| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Drilling for more oil in the U.S. |
Topic: Drilling for more oil in the U.S.
| Author | Message |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 6/19/2008 11:57:13 AM | show profile I certainly am tired of politicians on both sides of the aisle pandering to the ignorance of the populace in coming up with their solutions for the high cost of oil and cost. On the right they say all we need to do is drill for more oil in the US if only those crazed environmentalists would let us. Then people get the impression that if only we could drill for more oil, our problems would be solved. In fact the government itself has acknowledged that increasing offshore drilling in the US have an insignificant effect, if any effect at all, on prices. In 2030 it might result in a whopping 7% increase in US oil production (EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2007). I'm an agnostic on whether we should drill for more oil (I suspect we eventually will anyway), but one thing for sure is that it's a drop in the bucket as far as solving our "addiction" problem. Speaking of which, there was the Clinton/McCain joke of a gas tax holiday for the summer. Yes, this will help to reduce our dependence on oil... here drug addict, let me help with the high cost of your drug by making it a little cheaper for the summer. That will certainly help. At the very very least, we could increase vehicle fuel efficiency standards to 50 mpg by 2050. If Japan and Europe can do it, by god so can we. This would be the single best thing the government could do. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 6/19/2008 11:58:05 AM | show profile Woah, meant 50 mpg by 2030, or even by 2020. We can't wait until 2050 for that change. |
| keltoi2 | Posted – 6/19/2008 3:58:56 PM | show profile But Ugo, energy efficiences don't help Dick and Boy George to put more money into the pockets of all their oil buddies (who will set them up for life come January 2009). More offshore oil fields, and today, the foot in the door to the Iraqi oil fields that BushCo invaded Iraq for in the first place, yes. But energy efficiencies? Weaning off oil? Where's the BushCo profit in that? |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 6/19/2008 5:26:45 PM | show profile Yes, Keltoi, big oil does not stand to gain by using these limited, yet highly valuable resources, much more efficiently. Drilling, of course, is what they want. As I said before, if we want to get really serious about it (and not focus on this potential 7% increase, maybe, by 2030), we would mandate 50mpg for all new cars/light trucks by 2020 or 2025. Even that wouldn't "solve" this problem for us, but it would go much much further than the drilling offshore. And it would help us to meet our climate change objectives. AND it's entirely feasible, as this is basically what's in place in Japan, Europe, etc. |
| HyancinthGirl | Posted – 6/19/2008 5:37:29 PM | show profile I'm glad you brought up this topic because I'm ambivalent. I haven't had a chance to do a review of the lit to make up my own mind. The talking heads on both sides of the aisle seem to be ok with it. I don't hear many environmentalists complaining...yet. I do hear a lot of people thinking that this will reduce the price of gas, but by mere pennies, and not for a decade or more. My gut says it will do nothing to encourage alternative technolgies/fuel because the American public will be funding the building of the drilling stations (or what they are called...offshore oil rigs?) instead of going after a cleaner, cheaper fuel. My pocketbook says, please, please, please drill because it's killing my standard of living, and, apparently, the subject matter of one of my magazines (transportation). The less money I spend on my future savings or by purchasing goods now, the more of an effect it has on the overall economy and my future ability to provide for my family. Common sense asks, if it was such a good thing, why did we wait so long to do it? Why not in the 70s (or did we?)? Sorry to post so randomly, but I can't help but wonder if others have the same questions. |
| beenthere | Posted – 6/19/2008 6:05:00 PM | show profile There were two very good editorials printed today that actually contain facts about this. One was in the NY Times. Another was in the Florida Sun-Sentinel.(sun-sentinel.com) The idea of drilling off shore to save money is absurd. According to what I've read, it will produce approximately 179 days of energy, and save basically no money for anyone. That's it. It's another repub ploy. The oil companies already have leases on areas that they CAN drill and gain access to more oil. But they are pushing for more ownership, instead of using what they already own. PLEASE READ THE EDITORIALS--I would find it hard to believe that anyone with even half a brain could believe this is a good idea. Or one that could "solve" our energy issues. So angry that Crist flipped on this. It's a huge issue here in Florida, and he just may cost the repubs the state, should this go through, which is really saying a lot. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 6/19/2008 6:19:06 PM | show profile Hyacinth, drilling would do nothing to reduce your gasoline costs, perhaps a few cents a gallon in a decade or two. It's a scam. It will be something the GOP will try to use, like gay marriage, flag burning, try to divide people and take for granted that people won't understand that this won't do a thing. If you want to help yourself, use your car much more efficiently (combine trips, etc.) and when it's time to get another car get the most fuel efficient one you can. If the Federal government won't set higher fuel economy standards, hopefully consumers will demand them through their purchases. |
| beenthere | Posted – 6/19/2008 6:26:49 PM | show profile Here are the direct links. NY Times: The Big Pander to Big Oil "This is worse than a dumb idea. It is cruelly misleading. It will make only a modest difference, at best, to prices at the pump, and even then the benefits will be years away. It greatly exaggerates America?s leverage over world oil prices. It is based on dubious statistics. It diverts the public from the tough decisions that need to be made about conservation." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/opinion/19thu1.html?ref=opinion Sun-Sentinel: Offshore drilling no panacea for rising gas prices "The U.S. Minerals Management Service's estimates peg the amount of oil and natural gas lying under the banned Gulf of Mexico regions as meeting the nation's oil demands for just 179 days, and natural gas requirements for just 11 months." http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-editafdrillingpnjun19,0,7553252.story Please read them. I am seriously stunned as to how dumb the repubs think the public is. |
| Guyarthurthomas | Posted – 6/19/2008 9:32:34 PM | show profile beenthere Posted ? 6/19/2008 6:26:49 PM | show rofile Please read them. I am seriously stunned as to how dumb the repubs think the public is. _____________________________________________ NYTimes: A Liberal Rag Paper...of course they oppose Republican efforts. Sun-Sentinel: A Liberal Rag Paper again....and FLORIDA has a vested INTEREST in not wanting someone drilling OFF THEIR COAST, they could give a CRAP if it helps they just don't want it in THEIR BACK YARD... Yes "beenthere" you ARE DUMB and a SUCKER as well. |
| Stanley_Milgram | Posted – 6/20/2008 6:42:17 AM | show profile well, once you see how dumb their base is... |
| chucho | Posted – 6/20/2008 9:47:53 AM | show profile >> The talking heads on both sides of the aisle seem to be ok with it. I don't hear many environmentalists complaining...yet. << My ex gf is an environmental lawyer fighting the weak EPA standards for offshore drilling. Apparently Bush's EPA issues licenses heavy polluters that should only be granted to light emitters. All of this is not addressing the larger issue of an economy wholly based on consuming and polluting. I feel sorry for people who were suckered into driving 14,0000 miles per year on average, mostly to get from their suburban homes to work and back, but that's no excuse for the short-term gains that would be had by letting an administration whose members have been personally enriched by the American Lifestyle (by promoting fuel consumption) sell you a bill of goods on how offshore drilling is going to make everything OK. Offshore drilling is very expensive (which is how oil companies justify gouging consumers -- by saying how overhead-heavy the industry is) and will only buy time. For those who have been hit by these costs, even a 10-year-old diesel gets better mileage (often over 35 mpg) and even emits less carbon dioxide than a Prius. And, as a good old friend of mine said: you're quality of life improves greatly if you live close to where you work. But selling out eskimos in Alaska so you can live far from work and drive whatever you want is not the long-term answer. Bite the bullet, buy a bike, make a vegetable garden and reduce your mileage. I'm sorry. I have family members in your predicament and I just don't feel sorry for them. They chose to live outside of the city because they didn't want their kids mixing with urban blacks in a inner-city school, and now they drive 50-70 miles a day to and from work. I don't have a lot of sympathy for that. I've made certain sacrifices not to own a car, like choosing to live closer to my jobs and riding my bike to do errands even when I don't want to. When you tell people like me who hasn't put more then 7,000 miles a year on a car in over 12 years that we should drill because you're being hit with the oil crisis, why should we feel sympathy? I suppose that just me being a "mean liberal" or whatever. |
| beenthere | Posted – 6/20/2008 9:59:01 AM | show profile Consumers are already making their preferences known. Every car ad on TV touts MPG. SUV sales have tanked--I saw an article a few weeks ago which put the height of annual sales at about 500,000 annually in 2002. Less than 50,000 have been sold to date this year (it was a graph so these are rough estimates). My 13-year-old Saturn just died, and I bought a used car about two weeks ago. MPG was a HUGE factor in the vehicle I purchased, and I saw a tremendous difference in the number of people looking for fuel efficient vehicles. I went to three different dealerships--two were empty and one was extremely busy. There was no mistaking what the reasoning was. The extremely busy dealership is known for producing cars that get good mileage. And I am now, happily, getting 38 MPG. We do not need to drill offshore. It will not solve any energy issue we have in the U.S. and is a smoke screen for addressing the real issue. *** If you want to help yourself, use your car much more efficiently (combine trips, etc.) and when it's time to get another car get the most fuel efficient one you can. If the Federal government won't set higher fuel economy standards, hopefully consumers will demand them through their purchases. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 6/20/2008 12:00:36 PM | show profile Chucho, but to be fair, over the last 80 or so years as we have built up this country, the farthest thing from 99% of people's minds was the fact that oil is a finite product, not easily replaced, and that sooner or later on a global scale it would become much harder to find and extract. People have just been trying to live that dream of having a little house on a little land... (or a McMansion...). Even most very educated people didn't think for a second about the obvious unsustainability of the way we were building our communities. |
| chucho | Posted – 6/20/2008 12:34:47 PM | show profile Fuel efficiency was greater in the 70s than it is today and 50 years ago people didn't live 30 miles from where they worked. And today all these red states take government handouts (except for Texas, which does through high property taxes, which conservative-types also hate because they want big government to fix their roads and maintain $2 gasoline) to maintain their lifestyles. So when I hear people say drill the crap out of our shores because I want my lifestyle to stay like it is, I get a little peeved. Anyone who thinks building offshore drilling platforms and refineries everywhere is the answer should go visit Port Artur, Texas and then ask themselves if that's a place they would like live. My answer is that people need to take along hard look at their lifestyles (and their credit cards debt, which is why a lot of these American can't pay the price for the gas -- because they deregulated the CC industry which made getting into debt way easier than it is in Europe where companies actually expect you to prove that you have the income you state on the application and you aren't allowed to loan more than a third of somebody's proven annual salary) and they need to look at their lifestyles quickly and adapt quickly. I'm not going to modify my views on this matter to accommodate a 25-year gradual adaptation to the new circumstances at the expense of air quality and the health of our shorelines. I made my choices 12 years ago and guess what, this oil thing is not hurting me as badly. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 6/20/2008 10:56:36 PM | show profile Chucho, I'm sure you're right about the impacts of offshore oil drilling on our coasts. I really don't know anything about it but I can easily see how the benefits (a few cents less per gallon; lots of money for big oil) would never be able to outweigh the costs. It pisses you off to see people desperately trying to hang on to their lifestyle at all costs, despite the costs. I'm a person who knows what it is like to have a house you have a history in, kids in schools, jobs, and even a car that you intend to run into the ground before replacing. I'm not moving, changing jobs, changing my kids school, and much as I would like to change our car, we're going to run our 1990 Honda into the ground (not a bad car anyway), before we buy the most fuel efficient one we can afford when it dies. That said, I think that Americans could fairly painlessly cut their driving in half. We are so incredibly inefficient with the use of our cars. Higher gas prices are helping people to use them more efficiently though. What do you really need to do? If you can't take the bus, walk, or bike to work, you need to drive to work. -You probably need to go shopping once a week. -Maybe you need to visit a relative once a week. -Maybe you need some form of recreation, in a pinch you could limit it to once a week. Doing these things alone would reduce vehicle travel by 50%. I think we're very adaptable. Does Johnny really need to go to soccer, swimming, and match club 7 times a week? No. Does mama really need to go to Nordstrom's twice a week? No. Does daddy really need to go to Home Depot every week? No. Does the whole family really need to go on a family outing every Saturday and Sunday? No. Over time, we'll buy more fuel efficient cars, figure out how to get around with a car, and adapt to our situation. But I can see that you're mad as hell and don't want people to think they can do this gradually. I'm with you, but I'm just trying to be realistic here. |
| chucho | Posted – 6/21/2008 10:48:44 AM | show profile There's also the little problem of consumer debt I mentioned before. If I remember correctly the average household carries about $7,000 in unsecured debt. So one way to look at is people that have lived beyond their means now complaint that they can't afford the rise in the cost of living - because they didn't plan for it and didn't take a traditionally conservative approach to their personal spending habits (unlike Europeans, who pay way higher gas prices and are also hurting, but have awesome public transportation alternatives and thanks to "big guv-mint" couldn't drive themselves into debt by lying on unvetted credit card applications). This may sound like it's not related, but it kind of is related. I know this because I was there one time -- living on the edge with lots of consumer debt where any unexpected rise in my cost of living drove me to deeper debt. But I didn't blame oil companies or those liberal elitists who are out-of-touch with the American people I blamed my self and got out of debt and insulated myself from gas prices through traditionally conservative methods of personal responsibility, saving money and careful spending. And, by the way, if Americans are going to allow supply siders to say that indexing minimum wage to local costs-of-living and inflation is impossible, then quit bitching about how your paycheck doesn't go far enough. Frankly, I'm surprised we have regressed back to the middle 1960s with people rioting in the streets. I'm also fed up with everyone, including a lot of liberals, swallowing the supply side bull-crap that makes it harder for them to make ends meet. And now, facing a rise in cost-of-living, they're all "boo hoo" about it and blaming the Saudis for not pumping enough oil (in fact, oil output there is at a record high -- it hasn't been higher since 1981 -- and I think the Saudis (and John McCain, by the way) justifiably point out that market speculation is the major issue. I know, I know, this doesn't help Joe and Jane who gradually dug themselves into a hole thinking Ameirca is the greatest, wealthiest country in the world that discovered how to maintain permanent fiscal growth. Well, guess what? The world doesn't work that way. Sell the car, cut your losses and make adjustments. You can start by adopting some subsistence agriculture -- you'd be surprised how much money you can save by growing your own vegetables and darning your socks. It's not like America hasn't gone through economic straights before, we just have short memories. But for god's sake: please stop talking about drilling the crap out of every rock we can find that has oil so you (the royal "you" -- I'm not addressing anyone here specifically) can manage your credit card debt and pay your cable bill. |
| HyancinthGirl | Posted – 6/23/2008 4:59:17 PM | show profile About consumer debt: I'm absolutely thankful I had credit cards in the past few years because when I got sick and had to finance my life via credit, I was able to keep my house, my car, my ability to eat and buy medication... I'm in debt up to my ass, but thankful to be alive. Those who are buying new cells every year and eat out three times a week on credit...that's their problem. There was a really good layout in The Economist about alternative energy, and it spells out the pros and cons of each. It's something I enjoyed reading. Also, I'm in the middle of Lincoln Chafee's book, Against the Tide, where he mentions ANWR and offshore drilling. Clearly, offshore drilling will be a Republicans' best friend. Considering 76% of Americans are saying to go with tapping our own reserves, the argument is timely and worth discussing in greater detail. We had to go car shopping this weekend for my husband, and the first stop was Toyota. Oddly enough, they couldn't try harder to force a Highlander on us. They were close to desperate, and that's coming from a brand that has the most popular hybrid under the sun. I guess SUVs still mean decent commissions for car salesmen. |
| chucho | Posted – 6/24/2008 8:47:04 AM | show profile Yeah, and the new Highlander HYBRID only gets 27 combined mpg, which some people actually think is good. I think anything less than 30 mpg should be illegal unless it's a commercial vehicle, but I guess that's just my elitist, big government mentality robbing good, humble Americans of their God given individualist consumer rights. Blech. |
| al medio | Posted – 6/25/2008 7:03:20 AM | show profile Something for chucho http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/24/business/exurbs.php |
| chucho | Posted – 6/25/2008 10:43:49 AM | show profile Yep, that's a big problem now. One thing I'd also like to point out about suburban growth is that a lot of these communities push to become incorporated into the urban municipality instead of incorporating themselves -- that way they can sponge off local sales taxes foe their fire departments and police stations. And the urban municipality must also extend its infrastructure to serve these outlying communities by building and maintaining roads, electrical and sewage lines, etc. On top of that many of these predominantly white communities want to kep their property taxes within their own school districts. So not only do some of these suburban communities want to leech of urban municipal sales tax revenues, but they also don't want to pitch in their share of property taxes to support the public schools in the entire incorporated zone of a city with its outlying suburban communities. Yea, I'm pretty down on these communities. If they want to separate themselves from the urban centers then they should be expected to build their own damn fire stations. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 7/1/2008 11:46:31 PM | show profile Hurrah Hurrah Hurrah What a great sign, high oil prices are doing exactly what they should be. **** Car Sales at a 10-Year Low Sales of new cars and trucks plunged to their lowest level in more than a decade in June, as high gas prices and a weak economy kept American consumers away from dealer showrooms. [and yet...] ...The seismic shift by consumers to small cars from large vehicles has blindsided virtually every automaker. Only Honda Motor, where sales rose 1 percent in June, appears to have been prepared. The Japanese automaker?s Fit subcompact nearly doubled its sales during the month, and its Civic sedan set a June record. By contrast, Toyota executives said they could not meet demand for its Prius hybrid-electric car or its small, fuel-efficient Corolla and Yaris models. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/business/02auto.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin |
| beenthere | Posted – 7/2/2008 9:36:55 AM | show profile A coworker and I both had to buy cars in the last two months. I bought the Toyota Matrix (same engine set up as the Corolla, but has more room inside). He bought the Honda Fit. The Toyota salesman said the Prius was at least a nine- to 12-month wait. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 7/2/2008 10:09:18 AM | show profile These automakers will either evolve or die. Toyota and Honda will do fine. Not so sure about the US big three though. |
| chucho | Posted – 7/2/2008 12:13:31 PM | show profile Anyone have any thoughts on investments? I've seen stocks in Hyrogenics (Canadian firm makes hydrogen cell technlogy and has built the hydrogen filling stations on California's Hydrogen Highway) go from 1.28 to 2.33 in the past week. I almost invested $1,000 on June 28. If I had I would now have over $1,900. (Yes, I know, it could go down and up and down and up, etc.) It IPO'ed at $11 a share in 2001, and plummeted to .45, but it's been trudging along. If the company sticks around I can't imagine that it's not going to bounce back, especially if it get bought by Shell or some other big player. Anyone have any ideas about small green firms they would invest in? I'm not interested in Toyota. I'm interested in the little company that Toyota someday buys, or the smaller firms that make parts for hydrogen cell battteries. My theory is that right now is the time to invest in hydrogen cell technology. I think hybrids are the "Betamax" and hydrogen cells are the "VHS" because hybrids will always need gas and electric cars won't have the distance needed to make them viable. (Even the 400-miles-per-charge considered the minimum isn't enough, IMO.) |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 7/2/2008 11:49:28 PM | show profile Chucho, if any of us here were really successful investors we wouldn't be here now, would we? I don't think there are any Warren Buffett's on this board. That said, I think I heard a while ago that Warren Buffett had investments in railroads and utilities. Makes sense to me. I don't know... the future is hard to predict. But from what I've read the "hydrogen economy" is a very long way off. Think about it, the infrastructure that it would require, the problem of the chicken and egg. If there are no fueling stations no one is going to get the car. If there are no cars no one is going to invest in a fueling station. So besides the issue of how much energy it takes to produce hydrogen (energy lost along the way...) it's the infrastructure issue. I do think that electric and especially plug-in hybrids are going to be more promising at least for the next few decades. We have outlets all over the place, the electric grid. Frankly I don't know why a plug-in hybrid hasn't come out yet. I heard Toyota might be making a "light" plug-in from the Prius that gets a very limited number of miles all electric. GM's supposed to be coming out with it, but I don't have much faith in them. I think Toyota is smart, if they are going to sell one, they want to sell one that is going to work. Of course Honda could beat them to it, and I've also heard that the SmartCar is going to put out an all-electric version. Personally, I'd feel more comfortable with a plug-in hybrid (back up fuel source) than all-electric unless they come up with something like an easily accessible back-up battery that makes it feel safer. Still I think the internal combustion engine will be around for quite a while... |
