Not related to off-shore drilling.That bit has been debunked, and it does not surprise me that you would believe something like that. I think the proper term is "cool-aid".
It is provably false.
We can start here:
http://www.katrinadestruction.com/im...gy+facilities/
Where is all the environmental fallout? Where is Greenpeace? I haven't heard an outcry.Or even better:
http://blog.skytruth.org/2007/12/hur...exico-oil.html
Here is an interesting summary with a quote from the "U.S. Minerals Management Service [who] commissioned a study of this very issue,"
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...-from-katrina/
I think it is fairly safe to assume that increased offshore drilling MUST equal increased risk of spills of all kinds. Is this a fair statement?
(note I didn't ask whether they are likely or not, so don't try that dodge)
In fact, the ulative of all spills was 3/4 of a million gallons or, approximately 6,000 gallons per source or, in the medium discharge range.
Have there been residual effects? And, if so, why isn't there any outrage?
Just asking.
Seems to me the claims are just overblown or, the anti-drilling crowd -- championed by Democrats in Washington -- would have made sure this was the topic of at least 5 or 6 "60 Minutes" or "20/20"s, et. al.
Sorry, I call bull .
Yeah, those offshore spills from Katrina and Rita really had a huge economic impact.Oil spills tend to damage a lot more than just a few birds on the beaches. They destroy coastal property values, destroy fishing industries, destroy tourism industries in coastal areas.
ulatively the damage was rather minor.
It also is misleading to say it didn't happen.
I am not against off-shore drilling. Don't mistake me here.
It has its benefits and costs just like anything else.
But there are two things I WILL say about it:
1) You will never be able to supply all or even most of US demand with any economically feasible amount of offshore drilling, even if the bans were completely lifted.
2) Even if you could, it still would make you vulnerable to production/supply issues in the rest of the word.
To be fair, RG, natural seepage accounts for a SUBSTANTIAL amount of oil in our oceans. NASA has been tracking natural oil slicks with satellites.
http://e360.yale.edu/content/digest.msp?id=1652
I disagree. The legal, cultural and political contexts of energy production can also affect the price. Only an idiot or a Doctor of Economics thinks that when everything is boiled down to an abstract truism -- supply and demand -- that everything survives the boiling down. On the contrary, economics defines everything hard out of the context to begin with. Rational actors, rational self interest, a level playing field and rational calculation are all assumed.
In the face of a federally-funded US financial sector and an ongoing, sector-wide, multi-trillion dollar bailout, how much sense does it make to continue to insist dogmatically on the existence of a rational and orderly free market?
I think I see what you mean, but the scope of the damage of is probably overstated in your post.
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-20-2009 at 12:28 PM.
That depends on the locale.
You are indeed correct though, the overall economic impact from the spills was minor.
The evidence does NOT support the statement:
Does it?
Helpful hint: Backpedaling is best done on unicycles.
There was a great deal of stockpiling actually. From what I have read there is a massive amount of oil being stored in ships.
I have begun to believe the recent run up was highly speculative in nature, but I don't think it was specifically driven by "the Chinese".
Also true.
This amount of seepage doesn't destroy fishing/tourism industries though.
(shrugs)
The possibility , however remote, of a catastrophic failure/leak on the part of some platform or tanker has caused a lot of people with coastal real estate, fishing industries, and tourism industries to fight drilling tooth and nail.
That is NOT pure environmentalism. That is one business interest against another.
I was going to ignore him because he was a dumbass, but he specifically asked to be spanked.
Slightly off topic, but about 20 years ago I lived near Los Angeles, and I seem to recall there being an absolute load of oil drilling going on. There was even an active oil pump in the parking lot of the Del Amo Mall in Torrance. It just strikes me as odd that they seemingly had tons of oil and yet now have energy problems. Is it because of all the environmental activism over the last few decades?
I remember what a pain in the ass it was to get my smog inspection done every year. I had a 74 VW Beetle and I had to put on the OEM carburetor and exhaust back on ever year. After I got my sticker, I would put the aftermarket parts back on. I believe that today such a vehicle would be exempt.
So we should attempt to control 100% of the global oil supply?
That is what your statement "100% of supply" suggests.
The ONLY way you can support what you are so ham-handedly trying to say is if you pass a socialistic law that prohibits domestic oil companies from selling to anybody else.
Is that what you are trying to say? Socialism is good?
More FAIL.
YOU CANNOT DE-COUPLE US SUPPLY/DEMAND FROM GLOBAL SUPPLY AND DEMAND IN A FREE MARKET.
Assume prices are determined by global supply/demand.
The US is part of the global supply/demand.
Assume further that at current prices, the US produces and consumes 100% of all of its needs.
Now assume that there is a civil war in Saudi Arabia.
What happens to the price of oil globally, ceteris paribus?
I said no such thing. Get a grip, dude.
So we should attempt to control 100% of the global oil supply?
That is what your statement "100% of supply" suggests.
The ONLY way you can support what you are so ham-handedly trying to say is if you pass a socialistic law that prohibits domestic oil companies from selling to anybody else.
Is that what you are trying to say? Socialism is good?
More FAIL.
YOU CANNOT DE-COUPLE US SUPPLY/DEMAND FROM GLOBAL SUPPLY AND DEMAND IN A FREE MARKET.
Since CC won't really have the stones to answer:
It goes up.
Now if you are a US domestic producer and you can sell oil to Europe for $100/bbl or domestically, you will sell to the Europeans.
Therefore the total available supply to the US will DECREASE accordingly, driving up the price point if the demand curve does not change.
THEREFORE, the disruption in Saudi will STILL cause hikes in US gas/oil prices, UNLESS you prohibit the US producer from selling overseas.
The only way for CC to be right is if he prohibits those producers from selling their oil to maximize their microeconomic profit.
You seem to think that if we produced 100% of all the oil we consume that will somehow insulate us from foreign oil production disruptions.
There is only one way that will happen.
That is the direct implication of your statement.
You have yet to demonstrate anything more than a passing grasp of economics.
You are like a brain damaged ing pit bull. All you want to do is attack. I already AGREED that oil is a commodity on a global market and as such the price can be influenced by global events.
Implict it in this is that you CAN keep the price point in the US at the same place with a decrease in supply.
Now Cosmic Cowboy, how would that be accomplished?
This is a VERY basic economics question.
Because the idea that if we drilled all of our oil, everything would be happiness and roses, and that we could tell the sheikhs and Chavez to go themselves is not only wrong, but dangerously wrong.
We can do better than bad ideas.
There was no such implication dumbass. I never said anything about us producing 100% of the oil that we consume.
I DID say that if we voluntarily handicap ourselves and put ourselves in a position of having to buy 100% of an essential commodity like oil that we consume from potentially hostile foreign governments that is not very smart.
How can you POSSIBLY dispute this point?
If you want to talk purely strategically, yes we should drill and store as much oil as we need to.The point you seem to be missing is that if the USA allows 100% of supply to be determined by countries that do not have our best interests at heart then this is not only economically foolish but politically and strategically foolish.
Why bother drilling $200+ barrels of oil when it would be simply easier to simply not use as much oil in the first place?
If you want energy independence/security, drilling more oil will NOT get you there. It merely prolongs your vulnerability to the rest of the world's problems.
You MUST reduce consumption and underlying demand.
If you want to, by fiat insist that our $100-200/bbl oil must be dilled when $50/bbl can be purchased globally, you are doing something counter to free markets.
You're basically saying you attempted to derail RG with a bs counterfactual, CosmicCowboy.
I'd say that's a fair point. You did not say it is the case, or directly state its desirability, but instead raised it as a possibility.
The answer is: I don't dispute it.
My point is that no matter WHERE we get the oil, we are still vulnerable, as you yourself admitted.
Since WHERE we get the oil is irrelevant, we can ONLY make ourselves less dependent on hostile foreign governments by reducing how much we consume/demand.
So what the are you arguing with ME for? I never said we shouldn't reduce energy use and shouldn't be looking for economically feasible alternative renewable energy resources.
Energy is energy.
We consume a lot of oil because we use a lot of it in transportation.
We CAN produce a lot of coal and renewables.
If we shifted our transportation energy usage from oil to coal/renewables we could acheive the kind of security you want without drilling pointlessly for oil.
Think either liquid distillates from coal/algae/whatever (NOT alchohol, that doesn't work economically), or simple electrical cars.
We can do the research to make the price of transporting people/cargo from these types of transportation quite cost compe ive with oil based energy.
Simple depletion will force this to happen fairly soon anyways, but we can do some solid research and provide a technological shortcut.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
