Bush lifts offshore drilling ban in symbolic move

[civic_matic_00]

Originally Posted by trollbait

The problem with openning it up now is that the government, and thus the people, will be negotiating from a position of weakness, if we open them up now. The cries of windfall taxes started because sweet heart deals the oil companies got under Clinton. That administration gave tax breaks and such for the developement of hard to get, exspensive, oil without a cluase for a time when such fields become profitable. The windfall tax isn't a tax on profits, it's a tax break that needs to be ended.

Clinton did right with the stragetic oil reserve. He opened it up, sold the oil at the market price, and then filled it back up when the prices dropped.

We do need new refineries. Then why did Bush and the oil companies say no when the Saudis othered to build new ones? The Sauds don't mean us well, but they don't want us turning away from oil.

as I've stated before, measures can be put in place to ensure that drilling will benefit the American People. I don't mind seeing a rule put in place that any oil harvested domestically should be used to satisfy domestic demand first before any drop of it goes for export....but then again, democrats and the "know it alls" environmentalists would have to agree to building more refineries.

"windfall profits" is an illusion. profits are coming from high demand and not the increase in price. 2/3 of the price of gasoline is from oil price, the higher the oil price the higher the gasoline price without that huge increase in profits for the oil companies that many of you keep saying. to add to that, the higher the gasoline price, the higer the governments tax revenue from the sale of each gallon because that is a tax rate equal to a percentage and is not fixed at all. democrats are not telling the people that when gas prices go up, the tax revenue the government gets goes up as well...and guess who's saying that suspending the gas tax is an illusion...non other than the democrats themselves.

Opening up the Oil reserve will have an impact on short term supply, but again, that oil would need to be replaced and would still increase the demand curve of the equation. that is not a long term fix at all.

now Gore is touting his plan for alternative energy again. Where would the money come from? higher taxes again? sorry, but that will not work at all. increase supply of domestic oil and that can pay for a lot of alternative energy projects. you can not increase taxes on current supplies, if you increase supply then you will have more tax revenues EVEN WITHOUT INCREASING THE TAX RATE. many democrats can't understand that economic fact.

The biggest fact of all is that if we do not increase domestic oil then we will keep sending oil dollars to other countries.

you are so scared of "windfall profits" but you're not one bit concerned about $700 billion going to other countries instead of AMERICAN companies. what's wrong with that picture?

[civic_matic_00]

Making the case for more domestic drilling:

http://brokengovernment.wordpress.co...nd-drill-here/

Why We Must Drill Now and Drill Here!
June 16, 2008

Today this country consumes about 20,000,000 barrels of oil daily or 7.3 billion barrels of oil annually. We import about half that - 9.9 million barrels per day or 3.6 billion barrels annually. A Bureau of Land Management Study, incorporating data from the Energy Information Administration, The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Minerals Management Service, The Study , indicates that this country has undiscovered oil resources of 139 billion barrels of which 86 billion barrels are offshore under the outer continental shelf.

Today this country consumes 22 trillion cubic feet of natural gas of which 19 trillion cubic feet is produced domestically and 3 trillion cubic feet is imported. This Nation’s onshore and offshore undiscovered natural gas resources total 1,056 trillion cubic feet. The study states that the United States has a 49 year supply of natural gas. (Yes I know that the math indicates 48 years - must be rounding.)

If Congress stopped listening to the special interests including the environmentalists, this country could be self sustaining for oil for 19 years after pumps are pumping and for natural gas for 49 years at present rates of consumption, longer for both as we phase in renewable energy. This equates to a trade balance savings of $9.2 trillion at today’s prices and consumption sent to foreign powers, in oil alone. Just think how this change in our trade balance would improve our economy and our standard of living.

If you are still not convinced, then consider that an extrapolated world energy consumption is 478.9 quadrillion BTU’s in 2008. The projected world energy consumption in 2030 is 701.6 quadrillion BTU’s. In 22 years the world’s annual energy consumption will be 146.5% of what it is today. What will that do to energy prices?

Planned correctly, we can sustain our energy needs for that period, move to natural gas over oil, and develop the much needed renewable energy production capabilities for the second half of the 21st century. Could these worldwide supply and demand numbers be driving up the cost of oil in speculation markets? Yes! Just how dumb are we? We will not drill in all Federal lands and off the California and Florida shores. The Middle Atlantic coast alone has vast natural gas resources, these can be tapped as well.

As late as last week, Congress was scrambling to declare more land to be off limits to protect the scenic beauty of this nation, while we are in an energy struggle with the world. We do not have a national security based energy plan and have not had one, period. Our Presidents and our Congresses have not seen fit to ensure that the lifeblood of this nation’s production capability and our survival is planned and secure. President Bush wants a legacy, well how about leaving us with a sound comprehensive national security based energy plan. We have Congresspersons and Senators, who refuse to open up drilling and recklessly are spouting how we will power this nation with wind and solar, and they do not have a clue, otherwise, they would be preparing this energy plan and utilizing our existing natural resources to protect our economy.

The following charts are from the Energy Information Administration and they project the source of energy used by this nation till 2030. This chart assumes that the Florida and California continental shelves remain off limits as is drilling on much Federal land, such as ANWR. Note the size of the contribution of renewable energy to the matrix.
(please click on the link at the beginning of the post to see the charts)

It is amazing what can be found at the Energy Information Administration, the Bureau of Land Management, the USGS, and the Minerals Management Service web sites. Opening up all the currently off limits land and continental shelves is the only smart thing to do, if we are to remain a power and possess the standard of living to which we have become accustomed. A sound energy plan is one of The Two Most Important Issues Facing America Today. Assuming that renewable energy will be sufficient to fully drive this nation during the next 20 years is a pipe dream. If your representative in Congress is still on the renewable energy bandwagon at the expense of drilling for oil and natural gas today, you may want to set them straight.

Wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, are all necessary sources of energy for this nation and must be pursued now. These renewable energy sources will power our nation in the second half of the 21st century. I did not mention ethanol and other biofuels, because corn based ethanol is just plain dumb - we need the land to feed the world, other ethanol based sources are not nearly ready, and some of the more exotic plants used for biofuels are a late 21st century source of energy. If you follow the global warming people to the promised land of corn ethanol, you will find that the corn crop and other biofuels crops are subject to all the weather interruptions they claim global warming will cause. Can we grow our way to energy independence if the weather is a factor in both food supplies and energy supplies? Not smart!

A true energy plan will help us securely transition from fossil fuel to new forms of energy. We must transition and not make a wild jump before the new fuels are fully ready. If you do not want this country thrust into energy chaos, both financially and physically, tell your Representatives to get smart, drill, plan, and do it now.

[civic_matic_00]

http://brokengovernment.wordpress.co...-clean-energy/

Having it all! Both Oil and Clean Energy.
June 22, 2008

Listening to your Representatives in Congress and the pro drilling and anti-drilling pundits can be very frustrating. I heard this morning on a news show from a Democratic “Strategist” on a major news show that we will now not benefit from drilling for twenty years. Tom Daschle said this morning on Fox News Sunday that we would have no oil until 2030. Is he is actually stating that it would take 22 years to find oil and drill for it? Just last week I was hearing ten years to bring oil to the pumps as gasoline. What changed in the last week? These sides all seem to feel that energy from renewable or from depleting resources is an all or nothing proposition.

Here are some basics to consider to ease the frustration:

By 2030 the world’s energy consumption measured in BTU’s will be 146% of what it is today.

86 Billion Barrels of untapped oil appear to be under our feet on shore and under our continental shelf off shore.

Our current annual imported oil consumption is about 7.6 Billion Barrels.
We have a 49 year supply of natural gas under our feet on shore and under our continental shelf off shore.

We have massive resources of coal, and if we can figure out how to use it cleanly, we are the most energy rich country, probably in the universe (a little exaggeration).

Growing our energy, unless it is grown on land that can’t grow food very well, means that we have less land to grow food for the world’s population to eat.
Growing both food and energy means that both food and energy are subject to weather shortfalls at harvest.

Wind is more viable than solar currently. Today’s cost to establish a wind turbine is $2Million per Megawatt. Texas presently holds 27% of the nation’s 16,193 Megawatts of wind turbine capacity. Wind turbine is the more promising of the renewable energy sources in the near future.

We currently send $500,000,000,000 ($500 Billion) (does not reflect today's oil prices, it's closer to $700 billion now) annually to foreign economies for oil each year and this is expected to grow.

The annual U.S. trade deficit has been reported as $856.7 Billion or 6.5% of the economy. This trade deficit is slowly sucking the life blood out of our nation. If we eliminated the $500 billion from the $856.7 Billion - math says that we have a trade deficit of $356.7 Billion. If we drill for and increase the export of natural gas (It can be liquified for transport), we can wipe out the remaining trade deficit with energy alone.

As the world’s population grows, more food will be needed. More land will be needed to grow that food - probably arid land will have to be utilized.

We will need more water for drinking, for irrigation, and to extract geo-thermal energy .

To obtain this much water, we will have to start desalinizing ocean water - this will take an enormous amount of energy.

The mere announcement that the U.S. was going to open up drilling for 86 Billion Barrels of oil, would drive a spike through the oil futures speculators (this already happened this past three days!). They are smart; they bet on the future of energy consumption against the future of oil availability; they would see the potential of 86 Billion Barrels coming on line; the futures speculation would dissipate and the price of oil would start a decline just on the announcement.

The search for oil, both on shore and off shore, would bring jobs. The supply and support chain would require machinists, welders, and other skilled labor. These jobs would pay better than service work. These jobs would revive the Midwest and the Gulf States.

What if we actually elected some forward thinkers, for a change, and established a bipartisan plan to maximize energy production in this nation. We could use use royalties and tax incentives to balance the cost of the energy in an inverse relationship with how clean it is, how water intensive it is, and how much good growing land it uses. If we looked forward, and not with a myopic approach toward one type of energy, to develop every bit of energy we could, we could have a sound thriving economy, export energy to a world with a 146% energy hunger, and provide drinking water and irrigation to feed the world. This seems like a noble venture we could all get behind.

Why can’t we believe in and achieve “Having It All”? The Energy Information Administration Web Site is filled with information - check it out.

=================================================

there are a lot of valid, practical, and logical reasons to add more domestic oil. people just need to see and understand what they are.

the mere fact that about 58 to 60 % of the trade deficit (which ALL ECONOMISTS AGREE IS HURTING OUR COUNTRY AND MUST BE REDUCED) is due to imported oil is more than enough reason for me to warrant more domestic drilling....add the other reasons like end of war for oil (as the democrats say), eliminating foreign oil dependence, boosting the economy, low energy price, more funding for REAL alternative energy efforts, etc, and everyone should be able understand the real benefits of domestic oil drilling.

[civic_matic_00]

http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.c...of-two-houses/
A Story of Two Houses
May 21, 2007 ? budsimmons
A Story of Two Houses

HOUSE # 1:



A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2, 400.00 per month. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American Home. This house is not in the northern or Midwestern ?snow belt .? It?s in the South.



HOUSE # 2:



Designed by an architecture professor, this house incorporates every ?green? feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid-high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels?such as oil or natural gas?and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.



ANSWERS:
HOUSE # 1 is outside of
Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of
that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker), Al Gore.



HOUSE # 2 is on a ranch near
Crawford, Texas. It is the private
residence of the President of the
United States, George W. Bush

================================================== ==

I'd like to see what environmentalists and democrats think of this. Who's the hypocrite again?

[trollbait]

I'm not scared of 'windfall profits'. My point was that the oil companies recieved tax breaks to explore and drill oil that was cost prohibitive at the time when oil was cheap. Oil is no longer cheap, the oil sources are profitable now, the incentives aren't needed, and thus they should be ended.

Environmentalists and NIMBY's aren't the only ones to say no to new refineries.

[civic_matic_00]

Originally Posted by trollbait

I'm not scared of 'windfall profits'. My point was that the oil companies recieved tax breaks to explore and drill oil that was cost prohibitive at the time when oil was cheap. Oil is no longer cheap, the oil sources are profitable now, the incentives aren't needed, and thus they should be ended.

Environmentalists and NIMBY's aren't the only ones to say no to new refineries.

small tax breaks so that they can spend hundreds of millions of dollars exploring, evaluating, and harvesting oil.

that small tax break does not give the oil companies huge profits. Oil is no longer cheap becuase of the lack of supply and not because of the tax breaks.

as you've said, the oil sources ARE PROFITABLE, but you can't see that the oil sources are foreign countries where our money goes to.

again, all the "reasons" not to drill domestic oil are all misguided, impractical, and are all illogical.

[civic_matic_00]

The Pipes Carry Clout With the Oil

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/we...14mouawad.html

AS energy-rich countries feel empowered by high oil prices, they are increasingly using a blunt instrument to make their influence felt. Call it the power of the pipeline.

New, superlong pipelines are planned for South America, the Middle East, Russia and Africa, and oil-producing countries are using them to forge political alliances, punish foes and extract concessions from customers.

"Pipelines mean political leverage," said Frank A. Verrastro, the director of the energy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

On a recent visit to Lithuania, Vice President Dick Cheney lambasted Russia for using oil and natural gas as "tools of intimidation or blackmail." Later, on a stopover in Kazakhstan, he urged energy-rich Central Asian nations to bypass Russia altogether when considering pipeline routes to the West.

President Vladimir V. Putin himself made energy security a theme this year in talks with other industrialized nations. But on the day it took over the presidency of the Group of Eight, Russia cut off natural gas supplies to Ukraine over a price dispute, freezing out both its independent-minded neighbor as well as the European Union in the dead of winter.

In the end, a compromise was reached and Ukraine agreed to pay more for its gas, until then subsidized by Russia. But Russia's neighbors also learned a shocking new reality: whoever controls the taps also holds the upper hand.

Transnational pipelines have been around for more than a century, but with low prices and supplies aplenty, they had lost much of their strategic significance over time. Supertankers, first built in the early 1950's, allowed producers to ship anywhere around the world, and freed consumers from the whims of a single seller. About two-thirds of the oil trade is now carried by tankers.

But matters have changed in recent years: higher demand has put pressure on energy networks, supplies have had trouble catching up with consumption, and tensions have risen. Today, every drop counts.

"Pipelines play a critical role in an age of increased tightness in energy markets, terrorist threats to energy infrastructure, and political use of energy resources," said Anne Korin, the co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, a research center based in Washington.

Consider the case of Iran, which wants to build a natural gas pipeline to India and is even considering extending the route all the way to China. The project, spanning about 1,600 miles at a cost of $7 billion, would provide Iran with a large market for its substantial gas reserves while helping India meet its growing energy needs. The pipeline would also add to Iran's political clout.

There are drawbacks. The pipeline must run through Pakistan's Baluchistan region, a prospect that worries India given the area's history of lawlessness.

And while Pakistan's current leaders welcome the proposed route because they would also benefit from Iranian gas, a pipeline might afford future governments with a vital means of pressuring India. The United States also strongly opposes the plan. "The last thing the United States wants is for India to be in Iran's debt," Ms. Korin said.

None of this has been lost on Hugo Ch?vez, the president of Venezuela, who persuaded his neighbors to look at a 6,000-mile pipeline linking his country to Brazil and Argentina. He has named it El Gran Gasoducto del Sur, the Great Gas Pipeline of the South. With a potential cost of $23 billion, the proposal makes little economic sense; it would be much cheaper to build liquefaction terminals and ship the gas by tankers.

But Mr. Ch?vez's plan is not only meant to transport gas; it also carries a political message. The pipeline should be "considered one of the fundamental steps to South America's integration," according to Petr?leos de Venezuela, the state oil company.

Russia has been particularly adept at balancing its economic needs and its role as an energy superpower.

When considering an oil pipeline to the Sea of Japan or straight to China, Russian energy officials waited for two years before committing themselves. China was initially favored, but after much dithering, Russia picked the longer and costlier option to its eastern seaport of Nakhodka, instead of the Chinese route to Daqing. The reason: the plan allows oil exports to Japan as well as to other potential markets, including the United States and eventually China as well.

Then there is the matter of what Mr. Cheney called "blackmail."

Last month, President Putin suggested that Russia might redirect future exports to Asia instead of Europe because of what he called "unprincipled competition" blocking the expansion of Gazprom, Russia's biggest energy company, in Europe.

"To the extent that you are concerned that countries like Russia might be using energy as political tools, one of the best ways to protect yourself is to create alternate pathways to move energy to markets," said Steven Pifer, a deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs from 2001 to 2004.

In the 1990's, that sort of thinking led energy planners in the United States to support construction of a pipeline to carry oil from the vast reserves of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, which are all landlocked around the Caspian Sea, through Turkey, while avoiding Russia to the north, as well as Iran, which would have provided the shortest route, to the south.

"In all these cases," Ms. Korin said, "you have a big problem with Central Asia, where there is lots of energy but few politically pleasant and unproblematic ways to get the supplies out if you don't want to be overly reliant on Russia or on Iran."

It took nearly a decade to build the $3.9 billion pipeline, which starts in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, snakes through Georgia, and ends at the port of Ceyhan, Turkey. Oil will start flowing this summer.

A big drawback for pipelines is that they are relatively easy targets for terrorists. In Iraq, hundreds of bombings have frozen exports from the northern Kirkuk fields. In Colombia, one pipeline, running from the north to the eastern Caribbean port of Cove?as, has been ruptured by so many attacks in the past two decades that it has been nicknamed "the flute."

But such concerns won't stop new projects. Mr. Pifer, who also worked at the National Security Council where he oversaw Russian affairs under President Clinton, recalled that in the 1990's the United States distributed a bumper sticker around Central Asia. It read, "Happiness is multiple pipelines."

[1cheap1]

Carters speech was just pie in the sky. Just look at it and the time it was given. Read each point and just think if it was viable to force people to do as he "Wished". Just wiggle his nose and it would fix all these problems. Right. Just read massive taxes(investment). Government programs equal waste of our tax dollars. How loony is cutting utility energy in half? Back to the stone age? Carter would need to be a Dictator to impose these plans. This in the time of run away inflation, hostage crises and what not. Did you ever notice the dems sort of forget about Carter and Johnson? Why did not Carter include nuclear power in his list? Anyway we have to take action now to lower oil in the free market and we have to compete in this arena we have today. We are Americans, we have the brain power to solve these problems but do we have the will to elect people to do as we want? This remains to be seen.

[trollbait]

Why did not Carter include nuclear power in his list?

Probably because TMI happened during his term.
Of course, I say that without checking dates.
He may have also known something from serving on a nuke sub.

[trollbait]

that small tax break does not give the oil companies huge profits. Oil is no longer cheap becuase of the lack of supply and not because of the tax breaks.

The breaks aren't the reason for the profits, but royalities to the government for drilling on federal land is, and should be, a normal price of doing business. I don't want the government, and thus the public, screwed out of these fees, as in the past, do to the panic.

Now, keeping it in domestic markets isn't going to help keeping money out of terrorist pockets. If we don't address our growing demand, world oil prices will stay high. Doesn't matter where the money comes from to people who mean us harm.

http://www.businessweek.com/

The reality, as usual, is far more complicated. Drilling in the now-restricted areas would require years of extensive seismic research before a single rig could operate. Even then, companies would not embark on such massive projects unless the profitability were clear. What's more, the federal Energy Information Administration estimates that access to new U.S. deposits would not significantly affect overall domestic production for 22 years.
.....
How much oil and natural gas is there offshore? No one really knows. According to estimates from the Interior Dept.'s Minerals Management Service (MMS), the U.S. has roughly 18 billion undiscovered and technically recoverable bbl. of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Eric Potter, associate director of the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas at Austin, says that if these areas are opened up now, by 2025, 1 million additional bbl. per day could potentially be added to the market. Using International Energy Agency demand forecasts, by 2030 this production would equal less than 5% of U.S. daily consumption, and less than 1% of global daily consumption. "It would certainly help," says Potter. "But it won't make us energy-independent."

We do need oil for other things, building the infrastructure for oil alternatives being one of them, and older fields will be declining. So we might as well start now. But to address prices now, we have to address the oil market.