Back to the subject of off shore drilling....

Some statistics I saw on a CNN report. I do not have a link.

Oil in the ocean comes from 4 primary sources.
63% is natural seepage from the ocean floor
32% is from consumers dumping stuff
4% is from tanker traffic
1% is from off shore drilling.

Also, in the 1970s, there was an estimated 3.6 million barrels that went into the ocean from off shore drilling. In 2004-05, only about 100,000 barrels did. Granted, I would assume that reduction has a lot to do with a reduction in the drilling. However, it makes economic sense for companies to not allow $140/barrel go into the ocean when they are drilling to capture it.

Edited to add: a supporting link (not the CNN report, but similar stats)

Maybe we need to focus our protest efforts towards Mother Earth

Leave her alone.....next thing you know you're going to blame global warming on her too:D

Why is the Exxon Valdez oil spill an argument against drilling in the US? Doesn't that mean we have to then receive oil on tankers which are prone to this? It's the opposite: there would be less chance of spills with domestic production/pipelines.

Environmental accidents are not even a good argument against the use of oil in general, any more than the possibility of car or bus accidents would prevent someone from riding one. There is a cost and a downside to anything in life; it's a matter of weighing it against the benefits. The impact on drilling in ANWR would be negligible: the area of development is tiny; and wildlife has thrived around the installations that are there.

Even worse is the aesthetic argument: it's pretty damn selfish for folks lucky enough to live by the beach to oppose the sight of drilling platforms when everyone in the country relies on oil for innumerable things we use from computer keyboards to shampoo.

Now, none of this means we don't pursue other sources - we can and should do both, especially more nuclear power generation, which would make plug-in cars truly green instead of shifting the emissions. The opposition to nuclear is nothing short of hysterical. There can be no other word to describe it, since it's not theoretical at all, France and Japan have been generating 80-90% of their power for 30 years; the tiny amount of waste has not been a problem since the re-processing type plants have come on line where 97% of energy remains in the waste that is re-used after the first cycle. This year, the president of the Sierra Club finally came out in favor of nuclear. But the years of opposition as well as the oil drilling ban have been the sad result of a mentality of hysterical intolerance for anything that might sully nature.

Once nature is spoiled, it's pretty hard to "unspoil" it. My understanding is that this lift also extends to ANWR. I am extremely opposed to any drilling extending there.

Why? I believe, if what I have read is correct, that out of the hundreds of millions of acres in ANWR drilling would impact about 200 acres.

Again, I recognize the scare of enviromental damage. However, the same arguments were made against the Alaskan pipeline and with all the scrutiny anyone drilling there would have to take extreme precautions or be eaten by the media, politicians, and the public.

Just because it's only a small area of a larger one does not make it less damaging.

The Alaskan pipeline has caused all kinds of ripple effects on the ecosystem, and yes, it does leak.

I feel that the short term gains from drilling there do not offset the long term damage that will be done. It's a short-sighted solution to the problem.

I don't see where all this additional drilling and land usage will help out, especially in the short-term. Is there really a shortage of oil causing the insane prices at the pump? I keep hearing about China and India using SO much and causing the price to go up. But are we even close to having gas rationing? No.

Oil companies call the shots because they monopolize the commodity everyone needs. The price is determined by speculators, not supply and demand. They say we need to open up ANWAR for drilling and yet sit on millions of leased acres domestically without lifting a finger to drill. Or they complain about lack of refineries but have been given the green light to build more - and don't. The whole thing reeks of Enron.

It feels like Big Oil is getting really nervous about losing their White House meal ticket (and maybe even to a Democrat!) and is jacking up the prices as high as they can while GWB is still is POTUS. The next administration may actually look into their monopolistic behaviors or even make they pay taxes! Make the big $$ now while they can.

In short, they ream us at the pump and then divert our attention somewhere else while they do a huge land grab and stock buyback.

Don't p!ss down my back and tell me it's raining.

Sub, I honestly don't understand your post.

Does "big oil" make any more profit with the price of gas at $4? No. They make 8-9 cents/gallon. As one oil exec said at the most recent inquisition, if they were make $9 million profit on $100 million in sales, there would be no problem. $9 billion on $100 billion is somehow a problem. Well over a hundred companies in the fortune 500 make a higher profit margin than the large oil companies.

You say the price is determined by speculators (indeed this is truthful in part), but speculation in and of itself is not evil, and I think that many people do not understand it. It is explained quite well here.

The reason that speculation is putting oil prices higher is the speculation of supply being interrupted and therefore the price going even higher. Iran has a missile test, oil prices shoot up. Bush removes the executive order banning offshore drilling (a symbolic move only), and the price shoots down. It is all about making sure the supply flow is not interrupted.

Drilling may not help out with supply in the short term, but if this had been dealt with 10 years ago, oil would be flowing out of these areas. As you said, there really isn't a supply issue at present anyway. It's about making sure there will be supply in the future.

Increasing domestic supply of oil does not mean that alternative fuel development stops, nor should it.

The concept of higher corporate taxes is a myth. Corporations don't pay taxes. They cost is passed along to the consumer and any reduced profit affects the stock holders.

Oil companies have zero interest in increasing supply. With all of the record profits, spending on finding new oil supplies (and there are still lots of untapped resources without moving into protected areas) have not increased on iota. Opening up offshore drilling and ANWR is just a way for the oil companies to continue to line the pockets of their biggest investors without having to spend any more of their record profits at the expense of areas that will be forever ruined. For what? A few more barrels of oil 10 years from now?

Conservative estimates are that known domestic oil supplies can sustain US demand for 25-30 years, that's without figuring in A) undiscovered domestic sources B) imported oil. Domestic supplies are a tiny fraction of what oil there is in there world. We're not about to run out of oil tomorrow. Or 10 years from now. Or 20 years from now. Or 50 years from now. 100? Maybe. Again, that's without increased spending to find more non-protected reserves. So why exactly would we sell out the planet's future?

The reality is, we will eventually run out of oil. Drilling off shore and in wildlife preserves will buy more time, but not infinite. Either we find a way to get us off of oil or we're screwed one way or another. If 50 years from now isn't enough time, what's another 20 or 30 that's bought by this extra drilling? I just do not see any potential benefit from it. Either we figure our sh*t out and shift to renewable energy sources soon, or we're doomed no matter how much we drill, so why drill?