NationStates Jolt Archive

Article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/31/MNSH122TA3.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea)


For weeks, pressure has been mounting in Congress to approve more domestic oil drilling, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has held the line, using her power to block a vote on offshore drilling.

President Bush has made almost daily calls for Democratic leaders to take action. House GOP leaders, citing a new poll showing that a slim majority of Californians now favor offshore drilling, issued a release Thursday saying "even (Pelosi's) own California neighbors oppose her efforts to block new drilling far off American coasts." GOP lawmakers are so disgruntled they're urging Bush to deny Congress its August break by calling a special session on energy.

Ok so if the people of the United States, whom supposedly the Congress represents, want drilling to go forward, who the hell is this person to decide to block it? Isn't this the sort of thing that we get pissed off at the President for doing when it relates to other issues?

Opinions?

(Bush haters: get busy finding an excuse to blame Bush for this. You know you want to, and I know you will.)

Because drilling harms the environment and a vast majority of Americans don't realise it or don't understand it and just want cheaper petrol. :(

Because drilling harms the environment and a vast majority of Americans don't realise it or don't understand it and just want cheaper petrol. :(

Drilling, if done carelessly, CAN harm the environment, but it doesn't necessarily have to. Drilling can be done in an environmentally responsible manner.

Ask yourself this: Which is better, an oil rig or another potential Exxon Valdez?

Drilling, if done carelessly, CAN harm the environment, but it doesn't necessarily have to. Drilling can be done in an environmentally responsible manner.

Ask yourself this: Which is better, an oil rig or another potential Exxon Valdez?

You do realise that tankers ship oil from rigs to refineries, right?

Because drilling harms the environment and a vast majority of Americans don't realise it or don't understand it and just want cheaper petrol. :(

Actually there is very little spillage from modern oil platforms. Even Hurricanes and fires dont allow significant spillage anymore.

Ok so if the people of the United States, whom supposedly the Congress represents, want drilling to go forward, who the hell is this person to decide to block it? Isn't this the sort of thing that we get pissed off at the President for doing when it relates to other issues?

American representative democracy is not the same thing as mob rule, nor should it be. Speaker Pelosi is exercising her best judgement, as we expect every elected representative to do.

I concede that the current rules that Congress has created for itself are less than effective guards against abuse by the majority party, so it's reasonable to debate whether this instance or any other constitutes a violation of the spirit of the rules. It's also reasonable to debate the issue of drilling or any other issue on its face. These arguments are separate from the silly idea that Congress should give the people whatever they ask for.

You do realise that tankers ship oil from rigs to refineries, right?

Not when the wells are on land.

American representative democracy is not the same thing as mob rule, nor should it be. Speaker Pelosi is exercising her best judgement, as we expect every elected representative to do.

I concede that the current rules that Congress has created for itself are less than effective guards against abuse by the majority party, so it's reasonable to debate whether this instance or any other constitutes a violation of the spirit of the rules. It's also reasonable to debate the issue of drilling or any other issue on its face. These arguments are separate from the silly idea that Congress should give the people whatever they ask for.

The thing is, she's not using her best judgment and it has nothing to do with environmentalism. She's doing it because she knows if the vote were taken right now, the Congress would probably vote to lift the ban on drilling in the areas in question. What she's doing is no different from the Republican filibusters people are screaming about.

All of which is, as you correctly noted, within the rules, but obviously there's a smokescreen about the real motivations here.

Ok so if the people of the United States, whom supposedly the Congress represents, want drilling to go forward, who the hell is this person to decide to block it?

welcome to elected representatives :) (not that majority opinion matters above your voters opinions)

also why does this issue keep coming up when it gets stomped every time on the first page due to the US not actually having large enough oil deposits?

Actually there is very little spillage from modern oil platforms. Even Hurricanes and fires dont allow significant spillage anymore.

just like what happened in New Orleans...wait

welcome to elected representatives :) (not that majority opinion matters above your voters opinions)

also why does this issue keep coming up when it gets stomped every time on the first page due to the US not actually having large enough oil deposits?


Seriously?

In 1998, the USGS estimated that between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil are in the coastal plain area of ANWR, with a mean estimate of 10.4 billion barrels, of which 7.7 billion barrels falls within the Federal portion of the ANWR 1002 Area.[6] In comparison, the estimated volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in the rest of the United States is about 120 billion barrels.

The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively.[12]

This doesn't even include offshore areas and the newly discovered source under North Dakota.

But the issue isn't the oil. The issue is Ms. "I deserve my own Air Force One" Pelosi who walks on water and does no wrong.

its a good idea to WAIT to change the offshore drilling ban until after the hysteria over oil prices has stopped.

most of those people who want the ban to change think that it will change the price of oil NEXT YEAR.

gee im sorry but if the public is going to be stupid, its OK for our elected officials to stall on changes driven by that stupidity.

Congress could have gone two ways. Either they could have provided incentives for increased conservation and alternate energy sources, or they could have come down in favor of increased production and refining capability.

Or they could have done what responsible legislators have done for centuries... They could have compromised.

Instead they chose to do nothing. Shame on them.

The thing is, she's not using her best judgment and it has nothing to do with environmentalism. She's doing it because she knows if the vote were taken right now, the Congress would probably vote to lift the ban on drilling in the areas in question.

I agree that she's blocking a vote because she doesn't want the ban lifted. It doesn't follow that she's therefore "not using her best judgement" and "it has nothing to do with environmentalism". She's quoted in the article you linked to as saying she's opposing drilling for environmental reasons among others. Whether she is, in fact, using her best judgemental faculties is not possible for us mere mortals to know. I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt on that one, as I can't think of a reason for her to consciously not use her brain.

All of which is, as you correctly noted, within the rules, but obviously there's a smokescreen about the real motivations here.

Is there some fact that makes you doubt her stated reasons for blocking the vote? I couldn't find one in the article you linked to.

its a good idea to WAIT to change the offshore drilling ban until after the hysteria over oil prices has stopped.

most of those people who want the ban to change think that it will change the price of oil NEXT YEAR.

gee im sorry but if the public is going to be stupid, its OK for our elected officials to stall on changes driven by that stupidity.
Actually, the Congressional ban on offshore oil production expires on September 30, 2008. Maybe this is a stealthy way of approving it without the good press that some members and political parties might receive?

Remember Bush did rescind the EO on offshore drilling.

That simple act dropped oil futures several dollars over the prospect of a larger supply.

I'm not sure why she's blocking it. Unlike ANWR drilling, this is actually acceptable.

just like what happened in New Orleans...wait

You are misinformed if you believe that the significant oil spills from Katrina resulted from oil platforms. The vast majority of the spillage originated from holding tanks on land and other sources such as capsized tanker boats etc not leaks from the platforms themselves.

Article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/31/MNSH122TA3.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea)



Ok so if the people of the United States, whom supposedly the Congress represents, want drilling to go forward, who the hell is this person to decide to block it? Isn't this the sort of thing that we get pissed off at the President for doing when it relates to other issues?

Opinions?

(Bush haters: get busy finding an excuse to blame Bush for this. You know you want to, and I know you will.)
I'd like to know how we could try to blame this on Bush when Bush is in favor of it...

It's being blocked because it won't DO anything. We would need at least ten years--TEN YEARS--to see any worthwhile results, and those ten years, my friend, are far better spent rebuilding our energy infrastructure to utilize more nuclear and other forms of energy rather than trying desperately to continue to satiate our glut for oil.

I
It's being blocked because it won't DO anything. We would need at least ten years--TEN YEARS--to see any worthwhile results, and those ten years, my friend, are far better spent rebuilding our energy infrastructure to utilize more nuclear and other forms of energy rather than trying desperately to continue to satiate our glut for oil.

And if we had started the procedure 10 years ago when people wanted to in the first place?

It's being blocked because it won't DO anything. We would need at least ten years--TEN YEARS--to see any worthwhile results, and those ten years, my friend, are far better spent rebuilding our energy infrastructure to utilize more nuclear and other forms of energy rather than trying desperately to continue to satiate our glut for oil.

So it's probably better to use the funds needed to create new offshore oil platforms to build, let's say, solar energy farms in the deserts?

And if we had started the procedure 10 years ago when people wanted to in the first place?

We'd be benefiting from the extra oil on an economic and commercial scale. However, I'm not sure it would be best environmentally speaking, especially for global warming, which is getting to be quite serious and will only worsen if we don't alter something.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not asking the American energy infrastructure and economy to change overnight. I'm well aware of just how important oil is in every level of it. But we've got to change, and we can't change if we're still hunting for oil sources. Ultimately, our economy will mean nothing if the climate alters severely enough.

Hurdegaryp: That'd be a good start, certainly.

Actually, the Congressional ban on offshore oil production expires on September 30, 2008. Maybe this is a stealthy way of approving it without the good press that some members and political parties might receive?


hmmm i did not know that.

oh there must be some big political planning going on right now to deal with that.

Ok so if the people of the United States, whom supposedly the Congress represents, want drilling to go forward, who the hell is this person to decide to block it? Isn't this the sort of thing that we get pissed off at the President for doing when it relates to other issues?Because the people of the United States are trying to go forward with it because they falsely believe it will somehow reduce oil prices.

I'd like to know how we could try to blame this on Bush when Bush is in favor of it...

It's being blocked because it won't DO anything. We would need at least ten years--TEN YEARS--to see any worthwhile results, and those ten years, my friend, are far better spent rebuilding our energy infrastructure to utilize more nuclear and other forms of energy rather than trying desperately to continue to satiate our glut for oil.
Nah, offshore fields are already mapped and could begin production much sooner. The real key to decreasing gasoline prices is to increase refinery capacity.

We need to bring down oil prices so that the economy is healthy enough to do all the rebuilding and restructuring that is required for the use of alternate sources.

However, I'm not sure it would be best environmentally speaking, especially for global warming, which is getting to be quite serious and will only worsen if we don't alter something.


Offshore oil drilling hardly affects climate change.

hmmm i did not know that.

oh there must be some big political planning going on right now to deal with that.
What will go on before 9/30 could be momentous. Especially if it is the typical lack of action that has distinguished this Congress, so far.

Offshore oil drilling hardly affects climate change.

Actually, it affects it by a great deal. Not directly through the actual drilling itself(though that carries a significant number of local environmental concerns) but mainly through the oil that's produced.

Which I would thought would be incredibly obvious, but then you've shown a distinctive aptitude for failing to grasp basic ideals.

Nah, offshore fields are already mapped and could begin production much sooner. The real key to decreasing gasoline prices is to increase refinery capacity.

We need to bring down oil prices so that the economy is healthy enough to do all the rebuilding and restructuring that is required for the use of alternate sources.

The economy is plenty healthy enough to do this right now without significant problems. Call me when people start having trouble getting food and then we can consider it.

Actually, it affects it by a great deal. Not directly through the actual drilling itself(though that carries a significant number of local environmental concerns) but mainly through the oil that's produced.

Which I would thought would be incredibly obvious, but then you've shown a distinctive aptitude for failing to grasp basic ideals.

And it would be incredibly obvious that not allowing offshore drilling does not stop oil from being used, especially in industry, which is the biggest contributor to climate change and depends on oil even if it is expensive. The only thing you could say is that it will, very slightly, make oil last a tiny bit longer, but since you're supporting alternative sources of energy (I'm assuming regardless of whether oil can last for longer or not), it will make that fact totally inconsequential. And since when have I shown a "distinctive aptitude for failing to grasp basic ideals"?

Here's the thing:

I don't trust Pelosi or her motives. She's the one who loves to sit around and gripe about the idea that Congress cleans up the President's mess, when she presides over a Congress that doesn't actually do anything and yet we're to believe she's the hero of America? Feh. Congressional approval rating is the lowest it's ever been and rather than use her leadership to get the Congress' act together she sits around using ever more venomous (and pathetic) excuses.

Will drilling yield an immediate impact on fuel prices? No. Does it have to? No. This is a long-term solution but it needs to be enacted now while people are enthusiastic about it. Sure there's a hysteria over gas prices now, which is what makes this the perfect time. Wait too long and America will do what it does best, sink back into complacency.

Having said that, there are benefits of immediate exploration. It will improve stocks, create jobs, get at those resources before someone else does, and most importantly, it will set up future economic strength for our country.

What will go on before 9/30 could be momentous. Especially if it is the typical lack of action that has distinguished this Congress, so far.
the way things are going it could be a huge political blowup.

pelosi is too smart to not know that she is facing a huge PR nightmare. they must be working hard to figure out how to get it to end in their favor.

And it would be incredibly obvious that not allowing offshore drilling does not stop oil from being used, especially in industry, which is the biggest contributor to climate change and depends on oil even if it is expensive. The only thing you could say is that it will, very slightly, make oil last a tiny bit longer, but since you're supporting alternative sources of energy (I'm assuming regardless of whether oil can last for longer or not), it will make that fact totally inconsequential. And since when have I shown a "distinctive aptitude for failing to grasp basic ideals"?
A tiny bit longer? We're talking about an extension of at least fifteen years, and probably more. That's a very long time on a human scale, considering the amount of damage we've done in a century.

But the amount of damage that could be done is irrelevent. What matters is that we still would not have bothered to change our energy infrastructure in those ffiteen years, and that we simply cannot afford, not under any circumstances.

(As for that last part, I actually thought I was talking to Myrmi, not you. Sorry.)

The issue is likely to heat up again this fall. Republicans are debating whether to shut down the federal government - by blocking a continuing resolution to keep the government funded beyond Sept. 30 - if Democrats don't allow a vote on offshore drilling.


now THERE is some potential political suicide on the part of the republicans.

A tiny bit longer? We're talking about an extension of at least fifteen years, and probably more. That's a very long time on a human scale, considering the amount of damage we've done in a century.


Source? That seems like a very optimistic estimate to me.


But the amount of damage that could be done is irrelevent. What matters is that we still would not have bothered to change our energy infrastructure in those ffiteen years, and that we simply cannot afford, not under any circumstances.


Again, I think that's a silly assumption. People are not going to wait for oil to run out and THEN invest in alternate energy sources. The groups pushing for alternate energy are not doing so because of the price of oil, and will to continue to do so whatever the price of oil is.


(As for that last part, I actually thought I was talking to Myrmi, not you. Sorry.)

Ok

The economy is plenty healthy enough to do this right now without significant problems. Call me when people start having trouble getting food and then we can consider it.
Depending on which sob story you hear on the news, we're already there. Food prices ARE rising as fuel prices rise. People complain that they can't fill the gas tank to look for work.

You don't need to look far to find examples of price increases that are fuel related.

Not when the wells are on land..

Uh, this is specifically offshore drilling.

Here's the thing:

I don't trust Pelosi or her motives. She's the one who loves to sit around and gripe about the idea that Congress cleans up the President's mess, when she presides over a Congress that doesn't actually do anything and yet we're to believe she's the hero of America? Feh. Congressional approval rating is the lowest it's ever been and rather than use her leadership to get the Congress' act together she sits around using ever more venomous (and pathetic) excuses.No point in doing something that has to be watered down to avoid a presidential veto. Same situation near the end of Reagan's reign.
Will drilling yield an immediate impact on fuel prices? No. Does it have to? No. This is a long-term solution but it needs to be enacted now while people are enthusiastic about it. Sure there's a hysteria over gas prices now, which is what makes this the perfect time. Wait too long and America will do what it does best, sink back into complacency.Because people can be duped into wanting it is a bad argument in favor of offshore drilling. Also, it most certainly isn't a long-term solution. Mid-term at best.
Having said that, there are benefits of immediate exploration. It will improve stocks, create jobs, get at those resources before someone else does, and most importantly, it will set up future economic strength for our country.Who else is going to get at them? I'm not familiar with the details, but to my knowledge, it would be illegal for some other country to drill for that oil.
As for creating jobs, it will destroy jobs as well. Apart from the evironmental issues, there's the tourism industry in the states whose coasts will see increased drilling. If your heart is too cold to be touched by the plight of sea creatures, at least think of all the money the poor businesspeople will lose.

Depending on which sob story you hear on the news, we're already there. Food prices ARE rising as fuel prices rise. People complain that they can't fill the gas tank to look for work.

You don't need to look far to find examples of price increases that are fuel related.

Certainly, but this is more due to people not being used to prices that most other Western nations have had for decades. We'll adapt, and quickly too. Don't doubt the American will so readily.

Hydes: I'm not just talking about the amount of oil usable mind. I'm talking about the time it'll take to develop the new drilling platforms, refineries, and all that stuff. If we're spending resources on that, we can't be spending them on improving our energy infrastructure in the right way, which means we lose time we cannot afford to lose.

And it's not a question of investment so much as it is basic infrastructure that needs to be rebuilt across the entire country. That means serious work and effort needs to start RIGHT NOW. The sad thing is, it's not being done, because Congress is paralyzed by Democrats and Republicans alike so busy fucking with each other on small ideological differences and completely refusing to work together based on reality. :soap:

People complain that they can't fill the gas tank to look for work.Good thing that someone monopolized public transportation in order to prevent it from becoming an alternative to cars.

No point in doing something that has to be watered down to avoid a presidential veto. Same situation near the end of Reagan's reign.
Indeed. Everyone in the government is paralyzing everyone else, and it's ridiculous.


Because people can be duped into wanting it is a bad argument in favor of offshore drilling. Also, it most certainly isn't a long-term solution. Mid-term at best.
I'd question even midterm, personally.

Who else is going to get at them? I'm not familiar with the details, but to my knowledge, it would be illegal for some other country to drill for that oil.

Well there are those who argue China could get at them on a slant or something...

now THERE is some potential political suicide on the part of the republicans.

I dunno about that. if spun right it could be characterized as Republicans refusing to keep wasting money operating a Government that isn't doing anything.

Uh, this is specifically offshore drilling.

In ANWR?

No point in doing something that has to be watered down to avoid a presidential veto. Same situation near the end of Reagan's reign.
Because people can be duped into wanting it is a bad argument in favor of offshore drilling. Also, it most certainly isn't a long-term solution. Mid-term at best.
Who else is going to get at them? I'm not familiar with the details, but to my knowledge, it would be illegal for some other country to drill for that oil.
As for creating jobs, it will destroy jobs as well. Apart from the evironmental issues, there's the tourism industry in the states whose coasts will see increased drilling. If your heart is too cold to be touched by the plight of sea creatures, at least think of all the money the poor businesspeople will lose.

I don't think the impact on the environment or tourism could be anywhere near as bad as it's being made out to be. They've talked before about positioning the rigs far enough from the shore that they aren't visible above the horizon.

There's a false image out there that drilling for crude = environmental damage. Oil drilling can be done responsibly and cleanly. It's just a question of will. People use the sad image of oil coated ducks to appeal to emotion, not reason.

And it's not a question of investment so much as it is basic infrastructure that needs to be rebuilt across the entire country. That means serious work and effort needs to start RIGHT NOW. The sad thing is, it's not being done, because Congress is paralyzed by Democrats and Republicans alike so busy fucking with each other on small ideological differences and completely refusing to work together based on reality.
I'll second this. We have a far more serious shortage of leadership than anything else.

Good thing that someone monopolized public transportation in order to prevent it from becoming an alternative to cars.
Sprawl and the distances to cover in the United States has made public transit a difficult alternative. At least until teleportation is feasible. And I think that requires cold fusion.

I don't think the impact on the environment or tourism could be anywhere near as bad as it's being made out to be. They've talked before about positioning the rigs far enough from the shore that they aren't visible above the horizon.You see, the funny thing about this is that the benefits that can be gleaned from this are exaggerated as well, so it evens out. Though possibly not.
There's a false image out there that drilling for crude = environmental damage. Oil drilling can be done responsibly and cleanly. It's just a question of will. People use the sad image of oil coated ducks to appeal to emotion, not reason.That's bullshit. Do some research on ecological impacts of oil platforms and if you're still convinced that it can be done cleanly, I'll dig up the legislation that allows companies to avoid doing just that. Also, only images of oil coated ducks appeal to emotion. Fish choking on aluminium compounds usually doesn't make headlines, which is probably why you're only concentrating on problems with oil leakage.

I have never really understood this argument. If you have high demand and low supply, you get more supply. What is difficult about that?
Food prices are going up not so much because of the cost of oil, but many farms are switching from growing wheat to growing corn for ethanol...eveybody's favorite over advertised alternate energy source.

The damaged environment thing is bs. This isn't the sixties. Oil rigs are clean, safe, and nigh on impossible to damage enough to have a major spill. Never mind the thousands of jobs it creates. I support alternate energy research, but funny enough, we can do both at once.

I have never really understood this argument. If you have high demand and low supply, you get more supply. What is difficult about that? That it's not difficult enough. It's way too simple to accurately describe the situation, particularly with a finite resource.
Food prices are going up not so much because of the cost of oil, but many farms are switching from growing wheat to growing corn for ethanol...eveybody's favorite over advertised alternate energy source. Ethanol is mainly popular in the US, where it is seen as a cop-out for dealing with climate change by the government that can be sold as "effort" and Brazil, where things are similar.
The damaged environment thing is bs. This isn't the sixties. Oil rigs are clean, safe, and nigh on impossible to damage enough to have a major spill. Never mind the thousands of jobs it creates. I support alternate energy research, but funny enough, we can do both at once.A major spill? That's not the only environmental concern. Never has been.
And as for thousands of jobs, this isn't the sixties. By the time oil will get drilled the industry will probably have switched to fully automated platforms, as they're planning on doing.

This is pretty simple. Who cares if it takes a few years to get the oil flowing?

Drill now, not later.

That it's not difficult enough. It's way too simple to accurately describe the situation, particularly with a finite resource.

While it is a finite resource, that is a very relative term. By the time the worlds oil supplies are used up, we will probably be using nuclear powered watches. The finite argument doesn't really wash when you consider how much is left.

Ethanol is mainly popular in the US, where it is seen as a cop-out for dealing with climate change by the government that can be sold as "effort" and Brazil, where things are similar.

Agreed.

A major spill? That's not the only environmental concern. Never has been.
And as for thousands of jobs, this isn't the sixties. By the time oil will get drilled the industry will probably have switched to fully automated platforms, as they're planning on doing.

Lol. Touche.

I never said spills were the only concern, but they are certainly the greatest.

Nah, offshore fields are already mapped and could begin production much sooner. The real key to decreasing gasoline prices is to increase refinery capacity.

We need to bring down oil prices so that the economy is healthy enough to do all the rebuilding and restructuring that is required for the use of alternate sources.

I'm not sure what's worse: your grasp of supply and demand, or the fact that no one else noticed it.

Alternative energy is comparatively more expensive and has higher startup costs because it's not connected to the infrastructure like oil is. As such, in order for it to be economically viable, oil costs have to be HIGH, not low. If oil prices fall, incentive to create alternative energy decreases, which will put right back in the same position when prices spike again. So the best thing to do is to keep energy prices high, so that we have the incentive necessary to make a permanent shift away from an oil-dependent economy.

Does it suck for everyone over the short run (well, not pedestrians; we're kind of laughing at the rest of you)? Of course. But does it in the long run end our susceptibility to oil shocks? Yes.

That's why Pelosi's sitting on this. That and the fact that California, where most of those oil facilities would go, has already signed laws forbidding off-shore oil production facilities. So the people most effected by the law don't want it either. Surprise surprise that an elected official from a district in California would be leading the fight to stop it.

Ok so if the people of the United States, whom supposedly the Congress represents, want drilling to go forward, who the hell is this person to decide to block it? Isn't this the sort of thing that we get pissed off at the President for doing when it relates to other issues?

Opinions?A slim majority is in favor of it. If it was very large majority, it might be a different issue. But a modern, representational democracy is not a 'dictatorship of the slim majority'. Even if it's just a minority that's against, they shouldn't simply be outvoted; they have rights of representation just as much as the majority. It should be discussed and ideally some compromise should be reached that does justice to both sides and their respective representational strength.

I read an op-ed piece by Charles Krauthammer (who I completely despise) and it actually made some kind of sense (a huge surprise).

He proposes that not drilling here in the US is actually worse for the environment. His rationale is that undeveloped countries with oil extraction facilities have neither the technology nor the governmental regulation to take the necessary precautions to avoid large accidents and other environmental damage.

I don't know how accurate CK's statements are (it's an op-ed, so he doesn't have to source anything, and he's a known Bush/neocon shill), but it raises an interesting point. In places where not only the infrastructure and government controls are suspect, isn't it risking more damage to the planet (a phrase in vogue among environmentally-concerned Congresscritters) to rely on them for supply? Not only that, producing more oil in places far more likely to have destabilizing events like coups or terrorist acts against oil infrastructure increases that likelihood. Not only that, but US alternatives like ethanol degrade the environment here because of the use of corn and the soil erosion (and other problems) and also cause food price increases resulting from the massive-scale farming of traditional food crops for fuel.

CK of course goes on to impugn Pelosi's motives by implying that Democrats are fine with despoiling the planet so long as it's not in the US, so he still ranks as a neocon douchebag overall in my book. But the points he raises are interesting.

What say y'all to that?

EDIT: linky (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/08/01/drilling_and_blissful_ignorance).

I read an op-ed piece by Charles Krauthammer (who I completely despise) and it actually made some kind of sense (a huge surprise).

He proposes that not drilling here in the US is actually worse for the environment. His rationale is that undeveloped countries with oil extraction facilities have neither the technology nor the governmental regulation to take the necessary precautions to avoid large accidents and other environmental damage.

I don't know how accurate CK's statements are (it's an op-ed, so he doesn't have to source anything, and he's a known Bush/neocon shill), but it raises an interesting point. In places where not only the infrastructure and government controls are suspect, isn't it risking more damage to the planet (a phrase in vogue among environmentally-concerned Congresscritters) to rely on them for supply? Not only that, producing more oil in places far more likely to have destabilizing events like coups or terrorist acts against oil infrastructure increases that likelihood. Not only that, but US alternatives like ethanol degrade the environment here because of the use of corn and the soil erosion (and other problems) and also cause food price increases resulting from the massive-scale farming of traditional food crops for fuel.

CK of course goes on to impugn Pelosi's motives by implying that Democrats are fine with despoiling the planet so long as it's not in the US, so he still ranks as a neocon douchebag overall in my book. But the points he raises are interesting.

What say y'all to that?

EDIT: linky (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/08/01/drilling_and_blissful_ignorance).
seems "true but disingenuous" to me.

yeah, drilling in underdeveloped/underregulated countries is environmentally risky but i dont see that drilling in the US is going to stop it.

seems "true but disingenuous" to me.

yeah, drilling in underdeveloped/underregulated countries is environmentally risky but i dont see that drilling in the US is going to stop it.

Agreed. Demand will never be slaked to the point where drilling is unprofitable. Demand is where the focus should be, but there are far too many entities entwined in the addiction to oil for that to ever be anything remotely resembling easy or palatable to a nation steadfastly refusing to be weaned.

A slim majority is in favor of it. If it was very large majority, it might be a different issue. But a modern, representational democracy is not a 'dictatorship of the slim majority'. Even if it's just a minority that's against, they shouldn't simply be outvoted; they have rights of representation just as much as the majority. It should be discussed and ideally some compromise should be reached that does justice to both sides and their respective representational strength.

Slim? Last poll I hears was 73% in favor. That ain't slim, friend.

And yes, the minority gets a say. My issue is that Pelosi is playing politics in a way that she'd scream bloody murder about if the Republicans did it.

In fact, filibusters are her biggest gripe and I don't see how she has a leg to stand on.

Slim? Last poll I hears was 73% in favor. That ain't slim, friend.

The article you cited said a slim majority of Californians opposed it. Pelosi doesn't represent the American people, only her district.

And yes, the minority gets a say. My issue is that Pelosi is playing politics in a way that she'd scream bloody murder about if the Republicans did it.

In fact, filibusters are her biggest gripe and I don't see how she has a leg to stand on.

Filibusters, combined with the presidential veto, are what's keeping Pelosi from doing anything. Your gripe is that this Congress hasn't done anything. Why don't you have gripes about filibusters of Pelosi's policies?

Filibusters, combined with the presidential veto, are what's keeping Pelosi from doing anything. Your gripe is that this Congress hasn't done anything. Why don't you have gripes about filibusters of Pelosi's policies?

That would require some sort of impartiality.

Ok so if the people of the United States, whom supposedly the Congress represents, want drilling to go forward, who the hell is this person to decide to block it? Isn't this the sort of thing that we get pissed off at the President for doing when it relates to other issues?

Stewart: Tell me about the drilling; that's the one thing I couldn't wrap my head around. You know, I know there's talk about drilling in some offshore areas; you didn't want that to come up for a vote.

Pelosi: Well, in the past 2 weeks or so, the President is trying to maintain that, but for the offshore drilling in protected areas, the economy would be in great shape. I can't let him get away with that. So the point is this: did you know that, in the "Lower 48," there are 68 million acres [28 million hectares] that are approved for drilling, 33 million [13 Mha] of which are offshore. In Alaska — you wanna drill in Alaska, we'll give you Alaska: there are tens of millions of acres in Alaska approved for drilling. But they want to drill in the protected areas.

Stewart: Is there oil underneath those acres?

Pelosi: Oh, tons of oil. Great oil.

Stewart: Can't you just open up the whole damned thing?

Pelosi: Well, why would you — in other words, we're saying to them —

Stewart: You say drill the stuff you've already got.

Pelosi: "Use it or lose it!" Drill where you have the environmental permits and the approvals to go ahead, or lose that and let somebody else drill that.

Stewart: I'm saying, let's steal everybody else's milkshake. That's what I'm saying: let's get the straws in there —

Pelosi: As long as it's chocolate, right.

Stewart: Exactly.

Pelosi: Well, then, but also —

Stewart: So you think, no vote for that?

Pelosi: Well, for two weeks, they've been saying, "Oh, she won't let us have a vote on it!" For ten years we couldn't have a vote on the minimum wage, and nobody made a big fuss about that, and when we came in, we brought it to the floor vote on the minimum wage, the first time in 10 years. So they can try to make their case —

Stewart: It's an ugly little world up there in Washington, innit? It's not fun.

Pelosi: It's not for the faint of heart to be there. It's rough.


Care to comment on the bolded part?

Care to comment on the bolded part?

Most of the time, the oil in those fields is already being produced in already existing fields or it's not economically feasible to extract. Oil companies don't sit on oil for the hell of it; they maintain reserves to ensure steady production, not to attempt to profit off of market fluctuations. Given how long it takes to bring a field to market, sitting on economically viable oil is nothing more than stupidity on their part.

Slant drilling and drainage (drinking your milkshake) often produces oil in areas where there are absolutely no drills. It is highly likely that almost all of the viable oil in undrilled lands is being produced on producing land through those techniques.

That being said, it's irrelevant. If that oil is there and can be produced in accordance with environmental law, there is no reason not to produce it. The US economy will only benefit from increased oil production and at this time our economy needs all of the investment it can get.

It's also entirely likely that the oil companies are betting they won't have a better time to drill on protected land than in the last eight months of this administration, and so they're packing in their spoils while the getting's good.

Why not loot now when you know the emperor's planning to put up a Great Wall that will prevent you from carrying off loot in a year?

Why isn't anyone talking about the huge find in the Dakotas?

It's vastly larger and safer than offshore finds.

Why isn't anyone talking about the huge find in the Dakotas?

It's vastly larger and safer than offshore finds.
Because it costs $1000 per barrel to extract and refine.

As to this offshore drilling pish, I don't see why this is a problem. Supply for crude is above demand, the issue is with getting enough refined oil out. Building more offshore rigs will not change the amount of refined oil kicking about by itself.

Because it costs $1000 per barrel to extract and refine.

As to this offshore drilling pish, I don't see why this is a problem. Supply for crude is above demand, the issue is with getting enough refined oil out. Building more offshore rigs will not change the amount of refined oil kicking about by itself.

That's what's so mystifying about all this. Even the Bush administration admits that offshore drilling won't reduce prices, but still, they're pushing for it and lots of people believe it.

I don't know how these people keep on lying to people while telling them the truth at the same time.

But the issue isn't the oil. The issue is Ms. "I deserve my own Air Force One" Pelosi who walks on water and does no wrong.

Awesome.

So - the 'congressional approval' stuff, the references to offshore oil, and the 'Bush-haters-looking-for-a-chance-to-bash-Bush' comment...

...were actually a smokescreen for you to bash Ms Pelosi?

Troll.

Article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/31/MNSH122TA3.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea)



Ok so if the people of the United States, whom supposedly the Congress represents, want drilling to go forward, who the hell is this person to decide to block it? Isn't this the sort of thing that we get pissed off at the President for doing when it relates to other issues?

Opinions?

A few years ago the Republicrats decided to "go home to find out what the people want" concerning immigration reform. Most people wanted to take care of the border first. The people were ignored, nothing was done, and the Demorats ended up in the majority in Congress.

Now the Demorats are ignoring the "will of the people." Most people want off shore drilling. Well, I hope the people will be incensed enough to throw all the bastards out and start in January with a new Congress instead of the "SOS" (same old shit) Congressmen.

A few years ago the Republicrats decided to "go home to find out what the people want" concerning immigration reform. Most people wanted to take care of the border first. The people were ignored, nothing was done, and the Demorats ended up in the majority in Congress.

Now the Demorats are ignoring the "will of the people." Most people want off shore drilling. Well, I hope the people will be incensed enough to throw all the bastards out and start in January with a new Congress instead of the "SOS" (same old shit) Congressmen.

Hey! Demorats. Demo-rats! That's funny. A play on words, kind of. Like a joke? Well - a bit like a joke. Except jokes are usually supposed to be wryly observant, or at least funny.

The green crayon really spoiled the effect.

The economy is plenty healthy enough to do this right now without significant problems. Call me when people start having trouble getting food and then we can consider it.

http://frac.org/data/2006foodinsecurity.pdf

So we can drill?

http://frac.org/data/2006foodinsecurity.pdf

So we can drill?

NOW!
"Unemployment at 4-year high
Employers trim payrolls for seventh straight month in July, as jobless rate rises to 5.7%, a full percentage point higher than year ago."

NOW!
"Unemployment at 4-year high
Employers trim payrolls for seventh straight month in July, as jobless rate rises to 5.7%, a full percentage point higher than year ago."

Really though, oil is irrelevant at this point. I am thinking that we have more than enough for what is coming.

(Bush haters: get busy finding an excuse to blame Bush for this. You know you want to, and I know you will.)Bush is a smear in Rob Corddry's shorts, 'cept with less usable brain cells, and less potential for growth ... other than cancer, i guess. He's genetic trash and an interminable strain to the sensibilities of the founding of the United States in the first place.
But, he's pathetic in his own right, and doesn't need any more credit for things he's already got.

Most people want off shore drilling.
Actually, "most people" want lower prices for things and more convenience, especially concerning everything oil is affecting. And lamentably, some people are as stupid as repugnantcans in thinking drilling now is gonna make any fucking difference in the usable amount now.
It's a lie. Repeat it at risk.
Here's what happens by getting those leases out for people to drill:
http://newsminer.com/news/2008/jun/11/natural-resources-head-exxon-wont-retain-point-tho/
And this is why it's bullshit to say that it costs so much to develop:
http://www.dailyfueleconomytip.com/oil-prices/oil-companies-buy-back-stocks-why-you-should-be-angry/
http://desertbeacon.blogspot.com/2008/07/crude-arguments-oil-prices-stock-buy.html

Bush is a smear in Rob Corddry's shorts, 'cept with less usable brain cells, and less potential for growth ... other than cancer, i guess. He's genetic trash and an interminable strain to the sensibilities of the founding of the United States in the first place.
But, he's pathetic in his own right, and doesn't need any more credit for things he's already got.

Did you really need to feed the Bushevik Persecution Complex? :D

Really though, oil is irrelevant at this point. I am thinking that we have more than enough for what is coming.

What do you think is coming?

Did you really need to feed the Bushevik Persecution Complex? :DI probably didn't need to include Corddry in it, since i respect him more, but that Harold & Kumar flick had a pretty graphic representation that i wanted conveyed, and i ran with it.
It's good for them to feel persecuted. They deserve it for being as weak and ignorant as they are. :)

What do you think is coming?If you're a fan of Reagan, why not ask him?
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/MidEast_tension_raised_fears_of_armageddon_0501.html
Yes, this bumbling, ignorant moron caressed TheReallyImporantRedButton with shaky hands, maybe even remniscient of the Genesis video for "Land of Confusion".

Speaker Pelosi is exercising her best judgement,

Sadly, I think you are right. Maybe one day she'll recognise it herself, and resign.

What do you think is coming?

Biggest recession in 80 yrs. Possibly 100 yrs. Oil's not relevant.

Sadly, I think you are right. Maybe one day she'll recognise it herself, and resign.STILL more articulate, intelligent, and obviously better looking than almost anyone on the "right" and ESPECIALLY the administration.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=177587&title=nancy-pelosi

Actually, "most people" want lower prices for things and more convenience, especially concerning everything oil is affecting. And lamentably, some people are as stupid as repugnantcans in thinking drilling now is gonna make any fucking difference in the usable amount now.
It's a lie. Repeat it at risk.
Here's what happens by getting those leases out for people to drill:
http://newsminer.com/news/2008/jun/11/natural-resources-head-exxon-wont-retain-point-tho/
And this is why it's bullshit to say that it costs so much to develop:
http://www.dailyfueleconomytip.com/oil-prices/oil-companies-buy-back-stocks-why-you-should-be-angry/
http://desertbeacon.blogspot.com/2008/07/crude-arguments-oil-prices-stock-buy.html

True, more off shore drilling will take a couple of years to produce any oil so it will not increase the supply NOW. However, the fact that the oil supply will increase will have an affect on the price of oil. Just talking about off shore drilling has already helped drive the price of oil down about $9-10 a barrel.

But drilling alone is not the long term solution. We need to look toward wind, solar, clean coal, and nuclear energy sources. We need to get off our asses and do it now. T Boon Pickens is right, we can't drill our way out of this problem.

And our Demoratically controlled Congress and Republicrats in Congress have once again hid their heads in the "recess" (i.e. We ain't gonna do nothing about it.) :mad:

If you're a fan of Reagan, why not ask him?
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/MidEast_tension_raised_fears_of_armageddon_0501.html
Yes, this bumbling, ignorant moron caressed TheReallyImporantRedButton with shaky hands, maybe even remniscient of the Genesis video for "Land of Confusion".

I don't feed trolls. Good bye.

True, more off shore drilling will take a couple of years to produce any oil so it will not increase the supply NOW. However, the fact that the oil supply will increase will have an affect on the price of oil. Just talking about off shore drilling has already helped drive the price of oil down about $9-10 a barrel.You help make the point here about the volatility being so closely tied to speculation. What does that tell you about supply? What does it tell you about what people are doing with the stock?

But drilling alone is not the long term solution. We need to look toward wind, solar, clean coal, and nuclear energy sources. We need to get off our asses and do it now. T Boone Pickens is right, we can't drill our way out of this problem. Well, he says it now, but a lot of other people have been saying exactly the same thing for a long time. Kinda reminds me about how Obama's been saying how to handle certain circumstances in the middle east, and was naturally derided by the right, right up until BushCo capitulates and does EXACTLY the same thing, and somehow it's a great idea no one else ever thought of.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2008/07/16/cbs-bush-iran-policy-moving-closer-obama-s

And our Demoratically controlled Congress and Republicrats in Congress have once again hid their heads in the "recess" (i.e. We ain't gonna do nothing about it.) :mad:Well, that doesn't surprise anyone, really. Not me, at least.

I don't feed trolls. Good bye.Really? I thought we were becoming fast friends, what with your last cogent post and all. That's too bad ... but wait ....
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13889044&postcount=61
Troll.
... peas in a pod? Seems like there's no further impediment to the discourse. You should continue.

Well, that doesn't surprise anyone, really. Not me, at least.

Are Government bodies like that suppose to go on regular recesses anyways?

I mean, a lot of the time, there isn't anything they really need to do most of the time; if they don't have a bill to be discussed, they don't need to be sitting.

If I were a politician, especially during an election year, I would not want to make this point in public, but as an individual, I'm willing to risk being attacked for making it. The fact is that no matter how much off-shore drilling is accomplished on the domestic front, oil will nevertheless remain a commodity that is, for the most part, imported. If our goal is truly energy independence, or at least making our energy sources for the most part domestic, then we cannot support any measures that would lessen pressure on Congress to mandate the spread of alternative fuels. Supporting measures such as expanded off-shore drilling would only prolong on dependence on oil, and distract from seeking alternative fuel sources. This is why I oppose expanded off-shore drilling. It might hurt consumers in the short term, but this hurting at the gas pump would only increase public demand for developing alternative fuels.

While it is a finite resource, that is a very relative term. By the time the worlds oil supplies are used up, we will probably be using nuclear powered watches. The finite argument doesn't really wash when you consider how much is left.Back this up please.
I never said spills were the only concern, but they are certainly the greatest.To people that only care about oil stained warmbloods.

If I were a politician, especially during an election year, I would not want to make this point in public, but as an individual, I'm willing to risk being attacked for making it. The fact is that no matter how much off-shore drilling is accomplished on the domestic front, oil will nevertheless remain a commodity that is, for the most part, imported. If our goal is truly energy independence, or at least making our energy sources for the most part domestic, then we cannot support any measures that would lessen pressure on Congress to mandate the spread of alternative fuels. Supporting measures such as expanded off-shore drilling would only prolong on dependence on oil, and distract from seeking alternative fuel sources. This is why I oppose expanded off-shore drilling. It might hurt consumers in the short term, but this hurting at the gas pump would only increase public demand for developing alternative fuels.
Well, you've got my vote. :salute:

I have never really understood this argument. If you have high demand and low supply, you get more supply. What is difficult about that?Because the only viable way of dealing with the problem is to reduce demand.

Most of the time, the oil in those fields is already being produced in already existing fields or it's not economically feasible to extract. Oil companies don't sit on oil for the hell of it; they maintain reserves to ensure steady production, not to attempt to profit off of market fluctuations. Given how long it takes to bring a field to market, sitting on economically viable oil is nothing more than stupidity on their part.

Slant drilling and drainage (drinking your milkshake) often produces oil in areas where there are absolutely no drills. It is highly likely that almost all of the viable oil in undrilled lands is being produced on producing land through those techniques.

That being said, it's irrelevant. If that oil is there and can be produced in accordance with environmental law, there is no reason not to produce it. The US economy will only benefit from increased oil production and at this time our economy needs all of the investment it can get.According to what the Democrats have said, the oil companies are complaining about not having the right equipment to do it. The Democrats feel the oil companies should invest their record profits into buying new equipment and not in going for the easy oil.

Because the only viable way of dealing with the problem is to reduce demand.

Ah yes, the good central planning solution. We will ration what is scarce, rather than actually supply what the market wants.

According to what the Democrats have said, the oil companies are complaining about not having the right equipment to do it. The Democrats feel the oil companies should invest their record profits into buying new equipment and not in going for the easy oil.
Not a problem with that source... What I've read is that exploration in the currently leased areas is underway, but it's costly and time-consuming. There have been some big finds. The Jack oil field is one, but it cost about $3 billion to get there. After the find, the Democrats started to call for windfall profits taxes to fund other social programs. The oil companies just can't win.

As I wrote earlier, we should allow drilling in the previously mapped offshore locations because it is easier and will allow a faster movement to market for that oil. Additionally, the energy that the conversion to alternate sources requires will be less expensive. We should also provide very enticing incentives to develop alternate sources of energy, rather than encouraging oil(energy) companies to re-invest in the same old thing.

Ah yes, the good central planning solution. We will ration what is scarce,Rationing wouldn't reduce demand. Using alternate sources of energy or expanding public transportation systems would.

rather than actually supply what the market wants.The market should be used only in the instances where it is useful. It is not useful in this case.

Not a problem with that source... What I've read is that exploration in the currently leased areas is underway, but it's costly and time-consuming. There have been some big finds. The Jack oil field is one, but it cost about $3 billion to get there. After the find, the Democrats started to call for windfall profits taxes to fund other social programs. The oil companies just can't win.It is possible that what the oil companies say is true, but I doubt it.

As I wrote earlier, we should allow drilling in the previously mapped offshore locations because it is easier and will allow a faster movement to market for that oil. Additionally, the energy that the conversion to alternate sources requires will be less expensive. We should also provide very enticing incentives to develop alternate sources of energy, rather than encouraging oil(energy) companies to re-invest in the same old thing.Wouldn't expanding oil drilling cause oil companies to reinvest in the same old thing?

There have been some big finds. The Jack oil field is one, but it cost about $3 billion to get there. After the find, the Democrats started to call for windfall profits taxes to fund other social programs. The oil companies just can't win.
So it would only take 25% of Exxon's quarterly profits (not earnings), to tap into a "big find" oil field? Or 58% of Chevron's quarterly profits?

Poor, poor oil companies, "not" making enough money to tap "big finds" in areas they already have drilling rights to.

It is possible that what the oil companies say is true, but I doubt it.



So it would only take 25% of Exxon's quarterly profits (not earnings), to tap into a "big find" oil field? Or 58% of Chevron's quarterly profits?

Poor, poor oil companies, "not" making enough money to tap "big finds" in areas they already have drilling rights to.
If either of you want to attack excessive profits or high costs, you need to learn how to read a balance sheet. That's fact. What you get from the Daily Show, or even the Democrats, isn't.

Pantsman, you need to learn to distinguish between gross profit and profit margin.

Pantsman, you need to learn to distinguish between gross profit and profit margin.

Why?

Or... is that the whole argument?

Are Government bodies like that suppose to go on regular recesses anyways?

I mean, a lot of the time, there isn't anything they really need to do most of the time; if they don't have a bill to be discussed, they don't need to be sitting.

They have many, many issues yet to be resolved. They still haven't passed a budget for the new fiscal year that starts in October.

The only reason for the August recess is tradition. It started a very long time ago as it was so hot in Washington in August Congress went on recess and went home. Many other of their "breaks" are also from tradition. Time off in the spring to go home and plant the crops, time off in the fall to harvest the crops.

Poor, poor oil companies, "not" making enough money to tap "big finds" in areas they already have drilling rights to.Yeah ... in most businesses, they'd be laughed out and/or fired for their insurmountable incompetence.