View Full Version : Drill here, drill now.
Drill here, drill now.
Not while I'm POTUS
"The Obama Moratorium: No offshore drilling while he’s in office"
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/The-Obama-Moratorium-No-offshore-drilling-while-hes-in-office-87246077.html#ixzz0hocvQXkS
"...The Obama administration’s six-month delay in approving new offshore drilling leases in federal waters will become a new three-year ban, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar quietly told reporters last Friday. Which means that no new oil and gas leases will be approved during President Obama’s term even though two –thirds of the American public supports such activity................"
monsterhunter
03-10-2010, 16:41
Since when does this POTUS give a crap about what the people want anyway? While he is busy admiring himself in the mirror, he may as well just increase our dependancy on foreign oil.
Since when does this POTUS give a crap about what the people want anyway? While he is busy admiring himself in the mirror, he may as well just increase our dependency on foreign oil.See, that's just cynical.
The current president does care about what the people want. How do I know? Because he says so. Over and over and over again. When a politician from Chicago says something over and over and over again, it has to be true.
Here's why his moratorium makes perfect sense. The ban will allow his administration to continue super [duper] secret negotiations with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for a massive consignment of grade A sand.
Using hot air from his vice president and the speaker of the house of representatives, the sand will be turned into glass and the glass used to make a network of super [duper] giant mirrors.
In the greatest act of civil engineering since Katie Couric's last face lift, these mirrors will be positioned throughout the United States so that no American can turn his or her head more than fifteen degrees without seeing the reflected glory of the president.
The warmth of the glory will reduce energy costs and restore the vitality of the economy. The brightness of the glory will illuminate the wisdom of the president's policies for all of us too stupid to see how great they were in the first place.
Peregrino
03-10-2010, 19:57
Democrats - the only force in the universe that can have our cake and eat it too. :mad:
Regarding off-shore drilling, the Democrats always say it won't lower the price of gas because the influence of the American oil industry on the global price of crude is too small.
But then whenever oil (and hence gasoline) prices are going up, well then all of a sudden they do a 180 and are accusing Big Oil of gouging the American consumer.
I fail to understand how an increased domestic supply will not cause the price to go down...basic supply and demand. More oil...more gas...less demand...lower price.
Oh, yeah, I get it...more domestic production means more oil on the GLOBAL market, which further dillutes the US ability to lower global price. I've heard our largest oil company is not even in the top 15 worldwide.
So, why try to manipulate world market prices when we can reduce oil exports and keep more of the oil within our borders? Why is the price of a gallon of gas in Venezuela $.12? Forget about Chavez and the current situation...back in 95 when I was there it was not very different. Would this have anything to do with the amount they retain vice put on the world market?
I guess the answer is obviously about political/economic dogma. Our game is about turning a profit, not socialism. What do y'all think? Am I off track?
Well from my limited understanding (very limited I might add!) of the oil industry, it isn't affected just by supply and demand. It also is affected for example by the number of refineries. There might be enough oil to lower prices but if the refining capacity is limited, that will keep prices higher.
Some say its environmentalists who don't allow the construction of more refineries, but I've also read the oil industry does not want more refineries either because that way it keeps oil more costly.
Oil companies operate on a very small profit margin and the oil industry is cyclical.
The other part is the financial markets, which influence the prices of commodities as well. That oil bubble in late 2008 was financial, it had nothing to do with lack of supply to meet demand.
Man the oil companies have it hard, poor little guys.
The Reaper
03-12-2010, 19:53
I said previously that I wished President Bush had done the following. There is no reason that our current leadership could not do the same, if they had the intestinal fortitude.
1. For the short term, we are going to drill offshore, in the Bakken Formation, in ANWAR Alaska, if it is proven to have, or likely have oil, we are going to drill there, as soon as we can get the rigs on site. We are going to mine coal as well, and drill the hell out of natural gas. That should put quite a few people to work, drop gas prices as soon as we announce it, and put the current oil exporters on notice that we are moving along, soon to be without them and their oil. You tree huggers can kiss my ass. This is about our future survival as a nation. You will be fine with the results when we are done. We are going to be oil exporters, if we want, by the end of this phase.
2. For the mid-term, we are going to start fast-track construction on nuclear power plants. I would like to see at least 100 in the next ten years. Might start installing some of those small scale community-type micro plants as well, if they can be made practical. Sorry NIMBYs, Yucca Mountain is open for business and will start receiving waste tomorrow. You protesters can cry all you want. We are going to stop burning coal and oil in power generation by the end of this phase. While we are at it, we are going to see if electrical cars can be made practical. I want something that can run 100 mph, go 250 miles on a charge, cost less than $20,000, and recharge in an hour or two from a home 220 outlet or charge station. The first one to meet the contest requirements gets to sell a million of them here in the first couple of years.
3. For the long-term, we are going to find a clean and efficient alternative to the internal combustion engine, as we know it. Nuclear, fuel cell, magnetic, solar, cold fusion, I don't care what. The government will award a prize of $100,000,000,000 to the first working design that meets our goals and makes it into production for consumers. Be nice if it could generate power for homes as well. You America haters can move out and draw fire. We are going to break this cycle and show the world how it is done again. All of you people sitting on oil will be seeing us pack up our military forces, expensive contracts, and foreign aid and leave you to your own devices. You might want to start working now on a plan to make sand edible. Just a thought.
Y'all have a nice day now.
TR
GratefulCitizen
03-12-2010, 21:40
The other part is the financial markets, which influence the prices of commodities as well. That oil bubble in late 2008 was financial, it had nothing to do with lack of supply to meet demand.
Oil demand in this country peaked in 2005.
There has never been a supply shortage.
There has, however, been on oversupply of cheap money.
Current oil prices have nothing to do with fundamentals and everything to do with cheap money.
When China's bubble pops, things will get interesting.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/192795-signs-of-a-china-credit-and-real-asset-bubble-are-now-unmistakable
Well from my limited understanding (very limited I might add!) of the oil industry, it isn't affected just by supply and demand. It also is affected for example by the number of refineries. There might be enough oil to lower prices but if the refining capacity is limited, that will keep prices higher.
Some say its environmentalists who don't allow the construction of more refineries, but I've also read the oil industry does not want more refineries either because that way it keeps oil more costly.
Oil companies operate on a very small profit margin and the oil industry is cyclical.
The other part is the financial markets, which influence the prices of commodities as well. That oil bubble in late 2008 was financial, it had nothing to do with lack of supply to meet demand.
Almost every point you bring up above is supply and demand related. If demand is high…and supply low (no matter what the reason) the price goes up. That’s why the futures market guys cant just jump out there and say…”sand is now worth $100 an ounce”. Hell, I’d go fill up a bucket and go buy that F-150 I’ve been eyeing.
You do make a good point on the refineries. Again…it is about supply and demand. Curtail the ability to refine the raw material to what the user needs…less supply and more demand. Higher prices.
I have not yet heard the “oil companies don’t want to build” conspiracy theory yet. I thought about it and that argument just doesn’t hold water. Why would an oil company want to keep refining capacity down? So they can jack up prices and have the consumer change their habits to fit their pocketbook? Yeah…I am selling $5.00 gas…but my output just significantly dropped. Consumers adjust habits to fit the pocketbook. The result is more product on the market…and a drop in prices. I guess it all boils down to Government control. Is it more profitable to build a refinery and deal with the governmental bureaucracy and environmental BS (there is no cost benefit to expanding that part of the industry) …or roll like we have been and hope for the best. Remember...government is not about turning a profit. As a matter of fact the dogma of the two groups (government and business) are diametrically opposed.
I agree that, although it goes against all logic, the profit margin for big oil is low. Say what? Even though they recorded the highest profits EVER, that was a snapshot in time. On day X…they made 15 gajillion dollars profit…fast forward two quarters…don’t they have to now go out on the market and buy crude that 6 months ago cost $50.00 and now costs $75.00...or $100.00? There goes them wild profits. Ask yourself, what costs more, refining our own product …or buying over-inflated crude from an international cabal?
Drill here…drill now…government needs to get the hell out of the way of capitalism. Let the free market rule! I am all in agreement with TRs post.
The Reaper
03-13-2010, 09:01
Does the ANWAR reserve, and the reserves off-shore, have enough oil to really make a difference though?
Does the nation have enough oil to become a net oil exporter again?
Is there enough uranium to supply this many powerplants? (from what I've read, the global uranium supply has limits too)
It is a demand issue, as well as supply.
If we continue with a ban on drilling, we are not going to have any production, or even exploration in those areas.
As far as uranium goes, my understanding is that there is more than a 100 year supply available at current consumption rates, and more than twice that much which should be economically recoverable. Since a large part of the fissionable material remains after being removed as fuel rods, reprocessing and recovery should provide many centuries of fuel beyond that. The largest known reserves are in Australia and Canada.
This is a stopgap measure as well, since our ultimate goal is a sustainable long-term power source. Unfortunately, if we do not adopt a plan which will sustain us long enough to discover new energy sources, we are going to find that our society is going to implode as current conventional sources become depleted and uneconomical to produce. I am not an expert, but it seems to me that currently increasing global energy needs and declining available resources are rapidly on their way to a crossing point in the not too distant future. Not looking for a long-term sustainable solution, and supporting short- and mid-term plans to provide for our needs till then would seem to me to be imprudent.
I am not sure that any of our elected leadership have the stones to buck the interests and groups that would be opposed to such plans. We truly have our heads in the sand.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
Joe_Snuffy
03-13-2010, 09:39
I said previously that I wished President Bush had done the following. There is no reason that our current leadership could not do the same, if they had the intestinal fortitude.
1. For the short term, we are going to drill offshore, in the Bakken Formation, in ANWAR Alaska, if it is proven to have, or likely have oil, we are going to drill there, as soon as we can get the rigs on site. We are going to mine coal as well, and drill the hell out of natural gas. That should put quite a few people to work, drop gas prices as soon as we announce it, and put the current oil exporters on notice that we are moving along, soon to be without them and their oil. You tree huggers can kiss my ass. This is about our future survival as a nation. You will be fine with the results when we are done. We are going to be oil exporters, if we want, by the end of this phase.
2. For the mid-term, we are going to start fast-track construction on nuclear power plants. I would like to see at least 100 in the next ten years. Might start installing some of those small scale community-type micro plants as well, if they can be made practical. Sorry NIMBYs, Yucca Mountain is open for business and will start receiving waste tomorrow. You protesters can cry all you want. We are going to stop burning coal and oil in power generation by the end of this phase. While we are at it, we are going to see if electrical cars can be made practical. I want something that can run 100 mph, go 250 miles on a charge, cost less than $20,000, and recharge in an hour or two from a home 220 outlet or charge station. The first one to meet the contest requirements gets to sell a million of them here in the first couple of years.
3. For the long-term, we are going to find an clean and efficient alternative to the internal combustion engine, as we know it. Nuclear, fuel cell, magnetic, solar, cold fusion, I don't care what. The government will award a prize of $100,000,000,000 to the first working design that meets our goals and makes it into production for consumers. Be nice if it could generate power for homes as well. You America haters can move out and draw fire. We are going to break this cycle and show the world how it is done again. All of you people sitting on oil will be seeing us pack up our military forces, expensive contracts, and foreign aid and leave you to your own devices. You might want to start working now on a plan to make sand edible. Just a thought.
Y'all have a nice day now.
TR
My thoughts exactly. :D
I like the way you think TR. Too bad you've got too much self respect and integrity to run for office. ;)
See, that's just cynical.
The current president does care about what the people want. How do I know? Because he says so. Over and over and over again. When a politician from Chicago says something over and over and over again, it has to be true.
Here's why his moratorium makes perfect sense. The ban will allow his administration to continue super [duper] secret negotiations with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for a massive consignment of grade A sand.
Using hot air from his vice president and the speaker of the house of representatives, the sand will be turned into glass and the glass used to make a network of super [duper] giant mirrors.
In the greatest act of civil engineering since Katie Couric's last face lift, these mirrors will be positioned throughout the United States so that no American can turn his or her head more than fifteen degrees without seeing the reflected glory of the president.
The warmth of the glory will reduce energy costs and restore the vitality of the economy. The brightness of the glory will illuminate the wisdom of the president's policies for all of us too stupid to see how great they were in the first place.
Now this is the way to gripe, my only question is doesn't the sun only shine for president Alcibiades...I mean Obama?
Entire Post
I especially like paragraph 3, but then I'm the only Republican in San Francisco...
robert2854
03-13-2010, 11:08
I can't understand these this political majotity, the people are not a concern of theirs, just more government and more dependence on the government and other nations. Maybe this is why we are fast becoming a service only company ie-don't manufacture anything and can't devolpe anything because it might affect the snail darter or some other fish, animal or insect..
God Bless America
GratefulCitizen
03-13-2010, 22:08
I think a good way to greatly lengthen out the supply of petroleum is to stop using it (and other fossil fuels) for energy and seek alternative sources, or figure out a way to greatly reduce its use (like an IC engine that gets the same power for 50% of the fuel use). That way it could be used solely for chemicals and materials mostly.
Disagree.
That is not how mineral economics works.
The current problem with petroleum is not the amount in the ground, it is the infrastructure required to extract it, transport it to market, and sell it...for a profit.
This infrastructure is a considerable long-term investment.
Threaten the long-term profits, and no investment will be made.
This is why Russia, Mexico, and Venezuela are facing declining production.
Nobody will make long-term investment, because long-term profits are unlikely.
Venezuela's production has declined during Chavez's tenure:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/img/charts/VE_petro_large.png
Mexico's started declining around the time US oil consumption peaked and Canada's production was increasing.
Mexico: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/img/charts/MX_petro_large.png
Canada: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/img/charts/CA_petro_large.png
After a rapid increase, Russia's has peaked. Putin's been shaking that money tree too much.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/img/charts/RS_petro_large.png
The biggest long-term threat right now is a plummet in prices.
This is where China's bubble could cause a problem.
Money would flow out of commodities.
Investments wouldn't be made.
The cover of the Economist in March, 1998:
http://z.about.com/d/middleeast/1/0/e/0/-/-/0610-oil.jpg
Oil was down to $10-11 per barrel in 1998.
What happened over the next decade?
GratefulCitizen
03-13-2010, 22:52
Thankyou for the info GratefulCitizen, but wouldn't the total amount of oil in the ground also still be a problem at some point, as there is a finite amount? :confused:
Again, this is not how mineral economics works.
Also, the "amount" in the ground is not something well-understood by those without the appropriate background in mathematics.
The SEC has started to fix the reserves estimates problem:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/secregulations.html
Concerning mineral economics:
A mineral resource (oil, coal, gold, bauxite, etc.) starts out as an "ore".
"Ore" is material containing minerals which can be extracted, transported to market, and sold for a profit.
Suppose you knew about a pile of 22 carat gold nuggets somewhere in the jungle in the middle of Africa.
If retrieving these nuggets required so much investment (security, transportation, etc.) that the nuggets couldn't be sold profitably, then you don't have ore.
You have a pile of shiny rocks.
Suppose you find a pile of gold-containing dirt on a mountain side, next to established transportation networks, in a country which is open to development.
Even if the percentage of gold/dirt ratio is miniscule,
if it can be extracted, transported, and sold for a profit, then it is ore.
Same logic applies to petroleum.
It doesn't matter from where/what it comes.
It only matters whether or not it can be extracted, transported, and sold for a profit.
Higher prices = more oil.
Lower prices = less oil.
Eventually, something else will be cheaper to use than oil.
(Whether this happens as a result of "expensive" oil or a "cheap" alternative is open to debate.)
When this happens, investment will decline and extraction rates will keep decreasing.
There will still be plenty of oil in the ground and nobody will want it.
"The Stone Age did not end for the lack of stone, and the oil industry will end long before the world runs out of oil."
-Ahmed Zaki Yamani, Saudi Oil Minister 1962-1986
Question: Will the oil recovered from US offshore benefit the American people by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, or (since much of the offshore capacity is foreign owned) will the profits go to the states to relieve state budgets and the oil be exported via/to foreign consortiums (and then imported by the US later on)? :munchin
It's not unusual for oil drilled in the Gulf of Mexico to be piped ashore to facilities owned/leased by foreign consortiums (like Dutch-Shell) and then resold back to US consumers without ever leaving US control.
Another thing; most of the offshore drilling states are under Republican governors, and our dear leader (IMO) hasn't missed that point. His majesty's objections to drilling could be more for political leverage than out of some lofty environmental concern.
I understand your point, but I would think the very expensive areas of petroleum will become profitable as the other areas begin drying up and the price rises high enough that it is profitable to drill for oil in areas where it never before was.
But even if/when that happens, eventually even the newly profitable areas will dry up, won't they?
Very much hope you are correct; a fear of mine is what will happen to industrial society as oil runs low (if it does).
Broadsword2004 your correct in your assertion that the market will solve this. Oil companies have the smartest people that money can buy working for them. In fact I tend to lean towards that "big oil" is doing exactly what it wants, when it wants. The reason "big oil" is not "drilling here, drilling now" is because it is not in the business plan.
When I asked a friend in the oil industry about his thoughts on the zombie apocalypse peak oil, he told me if I wanted to worry about something the sun is going to run out of hydrogen at some point.
Very much hope you are correct; a fear of mine is what will happen to industrial society as oil runs low (if it does).
Necessity is the mother of invention. I believe our government has taken stock in regulating business to the point there can be no initiative or incentive to create things.
As we let progressives take more and more control of government (and then our freedoms) they remove incentive by ratcheting down on achievers. I mean, for the first time in my life I have enough capital to open a small business. What do I look forward to if I wanted to open a store? Regulation that would totally choke off the possible rewards of risking my capital. Heavily regulated healthcare, Insurance, employee rights (not that I would be an evil guy…but damn), licensing, loans, etc…. I could go on and on.
I relate that to the oil issue. Our government is the only reason private business has not expanded refining capacity or began extracting oil from untapped sources. Do we believe in capitalism and free markets (with a dash of personal responsibility)? This straddling the fence is going to hurt us.
Very much hope you are correct; a fear of mine is what will happen to industrial society as oil runs low (if it does).
Lots of very smart people with strong backgrounds agree with your concern.
On the other hand, there is the dream that the oil fairy will wave her magic wand and give us a new energy source. Thus, minimal efforts are devoted to mitigation. I guess we'll see how that turns out.
Lots of very smart people with strong backgrounds agree with your concern.
On the other hand, there is the dream that the oil fairy will wave her magic wand and give us a new energy source. Thus, minimal efforts are devoted to mitigation. I guess we'll see how that turns out.
Concur...Bottom line, however is, you need to be able to turn a profit. Over-regulating the industry prevents that. Government and business are polar opposites. One doesn't care about profits...the other is there specifically for that reason.
Well - around here we've got natural gas wells drilled all around one of America's largest and busiest airports - :eek: - what a temptation that must make for some ffolkes out there.
And so it goes...
Richard
The Reaper nailed it.
That SHOULD be the plan.
Approximately 20 years from beginning of Phase 1 to the start of Phase 3 by my conservative estimation.
I have no doubt that if the same, or very similar, plan was presented it would have support from every side of the spectrum.
With the exception of the very far left enviro-communists.
To bad the plan won't be implemented with this Administration.
They are too far down the "Green" road.
Instead of looking at green technology as only a part of the larger picture, they tried to use it to skip all the way to the end of Phase 3.
Having a plan set in stone would also allow the workers in the coal industry ample time to make a transition to other jobs after the industry is phased out.
As opposed to saying you'll bankrupt them on the campaign.
GratefulCitizen
03-14-2010, 15:20
I remain unconvinced that oil production has become prohibitively expensive, or that will become so in the near future.
If it were that expensive to produce, energy companies would be facing problems with profits.
Profit is not one of their problems:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec3_22.pdf
Energy prices (and other commodity prices) right now are a consequence of cheap money supplied by our central bank and others.
There is no easy way out.
Oil prices went too high in the late '70s.
The market reacted; excess capacity had to be squeezed out.
It took until until 1995 for crude oil production to reach 1979 levels.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/stb1101.xls
The '80s didn't seem to suffer much from the the peak oil which occured in 1979.
I'm always skeptical at the idea: "but this time, it is different".
Maybe there's something I'm missing.
MOO:
We are addicted to what is currently the cheapest source of energy.
When something else becomes cheaper, we will become addicted to that.
Broadsword, you might wish to examine the magnitude of the problem.
I have attached an illustration from IEEE.
We use about 1 cubic mile of oil every year.
So I was doing some research on the Internet, and I was reading that things like paints, dies, adhesives, etc...that all are today made using petroleum, actually used to be made using vegetable and other plant oils. They switched to using petroleum after WWII. Apparently Henry Ford even made everything from clothes to automobile bumpers from vegetable oils.
I read that basically plants have much of the same hydrocarbons as oil has, the problem I guess is being able to grow the plants in massive enough quantities. … However apparently there are plants with shorter hydrocarbon chains such as coconut oil for example, and these oils it is believed can be modified to produce a fuel about as good as gasoline….Some also speculate that through genetic engineering, we could modify such plants ... bio diesel is about 15 hydrocarbons long, which is why you can create biodiesel…. they are finding ways to make plastics with plant oils as well…. if we can significantly reduce our usage of oil for energy and significantly reduce the amount of petroleum we use for fuels, and reduce it for usage in chemicals, we can significantly cut down on petroleum usage overall….create gasoline that is 50% coconut oil and 50% petroleum, make lots more chemicals with plant oils, or use 50% plant oils, 50% petroleum for plastics, detergents, paints, etc...improvements in the IC engine, so maybe an IC engine that gets much more power with much less fuel, and then 50% of the fuel it uses can be plant-based…if we can make any big advancements in solar power, battery power, and add more nuclear plants, this will help as well.…imagine a hybrid vehicle with much better battery…
might all sound science-fiction-y, but if/when petroleum starts to run low we will need to be able to do this stuff. :munchin
OK...Brother, I truncated your post to get it to a manageable length for me to raise my point. I am not busting your chops...but all of the things you stated are alternative energy sources that businesses will pursue when the time is right for them. Right now oil (petroleum) is the most efficient means of producing energy, plastics, etc... Check out NMAPs chart. 1 cubic mile of oil = (fill in the blank with your favorite alternative energy source) and you have to build X plants, dams, turbines etc...every year for 50 years to meet one cubic mile of oil. Government and environmental folks are asking for businesses to do something that runs contrary to Free-market capitalism…do something based on socialist/green ideology, and not on efficiency and profit.
Necessity is the mother of invention. I learned that from schoolhouse rock...so it has to be right :D. When an actual (not government or special interest generated) need for alternative energy solutions comes to pass ... entrepreneurship will meet our needs.
I honestly believe in captialism and have deep faith in it. There is no socialist utopia anywhere in the world. Everywhere it is tried...it comes up far short of what we have. (I only bring up the socialism aspect because when you have government control over the direction of buisiness...thats what you have.)
IIRC about a year or so ago, Cuba was giving leases to China to drill the Gulf. Today, I see commentary that they are giving Russia leases to drill the Gulf
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/18/obama-surrenders-gulf-oil-to-moscow/
With what we used to call "slant drilling" or the modern version "horizontal drilling" it won't be long and they''' be brining in oil and gas from our territorial waters.
When will we ever learn.
v/r
phil
incarcerated
03-31-2010, 01:56
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html
Obama to Open Offshore Areas to Oil Drilling for First Time
By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: March 30, 2010
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is proposing to open vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time, officials said Tuesday.
The proposal — a compromise that will please oil companies and domestic drilling advocates but anger some residents of affected states and many environmental organizations — would end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean.
Under the plan, the coastline from New Jersey northward would remain closed to all oil and gas activity. So would the Pacific Coast, from Mexico to the Canadian border.
The environmentally sensitive Bristol Bay in southwestern Alaska would be protected and no drilling would be allowed under the plan, officials said. But large tracts in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea in the Arctic Ocean north of Alaska — nearly 130 million acres — would be eligible for exploration and drilling after extensive studies.
The proposal is to be announced by President Obama and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland on Wednesday, but administration officials agreed to preview the details on the condition that they not be identified.
The proposal is intended to reduce dependence on oil imports, generate revenue from the sale of offshore leases and help win political support for comprehensive energy and climate legislation.
But while Mr. Obama has staked out middle ground on other environmental matters — supporting nuclear power, for example — the sheer breadth of the offshore drilling decision will take some of his supporters aback....
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html
Obama to Open Offshore Areas to Oil Drilling for First Time
By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: March 30, 2010
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is proposing to open vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time, officials said Tuesday.
The proposal — a compromise that will please oil companies and domestic drilling advocates but anger some residents of affected states and many environmental organizations — would end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean.
Under the plan, the coastline from New Jersey northward would remain closed to all oil and gas activity. So would the Pacific Coast, from Mexico to the Canadian border.
The environmentally sensitive Bristol Bay in southwestern Alaska would be protected and no drilling would be allowed under the plan, officials said. But large tracts in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea in the Arctic Ocean north of Alaska — nearly 130 million acres — would be eligible for exploration and drilling after extensive studies.
The proposal is to be announced by President Obama and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland on Wednesday, but administration officials agreed to preview the details on the condition that they not be identified.
The proposal is intended to reduce dependence on oil imports, generate revenue from the sale of offshore leases and help win political support for comprehensive energy and climate legislation.
But while Mr. Obama has staked out middle ground on other environmental matters — supporting nuclear power, for example — the sheer breadth of the offshore drilling decision will take some of his supporters aback....
So...is he throwing a bone after the healthcare travesty?
Peregrino
03-31-2010, 06:39
So...is he throwing a bone after the healthcare travesty?
No - he's punishing Virginia for the recent Republican win.
GratefulCitizen
03-31-2010, 10:21
More smoke and mirrors.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/obamas_offshore_oil_feint.html
Source is here (http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USTRE62U41Y20100331).(Reuters) - President Barack Obama's plans for an expansion of U.S. offshore oil and gas drilling, announced on Wednesday, drew a mixed reaction.
Following is a sampling of comments from U.S. politicians, interest groups and companies on the proposal.
* Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell:"Today's announcement is a step in the right direction, but a small one that leaves enormous amounts of American energy off limits. And the proof of the administration's announcement will be in the implementation: Will the administration actually take concrete steps to finish the studies, approve the necessary permits, and open these areas for production? Will they stand by as their allies act to delay the implementation in the courts?"
* John Felmy, chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute:"Every additional amount of oil is important because it results in improved economy, revenue ... and it's oil that we don't have to import. We really don't know what's there until we get out there and do modern seismic techniques and really scope out an area that hasn't been looked at for 30 years or more. So, it's a good start."
* House of Representatives Republican Leader John Boehner:"The Obama administration continues to defy the will of the American people who strongly supported the bipartisan decision of Congress in 2008 to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling not just off the East Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico, but off the Pacific Coast and Alaskan shores as well. Opening up areas off the Virginia coast to offshore production is a positive step, but keeping the Pacific Coast and Alaska, as well as the most promising resources off the Gulf of Mexico, under lock and key makes no sense at a time when gasoline prices are rising and Americans are asking 'Where are the jobs?'"
* Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club:"We're very disappointed to see important areas like the Arctic coast and the Mid and South Atlantic stay open to oil drilling. ... Drilling our coasts will doing nothing to lower gas prices or create energy independence. It will only jeopardize beaches, marine life and coastal tourist economies, all so the oil industry can make a short-term profit."
* Democratic Senator Jeff Bingaman, chairman of Senate Energy Committee:"I commend (U.S. Interior) Secretary (Ken) Salazar for proposing a plan that makes available for leasing much of the potential offshore oil and gas resources that the federal government owns. I also commend him for indicating that additional studies will be undertaken before making a final decision on leasing in areas that might be environmentally sensitive."
* Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg:
"Giving Big Oil more access to our nation's waters is really a 'Kill, Baby, Kill' policy: it threatens to kill jobs, kill marine life and kill coastal economies that generate billions of dollars. Offshore drilling isn't the solution to our energy problems, and I will fight this policy and continue to push for 21st century clean energy solutions."
* Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who is working to craft a compromise climate change bill:
"I thought the president's speech correctly emphasized the national security aspects of this problem. He did a very good job of explaining the challenges we face and how our own national security is placed at increased risk by our reliance on foreign oil. ... As to the Obama administration's proposal for environmentally sound offshore exploration for American oil and natural gas, this is a good first step. But there is more that must be done to make this proposal meaningful and the game-changer we all want it to become."
(Compiled by Will Dunham in Washington, Editing by Sandra Maler)If only America could develop the technology to harness the hot air emanating from certain politicians in Washington, D.C.
6.8SPC_DUMP
04-01-2010, 09:16
Almost every point you bring up above is supply and demand related. If demand is high…and supply low (no matter what the reason) the price goes up. That’s why the futures market guys cant just jump out there and say…”sand is now worth $100 an ounce”.
Futures trading constitutes a great deal of the price paid at the pump and bypasses the supply and demand issue by not participating in either. The Commodity Future Modernization Act of 2000 achieved this by taking away safe guards on price manipulation put in place after the Great Depression.
As a result oil futures contracts are mostly traded in "over-the-counter" markets that are unregulated by the agency tasked with regulating most of them: the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The CFTC has no problem with this.
It doesn't help that our delivery based contracts have been rife with fraud and are "regulated" in London, by the Intercontinental Commodities Exchange (ICE), outside U.S. legal jurisdiction.
This is a great short paper on the issue IMHO. There are telling graphs on the effect of the CFMA 2000 on oil prices on pages 5/18 and 11/18. Link (http://www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/EF-pub-MedlockJaffeOilFuturesMarket-082609.pdf)
So...is he throwing a bone after the healthcare travesty?
"Realistically, the cap-and-trade bills in the House and the Senate are going nowhere," said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who is trying to fashion a bipartisan package of climate and energy measures.
Graham, who said cap-and-trade is "dead," is working with Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) on an energy/climate bill that ostensibly offers a little something for everyone.
For its part, the White House seems to approve of the Kerry/Graham/Lieberman approach, and is willing to support drilling and expanded nuclear plants in exchange for "some form of cap on emissions." (1/22/10)Link (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_01/022115.php)
I wish I shared TR's optimism on any of the two political parties divorcing themselves from the special interests that keep us dependant.
Republicans are mad about the healthcare "reform", but our so-called "conservative" primary candidate (Romney), got socialized medicine started in his state (Mass.) and stands by it..?
Doesn't feel right to me.
Green Light
04-01-2010, 09:20
If California would just think for a bit, it could pay off its HUGE debt, get rid of its income and sales taxes, and have all the government bells and whistles it wants. All they need is to allow oil and gas exploration off their coast. The royalties would be immense.
They're spending themselves to death and have no way to pay for it.
If California would just think for a bit, it could pay off its HUGE debt, get rid of its income and sales taxes, and have all the government bells and whistles it wants. All they need is to allow oil and gas exploration off their coast. The royalties would be immense.
They're spending themselves to death and have no way to pay for it.Haven't you heard? We Californians are going to legalize pot.:rolleyes: The sale of weed is going to generate so much revenue that we'll be able to pave the streets with nacho cheese Doritos. And Twinkies.
Haven't you heard? We Californians are going to legalize pot. The sale of weed is going to generate so much revenue that we'll be able to pave the streets with nacho cheese Doritos. And Twinkies.
I think the twinkies will only be used in the bay area. :D
The WSJ had a great editorial related to this drilling issue which is summarized by the following quote:
Add all of this up and yesterday's proposal had the net effect of putting some 13 billion barrels of oil and 41 trillion cubic feet of gas under lock and key, in return for blessing a few leases already underway.
The Reaper
04-01-2010, 13:36
Add all of this up and yesterday's proposal had the net effect of putting some 13 billion barrels of oil and 41 trillion cubic feet of gas under lock and key, in return for blessing a few leases already underway.
That was my observation.
It took more off the table than it put on it, and did it primarily in non-Obama states.
TR
GratefulCitizen
04-07-2010, 20:47
This one's for nmap and others who like the charts.
http://www.insidefutures.com/article/144848/Chart%20Presentation:%20The%202010%20Crash%20Scena rio.html