Obama will not allow offshore oil drilling, will extend dependence on Middle East oil

[werepossum]

The choice is between jobs now and jobs in the future, not jobs and no jobs.

Drilling here now to create jobs is basically borrowing from the future, which I thought you Republicans were opposed to... with the added detriment that we lose the oil that will be worth much more.

That's true, but with two caveats. First, oil is not at all guaranteed to be worth more later. When we get off oil, ours may well be worth much less, due to less demand. Were we to develop practical methanol or biofuel from waste, Gulf oil probably wouldn't be worth pumping at all in a couple decades. Second, our oil companies are becoming more international as the decades go by, so proportionally less of that wealth is likely to remain in the USA when and if we do drill for it in the future. But I agree that's a valid point with those two caveats.

 

[Darwin333]

because the large tourist industry in the gulf is worth less then the large oil industry?

The answer to that is that the large tourist gulf industry is LARGER then the oil industry and they used their freedom of speech to lobby the government and get this stopped. Why do you hate lobbyists? Why do you hate business? Why do you hate free speech?

One single tanker can make the BP mess look like childsplay. Guess where all those "mega-tankers" go, and what they pass on their way way there? How many more will we have in the future versus our own pipelined oil due to this and why is that a good thing?

 

[Darwin333]

You have NO clue what you're talking about.

Oil that is drilled domestically isn't somehow restricted to domestic use. It goes onto the global market just like every other barrel. And guess what, there's no real impact on price.
My dad, who worked in the oil industry for his entire career, told me a long time ago that the reason we don't drill up all our oil is that we benefit from leaving it in the ground to gain value.

So how exactly do we benefit from drilling more oil here now, vs leaving it in the ground until it's worth a lot more as oil becomes scarcer?

If you don't understand a topic, keep your mouth shut or try to learn about it, don't latch on to stupid platitudes that have nothing to do with reality.

I know quite a bit about the subject considering I used to work in the oilfield and am now in "green" energy.

I have helped put a lot of holes in the gulf and almost all of them came online as producing wells but lets say you are 100% correct. They are drilling wells that are able to produce vast amounts of oil and then capping them. Exactly what is your problem with this? The .gov gets paid for the leases, US workers get paid to drill the hole and a shit ton of support staff, almost all US based, is required for the drilling. Even better, if the ME tells us to go pound sand or Iran shuts down SAs oil tankers or Israel gets froggy or a bunch of other scenarios happen that cuts off the lifeblood of our economy..... THE WELLS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DRILLED!

How in the hell is drilling the well now and still leaving it in the ground until it is more scarce, as you argue, worse than not drilling the well now so that we can still leave it in the fucking ground? One way gives you access to it in short order, just in case the most unstable region of the world gets a bit more unstable, the other way puts us years from seeing it.

Furthermore, you should learn a bit more about the subject if you think that oil produced from wells in the Gulf is being sold on the "global market" as in going to China or Russia or something. Global markets set its price but the itsy bitsy problem of where the pipelines go control who buys it. It is insanely cheaper to pipeline oil from the Gulf to refineries on the Gulf Coast than it is to ship it anywhere else. You really can't be serious if you think we drill oil from the Gulf and then ship it overseas. We do refine some stuff for Mexico (almost all shipped via pipeline) in exchange for a fuckton more oil that they sell us, that is the majority of our petroleum exports.

So, to recap:

You say its better to leave the oil in the ground until it is more scarce and then claim that is what the oil companies are doing. Letting them drill the well now = free monies, good jobs, and quicker access. You lose.

Oil drilled in the Gulf is almost exclusively used by the US and maybe an argument for Mexico who, along with Canada, are our largest oil suppliers.


What else ya got? Environmental maybe? Where ya think all the oil shipped from overseas via supertankers offload at? You do realize that just one major screwup with those tankers makes the BP mess look like a 5 gallon gas can that fell off a fishing boat, right?

 

[Darwin333]

The choice is between jobs now and jobs in the future, not jobs and no jobs.

Drilling here now to create jobs is basically borrowing from the future, which I thought you Republicans were opposed to... with the added detriment that we lose the oil that will be worth much more.

How much further in the future are you talking about?

 

[dmcowen674]

Obama will not allow offshore oil drilling, will extend dependence on Middle East oil

Good

I'm going to south Florida beaches in a couple of weeks and don't want to sit in oil like they are on the Gulf shores.

 

[jackace]

From what I have read recently the only reason why oil stays cheaper then other "green" alternatives is the user doesn't have to pay for the entire cost of it's use. This means we can burn oil with little or no actual personal cost for the pollution it creates. If everyone who uses oil had to also pay to clean the pollution it caused out of the air the costs between oil, wind, etc would be much closer if not favoring the more "green" alternative.

 

[Zorkorist]

That's absolutely, true. Oil and Gas, and Coal, are hideousky bad for the environment, and extremely expensive when you factor in how ugly they are to the environment.

Damns fill fertile valleys with water and whole river ecosystems are lost.

The easy solution is Nuclear Power. Green and Mean.

You in?

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Good

I'm going to south Florida beaches in a couple of weeks and don't want to sit in oil like they are on the Gulf shores.

Gulf Beaches are clean, white sands.

Enjoy your trip to South Florida, but don't disparage Gulf Shores.

-John

 

[IBMer]

People in Florida at least do not want offshort drilling.

 

[ayabe]

People in Florida at least do not want offshort drilling.

Exactly and when Jeb! was governor he told W not in my state broski.

 

[Darwin333]

People in Florida at least do not want offshort drilling.

And that should be their choice to have drilling in their waters or not. Unfortunately most of them don't realize they are trading one risk for, imho, a much larger one. Those mega tankers that we import oil from the ME with pass right by Florida and enter the Gulf of Mexico to be offloaded. One single tanker has a worst case scenario and the recent event in the Gulf will be nothing compared to the impact it would cause.

As far as Federal waters off the coast of Florida, I say you either give the rest of the states as much control over the Federal waters off their coast and stop fucking them out of royalties or Florida should have just as little say.

BTW, these super tankers I am talking about or ULCC (Ultra Large Crude Carriers) are larger than Nimitz class aircraft carriers and can carry over 3 million bbls of crude. They are so massive that they can't enter port and some can't even navigate the English Channel and their legnth can be close to rivaling the height of the Empire State Building. We currently only have one place in the United States that can offload ULCCs and VLCCs (Very Large), the LOOP which is off the Louisiana coast.

 

[IBMer]

As far as Federal waters off the coast of Florida, I say you either give the rest of the states as much control over the Federal waters off their coast and stop fucking them out of royalties or Florida should have just as little say.

We should just use the potential coast effected as a measurement of who should have say... BOOM Florida wins.

 

[zsdersw]

I'm not seeing the reason for criticizing the Obama administration on this. Seems more of a state matter.

 

[Darwin333]

We should just use the potential coast effected as a measurement of who should have say... BOOM Florida wins.

Are you saying the tankers should also not be allowed off their coast either since they present a much greater threat?

BOOM that would be the economy, overnight.

 

[Thump553]

It was proven beyond a doubt last summer that we have inadequate safeguards and remedies in place for dealing with major deep water oil spills. Whether you think the "we" is the government (nonsensically this seems to be the "righties" position) or as I do-the oil drillers as overseen by adequate and competent government regulation, that conclusion is inescapable. Nearly five months of an uncapped well spewed is just too much.

The court's rejection of the Administration's temporary freeze on deepwater drilling also makes it clear that we cannot rely on that route either-even in the midst of a proven problem and known emergency.

In short, the old maxim of closing the barn door after the horse gets out is clearly PROVEN to apply here. Obama was 100% correct in canceling any future expansion of drilling areas unless and until we (government and drillers) get our act together in a competent manner.

OP you (and we as a country) have to start thinking outside the box and lessen our dependence on oil in general. Develop other energy sources, ramp up mileage, reamp up conservation rather than just continue to piss away as much oil as we can get our hands on.

 

[jacc1234]

One single tanker can make the BP mess look like childsplay. Guess where all those "mega-tankers" go, and what they pass on their way way there? How many more will we have in the future versus our own pipelined oil due to this and why is that a good thing?

I think your wrong in thinking this. The largest supertankers can hold about 3mil barrels and the BP spill leaked arpox 5mil.

 

[Darwin333]

I think your wrong in thinking this. The largest supertankers can hold about 3mil barrels and the BP spill leaked arpox 5mil.

Supertankers don't carry oil/water/natgas/sludge mix that was shooting out of the well.

Supertankers are already on the surface, a ton of the oil could potentially be released in very short time period on the surface instead of way the hell below.

The oil could potentially be much thicker and move much quicker because of the above.

It would be many many times worse than the BP spill, in which they were able to use metric shit tons of dispersants a mile underwater before the leaking oil/sludge slurry could reach the surface. Go take a look at the Exxon Valdez pictures if you want further proof and the Exxon Valdez was a rather small tanker.

 

[jacc1234]

If you just going to spout off hypotheticals I could easily claim that an oil rig leak could be many times worse then the BP spill and any oil tanker. The whole oil reserve could rupture and continue to leak into to ocean until its depleted without any possibility of being stopped...blah blah blah.

All your "examples" are speculation and conjecture cherry picked to back up your statement.

Also, just because the oil is not on the surface doesn't mean its not doing serious damage. The Valdez was close to shore in a small bay making the damage more concentrated and apparent but we are not even close to seeing the full scope of the BP spill.

 

[theeedude]

 

[Darwin333]

If you just going to spout off hypotheticals I could easily claim that an oil rig leak could be many times worse then the BP spill and any oil tanker. The whole oil reserve could rupture and continue to leak into to ocean until its depleted without any possibility of being stopped...blah blah blah.

All your "examples" are speculation and conjecture cherry picked to back up your statement.

Also, just because the oil is not on the surface doesn't mean its not doing serious damage. The Valdez was close to shore in a small bay making the damage more concentrated and apparent but we are not even close to seeing the full scope of the BP spill.

Well that is all we are doing is using hypotheticals but if you would like to get down to actual facts then by all means. The BP accident, like the Exxon oil tanker, is one of those accidents that almost never happen.

Oil drilling, especially modern oil drilling, has caused far fewer major spills then tankers have. Almost ALL of the major spills have been from tankers. Since we are talking about Florida's beaches the fact that the much heavier oil would be already on the surface is a relevant fact but throw that one out if you wish.

Lets get factual. How many oil wells are in the Gulf of Mexico and in US waters? How many major incidents have occurred that have caused significant impact to the environment/economy? Whats the ratio?

Drilling for oil is safe. I have already outlined an extremely workable and reasonable idea for reducing the risk of runaway wells like the BP one. Shipping oil is also safe but the fact is that more major economic and environmental damage has been caused by tankers then by drilling. Both are risks that we must accept if we wish to live a modern lifestyle.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think that it is better to "outsource" our pollution?

Your turn.

 

[jacc1234]

I dont disagree with your points at all actually. I also never said that I wanted to outsource our pollution. I was simply disagreeing with your statement that a supertanker disaster would "...make the BP mess look like childsplay".

 

[Darwin333]

I dont disagree with your points at all actually. I also never said that I wanted to outsource our pollution. I was simply disagreeing with your statement that a supertanker disaster would "...make the BP mess look like childsplay".

I know a lot about drilling but I have never worked on a tanker. With that said, I have talked to quite a few experts who make extremely compelling arguments about why a super tanker catastrophe would be far worse.

It really boils down to what is actually being spilled. When oil comes out of the ground it doesn't come up in as nice refinery ready crude. It comes up mixed with seawater, sludge, nat gas, drilling fluid, etc... That is then pipelined to a processing platform that separates the crap out and sends the crude on to where ever it is heading.

When oil is shipped they don't waste the cargo space with all that other crap so it is pure crude ready to be refined. That makes the oil much thicker and you will likely have more of it in a shorter period of time. The spill is also much more likely to happen closer to land giving you less time to respond and shallower water (good and bad). You are also likely to run into a huge finger pointing issue which would cause a very slow response (not that the BP response was great but at least they ponied up a ton of cash). I will have to ask who is legally responsible for the cargo until it gets to port but if its SA or the shipping company it wouldn't turn out nearly as well.

 

[lampers1]

I think he should continue drilling. We've been doing right until the rig exploded. Just make sure all safeguards are in place and do it again.

 

[Jhhnn]

Most of our oil companies are majority American owned, the oil produced will be taxed by our nation, the added supply will reduce costs, and the workers producing the wealth will be mostly Americans if the drilling is inside the USA. Producing wealth anywhere improves the world's economy, but producing wealth in America improves our economy most. This is true even for foreign companies.

That's not really accurate-

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/04...hore shelter-wal-mart-general-electric-forbes

The whole thing is quite murky, but offshore subsidiaries generally exist for tax avoidance purposes, and we both know it.

After all the raving from the usual Righties about the BP spill, the Obama admin is apparently willing to face the reality that the govt is powerless in such a situation, lacking the skills and equipment to do much of anything. So the smart answer is to disallow that happening again. They modified policy to placate the "drill, baby, drill!" zealots last march, and when it went awry, they got the ass-hammer from the same quarter for their efforts. Whatever they do, they'll be criticized by the same mow-rons.

Yeh, I know- there's no point to leaving any resources for future generations because Jesus is coming, right?

 

[JellyBaby]

The thread title is curious.."extending dependence on mid east oil". Do you actually think we can make up the difference of importing 10+ million barrels of oil per day?

Consider this: peak US oil discoveries happened around 1930. Peak US oil production happened around 1970. Our population continues to grow and demand for oil is increasing yet we don't seem to be preparing at all for a major shift to another energy source...in fact there is no other viable alternative if we want to continue living as we do today.

What's really interesting is world peak oil discoveries occurred in 1964 and best guesses are they're at peak already or will be in 30 years. World oil production's been flat for 6 years straight now...not a good sign.

Drilling the small chunks that remain nearby is certainly profitable for oil companies but at some point soon, world demand will outstrip supply and what happens then?