The Republican Party recently dominated the legislative and executive branches of our federal government for six years and could not pass legislation that would allow expanded drilling along the coasts and ANWR. The resistance to coastal drilling crosses party lines and goes beyond simple arguments of "Democrats" and "idiot Republicans".

Hardly a slam-dunk argument. It is easily reversed to state that they also purposely want to create energy dependence and "crisis" situation to further increase profits. The Republican Party is also beholden to business interests that care more for short term profits over long term sustainability and environmental balance.

Agreed.

Cheap and false argument. I could easily live with a "drop" of oil. But it's thousands of barrels, not drops that are being spilled.

We (America) have enough estimated coal reserves to provide our electrical generation needs for two hundred years and you throw in the red herring argument of Indonesian coal. I don't understand your point.

Yes, coal is an abundant resource. However, abundance doesn't mean we should use it without forethought. We need to balance to "energy potential" with the "impact potential". We can't continue to burn coal and pour tons of CO2 into the atmosphere without accepting the consequence.

Besides, we must ensure arguments against Indonesian coal aren't just protectionist rhetoric reclad in light of the current carbon emission debate.

I almost agree with ya. They may care slightly about the bears, but I believe it's about using the available laws to protect the bear, to instead lower future carbon emissions. One uses the available tools to fight the battle at hand.

I must admit I really enjoyed, and took advantage of, cheap carbon-based energy. It fueled my jaunts through the desert, it kept my house warm in the winter. I remember filling up my for 390 CI land-yacht with 99 cent/gallon gas. I remember cranking up my house air conditioner to a comfortable level because cheap energy was available.

That day is gone.

CO2, from our love of cheap energy, is poisoning our world. We must face up to the fact that our energy usage must be re-evaluated. It's not about denying that oil resides offshore, it's not about wanting to rely upon the Middle East or Venezuela, it's about keeping out world healthy for our kids.

But ya know what? Maybe it's the people that want to throw "shit" on the debate that don't get it. CO2 is higher than almost ever since geological records can be found - or at least since mammals have been walking. CO2 seems to be causing widespread changes to where we hunt, live, recreate, and die. Maybe, just maybe, the tons of CO2 we spit out every day to drive, heat-n-cool our house, provide our plastics, and fertilize our crops is reducing our future prospects.

If you want to say I'm full of shit, so be it, that will pass tomorrow. I'm concerned with the world I leave my grandchildren.

NEW RESPONSE FROM NY MADMAN
Once again, thanks for the intelligent debate.

So, I extend the thought that oil wouldn't be so highly regulated if they didn't have all those offshore platform and pipeline spills (as documented by NOAA), and you respond with stating that I am "full of shit". That makes me the teenager? OK, I'd love to be young again.

I never stated that oil accidents are exclusive to US companies. My original points were explicit to US territories because that's where our government can legislate.

So, just because we aren't the most egregious polluters makes our pollution OK? We (along with Great Britain & the Netherlands) built Saudi Arabia's infrastructure, are you saying it's the cleanest? We (along with Great Britain & the Netherlands) built Iraq & Iran's infrastructure, are you saying it's the cleanest? We (along with Great Britain) built Venezuela's infrastructure, are you saying it's the cleanest? And Niger, etc...

Now Norway, there I'd agree with ya.

Agreed, but that doesn't give us the right to pollute.
I'd complain no matter the source of the spill.

Yep, I believe they don't care. And that's exactly why I believe we now need to reduce oil dependence - no matter the source.

More intelligent debate: denigrate me and ignore my concerns. How does that help? I love America. I'm proud of our history & accomplishments - warts and all. That doesn't mean I want to continue past mistakes. We can, and must, improve upon our past performance.

No, the cleanest aren't American, but Norwegian.

The wide bans upon drilling along the American coastline are due directly to environmental damages caused by American companies drilling along California, Florida, Alaska, and Oregon. As I said in the very beginning, if they had done a clean job then, we wouldn't be having this debate now.

Thanks for the label. We aren't dependent upon foreign oil because of US restrictions, we are dependent upon foreign oil because there is WAY more oil elsewhere than what we have here. There, I said it. Are you gonna label me because geological forces placed more oil over there than here?

We are a country of law, you say that like a bad thing.

The meatpacking industry made some mistakes, they were cleaned up through legislation. Banking made some mistakes, they were cleaned up through legislation. From you comments I would guess that you too would be a "legislation-radical" because (and I'm guessing here) that you like the protections offered to your cut of fillet and bank account.

I'll bud in with a question, So lez say we do open them up, and they do drill. How long will it take us for that oil to get to us, 6, 7 years?
I say open it, but that cannot be the only freaking answer. What happens when that oil runs out? Do we know how much is there? Do we know how much is left in the world? the answer is NO. opening the oil field can give us a short term relief, but not long term.
Oil companies should stay private, not in government control. but should be looked at by the government or a 3rd party that has NO interest in either outcome to make sure everyone is playing by the rules so no Exxon Valdez happens again.

Why is the answer pump, pump more oil.
The oil companies have broken refineries that they do not want to fix. these freaking investors jacking prices up? WTF.
Government taking over oil companies? NO, regulating, making sure they play by the rules? Yes

The only thing I find myself disagreeing with you on Lee is the CO2 argument. I don't beleive it to be polution, but neccessary for life on the planet and a good thing, of which we may find we need more of if there is another Ice Age in our lifetimes. Has sunspot cylce 24 started yet?

I'm not worried about using up the World's supply of oil, due to the fact, it will be over 50-100 years from now. Past my life, but not for my kids, etc. By then I am absolutely confident that We the US, will have solved the energy issue and most of the "Cars" will be relics of the past and not around anymore, nor functional.

I think NYMM just found you an easy rant, that's ok, I get it from time to time. Just ignore and move on. I liked your forward thinking responses though.

Have a great weekend!

On one hand I have NYMM, whom I normally agree with on these debates. ON the other, I have Leland, a friend for several years now, and someone whose opinions I respect.

I too have to balk a bit at the C02 argument though. I still don't think there's any definitive proof that manmade CO2 is causing global warming. There's compelling cases for and against it. The planet has been warming and cooling during its entire existence and it may be cyclical.

That said, that doesn't warrant us going in and buring everything we can get our hands on. However, more drilling is the only way we'll see midterm relief to this situation, but it can't be the only solution. Energy independence should be madly pursued in this country. Fuck the arabs and the venezuelans. Leave them without us as customers and watch their power and clout diminish. That's a win-win.

Viable alternative engergy sources are in many cases identified, but they're decades away from widespread usage. We have to have something in the mean time.

I'd support politicians with a realistic point of view. Open up drilling now and instead of doing idiotic things like trying to run the refineries, our tax dollars should be spent to subsidize alternative energy research and development, and down the road, perhaps even the infrastructure it will take for it to replace petroleum as our primary source of energy.

We don't need these halfassed solutions like corn ethanol either. The yield is too low. We need to be looking at solar, wind, hydrogen, etc. We need to find easy and cheap ways to extract hydrogen from salt water, but it's going to take time and money.

As for the records of our oil companies, you guys are both right. Yes, our oil companies are more environmentally responsible than those around the rest of the world, and yes, accidents still do occur. Nuclear accidents 30 years ago have swayed public opinion against nuclear power for that entire time, when in reality, it's one of the cleanest, safest sources of energy. New exploration will have to be strictly regulated to ensure no environmental disasters occur, but full prohibition of it is just not realistic unless we want to continue shipping a huge chunk of our GDP to these Arab fucks who only use it to further undermine our country.

Accasbel....

Your post is far too long to respond to all of it so I'll just concentrate on the main points.

You're argument that the oil companies are responsible for the lack of domestic sources of oil is completely bogus and a steaming pile of crap. It is completely due to the undue influence of the enviro-radicals. They created the bans with their legislative allies and through other methods such as judicial fiat.

Yes, the Republicans did try to open up some domestic sources of oil when they controlled Comgress, but due to the rules of the Senate everything was stopped in that chamber. The minority party has power to obstruct almost anything in the Senate as long as they have more than 40 votes. Democrats obstructed all attempts at opening up more domestic petroleum sources.

CO2 is NOT pollution. You are getting into arguing the bogus man made global warming debate and that is nothing but a big pile of crap. It is a political movement. Seemingly a religion now with some people.

Regarding coal...... the US has vast coal resources of it's own. However, that industry is under attack. Add to that the current and future legislation regarding global warming being pushed by the Democrats and the left, our own coal resources may fall by the wayside and demand for foreign coal would increase.

Under bogus global warming legislation the demand for the clean, low sulfur, low ash coal would skyrocket. Where does this clean coal come from? There are three main sources of this type of coal in the world. The United States has the largest reserves of this type of clean coal. However... it is no longer accessible. It is no longer available because Bill Clinton...a Democrat... made the entire region where this type of coal is found into a national park. That means we will never be allowed to get at it and use it.

The second largest source of this type of coal is Indonesia.... the most populated Muslim country in the world. It's clean coal industries have ties to the Chinese and those Chinese companies that have interests in the Indonesian operations are connected to the LIPPO Group. A name that should be familiar because they are friends of Bill Clinton.

So the proposed global warming legislation being pushed by the Democrats would not only increase our reliance on foreign oil.... it would increase our reliance on foreign sources of coal (at the same time shifting vast amounts of wealth away from the US into the hands of Indonesian Muslims and the Chinese). Something that shouldn't happen because the US has some of the largest coal reserves in the world. But that is what we are facing. Democrats and the left are going to force this country into even greater reliance on foreign sources of energy. The price Americans will be forced to pay for energy will be catastrophic to the country and the entire economy.

Democrats and their enviro-radical allies constantly looking to harm this country. That is all that has come from that alliance and that is all this is going to come from that alliance going down the road. Only is going to get exponentially worse.

We've already discussed in another thread the energy bill passed last year by the Democrats. It actually contains wording that bans other forms of energy sources. It bans the government from allowing the use of what is termed "dirty oil" sources. meaning after the next round of lawsuits filed by enviro-radicals, the oil sands of Canada may be off limits as a source of fuel.

That's the energy policy of the left.... banning all sources of energy and dragging this country down as far as they can take it.

As a mining engineer (most of you already know that) I can attest that MM is 99% correct. There is a little bit of this stuff in small pockets outside that BS park, but most of it got locked up. The rest is on target to get locked up soon as well.

Stupid policy. We have enormous amounts of clean coal, we can't do anything with. You would think an intelligent enviro would say, "wow, we should be using that in all our power plants, let's mine it" but no. That is why I consider myself a redneck enviro.

I don't want to derail the thread, so if anyone wants more info on coal, I could PMs.

Awesome information HERE!

Never knew that My state AZ had coal mines... Funny too is how little alternate energy is available here, Ie. Hydrogen, LNG, E85, etc. Down in Tucson is a different story. Wonder why when they have the tank farms and distribution so close to them?

These big white areas must be the protected areas that are off limits. I can understand the Grand Canyon, but the middle of our state? Don't recall seeing anything there that needed protection. Maybe Reservations?

It seems to be that both parties, the eco-fascists who refuse any drilling in restricted areas of the USA and the "drill until we drop" lovers of dino juice, are both correct in many ways. From my perspective America needs to really, REALLY have a comprehensive energy strategy that focuses primarily on alternative fuels .. and less so on oil/coal usage. I want to see America off its foreign oil dependency in 20 years. It *can* happen. But everyone will pay in some way.

Having said this, America does need to drill for more oil in areas like Alaska. This drilling expansion needs to be very measured and controlled. Quite simply, if we don't allow for additional drilling our overall domestic oil production is likely to fall precipitously. We have to hold our noses and allow for such drilling (and coal mining) into sensitive areas. This sucks. But until we are well along the way in executing an alternative energy strategy I fear we have no choice.

I hope by 2030 oil consumption in America drops by a third and oil production stays flat or grows somewhat. This would break the backs of OPEC members, to everyone else's joy.

_Lazza

PS - if oil prices stay high I think even the Dems in congress will allow for expanded oil exploration, although perhaps not really enough to sustain US oil production. But I fear neither party has the cojones to build and execute a national alternative energy strategy. The free market will eventually lead us in a direction which will hopefully work for everyone.

I agree. At some point the dems will need to give in to the working poor, whom they claim they best represent and pander to them. These fuel prices wlll destroy low income families and force them further into the poorhouse.

On the other hand, instead, they'll probably just force the rest of us to fund a program to subsidize fuel purchases by those making less than $XXX, since they feel the well off have bottomless pockets and we should feel responsible to redistribute wealth to the poor.

And Atlas shrugged.

All this talk about "alternative" energy sources is like waiting for the tooth fairy. Too many people think the energy fairy is going to come along and put a quarter under their pillow.

There might never be another alternative form of energy in our lifetimes or maybe even your children's lifetimes.

It's time to wake up and smell the coffee. The only way we are going to help ourselves is by.... helping ourselves to our own energy reserves.

There is enough oil under North America alone to last us for more than 100 years. Maybe by then the "alternative energy tooth fairy" will have invented something.

Quote:

But I fear neither party has the cojones to build and execute a national alternative energy strategy.

They do have an alternative strategy. It's making ethanol out of food crops.

Food prices will put everyone in the poorhouse eventually, but the politicians can feel good about themselves. They can claim to be doing something and at the same time they are buying votes with government farm welfare in primary election states like Iowa.

In fact I heard a politician the other day say all we have to do is conserve energy. He was CA Governor Arnold Moron. He said we have to conserve.... right after he got off his private plane that he uses to commute to work 3 hours a day. He also said oil was "dirty". It's clean enough to fuel his plane, but not clean enough to provide for the rest of us.

Point being.... we have a political class where most are complete scum and don't care about the average people as far as energy is concerned. They are rich. All their friends are rich. All they care about is the "emotions" and conversations on the cocktail party circuit. They don't want to see an oil derrick or windmill while sailing on their yachts. Fuck everyone else. It's all about them. :rolleyes:

Would that yacht be a sailboat, or a cabin cruiser?

There's no difference between republican and democrat idiots. We're being gamed by the oil companies. There's no incentive to spend a dollar (or a euro) on large long term capital outlays when there's easy profit in delivering $20/bbl oil at $135/bbl until the existing wells run dry. Lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling is a moot argument since none of the profiteers are going to do anything capital intensive to increase supply for our benefit. It is easier and much cheaper to over-run the easy oil oil-fields in Africa than develop anything American and so they will- except the Chinese have beaten us to it. Get over it. We're pwnd.

And you're a sucker if you fall for this 'we have to drill in America' campaign season gimmick. There is absolutely nothing that starting a new offshore or onshore drilling project in America today will do for the price of gas at the pump in any time frame except make no difference at all. (world market, remember) By the time a new project starts producing the impact will be nil.

Well in terms of an energy policy, or lack of one, I would say Dems and Republicans are both idiots ... but different type of idiots. Republicans seem to say "drill in Alaska and your problems go away" .. which is idiotic. Democrats say "let's tax the oil companies and spend it on alternative energy research, then your problems will go away". Complete rubbish from both sides. We are in a bind wrt this oil situation; it won't go alleviated appreciably for several years. No one in gov't has the guts to say "we're screwed. We should have seen it coming, and in fact we did, but we did sweet fuck all about it".

I agree with NY Madman, which in itself is remarkable , that ethanol is being splashed about (so to speak) as a alternative energy strategy. Corn-based ethanol is really, at best, some mediocre stop gap until real alternative forms of energy emerge. I am APPALLED at Obama for kissing the tushies of Illinois farmers by telling the world what a savior corn-based ethanol is. Disgusting, maybe even immoral. Sadly, I think John McCain is equally clueless.

_Lazza

Try researching the amount of money oil companies are actually investing in research, and then come back with that same old bs.

Once the Russians, OPEC, and others find out that we are serious about drilling, they will flood the market with cheap oil. It has happened before, and will happen again.

You're wrong for a number reasons.

You're statement claiming that the oil companies are "gaming the system" is completely idiotic. But I won't call you an idiot for saying it.

You seem to have fallen into the anti-oil company propaganda that is being bandied about.... usually by the same people who favor banning domestic sources of fuel.

You are aware that oil companies pay the market price for a barrel of oil that they purchase. They aren't "gaming" anything.

Government is making MORE money off gasoline and oil with these prices, yet some people still foolishly cast their misplaced anger toward oil companies. Where is the anger at government who is making MORE money than oil companies.

Considering there is not going to be any alternative forms of energy and petroleum will always be the best and primary source of fuel for the rest of all of our lives.... the smart thing to do is to extract our own resources and use it for our own use.

There is no reason that domestic oil has to be placed on the open market. In fact, if we can get away from foreign sources of petroleum, I would suggest a system where domestic oil is not sold on the open world market.

Currently some domestic petroleum is exported overseas. Many people are unaware that while the US imports most of it's petroleum, we are also a petroleum exporter.

Madman advocates market restrictions? wow.

As for exploration budgets... "March 5 (Bloomberg) -- Exxon Mobil Corp., which recorded the biggest profit for a U.S. company last year, will raise 2008 capital spending to more than $25 billion to cope with escalating costs for drilling rigs and engineers. "

That's less than 50% of their net getting rolled back into the company for building future supply, not a small amount but not a huge commitment either compared to the scale of the operation; they're certainly not digging deep into their access to capital for it.

I can speak to this directly. We just hired a new mining engineer about a year ago, fresh out from a great school for both mining and petroleum engineering. His salary was higher than I hoped, but comparable to the average out of the last year or two. While researching, I hit up petroleum engineers for fun. Holy crap, average in the high 80s, high numbers in the 100s... for a BSc. Not a Masters, a 4 year education. Rest assured, the best engineers in the world are going into petroleum; we will find more oil.

Past that the price of everything is going up. A lot. Drill steel, bits, fuel, pipe, even gloves, boots and respirators. Jackleg drills, one of the most basic pieces of equipment we use, are becoming tough to get. The US can't make it fast enough because half the industry in this country was sent to China; Chinese stuff sucks. Bits last one hole, drill steel breaks... I don't buy Chinese anymore at all so now I wait a month, maybe two. It's been tough on my small mine, even with the increase in the gold price.

These are real costs and problems. We don't produce enough enough engineers in the US anymore to employ for a big push (most of the best are retiring too). We can't even get the materials. Past that, it's tough to get workers who speak English, don't do drugs, will show up everyday, and not kill themselves on the job.

One last point - we could have most domestic oil sources flowing in two to three years, at the most, without environmental litigation. A buddy of mine went petroleum, asked him this very question not too long ago. The current figure some use of ten years is not due to infrastructure, it is due to holdups in court. Look at the Alaska Pipeline to see what we can do when we want it, and also look at how long the litigation delayed the project.

Actually, yes, I do support market restrictions in this case.

It's not often that I support government intervention and regulation, but as far as domestic crude oil, I would support de-listing it as a marketable commodity.

I would even go so far as the government issuing leases in exchange for a small portion of the profits (some of which could be put into an insurance fund to help pay for any accidental spills and cleanups) and a price control scheme on that domestic crude that would be fair and equitable to the oil companies and distribution channels. But most of all to guarantee low fuel prices to the American public. The public owns the land and should benefit from any petroleum pulled from land or off shore within US territorial limits.

In the 1990's Clinton vetoed a bill to open up Alaska to more drilling. The morons back then were screaming it might take as much as 10 years to get that oil, so it would be a waste of time to try.

Well, if we did that little bit of drilling back then, we would now have millions of barrels a day coming into the market.

Regarding your other comments, yes, oil companies spend a lot of their money in research and development. A lot of money is spent in exploration and some of it is lost in drilling operations that wind up yielding nothing.

They also operate with lower profit margins than most businesses.

If the United States could get even close to being self sufficient regarding petroleum, that would scare the shit out of many other countries. Many of whom are hostile to the interests of this country.

It's a national security issue along with being an energy issue.

There is no alternative energy tooth fairy. There will be no other forms of alternative energy in the near future to run our cars and heat our homes and light out cities.

There is no such thing as "peak oil" as many propagandists cry about. There is no way anything like that could be possible because humans have barely tapped into a fraction of the vast petroleum resources out there. We have barely scratched the surface of what is available right here at home.

The sooner this country gets to work on utilizing it's own vast resources the better off this country will be for ourselves and the next generations.

People who argue otherwise do so because they are either fools or have outright ulterior motives.

As an employee for MSHA I second and third these comments.

You're right, I do have an ulterior motive It would be great to find out I'm just overly cynical and wrong about the thieving bastages.

Who are the thieving bastards? Please explain. Explain what makes them thieves.

Is your anger over fuel prices also directed at the government? They are making more off of your energy purchases than any oil company, and they don't lift a single finger to earn any of that money.

I hear Democrat politicians out there screaming about "windfall profits". Government is reaping MUCH larger windfalls through their taxation of energy. Many states tax on a percentage basis, not a fixed basis like the federal government. That means when fuel prices go up, the taxation amounts increase exponentially. That's how it is in my state.

Where is the outrage against those "thieving bastards"?

The oil companies aren't the crooks here. Record profits, yes, but their margins are similar to those in other industries; they just do more volume in sales. Taxation isn't the answer.

Devalued dollars and an out of control commodities speculation market are driving prices up. Opec has a stranglehold on it too.

Raising interest rates to reasonable levels, Not bailing out mortgage companies and ceasing idiotic programs like economic stimulus packages is what it will take to get some valuation back in the dollar. Domestic exploration and a refusal to export will loosen OPEC's grip on the market.

As a banker by trade, I'm shooting myself in the foot with these currency ideas, but overall, the country will benefit greatly in the long run.

We really don't need to develop alternative fuels for our homes and non-transportation needs.

One word. Nuclear.

Hell, even some of the hardcore environmentalists are saying we need to revisit nuclear power.

BUT...that doesn't really address our dependence on middle east oil. From what I can tell, less than 10% of homes are heated by oil these days.

You got to be kidding with this stuff Moby.

There is no rallying cry for more nuclear power coming from Democrats who control Congress. Neither is there a rallying cry from any of the enviro-radical groups that control Democrat Party policy making.

I see some coming from former enviro-radicals. The key being FORMER enviro-radicals.

You are also wrong about home heating fuels. Home heating oil is at all all time high. Much of the American Northeast uses home heating oil to heat their homes. I use it.

Natural gas is also extremely expensive. Those prices have gone sky high and we are dependent on foreign sources for much of our natural gas supply. What makes natural gas prices even worse is if you don't use it at all, you still have to pay distribution charges and other charges on your bill. It's fucking VERY expensive.

You know...I don't get you Madman...I NEVER said anything about Democrats. I said SOME. SOME. SOME.



No, I'm not. 10%.

SOURCE

Granted...that is from 2003 or so.

Out of 107 million homes...8 million use oil. That's actually LESS than 10%.

(6.3 million of those are in the Northeast...and yes, Madman...I already knew that most oil-heated homes are in the northeast.)

I did NOT state anything about total use. I was talking PERCENTAGES.

I never went into natural gas. I'm talking OIL. CRUDE. BLACK GOLD. TEXAS TEA.

All that being said...nuclear would NOT make much of a dent in our dependence on foreign oil. THAT was my point.