Home › News › County News
Bush acts to end ban on offshore oil drilling
He says U.S. needs to use natural resources; Congress must agree
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS
More from County News
WASHINGTON — President Bush lifted an executive ban on oil and gas drilling off much of the nation's coasts on Monday, arguing that $4-a-gallon gas prices have left the country with no choice but to tap into its natural resources.
The decision will have no immediate effect unless Congress also agrees to rescind a separate ban that lawmakers put in place more than a quarter-century ago.
The president and congressional Republicans have stepped up their efforts in recent weeks to expand offshore drilling, and Monday's announcement appeared designed to pressure congressional Democrats into acting.
"The only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress," Bush said in a statement delivered from the Rose Garden.
Democrats shot back that offshore drilling will do nothing to solve the country's energy problems and accused Bush of trying to blame them for his own failure to control soaring gas prices.
"The man is failing at everything he touches," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. "He's a failure. And now he's trying to push the failure in gas prices, where we've seen a 300 percent increase since he came in, he's trying to push that onto the Congress."
Oil and gas drilling has been prevented for years in a large part of the Outer Continental Shelf, which extends about 200 miles off the shores of the east and west coasts, as well as the Gulf of Mexico.
The drilling has been banned under a couple of moratoriums. The executive ban was put in place in 1990 by Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush. A congressional ban was enacted in 1982 and has been renewed every year since.
Republicans have long sought to lift the bans and allow more oil and gas exploration, arguing that technology has dramatically improved and that drilling no longer poses the environmental risks it did when the moratoriums were imposed.
Congressional Democrats and a handful of Republican lawmakers from coastal states have successfully fought to keep the bans in place.
But GOP leaders, sensing public frustration with high gas prices and armed with new polling that shows a dramatic rise in support for drilling, have been pushing hard in recent weeks to allow drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
Republican-sponsored bills filed in both the House and the Senate within the past two weeks would repeal the congressional ban on offshore drilling. President Bush also called last month on lawmakers to lift the ban and allow the exploration and development of offshore oil resources.
They didn't, so Bush responded on Monday by lifting the executive ban that had been enacted by his father.
"Failure to act is unacceptable," he said in announcing his decision. "It's unacceptable to me, and it's unacceptable to the American people."
Americans are rightly angered at Congress' refusal to act, Bush said.
"The American people are watching the numbers climb higher and higher at the pump. And they're waiting to see what the Congress will do," he said.
Boxer, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said Senate Democrats are planning to address energy prices, but she doubts lawmakers would be willing to repeal the congressional ban.
As for Bush's lifting of the executive ban, "this proposal is something you'd expect from an oil company CEO, not the president of the United States," she said.
Even if new offshore drilling was allowed off the coast of California and the rest of the Outer Continental Shelf, it won't produce oil in time to bring down the high gas prices that consumers are facing right now, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
Any oil produced from new leases would not be available for at least seven years, Feinstein said. Also, most new oil rigs currently in production are committed through 2012, so there is no equipment readily available to drill for new oil, she said.
Furthermore, she said, most of the oil and natural gas resources that are believed to be on the Outer Continental Shelf already are accessible for drilling through federal leases.
"The president is deluding the American public into believing that new offshore drilling is a quick fix to $4 per gallon gasoline," Feinstein said. "Nothing could be further from the truth."
Rep. Lois Capps, D-Santa Barbara, and other Democrats noted the oil and gas industry already hold leases on nearly 68 million acres of federal land that could produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day. Yet the industry has chosen not to drill in those areas.
"We simply cannot drill our way to energy independence, and no amount of wishing for something different will change that reality," Capps said. "This proposal looks like another Bush administration gift to a much favored special interest, in this case big oil and gas companies that are gouging American consumers already."
Environmentalists also blasted the president's decision.
"Instead of taking specific steps to cure our addiction to oil, this simply furthers the effort to feed it," said Dennis Kelso, executive vice president of the Ocean Conservancy.
While no one disputes that drilling is safer than in the past, the risks of an oil spill that could harm marine life and damage the environment are still very real, Kelso said. "There are faster, cheaper, safer alternatives, and that is what we should be doing," he said.
Energy groups, on the other hand, applauded the president's actions.
Thomas Pyle, president of the nonprofit Institute for Energy Research, praised Bush for eliminating "one of the largest barriers standing in the way of new energy supplies" and urged Congress to do the same.
"Ending these bans will send a strong signal to the rest of the world that America is finally getting serious about producing more of its own energy," Pyle said.
R. Skip Horvath, president and CEO of the Natural Gas Supply Association, a trade group, said Bush made "a smart decision because natural gas from U.S. shores will add to our security of supply."
"The people have spoken, the president has acted, and we hope the House and Senate are listening," Horvath said.
Posted by cassandra2 on July 15, 2008 at 5:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4291
Desperation time for the GOP.
Posted by TECHUSER on July 15, 2008 at 6:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think drilling for oil is a great idea.
It only makes sense,if you run out of something,go get some more.To me that is just logical thinking.
I notice that all the people that say drilling for more oil will not help are not people in the oil business. What does a collage prof know about drilling for oil,nothing as far as I am concerned.
Posted by danp on July 15, 2008 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How come the opposition can only attack the motivation of the president and attempt to find holes in the reasoning behind lifting the ban? Can you give us the negative aspect of allowing the offshore drilling? Besides creating thousands of jobs and adding more oil to the supply?
Posted by cslaurie on July 15, 2008 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To our elected morons, one concept:
BALANCE OF TRADE.
Have you noticed the dollar is in the toilet? It is because we export more dollars than we import.
Every barrel of oil produced domestically is $145 dollars that stays in this country. If we export the oil, the $145 stays in the country.
Cash In-Cash Out in simple accounting.
Posted by cslaurie on July 15, 2008 at 7:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Techuser-
Capps husband was a college professor. She is a school nurse by trade, which of course eminently qualifies her to lead us.
Posted by cassandra2 on July 15, 2008 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We've had two oilmen running the country for almost 8 years. How do you like the results?
'course they both have college degrees. That must explain their ineptitude.
When you get through celebrating ignorance, read the link. We can't drill our way to energy independence and the primer on peaking explains why quite clearly.
And you don't need a college education nor even know how to spell college to understand.
Posted by cslaurie on July 15, 2008 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ah Casandra, are you dyslexic? What does energy independence have to do with cash outflows in the here and now.
Peak oil has been called every twenty years or so ever since Col. Drake's well petered out. May I suggest some reading, try The Prize by Daniel Yergin. You will know far more than either Caps or Feinstein - you could even run for office.
Posted by cmnelson7890 on July 15, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh come on! The People don't want us to buy Oil for other countries, don't want other fuels, don't want drilling. Don't be cry babies and stop driving your cars. Oil brought more money in to our counties then most anything else. If you don't want drill. Just Stop riding in Fuel driven motors. And Stop using gas or electric appliances, they all use fuel too. I not a backer of the President but, this is the right thing to do. Drill Drill Drill get us out of DEBT.
Posted by cassandra2 on July 15, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No, I'm not dyslexic. Are you?
No single source need give one the skinny on the oil situations but you might try Colin Campbell, Richard Heinberg, James Kunstler, Robert Hersch, for starters. You could even be qualified to vote for someone for office.
Of course many of the above have college degrees so ....
As for energy independence and balance of payments--"Every barrel of oil produced domestically is $145 dollars that stays in this country. If we export the oil, the $145 stays in the country.
Cash In-Cash Out in simple accounting."
Our importation of petroleum has been the biggest transfer of wealth abroad in our history.
Further on balance of payment--buying cheap goods from Asia for Wal-mart et al. hasn't helped either Too many folks are only interested in the immediate gratification of cheap goods.
Or cheap oil.
Posted by cslaurie on July 15, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
...Our importation of petroleum has been the biggest transfer of wealth abroad in our history.
My point exactly. Every little bit helps when it is produced here. Therefore, domestic drilling and production is good, import is bad. More drilling more better. Simple enough?
By the way, peak oil is a guess no matter how many degrees one has. The guess is based on proven reserves and current drilling techniques. There are vast areas under exploratory drilling in Africa and elsewhere. Those areas do not count as proven or known reserves. Further, new extended reach drilling techniques enable companies to produce oil otherwise unavailable even ten years ago.
This does not mention the tar sands in Canada and oil shale in the Rockies region nor coal gasification currently underway.
Since we are stuck with oil for our foreseeable future, we should make sure we keep as many of our oil dollars at home as possible.
Posted by mikeb6804 on July 15, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Cassie---how about if we import the oil? What happens to the $145 then? Simple accounting.
Posted by garion246 on July 15, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If the oil wells were already ready to pump, would it be a good time to pump? I would think so, buy low sell high. Now is a good time to sell, but that opportunity is limited. So the country is buying high now. A lot of the wells in the area were not being operated before but are now because it is a good time to sell.
I certainly don’t like seeing oil platforms off the coast. I don’t like paying the high gas prices either. I would also prefer to use up the Middle East and other world oil sources first. It all depends on your point of view. However since it takes a long time to get new wells in place it’s probably good idea to get started. The county is on very shaky grounds financially. It is smart to get prepared for future financial woes and the extra oils wells can only help that.
In the mean time reduce your oil product dependency and search and refine alternate energy sources.
Sen. Feinstein & Boxers statements are embarrassing. They do nothing more than present a finger pointing solution.
Posted by cslaurie on July 15, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
By the way, Cassandra, cursed prophetess..
Here's a tidbit about peak oil from your own government scientists:
In 1920, the United States Geological Survey officially estimated that the U.S. had just 6.7 billion barrels of oil left, including undiscovered oil fields. Eighty-two years later, the U.S. had produced 180 billion barrels of oil and still had 22 billion barrels of proven reserves. The USGS's 1920 estimate was off by a mere 2900%.
Posted by jeff93024 on July 15, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So, if more drilling is such a good idea. why aren't the oil companies doing anything with the 68 MILLION ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND upon which they already hold leases?
Posted by cslaurie on July 15, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Try to get a drilling permit in California and you'll know the answer to that question.
Posted by jeff93024 on July 15, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow. Republicans have an excuse and an alibi for everything, don't they? If they worked that hard at finding and producing a viable alternate energy source, like hydrogen, we wouldn't be having any problems right now.
Posted by cslaurie on July 15, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Other than taxes and red tape, not to mention political correctness, I can't think of anything the Democrats have produced. Maybe American socialism...
Posted by jeff93024 on July 15, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
" I can't think of anything the Democrats have produced..."
That's because you spend all of your time listening AM Talk Radio and hanging out here.
Essentially, you've handicapped yourself and you worldview is limited.
Posted by cslaurie on July 15, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And this from a guy that thinks hydrogen is the answer to today's problems. Never mind that no mass production, distribution or retail system is available to fuel these vehicles. And that the proposed major feedstock is natural gas. You certainly are a worldview visionary. Are you playing hookey from summer school today?
Posted by jeff93024 on July 15, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I need to go to work. All of you retired Republican welfare babies stay here and hold down the fort.
Oh, I just thought of one important thing that Democrats produce; more and more registered Democrats each year.
Posted by marketrealist on July 15, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
From the industry weblog "theoildrum".
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4291
"In total, we believe that if all limits on domestic drilling were removed, it could only increase US oil production by a maximum of 2-3 mbpd. Once it came online bit by bit, given the loss in global oil production by that time, the additional oil from ANWR and all other undeveloped federal lands will be underwhelming..
The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that drilling in ANWR would only reduce the price of gasoline by less than four pennies per gallon—20 years from now!"
Posted by jeff93024 on July 15, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Never mind that no mass production, distribution or retail system is available to fuel these vehicles."
Germany's working on it right now. Mercedes-Benz plans to be gas & diesel-free in 7 years. Read something besides The Star and you'll know things like
that, too.
Enjoy your vodka, and remember not to drive drunk. I'm outta here.
Posted by VeritasLuxMea on July 15, 2008 at 10:05 a.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by cassandra2 on July 15, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Proven reserves are BS. Check out Heinberg as to how "proven" reserves are proved. They aren't and the methods of arriving at figures are laughable.
Sweet crude supply stuck at 12-'05 levels despite rising prices. No question we have peaked. The stats show it.
Decreasing demand for each barrel would save the same $145 (or whatever it is today) and lead to sustainable solutions.
As for tar sands et al. read the link I posted. None of this is new and I'm tired of repeating myself.
The Repugs budgeted billions to pressure on domestic drilling figuring it was a red meat issue that would help them. And you ditto heads oblige so nicely.
As for the socialism silliness:
You don't read,
You don't know.
You paste on a label
And ready to go.
Drill, drill, drill.
Spill, spill, spill
And after five years of reading countless books and essays, studying, attending classes, writing articles, going to lectures, I'm getting annoyed at being told I don't know anything from morons who wouldn't know Hubbert's curve from Madonna's cleavage.
Posted by cslaurie on July 15, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Haha go to work indeed. I'm self employed and my day starts at 5:00 AM. I'm taking a little break amusing myself with morons. Must be a really good job starting at ten, do you mow lawns?
But I must admit good riposte, "producing more democrats".... Hahaha.
You are correct, the bottom of the gene pool has been reproducing at an alarming rate. Due in large part to Democrats voting their valued constituents subsidies for inbreeding in the form of food stamps and welfare, if the truth be known. Bread and circuses will be the end of our democracy.
Posted by VeritasLuxMea on July 15, 2008 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
cassandra2 -
Unless you DON'T own a car, DON'T ride in a car, train, plane or bus AND either pedal or walk or crawl EVERYWHERE you go then your condensending arguments and liberal snob condensention will come crashing down because your ivory tower is cracking and leaning very, very far (to the left). :)
Posted by VeritasLuxMea on July 15, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
cassandra2 -
What happened to cassandra? Is there 2 of you now?!?!? My apologies, I have been away (you know, I have a life) :)
Posted by VeritasLuxMea on July 15, 2008 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, enough insults at the resident radicals for now. It's a beautiful day and life beckons.
"Nutjob" jw1000 saw my post and I got another reaction :). Works like a charm. Ciao!
Posted by marketrealist on July 15, 2008 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
cslaurie, if there is so much oil out there, why has oil production stalled at about 86 million barrels per day for the last 4 years? And why have 54 out of 65 oil producing countries hit peak production and are dropping off in production rates - including some very friendly countries like Norway.
Posted by sslocal on July 15, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sitting in your homes and complaining about it won't solve it.
We need to develop all of our resources. Wind, nuke, natural gas, and yes, oil. Not to do so is stupid and very short sighted.
No, drilling will not solve our problems. But, it will help. Wringing our hands and screaming, "peak oil" will not get it done.
Use your heads for something besides a hat rack.
Posted by cslaurie on July 15, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Cassie Cassie Cassie,
You don't know anything other than what you want to hear. And I was working in the oil patch as an engineer while you were attending classes and reading essays. Believe me, you aren't qualified to judge Madonna's cleavage.
And to your fellow moron, 2-3 million barrels per day equals $272 million dollars per day ($136 a bbl) - or 99 billion, 280 million dollars a year that stay here in this country. That goes a long way toward our trade deficit.
Posted by BeaHappi on July 15, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'd rather use our own oil than to be dependent on another country's oil. Buy local, isn't that right?
I mean if it works for fruit and vegetables, why not oil?
And for goodness sakes yes, let's keep the $$ here. And quit sending so much of it elsewhere.
sslocal - I totally agree with your post.
And, pat on the back to me...I've started carpooling and we're working on getting our CEO to agree to one "telecommute" day per week.
Posted by chriscm on July 15, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think we should drill every where for oil, that's are God give right. Well need to all drive Hummers and giant SUVs. Thats are right. Bush is right, "lets leave no area untouched". We have to spend and use as much oil as we can, because when it's gone the partys over. I support waste and over spending. Forget global warming abd the banking crisis it's just a fairy tale made up by those darn Democrats. Yea right!!!
Posted by cslaurie on July 15, 2008 at 10:48 a.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by BeaHappi on July 15, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not saying we should all drive hummers and huge SUVs nor do I think that we should leave no area untouched in regards to drilling.
But the reality is that we need oil, nothing about that is going to change soon, so why not use some of what we have in our own backyards?
Everyone who owns and drives a car (even hybrids) uses gasoline. Why is it better to be dependent on foreign oil?
We ALL need to change our fuel ways...high prices are hopefully forcing change in some that don't give a crap about the environment, but are motivated by the $$ flying out of their wallets at the pump.
Pointing to sslocal's post - there is not just one right answer.
Posted by BeaHappi on July 15, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I drink vodka...it masks the pain of high fuel costs.
Posted by bugmenot on July 15, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"not in my backyard", right?
we need alternative energy sources. whether it be solar, wind, nuclear, or additional drilling.
want to drill off VC? not in my backyard.
want to add some wind turbines off the coast of massachuttes in the cape wind project? not in my backyard.
want nuclear power plants that produce nuclear waste that needs to be put somewhere, perhaps Yucca Mountain? not in my backyard.
but we can buy the power from other countries while we hoard our own reserves. it may transfer some of the wealth to the middle east. someday some arabs may come to america and maybe buy one of our most beautiful architectural buildings, the Chrysler Building, all the while we all pay $5 bucks to travel an average of 20 miles.
don't get me started on mass transit....
Posted by cassandra2 on July 15, 2008 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah I really wanted to hear about the end of civilization as we know it. Really turns me on. It's been a hard study and it hasn't got easier dealing with people who don't want to hear how bad it is or people like yourself who don't know beyond your narrow experience and are sure of everything.
You are fit only to judge Madonna's cleavage.
Someone working in the oil industry has a vested interest in promoting the industry's perspective. One might as sensibly trust insurance carriers to give us legitimate information about health care financing.
And the industry shills have lied repeatedly, not just about "proven reserves." Exxon, for example, made a cottage industry of science quacks funding disinformation about global warming. The Valdez's spill's damage BYW remains on the land to this day and in the bodies of the humans and other creatures contaminated.
We've had almost 8 years of 2 pro oilmen in charge of our national agenda How do we like the product?
Posted by cslaurie on July 15, 2008 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Cassie..
I know the sky is falling and you are chicken little. No one hears the truth you speak. No one believes it. The gods have certainly cursed you. You should have gone alone with Apollo...Ah regrets...
Did you forget big George, he was a professional oilman too. So that would make it 12 years in total.
But I admit I love oil. I love the smell of it. I love it on my hands and face. It smells like money. I like it in my car as gasoline. I like it when it heats my moms home as fuel oil. I love it when the lights go on. Yes I love oil and everything about it. But that is just me.
Posted by flmrmom on July 15, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
cslaurie, glad to see someone out there is making sense and actually knows what they are talking about. All of you opposed to the drilling, stay home, don't drive your cars or ride buses or trains. That would reduce the demand greatly and make it better for the rest of us that live in the real world and need to drive our vehicles to get to work.
Posted by marketrealist on July 15, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Exactly sslocal, that's why its important to move off the distraction of getting oil from Alaska, off the coasts, etc., and focus on re-organizing society around alternative energy, hybrid and electric cars, radical energy efficiency, mass transit, and re-organizing the layout of our cities, etc.
Posted by cslaurie on July 15, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Re-organize society. Just like Joe Stalin re-organized the Kulaks in the Ukraine in order to create collective farms and make them fit as good socialists. Unfortunately they all died from starvation. But society was sucessfully re-organized.
Posted by sslocal on July 15, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes market, it will take a very large effort to get anything done. A multi pronged effort would work best as stated above.
We just need to get moving before it's to late.
Posted by marketrealist on July 15, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
cslaurie,
If we don't get away from oil dependency, the 2-3 million barrels per day is like giving putting a band aid on a person who has just had his leg chopped off. Perhaps, you just don't get that we really are in need of radical change. The US uses two times more energy per dollar of GDP than Europe. Our cars don't even meet China's fuel economy standards. You called me an idiot. I think people who believe our Elton Gallegly's views on energy are the idiots. He blocks anything that reduces our dependency on oil - like alternative energy, CAFE standards, etc.
Please look at the policies he is proposing. How do they actually help this country?
Posted by vickicassidy2 on July 15, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The worst president ever! No one Republican or Demacrat can argue that.
Posted by marketrealist on July 15, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
cslaurie,
I used the word re-organizing appropriately. Please don't think the society now is not organized already. We have it organized around cheap oil. Our highway system, our parking lots, our suburbs, basically everything we do is organized around cheap oil. We buy grapes from Chile than San Luis Obispo based on cheap oil. If you think we developed this system without organization, I can quote you rules that force our oil addicition. These rules do have to be revised and the system re-organized. Hey, some of us don't want to hear this but it going to happen. Things don't work at $145 per barrel oil as well as when it was $30 per barrel. Wake up and smell the coffee. I am not the enemy, just the messenger.
Posted by TECHUSER on July 15, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
cassanra-are you for real or are you just joking?
Posted by cslaurie on July 15, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This thread started on domestic oil production. I argued that domestic is better for our economy than imported.
Now we are into sweeping changes of our society, central planning and all that entails.
Society moves forward through incremental change. Sweeping change is brought about by disaster such as war. Sweeping change rarely if ever works out for present. Ask a starving Kulak mother that was reduced to eating her infant to survive. Radical change is nice in theory but short on practice.
People spout change but offer no solutions. Do you really driving 55 in 1973 really did anything about the shortage of oil? We are being offered the same garbage in a different bag.
I think McCain has it right. Three hundred million to the inventor of a viable car battery. Incremental change,that is how change happens through enlightened self interest. Not a group of elitists convinced they are the saviors of society and are willing to beat square pegs into round holes.
The marketplace will reward the producers of the next generation of mechanical power. It will not be mandated into existence by a bunch of bureaucrats.
Posted by sslocal on July 15, 2008 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We can't just stop producing/buying oil. It needs to be phased out and replaced with other sources. However, we will always need some oil.
You may drive an electric car but it runs on rubber tires that need oil to be produced.
You simply have to have that plastic bottle of water when you leave for work but we need oil to make that bottle.
Same with various lubes, cloths, and so on.
We use oil for many, many things so we can't just stop needing it.
Get your head out and think! Cars use alot but not all of the oil we need.
Posted by marketrealist on July 15, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
cslaurie, You think McCain has it right? The man who proposed eliminating the $0.18 gasoline tax. So he wants to stimulate demand and increase our consumption of oil while cutting money that goes to maintaining the transportation infrastructure. With ideas like that, we'll be bankrupt in no time.
Posted by twbeem on July 15, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Democrates are aparty of no ideas
Republicans are a party of bad ideas
I have noticed that only Republicans have tried comming up with a solution to this energy problem. Democrates will say its a bad idea but not offer up any alternative solution. We need a stronger third party filled with common sense. These elected idiots need to stop listening to themselves and start listening to the scientists and engineers that are researching an ACTUAL solution. Give them the elbow room they need to finish their research so we can leave oil in the ground and not depend on it so much.
Posted by cslaurie on July 15, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We are bankrupt. Our creditors have just not called our loans. They will after they buy up the rest of the country on the cheap dollar - this Bud's for EU.
I used one example by the way. Offer big bucks for incremental change. The gas tax was a stupid idea - only folks who liked that were Swift Transportation etal.
Posted by marketrealist on July 15, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sslocal, you are right again. Oil is absolutely needed - it is a miracle gift. We need to use our oil wisely for chemicals manufacturing, agriculture, etc. Burning it in an automobile is a waste of this resource.
Peak oilers, like myself, don't think oil will stop flowing. We believe that we've hit a plateau on global production and it will continue at this level and start drifting downwards over the next 50 years. However, as demand peaks in Asia, the price will remain high or get even higher. Hence, we need to transition away from oil to preserve our foreign reserves.
I used the word radical change - its actually not so radical what I am suggesting. One day, we will think that driving a 4000 lbs vehicle to buy a 1 gallon gas of milk was wasteful. We will think how did we design cities so that 40% of land is devoted to roads and open parking. Now, anyone who suggests this is called a moron. What was cslaurie ranting about eating infants or something like that....Oh well.
Posted by cslaurie on July 15, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh now from central planning to the sweet voice of suggestion - which is actually not so radical...
I wasn't ranting about eating infants, I was commenting on the consequences of your soul mates radical change in the Ukraine. I didn't mean to infer you are a moron in this instance - just a Bolshevik.
Posted by marketrealist on July 15, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
cslaurie, I agree with you! We are bankrupt and more to come unless we change our way of thinking about this issue.
Detroit resisted making fuel efficient cars and GM is heading into bankrupcy as a result. They are learning the hard way. Their senator, John Dingell fought CAFE standards tooth and nail but in the end, he drove the final nail into their coffin.
Poor uninformed Californians who bought 12 mpg Ford F250 trucks thinking that Elton Gallegly was defending them by resisting CAFE standards and going against the State of California's petition to the Federal Goverment to impose tighter efficiency standards, are now paying $500 a month. More bankrupcies to follow.
People who thought they could live in Tehachapi in 3000 sq foot homes and commute to the Valley now pay $1000 per month on electricity bills and $1000 per month on gasoline. More bankrupcies to follow.
Denmark, makes 20% of its electricity from wind. The Republican congress has pulled the plug on tax credits for renewable energy - they expire at the end of this year.
cslaurie, I agree with you! This path we're on is heading to bankrupcy.
Posted by marketrealist on July 15, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am absolutely not a Bolshevik. The real Bolsheviks are the ones defending big oil, big coal, and big military.
I do think central planning in support of big oil, big coal, and big military is wrong. Don't take my word for it. Google the Dept of Energy's budget and see where the money goes. At least level the playing field to allow smaller, environmentally friendly, high tech option to compete.
Posted by mikeb6804 on July 15, 2008 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ss has got it right. Several alternate energy sources have been identified. I grew up with nuclear power in my backyard. Why not more of that? Has someone been holding it up? Sure have!
I would like to see Congress shelve their stinking party politics, agree on a sensible and comrehensive plan for energy production, and begin to implement. I wouldn't call on Boxer or Feinstein for any help at all; they're nothing more than Democratic party hacks. Thee only people dumber than Boxer are the ones who put her in office.
Posted by hotwildflower on July 15, 2008 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I wonder what Barbara Boxer drives...something tells me it's not anything like a Yaris and then who pays for her gas???
I am all for alternative energy, obviously the oil isn't going to last forever, but in the meantime, I think producing our own oil has got to be a start on that whole problem.
As for the environment, I never understand people's cry about how drilling locally will harm the environment, isn't the environment being harmed in the countries we are importing from? I doubt they have as strick pollution guidelines as we do.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on July 15, 2008 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Any think the useless war, the GOP's contemplation of a possible war with Iran, our President holding hands (literally) with Saudi leaders and our constant bickering with Venezuela might also have something to do with our current oil price issues? I think the point of the article and comments from Boxer where that YET AGAIN...Dubya is lying to get one of his agendas passed. Who's bottom-line would benefit from having explored and drilled in these areas 7 years from now? Not you or I. Only idiots believe somehow that kind of profit will trickle down to society in the form of savings. Same idiots that voted for the leader of the idiots we have in office today.
Changes need to be made, drilling deeper into the dependency of oil is NOT the solution. (well...maybe CSLAURIE can have his Petro-Slurpie then...so maybe it might be the best solution for him.) (Seems like someone was sippin' on some of that oil and should really take down the "There Will Be Blood" movie poster from his "self-employed" office.
Posted by Incognito247 on July 15, 2008 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Any "solution" that involves furthering our dependence on oil is worthless. So we add a bit more oil to the supply ... all they need to do is reduce their output and it cancels out. Mandate FLEX-FUEL as per "Energy Victory" (2007, Robert Zubrin).
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on July 15, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Our nation's problem is that people vote like they think with their "well gosh, it couldn't hurt any could it?" mentality. No original thinking. People voted for Dubya because of his "it would be swell to have a beer with the guy" aura and because they thought he thumped the same "book" that they did.
So on this oil issue...it's frustrating when people take that same stance: "well...having our own oil is better than using oil from other ain't it? Uh-Huh!"
Posted by Joesombody on July 15, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have an idea. How about we forget the oil all together, and use alternative fuels. We've had the technology for years, why not use it?
Posted by sslocal on July 15, 2008 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You sure seem to know alot BabyzDaddy_01. Gosh.
Read my post above. We need the oil for many different things. Not just our cars and trucks.
You seem to still be wounded over the whole Bush thing. Get over it and think about the future.
And yes, having our own oil is much better than giving Arabs the money.
Posted by whatever on July 15, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ca finest lib's yelling again. Make note here that when the conservatives want to do something to correct the problem, you all run screaming no no no, so higher prices are all your fault. Your to blame. We need to start drilling. Do your own homework, I am amazed at the people watching all the left wing news stories and believing what they say. THINK FOR YOURSELF!! Do your own home work and quit listening to CNN, ABC, NBC AND CBS...you will be amazed at how much smarter you will be! They are so far out there in the liberal camps that they are filling your head with their agenda!
Posted by danp on July 15, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I still haven't had anyone give me a reason that drilling for oil is bad? I hear "it won't help us this way or that" "It wont lower gas prices" "It will take too long for the effects to hit gas prices" . If this WAS all true and we did, in fact, drill off our coast, what would be the harm? Besides thousands of jobs created and a thriving economy. I think we are all missing a major theme here. More jobs, more money, more spending, more taxes, less national debt, we buy ourselves another 12 to 15 years until we have another recession and we can complain and talk about this all over again and blame it on the then current president. And probably be in another war and we can complain about that too.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on July 15, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sslocal:
"You seem to still be wounded over the whole Bush thing."
Who's NOT been affected by the whole Bush mistake (x2)? A lot more would line up on the "fed up" and "wounded" side than your side buddy.
BTW, I did think about the future when I voted AGAINST the Dubya. Don't suppose I can say that about those that voted FOR him.
Posted by marketrealist on July 15, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
whatever, I suppose you get your news from Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity?
damp, When and how much oil do you think will start flowing since you believe we will have "More jobs, more money, more spending, more taxes, less national debt, we buy ourselves another 12 to 15 years until we have another recession".
Posted by sslocal on July 15, 2008 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You are assuming a whole bunch there big guy.
While I am a registered republican I vote for the man or woman I think will do the best job. Whatever party they represent.
I stand by my statement. (which you prove by your statement)
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on July 15, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DanP:
Here's 1 reason...Not from CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.
http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~dhardy/196...
Posted by cslaurie on July 15, 2008 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BabbyzDaddy
The name says it all. His major accomplishment is breeding a child. Since I didn't see the movie you speak about I can only guess about your posting. You have immediately joined the moron side of this discussion.
Posted by sslocal on July 15, 2008 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's from 1969! Update your reference sources please. The whole industry has advanced way beyond such crude drilling techniques.
Attitudes like this is why we don't have reliable sources here already. The Dims block every attempt to drill anywhere then claim the Republicans are raping the environment. You can't have it both ways.
Invest in alternative sources and drill here, drill now.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on July 15, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That's the best you could do? Simply for not siding with you, I can't play on your side of the playground? I guess I gave you more credit than I should have CSLAURIE.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on July 15, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just found an incident locally for you so that it can bring the possibilities closer to home for better perspective. DanP asked for reasons. I gave him 1. If an accidental spill in these waters is not enough...WOW. I'm disappointed in my fellow county residents.
Posted by sslocal on July 15, 2008 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I lived here then and I can tell you that it was real bad.
But, new laws and regulations have come into play now. It is not near the risk it once was.
I say lets put it to a vote. I think there is an election coming up in November.
Posted by danp on July 15, 2008 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
babydaddy, thanks for that 1969 history lesson, but you might have heard of the Exxon Valdez spill in 89. This event brought forth all new standards and precautions to this industry and neither one of us want that to happen again. I don't know if you noticed, but things have changed in the past 50 years. We can't even smoke on airplanes anymore! Did you complain when Clinton approved exportation of Alaskan North Slope in 95? Heard of MARPOL? IOPC? CLC? OPRC? and even SOLAS? Did you know that off our cost we have one of the biggest oil reserves in the entire world? Do you think they would need a ban if there weren't? You don't happen to know anyone that works for exxon/mobil, weatherford, BJ Hughes or Irwin Industries do you? How about Schlumberger? Well They, and many others in this area, employ a lot of people. And they could employ a lot more with a lift on this ban.
Posted by C2ShiningC on July 15, 2008 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The amount of recoverable oil in a formation is highly dependent on what it is worth and the cost to produce it. Most of the numbers being thrown around today are based on oil prices of a decade ago.
Reserve estimates of recoverable crude at $30 per barrel may in fact be over 10 times that at $100 a barrel. That is a possible reason OPEC's reserves are increasing despite years of pumping and very little new exploration.
It is also safe to say that not one politician (and most of those commenting, including myself) knows diddly squat about the true oil reserve we have domestically or where they might be. That information is worth billions and is locked in the most secure facilities in the world. You will not find it in a college course. The DOE is not privy to most of it, although they make that claim. And it is not published in the O&G Journal.
Oil pollution concerns are just an excuse to create another activist cause. Those concerns about polluting beaches quickly evaporate when the cost to clean up dirty runoff from city sources that makes up most of the pollution are realized.
Oil pretty much put Ventura on the map. Ventura Tool, Shell, Union, Getty brought a lot of wealth to Ventura. Since they left, things have not been the same. The Governor is playing to sentiment, not sense in preventing the area from benefiting from oil production within the State’s waters. The President is correct in resuming issuance of drilling permits in federal waters where the feds get royalties on oils & Gas produced. We at least need to allow exploration in ANWR to find out what the numbers really are, not sitting around playing guessing games
Pelosi is selling the capabilities of our drilling companies short. With a permit in hand, I doubt the lease owners will sit around for another 12 years waiting for contracts to expire. Transocean is growing in drilling capability daily. Has anyone asked them how long it would take to start up on the West coast since lifting the drilling ban?
We also need more refinery capacity to make gasoline here, not in India or some other place on the other side of the globe. It is ridiculous that gas in Mexico is less than half the price in California. It is a vital component of our national security.
Disclosure: I've more than 45 years experience working with exploration and drilling crews consisting of geophysicists, Petroleum Geologists, Oceanographers, marine biologists, and various other research scientists. Live with these guys 24/7 and you are bound to get a better picture of reality than you get from news articles and books. I’m also for cost effective alternative energy like the new 500 megawatt Sterling Engine (heat)project by Edison in the Mojave Desert using solar heat and a similar project further South by SDG&E
Posted by denanas99 on July 15, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Boxer is a MORON!!! I've yet to see her come up with anything productive in her career, she is the failure. Never once has she come up with a smart and helpful idea. And I completely agree with mikeb, he's right the only people that are dumber than boxer are those that put her in office.
Posted by danp on July 15, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
C2ShiningC great comment! Very informative! I'd rather learn from someone in the industry and with experience than a 26 year old UCSB grad student with an internet connection!
Posted by dse_kpa on July 15, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RENEWABLE RESOURCES vs. NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCES....do your research people, and wake up and smell the coffee. Oil WILL eventually run out, it's not a matter of where or how, but when...
Posted by danp on July 15, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lets just ride bikes to work. We can tow a little trailer with our kids to school/daycare, maybe some saddle bags for work stuff. Then we would be dependent on Gatorade! No Blood For Gatorade!!!
Posted by cassandra2 on July 15, 2008 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A piece of real information, first hand--last month we had a toxic spill in the northwest corner of Ventura. A local oil tank sprang a leak, old flawed equipment. The oil drained into an earthen berm around the tank.
Those of us close had three days of hell--horrible fumes, raging headaches and serious breathing problems. No one was around to take responsibility as the owners were in Houston. Gaera, a local company having its own history of a toxic spill, provided some helpful information but ultimately had to punt. They were not responsible for this one.
The actual spill was in the county although the consequences were in the city. Fire Department and city and county officials all were on it right away, but there were limits to what they could require for out-of-state owners. There are serious jurisdictional issues with absentee owners for local authorities.
Lots of assurances about the completeness of the clean-up from the locals, but we all know how contaminated the area is from previous oil activity. Don't we?
Parenthetically our Ventura water comes from the Ojai Valley watershed much of it from wells. We are supremely lucky to have a local, independent source rather than having it pumped from far away. But what do you imagine is the effect of a toxic spill into the water table? How close is it to seeping to that level? What is the long term effect on kids of exposure?
So, please do not tell me about how much improvement there has been in oil technology. Tell that to Aleuts who still suffer from the consequences of the Valdez spill 18 years later. Tell it to the workers who still bear the physical disabilities of the "cleanup" and who were recently; screwed by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court by denial of punitive damages for Exxon's gross negligence.
With a friendly regulatory atmosphere and a friendly court, it is cheaper to screw us over and pay trivial damages than to take expensive proper care and updating of equipment and procedures. And we are already reaping the consequences.
Those of you who swallow the corporate BS whole, who get your talking points from Faux and Rove, you are living in a fantasy world. In the real world, it does not matter how much improvement there is in technology if it is more cost effective to ignore the improvement and save the costs.
WITHOUT REAL OVERSIGHT, WE ARE AT RISK WITH NEW DRILLING. HOW LIKELY IS ANOTHER CORPORATE FRIENDLY REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION TO GIVE THIS TO US?
Posted by cassandra2 on July 15, 2008 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
P.S No one in the oil industry will give you a straight story. Even if they knew it. Why should they? It's in their interest to promote drilling.
Posted by danp on July 15, 2008 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I bet that you polluted more by driving your car to various protest marches last year than that spill did cassie
Posted by bugmenot on July 15, 2008 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
danp, the exxon valdez brought new standards? like skipping out of the bill?
Posted by bugmenot on July 15, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
admit it, carter was right.
# He was right in seeking to raise the fleet auto mileage standard to 48 miles per gallon by 1995. (Even U.S. automakers admitted at the time that they could easily achieve 30 mpg by 1985.)
# Carter was right in exhorting Americans to turn down their thermostats, even if he did look nerdy in a cardigan while urging us to do so.
# He was right to encourage fuel conservation by proposing a 50-cents-per-gallon tax on gasoline and a fee on imported oil —- in effect, a floor for fuel prices.
# Invoking the pioneering spirit of the 1960s moon mission, he was right to recommend a tax on windfall oil profits to finance a crash program to develop affordable synthetic fuels.
# Carter was correct, too, in setting a goal of obtaining 20 percent of our energy from solar power by the year 2000.
Posted by danp on July 15, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I changed my mind, we should ban the USE of oil. Everyone works from home, I know a couple really good websites for this (Got them from a few emails) and then we could flip houses, I saw an infomercial on it! Meanwhile we have to burn old banana peels for the electricity to run our computers so we can surf myspace and to cook our lean cuisines.
Posted by danp on July 15, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OK, the "bill" as you put it (which I believe was something like 4 or 5 billion) has nothing to do with the "new" standards that came "after" the spill. I guess I should have clarified that.
Posted by bugmenot on July 15, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
danp, you're right. if i can't have it my way i'll just go cry in the corner too.
Posted by C2ShiningC on July 15, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Danp, I think we might know each other.
Babbyzdaddy, I worked on repairing the 1969 blow-out. What your one-page, tunnel visioned, "history" forgot to mention is that the area was pounded by some of the worst storms recorded for the area with rare SE'ly seas that churned up the decades of sewage sludge buildup just off the end of Stern's Wharf and put the black stuff on the beaches and the harbor. At the same time, heavy rains caused failures at the santa Barbara and Goleta sewer plants resulting in several weeks of 5 to 8 million gallons of raw sewage being dumped in the ocean daily. The Blow-out was mostly natural gas. The amount of crude released was actually a lot less than reported. There was an extensive rainbow-like film on the water. A lot of the thick tar photgraphed on the beaches and boats was actually from Coal Tar Point, a natually occuring tar seep just off the UCSB Campus also stirred up by the storms.
I agree that the 1969 blowout was a mess, but the oil company took the rap for other problems too.
Today, the effects of the blowout are gone. Coal tar point is still spotting up peoples' feet when walking on the beach and spotting up the yachts in the harbor. The square mile or so of sewage sludge is still there, a biological hot zone too hot for marine life, waiting for the next big storm to put some of it on the beach. Platform A continues operation another 39 years without incident along with the others in the channel today.
You will have to do better for a reason to not lift the ban, especially when there is such an overriding need for increased production everywhere.
Posted by mikeb6804 on July 15, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
C2ShiningC---I would listen to you any day rather than Cassie2 who thinks she knows everything. Good comments. I also got a good view of the Santa Barbara oil spill from riding a ship through it.
jw--one correction for you--"only ones dumber than Bush and Gallegly ...." You are, you rock. Back to your tree.
Posted by marketrealist on July 15, 2008 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We need to explore and discover a whole lot of oil sine 54 out of 65 oil producing countries are on declining production curves. Hence, new discoveries just means keeping supplies constant in world of growing demand.
If I were a gambler, I would not put my money on being able to keep the conventional crude production rates high enough to meet demand.
FYI, I do agree with many posts here that technology of oil spill prevention has dramatically improved.
Posted by bugmenot on July 15, 2008 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I do not believe that we will solve any energy problems by increasing the SUPPLY of oil, but only help by decreasing the DEMAND. Increasing the supply will provide temporarily solutions to a long term problem.
Offshore drilling is like a band aid on a bullet wound. Too little too late; for the cliche lovers.
Our next president needs to make alternative energy in nuclear, solar and/or wind a top priority, along with modernizing our mass transit system.
Offshore drilling won't help domestically for at least 7 years. By then if our demand hasn't plateaued the extra barrels won't make a dent.
I liken our possibly of oil offshore to our oil reserves. I'd rather not use them until we rape and pillage everybody elses oil first. At that time our own reserves and possible offshore oil would be worth much more. That sounds crude (pun intended) but it's simple economics to me.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on July 15, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Again....I was merely providing a reason (as DanP confidently insinuated that there was no arguing the validity of drilling). I did not write the piece, I merely sought out an example of an occurance near the area.
As for your vast background. Thanks for sharing the information. How about this? I don't think this is a good idea because he's proposing the idea in a time where it would be politically advantageous to do so and where he is SOLELY proposing this as a solution (purpose for the funds)and not alternative means coupled with this idea. Besides, I think I'm not alone in the country in just simply not believing what he and his administration dish out anymore. (at least the one's who have an individual opinion)
Use some common sense here...why perpetuate dependency on oil (regardless of where it comes from)? Is that REALLY forward-thinking and looking to the future?
Posted by cassandra2 on July 15, 2008 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
marketrealist, what is the evidence a. that oil spill prevention tech. has improved. Any stats? Any specifics? b. that the industry will pay the cost of implementing the procedures or replacing the equipment.
In other words, is this statement any more than a bland assurance and an empty promise?
I would really like to be reassured. But sitting up here in Northwest Ventura remembering asthma, headaches and fretting children, it sure does not seem to be happening that way.
Posted by marketrealist on July 15, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In addition to failing as a President, Bush was a failure as an oilman as well. Nothing he touches goes well. If it weren't for the family legacy, he'd probably be a drunk serving greasy food at a truck stop on some unknown interstate.
Posted by marketrealist on July 15, 2008 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cassandra2,
Someone quoted a list of regulations that have been developed and implemented since the early spills in the 1960s. The industry has become more aware of the issue and there is a lot more focus on clean operations (ie, collecting and treating oily water prior to discharge, valving to ensure that releases during disconnects of pipes and hoses are minimized, hazard reviews prior conducting a new procedures, etc.). There are new devices like blow-out preventers for new drilling. Better monitoring and detection technology for pressure is also available. The oil industry has cleanup up its act significantly. There is a lot of money in fines and lawsuites at stake.
However, mistakes can and will happen. I see the biggest risks still as the oil tankers or a pipeline break during an earthquake.
Posted by got_hope on July 15, 2008 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bugmenot,
An add-on to your number 5. Carter put solar panels on the WH so he could walk the walk, and Ronnie Raygun removed them in 1986. Sage old Ronnie, in his infinite wisdom, knew that Americans were entitled to use as much energy as they darn well pleased. Who cares what's left for the next generations--let them fend for themselves!
And twbeem, in case you were born in the 90's, I'll let you in on a secret,--the 1979 solar initiative by Carter, who was a Democrat, also included a "whole package of tax incentives, research and development and loans" intended to promote and expand the use of solar energy nationwide. Golly howdy, that sure could have come in handy in California, don'tcha think? Imagine the big f.u. we could have given Enron if the majority of our houses and commercial buildings had solar panels on them?
Fast forward to now--the EPA recently announced that it is putting on hold all solar energy projects on federal lands so it can study the impact of these projects on the environment. Bwahahaha! So you can ride your ATV and your snowmobiles all over federal lands, and no one cares how much damage you do, but let's not be too hasty trying to get off the grid. This from the same Bush lackey, EPA head Steven Johnson, who took classes from the Alberto Gonzales School of Testifying before Congress. Johnson is the genius who says California cannot pass its own laws regarding CO2 emissions from cars. So, there you have it-- drilling can be done in an "environmentally friendly manner", but he's afraid Bambi might be hurt by some solar panels in Nevada. Right. This administration has thwarted most, if not all, attempts to conserve oil and advance alternative energy research and development (by either political party). (And don't mention Chimpy's push for ethanol and hydrogen, because then you'll just make me really laugh.) At the same time, they've protected big oil and big oil's biggest users. This is what happens when you elect a dumb man from a state with a weak chief executive (Texas). All he was capable of doing was executing prisoners.
Posted by C2ShiningC on July 15, 2008 at 5:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cassandra2, Check out Transocean drilling (RIG). They are the largest in the World, and the most technically advanced.
Improvements since the Exxon Valdez? No more single hull tankers allowed in US Terminals. The big haulers (like NAT) have built new fleets of double hull tankers and scrapped the older single hull ships like the Exxon Valdez. They simply are not worth the risk to keep running.
I know that sour gas smell that comes from the North end of the Avenue. Bad Stuff! Fortunately the ocean breezes carry it the other way giving you some relief.
Posted by bugmenot on July 15, 2008 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
C2ShiningC, i know this is off topic, but everytime i hear Exxon Valdex the only thing i can think of is the recent supreme court ruling regarding punitive damages:
After spending hundreds of millions of dollars fighting the $5 billion punitive damage award handed down by an Alaska jury in 1994 for its role in the massive oil spill in Prince William Sound, Exxon today landed a major victory at the Supreme Court. In a 5-3 ruling, with Alito sitting out, the court overturned a lower court decision that had reduced the verdict to $2.5 billion, and sent the case back saying that the punitive damage award was excessive and should not exceed about $500 million, the same as the compensatory damages.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-conte...
Posted by cslaurie on July 15, 2008 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Finally common sense and field knowledge instead of rhetoric, thanks Danp and C2ShiningC.
And once again to the peak oilers, here is the peak oil estimate of 1920:
In 1920, the United States Geological Survey officially estimated that the U.S. had just 6.7 billion barrels of oil left, including undiscovered oil fields. Eighty-two years later, the U.S. had produced 180 billion barrels of oil and still had 22 billion barrels of proven reserves. The USGS's 1920 estimate was off by a mere 2900%.
Posted by ebrockway on July 15, 2008 at 5:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
C2ShiningC;
Thanks for shining the light of truth, wish it didn't bounce off the heads of those here who only believe what they want to believe.
Truth is, yes we need to develop and implement alternative energy strategies, that is the future of this country.
The present is oil, like it or not. We need more domestic production in the short term to stabilize the skyrocketing prices, or at least slow the upfall.
Even the ever self-righteous Jay Dubya1000 with his "nice hybrid car" has to fill it up with regular from a pump, and shell out to BIG OIL.
Alternative Energy, like wind power? Even the Liberal Icon Edward "Teddy-boy" Kennedy plays NIMBY to that. And then you libs have the nerve to bash Evil Republicans?
Yeah, root of all evil.
Jay Dubya1000 must've read that stuff at the Daily Kooks web site. Maybe saw it on Clintonista News Network?
Posted by bugmenot on July 15, 2008 at 5:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ebrockway,
oh the nerve of them.
Posted by cassandra2 on July 15, 2008 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Become more aware...hmm. Well, we all have, haven't we? I want something more solid. What are the stats? What are the safety records? What are the regulations? How are they enforced? Are they?
A nice review of the literature would be nice. I'm very disciplined. I'm happy to look at solid evidence. I'm just seeing assurances here.
Finally, how can we rely on regulation by an administration shown to a. lie a lot b. be controlled by corporate interests. We need a change of administration, a real one, different party, different philosophy about regulation. Then safety just might be possible.
However, given a global market, domestic drilling in coastal waters and ANWR doesn't appear that it would make a significant difference in supply.
But thanks for providing the skeletal information you have and I will be sure to google the references and see what I get.
Posted by cassandra2 on July 15, 2008 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BTW Hubbert hit US peak on the nose. And Campbell had world peak predicted within 3 weeks.
BTW "proven reserves" are not proven at all and estimated by strange assumptions. The more you look, the less the industry insiders appear to either tell the truth or know it.
Posted by cslaurie on July 15, 2008 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cassandra,
Hahahahahaha BS
Posted by cslaurie on July 15, 2008 at 6:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And before I leave for the evening. How about our Republican turned Kennedy Democrat? I think we should deport him back to Austria. He wants to be Obama's what? Drilling over his terminator aging body? Talk about a sheep in wolves clothing. I know he won't be bock.
Posted by ebrockway on July 15, 2008 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
cassandra2;
I feel for you, I really do. They shouldn't put refineries and bulk oil storage tanks next to people's homes. Or did people build homes next to refineries and oil storage tanks? I can never keep that straight. For some reason I was thinking the Ave homes were originally bought by oil workers families.
Yes, the infastructure is horrible, and nobody with any brains to avoid legal action will ever guarantee the old transport pipes won't ever leak. Maybe with all the oil money coming in they could abandon those old pipes, vacuum them out, and start over?
Makes more sense than the Moron Twins Boxer and Feinstein slapping punitive taxes on oil companies to "get even". Money they'll just waste the next year on social programs or bullets?
How about tax incentives instead to develop the alternative energy? Like hydrogen gas infastructure for future BMWs that could be ready in 2010? A carrot could do that, but a stick will drive investment overseas where the Tax And Spenders can't touch it.
It's not just your area where the pipes are old and rusty either. Go down Guiberson Road, or dozens of others where there has been little incentive for preventitive replacement. No Board of Directors at any oil company will pay for that out of the goodness of their hearts, but if it makes sense financially they'll trip over themselves to do it.
No, there's no future long-term in oil production for a stable economy, but that's where we are now and we need to stop the pendulum from swinging way to the left OR to the right and just do the right things for our future.
Pretending we can just turn off the oil tap right now today is insane. Equally crazy is going on like we are importing 70% or our crude oil with the dollar way down like it is. For now, we need to drill.
If we can't come to a realistic middle ground in a place like this web page, how can any of us hope it'll happen in Congress or anywhere else?
Posted by cslaurie on July 15, 2008 at 6:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ebrockway
AMEN
Posted by C2ShiningC on July 15, 2008 at 7:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well said eb
Posted by marketrealist on July 15, 2008 at 10:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's stop congratulating ourselves. Why would anyone want to shut down oil production? This is a miracle product. As long as its around, we need to conserve it for the maximum benefit of all. Just to re-state what I thought was obvious.
Peak oilers, like myself, don't think oil will stop flowing. We believe that we've hit a plateau on global production and it will continue at this level and start drifting downwards over the next 50 years. However, as demand peaks in Asia, the price will remain high or get even higher. Hence, we need to transition away from oil to preserve our foreign reserves.
This is a completely rational view. cslaurie, your quoting of the 1920 study shows there have been false predictions. But please look at the data today. I have tons of material. If you want to research yourself, just google Robert Hirsch or Peak Oil. The data are pretty compelling. Unlike the 1920s, countries (54 out of 65 producers) are already experiencing declining production. These are facts not predictions.
Posted by ReadMyLipsNoNewTaxes on July 16, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why is it that the 'right' says:
-We need to drill offshore/in ANWR and reduce our dependence on foreign oil
-We need to look at alternatives for the future.
And the left says
-Drilling will not help
-We need to use alternative fuels (but don't point out the fact that cars will not run on water)
-We need to regulate things, and make gas mileage standards higher....
Seems to me that the left is not very open minded about this whole mess...
Posted by got_hope on July 16, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Lips,
Sounds like you're distorting the position of the progressives. They say don't drill in ANWR and other places if it's not going to change anything. It won't change gas prices, the oil won't come on line for years, so people in trouble now will still be in trouble. People are screaming about high gas prices, yet they were predicted years ago. Dingell made sure the 2007 CAFE bill was a complete gift to automakers and oil companies, with provisions to invest in alternative energy stripped out, so Detroit hasn't been hurt by draconian regulation, yet GM is once again announcing layoffs, cost-cutting measures and its intent to borrow $3billion to stay afloat. All because of what--tax and spend Democrats? No, the fact that thousands of gas-guzzling SUV owners started buying small cars, which GM doesn't make in large numbers. Funny how that unfettered free market chews companies up and spits them out, huh? And funny how the American public turns its back on its favorite gas-guzzlin' brands when the going gets tough. But don't worry, Bush will expect you to bail out GM when it goes belly up based on its poor management.
And please, people, enough with the ridiculous argument that progressives should stop driving their cars, taking the buses, and should start walking to work. Look around. Hundreds of progressives are doing that. But we have to live with the technology that we currently have, conserving where we can. I've had my Prius for almost a year, and I laugh every time I drive up to the gas station and see that someone else has paid $80 to fill up their Tahoe that they never take off-road. Heaven forbid these people should have to make a decision to do something different--and by all means, let's drill the heck out of ANWR so they can drive that Tahoe another four months.
Posted by bugmenot on July 16, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let me help you out.
And the left says:
-Drilling will help but it's not the end-all problem solver.
-The supply cannot keep up with our demand so...
-We need to use alternative fuels (cars will run on electricity which can be generated from water, wind, sun, coal, oil, etc).
-Regulation? Even the left knows our congress can't regulate a darn thing. The market will regulate things (see GM).
The fringe far left may say something absurd or extreme, just like the Ann Coulter type would for the right.
Posted by ReadMyLipsNoNewTaxes on July 16, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks Bug,
I don't know if I hear the left (or 'progressives' as they prefer that term) saying
"-Drilling will help but it's not the end-all problem solver"
All I keep hearing is drilling will take too long, it will not lower prices, etc...
That just ridiculous statement.
It would be like the 'right' saying 'decreasing our dependence on oil will not lower prices'
It would...
I think bugmenot has it right we must to BOTH.
Posted by got_hope on July 16, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bugmenot--thanks for supporting my points in a more concise manner.
The right's arguments that oil is going to spring forth in the next two weeks from domestic wells (that aren't currently drilled) is getting pretty old. Are these guys this ill-informed on purpose?
Posted by ReadMyLipsNoNewTaxes on July 16, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
got_hope
And the lefts ideas that america is going to be able to move to an 'alternative fuel' in the next two weeks are just as tiring....
Fact is we need to attack the problem from every angle possible, from alternative fuels to increased mileage vehicles to more drilling in lands that the sierra club has marked as sacred.
Posted by got_hope on July 16, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lips
We were on the way to alternative fuels in the past, but Republicans like Raygun, and Dems protecting their constituents at all costs (Dingell), kept putting us back in the stone age. Remember the EV-1? Owners of that little car loved it, but GM said there was no market. Pure crap.
The DOD is currently the largest consumer of oil on the planet, and all of that is going to the Iraq War, which Chimpy refuses to end, and McSame wants to continue for 100 years. Makes it hard to believe the "right" is serious about conservation and alternative energies when we have such blatant waste occurring right now and all Chimpy advocates is consume, consume, consume. "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter."
Posted by ReadMyLipsNoNewTaxes on July 16, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
got_hope
Ok, you blast on the right and put all the blame there, but don't address the points about the left. The left is beholden to Sierra club and other wacko groups.
We NEED to stop using foreign oil, we NEED to drill offshore, in ANWR and / or any place else that has a pool of oil.
And as far as the EV-1, electric cars use fossil fuels..... What do you think powers %70 of the electric plants.
If there was an electric car with a 300 mile range, decent acceleration, that sold for 20K they wouldn't be able to produce them fast enough. Nothing is stopping someone from building one...
Posted by got_hope on July 16, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Beholden to Sierra Club......how droll. It couldn't possibly be Floridians and your average California sun-worshippers who are opposed to oil rigs on their coastline, no it must be those nasty librul treehuggers. They've got some kind of mind control device working on our Congress critters!! If that were true, Chimpy's lackeys would not even be considering letting idiots go into national parks with loaded guns. But I digress.
I will grant you the Democrats in Congress over the last 8 years have been a sorry, spineless lot--and I tell Diane Feinstein that all the time. DINOs are as DINOs do. But I didn't vote for her, so I don't feel responsible for her thoughtless votes.
Nevertheless, it is hard to convince people to drive an alternative fuel vehicle when you give them a tax break to buy a Hummer--and I believe that little legislative nugget of joy happened in the first term when Repugs were in control of Congress and salivating over their Decider in Chief. Where's the market for an alternative-fuel vehicle in that situation? And electric cars could be fueled by alternative energy sources, but gee, only when you put some incentives into R&D. This administration did....well......nothing. Am I supposed to lay the blame for that on the Democrats' door?
I have expected someone in these comments to bring up oil speculation and the role of the weak dollar in the price of oil, but so far everyone is just focusing on our paltry production vis a vis the rest of the world. Does that mean it's okay if Exxon/Mobil charges $5 gallon and higher, as long as the oil comes from US waters? I daresay, that is unlikely to make Texas panhandle farmers sleep better at night.
Posted by ReadMyLipsNoNewTaxes on July 16, 2008 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So are you saying the sierra club (and the left)doesn't block drilling off of our shores? They don't block drilling in ANWR? Stop exploration of the oil sands in Colorado?
Posted by got_hope on July 16, 2008 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sigh, this is getting really tiresome. Surely they teach research at wingnut school?
There were Republicans who also voted against drilling in 2005 and also, I believe, in years past. I'm saying the issue is more complicated than you seem to believe it is. If it was a slam dunk with regard to all the issues, the vote would have been 100-0 to drill.
WRT the oil shale/sands situation in the Green River Basin, there are many groups opposed to BLM efforts to allow more oil shale extraction, including fishermen, bird hunters, people who just like to hike around and enjoy the state they live in, and local governments who would like to ensure the safety of their residents. The BLM has estimated that large-scale oil shale development would result in the permanent loss of 35 percent of Colorado River cutthroat trout fisheries, among other environmental impacts. Air quality degradation and heavy metal contamination of surface and ground waters are other known adverse impacts that occur on a regular basis with this type of activity. Oil shale/sand development uses strip mining and open pit techniques, and we all know how lovely they are.
I wouldn't characterize this opposition as only Sierra Club moonbats. And oil shale development has been tried before, with disastrous results, and huge financial losses by Western residents. The only reason it's up for consideration now is the price of oil per barrel makes it economically feasible to try again.
The Salt Lake Tribune is trending green (most churches have seen the light on this one) but is certainly not a mouthpiece for the NRDC--the editorial board is opposed to oil shale development in Utah, noting that among its other offenses, it uses a tremendous amount of water, something that's been lacking in the mountain states the last several years. Not to mention, but Shell Oil, which has "rock-heating technology," is not sure if it can produce oil efficiently from Western shale, and may not know until 2015. I won't hold my breath. But don't let these facts stand in your way--data and information are unimportant as long as the Escalades get to keep rolling, rolling, rolling down the 405.
Full disclosure: I have a degree in toxicology and I've made my living doing human health and environmental risk assessment for the last 14 years. Having read earlier post