NY Times, Wash. Post reported McCain's plan for offshore drilling in response to gas prices, but not that it would have no impact for years
SUMMARY: In articles on Sen. John McCain's reversal on offshore drilling, The New York Times reported that McCain "cast" his position "switch" as a "bold action in response to gasoline prices topping $4 a gallon," while The Washington Post suggested that McCain's position is a response "to ease the crunch for consumers." Neither article pointed out that the Department of Energy has determined that offshore drilling would not impact gas prices for many years.
In a June 23 New York Times article, political writer and CNBC chief Washington correspondent John Harwood wrote that Sen. John McCain "cast" his position "switch" on offshore drilling as a "bold action in response to gasoline prices topping $4 a gallon." Similarly, in a June 23 Washington Post article, staff writer Anne E. Kornblut reported: "As gas prices have shot above $4 per gallon, energy policy has taken center stage in the campaign. Both [Sen. Barack] Obama and the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, have proposed plans to ease the crunch for consumers. McCain last week reversed his opposition to offshore oil drilling." But neither Harwood nor Kornblut noted that the Department of Energy has determined that offshore drilling would not impact gas prices for many years.
In its Annual Energy Outlook for 2007, the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration (EIA) stated: "The projections in the OCS [Outer Continental Shelf] 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." In assessing the likely impact of drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf area, the EIA further stated that "despite the increase in production from previously restricted areas after 2012, total natural gas production from the lower 48 OCS is projected generally to decline after 2020." The EIA continued: "Although a significant volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources is added in the OCS access case, conversion of those resources to production would require both time and money. In addition, the average field size in the Pacific and Atlantic regions tends to be smaller than the average in the Gulf of Mexico, implying that a significant portion of the additional resource would not be economically attractive to develop at the reference case prices."
Additionally, the Post itself had reported on June 22 that McCain's senior policy adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, told reporters that lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling "would not boost oil supplies or bring down gas prices in the immediate future."
From Harwood's June 23 New York Times article:
The summer transition to general election from primary campaign is ripe for shifts of tone and emphasis, if not outright flip-flops. Since using populist rhetoric on trade and taxes to vanquish his Democratic rival, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama has declared himself a free-trader while signaling the possibility of cutting corporate taxes and delaying some tax increases for the wealthy.
And when his fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill essentially abandoned their battle with Mr. Bush on terrorist surveillance, Mr. Obama was freed from one potentially damaging national security debate with his war-hero rival. The common thread, as with Mr. Obama's decision to eschew the spending limits imposed by the public financing system, is the portrayal of Mr. Obama as a pragmatic politician rather than one who is ideologically rigid.
Mr. McCain intended to communicate the same point last week with his decision to abandon support for a federal moratorium on off-shore oil drilling. While Mr. Obama dismissed the switch as "the same Washington politics," Mr. McCain cast it as bold action in response to gasoline prices topping $4 a gallon.
Having already bucked the establishments of their parties, Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain have four more months for repositioning as they woo swing voters. Trying to shed his party's baggage, Mr. McCain may find additional flip-flops harder to resist.
From Kornblut's June 23 Washington Post article:
The three other components of the plan, as described by Obama economic adviser Jason Furman, are to ensure that U.S. energy futures cannot be traded in offshore, unregulated markets; to work toward international regulation of oil futures markets, in cooperation with like-minded countries; and to have both the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department investigate the oil markets.
As gas prices have shot above $4 per gallon, energy policy has taken center stage in the campaign. Both Obama and the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, have proposed plans to ease the crunch for consumers. McCain last week reversed his opposition to offshore oil drilling; he has also supported giving consumers a "holiday" from paying federal taxes on gasoline.
The McCain campaign said yesterday that Obama is mimicking McCain on the gas loophole.
"The truth is Barack Obama is following John McCain's lead to close a Wall Street loophole that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton," McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said in a statement. "John McCain has supported bipartisan efforts to close this loophole and will work to address abuses in oil speculation."
Uh, yeah. Let's all rest our cases on Sean because he is the bulwark of journalistic probity. Is this another piece of satire like that Gingrich philosphy crap? I hope so.
In case you forget, with gasoline at $1.00/gallon, there was no need for mileage standards. No one with a job or car complained about gasoline prices until it started to rise to $1.50 during the Clinton administration.
However, you should note that horsepower and mileage did decrease as a direct result of EPA mandated emmissions standards.
As I stated. There NO reason to. When prices and resources are constant for 20 years, and no one in hurting economically because of them, its not high on the list.
What you are proposing is something that gets done when conservation is needed in the future due to supply and demand. The problem is, that right now, there is no supply problem in terms of physically finding and pumping oil. The problem is that this is all a political and money game, not a supply/demand game. Every 10 years since the late 1800's, we've heard this "peak oil" theory, and that we'll run out in 10 years. Contrary to popular belief, the "peak oil" theory has been debunked more times than we can count...but its reason to bid up on contracts to make money, and a reason to charge more for resources.
Therefore, the reason we are in this situation has absolutely nothing to do with what kind of cars we drive, who drives them, how much oil we use, or anything else. The bottom line reason is power and money. Those who are willingly extracting their resources want more power, and can obtain by charging you whatevery they want becuase you HAVE to pay it....that is until you start using your own, and no one needs them anymore. Look at the last oil embargo...they did the same thing, until the threat that we wouldnt need them anymore, and the prices immediately dropped. The big difference, is there wasn't another player in the market in the form of China or India. Now, if we back out, they'll buy our share at a slightly cheaper price. Win-win for OPEC. We have proven researves in oil and natural gas to last many decades, but our issue is not how hard it is to drill for them, or how long they will last...but rather how many endangered owls will suffer for our 300+ million citizens.
When people start putting the "threat of a <insert animal species> endangerment" over the living standards and energy needs of actual PEOPLE, then there is a problem.
Every 10 years since the late 1800's, we've heard this "peak oil" theory, and that we'll run out in 10 years. Contrary to popular belief, the "peak oil" theory has been debunked more times than we can count...but its reason to bid up on contracts to make money, and a reason to charge more for resources.
By Whom?
Please tell me you've never heard that....oh wait, you're just being silly.
The theory of "peak oil" actually peaked in the 70's and was proven to be a false assertion...much like it was during the days of Standard Oil, and when we first found it in the Pennsylvania mountains. You either don't pay much attention to history, or hope that people don't know what their talking about.
and what you stated is the same nonsense. a forward looking society would not expect those cheap prices to last forever. and in case you didn't notice, they haven't. the high price of oil is affecting everything in our economy. we can't drill our way out forever. you cannot give me one reason why higher mileage standards are not a positive. just saying gas was cheap is not an explanation. it's not cheap now.
Increasing supply is not the answer! Developing new/alterternative sources of energy , ie. wind/solar/etc. These will not be considered viable until a way to control them is determined/developed.
He's under the impression that inflation was stagnant for years on end. I paid 35 cents a gallon when I first started driving and a mid level new car cost $3500 bucks. It wasn't until we had to wait in lines on even or odd days that it sunk in that gas wasn't going to last forever. This pretty much sums up what is happening:
Good points. We have been conditioned to expect cheap gas because it fuels the economy. What's different about today is the change in price of gas can be comparable to inflationary changes but they didn't happen at the same rate. This is fueling a hyperinflationary period which requires a different response. Makes you wonder what the real driver is here, and why Bush in 2000 hyped this fear about democrats adding 50 cents to the cost of gas in the form of taxes.
Current fuel prices maybe modest in your elite circle. As you've proved many times somebody elses pain does not exsist in your world. Honda has already started production of a hydrogen powered car.
You'll back action about alternative energy as quickly as MSN will start dealing with real issues. Which is to say you'll be an annoying noise which does or says nothing helpful.
Alternatives are great - once they become widespread and affordable for the lower income to middle class families. But what you're failing to talk about in terms of the Honda hydrogen car, is the fact that to refuel it, you need to hook it up to a natural gas line. With the prices of natural gas increasing like oil, what are you really saving outside of the "environmental mindset" in terms of right now?
Like i said, i'm all for alternatives, and breaking the chains of OPEC and foreign dictators. However, people need to wake up and come back to the real world to realize that oil is going to be a major source of energy for the next 30+ years. We needed it yesterday, we need it right now more than every, and we'll still need it during the next 10 years as we transition to more and more alternatives. We are complimenting oil, not replacing.
Wow, taxing companies, what a talking point.
First, you should realize by now that companies DO NOT PAY TAXES. The taxes are passed onto the consumers in the forms of higher prices, and the company will still maintain their net profit margin.
If you want to end the tax (more of a subsidy), then be my guest. Just dont complain when it costs $10/gallon, and you're federal taxes have not decreased. If you actually think they'll give that "windfall profit" tax back to you in terms of a check, think again.
First, you should realize by now that companies DO NOT PAY TAXES. The taxes are passed onto the consumers in the forms of higher prices, and the company will still maintain their net profit margin.
Not necessarily. Prices are a function of what the market will bare. If companies raise their prices too high, they'll cut their own throats.
And we would have assumed that in terms of oil, that would ahve happened at $60 a barrel....$100/barrel was unthinkable. Now its $137+ and still rising. You do see a difference between raising prices on a video game and something needed for everyday life (oil, bread, water, housing).
Rest my case.
And we would have assumed that in terms of oil, that would ahve happened at $60 a barrel....$100/barrel was unthinkable. Now its $137+ and still rising. You do see a difference between raising prices on a video game and something needed for everyday life (oil, bread, water, housing).
You can f**k the oil companies by conserving (I've started taking public transportation again).
Yeah, obviously not. The road we're traveling on works great. Lets all lower our standards of living, sell our homes, risk our lives in Geo Metro's, and pray that somewhere, somehow, someone will show us a viable, cheap alternative energy on the free market next week.
Silly boy, go bo back to drawing board.
"So you suggest we pick up the pace on alternative/renewable energy?"-Loonz
"Yes, I think we should. And i think we should drill and expand our energy reserves in all ways possible."-Columbus
And, you guys seem to forget what mmfa is whining about....that it will take "years" to fulfill either attempt (the headline of this article). Now, if you don't mind mmfa (and the rest of the liberals) whining about a solution for the next few years then we agree that drilling for more oil is necessary to get the US off of imported oil dependance and that alternative power sources must be created and perfected. What I think has slipped by most is that McCain is promoting both ideas. O'bama has promoted neither idea. Who are the liberals supporting on this issue of imported fuel dependance and alternative power sources??? My guess is O'bama, then they will whine about high gas costs and no other choices.
McCain is the solution to the oil crisis. How? (you ask). Let's look at it logically. We are in a "war for oil" as many, here, will call it. We spend over a $100 Billion on imported oil each year. We are a couple hundred Billion dollars in debt. If we create our own oil and not pay someone else to provide it for us, then we can put that $100 Billion towards paying off the debt and we'll have an extra $100 Billion that we would have spent on buying imported oil. That's a $200 Billion savings on every $100 Billion of oil created in the US by the US for the US. (I won't mention all the jobs that are created by this venture)
Now for the liberal slant to this idea. Since we will no longer need imported oil, we will no longer need to fight in that darn "war for oil" that is going on. When we leave there (with no further reason to fight) we will save another $400 Billion (or so). There---problem solved. War is over and the US doesn't rely on imported oil and the debt is paid off in 4-5 years. WITHOUT having to raise taxes.
What is O'bama's plan to solve high gas prices? To stop speculators from speculating. Oh, yeah...that's how you stop furthering our debt and getting off our dependance on imported oil. Liberal slant to this idea---the best idea ever and no one could have thought of a better one.
When we leave there (with no further reason to fight) we will save another $400 Billion (or so).
So you would surrender to the enemy, just to save a few bucks on oil? I always knew you hated America.
If we create our own oil and not pay someone else to provide it for us..
We have only about 3% of the known reserves in the world. Try another argument, that one it toast.
Is there another way to "create" oil? Why don't we just steal all the Iraqi oil and get it over with? Oh wait, we are (no-bid contracts to Big Oil).
No bid contracts to big oil? You do realize that they are selecting foreign firms, just not US firms.
The US has roughly 12 years of oil reserves, not counting Oil Shale, which is close to being ready. Oil reserves only count what our currently technology can produce, not future technologies.
Columbus, never said that. I asked what tax breaks...
But humor me. For the sake of argument, let's accept that oil companies enjoy breaks that allow them to drill on federal lands, extract resources, refine them and sell them back to the public for a profit. Let's also assume that potential sources of competition (i.e. alternate energy) does not get the same monetary benefits to research and develop those resources. If the government is beholden to fuel to the point that they will never vote against fuel's best interest, what is the only thing they can do to ensure the future of america?
Let gas get so expensive that alternative sources like wind and solar become affordable enough for private citizens to consider spending their own money to make the change ad-hoc.
Does that solve the problem? It helps cover development costs, but does it make alternatives readily replaceable? My POV is no. It lets a few who can afford it to benefit while the majority continue to feel the effects of the current processes, which in turn perpetuates a multi class society.
My point is sometimes taxes can be used to benefit more than a handful. Fighting every tax increase out of spite is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Actually, its your right to buy whatever is offered legally in the free market. If you want that smartcar, go right ahead. No one is stopping you. Dont complain when you get into an accident though, as it was your choice to drive a less safe vehicle. The laws of physics in terms of mass are quite simple. Take your small car weighing 2000lbs, and I'll take my SUV at 3500lbs. Lets go at each other at the same speed, and see who has a higher percentage of walking away. Now you will also try to make the argument that if we all drove small cars, we'd be better off. Sure, thats all good, until you factor in dump trucks, moving trucks, semi's and tractor trailors, etc. The sad part here is not that you are bashing Rush or what you think people should "need", but the fact that you are using partisan politics to justify the (few) rights and (many) wrongs of congress and their partisan games. Promoting Carter as the savior of the oil crisis is as laughable as defending those who think we should promote a global warming theory over our own immediate energy needs.
You can say SUV's or large trucks are "unneeded items", but please tell me when has our country been based on need, not wants? Aren't the "wants" the sole motivation for bettering yourself to achieve a higher standard of living?
Actually, its your right to buy whatever is offered legally in the free market.
Well, then you pay the consequences.
So why are you complaining? You shouldn't feel sorry for people who buy SUVs.
And this stuff you're spouting about the poor is a canard. Republicans don't give a damn about poor.
Who is spouting about the poor? Dont turn this into a another "wealth envy" argument - but then again, id expect nothing less.
And by the way, I do drive an SUV, and I dont like gas prices. But I'm still not living outside my means. But then again, I also didnt sign a home loan that I forgot to read.
Who is spouting about the poor? Dont turn this into a another "wealth envy" argument - but then again, id expect nothing less.
I'm turning this into a greediness/selfishness argument which describes most republicans.
And by the way, I do drive an SUV, and I dont like gas prices. But I'm still not living outside my means. But then again, I also didnt sign a home loan that I forgot to read.
Live with the high prices and stop talking about drilling.
Yes, you're taking this off subject since you have no viable argument on the current subject.
And instead of your solution, why don't the people who hate big oil just stop driving, and leave the gasoline to the people who asking for a larger supply - not to only help themselves in the short term, but everyone else in the US as well.
"But then again, I also didnt sign a home loan that I forgot to read."
You were also probably fortunate enough not to get a loan from a mortgage company that aggressively courted you, convinced you that you can afford it, but then employed shoddy actuary practices that don't adequately assess risk.
Working two names today um?
Decision making in the auto industry has been inbred for at least 50 years. Some of the recent offerings are acually attractive to me and this is an unusual thing. Innovation is something someone else has been doing for years finally getting a tepid try decades later by our auto companies.
Your single test for saftey reflects your personality. Head on and its difficult to see much difference in the relative health afterwards of the two occupants. I put arround a 100 miles today on my motocycle (40mpg), didn't see any chance for a head on with anybody, though its good acceleration was of assistence in pulling ahead as two lanes turned surprisingly into one. Thus avoiding side inpact from an SUV/ trailor rig.
The big rigs have the space to go with various alternative prime movers, including hydrogen. Rail is not an attractive option for you?
There are a lot of other ways to make your way through the world besides accumulating as many goodies as you can. I appreciate this is like describing color to a blindman. You just can't get your mind arround it, so it must not matter.
Working two names today um?
HUH?
put arround a 100 miles today on my motocycle (40mpg), didn't see any chance for a head on with anybody, though its good acceleration was of assistence in pulling ahead as two lanes turned surprisingly into one. Thus avoiding side inpact from an SUV/ trailor rig.
Ok, there is a reason that people refer to motorcycles as "organ donors". Could it possibly be the percentage of times walking away from a crash? No. But in all honesty - majority of accidents are not your fault, they are the fault of another driver. In terms of motorcycles, people dont look for you and dont see you. You may be a great rider, but you aren't made of steel.
The big rigs have the space to go with various alternative prime movers, including hydrogen. Rail is not an attractive option for you?
Rail? Who's going to pay for that? Certainly not me. I dont understand why people like to comare the vast landscape of the US to that of the UK, or even Europe. There are so many geographical and demographical differences, that its not feasible outside of a major central cities such as NY, Chicago, LA, maybe Atlanta, Dallas, etc.
There are a lot of other ways to make your way through the world besides accumulating as many goodies as you can.
Oh please explain this to me Dr Phil.
Sorry you're blind to them. Explaining them merely gives you another excuse to abuse, there is no comprehension in you beyond what you believe is your own semirationalized self interest.
Of course you have no interest in paying for rail. Its imediate reward to you does not exsist. It has been show to be flexible and efficient historically. Like the big rigs a good target for alternative fueling.
Do you have anything other than you don't like meeting the challenge of powering the future in a sustainable manner? Riding oil and our future into the ground has such an attraction for you?
Was there a point to any of that?
You're right, I dont want to pay for something that has no benefit to me. Being an American not only gives me the right to care about something that effects me, but also gives me the right to not care about something that will not help me.
Its the imediate, short term which has your attension. Other than that the rest of us seem to only slightly in touch with your reality. As much as anything short term planing, advantage, profit, is the course of fools. It has much to do with the sad situation so many live in today.
Which as you've given countless examples of, means squat to you.
Why do you hate humanity so? Because you can get away with it...so far, and failure, if it comes, will be so surprising.
Oh here we go...typical liberal responses: why do you hate humanity? why are you racist? why do you hate the poor?
Got any more typical lines to pull out?
More original than your few replys.You present a hysterical characature of a selfish person and you don't expect to get called on it? On the other hand.
How dare you insult a man wearing the Auntie Queens own Girls Lacross Jumper with Kelvar reinforced itchy wool stookings matching purse and heels.
The nuyve of some people. Sheesh!
You, mr columbus, appear to appreciate YOURSELF, the ME person considerably. Your own immediate energy are more important than considering a global warming theory [translation: SCREW the next generation[s] DRILL, DRILL!] Reading your comments indicates that you probably are among the 25% that still believe "DUBA" and his FOLKS are doing "A HELLOVA JOB" I'M REALLY GLAD I DIDN'T HAVE TO SHARE A FOXHOLE WITH YOU, OR HAVE YOU WATCH MY SIX. "compasionate conservative and military intelligence are both oxymorons, there "Just ain't no such thang"
For starters, it might not have oil under it. Leases of federal land are speculative ventures. The oil companies are hoping to find oil, but it takes years of geological surveying, testing, and environmental studies before drilling can even begin. Short-term leases are three years, long-term ones are 10 years. A company cannot simply begin developing leased land because Congress is impatient. It takes time.
Im all for pulling those leases and leasing out land that actually has proven reserves - ANWR, ND, Montana, Rocky Mtn Shale, coastal drilling.
The talking point of the oil catastrophe of 1969 is quite old, and should not prohibit us from drilling cleanly offshore right now. Especially when some of the most environmentally friendly nations in Europe do so.
So now we're saying, "lets not drill because it'll take 5 years"? Wow, what a great suggestion. Lets just tax people and hope it goes away, and force them all into unsafe ricksaw's at highway speeds. Lets also eliminate the trucking and shipping industries, farming tractors, the airline idustry, etc.
The thought that anyone could possibly fathom this to be a good thing to promote resource conservation is beyond me.
Im all for pulling those leases and leasing out land that actually has proven reserves - ANWR, ND, Montana, Rocky Mtn Shale, coastal drilling.
F@ck drilling. We need to get off this finite resource called oil.
And according to other experts, we havent even reached peak oil. The peak oil theory is nothing more than a theory. If we dont even know how much oil is in the ground, and exactly where it is, then we obviously dont have any clue about how much is there and how much is left.
Thats been a talking point since the late 1890's. You obviously haven't learned by all the times its been debunked in almost 120 years.
Thats been a talking point since the late 1890's. You obviously haven't learned by all the times its been debunked in almost 120 years.
By Whom?
if a company bids on a lease, then they should have to start drilling within a certain amount of time. if they can't afford it [they can], then they shouldn't bid. having said that, i am not automatically opposed to more offshore drilling in certain areas, because there are a lot of safeguards in place. but the ultimate national goal should be weaning us off the oil habit as much as possible. we've known for years this was coming and did nothing about it.
Try doing a bit of research right now into how long you'll need to wait to have the resources available to have a oil rig built. Also, look at the current market being exploited for the ships which transit oil barrels across the globe. It can take up to 5 years to survey the land just to see if there are any potential oil deposits. Then try going through the 1000+ permits to actually build and start drilling for oil.
For those who say "they've had the land for a few years, they should have been drilling by now" ought to look in the mirror and see their own signatures along the checklist of things that need to be done in order to start doing their own bidding.
For starters, it might not have oil under it. Leases of federal land are speculative ventures. The oil companies are hoping to find oil, but it takes years of geological surveying, testing, and environmental studies before drilling can even begin. Short-term leases are three years, long-term ones are 10 years. A company cannot simply begin developing leased land because Congress is impatient. It takes time.
Isn't 30 billion dollars in profits enough to get the ball rolling?
I was talking about the "geological surveying, testing, and environmental studies before drilling can even begin."
I didn't mean to start drilling blindly.
Columbus,
I tend to agree with you somewhat on this one. We can't expect the American people to suffer economically just so we can adhere to environmentalism. Obviously the logical thing to do is to utilize our own resources while we switch to alternative energy. The point I think you are missing is that 80% of the known offshore resources are open to drilling (it's included in the 68 million acres currently leased). Seems to me that we should maximize what is available which would obviously make a more convincing case for drillling in places like ANWR or Colorado. If the American people see positive results they will be more likely to tell their congressman to do what works. The fallacy in this "more drilling" argument though is that people who blindly support this option believe that a big oil find in America will somehow automatically decrease our prices. That is a fallacy plain and simple. It's not as if the Oil companies will give the American people a discount just because they found more oil here. They will still charge world market prices which are being set by greedy speculators. Most estimates I have seen show that American oil deposits, which are targeted, would account for about 1 to 2 % of the world demand. I find it hard to believe that this amouint would make a major impact on futures trading. I could be wrong though. I think there is a possibility that by increasing domestic production, aggressively moving toward alternative fuels, and strong governmental policies toward energy independence we would send a signal that we are dead serious about ending our dependence on foreign oil thereby sending strong indications that future demand will decrease which could cause dramatic drops in oil futures. That is the only way I see more drilling lowering prices. To me it is worth try rather than just simply expecting Americans to suffer economically until we free ourselves from oil. It's a complex issue for sure.
It's a complex issue for sure.
Not to Columbo. Drill, drill, drill, environment be damned.
Hannity's America did an interesting expose last night on how democrats are inhibiting relief from high gas prices by preventing drilling in anwr. thomp.steve9098
The US government's assessment (here) is that drilling in ANWR would reduce the price of a barrel of oil by 75 cents after 17 years.
"If it did, we'd have taken by now."
Thereby inflaming global outrage and leaving us with zero allies in the world. Don't you get it? We just can't go in and claim it for our own. We needed a change in leadership. In or to get a change in leadership, we need an excuse, like WMD's, either real or imagined. Once we're in, we can call it spreading democracy and freedom.
I don't know much about it, but hey, I'll rest my case on Sean.
I thought you were being sarcastic. I guess you're just stupid. Drilling in ANWR won't help anyone but the oil co's. Gas prices won't budge. Market prices are being driven by demand, not supply. So increasing supply will not lower the price.
Geothemal just doesn't have that..... what? A good PR department?
Some seem to think that we'll be saved by nuclear power. A study out of Princeton indicates that to stabilize CO2 levels at 500ppb, 700 new 1000 megawatt nuclear powerplants would account for fully 1/7th of the needed reduction.
The point is that solar and wind are not viable sources of domestic energy, and are extremely limited by means beyond our control. Geothermal is not able to be used in many places.
Nuclear is safe, clean, and provides more than enough power given that we have enough of them around the globe.
While some alternatives may further develop, it won't be right now, and and they aren't the savior. We need a combination of things, and until both sides realize that we need alternatives & oil, we're going to be stuck in a rut playin politics while citizens suffer.
Nuclear is safe, clean.
That's a joke, right?
Brush up on the uranium mining process and the perpetual lethality of nuclear waste."Well, I guess we'd better shut down wind turbines. A service man fell to his death off one of them a couple of months back."
An utterly stupid statement. EVERY occupation that involves working at dangerous heights carries risk. Untold numbers have died building and maintaining skyscrapers, bridges, radio towers, etc.
If private insurers won't touch nuclear power, why should the taxpayers?
Insurers continue to refuse to underwrite and take on liability for nuclear power despite how safe the nuclear power industry insists it has become. So what does the industry do to remedy the economic losses? Seek out huge chunks of taxpayer money so that the liability is passed on to us.
"While some alternatives may further develop, it won't be right now."
It could have been.
In the wake of the Islamic Revolution, President Carter saw the writing on the wall and tried to warn us 30 years ago. But thanks to Reagan, the fossil fuel cartel tightened its grip on our government, halted any more talk of a nationwide effort, and squelched whatever grassroots concern that Carter generated.
Ridicule him all you want. He saw it coming and recent history vindictated him.
" The crises in Iran and Afghanistan have dramatized a very important lesson: Our excessive dependence on foreign oil is a clear and present danger to our Nation's security. The need has never been more urgent. At long last, we must have a clear, comprehensive energy policy for the United States." State of the Union, 1980.
The point is that solar and wind are not viable sources of domestic energy, and are extremely limited by means beyond our control. Geothermal is not able to be used in many places.
Nuclear is safe, clean, and provides more than enough power given that we have enough of them around the globe.
While some alternatives may further develop, it won't be right now, and and they aren't the savior. We need a combination of things, and until both sides realize that we need alternatives & oil, we're going to be stuck in a rut playin politics while citizens suffer.
LOL. Kneejerk drivel.
How about keeping thermostats the same or nearly the same, but by using LESS oil, LESS nuclear, LESS coal, MORE wind, MORE solar, and MORE biomass?
Is it any wonder why no private company will insure a nuclear power plant?
Is it any wonder that despite all the assurances about safe reactor designs that it's still the taxpayer that has to assume the risk?
Is it any wonder that many nuclear plants wind up shutting down permanently long before their expected life spans due to initial cost overruns and the prohibitive costs of repairs?
Questions of safety and the environment aside, just the economics of nuclear power makes the investment in other sources more worthy.
Of course it will take several years before increased domestic oil production can have an impact. Does that mean additional exploration and drilling should be postponed indefinately? 10 years from now is earlier than 10 years from 8 years (or some other date) in the future.
Or does the left think that when January rolls around, we'll have all sorts of alternative energy instantly available - just because someone suggests that possibility? Lead time is the same or longer for the alternatives. Meanwhile, I'll ponder how to run my vehicle on wind or geothermal or nuclear beginning next year.
Nuclear waste is the gift that keeps on giving. Mind there are things to do with fissionables that may address issues of concern. They face two hurdles, industries lack of interest in much beyond a fancy pressurized water boiler, and the ability to turn the technology to small nuclear explosives. There was a european reactor operating with a subcritical mass and trailoring what kind of isotopes it produced. I don't see the technology scaling up to meet much of todays and tomorrows needs.
On the other hand, I believe MIT inventoried our geothermal resources last year. This particular resource is in availible quantities to match our current needs by a factor of 5000.
GE sells windmills. They make more and more economic sense
Power plants have no need to be near the population served. Spin a turbine, which spins a generator, which hooks onto the national grid, Or produce hydrogen on site and rail, truck, or pipe it to the user. Just like we do with oil.
The heat of the earth escapes into the atmosphere, getting some use of it on the way dosn't affect much. A comparison of all the heat used to produce a kilowatt from oil versis the heat released from producing that kilowatt from geothermal sources would show less released from the geothermal source. The oil has a thermal load beyond its burning. Drilling, pumping,processing,and transportation are all a part of it.
If we did pull as much energy as we could out of the Yellow Stone Hot Spot, it would still eventually erupt, and it would still be a disaster. If we could extract the volatils from the magma in sufficient quanities, perhaps we could keep it from blowing. I don't see current or near future technology being capable and stupid people might cause a disaster versis preventing one.
I think this might be a political ploy. I've heard people suggest that he changed his stance on drilling to get the people who do want to drill to vote for him, also he does not ever say how long it will take to get that oil. Before I knew that it would take 10 or 20 years for us to start using the oil we find off our coasts, I thought that this would be good to keep oil prices from rising too much before we can find our alternative energy sources. And this article I read called "The Oil “Melt-Up” and Why the U.S. Economy Won’t Run On Windmills Alone..." explains why we need oil until then. And if we don't find those alternative energy sources within 20 years then I am positive its not because we can't, its because we were bogged down by bureaucratic factors. We just need to get out of own way. I understand there are many views and opinions for what’s right in alternative energies but I don't see why we can't have a think tank with the leading experts on the topic and decide what the best plan is. We did it in World War II, what's stopping us now? Check out that article it really gives you a good perspective of our current energy situation and what the reality is now. Its easy to say we need to change but the real question is how.
The Link for that article is
http://www.energyandoil.com/the-oil-%e2%80%9cmelt-up%e2%80%9d-and-why-the-us-economy-won%e2%80%99t-run-on-windmills-alone%e2%80%a6It is a widely held opinion that speculation on the futures market is one of the main influences driving up the price of oil. If that's true, why is it so difficult to believe that lifting the moratorium on domestic drilling would have an immediate effect on gasoline prices? If the prospect of having more oil in the market in the FUTURE by opening up domestic drilling in the U.S. causes the FUTURES SPECULATORS to now have to consider that there will be more oil available in the FUTURE, shouldn't that have an immediate effect on prices since our main problem is a supply & demand problem? Those who base there argument against opening up drilling in the U.S. because it will take years to bring up the first drop of oil (an idea that may or may not be true) simply do not understand the problem. When you're the only game in town, like the mid-eastern oil producers, you can manipulate the market in your favor and actually use oil as a weapon. That is where we are today...we are in essence under economic attack.
I say open up drilling in the U.S....offer incentives for entrepreneurs to develop new technologies, and do what ever else we need to do to let those who speculate on the availability of energy in the future understand that yes, there will be more energy available in the future and therefore the prices of energy will have to held at a competitive level.
The alternative ideas put forth by some of imposing the "Carter Style" approach of a windfall profit tax against the oil companies will only insure that that cost of doing business for the oil companies will rise and will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. The idea of punishing the evil oil companies may sound good, but it won't solve any problems related to energy prices in the United States.
The bottom line...if you want the price of something to go down...produce more of it and don't rely on others who may have a secondary agenda to be the only producer in town.
If the prospect of having more oil in the market in the FUTURE by opening up domestic drilling in the U.S. causes the FUTURES SPECULATORS to now have to consider that there will be more oil available in the FUTURE, shouldn't that have an immediate effect on prices since our main problem is a supply & demand problem?
CB,I realize this is what the media is telling you, but read it slowly and see if the contradiction jumps out at you.
I see no contradiction...why don't you point it out to me.
My point again in case you just misunderstood... if futures speculators believe that a commodity will be more scarce in the future, the price of that commodity will rise. If futures speculators have to face the reality that a commodity will be more available in the future, the price of that commodity will fall. This is supply and demand. When the supply is greater than the demand prices fall and when supply is lower than demand prices rise.
If lifting the moratorium on drilling for oil in the United States increases the likelihood that more oil will be available in the future market place, the price for oil will fall.
And, while you're pointing out my alleged contradictions, please explain how increasing the cost of doing business for the oil companies by imposing windfall profit taxes is going to lower prices at the pump.
Thanks for explaining Supply & Demand. Not just for me, but for everybody here who may not have had a grasp of that complex principle.
Do you think we're currently experiencing an oil shortage?
Thanks for explaining Supply & Demand. Not just for me, but for everybody here who may not have had a grasp of that complex principle.
You are welcome. It appears that many on the left prefer believing that the reason for $4+ per gasoline prices at the pump is the result of a conspiracy by the oil companies against their own customers and that somehow, increasing the cost of doing business for the oil companies in the form of a new tax is going to lower prices at the pump. That idea makes no sense. The funny thing is, they believe this while the oil companies PROFIT MARGIN (the difference in what it cost to produce and bring their product to market, and what charge for their product) has remained the same....about 9 cents per gallon. They're making more money because people are buying a larger quantity of their product. Period.
My last word on the subject...Open up drilling in the U.S., develop alternative energy sources, conserve energy and stop putting ourselves in a position of weakness by continuing to rely on our energy supply from sources who do not have the best interest of the United States in mind.
please explain how increasing the cost of doing business for the oil companies by imposing windfall profit taxes is going to lower prices at the pump.
I see he totally skipped over the question, albeit on purpose.
The windfalls will do quite the opposite, thus raising the prices on gasoline. Corporations don't pay taxes, those are passed onto consumers, and any nitwit should know that. But then gain, this solution is coming from the same guy who said hes glad gas prices have increased, but would have rather they did so gradually. Its no secret he is putting global warming theory above and beyond the energy needs and hardships of the american people that he supposedly wants to stand for.
When polls show that 76% of the US favor drilling right now, what population is he standing for? Certainly not this one...
You two are hilarious. I skipped over a question? I didn't realize it was directed at me, as it was asking for backup to an assertion that imposing windfall taxes would lower the price of gas. If you can point out where I wrote that, you'll have a basis for asking me the question.
The only avoiding of a question was by the 2 stooges. Do either of you think we're experiencing an oil shortage right now?
BTW, thanks for explaining "profit". Almost as enlightening as your previous econ. for pre-schoolers lecture on supply & demand. You may be projecting a bit if you think anybody here needs these concepts dumbed down to the level where you were able to absorb them
Well please excuse me since your previous posts indicated the need for some remedial observations for the benefit of your understanding.
Is there an oil shortage? Maybe. Since we have no control of our own destiny when it comes to our energy supply, the question is mute. There is at least an availability problem caused by those who want to harm our economy.
If the question is is there enough oil in the ground, the answer is yes. If the question is is there enough oil available to us through sources controlled by OPEC, the answer is no. That's why we need to stop relying on foreign sources for our energy and drill for our own supply, develop alternatives, etc..
You do a lot of typing. I asked a pretty simple question, I guess the new questions you made up make it pretty clear that you've realized you're full of sh*t.
It's "moot", pinhead.
is there an oil shortage?
I don't believe so.
And even more important, what are your ideas to bring down the price of gasoline?
I don't even know right now. The writing has been on the wall for decades, and those who were thinking long term were laughed at. Now we're here, and the ones who refused to think long-term are demanding that everybody else come up with instant solutions.
The Carter/Obama position of increasing taxes does not make sense...do you agree?
What about the Carter/Obama idea. I have yet to hear one good explanation of how or why anybody believes a windfall profit tax on the oil companies will bring down the price of gasoline. And yet, this is one of the main energy positions of the Democratic candidate. It didn't work when Carter tried it, why will it be different now? What economic principles apply in illustrating how Obama's plan will reduce prices?
Corporations don't pay taxes, those are passed onto consumers, and any nitwit should know that.(Clodumbass)
Columbus, this is another talking point that,. while as dopey as the idea that gas prices will be lowered immediately by drilling or the promise of future drilling, seems to have you hoodwinked.
Suppose I'm a contractor, I pass many costs on in overhead (workmen's comp, permit fees, inspection costs), but it would take a real nitwit to believe that I don't pay for these things.
You two really need to think these things through before swallowing everything that's thrown at you.
No, you dont pay for them. Corporations have to show an increase in profit in order to increase the value of stock for its shareholders. You really think that imposing a windfall tax, the company is going to lower its net profit, and then lower its stock value? Please. Consumers pay the corporate tax, there are no refuting that. The entire point of business is to make profit, and when you go public, you need to keep increasing your profit or you will lose stock value, thus devaluing your company.
I know liberals all love this "non profit" idea, but cmon man, dont be a moron.
You really think that imposing a windfall tax, the company is going to lower its net profit, and then lower its stock value?
Again, can you point out where I said that? You seem very focused on attacking me for some point you imagined I made.
You said:
Suppose I'm a contractor, I pass many costs on in overhead (workmen's comp, permit fees, inspection costs), but it would take a real nitwit to believe that I don't pay for these things.
Now, please inform me...what part of the windfall taxes, will the oil companies pay again?