Offshore Drilling Ban to be Lifted by Bush
 

Just saw that on a Breaking News banner on CNN.com.

Oy.

Why oy? This is great news. With huge public support, I might add. And great need.

There are legit reasons to disagree with it, but I have to laugh with the "none will be available for years" argument. How many alternative techs that are being developed will be widely available in 2009? Yes, develop those other techs, but don't ignore the natural resources we have at our disposal now. China is making deals with Cuba to drill off their coast. Russia is looking at drilling in the arctic. We keep begging OPEC to increase production. So it seems as if it is OK for everyone else to try to solve their energy problems through existing tech, but not the US. I just don't understand it.

To ease your mind, though, GC, it matters nothing unless Congress acts as well. This is a political move by Bush to put the ball in Congress' court.

Oh, I'm sure you could guess :D : lovely otter staining Exxon Valdez-style oil spills, beautiful oil platforms highlighted in your favorite beach sunset photos, dependence on oil when we should be focusing on other environmentally friendly alternatives, all those sorts of reasons.
Source

Yes Leo... and when an alcoholic keeps drinking to the point he can't afford the booze anymore, lets all just give him more so he can keep drinking!

I don't really see that as a good analogy. More like when a starving kid needs food lets give him something we have rather than waiting for the latest in perfect nutrition to come out.

I'm more concerned about the environmental factors then the aesthetics.

If they can do this without harming the environment then I'm really not opposed to it.

We have oil. Not a lot, but some. Why are we to good to drill for our own supplies but have no problem letting other countries drill for theirs.

I've heard that they've made advances in drilling which make it safer - or perhaps - less likely to cause environmental issues. Now - how much of that talk is just talk? I have no idea. But it made me feel better.

I need to get to work and back. About 30 miles each way - same for my husband in the other direction. Can't move closer as that will put the other farther. There is NO public transportation available that will do that.

I need gas to make it there - and it needs to cost me less then what I make that day at work so... something's got to give. I hope it's not me.

Thank God it is almost over ... both Bush and the Conservative movement are in the death throes, but these final months are key -- they will scratch and claw and do whatever they can to rain hell upon us. Off shore drilling will benefit no one but the Oilmen -- don't be conned by Conservative talking heads, they lie and deceive and act only for their own self interests. Off shore drilling will not lower the cost of gas and if it does it will be by pennies, but the cost of construction, the cost to the environment and the cost to our future can not be so easily measured. With all respect to Scaeagles, whom I personally have nothing against, what political movement would dare turn the word "Hope" into "Nope" and then use it as a positive? It spins my head around to think any group could so willfully work to destroy the Constitution, pollute the earth and spout venom and hate against the people it supposedly works to protect. Thank God it is almost over. When Obama takes power I think the whole world is going to breathe a sigh a relief and dance in the streets. I know I will scream at the top of my lungs, so loud it will be heard across the city, Its over, thank God its over.

Obama and McCain are currently tied in the polls. I wouldn't count your chickens yet, Tref.

I think changing "hope" to "nope" is hysterical. I find no hope in Obama at all. To the contrary - I think it is the height of arrogance to put "hope" under your picture as if you are some sort of messiah.

Its not even Autumn, yet, Scaeagles, and across the country Conservatives are dropping like dead leaves off a tree, even in old Republican strongholds. People are tired of being lied to, they're angry and disgusted by what they see and it is beautiful thing. I wonder what word I would put under a photo of Bush ... perhaps ... "Dope"?

No, I don't need to -- too obvious. I prefer, simply, "Finished."

I lived in the Gulf (Panama City Beach) in the very early Eighties, and i saw firsthand the damage done by 'offshore' drilling- the coastal area of Louisiana was trashed, and they even had mutant marine life to rival those three eyed fish from the Simpsons. I hope they have made progress in reducing the damage to the environment, because it wasn't pretty. Besides, I was under the impression that it's not a shortage that is causing this problem- it's unbridled speculation, due to the lifting of controls that had been set in place post-Great Depression.

What about starting to use the facilities that are already in place?

Make sure the infrastructure is up to par first.

I've seen the word "dope" used instead of "nope" in the Obama photos, but didn't find that funny. The "nope" isn't a slam on Obama himself, it just means "no, were not voting for you".

And I agree - people are deadx tired and sick of Bush. Hell, I'm a republican and I have been for quite some time. I am no McCain fan, but I realize Obama is not the Messiah and is making himself out to be a typical politician more and more every day.

You are indeed correct. But the specualtion is taking place because of the unease in the Middle East and Hugo Chavez. A supply of oil coming to America that is not from the Persian Gulf immediately reduces speculation.

It is also a function of the weakened dollar.

The Exxon-Valdez accident had nothing to do with offshore drilling - it had to do with transportation of oil from a land-based oil source. while many steps have been taken to ensure that an accident of this magnitude does not happen again, this kind of incident could just as easily happened with oil coming from the Middle East.

While there are no guarantees, significant strides have been made to ensure captivity of potential spills.

Not too many years ago, the exact same things were being said about the Democratic Party.

I truly believe that what the American Public is sick of the current two-party system and would like to see all of the old stalwarts (from BOTH parties) go away. Unfortunately, what most people are afraid of is change. Not the empty promise sound bite of change from Obama's current campaign, but a complete overall of our current political environment.

Who would you rather have making the profits: the "rich oilmen" or the Saudi's? I agree that domestic oil drilling (be it onshore or off), will probably not lower prices. It just brings it to the point of being profitable for the domestic oil companies to extract the oil and sell.

And I have no problem with the money being kept domestically (rather than paying OPEC). That means AMERICAN JOBS - people who work on the oil derricks, the people who work in the offices of the oil companies, etc. If you look at the old oil towns in Texas, Oklahoma, etc. you will see depressed regions that despearately need an influx of jobs. It is NOT just a couple of rich white guys that are benefitting - it is our nation's economy.

Exactly! If you're an OPEC leader and you just found out that America is going to start drilling off their own shores you're not going to say "well, that's going to take 10 years so I'll just keep the prices high until then"....you're going to want to sell as much oil as you can right now, while the prices are still high, rather than just sit on it waiting for competition to lower the demand.

Just announcing that we are going to drill off our shores will lower the prices now, because of speculation:)

And people who have invested in those corporations. Corporate profits are tied to the financial well being of the investor, which usually includes Joe Sixpacks retirement fund.

Granted. But I can't see those offshore eyesores being 100% fool proof.

How does the kool-aid taste, brother, sweet, or bitter?

Hmm, I don't get it, so 'Hope" and 'Messiah' are bound together and can not be separated? I say, no. Obama is not a messiah but he does offers hope. Hope for an end to poverty, hope from being sent to die in Bush's endless war, hope for better health care, hope for better race relations, hope from being lied to, hope for bluer skies and clean drinking water, hope for a return of our Constitution and our rights as citizens. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power, but they lie. They do not fulfill their promise, they never will.* Obama's FISA vote has shown that he is not the messiah, but a politician, but he may yet be a visionary. Obama has greatness in him, I really believe that to be true and he has within him the power to be the greatest president since Roosevelt or Lincoln. The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed, the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress: the hate of men will pass and dictators die and the power they took from the people, will return to the people ... liberty will never perish ... In the seventeenth chapter of Saint Luke it is written " the kingdom of God is within man " - not one man, nor a group of men - but in all men - in you, the people.
... You the people have the power to make life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure. Then in the name of democracy let's use that power - let us all unite. Let us fight for a new world, a decent world that will give men a chance to work, that will give you the future and security in old age.

So vote OBAMA!

Oh yeh, and stop offshore drilling!

* with sincere apologies to Charles Chaplin and The Great Dictator

Tell that to the good peons of Enron. (And all the others who have lost their retirement due to corporate greed, speculation and deregulation of the energy industry). Industries aren't regulated for nothing- there is always a very good reason, and it usually involves greed and lack of concern for anyone but the people who stand to benefit the most. Trickle down economics is not only a myth, it's a lie. It's a lie that is destroying our country.

Further- the oil mess has greatly impacted the dollar, so it's almost a case of 'chicken vs egg' here. I know the current state of affairs is most certainly not helping the dollar.

Okay, I will accept that I made a claim without supporting evidence. However, this was something being itterated a couple of decades ago (I want to say either after the second Reagan election or after the Bush the first election) and I am having a hard time finding info on it.

However, the statement I made was simply just an issue of responding to the "Conservatives are falling" statements. The statements seemed to indicate you believed that the Republican Party was coming to an end. And this simply is not true (despite how much some people may want it).

But the bottom line is that I personally would like to see a major upheaval in this country with BOTH of the major parties falling by the wayside and a whole new crop of people coming in. BOTH parties are responsible for some major f-ups of this country.

And I am NOT a Bush supporter - far from it. While I don't believe he is the anti-Christ as some Conservatives would paint him, I believe he is sucking off the teet of the religious right too much as well as various blunders in the handlkng of many issues.

I am not sure how to respond on these two points which you highlighted. Do you think that the Saudi's et. al. (yes - I erroneously singled out the Saudi's - sue me) are NOT getting rich off of oil? Do you believe that it is NOT just a few key individuals who are profiting off of their country's resources? Do you believe that only a few people in this country would benefit from oil being produced domestically?

Give me something concrete to respond to and I will be happy to do so. Until then, the Kool-Aid line is just empty rhetoric and lends me to believe that you really don't have a rational response.

Do you believe that Enron (and World-Com, etc.) are the exception or the rule? I believe they are they exception. No, it is not a perfect world. Yes, there are greedy people in it (and there always will be).

You cannot make rules which limit growth. Otherwise, this country will stagnate and die. Yes, someone will always find a loophole. When that happens, you deal with it.

Deregulation is not a blanket bad thing. Many instances have benefited you and I - the American People (splitting up Ma Bell for example).

Empty, perhaps, tasty, yes.

Thank you for confirming that you do not have a rational argument.

You're welcome. Come again.

You obviously do not have Qwest as your answer to the MA Bell divestiture. I miss PNW Bell, as do most people around here.

Enron is the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps you can point out companies or examples that support your stance? I'll willingly change my tune if given some positive input. Oh, and the rules did not limit growth- they limited graft.

End to poverty? How much money has been transferred from the haves to the have nots? And yet is hasn't done much of anything for poverty - it's still around. If hope for ending poverty means more handouts, there isn't much hope to end poverty.

Endless war in Iraq? All things point to things going exceptionally well over there right now. Violence decreasing, Iraqi soldiers taking over more and more, removing 500 metric tons of yellow cake uranium and moving it to Canada (that they hadn't removed earlier due to fears of sabotage)....endless? Hardly.

Better health care? Doubtful. Again, government involvement typically makes things worse. Matter of opinion, I suppose.

Better race relations....how?

Bluer skies and better drinking water? Yes, as a republican I fully admit that I am against clean air and clean water.:rolleyes:

Constitutional rights? I still don't understand this beyond the uproar of FISA, which as you stated, Obama voted for. And perhaps Guantanamo detainees, but they never were US citizens, so I don't understand the ruling. Maybe one or two are/were - I don't recall.

Hope from being lied to....I'm sure Obama will be completely honest about everything.

Let's see: we now have CHOICES in phone service. There is major competition amongst phone companies for your business. New products, services, and technologies, which we may or may not have seen without the breakup, have appeared (I believe mostly not, but we will never know).

Qwest and Worldcom were individual instances of this being less than a perfect world (something I have repeatedly acknowldged). But I believe that our economy is generally better off with de-regulation.

Usually, the rules which keep monopolies in place and over-regulate industries limit competition which takes away the incentives for companies to innovate and grow. That is an econmics 101 lesson.
It wouldn't be companies to point out, it would be industries. I believe that the phone company is a good example of that. No, it is not perfect, but I believe we are much better off overall with a deregulated phone system.

I am sorry I cannot expand on that, but I am running short of time.

I would! I hate both parties. I have for a long time. Neither of them represent my feelings particularly well. I really wish a gajillion people would vote for the third-party candidates and show our discontent.

As for off-shore drilling, I don't really trust its safety. Things happen. Safety costs money. Nor do I think it will do much to lower gas prices.

The more profit available, the more likely to have another Enron. So maybe Enron is not the rule now, but likely to be in the future.

Uhm, I believe there are many other places across this great nation who would agree that the companies they now deal with are far less service oriented, more expensive and provide really crappy product. I'm not saying deregulating (or rather, breaking up the monopoly of) the telephone industry was bad, just that it's not really proved to be much of a boon to anyone other than some CEO's that get paid way too much for too little.


Oh, and Kevy? I had two years in Gen.Business- studied macro and micro econ, administrative law, etc. Had a 3.9 average. Don't need the econ 101 lesson, but I appreciate your concern.;) I'm also wondering about the industries statement- which industries are doing better now (besides Wal-Mart style retail) and do they not have companies that carry out their production? I am hard pressed to find anything doing well in this economy, excepting the aforementioned Wally World.

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?

First exerpt - I disagree. Decreasing supply and increasing prices that reduce demand is not in their financial interest and they know this because their profit margin remains the same. Those that currently profit off of (raw) oil are those that have it to sell. Of course the oil companies would like to have more oil of their own to sell and compete against those selling it - mainly OPEC.

What about the small investor. What percentage of the US populace oiwns stock? I'm not sure what percentage owns stock in oil companies, but 401Ks are invested somewhere. Their record profits are only based on record consumption, not record margins. Forever ruined? Who is the arbiter of that? Who defines ruined? Yes, accidents happen, but with the current environmental climate there is no way in hell they are going to create massive environmental damage or they will forever be banned from having the opportunity again. As shown earlier, over 60% of oil in the oceans comes from natural seepage, with less than 1% from drilling. With ANWR, the Alaskan pipeline hasn't produced the environmental disatsters predicted, so I fail to see why 200 acres out of several million cannot be carefully accessed.

Time is what we need. For every cry of "drilling won't give us another drop of oil for 10 years" (an exaggeration), there is the reality that alternatives are farther off than that. Drill and gain the time to develop those alternatives. That is not unreasonable.

Checking Yahoo Finance for Major Holders of Exxon Mobil stock:

MAJOR DIRECT HOLDERS (FORMS 3 & 4)
Holder - Shares - Reported
TILLERSON REX W - 914,569 - 7-Dec-07
MCGILL STUART R - 901,244 - 5-Jun-07
SIMON J STEPHEN - 818,592 - 6-May-08
CRAMER HAROLD R - 600,213 - 19-May-08
PRYOR STEPHEN D - 580,445 - 16-May-08

With 5.28 billion shares outstanding, this means that the top individual stockholder (Rex Tillerson - Chairman and CEO) only owns about 0.033% - yes, just 3/100 of a percentage point - of stock (and he is the top of the food chain at EM).

Further, 52% of all EM stock is owned by Institutional & Mutual Fund holders - you and I with our pensions hoping to make a little money so that we can retire at a reasonable age.

What is amusing is how many people who are cry about our reliance on oil also drive their car to work/play/etc. every day. These same people also aren't willing to pay more for a alternative fuel vehicle (readily available), ride the bus/mass transit (not available everywhere, but IS an option), etc. They always want "someone else" to pay for things. :rolleyes:

Until someone can guarantee that animals, nature and the ecosystem in Alaska will not be harmed by drilling up there I am completely against it.

Polar Bears are close to extinct. They're drowning because the ice is melting.

I don't have an issue with offshore drilling when done correctly and safely. It was done before, the infrastructure is still there. We should use resources we already have and know about before going into new places. Use what we have.

Do you believe that Polar Bears are extinct because of the drilling in Alaska?

The ice is melting because you drove your car to work today.

Sure, it is easier to blame "big anonymous company" for all the world's woes. The reality is that it is often you and me.
Who says it isn't?

A big corporation is going to do everything in its power to increase profit. Who actually owns the stock is irrelevant.

I don't think drilling in AK is going to help the situation.

I'm saying I don't have an issue with it. I said that earlier too. Make sure the infrastructure is safe for the environment and go for it.

Is that a bad thing? Or are you just assuming that the big bad anonymous corporations ALWAYS choose to make a profit at the expense of "everyone and everything else" (including nature)?

Is it bad for a corporation to make money?

I personally like when they do because it increases my retirement fund. Is that a bad thing?

Just to prove my bona fides:

We moved to a suburb we both hate to minimize our commute needs. I spend 3 hours a day on public transportation four out of five workdays when I could drive the same commute in a total of about 1:50 on average. We paid extra and bought what was, at the time, the car with the highest fuel efficiency for our driving style (at the time). We live in a one-bedroom 750 sq. ft. apartment when, if we wanted to, we could afford to be in a 2,000 sq. ft. SFR. We have only the one car because that fulfills 90% of our needs rather than getting a second to make the other 10% more convenient. We use CFLs as much as possible. When I have to buy a new car in a couple years plug-in hybrid will be at the top of the list if available.

Conversely, we leave all of our computers on all of the time (a total of seven if you count our machines at work). We eat out too much and too much of what we eat in is processed pre-packaged foods.

So, now that my right to have an opinion on the best course of action is established (though everyone will have to decide on their own how much privilege it gives me), here's my view:

I don't really care if they drill and pump oil offshore and out of ANWR. Yes, environmental damage will be done. No, in our modern regulatory age it isn't likely to be all that bad though accidents do happen.

I also don't think it will do a damn thing to help the macroeconomic situation vis a vis oil prices. So, lacking any great positive benefit, I don't see any particular reason to go out of the way to advocate for it. Yes, I'm sure some portion of my retirement accounts are benefiting from oil companies but that doesn't really have any bearing on my policy views. If the oil companies start to die then I'd hope my investment managers are wiley enough to move my money out of those industries before great financial harm is done to me but if not, then oh well.

Drilling for oil in Alaska will have a negligible impact on the melting of the Polar Ice Caps.

Maybe on the melting. But what about the other damage to the ecosystem?

Sonar confuses dolphins. What are the vibrations from the drilling going to do to the marine life? What will the inevitable pollution from the rigs going to do to the rest of the ecosystem?

We're destroying this planet so we can live. It's quickly becoming a FUBARed situation. We need to use what we have before we throw it away for the latest and greatest. Oh wait. Throwing away for the latest and greatest is the "American Way" these days. Silly me.

Many do, yes. And I think the oil companies are among the worst.

No, not at all. There is a difference between profitibility and corporate greed.

In other words, as long as your bottom line is good, the rest of the world can go to hell? No wonder you like the big oil companies!

A 9% profit margin is not corporate greed.

Why do you believe this?
Please tell me where I said the rest of the world can go to hell? Or where the oil companies have said this?

I like companies that make money in a safe and rational manner. Despite what gets spewed on a regular basis (with virtually no rational argument with data to back it up), the major oil companies ARE responsible corporations.

Sure it is, if it is obtained illegally, unethically, or immorally.

Sub la Goon is right. The oil companies are running scared because the President they bought and paid for is going to be out of a job soon.

Unless things have changed, I don't believe the proposals for ANWR drilling are offshore. That's why the big supposed disruptions are generally to caribou.

Please provide examples of this behavior. I am curious how this opinion is formed.

Drill in protected areas

BENEFITS: Increased profit for oil companies, incremental delay in the exhasution of oil supplies.

DETRIMENTS: Non-zero impact to environment, to what degree is not ascertainable. Possibly catastrophic, definitely not none.

NET RESULT: Either we run out of oil in about 130 years and possibly lead to environmental devastation in these regions or we successfully find alternatives to oil within the next 100 years and possibly lead to environmental devastation in these regions. All with little to no effect on consumer oil prices in the meantime.

Continuing to Protect off shore and on shore environments

BENEFITS: Zero chance of drilling-related impact to protected areas.

DETRIMENTS: End of oil supply comes slightly sooner

NET RESULT: Either we run out of oil in about 100 years but have given important ecosystems the best chance of survival, or we successfully find alternatives to oil within the next 100 years and have given important ecosystems the best chance of survival. All with little to no effect on consumer prices of oil in the meantime.

To me, that's the long and short of the cost/benefit analysis. The only thing gained by allowing drilling is more profit for the oil companies (in the form of further reduction in oil speculation spending, none of which will be seen by the consumer). That alone is not an evil thing, but what societal motivation is there to start allowing it? There are plenty of other ways for small investors to make money in the stock market, it does not hinge on the oil companies. The only people who have a total vested interest in this move are major oil investors and executives. Other than that, everything else is essentially a wash with a non-zero risk of irreversible environmental damage. I can't see any way in which that's justified.

Major benefit you omitted in drilling that I believe is the biggest key (this also equates to a detriment on the no drill side):

Gradual removal of dependence on foreign oil and the effects of potential supply disruption in unstable areas of the world. This lowers the price of oil and shields it from some speculative pressures that have immediate and obvious effects on the economy.

It isn't about increased supply. It's about being sure that our supply - and therefore a large portion of our economic well being - is not subject to the whim of crazy men like Chavez and Ahmadinejad or terrorist action in the Persian Gulf region.

Okay, but over what time scale is "gradually"? It's going to be 20 years (I don't buy the 10 year time line) before we're even pulling it out of the ground in appreciable amounts and have a workable distribution network. Another 10 years beyond that it will maybe start to have an effect on our need for the world oil market. And then how long exactly will that last? That's going to run out eventually, in far less than the 130-150 years that world supplies are estimated to last. And we'll be right back where we started.

To me, there is one, and only one, endgame. Get off of oil. Delaying the depletion of oil, shifting the source of oil while we're depleting it are meaningless bandaids. We're dead if we don't get off oil and the window to do so is smaller than the time needed for any of this drilling to do us any good.

Equation remains the same.

I see it happening much sooner than the 10 year time line.

I agree on the endgame. But the basic functions of oil in terms of what it currently does for us are simply not going to be replaced that quickly. I'm a HUGE nuclear power proponent. Solar and wind? Love 'em. But how far away is it until those (or anything else) are providing for the primary usage of oil, being transportation? Much, much farther away than 10 years.

Even the most optimistic proponents of offshore drilling say 10 years. When was the last time you saw any industry in this country get something done faster than the best-case-estimates? Based on history, I'd say doubling that to 20 years is generous.

Probably about the same time I saw government accomplish anything faster and better than best case estimates, or within budget (applying that last one to both govt and business).

Yep. The next one is much less likely to be in their pocket. W has been a great friend to the oil companies.

That's where I stand. The debate over domestic oil versus foreign oil still assumes an addiction to oil. Let's find other ways to do this. Stop using oil entirely.

I don't approve of drilling in sensitive areas. ANWR has only a small area scheduled to be drilled, but the impact is much wider than just the drilling rigs. Pipelines, vehicle traffic, construction traffic, spills, the waste and pollution from the men working the rigs, and various other disruptions and other factors unforeseen.

The debate comes down to valuing the environment (a soft benefit) over anything that humans want (a hard cost when we have to give something up). Humans have run roughshod over any environment we have touched. At what point do we have a responsibility to say "enough"? I think we're there.

I'll tell you what....when Gore and all the enviromentalists calling for the elimination of using oil stop using oil, particularly to the extent Gore does, then I'll consider it.

Al Gore is Napolean from Animal Farm.

Really? Any environment we have touched? Sorry - I can go to innumerable beautiful and populated spots within a 10 hour drive of my home. Oh wait. I shouldn't drive 10 hours. Uses too much gas.

This argument is made again and again and I'm so done with it. So you will do the opposite just because you think Gore is a hypocrite? That's a childish argument.

I am of the mind that I don't mind conserving something I may never see in real life. Ecosystems are delicate things and you can't predict all the effects human activity will have.

I see the current situation with oil as the prime opportunity for innovation into alternative sources. If we invest money into getting more oil instead of innovation, where is the economic incentive to develop those alternatives?

Not so in the least. First of all, I never said I'd do anything opposite. I said when he stops, I'll stop. I didn't say I'm going to do my best to increase my energy usage to stick it to him and all his enviro-buddies.

Gore IS Napolean from Animal Farm. He is so important that he must consume more energy than he wishes any one else to. In Gore's world of purchasing carbon credits, then only the wealthy would have access to any energy at all.

Al Gore's house uses more energy than the average, no doubt about it. He's an important man, operating both business and political concerns from his home. There's staff, quite a few if I remember correctly, along with their attendant energy needs. Al Gore is a busy, and quite wealthy, fellow.

It's been my experience that people who will go out of their way to denigrate Gore will fail to tell you he purchases his household energy from wind, solar, and other renewable sources through the Green Power Switch program. There's ample information available on the program should one choose to have a look. And he does this at great additional expense to himself.

Al Gore doesn't have to stop using less oil, except possibly on transportation.

May be (I don't happen to agree), but please don't base your judgment on rhetoric with only a tangential relationship with the truth.

Well, where the fun in that?






:D

Good point ;)

Sounds an aweful lot like Napolean from Animal Farm to me.

Great personal expense - indeed. Gore happens to be someone who has the funds to incur the great personal expense, but still, in using the excessive renewable energy that he does there is less renewable energy available for use by others and therefore they use normal fossil fuel energy. Gore also purchases carbon credits - from a company that I believe he owns.

In other words... Because you dislike the man, he loses no matter what.

That doesn't make any sense. You don't believe he is right about global warming but you'll go along if he behaves more like you think he should if he really believes what he says?

That's kind of like me saying I'll be whatever religion you are if you simply prove to me that you believe it.

If the problem is one of personal commitment (to your definition) then you're just picking the wrong role model. I can point you to plenty of people who come very close to living carbon neutral lifestyles, making all or most of the sacrifices you'd apparently require of Gore. So, since they've done it why don't you go ahead anyway?

Pfft Yes, I recognize the attempt to bait me, but I'm bored.

When Green Power Switch starts turning people away, you'll have a point. Until then, not so much.

And just for fun, with the understanding that one should be able to receive as well as they give...Could you please trade in that wasteful vehicle you drive, Napoleon. There are many other vehicles you could choose. I really don't appreciate your wastefulness. Many people can't afford a vehicle as nice as yours and you should be ashamed of yourself for flaunting it in front of those of lesser means than yourself.

Oops... almost missed your last edit, and wouldn't that be a shame?

Per usual, pick up the part of the story that could be used to slam Gore and run with it... right into a wall.

Gore owns stock.

Your 401K probably owns stock in ExxonMobil.

Does it own ExxonMobil? Do you? Do you ever buy gas from ExxonMobil, Napoleon?

Give it a rest.

I find the man offensive, to be sure. I find any elitist who expects others to do without while he consumes to ridiculous degrees to be offensive. I don't ened to say again who he reminds me of. I find his doomsday hyperbole to be ridiculous.

It was meant to be a rhetocial point, not a literal. I haven't the means to give up consumption of petroleum products.

But I don't think oil companies are evil. I don't think others should be prevented from owning a minivan and won't presume to tell them not to. I also don't believe that others should stop buying from Exxon and I should be allowed to continue, so the analogy hardly is fitting. Or do you not understand the literary reference?

Wow...I guess if you think i should give it a rest, I better stop. I'm so sorry.

Neither does Al believe carbon credits are evil.

Neither does Al

I understand literary reference AND bull**** all at the same time. I multitask.

No need to apologize... not to me anyway.

I don't think they are evil either, however I do think that public policy should value their interests below the interests of society and the planet.

Earlier I posed the query of "Please provide examples of [how oil companies were gaining their 9% margin illegally, unethically, or immorally]. I am curious how this opinion is formed."

So far, no takers.

So he can buy all he wants. I won't ask him to stop.


Then you understand Napolean propped himself up as too important to follow what he made everyone else follow.

It was a bit sarcastic. I don't think I've said anything unjustified abuot anyone in this thread. I haven't called anyone here a name or asked them to give it a rest. That's someone else.

Kevy, do you think the Iraq oil revenue sharing plan proposed by the administration and supported by the oil industry is fair and equitable?

And that is a completely rational thing to want/expect. I don't think the policy of drilling now, though, puts the interests of society at risk - i see it as win-win. Cheaper gas (and grated that will take a bit) while other techs and infrastructure are developed and implemented. The planet? Yeah, accidents can happen. we had 3 mile island and Chernobyl but yet nuke power has advanced to the point of extreme safety.

Is that an absolute? If so, then every single car would need to be taken off the road tomorrow (and every airplane grounded, every non-electric train, etc.). All fossil fuel burning power plants would need to be shut down. All sorts of things would have to happen that would not only be extremely inconvenient and dangerous to every person in this country, but would also send the economy into a complete tailspin.

We make the decision every time we get into our car, that today, our personal interests are more important than that of society and the planet.

Both personally and globally, we are making risk/reward assessments. No, oil exploration is not 100% safe - there will be a small amount of damage to the environment. But I believe that (as long as it is on US soil), it will be safe and will have negligible impact on the surrounding environment. Increasing our (the US) capability to be self-sustaining improves the safety of our country, economically and politically.

Yep, sure do.

What Al is asking you to do, he's already doing.

Your Napoleon reference is not apt.

Can that be put any simpler?

No, because that would not be in society's interest

What part of that is in society's interest?

I did not say I don't think oil companies should be allowed profit. But, as I've stated above, the only benefit I see from off shore drilling is to the oil companies, not to us. I don't expect it to lower prices to consumers. I don't expect it to lessen our dependence on foreign oil to any appreciable degree. I don't expect it to forestall the inevitable day when the world's oil supplies can no longer support us. And I do expect it to delay the hopefully inevitable day when we no longer need oil. All I expect it to do is temporarily allow the oil companies larger profit margins due to lower cost of oil speculation.

You know I seem to recall you chastising Obama for not being charitable enough because he had such a high income. Why do you hold an individual to such sliding scale and not an entity? If his willingness to part with his money for the greater good increases with increased income, why not the oil companies?

I can guess from the way the question is asked that you believe that it is not fair and equitable (if I assume incorrectly, please accept my apology).

So, since you do believe this, please explain why.

No apology necessary.

I struggle with it. The oil companies retaining 70% does seem high to me. The Iraqi government certainly seems to think so as well, but of course they would, wouldn't they?. Of people I've talked to, most are surprised to hear the actual breakdown. I know I was.

And you?

But it would be in the PLANET'S best interest. Is society more important than the planet?

See my response above.

I guess we will have to disagree on this as while I don't believe that it will eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, I do believe that it WILL give us less exposure to the whims of madmen of the world and give us more flexibility. It probably won't lower prices (or if it does, it won't be by much) but I don't believe that it will increase oil company profits (or if it does, it won't be by much).

How about the fact that it WILL provide jobs for Americans? Is that something of relevance? It isn't a major factor in the decision, but it is still there.

ETA: and do you believe that an oil company making a profit is in no way beneficial to you? Who is it that benefits from oil company profits? As I stated above, more than 50% of the ownership of EM is institutional holders: Joe Public and his pension. Individual stockholders are negligible in this equation.

One last thing: EM's recent quarterly profit at 9% is DOWN from 2007 when they made 10.9%

Sigh, I don't believe I have to be this pedantic, but if you want to play that game let's play.

Sustainability of our society with as minimal impact to the planet as possible is the goal. Finding that balance is no easy task and I don't claim to have the answers. However, when I see a public policy decision that clearly serves neither of those goals I do not find it difficult to be indignant about it.

Yes, it would provide jobs for Americans, but (to be ridiculously pedantic), so building oil burning factories. Should we do that? Think of the jobs!

Where are you getting the 70% retention? Any foreign investment in Iraqi oil would be based on flat fee based contracts: they would get NO revenue from the sale of oil.

Besides, it would be a very risky investment for an oil company given the instability of the Iraqi government. Analysts are not even sure that US oil companies would even want to venture into this.

Again, we clearly disagree. I DO believe that oil exploration and tapping into those oil reserves has a relevant benefit to society and does it with minimal risk to the environment.

To me, it is a public policy decision that benefits society.

Old link (knew I should have bookmarked that article), but this is close to what I read.

Oil companies would immediately take 70% of profits to pay for their infrastructure improvements, then revert to around 20% after those costs are paid.

Not to derail with a reference several pages back, but Alex there is a flaw in your grand plan for your next vehicle. Speaking in terms of damage to the environment, there is an issue with your "plug-in electric" vehicle plan. The energy from your electrical system comes from somewhere, and that somewhere often takes its own toll on the environment.

Now, obviously, if we switched to nuclear, it would be a different kind of damage than the use of coal. Sure, we have hydro and wind power, but if I recall from a thread about a year or so ago, only a portion of our power comes from wind and water.

***

I don't understand why there isn't more talk of biodiesel. And by biodiesel, I don't mean ethanol. Biodiesel can use oil from more sources than merely corn, which is already inefficient to produce. Besides which, we already use quite a bit of oil in this country (Fast Food Nation, anyone?), which could be recycled into fuel thus not only reducing the amount of oil production needed, but also providing some cost recovery for the food service industry and less oily substances entering our water systems by way of drains.

What's more, certain types of biodiesel do not even require special equipment on the vehicles (instead the oil is treated to prepare it for use) - so vehicles on the road today (even that beat-up '63 Beetle in your local high school parking lot) could be running on biodiesel. Today's diesel vehicles are also highly efficient (making CA's issues with the sale of new diesel passenger cars somewhat silly).

And if we can't produce enough palm/peanut/corn/etc. oil? We can patronize any of a number of 3rd world countries, whose mainly agricultural economies would benefit, thus raising the quality of life for people around the world. But because so very many countries could produce what we need, we need not be slaves to their resources.

One possible issue with this sunny outlook would be the potential for food shortages in countries who switch over too much production from food to fuel, but with nearly every nation around the world able to produce it, the pricing would be kept fairly low, minimizing the possible impact on food.

***

As far as the impact of speculation on oil prices - I agree that that is where the problem is. Only there's a hitch: we can't stop oil futures from being traded in the major markets because of the practical applications of futures trading. Many companies anticipate their needs and guarantee access to them by purchasing futures in their necessary raw materials (be it cotton or oil, or whatever). Others use futures to hedge their bets and average out the cost per unit needed by stocking up (in a theoretical sense) on what they may need in the coming months, so if there's a sudden drastic increase in price, it doesn't completely destroy their ability to make a profit on their core business.

Airlines, for example, try to stock up on oil futures when prices dip, to soften the blow when prices rise, bringing down their average fuel cost per flight mile.

When the fear is of constant increasing prices, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy as they continue to buy any fuel below the price they fear it's going to rise to (until, due to demand, it does indeed rise to that price). Then on top of the "legitimate" buyers of futures, there are speculators, who hope to sell their shares to those same companies when their stores of fuel become limited.

(legit put in quotes because, of course, speculation is, in fact, legit in most respects)

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here


Here

Found these in just a few minutes of searching. There is much, much more out there.

But I disgaree, so no, it doesn't matter how simply you state what you think.

Al Gore says burning fossil fuels is killing the planet (this is a paraphrase so I'm not chatized for not having a link to a quote). We should all reduce what we use. Al Gore, though, is so important, that he can jet around to all corners of the earth and travel in motorcades when I suppose he could make a speech via a sat link. His carbon footprint drawfs that of those he chastizes. Because he is wealthy it is OK for him because he purchases carbon credits.

Mind you, I don't think Al Gore should change his habits. I don't really care. Just don't tell me or Joe Sixpack or anyone else that we aren't doing our part because we drive an SUV (which I don't, by the way).

[Directed at Morrigoon]

Yes, electric is not a panacea, but it is a mode of delivery I am willing to work with. I am perfectly aware that electricity is not without cost. However, there is also that fact that the negatives are easier to ameliorate when they are produced at a single site (such as from a electric plant) than when we have to clean up the mess of 500 million individual fuel fires.

So a car that fulfills 80% of my driving needs on electric but still has the capacity to use more traditional fuels for the other 20% is a compromise I am willing to make. If more of that electricy can be drawn from nuclear, solar, and wind, then wonderful. I personally am not a fan of hydro in the American Southwest.

But I make no claim to sainthood. It was just in response to the idea that unless you are personally doing everything possible then just shut up. I'm not, but I'd venture to say that I have done more than most.

I'm willing to consider biodiesel if it is moderately convenient to my driving practices (currently it would not be). However, biodiesel is also not a panacea as fulfilling our energy needs would put pressures on food prices (if not directly through use of food for fuel then indirectly through increased competition for arable land) and is still essentially creating a few billion individual fires that while better than other fires still isn't all that ideal. But I'm not opposed to it if there is a sufficient distribution network for my needs.

Fair enough. I have no idea what the charitable contributions of oil corporations are. I admit that I'm not sure why I view a corporation as different than an individual when it comes to charitable giving.

Hey, no fair- I asked for examples to support KB's statement that deregulating (in particular, Energy) industries was a positive for anyone other than the powers that be, and all I got was a ersatz Econ lesson.;)


Good return, JW.

Come on, don't make me do your work for you.

The reason that corporations should be treated differently in charitable giving is that they are simply a channel by which wealth flows to individuals. Whether that is executives, employees, downstream suppliers, or stockholders.

Beyond certain minimums it is not reasonable to expect a corporation to place altruism and charity above its primary reason for existing. It falls to the individual recipients of that wealth to act humanely and engage in charity and service to their fellow man. Especially since, inherently, any charity performed by a corporation is just passed on to as increased cost to consumers or decreased wealth to individuals.

Eh, I didn't really want to work at it.

ENVIRONMENTAL DEVASTATION
 

Here are some photos of the environmental destruction that has devastated the wildlife where there are existing oil installations in Alaska. (Oil wells and oil pipeline). As you can see, it has been “spoiled”. “Forever”.

And a photo of the proposed drilling site in summer where you can see the bounty of delicate endangered flora and fauna that flourish in the fragile ecosystem that must be preserved at all costs.

Lastly, a diagram showing the size of the exploration area relative to the entire ANWR area.

Exxon gets sued for the actions of Indonesian soldiers hired to protect their employees getting harmed. Whether Exxon had complicity in the actions is questionable. The case is still not tried in court. Just because someone files a lawsuit does not mean that someone (or a corporation) has done something wrong.

Yep... Shell Oil done wrong. I concede this one.

Looking into this, I see that ultimately this story is about a corrupt politician in Equatorial Guinea, not about oil companies being corrupt (despite what liberal organizations claim).

This is about a lawsuit against Panalpina - a freight forwarding company. At this point, Shell's involvement is just being looked into as a possibility

This involves Veco, what was a small oil pipeline service and construction company. Yes, this is an oil-related company, but hardly a "big oil" company.

Sorry - this is just a (highly spun) op-ed piece on a known extreme liberal web site. I'm not going to waste my time on this one.

So out of six stories linked, only one is really of relevance. Yep - ya got me convinced that the oil industry is massively corrupt.
_____________

I am not trying to say that oil companies are saints deserving of our worship. They have faults. I just keep seeing them (and for that matter, any large corporation) being attacked as evil incarnate. It gets old.

I have to agree with Kevy on this one.

The question was about the normative use of the profit margin. You can find examples of corruption and immorality in every industry. That doesn't mean the service or product they are in business to provide is wrong. Think how many things you use that are made of plastics - petroleum products.

While I can't dispute the news stories cited, all of the sources seem to dote on the aberrations and abuses so as to make them seem like the norm. (NY Times has already had to admit to a falsified series about poverty in NY; it took a lawsuit to reveal that the Mohammed Aldura video that Reuters constantly showed, which fueled the Intefada, was doctored; and most recently, Reuters had to retract the doctored photo with the multiple added smoke plumes of the Lebanon/Hezbollah incursion)

In, oh, the early 20th century, stockholders could sue to enjoin corporate charity as ultra vires and a waste of corporate assets and courts would side with them. Ultimately, courts came around to the view that corporate charity had a public relations component and so was a reasonable corporate expense.

Well, by gosh- according to David's photos, the animals are flocking to the oil fields! It's so heartening to see a bear hugging an oil-filled pipeline- it really is. Looks so.......natural.


Sorry, David- but those photos kind of made me want to hurl. A bunch of animals hanging around a pipeline doesn't mean shyt, except maybe to a hunter.

I'm about to go to bed, and am tired, and as such probably shouldn't post in a political thread. Usually, for me that ends up with me apologizing a year later for being rude. Ah, but anyway, for the colorful pics of animals and pipelines above I do honestly smell photoshop or photo-op. Either way, it looks, frankly, ridiculous, and I'm just a regular consumer of internet images. Happy animals loving the pipeline! Wooooooo! I'll have what you're having.

So we should only save land if there are big, cute furry animals providing wonderful photo-ops? Perhaps the animals are in those shots because someone built a big effing plant where they usually hang out and they can't read the signs that say, "Warning toxic chemicals present."

I suppose there were a heard of dead animals next to a pipeline it would mean everything, eh, WB?

The Alaska Dept of Fish and Game states that there has been absolutely no adverse affect on caribou populations. Most reports I find say that populations have as much as tripled in the area of the pipeline.

Photoshopped? I think not.

While scaeagles pretty much stated it, I think the point of the photos is being missed: the supposed horrible effects on the environment are grossly overstated.

Certainly debatable - I can find many references to the contrary.

Polar bears thriving as arctic warms up

Much of what I've read on the subject says that counting polar bears is very difficult because of the vastness and unfriendliness of their habitat. It also seems as if it isn't actual numbers that appear to be in decline, but that there is more a sense that they will be in danger.

Threatened species - listed in May of 2008 which is a year after your link was published.

Threatened is a long, long way from extinct. Threatened has nothing to do with existing populations, it simply means that there is cause for concern about their well being. Your link does not address existing populations.....which granted, could have declined since the article I cited was published.

Threatened is also a long way from not in danger. I suggest you read some of the links on the page I posted. The petition to list them as a threatened species started in 2007 as well.

This is not a good thing :(

They're drowning.

Alex: great points, as usual!

re: Polar Bears

Bears thrive when seals have a hard time, or vice versa. How's the seal population?

The bears can drown if too much ice melts in their area. This happens seasonally, regardless of whether a larger warming trend is occurring; the ice re-forms every year, otherwise the bears wouldn't be there.

With regard to the animal photos, they are not doctored as far as I know. Caribou in more desolate areas also like the warmth of the heated pipelines. I think photos help to demystify a lot of what is being discussed, which can get very abstract and emotional sometimes. I would like to see photos of some of the negative effects such as leaks as well, to put that into perspective too. We have all acknowledged that sometimes things will go wrong.

Here are some enlightening numbers.

According to government statistics, drilling in ANWR will mean, in the best case estimates, that in 30 years we will be importing 46% of our oil instaed of 51% of our oil.

Boy howdy, that'd show Chavez a thing or two!

Oh wait, don't forget the astounding 1% that drilling offshore will contribute. Totally worth risking a few species of animals.

Not true. I hear polar bear steak is delicious.

I don't really buy into the argument that the drilling would be any serious wildlife threat. I just don't think it is necessary so there's no reason to change protections on Federal lands.

For any state owned lands (be that in Alaska or offshore) I'd support lifting any federal restrictions and leaving it to the states involved to make their own decisions.

I don't think drilling is a direct threat to wildlife (they certainly aren't going to plant a drill right over a den or nest). I think the effects of the drilling will cause problems. The heat from the equipment can change the microclimate. The people who are now in a formerly unpopulated area will bring with them trash and perhaps disease that the animals have never been around. The vibrations in the ground; what are the effects of those on the subterranean organisms? What happens if an animal attacks or threatens a worker? Does the animal get killed because it's now a threat to the human population in the animals habitat?

If the ANWR could produce enough oil to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, then maybe, maybe I would have a different opinion. But the 4% reduction in importing that the drilling will bring in is not worth the risk.

I have no concerns about any sort of catostrophic environmental impact. But there will be some level of impact. There's no way that drilling into the ground and creating the roads, utility lines, buildings, offices, storage facilities, traffic, etc. will have zero effect on the surrounding environment. And with such little benefit gained, it hardly seems worth the risk of even minor intrusion into these environments.

I guess I don't understand how you're using the word "risk." Risk of impact, yes obviously. But that doesn't much bother me.

Risk of harm (where harm is defined as something more than just impact) then I'm not seeing that as significant enough that it impacts my decision making.

Off shore drilling will likely reduce pollution in the ocean. Oil seepage, some two thirds of all ocean oil pollution, is caused by pressure which can be released by drilling.

Any thoughts on this potential compromise, as put forth by the "gang of ten"?

Personally, I don't love it, but I think it is a reasonable compromise, that might actually start getting something done.


The major components of the proposal include:
It will be interesting to see which way each candidate votes on it. Kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.

If I were the Democrats I'd vote for it and then next year when they have the White House anyway put the off shore ban back.

I guess I'd want to first know how extensive the increases in drilling would be on the limited, though expanded, chances for drilling and I wonder who determines where they are allowed to drill.

And after looking at Alex's post, there would certainly need to be some assurances in place. Pelosi is already playing behind the scenes telling vulnerable dems it's OK to vote for drilling to protect the seat (tell 'em what they want to hear even though the party has no intention of allowing it - gotta love Pelosi!) while not allowing debate on the floor.

I've said before, I have no issue with off shore drilling using existing platforms and infrastructure that are retrofitted and inspected to be safe at today's standards.

My issue is with creating new structures, new infrastructure in the ocean and drilling in AK.

Yeah, but to reduce seepage one must drill where pressure has built up. That may require new infrastructure.

scaeagles, I don't have the energy tonight to look into that claim. But every single quick source I find traces back to a single Op Ed in a newspaper that references a single press release from 1999 for the idea that drilling reduces seepage.

Tomorrow maybe I'll have the energy but since you brought it up would you have any interest into looking at whether this idea has any more support than the last Drudge link that took the conservative blogosphere by storm?

I actually read it in an article from the Heritage Foundation, if I recall.

OK - here's the only thing I can find - can't seem to find what I thought I'd read from the Heritage Foundation, but this is published on the UCSB website, which references and article from Journal of Geophysical Research - Oceans, but I can't seem to locate that article.

From UCSB

Since that is pretty much the only thing that I find referenced repeatedly, I assume that's what you were referring to, Alex?

Searching their site for seepage doesn't find any good candidate but if you remember where you read I'll read it.

It sounds a bit fantastical but it could be true. That said, it could also be true that it is better to have a lot of seepage where it happens naturally than a little spillage where it doesn't, what with ecosystems adapting and all.

Yes, that is the 1999 press release that every single article on the subject I can find points to. I haven't found anybody yet who claims to have read the research, just quoting the press release.

Here's the abstract for the original article in Geology. I don't feel like buying the article itself.

Anyway, as you can see from reading the abstract it merely hypothosizes that drilling is the cause of reduced seepage in that area (I've no idea if seepage in Santa Barbara Channel is remotely standard). That's a long way from "off shore drilling will likely reduce pollution in the ocean."

Maybe that has been supported over the last decade, but I can't find anybody pointing to such support and I'm certainly not doing a full citation search tonight.

Also, it is worth pointing out that the press release states that most of the seepage is natural gas which is different than what would be introduced into the water if there were a pipeline spill.

Uh oh. I'm scared now, isn't this proposal from the Gang of Ten exactly what Paris Hilton advocates here? Maybe we should elect her.

I thought in looking at statistics for oil seepage, oil was specifically done separately - not in terms of seepage, but oil seepage (in terms of 67% of ocean oil is from seepage, 1% is from drilling, etc).

Enough politics! Let's dance!

Nature, when left alone, takes care of itself. Oil is under the ocean floor naturally. The seepage that is occurring is by design. Who are we to help it along?

Again, if the amount was enough to make a significant difference I'd have a slightly different opinion - but these arguments that drilling will help stave off seepage that is occurring by natures design are null in my mind.

Oooh, a tangent!

Ummm....oil is oil no matter how it gets into the ocean, isn't it? Unless I'm missing something, which I could be.

The difference is, the oil from seepage is how nature designed itself. Oil from leaks and disturbances caused by drilling is not.

I'm not trying to sound stupid or be picky, but how does a solid seep?

The same way glass flows.

So you're saying (and again, I'm not trying to be difficult here....for once :) ) that it becomes super heated under the ocean floor, melting it, it seeps, then reforms in a more solid form?

LOL What? You thought you've been flying under the radar or something? Haha

I don't have all the answers, but do know that changes in temperature produce changes in vicsosity. The bunker oil we burned on the Queen was so thick it had to be heated before we could use it in the boilers. Considering the colder temps of deep ocean...

I do know that oil seepage does not have the same effect on wildlife. Oil in a relatively viscous state at deep depth does not have the same effect as oil spread over miles of open water

I don't think anyone is arguing that it does. I think this is simply an issue of percentages, and maybe that amazing difference in those percentages is what makes an impact. 67% of ocean oil from seepage vs 1% from drilling leaks is pretty dramatic.

Absolutely... and demonstrates how well nature copes with one type of spill and not so well with the other.

And causes pregnancy

All I'm saying is that we don't have an impressive track record when it comes to getting our industrial infrastructure to coexist with natural environments. I don't have anything to back it up, I'll admit to this being conjecture, but I'd say more often that not that over the long run, presence of human-constructed and run operations in an environment does not have a positive affect on the flora and fauna. Not necessarily disastrous, and not even necessarily an impact that isn't recoverable in the even longer run. But if it's a question of "which is more likely" I fall on the side of it's more likely that a large scale drilling operation will have a net negative impact than a net neutral impact. So that, combined with the rather minuscule projected benefit to oil supply, is enough for me to prefer we just stay out of there.

Why can't the oil companies drill on the 68 million acres they already lease for drilling, but sit idle?

Don't really have a factual answer, but my initial guess would be because there isn't a sufficient supply of oil to make money by drilling there.

Then why did they spend the money to lease them?

We need to use what we have.

This just speaks volumes to the American culture. We don't want what is old and still functional when we can have new. Why use the old land, we can just drill in to new places.

This does happen in cases where it is cheaper to do something new. In this case, I don't think it applies. Believe me, to the extent that mainland oil lease lands can produce, they will be used by the leaseholders or get subleased to someone who will. It's way more expensive to build and ship from Alaska.