Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: Dems have a plan on energy

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393

    Dems have a plan on energy

    No action is a plan, right?

    [IMG]http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m73/spiritofweeb/Politics/gasprices-1.jpg[/IMG]

  2. #2
    [QUOTE=Spirit of Weeb;2632059]No action is a plan, right?

    [IMG]http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m73/spiritofweeb/Politics/gasprices-1.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

    Do you ever post anything of substance? Or is it always this kind of crap?

    I mean what's the point of the graphic? Dems will fvck up worse than GOP??? :confused:

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=FF2®;2632101]Do you ever post anything of substance? Or is it always this kind of crap?

    I mean what's the point of the graphic? Dems will fvck up worse than GOP??? :confused:[/QUOTE]

    I have to assume the point is that the Democratic Party today has no intention, incentive or reason to do anything whatsoever to lower the cost or increase the availabillity of gasoline and other petroluem based fuels.

    As it stands now, it seems pretty clear the Democrats favor (or at the least tacitly approve of) increased prices, which will lower useage of what they see as an "environmentaly evil" fuel/energy source. The higher the cost and lower the availabillity, the less of it will be used, and the worse the Republican presidential Administration will look leading into the election.

    It appears they believe this will both propel them politically vs. the Republicans, and propel their "End Oil, Fund Alt-Fuel, Save the Planet from Global Climate Warming Change" energy agenda.

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2632130]I have to assume the point is that the Democratic Party today has no intention, incentive or reason to do anything whatsoever to lower the cost or increase the availabillity of gasoline and other petroluem based fuels.

    As it stands now, it seems pretty clear the Democrats favor (or at the least tacitly approve of) increased prices, which will lower useage of what they see as an "environmentaly evil" fuel/energy source. The higher the cost and lower the availabillity, the less of it will be used, and the worse the Republican presidential Administration will look leading into the election.

    It appears they believe this will both propel them politically vs. the Republicans, and propel their "End Oil, Fund Alt-Fuel, Save the Planet from Global Climate Warming Change" energy agenda.[/QUOTE]

    First of all, neither party has any plan to lower gas prices because there is absolutely no step that they can take that will do that. The oil market is global, and the U.S. is not a major player in it (outside of our outsized consumption) and there is no step that either party can take that will lower prices now or ever. (If prices come down, it will be due to happenings elsewhere, where the real stockpiles of oil actually are.) There are several "steps" the GOP has opted to take (offshore drilling, gas tax holiday) that make it appear to be doing that, but it is simple fact that these will have no impact on pricing and everyone involved knows it. GWB himself said the impact of new drilling was strictly psychological.

    Warfish is actually half right on the evil fuel source bit, but he has the motives wrong. I think what green-minded folks want to see come of this pricing crisis is a market-driven push to further the development/adoption of alternative energy sources. The hope is that high oil prices fuel investment in non-oil sources, in the same way that low oil prices brought us the Hummer.

    Historically, this is what happens. In the 1970s, both the Carter and Nixon administrations had some ambitious plans to seriously back alternative energy and to develop less reliance on oil. That was a response to crippling energy prices. After oil prices dropped, Reagan killed all of these initiatives.

    We will never have even the slightest leverage over oil prices. The more we develop and depend on non-oil sources of energy, the better off we will be in the long run.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2632160]First of all, neither party has any plan to lower gas prices because there is absolutely no step that they can take that will do that. The oil market is global, and the U.S. is not a major player in it (outside of our outsized consumption) and there is no step that either party can take that will lower prices now or ever. (If prices come down, it will be due to happenings elsewhere, where the real stockpiles of oil actually are.) There are several "steps" the GOP has opted to take (offshore drilling, gas tax holiday) that make it appear to be doing that, but it is simple fact that these will have no impact on pricing and everyone involved knows it. GWB himself said the impact of new drilling was strictly psychological.

    Warfish is actually half right on the evil fuel source bit, but he has the motives wrong. I think what green-minded folks want to see come of this pricing crisis is a market-driven push to further the development/adoption of alternative energy sources. The hope is that high oil prices fuel investment in non-oil sources, in the same way that low oil prices brought us the Hummer.

    Historically, this is what happens. In the 1970s, both the Carter and Nixon administrations had some ambitious plans to seriously back alternative energy and to develop less reliance on oil. That was a response to crippling energy prices. After oil prices dropped, Reagan killed all of these initiatives.

    We will never have even the slightest leverage over oil prices. The more we develop and depend on non-oil sources of energy, the better off we will be in the long run.[/QUOTE]

    Well said. Although I do think the the introduction of natural gas vehicles and smart coal will help significantly in the short run. Obviously, reducing vehicle size and increasing efficiency will make a difference as well. I'm a bit sceptical about "advanced bio-fuels" which appears to mean ethanol. Ironically, the cost to produce corn is not being offset by the price to be gotten for ethanol, resulting in a lot of plants shutting down...

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Boynton Beach, Florida
    Posts
    6,185
    [quote=Spirit of Weeb;2632059]No action is a plan, right?

    [IMG]http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m73/spiritofweeb/Politics/gasprices-1.jpg[/IMG][/quote]

    More likely more government and more constraints

    </IMG>

  7. #7
    For me I think it's a good thing to have these higher gas prices. It's forcing us to take a look elsewhere. The U.S has enjoyed low gas prices for a very long time while many countries in Europe have had to deal with incredibly high prices for a while now. Perhaps I feel this way because I bought myself a manual drive Civic and get good gas mileage and am happy I considered that into my purchase 3 years ago. Unlike my buddy who bought himself a hemi Dodge Ram.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2632160]First of all, neither party has any plan to lower gas prices because there is absolutely no step that they can take that will do that.[/quote]

    That seems rather simplistic to me. For example, our Govt. could choose to implement a price ceiling on gasoline. That would certainly lower prices.

    And while you can choose to ignore, minimize or in some other way laugh at the idea of drilling/refinining, it IS a plan to lower gasoline prices.

    You simply believe the Democratic talking-point position that it will take 100 Million years to get into the market, and will only lower the price by $0.0000001 even then. Of course, even a small announcement of increased supply dropped the price by $4.00 in the middle of a $9.00 drop you have no explaination for, but why should that suprise us.

    Your claim simply isn't a fact, much as you wish it were, but an opinion. Just like the opinion that merely funding Alt-Fuel (subsidies and corporate welfare for Big-Altfuel Corporations in reality) will somehow take less time to help the peoples energy needs, and have more of an effect short-term.

    It's either a lie, or outright ignorance.

    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2632160]The oil market is global, and the U.S. is not a major player in it (outside of our outsized consumption) and there is no step that either party can take that will lower prices now or ever.[/quote]

    Again, with all due respect Nuu, the worlds largest consumer of the product can and does have an effect on the Global Market. We are not a bit player in any form whatsoever. And our own Oil Options are not nearly as limited as you so try to claim.

    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2632160](If prices come down, it will be due to happenings elsewhere, where the real stockpiles of oil actually are.)[/quote]

    Again, you have chosen to buy into this particular piece of "whoa is us, we can do nothing, we are at the mercy of blah blah blah" propaganda.

    I suppose to support the Democrats on this issue, you must, as it is clear they have no intention whatsoever to work on the price issue.

    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2632160]There are several "steps" the GOP has opted to take (offshore drilling, gas tax holiday) that make it appear to be doing that, but it is simple fact that these will have no impact on pricing and everyone involved knows it.[/quote]

    No sir, we do not. In fact, many of us think those of you who spout this proaganda are outright liars for your political party.

    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2632160]GWB himself said the impact of new drilling was strictly psychological.[/quote]

    And to ignore that even a psychological effect can and would have an effect is blatantly dishonest. But I suppose it's a must for you in order to believe so deeply in the Democrat proaganda on this issue.

    As if speculation by investors in the futures market is unaffected by psychology. Right.

    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2632160]Warfish is actually half right on the evil fuel source bit, but he has the motives wrong. I think what green-minded folks want to see come of this pricing crisis is a market-driven push to further the development/adoption of alternative energy sources.[/quote]

    And I think that is an outright lie.

    If the Dems and their Green supporters could outlaw Oil fuel tomorrow and get away with it, I guarantee you, they would. Democrats do not have any respect or appreciation for "the market solutions" and to suggest what you do above is patently laughable (or willfully dishonest) in the face of the reality of the Democratic Party today.

    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2632160]We will never have even the slightest leverage over oil prices. The more we develop and depend on non-oil sources of energy, the better off we will be in the long run.[/QUOTE]

    This is why discussion of this issue with you and your ilk is impossible. You have so deeply bought into your parties propaganda, you cann't see anything else. You just keep repeating the mantra over and over "No effect, Only a penny, 1000 years, Oil is Evil".

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=Spirit of Weeb;2632059]No action is a plan, right?

    [IMG]http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m73/spiritofweeb/Politics/gasprices-1.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]if you think he doesn't have a clue about an energy policy you should read his health plan.talk about a fantasy...

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2632160]First of all, neither party has any plan to lower gas prices because there is absolutely no step that they can take that will do that. The oil market is global, and the U.S. is not a major player in it (outside of our outsized consumption) and there is no step that either party can take that will lower prices now or ever. (If prices come down, it will be due to happenings elsewhere, where the real stockpiles of oil actually are.) There are several "steps" the GOP has opted to take (offshore drilling, gas tax holiday) that make it appear to be doing that, but it is simple fact that these will have no impact on pricing and everyone involved knows it. GWB himself said the impact of new drilling was strictly psychological.

    Warfish is actually half right on the evil fuel source bit, but he has the motives wrong. I think what green-minded folks want to see come of this pricing crisis is a market-driven push to further the development/adoption of alternative energy sources. The hope is that high oil prices fuel investment in non-oil sources, in the same way that low oil prices brought us the Hummer.

    Historically, this is what happens. In the 1970s, both the Carter and Nixon administrations had some ambitious plans to seriously back alternative energy and to develop less reliance on oil. That was a response to crippling energy prices. After oil prices dropped, Reagan killed all of these initiatives.

    We will never have even the slightest leverage over oil prices. The more we develop and depend on non-oil sources of energy, the better off we will be in the long run.[/QUOTE]the us is not a major player??? did you copy this from some site without reading it first?

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2632204]That seems rather simplistic to me. For example, our Govt. could choose to implement a price ceiling on gasoline. That would certainly lower prices.

    And while you can choose to ignore, minimize or in some other way laugh at the idea of drilling/refinining, it IS a plan to lower gasoline prices.

    You simply believe the Democratic talking-point position that it will take 100 Million years to get into the market, and will only lower the price by $0.0000001 even then. Of course, even a small announcement of increased supply dropped the price by $4.00 in the middle of a $9.00 drop you have no explaination for, but why should that suprise us.

    Your claim simply isn't a fact, much as you wish it were, but an opinion. Just like the opinion that merely funding Alt-Fuel (subsidies and corporate welfare for Big-Altfuel Corporations in reality) will somehow take less time to help the peoples energy needs, and have more of an effect short-term.

    It's either a lie, or outright ignorance.

    Again, with all due respect Nuu, the worlds largest consumer of the product can and does have an effect on the Global Market. We are not a bit player in any form whatsoever. And our own Oil Options are not nearly as limited as you so try to claim.

    Again, you have chosen to buy into this particular piece of "whoa is us, we can do nothing, we are at the mercy of blah blah blah" propaganda.

    I suppose to support the Democrats on this issue, you must, as it is clear they have no intention whatsoever to work on the price issue.


    .[/QUOTE]

    The $9 drop I have no explanation for?

    The explanation is that supply was supposed to go down and it went up. That's what I wrote in that thread. That's what the Bloomberg story you posted said.

    You invented from whole cloth the notion that drilling that has not even been remotely approved and is still incredibly unlikely to occur is in some way responsible for current oil pricing.

    You are right, however, to point out that our consumption makes us a player. (I did allude to that in my first post.) Guess how we use that leverage? By using less oil and coming up with ways to make it obsolete in some ways.

    If we can get traction for say, residential solar, that will have an increase on demand, and pricing.

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=2foolish197;2632207]the us is not a major player??? did you copy this from some site without reading it first?[/QUOTE]

    He's referring to our oil reserves, not our consumption. The US is not a major player from the perspective of oil reserves in influencing prices.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2632231]He's referring to our oil reserves, not our consumption. The US is not a major player from the perspective of oil reserves in influencing prices.[/QUOTE]

    Correct.

    Obviously we buy a lot of the stuff, which impacts prices. Our only leverage over global oil prices --whether we drill more or not-- is to use a lot less oil. Hence my affinity for solar, fuel cells, nukes (I break with my party there) and wind.

    I really see no reason that, by the end of the next president's term, we shouldn't have significantly more alternative sources for residential/commercial energy use, and also far better fuel efficiency on the roads.

    If you can do those two things, the price of oil will drop because the biggest customer won't be buying as much of it.

    Drilling, on the other hand, doesn';t increase supply beyond a rounding error. It will make no discernible impact on price, and --if we use it as an excuse not to focus as much on alternatives-- it will wind up being a very costly distraction.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2632258](I break with my party there) and wind. [/QUOTE]

    Dear Lord.......

    ......sometimes I wonder if I am five years old or watch too much Family Guy, cause this string of words made me giggle. Break, wind, lol.

    Sorry to interupt the serious debate, but...eh, lol.

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2632258]Correct.

    Obviously we buy a lot of the stuff, which impacts prices. Our only leverage over global oil prices --whether we drill more or not-- is to use a lot less oil. Hence my affinity for solar, fuel cells, nukes (I break with my party there) and wind.

    I really see no reason that, by the end of the next president's term, we shouldn't have significantly more alternative sources for residential/commercial energy use, and also far better fuel efficiency on the roads.

    If you can do those two things, the price of oil will drop because the biggest customer won't be buying as much of it.

    Drilling, on the other hand, doesn';t increase supply beyond a rounding error. It will make no discernible impact on price, and --if we use it as an excuse not to focus as much on alternatives-- it will wind up being a very costly distraction.[/QUOTE]

    Ok, now that I've finished giggling over fart jokes, a new question:

    If U.S. Oil Supply is meaningless (not a player in the global economy) and we have no way outside or reduced use to even glancingly touch the price, then I ask you this:

    --Why not make ALL Oil Drilling inside U.S. territory Illegal?

    If what we produce is meaningless (your claim) and anything new we might get also meaningless (your claim) and our own domestic supply is utterly tiny and worthless to the global market.....they why allow it to be drilled at all, why not make drilling inside the U.S 100% illegal and protect our (local) environemnt that way?

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2632276]Ok, now that I've finished giggling over fart jokes, a new question:

    If U.S. Oil Supply is meaningless (not a player in the global economy) and we have no way outside or reduced use to even glancingly touch the price, then I ask you this:

    --Why not make ALL Oil Drilling inside U.S. territory Illegal?

    If what we produce is meaningless (your claim) and anything new we might get also meaningless (your claim) and our own domestic supply is utterly tiny and worthless to the global market.....they why allow it to be drilled at all, why not make drilling inside the U.S 100% illegal and protect our (local) environemnt that way?[/QUOTE]


    The hypothetical is built on a faulty assumption: It assumes what is left to drill is somehow similar in scale to what is already drilled. It's not.

    If ALL the oil in the U.S. went away immediately, that would make global prices rise somewhat. But adding an incremental amount to the mix really would have no discernible impact.

    Plus, the holes are already drilled, many of them in places with no real environmental harm. And the existing wells are also owned by American businesses, and I know how much you hate confiscatory policies.

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    I know some hate the cut and paste posting, but this article from USA Today offers a pretty fair outline of the pro's and con's of offshore drilling. It left me thinking that the environmental argument has significantly weakened over the years with improved technology, yet at the same time wondering how the relatively small margin of gain in overall production will really matter, especially given the long runways involved. Warfish, you may be right: it's might not be worth bothering.

    [I]Worth the risk? Debate on offshore drilling heats up
    By Rick Jervis, William M. Welch and Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
    PORT FOURCHON, La. — From his perch at the southern tip of Louisiana, port director Ted Falgout sees green: the color of money that comes from the nation's busiest haven of offshore drilling.
    "It's OK to have an ugly spot in your backyard," Falgout says, "if that spot has oil coming out of it."

    From her vantage point in Santa Barbara, Calif., a city known for beautiful beaches and wealthy residents, Mayor Marty Blum recalls black: the color of more than 3 million gallons of oil that flowed from a drilling rig blowout in 1969 and covered 35 miles of coastline with a thick layer of goo.

    "The people of Santa Barbara don't want any more oil drilling. That's just pretty plain," she says. "But everybody's got a price, and at a certain price per gallon, we're all going to want more drilling."

    Environmental hazard or energy bonanza: Oil and natural gas trapped beneath the USA's ocean floor mean different things to different people. As gasoline soars beyond $4 a gallon, President Bush and his would-be Republican successor, John McCain, see a viable source of domestic production. Democrat Barack Obama and the nation's environmentalists see a threat to pristine waters and beaches — and little help at the pump from offshore drilling.

    It's a debate with a rising decibel level, thanks to an energy crisis fueled by rising demand halfway around the world.

    The United States consumes nearly one-fourth of the world's oil but produces only about 10%. Its 1.76 billion-acre Outer Continental Shelf, which extends from about 3 to 200 miles offshore, is prime hunting ground.

    In 2006, a consortium led by Chevron proved that oil could be produced from a geological area about 175 miles from Louisiana that's estimated to hold 3 billion to 15 billion barrels of oil.

    Since Congress imposed a moratorium on new drilling in 1981, most of the nation's coastline has been off-limits — a type of ban that does not exist in countries such as Brazil and Norway, which have found large oil deposits offshore. As prices rise, polls show two-thirds of Americans favor new drilling for oil and gas.

    "The big discoveries are happening offshore," says Robert Bryce, managing editor of Energy Tribune. "This is where the action is."

    By most estimates, at least 18 billion barrels of oil can be produced from areas that are off-limits, on top of 68 billion barrels in areas where drilling is allowed. The 18 billion barrels would be enough to fuel the country for 2˝ years.

    Randall Luthi, director of the Minerals Management Service, says the estimate is "extremely conservative, because it's been 20 or 30 years since we've had the opportunity to look and see what's there."

    A tale of two coasts

    No two places illustrate the two sides of the debate better than Louisiana and California, where much oil has been produced but much more lies below:

    •Louisiana has had offshore drilling since 1947. About 172 active rigs dot the Gulf of Mexico waters off the coast, producing about 79% of the oil and 72% of the natural gas that comes from drilling off the nation's coastlines.

    The state gets about $1.5 billion annually in oil and gas revenue, a figure that will grow when it starts receiving part of oil companies' royalty payments in 2017 under federal law.

    "It's absolutely worth it," says Garret Graves, head of the Governor's Office of Coastal Activities.

    The biggest environmental impact has been the estimated 10,000 miles of canals dug by the oil and gas companies to transport oil and lay pipelines.

    The canals crisscross the coastal wetlands of Louisiana and have contributed to coastal erosion, says Mark Davis of Tulane University.

    Environmentalists say the canals and lack of marshland removed an important natural buffer against storms and amplified Hurricane Katrina's damage.

    Offshore drilling also draws bustling ports, pipelines, petrochemical plants and other infrastructure that can disrupt natural coastal ecosystems.

    "Where you have oil and gas, you have petrochemical plants," says Cynthia Sarthou of the Gulf Restoration Network. "I haven't seen one come without the other."

    •California was home to the first U.S. offshore oil production in 1896, from a wooden pier in Summerland. Today, it's easy to spot oil rigs from coastal highways and the pricey seaside real estate that dots Santa Barbara County's hillsides.

    There are 26 oil and gas drilling platforms off the southern California coast and 1,500 active wells. Those in federal waters have produced more than 1 billion barrels of oil and 1.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas since the 1960s, says John Romero of the Minerals Management Service.

    Since the 1969 spill, he says, they've spilled only 852 barrels of oil, the result of better technology and regulatory vigilance.

    Federal geologists, Romero says, estimate an additional 10 billion barrels of oil and 16 trillion cubic feet of natural gas are under the sea floor in areas where drilling is banned. But producers are mindful that, since 1969, public opinion has not been on their side.

    "Our industry has gotten a pretty clear message from the California public that at least up until recently, there was not much interest in seeing new drilling off California," says Joe Sparano, president of the Western States Petroleum Association.

    'Oil and water don't mix'

    Environmentalists see two basic problems from offshore drilling: pollution from everyday operations and oil spills from platforms, pipelines and tankers.

    On both fronts, they acknowledge, the industry has improved through the years.

    "Today's technology is much better at routine drilling, at avoiding the kinds of seepages that were common a generation ago," says Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen.

    Even so, there are still risks.

    When oil is brought up from beneath the ocean floor, other things are, too. Chemicals and toxic substances such as mercury and lead can be discharged back into the ocean.

    The water pumped up along with the oil may contain benzene, arsenic and other pollutants. Even the exploration that precedes drilling, which depends on seismic air guns, can harm sea mammals.

    "Basically, oil and water don't mix," says Melanie Duchin of the environmental group Greenpeace, who lives in Alaska and still sees pollution from the 11 million-gallon Exxon Valdez spill of 1989, which supplanted Santa Barbara as the nation's worst. "Oil smothers wildlife."

    Government officials and industry specialists say improved technology and government oversight have made routine drilling safe.

    State and federal laws regulate how much of each chemical can be discharged into the water; most are at insignificant levels, according to the Minerals Management Service. The mercury that's generated cannot be absorbed by fish tissue, officials say, avoiding the food chain.

    "The best fishing in the Gulf is where the rigs are," says Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., a leading proponent of offshore drilling.

    Spills from platforms have become far less frequent over recent decades, federal data show.

    A report by the National Research Council found that offshore oil and gas drilling was responsible for just 2% of the petroleum in North America's oceans, compared with 63% from natural seepage and 22% from municipal and industrial waste. Coast Guard reports show that the amount of oil spilled in U.S. waters dropped from 3.6 million barrels in the 1970s to less than 500,000 in the 1990s.

    During Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, 115 oil platforms were toppled, but only insignificant amounts of oil spilled, says Roland Guidry, Louisiana's oil spill coordinator.

    There was significant pollution — 8 million to 10 million gallons of oil spilled, mostly from tanks and pipelines on land and from tankers striking submerged drilling platforms — but less than 10% of that came from federal offshore operations.

    Today's technology, such as automatic shutoff valves on the seabed floor and mechanical devices that can prevent blowouts caused by uncontrolled buildups of pressure, has greatly reduced the risk of oil spills.

    "Offshore drilling is the safest way to go," Guidry says. "Those guys don't spill oil."

    Environmentalist Richard Charter of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund says smaller spills are still too common.

    "This is a dirty, polluting industry," he says. "I've seen it with my own eyes, stepped in it with my own feet."

    The biggest pollution risk involved in offshore drilling is in transporting the oil back to shore — by pipeline, barge or tanker.

    The 2002 National Research Council report found that marine transportation was responsible for one-third of worldwide petroleum spillage, about eight times the amount caused by drilling platforms and pipelines.

    Still, the Minerals Management Service projects about one oil spill per year of at least 1,000 barrels in the Gulf of Mexico over the next 40 years. Every three to four years, it says, a spill of at least 10,000 barrels can be expected.

    "If that hit a beach in western Florida once every four years, I think people would care," says Michael Gravitz of Environment America. "Those communities live and die by having clean beaches."

    Looking beyond the Gulf

    Beyond environmental concerns, the central debate focuses on where to drill for more oil.

    Democrats in Congress, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, say areas where drilling already is permitted should remain the bull's eye. Only about 8 million of 43 million leased acres were producing oil in 2006. Nearly 80% of the oil estimated to be producible is within limits.

    Willard Green, past president of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, says Democrats "are suggesting that there's a great big lake of oil under that acreage, and all the companies have to do is dig a hole down and produce it."

    Much of it, he says, lacks enough oil to make drilling economical. About 70% of the oil found in the Gulf last year was in deep water, where it's more expensive to drill.

    The central and western Gulf "is an area that we've picked over a lot," says Richard Ranger, senior policy adviser at the American Petroleum Institute.

    Some critics of offshore drilling say companies want to stockpile leases before Bush, a former oil company executive, leaves office. "They want to put inventory on the shelf," Gravitz says.

    The nation's coastal shelf runs from Maine to Texas and from California to Alaska, but geologists are most interested in untapped waters west of Florida and southern California. Proponents of drilling also have hopes for the northern Atlantic.

    Even the Department of Energy says oil from those areas won't arrive anytime soon.

    It projected last year that with the ban in place until 2012, new drilling would produce only 7% more oil in 2030, and the impact on oil prices would be "insignificant."

    Proponents counter that most testing for oil beneath the ocean floor was done a generation ago.

    "Until we can go out there and look," says Paul Hillegeist of Quest Offshore Resources, a consulting firm, "no one knows what's going on."[/I]

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2632302]If ALL the oil in the U.S. went away immediately, that would make global prices rise somewhat[/quote]

    [QUOTE]The oil market is global, and the U.S. is not a major player in it (outside of our outsized consumption) and [B][U]there is no step that either party can take that will lower prices now or ever[/U][/B]. ([B][U]If prices come down, it will be due to happenings elsewhere, where the real stockpiles of oil actually are[/U][/B][/QUOTE]

    So which is it Nuu? I thought we couldn't effect the price no matter what. Now you say we can?

    So, which is it?

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    [quote=Warfish;2632276]If U.S. Oil Supply is meaningless ...[/quote]

    I know you don't believe this statement, just challenging them to bolster this utterly moronic talking point.

    I also challenge them with this: how do we know how meaningless the US supply is before we even explore for it?

    Why do libs block nuke power development?
    Why do they challenge building hydroelectric plants?
    How are all these solar and wind farms to be built without petroleum?

    PS - I've been busy tweaking libs all morning so I forgot: Congrats on getting engaged. Marriage (between man and woman) is great.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=Spirit of Weeb;2632349]PS - I've been busy tweaking libs all morning so I forgot: Congrats on getting engaged. Marriage (between man and woman) is great.[/QUOTE]

    Thanks Weeb.:D It's been a long time coming, but it's worked out as planned/hoped thus far, the ring was perfect.

    And now the real planning time starts.:yes:

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us