Offshore Oil Drilling and the Oil Rig Disaster in the Gulf

[RiversideGator]

Remember also that Pickens has significant investments in natural gas so he may have an axe to grind here no matter what he said about drilling.

Oh, and wait till we swift boat Obama.   

Of course he does.

So your position is that you know more about the oil business than Pickens?

Of course I dont know more about the oil business than Pickens.  You are assuming though that he is being totally up front about his motives.  In any case, I agree with what he has written.  And, you still havent posted anything from Pickens to show that oil drilling now would not bring oil prices down now.  That was what I asked you to do about 36 hours ago.   

And that you don't have an axe to grind?

I will tell you what my "axe" is right now.  I am in favor of cheap energy to fuel a growing American economy and standard of living.  It is as simple as that.

The point is, that, in one article Pickens smashes everything you have said in 600 posts.

Again, Pickens and I do not seem to disagree.  You seem to misreading him.  Try again, midway.

Too bad you can't edit and delete my posts in this thread, Chairman Mao, but that's what happens when you wander out of your lair.

And BTW, stop being such a crybaby.

Midway:  If you really want to get into an insult contest, you will lose.  I suspect that this is why you know you must hide all details of your life from all of us.  In any event, this would not be entertaining reading for most other posters so there is not need to get into it.  And, I delete all ad hominem attacks on the National Politics section as the moderator there.  This is not Maoism, it is maintaining decorum and forcing people to stay on point.  I would suggest you try that here too.

[RiversideGator]

I would also support wind farms off the First Coast.
If we do have drilling occur I think we should demand more than your average benefit of having more business in the state. I think in order to pump off our coast any company that does should have to discount the gas sold in this state.

Just keep in mind that when that oil comes out of the ground, is enters the world marketplace, and is priced accordingly.

This is only partially true.  While oil is sold on a world market, those states with nearby oil drilling and refineries tend to have lower gas prices even controlling for differing state taxes.  I can post a gas price map if you doubt this.

The primary growth areas in the world oil marketplace are in developing and very populous nations, China and India for example. So, in a best case fantasy scenario, the additional supply would lower the price, which would simply further drive demand for oil products in these developing nations, which would tend to raise prices again in response to the laws of supply and demand.

So, because oil demand will rise in the future, we should not ever increase supply.  This makes a lot of sense.   

Therefore, we would be imperiling our coastline for the benefit of these developing nations appetite for a "carcentric and energy intensive" lifestyle, propelled by cheap oil. That does not sound like a good deal for Floridians to me.

1)  This would not imperil the coastline as you know.
2)  How about advocating for freedom?  If person A wants to live in the far flung suburbs and work in Southpoint, this does not harm me who lives in the old City of Jax and works downtown.  I say let's have transit options available for all people.

[Midway ®]

Remember also that Pickens has significant investments in natural gas so he may have an axe to grind here no matter what he said about drilling.

Oh, and wait till we swift boat Obama.   

Of course he does.

So your position is that you know more about the oil business than Pickens?

Of course I dont know more about the oil business than Pickens.  You are assuming though that he is being totally up front about his motives.  In any case, I agree with what he has written.  And, you still havent posted anything from Pickens to show that oil drilling now would not bring oil prices down now.  That was what I asked you to do about 36 hours ago.   

And that you don't have an axe to grind?

I will tell you what my "axe" is right now.  I am in favor of cheap energy to fuel a growing American economy and standard of living.  It is as simple as that.

The point is, that, in one article Pickens smashes everything you have said in 600 posts.

Again, Pickens and I do not seem to disagree.  You seem to misreading him.  Try again, midway.

Too bad you can't edit and delete my posts in this thread, Chairman Mao, but that's what happens when you wander out of your lair.

And BTW, stop being such a crybaby.

Midway:  If you really want to get into an insult contest, you will lose.  I suspect that this is why you know you must hide all details of your life from all of us.  In any event, this would not be entertaining reading for most other posters so there is not need to get into it.  And, I delete all ad hominem attacks on the National Politics section as the moderator there.  This is not Maoism, it is maintaining decorum and forcing people to stay on point.  I would suggest you try that here too.

Lets not talk about our real jobs and family situations and how those interrelate.  It has no bearing on these subjects and won't change anything. So drop that idiotic line of thought. No one here either needs or wants to know what you or I do. If you want to spread your personal life all over this forum, go ahead and do so, I feel no similar compulsion.

Your occupation certainly does not especially qualify you in any way on these subjects. All you ever say is I think this and I think that, then you put up neocon opinion pieces that you are working from to "prove" your point. You clearly start with a hot topic conservative talking point and tailor your argument into it.

It's not that you are stupid. On the contrary you are one of the cleverest people on here. But you posts are deceitful and misleading, that's a result of your cunning. You will argue any position just to win a point irrespective of any basis in fact. The sad truth is that your arguments are the most non-fact based on this site, full of technical and factual errors.  You are the Bill-o of Metrojacksonville.  You build an entire argument on the basis of a faulty premise in the hope that no one will look all of the way back to the beginning and vett your basic premise.  Your arguments are akin to a structure built upon shifting sands, and destined for collapse. You advertise logic constantly then contort that supposed logic to an unrecognizable shape in your final product.  And as regards an insult contest, we can take that up at another time. Meanwhile, you've just flip-flopped around several times here, introduced a school of red herrings and proved or disproved absolutely nothing, so you're just going to have to take your lumps, I'm afraid.

[Lauren]

The real truth is liberals want high oil prices.

HAHA!! Yes, you figured it out! I love paying $50 to fill my tank up, but I would be even happier if it were more...  Maybe I should buy a Hummer?

[Midway ®]

RG, this is for you:



Kudos to Mr. Lakelander for the fine photo! Thank you.

[RiversideGator]

Remember also that Pickens has significant investments in natural gas so he may have an axe to grind here no matter what he said about drilling.

Oh, and wait till we swift boat Obama.   

Of course he does.

So your position is that you know more about the oil business than Pickens?

Of course I dont know more about the oil business than Pickens.  You are assuming though that he is being totally up front about his motives.  In any case, I agree with what he has written.  And, you still havent posted anything from Pickens to show that oil drilling now would not bring oil prices down now.  That was what I asked you to do about 36 hours ago.   

And that you don't have an axe to grind?

I will tell you what my "axe" is right now.  I am in favor of cheap energy to fuel a growing American economy and standard of living.  It is as simple as that.

The point is, that, in one article Pickens smashes everything you have said in 600 posts.

Again, Pickens and I do not seem to disagree.  You seem to misreading him.  Try again, midway.

Too bad you can't edit and delete my posts in this thread, Chairman Mao, but that's what happens when you wander out of your lair.

And BTW, stop being such a crybaby.

Midway:  If you really want to get into an insult contest, you will lose.  I suspect that this is why you know you must hide all details of your life from all of us.  In any event, this would not be entertaining reading for most other posters so there is not need to get into it.  And, I delete all ad hominem attacks on the National Politics section as the moderator there.  This is not Maoism, it is maintaining decorum and forcing people to stay on point.  I would suggest you try that here too.

Lets not talk about our real jobs and family situations and how those interrelate.  It has no bearing on these subjects and won't change anything. So drop that idiotic line of thought. No one here either needs or wants to know what you or I do. If you want to spread your personal life all over this forum, go ahead and do so, I feel no similar compulsion.

Your occupation certainly does not especially qualify you in any way on these subjects. All you ever say is I think this and I think that, then you put up neocon opinion pieces that you are working from to "prove" your point. You clearly start with a hot topic conservative talking point and tailor your argument into it.

It's not that you are stupid. On the contrary you are one of the cleverest people on here. But you posts are deceitful and misleading, that's a result of your cunning. You will argue any position just to win a point irrespective of any basis in fact. The sad truth is that your arguments are the most non-fact based on this site, full of technical and factual errors.  You are the Bill-o of Metrojacksonville.  You build an entire argument on the basis of a faulty premise in the hope that no one will look all of the way back to the beginning and vett your basic premise.  Your arguments are akin to a structure built upon shifting sands, and destined for collapse. You advertise logic constantly then contort that supposed logic to an unrecognizable shape in your final product.  And as regards an insult contest, we can take that up at another time. Meanwhile, you've just flip-flopped around several times here, introduced a school of red herrings and proved or disproved absolutely nothing, so you're just going to have to take your lumps, I'm afraid.

I hope this made you feel better.   

[RiversideGator]

BTW, since Bush rescinded the executive order banning offshore oil drilling, oil prices have dropped 18%.  Coincidence?  I think not.  Here is a good Kudlow piece which explores this a little further:

Drill, Drill, Drill Strikes Again: Oil Drops $3   [Larry Kudlow]

Isn’t it funny that news reports this morning showing that Sen. Harry Reid will in fact allow a drill, drill, drill amendment to come to the Senate floor seem to have triggered a $3 drop in oil to less than $122 a barrel. Is this a coincidence? I don’t think so. More like cause-and-effect.

Oil traders aren’t stupid. There are a dozen Democrats in the Senate who will vote for drilling, and that means future energy supplies will rise. Coupled with falling oil demand, especially by motorists, that means lower prices. Even unleaded gas futures are now dropping to less than $3 a gallon. Add in a buck for local and state taxes on average, and pump prices will drop to under $4 a gallon.

So I guess those horrible oil speculators are not so horrible anymore. Since President Bush launched his drilling-moratorium offensive oil prices are down almost $30.

Even in the House, where Nancy Pelosi wants to save the planet, political pressures are building for a series of votes to expand drilling. Republicans are now linking Obama to Pelosi and Reid as the cause of high oil prices and the economic downturn. This is good politics and good economics.

It also reminds me that government matters a lot in fostering economic expectations. Take the gigantic housing bailout bill. Supposedly this was going to help banks recover from sinking sub-prime mortgage paper based on defaults and foreclosures. But as the bailout bill passed the House and the Senate going back to last Thursday, banks and other financial stocks have been clobbered. Know why? Lenders may be forced to take the very worst mortgage paper as part of the “loan modification” program. That means the banks will have to write down a lot more loans and loan principal.

I guess the moral of the story for the growing bailout crowd in Washington is be careful what you wish for. Or, remember the unintended consequences of hyperactive government.

http://kudlow.nationalreview.com/

BTW midway, I am not posting this in a clever attempt to create a specious neocon argument which will defeat you in this debate.  You are simply flat wrong on the efficacy of oil drilling as it relates to lowering spot prices now.

[RiversideGator]

It made me feel  better.

Not surprising.   

[Lunican]

Oh good, oil is down 18%. Is this compared to a year ago or compared to its all time high?

[RiversideGator]

Allow drilling and watch them fall even further.

[thebrokenforum]

Allow drilling and watch them fall even further.

Uh...no.

[Midway ®]

BTW, since Bush rescinded the executive order banning offshore oil drilling, oil prices have dropped 18%.  Coincidence?  I think not.  Here is a good Kudlow piece which explores this a little further:

Drill, Drill, Drill Strikes Again: Oil Drops $3   [Larry Kudlow]

Isn’t it funny that news reports this morning showing that Sen. Harry Reid will in fact allow a drill, drill, drill amendment to come to the Senate floor seem to have triggered a $3 drop in oil to less than $122 a barrel. Is this a coincidence? I don’t think so. More like cause-and-effect.

Oil traders aren’t stupid. There are a dozen Democrats in the Senate who will vote for drilling, and that means future energy supplies will rise. Coupled with falling oil demand, especially by motorists, that means lower prices. Even unleaded gas futures are now dropping to less than $3 a gallon. Add in a buck for local and state taxes on average, and pump prices will drop to under $4 a gallon.

So I guess those horrible oil speculators are not so horrible anymore. Since President Bush launched his drilling-moratorium offensive oil prices are down almost $30.

Even in the House, where Nancy Pelosi wants to save the planet, political pressures are building for a series of votes to expand drilling. Republicans are now linking Obama to Pelosi and Reid as the cause of high oil prices and the economic downturn. This is good politics and good economics.

It also reminds me that government matters a lot in fostering economic expectations. Take the gigantic housing bailout bill. Supposedly this was going to help banks recover from sinking sub-prime mortgage paper based on defaults and foreclosures. But as the bailout bill passed the House and the Senate going back to last Thursday, banks and other financial stocks have been clobbered. Know why? Lenders may be forced to take the very worst mortgage paper as part of the “loan modification” program. That means the banks will have to write down a lot more loans and loan principal.

I guess the moral of the story for the growing bailout crowd in Washington is be careful what you wish for. Or, remember the unintended consequences of hyperactive government.

http://kudlow.nationalreview.com/

BTW midway, I am not posting this in a clever attempt to create a specious neocon argument which will defeat you in this debate.  You are simply flat wrong on the efficacy of oil drilling as it relates to lowering spot prices now.

The sun rose this morning and the price of oil dropped. therefore the sun rising makes the price of oil drop.

Call me when oil is at $10.00, with the sun rising every day, that should be in no time at all.

Also, please note that I deferred to Pickens. I made no statement, I simply posted his position piece. Therefore, you are stating that he is flat wrong.  Please describe your qualifications in the oil business vs. T. Boone Pickens, so that we may discern which of the two of you knows more about this subject, and thus has a higher probability of being correct.

Sincerely,
Your friends at
"The fact based community"

[RiversideGator]

Allow drilling and watch them fall even further.

Uh...no.

What do you not understand about the law of supply and demand?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_supply_and_demand

[RiversideGator]

The sun rose this morning and the price of oil dropped. therefore the sun rising makes the price of oil drop.

Yes.  And the Earthlings' probes caused global warming on Mars.

Call me when oil is at $10.00, with the sun rising every day, that should be in no time at all.

So now we are setting the standard unreasonably low so you can never be disproven.  Allow drilling and prices come down.  More supply equals lower prices every time.

Also, please note that I deferred to Pickens. I made no statement, I simply posted his position piece. Therefore, you are stating that he is flat wrong.  Please describe your qualifications in the oil business vs. T. Boone Pickens, so that we may discern which of the two of you knows more about this subject, and thus has a higher probability of being correct.

Again, Pickens never said that allowing drilling would not bring down spot prices now.  Please stop distorting the truth by misrepresenting what he said.  Either post a quote from Pickens to support your contentions or stop using him as cover for your illogical positions which are based on nothing more than your desire that we as a society should use less oil.

Sincerely,
Your friends at
"The fact based community"

You have never lived in this community, my friend.   

[RiversideGator]

um sorry?

How a supply in 10 years is supposed to affect a demand in the present is more like the law of smoke and mirrors.

READ:

Start Drilling Now to Lower Oil, Gasoline Prices: Kevin Hassett

Commentary by Kevin Hassett

July 28 (Bloomberg) -- High energy prices have everyone who doesn't own an oil well in the dumps. Consumer sentiment is the lowest it has been in almost 30 years, and a recent analysis of sentiment by Economy.com suggests that high gas prices are the main culprit.

Against this backdrop, it is hardly surprising that politicians are debating ways to reduce energy prices.

To drill or not to drill?

The two sides are as far apart as can be. Republicans have argued that, in addition to aggressively seeking alternatives to oil, we should work to develop new reserves at home. Democrats, for the most part, have argued that oil discoveries can't affect the current high price, because any newly discovered reserves take so long to deliver.

Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, summarized this argument concisely recently, when he said: ``Offshore drilling would not lower gas prices today, it would not lower gas prices next year and it would not lower gas prices five years from now.''

Who is right? The economics of natural resources clearly favors the Republican view.

The economics of extracting resources is quite simple and intuitive. If you own property that has oil in the ground, then you have to decide how rapidly you wish to deplete your resource. If prices are low today, and you expect them to be much higher in the future, then you will hold off pumping a lot.

Open Spigot Now

If prices are high today and are expected to be much lower tomorrow, then you would rather open up the spigot now when profits will be higher.

If exploration can be expected to be successful and significantly increase oil production in the future, then it would cause producers to revise downward their estimates for future prices. This would increase the attractiveness of extracting more today. As producers respond with higher production, prices today would drop.

The argument that drilling wouldn't influence today's price rests on two possible assertions. The first is that exploration will fail. In that case, estimates of future prices would be unaffected by discoveries that won't happen. The second is that current producers wouldn't look ahead to lower future prices and increase supply today to maximize profits.

Both assertions are clearly false.

Low-Ball Estimate

According to the U.S. Department of the Interior, there are about 86 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the nation's outer continental shelf. Since government agencies tend to be conservative on such matters, this estimate may well be low.

To put that cache of oil in perspective, in 2007, the U.S. produced about 3 billion barrels of oil and consumed more than 7- 1/2 billion. The potential undiscovered haul is more than 10 times our annual consumption. It is inconceivable that extraction from such large reserves would have no effect on future prices.

What about prices today? A vast body of academic literature finds that future prices and spot prices are intricately linked in a manner that could only occur if producers are constantly updating their plans based on expected prices.

A recent study by economists Param Silvapulle and Imad Moosa of Monash University in Australia found strong evidence of what is called bidirectional causality. Future prices and spot prices are inextricably linked.

Too Obvious

How strong is the case? My American Enterprise Institute colleague, former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, has been a tireless advocate of a more rational energy policy that allows for more drilling.

In a recent post at his influential blog, Gingrich noted that the top academic energy journal, aptly named, ``The Energy Journal,'' recently rejected a study by economists Morris Coats and Gary Pecquet of Nicholls State University in Louisiana that found that higher production in the future would reduce prices today.

The study, Gingrich reported, wasn't rejected because it lacked academic merit. It was rejected because the finding was so well known. James Smith, the impeccably credentialed editor of The Energy Journal described it this way to the unfortunate authors:

``Basically, your main result (the present impact of an anticipated future supply change) is already known to economists (although perhaps not to the Democratic Policy Committee). It is our policy to publish only original research that adds significantly to the body of received knowledge regarding energy markets and policy.''

A 21st-century energy policy must rationally encourage innovation and conservation, and pay attention to the environmental impact of our choices as well. And if you want oil prices to decline, drill.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aKXUPbwOIOHY