The proposed bill would permanently ban development of ANWR and the jack fields on the eastern gulf cost. Leases to the latter will be sold to other countries by mexico.
The lease legalizes offshore drilling outside of 50 miles - well beyond the vast majority of the recoverable oil and natural gas - so long as the adjoining state grants it's permission. In a completely unrelated caveat, under this bill states will no longer be paid lease royalties, entirely removing any economic benefit a state would have for allowing oil development.
Even the most optimistic estimations guess that this bill would place 80% of America's natural oil reserves permanently off-limits to development, but because 82% is currently temporarily off limits we're supposed to see this as a pro-drilling bill.
Oh yeah the bill also contains enormous new taxes on oil companies and huge new subsidies for ethanol and the other usual crap.
Keep voting for these people. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 09-22-2008 at 07:29 AM.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java the thoughts aquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
quote:
Blindy. painfully thought these words up:
Why 50 miles?
I'll venture a guess and say that Democrats don't really want to encourage oil development; the largest portion of oil to be found, as was pointed out, is within 50 miles of shore. One of the articles mentioned something about a lack of oil company infrastructure outside those 50 miles as well.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java the thoughts aquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Edit: Also I can't believe you're worried about this when Republican leaders are proposing a 700 billion dollar handout to Wall Street. Noxhil fucked around with this message on 09-22-2008 at 11:05 AM.
The reason 50 miles out is because it carries about 1% of the possible reserves, and all of it is in UNFAVORABLE locations for extraction. there will be next to no drilling off the west coast because our oil shelf is about 3 miles out max. on the east coast about 12 to 20 miles out for favorable conditions. Visibility is only the glossed over version on why it's out at 50 miles (even though ships lose visibility at about 25 miles on the horizon at sea level).
God I hope that the next congress will do something about the mess that has happened.
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Noxhil booooze lime pole over bench lick:
Visibility from coastsEdit: Also I can't believe you're worried about this when Republican leaders are proposing a 700 billion dollar handout to Wall Street.
Curious you should mention that, when Obama's own campaign is rife with former FM/FM CEO's in advisory positions, and the democrats were the ones pushing for deregulation of that industry for the past five years or so, while McCain is on record supporting a bill for additional regulation for fannie and freddie which the democrats defeated.
quote:
Maradon! screamed this from the crapper:
Curious you should mention that, when Obama's own campaign is rife with former FM/FM CEO's in advisory positions, and the democrats were the ones pushing for deregulation of that industry for the past five years or so, while McCain is on record supporting a bill for additional regulation for fannie and freddie which the democrats defeated.
I believe the deregulation which is raping us ATM (at the moment or ass to mouth, take your pick) occured back in 1999 under Clinton.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Maradon! Model 2000 was programmed to say:
Curious you should mention that, when Obama's own campaign is rife with former FM/FM CEO's in advisory positions, and the democrats were the ones pushing for deregulation of that industry for the past five years or so, while McCain is on record supporting a bill for additional regulation for fannie and freddie which the democrats defeated.
It was more a comment on how you ignore the misdeeds of Republicans in power rather than an endorsement of Obama. McCain and Obama have similar positions on the response.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Noxhiling:
It was more a comment on how you ignore the misdeeds of Republicans in power rather than an endorsement of Obama. McCain and Obama have similar positions on the response.
And mine was more a comment on how the freddie/fannie nationalization was not a republican misdeed in any sense.
The community reinvestment act passed in the mid 70's by the Carter administration*. It forced banks to give out loans in high-risk minority neighborhoods, ie. reverse-redlining. Banks responded with the adjustable rate mortgage and it was heralded as a major win for civil rights.
Fast forward to the Clinton administration. They dug the CRA out of mothballs and shot it full of steroids. Until very recently the clinton foundation website even had a full page about the glory of the CRA and how they were responsible for the vast majority of loans granted to low income families. Some of this is the fault of both parties because Republicans didn't do enough to stop it, but the crime was comitted with the passage of the CRA, not with the inevitable result of forcing banks to hand out loans to people who couldn't afford them just because they were dark complected.
This bailout is a horrible thing, and you won't be able to find a republican to argue otherwise (ps I'm still not a republican just a reminder) but the bailout was made inevitable by the CRA.
*(side note: the carter administration was the last time democrats held both executive and legislative branches of government for a significant period of time)
quote:
x--KarnajO-('-'Q) :
To the OP, my main question would be: how much production are we denying outselves, assuming we fully developed these reserves? In other words, how many bpd can these resources produced when developed? If it's anything under 2 or 2.5 million bpd, then there's really no point anyway. It's great to have 19 billion barrels in reserves, but even at a million barrels per day, it would take us over fifty years to extract all that oil. As a commodity, oil's going to be largely gone probably a decade before that.
If offshore drilling were actually allowed, estimates are anywhere between 19 and 50 million BPD going full steam. Optimistic estimates that include ANWR are much higher. The democrats bill will legalize maybe 1.5 million BPD. I'm getting that from a former Shell CEO on the radio, so take that for what it's worth, I'll have to google it when I get home.
quote:
x--Blindy.O-('-'Q) :
I'm voting for Obama because he's going to cut my taxes more than McCain would. You should too. I vote with my wallet like any good capitalist should.
You seriously have no concept of what capitalism is if this is what you believe capitalists believe, even in jest.
What you're describing is a materialist, which is a far cry from a capitalist.
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
quote:
This one time, at Blindy. camp:
I'm voting for Obama because he's going to cut my taxes more than McCain would. You should too. I vote with my wallet like any good capitalist should.
The company I would for would hire 6 less people under Obamas plan then McCain's plan. Considering we only have 34 people in the company right now that's a pretty big fucking deal. I'm going to vote for McCain because the person that fills my wallet would benefit more.
quote:
Maradon! still thinks SARS jokes are topical, as evidenced by:
If offshore drilling were actually allowed, estimates are anywhere between 19 and 50 million BPD going full steam. Optimistic estimates that include ANWR are much higher. The democrats bill will legalize maybe 1.5 million BPD. I'm getting that from a former Shell CEO on the radio, so take that for what it's worth, I'll have to google it when I get home.
I doubt those numbers very, very much. 50 million BPD is something like 2/3 of the current world oil production. Half of it, anyway. With 19 billion barrels in reserves, we would exhaust the reserves in a year and change. There would be no reason install such insane pumping capacity because it would mean that all those very expensive rigs would be useless after 15 or so months. Also, there's no point in pumping that fast anyway, because no one on the planet is building refineries to handle that kind of additional capacity. Furthermore, nothing I've seen suggests that these reserves are any more abundant and easily accessible than, say, current oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
x--KarnajO-('-'Q) :
I doubt those numbers very, very much. 50 million BPD is something like 2/3 of the current world oil production. Half of it, anyway. With 19 billion barrels in reserves, we would exhaust the reserves in a year and change. There would be no reason install such insane pumping capacity because it would mean that all those very expensive rigs would be useless after 15 or so months. Also, there's no point in pumping that fast anyway, because no one on the planet is building refineries to handle that kind of additional capacity. Furthermore, nothing I've seen suggests that these reserves are any more abundant and easily accessible than, say, current oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico.
I'm pretty sure he stated numbers assuming a maximum theoretical capacity and included things like shale in his figures.
I only just got home now and honestly I don't care enough to verify his numbers right now.
All that aside, a dollar of oil that we produce is another dollar that stays inside our country instead of becoming the sovereign funds of some theocrat or dictator. Whether or not it affects sustainability is a separate, and mostly irrelevant argument. If an oil tycoon wanted to waltz onto federal land and poke cucumbers up his butt and charge the japanese a dime a gander, I would not be more inclined to obstruct him. There aren't any constitutional provisions for federal ownership of land outside forts and military installations anyway.
I just wanted to pop in to remind everybody that oil hit $120 a barrel again today, even with the credit crisis driving most other futures down. Correlation doesn't equal causation? Maybe, it's just kinda funny that Bush does something concrete to secure the future of oil and oil plummets, then Pelosi does something concrete to destroy the future of oil and oil soars, don't you think? Maradon! fucked around with this message on 09-22-2008 at 10:45 PM.
quote:
Maradon! screamed this from the crapper:
I'm pretty sure he stated numbers assuming a maximum theoretical capacity and included things like shale in his figures.
That would make more sense. Shale estimates are in the hundreds of billions of barrels, supposedly, so that kind of abundance could support such a high number. The only problem is that right now is that shale extraction has an awful EROEI and there's no infrastructure in place to extract large quantities of the stuff with any measure of cleanliness. If someone's in situ extraction technology pans out, then maybe we'll have something.
quote:
I just wanted to pop in to remind everybody that oil hit $120 a barrel again today, even with the credit crisis driving most other futures down. Correlation doesn't equal causation? Maybe, it's just kinda funny that Bush does something concrete to secure the future of oil and oil plummets, then Pelosi does something concrete to destroy the future of oil and oil soars, don't you think?
So? Low oil prices may be great now, but they will (not may, will) fuck us in the long run. Oil infrastructure has such tremendous inertia in this country that only jarring shocks to the status quo will begin to bring about changes to the way our society operates, and a 50% rise in fuel costs in the last year or so has done just that. Continued high prices means continued pressure to alter the infrastructure, in the variety of forms that currently takes. Oil falling to $50/barrel would be the worst possible thing that could happen to these nascent technologies.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
x--KarnajO-('-'Q) :
So? Low oil prices may be great now, but they will (not may, will) fuck us in the long run. Oil infrastructure has such tremendous inertia in this country that only jarring shocks to the status quo will begin to bring about changes to the way our society operates, and a 50% rise in fuel costs in the last year or so has done just that. Continued high prices means continued pressure to alter the infrastructure, in the variety of forms that currently takes. Oil falling to $50/barrel would be the worst possible thing that could happen to these nascent technologies.
The worst thing that could happen to new technology is that it would be unnecessary? Well, that's technically true, but it's a strange thing to dread.
Rooting for high gas prices to help facilitate an alternative energy solution is a bit like rooting for aids proliferation to help facilitate a cure for immune system diseases: Cheering on an enormous amount of destruction in the faint hope that it will bring on some fairy tale solution.
If alternative energy is necessary, then research on it will continue irregardless of present oil prices. You don't need to worry about alternative energy fading into obscurity once oil hits $50 a barrel, that's just silly and it would be contrary to the self-interest of everybody involved. Alternative energy research will continue because it IS necessary and everybody knows it, most of all the people whose livelihood depends on it.
You don't need to worry about artificially propping up alternative energy research. People will do it for the only valid reason people do anything - because there's unfathomable amounts of money to be had in it, whether a barrel of oil is $5 or $500.
quote:
We all got dumber when Maradon! said:
All that aside, a dollar of oil that we produce is another dollar that stays inside our country instead of becoming the sovereign funds of some theocrat or dictator. Whether or not it affects sustainability is a separate, and mostly irrelevant argument. If an oil tycoon wanted to waltz onto federal land and poke cucumbers up his butt and charge the japanese a dime a gander, I would not be more inclined to obstruct him. There aren't any constitutional provisions for federal ownership of land outside forts and military installations anyway.
1) Drilling for new oil will have an absolutely minimal impact on our oil prices and on the amount of oil we import.
2) Switching to some alternative energy (sooner, rather than later) will have a much much larger impact on the amount of oil we import.
3) If every dollar we send to the middle east is working against us, then we should have a vested interest on getting on alternative energy.
4) High oil prices give a viable market incentive to develop alternative energy.
quote:
Nobody really understood why Blindy. wrote:
1) Drilling for new oil will have an absolutely minimal impact on our oil prices and on the amount of oil we import.
What? Bush pushing for offshore drilling alone lowered oil prices. What makes you think that actually finding more oil won't have any effect?
quote:
2) Switching to some alternative energy (sooner, rather than later) will have a much much larger impact on the amount of oil we import.
We need something we can switch to first. Until then, we need oil. I don't think making everyone pay more at the pump is going to pull magical oil alternative fairies out of the common man's ass.
quote:
3) If every dollar we send to the middle east is working against us, then we should have a vested interest on getting on alternative energy.
yes. I'm not sure what's not to get here, eventually we will run out of oil. Will happen at some point. We're going to need an alternative sooner or later, so it should be expected that people are working to create such a thing.
Not having to pay the middle eastern companies would also be a benefit of getting more of our own oil sources. The more we can get for ourselves, the less we'll have to pay those companies.
quote:
4) High oil prices give a viable market incentive to develop alternative energy.
and make everyone suffer until one such source is done. Oh, and not only finding such a source, but developing cheap and common enough technology that makes good use of the new source of energy.
quote:
Blindy.ing:
1) Drilling for new oil will have an absolutely minimal impact on our oil prices and on the amount of oil we import.
This is completely untrue, and you should probably stop relying on SA forum trolls for your information. Most of the recent increase in the price of a barrel of oil is the result of uncertainty. Guarantees of future development would ease that uncertainty. This is how futures markets work.
quote:
2) Switching to some alternative energy (sooner, rather than later) will have a much much larger impact on the amount of oil we import.
It certainly will. Luckily, we don't have to choose between allowing companies to drill for oil and allowing companies to research alternative energy.
quote:
3) If every dollar we send to the middle east is working against us, then we should have a vested interest on getting on alternative energy.
Where on earth did you get the idea that anybody was saying we didn't?
Are you really interested in a rational discussion? Are you copying talking points off some website or responding to things I've actually said? These are things I'd like to know.
quote:
4) High oil prices give a viable market incentive to develop alternative energy.
And aids gives a viable market incentive to develop a cure for aids, so let's make condoms illegal.
This is such an enormously irrational position to take that it's hard for me to respond to without being openly insulting.
First, you're assuming that the miraculous invention of cheap energy is just a matter of money and a bit of effort. In reality, we have some serious grappling with the first law of thermodynamics to do before we can get anything renewable to be anywhere near as cheap as oil.
We could throw our entire gross domestic product into the idea and never get any results, or get them in ten years, or a hundred. If you know of an alternative energy proposition that isn't being held up by a lack of some unprecedented abridgment of the laws of nature, by all means please share because I haven't heard of it.
Secondly, you're rather arbitrarily declaring the immediate end of oil for no particular reason. Oil has lots of problems, but fixing those problems would be whole worlds easier than waiting for someone to invent pixie dust so we can all fly to work unassisted. The efficiency of our use of oil is one major problem, but the availability of oil is far more immediate and far more immediately addressable. Even if you believe that Exxon can't do in five years what Gazprom does in one - scout a well and start bringing barrels to the surface - the promise of future development will drive futures down and affect the price of oil today.
And even if you believe that it won't, why on earth stop them from trying and blowing their money on thousands of teamster jobs and construction jobs in the process? Maradon! fucked around with this message on 09-23-2008 at 07:11 PM.
Vallo, the Second Coming fucked around with this message on 09-23-2008 at 07:47 PM.
Yes, finding an alternative energy source for transportation is just a matter of money and effort.
And, thanks to the miracle of economics, it will be much quicker in the coming if oil is 100+ a barrel versus 60 a barrel. Why?
Well, the demand in the market is bigger for your alternative energy source at $100 versus $60 a barrel. And it's also much easier to make something to compete with $100 a barrel oil, because you've got 66% more margin to play with than at $60 a barrel.
And, once the break though happens, and someone manages to make an alternative energy source for transportation that is comparable in price to oil, that alternative energy should become much cheaper as the technology behind it improves and the industry around it spins up.
Yes, it is painful now. No, that pain will not be releaved by drilling off shore. Yes, oil prices were slightly effected by GW announcing he was removing the ban - that is because our oil market is poorly regulated and driven entirely by speculation. No, oil prices and supply are not in any way realistically affected by a global capacity increase of less than a percent by opening offshore drilling around the lower 48. Blindy. fucked around with this message on 09-23-2008 at 08:32 PM.
quote:
Blindy.ing:
No, my source is the department of energy.
[IMG]http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/images/figure_20big.gif[x/IMG]
This information isn't the source of anything that you said in your previous post 
quote:
Yes, finding an alternative energy source for transportation is just a matter of money and effort.
How do you figure? Demand for gold is really high, are we going to find a way to transmute lead into gold? We've poured trillions of dollars and decades of effort into eliminating poverty, and yet poverty is still around.
quote:
And, thanks to the miracle of economics, it will be much quicker in the coming if oil is 100+ a barrel versus 60 a barrel. Why?Well, the demand in the market is bigger for your alternative energy source at $100 versus $60 a barrel.
Yes, I understand far better than you do what you are saying and I am telling you that you are wrong for the reasons I listed in the above post.
quote:
And it's also much easier to make something to compete with $100 a barrel oil, because you've got 66% more margin to play with than at $60 a barrel.
What an incredibly silly thing to say. We should artificially jack up the price of oil as a carrot to create something more expensive than oil? What do we gain by that? Isn't the whole damn purpose of alternative energy to create something cheaper than oil?
Wait, you've given me an idea, let's torch oil wells and irradiate all our natural energy supplies! Then, once oil hits $10,000,000 a barrel it will be economically viable to power everything with fusion! THIS IS THE BEST IDEA EVER.
You're problem is that you're locked into the hallucination that you know better than everybody else what the energy market should be doing. I am telling you that the energy market knows far better than you what the energy market should be doing.
quote:
And, once the break though happens, and someone manages to make an alternative energy source for transportation that is comparable in price to oil, that alternative energy should become much cheaper as the technology behind it improves and the industry around it spins up.
Unless it doesn't, and it won't if it's less abundant than oil, which is just the sort of technology we'll get by doing what you say and artificially inflating the price of oil.
quote:
No, that pain will not be releaved by drilling off shore.
How do you figure?
quote:
Yes, oil prices were slightly effected by GW announcing he was removing the ban - that is because our oil market is poorly regulated and driven entirely by speculation.
Speculation is what will naturally drive the price up when oil actually does start to run out. Speculation is the only possible way to run a business that is dependent on a finite resource.
quote:
No, oil prices and supply are not in any way realistically affected by a global capacity increase of less than a percent by opening offshore drilling around the lower 48.
How do you figure?
Nothing that you've said here made any sense when the political mouthpieces said it the first time, either.
quote:
Maradon! got served! Maradon! got served!
The worst thing that could happen to new technology is that it would be unnecessary? Well, that's technically true, but it's a strange thing to dread.Rooting for high gas prices to help facilitate an alternative energy solution is a bit like rooting for aids proliferation to help facilitate a cure for immune system diseases: Cheering on an enormous amount of destruction in the faint hope that it will bring on some fairy tale solution.
Your analogy might hold if oil were in any way a sustainable resource. Regardless of any desire you or I may have to see oil last forever, it's going to be all but gone in as little as twenty-five years (probably closer to forty, though). No, there is no fairy tale solution to this problem. It requires that we radically alter how we collect and distribute energy to our population, because the mineral sludge we're using right now is going bye-bye. It either hurts us a moderate amount now(through high prices and
minor spot shortages) and we do something about it, or it hurts us a lot more in ten years (with outrageous prices and widespread shortages) and we do something about it. Given those two options, I'll take the former.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Yes it is, it's the source of the fact that drilling is going to do shit.
>How do you figure? Demand for gold is really high, are we going to find a way to transmute lead into gold? We've poured trillions of dollars and decades of effort into eliminating poverty, and yet poverty is still around.
Can I get a strawman on two? Hey guys, creating alternative fuels is just as impossible as eliminating world poverty and transmuting one element to another element using magic. HAHA! You heard it from the entry level tech support guy first.
>Yes, I understand far better than you do what you are saying and I am telling you that you are wrong for the reasons I listed in the above post.
No, apparently you don't, because you think people are going to keep researching alternative fuels with the same vigor if oil is $50 a barrel.
>What an incredibly silly thing to say. We should artificially jack up the price of oil as a carrot to create something more expensive than oil? What do we gain by that? Isn't the whole damn purpose of alternative energy to create something cheaper than oil?
No, the point (THAT YOU MADE, YOURSELF) that I am attempting to discuss is to get off middle eastern oil asap. If you want that to happen, you either need
1- To create enough oil supply in the USA that we could stop importing from the middle east.
2- To create an alternative energy source that reduces our demand for foreign oil.
1 is not possible according to the US department of energy, at least not via offshore drilling. Offshore drilling will have such a minimal impact that it will not accomplish this goal, and adding a marginal reduction to the tune of 200,000 barrels a day is of questionable value.
2 IS possible. It will just take time, and money.
>Wait, you've given me an idea, let's torch oil wells and irradiate all our natural energy supplies! Then, once oil hits $10,000,000 a barrel it will be economically viable to power everything with fusion! THIS IS THE BEST IDEA EVER.
Another straw man. Letting oil stay at 100-130 a barrel range in order to spur alternative fuel development is not the same as any of this.
>You're problem is that you're locked into the hallucination that you know better than everybody else what the energy market should be doing. I am telling you that the energy market knows far better than you what the energy market should be doing.
You are an idealistic fool if you think that markets will self regulate to the most desireable outcome. See wallstreet and what it did to itself over the last 10 years. Yes, we would eventually see alternative fuels developed if we didn't give the markets a little push. Yes, we would eventually ween ourselves off of foreign oil. BUT it would take much longer. AND, it may take a crisis for it to happen.
What is the bigger evil? Giving the markets a little tap, or sending additional funds to middle eastern dictators and theocrats and exposing yourself to additional risk of an energy crisis by letting the timeline grow?
>Unless it doesn't, and it won't if it's less abundant than oil, which is just the sort of technology we'll get by doing what you say and artificially inflating the price of oil.
Keep oil affordable, but don't push to make oil cheap.
>How do you figure?
The Department of Energy figured for me.
>Speculation is what will naturally drive the price up when oil actually does start to run out. Speculation is the only possible way to run a business that is dependent on a finite resource.
I know. That is one of the biggest pitfalls of an oil powered economy.
>How do you figure?
The Department of Energy figured for me.
>Nothing that you've said here made any sense when the political mouthpieces said it the first time, either Blindy. fucked around with this message on 09-24-2008 at 03:34 PM.
What spurs research in the large corporations? The probability of draconian laws that would affect them and their profit margin.
