"We can't drill our way out of this problem"...

[aumd03 2]

I mentioned this in another thread; no one replied.

1. Environment. I know many of you don't care. Many do. It will make a difference.

2. Short-term benefits? Any oil we see is a drop in the, er, barrel. We wouldn't see any oil for a minimum of five years. Fine, but that brings me to my next point....

3. I think we all agree that we should try to eliminate our dependence on oil altogether. There is no incentive for oil companies (who are already making plenty of profit) to invest in this drilling. There is incentive to invest in developments of alternative fuel sources. This is already visible in the sixty-eight million acres of taxpayer-funded land that the oil companies are currently not using.

I'll give you the reducing dependence. But the people that are blocking the development and use of Bellefonte nuclear power plant aren't going to voting for John McCain. Look, the left isn't realistic when it comes to energy. There are going to have to be sacrifices. We can't all ride bikes to work. I agree, do what you can to reduce dependence. But thats not a long term solution. And saying it will take a while to see results is just plain lunacy. So when is making an investment for a long term return a bad idea?

[RunInRed 16,454]

BO on Offshore Oil Drilling:

[AURaptor 1,126]

It is Pelosi's fault. Her congress won't open up ANWR. Laugh all you want, but you're just looking like a fool for doing so.

You calling someone a "fool" is like a frog calling someone "ugly."

You looking like Shrek, you're the last one to talk!

[AURaptor 1,126]

BO on Offshore Oil Drilling:

Stupid idea. The Gov't already receives a windfall tax on the oil companies, taxing them more would only be passed on to the consumer, driving gas prices up further, making it harder for the lower income citizens Obama claims he's trying to help.

Off shore drilling will decreaes prices, there's simply no way around it. Obama is lying.

[RunInRed 16,454]

BO on Offshore Oil Drilling:

Off shore drilling will decreaes prices, there's simply no way around it.

The only reasonable logic I've heard that even comes close to supporting this notion involves the assumption that offshore drilling will have a "pshycological affect" on the markets. In which case, I don't see why the pursuit/big investment/commitment to an alternate energy source could not have the same effect.

BO did say a few things that were fact: drilling would not produce a drop of oil for atleast 7-10 years, which would do nothing to lower prices today (unless you are figuring in the "psychological affect" mentioned above).

So now we are back to the original debate over supply vs. demand. You say more oil. I say screw the oil, let's focus on reducing demand and finding better energy options.

[kwagoner 214]

Environment specifics please. And are you OK with the environment being destroyed in the middle east?

No. Independence from oil will have the greatest decrease in harm, not moving the whole operation ancd cleaning it up a bit. Besides that, the use is where a lot of the problems come in to play.

Because I assure you they have far fewer eco-friendly mandates and procedures than we do/would for procuring oil.

You're right w/o a doubt.

2. Yes five years. And 10 years ago we were faced with the option and passed. Now look at us. What if 10 years from now gas is 20 bucks a gallon...30 bucks? Then what? Then it's too late. Then you've OK'd all the world major economies to be shoved back into the dark ages as pretty much everyone's current way of life grinds to a screeching hault. No more vacations, no more travel. Half the worlds business are gone.

What if 10 years ago, instead of saying "I didn't get my way, piss on your hybrid. Piss on your hydrogen. Piss on your steam. I'll turn a deaf ear to it" more people started accepting the fact oil is out of the picture at some point in time (now, 10 years from now, 100, 200, whenever). It's coming. Instead those actually paid attention to, helped fund research, and extended efforts to find other means of energy. Would we even be paying 4$ a gallon? Probably. Would we be using gas? Some still would, maybe some wouldn't Would we be 10 years closer to independence? Yep. If we still used gas, would it be as much? Nope.

But hey you MAY have saved a whale or two. Then again, we aren't even sure there would be a massive environmental fallout.

Or a family or two. Possibly a community, economy, country, but hey let's say all that was saved was a couple whales. That way the ten years of cheaper gas doesn't seem like it went to waste when we look back at the whole picture 30 years from now.

3. Absolutely I think we should go after alternatives. Without a doubt. But the people who think that we are gonna just float along at $4 gas for the next 20 years while we figure it out, are sorely mistaken. Oil companies, and oil speculators will keep pushing the price until it breaks our backs. And then it's too late.

As you agree, most say we should go after alternatives. People have been saying that since the 70s. Every time the next crutch comes along, drilling off shore, reserves, etc. sight of the alternative is lost. I think FL, CA AWNR, & "god's country" are all crutches. It seems like America is the little whiny kid that will soak a sprained ankle as long as he can. Eventually, you will just have to take away the crutches and tell him to walk. As you stated, OIL COMPANIES will keep pushing it until it breaks our backs. Who's to say if 100% of the oil was domestic that those same companies and spectators wouldn't do the same or even worse? I can's say one way or the other, but they sure haven't earned my trust over the years.

What do we do in the meantime? Who says we can't do both?

We already are. TigerMike has worked there. If the overall goal is a change over, why focus more on the now instead of the tomorrow?

Here's a side question I would love for you all to answer...

What if gas was $20 a gallon. What if it cost you $300/week to fill up your car (assuming one tank a week)...then what do we do? Because it's going to also triple your grocery bill. And it will triple your power bill. So now you're spending...what $4000 a month on essentials?

Before addressing the question, let me ask where do you get the triple figure from? Gas was $1.54 in 2000. Was your power bill and grocery bill less than a third what it is now back in 2000?

Again if you are not using gas, what does it matter where it trades at world wide? Even if we increase the effeciecny of our solely gas/diesel it won't have as much of an effect. (not the answer, but something to consider)

THEN can we talk about drilling? Why does EVERYONE have to be punished just because you guys believe in the global warming MYTH?

Then can we talk about drilling? if it gets to that point, then we are absolute idiots and deserve it. Drilling will be the last of our concerns because we will not have planned water rights, made efforts for cleaner air, etc.

What does global warming have to do with any of the things I addressed? Why does everyone have to suffer from speculators driving up fuel cost? Why does everyone have to suffer from lack of funding, focus and attention to the alternatives? They are out there and will not have to be created, but rather critiqued and mass produced. No demand, lack of real interest, and (personal speculation only) pay offs keep them down.

Bottom line..... we can drill. It could possibly get us out of the problem TEMPORARILY. I'd rather move to a long term real fix, than add to the list of excuses not to as we build a false sense of security in our domestic oil companies.

[CCTAU 3,336]

BO on Offshore Oil Drilling:

Stupid idea. The Gov't already receives a windfall tax on the oil companies, taxing them more would only be passed on to the consumer, driving gas prices up further, making it harder for the lower income citizens Obama claims he's trying to help.

Off shore drilling will decreaes prices, there's simply no way around it. Obama is lying.

Ah. But that's OK. The extra money would go to those who can't "afford" the price of gas. The rest of us would just have to pay more. More of achmed's Robin Hood economics.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Bottom line..... we can drill. It could possibly get us out of the problem TEMPORARILY. I'd rather move to a long term real fix, than add to the list of excuses not to as we build a false sense of security in our domestic oil companies.

So if gas hits $10 a gallon, do you think we can afford to live in that world for the next 10-20 years before everyone has a car that runs on water or grass?

I'm telling, we are facing a REAL crisis in the NOW. If oil hits $200 a barrel like it's being predicted, our country will hit a DEEP and extended recession. And YOU might be OK with the rest of the country suffering through that, but I'm not.

I didn't want a hybrid 10 years ago, and I don't want one now. Why is it that the majority has to make all the comprimises just so the minority can be happy? A few people will see rigs off the coast of florida? So freakin what. I don't care. A FEW people are burdened by that...or the WHOLE COUNTRY goes into recession, and we're back to 30% unemployment?

Which is worse?

[kwagoner 214]

So if gas hits $10 a gallon, do you think we can afford to live in that world for the next 10-20 years before everyone has a car that runs on water or grass?

I'm telling, we are facing a REAL crisis in the NOW. If oil hits $200 a barrel like it's being predicted, our country will hit a DEEP and extended recession. And YOU might be OK with the rest of the country suffering through that, but I'm not.

I didn't want a hybrid 10 years ago, and I don't want one now. Why is it that the majority has to make all the comprimises just so the minority can be happy? A few people will see rigs off the coast of florida? So freakin what. I don't care. A FEW people are burdened by that...or the WHOLE COUNTRY goes into recession, and we're back to 30% unemployment?

Which is worse?

We both agree the price has a lot to do with those predictions. Proportions equate the price per gallon to come to 5.92. That is higher than we should ever pay, but is far from the 10/gall you are suggesting. Why would it change if we drill? Wouldn't that same crisis exist after those few see the rigs?

I think what is worse is the fact that you say you want alternatives. Then (a couple of posts later) you say you didn't want them then or now. I understand flip-floping on issues when circumstances change, but going from a long term solution to an ignorant attitude makes no sense.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I want alternatives. I want alternative energy. I don't want to have to drive a Honda Insight. I don't want to have to make HUGE concessions financially or in terms of lifestyle, all because a vast minority has to have their delicate sensibilities placated.

You mentioned people turning their noses up at hybrids 10 years ago...and 10 years ago we had the honda insight. Now we have hybrids that don't get vastly superior mileage when compared to their gas burning counterparts, but cost ~6,000 more. That, to me, isn't a viable alternative...ESPECIALLY considering the environmental concerns associated with hybrid disposal.

Sure, I could drive a prius. But I don't want to. Just because it's right for a FEW people, I shouldn't be forced upon me. Those cars are slow, hilariously ugly, and offer no performance increases over a 1986 Ford Escort.

See that's the thing about eco-facists. They don't see that what is good for them isn't what is good for everybody. And they don't see $5 gas as too much to suffer for mother earth. They don't understand why everyone wouldn't want to drive a prius...because it's OK FOR THEM. That's great. You want a prius, have a prius...but don't impose your fringe tastes on the other 290 million americans who dont want one.

You say drilling won't help? How do you know that? Oil is up $3 today because the Saudis are only raising production 200k barrels per day...the market expected more. It's a psychological game right now. And adding supply, even if it's 10 years down the road...is going to change the psyche of the market.

[kwagoner 214]

You mentioned people turning their noses up at hybrids 10 years ago...and 10 years ago we had the honda insight. Now we have hybrids that don't get vastly superior mileage when compared to their gas burning counterparts, but cost ~6,000 more. That, to me, isn't a viable alternative...ESPECIALLY considering the environmental concerns associated with hybrid disposal.

Did you hop off a horse and into your BMW? No. It went from a manual crank, to a key start from extremely inefficient to current, from 20mph tops to well over 100.

It takes time and things have to build. If hybrids were gained more popularity 10 years ago, maybe it would be at the next step of completely weaning from the little gas they require. At minimum more mpg, longer life, etc. It will take time to get away from oil. Why fight the efforts of those who are trying to make the steps?

Sure, I could drive a prius. But I don't want to. Just because it's right for a FEW people, I shouldn't be forced upon me. Those cars are slow, hilariously ugly, and offer no performance increases over a 1986 Ford Escort.

So your personal wants get to hurt others, but mine don't?

See that's the thing about eco-facists. (really?? an eco-facist? Seems oil controls every aspect of our life making it much more facist in all reality) They don't see that what is good for them isn't what is good for everybody. And they don't see $5 gas as too much to suffer for mother earth. They don't understand why everyone wouldn't want to drive a prius...because it's OK FOR THEM. That's great. You want a prius, have a prius...but don't impose your fringe tastes on the other 290 million americans who dont want one.

How is it not good for everybody if we gain independence from OPEC (and/or ExonMobil and their kind), cleaner air, quieter streets, etc.?

Oil is up $3 today becYou say drilling won't help? How do you know ause the Saudis are only raising production 200k barrels per day...the market expected more. It's a psychological game right now. And adding supply, even if it's 10 years down the road...is going to change the psyche of the market.

I don't know that drilling won't help any more than you know it will. Whether the game is being played with the Saudis, our gov't, or the oil companies it will always be there.

[BamaGrad03 0]

So your personal wants get to hurt others, but mine don't?

Difference: my wants are in the overwhelming majority. And mine don't keep us for searching for oil.

How is it not good for everybody if we gain independence from OPEC (and/or ExonMobil and their kind), cleaner air, quieter streets, etc.?

It's not good if we don't do it in a way that minimizes the VAST fallout higher oil prices could have in the short term. It's especially not good if we don't exhaust options within our own backyard, to mitigate the fallout until we come up with alternatives.

[MDM4AU 336]

Windfall tax is assinine.

Oil companies make about 8-10% profit. Banks make 18%. When do we start taxing them? Pharmaceutical/Biotech companies make about twice what oil companies make (19%). When do we start taxing them? When do we start taxing motion picture studios and actors/actresses? When do we start taxing Auburn University Athletics?

From a post I made in early May that was completely ignored by those that think windfall tax is a good idea:

Can you imagine empowering the government to determine when your profits no longer are "reasonable" and "rational"? This is Orwellian nuttiness incarnate, the stuff not only of misguided New Dealism but of communistic five-year planning.

First, the more you tax something, the less you get of it. In this case, that means less domestically discovered and procured oil and refined gasoline and more foreign oil. Right-wing theory? Hardly. Review the data from the 1980s, the last time "windfall" oil profits were taxed:

Domestic production dropped between 3 percent and 6 percent and dependence on foreign oil increased between 8 percent and 16 percent, reported the Congressional Research Service.

...Unable to maximize the return on their investment, oil companies would start withholding product, diverting it where they can. It's like handing the Chinese an endless supply of succulent Cantonese roast duck.

...an analysis by the Tax Foundation (in 2005) found that, since 1977, governments collected tax revenues "more than twice the amount of domestic profits earned by major U.S. oil companies." Of course, Congressman Kanjorski's "windfall profits" levy would not apply to the only true "gouger" in this equation -- state and federal governments.

...there are many other industries whose profits per dollar of sales equal or exceed those of Big Oil; ...Apparently, "windfall" is in the blind eye of the tax 'em beholder, usually holding a lifetime membership in The Club for the Economic Ignorami.

...Today, Big Oil; tomorrow, Big Software. Why risk any investment when the extent of your rewards is either predetermined by government or trampled by government when your enterprise is "too successful"?

When the windfall taxes can't fund the programs and entitlements they're intended to, where will the money come from? Who do we tax next?

And this will do NOTHING to get us any closer to getting off foreign oil and from being held hostage by the OPEC nations.

[Tigermike 3,046]

And this will do NOTHING to get us any closer to getting off foreign oil and from being held hostage by the OPEC nations.

Just as the ban on off shore drilling has done nothing to help this country ween it's self from dependence on foreigh oil.

Does anyone know who the legislators were who were pushing the 1981 ban on coastal drilling?

Do any of you know that there are fairly large oil and gas deposits in and arround the Great Lakes? Of course the U.S. is banned from drilling in those areas because of the 81 ban. But did you know that Canada is drilling around the Great Lakes?

Did you know there are taxes on gas and oil as it is pumped out of the ground? There are also taxes paid on every barrel of oil refined into gas and diesel? Then there are Fed & State taxes added at the pump.

I think the dems here, around the country and in congress should admit that they don't really care how high fuel prices go. They don't care how high taxes on fuel are. I think the dems should be honest and admit that high fuel prices fits into their agenda to "clean the eviroment", to "save Mother Earth." But that's just me, I think they should be honest.

[kwagoner 214]

So your personal wants get to hurt others, but mine don't?

Difference: my wants are in the overwhelming majority. And mine don't keep us for searching for oil.

Is the majority the majority just because they had rather lean on this than give up their 8 mpg truck when all they do is drive it to work. It is easier to keep old wasteful habits and restraint from self control than to make a move.

Or, possibly because people really are not aware of what is out there.... before you counter with it is public knowledge not that most on here did not know there were hybrid 18 wheelers, heavy earth equipment, and farm equipment until links were posted last week.

How is it not good for everybody if we gain independence from OPEC (and/or ExonMobil and their kind), cleaner air, quieter streets, etc.?

It's not good if we don't do it in a way that minimizes the VAST fallout higher oil prices could have in the short term. It's especially not good if we don't exhaust options within our own backyard, to mitigate the fallout until we come up with alternatives.

A true alternative will not come until the options are fully exhausted and we are standing with our pants down. Hopefully the proposition set out by McCain could work. I don't get why he will only offer the tax breaks and payday unless he gets his way first. Seems a little selfish to me.

[Tigermike 3,046]

We can’t drill our own oil because it won’t solve anything, but let’s sue OPEC for not drilling more of theirs. What we have is two different approaches in economic policy. The Democrats, and especially Barack Obama, believe in constricted supply and so want to regulate demand. Conservatives believe in boosting supply through open markets and deregulation rather than leaving resources in the ground, while encouraging the innovation that will bring the next era in energy production. The Right also wants to use nuclear power, which even Europe’s Left has managed to survive without getting a case of the vapors.

[kwagoner 214]

but let’s sue OPEC for not drilling more of theirs

Bad idea..............digs the same hole, only deeper.

[Tigermike 3,046]

but let’s sue OPEC for not drilling more of theirs

Bad idea..............digs the same hole, only deeper.

Tell that to the dims, it was their suggestion.