Obama on offshore drilling (poison pill?)

Email Print posted by jmoseley 08/02/2008 03:11:33 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
tragic cave-in or genius move?

FISA was a terrible, unnecessary flip-flop IMO. However, looking carefully at Obama's statement on offshore drilling (http://www.huffingtonpost. com/2008/08/01/obama-propos es-1000-emerg_n_116450.html ), I think in this case, not so much. A few things are clear - the Repugs want drilling as a issue to beat Democrats up with - they don't give a rat's ass about lowering gasoline prices. For their part the oil companies don't necessarily want to do much drilling offshore. What they want is the rights, and the control that the rights enable them to have in the oil market. For anyone  interested in this issue I recommend this teleseminar by Robert Kaufmann of Boston University (second item down on the page at http://www.facsnet.org/).

I believe that what Obama has done here is to call their bluff. You give us alternative energy, environmental safeguards, release 10% of the federal oil reserve into the market and most importantly accept a windfall profits tax, and then you can drill away hoss! But of course the oil companies and their congressional backers will never take that deal because of the tax on their profits. Then Obama gets to say that he tried to meet them halfway, but they didn't really want to help you, Mr. Joe Public, it was all about the money, Lebowski!
< Google Bruce E Ivins | Google Rielle Hunter >

Poll

Is Obama's position smart politics or just another Democratic cave-in?
Yes, he's a wuss and I'm SOOOOO disappointed! 36%
No, he's a genius and the Republicans are going to choke on this one! 63%

Votes: 11
Results | Other Polls
 Display:
Obama on offshore drilling (poison pill?) | 21 comments (21 topical, 0 hidden)
That reminds me (none / 0)
WHY are the Dems pushing to release oil from the oil reserves?

It's such a stupid, short-sighted political ploy. Ok, I just answered my own question, so I guess my real question is 'why aren't we complaining about it more'?

Shouldn't we save that reserve for an actual crisis, you know, something like this?

by ihavenobias on 08/02/2008 03:32:12 PM EST

why ask why (none / 0)
"WHY are the Dems pushing to release oil from the oil reserves?"

Why are Democrats promoting their dumbass energy policy at all?

Why are Democrats talking about "alternatives"?

Why do Democrats think there is an "alternative"&nbs p;that you can put in your gas tank?

Why would Democrats rather purchase $60 billion worth of oil EVERY MONTH



Why do 

by KenTX on 08/02/2008 07:12:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
continuing after the inadvertant key stroke (none / 0)
I have a dream. I dream of the day when we will be allowed to edit comments in the same manner that we edit blog headers. Is that asking too much?

Why would Democrats rather purchase $60 billion worth of oil EVERY MONTH from Saudi Arabia, rather than creating American jobs and billions of dollars for the U.S. Treasury by drilling for American Oil.

 

by KenTX on 08/02/2008 07:17:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
God forbid... (none / 0)
The Democrat party does something to the economy that actually benefits American workers and provide us with more energy resources... How silly of you to dream that dream Ken!!! Hey Ken - serious question here - What do you think of the idea (or compromise) of Nationalizing the oil they could get off our waters, instead of putting it onto the open oil market? I think I could go for that, how about you??? :)

by bobo1 on 08/02/2008 07:30:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
He'd never go for it (none / 0)
"Nationalize" ends with "alize".  And by the way, I doubt the Republicans would want to go for such a compromise either.

But if the Dems have any balls, they'll insist on bigger royalties, keeping the oil found in the US and hell, making sure they actually USE the land instead of just buying the rights and sitting on it.

And BTW, using our reserves is a really stupid idea. That should be an absolute last resort. We might be really hungry, but we're not starving yet.

by ihavenobias on 08/02/2008 07:46:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Agreed... (none / 0)
I wouldnt tap the reserves yet - this is not a shortage issue; its a Supply/Demand issue>

I think that the new oil found needs to stay here - if that means nationalizing it so be it _ Let the Chinese continue to do business with Iran and Russia - they'll still sell to us too!!!!

But as part of the compromise, the hoops that the oil companies have to jump to drill on the current land they have need to be lifted - Lets get the damn EPA off their back and lets get those rigs a-rollin!!!


:)

by bobo1 on 08/02/2008 08:09:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
simple solution (none / 0)
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.

This will balance the trade deficit, the budget deficit, and give us time to build nuclear power plants and coal liquefication plants to make octane to power our cars.

by KenTX on 08/02/2008 08:49:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
ick (none / 0)

You really like to keep the money in the hands of the current corporate polluting monsters ;)

You forgot one thing about your plan--the desire to reduce our impact on climate.  Americans actually do care a small amount about the environment Ken, even if you don't.  Your dream of trying to extract oil from everywhere is just that.

by desertpear on 08/02/2008 09:35:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
problem (none / 0)
The problem is we need oil.  Our society CANNOT function without it.  We can ween ourselves off of it but it will take MANY decades and frankly there isn't that much time with the amount of oil left.  We can reduce CO2 much easier by focusing on electricity production which can be done by nuclear, solar, wind, potentially tidal and geothermal as well as coal and natural gas retrofitted with carbon sequestration.  We can electrify some of our transport including some trains and passenger vehicles, but you'll still need a high energy density combustable fuel for long haul trucks and aircraft.  Also, to solve global warming we have a good 30-40 years to make major changes, but to avoid the worst consequences of peak oil we maybe have 10 years or so if we're lucky. 

by alphasigmookie on 08/03/2008 02:55:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
mookie (none / 1)
You're trying to educate a person who calls herself a scientist or engineer or whatever, and yet is completely clueless on the basics of thermodynamics.

She doesn't understand what makes her car go bye-bye. She doesn't understand that electricity from a nuclear power plant Arizona, originated from hydro power in Washington or Tennessee, and is a clean, carbonless form of energy.

And she's the "engineer" in the group. The rest of these magpies are liberal arts majors, and yet they want to weigh in on energy policy, as if they have something worthwhile to contribute.

They don't even understand the basic concepts of energy. They're typical Democrats. They don't understand the issues, but they want to control the country and write the laws.  

by KenTX on 08/03/2008 03:49:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Something to do with the Beatles I take it (none / 0)

FIRST AND SECOND LAW
(Flanders / Swann)
Flanders & Swann


The first law of thermodynamics
Heat is work and work is heat (x 2)
Very good

The second law of thermodynamics
Heat cannot of itself pass from one body
to a hotter body (x 2)
Heat won't pass from a cooler to a hotter (x 2)
You can try it if you like but you far
better notter (x 2)
'Cause the cold in the cooler will be
hotter as a ruler (x 2)
Because the hotter body's heat will
pass through the cooler

Heat is work and work is heat
And work is heat and heat is work
Heat will pass by conduction (x 2)
And heat will pass by convection (x 2)
And heat will pass by radiation (x 2)
And that's a physical law

Heat is work and work's a curse
And all the heat in the universe
It's gonna cool down as it can't increase
Then there'll be no more work
And they'll be perfect peace
Really?
Yeah, that's entropy, man!
And all because of the second law of
thermodynamics, which lays down

That you can't pass heat from the
cooler to the hotter
Try it if you like but you far
better notter
'Cause the cold in the cooler
will get hotter as a ruler
'Cause the hotter body's heat
will pass through the cooler

Oh, you can't pass heat from
the cooler to the hotter
You can try it if you like
but you far better notter
'Cause the cold in the
cooler will get hotter as a ruler
That's the physical law

Ooh, I'm hot!

What?  That's because you've been working

Oh, Beatles? Nothing!

That's the first and second law
of thermodynamics

 

by ashbul on 08/03/2008 05:02:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
If you had a brain (none / 0)

You would know that there are actually many fields of science Ken.  What a surprise!  So, in fact, a biologist might not know much about engineering, but is still a scientist.  Isn't that amazing???? 

I'm a biologist and ecologist.  I'm not an engineer, but I work with engineers at my company.  I believe biologists are still considered scientists.  And I bet, as a chemical engineer, you have very little understanding of ecology.  Do I go around disparaging engineers because they aren't experts in every aspect of science?  No, because I realize that, especially in the world of science, people are increasingly specialized.  Your argument that my particular area of expertise is not relevant to the issues of "energy" are ridiculous.  As a professional scientist, I have spent over 15 years investigating how hydroelectric plant facilities and operations affect riverine ecosystems.  That is one of our main sources of electricity in the west, even if you know nothing about it.

I am well aware that we can't immediately stop using oil and I have never argued that we should.  I have even stated in this forum that I am not completely opposed to offshore drilling as long as environmental safeguards are in place.  I am only stating that we need to address the implications of using this oil in the decades to come in terms of climate change. 

Nice try painting me as a stupid bitch again Ken.  I guess the blatant sexism didn't work so well, so now you will attack my intelligence.  Those following the forum can make up their own minds.  I'm sure your posts on things like National Enquirer articles, rap lyrics, Fox News items, and O'Reilly smackdowns will help your case though. 

You are simply a propaganda machine for Big Oil and the Republicans that enable them, because your personal wealth and lifestyle depend on maintaining the status quo.  This is quite obvious to everyone here.

Thanks for playing! 

 

by desertpear on 08/03/2008 06:03:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
what a fraud looks like (none / 0)

Ken always resorts to insulting people's intelligence when he's wrong. Its a sign of frustration.

I'm a scientist, and I don't know any colleagues that would allow themselves to be caught publicly saying that they're adversaries are simply not intelligent enough to understand their brilliant ideas. Its the surest sign of a fraud.

by hazmat on 08/04/2008 01:23:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Very well said (none / 0)
eom

by ihavenobias on 08/04/2008 01:50:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
almost right (none / 0)

I believe there is a shortage of manpower and machinery that could be used to open new oil rigs right now, isn't that one of the reasons that the oil companies haven't explored a lot of the land they have now?

How does opening up everything help if they don't have the resources to get to the oil anyway? Maybe open a few of the easiest places to get oil(like the democrats are starting to do) and the oil companies can concentrate their work there.

Don't talk about religion or politics, my ass!

by TheRob91 on 08/03/2008 12:46:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nationalizing the oil (none / 0)

Because the companies like Exxon, bp.... are not owned only by American investors they have investors from all over the world so the oil that comes out they have to sell it by the price set by the national market, but putting that to the side you know if gas prices go back down to $3 or less than you will see people getting back to there regular habit like buying hammers or wasting gas, what we are facing now is nothing compared to what we will face in 20 years or less when we have to go to war with china or India because there are going to have more cars than we do. Mark my word the first country that becomes energy independed from renewable energy is going to be the super power and I know for a fact that if we put our mind to it we can do it with out drilling but if that’s what it takes to get a compromise with republicans then that’s what we are going to do

by waltabelai on 08/03/2008 11:09:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
inadvertent keystroke or (none / 0)

divine intervention?

 

by hazmat on 08/03/2008 03:11:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
politicians (none / 0)

Republicans say "drill more and search for alternatives".

Democrats say "market regulation and search for alternatives".

Fucking pass the legislation to help alternative fuel then bicker about the other stuff. Both sides are ridiculous.

Don't talk about religion or politics, my ass!

by TheRob91 on 08/02/2008 08:39:22 PM EST

Nuts and Bolts of Drilling (none / 0)
The Democrats say there is plenty of oil and land to drill on. The Republicans say the high price for gas is a supply and demand problem. I set off to look for information. I found some interesting charts on the Bakers-Hughes web site. They are a company that Provides products and services to the worldwide oil and gas industry.

Lets go back a few years. from 1973 to 1979 the price per barrel for oil was less than $10.

During that time the drilling count went from around 1,000 to 2,500 drilling rigs. In 1982 oil prices spiked to around $32 because of the Oil embargo. At the same time the drilling rig count peaked at 4,500 rigs. By 1986 the oil prices had dropped to around $32. The rig count had dropped to 1,900 rigs. From 1987 to 2004 oil bounced from $10 to $35 a barrel. On 4-23-1999 the drilling rig count hit a low of 448. In 2005 oil started going up as did the amount of drilling rigs. Oil passed $40 and the rig count went to around 1,500. As of July 11th 2008 more rigs have been brought online. Up to around 1,900 (equal to the 1986 levels). The price for a barrel is now around $135 per barrel.

It seems obvious to me that the oil companies deploy drilling rigs when it is in their own interests. It has nothing to do with national security or helping consumers. I encourage you to check out this web site and do the research yourself and respond. When the first oil crisis hit in the 70's the oil industry ramped up to 4,000 rigs. With our dependence on foreign oil growing from 25% back then to 60+% now, how can anyone explain the rig deployment dropping to 448 in 1999. It seems oil producers are only interested in profits. How can any one guarantee the oil producers will keep producing when prices drop? The history says no.

by KevinA on 08/04/2008 08:29:10 AM EST

Excellent post (none / 0)

It seems obvious to me that the oil companies deploy drilling rigs when it is in their own interests. It has nothing to do with national security or helping consumers.

Nice research. You hit the nail on the head with this statement. My question is, why do we continue to allow these people to drain our milkshake? Time to start managing this resource for the benefit of the American people.

Oil companies should be able to drill wherever they like, including ANWR, but on our terms--including enforcible environmental safeguards--and they should be forced to place competitive bids on an equal footing with international competitors. They've been screaming for "free market" solutions, so let's give them one.

by hazmat on 08/04/2008 01:41:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I love (none / 0)
your last sentence.

And yes, that was good research by Kevin.

by ihavenobias on 08/04/2008 01:50:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Obama on offshore drilling (poison pill?) | 21 comments (21 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: