Democrats block offshore drilling bill
- Thread starter Skulnik
- Start date
While I don't agree with much of anything you post, I'm having a hard time figuring out why drilling (safe, regulated, environmentally protective) 50 miles and more away from our shores would be a problem for anyone. I think both sides of the fence need to be realistic about looking at the problems we face. We should become less oil-based as a country, and also generate more of our own, seems to me.
Although, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, realistically, for instance, this viewpoint:
Offshore Drilling Comes Up Empty
By Bill Scher
June 17th, 2008 - 10:34am ET
As Sen. John McCain gears up to give a speech in Houston, repeating his call to lift the moratorium on most drilling off America's shores, MSNBC's First Read suggests, "McCain?s call for lifting the ban could ... be seen as a pragmatic, short-term solution to high energy costs that could play well in places like Michigan..."
Pragmatic, short-term solution? Only if the media doesn't report on how little oil is off our coasts and how long it would take to get it into people's gas tanks.
Last month, I noted that President Bush's push to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- where an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil lie -- would only reduce the price of crude oil per barrel by about 50 cents, 17 years from now, according to Bush's own Energy Department. My colleague Isaiah just pointed me to a new Department of Energy analysis, adjusting that estimate to 75 cents.
The price of crude oil per barrel has jumped 100 dollars in the Bush Era, leading prices at the pump to more than double. Shaving the crude oil price 75 cents by 2025 amounts to no savings at the gas station.
That's what we would get for ANWR's 10 billion barrels. What about the moratorium areas off continental America's coastlines?
McCain's speech today estimates that there 21 billion barrels in the moratorium areas. That seems a touch high. The Energy Department put it at 18 billion a few years ago. Popular Mechanics reports an estimate of 19 billion.
Regardless, it's about double of what's estimated in ANWR.
So, if lifting the moratorium on most offshore drilling has double the impact on price as lifting the ANWR ban would, that's only $1.50 off the price of crude per barrel. Combined with ANWR, it's $2.25.
Again, by 2025. Again, little to no impact on the price at the pump, today or tomorrow.
Not pragmatic. Not short-term. There is simply not enough oil.
UPDATE: Just to put a fine point on it, lowering the price of crude oil per barrel by $1 is roughly equal to a reduction in price at the pump of 2.5 cents per gallon. So lifting all of the above moratoriums, lowering the price of crude by $2.25 per barrel, would lower the price at the pump by less than 6 cents by 2025.
Meaningless, after prices have skyrocketed more than $3 a gallon between Dec. 2001 and today.
Offshore Drilling Comes Up Empty
By Bill Scher
June 17th, 2008 - 10:34am ET
As Sen. John McCain gears up to give a speech in Houston, repeating his call to lift the moratorium on most drilling off America's shores, MSNBC's First Read suggests, "McCain?s call for lifting the ban could ... be seen as a pragmatic, short-term solution to high energy costs that could play well in places like Michigan..."
Pragmatic, short-term solution? Only if the media doesn't report on how little oil is off our coasts and how long it would take to get it into people's gas tanks.
Last month, I noted that President Bush's push to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- where an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil lie -- would only reduce the price of crude oil per barrel by about 50 cents, 17 years from now, according to Bush's own Energy Department. My colleague Isaiah just pointed me to a new Department of Energy analysis, adjusting that estimate to 75 cents.
The price of crude oil per barrel has jumped 100 dollars in the Bush Era, leading prices at the pump to more than double. Shaving the crude oil price 75 cents by 2025 amounts to no savings at the gas station.
That's what we would get for ANWR's 10 billion barrels. What about the moratorium areas off continental America's coastlines?
McCain's speech today estimates that there 21 billion barrels in the moratorium areas. That seems a touch high. The Energy Department put it at 18 billion a few years ago. Popular Mechanics reports an estimate of 19 billion.
Regardless, it's about double of what's estimated in ANWR.
So, if lifting the moratorium on most offshore drilling has double the impact on price as lifting the ANWR ban would, that's only $1.50 off the price of crude per barrel. Combined with ANWR, it's $2.25.
Again, by 2025. Again, little to no impact on the price at the pump, today or tomorrow.
Not pragmatic. Not short-term. There is simply not enough oil.
UPDATE: Just to put a fine point on it, lowering the price of crude oil per barrel by $1 is roughly equal to a reduction in price at the pump of 2.5 cents per gallon. So lifting all of the above moratoriums, lowering the price of crude by $2.25 per barrel, would lower the price at the pump by less than 6 cents by 2025.
Meaningless, after prices have skyrocketed more than $3 a gallon between Dec. 2001 and today.
Dem's Dem's, Block, Block, BS< BS>BS> Not anymore then the states them self do. And The Prez. And te Prez is Reb last time I looked. And now is not the time before election in 5 months. Let new guy have his say now that we waited 20 years. By the way refineries are at capacity so wheres this oil going to sit.
How dare we actually consider producing the things we consume. The rest of the world already has too many of our worthless dollars and they damn sure don't want any more of them. Lets keep our oil companies at the mercy of foreigners, slap a windfall tax on them, and triple entitlement programs. I bet we can give that damn peso a run for it's money.
All I saw in the title to the thread was
Democrats block offshore...
I was :00x32
offshore gambling ban :00hour :00hour
but then I read the thread :s2:
Democrats block offshore...
I was :00x32
offshore gambling ban :00hour :00hour
but then I read the thread :s2:
Y'all act like we don't already produce 8.7 million barrels of oil on a daily basis in the US. We are the 3rd highest oil producer in the world. I suppose we could find away to extract even more and make sure we run out that much quicker, but it will not help prices at all in the short term and will offer no actual solution in the long run.
the dems and the reps have blocked drilling because it is good for AMERICANS..... bad for the people they work for.... we have to stop talking about these two groups and find a way around them. Reagan & Bush had the votes to do something and they did nothing.... we have had 20 of the L 28 yrs of (R) leadership, it would have not mattered if a den sat in the WH the L 40 yrs..... only question now is ? when to we stop with this game and do something...
It's about more then oil , short term or long term price implications. It's time to turn the printing press off and quit consuming more then we produce as a nation. The two party system is a joke, we have a severe inflation and dollar crisis on our hands and it's not even an election topic. The media is a nothing but false propagana, we have basically lost our status as world reserve currency, the rest of the world is quietly moving their US dollars into hard assets. The good news is God blessed this land with the ability to produce more energy then we can use and the ability to feed the world. Unfortanutely it's gonna take Jimmy Carter Obama to make people realize what's really important. I am voting for Obama so he can bring this country to it's knees and wake people the **** up.
alternative energy source:
1) convert a treadmill into a power generator...
2) put michael moore on the treadmill and dangle a pizza in front of him....
/on second though, the energy needed to power a treadmill for "orca" would require more than the output produced....
i`m trying:shrug:
1) convert a treadmill into a power generator...
2) put michael moore on the treadmill and dangle a pizza in front of him....
/on second though, the energy needed to power a treadmill for "orca" would require more than the output produced....
i`m trying:shrug:
Four states say no. Oregon, Calf, Virg, NJ. 2 are Dem's 2 are Reb's. Again Dem's block drilling is BS,BS. And Fld another Reb was against till two days ago. Then his flip flop started.
You are wrong here. Start drilling more now. It will aid in the speculative price immediately, even though we will not see the actuall beneifits for several years. In the meantime, work our asses off to improve our alternative energy programs. We need to start building nuclear power facilities nationwide and begin to ramp up our coal to liquids program. Plus, automakers need to be held accountable for higher efficiency vehicles.
In tandem, this will allow us to wean off of oil over the next 20-30 years.
I fancy myself a reasonable chap, so here is my compromise. No drilling off the coast of Florida(even though China, Russia and Cuba are currently doing so) or ANWAR (this way we can protect the polar bears), but in exchange we should be allowed to move forward with a massive nuclear program.
Sound fair? I think so. Our future depends on this type of compromise.
Sound fair? I think so. Our future depends on this type of compromise.
Drilling now, you say. To help control to speculative prices.
It all sounds good. I can see that.
But, what do you make of all the millions of acres the oil and gas companies currently have leases on which they are not drilling on. Nothing is stopping them. Makes you wonder if they're not drilling because doing so might just lead to what you've mentioned above. That being the end of speculation which is is part and parcel helping them amass big time profits lately.
Makes you wonder.....which is why all this belly aching about alaska is nothing but hot air to help confuse the issue.
On your other points, I think slowly but surely the American consumer is holding the Big 3 accountable for not making more fuel efficient cars. Living in Toledo and being just south of Detroit, you get a lot of angry looks (more like angry tsks, tsks) for having foreign wheels, but its been revealing to see that attitude wash away from most people over the last couple of years.
Couldn't agree more about working our butts off for alt energy as well as the nuclear idea in your ensuing post.
Interesting thought about that compromise in your following post. What intrigues me about the alaska "controversy" is how many gulf coast legilsators only came aboard in favor of anwar when they extended moratoriums on drilling in their areas. Just goes to show you that the truly largest political party in the land are the NIMBYs--Not In My Back Yard.
But then again, what do I know considering I think the whole drilling in alaska thing is hot air that only serves to distract us and our legislators from getting down to the business of real solutions.
we don`t have real alternative solutions...and if we do,what are they?...why aren`t they being utilized?....
because it`s all b.s....
wouldn`t be much "speculation" if they drilled where they already know large oil deposits are located... mined the oil shale....built some refineries...maybe a nuclear plant ot two...
why can a rich little ecologically responsible country like norway drill off their own coast and we can`t?
how can france have all this nuclear power....and bury the waste....and we can`t?...
why can`t we research alternatives while harvesting our own resources so that we can become independent of the middle east regardless of which way the pendulum swings?...
cause the dems won`t compromise...they want this economy to still be tanking in november...
but,you all knew that...
the leases are there to see if theres any oil to be gotten..they`re for exploration...nobody knows what`s there...
we`re already a decade and a half late thanks to bill clinton.......and we know where large fields are located... shale deposits are located...
lets call off the circular firing squad and go get what we know is there...
everybody(except us) is drilling 60 miles off our coasts....
think about it..china,venezuela,brazil,mexico......all these coutries are working overtime procuring as much oil as they possibly can...where the hell does everyone think canada gets it`s oil?...
we have it,but we still have to beg the saudis...send them millions because of the spotted owl....and the fact that the dems want to "force" this nation into alternative fuels....even though as we speak,there is no viable alternative to gas and oil available...
there just isn`t...
so as our economy sinks...and china`s explodes,we sit on our hands and whine about the environment...as every country with an oil platform utilizes our resources.....
total insanity...
if theres one thing that can sink obama...it`s this issue...
just not sure that mccain`s smart enough...or tough enough to take a real stand...
Last edited:
