offshore drilling? Options

[brooklyneast05]

offshore oil drilling is the hot topic at the moment it seems. are you in support of it or are you against it? why or why not? is offshore drilling the answer to our energy crisis?






i'm not really in favor of lifting the ban on it because i don't think it's the answer. i don't think it's going to help that much. i think we need to move away from not only foreign oil dependency, but oil dependency in general. i know a ton of people are in support of it, but i really only think they are because they somehow believe that this going to make their gas cheaper. i don't think this will significantly decrease gas prices.

[coconutter]

I agree, offshore drilling is not the answer because it's not going lower gas prices. I did hear McCain's recent speech about how which basically summarized said, we can't just pull out of the oil crisis because you need oil to pull out of it and resort to other energies, and anyone who thinks otherwise is inexperienced or has been lied to. I agree with that, but it doesn't mean we have to resort to offshore drilling. If we were to try and ween off oil we could use what's left of our land sources to do so. I'd say the faster we lower our dependency on oil, the better off we are.

[Reidar]

Oh, drilling would lower prices. The physical commodity wouldn't enter consumption anywhere near immediately, with the time needed for obtaining permits and procuring equipment, but the mere allowance would drive up investment into the market. The market would factor in the prospect of additional oil supplies later on. When you instigate more stimulation of a commodity, trading happens, demand rises, and prices fall. When Bush lifted the executive ban, prices dropped, which can be regarded as a response to the threat of potential competition, although I hesitate to give him even subliminal credit for anything in this since his administration did squat for the overarching solution.

By the way, Obama has said that he would consider supporting offshore drilling as a means to a whole in a total energy plan, which is the exact same point as mine. Every option - nuclear, biofuel, oil, wind, solar, human carcasses - should be implemented. The reality is that we'll be stuck on crude oil for some time to come, regardless of whether it comes from Saudi Arabia or native waters. Americans have cut back by about 500,000 barrels a day in the past year, which amounts to roughly 3%, but it's obviously not an overnight transition. You cannot feasibly just tell working class people, "Deal with your monetary woes; we're moving on" and expect efficient technological development to continue. Just about every president since Carter is to blame for not rallying the conversion to alternative energy sources, but now that we're at this conundrum, all available methods need to be exploited in order to prolong the lifeline that people can comfortably sustain themselves on as we're weaned off the nipple of big oil. Economic downturns stifle progress.

Just kidding; I don't care. I just typed all of that to make the nipple analogy.

[brooklyneast05]

yeah i'm good with obama's decision on that. it pisses me off when people saying he's flip flopping on this issue just because he's agreeing to give a little if it's what's necessary to actually get a plan passed. that really isn't what i would consider a flip flop.



it would be like 10-20 years before we ever saw anything from offshore drilling, and that's why i don't understand why there's such a push to do it RIGHT THIS SECOND as if it's going to help us here and now. even though it might drop some with the just the idea of it, like when the first ban was lifted, i still don't think it's going to drop any significant amount that will make anyone's life easier anytime very soon.

[Annabean]

O.k. i tried reading to see what was going on and i only have a small idea so i guess i'll just ask.

Are you saying that someone(government) suggested that they look else where for oil and the oil that they find can be used as gas and lower the prices?

[DoubleJ]

As stated by some earlier, I don't think that it is the answer. I feel as though more money needs to be invested into finding fuel alternatives. It is ridiculous, that foreign countries continue to hold us by our balls, because we depend so much on them for oil.

[KryMeARiver]

Does your mom's ass count as offshore? Cause I already drilled it, ban or no ban.

[Reidar]

Considering how much the price of a barrel dropped from the mere act of signing the legislation to lift the executive (not the federal) ban, drilling and increasing the expected future supply of oil would reduce scarcity rent and cause the price to fall quite substantially. That's how bidirectional causality works. The decline in the current price would induce an immediate rise in oil consumption that would be matched by an increase in supply from OPEC producers.

As for investing money elsewhere: do both. Do everything. The essential measure to take while exploring alternative fuel sources is to maintain a stable and proficient economic situation.

[coconutter]

I think the government's making the prices drop to make it appear like drilling helps the economy.

JUST LIKE 911

[freeridefight]

I think the government's making the prices drop to make it appear like drilling helps the economy.

JUST LIKE 911

I agree in a way. It doesn't make sense to me as to why if we are making "so much progress" in the middle east, as to why we are still handicapped by the need for oil. The government is probably raising the price of oil to pay for the war or past debts, and then lowering it so we are eased back to sanity for a little while. We went in this war for the money, and it's showing.
Back to topic, drilling offshore would only be giving morphine to the crying middle aged people begging for answers, even though they wouldn't be here long enough to either drive the car or see the prices go down.
Really, has the government given us any answers as to why the oil went skyrocketing, or are they just expecting us to assume its because of the war. And, what would be the fastest, cheapest, and cleanest way to provide more energy anyway?

[Reidar]

Oil is an international commodity. The U.S. government doesn't dictate the price of a barrel. Why do you think Bush goes groveling to Abdullah every time he visits Saudi Arabia?

Really, has the government given us any answers as to why the oil went skyrocketing, or are they just expecting us to assume its because of the war.

There are a multitude of reasons.

> Soaring demand in developing industrial complexes, such as China and India.

> Violence in the Middle East causing fears of interruption to supplies, which hampers exports.

> Refineries struggling to meet demands of new environmental regulations.

> Speculators betting on the possibility of prices hiking because of OPEC production cuts.

[freeridefight]

Oil is an international commodity. The U.S. government doesn't dictate the price of a barrel. Why do you think Bush goes groveling to Abdullah every time he visits Saudi Arabia?
There are a multitude of reasons.

> Soaring demand in developing industrial complexes, such as China and India.

> Violence in the Middle East causing fears of interruption to supplies, which hampers exports.

> Refineries struggling to meet demands of new environmental regulations.

> Speculators betting on the possibility of prices hiking because of OPEC production cuts.

Is Bush doing anything to help correct these problems?

[Reidar]

You can count lifting the executive ban as one, but he's had eight years to rally the cause for alternative fuel sources, and he's done nothing substantial. He only jumped on the ethanol bandwagon just a few months ago.

[coconutter]

I was listening to NPR and I realized offshore drilling is quite useless. It takes about 7-15 years to even get oil offshore, and McCain will most likely be out of office then, it he gets elected. Also, the oil companies already have millions of acres of offshore drilling areas, they don't need more. It's hazardous and dangerous for people working and it's not going to help the "oil crisis" as much as voters think. In time and theory, having proper air tire pressure will save more money and gas than offshore drilling.

As Paris said, I think there should be incentives to make advances in technology to help the oil crisis and unemployment. The government could also help, seeing as they're about 10-12 years ahead of us technology wise. In the long run it will save us money and save us from dependency.

[Reidar]

The point about the physical commodity reaching consumers is moot when the main reason driving the case is for the anticipation of future supply to drive up investments, thereby stimulating the market. Moreover, the oil companies having leases to drill doesn't mean that they will, if the chance of the outcome is worth less than the means it takes to incorporate millions of dollars into a site that will produce mediocre results. This is why there's an incentive to obtain the ability to explore more proficient areas.

Also, this is a deceptively-phrased point:

In time and theory, having proper air tire pressure will save more money and gas than offshore drilling.

"In time and theory" is not amenable. If it took a thousand years for the amount saved on inflating your tires to equal the net gain of drilling, you'd still be able to omit the fact that it would be an unrealistic, inapplicable span of "time", as long as it fits within whatever constitutes "time and theory". It would be the same as saying that you could get the same amount of petroleum as an oil well by just using a spoon.

I actually favor Obama over McCain (although I'm extremely discontent with both candidates), but he never actually defends the portion, "But we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling...". Like your assertion, this could technically be true, just across an absurd amount of years. That would be an obvious trick of semantics, so rather than fall back on that as a crutch in defense against GOP ridicule, he commits a straw man by extrapolating merely on how tire maintenance would conserve gas mileage, period, as if anybody ever denied that.

[coconutter]

I'm not saying over 1000 years fixing air tire pressure properly will be more fuel efficient than offshore drilling. The people they were interviewing on NPR calculated that by the time we'd strike oil offshore, we would already save the 5-10% of overall oil we would receive from offshore drilling by having proper air tire pressures.

Offshore drilling isn't inconceivable with the proper restrictions, but it's almost a waste of time and money. We could start working on new technologies and continue use of foreign oil, by the time we actually start noticing a difference in gas prices.

[Reidar]

I'm not saying over 1000 years fixing air tire pressure properly will be more fuel efficient than offshore drilling.

I didn't say you did. That was a hyperbole to exemplify how anything can fit under "in time and theory".

The people they were interviewing on NPR calculated that by the time we'd strike oil offshore, we would already save the 5-10% of overall oil we would receive from offshore drilling by having proper air tire pressures.

This is what you aren't quantifying: "...oil we would receive from offshore drilling."

Do you know much that would be?

The Green River oil shale formation could produce at least 800 billion barrels of oil alone, enough for over 100 years at our current rate of consumption (20 million barrels per day). Tire inflation could improve gas mileage by about 3%, which would relate to about 600,000 barrels of oil a day at the most absurdly optimistic extrapolation.

Offshore drilling isn't inconceivable with the proper restrictions, but it's almost a waste of time and money. We could start working on new technologies and continue use of foreign oil, by the time we actually start noticing a difference in gas prices.

And while you're doing that, you stimulate the market and bring the people you're trying to help up to speed by extending their economic lifelines through drilling until the years it would take to mainstream said technologies pass.

[brooklyneast05]

i have nothing useful to add at the moment because my head hurts, but thanks to you two for being pretty much the only ones to reply to this. a appreciates it.

[vehvih]

Isn't logical that no damn resource can last forever?
And if globally, like sht yeah everyone's freaken using oil, oil is consumed, how the hell will offshore drilling be effective if:

1. Cost of building those drills will cost a lot
2. We don't even know where exactly the oil is
3. Sure it will make jobs for people, but how are we about to pay them back if it will take about YEARS to actually get/process oil
4. ...again, when we don't even know where exactly the oil is!!
5. Foreign energy dependency causes trouble = more spending = lower income for some people = some taxes for misc. purposes like that of the trouble we got from whatever "diplomacy" was
6. America IS NOT the only damn country that is using oil, OTHER countries as WELL
7. No shit, by that it will hurt economic trade, not only that but other domestic problems other countries are having (&how many third world countries are there?).
8. By now you know diplomacy and global economy would suck by 2012
9. Oh yeah, there's also recession that has been going on since what? Ever since??
10. Then we die in vain just because we just can't control oil companies, dependency on foreign oil, and all those SUVs we have.


I don't think there are any objection to these because these are pretty damn logical. And it sucks, because most of these concerns can be controlled if handled with great personal responsibilities!

[creole]

^ Don't they have those oil rocks that people smash em' together and oil leaks out?

will offshore drilling hurt the sea animal's habitat?

[medic]

I think the government's making the prices drop to make it appear like drilling helps the economy.

JUST LIKE 911

The oil industry is nothing but privately owned and operated corporations. Shell, BP, Conico and all those bad boys aren't working with the government to make prices go down. If they had it their way, gas would be $10.00 a gallon. They don't need to negotiate with anyone, they have us all screwed. We can't live without natural gas resources. The oil industry profits if they drill offshore or not, if they can't drill they just raise the price. If they can drill, they invest a couple billion into a offshore rig and raise the prices again and blame it on the new construction. Either way, money is made, and they government doesn't get any good PR from it.

The fight against offshore drilling is just another environmental scare tactic. I used to support all that jazz, but now it's become "the thing" and has gotten way out of control. It went from being about awareness to profit and promotion.

[mytangerine]

the government is just being greedy.

[Reidar]

1.) "Building new drills"? If there's one thing that we haven't been in shortage of, it's the means to access and depend on crude oil as our main source of sustenance.

2.) That's what exploratory committees are for. We don't know exactly where enough new manners of energy lie, both figuratively and literally (to a point that they could maintain equilibrium in complete lieu of oil), but that doesn't mean we sit on our laurels about them.

3.) The physical commodity wouldn't enter consumption anywhere near immediately, but the mere allowance would drive up investment into the market.

4.) See 2.

5.) This point oddly works against your favor. One point of drilling for our own oil is to shake our dependence on foreign sources.

6.) Indeed, which is all the more reason to get out of that situation as soon as possible. If we were the only consumers, then it wouldn't be nearly as urgent a crisis.

7.) Driving up investment potentiality would be of benefit to economic procedures.

8.) See 7.

9.) See the first sentence of 6.

10.) Or not, because the purpose of this in the first place is to "wean" energy dependence off of oil while alternative sources are being developed.

Isn't logical that no damn resource can last forever?
And if globally, like sht yeah everyone's freaken using oil, oil is consumed, how the hell will offshore drilling be effective if:

1. Cost of building those drills will cost a lot
2. We don't even know where exactly the oil is
3. Sure it will make jobs for people, but how are we about to pay them back if it will take about YEARS to actually get/process oil
4. ...again, when we don't even know where exactly the oil is!!
5. Foreign energy dependency causes trouble = more spending = lower income for some people = some taxes for misc. purposes like that of the trouble we got from whatever "diplomacy" was
6. America IS NOT the only damn country that is using oil, OTHER countries as WELL
7. No shit, by that it will hurt economic trade, not only that but other domestic problems other countries are having (&how many third world countries are there?).
8. By now you know diplomacy and global economy would suck by 2012
9. Oh yeah, there's also recession that has been going on since what? Ever since??
10. Then we die in vain just because we just can't control oil companies, dependency on foreign oil, and all those SUVs we have.
I don't think there are any objection to these because these are pretty damn logical. And it sucks, because most of these concerns can be controlled if handled with great personal responsibilities!

[firechild]

Oil -> Enviornment X_X

Alternative Energy -> Enviornment

[dosomethin888]

Im def. not an expert on this issue. But I guess I will add my two cents.
I think that America should explore all options, including offshore drilling. Ya, it could take up to 10 years, but how about 10 rather than 14 or 18? If we did start drilling here now, I believe it would lower the gas prices because of the threat. Not only that, but would create jobs in America.

My brother is a major history buff and he told me something interesting today. He said that in the past, War actually made money for the US. Because everything was made in the US, it increased jobs. But now, the majority of things are made outside of the US, so we are paying other countries for our military equipment.

Anyways, thats my opinion. Doesnt sound as intelligent as Reidar's, but I tried. =)

[sixfive]

Doesn't take a history buff to know that. Anyone who completed took U.S. History in middle school could tell you that. Even if they forgot, it's reinforced in high school.