that the figures from the Department of Energy state the following
"The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant. "
the full study is here
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
I think the last sentence bears repeating
"Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant." |
|
You really don't have the foggiest what you are talking about. You have the DEM playbook in front of you and you regurgitate some part of it on every post.
What the DEM's really want is for the government to take over the oil companies and dole out what they see fit to the citizens. Wouldn't that be great - then we would have oil management as efficient and useless as that of congress - especially with Reid and Pelosi at the controls. |
|
Tell the American people to brace for $10 a gallon and up gasoline, and think of...Barack Obama and the Democrats.
McCain is thinking--ooooooooh Santi Claus, Christmas came early this year! |
|
believe me, she is a lost cause....
|
|
attacking kimberly to read or respond to actual data which totally discredits the idea that opening our currently moratoriumed coastlines will have any significant impact on gasoline prices.
|
|
Please explain why Oil prices dropped from $140 to $117 in two weeks.
Did "demand" suddenly drop 35%????
Allow me to help you, einstein, the price of crude is based on multiple factors: supply, demand, international tensions (ie Iran), weather factors (ie Hurricanes), and speculation.
You further suggest because Oil is priced in the "International Market" it's a waste of time for us to pursue drilling??
Gee - does the cattle rancher REALLY give a rats a$$ the price of beef it he's feeding his family from his own stock?
Who cares if oil prices go to $200/barrel on the international market if we're Energy Independent and don't have to buy off the international market.
Liberal apologists like yourself only care about supporting Pelosi and Democrats - and less about America pursuing energy independence using ALL AVAILABLE RESOURCES.
That's why most TH readers aren't interested in wasting their time educating you and Kimber types.
|
|
you must have missed the section of the report where they talk about the total increase in oil supply from the coastline resources
I'll paste it again for you
"Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day."
endangering our coastlines to increase oil production 1.6% is not an even trade.
I agree with you that we need to achieve energy independence, but allowing oil production off our coasts will not even help us make a dent.
also I'm not suggesting any of the points you state, the Department of Energy made those points, and backed them up in the paper which you clearly failed to even skim.
|
|
we aren't a country that goes after all available resources at any cost.
that sort of policy would leave our children an industrial wasteland.
just because there is a bubble in the market doesn't mean we need to throw all of our values out the window. There is a reason we have had a moratorium on costal drilling for the past decades. There is a reason why the republican's didn't end the moratorium when they controlled the presidency and both houses of congress.
Responding to a crisis with panic only results in disastrous solutions. We can't brute force our way out of this problem. |
|
|
I was just listening to Rush and he did not seem to enthused about the energy bill. Sounded like a compromise to the left and Rush was calling this Republican on it. When will our elected representatives listen to 70% of the people and drill in ANWR, drill off our coastline, and anywhere else we can find it? Stop trying to compromise with the Democrats or we will sift you like wheat. |
|
First of all, by "progressive" you really mean socialist utopian. The ideas presented as "progressive" no more represent progress than the Marxist revolution has helped Cuba progress.
Now, as to your socialist utopian solutions to the energy crisis:
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is, well, Strategic, and Reserve. Suggesting using the SPR to solve the crisis is like telling the unemployed family to just tap their 401(k) and everything will be good.
Price-gouging? Most retailers are losing their shirts selling gasoline. The margins on refiners is so low, most of them are barely getting by. The margin for oil companies is about 8%, well below the average for most industries. The one doing the gouging is the federal government, who received in taxes 3 times the amount Exxon Mobil made in profits. That doesn't count the taxes at the pump.
Oil price speculators don't drive prices. Speculators, as you may gather from the name, are gamblers. They are betting that the price will be higher in six months than it is now. In addition, airlines, such as Southwest Airlines, have been able to hedge against higher operating costs by operating in the futures market, which many of the Democrat proposals would eliminate. Airlines are getting hammered already. Your "solution" would shut many of them down for good.
Windfall profits taxes were tried...and failed miserably...back in the 70's. But there are other issues here as well. "Big Oil" is owned by individuals, many of whom hold their stock in their retirement portfolios. Punishing the oil companies by taking their profits is ultimately hurting those people who planned ahead for retirement by investing wisely. So this idea just creates an added burden on Social Security.
Not one of the ideas you mentioned as being "progressive" creates one bit of new energy. That, more than anything, explains why the GOP blocked the efforts. |
|
|
No never happen. The oil thugs in the WH will be gone shortly. And none to soon! |
|
|
"oil thugs... gone shortly?" And replaced by who... Robinhood and his $600 earringed wife? Pahleeeease! Gas didn't rise until Robinhood took office. |
|
http://technicallypolitics.com/2008/08/02/drilling-and-a-bu bble/" target="_blank">http://technicallypolitics.com/2008/08/02/drilling-and-a-bu bble/
As the price of oil continues to skyrocket, Americans are quickly becoming impatient. In come the politicians who seem to have an answer to our problems. They have been pointing to record profits of “big oil,” trying to blame them. Recently, Congress brought in all the major oil executives to testify before Congress, and scolded them for having high profits. Of course, that did nothing to alleviate the stress on consumers, because when you cut through the political speak, the truth is, these oil companies are not the ones responsible. Take Exxon Mobil for example, which in 2007 brought in profits of nearly $40 billion. Undoubtedly, this is an exorbitant amount of money, but if you take a look at the total revenue brought in by Exxon Mobil in 2007, you’ll find that it is significantly higher, reaching nearly $400 billion. That means that Exxon Mobil made only about a 10% profit, which is average for a big company. So the idea of taxing oil companies more (Windfall Profit tax), which has been suggested in Congress, would actually raise the price of gasoline in the U.S.
http://technicallypolitics.com/2008/08/02/drilling-and-a-bu bble/" target="_blank">http://technicallypolitics.com/2008/08/02/drilling-and-a-bu bble/ |
|
These words expose your real agenda,
"endangering our coastlines to increase oil production 1.6% is not an even trade."
You're one of those enviro-wackos who are more concerned about disturbing a kelp field than than our country becoming energy independent (if it means drilling off our coasts).
And a little NEWSFLASH for you... China is already making plans to drill off our coasts - within 50 miles of Florida. But that probably doesn't bother you either.
You then criticize the view of using all available resources and say,
"we aren't a country that goes after all available resources at any cost.that sort of policy would leave our children an industrial wasteland."
Riiiiight. Because we're still employing 1860 oil rig technology... and we'll have pipeline strewn across the country like ordinary highways.
THANKFULLY most Americans are sick and tired of being beholdened to OPEC and want to get our national interest OUT of the Middle East. We're sick of obstructionists like you, Pelosi, and the "can't do it" gang.
Either get on board Energy Independence or get run over.
|
|
I guess I am a little confused by comments about the price of gasoline. First of all gasoline comes from crude oil or at least I thought it did. You can come up with all kinds of alternate energy sources but cars and transportation still need gasoline. Windmills do nothing to make my car run, nor does nuclear power, geothermal energy or whatever.
So the Dems do not want to drill. Last time I checked the source of oil comes from drilling.
The petroleum reserve is, as previously mentioned, for emergencies. The price of gasoline is not an emergency to the security of our nation. It is only a crisis to those who want to drive cars.
The Dems want everything to run on electricity. The easiest way to create a crisis in this country is to interupt the power supply. Check with those in power outages after storms. Not too long ago a single transformer blew and the entire Northeast was shut down, including planes and all electric trains. Some people had emergency generators but guess what - they need fuel to operate. Increased power consumption will require new and expensive power grids along with transmission lines. Where are they going to go. The NIMBY's will tell you where they are not going like Kennedy and the windmills.
Another factor no one is talking about is plastic. The raw material for plastic is Oil and Natural gas. Look around and see how much plastic you can do away with.
Any useful energy policy has to include drilling, like it or not. Otherwise it is worthless.
|
|
Madam Speaker Pelosi needs to hear from YOU!
Petition:
http://www.callbackcongress.com/
|
|
I heard the program and was chewing nails after listening Sen. Foghorn Claghorn Saxby Chambliss trying to excuse his complicity in this gift to
Pelosi, Reid and Obama. I missed one Senate
Republican submissive dog's name but the others beside Chambliss were Graham of Miss Lindsey fame, Isaacson and Thune.
I miss some of it, but the gist is NO DRILLING
within 50 mi. offshore and only from 4 states with that states permission; 84 billion in subsidies or whatever bribes kickbacks you want to call it for alternative and renewable energy,
and PETA and ACLU will have a say in it. And
he said it was a good bill, they had to compromise to get something done because the people in his state are calling his office about the 4.00 gas price. So what does he and the other four do? Like submissive dogs, they rolled over on their backs and piddled on themselves as they anxiously tried to please their master. GAAAAAAH. They cut the legs out from the Republican House members, and that's the only thing that's dependable about those
nitwit Republicans in the Senate..they will find a way to lose. I hope they hear from the people in their state, and elsewhere because it's ALL of us. Dumkopf's!!!! |
|
|
Okay your on a boat and you fall overboard and you can't swim someone throws you a life preserver and your choices are:you won't grab the preserver because you hate the guy who threw it and you drown,you don't grab the ring because it may take too long to pull you in and you drown,you don't grab the ring because it may disturb the other passengers serenity by all the commotion of the rescue and you drown or you instinctively grab the ring and save yourself so you can continue to support your family and learning the lesson of staying away from the boat side in high seas. |
|
Gov. Jeb Bush was opposed to drilling offshore of Florida.
Govenator of California is opposed to drilling offshore of California.
President Bush was opposed to drilling offshore of Florida when Jeb was Gov and stated so on many occasions
Why didn't President Bush lift the ban on offshore drilling in his first term when the Republicans contolled the US House and Senate?
Why didn't President Bush lift the ban on offshoredrilling during his second term when the Republicans contolled the US House and Senate?
Why didn't President Bush's Energy Policy push for the lifting of the ban on offshore drilling?
Why didn't Rep. Bachmann introduce a bill to lift the offshore drilling ban in her first year and a half in the House?
Why did Rep. Bachmann just recently jump on the energy bandwagon after voting against many energy related bills that do many of the things she is now saying needs to done?
Wake up people; check Backmann's voting record on energy; her recent talk doesn' jive with her voting record on this issue.
Do you think it has something to do with the fall elections?
|
|
Vice President Dick Cheney said in the New York Times on April 6, 2004: “Let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States.”
|
|
|
do you or do you not grab the life preserver? |
|
|
So what is the DEM's solution on the energy crisis? Oh save energey by doing nothing!! Take a 5 week hyatis!!! SHows how they just do for themselves and fail the american people miserably!!! |
|
You asked why didn't Bush Lift the ban earlier?
It is pretty simple (though maybe too simple for a simplton to understand) GAS WASN'T AT $4.00 A GALLON.
Lest you forget, San Fran Nan promised that if the Dumcrats were elected, they would do something to lower the price of the $2.33 per gallon gasoline (not to mention get us out of Irag). Just how was the tuna sniffer going to lower the price of gas, we don't know, she never has offered up that plan for review, must be like Kerry's secret plan to end the Iraq war that he would tell us about after he was elected.
Sorry, but increasing supply of energy is the only answer, and please understand, the Republican plan is an "All of the above plan".
Develop our oil here, more nuclear, clean coal and alternate forms of energy (wind, solar bio-fuels) IT'S NOT JUST DRILL .
|
|
The liberals energy plan is to kill Detroit and instead put the entire auto industry to be based in Japan and Europe.
When President Pelosi and Company went to celebrate the veto-proof energy act, they drove to celebrate in a Toyota hybrid.
They want American automakers to be destroyed, and they are using mother earth as their cover to destroy America. |
|
|
Who's fault it is, tell me, what is the solution? |
|
Our dependence on foreign oil has skyrocketed in the last 10 years; this isn't just a price issue, it is a national security issue. If I remember right the GOP controlled the US House, Senate and Presidency for six years and controlled both Houses of Congress before that.
To the others, say what you will but you haven't checked out Bachmann's voting record on energy. She is on the energy bandwagon because it is election time and her strategy is to blame the democrats; she even wrote a commentary with that title.
It also seems that many of you forget how quickly the price of gas went from a dollar fifty a gallon to three dollars; I guess in your minds that doesn't matter. It had to get to three dollars before it could get to four dollars.That happened while the GOP controlled the US House, Senate and Presidency; so do you blame them?
By the way, I am for more drilling but at the same time we should be exploring every possibility to lessen our dependence foreign oil. |
|
Bachmann voted against comprehensive energy legislation that includes the first new vehicle efficiency standards in 32 years, saving families up to $1,000 a year at the pump. [HR 6, Vote 1140, 12/6/07; HR 6, Vote 1177, 12/18/07]
Bachmann voted against tax incentives for renewable electricity, energy and fuel from America’s heartland, as well as for plug-in hybrid cars, and energy efficient homes, buildings, and appliances – four times in just the last 18 months. [HR 6049, Vote 344, 5/21/08; HR 5351, Vote 84, 2/27/08; HR 6, Vote 1140, 12/6/07; HR 2776, Vote 835, 8/4/07]
Bachmann voted against investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy, including solar, biofuels, hydropower, and geothermal energy, as well as new vehicle technology and energy efficient buildings and homes, with a 50 percent increase over the President’s request. [HR 2641, Vote 641, 7/17/07]
Bachmann voted against landmark energy efficiency standards for buildings, homes, appliances, and lighting to save consumers $400 billion through 2030. [HR 6, Vote 1140, 12/6/07; HR 6, Vote 1177, 12/18/07]
Bachmann voted against requiring that 15 percent of American electricity come from renewable energy by 2020. [Amend to HR 3221, Vote 827, 8/4/07]
Bachmann voted against responsible drilling in Alaska in the National Petroleum Reserve (NPR-A). [HR 6515, Vote 511, 7/17/08]
Bachmann voted against requiring oil companies to drill on 68 million acres they already control. [HR 6251, Vote 469, 6/26/08]
Bachmann voted against releasing a small portion of the government’s oil stockpile, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to bring down gasoline prices. [HR 6578, Vote 527, 7/24/08]
Her votes don't match her talk
|
|