SkyChimp 0 #1 July 12, 2008 This is interesting how this will play out. Just posted by the AP today........ WASHINGTON — President Bush on Saturday tried to pin the blame on Congress for soaring energy prices and said lawmakers need to lift long-standing restrictions on drilling for oil in pristine lands and offshore tracts believed to hold huge reserves of fuel. "It's time for members of Congress to address the pain that high gas prices are causing our citizens," the president said. "Every extra dollar that American families spend because of high gas prices is one less dollar they can use to put food on the table or send a child to college. The American people deserve better." With gasoline prices above $4 a gallon, Bush and his Republican allies think Americans are less reluctant to allow drilling offshore and in an Alaska wild refuge that environmentalists have fought successfully for decades to protect. Nearly half the people surveyed by the Pew Research Center in late June said they now consider energy exploration and drilling more important than conservation, compared with a little over a third who felt that way only five months ago. The sharpest shift in attitude came among political liberals. Democrats say they are for drilling, but argue that oil companies aren't going after the oil where they already have leases. So why open new, protected areas? they ask. Democrats say there are 68 million acres of federal land and waters where oil and gas companies hold leases, but aren't producing oil. “Americans are fed up every time they go to fill up and they're right to demand action. But instead of a serious response, President Bush and his allies simply repeat the same old line more drilling," Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said in the Democrats' radio address. "Democrats support more drilling," he said. "In fact, what the president hasn't told you is that the oil companies are already sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands with the potential to nearly double U.S. oil production. That is why in the coming days congressional Democrats will vote on 'Use It or Lose It' legislation requiring the big oil companies to develop these resources or lose their leases to someone else who will." "But we know that drilling by itself will not solve the problem of high gas prices," Van Hollen said. "We cannot drill our way to energy independence." He cited Democrats' calls to tap the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve, because it is full and "America's rainy day is now." And he said the country must focus on new energy policies that focus on alternatives to oil. Bush said that Democrats are at fault and that "Americans are increasingly frustrated with Congress' failure to take action. "One of the factors driving up high gas prices is that many of our oil deposits here in the United States have been put off-limits for exploration and production. Past efforts to meet the demand for oil by expanding domestic resources have been repeatedly rejected by Democrats in Congress." Bush repeated his call for Congress to lift the restrictions, including a ban on offshore drilling. A succession of presidents from George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton to the current president have sided against drilling in these waters as has Congress each year for 27 years, seeking to protect beaches and coastal states' tourism economies. Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para_Frog 1 #2 July 12, 2008 Supply is not the issue, nor is OPEC gouging. Fundamentals just don't support it. (read level of demand - especially with people and companies cutting back) I'm for drilling (assuming the market doen't spawn explosive growth in alternative energy sources) because I would rather be paying my fuel money to firms employing workers inside the US instead of helping build skyscrapers in the UAE/Saudi Arabia, but that's NOT a supply issue, per se. It's a supply source issue.- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #3 July 12, 2008 I for one am for lifting the ban but my fear is like any other progress in this country, our men in black robes will over turn the decision as they rule from the bench. Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #4 July 12, 2008 I am not american but I believe that offshore drilling need not be a problem. The main thing is that sufficient money is put into making sure the setup is least likely to pollute the surrounding area. submergable platforms etc would be a good idea."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #5 July 13, 2008 Quote I am not american but I believe that offshore drilling need not be a problem. The main thing is that sufficient money is put into making sure the setup is least likely to pollute the surrounding area. submergable platforms etc would be a good idea. The objection comes from the phrase "probably". The idea that it "probably" will not be a problem. "Least likely to..." is not acceptable at all. Oil spills weren't supposed to happen at all the places that they did. Then, there was a "cleanup". In Florida, we have two eco-systems that I would call non-recoverable. An oil spill will end them. The Florida Keys reefs and Appalachicola Bay. The A-bay oyster farming would be totally destroyed with one oil spill and it would not come back. The area is unique for the size and quality of the oysters. Coral reefs aren't just rocks. They are living organisms. The oil industry would like you to believe that a "small" oil spill is somehow acceptable, or that the damage would be corrected. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #6 July 13, 2008 The whole “open the remaining undrilled areas” (because as has been noted repeatedly there are lots of areas available for offshore drilling) versus “keep current restrictions on offshore drilling in additional areas” is akin to a proverbial discussion on re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. It obscures and ignores the underlying strategic energy needs and problems, i.e., it’s not just about ‘environmentalism,’ maintaining tourism-based economies, or anti-oil company rhetoric. Proposals to open the remaining undrilled areas are one step from a “gas tax holiday”- find it curious that so many recognize the futility of the latter but concurrently are insistent on opening the remaining undrilled areas. The engine of capitalist innovation is the small, high tech companies (who commonly are bought up by larger companies as soon as they become profitable). The single largest investment sector for private equity in small, high-tech firms is no longer software or biomedical applications but now “Clean Tech,” which includes “environmentally-friendly” materials, systems, and power generation. As usual, don’t take my word for it: to quote Mr. Steve Forbes from Dec07’s Forbes/Wolfe Nanotechnology Forum: w/r/t dealing with energy: “technology is the critical piece.” One of his prime concerns is that America’s declining investment in science and decline in training of new scientists and engineers is creating a situation in which America will be “buying” new ideas and innovation from foreign sources (like China) and becoming clients rather than selling them on the global marketplace. The global requirement for power is ~13 trillion watts (or terawatts/TW). By 2050, the world’s energy needs are estimated to be ~28 TW. One of my former colleagues noted that all movement is not created equal: a washing machine generates lots of movement (round-n-round) but never gets ya anywhere. That's at the core of the 'more drill' argument. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #7 July 14, 2008 Well here is the probably now...... WASHINGTON — President Bush will lift an executive ban on offshore oil drilling, although new oil exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf will remain off limits until Congress also takes action. The president will make a Rose Garden statement on Monday, where he is expected to announce his lifting of the ban. www.foxnews.com Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #8 July 14, 2008 Some odd poll options there. They should be: 1) Keep the current bans, keep drilling in the US and keep importing foreign oil. 2) Remove the current bans, keep drilling in the US and keep importing foreign oil. Nothing we will do, other than developing other sources of energy, will significantly reduce our imports. If we could somehow drill enough deposits fast enough to stop our imports, the US would be completely out of oil in 2.6 years. Some numbers: Remaining US oil reserves 22 billion barrels (P90 proved reserves) Our production level 5 million barrels/day (11.5 years remain) Our demand 22 million barrels/day - 2.6 years would remain if we started pumping at this rate That's why "drill more!" is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. If you want to suck every deposit dry within a few years, then by all means, waste all that money drilling and give yourself another two years to drive that SUV. But when the oil runs out, you are going to discover that you need oil for a lot more than motor fuel - you need it for drugs, plastics, asphalt, lubricants and industrial process feedstock. Personally I'd rather have another 12 years of oil than another 2.6 - which is why I think "drill drill drill!" is a dumb idea. An even better idea would be to take all the money that would be wasted on rapid drilling expansion and use it to develop alternatives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #9 July 14, 2008 Curious how Bush does this today. The attack in Afghanistan should have been the top news story worldwide: insurgents mounting a full assault on a US base killing multiple soldiers. I consider this a suspect move since Bush's own energy administration has provided proof that any new drilling wouldn't have an impact on our economy before 2031. Then he has the balls to blame the "Democratic" congress for our on going hardships . He is playing off their own low approval ratings to try to force this through. Another example of his recent spin moves: saying he was going to withdraw troops from Iraq. Just happened that the quiet footnote on it was that they were sending them over to Afghanistan because he mismanaged that battlefront and now it has gone to shit as well. So, I call a huge "bullshit" on this one to Bush. Quote “keep current restrictions on offshore drilling in additional areas” is akin to a proverbial discussion on re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. I plan on stealing that quote. Quote The global requirement for power is ~13 trillion watts (or terawatts/TW). By 2050, the world’s energy needs are estimated to be ~28 TW. And according to recent wind maps of the world provided by NASA, up to 15% of the world's energy demand can be met just by placing turbine farms in the right places. This isn't a random possibility, like oil exploration, but a confirmed number from years of observations. You could spend the money on that infrastructure and get a clean, renewable source._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #10 July 14, 2008 Just curious, what data do we have that shows if we tap our reserves, (not to be called supply) that it will only last two years? Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #11 July 14, 2008 QuoteYou could spend the money on that infrastructure and get a clean, renewable source. Why do you feel the world isn't doing this? Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #12 July 14, 2008 QuoteQuoteYou could spend the money on that infrastructure and get a clean, renewable source. Why do you feel the world isn't doing this? Because there's too much money to be made by doing nothing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #13 July 14, 2008 are we all at fault or just America?? ;-) Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #14 July 14, 2008 Quote are we all at fault or just America?? ;-) Everyone who uses oil is responsible for using oil.Who is responsible for delaying a transition to alternative fuels and technologies? The energy and transportation industries and their pet legislators. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #15 July 14, 2008 >what data do we have that shows if we tap our reserves, (not to be called >supply) that it will only last two years? I posted the data above. It's simple math. We have about 22 billion barrels (22,000 million barrels) of reserves. We use about 22 million barrels of oil a day. 22,000/22 = 1000, or 1000 days. 1000 days is about 2.7 years. You can increase or decrease both those numbers to see what you get. But we're not going to double our reserves; prospecting does not create oil, it just finds where there's oil we can pump. What we _can_ do is greatly reduce our usage by going to alternatives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #16 July 14, 2008 > are we all at fault or just America? Many of us consider ourselves Americans, so sorta both. (The whole world, actually.) Take one simple example - the electric car. A recent documentary analyzed why the EV1 program failed. Was it customer ignorance? Corporate greed? Legal shenangians? Problems with our government? Answer - yes to all. The one factor that was NOT a reason it failed was technology; the technology is here, and the EV1 was, by every analysis, a popular and well-received vehicle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #17 July 14, 2008 Quote the technology is here, and the EV1 was, by every analysis, a popular and well-received vehicle. GM were Farking stupid doing what they did with that car, they could be leading the world in that technology but they decided their oil stocks (that is an assumption)were worth more? Whatever they were thinking they thought wrong. Morons look at them now!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #18 July 14, 2008 Quote look at them now! GM and Ford are currently considering bankruptcy options. They have financial issues because they banked on always selling large SUVs and pickup trucks._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #19 July 14, 2008 QuoteGM and Ford are currently considering bankruptcy options. They have financial issues because they banked on always selling large SUVs and pickup trucks. Exactly, morons!!!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #20 July 15, 2008 Quote Quote look at them now! GM and Ford are currently considering bankruptcy options. They have financial issues because they banked on always selling large SUVs and pickup trucks. Ah, I think you may want to look at the way they set up medical and retirment benifits packages. THAT is where there financial problems reside. SUV's which are not dead and will return IMO have little to do with it"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #21 July 15, 2008 Quote Take one simple example - the electric car. ... The one factor that was NOT a reason it failed was technology; the technology is here, and the EV1 was, by every analysis, a popular and well-received vehicle. And don't forget the Ford Ranger EVs. Folks ended up camping out in Sacramento because Ford recalled them to crush (as in physically destroy), and the drivers wanted to buy them. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #22 July 15, 2008 >SUV's which are not dead and will return . . . Gas powered SUV's used as personal transportation are dying and will soon be dead. _Actual_ SUV's (i.e. vehicles used to get tools and materials over rough roads, or vehicles used for desert racing) will stick around for a long time - although they will change considerably. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #23 July 15, 2008 Quote SUV's which are not dead and will return IMO have little to do with it There's no ignoring the impact that the gas spike will have on the big 3. It takes a couple years to change a production line fully. Normally car trends move a bit more slowly, but this year it's a pretty violent transition and that is messing with their cash flow. The retirement/medical issues affect the long range picture for these companies. Their failure to be ready for the gas change threatens their ability to operate here and now. They may have to float a lot of bonds to get them through the transition. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #24 July 15, 2008 Quote And don't forget the Ford Ranger EVs. Folks ended up camping out in Sacramento because Ford recalled them to crush (as in physically destroy), and the drivers wanted to buy them. VR/Marg Is there any reason in the world why they crushed the EV and EV1? Liability? Something else?_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #25 July 15, 2008 Quote Is there any reason in the world why they crushed the EV and EV1? Liability? Something else? Fear of CARB. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
