Bush calls for Offshore drilling

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Bush calls for Offshore drilling

Post by MKSheppard »

Link

Bush Calls for Offshore Oil Drilling
President Joins McCain in Seeking to Lift Long-Standing Ban

By Michael Abramowitz and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 19, 2008; A01


President Bush called yesterday for lifting the 27-year-old ban on U.S. offshore oil drilling, joining Sen. John McCain in endorsing an idea that Republicans hope will gain traction in Congress and on the campaign trail as the price of gasoline soars.

In a Rose Garden appearance, the president challenged Democrats to drop their "obstruction" of proposals to expand domestic energy production. "Americans will rightly ask how . . . high gas prices have to rise before the Democratic-controlled Congress will do something about it," he said.

Democratic leaders in Congress said the plan is going nowhere. "President Bush and John McCain are not serious about addressing gas prices," said Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.). "If they were, they would stop offering the same old ideas meant to pad the pockets of Big Oil and work with Democrats to reduce our dependence on oil."

On Monday, McCain (Ariz.) called for lifting the ban, reversing an earlier position and angering environmentalists whom he has sought to appeal to in his presidential campaign. Bush's announcement puts the weight of the White House behind the idea, but it also gives Democrats another opportunity to link the presumptive GOP nominee to the unpopular president.

"McCain's capitulation to Big Oil could hurt him among independents and Clinton supporters, particularly in communities that depend on a clean ocean and beaches for their jobs and small businesses," said Daniel J. Weiss, an analyst at the liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund, referring to voters who backed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in her unsuccessful Democratic primary campaign against Sen. Barack Obama. "Bush's announcement of support today makes it clearer that Senator McCain is running for Bush's third term."

But Republicans are taking heart in recent polling that suggests the public may be more receptive to drilling, especially if it is coupled with other initiatives to address gas prices. A recent Gallup poll showed that 57 percent of respondents were willing to support drilling in the nation's coastal and wilderness areas currently closed to exploration.

"When drivers are paying $4 for a gallon of gas and there's the perception that the economy's going to hell in a handbasket, voter attitudes regarding offshore drilling can change pretty quickly," said GOP pollster Neil Newhouse. "All of our evidence indicates that's exactly what's happened."

This view appears to be fueling the separate announcements from Bush and McCain this week that they want Congress to abandon its moratorium on offshore drilling. Bush has spoken favorably of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico before, but yesterday was the first time he indicated that he would rescind an executive branch order banning all offshore drilling if Congress removed its own long-standing prohibitions.

The moratorium was imposed in 1981, when lawmakers from coastal states sought to block leasing off the Massachusetts and California coasts. Congress has approved the moratorium every year since. President George H.W. Bush issued a separate executive order banning offshore oil drilling in 1991. That prohibition was initially slated to expire in 2002, but in 1998 President Bill Clinton extended it to 2012.

During his appearance yesterday, Bush again urged Congress to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for oil drilling and to ease the regulatory obstacles to expanding refining capacity. McCain remains opposed to drilling in the refuge.

The president also called for ending a ban on oil shale drilling in the Rocky Mountain states, a move he said might open access to about 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil, or three times the reserves of Saudi Arabia. It has been considered too costly to develop those reserves, but Bush said the economic "calculus is changing."

Much of this agenda will prove controversial, especially in politically influential coastal states such as Florida and California, whose GOP governors diverge on the wisdom of drilling. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, a key McCain ally, reversed his position this week and said he favors lifting the federal ban, giving states the option of drilling, while California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger yesterday restated his opposition to drilling off the state's coastline.

Keith Hennessy, director of the White House National Economic Council, said that under the president's plan, individual states would retain veto power. "Florida, like every other state, would be able to make those determinations about what they thought is appropriate," he said.

Richard Charter, a consultant for the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, said environmental and business groups have found common cause on the issue because pristine beaches generate so much tourism income.

"Offshore oil drilling results in the routine discharges of highly toxic metals, hydrocarbons and other substances," Charter said, adding that the toxins build up over time in marine life. Since the methods for cleaning oil spills have not advanced since the 1950s, he said, "it is counterintuitive" for a coastal politician to take actions that "could jeopardize your coastal economy."

But administration officials and others asserted that technology for preventing oil spills has improved and that drilling can be done safely. "Offshore leasing will not be popular in coastal states, but it will be very popular with consumers as a whole," said J. Robinson West, a leading energy consultant in Washington. "This is an eminently logical thing to do. Oil exploration is an industrialized process, but environmentally now it is very safe."

A major uncertainty is the economic impact of offshore drilling, which by Bush's estimate could result in an extra 18 billion barrels of oil -- equivalent to the nation's current oil production for the next 10 years, according to the White House. Hennessy said he thinks that oil prices might fall as markets began building in the expectation of a growing supply. "We would expect it to have an effect on the price; it's very difficult to quantify," he said.

But the federal Energy Information Administration estimated that if leasing began in 2012, "access to the Pacific, Atlantic and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030."

Hari Sevugan, a spokesman for Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, dismissed the proposal, saying that "just as he did with his gas tax holiday gimmick, it's clear that instead of straight talk or tough talk, John McCain is offering nothing more than the same Washington double talk and old ideas that have failed our families for too long."

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said the campaign is confident that the senator's proposal will resonate with Americans anxious about rising fuel costs.

"I think Senator Obama finds himself in a very precarious position, because this is John McCain's action versus Barack Obama's inaction," Bounds said. "This ultimately comes down to John McCain making a decision that we need to pursue policies that lower gas prices for frustrated Americans."

--------------------------------------------------

I just love this line from Reid: "If they were, they would stop offering the same old ideas meant to pad the pockets of Big Oil and work with Democrats to reduce our dependence on oil."

:wtf:
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
CaptainChewbacca
Browncoat Wookiee
Posts: 15746
Joined: 2003-05-06 02:36am
Location: Deep beneath Boatmurdered.

Post by CaptainChewbacca »

Which democrats are working to reduce our dependance on oil? The ones driving up food prices with ethanol nonsense, or the ones who have killed every pro-nuclear move for 35 years?
Stuart: The only problem is, I'm losing track of which universe I'm in.
You kinda look like Jesus. With a lightsaber.- Peregrin Toker
ImageImage
User avatar
Frank Hipper
Overfiend of the Superego
Posts: 12882
Joined: 2002-10-17 08:48am
Location: Hamilton, Ohio?

Post by Frank Hipper »

I wish someone would explain to me how the expenditure for producing the infrastructure to produce this pidling amount of oil is supposed to ease gasoline prices that are so much the effect of a speculation bubble effect.

Not to mention; 18 billion bbls offshore, 10 billion bbls in Alaska; at 7 some-odd billion bbls consumed annually that's only four years' worth of sexy Escalade on Humvee action!

When all of that's fucking gone, what do you think the ensuing panic will do to prices?

We need someone with the balls to institute gasoline rationing for private consumers now, and not some fucktarded plan to consume what little we can produce domestically as fast as fucking possible.
Image
Life is all the eternity you get, use it wisely.
User avatar
Surlethe
HATES GRADING
Posts: 12270
Joined: 2004-12-29 03:41pm

Post by Surlethe »

I can't believe people think that offshore drilling is going to relieve gas prices. For god's sake, they're lobbying to do exploratory drilling now; by the time oil starts flowing in any meaningful amount, gas is going to be $15/gal.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
F. Douglass
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

Frank Hipper wrote:
We need someone with the balls to institute gasoline rationing for private consumers now, and not some fucktarded plan to consume what little we can produce domestically as fast as fucking possible.
That will be the first thing the next gay, black, female, atheist POTUS' will propose. I await with bated breath.
User avatar
Einhander Sn0m4n
Insane Railgunner
Posts: 18630
Joined: 2002-10-01 05:51am
Location: Louisiana... or Dagobah. You know, where Yoda lives.

Post by Einhander Sn0m4n »

The Grey Lady weighs in with an editorial.
June 19, 2008
Editorial
The Big Pander to Big Oil

It was almost inevitable that a combination of $4-a-gallon gas, public anxiety and politicians eager to win votes or repair legacies would produce political pandering on an epic scale. So it has, the latest instance being President Bush’s decision to ask Congress to end the federal ban on offshore oil and gas drilling along much of America’s continental shelf.

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.

There is no doubt that a lot of people have been discomfited and genuinely hurt by $4-a-gallon gas. But their suffering will not be relieved by drilling in restricted areas off the coasts of New Jersey or Virginia or California. The Energy Information Administration says that even if both coasts were opened, prices would not begin to drop until 2030. The only real beneficiaries will be the oil companies that are trying to lock up every last acre of public land before their friends in power — Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney — exit the political stage.

The whole scheme is based on a series of fictions that range from the egregious to the merely annoying. Democratic majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, noted the worst of these on Wednesday: That a country that consumes one-quarter of the world’s oil supply but owns only 3 percent of its reserves can drill its way out of any problem — whether it be high prices at the pump or dependence on oil exported by unstable countries in Persian Gulf. This fiction has been resisted by Barack Obama but foolishly embraced by John McCain, who seemed to be making some sense on energy questions until he jumped aboard the lift-the-ban bandwagon on Tuesday.

A lesser fiction, perpetrated by the oil companies and, to some extent, by misleading government figures, is that huge deposits of oil and gas on federal land have been closed off and industry has had one hand tied behind its back by environmentalists, Democrats and the offshore protections in place for 25 years.

The numbers suggest otherwise. Of the 36 billion barrels of oil believed to lie on federal land, mainly in the Rocky Mountain West and Alaska, almost two-thirds are accessible or will be after various land-use and environmental reviews. And of the 89 billion barrels of recoverable oil believed to lie offshore, the federal Mineral Management Service says fourth-fifths is open to industry, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaskan waters.

Clearly, the oil companies are not starved for resources. Further, they do not seem to be doing nearly as much as they could with the land to which they’ve already laid claim. Separate studies by the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Wilderness Society, a conservation group, show that roughly three-quarters of the 90 million-plus acres of federal land being leased by the oil companies onshore and off are not being used to produce energy. That is 68 million acres altogether, among them potentially highly productive leases in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.

With that in mind, four influential House Democrats — Edward Markey, Nick Rahall, Rahm Emanuel and Maurice Hinchey — have introduced “use it or lose it” bills that would force the companies to begin exploiting the leases they have before getting any more. Companion bills have been introduced in the Senate, where suspicions also run high that industry’s main objective is to stockpile millions of additional acres of public land before the Bush administration leaves town.

This cannot be allowed to happen. The Congressional moratoriums on offshore drilling were put in place in 1981 and reaffirmed by subsequent Congresses to protect coastal economies that depend on clean water and clean coastlines. This was also the essential purpose of supplemental executive orders, the first of which was issued by Mr. Bush’s father in 1990 after the disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill the year before.

Given the huge resources available to the energy industry, there is no reason to undo these protections now.
Image Image
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Post by MKSheppard »

Cute article ein; it recycles the two most common strawmen of the energy debate, still wearing the mothballs from the last time they were used; ten years ago with ANWR.
  • It will take time to get the oil from this source, so we shouldn't try!
  • This won't let us achieve total energy independence!
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

'Let the companies drill offshore!'

Hey, here's an idea, how about the companies use those 68 million acres sitting idle they speculate the price of to make money off the leases? Oh, wait, we have to ignore empirical reality where the oil companies have all they need to increase production, because a Republican is talking, and they don't have contact with our plane of existance.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
J
Kaye Elle Emenopey
Posts: 5837
Joined: 2002-12-14 02:23pm

Post by J »

Funnily enough the EIA did a case study on the effects of opening up the shores for drilling.

Link

Excerpt:
The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.
This post is a 100% natural organic product.
The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects


I'm not sure why people choose 'To Love is to Bury' as their wedding song...It's about a murder-suicide
- Margo Timmins


When it becomes serious, you have to lie
- Jean-Claude Juncker
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

The most optimistic calculations based in reality are a three cent drop over the next twenty years. Yea, like the next twenty years won't see more than three cents increase.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Surlethe
HATES GRADING
Posts: 12270
Joined: 2004-12-29 03:41pm

Post by Surlethe »

MKSheppard wrote:Cute article ein; it recycles the two most common strawmen of the energy debate, still wearing the mothballs from the last time they were used; ten years ago with ANWR.


[*]It will take time to get the oil from this source, so we shouldn't try!
When time is of the essence, how is it a strawman to say that the oil will start flowing too late to make a significant difference?
[*]This won't let us achieve total energy independence!
What, you think that it will?
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
F. Douglass
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Post by MKSheppard »

Surlethe wrote:When time is of the essence, how is it a strawman to say that the oil will start flowing too late to make a significant difference?
For a board that seems devoted to logical thinking, this is an astounding lapse in judgement, considering that it's a popular pasttime here to pillory the executives of major car companies for thinking that gas prices would remain eternally cheap and thus SUVs would sell forever.

Lets say that the projections of no oil in appreciable quantities until 2030 from offshore fields are true....wouldn't time frame be right when the Peakoilpocalypse is happening?

And wouldn't it be great to have that source of oil ready as the Peakoilpocalypse is happening?
What, you think that it will?
Don't strawman me.

That's the most common strawman of the entire oil exploration debate in the US -- people love to bring up the fact that it will only produce "x" amount of oil, whereas we consume "y" amount of oil; therefore we shouldn't try drilling (and thus not disturb the precious arctic tundra wasteland and caribou).
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

Since your silly argument is this will come online to stop the APOCALYPSE!!!, how long do you think it would honestly last? Not that long.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Master of Ossus
Darkest Knight
Posts: 18213
Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
Location: California

Post by Master of Ossus »

SirNitram wrote:Since your silly argument is this will come online to stop the APOCALYPSE!!!, how long do you think it would honestly last? Not that long.
So your solution is to move the alleged apocalypse forward? Moreover, if oil exploration is profitable in offshore areas, why not do it? Who gives a shit if it doesn't solve all the world's problems?
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul

Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner

"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000

"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

Master of Ossus wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Since your silly argument is this will come online to stop the APOCALYPSE!!!, how long do you think it would honestly last? Not that long.
So your solution is to move the alleged apocalypse forward? Moreover, if oil exploration is profitable in offshore areas, why not do it? Who gives a shit if it doesn't solve all the world's problems?
Why should I believe it'd be used? Like I referred to earlier, there's no shortage of lands already leased after being prospected for oil and found to be profitable enough to pay for. And they sit idle. Why should I believe the fairy tale that this'll happen when empirical evidence says otherwise?
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Post by MKSheppard »

SirNitram wrote:Since your silly argument is this will come online to stop the APOCALYPSE!!!, how long do you think it would honestly last? Not that long.
Is it me or has logic completely escaped SDNet in regards to oil exploration in a posited peakoilpocalypse future?

Starting construction of the equipment and suchlike required to extract that oil now, when energy prices are comparatively cheaper and costs much lower makes a hell of a lot more sense than starting this in the early stages of the peakoilpocalypse, as the economy is imploding.

Also, if it's estimated to take 22 years to get ready now, then it will take even longer to get ready if we start it just as the peakoilpocalypse is happening.

Finally, in a Peakoilpocalypse environment, such an operational oil field would represent a vital national resource; e.g. we would be able to monopolize all production from it towards CONUS energy production.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Master of Ossus
Darkest Knight
Posts: 18213
Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
Location: California

Post by Master of Ossus »

SirNitram wrote:Why should I believe it'd be used? Like I referred to earlier, there's no shortage of lands already leased after being prospected for oil and found to be profitable enough to pay for. And they sit idle. Why should I believe the fairy tale that this'll happen when empirical evidence says otherwise?
1. If it's profitable to explore lands that have already been leased, why aren't they doing it already?
2. Who cares if they don't drill there? That doesn't change anything. Only if they actually drill does anything at all change from the present situation. Will drilling stop people from dying in Sudan? Of course not, but that's really not the point. If it's profitable for them to get oil offshore, why not let them do it?
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul

Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner

"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000

"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

Master of Ossus wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Why should I believe it'd be used? Like I referred to earlier, there's no shortage of lands already leased after being prospected for oil and found to be profitable enough to pay for. And they sit idle. Why should I believe the fairy tale that this'll happen when empirical evidence says otherwise?
1. If it's profitable to explore lands that have already been leased, why aren't they doing it already?
Don't ask me. Ask them. I just want to know why they need ever more when they have 68 million acres and they don't touch it.
2. Who cares if they don't drill there? That doesn't change anything. Only if they actually drill does anything at all change from the present situation.
So what would be the imperative to give them more land to not do anything with, precisely?

You seem to think they should get it just because they're them, not because it's needed or even that they're projected to hit their capacity from land leased at any given point.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

MKSheppard wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Since your silly argument is this will come online to stop the APOCALYPSE!!!, how long do you think it would honestly last? Not that long.
Is it me or has logic completely escaped SDNet in regards to oil exploration in a posited peakoilpocalypse future?
Peak oil has devastatingly little to do with my arguments here mostly, but you brought up this stuff.
Starting construction of the equipment and suchlike required to extract that oil now, when energy prices are comparatively cheaper and costs much lower makes a hell of a lot more sense than starting this in the early stages of the peakoilpocalypse, as the economy is imploding.
And how long will the oil last? Remembering that these companies are international, so will be pouring into the global consumption.
Also, if it's estimated to take 22 years to get ready now, then it will take even longer to get ready if we start it just as the peakoilpocalypse is happening.

Finally, in a Peakoilpocalypse environment, such an operational oil field would represent a vital national resource; e.g. we would be able to monopolize all production from it towards CONUS energy production.
So why give it to companies which have no incentive to keep it in CONUS, precisely?
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Master of Ossus
Darkest Knight
Posts: 18213
Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
Location: California

Post by Master of Ossus »

SirNitram wrote:Don't ask me. Ask them. I just want to know why they need ever more when they have 68 million acres and they don't touch it.
I'm guessing it's because it's not profitable to drill there in the first place, which suggests that your original characterization of the issue is erroneous.
So what would be the imperative to give them more land to not do anything with, precisely?
Uh... to give someone a chance to do something profitable?
You seem to think they should get it just because they're them, not because it's needed or even that they're projected to hit their capacity from land leased at any given point.
I think they should get it because the restriction on offshore drilling is a retarded relic that is supported by no legitimate basis, and because drilling there is potentially profitable. Turning a profit at the expense of a meaningless and purposeless regulation is a legitimate interest. Do you not agree?
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul

Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner

"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000

"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

Master of Ossus wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Don't ask me. Ask them. I just want to know why they need ever more when they have 68 million acres and they don't touch it.
I'm guessing it's because it's not profitable to drill there in the first place, which suggests that your original characterization of the issue is erroneous.
Then why pay for the leases? Why resist legislation similar to the existing 'Use it or lose it' coal leases? It's profitable to speculate on that land as price goes up, however.
So what would be the imperative to give them more land to not do anything with, precisely?
Uh... to give someone a chance to do something profitable?
They have record profits already, therefore your argument would better apply to an industry that's hurting.
You seem to think they should get it just because they're them, not because it's needed or even that they're projected to hit their capacity from land leased at any given point.
I think they should get it because the restriction on offshore drilling is a retarded relic that is supported by no legitimate basis, and because drilling there is potentially profitable. Turning a profit at the expense of a meaningless and purposeless regulation is a legitimate interest. Do you not agree?
Except said regulation is based on enviromental impact and tourist economy impact, and hence why until McCain was right next to him, even the Florida governer was firmly against it. You seem to think oil companies have an inherent right to any land they want that might be profitable, if they actually invest in it, but they don't do that with the land they have now, so why believe they will?

Again, I want some evidence they'd use it. Otherwise it's just a stupid farce of dancing around.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Master of Ossus
Darkest Knight
Posts: 18213
Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
Location: California

Post by Master of Ossus »

SirNitram wrote:Then why pay for the leases? Why resist legislation similar to the existing 'Use it or lose it' coal leases? It's profitable to speculate on that land as price goes up, however.
Wait, they're paying for the leases? Who cares, then? Why not let them pay for more land that the US government isn't using?
They have record profits already, therefore your argument would better apply to an industry that's hurting.
First of all, the oil companies have also been reinvesting in oil to a record degree. But, moreover, the argument is just as valid to a profitable industry as it is to one that isn't profitable--profit is a good thing.
Except said regulation is based on enviromental impact and tourist economy impact, and hence why until McCain was right next to him, even the Florida governer was firmly against it. You seem to think oil companies have an inherent right to any land they want that might be profitable, if they actually invest in it, but they don't do that with the land they have now, so why believe they will?
Because it's potentially profitable. What part of this is difficult for you to grasp?

Moreover, governors have to respond to all of the NIMBY nonsense that has nothing to do with the NATIONAL government, since oil companies are a NATIONAL (or, more properly, an INTERnational issue). I'm far less sympathetic to makers of buggy-whips.
Again, I want some evidence they'd use it. Otherwise it's just a stupid farce of dancing around.
If they're paying for the land, anyways, then what's the downside of leasing them even more land? But, moreover, if they're NOT going to use it then there's absolutely NO DOWNSIDE.

Your argument boils down to: "At worst, nothing will change whatsoever, therefore we should ignore all possible upside." To say that this makes no sense is charitable.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul

Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner

"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000

"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

Master of Ossus wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Then why pay for the leases? Why resist legislation similar to the existing 'Use it or lose it' coal leases? It's profitable to speculate on that land as price goes up, however.
Wait, they're paying for the leases? Who cares, then? Why not let them pay for more land that the US government isn't using?
I'm not sure. Are they? Or is it just sitting in their pockets? Why not try presenting evidence for your argument? I've just pointed out the flaw in the assumption 'More land to drill = more drilling'.
They have record profits already, therefore your argument would better apply to an industry that's hurting.
First of all, the oil companies have also been reinvesting in oil to a record degree. But, moreover, the argument is just as valid to a profitable industry as it is to one that isn't profitable--profit is a good thing.
For that company. Except this is a government decision, and governments generally should be interested in things good for everyone, not a specific industry. So where's the payoff for the rest?
Except said regulation is based on enviromental impact and tourist economy impact, and hence why until McCain was right next to him, even the Florida governer was firmly against it. You seem to think oil companies have an inherent right to any land they want that might be profitable, if they actually invest in it, but they don't do that with the land they have now, so why believe they will?
Because it's potentially profitable. What part of this is difficult for you to grasp?
I see no evidence that they will use any of it or benefit the public. The government is not there for the benefit of one industry, so there should be at least some evidence of one of the things I've asked for. I keep not seeing any evidence.
Moreover, governors have to respond to all of the NIMBY nonsense that has nothing to do with the NATIONAL government, since oil companies are a NATIONAL (or, more properly, an INTERnational issue). I'm far less sympathetic to makers of buggy-whips.
It's nice to see you admit that the oil companies aren't even national. Will you come to the eventual realization that this doesn't make the government beholden to their particular profits?
Again, I want some evidence they'd use it. Otherwise it's just a stupid farce of dancing around.
If they're paying for the land, anyways, then what's the downside of leasing them even more land? But, moreover, if they're NOT going to use it then there's absolutely NO DOWNSIDE.
Then leave it as is if they won't use it.
Your argument boils down to: "At worst, nothing will change whatsoever, therefore we should ignore all possible upside." To say that this makes no sense is charitable.
Nice try. When will you be providing any of the stuff to support the arguments that they should get this potential profit? Why should this be automatic profit handed to one industry, and why should they receive entitlement to this land when they don't use what they have?

Oh, damn, it's those questions you keep evading with 'Well, it could be profitable, so give this industry everything they want.'.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Master of Ossus
Darkest Knight
Posts: 18213
Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
Location: California

Post by Master of Ossus »

SirNitram wrote:I'm not sure. Are they? Or is it just sitting in their pockets? Why not try presenting evidence for your argument? I've just pointed out the flaw in the assumption 'More land to drill = more drilling'.
It's not an assumption that I'm making.

Worst case scenario: they don't drill. Consequences: none (or they pay the US government a small amount for the leases, as appropriate).

Best case scenario: they drill. Consequences: they're more profitable. Outcome: good thing.
For that company. Except this is a government decision, and governments generally should be interested in things good for everyone, not a specific industry. So where's the payoff for the rest?
For one thing, an American company makes money. For two, why do the rest of the people care if nothing is changing for them? For three, it creates American jobs if they decide to drill and find things.
I see no evidence that they will use any of it or benefit the public. The government is not there for the benefit of one industry, so there should be at least some evidence of one of the things I've asked for. I keep not seeing any evidence.
But the government should not create unnecessary restrictions on potentially profitable activities. What part of this is difficult for you to grasp? If it's profitable, they will drill or they'd be foregoing profits, which is a sufficient incentive for a corporation to do something.
It's nice to see you admit that the oil companies aren't even national. Will you come to the eventual realization that this doesn't make the government beholden to their particular profits?
Are you actually arguing that profit for an oil company constitutes a NEGATIVE consequence of a potential policy? Is that the source of your stupidity in this thread?
Then leave it as is if they won't use it.
Uh... okay... I fail to see how Bush's proposed policy runs counter to that.
Nice try. When will you be providing any of the stuff to support the arguments that they should get this potential profit? Why should this be automatic profit handed to one industry, and why should they receive entitlement to this land when they don't use what they have?
Because profit is a GOOD THING. What part of this is difficult for you to grasp?
Oh, damn, it's those questions you keep evading with 'Well, it could be profitable, so give this industry everything they want.'.
Profit is a GOOD THING. What part of this is difficult for you to grasp?
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul

Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner

"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000

"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

Let me get this straight: Your incredulity is coming from the idea that I might not believe in my heart that the government should do everything to maximize the profit of one particular industry?

Please show where the profit of one industry is the responsibility of the government. Or admit you just are incapable of dealing with the idea the government isn't there to benefit the companies.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
Post Reply