What is Digg?151 Comments
- Insightful, on 08/06/2008, -0/+6Even the Department of Energy is against drilling because both reality and common sense will tell you that offshoring drilling will have no impact until 2030. And a big if at that.
"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... Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."
Source:
"Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf"
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr ...
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is a statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Energy whose mission is to provide policy-neutral data, forecasts, and analyses to promote sound policy making, efficient markets, and public understanding regarding energy and its interaction with the economy and the environment. - Caffeinate, on 08/07/2008, -0/+3Kigcoopa, you scream a lot about "supply and demand" economics and speculation, but then you contradict yourself continually. You "speculate" that if we drill now, all of the sudden "speculators" will see it as a sign of increased supply thereby lowering costs.
They have a lot of land *already* that hasn't been drilled, hasn't been explored, and it is *right there* in their hands. Why is it an emergency *right this minute* to discuss drilling? Could it be because they want to secure exclusive rights under an administration that is favorable to oil companies?
A three year old could see through your logic. Please explain to me why you think you have any right to judge anyone's right to vote when you are running on gut-level emotion rather than long term logic. - inactive, on 08/07/2008, -0/+3"the law of supply and demand"
There is no such "law." Economics is not arithmetic. - inactive, on 08/06/2008, -0/+3 – “Obviously, if you do offshore drilling now it’s not going to give any short term help on the supply of oil. … That’s far away.” — Paul A. Samuelson, a professor of economics at MIT and winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize in Economics.
– “I have a problem linking the drilling to current gas prices for political reasons. The reality is there is no correlation between today’s prices and what gasoline will be discovered in the outer shelf.” — Dr. A.F. Alhaji, an associate professor of economics at Ohio Northern University
– “It won’t make any difference whatsoever [on gas prices] because new oil that could be found and produced on the new Outer-Continental Shelf won’t take place for at least eight to 10 years.” — Texas A&M Economics Professor Dr. John Moroney
– “Drilling in the Gulf starting today is not going to give us any relief this year, next year or the year after.” — Tom Oberhofer, an economist at Eckerd College in Pinellas County
– “It’s absurd to argue that ending the moratorium on drilling off parts of the U.S. coasts would quickly bring down the high price of gasoline.” — John Berry, Bloomberg columnist
– “Would starting to drill now do anything for consumers in the near future? The answer to this one…is probably not, since it’ll take so long for new oil or gas to come to market.” — Ken Green, an energy analyst with the American Enterprise Institute.
– “Opening off-shore drilling would have no impact whatsoever on gas prices today.” — Mike Rodgers, a leading oil expert with PFC Energy in Washington - notque, on 08/06/2008, -1/+4If you are a college educated individual who will lie, cheat, and ***** in the support of power, you will be handsomely rewarded, and morally decrepit.
- BigW, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2We have a winner. If it really is supply and demand, you can increase supply or reduce demand. Americans took action by themselves (thanks for nothing congress!!) and drove less. This, in addition that the spike in oil prices was a bubble, created the situation where the price couldn't hold. You can't keep raising prices while the stockpiles of gas keep rising at the refinery.
- stealthc, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2Since the price of oil is so sensitive to even the slightest amount of jawboning from anyone even loosely connected with the market, I think he's probably right.
Regardless, there's no reason not to drill new wells offshore. It will *reduce* the risk of oil spills (by merit of being closer) and active oil rigs are a boon to the local fish life. - pintomp3, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2or maybe because americans drove 9.6 billion less miles in May compared to a year earlier:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/28/news/economy/drivi ... - richbleak, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2How dare you provide sensible evidence that conflicts what my gut tells me about this issue. Everyone knows it's supply and demand right!? *fingers in ears* supply and demand! supply and demand!
- BigW, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2If by debunked, you mean shouted down, well then, you are correct.
- inactive, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2I'm sure the reason the price of gas has dropped 25 cents in the last few weeks is that Nancy Pelosi is blocking all debate and a vote on drilling. Yeah, that's how it works.
- kigcoopa84, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2by all means try to shoot it down with something more than "everyone but people who think like me are wrong and evil" It is simple economics buddy have you taken that class?
- buddywlkr3, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2What is that all of the energy plan solutions from Obama and the Democrats have in common? None of them increase the supply of energy. They want higher taxes on oil companies, new restrictions on oil commodity markets, forcing oil companies to drill where there is no oil, releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, free money for everybody, increased fuel efficiency mandates, increased infrastructure spending, government investments in electric cars, etc. All of these "solutions" increase spending and big Government, but none of them increase the supply. Gingrich and McCain call for increased supply and all of the loyal Obama followers want to smear Gingrich and McCain as they goose step their way over the cliff.
- BigW, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2The runup in oil futures far outpaced supply and demand .... It was based on pure emotion and greed
- rarefied, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2Opening up drilling would produce near-term changes in the price of oil. By increasing the supply of oil in the future holders of oil today would be more willing to give up smaller future profits for current profits. This story elaborates:
http://mises.org/story/3047 - SpinningHead, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Bush also said "lets do both" to get elected. Then he cut renewable funding and poured all our money into the oil industry and even a war to secure them more contracts.
- richbleak, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1kig: For someone with such a basic and incorrect understanding of the world oil market and apparently energy policy in general you have a lot of balls telling other people that they have no business voting based on being on the "wrong side" of your false premise.
- EtherGnat, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1...and if we had started drilling in ANWR 30 years ago (when Republicans wanted to) it's estimated that oil would be gone. The oil in ANWR is worth a trillion dollars more today, even after adjusting for inflation. I don't think it's hard to make a case for postponing drilling.
- GreatSunJester, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Bill Clinton likes interns.In the wrong way. There, fixed that for you!
:) - listenthentalk, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/06/markets/oil/?postv ...
- Caffeinate, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1It would be one thing if I found in this whole argument for drilling that they wanted to do it to enrich themselves. The problem here is that they want to enrich themselves, at the expense of *others*, to the detriment of *others* along with making themselves richer.
That is what I have a huge problem with, and lately, that seems to be all the Republican party does anymore - harm others to help themselves, instead of just trying to help in this world.
Why is it that every position you people take means someone else has to be harmed for your betterment? Are you too stupid to do the right things without taking a shortcut to do the wrong ones? - SquigglyP, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Don't give Bank of America any business anyway. They're one of the most despicable banking institutions out there. I was a customer of theirs for two years, and over the course of that two years they stole at least a few hundred bucks from me. I closed my account and then a year later they sent me a statement claiming my account was a couple hundred bucks in the hole - all of it due to their service charges and overdraft fees from the service charges - after they had told me my account was closed. I spent a month bitching with them, they eventually removed that balance and claimed to have closed the account again. About six months later I got ANOTHER statement claiming I owed them money for service charges and overdraft fees.
They do the same ***** Sprint does, preying on people and hoping they're stupid enough to pay their little extortion charges to preserve your credit report. I had to threaten legal action before they decided to actually close the account. - richbleak, on 08/07/2008, -1/+2What effects are you even talking about? Any oil that we find goes on the world market just like oil found just about anywhere else. The amount of oil we could contribute with what we are sitting on would not have a major impact on the global oil market. What effect do you really think a 10% increase (an extremely generous estimate) in worldwide oil supplies would really have on oil prices?
No company that deals in crude oil is going to undercut the pricing of other producers; in other words, they don't actually compete. They all come together and ensure the pricing is arbitrarily set to their liking. Regardless of how much supply is actually available, they will be sure to keep pricing high. All they must do is be sure to alter it in ways that prevent major political problems from arising. The people of the world are too stupid and lazy (with a few exceptions) to get off of oil dependency, so OPEC, the OECD, and the other oil cartels will get whatever ransom they demand until these demands are so outrageous that the world reacts; notice the price trends down slightly based on political reaction around the world? We are like the frog that sits contently in a pot of water that is slowly brought to a deadly boil; as long as they adjust in small increments and react to calm political outrage, they can continue to game the world and some people, not understanding the nature of the game, will continue to defend and support their efforts (republican voters). - stealthc, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Making caricatures of the right does not excuse the fallacies of the left.
- BotchaMcCoola, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Demand is one factor but what about the failing dollar effect?
- listenthentalk, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1It's the refineries stupid. Their output is manipulated to achieve maximum profit. Drill all you want. The price of gas will never come down.
- 140Suffolk, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1And of all the "Christian" churches in black Chicago, Obama has to find the one that considers Louis Farrakhan a hero.
- BotchaMcCoola, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Why won't the politicians talk about the devalued dollar? That is surely the biggest factor in oil prices in terms of USDollars. I think I know a good answer. Can anyone guess what it is?
- stealthc, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1The number one fact of economics that politicians need to understand is the law of unintended consequences. Government intervention into the market, whether to stop offshore drilling or to regulate, tax or subsidize it, will inevitably lead to bad consequences. Frequently those consequences will be the exact opposite of the intended goal.
- 140Suffolk, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1Here's a question: if there was a headline saying that Iran had closed the Straits of Hormuz, where most oil goes through, would the price of oil immediately go up? Of course.
So if there's news that the USA has decided to take of the handcuffs and, as fast as possible, start drilling for oil in our own backyard, would the price immediately start down? OF COURSE !!
Solar doesn't work. Wind doesn't work. If we don't start drilling we're going to be broke and cold sitting in the dark. While China and India laugh. - ginarnold, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1I wonder if Gingrich thinks if we build more houses it will solve the housing problem?
- richbleak, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1"Is the law of supply and demand no longer in effect?"
Not in its pure form. Supply and demand is simply used as a justification for price manipulation. The various oil providers get together and come up with an arbitrary price. This process is only masked by the fake demand created by massive purchases of oil futures with no intentions to actually use them and the boogeyman of peak oil and other PR efforts that make it appear as though we are running out of oil. - pintomp3, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1yeah, a whopping 3 pennies 10 years from now.
- ender7074, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1You obviously have no concept of suppl.y and demand. It's ok. You libs live in your own insane world anyway.
- axpdocbrown, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Yea see the problem with this is Newt is actually correct.
What this article fails to mention is that the price of oil by the barrel is set on two factors, the value of the dollar (which we know isn't all that great) and also the PROJECTED SUPPLY OF OIL. If we start off shore drilling, barrel prices will go down immediately the DAY they strike oil because it will change the projected supply. Now, that doesn't mean it would effect you at the pump that day, but it would within a few weeks.
I love how articles leave out facts just to prove their parts. Wake up *****, Partisan politics is killing this country. Both you Obama and McCain nut huggers need to wake up and start reading facts instead of picking sides. - MacEnvy, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1"This article also left out the important fact that today's oil prices are based on speculation. When drilling is increased the speculation of future oil output, supply, foreign dependency improves causing the price to drop alot sooner than 2030."
No, it will make no difference. Oil (and the speculators you speak of) work with the worldwide oil market. There is no domestic oil market.
Since the amount of oil we can get from increased drilling is negligible on the world market, it will have ZERO effect on speculation of global supply. The only thing increased drilling does is cause the oil companies to make more money and hold more leases out of reach of their competition.
This is a ploy by the oil companies who own the Republican Party, including Senator McCain. Once again they're using their influence over the right and the corporate media to strip the American people of our natural resources to enrich themselves at the detriment of the environment.
Don't buy into the lie. - kigcoopa84, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1well his comment proved that
- pintomp3, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1reminds me of the evidence we used to invade iraq, plagiarized from a student's paper.
- axpdocbrown, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1You win the award for smartest comment so far on this article.
- axpdocbrown, on 08/07/2008, -1/+2First of all what kind of car do you drive? Does it run on your own urine and *****? No, then your morally decrepit to.
Problem is there is no solution today, tomorrow, or next year to these power sources, and guess what, NEWT is a proponent of researching other forms of energy, there are just none ready to go this second are there? IF you think we don't need oil in the next 10 years than your the one who should get a college education buddy. - johnj21, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1This "not going to see effects of drilling for 10 years" argument is stupid. By the same logic, I am not going to send my children to elementary school because it will take them about 15 years to get a career out of it.
- imightbewrong, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1So we can blame speculators for increasing oil prices today, but we can't give them a reason to speculate that prices will decrease in the future as supply increases, so speculation will lower oil prices?
- Cuchanu, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1I beg to differ. Politicians and oil company stooges argue for drilling, economists know that it wont matter since it will take years and the oil will be sold on the market like any other oil.
***** I quote McCain, "It will have a psychological impact." - lilredsammy, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1It's not going to help us now but we should still use what we have available. In a perfect world all power would be solar or wind power, but its not.
- kigcoopa84, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1don't worry I don't expect a reply.
"Once again they're using their influence over the right and the corporate media to strip the American people of our natural resources to enrich themselves "
1. They are only natural resources if we use them as resources.
2. Shows how crazy and radical you are = complete loss of all credibility. - stealthc, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Of course they can make bad decisions apart from regulation. But the bad decisions that financed a housing bubble were encouraged (not "caused," before you start stuffing words into my mouth again) by GSOs like Fannie and Freddie who could buy artificially large amounts of mortgages at artificially low rates.
Even worse is the government's attempts to bail them out. Fannie and Freddie should have to participate in the market without special federal crutches, so that their managers and the managers of their customer banks do not suffer from the blurred vision that comes when they are protected from the consequences of their actions.
Government's intervention into the market may have short-term effects that many people like, but it only blurs the market data that helps businesses learn from their mistakes. Knowing that there's a "plunge protection team" that won't allow the stock market to fall is going to drastically change the amount of risk you think you're willing to take in the market. But when the government's promises fall flat, it is you who will be left holding the bag. - xcspyder, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1That is a very well thought out post and argument. But I will never agree to that and that kind of thinking scares me. Why? Because it is saying that government needs to control people's habits. That is most definitely a socialist policy. Very scary and what America was not founded on. I personally would like to live freely and not have government control what I buy, eat, and do with my time.
- rarefied, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Freedom Pro-tip #683: if you have to use force to get others to come around to your ideas, then your ideas are not good ones.
- lonesomewolf, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1It's like giving telling a junkie, I will reduce the cost of your foreign crack (oil) in hopes you will find a more expensive domestic alternative substance to abuse that still get's you high but doesn't destroy your body as quickly. And the so called "bridge" theory of drilling now and then "doing some research in the future" hasn't panned out even from the first oil crisis in 1972 when people were in lines at gas stations. So, say for argument sake we drill tomorrow and gas goes down to $1/gallon. What then? As long as there is a relatively cheap supply of oil then alternatives are not going to be viable and therefore people will not change their habits. The "pro-oil" camp will say "now that Americans are no longer hurting we can invest in alternative energies." Unfortunately, this strategy has been used by previous administrations and has always failed. People do not plan for the future they plan for tomorrow morning. And if gas is not $4/gallon tomorrow morning they think of other things that are important to them like heath care, food supply, education, etc.
There are only really two ways to change people's habits and keep oil prices on people's mind as well as create long term viable alternatives. One is to hit them in the wallet where it really hurts and the other to enforce policy (e.g. laws). Without the pain there is no change. - richbleak, on 08/07/2008, -1/+2Is it the Republicans that you believe will enact these regulations? The Republicans have been on a DEregulation crusade for as long as I can remember. Unless specific limitations on where the oil can go are outlined in the initial lease of the land, the government does not have the power to decide who these companies sell to; no such limitations have been included in the vast area that has already been approved for drilling (the fact that these areas have already been leased and not drilled reveals this entire issue as a pointless one that is meant only to exploit the naivete of much of the electorate).
Furthermore, the price of the domestically drilled oil would simply match the price of the foreign oil; keeping the domestic oil out of the foreign markets means the additional supply does nothing to reduce global oil prices. This means that your solution still doesn't mean a damned thing. -
Show 51 - 100 of 151 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is