Bush to ask Congress to clear way for offshore oil drilling

[Viva Las Espuelas]

well it's about damn time. i wanna see obamessiah talk against this. i wanna see then angle that He pulls on this one. i think this is a "check" move against obamessiah. all you enviros, al gore groupies, tree huggers can like it or lump it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush will ask Congress Wednesday to lift the ban on new offshore drilling, White House press secretary Dana Perino said Tuesday.
The request will come a day after presumed Republican presidential nominee John McCain issued the same call.
"For years, the president has pushed Congress to expand our domestic oil supply, but Democrats in Congress have consistently blocked such action," Perino told CNN.
Opponents of offshore drilling say it would harm aquatic ecosystems (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Environmental_Policy) by eroding wetlands, contaminating the water with chemicals, polluting the air, killing fish and dumping waste.
Bush has long called for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil exploration (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Oil_Production_and_Refining), but Perino said he now wants to go further.
"With gasoline now over $4 a gallon (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Oil_Prices), tomorrow he will explicitly call on Congress to also pass legislation lifting the congressional ban on safe, environmentally friendly offshore oil drilling," Perino said.
She added, "As with several existing Republican congressional proposals, he wants to work with states to determine where offshore drilling should occur, and also for the federal government to share revenues with the states. The president believes Congress shouldn't waste any more time."

At a campaign event in Houston, Texas, McCain made similar comments.
"We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States," he said. "But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. And I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use."
He said lifting the ban could be done "in ways that are consistent with sensible standards of environmental protection."
McCain's plan would let individual states decide whether to explore drilling possibilities.
According to his campaign, presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama wants to invest $150 billion over the next 10 years to establish a green energy sector, create a national low-carbon fuel standard to ensure that the fuel is more efficient, and invest in clean energies like solar, wind and biodiesel.
New drilling already could be in the works 50 miles off the Florida coast -- by Cubans (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Cuba), not Americans, with help from China and other allies. A rich undersea oil field stretches into Cuban waters near the Florida Keys.
"The people I represent can't understand how we can possibly let China end up with rights to our oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico because we say we're not going to do it and they say, 'OK, we'll do it and we'll work with Cuba, if we have to, to do it,'" said U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tennessee. "That's really asinine."

[101A]

Obama will oppose it - basically saying it won't deliver enough, soon enough - that we need to, instead, concentrate on alternative sources. The media will trumpet this as the enlightened position - show some ice bergs breaking apart, follow that report with one about encouraging discoveries on solar, wind, or cow crap conversion, follow THAT with a story about how Bush is less pupular than hemorrhoids while showing pictures of McCain hugging him, and, ultimately, Obama's popularity will rise, despite his very wrong position on this issue.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

this clearly isn't a permanent fix, but it'll buy us time. honestly i'd rather drill our way out of this mess instead of tax our way out. i hope youre taking notes obamacons.

[AZLouis]

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_energy_data.cfm?fips=US

http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

This says the US consumes about 20.6 million barrels of oil per day.

Which according to the article above would last us a little more than 10 days.

Why is this a good idea?

How long will it take to actually start to be able to pump and refine this oil?

[Extra Stout]

If we want to drill known oil reserves on American territory, that's a choice we can make. 10 years from now, when that decision results in actual oil being produced, it will help our trade balance, create jobs, and make people in the oil industry a lot of money. If we do it because we think it will make gasoline go back down to $1.50 a gallon by Christmas, we are gullible idiots.

[AZLouis]

If this is so important, why hasn't Bush lifted the Executive Order first?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/washington/18drill.html

Probably pretty tough when your own father and brother are oppposed.

[clambake]

and make people in the oil industry a lot of money.

:lmao americans thinking oil companies give a shit.

[Extra Stout]

:lmao americans thinking oil companies give a shit.
I know that because you're European you assume that you're smarter than every single American and can condescend to all of us, but who exactly do you think is pushing for the drilling restrictions to be lifted if not oil companies?

[boutons_]

Want to protect the US oilcos and domestic production?
Place a tariff on all imported oil.

Want to stimulate oil conservation and alternative fuels while depressing demand? Tax transport fuel like the Europeans do.

( no need to tax oilco windfall profits. Depressed transport fuel demand will cost them 100s of $Bs. oh, and collect every penny of royalties on oil extracted from govt lands )

UK's demand for gasoline is down 20% this year with the US gallon at $8.40, which is amazing since UK has already had high gasoline prices for 15+ years, meaning that the recent increases in UK gasoline have uncovered even more elasticity in demand.

[clambake]

I know that because you're European you assume that you're smarter than every single American and can condescend to all of us,
this is a broad stroke from someone i could always count on giving me the fine print.


but who exactly do you think is pushing for the drilling restrictions to be lifted if not oil companies?
anyone can push for lifting restrictions if they convince themselves to ignore the motive.

[Extra Stout]

this is a broad stroke from someone i could always count on giving me the fine print.
I'm entering my Impressionist phase.


anyone can push for lifting restrictions if they convince themselves to ignore the motive.
At a conservative $80 a barrel, with 21 billion barrels out there, I see $1.68 trillion worth of motive.

Clear $20 a barrel profit, reserve 0.01% to buy off public officials, and each Republican congressperson receives nearly $170,000 in campaign contributions and kickbacks.

Seems clear to me.

[johnsmith]

Wait a second, Clambake is a Euro?

[Extra Stout]

Wait a second, Clambake is a Euro?
He's from Ulcer, I mean Ulster.

[01.20.09]

This is a smart political move and nothing more.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

This is a smart political move and nothing more.not entirely.

[01.20.09]

primarily

[Viva Las Espuelas]

primarily
to-may-toe
to-motto

[RandomGuy]

well it's about damn time. i wanna see obamessiah talk against this. i wanna see then angle that He pulls on this one. i think this is a "check" move against obamessiah. all you enviros, al gore groupies, tree huggers can like it or lump it.

What, pray tell, do you hope to find in the remaining areas that you can't find in the 106,000 square miles already open, but not being used, hmmmm?

It is indeed a political move with political motivations intended to score political points, at the expense of actually doing something that might actually make a diffrence. Par for the course

There are two prohibitions on offshore drilling, one imposed by Congress and another by executive order signed by Bush's father in 1990.

I would ask why the president, if he is really concerned and convinced that this is the best way to go, doesn't just recind his fathers executive order?

[RandomGuy]

I would ask why the president, if he is really concerned and convinced that this is the best way to go, doesn't just recind his fathers executive order?

This president has clearly and repeatedly shown the ability and willingness to act outside of congress' wishes.

That he is all of a sudden deeply concerned about working with congress doesn't fit his past pattern, so one can only conclude there must be some motivation behind this change. The best, most obvious answer is, sadly, also the most cynical one: pure political theater intended to make Democrats look bad at the expense of actually exploring for oil.

Great. Once again, this administration simply proves to care less about policies that work, and more about scoring political points.

[clambake]

the argument is "the sole purpose for drilling is to flood the global market to reduce prices". amer. oil co's are not here to rescue america.

let other countries drill under lease agreements, because the oil is going to the global market anyway.

[xrayzebra]

This president has clearly and repeatedly shown the ability and willingness to act outside of congresses wishes.

That he is all of a sudden deeply concerned about working with congress doesn't fit his past pattern, so one can only conclude there must be some motivation behind this change. The best, most obvious answer is, sadly, also the most cynical one: pure political theater intended to make Democrats look bad at the expense of actually exploring for oil.

Great. Once again, this administration simply proves to care less about policies that work, and more about scoring political points.

Much of the forbidden area has oil that is more
accessible. And in some cases infracture exist that can deliver the oil in shorter time frame.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

What, pray tell, hmm. i can't decipher that one. sorry do you hope to find in the remaining areas that you can't find in the 106,000 square miles already open, but not being used, hmmmm? well i can pretty much guess this area, that you think i can mind read from you, is locked up due to a long, tedious legal paper trail. i'm willing to bet on that.

It is indeed a political move with political motivations intended to score political points, to sway money away from the people that want to kill us. put more money into our failing economy. yeah. strictly political. at the expense of actually doing something that might actually make a diffrence. like what? do tell. and don't give me this ethanol crap. Par for the course what course have we been on. this "save us from the republican death grip" congress that was just placed hasn't done squat, but change their menu.

There are two prohibitions on offshore drilling, one imposed by Congress and another by executive order signed by Bush's father in 1990. hmm. i don't see it.


1990
Executive Orders

12699 - Seismic safety of federal and federally assisted or regulated new building construction
12700 - President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
12701 - Amending Executive Order No. 12334 (President's Intelligence Oversight Board)
12702 - Waver for Czechoslovakia
12703 - Support for East European Democracy (SEED) program
12704 - Amendments to Executive Order Nos. 11830, 12367, 12692
12705 - Amendment to Executive Order No. 12686
12706 - Extended the period of nuclear cooperation with the European Atomic Energy Community to Mar. 10, 1991
12707 - Termination of emergency with respect to Nicaragua
12708 - Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984
12709 - Increasing the membership of the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports
12710 - Termination of emergency with respect to Panama
12711 - Policy implementation with respect to nationals of the People's Republic of China
12712 - Adding the Secretary of Energy to the National Space Council
12713 - Delegation of authority for submission of report
12714 - Establishing an emergency board to investigate disputes between certain railroads represented by the National Carriers' Conference Committee of the National Railway Labor Conference and their employees represented by certain labor organizations
12715 - Determination for support of scouting activities overseas
12716 - Extending the National Commission on Superconductivity
12717 - Revoking Executive Order No. 12691
12718 - President's Advisory Commission on the Public Service
12719 - President's Commission on the Federal Appointment Process
12720 - President's Council on Rural America
12721 - Eligibility of overseas employees for noncompetitive appointments
12722 - Blocking Iraqi government property and prohibiting transactions with Iraq
12723 - Blocking Kuwiat government property and prohibiting transactions with Kuwait
12724 - Blocking Iraqi government property and prohibiting transactions with Iraq
12725 - Blocking Kuwiat government property and prohibiting transactions with Kuwait
12726 - Waver for German Democratic Republic
12727 - Ordering the selective reserve of the armed forces to active duty
12728 - Delegating the President's authority to suspend any provision of law relating to the promotion, retirement, or separation of members of the armed forces
12729 - President's advisory commission on educational excellence for Hispanic Americans
12730 - Continued effectiveness of the Export Administration Act of 1979
12731 - Principles of ethical conduct for government officers and employees
12732 - International Fund for Agricultural Development
12733 - Authorizing extension of period of active duty of personnel of selected reserve of armed forces
12734 - National emergency construction authority
12735 - Chemical and biological weapons proliferation
12736 - Adjustment of pay rates effective Jan. 1, 1991
12737 - President's commission on environmental quality
12738 - Administration of foreign assistance and related functions and arms export controls
12739 - Half-day closing of Government departments and agencies on Monday, December 24, 1990
12740 - Waiver Under the Trade Act of 1974 With Respect to the Soviet Union
12741 - Extending the President's Education Policy Advisory Committee
12742 - National security industrial responsiveness

I would ask why the president, if he is really concerned and convinced that this is the best way to go, doesn't just recind his fathers executive order?which one?

[ElNono]

Doesn't the Oil Co's already have about 68 million acres of federal lands leased and not being explored?
Why didn't they start drilling there already? What they want, more land handouts?

LINK (http://www.dailymail.com/News/200806180121)

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Want to protect the US oilcos and domestic production?
Place a tariff on all imported oil.

That won't protect shit, it will make gasoline more expensive and that's about it.

Do you understand that the U.S. oil companies account for like 5% of worldwide production? Don't answer that, I know you don't.



Want to stimulate oil conservation and alternative fuels while depressing demand? Tax transport fuel like the Europeans do.


And it all gets passed on to us, the consumers. You're really a fucking idiot, you know that?



( no need to tax oilco windfall profits. Depressed transport fuel demand will cost them 100s of $Bs. oh, and collect every penny of royalties on oil extracted from govt lands )


It won't cost them shit, they will pass on the cost to you and me and we'll be the ones paying for it.



UK's demand for gasoline is down 20% this year with the US gallon at $8.40, which is amazing since UK has already had high gasoline prices for 15+ years, meaning that the recent increases in UK gasoline have uncovered even more elasticity in demand.

You can't compare the UK to the U.S. Their mass transit system is light years ahead of damn near anything in the U.S. save maybe the NY subway system.

America's modern infrastructure was built on the idea of cheap oil. It's going to take decades to shift to alternative infrastructure, maybe even a century.

The solution to our energy problems is multi-faceted.

Near term (10 year horizon):

1. Open up continental shelves, U.S. offshore to drilling.
2. Open up the 5% of the ANWR that actually has oil to drilling.
3. Don't tie up new refinery construction for 10 years in red tape and court.
4. Build more wind farms
5. Invest in more nuclear power plant construction (and cut down on the current 6-8 years of red tape bullshit required to construct).
6. Nix the ethanol mandate, it's killing us all at the grocery store and doesn't solve a damn thing other than make the tree huggers feel all warm and fuzzy inside

Long term (10+ years):

1. Invest appropriate resources into alternative energy sources. By appropriate I mean more than token grants by the federal government.
2. Begin investing in expanding/developing public mass transit systems in our larger cities. Stupid shit like Via doesn't count.
3. Invest in city-city public transit, like the high speed rails in Europe.

It pisses me off whenever I see the oil fans say 'all we need to do is drill on our shores and ANWR'. It pisses me off equally when I see a douche like Obama say (as he did in response to McCain's comment that we needed to drill our shores) that it's a political ploy, not a solution, and we need alternative fuels.

Alternative fuel sources aren't going to show up on the corner tomorrow, that's a 10-20 year (best case) pipe dream that even if discovered tomorrow would take years to bring to market on the appropriate economies of scale.

All this one of the other ultimatum shit has got to stop. There's no one magic bullet to tackling our energy crisis, and it kills me that neither of our presidential candidates either recognize this or they do but are such political whores they are unwilling to admit it.

[RandomGuy]

Originally Posted by vivalasconfirmation biasoso



What, pray tell...hmm. i can't decipher that one. sorry

:rolleyes

"pray tell" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pray%20tell):
Main Entry: pray tell
Part of Speech: phr
Definition: please do tell (about something)

Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.7)
Copyright © 2003-2008 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC

Sorry to have confused you with this blindingly difficult to find, somewhat archaic turn of phrase.

Results 1 - 10 of about 746,000 for "pray tell" definition (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22pray+tell%22+definition&btnG=Google+Search). (0.25 seconds)

Onwards through the fog.



do you hope to find in the remaining areas that you can't find in the 106,000 square miles already open, but not being used, hmmmm? well i can pretty much guess this area, that you think i can mind read from you, is locked up due to a long, tedious legal paper trail. i'm willing to bet on that.

The originally quoted area was given by the congressional Democrats in response to this measure. I converted it from the original 68 million acres. The Dems say it is already open for exploration, this is backed up from my reading of prospectuses from oil drilling companies. I have been researching small companies and oil rig manufacturers to invest in.

If you like, I can re-find the annual reports that I was reading. They are all a bit of a dry read, but they do give rough outlines of where they are drilling and who/what/why their customers are buying rigs respectively.

Still wanna make that bet that we aren't already drilling offshore?



It is indeed a political move with political motivations intended to score political points, to sway money away from the people that want to kill us. put more money into our failing economy. yeah. strictly political. at the expense of actually doing something that might actually make a diffrence. like what? do tell. and don't give me this ethanol crap. Par for the course what course have we been on. this "save us from the republican death grip" congress that was just placed hasn't done squat, but change their menu.

I don't see a point here. Your interspersion of comments with my words makes it hard to actually figure out what you are trying to get at. Assume I am not as smart as you are, and kindly spell it out for me.



There are two prohibitions on offshore drilling, one imposed by Congress and another by executive order signed by Bush's father in 1990. hmm. i don't see it.


1990
Executive Orders [list truncated for brevity]
[/QUOTE]

My apologies.

My source was orginally an AP article. They seem to have gotten the year wrong.

I didn't find any such executive order for 1990, but did find the correct executive order in 1991.

Executive Order 12777 - Implementation of Section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of October 18, 1972, as Amended, and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990
October 18th, 1991
Click here for the full text of the order imposing the added cost of producing environmental impact statements and composing oil spill clean up plans that the AP article was most likely referring to. (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=20119)



From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Oil Pollution Act (101 H.R.1465, P.L. 101-380 [1]) was passed by the United States Congress to prevent further oil spills from occurring in the United States. It was made after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. It stated that

"A company cannot ship oil into the United States until it presents a plan to prevent spills that may occur. It must also have a detailed containment and cleanup plan in case of an oil spill emergency."
The bill enjoyed widespread support, passing the House 375 - 5 and the Senate by voice vote before conference, and unanimously in both chambers after conference.

More details can be found directly at the EPA's website (http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/lawsregs/opaover.htm).

[RandomGuy]

If you will remember, the Exxon-Valdez spill that destroyed entire fishing and tourism industries, annihilated communities, and is STILL not cleaned up over two decades later, sparked a *wee* bit of apprehension about oil spills.

As I have said before, the well-paid armies of lobbyists and lawyers representing the fishing and tourism industries, as well as those of the owners of the rather large amount of expensive coastal real estate (an amount of land worth, I would guess, hundreds of billsions of dollars) have been a *bit* more effective than the Sierra club at restricting close-in drilling.

But conservadipshits looove to blame the enviromentalists for this, so who am I to spoil the party with something as mundane as reality?

[Extra Stout]

the argument is "the sole purpose for drilling is to flood the global market to reduce prices". amer. oil co's are not here to rescue america.

let other countries drill under lease agreements, because the oil is going to the global market anyway.
Oh, OK. I thought you were saying the oil companies don't care about finding oil offshore. You were actually saying they don't care about reducing prices, which obviously is true.

[spurster]

I think we are better off "banking" our oil in the ground, but if the US decides to do this, it needs to be done in combination with strong actions to reduce oil dependence and global warming. My understanding is that more nuclear plants are part of this proposal, which is good, but needs to be combined with actually starting to bury our nuclear wastes in Yucca.

[RandomGuy]

Oh, OK. I thought you were saying the oil companies don't care about finding oil offshore. You were actually saying they don't care about reducing prices, which obviously is true.

Actually they do, just as OPEC does.

High prices makes the development of alternatives to their product more economical, which makes the demand for their product lower over the long run (makes the demand curve move), which, in turn lowers their long term profitability.

CEOs have taken enough economics to know this. ;)

[RandomGuy]

I think we are better off "banking" our oil in the ground, but if the US decides to do this, it needs to be done in combination with strong actions to reduce oil dependence and global warming. My understanding is that more nuclear plants are part of this proposal, which is good, but needs to be combined with actually starting to bury our nuclear wastes in Yucca.

(shrugs)

Nuclear propenents have yet to convincingly tell me how they will overcome the super-atomic forces of NIMBY to do so.

You can f*** with atomic forces all you want, but N.I.M.B.Y. will still get you in the end. :lol

[clambake]

Actually they do, just as OPEC does.

High prices makes the development of alternatives to their product more economical, which makes the demand for their product lower over the long run (makes the demand curve move), which, in turn lowers their long term profitability.

CEOs have taken enough economics to know this. ;)

i don't know what life is like in 2060. could you tell us more of your personal observances?

and by the way, where did you score that time machine?

[RandomGuy]

i don't know what life is like in 2060. could you tell us more of your personal observances?

and by the way, where did you score that time machine?

This is simple economics. My time machine extends to the past, where I took micro-and macro-economics.

A bit on "the substitution effect" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitution_effect#Substitution_effect) that outlines what happens when the price of a good increases relative to alternatives.

[clambake]

we're examining the validity of proposed solutions in the now, just so you know.

[RandomGuy]

we're examining the validity of proposed solutions in the now, just so you know.

Indeed. I think scott's thread outlines the pluses and minuses quite well.

[clambake]

Indeed. I think scott's thread outlines the pluses and minuses quite well.

scott's thread was well formulated. it was just missing that one thing.

[johnsmith]

Can anyone get me a running tally on the amount of times Random Guy has mentioned that he has taken many economics classes in the past.


I'm sorry RG, but your absolute arrogance and constant "bragging" about your education has grown tiresome.

[Anti.Hero]

I too have recently finshed macro-micro eco! Let me go get my book and really lay down the pwn!

[Extra Stout]

Actually they do, just as OPEC does.

High prices makes the development of alternatives to their product more economical, which makes the demand for their product lower over the long run (makes the demand curve move), which, in turn lowers their long term profitability.

CEOs have taken enough economics to know this. ;)
RG, here's where I say you're getting on my nerves when you act like a know-it-all because you took some basic economics courses. You know just enough now to make an ass of yourself.

The oil companies are not lobbying to open up more offshore drilling because they are concerned that the price of oil is too high, whether that be because they are concerned about consumers' budget struggles, or because they're worried consumers are going to start riding bikes. They are lobbying to open up more offshore drilling because with the prices as high as they are, they stand to make an absolute killing, and they know the public is stupid enough to think that allowing them to drill will cause a sudden, precipitous drop in gasoline prices.

[scott]

I take this thread as evidence that the countless other threads on this topic have taught us (the forum, collectively) nothing.

I concede.

[clambake]

RG, here's where I say you're getting on my nerves when you act like a know-it-all because you took some basic economics courses. You know just enough now to make an ass of yourself.

The oil companies are not lobbying to open up more offshore drilling because they are concerned that the price of oil is too high, whether that be because they are concerned about consumers' budget struggles, or because they're worried consumers are going to start riding bikes. They are lobbying to open up more offshore drilling because with the prices as high as they are, they stand to make an absolute killing, and they know the public is stupid enough to think that allowing them to drill will cause a sudden, precipitous drop in gasoline prices.

thank you.

McCain and Bush supporters, take note.

[RandomGuy]

Can anyone get me a running tally on the amount of times Random Guy has mentioned that he has taken many economics classes in the past.


I'm sorry RG, but your absolute arrogance and constant "bragging" about your education has grown tiresome.

4,643.


You're just pissed that you are stupid. ;)

Arrogant, bragging, or whatever, I make it a point to be as right as possible as much as possible.

If you look at the post that I was responding to, it said that I couldn't know what would happen because I don't have a time machine.

This required me to spell out the basis for my opinion, which is based on what I know.

(shrugs)

I mention it when it is relevant. Tell me I don't know anything about business or the way finance works, and you will get the same response every time. I make no apologies for learning about something that interests me.

[RandomGuy]

RG, here's where I say you're getting on my nerves when you act like a know-it-all because you took some basic economics courses. You know just enough now to make an ass of yourself.

The oil companies are not lobbying to open up more offshore drilling because they are concerned that the price of oil is too high, whether that be because they are concerned about consumers' budget struggles, or because they're worried consumers are going to start riding bikes. They are lobbying to open up more offshore drilling because with the prices as high as they are, they stand to make an absolute killing, and they know the public is stupid enough to think that allowing them to drill will cause a sudden, precipitous drop in gasoline prices.

Don't confuse me with someone who doesn't know that oil companies won't cash in on the short-term profits that will be made.

I am not naive when it comes to simple human greed, and happen to agree with your second paragraph.

BUT

The people in charge of the companies DO take the possibility of someone finding an alternative to their product seriously. OPEC pretty much has said as much in various meetings and pronouncements.

That isn't to say that they aren't laughing all the way to the bank right now, though.

[xrayzebra]

Well don't anyone get the pants in a wad. The dimm-o-craps aren't going to let anyone drill. I promise.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

The repugnacraps won't their money at any costs.

[clambake]

Well don't anyone get the pants in a wad. The dimm-o-craps aren't going to let anyone drill. I promise.

it's more of a political ploy to fool you into thinking what's good for you, and to benefit from merely making the suggestion.

actual drilling would be a bonus.

[xrayzebra]

it's more of a political ploy to fool you into thinking what's good for you, and to benefit from merely making the suggestion.

actual drilling would be a bonus.

Oh, well you wont have to worry about it. You got the North sea.

Drilling will happen, but only when it benefits the dimm-o-craps and they can be sure they get all the credit.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Oh, well you wont have to worry about it. You got the North sea.

Drilling will happen, but only when it benefits the dimm-o-craps and they can be sure they get all the credit.

Yeah, while the repugnacraps get all the profits.

[xrayzebra]

Yeah, while the repugnacraps get all the profits.

Don't be jealous. We will continue to send you your welfare check.

[clambake]

Oh, well you wont have to worry about it. You got the North sea.

Drilling will happen, but only when it benefits the dimm-o-craps and they can be sure they get all the credit.

i got the north sea? holy shit, i need to recheck my portfolio!

[ElNono]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Chevron Corp. CEO David O'Reilly says Big Oil is not to blame for skyrocketing gas prices.

Chevron Corp. CEO David O'Reilly says world demand for crude oil has been growing, which is affecting gas prices.

In an interview Tuesday with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "The Situation Room," O'Reilly said high demand and a short supply of crude oil were key factors causing gas prices to spike. Despite reports of record profits among major oil companies, O'Reilly downplayed a recent poll in which Americans said corporate avarice played a role.

O'Reilly also discussed President Bush's and GOP presumptive presidential nominee Sen. John McCain's proposal to lift the ban on new offshore drilling as well as presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama's call for taxing companies' windfall profits.

The following is an edited version of the show's transcript:

Blitzer: You know you have -- you and ExxonMobil, the Big Oil companies --have a huge public relations problem. In all the recent polls, when the American public is asked, who do you blame for these huge gas prices at the pump, they -- more than any other single source -- they blame Big Oil. They blame you. What's going on? Watch Blitzer grill O'Reilly »

O'Reilly: Well, I don't think they blame us as much as you think. It looks to me like there's a lot of blame to go around.

Blitzer: There's other blame, but more than any other single source, they blame Big Oil.

O'Reilly: It depends on the poll you look at.

Blitzer: The recent Gallup Poll.

O'Reilly: Let me point out what we're trying to do about this because I think the issue here is one of supply. And prices are high today, but it's fundamentally a concern about oil supplies -- 75 percent of the price of gasoline is related to crude oil.

We're very dependent on crude oil imports. The total world demand for crude oil has been growing steadily over the last decade. And that is affecting everybody's price. So it is a concern, but we need to work on the supply side, as well as the demand side, to bring change.

Blitzer: Because you have had record profits, right?

O'Reilly: We're investing those record profits.

Blitzer: But billions and billions of dollars in profits, more than ever before.

O'Reilly: Yes, but it's a big business. And on a return-on-sales business, we're right in there with the average of American business today. What we're doing is investing that money. For example, last year, we did make a lot of money, $18.7 billion. This year, our capital investment in new supplies is $22.9 billion, almost $23 billion.

Blitzer: You know that Barack Obama says if he's president, he wants a windfall profits tax. He wants to take a chunk of your profits right now and give it back to the American people. John McCain opposes that, as you know. So I assume you would like to see John McCain elected president? Watch McCain explain his stance »

O'Reilly: Well, I would like to see no windfall profit tax. And I will tell you why. First of all, we are already heavily taxed as an industry. Our tax rates last year were at 45 percent, compared with in the 30s for the average of all industry.

Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, we're investing the money. If you take the money away, it will reduce investment, reduce supply and have exactly the opposite effect of helping the problem that you have referred to.

And, thirdly, we have done it before. We have had windfall profit taxes. Congress has studied them about 30 years ago. And what happened under those circumstances is supplies dropped domestically, and we became even more dependent on imported oil. You don't want to do that today.

Blitzer: Here's how Sen. Obama put it. Listen to this.

Obama (in a video clip): Sen. McCain wants to give billions of dollars in tax breaks to Big Oil and opposes a windfall profits tax on oil companies like Exxon to help families struggling with high energy costs. I think that is exactly why we need to change Washington.

Blitzer: So, I guess, given the stark difference when it comes to Big Oil between Obama and McCain -- let me rephrase the question -- do you want McCain to be elected?

O'Reilly: I want someone to be elected who will help resolve our energy crisis. And I don't know enough about Sen. Obama's position or Sen. McCain's position to pass judgment on either one of them.

What I do know, though, is that if we want to solve this problem of high energy prices, we're going to have to work not only in the demand side, as Congress has done with [Corporate Average Fuel Economy] standards and alternatives, but we're going to have to work on the supply as well.

Blitzer: Do you want offshore drilling to be approved on both coasts and in the Gulf, which Sen. McCain now says is a good idea?

O'Reilly: I do think that's a good idea. Today, our shores, except for the gulf off Texas and Mississippi and so forth, are off-limits today. So, look, Europeans who are very environmentally conscious -- the British, the Norwegians, the Danes, the Dutch -- they can allow sensible offshore production from their oceans. Why can't we? See where drilling is allowed, banned »

Since we have -- over the last 20 years, domestic production has steadily declined -- and we have been more and more dependent on imports. We definitely need to do something about it. We don't know yet how much oil is under there, but we should at least be given the opportunity to look.

Blitzer: We invited our viewers to ask you a question, and some of the I-Reports came in. iReport.com: See what iReporters are saying about gas prices

Unidentified male (in a video clip): If you would had told me a year ago that gas prices were going to reach about $4 a gallon, I wouldn't have doubted you. And if you had told me the year before that that they would reach $3 a gallon, I still wouldn't have doubted you. So what should Americans expect in terms of pricing of gas in the future?

Blitzer: What do you think?

O'Reilly: Very good question. I mean, $4 gasoline is a reality today because ...

Blitzer: In some parts of the country, it's approaching $5.

O'Reilly: Well, 75 percent of that is the price of crude oil. And that is the crude oil that we have been talking about here that's driving the current crude oil -- energy market.

Blitzer: So, how high is it going to go?

O'Reilly: Well, if crude oil prices come down, I think those prices could moderate. But it's a big if. Crude oil prices have to come down. We need to send a very strong signal to the market that we're serious about increasing supplies in this country.

Blitzer: Do you think manipulators, stock manipulators, are paying -- are doing things to cause this spiral?

O'Reilly: I don't know enough about the financial markets. We're a physical player. But I think most of the price that we see today is because of concern about physical long-term supply.

Blitzer: Just because of the huge demand in India and China, also?

O'Reilly: Huge demand around the globe, including here in the United States.

Blitzer: Here's another question.

Unidentified male (in a video clip): Have we reached peak oil supply? And, if not, when do you expect that we will? And, once we do, when do you expect that the prices of gas will go down to a reasonable level?

O'Reilly: You know, peak oil is a big question today, and it's a very good question.

One of the issues that we face has been addressed -- around people -- has been addressed to the National Petroleum Council study, which was issued last year by the secretary of energy. It is a very important study. What it really says is, there's enough oil and gas in the ground, but the access is what's impeding production.

So, we could have a squeeze in the years ahead if we don't get after increasing our supplies, not only here in the U.S., but creating a global environment which permits access around the globe and free trade around the globe as far as oil is concerned.

LINK (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/18/chevron.blitzer/index.html)

[CavsSuperFan]

When this subject comes up I am forever tormented by that photo of Ted Kennedy getting "amorous" with a woman on his sailboat and Senator Howell Heflin remarked that it appeared that Kennedy "had done changed his position on offshore drilling."

[clambake]

this year, alone, i used 400k of capital investment to seach for an invisible car.

any windfall profit taxes will prohibit this endeavour, and then you'll be sorry.

[01.20.09]

I see Gov. Crist, Republican of Florida has flip-flopped on his stance of no drilling in his beloved state. But then again maybe he does want that VP slot.

[T Park]

I see the democrats have proposed nationalizing refineries.

Wow.

Just, wow....

[scott]

I see the democrats have proposed nationalizing refineries.

Wow.

Just, wow....

You saw this where?

[Nbadan]

You saw this where?

Don't bother T-Park for details...he's on a roll!

:lol

[T Park]

Representitive of New York proposed it today and has many backers.

Just saw him have a press conference about it on Fox Business news.

[scott]

Representitive of New York proposed it today and has many backers.

Just saw him have a press conference about it on Fox Business news.

Cool. Well, I just saw a press conference where Jim Bunning says he will propose rounding up all single virgins and breeding them with pit bulls in order to create an Army of Manamals.

[T Park]

Cool. Well, I just saw a press conference where Jim Bunning says he will propose rounding up all single virgins and breeding them with pit bulls in order to create an Army of Manamals.


:lol

Typical.

[scott]

I bet I can find a link for my claim before you for yours...

[T Park]

I'm sorry i can't link live television.

Link to where you can do that?

[scott]

This doesn't seem like news that would be worthy of being broken anywhere other than a brief mention on FoxNews to you?

[Nbadan]

Here's a link from ole 19% Approval rating himself....

Cheney Pushes for More Drilling
Vice President Also Calls for Extension of Bush Tax Cuts (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/11/AR2008061103948.html)

[JoeChalupa]

Dems to Bush: Drop dead on oil drilling (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/dem_to_bush_drop_dead_on_offsh.html)

[scott]

At one point during press conference, Hinchey of New York seemed to veer from the Democratic talking points to suggest that U.S. refineries be nationalized.

Our Republican friends also talk about the need to, you know, set up ways in which the material can be refined; refineries. Well, do we own refineries? No, the oil companies own refineries.

Should the people of the United States own refineries? Maybe so. Frankly I think that's a good idea. Then we could control the amount of refined product much more capably that gets out on the market.

When it came time for reporters to ask questions, a reporter jumped on this:

Q I've got a question about the issue of -- you mentioned the issue of nationalizing refineries and having nationally owned refinery capacity. A lot of other countries have nationalized their oil industry. You mentioned that the oil and gas companies may not want to drill on these lands, so that they can take advantage of ever- higher gas prices. Is there any thought to having bills that would nationalize some of these refineries or start a national oil company?...

... REP. HINCHEY: Yeah, there's thought going on about this. Frankly, this is something that I think is essential. And I think it's only a matter of time before it takes place. I think that the -- we'll -- what we have to do has to be in the interest of the American people, primarily, basically, in the interest of the American people, not in the interest of some major corporations. And the determination as to how much of this very important material gets refined, and consequently out on the market, is in the hands of the oil companies. And they just do. They make those decisions based upon their efforts to drive up the price as high as they can and keep it as high as they can for as long as they can.

So I think that this is something that this Congress should be thinking about. And certainly it's something that I'm thinking about, and I think that there are a few others already in the Congress who are thinking about it as well.

REP. EMANUEL: Let me just add one thing -- and then I you know have a question, and then we got to get going -- is as it relates to the refinery issue, there's been a tremendous amount of incentives, tax and otherwise, given to the oil and gas companies to expand or build new ones.

As I -- now I'm a little on weaker grounds. I think it's been, what, 20 years since a new refinery has been built.

REP. : Yeah.

REP. EMANUEL: And then clearly, the need is there. They haven't met that. And I think whether you support or don't nationalization, the question is what it is going to take to get the energy industry, given that we've given both direct and otherwise assistance, to build more refining capacity.


It probably wouldn't surprise anyone if, before the day is out, House Republicans picked up this nationalization-of-refineries idea and used it as a cudgel to beat on their Democratic colleagues, portraying them as socialists of the Hugo Chavez variety. In American politics, this is what could be easily described as low-hanging fruit.



My apologies to T Park, though I would venture to say there probably isn't much support of this.

I will also say this, which is just my opinion and may be counter to what some of you may be thinking:

The United States of America does not need a new refinery be built. There are refinery expansions happening as we speak that will increase capacity greater than that a new refinery would, and for cheaper.

[T Park]

This doesn't seem like news that would be worthy of being broken anywhere other than a brief mention on FoxNews to you?

Not in the new culture of america.

Americans more and more embrace socialism.

Doesn't surprise me a bit.

[JoeChalupa]

My apologies to T Park, though I would venture to say there probably isn't much support of this.

I will also say this, which is just my opinion and may be counter to what some of you may be thinking:

The United States of America does not need a new refinery be built. There are refinery expansions happening as we speak that will increase capacity greater than that a new refinery would, and for cheaper.

That is what I've read too but I'm no expert. I do think the US does need to drill for oil but I'm also about protecting the environment.

[scott]

That is what I've read too but I'm no expert. I do think the US does need to drill for oil but I'm also about protecting the environment.

Well, in the spirit of the other oil post... I guess I have to ask what the objective is.

My personal opinion is that our objective should be to move away from an oil based economy, in which case I don't support the drilling for any additional oil supply if it comes at the expense of our other natural resources. I think the policy of the US to be to aid in the destruction of oil demand.

[JoeChalupa]

Well, in the spirit of the other oil post... I guess I have to ask what the objective is.

My personal opinion is that our objective should be to move away from an oil based economy, in which case I don't support the drilling for any additional oil supply if it comes at the expense of our other natural resources. I think the policy of the US to be to aid in the destruction of oil demand.

I concur. I too believe that the US needs to move away from an oil based economy. My common man thinking is that we need to get oil from our own resources but I see your point and agree with it. It just makes "common sense" to me that if we get more oil from our own resources it would help.

I can see so many will like what they hear from McCain.

[clambake]

it would be sold on the global market!!!!!!!!!

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Yeah, while the repugnacraps get all the profits.

If you know where I should be picking up said profit checks, please give me an address. Thanks.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Oh, and meanwhile, Cuba is letting China set up shop 50 miles off Key West to start sucking out our oil supplies in that area.

So while the Demos block our companies from pulling the oil out from down there, China's going to be sucking us dry in that part of the continental basin and laughing all the way to cheaper gas prices.

Pretty fucking awesome way to run this country, if you ask me.

And does anyone think China is going to give two shits about any potential environmental disaster off our shores? Hell no, they're going to construct that shit as cheap as possible, and it's going to get torn to hell the first hurricane to roll through there.

Meanwhile, our oil companies have proven in the gulf they can construct facilities out in the heart of hurricane country that can withstand 'little' storms like Rita and Katrina....

[Nbadan]

errr............wrong again...


D5hR14NF0es

[Extra Stout]

Oh, and meanwhile, Cuba is letting China set up shop 50 miles off Key West to start sucking out our oil supplies in that area.
That is not true. Dick Cheney misspoke and his office has already issued a retraction.

[ElNono]

Oh, and meanwhile, Cuba is letting China set up shop 50 miles off Key West to start sucking out our oil supplies in that area.

So while the Demos block our companies from pulling the oil out from down there, China's going to be sucking us dry in that part of the continental basin and laughing all the way to cheaper gas prices.

Pretty fucking awesome way to run this country, if you ask me.

And does anyone think China is going to give two shits about any potential environmental disaster off our shores? Hell no, they're going to construct that shit as cheap as possible, and it's going to get torn to hell the first hurricane to roll through there.

Meanwhile, our oil companies have proven in the gulf they can construct facilities out in the heart of hurricane country that can withstand 'little' storms like Rita and Katrina....

And they should, otherwise they would need to stop ripping all of us off.

[xrayzebra]

Well, in the spirit of the other oil post... I guess I have to ask what the objective is.

My personal opinion is that our objective should be to move away from an oil based economy, in which case I don't support the drilling for any additional oil supply if it comes at the expense of our other natural resources. I think the policy of the US to be to aid in the destruction of oil demand.

Scott, since you are in the oil industy, why do I suspect your motives. Something just doesn't ring true.

Oil is cheap in comparison to any other energy source and despite what you keep harping on it is still fairly plentiful. I know you are suppose to be a PHD in oil (finance or whatever). But you too have to depend on what is fed to you through different stat reports, ect. My old Granddad used to say I am not saying your story is fishy, but there seems to be a few minnows floating on top of the water. Oil is what made this country. Oil is what more or less made our middle class. It is not going away anytime soon. So lets exploit it and work on other sources at the same time. Not abandoned our oil based economy and go running in all the different directions that we are now attempting to do. You know airplanes replaced trains and buses for most passenger travel, but both those industries still exist and fulfill a need. And oil will continue to fill a need for pharmaceuticals, rubber, clothing and other goods.

[ElNono]

Scott, since you are in the oil industy, why do I suspect your motives. Something just doesn't ring true.

Oil is cheap in comparison to any other energy source and despite what you keep harping on it is still fairly plentiful. I know you are suppose to be a PHD in oil (finance or whatever). But you too have to depend on what is fed to you through different stat reports, ect. My old Granddad used to say I am not saying your story is fishy, but there seems to be a few minnows floating on top of the water. Oil is what made this country. Oil is what more or less made our middle class. It is not going away anytime soon. So lets exploit it and work on other sources at the same time. Not abandoned our oil based economy and go running in all the different directions that we are now attempting to do. You know airplanes replaced trains and buses for most passenger travel, but both those industries still exist and fulfill a need. And oil will continue to fill a need for pharmaceuticals, rubber, clothing and other goods.

My biggest beef, is that there's absolutely no incentive for the Oil cartel to lower the prices, even if they start drilling everywhere. Saudis say there's no supply problem. The Chevron CEO claims there is, and the only solution is to drill at home. There's no competition in the Oil market. They keep reaping record profits, and what guarantee you have they won't turn around and say, "You know, there's not enough oil here" and keep on going with their record pricing/profits?
At least where we are right now forces companies to start looking in other directions. The only way you're going to make a dent on this Oil business is if you actually have a viable competing product. There's no such thing right now, and they know it and they'll keep abusing their position for as long as there is not.

[scott]

Scott, since you are in the oil industy, why do I suspect your motives. Something just doesn't ring true.

Oil is cheap in comparison to any other energy source and despite what you keep harping on it is still fairly plentiful. I know you are suppose to be a PHD in oil (finance or whatever). But you too have to depend on what is fed to you through different stat reports, ect. My old Granddad used to say I am not saying your story is fishy, but there seems to be a few minnows floating on top of the water. Oil is what made this country. Oil is what more or less made our middle class. It is not going away anytime soon. So lets exploit it and work on other sources at the same time. Not abandoned our oil based economy and go running in all the different directions that we are now attempting to do. You know airplanes replaced trains and buses for most passenger travel, but both those industries still exist and fulfill a need. And oil will continue to fill a need for pharmaceuticals, rubber, clothing and other goods.

I think it is healthy to be skeptical, but I hope your skepticism is founded on something other than the fact that I have an opinion you don't like. That isn't skepticism, it's just head-in-the-sand syndrome.

I try to stick to presenting what I know, which is the facts and the economic theory behind things. If I'm sharing my opinion, I always try to preface it as such. My opinions are based on the fact, but in the end they are just my opinions. If you are skeptical of the source of the facts, then that is another issue. I am highly confident in their accuracy, however.

Now, just because I have a lot of working knowledge of the industry because of my involvment in it, doesn't mean I can't be of the opinion that we should move away from an oil based economy. That doesn't mean we should all live in straw huts and ride horse drawn buggies tomorrow. Obviously it is going to be a gradual transition from an oil-based economy, but it is a transition that will happen. How painful that transition is for us will depend on our willingness and desire to be part of the transition.

If we decide we'll just ride it out and not be part of the transition, then we will one day be hit with prices that make the current ones seem like peanuts, and we will have no means to combat it other than to face a major economic depression and take our lumps that way.

Or, we can begin the transition on our terms so that when the inevitable crunch comes, we will be prepared to weather the storm.

I've always said (on these forums, to my professional colleagues and clients, to my students, etc.) that this planet will never run out of oil. I say that not because it is plentiful, but because the laws of economics will dictate it. As demand outstrips supply, prices will only continue to rise. As this happens, our demand for oil will eventually be destroyed (replaced by alternatives), and a bunch of oil we neither want or need will be left sitting in the ground. "Exploiting what we have and then moving on" is not a realistic option, because that isn't the way things work. Changes like this require proactive thinking.

In the end, it all comes down to objectives, like I stated in the other thread. Personally I believe (my opinion) that making oil cheap is the wrong objective. Again, one of my favorite analogies is "you don't cure an addict by providing him with a bunch of cheap crack."

I guess the question should be: what is your objective?

[Wild Cobra]

There are two prohibitions on offshore drilling, one imposed by Congress and another by executive order signed by Bush's father in 1990.

Can you point out the prohibitions? I read the executive order, and I didn't see it. Did I miss it?

[Don Quixote]

We need to send Manu Ginobili in there ...

He'll get the legislation through.

[RandomGuy]

Representitive of New York proposed it today and has many backers.

Just saw him have a press conference about it on Fox Business news.

Linky Dinky Doo (http://www.mahalo.com/Nationalization_of_Oil_Refineries)

Seriously, it took me less than 2 minutes to find this. Not providing links when asks just means you are lazy, not cramped for time, sheesh.

[RandomGuy]

I bet I can find a link for my claim before you for yours...

It was a semi-serious suggestion by ONE guy at a press conference. Not that the sentiment isn't shared by others on the left, but to hear Fox News and the blather-sphere talk about it, you would think that the commies are coming...

Objectively, it was a reaction to Bush's suggestion that we have a free-for-all in terms of oil drilling off-shore.

I think the intent was to give the Republicans as distasteful an alternative as the off-shore free-for-all is to Democrats. "If you do this, we'll do this." kinda thing.

I think it is a bit funny to see righties flapping their arms and running around like chickens with their heads cut off at a suggestion that few in the Democratic party take seriously. (note that I didn't say "no one in the Democratic party...")

[RandomGuy]

Can you point out the prohibitions? I read the executive order, and I didn't see it. Did I miss it?

Yes, you did. You might want to read up on the associated Act as well.

[boutons_]

"there is a moratorium on drilling in certain coastal areas. Other areas are not only open to drilling but leases and drilling permits have already been issued.

And they are not being drilled.


In fact, only 17% of the leased areas is in production. So, with about 33 million acres of offshore areas already available to drill and not being drilled, why does the oil and gas industry need to have access to still more? The fact is that nearly 25 BILLION barrels of oil off the coast of the United States is currently available for drilling...and industry is not drilling it.


Not to mention natural gas. Most of the natural gas occurring offshore (over 328 TRILLION cubic feet – an eleven year supply at current consumption rates) is currently available for leasing and development.
And they’re not going after it."


"It has been estimated that if all of those currently inactive leases were drilled, the USA would produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas EVERY DAY, accounting for a doubling of US oil production and a 75% increase in US natural gas production. The Minerals Management Service tells us that about 80% of fossil fuels available in offshore are currently available for development."



http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/18/134047/614/81/537906


================


As always, dubya is lying about the "ban".

[2centsworth]

I think it is healthy to be skeptical, but I hope your skepticism is founded on something other than the fact that I have an opinion you don't like. That isn't skepticism, it's just head-in-the-sand syndrome.

I try to stick to presenting what I know, which is the facts and the economic theory behind things. If I'm sharing my opinion, I always try to preface it as such. My opinions are based on the fact, but in the end they are just my opinions. If you are skeptical of the source of the facts, then that is another issue. I am highly confident in their accuracy, however.

Now, just because I have a lot of working knowledge of the industry because of my involvment in it, doesn't mean I can't be of the opinion that we should move away from an oil based economy. That doesn't mean we should all live in straw huts and ride horse drawn buggies tomorrow. Obviously it is going to be a gradual transition from an oil-based economy, but it is a transition that will happen. How painful that transition is for us will depend on our willingness and desire to be part of the transition.

If we decide we'll just ride it out and not be part of the transition, then we will one day be hit with prices that make the current ones seem like peanuts, and we will have no means to combat it other than to face a major economic depression and take our lumps that way.

Or, we can begin the transition on our terms so that when the inevitable crunch comes, we will be prepared to weather the storm.

I've always said (on these forums, to my professional colleagues and clients, to my students, etc.) that this planet will never run out of oil. I say that not because it is plentiful, but because the laws of economics will dictate it. As demand outstrips supply, prices will only continue to rise. As this happens, our demand for oil will eventually be destroyed (replaced by alternatives), and a bunch of oil we neither want or need will be left sitting in the ground. "Exploiting what we have and then moving on" is not a realistic option, because that isn't the way things work. Changes like this require proactive thinking.

In the end, it all comes down to objectives, like I stated in the other thread. Personally I believe (my opinion) that making oil cheap is the wrong objective. Again, one of my favorite analogies is "you don't cure an addict by providing him with a bunch of cheap crack."

I guess the question should be: what is your objective?

that economic depression of which you speak is right around the corner. We've waited too long or just didn't have the knowledge to change things. Nevertheless, long-term we should move away from an oil based economy in favor of other more effecient means of energy, but for now we need oil. The transition of which you speak is 10-20 years away.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, you did. You might want to read up on the associated Act as well.

OK, so I missed it. Again, can you point it out please. I saw the subject addressed, but not prohibited.

[RandomGuy]

"there is a moratorium on drilling in certain coastal areas. Other areas are not only open to drilling but leases and drilling permits have already been issued.

And they are not being drilled.


In fact, only 17% of the leased areas is in production. So, with about 33 million acres of offshore areas already available to drill and not being drilled, why does the oil and gas industry need to have access to still more? The fact is that nearly 25 BILLION barrels of oil off the coast of the United States is currently available for drilling...and industry is not drilling it.


Not to mention natural gas. Most of the natural gas occurring offshore (over 328 TRILLION cubic feet – an eleven year supply at current consumption rates) is currently available for leasing and development.
And they’re not going after it."


"It has been estimated that if all of those currently inactive leases were drilled, the USA would produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas EVERY DAY, accounting for a doubling of US oil production and a 75% increase in US natural gas production. The Minerals Management Service tells us that about 80% of fossil fuels available in offshore are currently available for development."



http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/18/134047/614/81/537906


================


As always, dubya is lying about the "ban".

The reason for this is that there literally aren't enough deep-water drilling rigs in existance to tap it.

Every single rig that has been built to date is committed to a project, and the oil companies are screaming for more rigs.

Just another consequence of oil being cheap for a decade or so:

A lot of the companies that used to make rig equipment went out of business, so when demand picks back up, you have a lag in capacity.

scott can probably attest to this.

[boutons_]

Dearth of Ships Delays Drilling of Offshore Oil


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/06/19/business/19drillship.graphic.550.gif


"a shortage of ships used for deep-water offshore drilling promises to impede any rapid turnaround in oil exploration and supply."

"In recent years, this global shortage of drill-ships has created a critical bottleneck, frustrating energy company executives and constraining their ability to exploit known reserves or find new ones."

"the world’s existing drill-ships are booked solid for the next five years. Some oil companies have been forced to postpone exploration while waiting for a drilling rig"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/business/19drillship.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin


============

So there isn't really a need to end the moratorium, since there are 5M barrels/day of oil already leased and permitted, but the no hardware to drill with.

dubya's call to end the moratorium is total bullshit. It's a Repug giveaway to the oilcos as dubya winds up his disastrous terms.

Anybody think the US oilcos will sell their offshore oil to US consumers at a discount from world price? :lol :lol

Anybody think President Old Sick Senile 95% McFlopPanderKeating will vigorously collect lease royalties from oilcos? :lol :lol dubya surely hasn't.

The only people to benefit from drilling offshore are the oilcos, not the US consumers.

I expect the US/UK oilcos, if they can really, finally get started in Iraq courtesy of taxpayer debt and abused US military, will prefer to drill in Iraq for shallow, cheaper-to-extract, higher quality oil rather drill at the bottom of the sea.

[RandomGuy]

OK, so I missed it. Again, can you point it out please. I saw the subject addressed, but not prohibited.

Ah, the devil is indeed in the details. :devil

It is not expressly prohibited.

BUT

It gives the authority provided by law to determine what is an acceptable risk of a spill to the EPA. (the "Administrator")

It also gives to various entities, the authority to regulate various aspects of spill prevention equipment, and other things relating to it.

Without doing further research, I would imagine that the EPA then made the ruling of what an acceptable risk was, based on a panel that was created by this order, and using some data from the Exxon-Valdez spill that precipitated the law.

Presumedly, any current president, could simply reverse the delegation of authority to the EPA, and reserve that determination for himself.

[Wild Cobra]

OK Random, where does "prohibited" come in?

[boutons_]

"The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.
And the impact of the projected 7% (!) increase in lower-48 oil production that might result in 2030 thanks to opening the OCS is … wait for it …
… any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."


http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/18/eia-bombshell-offshore-drilling-would-not-have-a-significant-impact-on-domestic-crude-oil-and-natural-gas-production-or-prices-before-2030/


http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

[Wild Cobra]

"The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production [I]or prices before 2030.


Funny how they are limited to using the term "significant impact," isn't it. I can interpret that as educing the price to 2001 levels, or even back to $2.50 per gallon. The term does exclude small changes like 10% however. Then the 2030 number. That is probably the estimate of time to get all resources we know of on line, and the longer estimate ratrher than shorter. We don't need to bring them all on line to see an impact in price. Notice it doesn't give a time range.

This is what I call propaganda because it uses a concerted effort to use terminoilogy that confuses most people. It uses a long time duration, 2030, and doesn't quanitfy the guess of what the gas price would be. Probably because most people would appriciate how much the price would be reduced vs. if we did nothing.

Now also keep in mind, the material you linked is refering ONLY TO the outer (not inner) continental shelf of the continental 48 states. The 7% number is what we know of. If we can go there, you can be sure they will find even more.

[boutons_]

"This is what I call propaganda"

anti-oil proganda from dubya's own totally politicized DOE.gov?

"It uses a long time duration, 2030, and doesn't quanitfy the guess of what the gas price would be."

Let's hear your non-propaganda guess. I'm sure it's much more credible.

"refering ONLY TO the outer (not inner) continental shelf of the continental 48 states."

Well, that's where dubya wants to open the doors to the oilcos. Why isn't he asking for inner shelf exploration?

"If we can go there, you can be sure they will find even more."

really? how much? what will be the landed cost/barrel vs the world market price? Why aren't the oilcos drilling now where they are leased and permitted? When will it be in our fuel tanks?

And finally, the oilcos will NEVER give Americans a break on fuel prices, no matter if/when when the oilcos find cheaper oil. It would be illegal to do so, violate their charter, their commitment to shareholders, of maximizing profits. They will always charge the highest price they can, and fuck the Americans, soldiers and taxpayers, who died and paid to bust the oilcos into Iraq.

[SonAta]

The soaring oil prices are affecting the costs of everything from food to gas. There are also significant issues on local and global environmental impact. While there are many issues, we need to look at our next leader and determine which will have the best course of action going forward…..I recently watch the two video in Pollclash (http://pollclash.com) about this issue, Obama and McCain talk about this…

[sabar]

We'll be fine.

http://www.xaboom.com/funny-picture-1405-13.jpg

[RandomGuy]

OK Random, where does "prohibited" come in?

That would be what the EPA did with the authority given by the President though the executive order, as I have previously explained.

If it really means that much to you, I'm sure you can find the ruling.

Your problem is that you don't acknowledge my vast undestanding of the law. ;)

[xrayzebra]

Has anyone solved the energy problem yet? Obama said
if drilling for oil would lower cost he was for it, but since it wouldn't, forget drilling if he was elected President (Messiah) of the United States. Wonder how he is going to lower prices then. Will alternate fuels come on line and bring cost down? And old brutus, McCain, said offering 300 million for a new battery will solve problem, not in his and my lifetime, it wont. Being a dumb-ass must be what qualifies someone to be President. Cause both of those running now are true dyed in the wool dumb-asses.

[RandomGuy]

Has anyone solved the energy problem yet? Obama said
if drilling for oil would lower cost he was for it, but since it wouldn't, forget drilling if he was elected President (Messiah) of the United States. Wonder how he is going to lower prices then. Will alternate fuels come on line and bring cost down? And old brutus, McCain, said offering 300 million for a new battery will solve problem, not in his and my lifetime, it wont. Being a dumb-ass must be what qualifies someone to be President. Cause both of those running now are true dyed in the wool dumb-asses.

Will alternate fuel vehicles "bring costs down"?

No. They will not. No proponent will ever claim otherwise.

BUT

Over time, as the efficiency of renewables as an energy source surpasses that of oil, gasoline cars will simply not be economical. Pure, free-market economics.

It might not quite happen in your lifetime Ray, but it will in mine, and my grandchildren will wonder at the noisy, dirty museum peices that their grampa drove.

[boutons_]

"I read an article" that said getting the US auto fleet avg from 20 mpg today to 40 mpg by 2030 would save 5M barrels/day. Is that a worthwhile goal?

Mc95%'s $300M for a new battery is a total non-starter, like removing tax on gasoline to encourage consumption. McSenile is such a strong pro-environment guy.

[Wild Cobra]

That would be what the EPA did with the authority given by the President though the executive order, as I have previously explained.

If it really means that much to you, I'm sure you can find the ruling.

Your problem is that you don't acknowledge my vast undestanding of the law. ;)
It sure would be nice if you expressed such things in an honest manner instead of through propaganda. So, am I right about this assessment. President Bush authorized the EPA to take the action, but he did not prohibit the action himself?

The way you said implies president Bush prohibited the drilling. That in effect is a lie.

To suggest president Bush prohibited it through the EPA is to say he is micromanaging it, and directed such actions. Now I ask this. To support the idea that president Bush prohibited the drilling, where is there evidence he directed the EPA to do so?

[xrayzebra]

Will alternate fuel vehicles "bring costs down"?

No. They will not. No proponent will ever claim otherwise.

BUT

Over time, as the efficiency of renewables as an energy source surpasses that of oil, gasoline cars will simply not be economical. Pure, free-market economics.

It might not quite happen in your lifetime Ray, but it will in mine, and my grandchildren will wonder at the noisy, dirty museum peices that their grampa drove.

But they sure leave the impression that it will bring cost down and save the world in one fell swoop. Don't they?

It wont happen in my lifetime. It will be a good twenty or more years before they have anything that will come close to replacing oil.

Oh, and I really don't think the kids nor their kids will think that way. The may even be surprised that we built machines that had so much room and so many gadgets that they no longer have the luxury of. And could travel such distances without refueling or without all the proper permits. No, I am no kidding. Dead serious. The direction we are going there will be no free market as we know it.:(

[RandomGuy]

It sure would be nice if you expressed such things in an honest manner instead of through propaganda. So, am I right about this assessment. President Bush authorized the EPA to take the action, but he did not prohibit the action himself?

The way you said implies president Bush prohibited the drilling. That in effect is a lie.

To suggest president Bush prohibited it through the EPA is to say he is micromanaging it, and directed such actions. Now I ask this. To support the idea that president Bush prohibited the drilling, where is there evidence he directed the EPA to do so?

(sighs heavily)

Nope. I said nothing of the sort.