McCain wants to lift ban on offshore drilling

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
176
106
Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Drilling for oil offshore would do a lot to bring gas prices down and ease the financial burden on Americans at the pump.

But then all the mindless sheep will go out and start buying SUVs and giant pick ups again, increasing demand, and putting us right back in the same hole a few years down the road.

How about we take the oil company's subsidies away and invest all that money into alternative energy research? Oil companies can raise prices to compensate for losing the subsidies but that will simply drive more people away from gas and towards other forms of energy.

WIN-WIN

Maybe, I can't say I'm opposed to removing subsidies from oil companies (or MOST government subsidies of private business) BUT I think subsidies to encourage alternative energy production need to be better managed.

Corn based ethanol is a disaster no matter how you slice it yet production continues to ramp UP due to government subsidies. The only people benefiting from this debacle of an energy investment are the folks in agra-business, the taxpayers are getting double soaked at the grocery store and in their tax bill.

We need to make sure an alternative energy option is both commercially viable, sustainable AND not worse for the environment like Corn Ethanol before we start throwing money at it.

I agree.

IMO, the future lies with solar power, ultra capacitors, and microwave power transmission via solar panels in orbit.

All our money should go into utilizing the boundless 100% clean and free energy bombarding this planet 24 hours a day.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Originally posted by: Xavier434

That is really easy to argue if you are not living near the coast and your state heavily relies on tourism thanks to those coasts remaining attractive.

I live in New Orleans which is a tourist mecca.

It is near the water.

We the drill the shit out of some oil.

We also refine it to gas here because the rest of the states refuse to do so.


You have to also consider that when gas hits 8 dollars a gallon not too many people will be driving to your beaches to vacation.....

You are not seriously trying to compare the two areas are you? Our state's economies are vastly different. No one goes to New Orleans for your beaches. Also, one thing about that area which is different from Florida is property value especially along the coast. As another poster has already mentioned, people are leaving Florida over property value issues left and right. Oil covered beaches and water will not help that situation at all.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: child of wonder
I agree.

IMO, the future lies with solar power, ultra capacitors, and microwave power transmission via solar panels in orbit.

All our money should go into utilizing the boundless 100% clean and free energy bombarding this planet 24 hours a day.

:thumbsup:

I have been saying that for years. Especially the part about solar panels in orbit and microwave transmission.
 

Deudalus

Golden Member
Jan 16, 2005
1,090
0
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434

You are not seriously trying to compare the two areas are you? Our state's economies are vastly different. No one goes to New Orleans for your beaches. Also, one thing about that area which is different from Florida is property value especially along the coast. As another poster has already mentioned, people are leaving Florida over property value issues left and right. Oil covered beaches and water will not help that situation at all.

Perhaps you should trade in your beaches for some decent food.

If there is one thing we have proven is that you can be the biggest shit hole in the world and as long as your cuisine is good enough people will flock there.

But regardless of what Al Gore would have you believe, your beaches are not going to erode because people are allowed to drill 25 miles from them much less 50 miles.

 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
176
106
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: child of wonder
I agree.

IMO, the future lies with solar power, ultra capacitors, and microwave power transmission via solar panels in orbit.

All our money should go into utilizing the boundless 100% clean and free energy bombarding this planet 24 hours a day.

:thumbsup:

I have been saying that for years. Especially the part about solar panels in orbit and microwave transmission.

As have I. Unfortunately, there's very little political or social power to be attained by switching to this energy model. There's no way to limit rays of sunlight from the general populace or to make them pay for it.

Also, I believe we should have nuclear power plants as backups as well in case satellites were to fail, extensive cloud cover, etc.
 

Deudalus

Golden Member
Jan 16, 2005
1,090
0
0
Originally posted by: child of wonder
I agree.

IMO, the future lies with solar power, ultra capacitors, and microwave power transmission via solar panels in orbit.

All our money should go into utilizing the boundless 100% clean and free energy bombarding this planet 24 hours a day.

Sounds fantastic, until we figure out how to do that I'd appreciate it if everyone stopped driving, using any plastics at all, etc etc.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Originally posted by: Xavier434

That is really easy to argue if you are not living near the coast and your state heavily relies on tourism thanks to those coasts remaining attractive.

I live in New Orleans which is a tourist mecca.

It is near the water.

We the drill the shit out of some oil.

We also refine it to gas here because the rest of the states refuse to do so.


You have to also consider that when gas hits 8 dollars a gallon not too many people will be driving to your beaches to vacation.....

I was in New Orleans for Mardi Gras in 2004. Fucking tax was almost 10% and I hear the state is corrupt to the core.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Originally posted by: Xavier434

You are not seriously trying to compare the two areas are you? Our state's economies are vastly different. No one goes to New Orleans for your beaches. Also, one thing about that area which is different from Florida is property value especially along the coast. As another poster has already mentioned, people are leaving Florida over property value issues left and right. Oil covered beaches and water will not help that situation at all.

Perhaps you should trade in your beaches for some decent food.

If there is one thing we have proven is that you can be the biggest shit hole in the world and as long as your cuisine is good enough people will flock there.

But regardless of what Al Gore would have you believe, your beaches are not going to erode because people are allowed to drill 25 miles from them much less 50 miles.

I hope you are right. I really do. I just can't bet my home on that one. Not when I have already seen the kind of damage it can cause. I'm sorry but I will not be voting to support this measure.

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Originally posted by: child of wonder
I agree.

IMO, the future lies with solar power, ultra capacitors, and microwave power transmission via solar panels in orbit.

All our money should go into utilizing the boundless 100% clean and free energy bombarding this planet 24 hours a day.

Sounds fantastic, until we figure out how to do that I'd appreciate it if everyone stopped driving, using any plastics at all, etc etc.

We're always going to want to use oil for plastics and similar tech. I think most scientists would agree that is oil's highest and best use. But see, that's not using oil as an energy source, but as resource similar to iron ore or bauxite.

As for driving, it's a little-known fact that, with just the right electrical storage technology (i.e. ultra capacitors), we could stop using oil for transportation fuel in very short order. The slack capacity of our existing electrical grid could easily power all of our cars, trucks, and buses.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Originally posted by: Xavier434

That is really easy to argue if you are not living near the coast and your state heavily relies on tourism thanks to those coasts remaining attractive.

I live in New Orleans which is a tourist mecca.

It is near the water.

We the drill the shit out of some oil.

We also refine it to gas here because the rest of the states refuse to do so.


You have to also consider that when gas hits 8 dollars a gallon not too many people will be driving to your beaches to vacation.....

I was in New Orleans for Mardi Gras in 2004. Fucking tax was almost 10% and I hear the state is corrupt to the core.

It is. When I went there in 2003 my buddies car got broken into. We found a cop and told him we wanted to file a report. He basically told us to screw off and that we should have known better to park where we were. Keep in mind that we were tourists and at the time when we parked there were tons of other cars all lined up beside us and the area looked just fine. Keep in mind that none of us really expected the cops to catch the thieves, but it would have been nice for him to do his job for insurance purposes. I guess in New Orleans breaking into a car is only a crime if the car is parked in a place where police deem acceptable. From what I understand, that example is just a drop in the bucket.
 

brencat

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2007
2,170
3
76
- Absolutely support lifting the ban on offshore drilling. No closer than 50 miles out seems relatively safe with today's technology and care that drilling companies exercise and will allow us to access the oil we've been denied so far between 50 - 200 miles out. Alternative energy sources are great and should be funded but oil will still be the primary fuel for a long time. Let's get realistic about what we can achieve and acknowledge people are hurting TODAY. Windfall profits taxes are a joke and won't do a damn thing for the consumer.

- I also support raising margin requirements for those participating in the futures market from 10% to 50% as it is for stocks. The oil price rise over the past year far exceeds the decline in the dollar index over the same period, not to mention the increase in demand from emerging economies like China and India also over the same period. 'Speculator' tends to have a mischievous conotation but the fact is, extreme money flows where the majority of the flow is in one direction (i.e. buying) cause markets to move. I'm sure many of you have read that the size of the market has grown from $15 billion back ~ 2003 to around $260 billion today. Index funds, hedge funds, pension funds, are buying commodities to hedge against inflation, as well as because it is a 'hot' sector right now. These people have no desire to take delivery of oil, but there is enough real demand from airlines and actual users of oil to give them the liquidity to get out of these contracts near expiration. Discouraging them a little will not destroy the futures market.

- Finally, let's get together and stop the B.S. what with having 26 or so grades of gasoline/ethanol combinations among all 50 states. Let's have a conference, pick one blend (the cleanest?) and that's what our refineries should focus on. I have to imagine that will help drop prices too via greater scale and efficiencies.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434
It is. When I went there in 2003 my buddies car got broken into. We found a cop and told him we wanted to file a report. He basically told us to screw off and that we should have known better to park where we were. Keep in mind that we were tourists and at the time when we parked there were tons of other cars all lined up beside us and the area looked just fine. Keep in mind that none of us really expected the cops to catch the thieves, but it would have been nice for him to do his job for insurance purposes. I guess in New Orleans breaking into a car is only a crime if the car is parked in a place where police deem acceptable. From what I understand, that example is just a drop in the bucket.

I was in Baton Rouge two months ago on a business trip and right in plain sight of a police officer(talking on his phone) a guy ran right through a redlight, this was not close, just a blatant "I don't feel like waiting".

I honk my horn at the cop, who was in his police car, he looked at me and raised his hands, like "What the hell do you want me to do about it?".

Coupling that with their drive through daiquiri stands - where it's not an open container as long as you take the straw out of the cup if you get pulled over, told me everything I need to know about why Louisiana is so f-ed up.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Washington Post's Dana Milbank:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...6/AR2008061602148.html

Put Your Right Wing In, Take Your Left Wing Out

On offshore drilling, he's reversed course and is dancing with the GOP base. (By Win Mcnamee -- Getty Images)
Tuesday, June 17, 2008; Page A03

If John McCain keeps dancing like this, he's liable to break a hip.

Last month, he shimmied to the left on energy policy, infuriating conservatives with a plan to cap carbon emissions. Yesterday, he shuffled back to the right, demanding an end to quarter-century-old bans on offshore oil drilling.

"There are areas off our coasts that should be open to exploration and exploitation, and I hope we can take the first step by lifting the moratoria," he announced at a news conference at McCain headquarters in Crystal City.

Let's leave aside whether it's a good idea for the Republican presidential candidate to advocate the "exploitation" of the nation's coastlines. McCain said such drilling "would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis" -- even though it takes years to get from oil exploration to production.

It was, in other words, a typical day in the life of McCain. Pulled between the need to appeal to independent voters and the need to placate the still-suspicious Republican base, McCain has been stutter-stepping his way to the GOP convention.

While probable Democratic nominee Barack Obama follows the conventional path of sprinting to the center, McCain's route has had more turns than a Macarena: slide to the right on judges and guns, jump to the left on climate change and foreign alliances, pivot to the right on taxes and Iraq.

A glance at the new Washington Post-ABC News poll explains McCain's back-and-forth. Fifty-four percent of Obama backers are "very enthusiastic" -- giving him plenty of room to run to the middle. But just 17 percent of McCain supporters feel that way. Only 13 percent of conservatives are very enthusiastic about McCain, compared with nearly half of liberals who feel strongly about Obama.

The candidate put a happy face on the situation when a questioner at yesterday's news conference asked about the "difficulties you're having in unifying the party."

"Actually, according to all the polls, we see that we have as large a percentage of the Republican Party that is supporting me as President Bush had in '04 and 2000," he said. "I'm happy with the degree of unity that our party has. . . . We'll be fine over time. It always takes time."

Time, and some nice dance moves -- many of which were on display at McCain headquarters for yesterday's session with reporters. The man once celebrated for his informality with reporters emerged in a severe gray suit and stood in front of four American flags, flared with the help of adhesive tape. He scolded one reporter for asking a question without raising her hand. One star correspondent, arriving a few minutes late for the event, was forced to wait outside until McCain finished.

He waltzed to the right on Iraq ("I am convinced that we are on the path to victory!") and economics ("He wants to raise taxes; I want to lower them"). He swung to the left on his bipartisan achievements: "I worked with Senator Kennedy on immigration. I worked with Senator Feingold on campaign finance reform. . . . I worked with Senator Dorgan in the investigation of the Abramoff scandal." He promenaded back to the right on guns and God: "I won't tell them that, in small towns across America and Pennsylvania, that they are bitter . . . so therefore they embrace religion and the Second Amendment."

And sometimes he tried to have it both ways. He spoke up for the "unique status of marriage between man and woman," then suggested he would let states make their own choices, saying, "I also feel that the people of California will probably make a decision on this."

He also explained an aborted fundraising appearance at the home of oilman Clayton Williams, whose political aspirations collapsed years ago when he likened rape to bad weather. McCain said he canceled the appearance but would keep the money raised, because "the people that contributed are supporters of mine, not supporters of his."

On energy policy, McCain faced the most complex two-step of all. In May, he antagonized conservatives with his cap-and-trade plan for carbon ("It's really a cap-and-kill-the-economy plan," Larry Kudlow wrote for National Review) and renewed his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other sensitive sites ("You know, a lot of people aren't going to like that," Fox News's Bill O'Reilly informed him).

That created the need for yesterday's allemande right. During his last run for the presidency, in 1999, McCain supported the drilling moratorium, and he scolded the "special interests in Washington" that sought offshore drilling leases. Yesterday, he announced that those very same "moratoria should be lifted" and proposed incentives for the states "in the form of tangible financial rewards, if the states decide to lift those moratoriums."

Fox's Carl Cameron was skeptical about McCain's conversion. He pointed out that McCain had already aggravated "an awful lot of Republicans" by ruling out oil drilling in Alaska and other places. "To what extent is the lifting of the moratoria addressing that?" he asked. "And how do you persuade Republicans that you are not in their face on what they think is an important part of a domestic energy plan?"

McCain smiled. "I try not to get in their face," he said. And that requires fancy footwork.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,407
8,595
126
what was the price of a barrel in 1999 and what was the price of a barrel in 2008?
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,407
8,595
126
Originally posted by: ayabe

Well George Will is the one who got the ball rolling on this one and he issued his own correction:

"In a previous column, I stated that China, in partnership with Cuba, is drilling for oil 60 miles from the Florida coast. While Cuba has partnered with Chinese companies to drill in the Florida Straits, no Chinese company has been involved in Cuba's oil exploration that close to the United States."

So no one, including China, will be drilling closer to our shores than our own firms are allowed.

This is a non issue being hyped by the same people that brought us WMD intelligence in 2003, take one fact and twist it to hype the fear machine.

exploration != production.

the cubans certainly don't have the expertise to drill there (now that they know there is oil). and as the statement said just before your bolded part, Cuba has partnered with Chinese companies to drill in the Florida Straits. i don't know how that could be any more clear.

so no, it's not patently false that cuba will be having china drill for oil in the florida straits, which is closer to florida than the US allows US oil companies to drill.


and with the recent step-down of fidel castro and with obama probably in the white house in january there is a good chance of a thaw in US-cuban relations. especially if the 'oil barons' could get some lobbying going.


Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Queasy
The point isn't whether or not China is actually drilling right now. The point is is that they can. Along with Brazil and Canada too. Meanwhile, we've blocked off 85% of our coasts from doing any exploration or drilling.

Why would China risk an incident with the US over a mere 100 million barrels of heavy sour?

As ayabe keeps trying to tell you, someone is yanking on your fear chain.

risk an incident? what, are they sending warships into the florida straits?
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
That created the need for yesterday's allemande right. During his last run for the presidency, in 1999, McCain supported the drilling moratorium, and he scolded the "special interests in Washington" that sought offshore drilling leases. Yesterday, he announced that those very same "moratoria should be lifted" and proposed incentives for the states "in the form of tangible financial rewards, if the states decide to lift those moratoriums."

I know, it's amazing.

it's like the price of gas had more than doubled since 1999 or something.

what could possibly have changed in the past 9 years to make him rethink his stance... :confused:
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
I'm more comfortable with drilling on land. No oil spills in water (unless transporting), no hurricanes etc.

If they open up coastal drilling I hope they have the good sense to take a chunk of money that goes to the federal government and invest in equipment and such to have a great response team for any spills etc.

In the back of my mind I have a sense that drilling platforms might make a great terrorist target. You can ruin a billion $'s of US real estate with a big spill. and cause all kinds of problems/headaches.

Fern
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Originally posted by: Fern
I'm more comfortable with drilling on land. No oil spills in water (unless transporting), no hurricanes etc.

If they open up coastal drilling I hope they have the good sense to take a chunk of money that goes to the federal government and invest in equipment and such to have a great response team for any spills etc.

In the back of my mind I have a sense that drilling platforms might make a great terrorist target. You can ruin a billion $'s of US real estate with a big spill. and cause all kinds of problems/headaches.

Fern

it's not like we don't already have offshore rigs in the US, though.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: Fern
I'm more comfortable with drilling on land. No oil spills in water (unless transporting), no hurricanes etc.

If they open up coastal drilling I hope they have the good sense to take a chunk of money that goes to the federal government and invest in equipment and such to have a great response team for any spills etc.

In the back of my mind I have a sense that drilling platforms might make a great terrorist target. You can ruin a billion $'s of US real estate with a big spill. and cause all kinds of problems/headaches.

Fern

The anti-terror dolphins will come to the rescue.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: jpeyton
More pandering for big oil money and GOP support? How am I not surprised. He'll flip on his opposition on ANWR drilling too; just give him some time.

Gee i guess we can continue to ramp up oil prices that hit the American consumers harder than the fat cats Obama is chasing. If he flipflops on ANWR Ill have even more respect for him.

The logic fails big time on the left with regards to this issue. I hope McCain takes Obama to task on this issue. Windfall profits tax isnt going to help this issue one bit. Drilling our own god damn reserves will.

That is really easy to argue if you are not living near the coast and your state heavily relies on tourism thanks to those coasts remaining attractive.

You're going to make A LOT more money on oil than tourism.
 

Deudalus

Golden Member
Jan 16, 2005
1,090
0
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434
It is. When I went there in 2003 my buddies car got broken into. We found a cop and told him we wanted to file a report. He basically told us to screw off and that we should have known better to park where we were. Keep in mind that we were tourists and at the time when we parked there were tons of other cars all lined up beside us and the area looked just fine. Keep in mind that none of us really expected the cops to catch the thieves, but it would have been nice for him to do his job for insurance purposes. I guess in New Orleans breaking into a car is only a crime if the car is parked in a place where police deem acceptable. From what I understand, that example is just a drop in the bucket.

That obviously cannot be the case because up until Jindal the state has had nothing but Democrat governors for forever and the city of New Orleans has only been run by liberal Democrats for as long as anyone can remember.

Somehow, I'm not quite living in the Utopia though.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Vic
More election year pandering over an issue that will NOT be decided by the next President.

I'm luke-warm on this myself. It made sense to hoard our own reserves and buy foreign oil while oil was cheap. Now that it is no longer cheap, we should start developing more of our own sources. However, no amount of known reserves is going to get us off dependence on foreign oil. We will never be an oil producing nation, and always a oil consuming nation. So this would be a very short-term fix, at best, and would have little to no effect on global oil prices in and of itself.

I partially disagree with the last bit. I think a major increase in the production of oil from the United States would be a big shock to the system. Especially to the oil speculators who are betting on prices going higher and higher. ANWR would be an extra million+ barrels of oil a day. Off-shore oil fields could be more than that. It would also help strengthen the dollar as the oil money and jobs would be coming here instead of going overseas.

No, we will likely never be able to completely provide all of our oil needs but there is no reason for us to continue to move toward being 100% dependent on foreign oil either. We are producing less oil now than we were 30 years ago.

We still need to work on higher mpgs and other dependable sources of energy but there is no reason why we can't chew gum and walk at the same time.

the united states is the number three producer of oil in the world and most of our imported oil comes from canada and mexico
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
Originally posted by: yuppiejr
The US environmental lobby has made us MORE dependent on foreign energy sources than we need to be by cutting off access to domestic reserves and refining capacity.


Haven't they just saved us a bunch of oil/money? By hoarding our own reserves while foreign sources were cheap, we have a bit of a cushion to rely on now that prices have skyrocketed. I'd say we wait a little bit longer before we start using it up, but at the same time I don't want anyone else (those darn chinese *shakes fist*) sucking away at our stockpile.

This might be true IF we had been allowed to build the refineries and oil rigs that would give us access to the domestic reserves in question so we could quickly ramp up production when needed. That is not the case, we've been soaking up cheap international supplies but hindering our own investment in domestic oil gathering and refining thanks to our friends in the environmetal lobby.

It will still take years to ramp up enough production capacity to make a difference at this point which means we're still at the mercy of global suppliers and increased demand from competing nations. This has been a problem long in the making and will take years to un-make. Right now alternative energy sources are still in their infancy and can not hope to replace mature fossil fuel technologies in the near future. Reckless idealism is what we have here and the results are predictably painful for the average US consumer.

the united states simply does not have a lack of domestic refineries. The rest of your post is just as naive and ignorant of reality