15 Mar 12
Originally posted by wittywonka#4 would be easy to accomplish if Obama wasn't a corrupt tool of the oil companies just like Bush was.
#1, #3, #5, and #6 won't happen in a million years. I personally think President Obama is centrist enough that he would actually like to make #2 happen, but I think he's playing politics for the time being--I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see him approve it if he gets reelected. I don't know enough about #4 really to comment--wouldn't that be an eas ...[text shortened]... And I actually like #7, since it uses the emergency reserves without actually using them.
#1 is the right thing to do and the environmentalists are serious idiots for thinking we can't do it and keep wildlife safe. It is not being done because there is an effort to keep oil prices artificially high.
5 and 6 should be done. This is another effort to keep oil prices artificially high and prime Iran for an invasion in a year or two when the crippling sanctions weaken Iran like Iraq was weakened with sanctions before our government invaded them using false (WMD) reasons.
My point is that Obama has a lot of control over oil and gas prices. Any claim that he doesn't is pure propaganda.
15 Mar 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is not cost effective without subsidies. If it were cost effective, my brother and other dairy farmers would be doing it and they are not. It is too expensive.
It doesn't need to. It is nevertheless a good energy source and should be utilized where appropriate.
15 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal Brainhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Gulf_of_Mexico_oil_spill#Ecology
#1 is the right thing to do and the environmentalists are serious idiots for thinking we can't do it and keep wildlife safe.
Risk is risk is risk, however small.
PS--I forgot to address your secondary point about ANWR drilling:
"With respect to the world oil price impact, projected ANWR oil production constitutes between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption [...] Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices."
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/results.html
15 Mar 12
Originally posted by wittywonkaI wasn't talking about offshore drilling and you know it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Gulf_of_Mexico_oil_spill#Ecology
Risk is risk is risk, however small.
PS--I forgot to address your secondary point about ANWR drilling:
"With respect to the world oil price impact, projected ANWR oil production constitutes between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption [...] Consequently, ANWR oil pro ...[text shortened]... e a large impact on world oil prices."
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/results.html
The risk to the environment in ANWR Alaska is nearly nonexistent. The fact that offshore drilling is still allowed is an extreme double standard. Anybody that uses environment as an excuse to not drill in ANWR Alaska is an idiot.
15 Mar 12
Originally posted by wittywonkaYour own link lists these as benefits to drilling in ANWR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Gulf_of_Mexico_oil_spill#Ecology
Risk is risk is risk, however small.
PS--I forgot to address your secondary point about ANWR drilling:
"With respect to the world oil price impact, projected ANWR oil production constitutes between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption [...] Consequently, ANWR oil pro ...[text shortened]... e a large impact on world oil prices."
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/results.html
reducing world oil prices,
reducing the U.S. dependence on imported foreign oil,
improving the U.S. balance of trade,
extending the life of TAPS for oil, and
increasing U.S. jobs.
16 Mar 12
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe issue is one of cost-benefit analysis. Yes, the risk is "nearly" nonexistent. But there still is a risk, and given that the benefits are largely insignificant in the short- and long-term, I for one am uncomfortable with taking the risk at all. I would reconsider my position if I felt confident that we could increase the world oil supply by more than 1 whopping percentage point.
16 Mar 12
Originally posted by wittywonkaThat is just an estimate. Nobody really knows how much oil is there until you drill for it. Personally, I would bet money that there is much more oil there than those estimates indicate.
The issue is one of cost-benefit analysis. Yes, the risk is "nearly" nonexistent. But there still is a risk, and given that the benefits are largely insignificant in the short- and long-term, I for one am uncomfortable with taking the risk at all. I would reconsider my position if I felt confident that we could increase the world oil supply by more than 1 whopping percentage point.
Even 1% of the whole world supply would have an impact on prices here. I feel it is stupid not to drill there. Would you rather risk a prolonged recession with inflation? It is a no brainer as far as I'm concerned.
16 Mar 12
2 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainIt's not as though global (i.e., Chinese and Indian) oil demand will have stagnated during the 20+ years it would take before anyone could start to sell the oil, either.
That is just an estimate. Nobody really knows how much oil is there until you drill for it. Personally, I would bet money that there is much more oil there than those estimates indicate.
Even 1% of the whole world supply would have an impact on prices here. I feel it is stupid not to drill there. Would you rather risk a prolonged recession with inflation? It is a no brainer as far as I'm concerned.
And, even if the report's upper estimate (1.2% ) was off by 100 percent, then we're still only talking about a 2.5% offset, without consideration of the exponential increase in demand.
16 Mar 12
2 edits
Originally posted by wittywonkaFurthermore, reading a little more...
It's not as though global (i.e., Chinese and Indian) oil demand will have stagnated during the 20+ years it would take before anyone could start to sell the oil, either.
And, even if the report's upper estimate (1.2% ) was off by 100 percent, then we're still only talking about a 2.5% offset, without consideration of the exponential increase in demand.
The report I quoted also states that "ANWR oil production is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light (LSL) crude oil prices of [...] $1.44 per barrel in 2027 in the high oil resource case." And, according to www.about.com, "For every one dollar increase in the price of a barrel of oil (42 gallons of oil), gasoline prices rise 2.5 cents per gallon at the pump."
So we'd be talking about saving somewhere around $0.04 per gallon of gasoline, in the "high oil resource case," after 20 years.
Also reassuring is another observation of that report: "Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount."
Hopefully, at the very least, you can thus understand my lack of enthusiasm about ANWR drilling.
16 Mar 12
Originally posted by Metal BrainIt may not be cost effective where your brother lives. After all, you get cheap fuel (and possibly electricity) and high labour costs in the US. That doesn't mean its not cost effective elsewhere. It is in use in many countries suggesting that it is cost effective there. It is also probably cost effective where there aren't already power lines.
It is not cost effective without subsidies. If it were cost effective, my brother and other dairy farmers would be doing it and they are not. It is too expensive.
Another factor might simply be that it needs to be kick started to be cost effective. Maybe if the equipment was mass produced and used on a larger scale it would become cheaper than alternatives.
16 Mar 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadGermany (as well as most European countries) heavily taxes their fuel, so maybe it is worth it there. It is not worth it here. Maybe the big corporate farms would be different. I'll give you that.
It may not be cost effective where your brother lives. After all, you get cheap fuel (and possibly electricity) and high labour costs in the US. That doesn't mean its not cost effective elsewhere. It is in use in many countries suggesting that it is cost effective there. It is also probably cost effective where there aren't already power lines.
Another f ...[text shortened]... ipment was mass produced and used on a larger scale it would become cheaper than alternatives.
We have cheap natural gas here. If it wasn't such a pain in the butt to switch to natural gas powered vehicles, we could have it compete with gasoline and diesel and lower the costs of transportation. The downside would be the fracking which is a legitimate concern.
16 Mar 12
Originally posted by wittywonkaI didn't suggest selling the oil to foreign countries. Any increase in demand only makes drilling make more sense, not less.
It's not as though global (i.e., Chinese and Indian) oil demand will have stagnated during the 20+ years it would take before anyone could start to sell the oil, either.
And, even if the report's upper estimate (1.2% ) was off by 100 percent, then we're still only talking about a 2.5% offset, without consideration of the exponential increase in demand.
1.2% of the ENTIRE WORLD's production isn't bad. Your solution is to sit on the oil and hope our economy will thrive despite the high price. That is not much of a solution, especially while Obama allows offshore drilling while claiming to care about the environment. The retarded double standard is clear.
Did you hear Obama saying we need alternative energy sources and compared those opposed to it to the flat earth society? There are no alternative energy sources that are cost effective enough to solve anything in the sort term, even with subsidies which would require tax hikes that even he has never fought for. He didn't even let the Bush tax cuts expire like he promised he would. Even when he could have just sit on his butt and do nothing to let those tax cuts for the rich expire he acts to prevent change he claims to believe in. Now that it is an election year he is making the same pitch he failed the first time. Why anybody would believe him is beyond me.
Obama is a moron if he believes his own rhetoric, but I doubt he does. He is just pandering to the eviron-mentally ill idiots who believe in a conspiracy to suppress green technologies that can't compete with fossil fuels and cannot in the near future. He is more like the flat earth society if he actually thinks he is on to something.
16 Mar 12
1 edit
I can't understand the position that we shouldn't drill. Who cares if it doesn't drop the price by a single penny?
Do we not want our money to go to our economy? Do we not want the extra tax dollars to go to our government? The more oil that we produce, the less money we will send to other countries.
One of the positive side effects would be a lowering of prices. It is obvious that with greater production the prices will be lower. Lower prices and more money staying in country, that's a win-win.
Add to that the number of jobs created by the drilling and there's a third win.
Drilling is a win-win-win for the US.
Obama wants to limit drilling in the US, but wants to buy oil from countries like Brazil. Why does he want jobs in other countries? Why does he want us to send our money to other countries? Just doesn't makes sense.