F... gas prices

[MTK]

Originally Posted by BDBohnzie

Here is what caught my eye in that article:

So drilling into these areas will provide oil for roughly 28 months, and natural gas for 44 months...5-10 years down the road. That's a small band-aid on a crater-sized hole.

Quite honestly, I'd rather Congress push Big Oil into further developing alternative sources than drill these areas.

Yep, hardly a viable long term solution.

We need to shake our addiction to oil... period.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by dmek25

first flip flop of this election. McCain now wants to drill, after being opposed to it

Wait, I thought that "flip flop" was a phrase that only the GOP used. When Kerry was accused of flip-flopping on Iraq, Dems responded that he was merely reacting to changing conditions and that is a sign of intelligence.

IMO, we need to differentiate between flip-flopping for purely political reasons and changing policies to account for an ever-changing world. If you think McCain flip-flopped for purely political purposes, what political advantage did he gain? He certainly lost some votes from the slightly left of center independents and he didn't gain any votes from most Repubs who would never vote for Obama. McCain can say with a straight face that he changed his opinion after the new gas crisis struck.

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by BDBohnzie

Here is what caught my eye in that article:

So drilling into these areas will provide oil for roughly 28 months, and natural gas for 44 months...5-10 years down the road. That's a small band-aid on a crater-sized hole.

Quite honestly, I'd rather Congress push Big Oil into further developing alternative sources than drill these areas.

Its not like this will be our only source of oil for 28 months straight. That wouldn't even be possible. This would just add to oil that we are already producing, and more places that we should start drilling, plus oil that we're already getting from Canada. We can tell Saudi Arabia and Venezuala to go screw themselves and we'd be getting all of our oil from North America.

I agree that we need to develop alternate sources, but it will take time and we need more oil now.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by BDBohnzie

Here is what caught my eye in that article:

So drilling into these areas will provide oil for roughly 28 months, and natural gas for 44 months...5-10 years down the road. That's a small band-aid on a crater-sized hole.

Quite honestly, I'd rather Congress push Big Oil into further developing alternative sources than drill these areas.

Iffy analysis.

As Steveo said, this will not be the sole source of US oil, far from it. If the US were to use oil from these areas exclusively, then it would last the amount of time you mentioned.

But we will not draw from this source at such a fast rate. We will still import oil from OPEC, from other nations, and continue to draw from current US sources. This offshore source will supplement the existing supply of oil in our country, thereby increasing supply, helping to push the price of gas down over the course of 20+ years.

The affect on our economy will not be a drop in the bucket, it will not be a short-lived (2-3 year) benefit, but it is also not a long term, permanent solution. We need to continue pushing for alternative energy sources while at the same time tapping into these reserves.

[MTK]

Point for debate here:

"Bottom line, you can not drill yourself to lower gas prices," he noted. "The amount of lands that are open, the amount of permits that have been issued have all increased over recent years yet so has the price of gas. There is no correlation between opening up more pristine areas and lowering the price of gas - no correlation whatsoever."

link: VOA News - Bush Calls for End to Ban on Offshore Oil Drilling

[GTripp0012]

I think high energy prices are going to force the next president's hand, whoever it may be, to drill for whatever they can.

And this is why the election process is meaningless. Millions of votes will go one way or the other on this issue alone -- and when it comes down to it, the situation is going to force one or both candidates to abandon the platform they ran on.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Point for debate here:



link: VOA News - Bush Calls for End to Ban on Offshore Oil Drilling

Just because recent permits have been increased, and land is available for exploration, does not mean that Oil companies have chosen to drill (in many cases they haven't because the oil reserves aren't large enough for them to cover costs).

In the offshore areas where the reserves are gigantic, the potential for profit is much greater.

Furthermore, any permits for drilling that have been issued within the last few years would not lead to oil production for several more years. This is a ridiculous assessment, it's akin to grading Devin Thomas and Malcolm Kelly solely on their first 8 OTA practices. You have to give the drilling and refining process time (it takes YEARS) before you start seeing an affect on gas prices.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Point for debate here:

link: VOA News - Bush Calls for End to Ban on Offshore Oil Drilling

In the short-term, that doesn't sound right to me, unless the long-term outlook overwhelms the short-term economics.

I found this quote interesting:

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emmanuel says oil companies already hold leases to 68 million acres of federal land that they are not exploring.

Sounds like the oil companies want to pass the buck onto the American people so that they don't have to do expensive testing to find more oil. I have little sympathy that they have to pump some of their record profits back into their business to find new oil.

[Daseal]

Get used to it folks -- even if we drill, oil is only going to rise in price. It's supply and demand -- exactly what our capitalistic system is based of off. We've been stealing oil for years and made no attempts to find a renewable resource to use for energy. We squarely shot ourselves in the foot. India and China won't be looking for any less oil, and I doubt we'll touch the ANWR, which is where most of the domestic oil would be found.

We already drill in Alaska, but it's controlled and not in a national park. I've heard the argument "The people in Alaska are for it." Why wouldn't they be? They already don't pay taxes (the state picks up the tab) plus they get an 'oil check' once a year with the left over profits.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

In the short-term, that doesn't sound right to me, unless the long-term outlook overwhelms the short-term economics.

I found this quote interesting:
Sounds like the oil companies want to pass the buck onto the American people so that they don't have to do expensive testing to find more oil. I have little sympathy that they have to pump some of their record profits back into their business to find new oil.

This makes so little sense, it boggles my mind.

If it costs $1.0 billion to explore, test, and drill in an area considered relatively small by oil exploration standards, only to generate $0.9 billion in expected oil revenues, why the hell would any company want to do that?

They're not passing the buck to anybody. They're not asking that someone else test it and explore it. They're simply passing on the opportunity because the payoff isn't there.

Can you explain how the American people, as a whole, benefit if Exxon loses $100 million of shareholder value on an exploration like this? Americans get a minimal added benefit in the form of increased oil supplies; mostly American shareholders of Exxon experience a $100 million loss in stock value. The loss in stock value negates the gain on oil prices.

People forget that big business comes back to help the general public.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by steveo395

Its not like this will be our only source of oil for 28 months straight. That wouldn't even be possible. This would just add to oil that we are already producing, and more places that we should start drilling, plus oil that we're already getting from Canada. We can tell Saudi Arabia and Venezuala to go screw themselves and we'd be getting all of our oil from North America.

I agree that we need to develop alternate sources, but it will take time and we need more oil now.

this issue should have been addressed as far back as the 70's. how much more time do they need?the answer is not more oil, its an alternative

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

This makes so little sense, it boggles my mind.

If it costs $1.0 billion to explore, test, and drill in an area considered relatively small by oil exploration standards, only to generate $0.9 billion in expected oil revenues, why the hell would any company want to do that?

They're not passing the buck to anybody. They're not asking that someone else test it and explore it. They're simply passing on the opportunity because the payoff isn't there.

this isn't exactly true. those large corporate tax breaks that most of the big players enjoy are mostly for research and development. so mainly, you and i are paying for the drilling

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by dmek25

this issue should have been addressed as far back as the 70's. how much more time do they need?the answer is not more oil, its an alternative

So because we should have addressed DE five years ago in the draft, we shouldn't address it now?

Don't we still have the need?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by dmek25

this isn't exactly true. those large corporate tax breaks that most of the big players enjoy are mostly for research and development. so mainly, you and i are paying for the drilling

But it's not that simple. First, we get a benefit in the form of lower gas prices to help offset the tax issue. Secondly, if the government reduces expenditures while giving those tax breaks, then the buck isn't passed. I recognize Bush has bloated spending excessively, which I certainly don't condone. But you can't look at a tax break and directly link it to the public "picking up the tab" because it assumes all else remains constant in a vacuum.

[onlydarksets]

You're worried about $100 million in shareholder value measured up against properly incentivizing oil companies to develop alternative fuels? That's disappointing.

What happens after they exhaust this supply? They have to explore the 68 million acres anyway, because they are going to do the same thing they've done for decades past, which is to ignore the fact that oil is not a renewable resource. The oil companies want the quick fix (which I understand). I also don't begrudge them their record profits (I've stated in the past that this is our fault, as consumers, for paying increasing prices instead of demanding they develop alternatives).

However, giving the oil companies another free pass does not help the consumers in the long run. The current path is simply not a sustainable position.

Originally Posted by Schneed10

This makes so little sense, it boggles my mind.

If it costs $1.0 billion to explore, test, and drill in an area considered relatively small by oil exploration standards, only to generate $0.9 billion in expected oil revenues, why the hell would any company want to do that?

They're not passing the buck to anybody. They're not asking that someone else test it and explore it. They're simply passing on the opportunity because the payoff isn't there.

Can you explain how the American people, as a whole, benefit if Exxon loses $100 million of shareholder value on an exploration like this? Americans get a minimal added benefit in the form of increased oil supplies; mostly American shareholders of Exxon experience a $100 million loss in stock value. The loss in stock value negates the gain on oil prices.

People forget that big business comes back to help the general public.