New Oil Drilling

[Dan.Linehan]

Here is a visual representation of why new offshore oil drilling will not, in the least, help gas prices.

[coollikeme]

HAAAAAAAAA !!!!!!!!!!!! Are you serious!! There is plenty of oil in the USA. Your agenda pushing charts aren't going to stop us from drilling oil. That is what the majority of the people want, and sooner or later it will happen. DEAL WITH IT!!!!

[Brutha]

Coolikeme do you have a source that suggest that their will be more oil produced by new offshore drilling?

[coollikeme]

and companies have a chance to make money, they will find it guaranteed. I don't need crappy charts to know that oil is out there. Canada and Mexico drill oil in a lot of the same areas that we could drill in or near. Its your basic common sense!!! I am tired of this bullsh**. I want to depend on areselves to get are own oil, until we can get alternative energy into the main stream. Energy independence is what the USA needs period.

[ThoughtAddict]

Currently, there are huge US reserves not being tapped in areas owned by major oil companies. There is an oligopoly of oil in the States. This prevents widespread development in favor of the most fiscally advantageous exploitation of reserves, which may not be the best for the people.

Additional drilling, though, wouldn't do much to help the States as the commodities market currently is a global market. Yes, that's right. US oil can be sold to foreign countries. In fact, it is happening right now.

Additional drilling would immediately lower prices as a curb to speculation in the commodities market. The price would slowly rise again to adjust for demand. The result would be immediate, minor, and relatively short lived. The extra oil produced would be sold to the highest bidder (after factoring in tariffs, of course).

[Dan.Linehan]

Prices wouldn't lower until 2017.

[Dan.Linehan]

@coollikeme --

I don't really understand what you are disputing. Do you have any sources?

[JonathanBrowne]

Forget about oil drilling. Alternative energy is here, right now. What we need is for huge government investment and tax credits to star the widespread adoption of alternative energy. If you really want cheaper gas, try this PICC

[Still Growing]

Dan,
The chart you show is also how the chart would look ten years ago when we should have started oil drilling. The main reason new drilling never got passed was a liberal agenda to protect the environment. Its free enterprise.... If companies want to drill for oil and they obey the laws they should be allowed.

But I do agree with you that it will help little in the short term.

I think that new drilling is just a band aid and that the time for alternative energy is now.

Its become a political thing now and so if they are allowed to drill now it may slow down the development of alternative energy in the future. Many liberal strategists believe that if they can stop off shore drilling then in 5 years we'll have more pressure to continue with alternative options. This is a tactic political strategy.

So even if some off shore drilling should be allowed the greater good would be served by creating a false environment that would further drive fuel alternatives. Its a type of gov't manipulation.

They should lift bans for off shore drilling but then give incentives for alternative fuels so that both sources would be available in the future IMO.

[Liveformx64]

Just like every other great revolutionary invention in the free world.

The Free market will bring new energy means as the economy necessitates. Why would any company invest a large some of money, and more importantly their best minds to something that is not going to be profitable?

Lets take for example if the cost imported foreign oil doubled over the next 8 weeks. Within 6 months there would be a whole industry of natural gas retro-fitters and natural gas pumping stations. There is no doubt in my mind.

You guys are coming from the frame that the government is the solution. When in fact the government is the problem. The free market will take care of this situation as it truly becomes a problem.

When adjusted for inflation, oil costs have not reached anything to be alarmed about just yet.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

The main reason new drilling never got passed was a liberal agenda to protect the environment.

I don't understand how this is the case. Democrats have not been in office for eight years. Could you be more specific?

Originally Posted by Still Growing

But I do agree with you that it will help little in the short term.

Right. And I'm not saying we shouldn't drill either. I just think it's ignorant to act like drilling a cure all when it's anything but. It's a negligible amount of oil.

Originally Posted by Still Growing

Many liberal strategists believe that if they can stop off shore drilling then in 5 years we'll have more pressure to continue with alternative options.

Who said this again?

Originally Posted by Still Growing

They should lift bans for off shore drilling but then give incentives for alternative fuels so that both sources would be available in the future IMO.

What bans are you referring to?

[Still Growing]

Dan,
I thought its common knowledge that there was a Federal Ban on Offshore drilling. I also thought it was common knowledge that many liberal environmentalists were against it. I didn't think of researching quotes since both sides agreed to disagree regarding the issue.

Santa Barbara Strongly Opposes Offshore Drilling | Newsweek Project Green | Newsweek.com

[Dan.Linehan]

Bush said opening federal lands off the U.S. coast -- where oil drilling has been banned by both a presidential executive order and a congressional moratorium -- could yield about 18 billion barrels of oil.


Reading up on it now. The federal ban is 27 years old.

I dunno. Do you not think the coast lines are worth protecting?

I'd hate to see them ruined for something that has negligible impact on gas prices.

[Liveformx64]

Protecting from what?

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Liveformx64

Protecting from what?

Harmful effects of oil drilling

Drilling in the Refuge would require large amounts of infrastructure to be introduced, leaving a permanent human footprint on the currently untouched wilderness. It would also disrupt the wildlife. Polar bears, whose numbers are already dwindling, are extremely sensitive to human interference and would likely be significantly disturbed by drilling. Porcupine caribou migrate to the coastal plane of the Refuge every year to mate and bear their young. The Department of the Interior has reported that drilling would displace up to 40 percent of the caribou herd. Oil spills would significantly threaten the many species of birds that currently thrive on the coast.

In addition to the damage drilling would do to wildlife of the area, it will interfere with the lives of an indigenous tribe that has inhabited the area for over 20,000 years. The Gwich'in people have lived in northern Alaska and Canada for generations, with the porcupine caribou as their primary source of food. Given the probability that caribou herds will be damaged by oil drilling, the Gwich'in people face the prospect of having to change their native way of life.

Oil companies and their allies in the U.S. government say that drilling in the area would be safe and not interfere with the wildlife. However, when one looks at their record at the Prudhoe Bay region which sits right next to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, it is obvious that this is simply not true. There are an average of 400 oil spills per year at Prudhoe Bay; this is equal to an oil spill ever 22 hours. If oil companies can't drill responsibly in places they are already active, how can we expect that they will do so in new areas?

Arctic Refuge Damaged by Oil Drilling, Scientists Find

Despite enormous strides by the oil industry and regulatory agencies in minimizing environmental effects, the consequences of development have been mounting over the years, according to the report, which was conducted by the National Academies' National Research Council at the request of Congress.

Noise from seismic exploration has displaced migrations of bowhead whales and forced subsistence hunters farther out to sea to capture them, the report said.

In addition, the report found that the massive network of roads constructed to support the industry has harmed the tundra, caused flooding and altered animal habitat and behavior.

The report also noted that as companies have switched to three-dimensional survey methods, the off-road seismic vehicles used for oil exploration require a greater density of trails. The new technique creates greater erosion, water flow and damage to vegetation, the report found.

"[B]ecause the seismic trails are readily visible, especially from the air, they affront the residents and degrade the visual experience of the landscape," the report states.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

I dunno. Do you not think the coast lines are worth protecting?

I thought you were OK with offshore drilling...

[Dan.Linehan]

I'm open to the idea if it's worthwhile..

Just doesn't seem like it would be.

[Still Growing]

Dan,
There is no one single action that can solve the challenge of energy.

As you know when the gov't gets involved things get screwed up. I believe in gov't regulation however within reason.

If an Independent company wants to drill for oil let them; as long as safety precautions are taken to protect the environment. And the precautions should be reasonable.

My biggest complaint is that energy has become politicized. The Republicans have their agenda, the Democrats have their agenda and neither are open to the best ideas on a given subject.

Our gov't has be reduced to a political stance on every issue that is not free from original thought.

[ar81]

You have two options to lower the price:
1.Produce more oil
2.Consume less oil

I vote for option 2.

[coollikeme]

look at solar energy also. Why is it taking so long to get solar energy in the main stream? We have plenty of sunny areas in the USA, Florida, Arizona,Texas and so on. Use wind power for the central part of the country. It can be done but what is taking it so long? Us oil mostly for the colder areas in the USA. Cars seem to be the biggest problem there is no real solution, at least not in the short term. Drilling for oil may not be a short term solution either, Its more psychological. It gives us options down the road. To sell, to use, to lower are price down the road, which means more control of are own destiny. Solar energy should be more in the main stream? I am a little surprised that more homeowers and corporations don't have solar power. It seems like if you fix the car problem then you fix the USA???

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Prices wouldn't lower until 2017.

Nah. Prices on the commodities futures market would drop immediately. Oil trades based on future value, not present value. Inherent in the price of oil futures is the assumption of higher demand and a certain level of supply at some point in the future. Increases in the projected supply decrease the price now, as investors discount the future value of the oil they have futures contracts for.

That said, the benefit would be a small, immediate price decrease that would probably dissipate over time, and probably dissipate quickly. A better strategy would be an immediate, substantial move to decrease demand via renewables or alternatives (such as liquid natural gas). We need to buy time in order to get renewables online and allow more research into renewables.

[Brutha]

Many liberal strategists believe that if they can stop off shore drilling then in 5 years we'll have more pressure to continue with alternative options. This is a tactic political strategy.

Liberals don't want altanative options for the sake of it being non fossil fuel. They want less burned CO2.

The amount of oil that get consumed and transformed into CO2 is rougly proportional to the amount of oil that gets out of the ground.
Less oil means less CO2.
As a result the market will do whatever it needs to do to replace the fossil fuel.
I don't think that reducing the supply of oil to reduce the amount of CO2 production is somehow a tacticle political trick.
It's very straightforward.

[Still Growing]

Brutha,

Many alternative energy sources such as solar, wind and the like greatly reduce the CO2 emmissions.

The birth place of anti off shore drilling started in Santa Barbara, CA and there are many environmentalist investors investing into wind farms, for example:

Wind Energy in California - Overview

In addition there are a lot of new alternative energy companies emerging in CA (which I think is great).

There may be more politics at play in this discussion than you are aware of.

[Liveformx64]

PickensPlan

The Savior has arrived! : )

[Brutha]

Many alternative energy sources such as solar, wind and the like greatly reduce the CO2 emmissions.

Solar and wind are a means to the end of burning less fossil fuels.
Sure there people who have financal interest into alternative energies themselves, but I think that a main liberal idea is burning less fossil fuel.
Getting less oil out of the ground is a way to burn less.

Once we burn less fuel we can either use less energy or produce altanative energy, but the goal of the goal is to burn less fossil fuel.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Solar and wind are a means to the end of burning less fossil fuels.
Sure there people who have financal interest into alternative energies themselves, but I think that a main liberal idea is burning less fossil fuel.
Getting less oil out of the ground is a way to burn less.

Once we burn less fuel we can either use less energy or produce altanative energy, but the goal of the goal is to burn less fossil fuel.

Getting less oil out of the ground is a way to burn less... Well there you go.

This is exactly what started this conversation. I said above "Many liberal strategists believe that if they can stop off shore drilling then in 5 years we'll have more pressure to continue with alternative options" hence this means that the environment will improve as a result. Less chance of fuel spills and certainly less CO2s.

Your comments prove my point exactly. Again this is another example of how you and I always agree with each other its just that you don't realize we agree until we go back and forth, back and forth.

Brutha, I bet if we lived in the same town we'd have a beer together.

[Brutha]

Your comments prove my point exactly.

You claimed that it was somehow a sleaky way to make politics.

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Solar and wind are a means to the end of burning less fossil fuels.
Sure there people who have financal interest into alternative energies themselves, but I think that a main liberal idea is burning less fossil fuel.
Getting less oil out of the ground is a way to burn less.

Once we burn less fuel we can either use less energy or produce altanative energy, but the goal of the goal is to burn less fossil fuel.

(This is a general response to everyone, not just Brutha.)

I'm so de-invested in politics (by conscious choice) it's not funny, so from my very different perspective, I'll say that we really need to work on people before we get these changes in place.

It seems like such a waste of time to me to work on voting-in the right people to make the changes you want when people generally don't care about global issues in the first place (they may say they do, but dig a little deeper, and you'll find the truth. Actions are always more telling than words. I'm looking at this very black and white, but I'm using the lens of truth, so that's required.)

The current state of our planet, from a certain lens, is a result of the internal state of many people. As within, so without.

When you make the internal changes to the people, that is when you will start to see external change. Till then, people will keep voting for different people, and those elected may even make some changes, but new issues will come that need to be dealt with to match the internal state of the people.

The fact that so many people turn up to support certain election candidates shows me that most people aren't interested in change. They're interested in identifying with change, but not going out there and doing it themselves. That would be challenging, and it would indeed require them to do something.

That's a bit of a harsh statement, and I'm exaggerating a bit to make a point, but I also think it's a true statement.

When I see people using their time to make changes, instead of supporting people who they want to make changes (thus keeping their hands nice and clean, giving them someone who they can hold accountable for various issues which is a nice way to give away their responsibility and power), then I'll think, "hmmm, ok, the people seem to care... now the system might work." Right now, even though the system is pretty non-ideal, people who care and take responsibility and consciously align with their power will make a bigger difference, even if they're working within a broken system.

[Still Growing]

Bruce,

Very insightful.

To change us before we change them we must first understand how humans think.

Humans process information in a very unusual fashion.

We:
1. With repetition our minds will accept false information if its repeated enough.
2. Our minds fill in the blanks with logical conclusions and we process this as fact.
3. Our minds seek out info that supports our theories and expels data that does not; often expelling correct info.
4. We herd. So if all our friends believe a certain way we'll often follow even if its wrong.
5. Humans use emotions. So if an issue has a special significance to them they'll increase the importance of that issue for all.
6. Humans are superstitious. We knock on wood, get funny feelings and are generally creatures of habit.
7. Humans create phenominons for things we don't comprehend. I had a dream and it actually came true so therefore I must be psychic.
8. We think in black and white. If A is wrong then B must be right rather than A is wrong but maybe B is wrong too. Or maybe both A and B or right. Or maybe A is right today and B is right tomorrow. This is very complex but our minds find it hard to see things as basically true or false.
9. We assign guilt by association. People always look at the source rather than the substance. This is a huge issue with humans.

I could go on and on.

By understanding how humans think and by poking fun at yourself you'll soon realize that we are all primitive. If you are humble enough to understand how primitive you really are then and only then can you accept that you could be wrong. Its only through changing yourself can you change your environment.

[Dan.Linehan]

Just a bit more info on new oil drilling.

Offshore Drilling: Two-Tenths of 1c Price Reduction in 18 Years