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
Master of Ossus
Darkest Knight
Posts: 18213
Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
Location: California

Post by Master of Ossus »

SirNitram wrote: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?
My incredulity is to the fact that you would think that maximizing profits in an industry without harming anyone else constitutes such a blight on this world that the government should ACTIVELY STAND IN THE WAY of company profits, even when there is no downside to allowing them to enter into profitable activities.
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.
But the government isn't there to mindlessly block company profits, either. My whole argument is thus: there is NO DOWNSIDE to this legislation, and it's potentially profitable for the oil companies. Ergo, we should do it since it improves Pareto optimality.

Let me give you a hypothetical: suppose that someone offered to give the oil companies one dollar, but if the oil companies couldn't get it then the person would burn the dollar and prevent it from helping anyone. Would you want the oil company to get the dollar or not, given that their having the dollar hurts no one but helps them?
"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: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?
My incredulity is to the fact that you would think that maximizing profits in an industry without harming anyone else constitutes such a blight on this world that the government should prevent this at all costs.
Ah, so you simply are incredulous at the idea that the default of the government should be 'Leave as is' and not 'Aid companies'. Because if you were capable of processing that difference, you'd grasp in your mind the idea that some evidence should support your preferred action.
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.
But the government isn't there to mindlessly block company profits, either. My whole argument is thus: there is NO DOWNSIDE to this legislation, and it's potentially profitable for the oil companies. Ergo, we should do it since it improves Pareto optimality.

Let me give you a hypothetical: suppose that someone offered to give the oil companies one dollar, but if the oil companies couldn't get it then the person would burn the dollar and prevent it from helping anyone. Would you want the oil company to get the dollar or not, given that their having the dollar hurts no one but helps them?
Yep, your default is that the government should aid companies, not leave them as-is and simply regulate. No doubt you're so resistant to showing evidence for your position, you believe it's simply a god-given correct.
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:Ah, so you simply are incredulous at the idea that the default of the government should be 'Leave as is' and not 'Aid companies'. Because if you were capable of processing that difference, you'd grasp in your mind the idea that some evidence should support your preferred action.
Yes. Allowing a company to profit is a net positive for society. Unless it's opposed by some problem associated with that company profiting, the government should allow it. I had no idea that this is a controversial view of the world.
Yep, your default is that the government should aid companies, not leave them as-is and simply regulate. No doubt you're so resistant to showing evidence for your position, you believe it's simply a god-given correct.
It provides for better Pareto efficiency: if you can help someone while hurting no one, you should do it. That is the philosophical underpinning of my argument in this thread. You, apparently, disagree with this view.
"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:Ah, so you simply are incredulous at the idea that the default of the government should be 'Leave as is' and not 'Aid companies'. Because if you were capable of processing that difference, you'd grasp in your mind the idea that some evidence should support your preferred action.
Yes. Allowing a company to profit is a net positive for society. Unless it's opposed by some problem associated with that company profiting, the government should allow it. I had no idea that this is a controversial view of the world.
Enviromental and tourist-economy concerns are potential problems, which you seem to believe are non-existant when you keep repeating this harms no one.

Again, I see no reason to believe a government should be interested in aiding a company's profit line. It's not in any of the stuff outlining what the US government is supposed to do; why grant that right to companies? What social benefit is there to granting them this additional right?
Yep, your default is that the government should aid companies, not leave them as-is and simply regulate. No doubt you're so resistant to showing evidence for your position, you believe it's simply a god-given correct.
It provides for better Pareto efficiency: if you can help someone while hurting no one, you should do it. That is the philosophical underpinning of my argument in this thread. You, apparently, disagree with this view.
After you ignore that there are potential points of harm to local economies and enviroments, you mean.
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
The Original Nex
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1593
Joined: 2004-10-18 03:01pm
Location: Boston, MA

Post by The Original Nex »

NYT
New York Times wrote:As President Bush calls for repealing a ban on drilling off most of the coast of the United States, a shortage of ships used for deep-water offshore drilling promises to impede any rapid turnaround in oil exploration and supply.

Samsung Heavy Industries' latest drill ship, West Polaris. Demand is so high for drill ships that builders have raised prices as much as $100 million per vessel since last year.

In recent years, this global shortage of drill-ships has created a critical bottleneck, frustrating energy company executives and constraining their ability to exploit known reserves or find new ones. Slow growth in oil supplies, at a time of soaring demand, has been a major factor in the spike of oil and gasoline prices.

Mr. Bush called on Congress Wednesday to end a longstanding federal ban on offshore drilling and open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration, arguing that the steps were needed to lower gasoline prices and bolster national security. But even as oil trades at more than $135 a barrel — up from $68 a year ago — the world’s existing drill-ships are booked solid for the next five years. Some oil companies have been forced to postpone exploration while waiting for a drilling rig, executives and analysts said.

Demand is so high that shipbuilders, the biggest of whom are in Asia, have raised prices since last year by as much as $100 million a vessel to about half a billion dollars.


“The crunch on rigs is everywhere,” said Alberto Guimaraes, a senior executive at Petrobras, the Brazilian oil company that has discovered some of the most promising offshore oil but has been unable to get at it.

“Almost 100 percent of the oil companies are constrained in their investment program because there is no rig available,” he said.

As a result, drilling costs for some of the newest deepwater rigs in the Gulf of Mexico — the nation’s top source of domestic oil and natural gas supplies — have reached about $600,000 a day, compared with $150,000 a day in 2002.

These record prices have spurred a new wave of drill-ship construction. This boom could lead to renewed offshore oil exploration that would eventually bring more supplies to the oil market, and push down prices.

Already, 16 new drill-ships are scheduled to be delivered to oil companies this year — more than double the number delivered over the last six years combined. In fact, 75 ultra-deepwater rigs should be delivered from 2008 to 2011, according to ODS-Petrodata, a firm that tracks drilling rigs.

Shipyards from South Korea to Norway are working overtime to meet a huge influx of orders.

Robert L. Long, the chief executive office of Transocean, the world’s largest drilling company, said he has nine deepwater rigs under construction, eight of which are already under contract for periods ranging from four to seven years once they leave the shipyards. He expects to receive the ships between the beginning of 2009 and the end of 2010.

Transocean believes the deepwater market will continue to be constrained until at least 2012. Over three-quarters of the drill-ships currently under construction have already been contracted to oil companies eager to benefit from triple-digit oil prices, Mr. Long said.

Petrobras, whose full name is Petróleo Brasileiro, is expected to drive much of the growth in the booming new market. The company has outlined an aggressive program to increase its drilling capacity, and plans to contract or build 69 deepwater drill-ships by 2017.

Brazil stunned the oil world when it announced the discovery of a vast oil field 200 miles south of Rio de Janeiro last November, turning the country’s deep blue waters into the world’s most exciting oil frontier. Energy experts said the field could turn out to be just a small part of the largest oil discovery in 30 years.

But seven months later, the problem is still how to retrieve it. Petrobras has only three rigs capable of drilling in waters that exceed 6,500 feet, like the sites of the new fields.

But drilling constraints are not the only problem facing international oil companies, which are seeking to expand at a furious pace after a decade of underinvestment in the 1990s. They have also had to contend with a doubling of development costs across the industry in the last five years, more acute competition for energy resources, shortages in steel, engineering and manufacturing capacity, and pressures posed by an aging work force.

Also, gaining access to countries that hold oil reserves is becoming tougher as many oil-rich governments see fewer incentives to raise production as they reap the benefits of higher prices.

As a result, explorers are scouring ever-more remote corners of the globe in their hunt for hydrocarbons. That quest has found petroleum reserves off the shores of Africa and Brazil, and opened up promising exploration regions in the South China Sea, off the shore of India, and around the coast of Australia. But those sites will remain largely off limits until the new drill-ships arrive.

Most new orders for drill-ships have gone to Asian shipyards. Companies in Singapore and China have benefited, but South Korea’s big three shipbuilders — Samsung Heavy Industries, Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering and Hyundai Heavy Industries — have gotten the bulk of orders for the most complex and expensive types of vessels.

“The market for offshore exploration is now the hottest sector in the global shipbuilding industry,” said Lee Jae-kyu, shipbuilding analyst at Mirae Asset Securities in Seoul.

At Samsung’s sprawling shipyard on the southern Korean island of Geoje, next to the gigantic hulls of half-finished supertankers, cranes and dry docks work overtime to construct odd-looking drill-ships like the West Polaris.

At 62,400 tons, the West Polaris, due for delivery this month, is larger than a World War II aircraft carrier. The pipes and steel scaffolding of its drill loom over the other ships lining the construction yard, like cars in an oversize parking lot.

The shipyard and its 25,000 workers bustle with activity, emitting a cacophony of clanging construction sounds, the roar of motors and short musical ditties that warn of moving cranes. These sounds echo in the emerald hills behind the yard, which stretches across one side of a deep blue bay.

“The oil reserves that were easy to reach are all drying up,” said Harris S. Lee, vice president in charge of Samsung’s offshore drilling rig business. “The future is in exploring the deep seas and harsh environments.”

A big challenge in deep-sea drilling is to stay over the same spot on the sea floor even as the vessel is buffeted by strong winds, currents and waves. Because water depths can reach up to 10,000 feet, far too deep for traditional rigs that are moored to the seafloor, ships like the West Polaris rely on high-speed computers that use global-positioning satellites to control an array of six swiveling propellers on the hull’s bottom.

The ship was ordered by Seadrill, a Bermuda-based offshore exploration company, for $453 million.

Last month, Samsung announced it had received a $942 million contract to build an even hardier type of drill-ship made specifically for Arctic conditions. The vessel, ordered by Stena Offshore, a Swedish company, will have a hull strong enough to break through ice, withstand 50-foot waves and insulate the men and machinery inside from outside temperatures as low as 40 degrees below zero. Samsung’s sales of all types of offshore drilling vessels jumped to $7.8 billion last year, up from $1.5 billion in 2005.

Despite the construction frenzy, constraints in the rig market could last several more years.


The last such boom in orders came in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when exploration rose after the 1970s oil shocks. In the 1990s, low oil prices and overflowing oil supplies led oil companies to cut back on exploration drastically.

“It will certainly mean more drilling activity and more discoveries in the deepwater side,” said Tom Kellock, the head of consulting and research at ODS-Petrodata.
So nothing would even come of this at all for many years, assuming that the any oil found off the coasts would affect the prices at all...
User avatar
Master of Ossus
Darkest Knight
Posts: 18213
Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
Location: California

Post by Master of Ossus »

SirNitram wrote:Enviromental and tourist-economy concerns are potential problems, which you seem to believe are non-existant when you keep repeating this harms no one.
Evidence? Can you quantify the resulting harms?
Again, I see no reason to believe a government should be interested in aiding a company's profit line. It's not in any of the stuff outlining what the US government is supposed to do; why grant that right to companies? What social benefit is there to granting them this additional right?
Because a company is a collection of people, and by allowing the company to profit you also return money to its shareholders. Again, if this comes at the expense of no one, then you should do it.
After you ignore that there are potential points of harm to local economies and enviroments, you mean.
Which you have not quantified. And, again, why shouldn't "Let them profit and eliminate senseless regulations" be the default position for the government, if it harms no one?
"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:Enviromental and tourist-economy concerns are potential problems, which you seem to believe are non-existant when you keep repeating this harms no one.
Evidence? Can you quantify the resulting harms?
I would be happy to put forth harm by oil spills and offer estimates for the potential costs to tourist industry...

But why the fuck should I carry the evidentiary burden when you've not shown an iota of evidence that there's a societal good in this, beyond the bald assertion that profit for a company is always a good.
Again, I see no reason to believe a government should be interested in aiding a company's profit line. It's not in any of the stuff outlining what the US government is supposed to do; why grant that right to companies? What social benefit is there to granting them this additional right?
Because a company is a collection of people, and by allowing the company to profit you also return money to its shareholders. Again, if this comes at the expense of no one, then you should do it.
Big if, and of course, you ignore that the oil companies are pulling in profits while society's economy is going down, reducing the scale of any inherent good. Unless you want to show some evidence, anytime, really..?
After you ignore that there are potential points of harm to local economies and enviroments, you mean.
Which you have not quantified. And, again, why shouldn't "Let them profit and eliminate senseless regulations" be the default position for the government, if it harms no one?
Right, you whine about quantification now when I've been asking for evidence from you over and over and you dodge.
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 would be happy to put forth harm by oil spills and offer estimates for the potential costs to tourist industry...

But why the fuck should I carry the evidentiary burden when you've not shown an iota of evidence that there's a societal good in this, beyond the bald assertion that profit for a company is always a good.
So... you view company profits as a negative or neutral thing? Are you insane?
Big if, and of course, you ignore that the oil companies are pulling in profits while society's economy is going down, reducing the scale of any inherent good. Unless you want to show some evidence, anytime, really..?
This is absurd. You actually view oil company profits as inherently harmful, don't you?
Right, you whine about quantification now when I've been asking for evidence from you over and over and you dodge.
I've ignored your demands for evidence because the very fact that a company can take a profit is a net positive for society, ipso facto. That means that the default position should be to give them the law that they want changed unless someone else can come up with a harm that it would cause--and THAT issue requires quantification.
"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:I would be happy to put forth harm by oil spills and offer estimates for the potential costs to tourist industry...

But why the fuck should I carry the evidentiary burden when you've not shown an iota of evidence that there's a societal good in this, beyond the bald assertion that profit for a company is always a good.
So... you view company profits as a negative or neutral thing? Are you insane?
No, merely viewing reality. There are many periods when corporate profits are up with no corresponding improvement on society. Ergo I reject the axiom that it's an automatic good and await evidence.

Damn, I'm wanting evidence again from you. That must hurt you, not having your assertions believed automatically.
Big if, and of course, you ignore that the oil companies are pulling in profits while society's economy is going down, reducing the scale of any inherent good. Unless you want to show some evidence, anytime, really..?
This is absurd. You actually view oil company profits as inherently harmful, don't you?
Nice pole vault of logic, no leap would have cleared that distance. I view it as neutral as there's no evidence it's really effected the economy situation we're in presently, at least, their profits haven't. If there's evidence in support of your position, perhaps you could present it...?
Right, you whine about quantification now when I've been asking for evidence from you over and over and you dodge.
I've ignored your demands for evidence because the very fact that a company can take a profit is a net positive for society, ipso facto. That means that the default position should be to give them the law that they want changed unless someone else can come up with a harm that it would cause--and THAT issue requires quantification.
Where's the evidence it's a net positive for society? I'm looking at the economy and not seeing it. Perhaps you could try meeting a request for quantification.
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 »

Since Master Of Ossus is busy being incredulous someone would ask him for evidence, believing such insane, I'll post a relevent article: Link
LEAD: In a setback to supporters of offshore drilling, a panel of the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that the Government lacks enough information to assess the environmental consequences of oil and gas drilling off the coasts of California and Florida.

In a setback to supporters of offshore drilling, a panel of the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that the Government lacks enough information to assess the environmental consequences of oil and gas drilling off the coasts of California and Florida.

In its report, the panel concluded that more studies on possible environmental and economic damage were needed before decisions on leasing and production could be justified at the three sites it studied. The sites cover as many as 13 million acres off Florida's southwest coast, 6.7 million acres off Southern California and 1.2 million acres off Northern California.

The conclusions, in a report requested by a study group appointed by President Bush, do not make an explicit case against leasing or drilling at the three sites, where experts estimate there are appreciable amounts of oil and gas.

But the academy panel's reservations put considerable pressure on the Administration to back away from its support of offshore leasing in the two states, where there is vehement opposition from Republicans and Democrats alike.

Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan Jr. has already acknowledged, in response to reporters' questions this week, that political opposition in Florida and California is so great that it might take 10 years or more for drilling to begin.

Mr. Lujan's comments were the first acknowledgment by the Administration that offshore oil and gas leasing in the two states was improbable.

Offshore drilling has been going on in Southern California, the Gulf of Mexico and Prudhoe Bay in Alaska for years. But such projects have been put on hold by a one-year Congressional moratorium that forbids leasing activities on 84 million offshore acres, including those covered by the study. Some leases have already been negotiated with oil companies in the tracts off Florida and Southern California. The moratorium was recently expanded to cover more territory after the Exxon oil-tanker spill off Alaska last March.

President Bush, keeping a campaign promise, announced last February that he would delay oil leasing activities in tracts off Southern and Northern California and southwestern Florida pending recommendations of a study group headed by Mr. Lujan, whose department oversees the offshore oil leasing program.

Mr. Lujan's group, which expects to make its recommendations by the end of this year, asked the academy to study the adequacy of existing oceanographic, ecological, social and economic information about those areas. The study, which cost $300,000, was led by John W. Farrington, a professor at the Boston campus of the University of Massachusetts.

In presenting the report to Mr. Lujan's study group, Dr. Farrington emphasized today that it did not address the issue of whether leasing should go forward. But environmental groups and and Democratic and Republican opponents of offshore drilling immediately used the report as ammunition.

Gov. Bob Martinez of Florida, a Republican, said, ''I remain opposed to oil and gas exploration activity off the southern Florida coast, and I hope the findings of such a prestigious organization as the National Academy of Sciences persuades the Federal Government to eliminate the risk by prohibiting the activity.'' 'Rash, Imprudent and Unforgivable'

Senator Pete Wilson, a California Republican who is running for Governor in next year's election, said: ''It would be rash, imprudent and unforgivable to allow any leasing off California to occur given these findings. The experts agree that we just don't have the information we need to assess the risks involved in Outer Continental Shelf development.''

Oil industry representatives said today that if better information was needed before leasing could go forward, then it should be gathered. But the American Petroleum Institute, which represents major oil companies, said earlier academy studies had found little evidence of environmental harm asssociated with offshore oil production.

Another industry representative said that he was surprised by the study's results but that the President's group would make its decision based on several factors. ''It obviously makes their job a little more difficult, but it is only one input,'' said Carl Schmid, a spokesman for the National Ocean Industries Association, a trade group for offshore oil producers.

Although the academy report dealt only with three specific sites, it raised concern among offshore drilling opponents about the adequacy of environmental information in other parts of the Outer Continental Shelf where leasing is under consideration, including the Georges Bank off Massachusetts.

''It's quite devastating to the Interior Department and raises a lot of questions about similar information in other parts of the Outer Continental Shelf,'' said Lisa Speer, a senior staff scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group that has fought offshore drilling.

The Administration today reiterated its support for oil exploration of the Outer Continental Shelf, which extends 200 miles offshore, but only if it can be done in an environmentally sound manner.

A spokesman for Mr. Lujan, Steve Goldstein, said the study had provided the President's group with ''the conditions you need to meet before going forward'' with drilling but that it had made no decisions about what it would recommend to the President. Findings of Panel

The academy panel concluded that at all three sites there was a lack of information on potential environmental effects to make sound decisions on development and production. As for decisions on the leasing of tracts, the panel said that available information on oceanographic, ecological and socioeconomic effects was marginal or inadequate at the sites off Florida. It also found inadequate information in some of the categories it studied for the California tracts.

The panel looked at such socioeconomic issues as the impact of leasing and drilling on the fishing industry, tourism and unemployment. Its oceanographic studies examined ocean currents to determine where oil from a spill would land. In the case of Florida, it found that oil from a spill would probably reach coastal areas, and might even move around to the east coast.
Justification isn't there. Big surprise. Big surprise. I'm happy to wait for testing. Maybe the equipment to make the rigs will be availiable after it's done.
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:No, merely viewing reality. There are many periods when corporate profits are up with no corresponding improvement on society. Ergo I reject the axiom that it's an automatic good and await evidence.
A company is not wholly separate from society. Its owners or shareholders include members of society, as do its employees, suppliers, etc.
Damn, I'm wanting evidence again from you. That must hurt you, not having your assertions believed automatically.
No, it's just astonishing that someone would disagree with a statement like, "If a company is going to profit from something that will hurt no one, we should allow the company to profit."
Nice pole vault of logic, no leap would have cleared that distance. I view it as neutral as there's no evidence it's really effected the economy situation we're in presently, at least, their profits haven't. If there's evidence in support of your position, perhaps you could present it...?
So because one company is profitable while others are in bad shape means that we should HARM THE PROFITABLE COMPANIES? Your idiocy only grows as this thread continues. Should we ban repo companies because they make so much money during recessions?
Where's the evidence it's a net positive for society? I'm looking at the economy and not seeing it. Perhaps you could try meeting a request for quantification.
Shareholders are members of society, douchebag. Company profits go to them, since they own the frickin' company in the first place, meaning that every dollar that Chevron/Shell/whoever makes from this deal will go to someone in society. In addition, their employees, suppliers, business partners, and competitors are all members of society.

And, of course, all of this ignores the fact that company profits are taxed (and corporation profits are also taxed when they go to the shareholders), which goes into government coffers which fund the government. How is it possible that you don't recognize this?
"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:No, merely viewing reality. There are many periods when corporate profits are up with no corresponding improvement on society. Ergo I reject the axiom that it's an automatic good and await evidence.
A company is not wholly separate from society. Its owners or shareholders include members of society, as do its employees, suppliers, etc.
Damn, I'm wanting evidence again from you. That must hurt you, not having your assertions believed automatically.
No, it's just astonishing that someone would disagree with a statement like, "If a company is going to profit from something that will hurt no one, we should allow the company to profit."
Nice pole vault of logic, no leap would have cleared that distance. I view it as neutral as there's no evidence it's really effected the economy situation we're in presently, at least, their profits haven't. If there's evidence in support of your position, perhaps you could present it...?
So because one company is profitable while others are in bad shape means that we should HARM THE PROFITABLE COMPANIES? Your idiocy only grows as this thread continues. Should we ban repo companies because they make so much money during recessions?
Man, what a strawman. Not immediately giving them more land to sit on is 'HARMING THE PROFITABLE COMPANIES!!!!!!!!!111' complete with literal allcaps?
Where's the evidence it's a net positive for society? I'm looking at the economy and not seeing it. Perhaps you could try meeting a request for quantification.
Shareholders are members of society, douchebag. Company profits go to them, since they own the frickin' company in the first place, meaning that every dollar that Chevron/Shell/whoever makes from this deal will go to someone in society. In addition, their employees, suppliers, business partners, and competitors are all members of society.
So it profits a section of society which can already be summed up as 'the company'. It is amusing how you fly off the handle at the request for quantification, though, and how you keep defaulting to 'THERE'S NO HARM' automatically. And especially amusing how you leap into 'YOU WANT TO HARM THEM' because I don't want to give them something right now unless there's some quantifiable good. Or, you know, that it actually falls within the governments job to do this.

Again, you provide no answers to any of my questions, merely getting more intense and calling me insane because I ask some questions. Are you going to respond to the bits where I ask where it's the government's business to aid a company's profits? Or where you might want to quantify any of your stuff? Or should I just walk away while you're screaming how unreasonable I am for expecting evidence to an assertion, here on SDN?
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 Master Of Ossus is busy being incredulous someone would ask him for evidence, believing such insane, I'll post a relevent article: [snip]

Justification isn't there. Big surprise. Big surprise. I'm happy to wait for testing. Maybe the equipment to make the rigs will be availiable after it's done.
Big surprise. Nitram totally mischaracterizes an article to say "Justification isn't there," when in fact it says that the impact is uncertain. Genius.
"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 Master Of Ossus is busy being incredulous someone would ask him for evidence, believing such insane, I'll post a relevent article: [snip]

Justification isn't there. Big surprise. Big surprise. I'm happy to wait for testing. Maybe the equipment to make the rigs will be availiable after it's done.
Big surprise. Nitram totally mischaracterizes an article to say "Justification isn't there," when in fact it says that the impact is uncertain. Genius.
OH MY GOD NITRAM MISCHARACTERIZED IT BY QUOTING IT.
In its report, the panel concluded that more studies on possible environmental and economic damage were needed before decisions on leasing and production could be justified at the three sites it studied.
What's that? A decision can't be justified yet? Exactly.
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:Man, what a strawman. Not immediately giving them more land to sit on is 'HARMING THE PROFITABLE COMPANIES!!!!!!!!!111' complete with literal allcaps?
Yes. Preventing a company from making more of a profit is harming a company. What part of this isn't registering for you?
So it profits a section of society which can already be summed up as 'the company'. It is amusing how you fly off the handle at the request for quantification, though, and how you keep defaulting to 'THERE'S NO HARM' automatically. And especially amusing how you leap into 'YOU WANT TO HARM THEM' because I don't want to give them something right now unless there's some quantifiable good. Or, you know, that it actually falls within the governments job to do this.
Ugh. The company is a section of society. Do you seriously wish to do away with all government programs that treat different members of society unequally? I see it as irrelevant if not every single person in all of society can be shown to derive a tangible benefit from something, if it harms no one. Something that you, apparently, are unable to grasp.

As for quantification of the benefits, oil currently retails for $130+ dollars/barrel, and there are an estimated 18 billion barrels of oil sitting offshore. The government would probably get around a 20% cut from royalties for offshore drilling, too. And that's on top of the $1 BILLION lump sum that one of the potential leases would go for.
Again, you provide no answers to any of my questions, merely getting more intense and calling me insane because I ask some questions.
I call you insane because you seem to view companies and society as being wholly separate entities.
Are you going to respond to the bits where I ask where it's the government's business to aid a company's profits?
It's the government's responsibility to aid company profits when doing so harms no one.
Or where you might want to quantify any of your stuff? Or should I just walk away while you're screaming how unreasonable I am for expecting evidence to an assertion, here on SDN?
I think you're insane for somehow viewing oil companies as being wholly distinct and separable from society, and I'll continue to tell you that as long as the thread goes on.
"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:Man, what a strawman. Not immediately giving them more land to sit on is 'HARMING THE PROFITABLE COMPANIES!!!!!!!!!111' complete with literal allcaps?
Yes. Preventing a company from making more of a profit is harming a company. What part of this isn't registering for you?
That's an unusual definition of 'harm'. Where's it coming from? I was unaware that affecting the profit in neither direction was in fact harmful. What's the minimum for it to not be harmful, in your unusual definitions?
So it profits a section of society which can already be summed up as 'the company'. It is amusing how you fly off the handle at the request for quantification, though, and how you keep defaulting to 'THERE'S NO HARM' automatically. And especially amusing how you leap into 'YOU WANT TO HARM THEM' because I don't want to give them something right now unless there's some quantifiable good. Or, you know, that it actually falls within the governments job to do this.
Ugh. The company is a section of society. Do you seriously wish to do away with all government programs that treat different members of society unequally? I see it as irrelevant if not every single person in all of society can be shown to derive a tangible benefit from something, if it harms no one. Something that you, apparently, are unable to grasp.

As for quantification of the benefits, oil currently retails for $130+ dollars/barrel, and there are an estimated 18 billion barrels of oil sitting offshore. The government would probably get around a 20% cut from royalties for offshore drilling, too. And that's on top of the $1 BILLION lump sum that one of the potential leases would go for.
Right, royalties. Because those aren't actually keeping pace with increased production.. Or didn't you notice? Link

And if we want government profits from leases, simply implement the proposed 'Use It Or Lose it' legislation, resell the leases that exist to people who might use them. Or just sit on them until they're taken back away, for more government profit and money for the bills.
Again, you provide no answers to any of my questions, merely getting more intense and calling me insane because I ask some questions.
I call you insane because you seem to view companies and society as being wholly separate entities.
I would be, if that was my statement. My statement was actually: So it profits a section of society which can already be summed up as 'the company'.

Why benefit just this section of society even more?
Are you going to respond to the bits where I ask where it's the government's business to aid a company's profits?
It's the government's responsibility to aid company profits when doing so harms no one.
So prove no harm. Except even the folks who do that for pay say they need more data to prove one way or another, so I'm inclined to wait.
Or where you might want to quantify any of your stuff? Or should I just walk away while you're screaming how unreasonable I am for expecting evidence to an assertion, here on SDN?
I think you're insane for somehow viewing oil companies as being wholly distinct and separable from society, and I'll continue to tell you that as long as the thread goes on.
So you're going to flog that strawman in perpetuality. Thanks for the heads up, I can ignore you now.
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:That's an unusual definition of 'harm'. Where's it coming from? I was unaware that affecting the profit in neither direction was in fact harmful. What's the minimum for it to not be harmful, in your unusual definitions?
I think that anything that prevents someone from materially benefiting constitutes a cognizable harm that has to be justified.
Right, royalties. Because those aren't actually keeping pace with increased production.. Or didn't you notice? Link
So what? You don't think we should take royalties unless we... take more royalties? How does that work? It's something positive that's going into government coffers, even if it's not as high as you would like it to be.
And if we want government profits from leases, simply implement the proposed 'Use It Or Lose it' legislation, resell the leases that exist to people who might use them. Or just sit on them until they're taken back away, for more government profit and money for the bills.
I don't necessarily have a problem with "Use it or Lose it" leases, except that they would certainly drive down the purchase price of the lease in the first place. I'd have to know more before I formed an opinion on them.
I would be, if that was my statement. My statement was actually: So it profits a section of society which can already be summed up as 'the company'.

Why benefit just this section of society even more?
Because this section of society is willing to pay the government $1 billion to develop oil rigs offshore, and no one else is willing to pay the government anything because otherwise that land is totally unproductive.
So prove no harm.
Can't prove a negative.
Except even the folks who do that for pay say they need more data to prove one way or another, so I'm inclined to wait.
It's not even clear to me whether these sorts of environmental costs can be quantified--there are still disagreements as to the environmental "costs" of things like global warming. However, I don't see that a lack of perfect information should be a complete bar to activity, now.
So you're going to flog that strawman in perpetuality. Thanks for the heads up, I can ignore you now.
So benefiting one segment of society is not the same thing as benefiting society? Where do you get this stuff?
"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
aerius
Charismatic Cult Leader
Posts: 14804
Joined: 2002-08-18 07:27pm

Post by aerius »

Master of Ossus wrote:So benefiting one segment of society is not the same thing as benefiting society? Where do you get this stuff?
Giving GWB and his republican cronies a crapload of benefits doesn't benefit society. Making the Blackwater boys rich doesn't benefit society either.
Image
aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me. :)
Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either. :P
User avatar
Master of Ossus
Darkest Knight
Posts: 18213
Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
Location: California

Post by Master of Ossus »

aerius wrote:Giving GWB and his republican cronies a crapload of benefits doesn't benefit society. Making the Blackwater boys rich doesn't benefit society either.
Even if it harms no one? Good to know.
"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 »

Man, the strawmen abound. Now that I confront you with 'No, I said the exact opposite of that', you declare any segment is the same as the whole. Not all segments of society are equal. This one has already received alot of favorable action, why more? You do not define why. You simply cast not affecting profits up or down as 'harm', and refuse to give evidence, simply asserting 'I think'. Your subjective standards are rejected.

Furthermore, insufficient data to justify a decision yet is not and will never be 'We lack PERFECT data', and I simply said I was happy for more tests. At no point do I use this standard of perfect data. Another strawman.

Finally, more subjective standards from you that you don't believe there can be quantifiable estimates on enviromental impacts. I mean, it's not like 'It cost this much to clean up this much waste discharge from a platform' or 'It will cost this much annually to clear up this oil spill' aren't quantified, so what's your problem?

If it's literally nothing left but 'I believe' and 'Not clear to me', Ossus, you should abandon your point because subjective opinion when I have repeatedly asked for evidence is not gonna cut it.
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:Man, the strawmen abound. Now that I confront you with 'No, I said the exact opposite of that', you declare any segment is the same as the whole. Not all segments of society are equal. This one has already received alot of favorable action, why more?
Because helping a segment of society is helpful for society.
You do not define why. You simply cast not affecting profits up or down as 'harm', and refuse to give evidence, simply asserting 'I think'. Your subjective standards are rejected.
I suppose you can call that a libertarian view of harm, "E.g., You harm someone if you interfere with their freedom to do something."

Moreover, when you ask for a justification of why I think we should do something or another, do not be surprised when I provide a moral justification based on my views.

Virtually all subsets of society benefit from being part of society--does this mean that we should stop helping people?
Furthermore, insufficient data to justify a decision yet is not and will never be 'We lack PERFECT data', and I simply said I was happy for more tests. At no point do I use this standard of perfect data. Another strawman.
Fair enough, but I think that expecting better data is an inadequate reason for hesitation because we also don't know the costs of waiting for more information.
Finally, more subjective standards from you that you don't believe there can be quantifiable estimates on enviromental impacts. I mean, it's not like 'It cost this much to clean up this much waste discharge from a platform' or 'It will cost this much annually to clear up this oil spill' aren't quantified, so what's your problem?
We can easily internalize these costs to the oil companies using an indemnity contract with the lease.
If it's literally nothing left but 'I believe' and 'Not clear to me', Ossus, you should abandon your point because subjective opinion when I have repeatedly asked for evidence is not gonna cut it.
I have repeatedly provided you with my reasoning as to why I support offshore drilling. At some point, I suppose, all policy decisions come down to reasoning, but merely citing uncertainty in the future does not strike me as being nearly as compelling as acquiring immediate benefits. I similarly do not view my reliance on statements like "helping one segment of society benefits society" as being a damning criticism of my views.
"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 »

Government time(Ultimately what this amounts to, repealing the ban and selling leases and regulating more land) could be better spent on segments of society that are not reaping benefits from the Administration of the past eight years and present economic situation. Taking time and putting it to one inherently removes it from every other section. So at minimum, using your term of harm, you harm everyone but the oil companies to enact this.

This of course is nonsense.

I am using an objective form of harm and help: For a company, being in the black is good. Being in the red is bad. Pushing in one direction or the other is help or harm. But pushing in neither is neutral. And the oil companies are not ignored, rightless entities, they have enjoyed many benefits, so it is not harming them to turn attention elsewhere.

Since there is no reason to hurry(There can be no drilling without equipment, and it's on back-order for years), this can safely be put off for a few years without effecting the empirical outcome. So as long as more studies are produced in five years(And I see no reason why the cost would massively inflate from the 300k given for the one earlier; bigger, yes, but not by any huge proportion), there is no reason to rush. Instead, spend the time that would have been spent on this on segments of society actively suffering. Alleviating suffering is, morally, better than helping those already well-off.
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:Government time(Ultimately what this amounts to, repealing the ban and selling leases and regulating more land) could be better spent on segments of society that are not reaping benefits from the Administration of the past eight years and present economic situation. Taking time and putting it to one inherently removes it from every other section. So at minimum, using your term of harm, you harm everyone but the oil companies to enact this.

This of course is nonsense.
I mean, that's all well and good, but frankly I don't view my legislator's time as being terribly valuable, especially since they already take so much vacation as it is.
I am using an objective form of harm and help: For a company, being in the black is good. Being in the red is bad. Pushing in one direction or the other is help or harm. But pushing in neither is neutral. And the oil companies are not ignored, rightless entities, they have enjoyed many benefits, so it is not harming them to turn attention elsewhere.
But the only reason why leaving the existing regulation in place is "neutral" is because we enacted a statute a long time ago which has largely lived its course.
Since there is no reason to hurry(There can be no drilling without equipment, and it's on back-order for years), this can safely be put off for a few years without effecting the empirical outcome. So as long as more studies are produced in five years(And I see no reason why the cost would massively inflate from the 300k given for the one earlier; bigger, yes, but not by any huge proportion), there is no reason to rush. Instead, spend the time that would have been spent on this on segments of society actively suffering. Alleviating suffering is, morally, better than helping those already well-off.
Why can't we let them do oil exploration, now, and run the various environmental studies concurrently? That way, we benefit from any potential drilling without delay, assuming that the environmental consequences are found to be tolerable? That's what I view the legislation as doing--they won't be able to start production for the better part of a decade, which is more than enough time to evaluate the environment and pass more legislation to prevent production if it turns out to be unacceptable.

And I don't view this decision as having much of an opportunity cost: the profits from drilling offshore would not go towards alleviating suffering if we do not allow drilling--they would just sit in the ground as missed potential.
"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:Government time(Ultimately what this amounts to, repealing the ban and selling leases and regulating more land) could be better spent on segments of society that are not reaping benefits from the Administration of the past eight years and present economic situation. Taking time and putting it to one inherently removes it from every other section. So at minimum, using your term of harm, you harm everyone but the oil companies to enact this.

This of course is nonsense.
I mean, that's all well and good, but frankly I don't view my legislator's time as being terribly valuable, especially since they already take so much vacation as it is.
I am using an objective form of harm and help: For a company, being in the black is good. Being in the red is bad. Pushing in one direction or the other is help or harm. But pushing in neither is neutral. And the oil companies are not ignored, rightless entities, they have enjoyed many benefits, so it is not harming them to turn attention elsewhere.
But the only reason why leaving the existing regulation in place is "neutral" is because we enacted a statute a long time ago which has largely lived its course.
Ignoring it neither increases nor decreases the profit. Do you dispute this? You have at no point previously disputed this. If you want to show objective harm, so it, don't harp on how it's a regulation. Some of us do not drink the 'regulation bad' kool-aid and thus when a regulation neither helps nor hurts, we don't care.
Since there is no reason to hurry(There can be no drilling without equipment, and it's on back-order for years), this can safely be put off for a few years without effecting the empirical outcome. So as long as more studies are produced in five years(And I see no reason why the cost would massively inflate from the 300k given for the one earlier; bigger, yes, but not by any huge proportion), there is no reason to rush. Instead, spend the time that would have been spent on this on segments of society actively suffering. Alleviating suffering is, morally, better than helping those already well-off.
Why can't we let them do oil exploration, now, and run the various environmental studies concurrently? That way, we benefit from any potential drilling without delay, assuming that the environmental consequences are found to be tolerable? That's what I view the legislation as doing--they won't be able to start production for the better part of a decade, which is more than enough time to evaluate the environment and pass more legislation to prevent production if it turns out to be unacceptable.
What is the pressing reason to start now and not in five years?
And I don't view this decision as having much of an opportunity cost: the profits from drilling offshore would not go towards alleviating suffering if we do not allow drilling--they would just sit in the ground as missed potential.
Here's me uncaring. The effect will be minimal on the economy as repeatedly pointed out since this topic came up in politics. So again, why not devote the only cost on the government, time, towards aiding those actually suffering, and delay until there's enough data to justify a decision? Why the desperation to move forward before that?
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:Ignoring it neither increases nor decreases the profit. Do you dispute this? You have at no point previously disputed this. If you want to show objective harm, so it, don't harp on how it's a regulation. Some of us do not drink the 'regulation bad' kool-aid and thus when a regulation neither helps nor hurts, we don't care.
And, again, I do not view this regulation as "neither helping nor hurting." My definition of harmful encompasses this regulation. Moreover, you see no negatives to enacting regulation just for the hell of it?
What is the pressing reason to start now and not in five years?
Oil exploration is going on now in other countries and by other companies. Moreover, there's a cost in delaying any lease in that we can only charge them for the time that they use, and would lose interest on it if we don't act quickly. Moreover, cars are likely to continuously improve in gas mileage in the US, which will continuously decrease the domestic need for oil products per capita. Delaying will only concentrate benefits more in the hands of the oil companies, rather than providing oil when it's most needed for Americans. Finally, since you're big on government costs, Americans are unhappy with gas prices today. It's a nice government signal that Congress is trying to do its part (and, let's be honest, they wouldn't do shit for poor people if this doesn't get passed--they'd spend the time debating other nonsensical oil and energy policies).
Here's me uncaring. The effect will be minimal on the economy as repeatedly pointed out since this topic came up in politics. So again, why not devote the only cost on the government, time, towards aiding those actually suffering, and delay until there's enough data to justify a decision? Why the desperation to move forward before that?
I don't see this as a desperation move, and I see no chance that Congress would look at helping "those who actually suffering," except in the sense that Congress views high gas prices as constituting "actual suffering." At least it'll get their pointless debates over with quicker if they do this and feel like they've helped.
"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."
Post Reply