This afternoon Sen. McSame changed his position on off shore drilling to allow it. He is confident that the safety of these drilling platforms will safeguard us from oil leaks onto our beaches. Not being a beach person it wouldnt break my heart if he was wrong and our beaches became covered with oil. After all we need our cheap gas (joke).

I am sure the oil companies would be pleased with this change if enacted. I understand it wont reduce prices for a couple of years though. Personally I always thought of our remaining reserves as a safeguard against a future embargo of oil that our enemies might try and institute. Even then I would reserve that oil for the military....farmers...truckers...critical infrastructure...not just cheap gas so we can keep driving our gas guzzlers. In my opinion Id burn other peoples oil as long as possible and keep ours in the ground.

What do you think?

My prediction:

$4-$5 gas, no matter what happens. Forever.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My prediction:
>
> $4-$5 gas, no matter what happens. Forever.

believe it or not, the USA is not the only one suffering from the oil prices. one of two things will happen: 1) we will switch fuel types 2) it will be mandatory that cars be a LOT more fuel efficient. if we switch fuel types... well... let's just say it's going to be a brave new world, where oil countries lose their political influence. im hoping for a new fuel source.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

I found this interesting comment....

Despite all the rhetoric about energy independence, it doesn't make much difference whether the United States gets its oil from its own coastal waters or whether it buys it on world markets. There is one global price for oil; producing more from U.S. waters will bring down that global price, benefiting all consuming countries rather than just U.S. consumers. But natural gas is traded globally only in small quantities, in liquefied form; nearly all of the gas consumed in the United States is produced domestically or in Canada. So producing more natural gas in U.S. coastal waters would bring down U.S. natural gas prices rather than world prices.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062701646.html

I noticed during the previous gasoline run-up (around the time of Katrina) there was a consumer movement to move to hybrids, etc. Then the prices fell back down and people were back to buying vehicles way bigger than they needed, inefficient vehicles like Hummer H3's, etc. Now that prices are back up we see more talk of alternative fuels, vehicle manufacturers are actually closing some plants due to poor demand, and we are seeing actual crude oil demand destruction.

I agree that offshore drilling should be allowed, but _only_ if that oil is applied to domestic reserves for the reasons and purposes Vince(1) notes. I also agree with Meeper that these energy prices are here to stay, and I am fine with it. If it makes alternative fuels more cost effective to use, great. I look forward to the day where we could give the slightest shit what OPEC says or does, and if we are doing that by paying more for fuel (whatever the source) then fine. Something that is lost in the media is that higher fuel price + more efficient vehicle = same or lower overall travel cost.

But we also have to be prepared to pay more for everything because of the trucking industry. And we need to rid ourselves of this corn-based ethanol disaster and at least begin to supplement it with sugarcane-based ethanol. Brazil somehow survives fine on E85 using sugarcane.

Yeah, the corn based ethanol subsidies have done nothing but drive food prices higher, while gas prices are still rising. Brazil has, virtually, zero dependance on foreign oil, a model we should emulate and strive for.

I support drilling offshore for oil. But I don't like the way the media and our elected leaders are touting it as an instant cure for $4/gal gasoline.

IANAE [E == economist], but I think that having access to additional oil sources offshore would keep gas prices closer to the prices that we're paying now instead of moving to the frighteningly European levels of $8 to $10 per gallon. The extra demand from India and China isn't going to subside, so we probably won't see gas under $2 again.

What concerns me is the public perception that offshore drilling is the golden ticket to the glory days of $1.20/gallon. When that doesn't happen, I see a disappointed public influencing the government to return to a policy of energy dependence, cutting off any chance of access to oil in ANWR or Colorado's oil shale, when in my opinion, exactly the opposite needs to happen.

In conclusion, here's to hoping that this latest discovery about bacteria that can turn waste into oil isn't all smoke and mirrors: [www.timesonline.co.uk]

jhey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I support drilling offshore for oil. But I don't
> like the way the media and our elected leaders are
> touting it as an instant cure for $4/gal gasoline.
>
>
> IANAE , but I think that having access to
> additional oil sources offshore would keep gas
> prices closer to the prices that we're paying now
> instead of moving to the frighteningly European
> levels of $8 to $10 per gallon. The extra demand
> from India and China isn't going to subside, so we
> probably won't see gas under $2 again.
>
> What concerns me is the public perception that
> offshore drilling is the golden ticket to the
> glory days of $1.20/gallon. When that doesn't
> happen, I see a disappointed public influencing
> the government to return to a policy of energy
> dependence, cutting off any chance of access to
> oil in ANWR or Colorado's oil shale, when in my
> opinion, exactly the opposite needs to happen.
>
> In conclusion, here's to hoping that this latest
> discovery about bacteria that can turn waste into
> oil isn't all smoke and mirrors:

I dont quite understand your rationale...you start off by saying you support off shore drilling but then give half a dozen reasons why it's nothing but smoke and mirrors. The fact(s) appear to be that it wont reduce the price of gasoline...if it does it will subsidise the entire world causing even more dependence on oil. What this country seems to have an advantage in is the development of new technology that we can charge the rest of the world royalties on when we patent those new technologies. Playing the old world game of pumping more oil out of the ground will lengthen the time the cost of new technologies will be recouped and their development in the first place. We need long term thinking to solve this problem...not short term.

PGENS...not to put words in your mouth..but since the McSame/Bush proposal to drill off shore does not limit it's use to those cateories I mentioned...I assume you are against the McSame/Bush proposal.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/18/2008 01:39PM by Vince(1).

My rationale was that drilling is worth it because it will prevent much higher gas prices in the future, even though I don't think prices can be reduced further. It's more of a mid-term solution (as opposed to a short-term or long-term solution), as I think it'd be wise to move away from petroleum as much as possible, but the technology for a large scale, sustainable energy base for cars is probably 40 to 50 years away and we need something to power our cars in the mean time.

Also, the "smoke and mirrors" was in reference to the link at the end of my post about scientists who supposedly engineered a bacteria to produce crude oil, and my skepticism of it -- rereading my post, I see that that comment is disjointed from the rest of the post. Here's that link again:
[www.timesonline.co.uk]

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PGENS...not to put words in your mouth..but since
> the McSame/Bush proposal to drill off shore does
> not limit it's use to those cateories I
> mentioned...I assume you are against the
> McSame/Bush proposal.

Correct.

Drilling offshore= jobs, taxes
Importing oil = increased trade defect

We should aggressively research alternative energy and drill in our own reserves. If it was ANY other country in the world there would be oil rigs out there. I find it ironic coastal governors are saying they don't want oil rigs because it will deter tourism and lose them money. How much tourism and money do they lose from
-people not driving to their state
-flying to their state
-vacating period
ALL due to rising fuel prices.

It may take 10 years to realize the benefits but the we and the world cannot stop every plane,train,car,boar,lawnmower,ad nauseam from burning gasoline overnight. The US is reducing consumption but China and India are increasing.

It is plain stupid of us not to use our own resources because we're too good for it.

The price of a barrel of oil has more than doubled in one year. Is it due to Supply and Demand? Has Demand for oil DOUBLED in one year? No. In fact, my understanding is U.S. consumption of gas is down 10 percent....and despite growth in China, the U.S. is still the world' biggest user of energy.

So Supply and Demand does not explain the rate of increase in the price of oil. What does? There are several factors....

Speculation - The price of oil is driven to a certain extent by Wall Street types buying oil futures on the commodities exchanges. In fact, some of the largest holders of oil futures contracts - Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley - also employ the analysts who give guidance to the commodities investment community. Not only is this a conflict of interest, this is, in fact, a repeat of the speculative bubble we saw with high tech stocks in the late 90s. In fact, Morgan Stanley was one of the greatest offenders then, too!!

The weak dollar - The dollar sucks. Oil is traded in dollars. As the dollar gets weaker, the price of oil increases. In fact, OPEC has toyed with dropping the dollar and using Euros.

What is happening with McCain is a campaign by oil companies to use rising prices to open up offshore drilling and ANWR. McCain is a tool of Big Oil...just as Bush and Cheney are tools of Big Oil. Don't be fooled. If Congress were to take action to crack down on speculation, the price of a barrel of oil will drop 25% to 50%. Offshore drilling will have no effect on the price.

Mofo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Drilling offshore= jobs, taxes
> Importing oil = increased trade defect
>
> We should aggressively research alternative energy
> and drill in our own reserves. If it was ANY other
> country in the world there would be oil rigs out
> there. I find it ironic coastal governors are
> saying they don't want oil rigs because it will
> deter tourism and lose them money. How much
> tourism and money do they lose from
> -people not driving to their state
> -flying to their state
> -vacating period
> ALL due to rising fuel prices.
>
> It may take 10 years to realize the benefits but
> the we and the world cannot stop every
> plane,train,car,boar,lawnmower,ad nauseam from
> burning gasoline overnight. The US is reducing
> consumption but China and India are increasing.
>
>
> It is plain stupid of us not to use our own
> resources because we're too good for it.

FYI - We get most of our "foreign oil" from Canada. Oil is part of an international marketplace. Whether we drill it here or Saudi Arabia increases its production, it makes no difference.

Odds are if we drilled in ANWR, that oil will end up in Canada. If we drill offshore of Florida, the oil is just as likely to end up in Mexico or the Caribbean as it is to end up in the U.S. That's how an international marketplace works.

id rather have american companies getting rich off our own oil reserves than feeding the pockets of foriegn countries like Iran, Russia, venezuela and Saudi Arabia and them make trillions off of everyone else. What happened to the Oil Shales that are supposed to be prevelant all over Canada and the US as well?

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> id rather have american companies getting rich off
> our own oil reserves than feeding the pockets of
> foriegn countries like Iran, Russia, venezuela and
> Saudi Arabia and them make trillions off of
> everyone else. What happened to the Oil Shales
> that are supposed to be prevelant all over Canada
> and the US as well?


American companies are drilling in all of those places. Don't worry, they are making more than enough money.

As for foreign governments getting money, they will still get money regardless of what we do here.

If you want America to benefit at the expense of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, the best way to do that is to come up with Hydrogen Fuel cell technology and then license that technology to the world. If you can make Hydrogen Fuel cells affordable, countries like Japan and Germany that have no oil will be very interested in it. Continuing to rely on oil while some other industrialized nation - specifically Japan - comes up with the technology is a recipe for failure.

I wonder how much the oil and nuclear energy industries have donated to the McSame campaign?

Here is what we need to do. We need to stop burying people/pets and start re-cycling them.

When someone dies, we need to place their body in a large sealed container with other composte materials. Then, we speed up the decaying process, and drain the crude oil produced. Then, we refine it and pump it into our vehicles...

http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining1.htm



hehehe

Tia2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is what we need to do. We need to stop
> burying people/pets and start re-cycling them.
>
> When someone dies, we need to place their body in
> a large sealed container with other composte
> materials. Then, we speed up the decaying
> process, and drain the crude oil produced. Then,
> we refine it and pump it into our vehicles...
>
> http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining1.htm
>
>
>
>
> hehehe


hell we could power the Eastern Seaboard off of Mead'es Carcass for decades alone

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mofo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Drilling offshore= jobs, taxes
> > Importing oil = increased trade defect
> >
> > We should aggressively research alternative
> energy
> > and drill in our own reserves. If it was ANY
> other
> > country in the world there would be oil rigs
> out
> > there. I find it ironic coastal governors are
> > saying they don't want oil rigs because it will
> > deter tourism and lose them money. How much
> > tourism and money do they lose from
> > -people not driving to their state
> > -flying to their state
> > -vacating period
> > ALL due to rising fuel prices.
> >
> > It may take 10 years to realize the benefits
> but
> > the we and the world cannot stop every
> > plane,train,car,boar,lawnmower,ad nauseam from
> > burning gasoline overnight. The US is reducing
> > consumption but China and India are increasing.
>
> >
> >
> > It is plain stupid of us not to use our own
> > resources because we're too good for it.
>
> FYI - We get most of our "foreign oil" from
> Canada. Oil is part of an international
> marketplace. Whether we drill it here or Saudi
> Arabia increases its production, it makes no
> difference.
>
> Odds are if we drilled in ANWR, that oil will end
> up in Canada. If we drill offshore of Florida, the
> oil is just as likely to end up in Mexico or the
> Caribbean as it is to end up in the U.S. That's
> how an international marketplace works.

True, but this will

(A Drive down the price of oil

(B Provide American jobs for building and manning the rigs

(C Provide taxes galore to the states and federal gov if they lease the land and take a share of the total amount pumped

(D Boost the local economies (most of Louisiana would still be in poverty if not for the oil industry)

What has this "global oil" done for Alaska? Well they make so much money and royalties off it they:

• Collect no Sales tax


• Collect no Income tax


• Pay their residents a share of the profits every year ($1,654 last year per person)


• Have a $38 billion royalties fund from oil

California oil rigs produced 224 million barrels in 2004 and one hasn't been built there in around 20 years, all rigs are on land leased by the gov or the state.

"Without new exploration and drilling, production off the California coast has declined. It peaked in 1995 at 72 million barrels and had fallen to 43 million barrels in 2004, the last year for which complete data are available.

That decline has contributed to California's growing dependence on imported crude. The state used to produce more oil than it could use. But overall production peaked in 1983 and has been dropping ever since as long-exploited oil fields on land slowly run down. Onshore wells produced 224 million barrels in 2004.

Crude produced in the state now accounts for 39.4 percent of the oil used in California refineries. Alaskan oil makes up 20.1 percent. The rest comes from abroad".

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/03/BUG14KA0AP21.DTL



Countries waaaay more environmentally friendly and progressive than the US drill in their own waters (UK, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark to name a few and all members of the Kyoto Protocol) because it is stupid not to.

Mofo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingToneLocian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mofo Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Drilling offshore= jobs, taxes
> > > Importing oil = increased trade defect
> > >
> > > We should aggressively research alternative
> > energy
> > > and drill in our own reserves. If it was ANY
> > other
> > > country in the world there would be oil rigs
> > out
> > > there. I find it ironic coastal governors are
> > > saying they don't want oil rigs because it
> will
> > > deter tourism and lose them money. How much
> > > tourism and money do they lose from
> > > -people not driving to their state
> > > -flying to their state
> > > -vacating period
> > > ALL due to rising fuel prices.
> > >
> > > It may take 10 years to realize the benefits
> > but
> > > the we and the world cannot stop every
> > > plane,train,car,boar,lawnmower,ad nauseam
> from
> > > burning gasoline overnight. The US is
> reducing
> > > consumption but China and India are
> increasing.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > It is plain stupid of us not to use our own
> > > resources because we're too good for it.
> >
> > FYI - We get most of our "foreign oil" from
> > Canada. Oil is part of an international
> > marketplace. Whether we drill it here or Saudi
> > Arabia increases its production, it makes no
> > difference.
> >
> > Odds are if we drilled in ANWR, that oil will
> end
> > up in Canada. If we drill offshore of Florida,
> the
> > oil is just as likely to end up in Mexico or
> the
> > Caribbean as it is to end up in the U.S. That's
> > how an international marketplace works.
>
> True, but this will
>
> (A Drive down the price of oil
>
> (B Provide American jobs for building and manning
> the rigs
>
> (C Provide taxes galore to the states and federal
> gov if they lease the land and take a share of the
> total amount pumped
>
> (D Boost the local economies (most of Louisiana
> would still be in poverty if not for the oil
> industry)
>
> What has this "global oil" done for Alaska? Well
> they make so much money and royalties off it they:
>
>
>
> Collect no Sales tax
> Collect no Income tax
> Pay their residents a share of the profits every
> year ($1,654 last year per person)
> Have a $38 billion royalties fund from oil
>
>
>
> California oil rigs produced 224 million barrels
> in 2004 and one hasn't been built there in around
> 20 years, all rigs are on land leased by the gov
> or the state.
>
> "Without new exploration and drilling, production
> off the California coast has declined. It peaked
> in 1995 at 72 million barrels and had fallen to 43
> million barrels in 2004, the last year for which
> complete data are available.
>
> That decline has contributed to California's
> growing dependence on imported crude. The state
> used to produce more oil than it could use. But
> overall production peaked in 1983 and has been
> dropping ever since as long-exploited oil fields
> on land slowly run down. Onshore wells produced
> 224 million barrels in 2004.
>
> Crude produced in the state now accounts for 39.4
> percent of the oil used in California refineries.
> Alaskan oil makes up 20.1 percent. The rest comes
> from abroad".
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2
> 006/08/03/BUG14KA0AP21.DTL
>
>
>
> Countries waaaay more environmentally friendly and
> progressive than the US drill in their own waters
> (UK, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark to name a few
> and all members of the Kyoto Protocol) because it
> is stupid not to.


There is an element of truth in what you say. I would suggest that these same countries that you are talking about have worked hard on developing a coordinated energy policy that has resulted in the drilling of oil while at the same time reducing their dependence of oil by developing alternative energy sources. The republikan party has failed to even work on such a program. They have waited until we have an energy emergency and then suggest the quick fix which just happens to be what they've wanted to do for the last 8 years....pump more oil!

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The republikan party has failed
> to even work on such a program. They have waited
> until we have an energy emergency and then suggest
> the quick fix which just happens to be what
> they've wanted to do for the last 8 years....pump
> more oil!

there is plenty of blame to go around. what have the democrats done or what do they plan to do? personally, i am (and always have been) all for nuclear power. it's much cleaner source of energy than petrol and coal while producing much more electricity than "wind farms" and geothermal energy causes earthquakes. mccain is for nuclear power while obama is against it. vince, what do you want this county to be powered by, your own self-righteousness?


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2008 03:19AM by Gravis.

Nuclear is clean, but it isn't renewable. There's also the issue of handling and disposing of nasty stuff.

I have no problem with nuclear power if we can figure out a way to dispose of the waste properly. My understanding is waste in Yucca Mountain will seep into the water table. Also, when the nuclear weapons plant at Rocky Flats in Colorado was shut down, it was a huge, expensive mess to clean up.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
>>>Rocky Flats in Colorado was shut down, it was a huge, expensive mess to clean up.


A huge, expensive mess that is so dangerous that they actually buried giant stone markers around the site to warn people thousands of years from now that they have stumbled upon a real nasty mess.

Hopefully in 20 thousand years, those unsuspecting humans will still be able read those warning markers, because that stuff will still be as lethal as it is today.

I want to drill Mahdi's asshole