Oil prices and domestic remedies
-
Tell me if you disagree with any of the following and why:
1. Drill in ANWR
2. Explore for oil off the coasts of California, Florida, etc
3. Explore for oil in the Gulf of Mexico
4. Build new refineries
5. Streamline the number of blends refineries create for various state requirements
6. Allow for oil shale development in Colorado, Wyoming, etc
I support them all, but I admit I don't know the full consequences of following such policies. So, what do you think?
-
All of those are great ideas. Many of them have been tried and haven't made it through our legislative red tape. It's really unfortunate, because between some of the prospects off our own coast and that coal to oil thinger that I know next to nothing about we can stave off some of the high costs we're seeing now.
If I had to complain, and I do, I'd say that it's probably in our best interest long term to let prices keep climbing. We need to get our asses held to the fire so we move away from oil altogether. High prices are causing people to sell the SUV's they didn't need to begin with, and that's a good shift in mentality for our immature country. -
I, for one, do see the light with the "oil crisis." Our very very warped sense of capitalism only progresses new and innovative ideas when the need arises, and a dramatic raise in oil prices is really the only way the need will every arise.
Yeah, its bad, its hurting a lot of people, and I wish that it could be accomplished another way. However, I do embrace the change it will eventually bring. -
Hey, you said what I said, only better. It's pretty ridiculous that our country is unable to innovate for the sake of innovation anymore. If there's no bottom line, it doesn't happen. Try getting people like Ben Franklin and Thomas Edison in an environment like this.
"Why do we need lights that aren't just fire? We already have candles, and people have to buy them all the damn time. I'm making a MINT!" -
I agree that the higher gas prices will push forward innovation, but I also think that some innovation is being cut off. Figuring out how to drill in environmentally friendly ways in Alaska and off our coasts IS innovation. Figuring out how to use our vast amount of oil shale in Colorado IS innovation. Building new refineries with better technology and therefore better output IS innovation.
And as an aside.. Don't make fun of me, but I love Newt Gingrich:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?pri...es&id=26931QUOTEThe United States was a leader in the creation of the offshore drilling industry in the 1950s and early 1960s, but today it's countries like Norway that are leaders in the field.
Norway's annual output of 1.6 billion barrels of oil comes exclusively from offshore drilling. Oil and natural gas are transported through a network of sub seafloor pipelines. Norway is the home to the world's largest natural gas drilling platform.
And the truly remarkable fact is that Norway has built this robust offshore oil and gas drilling industry alongside large and thriving fishing and tourism industries. -
Nothing wrong with Newt Gengrich. He can be a bit of a shill now and again but there's WAY worse out there. And he has a point or two in there. Mostly that Norway is on the damn ball and we could learn a load from them.
I'm just really ready for step 3. No oil at all. Tapping into our offshore resources is a thumb in the dike, and that thumb would breed complacency once again. If I had a bit more faith that if gas prices dropped, that we'd keep chugging towards the next big thing before our 5-10 year fix was up I'd be more receptive to those plans.
/is all -
-
QUOTE (ANunes @ Jun 10 2008, 11:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hey, you said what I said, only better. It's pretty ridiculous that our country is unable to innovate for the sake of innovation anymore. If there's no bottom line, it doesn't happen. Try getting people like Ben Franklin and Thomas Edison in an environment like this.
"Why do we need lights that aren't just fire? We already have candles, and people have to buy them all the damn time. I'm making a MINT!"
Inventing things now-a-days takes a large amount of time and money. Anyone with the money is unwilling to take the risk involved in the investment. With the price of gasoline rising, the chances for success increases, because success is making something cheaper than gasoline.
Maybe this will bring the next great inventor to our attention. Someone that proves himself and will get those people with money to invest in him. -
A great first step for the future is for your country to demolish the entire area of north Jersey and turn it into a sector devoted to alternative energy research. i don't think anyone would mind (reference - hotchickswithdouchebags.com)
I fully believe that in this lifetime we won't be able to completely shift away from the fossil fuel economy. -
let's figure out how to turn coffee into a fuel for our cars
-
pictures of the sliver of ANWR that would be drilled:
http://patdollard.com/2008/06/anwr-paradis...-yeah-drill-it/
and congress debated a resolution allowing for the opening up of drilling off of our coasts today:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365627,00.htmlQUOTEWASHINGTON — A House subcommittee on Wednesday rejected a Republican-led effort to open up more U.S. coastal waters to oil exploration.
Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., spearheaded the effort. His proposal would open up U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles off shore for drilling. The first 50 miles off shore would be left alone.
But the plan failed Wednesday on a 9-6, party-line vote in a House appropriations subcommittee, which was considering the proposal as part of an Interior Department spending package.QUOTEAccording to Peterson's office, the U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found along the U.S. outer continental shelf, the area affected by the ban.
but it was blocked and died =\ -
I just spent 15 minutes poking around on washington posts vote thinger http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congres...ty/2008/jun/10/ to try and find this vote. And couldn't. No proposal number is given and the description is vague.
This sounds like Fox doing their damnedest to make our Democratic Congress look ineffective, a campaign they've been waging since day one.
It's one thing to have a bill that says we should open up some coast for offshore drilling. It's another to say we should do that and give billions of dollars to the people who are doing the drilling. I wouldn't be surprised if something else was in the bill.
Basically, I'd like to read the proposal. -
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congres...ty/2008/jun/11/QUOTEHouse Natural Resources (11 a.m.): Meets to markup H.R.3981, the “Preserve America and Save America's Treasures Act”; H.R.5451, the “Coastal Zone Reauthorization Act of 2008”;
text: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...h5451ih.txt.pdf
but it doesnt say much -
That looks like a whole lot of "more money" revisions.
$307,830,000 in grants? Feel free to reauthorize drilling, but don't include 300+ million dollars in play money to the people who are going to profit most from the drilling. Sorry GOP, the Dem congress is going to SHOVE fiscal responsibility down your throat. And the Republican party will continue to act like they aren't the ones stalling the show.
The democrats did the same thing for 5 years and it ended up in them taking control of the house. It's smart in the long term if you don't give two fucks about the country. -
QUOTE (ANunes @ Jun 12 2008, 10:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>That looks like a whole lot of "more money" revisions.
$307,830,000 in grants? Feel free to reauthorize drilling, but don't include 300+ million dollars in play money to the people who are going to profit most from the drilling. Sorry GOP, the Dem congress is going to SHOVE fiscal responsibility down your throat. And the Republican party will continue to act like they aren't the ones stalling the show.
WRONG WRONG WRONG, you just looked at my link, saw money amounts and assumed what they were for. I didn't do the research at first either so I cant complain that much =\
Anyway, here is my link
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...h5451ih.txt.pdf
In it there are just a bunch of money amounts authorized for use in some random sections of some other bill. That other bill is here:
http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/pdf/czma.pdf
You can look at each referenced section and see that all of the money will go towards researching the coastal zones...studying them to see how to preserve them...cleaning them up...lots of environmentally friendly stuff. I dare you to find one referenced section in that bill that has money going to oil companies because I looked through it and couldnt find such a thing!!
-
Doesn't matter who the money's going to. It's there to dissuade a congress that is needs to save money like whoa from enacting the bill.
If the Democratic Congress says Yes! then they are fiscally irresponsible. If they say No! then they are assholes who hate the little guy and are in the pocket of big oil.
Dems did it to the GOP for 5 years before they took congress. Now the tables have turned. -
-
The shale drilling in the Midwest won't happen at all anytime soon. Shale drilling is so expensive that unless oil prices stay as high as they are now, then shale drilling won't be profitable, or even cost effective, and that makes the entire concept of drilling to lower prices redundant.
-
ANunes, that statistic seems to be aimed at explaining how the cost will be affected by the amount of oil ANWR is able to produce. It does not take into account the speculators and futures market. If we have had a 30-year ban on additional offshore drilling, then the oil speculators have had no reason to be scared of the US attempting to drill more of its own resources. As soon as we make a move to PROVE that we are willing to go against that 30-year lack of initiative, then we will definitely make a dent in the futures market.
-
How about this?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle4133668.ece -
Good point about the speculation not being taken into account. Hadn't read into it that much. But I doubt there's anything we can do about futures speculation without straight up regulating it. It's in the speculators best interest to keep driving the prices up up up. Why would having more oil change this trend? It seems to me that if we found out we had enough oil for years of more unchecked consumption that it would embolden many of these folks who are making a KILLING on something that is hurting everybody else to stay on the sinking ship until it was just about to hit the iceberg.
Watching the market react to things has made me wonder if there isn't any way to be successful without doing it at the expense of the rest of the country.
/is capitalism unpatriotic? -
This discussion has been closed.
← All Discussions Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!