Why so soft on offshore drilling?

Email Print posted by canyonrat 08/01/2008 03:46:06 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
Why is the progressive anti-offshore drilling campaign so weak?

I was there during the Santa Barbara oil spill and I still have memories that can trigger my gag reflex if I dwell on them. So my test for an effective ad that conveys the reality of the issue is simple. A good ad should make you want to throw up. So far, nothing comes close.
The Santa Barbara spill did unite people from all walks of life. I think it is the only thing before or since that has brought together students and cops, socialites and truckers. The people of the central coast of California still reject offshore drilling at the visceral level.
But the ads we have seen so far merely point out that drilling won’t reduce gas prices as soon or as much as McCain seems to think or that most of the benefits will accrue to big oil. This ‘offshore drilling isn’t as good an idea as the oil companies say’ campaign isn’t working and can’t work. Why are we afraid to use images of dead and rotting marine animals and crying children? That is the reality of offshore oil production.
I’m posting this here and everywhere progressive I can find in hopes that our leaders will take the gloves off.

< The new "surge" that we are not prepared for | New McCain Attack Newsletter Video/Ad "The One" >
 Display:
Why so soft on offshore drilling? | 61 comments (61 topical, 0 hidden)
why so naive on progress (none / 1)

the very first surgical procedures ever performed were brutal, filthy, and had incredibly high rates of mortality. by your logic, we would have banned surgergy because all past attempts at it were quite unsuccessful.

i could go on with more examples, but the standard schema for your type of "argument" is:

doing X in the future is bad because X was tried in the (near/distant) past and had negative results. so we should never ever in future try X because it will end up with the same negative results it had in the past.

life, esp. modern life, is all about making trade-offs w.r.t. risk and reward. every aspect of our lives is fraught with risk---you can get hit by a car the next time you step out on the streets.

 

it is important to make intelligent choices and tradeoffs so that we balance the positives and negatives.

the sensible response to offshore drilling, esp. from anyone that claims to be from the reality based community (as opposed to those who want people to make decisions based on "visceral" or "emotional" considerations) would be:

  1. look for examples of such drilling in other parts of the world (norway is a great example---the country is heavily dependent on oil drilling and extraction for its economic prosperity, and its oil rigs are all built on some of the most inhospitable seas on the planet)
  2. check to see what other people have done to minimize the risk of oil spills---advances in technology, implementing safe-guards, having a response program of quick cleanup if at all a spill occurs, etc.
  3. check to see what regulations/fines/incentive s need to be put in place to make sure that private and governmental agencies in the u.s. would conform to these oil-spill avoidance or reduction measures.
  4. try to ensure that the laws allowing offshore drilling are written to always include these safeguards in place.
  5. prepare for accidents and failures, hopefully occurring at very low-probability, assuming that the previos steps were undertaken with care and rationality.
  6. set up research and funding (and demand that private industry do the same) to always improve the safety of the drilling technology.

otherwise, all your touchy-feely-weepy pleas about the oil-soiled gulls and petrotuna are a load of crock. you should just give up all technology and move into the woods like ted kaczinsky.

 

finally, you could claim that none of these safeguards or regulations can be enforced in the u.s. because the government is firmly in the pockets of the oil companies. if that is the case, then your concern about santa barbara seagulls is entirely out-of-place---your society and government are so deeply fucked up that you need to start your cleanup not in oil spills, but elsewhere.

by neo on 08/01/2008 04:34:02 PM EST

flying cars (none / 0)
There is scientific evidence to support the theory that all life on earth is connected. This is no longer merely a "touchy-feely" idea supported by weak minded liberals who only think with their emotions. As a side note there is also reason to believe that those in touch with empathy, the capacity to feel for others are healthier than your average bear. When you hear people denegrating feelings at the expense of logic, first think of the 1950's scifi movie and the standard prop, the high school professor who explains to Timmy and Jane why nuclear energy is the safe clean future for flying cars. All life is connected, but let's forget about the warm fuzzies and cybernetics and the Gaia theory.

Global warming is fact not theory. The deniers who laugh about seagulls and spotted owls want us to believe that save the whales and flower power are dead ideas expounded by hippies high on drugs in the 1960's. The reality is that Exxon Mobil took the 2 billion they were supposed to pay for the Exxon Valdez spill and invested it in themselves and it is worth 10 billion now, meanwhile the fine got cut to 1 billion then cut again to 500 million. They haven't paid a dime.

Oil companies are not your friend. They do not want to help you. They have their bottom line and their bottom line in mind only. As they have been saying over and over the price of oil is a globally traded commodity and the price is set by the New York Mercentile hedge fund exchange. They are investing their massive profits back into themselves. Buying back their own stock. They really do not want to drill more or explore more. If they are pushed to, sure, they will, but not without incentive (usually in the form of tax breaks).

You want to be friends with big oil? Go ahead, cozy up to them, ask for more drilling. You want to know how they treat their friends. Forget about how they treat their enemies, like the Alaskans owed money for the Valdez spill, Al Gore or the Iraqies. Look at GM and Ford, ready to go bankrupt building gas guzzling SUV's and trucks. You think Exxon gives a flying fuck about their worries now? Not as long as they're making record profits.

We have more than John Edwards two Americas. Right now those with money in gold and oil are doing well. Anyone who took their money out of the market before the dot com crash and got it into real estate and then got out of real estate into gold or oil is fine. Everyone else is fucked.

But we have two middle classes. Upper and lower. The upper middle class have thirty year mortgages and still have equity in their homes. Their is a fine line separating the corporate lackies with 20,000 down on the home and 40,000 in debt who have a company car and fly on frequent flier miles from the close to retirement vested homeowner. They are both upper middle class, but when the housing slump continues there will reach a critical point at which equity becomes negative, the debt has to be paid off with the so-called savings, airlines cut back on bonuses and corporations squeezed by ever slimmer margins cut out the bonuses. People have been riding this pull equity out of the home, buy an SUV, resell it, get a new one, flip the home wave. Sure it already crashed, old news. But now the SUV's can't be resold. So you can't buy the new one. So the housing crunch will put Ford and GM out of business. Do the oil companies give a fuck? Fuck no. If you get in bed with the devil you better prepared to get fucked in the ass.

What do you think has a more viable future, the internal combustion engine or lithium ion battery technology?

by tiggerporn on 08/02/2008 02:29:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Why so ignorant about geology? (none / 0)
None of the spills on the west coast have been storm related.They have all been due to drilling in a continental shelf that is fractured, faulted and unstable because the pacific plate is being forced under the continental plate. So get back to me when advances in technology allow us to prevent earthquakes and I'll reconsider my position.

by canyonrat on 08/04/2008 06:31:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Insane (none / 0)
Only a fool who's not paying attention would be pro off-shore drilling at this point.

Put all of the environmental concerns aside (after all, conservatives seem content to piss on the idea that clean air and water are relevant so why bother) and just focus on the economic reality:

Off-shore drilling won't have any impact for DECADES according to our own internal estimates (2030). Let's be generous and say 2020. The bottom line is that we want oil prices to go down.  But those same internal estimates show that that gas prices would *maybe* go down a few pennies.


Again let's be generous and say 10 cents.  Really, our big plan is to *maybe* lower gas prices in 2020 by 10 f*ng cents a gallon?  And that was my incredibly generous and unrealistic estimate based on what I've read on the subject.

Finally, Cenk has beautifully pointed out that we don't have nationalized oil, and therefore the oil off our shores is not "ours" in any real sense if Exxon Mobil (and whoever) are drilling for it. THEY own and THEY can do whatever they want with it.

One option they would have is to do nothing once they own the rights to keep supply low and prices high. 

In conclusion, off-shore drilling is a short-sighted political ploy and a scam. It's just as (ir)relevant as a gas tax holiday.



by ihavenobias on 08/01/2008 06:10:03 PM EST

Hmm (none / 0)
Ya know I find it funny that people would be so ignorant to think that gas from only drop a few cents by the year 2020+.
 
How much crude do you think would be drilled for on our coasts?  Quite a bit, you look at smaller countries and how much crude they find off their shores.  Now, all of this crude goes to the company that is drilling it of course, however, you have a huge influx of crude hitting the global market.  Thereby reducing the cost per barrel on the global market.
 
A few cents off of a gallon of gas?  Are you mental?
 
Its freaking common sense.  Just to let you know, I'm an independent and a progressive, so Mccain is a freaking moron.  But, Dems are just using the tactic to try to stop offshore oil drilling because they want the green vote.  Whos "internal estimates" are you talking about?  The dems of course, and they pulled that number right out of their ass.
 
Get a freaking clue and quit listening to propaganda, use common sense. 

by Moses on 08/02/2008 12:59:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The man with the manna (none / 0)

I don't believe you are the real Moses, sir. You sound like Mr. Furious.

My common sense tells me not to listen to people who sputter. If you have facts and figures to back up any of your claims, we're all ears. How much crude? "Quite a bit"; why not "gobs and oodles" or "enough to fill the Albert Hall"?

by ashbul on 08/02/2008 02:30:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Whose internal estimates? (none / 0)

Actually its the Bush White House's internal estimates.

But there is nothing quite like a poster assuminghe just knows the truth without bothering to do any research at all.

Excellent work!

Have you met bobo?  Y'all have a beautiful future together.

by ProfRich on 08/02/2008 07:59:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Welcome to TYT (none / 0)
I could say a lot of things but other commenters have already said some of them for me.

At any rate, I don't understand why TYT sometimes attracts so called "independents" who go on to bash "propaganda" when much of the information presented comes from TYT in the first place.  Can someone explain that?

By the way, here is the "propaganda", directly from the EIA. I think it's slightly more relevant than "clues" and your brand of "common sense".

by ihavenobias on 08/02/2008 11:18:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Conservatives and thinkin' (none / 0)

One thing I have learned about conservatives is they think knowing stuff and understanding it is really easy.

As in it takes no effort or research or peer review or anything.  They think they can just pretty much guess what is true and run with that and they are pretty confident they are right.

I think George Bush and John McCain are men who walk through life assuming their initial uneducated opinion is right about pretty much everything and make no effort to find out.

Then when they say or do something stupid and get laughed at they get angry at all those know-it-all intellectuals who think they are better than them.

They insulate themselves from this by surrounding themselves with people who either agree with them or will pretend to agree with them for a paycheck.

In fact, I think billions of people around the world approach life this way.  The vast majority are conservatively minded.

Me? I like research.  I like learning about stuff.  I don't consider myself knowledgeable on a subject without looking at everything I can find on the matter. 

Thomas Jefferson had this approach.  Bill Clinton did too.  Ronald Reagan did not.  It is what they are talking about when they attack Barak Obama for being an "elitist" and praise silver spoon inherited the presidency Bush for "going with his gut."

by ProfRich on 08/02/2008 12:19:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I would counter... (none / 0)
That if you depend on someone elses "research" or "statistics" or "polling numbers" then you are most of the time just spewing and repeating someone elses bias and propoganda... Take this oil drilling thing for example - Who pays these "scientists" who come up with these wildly fluxuating numbers? Oil Companies, Tree Hugger Lobbyist Groups, The Government? None of these "research" sources should be deemed reliable in my estimation... Rich, why are you so opposed to people thinking for themselves and using their own common sense and intuition? Do you loathe the common man (those you espouse to want to help) that you must criticize and deride them for making their own judgements? We're not all academics, but we as a soceity have done pretty well on our own - we don't need pointy dicked theoraticians always telling us that we don't know how to think or live our own lives! That is one of the main problems with Liberalism in this country - they assume to know us better than we know ourselves - and that is shining through with elitism and arrogance this election cycle! Again with the oil drilling bit - either Nationalize oil so we reap the benefits of our own resources or STFU and let them drill - we need ALL the oil we can get until you tree hugging hacks come up with something better for us to use (whatever happened to fission/fusion research for electric generation?) Thanks...

by bobo1 on 08/02/2008 12:36:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This from the guy who repeats ad nauseum (none / 0)

how Obama is doomed becuase America is full of  uninformed racists who don't care about the issues enough to educate themselves.

 Now the common man's gut's opinion is something we should treat as equal ground with the opinions of experts, because your ultra-bleak world view assumes every one of them is corrupt even though a majority of them say that offshore drilling will (at best) do very little.  Yeah I am sure the tree huggers can out bribe the oil companies.

 

Palin in 2012? Bitch, please! No, really, please run in 2012, bitch. ;)

by richardshort2001 on 08/02/2008 12:58:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thank you (none / 0)
for saying what needed to be said "Yeah I am sure the tree huggers can out bribe the oil companies".

That's the same line we also need to remind people of when they say global warming is well funded scam.

by ihavenobias on 08/02/2008 01:05:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I rest my case (none / 0)

Not sure I can add anything that would help my point more than bobo just did.

Let's all take a second to remember that the post above comes from a classroom teacher.

I have to wonder does he teach his kids to ignore science, logic, fact and evidence and trust their own instincts or his?

by ProfRich on 08/02/2008 01:10:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Our instincts (none / 0)
are to fuck, fight and stuff our faces full of fatty, sugary foods.

Oh, and to lay around and conserve energy.  Sometimes our instincts make sense but many other times it needs to be balanced out or overpowered by our prefrontal cortex.

by ihavenobias on 08/02/2008 01:15:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
oy (none / 0)

Bobo, you bring up a good point--that sources of "scientific" information should be scrutinized before being swallowed hook, line, and sinker, but then you go and discount all research just because some sources may be suspect. That is the crazy-man approach ;)

We desperately need to use scientific experts to weigh the potential benefits and drawbacks of actions we take in this world.  it is crucial that people learn to apply their critical thinking skills to examining sources of information.  It really isn't all that hard.  You need to follow the money, number one, and it isn't that hard these days to research groups on the internet to determine whether politics is playing into their data.  My company, for example, is a consulting firm that works with large utilities, but we don't sign contracts where data (i.e., data that doesn't back up a specific action) will be kept confidential by the company because it will compromise the science involved.

Joe Sixpack does not have the knowledge to weigh these decisions and all their potential environmental and economic implications on his own.  He does not have the objectivity to weigh the potential effects on society or the environment as a whole over the long term.  If we keep making decisions based on short-term political gain and corporate greed, we ensure our own sad fate.

by desertpear on 08/02/2008 02:38:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ament n/t (none / 0)
...

by ihavenobias on 08/02/2008 02:53:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Dear Pear (none / 0)

Great post.  100% correct.  I would throw in something about replicable results so it can't just be the work of one evil entity but you are missing the point.

Everyone else here (and most people in the world) get this.  Bobo has all this information.  He just chooses to reject it.  Explaining it to him again is a waste of time.

Exposing him to reality isn't going to wake him up, it is just going to send him farther back into his cave.

Personally, I think the best approach is to humor him to his face and analyze him behind his back.

That are only "talk" to him when he seems sober.

by ProfRich on 08/02/2008 05:08:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
time to weigh in on this bullshit thread (none / 0)
"Me? I like research.  I like learning about stuff.  I don't consider myself knowledgeable on a subject without looking at everything I can find on the matter."  

Liberals like ProfRich and desertpair and ihavenofuckingclue are complete imbeciles on the subject of energy. What I mean by that is that these three individuals are totally mentally retarded when it comes to issues such as producing oil or converting energy from one form to another. And yet they continue talking about energy, as if they have something worthwhile to say on the subject.

Who pioneered offshore drilling technology? George Herbert Walker Bush. Who ran the largest oil service business in the world? Dick Cheney. Who is the only person in this forum with any experience in the oil business? KenTX ( and juebawl)

Liberals are making ridiculous statements about it taking 20-30 years to bring in oil from a goddam production tract. Which one of you stupid assed sons of bitches has ever drilled a well? What the fuck do you people know about oil? NOTHING!

I drilled three wells on my land, and I was receiving royalty checks in less than a year. The AMERICAN OIL, produced on my land, was shipped to Texas refineries. The AMERICAN OIL, produced on my land, created many good paying jobs for roughnecks, routstabouts, drillers, truckers, refinery workers, and the like. The AMERICAN OIL produced on my land created significant tax revenue for the state of Texas and the U.S. Treasury. The AMERICAN OIL, produced on my land, helped reduce the dependency of this country on oil imported from the Middle East.  

Without the oil produced on my land, you worthless loudmouths can't drive your cars. There is no alternative to oil. You want to talk about 30 years or 40 years? You will still be driving gas guzzling cars 40 years from now.

I am very thankful that Democrats are so stupid that they choose to fight it out with Republicans on the subject of drilling for American Oil. If they were smart, they would simply concede this issue, and focus on winning the election.

Republicans will not compromise with Democrats on the subject of drilling. We are going to force Democrats to accept wide open drilling on every square inch of North America. Otherwise, they assume the role of obstructionists to soverignty and security.

by KenTX on 08/03/2008 03:34:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
See (none / 0)

This is why I love Ken's posts. It is all circular bull shit.

"I drilled three wells on my land, and I was receiving royalty checks in less than a year. The AMERICAN OIL, produced on my land, was shipped to Texas refineries. The AMERICAN OIL,AMERICAN OIL produced on my land created significant tax revenue for the state of Texas and the U.S. Treasury. The AMERICAN OIL, produced on my land, helped reduce the dependency of this country on oil imported from the Middle East.  produced on my land, created many good paying jobs for roughnecks, routstabouts, drillers, truckers, refinery workers, and the like. The AMERICAN OIL produced on my land created significant tax revenue for the state of Texas and the U.S. Treasury. The AMERICAN OIL, produced on my land, helped reduce the dependency of this country on oil imported from the Middle East. "

Ken also predicts that the price of oil will plummet soon. 

He has also predicting uber cheap gas prices in the near future.

So ask Ken 2 questions.

1. If he is so knowledgeable about the future of the oil markets then when is it no longer profitable for him to keep pumping and send all these "roughnecks, routstabouts, drillers, truckers, refinery workers, and the like" to the unemployment line? If you were alive in the late 80's and early 90's and read the papers, you are familiar with what happens to Texas oil men when the price of oil plummets.

 2. Why would I invest multi billions of dollars into off shore rigs if I knew the price of oil is going to drop any day because this is just a bubble?

For the oil companies, this is business and business is a balancing act. For the Republicans this is more bull shit and that is why I no longer vote for them.

Dolla, dolla bill y'all. 

by z1p101 on 08/03/2008 04:59:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
solutions versus inaction (none / 0)
“If he is so knowledgeable about the future of the oil markets then when is it no longer profitable for him to keep pumping and send all these "roughnecks, routstabouts, drillers, truckers, refinery workers, and the like" to the unemployment line? If you were alive in the late 80's and early 90's and read the papers, you are familiar with what happens to Texas oil men when the price of oil plummets. Why would I invest multi billions of dollars into off shore rigs if I knew the price of oil is going to drop any day because this is just a bubble?”

Simple-minded liberals like Zippy don’t realize that drilling rigs are portable. You set up a rig and punch a hole. You hit an oil pocket, and set up the recovery units. Then you move the rig to another target. It doesn’t take 20 years. It takes less than a year on land.

When oil is hovering around $130, you drill fast, pump fast, and sell the oil fast.

The oil bubble should last another 3-4 years, and then the supply curve will overtake the demand curve, and the market price will steadily decline.

In the meantime, we can create hundreds of thousands, if not millions of high paying jobs, at a time when the economy really needs the help.

Its only logical to inject $700 billion per year into the U.S. economy, rather than ship the money to Saudi Arabia.

The U.S. Treasury will benefit from the billions of dollars in taxes and the royalties.

Drilling is a solution to current problems: unemployment, budget deficit, trade deficit.

Zippy is a typical liberal. He doesn’t have any solutions to the problems. He just wants to sit on his ass and complain.

by KenTX on 08/03/2008 08:37:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Typical (none / 0)

Personal attacks instead of answers.

"Zippy is a typical liberal. He doesn’t have any solutions to the problems. He just wants to sit on his ass and complain."

I'm not complaining, I'm just pointing out the obvious.

"Simple-minded liberals like Zippy don’t realize that drilling rigs are portable. You set up a rig and punch a hole. You hit an oil pocket, and set up the recovery units. Then you move the rig to another target. It doesn’t take 20 years. It takes less than a year on land."

No, I'm very well aware of how off shore rigs can be moved around and the specialized barges used to do it. Believe it or not there is a whole show on the Discovery channel about it. However, you do need the rigs in the first place to move around so I guess you are saying that there are currently off shore rigs sitting around doing nothing or working lack luster wells. Or are they going to spend multiple billions on new ones knowing that "The oil bubble should last another 3-4 years"? That is the original point and I guess you missed it.

"In the meantime, we can create hundreds of thousands, if not millions of high paying jobs, at a time when the economy really needs the help."

Who is we? We have nothing to do with it. There are currently drilling opportunities available the the energy companies are not taking advantage of and I can't see why they will run out and start doing it just because they have a few more miles available. Like I said in the past, I'm sure they have some real sweet spots they have their eyes on but we both know this mass drilling that you keep talking about is not going to happen. It is simple business and bottom line stuff.

"Allow oil companies to drill anywhere they want, including offshore, Rockies, ANWR, DisneyWorld, even the lawn of the White House as long as they pay a royalty to the U. S. Treasury of 25% of the market price for every drop of oil produced."

We both know that is not going to happen cut the shit with that one. However, if environmentalists really wanted to stop US drilling, that would be the perfect way to do it.

I'm just being "intellectually honest" here and it has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal. I just don't enjoy the sensation of having smoke blown up my ass. 

by z1p101 on 08/03/2008 12:53:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
25% is lowballing (none / 0)
as far as I'm concerned.

by hazmat on 08/04/2008 12:38:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Canada does 40% (none / 0)

by ProfRich on 08/04/2008 12:42:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No word (none / 0)
 on my free market solution from ken. We could go higher if Yukos is willing to pay. Hey, 60% is a bargain, maybe we'll get some action from Hugo Chavez. I think we should revoke all current leases that haven't been drilled and start looking for clients willing to play ball.

by hazmat on 08/04/2008 01:10:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Doesn't matter (none / 0)

The oil companies are bitching and moaning about what they have to pay now. Do you really think they are going to drill anywhere with a 25% skim off the top?

Ken knows that and that was the BS I was calling out. 

by z1p101 on 08/04/2008 02:36:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
that's because (none / 0)
they don't have any competition. Currently this resource is managed for the benefit of the oil companies exclusively.

by hazmat on 08/04/2008 11:29:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes, they absolutely will (none / 0)

Or at least someone will.

Canada has no problem getting takers on its 40% rate.

And since these are MNCs who are mostly HQed for tax purposes outside the US and just sell to the highest bidder on the world market I see no reason why we should give an "American" company and competitive advantage.

by ProfRich on 08/04/2008 11:30:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Good lord Rich (none / 0)

Please don't tell me you just used the "it works in Canada so it will work here" line. I apologize but I am going to have to use the Bobo tone here.

What planet do you friggin liberals live on that you just don't realize that that the "it works in Canada" line gets 0 traction here and when are you going to get your heads out of your collective asses. There will be no 25% royalty payments but if there were this is how it plays out.

The sweetest contracts will be given to the companies with the most lobby muscle and those
companies who get the contracts of course will promise to work them in good faith. However, with a little market manipulation on their part the price of oil mysteriously drops $20 to $30 dollars a barrel. Not enough to keep the American people from being pissed off at the pump but just enough for those drilling companies to say "it is not in our financial interest to drill now because of the recent drop in oil prices and the 25% "Tax".

The Republicans suggest a lift on the %25 royalty for the "good of the people"  and start yelling once again about how the Democrats are blocking economic growth and energy independence by creating this hardship on the "evil energy" companies who just want to make a profit the "good ole American way" but The Democrats insisting on keeping this %25 "re distribution of wealth" is blocking progress and job creation for hard working American citizens.

The Democrats of course counter with the oil companies will still be making money and Canada does %40 and the caribou and..... And take a look at where their interests lie also.

In the end the %25 royalty disappears. Republicans get some political miles out of it to make up for their constant fuck ups elsewhere, oil companies still don't drill unless they have cited a mother load but by that time Americans attention will be on the next dog and pony show.

Does any of this sound familiar?Have you ever seen any of this before? And please don't give me this "we will implement a use it or loose it" line.

That is the way the world works Rich. 

by z1p101 on 08/05/2008 03:33:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Slow down, Zip (none / 0)

The only thing I said is that a 40% premium will not stop the oil companies (same ones drilling in Canada as down here) from drilling oil.

That is inarguable.

Whether or not the Dems are too chickenshit to stand up for it is a different issue entirely.

Thanks the baseless rant against something you assumed I was saying though!

by ProfRich on 08/05/2008 06:49:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
LOL (none / 0)

Sorry man. I was just using my particular sense of humor to try to drive a point home. I using Bobo's tone would have made that obvious but...

Anyway, anyone who has been paying attention to what has been going on over the last 20 years quickly realizes there will be no reasonable royalties  paid on US oil drilling so it is not even worth talking about.

by z1p101 on 08/05/2008 11:03:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
heard the latest Obama news? (none / 0)
Obama is now born-again pro-drilling. He wants to drill everywhere. One more zippy prediction bites the dust, along with "the surge will divide republicans", and "Bush will leave Iraq", and "Bush will be impeached", and on and on and on.

by KenTX on 08/05/2008 12:15:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
OK Ken (none / 0)

What are you talking about?

"Obama is now born-again pro-drilling. He wants to drill everywhere. One more zippy prediction bites the dust..."

When and where have I ever made any statements about Obama and his stance on oil drilling?

"..."Bush will be impeached", and on and on and on."

No, I have never said that. Actually you can find multiple posts by me stating that Bush will not be impeached and explaining why.

"...and "Bush will leave Iraq""

never said that either.

"...One more zippy prediction bites the dust, along with "the surge will divide republicans..."

I outlined an either/or scenario.  Republicans decided to back Bush and now they are loosing in Mississippi. Trust me, I'm thrilled about it. Don't make me pull quotes and outline how much damage backing Bush has done to the Republican party just like I talked about.

by z1p101 on 08/05/2008 10:42:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
zippy running his mouth again (none / 0)
Don't you love the way zippy talks with self confidence on subjects he knows absolutely nothing about? The only oil he has ever seen in his life was at a fukkin Jiffy Lube.

by KenTX on 08/05/2008 12:31:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
damn fool liberals (none / 0)
All the drilling law needs to say is that any oil company can drill on any public land in North America, as long as they pay the U.S. Treasury a 25% royalty on every barrel produced. Competing oil companies can erect rigs side by side, just like in 1901 Texas. Your inability to comprehend this simple concept is just one more of millions of reasons why liberals have no business running the country. You people are as dumb as a bag full of hammers.

by KenTX on 08/05/2008 07:24:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh (none / 0)

So I guess I should start searching eBay for some good used drilling equipment just in case that happens. Or maybe Mr Peabody is currently not using his way back machine.

What the frig is it with you and all these what if's and ridiculous hypotheticals? Do you really believe Exxon Mobil is ever going to allow you to park your rusty little rig right next to theirs?

Once again Ken, spare us with this bull shit. 

by z1p101 on 08/05/2008 11:15:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I fogot one thing (none / 0)
The oil companies now get to work that mother load without the %25 skim off the top.

by z1p101 on 08/05/2008 04:23:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
rightwing talk radio points (none / 0)
Ken: Trust me.

Trust me?!? So the very ones who got us into this mess, airlines ready to go out of business, GM and Ford stocks at all time low, US economy in recession, gas at $4 a gallon, the ones who got us here, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Ken Lay, Halliburton, Exxon, now we're supposed to trust them to get us out of it? Pass the crack pipe Kenny boy, gimmie a hit a that shit.

Ken, be honest about one thing, you want the democrats to roll over.

Ken's big rig drill get her done fix it plan:

1) Get Dems to roll over and tuck their tails and play nice and concede on, fill in the blank, the surge, torture, fisa, et cetera et cetera

2) Get Dems to roll over on off shore drilling

3) Get Dems to roll over on the election, and "concede" that John McCain and the republicans are the ones to get us out of the mess they got us into

I'm all with ya Kenny boy, if you and your kind are finally ready to start taking the blame for fucking things up so bad. This plan of yours sounds just GREAT! Hmm, too bad you didn't think of it before Halliburton invaded Iraq, think of all the lives we could have saved! Not to mention the billions! Think about it, Exxon can turn over all those Iraqi oil fields!

We're still going to be driving gas guzzling SUV's 40 years from now? Have you checked the stock price of GM and Ford lately? They aren't even going to be around in two years let alone 40.

Ken, where's your crystal ball? It is more cracked than your head or your pipe. You wanna look 40 years into the future and you can't even look two years into the future. I mean if you'd been right about anything in the past two years except for maybe college football, maybe I'd believe you. But you were dead wrong on the midterms, on the recession, on jobs, on the housing bubble, on the credit crisis. But that isn't surprising because you just reiterate anything you hear on rightwing talk radio, which just spouts the same shit all the time: shut up you liberal fool you don't know what you're talking about we've got these experts to put you straight. And here are statistics to back up my lies. 

Are we in a recession yet? "The U.S. economy is experiencing a minor downturn" as of the second quarter, according to you. But we started a recession last December. Which somehow the "fools" as you call them, Professor, Bfaul among others spotted at the time, how can this be?

Forty years into the future, please put away your crystal ball and predict one thing correct in the next month that doesn't have to do with sports or your own bank account.

by tiggerporn on 08/03/2008 11:04:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Once agai, Ken inadvertently backs me up (none / 0)

I have read thousands of posts about energy on here, but I have never pretended to know shit about energy.  I pointed out the 2030 estimate came from the White House but that was about knowing the news, not knowing energy.

I have expressed my opinion about some basic concepts but have never argued the details of energy with anyone in any of my hundreds of posts.

I know you assume I did because you don't bother to make sure you are right.  I try very hard to.

by ProfRich on 08/03/2008 02:08:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken loves oil, big surprise (none / 0)

No surprises here for me, but thanks for helping the new readers know where your posts are coming from.  The blog postings on Edwards' secret love-child, rap songs, and O'Reilly are also indicators of your expertise in ridiculous Republican talking points. 

I'd like to know where I said I was an oil expert.  Most definitely I am not and don't care to be, but I do have the ability to read and analyze information from disparate sources and form an intelligent opinion and I have my vote.  Your pro-drilling-everywhere, pipe-laying fantasies are very extreme both socially and scientifically, and are also driven solely by your personal financial motives, so you win no converts here.

by desertpear on 08/03/2008 06:56:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
my conversation with a parrot (none / 0)
"The blog postings on Edwards' secret love-child, rap songs, and O'Reilly are also indicators of your expertise in ridiculous Republican talking points." 
Ridiculous talking points? Like your allegation that Mitt Romney tortured his dog? What if Mitt Romney was alleged (months ago) to have fathered a child out of wedlock, and the child has no father listed on the birth certificate, and then Mitt was caught in the act of visiting the child at 3:00 AM in the Beverly Hilton? How would you react to that story?

"I'd like to know where I said I was an oil expert.  Most definitely I am not and don't care to be, but I do have the ability to read and analyze information from disparate sources and form an intelligent opinion."
Somebody needs to tell you, and I might as well be the one to do it. You are not intelligent.

The Edwards story is like Clinton and the blue dress. It will never go away. In order to destroy the allegations, all he needs to do is arrange for a DNA test. But he can't, because Rielle is his girlfriend and Frances is his daughter. End of story.

by KenTX on 08/03/2008 07:46:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
boo hoo (none / 0)
Ken says I am not intelligent ;(  I was trying to be funny about Romney torturing his dog, oilman.  Didn't the words "waterboarding" his dog clue you in on that?  Who is the smart one here?

by desertpear on 08/03/2008 08:50:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
oh you poor leebruls (none / 0)

Only a fool who's not paying attention would be pro off-shore drilling at this point.

that makes borat a fool. well-done.

what makes you leebruls so pathetic is that you are constantly being undermined by your so-called "leaders" and yet you continue to fellate them without question.

 

by neo on 08/03/2008 01:50:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Fellate them? (none / 0)
Hardly. You're thinking of the 20-30% of people who still think Bush is a good president.

Forced to vote for the lesser of two evils in many cases? Yes. But that's hardly "fellating".

Try Again.

by ihavenobias on 08/03/2008 01:56:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
20 foot aborted fetus? (none / 0)
Wait, let me get this straight, you basically want liberals to take the 20 foot aborted fetus poster tactic of the right wing crazies? 

Frankly blocking drilling is absolutely a losing issue for democrats.  I've weighed in on this issue many times but I'll do it one more time just for your benifit.  Yes, you are correct that it will do little for global prices, but its still an estimated $1-2 trillion worth of oil (at current prices) that we will not have to import over the course of many years.  What the democrats need to do is go ahead and bite the bullet and pass an energy bill that opens drilling and uses royalties to fund energy research as well as extending the renewable energy tax credit and possibly finding other ways to incentivise energy companies to use the profits from drilling for oil to invest in future technology and alternatives. 

by alphasigmookie on 08/03/2008 02:39:50 AM EST

Assuming (none / 0)
part of the deal IS that in fact the oil actually *stays within the US*.

Currently that is not part of the deal to my understanding. If the Dems insist on caving on this issue they better damn well make sure it IS part of the deal, along with environmental protections and some kick-ass royalties (not this 12-16% bullshit).

by ihavenobias on 08/03/2008 02:50:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Fungibility (none / 0)
Frankly it doesn't matter exactly where the oil goes.  The market mostly allocates it to minimize travel distances based on demand.  If for example there is oil in Alaska that exceeds the capacity of west coast refineries, then it may make more sense for it to be sent to Russia or Japan and have oil that might have been shipped to them from the middle east or africa shipped to the east coast. 

I do agree with increasing the royalties though.  I really think there needs to be more of a bidding system where the company willing to pay the highest royalty gets to drill the oil.  If the oil is deep or hard to get then low royalties may be fine, but if it is more easily acessible (more profitable) then someone will be willing to pay more for the right to drill it. 

by alphasigmookie on 08/03/2008 03:10:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm referring to (none / 0)
the whole idea of reducing our dependence on foreign oil when I talk about keeping it inside the U.S. or adding it into our reserves, etc.

by ihavenobias on 08/03/2008 11:14:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
reserves (none / 0)
if it is produced on US soil it is included in US reserves.  It doesn't matter who pumps it and where it is consumed as long as the global market remains open.  There is no reason for a bill to come out and state the obvious.  Also, the only thing that matters is NET imports.  In any given day we may actually export a few barrels of oil and import a few more, but it doesn't make any important difference.

by alphasigmookie on 08/03/2008 02:36:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
True (none / 0)

but that is not what the Republicans are selling.

Their story is that if we open up new areas for dilling then the oil companies will of course run out and start working on them like busy beavers. To top it off they are also pimping the idea that of course all that oil will wind up being available to the US consumer exclusively making us energy independent.

Anyone with half a brain knows that is all bull shit. 

by z1p101 on 08/03/2008 03:03:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Exactly (none / 0)
Most Americans believe that it's "our oil" and that every drop that's pulled out of the ground will stay in America and that it'll reduce our dependence upon foreign oil on a drop for drop basis.

by ihavenobias on 08/03/2008 04:15:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
a bit off the mark (none / 0)
Actually every drop that we produce here WILL reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  read my post again. 

The problem of course is that the amount of oil in the restricted areas is small relative to demand so it will only SLIGHTY reduce our dependence on foreign oil and won't come anywhere close to ELIMINATING our dependence as some have tried to imply. 

by alphasigmookie on 08/04/2008 01:28:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Let me put my point in another way (none / 0)
Saying that off-shore drilling will reduce our dependence on foreign oil is like saying that the crumbs underneath our kitchen counters will reduce our dependence on imported food (we import a lot of food).

by ihavenobias on 08/04/2008 11:01:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
doesn't matter (none / 0)
From a political stanpoint it doesn't matter a single bit.  Republicans can correctly state the democrats are restricting supply.  Good luck convincing the majority of America that that is a good idea and explain how it doesn't contribute to higher prices. 

Of course the real answer is that the amount of oil is relatively small, but all that 90% of voters will see is..."prices are determined by supply and demand, Democrats are restricting supply, so they are responsible for high prices". 

This is a losing position for democrats PERIOD.  The best we can hope is what Obama has suggested is to use drilling as a bone to throw Republicans to get more comprehensive energy policy passed. 

by alphasigmookie on 08/04/2008 01:23:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Somebody gets it! (none / 0)
Read these words of wisdom one more time:

“From a political standpoint it doesn't matter a single bit.  Republicans can correctly state the democrats are restricting supply.  Good luck convincing the majority of America that that is a good idea and explain how it doesn't contribute to higher prices.  This is a losing position for democrats PERIOD.”

As usual, Democrats are too stupid to know when they’ve been beat. All you have to do to take this issue off the table is to concede, and let the oil men drill anywhere they want to drill. That would destroy the GOP’s most important issue this fall.

And why not? Democrats have caved on every single issue for the last eight years. Why make a stand now? 

Back in 1996, when Clinton was running for reelection, Dick “Toe Sucker” Morris talked him into signing Newt Gingrich’s Welfare Reform Bill, so the Republicans would lose the issue in the campaign. Democrats went nuts, because they knew that millions and millions of future Democrats would never be born if welfare mothers no longer received a monthly bonus check for every whelp they produced.

The longer this drilling fight drags out, the closer it gets to the election, and the more damage is inflicted upon Democrats. If Democrats succeed at killing the bill, they lose. If Democrats concede to Republicans at the very last minute, Republicans win by looking like the people who care about gas prices. The Democrat loony base will be demoralized.

My recommendation is that Republicans assist Democrats in slowing down the progress of the drilling bill, so they can achieve maximum impact, no matter how it goes down. We should talk about drilling every day from now until election day.

by KenTX on 08/04/2008 01:47:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Or maybe (none / 0)

you should pay attention.

"The longer this drilling fight drags out, the closer it gets to the election, and the more damage is inflicted upon Democrats. If Democrats succeed at killing the bill, they lose. If Democrats concede to Republicans at the very last minute, Republicans win by looking like the people who care about gas prices. The Democrat loony base will be demoralized."

I have heard that the congressional ban on offshore drilling dies next month.

Bush has already lifted his ban so they will not have to vote on anything come September 30. It just goes away. Why do you think Republicans are jumping up and down like shaved apes again in congress?

Pay attention oil man and you may learn something.

by z1p101 on 08/04/2008 02:13:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Of course (none / 0)

but I am just talking about how thoes of us who undestand these things get pissed off when we hear this kind of BS.

If we open these land for drilling, and I don't care if we do, it will be like turning a hose on the Mississippi when it comes to the global oil market. That would also depend on if the ones doing the drilling think it is worth their time and investment to do so.

Just tring to cut down the BS here. 

by z1p101 on 08/04/2008 02:56:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Open up Zippy. (none / 0)
It's time for you to eat another one of your predictions.

In this post, you claimed that Republicans would get no traction on drilling.

In the words of Johnny Ramone (2:20): "God Bless President George W. Bush!"

by KenTX on 08/04/2008 02:19:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That was then (none / 0)

This is now.

"In this post, you claimed that Republicans would get no traction on drilling."

No, in my post I claimed the Republicans were not getting any traction. How many predictions have you made based on current circumstances (cough 06 elections cough Mississippi first district cough)? Grow up.

Tell us again about the Republicans dragging out the drilling argument until election. 

by z1p101 on 08/04/2008 02:28:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh God (none / 0)

I think Ken was actually saving this one for the right moment!

What a pathetic putz. 

by z1p101 on 08/04/2008 02:44:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Latest polling (none / 0)

Who would do a better job on energy?

Obama 50%

McCain 39%

by ProfRich on 08/04/2008 11:48:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Let me help you get it straight. (none / 1)
Not only do Democrats want to block drilling forever, they want to take control of the country, and implement idiocracy from sea to shining sea.

1. They want to prevent Americans from producing oil.
2. They want to socialize medicine.
3. They want to force huge tax increases.
4. They want to bring all of the troops home from the Middle East, immediately.
5. They want to appoint judges who will outlaw the Second Amendment.
6. They want Europeans to "like us", and they're willing to do whatever it takes to make that happen.
7. They want to penalize evil corporations for creating employment and wealth in America.
8. They want to enact huge spending increases in "social entitlement services".

by KenTX on 08/03/2008 02:56:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Why so soft on offshore drilling? | 61 comments (61 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: