The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
ritubpant- trizzlelv, on 09/16/2008, -21/+122The expanded drilling measure proposed by the right is a cheap political ploy, pandering to uninformed voters (just like Sarah Palin). I applaud Pelosi and the House for blocking that measure. There are millions upon millions of acres that they can explore, yet in a last-ditch attempt to fatten their oil-rich supporters pockets before Bush leaves office, they are trying to brainwash the public into believing that there will be some benefit (short or long term) from it. It's horrendous. The way the right plays the political game is cheap, unfair, and belittling. Unfortunately their tactics will continue to work as long as the lost souls of our nation remain oblivious to their misdeeds.
Oh yah, buried for dupe.- Nietz1950, on 09/16/2008, -7/+13Sarah Palin likely supports drilling because it's another Government transfer from the rest of America to Alaskans. The Federal land and resources are handed over to the oil companies and Alaskans get a check.
- randomface, on 09/16/2008, -24/+7you might want to speak up a little. it's hard for the people on the ground to hear you from your high horse.
- RAEP, on 09/16/2008, -2/+22does it matter how high someone's horse is when they are completely accurate?
- bjornski, on 09/16/2008, -3/+11@RAEP
When he can't call 'em wrong, he'll call 'em "elitist".
"Them book-learnin' people think they is so smart..... Those elitist bastards!" - reyalp, on 09/16/2008, -11/+3notice how trizzlelv didn't even mention that the graph was inaccurate. US Oil production is 7.61Mbbl/day.
trizzlelv, your tin foil hat is falling off! oh noes! - randomface, on 09/19/2008, -0/+0just revisiting my pages...i didn't say he was wrong at all...i didn't comment on the accuracy of his statement. however, when you start making randomly hyperbolic statements making comparisons of your political foes to souls lost you have fallen far too deep into self-righteousness. so dugg down or not, agree with him or not, was he not being a little melodramatic? is he really attempting to change anyone's mind? i seriously doubt that. and calling someone elitist? where did this occur? i'm in college trying to become a mechanical engineer, and i have issues with all form of idiocy and anti-intellectualism. i saw little in his statement to make me think he was elite in any way, much less intellectually.
so in short, ***** off.
- bjornski, on 09/16/2008, -3/+12Considering Alaska taps about half the cost of each barrel of oil to pay their own citizens welfare, the only people that stand to benefit from expanded drilling are the oil companies and Alaskan oil welfare recipients.
The rest of the country won't see jack-***** out of it.
We can't claim it's for "energy independence" if the oil will just be sold on the world commodities market anyway. Only if 100% of the oil drilled was sold ONLY in the US would it be a step toward independence. Selling it on the commodities market isn't going to help us in the least.
But hey, maybe Sarah can get her citizens ANOTHER $1200 per year increase in oil welfare!- smurfsahoy, on 09/16/2008, -11/+5You misunderstand economics.
If we would sell our oil to foreigners, then that means we would make more money by doing so than by using it ourselves for whatever reason. Thus, we are richer as a result - and we could spend that extra money on anything - even MORE OIL than we would have had if we just used all of our own.
And at the same time, it does make us more politically independent. Who cares if we are selling to China tomorrow? If OPEC decided to shut us out with an embargo the next day, then guess what? It would suddenly be much more profitable to not sell to China, so we would stop immediately, and all of our oil would begin contributing to our independence. See how that works? We don't have to use every drop of it 24/7... It just has to be AVAILABLE to us for independence.
Don't mess with free markets. They're good for you, and they're not necessarily bad for political purposes if used correctly. - manoftheisland, on 09/16/2008, -5/+1the big picture is if we can dump enough oil in the market it will force them to pump more around the world, and drop the price of oil to a reasonable price.. it really wont take that much, just look at the oil prices now that it looks like we are going to drill.
- flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -1/+10@Smurfsahoy
No. YOU misunderstand economics.
"If we would sell our oil to foreigners, then that means we would make more money by doing so than by using it ourselves for whatever reason. Thus, we are richer as a result"
Wrong. US Big Oil companies are richer... from *our* American natural resources. There is a reason why Big Oil donates so much money to the GOP and why the Republicans are the ones wanting to drill. Since gas prices are so high right now, Big Oil can sell that gas for an enormous profit on the free *global* market. Drilling doesn't help Americans one tiny bit... not even a little.
It won't bring energy costs down. It wont help our independence. The ONLY thing it will do is give more of our natural resources to Big Oil so they can make more money.
"If OPEC decided to shut us out with an embargo the next day, then guess what? It would suddenly be much more profitable to not sell to China"
Uh...if we lost our foreign oil supply, American oil companies simply DO NOT have enough oil to supply America so it really wouldn't matter. But we get most of our oil from South America and Canada anyway. - Nietz1950, on 09/16/2008, -1/+7You know how Oil Companies could make even MORE profit? First get ANWR opened and buy the rights. Then DON'T DRILL! You keep the supply down, your assets increase, and what little you produce can be sold at the highest prices possible.
There's a reason the oil industry is seeing astronomical profits but the lowest output in years. Most of the land released for drilling still sits unused. - draculthemad, on 09/16/2008, -1/+6"it really wont take that much" [sic] to reduce prices.
Except OPEC has already shown they are entirely willing to cut their OWN production by a commensurate amount to maintain an inflated price. They just recently cut their own production by many more times the amount even the most wild estimates of oil within ANWR.
Thus, the entire argument has been rendered moot. Which is why even the republicans dont like the float the idea anymore. - bjornski, on 09/16/2008, -1/+5Selling the oil on the global market to "get a better price by making OPEC drop their prices" isn't a drive for independence. Don't even lie and try to pretend it is.
We'd still be 100% reliant on the global commodities market for our oil. Not our own supplies. We'd just help the cost go down a nickel 12 years from now.
But Exxon and Alaska would reap BIG BIG benefits. Everyone else? not so much so.
And as Nietz1950 above me said. The companies are ALREADY sitting on millions and millions of acres they aren't using. If the oil companies REALLY had an interest in bringing more oil to the market, they could have done it years ago. - flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -1/+4@Nietz1950
Yes!!
Wow I feel like we are actually getting through... - BossKey, on 09/16/2008, -0/+5Geezus, there are people actually talking as if there is a nearly direct relationship between our drilling vaporware announcement and the price of oil. As if there aren't a thousand other variables and a thousand other levers being pulled, starting with OPEC's price adjustment ability.
The markets have traditionally shown that they don't price commodities as far ahead as they would need in order to account for new US offshore drilling, which won't happen for many years. Traditionally, volatile markets have a short time horizon.
This BS about offshore drilling is not about a right to use our own resources, it's about the right to USE UP our own resources, just as we did with all of the domestic oil fields that have dried up. We actually want to accelerate that process? - bjornski, on 09/16/2008, -0/+6But if you stop people from using up every last drop of their resources, you're curtailing their FREEDOM! They should have the FREEDOM to use up as many of those resources as quickly as they want!
Even if it ***** every other living person on the continent. THEIR freedoms to actually have some resources conserved for later don't mean jack ***** if there is a dollar to be made RIGHT NOW! - flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -0/+3bjornski:
I think you are being sarcastic... but its pretty close to actual arguments. Please stop :( - bjornski, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1I wish I was being sarcastic.
- bjornski, on 09/16/2008, -0/+7And to put some of this into perspective that even teen gamers can understand.
In Starcraft (oh wait, that's old teenagers, isn't it?), you don't become the last army on the board by using up all your own resources first.
Those are VERY LAST on the board to be tapped. No matter the quick up-front cost. You might win a battle by tapping them, but not the war.
They don't make you independent. Especially when you sell them at a low price for quick profit early in the game, only to have to buy it back the resources back at a higher price to continue later.
The key is to tap every resource BUT YOUR OWN. Don't touch those! Don't use up our reserves. Find another source. Keep those for when they're really needed. They will be. So don't burn them up now.
It's sad when even video-gamers have a better concept of how the economy works than people making millions of dollars for being involved in failing institutions. - floorman56, on 09/16/2008, -3/+1But hey, maybe Sarah can get her citizens ANOTHER $1200 per year increase in oil welfare!
Really ...We cant let them Eskimos be getting any money from any where but the government. We cant let them be getting ...Independent - bjornski, on 09/16/2008, -0/+3@floorman56
Are you saying their "independence" comes with federal subsidies? "WE NEED SUBSIDIES TO BECOME INDEPENDENT!"
LOL! Really? so when you finally can AFFORD to secede from the nation you can tell the rest of us to ***** off, after paying your way for this time and pay what you DEMAND for 'your" resources?
You want a better income, they can move to where the jobs are, don't expect the welfare to come to you
Or get an education and MAKE the jobs, like the GOP is telling the lower 48. Don't rely on the federal dollars, DO IT YOURSELF!
About time Alaska ***** listened.
Why do these red-states all think they should have ANY right at all to determine how tax dollars are spent when they TAKE IN more tax dollars then they GIVE OUT?
Want a better job? Get an education. That's what the rest of us are told. There's no reason you deserve special treatment because you decided to live in the ***** boondocks.
"But it's expensive here! I need subsidies! There aren't any jobs that pay real wages here! We can't develop without external money!"
That's YOUR problem. Nobody else's.
But hey, hard to turn down that free welfare money, huh? - smurfsahoy, on 09/16/2008, -3/+1Okay, no.
American oil is not any different than Saudi oil. It's the same thick, black, goopy stuff. There is virtually no difference in quality based on oil's source.
American oil companies make more money from American oil ONLY because it's cheaper to drill it than to buy it, due to cutting out the middleman, and a shorter commute for the oil. Those are the only reasons.
If we can then sell it to China for more than it costs to buy from OPEC, why wouldn't we do so? It would be pointless and wasteful not to. Just throwing profits away. We should continue to sell to the highest bidder until we either run out of surplus supply (either bought or drilled, no difference), or until the highest bidder has all they need and won't buy anymore. That is what will make us financially the best off.
If at any point the situation changes, and somebody puts an embargo against us, for instance, then having our own oil wells will protect us from political manipulation from foreign states! Even if Americans don't see one cent from American drilling now, this will still be true, because as soon as there is an embargo, America will suddenly become the highest bidder by far, and our own oil companies will be lining up to sell our oil and any other oil to us. The more drilling we have going on in our own country at that point, the more our demand will be met for sure, and the more secure we will be.
By the way, @ others in this thread,
OPEC doesn't want to jack up prices as high as they can. OPEC wants to maintain as constant of a price as possible, to prevent irregular income that will hurt their stability, and to prevent other countries from getting too pissed off at them and invading, since OPEC countries all have ***** militaries.
The recent rise in prices here probably has a lot to do with less oil being bought (at higher prices) in Europe due to cap and trade systems. OPEC can't sell at totally different prices to different consumers (otherwise, America would simply buy more and ship it over to Europe), so to keep net profits stable, they have to restrict supply to us as well for comparable prices.
- smurfsahoy, on 09/16/2008, -11/+5You misunderstand economics.
- tehxen3, on 09/16/2008, -6/+2And the way left plays the political game, by misleading the public into believing there will be some benefit from alternative energies isn't cheap and unfair?
There would also be many people who would "fatten their pockets" from democrats global warming hysteria backed plans.- bubba9999, on 09/16/2008, -2/+9Maybe we should just subscribe to the GOP's plan and keep our homes heated by burning democracy.
- GutterMoo, on 09/16/2008, -0/+3Alternative energies will benefit us in the long run. It's called science, new technology is being created daily that helps the world.
- ParanoydAndroid, on 09/16/2008, -0/+4"misleading the public into believing there will be some benefit from alternative energies"
... You think it is "misleading" to imply that alternative energy sources have more benefits and less long-term cost than oil?
HELLO! Earth to Tehxen! Renewable, clean energy is the key to everything we want to accomplish in the future. Once we can harness unlimited energy, and then make the processes more efficient, we can do _anything_ - from the mundane, like cars that go thousands of miles before a recharge, to the extraordinary, like colonizing other planets to help ensure our survival.
The first step is merely the ability to power our future.
- rpgmaker, on 09/16/2008, -2/+2While I agree that offshore drilling wouldn't make this crisis go away I think that you should do it anyway, why don't you wanna do it? Is there any reason? Because if it is to help the environment it won't make any difference since you're drilling in foreign territory right now and will keep on doing so. I say drill in your coasts and take a taste of your own crap.
- TJ11240, on 09/16/2008, -4/+45Notice that foreign oil imports still increase. Why don't we put the funding into something better- perhaps algae based ethanol? Advanced lithium ion batteries?
- niradg, on 09/16/2008, -0/+22Why not more public transportation? It's the only technology that we have right now that can drastically reduce our oil consumption.
- duggdowncatisad, on 09/16/2008, -0/+8How about not building houses all over BFE so people just don't have to go as far in the first place? 100 mile round trip commutes are insane no matter what type of fuel you're using.
- WoollyMittens, on 09/16/2008, -1/+9Just don't let happen what they did here in Europe. They made gas impossibly expensive to force people to use public transport. Then they privatized public transport to their political friends and raised prices to the point where it's just as expensive as driving a car. Then they had to raise fuel taxes again to force people back into the train/bus who promptly raised the prices too.
You get to the point where it costs about 50 dollars to travel 50 miles. - smurfsahoy, on 09/16/2008, -0/+5@woolly:
Bicycle. - jaknet, on 09/16/2008, -1/+4@smurfsahoy "Bicycle"
All very well until you have to carry tools, paperwork, equipment to work, or your work is about 30+ miles away from home (that's how many hours added getting to and from work?) or the weather is disgusting and there is no means to shower and change at work so you end up wet and smelling sweaty at work all day.
Yes using a bicycle is a good option, BUT there are many times that it is just NOT a practical answer. - smurfsahoy, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1Well then perhaps you should have thought of this before getting a job that is 30+ miles away from work.
I don't think a 30 mile commute is appropriate for anyone. It's pointless and wasteful, both of time and energy. People with commutes like that deserve to pay through the nose.
And I'm sorry, but you can change pants and a shirt at any office or job site in the world. Everything but the bottoms of your legs then can be easily protected by a good poncho, even in pouring down rain. If you live somewhere where there are deep snow drifts or freezing conditions, then a bike may not be an option for SOME of the year, otherwise, it can always work.
You can haul a ton of equipment in a cart behind you or in saddlebags.
If you give up, then sure, you'll never find a solution. But in 90% of cases, if you try hard and choose a house and job that are reasonably close, you can bike.
- TheOneKen, on 09/16/2008, -8/+3Drilling for more oil won't cost us a dime. Private industry will pay for it, using money otherwise spent on foreign oil. It's best to drill and invest in alternative energy.
- flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -1/+7It also won't help us at ALL. Why would we want to give more of our oil to private oil companies and risk destroying the surrounding environment, for absolutely no reason at all?
- Logicexe, on 09/16/2008, -1/+5It costs us nothing, until a strong enough hurricane goes through the region and tears up our infrastructure causing oil spills and price increases.
But it's ok, it's not like areas around the gulf coast get hit by multiple hurricanes every year... right? - mike17032, on 09/16/2008, -1/+1So we keep getting it from the unstable middle east while letting Cuba and China take the stuff off our own shore?
Great plan there ace, I am sure the cuban oil wells will be very safe. - flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1@mike17032
Cuba and China are not (and will not be) drilling on our shores. That was an outright lie perpetrated by some GOP/Big Oil surrogate. I challenge you to find any sort of verification for that claim.
We get our oil from:
1. Canada
2. Saudi Arabia
3. Mexico
4. Venezuela
In that order. All those countries are very friendly with us.
- stretch611, on 09/16/2008, -0/+5Right now we give the oil companies tax breaks to search for new oil. Lets stop these tax breaks completely.
Lets take that money and either:
1) Invest in alternative energy research, or,
2) Create no-interest loans to homeowners to put solar panels on their roofs.
Personally, I like #2. It puts power generation on site (which avoids the transmission bandwidth problem that wind farms are currently having.) Because it is a loan, the money will eventually come back and the only real cost is lost interest. - reyalp, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1US Oil production is 7.61Mbbl/day.
- hitoshi, on 09/17/2008, -0/+0Also note that most of this foreign oil comes from extremely hostile countries like Canada and Norway.
- svendm, on 09/16/2008, -0/+2Biodiesel from algae.
Ethanol from cellulose. (and no, corn ain't a long term option, nobody says it is, so I'm tired of hearing it get debunked)
Better batteries? Don't count on it. That's a totally different ballpark. Batteries are OLD tech (as in: Napoleon owned one). Old and mature, and any gigantic gains is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
Cellulosic ethanol is the next-gen fuel source that's come the farthest. (Biodiesel from palm/veg oil and ethanol from corn/sugarcane being old, conventional tech as well) - eliotmat, on 09/16/2008, -5/+1Maybe Obama, who thinks there are 57 states, will get us out of the energy crisis.
- mike17032, on 09/16/2008, -1/+1Because hippie dreams and happy wishes dont make cars move and keep homes warm.
The tech isnt there yet, and its not going to be for a while.- stretch611, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1And the tech will never be there if we keep putting all our money into oil.
We need to bite the bullet and get off oil even if it costs a lot of money. Because as expensive as it is too leave oil now, it will be more expensive the longer we wait. Also as we wait a larger and larger percentage of our GNP gets exported to oil producing countries.
- stretch611, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1And the tech will never be there if we keep putting all our money into oil.
- niradg, on 09/16/2008, -0/+22Why not more public transportation? It's the only technology that we have right now that can drastically reduce our oil consumption.
- SyntraFTW, on 09/16/2008, -2/+6Mirror: http://img241.imageshack.us/my.php?image=crapfj5.j ...
- donsnyc, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1DRILL BABY DRILL!
- douglasr007, on 09/16/2008, -8/+35US has no idea what foreign means.
- Sepeteus, on 09/16/2008, -3/+38Half of them think it's a synonym for terrorist.
- svendm, on 09/16/2008, -0/+4And the other half thinks it's important.. as if the oil companies would sell it cheaper at home (newsflash: They don't).
Not that fixing the trade deficit isn't desirable though.
- crazyjake, on 09/16/2008, -2/+10well... this won't matter once i complete my teleporting robot body!
- digitalhoodie, on 09/16/2008, -3/+2yes, do it!
- arjie, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1Brundlebot, here we come!
- tommq, on 09/16/2008, -4/+45Offshore drilling: Immediate relief!
...in 12 years...- psion01, on 09/16/2008, -3/+5I bet people will be applauding your vision in 12 years.
- TheOneKen, on 09/16/2008, -2/+14They said that in the 70's.
- evilbob333, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1Hell they said that in the 90's.
- badastronaut, on 09/16/2008, -9/+8You look like an idiot when that was the excuse 12 years ago.
- Hovhannes, on 09/16/2008, -2/+10It wont even be a relief in 12 years. The US doesn't make up the oil prices...the world economy does. Offshore drilling might drop the price of oil (which is going to be way higher anyway ehem) by 9/10 of a cent.
- psion01, on 09/16/2008, -0/+3I know folks seem to take that as a given, but Russia just started building an arctic oil rig that is expected to be operational in 2010. That's not 12 years from now, it's at most just over two. From 1999 to 2001, they brought 110 new oil rigs online, and they didn't take twelve years to build and get operational. Why will building new oil rigs off the U.S. coastline take so long to produce results?
- svendm, on 09/16/2008, -0/+6psion01: Nobody said it took twelve years to build a rig. It takes twelve years from starting prospecting-drilling to finishing a rig.
The Russians had those oil fields mapped out already. In fact, they had lots of oilfields mapped out since the Soviet era which they didn't have the resources to invest in extracting.
So there's your answer. - floorman56, on 09/16/2008, -2/+3Most Oil people say 2 to 7 years ... I know if doesn't fit your propaganda
But even the Dems have stop saying 10 years after they found out it won't take so long - Logicexe, on 09/16/2008, -0/+5floorman56, you've got it backwards. When government officials say one thing, and studies say another it's usually the government officials that are spreading the propaganda. Or maybe I woke up in the bizarro universe.
- psion01, on 09/16/2008, -0/+2Alright, svendm, I'll accept that answer, but I have another question for you: do you honestly believe no oil company has mapped out oil fields off the coast of the U.S. already?
- flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -3/+1412-20 years. And after that time, it might bring oil prices down by a nickel if we are LUCKY.
Seriously, what makes you brainwashed GOP supporters even think that drilling will help bring gas prices down? They are preying on the fact that you are totally uneducated and just think it "sorta makes sense"- psion01, on 09/16/2008, -3/+2What's so brainwashed about it? Why won't increasing the supply lower the cost? It seems to work that way in every other industry.
- stretch611, on 09/16/2008, -0/+5psion01, a 1% to 2% increase in supply will not provide a significant cost reduction. This is compounded by the fact that demand will most likely increase.
The only real way to reduce cost is to severely reduce demand. To do that we need to replace oil with something else (preferrably renewable.) - flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -0/+11Yes, it might seem that way because they are not telling you certain key facts:
1. Oil is traded on a global market. That means oil companies can (and will) sell to anybody in the world. We cannot stop them and there is no proposition to change this.
2. US Oil companies only control 7% of the global market supply. That means they simply do not have enough supply to control the price of oil on the global market. (Only OPEC can do that. They will cut and increase production to manipulate the price of oil, because they are a cartel of the biggest oil suppliers in the world)
3. Giving this itty bitty sliver of oil to the US oil companies will not do a goddamn thing to price of oil. For the price of oil to go down, there has to be enough supply relative to the entire market. Offshore oil = nowhere close.
4. Even if we were to open up offshore drilling and start producing 200,000 barrels a day, OPEC would simply cut production by 200,000 barrels and the supply is exactly the same as before. **No price change**
5. The reason why the oil companies want to drill, and the reason why they are holding onto land that has oil is because they KNOW that they don't control the price. They would rather sell their 7% when oil prices are high than when they are low. So it is in their best interest to hold onto their oil for as long as possible or until they feel the price of oil as peaked. They already have plenty of land they are not drilling because of this... and they want more!
So in the end, drilling is a manufactured big scam being pulled off the GOP to try and trick Americans into thinking more drilling will help. It won't help at all, and could damage the environment. - reyalp, on 09/16/2008, -3/+4hell yeah on #4, flameboy, let's not have American companies selling oil, I'd rather buy my oil from rich Saudi sheiks. forget all those American jobs that go into American oil.
- Ruqsaq, on 09/16/2008, -1/+2Why is it that if a company Exxon/BP or whoever, has the resources, the ability, and the capital to build a platform and start drilling, and this company thinks its a wise investment and will receive a return on their investment, why does everyone say "oh it won't make a difference therefore they shouldn't be allowed to drill." What do you care? Its not going to cost you anything. If the platform never makes a dime or the company that built it looses a ton of money. If it only increase the supply by .001% so what? Now if the argument was its not worth spending billions of taxpayer dollars to increase the supply .001% then I would agree, but taxpayers aren't footing the bill.
It would be like me saying: "This power company, should not build a new plant because its only going to save me $.05 a day on my power."
Or Netflix shouldn't build a new distribution facility because I will only get my DVDs an hour earlier.
Or McDonalds shouldn't hire another line worker because it will only save me 2 minutes in the drive through.
In either case if the company taking the risk (i.e. investing capital to do it) thinks there is some benefit to it, then squashing that investment is uncapitalistic and thus unAmerican. - DuneChild, on 09/16/2008, -0/+3It's not about economic concerns, because it doesn't really help or harm the economy. The main reason not to drill off our coasts is environmental. There's no such thing as a leak-proof off-shore oil rig. All of them leak a little bit of oil into the ocean, which eventually ends up on the beach. We're not talking the Valdez or anything, but over time it adds up.
Your power plant analogy is a good one. Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius recently vetoed a plan to build a new coal-fired power plant in western Kansas. This plant would have brought around 2000 jobs to the area, but it would not have made electricity any cheaper for Kansans. It seems the main reason they wanted to build the plant was to sell power to neighboring states, but none of those states wanted the plant in their back yard. Obviously they wanted the power, but not the pollution that would come with it, and Gov. Sebelius decided she didn't want the pollution either. Had the same company proposed to build a wind farm and sell the power to adjoining states, it would have been praised by all sides and construction would already have begun. Again, the issue is not the economic impact, but the environmental one. - crunchdigg, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr ...
well, according to the EIA (Energy Information Administration):
"The projections in the OCS access case indicate that 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. ... Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."
so, "insignificant" by 2030.
But what do these "elite" experts know that McCain doesn't? (answer: facts) - reyalp, on 09/16/2008, -1/+1"It is in every country's best interest to increase their oil supply as quickly as possible." -- Flameboy, Sep 16 2008
- evilbob333, on 09/16/2008, -1/+2When Bush tossed out his dad's executive order banning offshore drilling in July, oil was nearly $150 a barrel. Yesterday it closed at around $95. I am not saying that was all it, but keeping oil off the market does mean that the future price is going to be high.
- enantiodromia, on 09/16/2008, -2/+6The US Dept of Energy says it will take until 2030 iirc.
- inajeep, on 09/16/2008, -0/+2Actually it wouldn't make much of a difference. A few pennies but wouldn't oil speculation kinda null that with a few hurricanes?
- scubaman5000, on 09/16/2008, -1/+5I can back this statement up with little more than "I read this somewhere once" so take it for what it is. I believe I read somewhere that the problem is not the amount of oil we get from drilling but our ability to refine what we are already collecting that's having a greater impact on fuel prices.
Anyone know if this is true?- Evicted, on 09/16/2008, -1/+4Conventional oil (easy to extract light crude) is in very short supply, as more and more unconventional supplies are exploited (bituminous sands, gassification, SAGD wells, etc.) mining and refining costs go way up because its much more difficult to turn those things into usable oil, this has a huge impact on oil prices, much more so than oil politics, royalties or taxes.
- svendm, on 09/16/2008, -1/+1No. There is not currently a shortage of refinery capacity.
- DuneChild, on 09/16/2008, -0/+0We are, however running very near capacity. There may not be a shortfall, but there's not much of a surplus either. This makes the market very unstable and results in 20-cent increases in gas prices on the news that refineries in the Gulf have shut down.
- opticwind, on 09/16/2008, -0/+3The last refinery was built in the 1970's, and you're right on the money with your comment. In fact, when the new refinery is builty in Texas, it should alleviate the edge from gas prices.
- selmer, on 09/16/2008, -6/+5Tesla.
- psion01, on 09/16/2008, -0/+7Tesla? Tesla what? Tesla as in AC electricity? Tesla as in innovative generator designs? Tesla as in radio? Tesla as in broadcast power? Those are the big things Ol' Nik is known for ... well, that and Tunguska, but we don't like to talk about that much. Aaaaanyway, the interesting thing about all his inventions is that he didn't come up with a power /source/ ... just a means of converting that source into a useful, transmissable (that isn't a word, is it?) form.
- selmer, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1Tesla Motors...they will have a highly competitive electric auto offering in the next few years.
http://www.teslamotors.com/design/gallery-body.php - psion01, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1But ... but ... but ...
Same issue ... where is the power actually coming from? And I'll be damned if I'm ever gonna buy a vehicle which uses LiON batteries, no matter what the cost. The damned things last barely a year in two different manufacturers of laptops I've used, and cost an arm and an ankle to replace. - swicken, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1psion, the power is coming from the grid, which is cheaper for you as a consumer comparative to gas prices.
- selmer, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1Tesla Motors...they will have a highly competitive electric auto offering in the next few years.
- psion01, on 09/16/2008, -0/+7Tesla? Tesla what? Tesla as in AC electricity? Tesla as in innovative generator designs? Tesla as in radio? Tesla as in broadcast power? Those are the big things Ol' Nik is known for ... well, that and Tunguska, but we don't like to talk about that much. Aaaaanyway, the interesting thing about all his inventions is that he didn't come up with a power /source/ ... just a means of converting that source into a useful, transmissable (that isn't a word, is it?) form.
- mellowgreen, on 09/16/2008, -5/+13http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/24/eia-says-off ...
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/107/story/41379.html
Everyone (including McCain's administration) believes the new drilling wont affect the U.S. for at least 7-10 years, and even then it will be minor. It's just more hype to add to the republican propaganda machine, it gets people excited and out voting I guess, because too few people actually read the truth about McCain's policies.- flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -0/+6"it gets people excited and out voting I guess"
It gets more money in the pocket of Big Oil because they can sell that extra oil at current high prices.
Why do you think that Exxon mobile turned the BIGGEST PROFIT EVER MADE in the history of American the same quarter that gas skyrocketed?- bjornski, on 09/16/2008, -0/+6An increased amount of people being suckered into buying the biggest vehicle possible didn't help either.
BIGGER! FASTER! MORE POWERFUL!
Can't you smell the ***FREEDOM***!
BUY! CONSUME! USE IT UP! USE IT UP! USE IT UP!
FEEL GOOD NOW! ***** THE FUTURE!
Mindless consumerism at it's best. We're paying for it now. All those mortgage payments and expenses you put on the credit card?
Guess what, they're due. And our stupid mentality of "USE IT NOW! USE IT FAST! FREEDOM!" just ***** us in the ass.
If we want real energy independence, it has be created within our borders, and stay within our borders until we have enough excess to sell off. The "import everything" mentality has destroyed us.
"Globalism" works great on paper, like raw Capitalism or raw Socialism. But in practice, it always, ALWAYS winds up ***** a majority of the people involved. Just like the other systems.
Greed will always ***** us over. Always.
Until mankind can get over it's "greed" fixation, we'll never be the star-bound species we could be. We'll be stuck here sitting in our own filth and killing each other ghost stories and dead dinosaurs.
***** idiots. I hope a comet wipes us all out.
- bjornski, on 09/16/2008, -0/+6An increased amount of people being suckered into buying the biggest vehicle possible didn't help either.
- reyalp, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1"BIGGEST PROFIT EVER MADE in the history of American"
of American what? Don't leave us hanging there.- flameboy, on 09/18/2008, -0/+1American history.
It was the biggest documented profit ever made in the shortest period of time, ever.
Jan. 30, 2006 - "Exxon Mobil Corp. posted record profits for any U.S. company on Monday — $10.71 billion for the fourth quarter"
10.71 billion dollars of profit... in 3 months.
- flameboy, on 09/18/2008, -0/+1American history.
- Hodor, on 09/16/2008, -0/+3please don't call his campaign team an administration. I thought I'd woken up in the future. :(
- flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -0/+6"it gets people excited and out voting I guess"
- clkou, on 09/16/2008, -6/+3That's a very powerful graph of information that I don't understand.
- MrM4nager, on 09/16/2008, -0/+6Basically offshore drilling in the US won;t help us until 2030. And it will do very very little
- manoftheisland, on 09/16/2008, -7/+1thats what they said about ANWR in 1998 guess what... we would be using that oil now.. please look at the long term plan
- Gndoab, on 09/16/2008, -0/+7yeah...and we would have 10 cents a gallon cheaper gasoline. It is not a long term fix...it's not even a moderately long short-term fix.
- flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -0/+8We are looking at the long term plan you braindead idiot... do you see the graph? Do you see that small sliver of yellow compared to that big page of gray?
What makes you think that small tiny bit will do ANYTHING to help gas prices, even after 10-20 years?
I feel like I am dealing with preschoolers here. - MrM4nager, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1FLAMEBOY YOU'RE WRONG I'M RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG I'M RIGHT LALALALALALALALALLALAL
- evilbob333, on 09/16/2008, -1/+1Well if we limit ourselves to 200,000 barrels a day its certainly not going to help. I would put money down that the reason it is going to take until 2030 is because of self imposed bureaucratic ***** and environmentalist lawsuits. The actual work to get the oil rig built and pumping would take 2 to 3 years at the most.
- MrM4nager, on 09/16/2008, -0/+6Basically offshore drilling in the US won;t help us until 2030. And it will do very very little
- retzed, on 09/16/2008, -17/+6Drill Baby Drill!
- southeastbeast, on 09/16/2008, -1/+1haha I lold
- Thumbz, on 09/16/2008, -5/+3WOAH. There's a dent.
- seddyei, on 09/18/2008, -1/+39Fantastic way to portray how much of a waste of time the whole "drill! drill! drill!" shtick is.
I can only hope Americans see through this sh** come election time.- TheOneKen, on 09/16/2008, -11/+1Well if you idiots would just agree to drill, then we could go on talking about other issues.
- flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -4/+8If you idiots would just agree to not vote for McCain, we can go on fixing the country
- seddyei, on 09/18/2008, -1/+5If you idiots wouldn't get sidetracked but essentially worthless issues and stick to the more pressing, relevant ones we wouldn't even be in this mess.
Don't even try.
- bobjrn2, on 09/16/2008, -0/+2Obama should search digg for his speech presentation material. We have graphs, videos, even pictures.
- Sogladtobehere, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1You overestimate the voting American public :(
- TheOneKen, on 09/16/2008, -11/+1Well if you idiots would just agree to drill, then we could go on talking about other issues.
- RockSlice, on 09/16/2008, -1/+12What this country needs to do is stop thinking about oil as its lifeblood. We need to switch to other power sources. Solar, hydro, and wind, yes, but also nuclear fission and hydrogen fusion plants (which would provide much better return on the investment with very little pollution)
Then move away from gas-powered cars to electric or hydrogen cars and proper public transportation. For being one of the biggest world powers, our rail system is, well, laughable.- Gndoab, on 09/16/2008, -3/+4So, in other words, you want to completely transform the US infrastructure in the period of a few years.
Yeah. Totally practical.
(and for those that wonder what my idea of a solution is: There is none! we are in for some painful times ahead)- RockSlice, on 09/16/2008, -0/+2No, Gndoab, I want to START transforming the US infrastructure in the next few years.
- sfgamergirl, on 09/16/2008, -0/+6You know, if the race to the moon was treated by Kennedy like the race for clean energy is today, we would've been 2nd or 3rd to the moon, at best. The times have changed.
- reyalp, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1I agree with that, Rockslice.
People are quick to turn this graph into smears against Republicans, but none of them even talk about solutions.
"OH THE REPUBS ARE SO STUPID LOOK THIS IS THEIR PLAN ITS NOT GONNA DO ANYTHING."
To those people, yeah, where's your plan?
Don't say to inflate your tires, because that's seriously subverting your intelligence to repeat stupid rhetoric.
We've become hooked on this cheap oil, we've sprawled dozens of miles from where we work, we drive EVERYWHERE all the ***** time. Now we're hitting the end of the slack on global supply. I won't rag on someone for having a serious plan, unless I can say "Oh plan X is ineffective, use plan Y as it has the following benefits over plan X, etc etc etc"
At least Gndoab is honest, he has no plan. He also doesn't take the opportunity to childishly do the riverdance in the Republican flowerbed.
Unfortunately, the only way to get the US citizens onboard with an energy change is to either force them via hard legislation, or rape their wallet until they get angry enough to do something about it.
Sadly, the latter is more likely to happen, replete with riots and looting. - OldCigarette, on 09/16/2008, -0/+0eh? Our rail system is one of the best in da world, well for freight at least.
- Gndoab, on 09/16/2008, -3/+4So, in other words, you want to completely transform the US infrastructure in the period of a few years.
- jus1haz2, on 09/16/2008, -2/+13Not all foreign imports are bad...we get most of our oil from canada.
- slapsomecrap, on 09/16/2008, -2/+4and venezuela
- Evicted, on 09/16/2008, -1/+14well yes, but most of that oil comes from the most destructive industrial project on earth, the Athabasca Tar Sands who's pollution per year is currently equivalent to a few million cars, uses 2-4 barrels of water for every barrel of oil extracted, is contributing to a huge spectrum of fatal diseases in both human and animal populations and, if it continues unheeded will destroy a portion of alberta the size of florida. So though we canadians are friendly folks, the US oil industry's exploitation of our resources is pretty disgusting from a social, environmental and human rights perspective.
- enantiodromia, on 09/16/2008, -0/+3i believe its canada, then saudi arabia, then venezuela
- yoda17, on 09/16/2008, -1/+1You don't know many Canadians, do you?
/jk
- MrM4nager, on 09/16/2008, -0/+7Sweet! Drilling will help us.....in 2030....Aww *****....
- slapsomecrap, on 09/16/2008, -1/+1no point we are dead in 2012
- Blitzenn, on 09/16/2008, -0/+2This is as much eco 'spin' as the other side does in spinning the drilling mantra. It literally takes 30 days for drilling to make an impact. The numbers in the graph don't show that. They also denote a huge upturn in demand. Numbers today don't denote that. They also are claiming the offshore drilling will only produce 200,000 barrels a day. That is decidedly on the bottom edge of the projections (worst case scenario at best). I want to be eco friendly, but with all of this bad information out there, it gets hard to fight for the real solutions.
- moolaismyfriend, on 09/16/2008, -5/+29Sorry how does this relate to NASCAR, moose hunting, and gay marraige?
You must be a liberal, anti-American, troop hatting Commie.
/Rednecks trying to subvert the Constitution- jerbaker, on 09/16/2008, -0/+5Because if there isn't enough oil for NASCAR, we'll be too depressed to hunt and then we'll all turn gay. Duh. Oil is keeping us straight.
- howufinna, on 09/16/2008, -11/+2How about we use all the ***** oil there is until there is no more. We will then be forced to find alternative energy sources. Stop trying to fight the oil companies and just let them pump out all the oil they can until they have no more. It's no big ***** deal. People didn't stop eating bulls until they ran out and moved on to cows. Some people think oil is finite, so for *****'s sake just be patient and stop complaining.
- alski707, on 09/16/2008, -0/+2Because Oil doesn't just go in your gas tank and get burnt, it makes the plastics in your PC, your ipod, your car , hell you can't even build the processor in your ipod without petrochemicals, it makes the synthetic textiles that you wear as clothes, it makes some of the chemicals you take as medicines, it runs the ENTIRE food production system - everything from tractors and harvesters to the fertilisers and pesticides used to grow it, and as yet no-one has figured out how to build a 747 that runs on electricity.
And that's just for a start.- howufinna, on 09/16/2008, -1/+0I'm aware of what oil does. And your reasoning doesn't really rebut what I said. I'm saying be patient and you're just making a list and complaining.
- alski707, on 09/16/2008, -0/+2Because Oil doesn't just go in your gas tank and get burnt, it makes the plastics in your PC, your ipod, your car , hell you can't even build the processor in your ipod without petrochemicals, it makes the synthetic textiles that you wear as clothes, it makes some of the chemicals you take as medicines, it runs the ENTIRE food production system - everything from tractors and harvesters to the fertilisers and pesticides used to grow it, and as yet no-one has figured out how to build a 747 that runs on electricity.
- ouorama, on 09/16/2008, -19/+14How about a little rational debate on Digg?
#1. Bush burst the speculation market from $160 down to $100 per barrel just by lifting the U.S. executive ban. So don't tell me there's no immediate impact and don't tell me it was coincidence. The market responded to Bush's actions and that's a fact.
#2 This business about 10 years to get any oil is worst case speculation and it assumes maximum bureaucracy. It doesn't and it shouldn't take 10 years. It might take 100 years if people like the tread starter gets his way because we'll simply never start drilling under the excuse that it won't help today.
#3 You can't expect the rest of the world to increase supply when you won't lift a finger back home.
The Democrats thought the American public would continue to blame Republicans for gas prices but they got a shock from recent polls. This is why you see Obama backtracking and softening his stance on offshore drilling.- ouorama, on 09/16/2008, -1/+10The fact of the matter is, we can cut oil consumption dramatically if we simply freed up natural gas and stopped using it for electrical generation and replace it with nuclear. We can't do that so long as a bunch of irrational tree huggers continue to spread FUD about nuclear power. The environmental movement needs to grow up and realize that the only way to coal independence and less oil is nuclear power. They should learn from the founder of Greenpeace Patrick Moore.
- flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -0/+3Your first comment made me angry, but I totally agree with you here.
There is no real reason to not support nuclear energy besides the senseless and baseless propaganda against it. Many other European countries have been doing it now for years with great success. We need to follow their lead. - Nietz1950, on 09/16/2008, -0/+2I have a hard time believing the "Tree Huggers" in America are stronger than their counterparts in France or Scandinavia. Why are they so successful keeping away nuclear power, but so ineffective when it comes to simple logging or the more polluting oil & coal?
The European countries have been doing it with success only when the Government controls and heavily regulated the energy industry. Private industry isn't really interested in a technology that takes decades to pay for itself. Environmental and greenhouse costs really aren't much of a concern - the public has to pay for that, not the polluter. - carlosos, on 09/16/2008, -0/+2Just tell me how you will safely get rid of the nuclear waste. At the moment there is no solution except putting it under ground in containers that don't last as long as the nuclear waste which means that in the near future that waste will be just unprotected in the ground next to the drinking water.
Find a solution to that problem and I'm sure most people won't have a problem with nuclear power anymore.
- flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -0/+3Your first comment made me angry, but I totally agree with you here.
- bobbarkerbilly, on 09/16/2008, -1/+8Let's just see how long it takes for speculation to move the price right back up. Speculation is a fickle beast and we really can't base solutions off of what it will do for speculators.
- ouorama, on 09/16/2008, -3/+8The speculation aspect was only 1 of 3 points I made.
That 60% inflated gas price due to speculation was hurting us BADLY at the gas pumps and politicians (including McCain but especially Democrats) were running their mouths about how it's all the speculator's fault. It turned out that it wasn't the speculators fault because it was the politician's fault for refusing to entertain the idea of drilling and the market simply responded to it. Anyone who's ever put a dollar in to the market is a speculator. Don't blame the market and don't blame the investors.
Now we need to drill for reasons #2 and #3.
I'll give you a 4th reason.
People don't seem to understand that crude prices can swing up and down based on a very small change in supply in either direction. What might seem like a very small amount of supply can make all the difference in the world. People intuitively assume that a 1% surplus or shortage in supply correlates to a 1% drop or increase in price and that's just ignorant. Economics don't work that way and it's quite possible for a 1% surplus to result in a 10% drop in prices. So when a bunch of diggers digg this crap up, it shows their ignorance. - flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -1/+3@ouorama
You are COMPLETELY wrong!!!
Drilling for oil had absolutely NOTHING to do with the price of oil! The offshore drilling political debate didn't even surface until after the price of gas shot up, so how could you say that caused it?
Even if we drilled, it wouldn't do anything to effect the global supply of oil, and thus the price of oil. I mean RTFA for christ sakes and look at the graph. And even the nickle we save after 12 years can be negated by OPEC cutting production.
"People intuitively assume that a 1% surplus or shortage in supply correlates to a 1% drop or increase in price and that's just ignorant. Economics don't work that way"
Uh actually...they do. Increasing the supply will cause a proportionate drop in the price. That is pretty basic stuff man... - reyalp, on 09/16/2008, -1/+2Flameboy is seriously the worst case of rabid sockpuppetry I've ever seen. He doesn't even make sense.
- billybillyboy, on 09/16/2008, -1/+2@ flameboy
look up inelastic vs elastic supply and demand models - bobbarkerbilly, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1How much are we willing to give up just to make the market happy? Are we going to sell them the rights to oil on other planets just so we can make the speculators happy? Offshore drilling is just a stop gap and nothing more. At some point we have to say enough is enough.
- ouorama, on 09/16/2008, -3/+8The speculation aspect was only 1 of 3 points I made.
- Nietz1950, on 09/16/2008, -0/+14That's odd - I see Oil was already halfway down from the peak by the time the Executive ban was removed. Of course, an Executive ban was meaningless, as the regulations are in the law and were never held by the President anyway. Do you think the financial markets are unaware of any of this?
If I stick to mainstream sources, they all say the fall in Oil was due to the worsening financial conditions in the US. This sounds considerably more realistic, and probably not something the President planned to combat oil prices.
Actually, if the US or anyone else does increase production, the other suppliers will pull back to keep supply stable. OPEC is already complaining there is too much "surplus" on the market since prices are below $100!
Oil companies aren't interested in increasing supply anyway. The private Oil industry has seen a constant decline in output, despite record profits. They have access to 10X the resources they want opened but aren't using them - they just feel now is a good opportunity to expand their assets and buy up some Federal land with the extra cash they have.
The only nations I see really making a significant move toward renewables have been those with Government-regulated alternative energy plans like Germany, France, and the Scandinavians. Unless you want European-style regulations, then high oil prices are the only way you'll be forced to find real alternatives.- flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -1/+2Good post. (That's a real rational post ouorama)
I disagree with you though, the American oil companies DO want to increase their supply. But they want to hold on to their supply so that they can sell when prices rise.
American oil companies only control about 7% of the global oil supply. They cant move the price of oil up and down like OPEC can(*could). Why would they want to sell their measly 7% when prices are low? Of course they don't! They want to hang on to it until prices are high and THEN sell.
That's why they wanted to drill so bad right as gas prices skyrocketed - more product for them to push at high prices. High prices which are set *globally* - Nietz1950, on 09/16/2008, -1/+2Yes, I agree the oil companies want the drilling rights / land and now is a great time to trick the Republicans into giving it to them.
I'm not so sure they want to drill right away. Production from US oil companies have been declining for years, despite record profits. They have far more resources previously granted they still AREN'T using. As oil rises, the land is more valuable and the oil companies would prefer to own it as that happens.
ouorama isn't thinking like an oil company. Why would they be interested in lowering the price of oil? - ouorama, on 09/16/2008, -3/+2Why do liberals lie? Crude oil did NOT drop until AFTER Bush ANNOUNCED that he was lifting the executive ban on offshore drilling.
Bush lifted ban on on 7/14/2008.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/14/bush.offsho ...
Prices drop precisely after Bush lifts executive ban.
http://www.wtrg.com/daily/clfclose.gif
It's not oil companies limiting supply, it's all those threats to filibusters and blocks in committee by democrats in the Senate and President Clinton's veto of more drilling that has limited supply. It's the severe regulatory restrictions on new refineries that limit supply. It's obstructionist morons like you that perpetuate lies that keep supply low. - flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -1/+3ouorama, please see my post below.
The drop in oil prices had nothing to do with Bushes lift on the drilling ban. THERE IS STILL A BAN IN PLACE!
The drop came from the failing economy which kept slowing down, and crashed today.
Read: http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/15/markets/oil/index. ... - Nietz1950, on 09/16/2008, -1/+2Your chart looks to confirm what I was seeing from the indices. A 10-20 point drop before the announcement by mid July, right about the halfway point, excluding the recent fall from further market collapse. However, this really wasn't the central point to any of the arguments so I'm not sure why you would focus on it.
I would love if you could find mainstream sources that suggest the President somehow "broke" speculators on an executive ban that opened up NOTHING. Do you want us to believe speculators are so stupid they don't know the law? Did they really think the Democrats in Congress were willing to change the law but the President wouldn't allow it???
The Oil industry has already been granted nearly 100 MILLION ACRES to drill, and are only using up to 20. There are no obstructions. They just aren't using them. Explain again how the decline in output is due to "obstructionist morons".
- flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -1/+2Good post. (That's a real rational post ouorama)
- flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -2/+12WHOA WHOA
#1 - Lies. 100% Total lies. Bush did not bust the oil speculation market. Where in the HELL did you find that information? Please post it. Bush lifted an executive ban on drilling - you think that does anything to speculation market? Especially considering the ban was pointless because offshore drilling is still banned by congress? Experts in finance are guessing the price drop is caused by the collapse of big financial institutions who were also involved in the oil commodities market (speculation) and a recent drop in oil demand.
Obama is candidate who has vowed to crack down on oil speculation - not Bush and not McCain.
#2 More lies. 10 years is a CONSERVATIVE estimate by all accounts. Even if we started TOMORROW and everything went 100% flawlessly it would be a *MINIMUM* of 5 years. Realistically they are estimating 10-20.
#3 What are you talking about? You are a nutjob. Look at the price of oil. It is in every country's best interest to increase their oil supply as quickly as possible. You have some wacky idea that they are all waiting for us to start drilling? Crazy.
You want a rational debate, you have said NOTHING rational at all, and it suggests to me you have done absolutely no research and are just making ***** up. Please, come back and refute me.- ouorama, on 09/16/2008, -3/+1OK, if you're gonna call someone a liar, then you sure as hell should back it up. Otherwise keep your mouth shut and learn to read.
Bush lifted ban on on 7/14/2008.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/14/bush.offsho ...
Prices drop precisely after Bush lifts executive ban.
http://www.wtrg.com/daily/clfclose.gif - flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -0/+3Back it up? No problem.
First think about this:
1. Bush lifted the ban on offshore oil drilling, correct. Now, did you know that the oil drilling is still banned by congress? So do you understand that him lifting the ban didn't do anything at all? Think about that for a second... how can you claim the price of oil dropped due to an action that did not effect the market at all?
2. If you want to claim that this lifting the executive ban actually DID do something, please tell me what it did, I would love to hear it.
3. This is the real reason people believe oil is dropping (and continues to drop)
"Oil falls amid concerns economic woes will cut demand" - http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/15/markets/oil/index. ...
4. Why would oil continue to fall all the way till present day, even though congress still hasn't lifted its ban on offshore drilling?
Does any of that make sense to you? - Nietz1950, on 09/16/2008, -0/+3ouorama, you have to realize how you might look to an objective observer. Do you think a rational person is going to believe the President caused oil prices to drop by removing a "ban" that didn't change anything?
Mainstream sources point out the obvious reality - oil fell because the economy turned much worse. There was a surprisingly bad jobs report at the same time, followed by EU GDP reports that confirmed the downturn had spread.
Your excuse sounds like a partisan joke. The economy is a far more likely cause. - ouorama, on 09/16/2008, -3/+1Speculation is not based on actual current supplies; it's based on speculation on future supplies based on the best educated guess on what might happen in the future. That's how the futures market works.
With Bush lifting the executive ban, it caused an immediate and sharp decline in crude oil futures after 7/14/2008. I've backed up that claim with the charts and you're free to look up that information yourself. After Bush, the Republican congress protested loudly and publicly after Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi tried to block any congressional vote on lifting the ban in Congress. But the polls started slamming the Democrats and Obama got nervous and softened his position on it. Polls have indicated that Americans want more drilling now and the Democrats are softening. This has helped deflate crude futures speculators even more.
Yes, the wide spread downturn has also played a large part. But you cannot discount the effect that Bush's policy of lifting the ban on offshore drilling had an immediate and significant impact and there's nothing partisan about that if you simply look at the facts and the charts. - flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -0/+2Look, you are basically repeating the same position and have added no new information or addressed any of our points.
You have concocted this entire theory over the fact that Bush's announcement and the drop in oil happened at around the same time. But guess what? Something else very significant happened - the Federal Reserve Chairman spoke. Did you bother to read the article?:
"Immediately following Bernanke's speech, prices dropped more than $9, sinking below $136 a barrel, before recovering some."
They continued to fall from that point forward.
Now you can continue to argue that it was really Bush's executive ban lifting that caused the drop. But the facts are still as follows:
1. There is still a ban in place, and no assurance that congress will lift it. Bush's ban did nothing at all to affect the oil market.
2. Even if all the bans were lifted and we started drilling, we don't have enough oil in our reserves to cause a global price drop.
3. The price continued to fall as our economy continued to worsen.
These are all concrete *facts* which disprove your claim.
It is simply ignorance and stubbornness on your part to continue your argument with no further evidence. You have nothing to base your claim on but timing alone- for which I have found you a far more suitable explanation.
You can continue to believe what you want, but it will be safe to say that you are not interested in accuracy or truth, but simply what suits your agenda. - Nietz1950, on 09/16/2008, -0/+2You are also forgetting that OPEC agreed to CUT production by more than any possible offshore-drilling the US could provide. Expected future supplies have DECLINED since the price peak.
The US is a tiny supplier of global oil supplies. Potential new offshore drilling is less than 1% of that tiny portion. Bush's "executive ban" plays no role in making offshore drilling more likely.
Think about your logic, ouorama. You believe a tiny increase in global oil production caused a huge decline in the price. But that's not what happened - overall, the expected production declined.
The real forces were much larger and on a shrinking of the demand-side of the equation. This is what the mainstream sources agree on, and what any reasonable person would have to conclude. - ouorama, on 09/16/2008, -3/+1Sounds like you guys just don't like Bush and you just don't want to acknowledge the fact that crude dropped $9 precisely after Bush lifts the executive ban on offshore drilling and that Bush had something to do with it. While Bush's policy shift to lift the executive ban is NOT the ONLY factor here, it's clear that 7/14/2008 was the peak of the speculation on oil futures and it's clear that Bush's policy shift was action that burst the speculation bubble.
Clearly you and the Democrats are making every excuse in the world NOT to drill and it's attitudes like your's that restricts supply and jacks up prices. So it's no surprise that it's the Democrats that have blocked the votes on drilling for the last 15 years. That's why you guys are here poking fun of anyone who proposes more drilling to increase supply and you guys are all a bunch of hypocrites.
Now let's cut to the chase and stop screaming about congress still bans it. Now answer a simple question: Do you guys (especially you flameboy) oppose more drilling or not? Yes or No? - Nietz1950, on 09/16/2008, -0/+3All of the mainstream sources agree the cause of the oil fall was due to a failing economy and an expected decline in demand. Do you really believe everyone is in on some conspiracy against Bush? Even Bush himself agreed his action would not have a significant effect on the price. Is he in on the conspiracy against himself too?
It's pretty obvious who has the ideological bias here.
I'm personally against selling off rights when the oil industry still isn't using 90% of those rights previously granted. This land is a valuable asset and it's in the taxpayer's interest to hold that appreciating asset rather than hand it to an oligopoly in a moment of desperation.
Everyone already agrees the US doesn't have enough restricted reserves to impact supply by more than 1% over a period of decades. The big oil suppliers can easily offset that. The US can't control the price and we have to accept that, so price-influence isn't a factor here. The negatives always remain - Bush created the ban to protect the environment and limit periodic disasters caused by hurricanes and accidents. The potential benefits are increased profits for oil companies.
I'm in full agreement that we should be investing in nuclear, solar, and wind like those Europeans have been doing for the last 2 decades. I'm realistic and recognize that environmentalists haven't been the problem, as Europeans did it through Government and US environmentalists are far weaker than the rest of the developed world. - Nietz1950, on 09/16/2008, -0/+2"you just don't want to acknowledge the fact that crude dropped $9 precisely after Bush lifts the executive ban on offshore drilling"
This is the decline you are attributing to Bush? This happened right after Bernanke's speech the next day. Flameboy already told you this. - efice32, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1@ouorama
You're seeing things that are coincidental and making them causal in your head. Just because things happen at the same time obviously doesn't mean that one caused the other. Like if someone logs out of digg right now as I'm posting this comment, it doesn't mean that my comment caused them to log out in disgust. That's attributing cause to coincidental events.
Plus, if you read your own chart properly, you'd see that the peak in oil prices was actually closer to 7/3/08 than 7/14/08. It's a reasonable conclusion that the points on the graph the dates are referring to fall in the middle of the date (due to the fact that the middle of the first date aligns with the left edge of the graph), so here is what the graph is showing (7/14 estimate in blue): http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/8832/graphba1.j ... - atmmac, on 09/16/2008, -1/+1ouorama is totally right and its pathetic to see everyone here not taking him seriously.... do you really think oil just dropped 9 dollars randomly.....cmon lets be reasonable when Bush lifted the ban it brought new hope that the ban from congress would be lifted which caused speculators to drop the price. If you liberals could ever take your heads out of your asses and realize we need to use our resources. i dont care about some stupid ***** animals which most likely arent even going to be harmed by this offshore drilling. People come first not animals get it through your ***** heads and wake up.
- flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1July 14, 2008
Hellboy2 pulls in in $35.9 million, ‘Hancock’ slips to the No. 2 spot. (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/14/business/f ...
Clearly, Hellboy 2's climb to the top is responsible for the oil price drop. If you look at the graph, you will see that the price of oil drops PRECISELY as Hellboy overtakes Hancock. Obviously we need to start making more Hellboy movies in order to drive down the price of gas further, its pathetic to see you guys denying this obvious fact.
Both you liberals and conservatives need to wake up and stop thinking this happened randomly. Clearly you are all you idiots are just biased against Hellboy. Wake up.
- ouorama, on 09/16/2008, -3/+1OK, if you're gonna call someone a liar, then you sure as hell should back it up. Otherwise keep your mouth shut and learn to read.
- enantiodromia, on 09/16/2008, -0/+9Ok, here is some debate for you.
The price of oil exploded because the Sovereign Wealth Funds of the Middle Eastern governments speculated it way past a sane price because they had nothing better to do with their billions and billions.
Now that the US economy is in the toilet, they are pulling their money out of oil (after making at least a few billion dollars), and are now putting their money into snapping up all of the US based financial and construction companies who are BEGGING for cash to stay alive.
If you say that Bush has so much power to drop the price of oil so quickly all on his own, then you have to admit that he had the power all along to keep this from happening in the first place, so which is it?- flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -1/+3There is no way in hell Bush dropped the price of oil in any way shape or form. It is not even remotely plausible and there is no point in even talking about it.
I agree that the tanking economy is very likely the cause of the oil drops.
My question to you is: How do you know who the oil speculators are?
There has been a major trend in foreign investments in publicly traded companies - more than every before I believe. What will happen to our economy when our biggest American companies are owned by foreign interests?
That is a very sobering concept. - ouorama, on 09/16/2008, -5/+2Here's the facts. Bush busted the speculation.
Bush lifted ban on on 7/14/2008.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/14/bush.offsho ...
Prices drop precisely after Bush lifts executive ban.
http://www.wtrg.com/daily/clfclose.gif
It's the Democrats that have been obstructing more drilling all along. They've blocked it in the Senate a dozen times and Clinton also vetoed more drilling. - flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -0/+3Stop posting that nonsense. Offshore drilling is still banned by congress. Bush did not do anything to drop the price of oil. Oil is dropping because the economy is tanking.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/15/markets/oil/index. ... - Nietz1950, on 09/16/2008, -1/+3ouorama, let's pretend for a second that the market really is irrational and oil fell to $100 because of Bush's empty gesture and not the failing economy.
OPEC recently announced $100 was too low and they would be cutting production by far more than we could hope to add through offshore drilling. Shouldn't this cause those pesky speculators to jump right back up?
It also shows your #3 theory is nonsense. If the US manages to increase production by 1% (which it probably won't because other US sources will decline by then), then other nations will CUT BACK in response. There's no theory that says everyone will produce more because the US does. It contradicts everything we know about this market.
Keeping prices high through supply is far more important to an oil state than matching the small fractional increase in the US. - 47f0, on 09/16/2008, -0/+2And the falling price of oil couldn't have anything at all to do with consumption, because, as we all know, meaningless executive gestures that have no effect matter far more than the fact that Americans have been driving from six to nine billion miles less each month.
No, it's not about supply and demand - it's about Bush waving his magic wand. - reyalp, on 09/16/2008, -1/+1Perfect straw man, 47f0
- flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -1/+3There is no way in hell Bush dropped the price of oil in any way shape or form. It is not even remotely plausible and there is no point in even talking about it.
- licnyc, on 09/16/2008, -1/+2Hello ouorama: just ignore the graph based on facts and math- pretend it doesn't exist. Stick fingers in ears, la la la la la.
Republicans think this hair brain scheme of drilling will work but its not based on reality. - sanosuke001, on 09/16/2008, -1/+0@ouorama
Maybe we want them to stop drilling? Maybe that's why we are all so opposed to drilling. Even if I knew for a fact that drilling right now would mean $0.50/gal relief, I would still want them to not drill. That means in the Gulf or Alaska.
We don't need more oil. We need people to stop being so short-sighted and put money into future energy technologies that can be sustained. The government should be subsidizing Solar, Wind, and other renewable energy sources instead of spending money on a fruitless war and paying for the mess that the financial bigwigs have gotten themselves into.
- ouorama, on 09/16/2008, -1/+10The fact of the matter is, we can cut oil consumption dramatically if we simply freed up natural gas and stopped using it for electrical generation and replace it with nuclear. We can't do that so long as a bunch of irrational tree huggers continue to spread FUD about nuclear power. The environmental movement needs to grow up and realize that the only way to coal independence and less oil is nuclear power. They should learn from the founder of Greenpeace Patrick Moore.
- dcshiderly, on 09/16/2008, -11/+0One: There is far more oil in the Gulf than we think. Two: These resources are only a stopgap, something to bridge the next ten years to build wind farms, solar panel factories, and more nuclear power. Like it or not, we're going to have to do both, drill like mad, and then reinvest the energy recovered into producing a completely new infrastructure for power generation and delivery in the US.
- Evicted, on 09/16/2008, -1/+3There may be a large amount of oil in the gulf, but much of it is currently inaccessible due to insufficiently advanced technology, there's also the issue of hurricanes, nobody wants millions of gallons of oil spilled into the gulf when the next big one hits.
- dcshiderly, on 09/16/2008, -2/+1These are solvable problems.
- Gutterpunk, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1@dcshiderly : They might be solvable, but not within the next 2-3 years. In fact, the problems Evicted described might not be solvable in the next 20 years.
- flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -1/+3No. We do not have to do both.
Drilling will not help American citizens AT ALL.- reyalp, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1I am impressed with the content of your alternative energy plan.
- reyalp, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1"It is in every country's best interest to increase their oil supply as quickly as possible." -- Flameboy, Sep 16 2008
- Evicted, on 09/16/2008, -1/+3There may be a large amount of oil in the gulf, but much of it is currently inaccessible due to insufficiently advanced technology, there's also the issue of hurricanes, nobody wants millions of gallons of oil spilled into the gulf when the next big one hits.
- Adam420, on 09/16/2008, -1/+7We need to go to other means of energy, fossil fuels are bad for the environment and we have the technology to do other things.
- teh_spazz, on 09/16/2008, -1/+2What are you doing about it?
I'm doing nothing. I want to do work in Stem Cell Research, at least I'm trying do something! - manoftheisland, on 09/16/2008, -1/+1but we don't have the money
- Evicted, on 09/16/2008, -0/+3the oil companies do, they just need to be convinced there's no future in oil
- teh_spazz, on 09/16/2008, -1/+2What are you doing about it?
- slapsomecrap, on 09/16/2008, -3/+5Is this graph before or after we take over the middle east?
- baconz, on 09/16/2008, -2/+17You'd be amazed just how money that tiny little yellow triangle means to the politicians who approve of raping their coastlines. Makes me sick.
- worldchanger, on 09/16/2008, -3/+1sensationalize much?
- flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -0/+2That tiny little yellow triangle translates into 280 million a DAY for big oil companies who happily reap the benefits of a skyrocketing oil market.
You can track hundreds of millions of dollars going to Bush, McCain, Cheney, and others in the GOP - all from big oil companies. Gee, I wonder why? - reyalp, on 09/16/2008, -1/+2Gee, I wonder why you don't present any alternatives, flameboy?
- kcnarf, on 09/16/2008, -0/+0Alternatives as in alternative energy, mass public transportation, more bike lanes, nuclear energy, research into new energy sources, subsidizing of denser urban areas, viable urban transportation network of buses, trolleys, and subways, higher fuel efficiency standards, plug-in hybrids, electric cars, solar power, wind power, hydroelectric power, biomass fuel, more carpool lanes, more fuel efficient building codes, more fuel efficient appliances, natural gas cars, better urban development....... drill, drill, drill? Right.
- kcnarf, on 09/16/2008, -0/+7Maybe someone needs to drill in McCain's head, and inject some common sense in it.
- reyalp, on 09/16/2008, -0/+2Gee, I wonder why you don't present any alternatives, kcnarf?
- kcnarf, on 09/16/2008, -0/+0Alternatives as in alternative energy, mass public transportation, more bike lanes, nuclear energy, research into new energy sources, subsidizing of denser urban areas, viable urban transportation network of buses, trolleys, and subways, higher fuel efficiency standards, plug-in hybrids, electric cars, solar power, wind power, hydroelectric power, biomass fuel, more carpool lanes, more fuel efficient building codes, more fuel efficient appliances, natural gas cars, better urban development....... drill, drill, drill? Right.
- fani, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1I think the Vietnamese did that to this Manchurian candidate....but they took the common sense out.
- sanosuke001, on 09/16/2008, -0/+0Just inject some oil. He'll be better off...
- reyalp, on 09/16/2008, -0/+2Gee, I wonder why you don't present any alternatives, kcnarf?
- manoftheisland, on 09/16/2008, -10/+2i guess no one here has every heard "every little bit helps" and that 200,000 barrells equals 20 millions dollars back into our economy... every little bit helps. and if we drill in ANWR that will help as well. and with our slow move to better MPG cars here in the us we are slowly lower how much oil we use... it will matter and does matter.
- omegared, on 09/16/2008, -0/+3the American public and government has shown there is not plan for the future. Why can't people simply conserve and use less oil? That is a faster way to decrease foreign oil use. What is different now than when Jimmy carter talked about the same topic 30years ago? What has changed since bush talked about America being addicted to oil? American can increase their supply, Opec will simply decrease theirs to keep the price high.
Funny you say every little bit helps right? Than why was John McCain lashing out against Obama for recommending proper tire pressure to help reduce oil usage? - Nietz1950, on 09/16/2008, -0/+3"Every little bit helps" is very different from the McCain strategy of pretending this is a solution to energy.
Popular Mechanics pointed out the "inflating tires" solution would save just as much oil. These things are really too small to waste to be the center of any energy strategy, but Republicans are really being led to believe it is going to make a noticeable difference.
There really is an environmental cost to drilling, and there is an additional risk of an ecological disaster. These things should be considered as well. - cedarbaydave, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1True, it will help. I too believe in taking steps that help even if not massive. I agree with Mr. Pickens. Let's go for the oil now, but understand it is a small bandage while the other sources are obtained.
Obama made a simple suggestion that would help as well about proper inflated tires and was ridiculed by these energy experts, and that one can be helpful right away.
It will be a much better America when we can embrace things that will help us all rather than ridicule if it comes from the other party. - enantiodromia, on 09/16/2008, -0/+4an extra $20,000,000? That's not even a molecule in a drop in the bucket of what this is all about.
Washington spends $20,000,000 every morning before they even reach for the snooze button. - reyalp, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1omegared: Because the tire pressure thing is a bunch of horse *****. Everyone I know started checking tire pressure after gasoline hit $3/gallon.
Pickens is right, and it doesn't look like either major candidate recognizes that fact.
- omegared, on 09/16/2008, -0/+3the American public and government has shown there is not plan for the future. Why can't people simply conserve and use less oil? That is a faster way to decrease foreign oil use. What is different now than when Jimmy carter talked about the same topic 30years ago? What has changed since bush talked about America being addicted to oil? American can increase their supply, Opec will simply decrease theirs to keep the price high.
- badastronaut, on 09/16/2008, -7/+1Hey idiots, if you havent noticed there isnt a single new source of energy that makes up a chunk that size (other than nuke which you same idiots complaining have a problem with), the figure given doesnt include anwar, it's an obviously biased source, and the only solution to the problem is many solutions, drilling being one of them, did I use enough commas?
- Evicted, on 09/16/2008, -0/+4ANWR reserves are estimated at about 10 billion barrels, even if you stretched that amount out, it would account for a tiny fraction of the oil needed to meet demand and would last for only a handful of years. in fact the speculative oil production of ANWR would peak within 3 years of its opening. It would have absolutely zero effect on gas prices or oil reserves and a huge effect on the environment. its not a solution, its just yet another problem.
- badastronaut, on 09/16/2008, -1/+0By that logic we should than also give up on wind power, ecetera ecetera you're retarded.
You're the type of person who would starve to death in a garden becuase there wasnt enough food to make you full or there wasnt a particluar food. If you need something, DUH, you ***** USE it. - Evicted, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1Bringing wind power into this is an absolutely false comparison considering wind power is a sustainable resource whereas ripping up a wildlife reserve for an insignificant amount of oil is not.. I don't even think you know your own argument.
Obviously you don't really understand the political underpinnings of ANWR if you think the US needs the oil. Its a waste of time and valuable infrastructure and in the long run will cost the US far more than the value of any oil extracted.
I suggest you read up on ANWR and oil politics before resorting to logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks, the only argument you're disparaging is your own.
- badastronaut, on 09/16/2008, -1/+0By that logic we should than also give up on wind power, ecetera ecetera you're retarded.
- enantiodromia, on 09/16/2008, -1/+1whose complaining about nuclear power?
the only thing that scares me about putting up dozens of new nuke plants all over the country, is that they are juicy terrorism targets, and with the way things have been going lately, that sounds like a bad idea. when you consider why we are even fighting in the mid east in the first place, it's the definition of irony.- badastronaut, on 09/16/2008, -0/+0We've secured an entire country, I think we can do it to a couple reletivly tiny buildings in that country.
- flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -0/+2Obviously a biased source?
"Data Source: US Energy Information Administration"
You are just grasping at straws, trying to find a way for drilling to be part of the answer. Drilling is conclusively NOT any part of the answer. It will not help Americans now, in 5 years, or in 30 years. It will do nothing but harm the environment and give more money to big oil.- badastronaut, on 09/16/2008, -0/+0ecogeek.org??? Why didnt they include ONshore drilling??? To skew the numbers???
- badastronaut, on 09/16/2008, -0/+0Yeah, and riding bicycles to work and taking public transportation would help even less than drilling. I don't see you throwing those partial solutions out the window. Why? Becuase every little thing counts and is necesary becaue we don't have one big thing to save the day. I thought I explained this to you already?
- Evicted, on 09/16/2008, -0/+4ANWR reserves are estimated at about 10 billion barrels, even if you stretched that amount out, it would account for a tiny fraction of the oil needed to meet demand and would last for only a handful of years. in fact the speculative oil production of ANWR would peak within 3 years of its opening. It would have absolutely zero effect on gas prices or oil reserves and a huge effect on the environment. its not a solution, its just yet another problem.
- NiGHTSChao, on 09/16/2008, -0/+9I still don't understand how people can honestly think that oil in alaska will magically teleport itself here in time for us to use it, let alone all 10 people to use it while everyone else is *****
- jerbaker, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1For those passing the bill, it's not about who gets to use it. It's about who gets to profit from it. For those that believe it will help them, well they believe a lot of things that aren't backed up by any evidence at all. Maybe they'll start forcing history instructors to teach students what an almighty, righteous leader our George W. was. Call it "intelligent history" or something.
- carlosos, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1The time doesn't matter as much. If we know that there will be more fuel in 10 years than the prices will go down before even the fuel is pumped. The speculations are what keep the prices high and if they believe we won't run out of fuel that soon than the prices will drop.
The little additional drilling might not help too much but it is better than doing nothing. It also doesn't mean that we can't also move at the same time to other energy sources.
- Fun4Two, on 09/16/2008, -1/+0How about everyone sell their cars and tell everyone one in Houston to "***** Off". Maybe people in the press will pay attention to Digg.
- Richandler, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1How about the idea that international commerce keeps us out of war with countries and benefits the citizens of both.
- Hovhannes, on 09/16/2008, -0/+7Yay McCain Drill Baby Drill woohoo ya! That was the summation of the RNC
- reyalp, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1For his proposed 10-year, $150 billion overhaul of the nation's energy system to get bipartisan support, he wants to allow a "limited amount" of offshore drilling.
Oh wait, that's Obama's stance. My bad!
- reyalp, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1For his proposed 10-year, $150 billion overhaul of the nation's energy system to get bipartisan support, he wants to allow a "limited amount" of offshore drilling.
- cedarbaydave, on 09/16/2008, -1/+18Another Palin lie in her speeches is that the US gets 20% of its energy resources from Alaska. FactCheck.org puts the number at 3.5%.
- reyalp, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1I don't know if you were alive then, but Alaska was making 2Mbbls/day of crude back in the 80s.
- cedarbaydave, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1What does that have to do with Ms. Palin lying about it?
I do agree with Mr. Pickens, that we should use our resources while we establish alternative energy resources as well.
I just am fed up with Ms. Palin lying constantly and not taking questions. It is embarrassing.
I guess it is status quo though:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOQn749k6kw
- cedarbaydave, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1What does that have to do with Ms. Palin lying about it?
- jerbaker, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1Ya, but you can't trust those fact-checking organizations.
- reyalp, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1I don't know if you were alive then, but Alaska was making 2Mbbls/day of crude back in the 80s.
- spoering, on 09/16/2008, -2/+3Forget about foreign oil, according to this graph, peak oil no longer exits!
If we could really have more oil in 2030 than we have now, I wouldn't give a damn where it came from!- enantiodromia, on 09/16/2008, -1/+1it's not "more oil", it's "different oil"
we would have to get out of bed with Saudi Arabia to make this pain go away, which won't happen in our life times.
- enantiodromia, on 09/16/2008, -1/+1it's not "more oil", it's "different oil"
- draculthemad, on 09/16/2008, -1/+10Its been said before. Its an entire non-issue. OPEC has already proven they are willing to cut their own production in order to maintain the 100$ barrel figure. A slight increase of domestic production will do nothing to overcome that.
- flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -0/+7Exactly!
OPEC can adjust the price of oil to whatever they want because they control so much of the oil market! All they do is cut production to raise the price.
We start drilling and gain an extra 200k barrels a day, OPEC cuts production by 200k barrels a day. Guess what? The price of oil doesn't move!
Why can't people realize this? - jerbaker, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1What people should notice, and learn a lesson from, was that all it took to slash the price of oil almost in half over two months was to reduce consumption by 2%. So, on the one hand we have drilling our environment in a futile attempt to manipulate the price of oil, or you could take the bus, bike, or walk to work 6 days a year and strongly affect the price of oil. Guess which one we'll choose. HINT: It's the choice that let's us sit on our ass and do nothing while a few profit off of the property of the American people.
- thomn8r, on 09/16/2008, -0/+0And the next time OPEC meets, they'll reduce production by a similar amount, and prices will come back up.
- thomn8r, on 09/16/2008, -0/+0And the next time OPEC meets, they'll reduce production by a similar amount, and prices will come back up.
- carlosos, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1So, we have to socialize our oil companies like our banks, now?
[/joke]
- flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -0/+7Exactly!
- Philbert, on 09/16/2008, -0/+2Anyone watch Project Earth? Anyone read Digg? It's hard to believe our oil use, foreign or not, is going to go up that much.
- HotSaucePanCake, on 09/16/2008, -7/+2Every little bit helps and it creates American jobs. Would you tell the small business owner that he should not open up shop simply because his output cant match that of his competitors?
We should all sit on our asses and cry about things, all day, every day.- flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -3/+5Right, because drilling for more oil is the only way to create more jobs?
Are you totally brain dead? - Sogladtobehere, on 09/16/2008, -1/+3And the only way to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil? Try getting an American-made hybrid vehicle or installing solar panels on your friggin' house. Both of these things create jobs and reduce your dependence on the Middle East while preserving your environment.
- HotSaucePanCake, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1Right because i want my car running on batteries which are far more harmful to not only the environment but people. I can see it now an landfill full of nickel and lithium!!!
- flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -3/+5Right, because drilling for more oil is the only way to create more jobs?
- Lavarock, on 09/16/2008, -7/+1Oh, it won't fix all of our problems. ***** it then! YAYYYYYY
- wh3873, on 09/16/2008, -7/+0Uh how do they know the oil consumption of the US in 2010 let alone 2030. I'd like to know where they got their data so I can get some lottery numbers.
- flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -0/+6Well, at the bottom of the image it reads:
"Data Source: US Energy Information Administration"- vanjab, on 09/16/2008, -2/+1Its called statistics and inference, go back to school.
Lotto isn't even remotely similar because its a no-memory game.
- vanjab, on 09/16/2008, -2/+1Its called statistics and inference, go back to school.
- vanjab, on 09/16/2008, -1/+4It's called statistics.
Lotto is a no-memory game so the same theories can not be applied to estimate future results.
Thanks for showing the mathematical knowledge of a 12 year old.
- flameboy, on 09/16/2008, -0/+6Well, at the bottom of the image it reads:
- vanjab, on 09/16/2008, -1/+2This graph is a lie, china will no doubt consume all the oil in the world by 2010.
- jmaica26, on 09/16/2008, -0/+2That's very logical. Just say yes to HYBRID and ELECTRIC CARS.
- yoda17, on 09/16/2008, -4/+2As all of the environmentalist like to say...every little bit helps. I think it applies equally well in both cases.
- jerbaker, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1That is true, but there is a trade off. A lot of people don't think the environmental risk is worth the small gain.
- Kiganshee, on 09/16/2008, -0/+0But nobody's debating that, are they? Articles like this drive me nuts... yes, limited offshore drilling is a small piece of the pie. Yes, there is no way we can drill out of the current energy mess.......... but none of those are arguments against drilling in the offshore. Offshore drilling is a small (but helpful -- remember, the federal government gets 12.5% off the top of all oil revenues) piece of a larger energy strategy, which needs to focus first on consumption and then on future alternative energy sources.
Now if you'd like to have a debate about the risk being worth the gain, that is a debate worth having. (notice how this article and 99% of the commenters are not interested in that debate?) Personally, I think you've overestimated the risk and underestimated the gain. Remember -- this won't be drilling rigs setting up in shoreline wetland areas (that would never be allowed environmentally). Realistically, we are talking about platforms that will be in deeper water, at least a mile offshore. And while "we didn't spill a drop in Katrina" is an exaggeration, if you look at the numbers you'll be surprised how little it was. Of course, you have your opinion and I have mine.
But the real thing that drives me nuts is people making arguments that actually have very little to bear on the issue. Yes, congratulations, you're right, offshore drilling is not going to solve our energy problem. Here's a cookie. But the fact that it won't solve all our problems doesn't mean it won't help out.
- Sogladtobehere, on 09/16/2008, -1/+4Q: Why isn't this in every major newspaper in America?
A: Your media is owned by oil companies.- tehxen3, on 09/16/2008, -1/+3Care to offer some supporting evidence for your claim, sir?
- Sogladtobehere, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1Sorry, I should clarify. The oil companies simply hold your media hostage through their billion dollar advertising budgets. If stories come out that are too negative, the oil companies and their business partners simply threaten to take their advertising dollars elsewhere. And it's not just Big Oil; Big Pharm, Big Beef, Big Dairy, they all do the same thing.
But in the mean time you might want to look up General Electric's connections with Bechtel (jointly building pipelines) and Time Warner's connections with Ovation Data Services. Google it.
- Sogladtobehere, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1Sorry, I should clarify. The oil companies simply hold your media hostage through their billion dollar advertising budgets. If stories come out that are too negative, the oil companies and their business partners simply threaten to take their advertising dollars elsewhere. And it's not just Big Oil; Big Pharm, Big Beef, Big Dairy, they all do the same thing.
- Sogladtobehere, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1I'm sure you've at least heard of General Electric? Well did you know that on top of an enormous percentage of your media, General Electric also owns significant holdings in the oil and gas industry? Specifically they are jointly building a $2.5 billion trans-Caspian gas pipeline with Bechtel. But don't take my word for it, look it up.
Some handy links to help you on your journey:
http://prorev.com/bushwaroil.htm
http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/communications ...
I'm sure you've heard of a small company named Time Warner? Yeah, that's right, they're the largest media corporation in the world, Time Warner owns film and music production companies, theme parks, sports teams, magazines, websites and book publishers as well as Turner Broadcasting. But did you know that they own an enterprise called Ovation Data Services? Ovation Data Services "provides the oil and gas industry with thousands of large seismic data sets, many worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, sitting in remote storage locations" (that last bit from a Time Warner press release available here: http://www.ovationdata.com/press/Ovation%20-%20Tim ...
I know that uncovering these connections takes a little leg work, but it's well worth the journey in the end. Knowing who controls what you read and hear is a big first step to getting to the truth.
- tehxen3, on 09/16/2008, -1/+3Care to offer some supporting evidence for your claim, sir?
