Barack Obama on Offshore Oil Drilling

vision-master

Offshore drilling will not give us energy independence and WILL NOT lower gas prices! We need to invest in renewable and green energy resources, and that is what Barack Obama is going to do

ROCKMAN

vision-master,

Did I miss something? I've don't recall hardly anyone here expecting offshore drilling to provide energy independence. In general, I consider that phrase to be a bit absurd used in almost any context. It might help the economy a little and provide some additional income to our deficit running gov't. Lower our trade imbalances a bit. Might provide the oil companies an opportunity to spend a few hundred billion dollars here rather then overseas. That could help the economy a bit. I’m all for investing in alternatives. Should have gotten serious about it decades ago. Perhaps we will now. But in the meantime, and for the next 20 years or so until alternatives are scaled up, we’ll still need a lot of oil.

Would you be opposed to offshore drilling if it only helps the economy a little? If you would still be opposed to any additional offshore drilling then are you also opposed to the offshore drilling done in past years? If you’re opposed to all offshore oil/gas production would you be in favor of shutting down and abandoning all current offshore production? Just trying to get a read on your opposition to developing more US oil/gas production?

dinopello

I oppose it until there is legislation that ensures we will be moving as a country toward a transportation system and living arrangement that is sustainable. Got to use leverage that is the way the game is played. Tell those that want to drill and profit that they need to support a world class rail system, and incentives for high quality, compact, mixed-use, walkable, Transit-Oriented development - then they can drill all they want AFAIC.

Oh, and there have been several in congress on the floor that say we can be energy independent if we just allow drilling in ANWR, OCS and Shale. McCains new commercial says that Obama WANTS us to be dependent on FOREIGN oil because he doesn't support OCS drilling - implying that OCS would free us from foreign oil.

If I were a selfish parochial person, I would just as soon use up everybody else's oil and then have all of our's left when the rest of the world is sucking dry sand.

newman1979 · Heavy Crude Joined: Sep 25, 2006 Posts: 105

Most of the off shore drilling areas (4/5) have already been opened up. They have not been fully explored. The only reason for the push now is that if they don't get the rest now they never will, it is pushed now for convenience, not because it will make any difference. The best new areas are also the most sensitive i.e. California . Aside from the hysteria of the "drill, drill, drill" chicken littles who don't understand the history of drilling in a post peak area i.e. the U.S., until we learn to conserve our resources, more new offshore drilling now will only make the future darker for our children and grandchildren.

ROCKMAN

DINO,

I agree. Hoping that more drilling in the OCS will make us less dependent upon imported oil to any great degree is silly. But it will help the economy if we add more domestic production. But if you're for saving oil for the future then should we reduce current oil production from the OCS right now for the same reason? That's not unprecedented. During the 40's, 50's and 60's the Texas Railroad Commission effectively did that. They set "allowables": the percentage of oil a well was producing was limited to this percentage which they issued every month. Though only enforceable in Texas it did control the price and flow of oil globally. The feds could do the same with current OCS production.

On the other hand, I'm not sure who you want to extort into developing alternatives? That won't have any effect on the great majority of oil companies. At least 95% of us don't drill in the OCS and would be satisfied if see no new oil/gas came from there to compete with the rest of our production. There are very few companies interested in any OCS drilling. The feds could certainly charge them anything they want for the privilege and then use that money for your alts. But if you charge them too much they won't lease. Sort of like the predicament the gov't has with anti-smoking legislation: any effort successful in reducing smoking reduces the income from taxes that are used to help smokers. At best it would be a tender balance I think.

As I outlined above more domestic drill won't have a great impact on our oil imports. But it would be a plus in a number of aspects for the economy. But if you're willing to give up those gains to protect the environment then, to be consistent, I would think you would support shutting in all current OCS production. The Gulf Coast beaches are no less sensitive then those on the east or west coasts. And for those wanting to not be selfish and save some for the grandkids then you should also be in favor of suspending current OCS production. In fact, a great way to do that would be for the feds to buy those offshore fields and hold them in trust for future generations. This would certainly be a win-win solution for most opposed to increase offshore drilling for whatever the reason.

Dezakin · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Feb 09, 2005 Posts: 1373

I dont understand why people get so bent out of shape over offshore drilling. It isn't going to give us energy independance, but so what? Its far more benign resource extraction than most other mining industries, especially coal.

newman1979 · Heavy Crude Joined: Sep 25, 2006 Posts: 105

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 5:40 am Post subject: Re: Barack Obama on Offshore Oil Drilling

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I dont understand why people get so bent out of shape over offshore drilling. It isn't going to give us energy independance, but so what? Its far more benign resource extraction than most other mining industries, especially coal. " quote

We care because it is a smokescreen. It deflects a serious discussion about conservation, energy security, global warming, pollution control and other issues. It takes capital out of other areas of our economy without a serious look at the trade offs. I mean everybody agrees it doesn't help oil supply any time soon. A trickle down benefit in oil employment with tremendous inflation in oil infrastructure is not high value in my book.

Dezakin · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Feb 09, 2005 Posts: 1373

vision-master

lawnchair · Intermediate Crude Joined: Oct 20, 2004 Posts: 786

FL/CA offshore drilling is more useful as a political club, for both sides, than it is a major resource. Like abortion or guns, the Republicans aren't actually going to "do the deed". That would kill the golden goose of a political issue. Note that McCain was siding with Charlie Crist, Jeb Bush, both George Bushes, Katherine Harris, the Governator, etc, and opposed to offshore drilling until about March of this year. Then, got to be a useful "issue". Don't think he'd actually do something about it. It'd still be a useful issue in 2010, 2012, 2016... whenever.

Also note that McCain voted against ANWR and offshore drilling, back when he went to the Senate. Since he had his come-to-Jesus-moment on drilling (March of this year), he hasn't been to the Senate at all. He could, of course, throw it in the hopper right now if he wanted to.

As someone who likes the idea of some relatively convenient but politically stranded reserves to lengthen the downslope, this playing politics works for me. We'll appreciate it a whole lot more when we really need it.
_________________
At 1% annual growth, human bodies will incorporate every gram in the observable universe in approximately 10,170 years.

3aidlillahi

Why does Obama oppose it? He's only a few points ahead in the polls but 70-80% of the people want this drilling (like 50% in ANWR). Here's what he should do immediately, as a politician:

- Introduce a bill in the Senate (if not in session, then on the campaign trail) which states that we'll "come together" as a nation (lofty rhetoric - lefties) to overcome out addiction to foreign oil (lefties) and dictators (righties). We'll do this by doing everything for energy: more bike lanes, parking, facilities, lights, bike rentals (greens and lefties); nuclear power plants (GOP); scrap half to 75% of new coal plant plans (Dems); offshore AND ANWR drilling allowed (GOP); $20 bln USD/annum for a decade for renewables and infrastructure (Dems); anti-gouging/speculation/etc. investigations (Dems); tax breaks for small businesses involved in all energy aspects (GOP and a little Dems). I'm sure you can find a few others.

For the most part, I think that the people would be willing to do that. Maybe not the bikes part (I just through that in there for myself Razz

) But why not, in the very least, add offshore oil drilling to renewables? It makes great political sense. He can say that he is FOR something and the best part is that he can talk about McCain's 30 years of opposing offshore and ANWR and then start talking about how his votes held back millions! of barrels of oil production a day off of the markets (technically true). A great part is that McCain would HAVE to come out in favor of OBAMA's bill. How embarrassing would that be for a candidate? 10 point bump?

Get the nation on his side with energy (going renewables) with pretty minor concessions (FL and CA would probably fight the leases anyway, no need for the Dem Congress and Obama to get the blame for it). Plus he can show that he is willing to work with Republicans and even forfeit some of his ideas while remaining true to his principles.

Lanthanide

Like lawnchair says, this is basically a political issue at this point.

The GOP is getting a lot of milage (or they think they are) saying that the Dems don't want to drill and if they did drill it would mean energy independence and implying that if they start to drill now, that in 6 months time gas is going to be $2 cheaper than it is now etc. Many uninformed Americans actually believe those sorts of empty promises and don't give any critical thought to the matter at all, they're just happy that someone is "doing something".

So what happens if congress were to lift the ban tomorrow? None of those supposed results would actually come about, not within 5 years, and all of the GOP blather will be shown up for exactly what it is. Even if the democrats didn't take the offensive at that point, it is still one less issue for the GOPs to get airtime over.

lawnchair · Intermediate Crude Joined: Oct 20, 2004 Posts: 786

The US right (and, sorry, Bill Clinton is close to counting) never had the slightest problem with dictators and rights abusers. Dictators that might stand between us and "as much as can be sucked out of the ground as fast as possible"? Those we sometimes have a problem with.

The problem is, the 'compromise' you spoke of? Sounds pretty much exactly like Carter 1979. The politicians who supported it then got burned there because it really was a bubble in the 70s, and so energy conservation and environmental concern were tarred with the brush of "just like Jimmy Carter" for over 25 years.

Also, the media seems a lot more willing to let McCain flip-flop (he was opposed to offshore drilling in March... he now says he wouldn't vote for the immigration bill he was the lead sponsor of less than a year ago) than Obama. I don't know that Obama has the political capital to change course, even if it's popular.
_________________
At 1% annual growth, human bodies will incorporate every gram in the observable universe in approximately 10,170 years.

3aidlillahi

cube · Fusion Joined: Mar 12, 2005 Posts: 3776