|
Offshore drilling gains adherents
Share
Email
Print
CommentIt’s been nearly 40 years since an offshore oil well malfunctioned, polluting beaches in and around Santa Barbara. But the images of oil-coated birds and other effects of the spill have continued to make expansion of oil drilling off the coast a political third rail that any office-seeker avoids.
So, it was not surprising that when President Bush called for lifting the federal ban on offshore oil drilling in July, California politicians from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on down quickly denounced the action, even though the governor’s endorsed candidate for president, John McCain, also supports marine oil development.
So, it was not surprising that when President Bush called for lifting the federal ban on offshore oil drilling in July, California politicians from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on down quickly denounced the action, even though the governor’s endorsed candidate for president, John McCain, also supports marine oil development.
A funny thing has been happening among nonpolitical Californians, however. Facing historically high gasoline prices, they are warming up to importing less oil from the Middle East and capturing more from domestic sources, including deposits that can be reached only by wells off California’s 1,100-mile-long coastline.
The latest confirmation of that shift is chronicled in a new statewide poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, which found that a slim majority now supports offshore oil, up sharply from the 39 percent support measured in 2003 in the first PPIC poll on the issue.
The latest confirmation of that shift is chronicled in a new statewide poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, which found that a slim majority now supports offshore oil, up sharply from the 39 percent support measured in 2003 in the first PPIC poll on the issue.
This rise comes even as Bush’s approval ratings continue to slide and Barack Obama, who’s mrore circumspect about offshore oil, enjoys a strong lead over McCain in the state.
To make the new political equation on energy even more interesting, support for nuclear energy appears to be rising, not quite to the halfway mark yet, but definitely higher than in the past. Opposition to new nuclear reactors had been another hallmark of California’s energy politics, but it now appears to be fading.
To make the new political equation on energy even more interesting, support for nuclear energy appears to be rising, not quite to the halfway mark yet, but definitely higher than in the past. Opposition to new nuclear reactors had been another hallmark of California’s energy politics, but it now appears to be fading.
The PPIC poll results mirror what’s happening in other coastal states — most notably, Florida — on the offshore oil drilling issue, as well as the whole nation. What was once a political no-no is gaining political acceptance as an alternative to continued dependence on foreign oil.
A recent CNN/Opinion Research poll found that more than two-thirds of Americans favor more offshore oil production, thus bolstering Republican demands in Congress to lift the federal ban. In a Rasmussen poll of Florida voters released last week, 57 percent favored offshore drilling.
Florida’s Republican governor, Charlie Crist, praised by Schwarzenegger as a co-warrior on global warming and other environmental issues, is now supporting more offshore development.
Few of us may actually like seeing oil platforms off the California coast. And as with any human activity, there is a certain risk attached to offshore production.
At the same time, however, it’s a little hypocritical for California to continue consuming more than a billion gallons of gasoline a month while placing potentially large pools of oil off-limits to exploration, thereby exporting those negative impacts to some other locale.
(Walters writes for the Sacramento Bee.)
A recent CNN/Opinion Research poll found that more than two-thirds of Americans favor more offshore oil production, thus bolstering Republican demands in Congress to lift the federal ban. In a Rasmussen poll of Florida voters released last week, 57 percent favored offshore drilling.
Florida’s Republican governor, Charlie Crist, praised by Schwarzenegger as a co-warrior on global warming and other environmental issues, is now supporting more offshore development.
Few of us may actually like seeing oil platforms off the California coast. And as with any human activity, there is a certain risk attached to offshore production.
At the same time, however, it’s a little hypocritical for California to continue consuming more than a billion gallons of gasoline a month while placing potentially large pools of oil off-limits to exploration, thereby exporting those negative impacts to some other locale.
(Walters writes for the Sacramento Bee.)
Ruff Limblog wrote on Aug 2, 2008 4:41 AM:
kevin wrote on Aug 2, 2008 8:37 AM:
Oh yeah, B.O. also had his "Jimmy Carter" moment when he was explaining how "if everyone would just check the air in their tires, they would save the equivilant of (80 Billion barrels of oil)". What leadership! Is he running for "auto mechanic" or President?
Contrast that with John McCain's plan of more domestic drilling and more nuclear power plants and we see a distinct contrast in the candidates. Apparantly Americans agree more with McCain, B.O. has lost the small bounce he got from his overseas vacation and is now tied with McCain in the polls.
How can this be? B.O. (according to the Lib pundits) should be MILES ahead of McCain by now? Maybe the facade is starting to crack a little and people are seeing the real (Liberal) B.O.?
B.O. trash talks the U.S. while in Germany. When he finds out he can't take his press corp, he cancels his visit to the injured troops. He's not upset that we are paying $4 per gallon for gas (just upset that it went up so fast). He has no plan to reduce the price of gas. He and his Dem cronies like Pelosi refuse to even vote on allowing more drilling, something Americans overwhelmingly desire.
The proper analogy would be masses of starving people with their pockets full of money standing in front of a locked grocery store. Pelosi and her ilk are desperately barracading the doors while the Republicans calmly and methodically approach, carrying the key... "
Bauhausfan wrote on Aug 2, 2008 8:43 AM:
As has come out since they started this talking point, the oil companies already have millions of acres they can drill for offshore with approved leases.
It' s there. Drill for it.
This is about getting more leases for closed off areas so they are using this "crisis" right now to secure that.
First of all, I hear conflicting reports on how long it would take to get the oil to the market if these offshore acres were open to them suddenly and they decided to exploit them. 5-10 years seems to be the number.
So in 5 -10 years the oil companies will have this off limits oil in the market. Unless someone plans on nationalizing the oil industry it will go into the "free" market where the oil companies can sell it to anyone. Not necessarily the U.S. market.
With the oil companies currently making record profits, and by that I mean the biggest profits recorded in the history of our country by a corporation, I can just imagine they (supplier) are itching to have more oil flood the market so that it will drive down prices for their product and help the consumers (addicts) pay for their fix more easily.
The oil companies are very unhappy with the current situation.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Of course, if the oil market is so "free" and not based on speculation, prices would have gone down significantly already due to the drop in demand for their product brought on by the higher prices. But that didn't happen, it kept going up and up.
Strange. "
misfit wrote on Aug 2, 2008 8:47 AM:
I also believe that even with the ban lifted, the chance of the oil companies getting their act together enough to actually drill is something else. They don't have the rigs to do it and they don't even drill the leases they have currently. They just want to hold these area so that they can continue to keep supplies as they are and prices artificially high. Does anyone really believe that the oil companies want supplies higher and prices lower? "
misfit wrote on Aug 2, 2008 9:04 AM:
If you can promote McCain without trashing Barack? I might listen.
Also, answer for me why McCain has voted against Veterans benefits every time since he's been a senator? "
Raven wrote on Aug 2, 2008 9:23 AM:
Raven wrote on Aug 2, 2008 9:30 AM:
kevin wrote on Aug 2, 2008 9:41 AM:
But this presidential campaign is NOT about McCain. Like it or not, it is ALL about B.O. and it will be a REFERENDUM on him. People will either vote for him or vote against him. No one is voting FOR John McCain because of his abilities to lead this country. I'm just sorry the Republicans didn't choose to run a real Conservative.
Be of good cheer, misfit. When McCain wins, he will have set back the Conservative movement for years to come. Future Republican candidates will use his campaign as a guide on how they can squeak out a victory by running to the "Left", instead of winning by a huge margin by running as a Conservative Leader (aka RR)... "
Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Aug 2, 2008 10:16 AM:
Ruff Limblog wrote on Aug 2, 2008 11:39 AM:
Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Aug 2, 2008 12:06 PM:
shareathought wrote on Aug 2, 2008 12:17 PM:
Are those who represent the two thirds of Americans in the "...recent CNN/Opinion Research poll..." a cross sampling in regards to age, education, income and transportation needs?
With a claim made that they "...favor more offshore oil production..." where do they live, what do they know, and who decided "they" should speak for me?
(Do they have knowledge of natural science; do they know the difference between drilling and production; do they have children with health issues; do they have time to grow their own food when the coast is contaminated as the gulf-states are?).
What is the ratio of the population of California and its use of oil compared to the ratio of the rest of the country’s population and their use of oil? Is the population poorer in the gulf states?
Perhaps Californians have learned a few things from other mistakes (that smog affects asthmatic children, walking is healthier, there is time and energy involved in rescuing wildlife after little oil spills), their concerns may well be genuine. "
russ wrote on Aug 2, 2008 12:24 PM:
Speculation is what caused the bust of the "dotcom" stock market. The bubble went up, buying demand dropped, then came crashing down.
Speculation is what caused the bust in the housing market. Speculators, like me, bid the prices of houses too high. The bubble went up, popped, then came crashing down. (aided by too much easy money).
The same thing has happened throughout history. Did you ever hear of the tulip market bust in Holland, long, long ago?
An unfettered, not over-regulated market will take care of its own speculators. The liberal, too much government Democrats (and Republicans) just make things worse by meddling and causing all kinds of unintended consequences.
Less gasoline consumption, a few percent, has caused a sizable drop in gas prices. A similar increase in supply will do the same thing.
misfit, do you realize that any commodity market, corn to gold to oil, goes to the highest bidder? What's new? "
Raven wrote on Aug 2, 2008 12:37 PM:
as for free market economics...the US hasn't operated on a free market economy for decades...seems strange to me that big industry wants no fetters when it comes to maximizing their profits, but wants bail-outs from the gov't when they are suffering losses....
. "
Raven wrote on Aug 2, 2008 12:39 PM:
shareathought wrote on Aug 2, 2008 12:55 PM:
One of the most provocative reasons would be the death of those we love, those "fighting terrorism" (while, oil fields are destroyed), in Iraq.
Another reason may be that some communities, like Napa, refuse to provide suitable public transportation (some people refuse to use what is available).
Plain blackmail; we don't know how to live without oil.
I've read of Senator McConnell's claim that the people of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, "...think oil rigs are pretty..."
I can't believe people living there express that thought.
Its more likely they're saddened because they can't walk along the beaches, swim in the waters or eat the seafood.
We have "heard" over and over and over that oil is available for the taking; this is not true.
Many refuse to believe of the depletion of oil; it becomes less financially feasible to extract what is left.
Scientist, many who worked for the oil companies, predicted decades ago, that there would be an end to oil.
It took billions of years to form; we simply don’t have that kind of time. "
John Richards wrote on Aug 2, 2008 1:52 PM:
John Richards wrote on Aug 2, 2008 2:04 PM:
John Richards wrote on Aug 2, 2008 2:07 PM:
Even Obama is now coming around to the idea. That leaves Pelosi as one of the few remaining stumbling blocks in Congress. "
rogers wrote on Aug 2, 2008 5:31 PM:
The oil companies are phenomenally good at finding the oil. The geologic knowledge and engineering ability to find and assess oil deposits are over 90% accurate. Very little money is wasted on bad guesses.
And russ "An unfettered, not over-regulated market will take care of its own speculators." What are smoking, dude? In your ideal dream world, maybe. The market has never worked so beautifully and never will, so regulation ends up being imposed to protect either the corporations or the consumers.
Unfortunately, when free-marketers call for the removal of government regulations, they rarely ask why the rules were imposed in the first place. They see the regs as impediments to profit rather than a mechanism for insuring appropriate market interaction. Most regulation is in place to restrict corporate abuse and protect consumers. Are you a consumer? Oh that's right - you don't want a nanny protecting you! "
kevin wrote on Aug 2, 2008 5:38 PM:
To me they represent man's dominance over nature... "
Raven wrote on Aug 2, 2008 5:51 PM:
and seems to me that each time we think we have dominated the earth...the earth reaches into her bag of tricks and slaps us down a peg or two. "
a teacher wrote on Aug 2, 2008 7:51 PM:
Since the right keeps putting out the "it'll lower gas prices" line, I have to believe that either they really don't know how the free market works or they are lying. "
John Richards wrote on Aug 2, 2008 8:51 PM:
Raven wrote on Aug 2, 2008 9:18 PM:
kevin wrote on Aug 2, 2008 9:56 PM:
Imagine what the speculators would do if Congress would overturn their moritorium?
I'm glad to see B.O. change his stance and agree with John McCain's plan for more off shore drilling... "
Raven wrote on Aug 2, 2008 10:13 PM:
a teacher wrote on Aug 2, 2008 10:28 PM:
More likely is that Americans are using less gas because it's more expensive. You know supply and demand.
Perhaps Kevin (and his fellow ditto heads) should actually read up on the economics they claim us lefties don't know. "
misfit wrote on Aug 2, 2008 10:30 PM:
misfit wrote on Aug 2, 2008 10:34 PM:
Cain can essentially back into the presidency and that's okay. If that's so, this country is in way more trouble than I thought. A country full of idiots unable to discern truth from lies and even worse, they don't want to. This is utterly scary and it's cool with you??? "
Bauhausfan wrote on Aug 3, 2008 8:25 AM:
To me they represent man's dominance over nature... "
This is a very interesting point of view, the idea that man is, somehow, apart from the natural world and environment and can dominate it is not based in any scientific reality, let alone I hope, spiritual one.
To put it simply you cannot go against nature because you are part of nature too. Just because you don't feel that way, and thousands of years of western culture make it seem so, doesn't make it so.
But this idea that man is something completely outside, seperate of the natural world and can dominate and exploit it with no consequences is, I would say and should be quite apparent to many people, crazy. "
Bauhausfan wrote on Aug 3, 2008 8:34 AM:
The "invisible" hand of the "free" market is a myth. Our current economic problems are a prime example of how deregulation leads not to lower prices and more competition etc but to greed and avarice.
Profits are to be private, costs are to be public. "
russ wrote on Aug 3, 2008 9:47 AM:
Until the past month, all oil market factors were pointing to higher demand, restricted US production (supply) and higher prices.
In the last month we have had lower demand (driven by higher price), little change in current supply but some evidence of government and political movement toward more production. More certainty of increased future supply, even 5-10 years from now, would drive prices lower.
Obama is beginning to flip and soon the liberal Democrats in Congress, lead by Pelosi, will have to cave in. Or as Obama calls it, a compromise in order to achieve bipartisan, blah, blah, blah. "
Bauhausfan wrote on Aug 3, 2008 10:53 AM:
That is pure nonsense. There is no way at all that the future supply of oil 5-10 years in the future is going to effect the price of oil now.
As has been pointed out numerous times about this offshore oil drilling, there is already millions of acres leased to the private corporations known as oil companies and they can drill anytime they want to start.
As has already been pointed out numerous times also, the oil companies will sell it on the market to whoever they want and it doesn't have to be the United States.
The oil isn't the United States to do with what it wants unless we nationalize it under government control and then it will be used for the United States.
Do you think that an administration filled with people from the oil industry, a secret energy meeting with Richard Cheney that hasn't been made public, a war in the middle east involving a country with some of the largest supplies of oil reserves in the world and record profits by oil companies just happened by accident? "
glenroy wrote on Aug 3, 2008 11:13 AM:
Whatever …it’s better to be a ditto head than an ‘airhead’ which would be a compliment for those who continue to oppose domestic energy development.
Talking economics to a lib is like teaching a toddler to drive a Mack truck, even if it could be done nothing good will become of it…they have such a simplest view of economics that the simplest of fundamentals is beyond their ability to comprehend. Supply and demand, market forces, inventory, production trends…all just meaningless phrases, like Democrat and patriot or Democrat Common Sense Solutions to High Energy Costs….just phrases, sound bites, words without meaning.
Such is prime example the limited intellect that now controls congress…along with their well earned 9% public approval ratings. "
glenroy wrote on Aug 3, 2008 11:27 AM:
The rest of the world produces oil, using technology developed and licensed here in the USA, to provide for their domestic energy needs, save jobs, and protect the environment….everywhere around this rock except where Democrats control the process….
As for the continuing silly DNC talking points…the 68 million acres they claim are not being drilled upon have been addressed in explicit detail by any number of ‘think tanks’….there isn’t enough oil there to make any difference…where the oil is located is being withheld from the market by House Democrats…though the cracks are appearing and some are starting to hear the pump price rage. "
kevin wrote on Aug 3, 2008 12:39 PM:
I get goose bumps every time I see a forest felled to make lumber and other useful products. I love seeing bulldozers leveling mountains to get at the ore hidden below. It makes me proud to see swamps drained for agriculture uses and who doesn’t enjoy seeing deserts blossom from huge irrigation projects?
Call me crazy, but there are a lot of us here and we aren’t going anywhere... "
Raven wrote on Aug 3, 2008 12:52 PM:
not too mention that if oil were discovered tomorrow, it would still be anywhere from 5 to ten years before that oil were to reach the market....and there is no guarantee any of that oil will reach the US market...
and there is one more thing to consider about new drilling.....suppose oil were discovered next door to you.....you ready for a derrick to be plopped down next to you....can you see the uproar in napa if drilling was to be proposed in the county?....
as for oil being withheld by house democrats.....from 2001 to 2007, the republicans controlled all both houses of congress and the white house.....they could have gotten the drilling moratorium removed any time they thought they had the political will do so....
this sudden desire to drill is merely election year politics .... by both parties "
kevin wrote on Aug 3, 2008 2:01 PM:
What about farming equipment, construction equipment, boats, ships, planes, trains, semi trucks? You’re not going to run them on batteries or fuel cells. We also need more oil for all the OTHER uses such as fertilizer and plastics.
No, continue researching other options, by all means, but we will need to continue drilling far into the future… "
misfit wrote on Aug 3, 2008 5:52 PM:
Bauhausfan wrote on Aug 3, 2008 7:22 PM:
Obviously the "proper oversight" wasn't provided by the Republican congress with all the lawlessness of the Bush administration going unchecked and that is why they lost control in 2006. There is a tidal wave coming with the Republicans name on it in this upcoming election also. As for the approval rating of congress, I am sure people are upset that they haven't stopped the Bush administration more and that is what was wanted when the Democrats got control in the first place.
The rest of the world produces oil, using technology developed and licensed here in the USA, to provide for their domestic energy needs, save jobs, and protect the environment….everywhere around this rock except where Democrats control the process….
Oil doesn't "protect the environment" in any way, shape or form, and especially when it is burned, unless you think the smog and carbon in the atmosphere is "protecting" the environment.
Or perhaps this piece of info is just a "mirage" ...."The percentage of children who had asthma more than doubled between 1980 and 1995, from 3.6 percent to 7.5 percent. "
It's called pollution and yes global climate change is being fueled by it, despite what some right wing think tank has put out. "
russ wrote on Aug 3, 2008 10:17 PM:
The environment is cleaner now than in 1980. It is phony to blame pollution or climate change for childhood asthma.
Carbon in the atmosphere is normal, natural and minuscule, parts per million. You are surrounded by far more CO2 from your own exhalation than is in the environment.
Oil provides our standard of living, our jobs, our transportation. Without it we are a third world country. No thanks. Man made global warming is phony science and the real science is coming forth every day.
Liberals love phony science. "
freeport56 wrote on Aug 3, 2008 10:18 PM:
While I will support alternative energies, let's see if the Eco nazis will lets us build the solar farms, wind mills, wave and currant generators. in the meantime we still have cars that need gasoline. Electric is still far off, hydrogen will not be viable until it can be made with less energy. It suffers from the same ills as ethonal, needs more energy to make trhan it produces.
So, let's get drilling and spend our hard earned bucks here in America and not in the Middle East or South America. We can create a whole new industry. Who knows, maybe by drilling off our coast we can relieve those volcanoes under the Arctic and the ice will stop melting. "
freeport56 wrote on Aug 3, 2008 10:19 PM:
Prove the global warming theory, but ask yourself one question first.
Q: What happens at the end of an Ice Age?
A: The ice melts. "
Bauhausfan wrote on Aug 4, 2008 7:47 AM:
Fact: There is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming.
The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests.
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying:
"the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." (Joint Statement of Science Academies, 2005)
The only debate in the science community about global warming is about how much and how fast warming will continue as a result of heat-trapping emissions. Scientists have given a clear warning about global warming, and we have more than enough facts — about causes and fixes — to implement solutions right now. "
kevin wrote on Aug 4, 2008 9:29 AM:
Scientists get money and fame by PUBLISHING. Even if they have to make this stuff up.... "
glenroy wrote on Aug 4, 2008 2:24 PM:
This entire thesis of global warming is based on the same silly socialist scientists that were predicting an ice age by 1990 back in the 1970s…and as Kevin correctly pointed out the phony ozone solution to another naturally occurring phenomena... "
glenroy wrote on Aug 4, 2008 2:51 PM:
As for pre, or adolescent asthma…that has more to do with video games than oil, compounded by too many liberal excuses for not even trying to get kids into athletics or physical activity…especially those Boy Scout types whose motto curls the skin of most libs. Besides, built-in generational failure assures a solid crop of new libs..nothing like failure to build the party…in practice and policy.
….as pointed out the air quality has improved dramatically since 1980... "
a teacher wrote on Aug 4, 2008 3:56 PM:
Another whopper from Kevin. Cite a source for that. I've never heard that anything other than CFC's were the cause. "
freeport56 wrote on Aug 4, 2008 4:15 PM:
They have no clue. Additionally, most of those that sign Al Gores letter recanted. but, that was only after the English court founds out that several major scenes in Al's movie were staged. What a joke. Do you shut down the Ocean because it givers off the most CO@ on the Planet? "
plasticpinkflamingo wrote on Aug 4, 2008 4:54 PM:
For the 598th time, libertarians and conservatives are not against conserving. What part of that do you not understand? Or are you only interested in pushing the socialist engineering schemes?
We are against foolish schemes and ideas, among them being the myth that electric cars will save us all. They will not, for many reasons which I have already stated, and you obviously have not read. Electric cars in the quantity that we have on the road today would be a complete ecological disaster. "
freeport56 wrote on Aug 4, 2008 9:43 PM:
In a study that appears in the June 13 issue of Science, Seok-Woo Son, lead-author and a postdoctoral research scientist at SEAS, and Professor Polvani suggest that stratospheric ozone ought to be more carefully considered by the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) round of climate model predictions.
"We were surprised to find that the closing of the ozone hole, which is expected to occur in the next 50 years or so, shows significant effects on the global climate," said Lorenzo M. Polvan one of two principle investigators and professor of applied mathematics at SEAS. "This is because stratospheric ozone has not been considered a major player in the climate system. We believe the closing of the ozone hole is likely to have profound impacts on the surface winds and, also likely, to have an impact on other aspects of the Earth's climate, including surface temperatures, locations of storm tracks, extent of dry zones, amount of sea ice, and ocean circulation." "
freeport56 wrote on Aug 4, 2008 9:44 PM:
The Earth's ozone layer, which lies just above the troposphere, catches harmful ultraviolet rays from the sun and was, until the Montreal Protocol, being eroded by pollution caused by the widespread use of aerosols powered by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Recent observations indicate that the ozone layer is no longer in danger and is expected to recover. As a consequence, the new study finds, the Southern Hemisphere climate change may also reverse.
"Our results suggest that stratospheric ozone is important for the Southern Hemisphere climate change, and ought to be more carefully considered in the next set of IPCC model integrations," says lead-author Seok-Woo Son. "
kevin wrote on Aug 5, 2008 7:51 AM:
What this could mean according to the Nature news article is that:
"This must have far-reaching consequences," Rex says. "If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being." What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago2 (see graphic). If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week. "
Ruff Limblog wrote on Aug 5, 2008 4:17 PM:
Raven wrote on Aug 5, 2008 6:12 PM:
regarding CFC's and the ozone hole, ever think that maybe the reduction and elimination of CFC's may have contributed to that? "
russ wrote on Aug 5, 2008 7:13 PM:
When reaching the Mississippi River the landscape turns green and the beauty of small towns adjacent to rivers and streams and the lights aglow at night where folks in the Heartland of America live.
When I see ports and rail yards, highways and refineries and other signs of life I know that Americans built our country over decades and a couple of centuries of hard work and some struggles.
God Bless America! We are so fortunate to live here, and no whining liberals are going to make me regret our quality of life use of energy. "
russ wrote on Aug 5, 2008 7:14 PM:
cab e-girl wrote on Aug 5, 2008 8:55 PM:
Raven wrote on Aug 5, 2008 11:16 PM:
a teacher wrote on Aug 5, 2008 11:25 PM:
Then wrap your self in the flag.
priceless... "
glenroy wrote on Aug 6, 2008 8:13 AM:
The fact is more scientists today are leaving the manmade GW dogma dancing than joining up…
The only downside to drilling for our domestic oil reserves is that it will eventually prove once again to Americans that the Democrat Party lied and distorted another issue to scare the public into supporting their unless policies……and that’s the best thing that could happen to this country because under scrutiny Democrat Policies over the last 30 years have nearly destroyed this country. "
glenroy wrote on Aug 6, 2008 9:06 AM:
a teacher wrote on Aug 6, 2008 10:19 AM:
As far as I know Russ and cab e-girl haven't given their lives for anything. Your statement is also irrelevant.
I'm patriotic and I've served my country. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to point that out every chance I get. It does not make you any more equal. It makes me wonder what you're compensating for.
It seems to me that when backed against the wall the right wing always waves the flag and tries to shame their opponents.
Well. You can't shame people who have nothing to be ashamed of. "
Hear ye wrote on Aug 6, 2008 12:14 PM:
Couldn't agree more with your last comment. It's so predictable. Even after calling them out they still push on. Hilarious. "
a teacher wrote on Aug 6, 2008 1:06 PM:
As far as I know Russ and cab e-girl haven't given their lives for anything. Your statement is also irrelevant.
I'm patriotic and I've served my country. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to point that out every chance I get. It does not make you any more equal.
It seems to me that when backed against the wall the right wing always waves the flag and tries to shame their opponents.
Well. You can't shame people who have nothing to be ashamed of. "
russ wrote on Aug 6, 2008 3:56 PM:
Our comments were directed at the negative exaggerations of "Mordor".
Why do Liberals get so nervous when others express their love of the greatness of America.
Methinks I see the reaction of some folks who are too easily offended.
I am beginning to think that Paris Hilton has a better energy policy than Barack Obama. I think it is lacking in common sense to think that 2 million barrels new US oil production will have no effect on the oil market. "
Raven wrote on Aug 6, 2008 6:05 PM:
and russ, I want people to see all of this great country, the good and the bad, not put blinders on and let the dark side of our nation grow unchecked...
as for cooling the last ten years, here is a little tidbit i picked up from NOAA...The 2004 average was 53.5 degrees Fahrenheit (11.9 degrees Celsius), or 0.7 degrees F (0.4 degrees C) above the 1895-2003 mean. If so, 2004 becomes the 24th warmest year on record. ...isnt 2004 in the last ten years that were 'cooling'? "
rogers wrote on Aug 6, 2008 6:18 PM:
California is one of the most efficient users of energy in the US. Even though our population and economy here have exploded over the last 30 years, we have been able to keep up with energy demands through conservation of energy and utilization of alternative power generation. Maybe time for the rest of the country to step up and conserve better.
In states where it is best applied, solar could do wonders at permanently reducing reliance on petroleum based energy. Although initially expensive, the break even point is usually 9 to 12 years (based on 2006 oil prices). After that it is a low maintenance and virtually clean source of energy. Solar is not a complete replacement for oil but a supplement.
As to all those unused leases the oil companies refuse to exploit, perhaps the government needs to put them on notice - you have 2 years - use them or lose them. And I see no need for the government (taxpayers) to continue giving subsidies to US oil companies when they are turning the highest corporate profits in history.
Also get the speculators out of the marketplace and we will see more stable petroleum prices. Only the government can do that, the marketplace cannot be trusted to regulate itself. "
russ wrote on Aug 6, 2008 6:55 PM:
Are you suggesting that we end free market trading on commodities such as oil? Would you add corn and wheat to the the same restricted list?
Who would determine the price of oil and corn and who would regulate that price? Even OPEC cannot control the price of it's own oil. "
rogers wrote on Aug 6, 2008 11:07 PM:
a teacher wrote on Aug 6, 2008 11:44 PM:
Conservation is the only way to affect prices in the short run. "
gemini105 wrote on Aug 7, 2008 8:24 AM:
The one thing that I've noticed in this debate is that is more or less one or the other: either drilling or solar/electric power. Why not both? Though it is tongue-in-cheek, P. Hilton is somewhat right that we should drill oil in limited areas in order to keep us at a decent price until future technologies can ween us from oil dependence, whatever that technology may be (solar farms, electric cars, hydrogen fuel cells, etc.)
As for drilling, I've heard several conflicting reports on how long it'll take and even if the platforms will be seen from the coast. Rather than offshore drilling, I believe its in North Dakota or somewhere around there that a very large deposit of oil shale has been found, possibly containing more oil than both coasts combined. To me, getting that oil sounds better and more environmentally stable than drilling. If someone knows more about that, please let me know where to find it.
Just out of curiosity, has anyone been watching Black Gold on TruTV? For those that haven't, its a reality show about oil drilling, in which 3 teams have 50 days to drill 3 wells to 5000 ft I believe (or 10,000). Either way, kinda shows that drilling can be done faster than what some reports are saying (though I know there's a difference between land and sea drilling).
So, just some thoughts I had while reading the above posts. Can't wait for the replies. "
a teacher wrote on Aug 7, 2008 9:07 AM:
The problem with oil shale is that it is not really oil and it's not cheap. It's called kerogen and it can be refined into many fuels, but not gasoline. Like oil sands, extracting usable fuel from oil shale requires a lot of energy. As long as oil is expensive, oil shale is economic. However, my understanding is that coal can be made into oil cheaper. We have lot's of coal.
There is, of course, the ecological problems of mining on such a large scale.
Drilling an oil well may not take long, but developing the infrastructure required to move a large quantity of oil from the field to refineries and then your gas tank takes time. Finding out where the oil is and where the best places to drill are is also time consuming. "
russ wrote on Aug 7, 2008 2:30 PM:
gemini105, good thinking on the drilling and time to market. It is my understanding that there is a shortage of drilling rigs because of the lid placed on drilling by Congress. The environmental extremists throw blockades in front of all efforts to drill so they do not keep a lot of drilling equipment un-utilized.
If there were adequate drilling equipment available those oil field roughnecks could have a well pumping in a couple months on land, and a bit longer at sea. "
Dwayne wrote on Aug 7, 2008 4:12 PM:
Interesting... I guess you don't want the oil company's to invest in exploration, or infrastructure or new equipment?
Don't you know that the gasoline tax reaps a higher profit for the government then the oil companies make in profits...??? That's because our government doesn't have to research, explore, drill, or transport the product. All they have to do is collect the tax. If we're being scammed, it's by the government, who has no investment in oil production at all. Mighty sweet deal, don't you think?
If the stupid democrats take the oil company profits, then who will invest in finding and producing new oil fields? Moreover, where will the money come from if profits are stolen and inverters see the writing on the wall...???
If you are falling for the Democrat whining about the oil company's, then you simply haven't thought about how we get oil or where it comes from, and if you want more oil why would you rob the very people of the equity they need to get it for us...???
I know you, Rrogers, and you can think better then this short sighted stuff that's being doled out by the likes of those shallow liberal thinkers who hate oil company's because they hate Bush, and that's where the real thinking stops. "
russ wrote on Aug 7, 2008 5:33 PM:
Right on target man.
Keep up the good comments.
Wish everyone here understood your lesson. "
Raven wrote on Aug 7, 2008 5:50 PM:
and when was the last time you heard of a report of anyone blocking an oil rig?...Like to see that story.....the biggest reason oil rigs were lying idle was the price of oil, not becuase anyone was blocking them...as the price has risen, more and more rigs are being put into action.
Dwayne, explain to all of us why any company that makes more than 11 billion profit in a quarter, like Exxon just did, needs a dime from taxpayers to help in exploration "
Dwayne wrote on Aug 7, 2008 6:40 PM:
Lather, rinse, repeat... Read my post again....
Oil company's aren't getting any money from tax payers. They are getting tax breaks just like any company that does research and exploration for the public good.
I "assume" from your post that you think that an 11-billion dollar profit it too much...??? If you know so much, why don't you set the limit...??? Got anyidea what it takes to research, find, and get an oil field running...??? Think it's magic...??? Perhaps you think they never hit a dry hole...???
Go ahead, take the oil company's profits so they cannot afford to drill... Isn't that cutting off your nose to spite your face...???
What our government makes on gas taxes is obscene, with absolutely no overhead, and you whine about the oil company's, who are the only ones who can get oil for us. What are you thinking...??? Liberal-mania has you dazzled... "Hate Bush, hate oil, go Obama".... Sheeesh...Wake up...!!! "
russ wrote on Aug 7, 2008 7:03 PM:
One has to take into account that oil is a fungible commodity, meaning that is all the same within the same grade.
Worldwide commodities are not shipped far distances around the world when they can be swapped closer to home.
When a refinery buys a tanker of oil, it likely will ship from the nearest oil terminal, regardless who owns that oil. The owner of the oil may be repaid on the other side of the world to avoid costly, unnecessary long distance shipping.
If the environmental extremists would allow more US refineries on our West Coast, THAT IS WHERE THE ALASKAN OIL WOULD GO! That is why some of it goes to the Far East. We have no place to use it here.
Liberals get too hung up on where the pipeline goes rather than who owns the oil. The leaseholder and producer owns the oil and they can sell it or use it.
I would prefer that American oil companies own our oil supply from the Arctic, not the Chinese sitting off the coast side-drilling it. "
Raven wrote on Aug 7, 2008 7:57 PM:
as for the gas tax...the federal gas tax....18 cents a gallon.... is earmarked for the highway fund.....and due to the decrease in driving caused by high gas prices is looking at a $9 billion deficit for all the projects it is supposed to fund....
as for where the oil from ANWR would be sold, erstwhile Alaska Sen. Stevens (R) is pushing for no restrictions of any on any of the oil from ANWR so it could be sold on the open market and sent anywhere in the world.
and those environmentalists have not stopped a single new refinery from being built because no oil company has asked to build one in the recent past...even in Richmond, where the city okay expansion of the refinery to make it more efficient, there was never any request to increase the capacity of the refinery....it remains at the 240,000 gallons a day it was doing before the request...an a couple years ago Shell was ready to shut down its refinery in bakersfield.....
and yes, owners can decide where the oil goes and do you doubt for a moment that it would go to china if china bid the highest for it? "
barefoot wrote on Aug 7, 2008 8:40 PM:
izzy wrote on Aug 7, 2008 8:48 PM:
If raven is fairly intelligent, he/she just got an education from the master....if not, than you did all you could!
russ, also a very good post...continuing raven's education....
Two doctors of Democracy....Good job! "
Raven wrote on Aug 7, 2008 11:08 PM:
a teacher wrote on Aug 8, 2008 12:40 AM:
How much money does the gov't spend in Iraq? How many Americans have died? How much do we spen a year on our military? How much goes into the roads that allow oil to be transported? How much goes into ports?
$11 billion a quarter is $44 billion in profit a year. That's $150 for each American and that's just Exxon. When you're complaining about record high gas prices, remember that the oil companies are making record high profits.
But that is probably just a coincidence. "
Ruff Limblog wrote on Aug 8, 2008 10:23 AM:
Our government aka "We, the People..." deserve NOTHING, because we 'have no overhead' while those poor selfless downtrodden billionaires are out there every day... dreaming up ways to do more public service?
Thus spoke Republican-enablers pretending to be economists.
Why...why...sniff...we should just hand over the rest of our money to them right now!!!
How could we be such ungrateful wretches???
~Ruff "
napablogger wrote on Aug 8, 2008 10:31 AM:
We get them for having kids, and being childless myself I must say I am tired of all you parents ripping me off and taking my money via government subsidies. Just kidding, I don't care, although from an environmental standpoint it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
At least the oil companies have kept us in spectacularly good shape with low prices and ready availability for decades.
I think that what has happened is that the public/environmentalists have opposed new refineries and drilling for so long that the oil companies have just given up. It is going to take some concerted effort over a period of time to get new drilling and refineries on line.
As far as oil company profits, that is an easy target but you have to take into account the many years where they are low. They have huge costs and need the high profits to maintain all the development of new sources.
The number one area that America excells in economically is research and development, and that is a key reason we maintain ourselves in global competition. That applies to oil and pharmeceuticals, it is American companies doing all the research, and that is why if you just import drugs from Canada you are going to shut down the research that cured AIDS and means cancer is no longer an automatic death sentence like it was. "
Raven wrote on Aug 8, 2008 2:31 PM:
russ wrote on Aug 8, 2008 3:56 PM:
Here is a balanced report from 2004:
"No new California refineries despite soaring gas prices" Oakland Tribune, Jun 10, 2004 by Dale Kasler, Associated Press" google it
Supply/Demand has changed since 2004 and the situation has worsened. "
Raven wrote on Aug 9, 2008 12:18 AM:
glenroy wrote on Aug 9, 2008 4:19 PM:
Speaking of which…frivolous litigation against the energy companies is another exclusively liberal concept… "
napablogger wrote on Aug 9, 2008 6:55 PM:
CHICAGO, Illinois, June 10, 2008 (ENS) - In a case that could affect oil refineries around the country, plans by ConocoPhillips to expand its refinery in Roxana, Illinois were sidelined on Friday when an appeal board of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency upheld a challenge to the air permit required for the project.
The decision sends ConocoPhillips and the Illinois EPA, which had granted the permits for the Wood River refinery expansion, back to the drawing board.
The legal challenge mounted by environmental groups in August 2007 argued that harmful air pollution from the refinery’s flares, which relieve pressure in the refining process, was not being sufficiently controlled.
The Natural Resources Defense Council led the challenge representing American Bottom Conservancy, a nonprofit organization based in the Metro East St. Louis area. "
napablogger wrote on Aug 9, 2008 6:57 PM:
Democrats Block Energy Bill Allowing Building Of New Refineries
June 12, 2008 at 11:49 am
And for you North Dakota readers, our Representative Earl Pomeroy voted against it as well.
House Republicans pushed the No More Excuses Energy Act to the floor through a discharge petition. The Act would have eliminated barriers to building new refineries in the United States along with instituting other measures to generally make it easier to produce gasoline domestically.
Democrats voted it down because apparently they don’t think we have a problem with gas prices in this country. Or, at least, they aren’t very serious about fixing that problem. "
napablogger wrote on Aug 9, 2008 7:04 PM:
Thursday, June 12, 2008
By Steven Milloy
The Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, or NRDC, successfully pressured the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to block ConocoPhillips’ expansion of its Roxana, Ill., gasoline refinery, which processes heavy crude oil from Canada, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.
The project would have expanded the volume of Canadian crude processed from 60,000 barrels per day to more than 500,000 barrels a day by 2015. After the Illinois EPA had approved the expansion, the green groups petitioned the federal EPA to block it, alleging ConocoPhillips wasn’t using the best available technology for reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.
Apparently, the plant’s planned 95 percent reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions and 25 percent reduction in nitrogen oxides wasn’t green enough. NRDC’s opposition is quite ironic since ConocoPhillips and the activist group actually are teammates in the global warming game. Both belong to the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of eco-activist groups and large companies that is lobbying for global warming regulation. "
napablogger wrote on Aug 9, 2008 7:10 PM:
Orange County Register
September 1, 2005
Katrina Reveals Gas Price Folly
Environmentalists, NIMBYs have blocked new oil refineries for 30 years
By Adrian Moore
A new oil refinery has not been built in the United States since 1976. During that time, our gasoline use has increased over 25 percent. The nation's 149 existing refineries have been running at maximum capacity trying to meet record demand and, as a result, not only do we import oil, we actually have to import 10 percent of our daily gasoline from refineries overseas.
So when Hurricane Katrina or a refinery fire or anything else causes even just a few refineries to shut down for awhile, there is absolutely no excess capacity nationwide to make up the difference, and prices at the pump skyrocket.
Just a few new refineries would alleviate the problem and help keep our gas prices lower and steadier.
But getting an oil refinery built is next to impossible, hence the 30-year construction drought. There will always be environmental activists who fight any new proposed refinery, regardless of where it might be located and how environmentally safe it is. And our environmental rules give them the upper hand.
The environmental impact-report process mobilizes the "not in my back yard" elements to oppose any proposed refinery, but it does not mobilize people or groups who are looking at national energy needs. You wind up with a very lopsided discussion where potential problems are thoroughly and perhaps overly represented, but the only group pointing out the benefits of the refinery is the "evil" oil company asking to build it - even though every automobile driver would benefit. "
russ wrote on Aug 9, 2008 7:33 PM:
Great job in bring forth the specific facts.
Listen to the radio commercials currently being run in northern California by the Sierra Club opposing any oil drilling.
Liberals and Democrats are fighting every effort to produce more oil and gas to reduce the damaging effects of high energy costs on our economy.
The House Republicans are fighting a good fight and will win. Guaranteed. "
Ruff Limblog wrote on Aug 9, 2008 7:42 PM:
Raven wrote on Aug 9, 2008 9:51 PM:
Energy Bill
again, no new refinery was blocked, just a bill would would have removed environmental protections for the construction changed conditions under which a new refinery could be built, but tell me what new refinery was stopped by this action and where?
Junk Science
Same as the first story. An apparently the EPA agreed about the emissions....
last story...I see nothing anywhere about any refinery being blocked just a general supposition that enivronmentalists are behind it all...and this is an opinion piece, not a news story. And it seems to me that if an oil company cannot mobilize enuff people to support a new refinery, then hey...maybe it shouldn't be built there.
So again, when and where in California, has a construction new refinery been stopped? "
napablogger wrote on Aug 9, 2008 10:54 PM:
But anyway:
(01/19/05) Greenpeace Mexico and the Mexican Environmental Law Center today announced new efforts to block plans for a liquefied natural gas import terminal off of Mexico's Pacific coast near the U.S. border.
The terminal will be located just several hundred yards off the shores of the Coronado Islands. The project will be part of a planned natural gas distribution system to meet the needs of energy hungry Southern California and Arizona. The project also includes a refinery ashore and a pipeline to transport the vaporized product across northern Mexico and into the Southwest US.....
So they are trying to go around U.S. law by building just past the border. "
napablogger wrote on Aug 9, 2008 11:13 PM:
"Building the terminal in Mexico may allow ChevronTexaco to avoid some of the permitting and public relations snags that other companies wanting to build in California have had to face. For example, Royal Dutch/Shell withdrew plans to build a liquid natural gas plant on Mare Island, in Vallejo, after complaints by local residents.
ChevronTexaco's plans for Mexico still face approval by Mexican authorities.
In a press release Thursday, ChevronTexaco said that it is still considering building another liquid natural gas plant in California. It did not disclose any particular locations.
ChevronTexaco has filed an application to build a liquefied natural gas terminal off the coast of Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico. There's no word yet on whether U.S. authorities will grant the necessary permits for that project, which was initially proposed in 2002."....
What do you know? A refinery rejected right here, at Mare Island.
The fact is that for thirty years new refineries have been blocked by environmentalists and nimbys, supported by Democrats. The laws are slanted in their favor, just like CEQA is in California. That is why despite a Republican dominated government they haven't happened.
Geeze, if this were any other time the enviro's would be bragging about how they saved the world by blocking all the refinery construction. Now that public sentiment has turned against it they are saying, what, what refinery, I didn't block no damn refinery!
I just don't think you can win this argument, the facts are not on your side. You are better off with the it won't make any difference argument. "
Raven wrote on Aug 10, 2008 8:20 AM:
and the argument that the hostile reception they get from regulators means they dont even bother doesnt wash...cant complain about not being able to build one if you dont even apply. "
napablogger wrote on Aug 10, 2008 9:01 AM:
I guess it just comes down to whether you think it is ok for the economy to take big hits, which as usual will hit the poorest the hardest.
Will you agree to not demanding government services for the poor then, as the economy tanks? You can't have it both ways. "
a teacher wrote on Aug 10, 2008 11:50 AM:
Do not expect the Congress to enact any legislation in an election year. BOTH parties are pushing this for political gain.
The republicans are basically pushing a lie, that drilling now and building refineries now will lower prices (now, but they only imply that). The truth is that even if they signed a bill to do all that today, the small savings in money (thats what most economist say) would not happen for years.
The republicans are betting that they can translate the publics concern about rising prices will translate into anger at democrats (and votes for republicans).
The democrats are betting that the republicans will over reach. They also have to be concerned about key constituencies in what could be a tight races.
I was reading about the compromises put forth by "the group of 10" a moderate bipartisan group. It seemed like a reasonable compromise, but I doubt it will be embraced.
The other point is, does anyone stop to consider that oil companies make money when gas is in short supply? It is in the oil companies interest to drag their feet about building more refineries. Shifting the blame t environmentalist would be the icing on the cake. "
a teacher wrote on Aug 10, 2008 11:52 AM:
kevin wrote on Aug 10, 2008 4:52 PM:
NB, I can see why the oil companies would rather build their new refineries outside the US and then import gas back here. Cheaper labor and less environmental headaches.
If only the unions would stop their slow death by "anal poisioning" (head up Dems....) and fight to get some good (refinery) jobs here in the US for a change... "
a teacher wrote on Aug 10, 2008 6:07 PM:
Raven wrote on Aug 10, 2008 8:12 PM:
Bill wrote on Aug 11, 2008 2:46 PM:
glenroy wrote on Aug 14, 2008 7:44 AM:
“”The republicans are basically pushing a lie, that drilling now and building refineries now will lower prices (now, but they only imply that). The truth is that even if they signed a bill to do all that today, the small savings in money (thats what most economist say) would not happen for years. “””
No better example of partisan cow pie than that..….oil is a commodity, commodities are bid priced on projected world production and world consumption…Democrats claimed our tiny consumption decline caused the 25% future decline in oil…unfortunately the oil traders aren’t quite that stupid, our little consumption dip was offset by China and India‘s increased consumption. With our known untapped reserves ranging between 100 to 200 billion barrels, just in crude, several trillion in sands/shale, there is no excuse…we should be completely energy independent.… It is easily within our capacity to keep the cost of a barrel of oil in the $60 to $80 range until alternative fuels can be sorted out.
Reference the Washington Post’s Article detailing Democrat Drilling myths…. Our nations newest ‘right-wing source….’
Most intelligent economist don’t have much to say about detail operational issues of a specific company or even industry operationally speaking, some think they know but they aren’t even qualified to do so…of course there are exceptions like Robert Reich whose handicapping rates right up just below Born Loser. What economists are trained to do is to statistically analyze the far reaching effects, and probable impacts of our failed energy policies, estimate long and short term consequences of our dependence and also the possible range of effects of converting food stocks to optional fuels…. So….There have been several gulf discoveries that have brought large quantities of oil to market under 3 years. "
kevin wrote on Aug 14, 2008 8:50 AM:
Raven wrote on Aug 14, 2008 8:59 AM:
a teacher wrote on Aug 14, 2008 9:56 AM:
Go and drill. I'm convinced that the danger to the environment is less than it was 30 years ago. And we need the oil. But stop selling us the lie that it will lower gas prices significantly, now.
a) Any statement about how much oil is in the OCS is a guess. There probably is a lot of oil out there, but maybe not. A sound energy policy doesn't run on wishful thinking.
b) Even if the oil was discovered today, it will take years to get production up to any useful level. It won't be tomorrow, next week or next year.
c) All oil found goes on the world wide market. It's not exclusive property of the USA. Finding oil off shore of the USA won't make gas any cheaper than if Australia discovered a huge pool of oil under Alice Springs.
d) the worlds demand for oil is increasing. Currently it's around 27 billion barrels a year. Oil experts believe there is about 1 and a half trillion barrels left. At the current rate we will use up oil in 60 years. "
kevin wrote on