| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Offshore Oil Drilling |
| Will appreciably lower the price of oil |
|
34% |
[ 10 ] |
| Cannot appreciably lower the price of oil |
|
55% |
[ 16 ] |
| Other |
|
10% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 29 |
|
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:43 am Post subject: |
 |
|
There has not been a sufficient survey of American oil/energy reserves in a very long time (1970's, if memory serves). The incentive for major firms to do one is nil, as they benefit from the assumption of "peak oil" in energy markets - in the short term-. However, smaller firms would be more than willing to do an appropriate survey of new and existing fields (and unused assigned fields) but are not given the rights to do so.
The whole energy debate is polluted by partisanship. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Well, the GOP is pushing it hard. |
Right. Your poll question, then, really asks this: do you people at Dave's ESL Cafe prefer B. Obama or J. McCain? |
| mises wrote: |
| The whole energy debate is polluted by partisanship. |
Oh, hell no. I'm not going to be accused of partisanship on this issue. I'm not drinking the Obama cool-aid nor will I allow myself to be accused of it.
If we could still post images, I'd have posted this at the top of the thread.
Even if the US were to double its output of oil from offshore drilling (which is generous), it still would not even equal Venezeula's output today, which would only still be a fraction of the US' needs. As a result, international oil prices would barely be touched.
Plus, international oil prices are probably 50% higher than they should be because of speculation. I'm not against speculation, in fact I think its good because the markets are telling us that we will not have enough oil supply to meet demand, no matter what actions we take now to start drilling. The speculation also is driven by instability in the target regions.
| mises wrote: |
| Why not? We will not be 100% off oil in even 20 years. Why send that money to the Saudi's and Hugo? |
You did not answer the question. But I will go ahead and answer yours, anyway.
I do not oppose off-shore drilling. I oppose the proposal being made as a serious platform position. Which is to say, sure drill off-shore. But . . .
. . . if that is your big plan to reduce dependency on foreign oil, battle greenhouse emissions, and lower the cost of oil, it is perhaps the most woefully inadequate plan I could possibly imagine. The only thing worse would be to deny that there is a problem. In fact, honestly admitting that you will not do anything about the problem would be better, because then there would not be this deceit that off-shore drilling can do anything real to solve the problem.
The Democratic plan is also inadequate in my mind. Not enough will be spent, only $150 billion over 10 years. Considering that the United States is facing a necessary, massive infrastructure overhaul, I too think this is inadequate. BUT AT LEAST BARACK OBAMA DOES NOT GET UP AND TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT WE CAN DRILL OUR WAY OUT OF THE PROBLEM.
The Republican obsession with offshore drilling is disgusting and embarassing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
I am not accusing you of partisanship. I am accusing the vast majority of posters here of an inability to look at this question apart from their fanaticism for B. Obama and their hostility toward all-things-Republican (and you did help them out by mentioning "Republicans," you know).
This is in effect not a poll about energy at all but rather a simple referendum on Democrats vs. Republicans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
This is in effect not a poll about energy at all but rather a simple referendum on Democrats vs. Republicans. |
Dammit, Gopher.
Answer this question: Is off-shore drilling an adequate response to our present problems?
I worded this carefully. You may define 'adequate,' 'response,' and 'present problems' as you wish in your answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 10:25 am Post subject: Re: Offshore Oil Drilling |
|
|
| fiveeagles wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| fiveeagles wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Is this not the most inadequate response to our present problems?
Well, the GOP is pushing it hard. Frankly, I'm embarrassed for them. |
Why not try and see? Open up Alaska and drill the coastline. Some people believe that we have more oil up there than Saudia Arabia has.
Build 50 more nuclear plants.
Why not try? |
50 more nuclear plants is totally different.
And what people think there is more oil up there than is in Saudi? Source?? |
What do you think? Why isn't anyone responding to this video? |
Because your last video was about rock 'n' roll being the tool of the devil. And you believe in witches and a child rapist can bring people back from the dead. Why should anyone think you've stumbled on something scientific suddenly?
It costs about $30-$40 a bbl to pull oil out of the Canadian tar sands. They're fighting labor shortages and environmentalists. And there's still a gold rush going on there. Why would oil companies be doing this if they could pump it out of Gull Island for considerably less?
| Quote: |
| Williams said the executive had warned him that the Gull Island find was highly classified. Do not repeat any of this, he was told. Obviously, that warning did not stop him. |
Sounds like what every UFO saucer-tard claims to explain a lack of evidence.
Last edited by mindmetoo on Fri Sep 05, 2008 10:39 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
This is in effect not a poll about energy at all but rather a simple referendum on Democrats vs. Republicans. |
Dammit, Gopher.
Answer this question: Is off-shore drilling an adequate response to our present problems?
I worded this carefully. You may define 'adequate,' 'response,' and 'present problems' as you wish in your answer. |
I for one would say no. We're talking bringing these fields online in 10 years? 20 years? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Is off-shore drilling an adequate response to our present problems? |
I do not know. By itself -- and I do not think people are talking about this and only this as a response; it is part of an overall response -- it seems insufficient. But I think it moves us in the right direction, however, at least at the present moment.
I support it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
This is in effect not a poll about energy at all but rather a simple referendum on Democrats vs. Republicans. |
Dammit, Gopher.
Answer this question: Is off-shore drilling an adequate response to our present problems?
I worded this carefully. You may define 'adequate,' 'response,' and 'present problems' as you wish in your answer. |
I for one would say no. We're talking bringing these fields online in 10 years? 20 years? |
5-7, likely. The biggest problem is that there are no spare rigs to lease. They need to be manufactured. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's a blast from the past about the decline in Ghawar's oil capacity that shows just how fucked we are.
Now, I don't think we're automatically doomed. But when political leaders start to bray about how drilling will get us out of our problems, it makes me upset. Very. Upset. We need a judicious response, not election-year pandering. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Dammit, Gopher. |
Ha. You do not know the half of it. I have been rallying people behind the scenes to vote in such a way to destabilize your poll. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Dammit, Gopher. |
Ha. You do not know the half of it. I have been rallying people behind the scenes to vote in such a way to destabilize your poll. |
Buying votes for sexual favours, no doubt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saw6436
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Daejeon, ROK
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We had this debate in the 1970s and the same arguments used then (both pro and con) are being trotted out again.
Personally, I am in favor of higher prices for oil/gas. Hopefully this will lead for more R&D and production of alternative energy sources. Also, more energy independence for the US.
What form of alternative energy? I don't know but see no reason to deny the viability of Nuclear, Wind, Solar, ... As such I view off-shore drilling as another form of alternative energy. Tap the wells and cap them if needs be. 90% of the work will have been done and a short time required to bring them on line (1-2 years). As part of a program of A.E. R&D the govt could fund exploiting the wells, then, hold off using them. A "natural" strategic oil reserve to be used in emergencies.
No carpenter uses just one tool to build a house. Energy independence also requires the use of more than one tool. Off-shore drilling is just one tool in the bag. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's the thing. There are lots of alternative energies that are profitable when oil is about $50 a bbl. We're long past that point. And you do notice nations are investing a lot in wind. GM is on the very of releasing the Volt. GM is basically betting the farm on this.
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2008/09/rauch_on_the_vo.html
If here is a grand conspiracy to keep oil amazingly high, then they do it at their own peril as technology and the free market will route around them. Consider the rail barons. No matter who strong their monopoly they lost it to trucks. The music and movie industries have been severely affected by technology that routes around their market domination. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, this thread came just a bit too early.
Thomas Friedman gets it
| Friedman wrote: |
I dwell on this issue because it is symbolic of the campaign that John McCain has decided to run. It�s a campaign now built on turning everything possible into a cultural wedge issue � including even energy policy, no matter how stupid it makes the voters and no matter how much it might weaken America.
I respected McCain�s willingness to support the troop surge in Iraq, even if it was going to cost him the Republican nomination. Now the same guy, who would not sell his soul to win his party�s nomination, is ready to sell every piece of his soul to win the presidency. |
Thank you, Mr. Friedman. If I were to have said the same thing on this board (because I was certainly thinking it), I would be accused of partisanship.
| Friedman wrote: |
| Some McCain supporters criticize Obama for not having the steel in his belly to use force in the dangerous world we live in today. Well I know this: In order to use force, you have to have force. In order to exercise leverage, you have to have leverage. |
Leverage in dealing with other countries? There's Friedman making another one of my points . . . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sojourner1
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Location: Where meggi swim and 2 wheeled tractors go sput put chug alugg pug pug
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| You know I really don't care if it pushes the price of oil down (although I voted no). I hope that prices stay high because the United States is too dependent on cars and gas. I hope these high prices will push both the government and business to pour resources into alternative energy, and lead to better urban planning. |
Amen. More drilling only fattens the rich peoples wallets; not lower prices. We built too large and too far apart when there was an exodus from the big cities to the suburbs, because gas was cheap and everyone could afford cars and gas years ago. Today, it's not so easy. Because it's physically too large, anyone with out a car has little chance to secure work and go to it. If fuel gets prohibitively expensive, then these great distances will incur more costs on the economy and the people. Americans claim the gas is already too expensive, but the fact is it's still cheap compared to Europe and Asia prices. Even in poor Thailand, it's $6 a gallon, but they don't drive such great distances and can depend on small motor bikes instead of huge cars and SUV's.
Do you think the rich are willing to invest in developing new technology? Nope, they want to go the easy way to maintaining constant profitability. So there's going to be no new alternative energy and the technology to support it in this lifetime. I bet the oil tycoons would have you stamped out if you brought about a company that innovated new technology that made gas obsolete. They say it takes too much energy to split water to harvest oxygen and hydrogen, but I beg to differ. That problem could be solved and probably someone actually has already invented the process to make alternative energy a reality, but it's not allowed. The oil tycoons are too powerful and corrupt.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
