Offshore Drilling Ban to be Lifted by Bush

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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

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?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Oil companies have zero interest in increasing supply.

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.

The reality is, we will eventually run out of oil. Drilling off shore and in wildlife preserves will buy more time, but not infinite.

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.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I'm not sure what percentage owns stock in oil companies, but 401Ks are invested somewhere.

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.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

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.

[BarTopDancer]

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.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

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.

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.

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

I don't have an issue with offshore drilling when done correctly and safely.

Who says it isn't?

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

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.

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

Who says it isn't?

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.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

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

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

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

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.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

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

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

Polar bears thriving as arctic warms up

In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today.

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.