Cynthetiq

Seems like the Dems had no choice but to join in the chorus. It may not make a difference for election day pricing, but isn't it more important to look past that? Yes, there is a need for alternatives, but until those alternatives are online and readily available to Main Street and Urban areas, it isn't a viable option for most.

Do you think that this was the wrong thing for the Dems to compromise on? Should Pelosi have stayed her ground even if she didn't have the support? Or is this just politics as usual?

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Independent, either you're an asshole or you're not.

jorgelito

It is an interesting twist. While I disagree and was hoping the Dems would have denied it, they did alter the bill limiting offshore drilling to beyond 50 miles from the coast. Since most of the known oil deposits are within the 50 mile lines, the Republicans were pissed off.

My opinion is we don't really need to open up new areas for drilling simply because as I understand it, the oil companies already have lots of existing places they haven't yet tapped. So they should drill there first before we talk about opening up new ares for oil exploration. In the meantime, then we should be exploring other alternatives aggressively.

In any event, oil has been dropping steadily. We are near the $90 mark if not below. That's a $60 dollar drop since the "panic" began.

And yes, I think Pelosi should have stood her ground. They really need some tough action there.

__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but
to the one that endures to the end."

"Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!"

- My recruiter

scout

All the time, money and effort that has went into this compromise has been a huge waste of taxpayers money. Allowing drilling 50 miles offshore is nothing more than the Democrats attempting to look like they are concerned about gas prices for poor joe blow down the road. Nothing more, nothing less. I think the compromise didn't go far enough and instead of placating the masses it's going to do nothing but piss them off more and it may cost the Democrats a seat or two this upcoming election.

dc_dux

The whole "drill, baby, drill" debate has been a sham....from the Republican 15-day show on the House floor during the latest recess to this Democratic bill.

Under any circumstances, new OCS drilling will have no impact for at least 20 years, and even then, the impact on supply and price will be marginal.

One provisions I like in this Democratic bill is that it ends the waiver on lease payments by big oil for drilling on public lands and the OCS....and commits that money to developing alternatives. But Bush will never sign a bill with that provision, even if were to pass through the Senate.

__________________
"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. "
~ H.L. Mencken

roachboy

first off this "drill baby drill" petro-inferno meme is the stupidest ever. even by the low standards of republican memes, this one is stupid. speaking of republicans, i am not sure i see much but republicans everywhere at this point. moderate republicans call themselves "democrats" by some quaint naming convention.

my favorite example of conservative "debate" about this came from cspan, one of those special session streams that allows members to talk to the empty chamber and the cspan audience which i suspect is not much more populous. a representative from florida. he had a chart. he said that, unlike everyone else, he had actually visited anwar. he said that the whole thing was based on a hoax, that there was no wilderness there. he said he asked his guide where the trees were and his guide said there were no trees for hundreds of miles only tundra and the congressman said there are no trees so there is no wilderness. therefore all of this was a hoax perpetrated with the sole intent of saving little critters who do not even live in a wilderness because there can't be one without trees.

such is the discourse that travels within the confederacy of dunces.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dc_dux

I do agree with this assessment from the article in the OP:

The issue has become, to some extent, the Republican answer to any and all questions that come up on the economy. McCain returns to it in nearly every speech on the subject, even though drilling has as much to do with the collapse of Wall Street financial firms or the falling job market as abortion does. The drilling issue may even help explain his choice of running mate — Sarah Palin's one area of true expertise can be said to be the politics of energy extraction.

-----Added 17/9/2008 at 07 : 43 : 51-----
Two other myths and debate "talking points" that continue to be perpetuated by the Republicans:

The US needs to start drilling for off-shore oil because China is taking "American oil" off the coast of Cuba, just "60 miles off the coast of Florida." In the words of Dick Cheney, "Even the communists have figured out that a good answer to high prices is more supply."

Not a drop of oil was spilled in the Gulf during hurricanes over the last few years....when in fact in 2005, Katrina and Rita caused 124 offshore spills for a total of 743,700 gallons. The largest of these spills dropped 152,250 gallons, well over the 100,000 gallon threshhold considered a "major spill." The impact of Ike has yet to be made public by the Interior Dept...perhaps for fear that it might further contradict their talking point.

__________________
"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. "
~ H.L. Mencken

ASU2003

The problem is what is the point of buying alternative fuel vehicles if gas costs $2 or $1? (besides nuclear waste battery powered cars that could get unlimited miles and cause major traffic congestion) The republicans don't want to help the environment, they just want to help their pocketbook in the form of cheaper gas for their cars and SUVs and more profits for the oil companies.

And I doubt the supply had much to do with the price increase. It was speculation, worry, and greed that caused that.

ratbastid

Pump money into the oil business, baby, pump money into the oil business!

How can it not be completely transparent who's behind this? How can people actually think this is going to make a difference?

Hoo-bingo. Two for two.

aceventura3

If true (the sham part), why would a company pay real money for the rights to drill?
If true will the real money paid not have an impact on state and federal budgets?
If true (the 20 years part), should that be the reason not to do it?
If true should we confiscate the OCS crystal ball and use it for other things, since we must assume they are going to be dead on accurate?

O.k. no more rhetorical questions. The opposite of drilling must be true. Not drilling will solve our problems.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

asaris

1. I'm guessing that most of the 'available oil' cited is in fact prohibitively expensive to reach. So the claim is technically true, but misleading. But that's just a guess.

2. I doubt the money paid will be enough to make a large impact on the federal budget, and even less on the state budget.

3 (and the real point I wanted to make) it's not so much that the 20 years part means it's a bad idea; it's that drilling off-shore is being touted as a solution to the high gas prices we're suffering now. So the fact that more drilling won't make a difference for at least 10 years means that it's probably being used as a cheap political ploy.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

dc_dux

ace...I would put it another way.

We are supposed to be the country of great innovators, technology development, entrepreneurship.....

If, as a nation, we made a serious coordinated national commitment to alternative energy, we could probably have affordable solutions in place and on a wide scale before (within 15-20 years) we would ever see a drop of oil from the areas of the OCS currently under a drilling moratorium.

Start with T Boone Pickens' plan that could reduce our dependency on foreign oil by 20-30%

__________________
"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. "
~ H.L. Mencken

aceventura3

Improving technology is making difficult oil easier to get, while have a smaller impact on the environment.

Every little bit helps.

Drilling off-shore is a bad idea? I disagree.
-----Added 17/9/2008 at 12 : 36 : 02-----
I don't think the need for oil will ever go to zero. I support continued exploration and development of oil resources and investing in alternatives. Basically, I agree with you, but we seem to differ perhaps on our future needs for oil. If there is a 20 year tail, I don't want our nation to be caught in a period where we could have a supply but failed to invest in it 20 years prior.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

loquitur

dc_dux, this is an unsupported leap of faith. I agree with you that this is a nation of innovators, but with the possible exception of the space program and perhaps the military (and even as to those, it's an issue of characterization), the government doesnt' and cant' force or direct innovation. Innovating is overwhelmingly done by people with some form of profit motive.

I'm not a physicist or engineer, so I'll just state that the following is my understanding, not gospel: "alternative energy" right now is problematic because nothing has the energy density petroleum has (meaning that it packs the most energy punch into the smallest mass of matter). Other forms are either less dense, more space intensive or location-locked (meaning that transportation of the source is problematic) or net energy negative after costs of production and delivery are factored in.

But that's today. Clearly there will be improvements in efficiencies, which will make some alternative forms of energy feasibe, especailly if petroleum prices stay high. But they will be complements, not substitutes, because they will never be compact/dense enough or transportable enough to substitute. Even if we switch part of our power generation over to wind, geothermal and biomass, we still will need petroleum (AFAIK we are already using all the plausible sites for hydro). So having a new source coming on line in 10 or 15 years will be helpful.

If you're proposing that there will somehow materialize a new source of energy we don't yet know about that will magically replace petroleum, I wonder where it can come from or what it would look like? What else will have as much "punch" and convenience as petroleum? This isn't a mystical or religious exercise; it's a scientific one. Is there any science about alternative energy sources that points to a plausible petroleum substitute?

The closest thing I have seen to something like that was an article in a British newspaper (let me find it........... ah, here it is) that discussed a recent biological breakthrough - some scientist found a way to engineer microbes to eat waste and excrete petroleum. To my mind that is the best possible alternative to our current method of relying on the world's worst regimes to supply us with our most crucial resource: it will require virtually no infrastructure adjustment by users; it's infinitely renewable; we know how to minimize pollution from it already. Is it scalable and commercially feasible? I don't know. Time will tell. But it's still petroleum.

Baraka_Guru

If you look at the numbers and crunch them a bit, it might further convince you that this offshore drilling issue won't have much of an impact on oil prices, especially when you look at the global market:

With the estimated reserves of offshore oil, it would provide enough to fulfill 2.5 years of consumption in the U.S. economy.

With the estimated gas reserves, it would provide enough to fulfill 3.3 years of consumption in the U.S. economy.

Is this a long-term strategy or is it meant to bring prices down? You can't have both, and you might have neither. My guess is that it might provide some security in terms of supply in certain situations, but I sincerely doubt any amount of U.S. drilling offshore will have a significant impact on prices.

__________________
"The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. [...] In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer."

—"Politics and the English Language," George Orwell

"Humankind cannot bear very much reality."

—"Burnt Norton," Four Quartets, T. S. Eliot

jorgelito

Through misinformation an misunderstanding.

__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but
to the one that endures to the end."

"Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!"

- My recruiter

dc_dux

loquitor...do you think the Pickens Plan is a leap of faith....to generate 20%+ of power generation needs through wind power in 10 years.

Creating the wind power is relatively simple and requires little innovation...building the pipeline/infrastructure to deliver it nationwide is the challenge...but it is a $$ challenge, not an innovation challenge. And in any case, would require government coordination.

The other challenge is converting vehicles to natural gas....utlizing the natural gas saved by converting power plants to wind.

Who will benefit most from this plan....probably Pickens...but thats fine with me. Isnt that how capitalism (with some government stimulation and coordination) is supposed to work.

No one is suggestion replacing the need for petroleum completely.

__________________
"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. "
~ H.L. Mencken

asaris

Ace, please don't misquote my position. I never said drilling off-shore is a bad idea.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

roachboy

loquitor: what your post doesn't touch on, but which seems to me central, is the claim that drilling off alaska would produce results in a manner that the benefits outweigh the costs. that seems to be absent across the board from the arguments of the "drill baby drill" set.

but your post is interesting. it simply bypasses in an elegant manner the question at hand.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

loquitur

RB, surely you realize that the premise of your question is that there is a consensus on the "costs" and "benefits" of drilling in Alaska. Assuming you mean "economically," then the simple answer is that if there is no realistic profit opportunity the people whoa re able to exploit the opportunity won't do it. But if they think they can make money, they will. I suspect, however, that that's not the analysis you're making. Just guessing there, but you'd prefer to identify costs and benefits in ways that are not cleanly quantifiable and thus manipulable by people with political viewpoints.

My post was not limited to the idea of drilling in Alaska, which is why I didn't formulate it by reference to that. I'm sorry if you perceive that as sidestepping. I was addressing the more general point of whether we should be doing more petroleum exploration than we are doing, whether in Alaska or elsewhere. Economically speaking, the very mention of drilling within the US and its territorial waters applies downward pressure on prices as the market assesses, discounts and factors in the prospect of some quantity of additional petroleum coming online in a given time frame. (That's because it means that petroleum is less scarce than it had been previously). That happens even before the first hole is drilled. The progress of actual projects will improve the information, and thus allow for better precision in the pricing effect, but the raw fact of the prospect of additional production is already applying downward pressure on the price.

I'm not sure that's elegant, but it's fairly simple economically. I would hope that by the time the actual stuff comes up out of the ground, we'll be well on the way to much more diversity in our energy sources.

Yes, I think that proposed level of substitution (wind for petroleum) is unlikely and unrealistic. We don't have enough land with enough wind for the number of wind farms we'd need, and the environmental/esthetic blight it would cause would curl your hair if it isn't already curly. I'm happy for Pickens to try, and I'd be thrilled if he succeeded, but I think he's just talking this thing up in order to get backing (financial, legal, governmental). We'd be lucky getting a fraction of what he's proposing in terms of energy. I'm pretty sure, though, that he'd put together a deal for himself in which his downside is protected. More power to him.

As for LNG, how is it conceptually different from petroleum? It comes out of the ground, it's a hyrdocarbon, it releases pollutants of one kind or another (different ones from gasoline, true, but pollutants nonetheless). Oh, and it can explode if it leaks. It may not even solve the geopolitical problem, because a lot of LNG occurs in proximity to petroleum (though a lot does not). Again: I'm not averse to adding LNG to the mix of alternative energy sources, but we have to be realistic about what is likely to happen.

dc_dux