View Single Post
Old 07-22-2008, 12:13 PM   #58
Ghoulish Delight
I Floop the Pig
 
Ghoulish Delight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Alternative Swankstyle
Posts: 19,348
Ghoulish Delight is the epitome of coolGhoulish Delight is the epitome of coolGhoulish Delight is the epitome of coolGhoulish Delight is the epitome of coolGhoulish Delight is the epitome of coolGhoulish Delight is the epitome of coolGhoulish Delight is the epitome of coolGhoulish Delight is the epitome of coolGhoulish Delight is the epitome of coolGhoulish Delight is the epitome of coolGhoulish Delight is the epitome of cool
Send a message via AIM to Ghoulish Delight Send a message via Yahoo to Ghoulish Delight
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.
__________________
'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.'
-TJ

Ghoulish Delight is offline   Submit to Quotes Reply With Quote