Offshore Drilling Ban to be Lifted by Bush

[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?

[JWBear]

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

[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 JWBear

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

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?

[Alex]

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.

[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.