really trying not to be snotty here, but you just don't seem to be comprehending that distinction.

Your own quote from Obama says "Mideast Oil"

Not "Oil"


Not all oil, but rather oil from one particular source.

I don't think the distortion was intentional, but is was still a distortion, nonetheless.


And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: In 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

and i quote obamessiah from last night's presidential forum or whatever it was called.

"we're going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 20 or 30% over a course of a decade..........................or two."

hmmmmmmm. i wonder what percentage of that "20% or 30%" middle east squeezes into.

[RandomGuy]

and i quote obamessiah from last night's presidential forum or whatever it was called.

"we're going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 20 or 30% over a course of a decade..........................or two."

hmmmmmmm. i wonder what percentage of that "20% or 30%" middle east squeezes into.

The US actually doens't get much as oil from the middle east as one might think. The cost of shipping it tends to mean that we rely on closer sources, as the shipping cost adds to the overall costs faced by refiners. Europe and Asia buy more Middle Eastern oil than we do if memory serves.

For reference:
Click here for a quick, easy to read table that shows where we import our oil from. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html)

[RandomGuy]

Now for a moment of intellectual honesty:

If we reduced our oil consumption overall by 25%, we would still be buying oil from the Middle East.

Neither candidate really emphasizes that point, because it doesn't make for good rhetoric.

They will always couch their proposals with words like "we will reduce our dependence on imported oil" (but not eliminate it) or in this case "eliminate an amount equivalent to the current amount we import".

If we reduced our consumption by 25%, the overall proportions of WHERE we get our oil will be virtually unchanged.


This doesn't mean we shouldn't move away from this source of energy in favor of renewables like solar and wind, and this DOE NOT mean it is really feasible to completely change our economy to not use any oil at all.

Anybody who tries to sell you that is deluding themselves.

Over time, simply due to the physical realities of oil production supply, the price point of oil will go up to where our economy will HAVE to move away from oil, as its cost, relative to other sources of energy, will go up.

[RandomGuy]

Here is one attempt to forecast where the price point (the intersection of the supply and demand curves) of a barrel of oil will be in 4 years.

I don't know how well this will come up on your browser, but the price point in Sep of 2012 is about $225 per barrel. Over 2 times what it is now.

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/khebab1200808.gif

I don't think it will get quite that bad, as higher prices tend to permanently "destroy demand" as people start changing long term habits like buying smaller cars or moving closer to work.

Any such projection must conclude that the demand curve will adjust downwards over time.

BUT

This is not a fully unreasonable scenario. There is a fair consensus that we are getting close to, if not past, the ultimate physical limit peak production of oil.

This will have some pretty long-reaching consequences.

Conspiracy theorists will tell you this is literally the end of the world, and the collapse of global civilization.

It won't be. We have the technology to change our energy mix, and as energy gets more expensive, more and more capital will be focused on research on just how to do that most efficiently. The free-market at work.

There WILL be a lot of upheaval. The sooner we get started the better.

"Drill baby drill" may cut it to give us some time to work on replacing oil, but if you think that all the offshore drilling in the world will do more than buy us a few years, you are mistaken.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

BUT

This is not a fully unreasonable scenario. There is a fair consensus that we are getting close to, if not past, the ultimate physical limit peak production of oil.

This will have some pretty long-reaching consequences.

Conspiracy theorists will tell you this is literally the end of the world, and the collapse of global civilization.

It won't be. We have the technology to change our energy mix, and as energy gets more expensive, more and more capital will be focused on research on just how to do that most efficiently. The free-market at work.

There WILL be a lot of upheaval. The sooner we get started the better.

"Drill baby drill" may cut it to give us some time to work on replacing oil, but if you think that all the offshore drilling in the world will do more than buy us a few years, you are mistaken. i agree we should start now. get government and environMENTALS out of the way. drill drill drill will not get us out. i've always said that. not sure if i made that clear here. i don't think mccain has said that either. frankly, i'd rather drill drill drill then be taxed taxed taxed. we've got to be energy independent or at least be 85 to 90%. hell, let's use brasil as an example. they're kicking ass in that department. they're using the logical form of ethanol. they're not burning up a food group. at least not an important one.

[RandomGuy]

i agree we should start now. get government and environMENTALS out of the way. drill drill drill will not get us out. i've always said that. not sure if i made that clear here. i don't think mccain has said that either. frankly, i'd rather drill drill drill then be taxed taxed taxed. we've got to be energy independent or at least be 85 to 90%. hell, let's use brasil as an example. they're kicking ass in that department. they're using the logical form of ethanol. they're not burning up a food group. at least not an important one.

Ethanol is a fucktarded way of getting fuel, no matter WHAT source the ultimate feedstock is from.

Brazil uses a lot of ethanol, but it requires VAST amounts of land, and, more importantly WATER to feed the sugar cane stock that produces the ethanol.

The US, by comparison, has more vehicles, less farmland, and less water.

Here is some basic math:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40718&page=3

This discussion with a corn farmer about it brings up some interesting bits.

Ultimately ethanol will probably be some part of it, because there is enough wasted plant biomass out there to economically make some ethanol, but do not look to ethanol to provide anymore than a very small fraction of our overall needs.