Crist backs McCain on Florida drilling

[thelakelander]

WASHINGTON - Backed by Gov. Charlie Crist, John McCain ignited an explosive presidential campaign issue on Tuesday by proposing to lift the federal ban on oil and gas production off the shores of Florida and other environmentally sensitive areas.

McCain said states should be free to reap some of the revenue generated by offshore production, and he called for more domestic drilling to boost supplies and ease fuel prices.

Crist, considered a possible running mate to the Republican candidate, shook up the Florida political scene by breaking the state's near-solid support for the federal ban. Both he and McCain reversed positions on the issue.

full article: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/sfl-fladrill0618sbjun18,0,5545540.story

[RiversideGator]

Good news.  This is perhaps a sign that McCain is recognizing the political windfall which can be reaped by opposing the Dems insane no drill energy policies.  The average voter is very upset about $4+ gallon gas and if the Dems stand in the way of helping reduce costs, they will pay at the ballot box.  It is time for them to choose between their far left fringe views and getting elected. 

[vicupstate]

To those that think this is a painless, virtually risk-free answer to the energy situation, you might want to refresh their memory on the Exxon Valdez spill of 1989.

Given FL dependence on tourism, which could be adversely affected by a big spill,  this is not a decison to be taken lightly.       

[Charleston native]

Apples to oranges, vic. Exxon Valdez was an accident that occurred while oil was being transported, not drilled. Incidentally, the oil that spilled from oil rigs when Katrina hit the US did not cause pollution of the Gulf of Mexico shores. The drills off of FL would be as far or further from the coastline to ensure that state shores are not polluted in case of another hurricane.

[vicupstate]

Apples to oranges, vic. Exxon Valdez was an accident that occurred while oil was being transported, not drilled. Incidentally, the oil that spilled from oil rigs when Katrina hit the US did not cause pollution of the Gulf of Mexico shores. The drills off of FL would be as far or further from the coastline to ensure that state shores are not polluted in case of another hurricane.

After the oil is drilled, it has to be transported, does it not? 

BTW, the earliest any of this oil could actually go into someone's car is 5 years, possible 10.  It won't provide any short term or immediate term relief.   I bet you won't hear McCain or Crist say that though.

As I mentioned before, any additional drilling should be accompanied by conservation and alternative fuels to an equal or greater magnitude.  Otherwise, we are just a glutton loosing the belt another notch. 

Also, lowereing the price should be secondary to energy independence. 

[Driven1]

excellent news.  thanks for reporting Lake.

[Charleston native]

Again, vic, you have this propensity to provide straw men with this subject. Yes, oil has to be transported, but as I recall, the Valdez incident involved the influence of alcohol among other things...so the oil platform where the ship got the oil itself was of little consequence. Incompetant actions of the crew of the Valdez caused the problems.

And as I have mentioned before, the government cannot continue to let oil, food, and energy prices go up while we're waiting for these pie-in-the-sky alternatives. Our economy will only falter even more. You are wrong about the short-term relief. Increasing the supply, even making the claims that the increase is underway, will make competitors lower their price of oil. This tired, old argument that it will take 10 years for us to get this oil is blatantly false and inaccurate. This prediction will be about as accurate as the predictions for a bad hurricane season last year.

I will agree with your last statement, though. Lowering price is important, but it merely should be a by-product of securing energy independence.

[vicupstate]

Again, vic, you have this propensity to provide straw men with this subject. Yes, oil has to be transported, but as I recall, the Valdez incident involved the influence of alcohol among other things...so the oil platform where the ship got the oil itself was of little consequence. Incompetant actions of the crew of the Valdez caused the problems.

And as I have mentioned before, the government cannot continue to let oil, food, and energy prices go up while we're waiting for these pie-in-the-sky alternatives. Our economy will only falter even more. You are wrong about the short-term relief. Increasing the supply, even making the claims that the increase is underway, will make competitors lower their price of oil. This tired, old argument that it will take 10 years for us to get this oil is blatantly false and inaccurate. This prediction will be about as accurate as the predictions for a bad hurricane season last year.

I will agree with your last statement, though. Lowering price is important, but it merely should be a by-product of securing energy independence.

A strawman my ass.  One crew member on the Valdez was drunk, another was sleep deprived.  Are those things that can only happen in Alaska?  Could the same thing not happen anywhere? 

Imagine the economic losses if a Valdez incident happened off the coast of say, Myrtle Beach. It would be felt for years to come and would be tens of billions.     

I have not heard one source say that the oil can be retrieved in less time than I mentioned. 

Question for you... How long did it take to build the SC Aquarium in Charleston, which was on a brownfield?   Oh, about 10 years.  How long has it taken to build the 'new' Duval Courthouse ?  Oh, about 5 years and still counting until GROUNDBREAKING !!   

To expect today's prices to drop for something that might happen in 5-10 years is ridiculous.  Comparing a construction timeline to weather patterns is a strawman.   

[RiversideGator]

vic:  The mere fact that the US has opened additional areas to drilling will cause the price of oil futures to decline.  Traders are anticipating less or the same supply in the future (typically one year out) so they are bidding up the price.  If it became clear that supply would increase in the future, they would retreat being afraid then to be caught holding the bag when prices inevitably came down.

[RiversideGator]

Re the Exxon Valdez, you are talking one major incident in America in the last 25 years or more.  Big deal.  I also think I read somewhere that the area in question is totally clean now anyway.  I fail to see the problem here.

[Charleston native]

A strawman my ass.  One crew member on the Valdez was drunk, another was sleep deprived.  Are those things that can only happen in Alaska?  Could the same thing not happen anywhere? 

Imagine the economic losses if a Valdez incident happened off the coast of say, Myrtle Beach. It would be felt for years to come and would be tens of billions.

Uh, yeah, it's a straw man. Since when is Myrtle Beach even remotely close to major shipping lanes? Are there any icebergs or major reefs around the SC coast? Last time I checked there were none. And companies are a little more stringent about the caliber of crewmembers they have, since they would want to avoid another incident like that.

Question for you... How long did it take to build the SC Aquarium in Charleston, which was on a brownfield?   Oh, about 10 years.  How long has it taken to build the 'new' Duval Courthouse ?  Oh, about 5 years and still counting until GROUNDBREAKING !!   

To expect today's prices to drop for something that might happen in 5-10 years is ridiculous.  Comparing a construction timeline to weather patterns is a strawman.

You obviously have more to learn about how trading prices fluctuate and are affected by particular phenomena. River pretty much summed that up, so I won't go into detail about that.

To answer your question about the SC Aquarium, standards are going to be much higher to clean out a segment of land that will either be residential or location for fish and mammals. So what's your point? Besides, you are wrong about the period of time it took to clean up the site; it took less than 10 years...from the referendum for the aquarium to its opening, it was less than 10. They didn't do any site cleanup prior to the referendum.

[thelakelander]

Florida has a lot of resort destinations on the Gulf Coast, moreso than any other State in Eastern US.  How far out in the Gulf will potential drilling take place?  If drilling is allowed, will it be refined in Florida or shipped to a State with existing refineries like Texas or Louisiana?

[Charleston native]

Since many here have sited Louisiana and Katrina ad nauseum, here is an interesting article:

Hollywood once hailed offshore drilling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 19, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

By Humberto Fontova
© 2008 

Louisiana takes many hits as "the northernmost banana republic." Yuppies and greenies constitute a rare, exotic and even comical species down here â€" to the immense benefit of America's energy needs. "Progressive" and "enlightened" would not be terms Obama's Bay Area supporters would use to describe the Bayou state's decision-makers â€" especially those who made major decisions half a century ago.

Yet these rustics and yahoos spurred more revolutionary "change" in the production of (genuine) energy than any Obama supporter could imagine with all his or her hallucinations about solar panels and windmills.

In energy production, Louisiana has been well ahead of the learning curve for decades, and offers ready proof regarding its much-hyped "perils." The first offshore oil production platforms went up off the Louisiana coast in 1947.

By 1953, Hollywood (no less!) was already hailing the pioneering wildcatters who moved major mountains â€" technological, logistical, psychological, cultural â€" to tap and reap this source that today provides a quarter of America's domestic petroleum, without causing a single major oil spill in the process. This record stands despite dozens of hurricanes â€" including the two most destructive in North American history, Camille and Katrina â€" repeatedly battering the drilling and production structures, along with the 20,000 miles of pipeline that transport the oil shoreward. This is the most extensive offshore pipeline network in the world.

In the 1953 movie "Thunder Bay," Jimmy Stewart plays the complicated protagonist, Steve Martin, the hard-bitten, ex-navy oil engineer who built the first offshore oil platform off Louisiana in 1947. "The brawling, mauling story of the biggest bonanza of them all!" says the Universal ad for the studio's first wide-screen movie.

Much of the brawling by Stewart and his henchmen was against the local Cajuns who fished and shrimped for a living. Their livelihood, it seemed obvious at the time, would soon vanish amidst a hellbroth of irreversible pollution. The movie covers a time period of barely one year yet ends on a happy note of conciliation as the fishermen reaped a bonanza almost as big as Jimmy's itself. The oil structures had kicked in as artificial reefs and made possible a bigger haul of seafood than anything in these fishermen's lifetimes.

Half a century later, with 3,203 of the 3,729 offshore oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico studding her coastal waters, Louisiana provides almost a third of North America's commercial fisheries. A study by LSU's sea grant college shows that 85 percent of Louisiana's offshore fishing trips involve fishing around these structures. The same study found 50 times more marine life around an oil production platform than in the surrounding mud bottoms. That this proliferation of seafood might come because â€" rather than in spite â€" of the oil production rattled many environmental cages and provoked a legion of scoffers.

Amongst the scoffers were some The Travel Channel producers, fashionably greenish in their views. They read these claims in a book titled "The Helldiver's Rodeo." The book described an undersea panorama that (if true) could make an interesting show for the network, they concluded, while still scoffing.

They scoffed as we rode in from the airport. They scoffed over raw oysters, grilled redfish and seafood gumbo that night. More scoffing through the Hurricanes at Pat O'Brien's. They scoffed even while suiting up in dive gear and checking the cameras as we tied up to an oil platform 20 miles in the Gulf.

But they came out of the water bug-eyed and indeed produced and broadcast a program showcasing a panorama that turned on its head every environmental superstition against offshore oil drilling. Schools of fish filled the water column from top to bottom â€" from 6-inch blennies to 12-foot sharks. Fish by the thousands. Fish by the ton.

The cameras were going crazy. Do I focus on the shoals of barracuda? Or that cloud of jacks? On the immense schools of snapper below, or on the fleet of tarpon above? How 'bout this â€" WHOOOAA â€" hammerhead!

We had some close-ups, too, of coral and sponges, the very things disappearing off Florida's (that bans offshore oil drilling) pampered reefs. Off Louisiana, they sprout in colorful profusion from the huge steel beams â€" acres of them. You'd never guess this was part of that unsightly structure above.

The panorama of marine life around an offshore oil platform staggers anyone who puts on goggles and takes a peek, even (especially!) the most worldly scuba divers...

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67424

I really wish people would pay attention to the physical evidence and reality. This anti-drilling mentality is so zealous, it's almost an emotional, religious response.

[thelakelander]

What type of effect has the oil rigs had on Louisiana's beach tourism industry? 

[Lunican]

You are wrong about the short-term relief. Increasing the supply, even making the claims that the increase is underway, will make competitors lower their price of oil. This tired, old argument that it will take 10 years for us to get this oil is blatantly false and inaccurate. This prediction will be about as accurate as the predictions for a bad hurricane season last year.

Here is an interesting excerpt from the US government's Annual Energy Outlook Analysis.

The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higherâ€"2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html