93crawler

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

That is the ultimate question that will be just one of the things debated this fall, until the run up to the election. I've said consistently, that I think we need to put the resources into alternative forms of energy, and pull away from oil and fossil fuels. The energy tax credits that we give to big oil alone would have substantial results in helping alternative energy technologies become more competitive. I think the only way to rein in the price of a gallon of gas, is to deal with the speculators---let's face it, close to four dollars a gallon is here to stay. In any case, I found this article from Slate that puts the debate to rest about drilling. Read it if you wish, I'm sure this will get hijacked, then be moved to the BOTH and then the Republican majority on the board will proceed to talk a whole lot of shit. Enjoy bitches.


What's the Deal With Offshore Drilling?Will it do any good at all?
By Jacob Leibenluft

John McCain is talking a lot about opening up new areas to offshore drilling, and now Barack Obama appears willing to consider the idea, too. A government report supposedly found that drilling won't lower gas prices, but I've also heard that the report was flawed. What's the deal with offshore drilling?

Three months is a long time during a presidential campaign. Back in early June, neither candidate supported any additional offshore drilling. Now, the Outer Continental Shelf has become Topic A in the presidential race.

To understand what drilling on the OCS might yield, start with the report you heard about, a 2007 study by the federal agency assigned to compile statistics about the nation's oil usage, the Energy Information Administration. That report appears to deflate most of the arguments for drilling in the areas currently under a federal moratorium—mostly off the coasts of California and Florida. Doing so would increase oil production only by 200,000 barrels of oil a day, or just about 1 percent of the country's daily consumption. Furthermore, that level of production won't kick in until 2017 and will never have any impact on oil prices.

In response, drilling advocates have pointed out a number of potential flaws with the EIA estimate. The report assumes that oil companies can't even start exploring the out-of-bounds territory for four years; if Congress did, indeed, remove its existing moratorium and states like California and Florida went along, the timeline might be pushed up earlier. In addition, the EIA based its projections on how much oil it would be profitable to drill for when prices were closer to $50 a barrel. Now that crude goes for about $115, energy companies would have the incentive to extract more of that offshore oil.

These criticisms are valid. But from the perspective of lowering gas prices, they don't really matter. Even the most optimistic estimates about offshore drilling—the exact ones pushed by its strongest proponents—promise no relief at the pump now and only a small impact later.

Start with the timeline: The EIA assumes that the current moratorium will remain in place until 2012, when the off-limits areas would finally be open for leasing. Then it would take another five years for the oil companies to find the best drilling sites and start up their commercial wells. We're likely to have that five-year gap before real production begins no matter when the moratorium ends—particularly since there is a major shortage in the number of rigs available for drilling. In other words, we could all agree on the merits of offshore drilling tomorrow and it probably wouldn't increase the supply of oil until 2013 at the earliest.

Now, let's imagine that higher oil prices make it profitable to drill more intensively offshore. These graphs (PDF) suggest that very high prices would effectively double the amount of "economically recoverable" oil offshore, as compared with what would be recoverable at $50 a barrel. That would give us 400,000 barrels a day. The most optimistic case for offshore drilling, from an oil industry group (PDF), predicts an eventual output of 1 million barrels a day.

Even that high estimate probably won't have much of an effect on gas prices. Oil is traded on a global market, and adding 1 million barrels per day would increase global production by slightly more than 1 percent. A standard model of oil markets suggests the 1 percent change would reduce gas prices by about 3 percent over the long term—assuming that OPEC or other oil producers don't cut their own supply in order to maximize profits. (For similar reasons, the EIA predicts (PDF) opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would lower oil prices by about $1.44 a barrel in the best-case scenario.)

What about the environmental impact? One major concern is aesthetic—voters (and the tourism industry in states like Florida) just don't want oil rigs sullying their coastline. Offshore oil production also produces its share of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution and poses a hazard to seabirds. And while large spills may be rare, platforms do release "produced formation water" and drilling mud, among other materials, that might be toxic to marine life. (And no, the Lantern is not convinced that this is all OK because the platforms attract their own fish.) Still, producing oil is a dirty business regardless of where it happens, and it's worth noting that more oil spills into the water from transporting the stuff than drilling it.

The bigger danger from the push for drilling—or more exactly, the arguments used on its behalf—may be how it affects our own behavior. If we pretend that offshore drilling is a fail-safe means of lowering oil prices (or even a likely means), we may hold on to rosy and unreasonable expectations for future gas prices. (In this respect, the Lantern thinks Obama has been more honest than McCain.) That will in turn change the calculations we make when it comes to long-term decisions like whether to shell out extra cash for a more fuel-efficient car or a home with access to mass transit. As long as we're counting on gas prices to go down, those green lifestyle choices won't seem as attractive. We may well be surprised once again that we're paying so much at the pump, without having done anything about it.

Here's a link to the article, there are several link within the article itself, from studies, charts, graphs, and expert opinions on the matter--http://www.slate.com/id/2197283/

Juan.©amaney

You just hijacked your own thread with that. What is it with you guys?...follow the rules and the thread is fine. Even with the "republicans" that come in here and mess with the thread after its moved, good discussion is had. You guys just want to break all the rules and have everyone else follow them?

It's your own fault. No one to blame but yourself.

___________________________________________

joerockhead

China and other countries are ALREADY drilling off of the Florida coast, in the same area that the USA would potentially drill. They have not destroyed Sea Life nor Bird life. In fact, these both have increased (due to the waste).

It would not take 10 Years to produce the product, more like 2 to 4 years. The slowest part is building the platform, and getting the oil to the plants.

Yes, there is a danger, but again, the US is far more careful than any other country in drilling.

200,000 barrels is not a lot in the over all perspective, but the potential of much more is! the price would drop far further for several reasons.
it is Local and US owned.
it takes far less time to transport the raw crude to a refinery


No, it is not the final answer, but it will help.

The problems - Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats are only willing to consider this now, after they have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into Alternative companies. They will ENSURE that Tax dollars are spent on these other alternatives as a part of the deal to Drill. So they will REAP massive benefits!!! NONE of them had any desire to help the American people until they could benefit.

The last point is that we MUST work hard on designing affordable alternative energy! The more people start using it, the less demand for oil, the lower the cost.

Obama "CHANGED" his mind so he can get votes. He is for CHANGE!!! AS long as it benefits him!

___________________________________________


Visit the worlds best website -
www.badass67.com - Black Sunshine

Tuna Juice

canu

lol let's go

procol

This whole drill, drill, drill mantra is stupid & boring.

All you need to do is be shootin' at some food:

FattyJJ

I dont know who "you guys" is refering to, but I agree with him. Not so much as to say the "republican" facet will skew and twist this article to make it sound like drilling will actually make a difference. But there are a certain few who no matter what hard evidence is shown, they will not change their minds. That just so happens to be a republican trait....read: old white dudes.



Joe, I've seen pages and pages of facts showing how production and delivery for any new oil rigs will take 10-20 years, where do you get your numbers from? Why cant the oil companies look in the millions of acres they already own first? In the last few months, the republicans have increasingly dropped their estimated time of delivery, but have nothing to prove it. I even heard somone say 2-3 months to get it into our tanks. righhhhhtt.

saying 200,000 a day isnt a lot is the understatement of the day. 200,000 a day isnt even a drop in the bucket. Also, even if it took your estimated 2-3 years to get into our tanks, by that time there will be more cars in on the road then today, and that 200,000 a day means even less. Being owned by the US doesnt mean shit, as it was already stated, its a global market, so they can give it to whoever they want.

the only thing that will help us right now is reducing our demand for oil. Massive investments in renewable energies and proper education about how to conserve are the right way to go. What kind of message are we sending by drilling in more places?

the Dem/Rep blame game is fucking up the way this process should be handled, and your not helping by perpetuating the stereotype and blaming the Democrats. As some people say, look in the mirror before placing the blame, and that goes for both sides of the isle. You can say what you want about the dems only now doing something about this, but at leas they are trying. Yes, I'm sure they have their own motives, but I havent seen 1 republican, except Aaanld, raise a finger for renewable energy. McCains joke of 300 million for a new battery should be put in the same *circular file as his genious plan to save me a whopping $20 a month with a gas tax break.

*Circular file for those who dont know is the trash can.

Your last point has a leg to stand on, but a chicken leg at that. The technology IS out there to reduce our dependance, what isnt there is the money that is needed. We are still giving far to many breaks and incentives to the oil companies, money that should be going to renewable energy production. What we must make sure of though, is that we keep the production stateside. Our economy needs it, and if we dont get on the ball other countries are going to beat us to the low cost punch, and we will be SOL. Hell, the Frenchies have a car that runs on air, and is almost ready for production. Its even big enough to fit our fat American asses into, with dogs and kids. The best thing an american company has is the Volt, and that isnt scheduled until 2010, maybe. And I garuntee it will not be as cheap as the air cars.

And stop with the Obama changed his mind crap, McCain flops just as bad for votes. Only thing is McCain wont get to benefit from his flip flopping, as he only has 10-15 years left, if he is lucky.

FattyJJ

Nevermind, found the solution

zpr

Funny, I thought I was still pretty young.

FattyJJ, 93crawler and doubledeez seem to think that just because you found an article somewhere it becomes fact. Nobody can ever say anything that proves you wrong. It's the same tired circle over and over again. 93crawler seems to think that everyone is going to disagree with the garbage he posts because they are "republican". Maybe they disagree because they don't believe everything they read. Doubledeez can't be wrong even when shown hard facts. I've seen that tired circle over and over again. Thats most of the reason I rarely post in eoth. FattyJJ constantly hops on the bandwagon and argues a point until proved wrong then he never comes back to the argument. I guess it doesn't really matter, you 3 will continue sucking each other off no matter what anyone else says.

CD

Bush's own Department of Energy concluded in 2004 that the long-term impact of lifting the ban on offshore drilling on oil prices would be "insignificant."

Offshore leasing wouldn’t be able to begin until 2012 due to existing moratoria, and “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,” according to the Department of Energy.




Leave it to Fox News to completely make up "facts" and "statistics"

___________________________________________

licupssy

Yeah, us old white dudes know it's all hot air. One thing, Oil companies aren't going to do it anyway unless it's highly profitable.

___________________________________________

I solemnly swear that I am up to no good! ~~~SWTWC

BackdoorJesus

Obviously none of you people read the extensive post I made a couple weeks back on this topic.

"Drilling" in & of itself isn't the objective here - the real objective is to manipulate a speculator's marketplace.

All that needs be said is that the US is committed to drilling more oil offshore & elsewhere & the anticipation of that potential increase in production drives the cost per barrel downward.

As has been proven by the rapid decline in price per barrel that you have seen in the last couple weeks since congress started actually talking seriously about drilling.

Sure I think we should pull our oil out of the ground before other foreign powers do so right in our backyard, but that is still down the road and not an immediate or even long-term solution - the immediate effect of announcing that we are going to drill more oil is that the market responds to our announcement before the oil is even out of the ground.

But if you people were actually capitalists that believed in the free market economy that made this country strong in the first place, rather than being the clueless bleeding-heart tools of the liberal-controlled media that you are, you would understand that. You either manipulate the market, or the market manipulates you - law of the jungle, kids.

Now let's talk about expanding nuclear power in the US. That's another energy solution that I am 100% behind, and I'd bet you tree-hugging fucks are up in arms about that as well.

___________________________________________

FattyJJ

and what do you do? Come on here and try to discredit those with ideas that can actually make a difference, rather than the same bullshit over and over again. I would like for you to show where I've been proven wrong, and then never came back. I know when my points been made, and am not going to keep harping on it for post after post, just to have to keep proving my points to you guys. So call it what you want, either which way you cant prove I am wrong.

Oh, and turning us Gay does nothing but show everyone that you have nothing to contribute other than name calling.

FattyJJ