Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board » Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk » Editorials : Offshore oil drilling won’t solve problem

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Editorials : Offshore oil drilling won’t solve problem
bond006
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for bond006     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Editorials : Offshore oil drilling won’t solve problem
You've read our opinion. Now we'd like to know yours. You can read our editorials here and post your comments. Join in a dialogue on issues affecting your community, the nation and the world.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Offshore oil drilling won’t solve problem
The Issue: President Bush lifts an executive order put in place by his father that banned offshore drilling for petroleum.

Our Opinion: Even under the best circumstances, expanded drilling would increase domestic supplies marginally and have little impact on the price.

In a largely meaningless move, President Bush last week lifted one of two bans on offshore oil drilling that had been in place since his father’s term in the White House.

It was largely meaningless because there is a second ban on offshore drilling — one imposed by Congress — which has been in place for 27 years.

Of course when Bush announced he was lifting the ban that his father imposed in 1990, the president called on Congress to lift its moratorium as well, a call that was met with Democratic cries that this is a proposal that would sacrifice the environment so the president’s friends in the petroleum industry could make more money.

But that misses the point, which is not what might happen to the environment but rather what offshore drilling would mean to the nation’s energy future.

For the most part drilling techniques have advanced to such a point that offshore exploration does not mean an environmental disaster is at hand. In fact, the vast majority of oil spills have come from problems with tankers, not with problems from drilling.

But in calling for U.S. coastal waters to be opened for oil exploration, the president said they could yield up to 18 billion barrels of oil over time.

Although that may sound like a great deal, it really isn’t, especially when you consider that the United States consumes oil at a rate of about 20.7 million barrels a day, according to the latest figures from the Department of Energy.

So even if 18 billion barrels of oil could be recovered from our coastal waters, it would fill the nation’s energy needs for 870 days. That is less than two years and five months.

Even if the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge were opened for oil exploration as well, according to the Bush administration’s Department of Energy, that would add less than a year’s worth of oil at current consumption rates.

And even under the best-case scenario, according to the Bush administration, it would take nearly a decade for any petroleum recovered from beneath the ocean floor or the Arctic to reach U.S. markets.

It is anybody’s guess what the prices of gasoline and home-heating oil would be by that time, but the increased domestic production would have a negligible impact.

At the same time, unless oil usage declines dramatically, the United States still would have to import the vast majority of the petroleum it consumes. According to the Energy Department, we consume 25 percent of the oil used worldwide while producing only 3 percent.

If drilling in the oceans and the Arctic doubles domestic production, we still would have to import 75 percent of the oil we use.

As we have said repeatedly, we cannot drill our way out of the energy crisis. Rather than trying to tap new sources of oil, which even under the best of circumstances would be limited and not renewable, the Bush administration should be leading the search for alternative forms of energy:

Funding the development of cars that run on hydrogen, alcohol or other renewable sources of energy.

Investments in alternative energy sources, such as solar, geothermal and wind power.

Take another look at nuclear power.

After all, chances are there will be no single means to wean us from our dependence on petroleum.

Posted By Reading Eagle At 12:10 AM • Comments (15) Trackbacks (0)

Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CashCowMoo
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for CashCowMoo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can someone please tell me how increasing supply while decreasing demand will not aid in the relief of oil prices?

Drilling is not the solution any moron knows that, but for RELIEF while we move towards nuclear and wind energy....

I honestly think a lot of these articles contain a lot of mis-information and then people ride with them to scream foul about natural resources. Its like the "cool" thing to do these days by blaming oil for our problems. Some sort of fad it feels like.

--------------------
It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.

Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bond006
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for bond006     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Government’s top energy forecaster: Offshore drilling won’t help at the pump.»
Reuters reports that in a briefing today, Guy Caruso of the Energy Information Administration — the government’s “top energy forecaster” — said expanding offshore oil drilling would do little to lower gas prices:

“It would be a relatively small effect, because it would take such a long time to bring those supplies on,” Caruso said during a briefing at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on the EIA’s new long-term international energy forecast. “It doesn’t affect prices that much.”

In 2007, the EIA also concluded that offshore drilling “would not have a significant impact” on oil prices. The remarks today come after both Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and President Bush endorsed plans to expand offshore oil drilling in response to record gas prices.

Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CashCowMoo
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for CashCowMoo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From all the scaremongering I've seen about expanding production of energy sources....I am beginning to believe the argument that we wont see ANY oil from expanded drilling for at least 10 years to be over-emphasized. Well what if we would have began drilling 10 years ago? What if the offshore leases were opened up during the Clinton years? Surely we would have created more domestic energy sources, and where was Al Gore 10 years ago with this idea to become independent of oil within 10 years? Oh thats right he wasnt making millions and millions off giving fear speeches.

Look im all about the environment, but when someone is making a fortune of scaring people its fishy. We do need a new energy policy. Honestly I like the wind farms, and think we could use a few more nuke plants. The problem is that nuclear waste is much more dangerous than drilling fluids.

--------------------
It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.

Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bond006
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for bond006     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oil for the use we have for it today will change very rapidly.

We will always use it but for different things other than autos electric power.

A good means of forcast for the auto is the retail end the big three are starting to get out of leasing Chrysler all the way GM, Ford starting to.

What does that tell you they don't want there cars back in 2 to 5 years why because people will be on there way to a different power source for personal transportation. And gasoline will be all but through

Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well what if we would have began drilling 10 years ago?

oil was 20$ per barrel then, so nobody would invest in it... that's the real reason we are in this mess.. it's another one of those cycles that we can't break out of...

the same argument was made for not investing in alternatives too...
if we do invest a s-load of money in alternatives NOW? oil will go down to try to force them out of their profits as well...

mean shark tank we live in huh?

tboones announcement that he was going heavy into wind HAS impacted the oil market already...

it will get tougher on oil the more people follow his lead...

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bond006
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for bond006     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nuclear is a no brainer. Most nuclear plants in this country were built to add on more generators Take diablo in california it has two operating generators and was built to add two more.

Thats a good cheap fix to double power output and the story is repeated all over the country.

Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bond006:
Nuclear is a no brainer. Most nuclear plants in this country were built to add on more generators Take diablo in california it has two operating generators and was built to add two more.

Thats a good cheap fix to double power output and the story is repeated all over the country.

and? to date? the only 'lectric shortages are man-made (enron)

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IWISHIHAD
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for IWISHIHAD     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fat chance these oil companies are going to pass on any savings on to us the consumer.

It's just a matter of whether these big US oil companies have direct control of oil or they have to share the control with foreign countries.

Who have been the ones that have been fighting alternative energy and better ways to use oil for the past 60-70 years... one big guess.

Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wallymac
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for wallymac     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bush blames Democrats for high gas prices Sat Aug 23, 10:09 AM ET



CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush on Saturday blamed the Democratic-led Congress for the high cost of gasoline and renewed his call for expanded offshore drilling to increase U.S. oil supplies.

ADVERTISEMENT

"To reduce pressure on prices, we need to increase the supply of oil, especially oil produced here at home," Bush said in his weekly radio address.

Congress left for the August recess without a solution to fuel prices. In a bid to force a vote on offshore drilling, Republicans blocked Democratic proposals to use the nation's petroleum reserve, curb oil speculation and require oil companies to drill on already leased federal lands.

The president, who is vacationing at his Texas ranch, said Americans support expanded exploration of oil in areas that include the Outer Continental Shelf. The shelf is the shallow, sloping land that stretches for miles undersea between the coastline and the deep ocean.

New oil drilling is only allowed now in federal waters in the western Gulf of Mexico and off Alaska.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., signaled last week the Democrats' position could be shifting. With energy legislation to be introduced after Congress returns, lawmakers will be able to "consider opening portions of the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling, with appropriate safeguards, and without taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil," she said.

But Bush said the Democrats are pushing a plan that would reduce domestic production and drain the country's emergency oil supply.

"Democratic leaders know that these counterproductive proposals will not become law," Bush said. "They need to stop standing in the way of expanding domestic production and take meaningful steps now to address the pain caused by high energy prices."

Bush said offshore drilling can be done in an "environmentally responsible" way. Experts believe production from below the ocean can produce nearly 10 years' worth of America's current annual oil output, he said.

"When Congress returns they should remove this restriction so we can get these vast oil resources from the ocean floor to your gas tank," Bush said.

The president also said Congress should lift a ban that blocks access to oil shale on federal lands. Oil shale, a sedimentary rock, can be mined and processed to produce oil.

And lawmakers should extend tax credits to encourage the development of alternative sources of energy such as wind and solar, Bush said.

"This Congress has been one of the most unproductive on record. They've failed to address the challenge of high gas prices," the president said. "They need to send me a bill next month that I can sign so we can bring relief to drivers, small business owners, farmers and ranchers and every American affected by high prices at the pump."

___

On the Net:

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov

Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wallymac
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for wallymac     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Opinion: Examining Off-Shore Drilling and How it Will Affect the Average American

Posted Aug 21, 2008 by G. Robert M. Miller in Politics | 6 comments | 341 views

Off-shore drilling is a sure-fire point of discussion this fall (though both sides will agree it must be done). However, in looking at the issue it seems as though it is merely a talking point, not an issue that affects (or benefits) the average American.
Many proponents of off-shore drilling claim that drilling off American coasts will drastically lower the price of gas, as well as direct American money away from Middle East states that harbour extremists.

This argument though, is far from sturdy.

First off, there is no definitive answer as to how long it would take for new oil to hit the markets (perhaps some of you saw the Daily Show montage showcasing roughly 10 'experts', all of whom give a different answer to this question - though I can't seem to find it online).

What we do know is that if off-shore drilling was made legal in certain currently restricted areas, companies would still have to prospect for oil, build the infrastructure, drill, refine the oil, and then distribute it (which is when there would be a drop in gas prices). And so, considering all that needs to be done in order to get off shore oil into our gas stations, perhaps we ought to consider more feasible solutions to this problem; and there are many.

The best solution is (of course) going to be the simplest, fastest, and least compromising one. And to find that solution, America may not need to look any further than the 49th parallel.

First though, it is important to recognize that it has been (grossly over)stated by many off-shore oil advocates that one of the main reasons that off-shore drilling needs to begin is to halt the transfer of US dollars to questionable nations who may be supporting anti-American extremists.

But Canada is the US’s largest provider of oil; and with Canadian oil production set to double within the next twelve years, America could satisfy its oil needs simply by buying oil from its (un-extremist) neighbour to the north. (America imported 3.66 billion barrels of oil last year, while Canada produced for export 2.77 billion barrels, meaning that if the US bought all Canadian oil that is for export, they would have to buy less than one billion barrels of oil from other countries (and Mexico could provide that)).

Moreover, if the US continued to research and refine alternative fuel sources as Canada increased it's ability to supply oil, it could well be that Canada - within five to ten years - could provide America with all the oil it needs.

Secondly, the solution to high gas prices may not be more oil. The solution, as pointed out by T. Boone Pickens in his advertisements (which air on CNN), may be to use alternative energy sources where we can, thus decreasing the demand for gas, and thereby lowering the prices at the pumps.

It is well documented that many believe this solution to be bird-brained, but it is far from it. Pickens is not saying that we all ought to be buying solar pads and placing them on our cars, or saving our farts for methane plants; what he is suggesting is that houses should no longer be fueled by oil – we should develop windmill generators to power homes; just as in Rockport, Missouri (as reported by a fellow DJ citizen journalist).

So right there are three good points that ought to be acknowledged. To restate them; a, we do not know how long it would take for off-shore oil to reach the markets; b, Canada has the resources to provide the US with nearly all the oil needed for the foreseeable future; c, the solution to this problem isn’t more oil, but rather, new energy sources (more oil simply sustains the problem).

Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised by the fact that this has become a talking point. To quote Phillip E. Jackson of IntellectualConservative.com this is politics 101 – when a topic catches on with the public, milk it and milk them:


“Contrary to the grade school myth about George Washington never telling a lie, political speech in this country (or any other country for that matter) has always been filled with lies, distortions, hyperbole and exaggerations. In one sense there’s never been a period of time when two opposing views were expressed cordially and with great respect for the facts of the matter, rather than simply making up the facts to support a preconceived position.

“What’s at stake, then, isn’t a return to some “purer” previous time when all points of view were discussed rationally and respectfully, but rather a sense of where we are now along this continuum of hyperbole and deception.”


So is this off-shore oil conversation simply hyperbole and deception? Well, if you were to ask Senator Harry Reid, he would say yes (even though off-shore drilling is being supported by both candidates); but don’t take my word for it:


“We can't continue importing 70 percent of the oil we use. We have to move to a new paradigm that is energy produced by the sun, the wind and geothermal.

"(when it comes to) drilling, I believe in more American production. We need to have more American production and that is why I led the charge in the senate to have 8.3 million new acres in the Gulf of Mexico available.

"There isn't a person in the world, I'm not talking about politicians, I'm talking about oil people, (who) will tell you that drilling will lower the price of oil. It takes at least 15 years before drilling a hole today in the ocean, 15 years before it would be in someone's gas tank.”


So while he does agree that off-shore drilling should be done, he dually notes that it will not affect the price of gasoline for some time.

This is not to say that finding a large quantity of oil in ANWR wouldn’t have an immediate impact on the price of oil per barrel (price reductions based on speculation is quite common), but the likelihood of instant reductions in gas prices, based on the potential of more oil in the future, is slim to none.

As noted by R. Morris Coats and Gary M. Pecquet, finding new oil in a place like ANWR may instantly lower oil prices per barrel, but not gas prices:


“(many claim that) Production in ANWR will have no impact on current or short-term gasoline and oil supplies and prices. While this is something that everyone seems to know, it is a case that the theory held by everyone just happens to be wrong. Since future prices are expected to be lower, future profits are also lower, so the value of oil not produced now, but held for future sales, is lower, making it more profitable to go ahead and produce and sell now instead of waiting for future profits. Using oil now reduces the amount of oil available for the future, which involves the opportunity cost of forgone future profits, which are sometime called the marginal user costs or scarcity rents. (…) If an amount of newly discovered oil is significant enough to reduce prices in the future, any drop in future prices reduces the future profitability of oil, reducing the marginal user costs of oil now. That reduction in the marginal user costs reduces the current price of oil just as if there were a reduction in the marginal costs of extracting oil now. (…) (As a result) oil that is expected to reach the market at some time in the future has an immediate impact on oil prices (now).”


The notable exclusion of lowered gas prices in that equation surely was not an error in writing; it was deliberate. In other words, finding a large quantity of oil - for example in ANWR - would have an immediate positive effect for those at the helm of Big Oil - lowering the cost of their oil - but would not lower the price at the pumps for the everyday average person.

Another point worth considering is the contracts between American oil corporations and the Iraqi government for drilling rights in Iraq's six largest oil fields. Reported roughly two months ago, the Iraqi government (upon the ‘advice’ of US officials) agreed to short term contracts allowing American companies to take control of 75% of Iraqi oil field operations.

Considering that these contracts (which have collapsed in the past few days) – which were meant to allow US oil companies to control for export 75% of the worlds fourth largest oil reserve – did not adversely affect gasoline prices in America, why should we believe that finding a quantity in ANWR or elsewhere would?

Again, if the prospect of controlling 75% of the fourth largest oil reserve known to mankind wasn’t enough to lower gas prices significantly, off-shore drilling and the (relatively small) fields that may or may not be found, will not drastically effect either oil or gas prices (the only exception would be if one of the largest oil reserves known was found, in which case oil prices would be significantly reduced, but again, this would not reflect in gas prices for some time).

As should be evident, the off-shore drilling issue is exactly what Jackson warned of; an exaggerated issue which has been distorted to seem crucial to American gas prices in order to rally support for one candidate or another.

For the average person - for me and you - off-shore drilling will not adversely affect our bank accounts for some time. This is not to say that because it won’t help for some time that we shouldn't consider pursuing it, but it is to say that we should not treat it as the be-all-end-all solution to our energy and gasoline problems.

To end US dependency on foreign oil will not take off-shore drilling – it will take, first and foremost, new innovations in alternative energy sources (from hydrogen fuel cells, to geothermal power (which Google has invested in), to wind power, and beyond), and yes, an increase in at-home produced oil, or perhaps Canadian oil.

The point is that the fervent support that off-shore drilling is receiving is a facade; it is yet another not-so-subtle attempt by politicians to gain support by any means available. The American people are concerned about gas prices, so politicians are promising to lower gas prices any way believable.

Simply put, because off-shore drilling appears to be a remedy to high gasoline prices it is getting (too much) talking time. But for the average American, off-shore drilling will provide no relief at the pumps. So as we listen to the each candidate talk about off-shore drilling, listen closely to what they are saying; are they being honest about the issue or are they simply trying to buy your vote?

What do you think? Will off-shore drilling provide instant relief to high gas prices? Why didn’t Iraq oil-contracts dramatically lower gas prices (they have been going down steadily for the past month or so, but are no where near the prices of just a year ago)? Is there a single solution to the gas-price problem? Are gas and oil prices going to rise astronomically with today's news that Iraq and China are revisiting Hussein-era oil contracts?

Thanks for reading.

GRMM

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/258867

Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Machiavelli
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Machiavelli     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bond006:


We will always use it but for different things other than autos electric power.


It already is used for many many different things other then for heat and cars... I saw on History Channel... i think Modern Marvels or one of those shows and it was about oil and i was surprised at how many different products oil is used for...

--------------------
Let the world change you... And you can change the world.

Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna

Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bdgee
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for bdgee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yep, oil is needed to make MOST of the things we depend on to have a modern world.

We need to get smart and stop burning it up to get to the grocery store or the golf course, so there will be enough to make I-pods and hula-hoops and Trojans.

Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Allstocks.com Message Board Home

© 1997 - 2021 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

Share