Metro Jacksonville

QuoteApril 30, 2008
Start Drilling
By Robert Samuelson

WASHINGTON -- What to do about oil? First it went from $60 to $80 a barrel, then from $80 to $100 and now to $120. Perhaps we can persuade OPEC to raise production, as some senators suggest; but this seems unlikely. The truth is that we're almost powerless to influence today's prices. We are because we didn't take sensible actions 10 or 20 years ago. If we persist, we will be even worse off in a decade or two. The first thing to do: Start drilling.

It may surprise Americans to discover that the United States is the third-largest oil producer, behind Saudi Arabia and Russia. We could be producing more, but Congress has put large areas of potential supply off-limits. These include the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and parts of Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. By government estimates, these areas may contain 25-30 billion barrels of oil (against about 30 billion of proven U.S. reserves today) and 80 trillion cubic feet or more of natural gas (compared with about 200 tcf of proven reserves).

What keeps these areas closed are exaggerated environmental fears, strong prejudice against oil companies and sheer stupidity. Americans favor both "energy independence" and cheap fuel. They deplore imports -- who wants to pay foreigners? -- but oppose more production in the United States. Got it? The result is a "no-pain energy agenda that sounds appealing but has no basis in reality," writes Robert Bryce in "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence.'"

Unsurprisingly, all three major presidential candidates tout "energy independence." This reflects either ignorance (unlikely) or pandering (probable). The United States now imports about 60 percent of its oil, up from 42 percent in 1990. We'll import lots more for the foreseeable future. The world uses 86 million barrels of oil a day, up from 67 mbd in 1990. The basic cause of exploding prices is that advancing demand has virtually exhausted the world's surplus production capacity, says analyst Douglas MacIntyre of the Energy Information Administration. The result: Any unexpected rise in demand or threat to supply triggers higher prices.

The best we can do is to try to influence the global balance of supply and demand. Increase our supply. Restrain our demand. With luck, this might widen the worldwide surplus of production capacity. Producers would have less power to exact ever-higher prices, because there would be more competition among them to sell. OPEC loses some leverage; its members cheat. Congress took a small step last year by increasing fuel economy standards for new cars and light trucks from 25 to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. (And yes, we need a gradually rising fuel tax to create a strong market for more-efficient vehicles.)

Increasing production also is important. Output from older fields, including Alaska's North Slope, is declining. Although production from restricted areas won't make the U.S. self-sufficient, it might stabilize output or even reduce imports. No one knows exactly what's in these areas, because the exploratory work is old. Estimates indicate that production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge might equal almost 5 percent of present U.S. oil use.

Members of Congress complain loudly about high oil profits ($40.6 billion for ExxonMobil last year) but frustrate those companies from using those profits to explore and produce in the United States. Getting access to oil elsewhere is increasingly difficult. Governments own three-quarters or more of proven reserves. Higher prices perversely discourage other countries from approving new projects. Flush with oil revenues, countries have less need to expand production. Undersupply and high prices then feed on each other.

But it's hard for the United States to complain that other countries limit access to their reserves when we're doing the same. If higher U.S. production reduced world prices, other countries might expand production. What they couldn't get from prices they'd try to get from greater sales.

On environmental grounds, the alternatives to more drilling are usually worse. Subsidies to ethanol made from corn have increased food prices and used scarce water, with few benefits. If oil is imported, it's vulnerable to tanker spills. By contrast, local production is probably safer. There were 4,000 platforms operating in the Gulf of Mexico when hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit. Despite extensive damage, there were no major spills, says Robbie Diamond of Securing America's Future Energy, an advocacy group.

Perhaps oil prices will drop when some long-delayed projects begin production or if demand slackens. But the basic problem will remain. Though dependent on foreign oil, we might conceivably curb the power of foreign producers. But this is not a task of a month or a year. It is a task of decades; new production projects take that long. If we don't start now, our future dependence and its dangers will grow. Count on it.

Quote

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer Tue Apr 29, 3:59 PM ET

WASHINGTON - President Bush put politics ahead of the facts Tuesday as he sought to blame Congress for high energy prices, saying foreign suppliers are pumping just about all the oil they can and accusing lawmakers of blocking new refineries.

Bush renewed his call for drilling in an Arctic wildlife refuge, but his own Energy Department says that would have little impact on gasoline prices.

THE SPIN:

Asked what he is doing to try to get Saudi Arabia to pump more oil, Bush didn't answer directly. "We've got to understand there's not a lot of excess capacity in the world right now," he said. Blaming "the lack of refinery capacity" for high energy prices, he said Congress has rejected his proposal to use shuttered military bases for refinery sites.

FACT:

Global oil supplies are tight, in part because OPEC nations including Saudi Arabia are refusing to open their spigots. But Saudi Arabia has considerable additional production capacity. It's pumping a little over 8.5 million barrels a day, compared to about 9.5 million barrels a day two years ago and has acknowledged the ability to produce as much as 11 million barrels a day.

On refineries, Congress has ignored Bush's proposal to use closed military bases. But the oil companies haven't shown much interest in building refineries either and have dismissed suggestions that military bases might be of use. They note, for example, that few bases are near pipelines needed to bring crude in and move finished product out.

When top executives of the country's five largest oil companies earlier this month were asked at a House hearing whether they wanted to build a new refinery, each said no.

While no new refinery has been built in more than 30 years, companies have been adding on to existing refineries. The Energy Information Administration estimates an additional 800,000 barrels a day of production will be added to existing refineries in the next three years. A joint venture between Shell Oil Co. and the Saudi Arabian oil company is expected to double capacity at a Port Arthur, Texas, refinery.

Even the industry's refinery expansion plans have been scaled back over the last few years because companies anticipate less demand for gasoline since the government now requires a huge expansion of ethanol as a motor fuel. They ask: Why should refiners make more gasoline if ethanol is to be used?

THE SPIN:

Bush has long called for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil development, and on Tuesday he chastised Congress for repeatedly blocking the proposal.

"If Congress is interested, they can send the right signal by saying we are going to explore for oil and gas in U.S. territories, starting with ANWR," said Bush, adding that opening the Alaska refuge to oil companies "likely will mean lower gas prices."

FACT:

Strongly opposed by environmentalists, most Democrats and a few moderate Republicans, drilling in the Arctic refuge indeed has been blocked, as the president complained.

Energy experts believe ANWR's likely 11 billion barrels of oil â€" pumped at just under 1 million barrels a day â€" would send a signal of increased U.S. interest in domestic energy production. However, in the long run, it likely would not significantly impact oil or gasoline prices. And it likely would have little impact on today's prices.

In 2005, the Energy Information Administration estimated that it would take about 10 years before oil would flow from ANWR if drilling were approved. By 2025, it said, the additional oil would have only a slight impact on global oil prices and cause a decline in gasoline prices of less than a penny a gallon, using constant 2003 dollars. Oil imports would drop from an expected 68 percent of U.S. demand to 64 percent, the EIA said.

THE SPIN:

Bush said "it is in our national interest" to continue pumping oil into the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve â€" about 70,000 barrels a day â€" "in case there is a major disruption of crude oil around the world."

FACT:

While some Democrats argue that halting the SPR fill would lower prices, most energy experts agree with the president that it likely would not. But the assertion that continued deliveries to SPR, which already holds 701 million barrels, is needed as a safeguard against a possible supply interruption may be a stretch.

"We have today a three-month supply of oil for emergencies," noted Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who would like to see the deliveries stop. And that would assume a total cutoff of oil imports, an unlikely occurrence even if there are major supply disruptions. In the meantime, said Hutchison, "over the next four months we will deposit over 8 million barrels into the SPR at a very high price."

THE SPIN:

The president said Congress was "demanding emissions cuts that would shut down coal plants" and criticized lawmakers for hindering the expansion of nuclear power.

FACT:

His remarks about coal were an apparent reference to climate legislation that would cap carbon dioxide emissions to address global warming. While such caps would significantly affect coal-burning power plants, the legislation also envisions having emission allowances, many of which would be used by utilities to keep coal plants running, though electricity prices would increase. And the emission limits also would spur development of carbon capture technologies from power plants.

On the nuclear issue, Congress has provided the industry loan guarantees, a streamlining of reactor permitting and other measures, all aimed at spurring construction of power reactors. It has shown little interest in a Bush plan to resume nuclear waste reprocessing, or in pressing ahead with the Yucca Mountain underground waste dump in Nevada.

QuoteTHE SPIN:

Bush has long called for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil development, and on Tuesday he chastised Congress for repeatedly blocking the proposal.

"If Congress is interested, they can send the right signal by saying we are going to explore for oil and gas in U.S. territories, starting with ANWR," said Bush, adding that opening the Alaska refuge to oil companies "likely will mean lower gas prices."

FACT:

Strongly opposed by environmentalists, most Democrats and a few moderate Republicans, drilling in the Arctic refuge indeed has been blocked, as the president complained.

Energy experts believe ANWR's likely 11 billion barrels of oil â€" pumped at just under 1 million barrels a day â€" would send a signal of increased U.S. interest in domestic energy production. However, in the long run, it likely would not significantly impact oil or gasoline prices. And it likely would have little impact on today's prices.

In 2005, the Energy Information Administration estimated that it would take about 10 years before oil would flow from ANWR if drilling were approved. By 2025, it said, the additional oil would have only a slight impact on global oil prices and cause a decline in gasoline prices of less than a penny a gallon, using constant 2003 dollars. Oil imports would drop from an expected 68 percent of U.S. demand to 64 percent, the EIA said.

Quote from: RiversideGator on April 30, 2008, 01:14:37 AM
Start drilling:   ;D

Quote from: Midway on April 30, 2008, 06:04:41 PM
Tell me a bedtime story; you know, the one about how drilling oil wells in ANWR will bring down the price of gasoline, so I can dream about driving in my big, shiny new SUV allll around Jacksonville!!!!

QuoteTHE SPIN:

Bush has long called for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil development, and on Tuesday he chastised Congress for repeatedly blocking the proposal.

"If Congress is interested, they can send the right signal by saying we are going to explore for oil and gas in U.S. territories, starting with ANWR," said Bush, adding that opening the Alaska refuge to oil companies "likely will mean lower gas prices."

FACT:

Strongly opposed by environmentalists, most Democrats and a few moderate Republicans, drilling in the Arctic refuge indeed has been blocked, as the president complained.

Energy experts believe ANWR's likely 11 billion barrels of oil â€" pumped at just under 1 million barrels a day â€" would send a signal of increased U.S. interest in domestic energy production. However, in the long run, it likely would not significantly impact oil or gasoline prices. And it likely would have little impact on today's prices.

In 2005, the Energy Information Administration estimated that it would take about 10 years before oil would flow from ANWR if drilling were approved. By 2025, it said, the additional oil would have only a slight impact on global oil prices and cause a decline in gasoline prices of less than a penny a gallon, using constant 2003 dollars. Oil imports would drop from an expected 68 percent of U.S. demand to 64 percent, the EIA said.

Quote from: Midway on May 01, 2008, 07:36:06 AM
My answer is thus:

QuoteTHE SPIN:

Bush has long called for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil development, and on Tuesday he chastised Congress for repeatedly blocking the proposal.

"If Congress is interested, they can send the right signal by saying we are going to explore for oil and gas in U.S. territories, starting with ANWR," said Bush, adding that opening the Alaska refuge to oil companies "likely will mean lower gas prices."

FACT:

Strongly opposed by environmentalists, most Democrats and a few moderate Republicans, drilling in the Arctic refuge indeed has been blocked, as the president complained.

Energy experts believe ANWR's likely 11 billion barrels of oil â€" pumped at just under 1 million barrels a day â€" would send a signal of increased U.S. interest in domestic energy production. However, in the long run, it likely would not significantly impact oil or gasoline prices. And it likely would have little impact on today's prices.

In 2005, the Energy Information Administration estimated that it would take about 10 years before oil would flow from ANWR if drilling were approved. By 2025, it said, the additional oil would have only a slight impact on global oil prices and cause a decline in gasoline prices of less than a penny a gallon, using constant 2003 dollars. Oil imports would drop from an expected 68 percent of U.S. demand to 64 percent, the EIA said.

So, as I was saying, tell me a bedtime story, Riversidegator.

Quote from: Midway on May 01, 2008, 01:30:48 PM
Ok, now your talking.

The basic flaw in your premise that you can drill your way out of the oil problem is defective at its core.

The resource is finite, and as such conservation is a much more important piece of the puzzle.

Just as you complain (and rightly so) that corn is being diverted for fuel and we are burning our food, we are doing the same thing with oil. I am not sure if you are aware, but oil is a very important chemical feedstock used for the production of an incredibly large array of products that are vital to the modern way of life, many of which have absolutely no substitute. we are taking this finite resource which is akin to food for industry, and using it all as fuel as well. 

Now, there is a good case for the use of petroleum as fuel, but these is also a compelling case for conservation of this commodity so that it may also be used in industrial processes where the is no substitute.

While any suggestion of conservation is met here with derision, I believe that is borne of the failure to appreciate the finite nature of the resource, and its industrial uses other than as a fuel. If you were to look around your room, probably 60% of what you see would be made of petroleum. You are probably not aware that your laundry detergent is most likely made from oil in the form of linear alkyl benzene.

QuoteGEOLOGIC SETTING OF THE PROPOSED HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY, YUCCA MOUNTAIN, NEVADA
POTTER, Christopher J., U.S.G.S, MS 939, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225-0046, cpotter@usgs.gov, DAY, Warren C., U.S.G.S, MS 964, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225-0046, and SWEETKIND, Donald S., U.S.G.S, MS 973, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225-0046

Yucca Mountain (YM), in southern Nevada, is the proposed site of the nation’s sole high-level radioactive waste repository and lies within the middle to upper Miocene southwestern Nevada volcanic field (SWNVF) in the Walker Lane tectonic zone near the SW margin of the Basin and Range province. Rocks of the SWNVF were erupted from the Timber Mountain caldera complex; they unconformably overlie an older Tertiary nonmarine section, which in turn overlies a highly deformed Paleozoic and Proterozoic section along a profound angular unconformity. The Paintbrush Group dominates the near-surface stratigraphy at YM, comprising two thick, mainly densely welded rhyolite tuffs â€" the 12.8-Ma Topopah Spring Tuff and the 12.7-Ma Tiva Canyon Tuff â€" and a thinner intervening interval of nonwelded and bedded tuffs. The Tiva Canyon is the most extensively exposed bedrock unit at YM, whereas the underlying Topopah Spring includes the "repository host horizon," which would be excavated for waste storage. The proposed repository volume (in north-central YM) is in the structurally simplest part of YM: a 4-km-wide fault block of gently E-dipping strata. This "central block" is one of several 1- to 4-km-wide blocks that are delineated by moderately to steeply W-dipping, block-bounding normal faults. Within the central block, intrablock faults are commonly short and discontinuous, except for one prominent 7-km-long fault. Block margins are more intensely deformed, particularly in the hanging-walls of block-bounding faults. The mesoscale fracture network in the tuffs is strongly controlled by lithologic properties of the volcanic stratigraphy (degree of welding, lithophysae development, etc.), and locally the fracture network has a strong influence on the nature of intrablock faulting. In the southern part of YM, the intensity of deformation increases markedly, and block-bounding faults commonly are linked by northwest-striking relay faults. Block-bounding faults were active at Yucca Mountain during and after eruption of the Paintbrush Group, and significant motion on those faults postdated the 11.6-Ma Rainier Mesa Tuff. Roughly half of the stratal tilting in the repository-site area occurred after 11.6 Ma. In addition, 0 to 4 m of Quaternary displacement are associated with each block-bounding fault.

Quote from: Midway on May 01, 2008, 06:55:13 PM
I'm still waiting for an answer on what to do with nuclear waste. And keep in mind that its not just spent fuel. its all of the water, parts and anything else that comes into contact with the radiation from the reactor, lots of stuff. And this stuff cannot be reprocessed.

And don't give that stuff that Yucca mountain is being held up by Greenpeace either. there are all kinds of incredible engineering problems there.

QuoteYou know, I'm not even going to get into the whole discussion that you just want to dig everything up and use it to power your SUV so you can drive your pampered little a** around town is style and to hell with the next generation, because then you'll say that I'm being mean to you and picking on you. So I'm not going to say that.

QuoteTerrific strides could have been made in the last 8 years to foster energy independence. That opportunity was lost because the leadership of this country had no desire to do so. Instead they pursued a ruinous middle east policy that has just served to simultaneously drive up the cost of oil and devalue the dollar.

QuoteAgain, you are going for the simplistic quick fix. Quick fixes, especially simple ones, don't work.

QuoteAnd BTW, didn't I see you ranting about "Amtrak Subsidies" somewhere? So much for better intercity rail service.

Quote from: RiversideGator on May 01, 2008, 11:39:45 PM

We both know that Yucca Mountain would be safely in use today if it had not been held up by lefties like you in the Congress, the Courts and the environmental movement for ulterior reasons.  We also know that this is not about the safety of Yucca Mountain but it is about preventing the US from having a safe repository for nuclear waste because, if such a place exists, it helps to further legitimize nuclear power. 

Quote from: RiversideGator on May 01, 2008, 11:39:45 PM
Why must you get personal again?  If you continue with this nonsense, I will begin deleting your offending posts.  Get it?

Quote from: RiversideGator on May 01, 2008, 11:39:45 PM
And I care greatly for the next generation.  This is why I do not wish to force them into lives with a standard of living which is lower than that of their parent's generation.

Quote from: RiversideGator on May 01, 2008, 11:39:45 PM
BTW, my a** is not little.   :D

Quote from: RiversideGator on May 01, 2008, 11:39:45 PM
1.  US energy independence would be increased by exploiting domestic natural resources.
2.  The final outcome of the Middle East policy is not yet known.
3.  The dollar declined and oil rose largely as a result of the actions of the Fed.  The dollar is coming back and oil is coming down now.

Quote from: RiversideGator on May 01, 2008, 11:39:45 PM
You mean simplistic quick fixes such as your solar panel fantasy?   :D

Quote from: RiversideGator on May 01, 2008, 11:39:45 PM
Nope.  Not me.  I would subsidize the hell out of Amtrak if I were in charge.   :)

QuoteOnly the left wing bloggers agree with you.

QuoteThe government could easily invest that money into (gasp) Florida's Mass Transit...

Quote from: RiversideGator on July 22, 2008, 10:57:53 AM
Eazy:  You are totally wrong.  Drilling more will reduce prices in the short run.  The experts do not agree with you.  Only the left wing bloggers agree with you.

QuoteHead of Bush Administration's Energy Information Administration Said Offshore Drilling Would Have Little Affect on Gas Prices. "In response to record pump prices, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain and President George W. Bush this month called for Congress to end its moratorium on drilling off the East and West coasts and in Florida waters, leaving it up to each affected state to decide where to permit drilling. However, Guy Caruso, who heads the federal Energy Information Administration, said consumers would see little savings at the pump. 'It would be a relatively small effect, because it would take such a long time to bring those supplies on,' Caruso said during a briefing at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on the EIA's new long-term international energy forecast. 'It doesn't affect prices that much.' Most energy experts say it would take five to 10 years to find oil in the closed areas and bring the crude to market. Caruso said the additional supplies would amount to only a couple of hundred thousand barrels of oil a day. 'It does take a long time to develop these resources, and therefore the price impact is muted by that,' he said." [Reuters, 6/25/08]

Quote from: Lunican on July 22, 2008, 12:19:09 PM
Easy, don't listen to RG. He has a knack for being completely wrong almost 100% of the time.

QuoteHead of Bush Administration's Energy Information Administration Said Offshore Drilling Would Have Little Affect on Gas Prices. "In response to record pump prices, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain and President George W. Bush this month called for Congress to end its moratorium on drilling off the East and West coasts and in Florida waters, leaving it up to each affected state to decide where to permit drilling. However, Guy Caruso, who heads the federal Energy Information Administration, said consumers would see little savings at the pump. 'It would be a relatively small effect, because it would take such a long time to bring those supplies on,' Caruso said during a briefing at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on the EIA's new long-term international energy forecast. 'It doesn't affect prices that much.' Most energy experts say it would take five to 10 years to find oil in the closed areas and bring the crude to market. Caruso said the additional supplies would amount to only a couple of hundred thousand barrels of oil a day. 'It does take a long time to develop these resources, and therefore the price impact is muted by that,' he said." [Reuters, 6/25/08]

QuoteBy law, EIA's products are prepared independently of policy considerations. EIA neither formulates nor advocates any policy conclusions. The Department of Energy Organization Act allows EIA's processes and products to be independent from review by Executive Branch officials

QuoteA Bipartisan Fix for the Oil Crisis
By JOSEPH PETROWSKI
July 10, 2008; Page A15

As president of Gulf Oil, New England's largest independent petroleum company, and as someone who has spent his life in and around energy markets, I find the tone and substance of the current debate about our energy policy to be profoundly disappointing.

Partisan sides are using a serious crisis to advance political agendas, create political attack sound bites, and launch hearings to "expose" the culprit. Pick your favorite: speculators, Big Oil, environmentalists, China, India, etc.

This is not leadership.

A fundamental misunderstanding of how markets work, and how an effective government can support the private sector, is delaying remedies that will bring down energy prices now. These remedies are to be found in both supply and demand â€" and both Democrats and Republicans need to demonstrate their command of this fact. Energy is too important a cornerstone of domestic prosperity and international stability to be used as a debating prop.

To Democrats:

Supply must be increased, and that will require more drilling.

We can responsibly drill. The technology to find, drill and recover oil has evolved tremendously, and careless drillers will fear tort lawyers more than government regulators. The claim that the oil companies are sitting on leases and not drilling defies all logic. With oil at $135 per barrel and drilling rigs renting at $300,000 per day, there are no idle rigs anywhere. Furthermore, economic decline â€" and war induced by basic resource struggles â€" are greater threats to the environment and American workers than drilling.

Your claim that any oil we drill for now will not come on line for five years or longer â€" and will thus have no effect on prices today â€" is incorrect. Unlike past oil crises, where the spot price of oil (that is, today's price) rose more than forward prices, the oil price for delivery in 2012 is trading at $138 per barrel. The market is sending a clear price signal that our problem is in the future â€" because we do not have the will to curb demand or increase supply.

How many houses would someone invest in if there were a future guarantee that the price would not decline? It is anticipation of ever-increasing prices that fuels the mania.

The oil market, however, has more than anticipation; it has a well-defined forward price signal. This is a key component of the added $25-$40 per barrel in current oil prices. Congressional hearings and "make it go away" legislation will not stop that. Demonstrate the national will to address the supply and demand issues now and it will.

As forward prices decline, watch how quickly the spot price comes down.

To Republicans:

Efficiency is a huge source of new energy. It is scandalous that we have let the mileage standards decrease over the past 25 years. Whether through mandates or tax policy, active government intervention is needed. Republicans have to stop acting as if the "market" is some pristine state of nature that is not subject to active shaping.

The latest farm bill, ethanol and sugar tariffs, the cost of the Iraq war and Bear Stearns all make that reasoning ring hollow. So when some "free marketeers" attack annual biofuel subsidies of $4 billion, fleet mandates, or government research and development expenditures, it is hard not to view this criticism as at best naïveté, and at worst hypocrisy.

Finally, can we stop with the nonsensical talk of "energy independence," the end of petroleum, and postured, ineffectual boycotts of Exxon Mobil? We cannot, should not and will not be independent in a global economy, and petroleum is not going to disappear.

A more accurate metaphor is the global energy market as a giant bath tub where more withdrawals (Chinese and Indian) are being made every day. The only consistent new supply to that tub is coming from periodically unstable and unfriendly places (Nigeria, Russia, Iran, Venezuela).

Our national interest is to add more energy, use it more efficiently, and diversify its source and type. This will serve to lessen the power of any one choke point (geography, nation or source).

Using market mechanisms and the private sector (admit it, Democrats) alongside an engaged, effective and focused government (admit it, Republicans), true leaders can solve this crisis decisively.

Mr. Petrowski is president of Gulf Oil.

Quote from: Lunican on July 22, 2008, 12:22:20 PM
Does anyone even realize that oil companies currently have 68 million acres of leased federal land permitted for drilling that nothing is being done on?

Why would we want to permit even more land?

Quote from: The Truth About America’s Energy: Big Oil Stockpiles Supplies and Pockets ProfitsAccording to the Minerals Management Service, of all the oil and gas believed to exist on the Outer Continental Shelf, 82% of the natural gas and 79% of the oil is located in areas that are currently open for leasing.

Quote from: thebrokenforum on July 22, 2008, 02:16:04 PM
Dear RiversideGator,

You are right. Everyone else is wrong and ashamed of themselves. The earth is also flat. 

Signed,

The Middle Ages

QuoteA straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

Quote from: Lunican on July 22, 2008, 02:27:58 PM
It's comical that you cite economists (and wikipedia) as experts in global warming AND offshore drilling.

Quote from: The Truth About America’s Energy: Big Oil Stockpiles Supplies and Pockets ProfitsAccording to the Minerals Management Service, of all the oil and gas believed to exist on the Outer Continental Shelf, 82% of the natural gas and 79% of the oil is located in areas that are currently open for leasing.

A Special Report by the Committee on Natural Resources - Majority Staff - June 2008

QuoteThe U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources, or Natural Resources Committee (often referred to as simply "Resources", as in "He's on Resources") is a Congressional committee of the United States House of Representatives. Originally called the "Committee on Interior & Insular Affairs," the name was changed to the Natural Resources Committee in 1993.

Quote from: Lunican on July 22, 2008, 04:17:29 PM
Yes, please post these indisputable facts. And try to stay away from Op-Ed pieces written by economists letting us know where the oil is.

Also, please post a graph showing the relationship between drilling permits and gas prices.

QuoteI havent yet found the cure for willful ignorance.

QuoteNow now, Broken Forum, youve already caused enough pain by making River burn his fingers while typing 'fact based community' and his own name in the same post.

not to mention the extra jumping jacks they are going to make him do in Hell for every bringing up 'Straw Man Arguments" in the first place.

Show some compassion.

Quote from: thebrokenforum on July 22, 2008, 05:38:40 PM

QuoteI havent yet found the cure for willful ignorance.

I have. It's you not posting.

QuoteWe Can Lower Oil Prices Now
By MARTIN FELDSTEIN
July 1, 2008; Page A17

Although most experts agree that financial speculation was not responsible for the surge in the global prices of food and energy, many people remain puzzled about the source of these remarkable price rises. Economics offers a simple supply-and-demand explanation and reason for optimism about the future of commodity prices. In the case of oil, economics also suggests how policy changes today that affect the future could quickly lower the current price of oil.

We all know that rising incomes in China, India and the Gulf states have increased the demand for oil and many other commodities. But how could the modest, one-year rise of these demands lead to 100% increases in the prices of oil and other commodities? Let's take a look first at perishable agricultural commodities.
[We Can Lower Oil Prices Now]
Corbis

In the short run, there is little scope for increasing the supply of corn in response to a global increase in demand. For demand and supply to balance â€" for the market to clear â€" the price of corn must rise.

If the demand for corn were very price-sensitive, a relatively small increase in price would reduce global demand by enough to offset the initial rise in demand. However, since demand is actually quite insensitive to price in the short run, it takes a very large price rise to bring global demand into line with supply.

Here is a simplified picture of what happened in the past year. The quantity of corn demanded by high-growth countries rose gradually, increasing eventually by an amount equal to, say, 10% of the previous total global level of corn consumption. Since the supply of corn did not increase, the price had to increase enough to reduce corn consumption in other countries by 10%. If it takes a 10% increase in the price to reduce the quantity of corn demanded in the first year by just 1%, it would take a 100% increase in the price of corn to offset the initial 10% rise in the quantity of corn demanded.

In reality, the picture is complicated by the substitution in both supply and demand among different agricultural commodities, and by the role of the corn ethanol program. But the basic explanation holds: With a very low short-run price sensitivity of demand and little scope to raise supply in the short run, even a relatively small increase in corn demand by the high-growth economies can lead to a very large short-run rise in the price of corn.

Fortunately, the price sensitivity of both demand and supply will increase with time. This implies that the rising demand from China and other countries may eventually be accommodated with a price lower than today's level.

The situation for oil is more complex, but the outcome for prices is potentially more favorable.

Unlike perishable agricultural products, oil can be stored in the ground. So when will an owner of oil reduce production or increase inventories instead of selling his oil and converting the proceeds into investible cash? A simplified answer is that he will keep the oil in the ground if its price is expected to rise faster than the interest rate that could be earned on the money obtained from selling the oil. The actual price of oil may rise faster or slower than is expected, but the decision to sell (or hold) the oil depends on the expected price rise.

There are of course considerations of risk, and of the impact of price changes on long-term consumer behavior, that complicate the oil owner's decision â€" and therefore the behavior of prices. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (the OPEC cartel), with its strong pricing power, still plays a role. But the fundamental insight is that owners of oil will adjust their production and inventories until the price of oil is expected to rise at the rate of interest, appropriately adjusted for risk. If the price of oil is expected to rise faster, they'll keep the oil in the ground. In contrast, if the price of oil is not expected to rise as fast as the rate of interest, the owners will extract more and invest the proceeds.

The relationship between future and current oil prices implies that an expected change in the future price of oil will have an immediate impact on the current price of oil.

Thus, when oil producers concluded that the demand for oil in China and some other countries will grow more rapidly in future years than they had previously expected, they inferred that the future price of oil would be higher than they had previously believed. They responded by reducing supply and raising the spot price enough to bring the expected price rise back to its initial rate.

Hence, with no change in the current demand for oil, the expectation of a greater future demand and a higher future price caused the current price to rise. Similarly, credible reports about the future decline of oil production in Russia and in Mexico implied a higher future global price of oil â€" and that also required an increase in the current oil price to maintain the initial expected rate of increase in the price of oil.

Once this relation is understood, it is easy to see how news stories, rumors and industry reports can cause substantial fluctuations in current prices â€" all without anything happening to current demand or supply.

Of course, a rise in the spot price of oil triggered by a change in expectations about future prices will cause a decline in the current quantity of oil that consumers demand. If current supply and demand were initially in balance, the OPEC countries and other oil producers would respond by reducing sales to bring supply into line with the temporary reduction in demand. A rise in the expected future demand for oil thus causes a current decline in the amount of oil being supplied. This is what happened as the Saudis and others cut supply in 2007.

Now here is the good news. Any policy that causes the expected future oil price to fall can cause the current price to fall, or to rise less than it would otherwise do. In other words, it is possible to bring down today's price of oil with policies that will have their physical impact on oil demand or supply only in the future.

For example, increases in government subsidies to develop technology that will make future cars more efficient, or tighter standards that gradually improve the gas mileage of the stock of cars, would lower the future demand for oil and therefore the price of oil today.

Similarly, increasing the expected future supply of oil would also reduce today's price. That fall in the current price would induce an immediate rise in oil consumption that would be matched by an increase in supply from the OPEC producers and others with some current excess capacity or available inventories.

Any steps that can be taken now to increase the future supply of oil, or reduce the future demand for oil in the U.S. or elsewhere, can therefore lead both to lower prices and increased consumption today.

Quote from: RiversideGator on July 22, 2008, 10:57:53 AM
Eazy:  You are totally wrong.  Drilling more will reduce prices in the short run.  The experts do not agree with you.  Only the left wing bloggers agree with you.

Quote from: Midway on July 23, 2008, 06:30:32 PM

Quote from: RiversideGator on July 22, 2008, 10:57:53 AM
Eazy:  You are totally wrong.  Drilling more will reduce prices in the short run.  The experts do not agree with you.  Only the left wing bloggers agree with you.

Mr. swiftboat himself (T. Boone Pickens) disagrees with you.

But then what does he know about the oil business anyway?

You make post after post claiming that whoever disagrees with your "dittohead" opinions knows nothing and is wrong.

Ha!

I guess you want to drill for more oil to bring the price down on the global market so that more Chinese can own autos and fuel them at a lower cost?

Or maybe you want to sever the connection between the global price of oil and our domestic oil so that Exxon can sell us domestically produced oil for 40% under global market prices? OK, I'm sure they will go for that.

Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2008, 05:43:52 PM
Now now, Broken Forum, youve already caused enough pain by making River burn his fingers while typing 'fact based community' and his own name in the same post.

not to mention the extra jumping jacks they are going to make him do in Hell for every bringing up 'Straw Man Arguments" in the first place.

Show some compassion.   

Quote
Q: How did you feel when you heard that Buckley died this year?

A: I thought hell is bound to be a livelier place, as he joins forever those whom he served in life, applauding their prejudices and fanning their hatred.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 23, 2008, 06:33:34 PM

What???  Please explain.... ???

Quote from: RiversideGator on July 22, 2008, 02:35:23 PM
Blah, Blah, Blah......

Signed,
The fact based community

QuoteYou make post after post claiming that whoever disagrees with your "dittohead" opinions knows nothing and is wrong.

Ha!

Quote from: Midway on July 23, 2008, 06:30:32 PM

Quote from: RiversideGator on July 22, 2008, 10:57:53 AM
Eazy:  You are totally wrong.  Drilling more will reduce prices in the short run.  The experts do not agree with you.  Only the left wing bloggers agree with you.

Mr. swiftboat himself (T. Boone Pickens) disagrees with you.

But then what does he know about the oil business anyway?

Quote
You make post after post claiming that whoever disagrees with your "dittohead" opinions knows nothing and is wrong.

Quote
I guess you want to drill for more oil to bring the price down on the global market so that more Chinese can own autos and fuel them at a lower cost?

Quote
Or maybe you want to sever the connection between the global price of oil and our domestic oil so that Exxon can sell us domestically produced oil for 40% under global market prices? OK, I'm sure they will go for that.

Quote from: thebrokenforum on July 23, 2008, 08:32:16 PM

QuoteYou make post after post claiming that whoever disagrees with your "dittohead" opinions knows nothing and is wrong.

Ha!

It's not so much that he has an opposing viewpoint most of the time (because MJ would be boring if everyone thought the same) it's his acting like a five-year-old when someone doesn't agree with him. 

Quote from: Midway on July 23, 2008, 06:38:04 PM

Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2008, 05:43:52 PM
Now now, Broken Forum, youve already caused enough pain by making River burn his fingers while typing 'fact based community' and his own name in the same post.

not to mention the extra jumping jacks they are going to make him do in Hell for every bringing up 'Straw Man Arguments" in the first place.

Show some compassion.   

Here is a quote from an interview with Gore Vidal in the New York Times Magazine that is relevant to this thought:

Quote
Q: How did you feel when you heard that Buckley died this year?

A: I thought hell is bound to be a livelier place, as he joins forever those whom he served in life, applauding their prejudices and fanning their hatred.

Quote from: thelakelander on July 23, 2008, 11:30:36 PM
New Orleans is lucky their tourism industry does not revolve around beaches and water.

(http://blog.nola.com/news_impact/2008/07/large_24wboil2.jpg)
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/07/ap_collision_closes_mississipp.html

QuoteJohn McCain planned to counterprogram Barack Obama's big speech in Berlin today by traveling to an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico to talk about offshore oil drilling. But that trip has been canceled -- supposedly, because of bad weather. But there may have been another, better reason for the cancellation.

Politico's Ben Smith notes that, in fact, the weather in New Orleans is partly cloudy and calm. In contrast to that weather, as my friend Steve Benen pointed out, you can currently smell diesel fuel in that city's historic French Quarter. That's because of a collision between a barge and a tanker that led to the spillage of thousands of gallons of oil. Not exactly the kind of image you want as you're making a speech about how environmentally safe more offshore drilling would be.

Quote from: RiversideGator on July 22, 2008, 10:34:35 PM
Now boys, here is an excellent explanation of the relationship between prices now and supply in the future.  This is written by an economist from Harvard.  Let me know if you need a simpler explanation than this:

QuoteWe Can Lower Oil Prices Now
By MARTIN FELDSTEIN
July 1, 2008; Page A17

Quote from: GideonGlib on July 24, 2008, 03:44:53 PM
All of these arguments seem to revolve around this idea that high gas prices are bad across the board. Personally I am amazed how the same car companies who just a few years ago were saying that there was no way electric and other fuel form cars could be on the road in 10-15-20 years are now racing to put them out and vowing 1-2 and 3 year time frames. The current prices are doing an excellent job in encouraging people to car pool, use public transportation, bike more, drive less. In turn we as a nation are churning out less green house gasses, consuming less fuel, and living a lot more green. So many people here say they want a better mass transits system, they say they want developers to build more walkable communities, they say they want urban areas to come back to life and no one seems to want some liberal pro-active government to be too pro-active in regulating those things. Well, gas prices are causing private industry to change, and while it may hurt in the short term, the long term effects of high prices are more sustainable and better for all of us.

So no, we do not need to ruin our coast with off shore drilling, we need to make sure we bring to the first coast every sort of green energy company we can convince to set up shop here.

Quote from: stephendare on July 24, 2008, 03:47:12 PM
First of all, after the relentless destruction unleashed on our economy with the slick moves to bring us 'cheap oil' (see IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN) I think there is an unofficial moratorium on bright new republican ideas to bring the price of oil down.

The last oil decrease program (affectionately referred to as the $3trillion highway to price tripling) was so wildly unsuccessful that one would think there would be nothing but embarrased silence whenever the subject of how best to deal with oil prices came up from River and his friends.

Quote from: GideonGlib on July 24, 2008, 03:44:53 PM
All of these arguments seem to revolve around this idea that high gas prices are bad across the board. Personally I am amazed how the same car companies who just a few years ago were saying that there was no way electric and other fuel form cars could be on the road in 10-15-20 years are now racing to put them out and vowing 1-2 and 3 year time frames. The current prices are doing an excellent job in encouraging people to car pool, use public transportation, bike more, drive less. In turn we as a nation are churning out less green house gasses, consuming less fuel, and living a lot more green. So many people here say they want a better mass transits system, they say they want developers to build more walkable communities, they say they want urban areas to come back to life and no one seems to want some liberal pro-active government to be too pro-active in regulating those things. Well, gas prices are causing private industry to change, and while it may hurt in the short term, the long term effects of high prices are more sustainable and better for all of us.

So no, we do not need to ruin our coast with off shore drilling, we need to make sure we bring to the first coast every sort of green energy company we can convince to set up shop here.

QuoteAmerica is addicted to foreign oil.

It's an addiction that threatens our economy, our environment and our national security. It touches every part of our daily lives and ties our hands as a nation and a people.

The addiction has worsened for decades and now it's reached a point of crisis.
In 1970, we imported 24% of our oil.
Today it's nearly 70% and growing.

As imports grow and world prices rise, the amount of money we send to foreign nations every year is soaring. At current oil prices, we will send $700 billion dollars out of the country this year alone â€" that's four times the annual cost of the Iraq war.
Loading...

Projected over the next 10 years the cost will be $10 trillion â€" it will be the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.

America uses a lot of oil. Every day 85 million barrels of oil are produced around the world. And 21 million of those are used here in the United States.

That's 25% of the world's oil demand. Used by just 4% of the world's population.

Can't we just produce more oil?

World oil production peaked in 2005. Despite growing demand and an unprecedented increase in prices, oil production has fallen over the last three years. Oil is getting more expensive to produce, harder to find and there just isn't enough of it to keep up with demand.

The simple truth is that cheap and easy oil is gone.

What's the good news?
The United States is the Saudi Arabia of wind power.

Studies from around the world show that the Great Plains states are home to the greatest wind energy potential in the world â€" by far.

The Department of Energy reports that 20% of America's electricity can come from wind. North Dakota alone has the potential to provide power for more than a quarter of the country.

Today's wind turbines stand up to 410 feet tall, with blades that stretch 148 feet in length. The blades collect the wind's kinetic energy. In one year, a 3-megawatt wind turbine produces as much energy as 12,000 barrels of imported oil.

Wind power currently accounts for 48 billion kWh of electricity a year in the United States â€" enough to serve more than 4.5 million households. That is still only about 1% of current demand, but the potential of wind is much greater.

A 2005 Stanford University study found that there is enough wind power worldwide to satisfy global demand 7 times over â€" even if only 20% of wind power could be captured.

Building wind facilities in the corridor that stretches from the Texas panhandle to North Dakota could produce 20% of the electricity for the United States at a cost of $1 trillion. It would take another $200 billion to build the capacity to transmit that energy to cities and towns.

That's a lot of money, but it's a one-time cost. And compared to the $700 billion we spend on foreign oil every year, it's a bargain.
An economic revival for rural America.

Developing wind power is an investment in rural America.

To witness the economic promise of wind energy, look no further than Sweetwater, Texas.

Sweetwater was typical of many small towns in middle-America. With a shortage of good jobs, the youth of Sweetwater were leaving in search of greater opportunities. And the town's population dropped from 12,000 to under 10,000.

When a large wind power facility was built outside of town, Sweetwater experienced a revival. New economic opportunity brought the town back to life and the population has grown back up to 12,000.

In the Texas panhandle, just north of Sweetwater, is the town of Pampa, where T. Boone Pickens' Mesa Power is currently building the largest wind farm in the world.

At 4,000 megawatts â€" the equivalent combined output of four large coal-fire plants â€" the production of the completed Pampa facility will double the wind energy output of the United States.

In addition to creating new construction and maintenance jobs, thousands of Americans will be employed to manufacture the turbines and blades. These are high skill jobs that pay on a scale comparable to aerospace jobs.

Plus, wind turbines don't interfere with farming and grazing, so they don't threaten food production or existing local economies.
A cheap new replacement for foreign oil.

The Honda Civic GX Natural Gas Vehicle is the cleanest internal-combustion vehicle in the world according to the EPA.

Natural gas and bio-fuels are the only domestic energy sources used for transportation.
Cleaner

Natural gas is the cleanest transportation fuel available today.

According to the California Energy Commission, critical greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas are 23% lower than diesel and 30% lower than gasoline.

Natural gas vehicles (NGV) are already available and combine top performance with low emissions. The natural gas Honda Civic GX is rated as the cleanest production vehicle in the world.

According to NGVAmerica, there are more than 7 million NGVs in use worldwide, but only 150,000 of those are in the United States.

The EPA estimates that vehicles on the road account for 60% of carbon monoxide pollution and around one-third of hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions in the United States. As federal and state emissions laws become more stringent, many requirements will be unattainable with conventionally fueled vehicles.

Since natural gas is significantly cleaner than petroleum, NGVs are increasing in popularity. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach recently announced that 16,800 old diesel trucks will be replaced, and half of the new vehicles will run on alternatives such as natural gas.
Cheaper

Natural gas is significantly less expensive than gasoline or diesel. In places like Utah and Oklahoma, prices are less than $1 a gallon. To see fueling stations and costs in your area, check out cngprices.com.
Domestic

Natural gas is our country's second largest energy resource and a vital component of our energy supply. 98% of the natural gas used in the United States is from North America. But 70% of our oil is purchased from foreign nations.

Natural gas is one of the cleanest, safest and most useful forms of energy â€" residentially, commercially and industrially. The natural gas industry has existed in the United States for over 100 years and continues to grow.

Domestic natural gas reserves are twice that of petroleum. And new discoveries of natural gas and ongoing development of renewable biogas are continually adding to existing reserves.

While it is a cheap, effective and versatile fuel, less than 1% of natural gas is currently used for transportation.

QuoteThe Pickens Plan is a bridge to the future â€" a blueprint to reduce foreign oil dependence by harnessing domestic energy alternatives, and buy us time to develop even greater new technologies.

Quote from: Midway on July 24, 2008, 06:24:42 PM
RG, all of your responses are trash so far.

You are either being deliberately obtuse or just congenitally dense.

In any event, since it would appear you are living under a rock, here is Picken's plan from his website.

I don't necessarily endorse anything he proposes, but, he does talk about declining oil production, peak oil, the folly of trying to drill our way out of this problem, etc. As usual, everything he says contradicts your views, and I'm afraid that I'm going to have to go with him as an expert in the field of oil, because he just has more experience than you.

Let me be very plain here so you can understand without any ambiguity.... You, as usual are 100% incorrect. You as usual have endorsed the simplistic viewpoint proposed by the trinity of radio nitwittery. You as usual display a lack of even the most rudimentary understanding of the basic issues involved here.  Education was wasted on you, because you don't have the good sense to just be quiet when you obviously know nothing about a subject.

He disagrees with you on almost every point so don't come back being Mr. Circumspect. For every statement he makes, I can reprint one of your malformed posts displaying diametrical opposition. Go back to school and pass those science courses this time.

QuotePlease post a specific quote from Pickens stating that drilling now will not bring down oil prices.  I seriously doubt you will find one.  What Pickens is stating is that we need a long term solution that eliminates the need for oil.  I support this also.  Until this happens, we are stuck with oil.

Quote from: RiversideGator on July 26, 2008, 01:05:16 AM
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.   ;)

Quote from: JeffreyS on July 26, 2008, 11:30:28 AM
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.

Quote from: RiversideGator on July 26, 2008, 12:59:57 AM

Quote from: Midway on July 24, 2008, 06:24:42 PM
RG, all of your responses are trash so far.

You are either being deliberately obtuse or just congenitally dense.

In any event, since it would appear you are living under a rock, here is Picken's plan from his website.

I don't necessarily endorse anything he proposes, but, he does talk about declining oil production, peak oil, the folly of trying to drill our way out of this problem, etc. As usual, everything he says contradicts your views, and I'm afraid that I'm going to have to go with him as an expert in the field of oil, because he just has more experience than you.

Let me be very plain here so you can understand without any ambiguity.... You, as usual are 100% incorrect. You as usual have endorsed the simplistic viewpoint proposed by the trinity of radio nitwittery. You as usual display a lack of even the most rudimentary understanding of the basic issues involved here.  Education was wasted on you, because you don't have the good sense to just be quiet when you obviously know nothing about a subject.

He disagrees with you on almost every point so don't come back being Mr. Circumspect. For every statement he makes, I can reprint one of your malformed posts displaying diametrical opposition. Go back to school and pass those science courses this time.

I see you are still substituting personal attacks for facts and logic, midway.  I could insult you also but I really dont care to get into this with someone like you who is obviously just a bitter failure.  In any case, it accomplishes nothing to be rude and obnoxious since, if it did, you would be a billionaire already. 

Now, you posted the excerpt from Pickens' site which is similar to what I have read before.  However again you did not post any statement from Pickens which said that allowing additional oil drilling now would lower prices now.  Now go back and reread what I asked of you and then try again.  In fact, let me help you.  This is what I posted in this very thread:

QuotePlease post a specific quote from Pickens stating that drilling now will not bring down oil prices.  I seriously doubt you will find one.  What Pickens is stating is that we need a long term solution that eliminates the need for oil.  I support this also.  Until this happens, we are stuck with oil.

Quote from: Midway on July 26, 2008, 10:22:15 AM

Quote from: RiversideGator on July 26, 2008, 01:05:16 AM
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?

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

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

Quote
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.

Quote from: Midway on July 26, 2008, 11:51:28 AM

Quote from: JeffreyS on July 26, 2008, 11:30:28 AM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote from: RiversideGator on July 26, 2008, 03:27:27 PM

Quote from: Midway on July 26, 2008, 10:22:15 AM

Quote from: RiversideGator on July 26, 2008, 01:05:16 AM
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.   ;)

QuoteAnd 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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote from: RiversideGator on July 22, 2008, 02:13:06 PM
The real truth is liberals want high oil prices.

Quote from: Midway on July 26, 2008, 05:57:22 PM

Quote from: RiversideGator on July 26, 2008, 03:27:27 PM

Quote from: Midway on July 26, 2008, 10:22:15 AM

Quote from: RiversideGator on July 26, 2008, 01:05:16 AM
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.   ;)

QuoteAnd 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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

QuoteDrill, 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.

Quote from: stephendare on July 29, 2008, 05:09:48 PM
It made me feel  better.

QuoteAllow drilling and watch them fall even further.

Quote from: RiversideGator on July 29, 2008, 05:11:47 PM
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:

QuoteDrill, 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.

Quote from: thebrokenforum on July 29, 2008, 06:57:07 PM

QuoteAllow drilling and watch them fall even further.

Uh...no.

Quote from: Midway on July 29, 2008, 07:03:28 PM
The sun rose this morning and the price of oil dropped. therefore the sun rising makes the price of oil drop.

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

Quote
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.

Quote
Sincerely,
Your friends at
"The fact based community"

Quote from: stephendare on July 29, 2008, 11:48:51 PM
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.

QuoteStart 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.

Quote
Oil and the Feeble Greenback

07/29/2008

There are three reasons why oil prices have soared: the weak dollar, Iran and the booming global economy.

The big villain is the feeble greenback. Commodities like oil are priced in dollars. So when the dollar becomes weak, the dollar price of commodities goes up. And when the greenback is strong, the dollar price of commodities goes down.

In 2004 Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, made a fateful miscalculation. The maestro, as he was then affectionately called by an adoring media, miscalculated the strength of the U.S. economy. He thought it weak. He was fearful that prices would collapse in America as they did in Japan during the 1990s and the early part of this decade. So to goose the economy, Greenspan created excessive amounts of money. Interest rates were kept artificially low.

But the economy was not weak. In fact, between 2003 and the summer of 2007, the growth alone of the U.S. economy exceeded the entire size of the Chinese economy. In other words, we grew the equivalent of the economy of China in little more than four years. China’s growth rates are higher, but they’re coming off a much lower base.

Yet Greenspan made sure the Fed’s printing presses worked overtime. Thus for the first time since the 1970s and early 1980s, we are faced with a serious inflation problem. Thanks to Greenspan’s blunder, all commodities shot up -- oil, cooper, lumber, steel, even the price of mud.

While Greenspan begat the inflationary blunder, Ben Bernanke, the maestro’s successor, perpetuated it. In 2003 the price of oil was around $25 a barrel. A year ago when the credit crisis hit, oil was around $70. Then Bernanke ginned up the printing presses again, this time to deal with the fallout of the busts of sub prime mortgages and other exotic financial instruments and the threats they posed to the banking system. The U.S. economy has crawled to a virtual halt since August 2007 and yet the price of oil has almost doubled. That’s not supply and demand, that’s classic inflation.

Not since the days of Jimmy Carter has an administration been so passive about inflation as this one. So why isn’t President Bush doing something as Ronald Reagan did in circumstances far more difficult than those of today and promptly kill this inflation? Why doesn’t Mr. Bush understand that just as we need a strong military for national security, so too we need a strong dollar for economic strength and security?

Alas, President Bush’s Treasury Department actually likes a weak dollar. These bureaucrats think it helps our trade balance while ignoring the hundreds of billions of dollars more we pay for oil and the havoc that weak money wreaks on the domestic economy. Treasury Chief Henry Paulson is, unfortunately, a captive of this kind of “thinking.”

Another big factor in rising energy costs -- one that will become red hot after the November elections -- is Iran. The ruling murderous mullahs are hell-bent to get the Bomb and the means to deliver it. Israeli intelligence calculates Iran will cross the threshold in being able to create a nuclear weapon by the end of 2009. Iran recently conducted missile tests that demonstrate that it can deliver such a bomb to Israel not to mention all of Europe. Iran could also use a shipping platform to lob a weapon onto the U.S.

The U.S. has been engaged in fruitless diplomacy with Iran for almost four years. The Israelis feel the window of opportunity to destroy or seriously disrupt Iran’s nuclear ambitions is fast closing. Thus there is a very real possibility that if Barack Obama wins in November, the Israelis will take action before he is inaugurated on January 20. If McCain wins, the Jewish state will probably wait a few months longer to see what will unfold with his administration.

To get to energy: The possibility of a war against Iran has not escaped the oil markets. The futures price of oil spikes upward in early November. The market is thus betting that military action against Iran may well happen -- and that would, at least short term, seriously disrupt oil flows. This helps explain why the price of oil in terms of gold has moved up in recent months. Normally the ratio of oil/gold price is fairly constant.

The third reason people are paying so much at the gas pump -- and soon with their heating bills -- is the global boom which has increased substantially the demand for commodities, including oil. Most oil reserves are controlled by governments not private companies such as Exxon-Mobil. So the ramp up in supply to this increased demand is taking longer than it normally would. Another delaying factor here: The inexcusable unwillingness of Congress to permit exploration and drilling offshore and to do the same in all of ANWAR in Alaska. Tens of billions of barrels of oil and the equivalent amount of natural gas thus remain underground. This is truly a monumental self-inflected wound.

Bottom line: If the Fed ever got its act together and produced a stable dollar the price of oil would drop by at least $50 a barrel. If Iran ceased its nuclear bomb program, oil would drop another $40 a barrel. The remaining $20-$25 increase in oil since 2003 is your traditional supply and demand pressures of the marketplace.

Mr. Forbes is president and chief executive officer as well as Editor-in-Chief of Forbes magazine and author of "Flat Tax Revolution."

Quote from: Midway on August 02, 2008, 10:13:24 PM
Advise you to take Economics 101.

If you remember, 6 months ago I explained that because oil is denominated in dollars and the dollar is being devalued, the price of oil rises. You disagreed and blamed it on speculators.

Perhaps you have been reeducated?

Or maybe reality has changed?

Or you have just become more aware of it (reality)?

I guess you have just received a new set of talking points from the "boss".

I deal in supply and demand all day. Hungry obese citizens demand burgers, and I supply 'em. So I know all about it.

Ha Ha. Quoting Newt. LOL. Drill here, drill now another great follow up to the contract with America.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 03, 2008, 10:10:39 AM

Quote from: Midway on August 02, 2008, 10:13:24 PM
Advise you to take Economics 101.

If you remember, 6 months ago I explained that because oil is denominated in dollars and the dollar is being devalued, the price of oil rises. You disagreed and blamed it on speculators.

Perhaps you have been reeducated?

Or maybe reality has changed?

Or you have just become more aware of it (reality)?

I guess you have just received a new set of talking points from the "boss".

I deal in supply and demand all day. Hungry obese citizens demand burgers, and I supply 'em. So I know all about it.

Ha Ha. Quoting Newt. LOL. Drill here, drill now another great follow up to the contract with America.

Suppose you could only provide 50 hamburgers and 100 people showed up to order one... I suppose the price might go up...

Quote from: Midway on August 02, 2008, 10:13:24 PM
Advise you to take Economics 101.

If you remember, 6 months ago I explained that because oil is denominated in dollars and the dollar is being devalued, the price of oil rises. You disagreed and blamed it on speculators.

Perhaps you have been reeducated?

Or maybe reality has changed?

Or you have just become more aware of it (reality)?

I guess you have just received a new set of talking points from the "boss".

I deal in supply and demand all day. Hungry obese citizens demand burgers, and I supply 'em. So I know all about it.

Ha Ha. Quoting Newt. LOL. Drill here, drill now another great follow up to the contract with America.

Quote(http://bp2.blogger.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SI0h3o9ZxqI/AAAAAAAAFOw/zQLim1H7Ceg/s400/worldoil.bmp)

The chart above shows oil prices, net oil exports (data here) and world GDP, quarterly from 2002:Q1 to 2008:QII. The data for OECD world GDP and oil prices are from Global Financial Data (subscription required). Oil prices are on the right scale in $/bbl., and world GDP and net oil exports are on the left scale, both expressed as an index equal to 100 in 2002:QI.

The graph above was inspired by the CFTC report and graph of world GDP and oil production, featured on this CD post. I added oil prices and used net oil exports (from Net Oil Exports) instead of oil production.

Bottom Line: The graph shows that world GDP, net oil exports and oil prices were all increasing at about the same rate from 2002 to early 2006. Starting in about mid-2006, the three series started to diverge as world GDP continued to increase, but net oil exports started to decline. It was at that point of departure in 2006 between global output (GDP) and the global supply of oil that oil prices started to rise significantly (see shaded area).

Although the decline of the dollar and the increase in speculative activity might have played relatively minor roles in the run-up of oil prices, the main contributing factor to high oil prices over the last two years appears to be the supply-demand imbalance that started in mid-2006. With the significant increase in world output and the accompanying increase world demand for oil and energy interacting with a flat and/or falling world supply of oil, there was only one direction for oil prices to go. Up. Nothing mysterious, nothing nefarious, and nothing to do with speculators. Simple supply and demand. Period. In other words, Occam's razor.

Quote(http://bp2.blogger.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SIx4-orGE_I/AAAAAAAAFOY/Bw4JKZ8Zho0/s400/oil2.bmp)

(http://bp0.blogger.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SIx4-jGMWII/AAAAAAAAFOg/M83AngJoFvw/s400/oil1.bmp)

(http://bp2.blogger.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SIx2zUdzwZI/AAAAAAAAFOQ/eSnu7HqHoXk/s400/oilcurrencies.bmp)

Charts above are from the July 2008 Interim Report on Crude Oil, from the Interagency Task Force on Commodity Markets. From the Executive Summary:

The Task Force’s preliminary assessment is that current oil prices and the increase in oil prices between January 2003 and June 2008 are largely due to fundamental supply and demand factors. During this same period, activity on the crude oil futures market â€" as measured by the number of contracts outstanding, trading activity, and the number of traders â€" has increased significantly. While these increases broadly coincided with the run-up in crude oil prices, the Task Force’s preliminary analysis to date does not support the proposition that speculative activity has systematically driven changes in oil prices.

The world economy has expanded at its fastest pace in decades, and that strong growth has translated into substantial increases in the demand for oil, particularly from emerging market countries. On the supply side, the production of oil has responded sluggishly, compounded by production shortfalls associated with geopolitical unrest in countries with large oil reserves. As it is very difficult to rely on substitutes for oil in the short term, very large price increases have occurred as the market balances supply and demand (see top two charts above).

If a group of market participants has systematically driven prices, detailed daily position data should show that that group’s position changes preceded price changes. The Task Force’s preliminary analysis, based on the evidence available to date, suggests that changes in futures market participation by speculators have not systematically preceded price changes. On the contrary, most speculative traders typically alter their positions following price changes, suggesting that they are responding to new information â€" just as one would expect in an efficiently operating market.

From p. 14 of the report: The depreciation of the dollar since 2002 has contributed to the rise of the dollar price of oil, but can explain only a portion of the overall run-up. This point is also evident in the bottom chart above, which graphs the spot price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil in several currencies. Clearly, oil prices have risen sharply regardless of the currency of denomination. Moreover, from mid-March through June 2008, the dollar was stable, whereas oil prices increased appreciably.

MP: I think the top chart above says it all. Since 2002, world GDP increased by about 30% and world oil production increased by about 12%. Demand for oil increased significantly, oil supplies were tight, and oil prices rose significantly.

QuoteOffshore Drilling: Cleaner Than Mother Nature
Fear of oil spills is a poor Democratic excuse for energy poverty.

By Deroy Murdock

Painfully high vehicle- and jet-fuel prices are propelling popular demands for extracting the estimated 18 billion barrels of petroleum that rest beneath America’s coastal waters. After rescinding previous executive-branch objections, President Bush said on July 14, “the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress.” Capitol Hill Democrats claim offshore drilling poses unacceptable ecological risks. This is yet another overblown worry.

Democrats and other environmental naysayers cite the 80,000 barrels that spilled six miles off of Santa Barbara, California, inundating beaches and aquatic life. This hydrocarbon Hindenburg haunts the memories of those who witnessed it.

But this genuine catastrophe occurred in January, 1969 â€" nearly 40 years ago. That era’s drilling technology has gone the way of Flower Power and black-and-white TV. Innovation has boosted the safety and environmental reliability of offshore drilling.

Santa Barbara accelerated oil companies’ efforts to prevent such disasters. Beyond compliance with 17 major permits and 90 different federal regulations, offshore operators frequently conduct accident training and safety exercises. Sensors and other instruments now help platform personnel monitor and handle temperatures and pressures of subsea oil, even as drill bits whirl.

Hurricanes are manageable, since oil lines are capped not at the surface, but at or beneath the ocean floor. Even if oil platforms snapped loose and blew away, industrial seals restrain potentially destructive petroleum hundreds or even thousands of feet below the waves. Thus, 3,050 offshore structures endured Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in August and September, 2005 without environmentally damaging petroleum spills. While 168 platforms and 55 rigs were destroyed or seriously damaged, the oil they pumped remained safely entombed, thanks to heavy underwater machinery. As the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) concluded, “due to the prompt evacuation and shut-in preparations made by operating and service personnel, there was no loss of life and no major oil spills attributed to either storm.”

“The technology of the drilling industry may have improved, but offshore drilling is a dirty business, and it still leads to oil spills due to failed equipment, aberrant weather, or human error on a frequent basis,” Senator Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) said in July 19’s Houston Chronicle.

Feinstein is correct. U.S. offshore oil drilling is not perfectly tidy. It’s only 99.999 percent clean. Indeed, since 1980 â€" as MMS figures indicate â€" 101,997 barrels spilled from among the 11.855 billion barrels of American oil extracted offshore. This is a 0.001 percent pollution rate. While offshore drilling is not 100-percent spotless, this record should satisfy all but the terminally fastidious.

Ironically, in terms of oil contamination, Mother Nature is 95 times dirtier than man. Some 620,500 barrels of oil ooze organically from North America’s ocean floors each year. Compare this to the average 6,555 barrels that oil companies have spilled annually since 1998, according to MMS.

Thanks to the curvature of the Earth, these operations can stay out of sight. Rep. John Peterson (R., Penn.) proposes new drilling, but at least 50 miles offshore, well past the 12 miles beyond which the horizon hides oil equipment from the eyes of surfers and beachcombers. At 50 miles, moreover, spills that might occur would be as far from shore as Philadelphia is inland.

Critics also dismiss offshore development since its benefits supposedly would take ages.

“You wouldn’t see any full production out of any oil drilling off the coasts until 2030,” presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama claimed June 20 in Jacksonville, Florida. The Illinois senator added: “It will take a generation to reach full production.”

Currently mired in red tape, Chevron’s Destin Dome field off Florida could produce within four years. Southern California deposits could yield within five to ten years. Besides, as Confucius said: “The best time to plant a tree is 10 years ago. The second best time is now.”

America is like a vagrant who shakes a tin cup, pleads for change, and yet refuses to touch his $1 million trust fund. Before President Bush flies back to Saudi Arabia to beg sheiks to open their spigots, the United States should rely on our own offshore oil and gas. The fact we can do so more safely than ever leaves the Democratic Congress no excuse not to stand aside â€" now!

â€" Deroy Murdock is a New York-based columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution.

Quote from: RiversideGator on August 04, 2008, 01:03:39 AM
This excellent piece by Deroy Murdock demolishes the Democrats' arguments against offshore drilling:

QuoteBesides, as Confucius said: “The best time to plant a tree is 10 years ago. The second best time is now.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTA1MTBlMjdhMjM4NWU4NDczN2IxM2RkNGExNWRjMDM=&w=MQ==

Quote from: RiversideGator on August 04, 2008, 01:03:39 AM
This excellent piece by Deroy Murdock demolishes the Democrats' arguments against offshore drilling:

QuoteOffshore Drilling: Cleaner Than Mother Nature
Fear of oil spills is a poor Democratic excuse for energy poverty.

Thus, 3,050 offshore structures endured Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in August and September, 2005 without environmentally damaging petroleum spills. While 168 platforms and 55 rigs were destroyed or seriously damaged, the oil they pumped remained safely entombed, thanks to heavy underwater machinery.

QuoteSorry but just because you believe something does not make it true.

Quote from: stephendare on August 04, 2008, 01:40:50 PM

Quote from: RiversideGator on August 04, 2008, 12:46:40 PM
You have made conclusory statements that there were bad spills after Katrina but have never posted anything very persuasive.  Sorry but just because you believe something does not make it true.

pot.  let me introduce you to kettle........oh.   how stupid of me.
Pot.  Let me introduce you to pot.

Quote from: RiversideGator on August 04, 2008, 12:46:40 PM
You have made conclusory statements that there were bad spills after Katrina but have never posted anything very persuasive.  Sorry but just because you believe something does not make it true.

QuoteJust days after John McCain reversed himself on offshore drilling, ten senior Hess Corporation executives and Hess family members each plowed $28,500 into the RNC's committee to elect McCain president.

Quote from: Eazy E on August 04, 2008, 02:22:33 PM
Also, while we are all discussing it:

QuoteJust days after John McCain reversed himself on offshore drilling, ten senior Hess Corporation executives and Hess family members each plowed $28,500 into the RNC's committee to elect McCain president.

Soooooooo, all these rich Hess family members or executives just happened to all donate on the same day; furthermore they just happened to pick the day on which McCain was announcing positions favorable to oil companies.  Jesus, are people not sick of this obvious selling-off of our government, yet? I mean, seeing as having 8 years of an oil/energy beholden White House has gone so well for us so far, right?

Quote from: Doctor_K on August 04, 2008, 02:47:19 PM

Quote from: Eazy E on August 04, 2008, 02:22:33 PM
Also, while we are all discussing it:

QuoteJust days after John McCain reversed himself on offshore drilling, ten senior Hess Corporation executives and Hess family members each plowed $28,500 into the RNC's committee to elect McCain president.

Soooooooo, all these rich Hess family members or executives just happened to all donate on the same day; furthermore they just happened to pick the day on which McCain was announcing positions favorable to oil companies.  Jesus, are people not sick of this obvious selling-off of our government, yet? I mean, seeing as having 8 years of an oil/energy beholden White House has gone so well for us so far, right?

Maybe not 'just happened.'  But it's completely legal, and within the rules of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ("McCain-Feingold"):
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml#Contribution_Limits (http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml#Contribution_Limits)

How is that any different from supporters of Obama donating the legal limit to the DNC's election committee?
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search.php?cid=N00009638&name=%28all%29&employ=%28any+employer%29&state=%28all%29&zip=%28any+zip%29&submit=OK&amt=c&sort=A (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search.php?cid=N00009638&name=%28all%29&employ=%28any+employer%29&state=%28all%29&zip=%28any+zip%29&submit=OK&amt=c&sort=A)

The only difference I see between the two is the socio-political stigma attached to those affiliated with Big Oil versus those afiliated with Big Green.  Or Big Hollywood, as Chris Rock is also near the top of the list. 

(And before someone goes all nuts for me singling out Chris Rock, I'm not trying to imply anything whatsoever.  He's simply #12 on that donation list (as of 8/4).)

Bottom line:  Big Oil board members contributed to GOP.  So what?  Big Green investor contributed to the Democrats.  The so-called 'sell-off' is on both sides.

Quote from: stephendare on August 04, 2008, 02:51:22 PM

But in the case of the present day I think its more like the scandal that brewed with Senator Prescott Bush was caught financing Nazi's during the 40s.

Quote
But in the case of the present day I think its more like the scandal that brewed with Senator Prescott Bush was caught financing Nazi's during the 40s.

Quote
In 1924, Bush had been made a vice-president of A. Harriman & Co. ... Harriman Bank was the main Wall Street partner for several German companies and the varied U.S. financial interests of Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen had been an early financial backer of the Nazi party, but by 1939 was bitterly denouncing Hitler and had fled Germany. He was later jailed by the Nazis for his opposition to the Nazi regime.[5] Business transactions with Germany were not illegal until Hitler declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941...

Quote
Toby Rogers claimed that Bush's connections to Silesian businesses (with Thyssen and Flick) made him complicit with the slave labour mining operations in Poland out of Auschwitz. However given Thyssen fled Germany before Hitler invaded Poland and set up those mining operations it is very hard to see how this claim can be defended.
Some records in the National Archives, including the Harriman papers, document the continued relationship of Brown Brothers Harriman with the anti-Nazi German exile Thyssen and some of his German investments up until his 1951 death.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 04, 2008, 03:19:29 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 04, 2008, 02:51:22 PM

But in the case of the present day I think its more like the scandal that brewed with Senator Prescott Bush was caught financing Nazi's during the 40s.

Interesting reading... I assume many U.S. companies were caught in similar situations in the 1930s...  The article mentions the Kennedys as one of them also...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

Quote from: stephendare on August 04, 2008, 03:28:30 PM
great questions k.

why do you think that our present technologies arent good enough?

Quote
why do you think that our present technologies arent good enough?

Quote from: stephendare on August 04, 2008, 03:36:18 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 04, 2008, 03:34:25 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 04, 2008, 03:28:30 PM
great questions k.

why do you think that our present technologies arent good enough?

Because they cannot compete with oil yet.  Not in cost nor energy output nor reliability.

can you back that up?

can anyone?

And how is the replacement of oil any different that oil's replacement of steam and coal?

I cannot defend the idea that it can.  But I do know that at present I don't know.

Perhaps someone can enlighten.

Quote from: stephendare on August 04, 2008, 03:52:33 PM
TVA:

Rates and Charges
Tennessee Valley Electric Cooperative Schedule Of Rates
Effective April 1, 2008

Residential    Customer Charge    $14.50  KWH Charge @    $.08297

---------------------------------------------------

JEA**         Jacksonville, FL         114.26 kwh

QuoteBTW, in Ock's California photos, the oil wells are on the beach.  Of course there will be some minor oil spills which affect beach goers in such areas.  The point is that now the oil wells will be far off the coast and far less likely to result in any oil reaching shore.

Quote from: Eazy E on August 04, 2008, 02:03:59 PM

Quote from: RiversideGator on August 04, 2008, 12:46:40 PM
You have made conclusory statements that there were bad spills after Katrina but have never posted anything very persuasive.  Sorry but just because you believe something does not make it true.

Actually, guy, I sent you the Mineral Management Services report that stated "MMS also is releasing the following tally of hurricane-related oil/condensate/chemical spills in Federal offshore OCS waters as reported to MMS and the National Response Center. Six spills of 1,000 barrels or greater were reported; the largest of these was 3,625 barrels of condensate reported by the Gulf South Pipeline Company in the Eugene Island Block 51 area. A total of 146 spills of 1 barrel or greater have been reported in the Federal OCS waters; 37 of these were 50 barrels or greater."

http://www.mms.gov/ooc/press/2006/press0501.htm

Quote from: Eazy E on August 04, 2008, 02:22:33 PM
Also, while we are all discussing it:

QuoteJust days after John McCain reversed himself on offshore drilling, ten senior Hess Corporation executives and Hess family members each plowed $28,500 into the RNC's committee to elect McCain president.

Soooooooo, all these rich Hess family members or executives just happened to all donate on the same day; furthermore they just happened to pick the day on which McCain was announcing positions favorable to oil companies.  Jesus, are people not sick of this obvious selling-off of our government, yet? I mean, seeing as having 8 years of an oil/energy beholden White House has gone so well for us so far, right?

Quote from: stephendare on August 04, 2008, 02:51:22 PM
DR. K.

Normally I would totally agree with you.

But in the case of the present day I think its more like the scandal that brewed with Senator Prescott Bush was caught financing Nazi's during the 40s.

Quote from: stephendare on August 04, 2008, 03:36:18 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 04, 2008, 03:34:25 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 04, 2008, 03:28:30 PM
great questions k.

why do you think that our present technologies arent good enough?

Because they cannot compete with oil yet.  Not in cost nor energy output nor reliability.

can you back that up?

can anyone?

And how is the replacement of oil any different that oil's replacement of steam and coal?

I cannot defend the idea that it can.  But I do know that at present I don't know.

Perhaps someone can enlighten.

QuotePublished on Monday, July 19, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
The Ghost of Vice President Wallace Warns: "It Can Happen Here"
by Thom Hartmann


The Republican National Committee has recently removed from the top-level pages of their website an advertisement interspersing Hitler's face with those of John Kerry and other prominent Democrats. This little-heralded step has freed former Enron lobbyist and current RNC chairman Ed Gillespie to resume his attacks on Americans who believe some provisions of Bush's PATRIOT Act, his detention of American citizens without charges, his willingness to let corporations write legislation, and the so-called "Free Speech Zones" around his public appearances are all steps on the road to American fascism.

The RNC's feeble attempt to equate Hitler and Democrats was short-lived, but it brings to mind the first American Vice President to point out the "American fascists" among us.

Although most Americans remember that Harry Truman was Franklin D. Roosevelt's Vice President when Roosevelt died in 1945 (making Truman President), Roosevelt had two previous Vice Presidents - John N. Garner (1933-1941) and Henry A. Wallace (1941-1945). In early 1944, the New York Times asked Vice President Henry Wallace to, as Wallace noted, "write a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we? How dangerous are they?"

Vice President Wallace's answer to those questions was published in The New York Times on April 9, 1944, at the height of the war against the Axis powers of Germany and Japan.

"The really dangerous American fascists," Wallace wrote, "are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."

In this, Wallace was using the classic definition of the word "fascist" - the definition Mussolini had in mind when he claimed to have invented the word. (It was actually Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile who wrote the entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana that said: "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini, however, affixed his name to the entry, and claimed credit for it.)

As the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

Mussolini was quite straightforward about all this. In a 1923 pamphlet titled "The Doctrine of Fascism" he wrote, "If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government." But not a government of, by, and for We The People - instead, it would be a government of, by, and for the most powerful corporate interests in the nation.

In 1938, Mussolini brought his vision of fascism into full reality when he dissolved Parliament and replaced it with the "Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni" - the Chamber of the Fascist Corporations. Corporations were still privately owned, but now instead of having to sneak their money to folks like Tom DeLay and covertly write legislation, they were openly in charge of the government.

Vice President Wallace bluntly laid out in his 1944 Times article his concern about the same happening here in America:

    " If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. ... They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead."

Nonetheless, at that time there were few corporate heads who had run for political office, and, in Wallace's view, most politicians still felt it was their obligation to represent We The People instead of corporate cartels. "American fascism will not be really dangerous," he added in the next paragraph, "until there is a purposeful coalition among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information..."

Noting that, "Fascism is a worldwide disease," Wallace further suggest that fascism's "greatest threat to the United States will come after the war" and will manifest "within the United States itself."

In Sinclair Lewis's 1935 novel "It Can't Happen Here," a conservative southern politician is helped to the presidency by a nationally syndicated radio talk show host. The politician - Buzz Windrip - runs his campaign on family values, the flag, and patriotism. Windrip and the talk show host portray advocates of traditional American democracy as anti-American. When Windrip becomes President, he opens a Guantanamo-style detention center, and the viewpoint character of the book, Vermont newspaper editor Doremus Jessup, flees to Canada to avoid prosecution under new "patriotic" laws that make it illegal to criticize the President.

As Lewis noted in his novel, "the President, with something of his former good-humor [said]: 'There are two [political] parties, the Corporate and those who don't belong to any party at all, and so, to use a common phrase, are just out of luck!' The idea of the Corporate or Corporative State, Secretary [of State] Sarason had more or less taken from Italy." And, President "Windrip's partisans called themselves the Corporatists, or, familiarly, the 'Corpos,' which nickname was generally used."

Lewis, the first American writer to win a Nobel Prize, was world famous by 1944, as was his book "It Can't Happen Here." And several well-known and powerful Americans, including Prescott Bush, had lost businesses in the early 1940s because of charges by Roosevelt that they were doing business with Hitler. These events all, no doubt, colored Vice President Wallace's thinking when he wrote:

    " Still another danger is represented by those who, paying lip service to democracy and the common welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion. American fascists of this stamp were clandestinely aligned with their German counterparts before the war, and are even now preparing to resume where they left off, after 'the present unpleasantness' ceases."

Fascists have an agenda that is primarily economic. As the Free Dictionary (www.thefreedictionary.com) notes, fascism/corporatism is "an attempt to create a 'modern' version of feudalism by merging the 'corporate' interests with those of the state."

Feudalism, of course, is one of the most stable of the three historic tyrannies (kingdoms, theocracies, feudalism) that ruled nations prior to the rise of American republican democracy, and can be roughly defined as "rule by the rich."

Thus, the neo-feudal/fascistic rich get richer (and more powerful) on the backs of the poor and the middle class, an irony not lost on author Thomas Frank, who notes in his new book "What's The Matter With Kansas" that, "You can see the paradox first-hand on nearly any Main Street in middle America - 'going out of business' signs side by side with placards supporting George W. Bush."

The businesses "going out of business" are, in fascist administrations, usually those of locally owned small and medium-sized companies. As Wallace wrote, some in big business "are willing to jeopardize the structure of American liberty to gain some temporary advantage." He added, "Monopolists who fear competition and who distrust democracy because it stands for equal opportunity would like to secure their position against small and energetic enterprise [companies]. In an effort to eliminate the possibility of any rival growing up, some monopolists would sacrifice democracy itself."

But American fascists who would want former CEOs as President, Vice President, House Majority Whip, and Senate Majority Leader, and write legislation with corporate interests in mind, don't generally talk to We The People about their real agenda, or the harm it does to small businesses and working people. Instead, as Hitler did with the trade union leaders and the Jews, they point to a "them" to pin with blame and distract people from the harms of their economic policies.

In a comment prescient of George W. Bush's recent suggestion that civilization itself is at risk because of gays, Wallace continued:

    " The symptoms of fascist thinking are colored by environment and adapted to immediate circumstances. But always and everywhere they can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power. It is no coincidence that the growth of modern tyrants has in every case been heralded by the growth of prejudice. It may be shocking to some people in this country to realize that, without meaning to do so, they hold views in common with Hitler when they preach discrimination..."

But even at this, Wallace noted, American fascists would have to lie to the people in order to gain power. And, because they were in bed with the nation's largest corporations - who could gain control of newspapers and broadcast media - they could promote their lies with ease.

"The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact," Wallace wrote. "Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism. They use every opportunity to impugn democracy."

In his strongest indictment of the tide of fascism the Vice President of the United States saw rising in America, he added, "They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection."

Finally, Wallace said, "The myth of fascist efficiency has deluded many people. ... Democracy, to crush fascism internally, must...develop the ability to keep people fully employed and at the same time balance the budget. It must put human beings first and dollars second. It must appeal to reason and decency and not to violence and deceit. We must not tolerate oppressive government or industrial oligarchy in the form of monopolies and cartels."

This liberal vision of an egalitarian America in which very large businesses and media monopolies are broken up under the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act (which Reagan stopped enforcing, leading to the mergers & acquisitions frenzy that continues to this day) was the driving vision of the New Deal (and of "Trust Buster" Teddy Roosevelt a generation earlier).

As Wallace's President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, said when he accepted his party's renomination in 1936 in Philadelphia, "...out of this modern civilization, economic royalists [have] carved new dynasties.... It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction.... And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man...."

Speaking indirectly of the fascists that Wallace would directly name almost a decade later, Roosevelt brought the issue to its core: "These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power."

But, he thundered in that speech, "Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power!"

In 2004, we again stand at the same crossroad Roosevelt and Wallace confronted during the Great Depression and World War II. Fascism is again rising in America, this time calling itself "compassionate conservatism." The RNC's behavior today eerily parallels the day in 1936 when Roosevelt said, "In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for."

It's particularly ironic that the CEOs and lobbyists who run the Republican National Committee would have chosen to put Hitler's fascist face into one of their campaign commercials, just before they launched a national campaign against gays and while they continue to arrest people who wear anti-Bush T-shirts in public places.

President Roosevelt and Vice President Wallace's warnings have come full circle. Which is why it's so critical that this November we join together at the ballot box to stop this most recent incarnation of feudal fascism from seizing complete control of our nation.

Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk radio show. www.thomhartmann.com. His most recent books are "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," and "We The People: A Call To Take Back America." His new book, "What Would Jefferson Do?: A Return To Democracy," based on four years of research in Jefferson's personal letters, begins shipping this week from Random House/Harmony.

Quote from: Midway on August 04, 2008, 04:46:55 PM
Not a "total falsehood" and you have proved nothing.

QuoteThom Hartmann (born May 7, 1951) is an American radio host, author, and liberal political commentator. His nationally-syndicated radio show, The Thom Hartmann Program, airs throughout the United States on Air America Radio and has over 1.5 million unique listeners every week.[1] He is a lay scholar of the history and textual analysis of the United States Constitution, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD), electronic voting fraud, and environmental issues like global warming. Hartmann's original article "Talking Back To Talk Radio" became part of the original business plan of Air America Radio. He replaced Al Franken on the network on February 19, 2007.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 04, 2008, 05:03:41 PM
Cmon... :D  Thom Hartmann  :D  It is like RG quoting Limbaugh... :D


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thom HartmannThom Hartmann (born May 7, 1951) is an American radio host, author, and liberal political commentator. His nationally-syndicated radio show, The Thom Hartmann Program, airs throughout the United States on Air America Radio and has over 1.5 million unique listeners every week.[1] He is a lay scholar of the history and textual analysis of the United States Constitution, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD), electronic voting fraud, and environmental issues like global warming. Hartmann's original article "Talking Back To Talk Radio" became part of the original business plan of Air America Radio. He replaced Al Franken on the network on February 19, 2007.

Quote from: RiversideGator on August 04, 2008, 05:12:31 PM

Quote from: Midway on August 04, 2008, 04:46:55 PM
Not a "total falsehood" and you have proved nothing.

I'm sorry but the article you posted says nothing about Bush's grandfather and the Nazis.  And, are you such an incredible poor judge of character than you find Thom Hartmann to be authoritative on this or any other issue??

QuoteThom Hartmann (born May 7, 1951) is an American radio host, author, and liberal political commentator. His nationally-syndicated radio show, The Thom Hartmann Program, airs throughout the United States on Air America Radio and has over 1.5 million unique listeners every week.[1] He is a lay scholar of the history and textual analysis of the United States Constitution, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD), electronic voting fraud, and environmental issues like global warming. Hartmann's original article "Talking Back To Talk Radio" became part of the original business plan of Air America Radio. He replaced Al Franken on the network on February 19, 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thom_Hartmann

Quote from: stephendare on August 04, 2008, 06:02:58 PM
River. Im sorry, you have clearly come back from some time in the future, in a reality that hasnt happened yet and don't realize the time slip.

Apparently in this 'future' of yours, you 'debunk' the historical record of Prescott's treachery against both the US and its duly elected president 'many times'.

Quote from: stephendare on August 04, 2008, 06:07:31 PM

Quote from: RiversideGator on August 04, 2008, 04:32:00 PM

Quote from: Eazy E on August 04, 2008, 02:22:33 PM
Also, while we are all discussing it:

QuoteJust days after John McCain reversed himself on offshore drilling, ten senior Hess Corporation executives and Hess family members each plowed $28,500 into the RNC's committee to elect McCain president.

Soooooooo, all these rich Hess family members or executives just happened to all donate on the same day; furthermore they just happened to pick the day on which McCain was announcing positions favorable to oil companies.  Jesus, are people not sick of this obvious selling-off of our government, yet? I mean, seeing as having 8 years of an oil/energy beholden White House has gone so well for us so far, right?

Are you arguing that people who work for the oil companies should not have the same rights to donate to political candidates that environmentalists (and everyone else) do?

River, just to guarantee that you wont post on this thread again, would you like to share with us what your definition of 'corruption' and 'influence peddling' is?

Just curious.

Your answer will say a whole lot about why your fellow radical republicans couldnt see Abramoff or Delay coming.

Quote from: stephendare on August 04, 2008, 10:58:19 PM
Um.  why are we discussing drilling in the nature preserves rather than simply doing this?

Wouldnt this actually drop the prices immediately?

Quote from: Midway on August 04, 2008, 06:25:53 PM
And sorry, there's no parallel between Hartmann and Limbaugh, none at all.

QuoteAnd try to find a citation where the word "scholar' and Limbaugh appear on the same page.

Quote from: stephendare on August 04, 2008, 11:49:08 PM
Thanks for the definition of a political contribution.   Its very deft.   However I was asking about your definition of 'corruption' and 'influence peddling'.

Perhaps you would care to define 'eggplant' instead? :D

Quote from: stephendare on August 04, 2008, 11:41:25 PM

Quote from: RiversideGator on August 04, 2008, 11:40:35 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 04, 2008, 06:02:58 PM
River. Im sorry, you have clearly come back from some time in the future, in a reality that hasnt happened yet and don't realize the time slip.

Apparently in this 'future' of yours, you 'debunk' the historical record of Prescott's treachery against both the US and its duly elected president 'many times'.

Let's see.  You claimed that "Senator Prescott Bush was caught financing Nazi's during the 40s".  You and I both know that this is patently false.  But, since it is your claim, please post ANY evidence from a legitimate source to substantiate your contention.  I dare you.   ;)

Dare is my middle name baby.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

References include sources no less reputable than the United States National Archives.

Plus it also explores the various weaknesses and shortcomings of each of the witnesses, biographers and investigators.  In all a convincing and thorough article.

QuoteWhile there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade.

QuoteThe Anti-Defamation League in the US is supportive of Prescott Bush and the Bush family. In a statement last year they said that "rumours about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush ... have circulated widely through the internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated ... Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathiser."

Quote from: stephendare on August 05, 2008, 12:00:49 AM

QuoteGlad to see you making one of the most illogical of liberal arguments.   Cheesy

First, libs say that supply and demand imbalances do not lead to higher prices.  Then, when they realize that 75% of Americans favor additional drilling in the US to bring down prices (which anyone with a rudimentary understanding of economics knows is true), they float the idea that we should instead release oil from the strategic petroleum reserve.  Well, the obvious answer to this is that releasing oil from the SPR would have some small effect on prices but it would not have nearly the effect of allowing more drilling since it is a finite source of oil as opposed to the far larger sources available through expanded drilling.  Also, there is the small issue that this oil is set aside by the government for use in case of dire emergency, such as a war, and it probably should not be used to tinker with the market on a short term basis.

asking a question and making an argument are still not the same thing.

Your answer sounds speculative in the extreme and certainly doesnt make the original point seem any less logical.

I think the winds are changing frankly.  Its time to stop using oil as our primary energy.  What good are all those reserves going to do in a world powered by wind, solar and nuclear energy?

Get rid of them, teach the OPEC bastards a lesson, and be done with it while we retool our industrial base and put an end to the age of petro.

Quote from: stephendare on August 05, 2008, 12:01:43 AM

Quote from: RiversideGator on August 04, 2008, 11:59:16 PM

Quote from: Midway on August 04, 2008, 06:25:53 PM
And sorry, there's no parallel between Hartmann and Limbaugh, none at all.

Agreed.  Limbaugh has some 20 million listeners.  Hartmann has 20 listeners.   :D

QuoteAnd try to find a citation where the word "scholar' and Limbaugh appear on the same page.

The entry on wikipedia says of Hartmann:  "He is a lay scholar of the history and textual analysis of the United States Constitution, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD), electronic voting fraud, and environmental issues like global warming."

Wow.  It sure sounds like this man is highly educated.  It does at least if you dont know that a "lay scholar" is someone who is self-taught with no actual academic credentials.   ;)

like Adam Smith. The author of Wealth of Nations, for example?

Quote from: stephendare on August 05, 2008, 12:03:34 AM

Quote from: RiversideGator on August 05, 2008, 12:01:16 AM

Quote from: stephendare on August 04, 2008, 11:49:08 PM
Thanks for the definition of a political contribution.   Its very deft.   However I was asking about your definition of 'corruption' and 'influence peddling'.

Perhaps you would care to define 'eggplant' instead? :D

I rejected your question and its premise.  Hence the answer you see.

(laughing at your disengenuousness and folly) somehow I suspected such would be the case.


Continue on with the string of false nonsequitors you are no doubt unloading into the fox noise machine rapid fire disseminator.

Quote from: stephendare on August 05, 2008, 12:27:11 AM
Adam Smith had Two degrees at the time he wrote Wealth of Nations, Moral Philosophy and Jurisprudence.

He did not have a degree in Economics or any other related field.

In fact, to claim otherwise would be an act of lunacy since his work is considered the founding document of the study of Economics.

In otherwords, he was a self taught, Lay expert.

really sometimes your points are quite ludicrous.

Quote from: stephendare on August 05, 2008, 12:27:54 AM

Quote from: RiversideGator on August 05, 2008, 12:23:04 AM
Bush's firm had business in Germany.  One of their associates in Germany (i.e. a German) was an early supporter of Hitler in the 1930s (although he had a falling out with the Nazis by the end of the 1930s).  Bush was not a Nazi in any way.  Bush did not finance Hitler.

Incorrect.  I suggest you try reading the article again.

Quote from: stephendare on August 05, 2008, 12:30:39 AM

QuoteTranslation:  I have been bested again by the facts and logical argument you posted but rather than conceding I will accuse you of parroting Fox News.   Cheesy

???

Your refusal to answer a simply understood question, and in fact to simply evade it at all does not constitute a 'besting' in any way that wouldnt get an 8 year old boy severely paddled and sent to bed without supper.

Quote from: stephendare on August 05, 2008, 12:20:12 AM
Cherry picking comments as a summation of the article is misleading at best.

To read your little list, one would leave with the impression that all financial backing and activity ceased with the declaration of war, which the article makes clear is not the case.

Additionally, the claim that you asked to be proved was that Bush helped fund the Nazi's.

By your own admission he did, but at first that it wasnt illegal.

Which is not the same as 'debunking' the statement that he funded them.

As in the case of the moneys flowing into the hands of congressional supporters of Big Oil, regardless of the legality, its morally wrong and even in the 30s people knew better.

So I will take it that you concede the point and will stop these ridiculous claims of 'debunking'.

And as I said, the article itself points out the strengths and weaknesses of the individuals involved in the investigations.

QuoteDocuments: Bush's Grandfather Directed Bank Tied to Man Who Funded Hitler

Friday, October 17, 2003

WASHINGTON â€"  President Bush's grandfather was a director of a bank seized by the federal government because of its ties to a German industrialist who helped bankroll Adolf Hitler's rise to power, government documents show.

Prescott Bush was one of seven directors of Union Banking Corp., a New York investment bank owned by a bank controlled by the Thyssen family, according to recently declassified National Archives documents reviewed by The Associated Press.

Fritz Thyssen was an early financial supporter of Hitler, whose Nazi party Thyssen believed was preferable to communism. The documents do not show any evidence Bush directly aided that effort. His position with Union Banking never was a political issue for Bush, who was elected to the Senate from Connecticut in 1952.

Reports of Bush's involvement with the seized bank have been circulating on the Internet for years and have been reported by some mainstream media. The newly declassified documents provide additional details about the Union Banking-Thyssen connection.

Trent Duffy, a spokesman for President Bush, declined to comment.

Union Banking was owned by a Dutch bank, Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaardt N.V., which was "closely affiliated" with the German conglomerate United Steel Works, according to an Oct. 5, 1942, report from the federal Office of Alien Property Custodian. The Dutch bank and the steel firm were part of the business and financial empire of Thyssen and his brother, Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza, the report said.

The 4,000 Union Banking shares owned by the Dutch bank were registered in the names of the seven U.S. directors, according a document signed by Homer Jones, chief of the division of investigation and research of the Office of Alien Property Custodian, a World War II-era agency that no longer exists.

E. Roland Harriman, the bank chairman and brother of former New York Gov. W. Averell Harriman (search), held 3,991 shares. Bush had one share.

Both Harrimans and Bush were partners in the New York investment firm of Brown Brothers, Harriman and Co., which handled the financial transactions of the bank as well as other financial dealings with several other companies linked to Bank voor Handel that were confiscated by the U.S. government during World War II.

Union Banking was seized by the government in October 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act (search).

No charges were brought against Union Banking's American directors. The federal government was too busy trying to fight the war, said Donald Goldstein, a professor of public and international affairs at the University of Pittsburgh.

"We did not have the resources to do these things," Goldstein said.

Fritz Thyssen broke with the Nazis in 1938 over their persecution of Catholics and Jews, and fled to Switzerland. He later was arrested and spent 1941 to 1945 in a Nazi prison. His brother lived in Switzerland from 1932 to 1947 but continued to operate businesses in Germany.

The new documents were first reported by freelance writer John Buchanan in The New Hampshire Gazette.

Quote from: Midway on July 23, 2008, 06:30:32 PM

Quote from: RiversideGator on July 22, 2008, 10:57:53 AM
Eazy:  You are totally wrong.  Drilling more will reduce prices in the short run.  The experts do not agree with you.  Only the left wing bloggers agree with you.

Mr. swiftboat himself (T. Boone Pickens) disagrees with you.

But then what does he know about the oil business anyway?

You make post after post claiming that whoever disagrees with your "dittohead" opinions knows nothing and is wrong.

Ha!

I guess you want to drill for more oil to bring the price down on the global market so that more Chinese can own autos and fuel them at a lower cost?

Or maybe you want to sever the connection between the global price of oil and our domestic oil so that Exxon can sell us domestically produced oil for 40% under global market prices? OK, I'm sure they will go for that.

Quote from: RiversideGator on August 05, 2008, 11:38:18 AM

Quote from: Midway on July 23, 2008, 06:30:32 PM

Quote from: RiversideGator on July 22, 2008, 10:57:53 AM
Eazy:  You are totally wrong.  Drilling more will reduce prices in the short run.  The experts do not agree with you.  Only the left wing bloggers agree with you.

Mr. swiftboat himself (T. Boone Pickens) disagrees with you.

But then what does he know about the oil business anyway?

You make post after post claiming that whoever disagrees with your "dittohead" opinions knows nothing and is wrong.

Ha!

I guess you want to drill for more oil to bring the price down on the global market so that more Chinese can own autos and fuel them at a lower cost?

Or maybe you want to sever the connection between the global price of oil and our domestic oil so that Exxon can sell us domestically produced oil for 40% under global market prices? OK, I'm sure they will go for that.

Pickens went on to state that he favored all oil drilling in America, including in ANWR and offshore.  He is simply opposed to importing so much foreign oil for national security reasons (it is unwise to rely on foreigners for key natural resources) and for economic reasons (it is unwise to send so many US dollars overseas to purchase oil).  Therefore, Pickens stated that he supports the diversification of energy in America in that he wants to see solar and wind used more for power generation and natural gas used for cars.  He stated that we will still need oil for jets and trucks no matter what.  He also favors battery powered vehicles when they become available.  All of this energy diversification will have the effect of lowering energy prices and of reducing our trade deficit, he said.  So, since midway has earlier established Pickens as an expert on all matters oil and energy, we must deem Picken's opinion true.  Thanks midway.   ;)

BTW, you can get the podcast here:  http://www.lauraingraham.com/

Quote from: RiversideGator on August 05, 2008, 11:38:18 AM

Quote from: Midway on July 23, 2008, 06:30:32 PM

Quote from: RiversideGator on July 22, 2008, 10:57:53 AM
Eazy:  You are totally wrong.  Drilling more will reduce prices in the short run.  The experts do not agree with you.  Only the left wing bloggers agree with you.

Mr. swiftboat himself (T. Boone Pickens) disagrees with you.

But then what does he know about the oil business anyway?

You make post after post claiming that whoever disagrees with your "dittohead" opinions knows nothing and is wrong.

Ha!

I guess you want to drill for more oil to bring the price down on the global market so that more Chinese can own autos and fuel them at a lower cost?

Or maybe you want to sever the connection between the global price of oil and our domestic oil so that Exxon can sell us domestically produced oil for 40% under global market prices? OK, I'm sure they will go for that.

Funny that midway relied on Pickens to make his case earlier.  Turns out what he said about Pickens was not exactly accurate.  By chance, I heard an interview with Pickens on the radio this morning.  He clearly stated that he was upset that the Democrats and Obama has distorted what he had said.  Pickens went on to state that he favored all oil drilling in America, including in ANWR and offshore.  He is simply opposed to importing so much foreign oil for national security reasons (it is unwise to rely on foreigners for key natural resources) and for economic reasons (it is unwise to send so many US dollars overseas to purchase oil).  Therefore, Pickens stated that he supports the diversification of energy in America in that he wants to see solar and wind used more for power generation and natural gas used for cars.  He stated that we will still need oil for jets and trucks no matter what.  He also favors battery powered vehicles when they become available.  All of this energy diversification will have the effect of lowering energy prices and of reducing our trade deficit, he said.  So, since midway has earlier established Pickens as an expert on all matters oil and energy, we must deem Picken's opinion true.  Thanks midway.   ;)

BTW, you can get the podcast here:  http://www.lauraingraham.com/

Quote from: RiversideGator on August 06, 2008, 12:14:13 AM
1)  You used Pickens as "proof" that permitting oil drilling in future would not bring oil prices down now.  This is clearly not what he said.  You have been called on it.
2)  I never said Pickens appeared on any such TV show.  I heard him on the radio.
3)  I am in favor of cheap energy and high standards of living yesterday, today and tomorrow.  No change of opinion here, my friend.
4)  In some distant time when solar and wind can substitute for oil, natural gas and nuclear on an equal basis, I will be open to them.  Until then, let's drill and go nuclear.   ;)

Quote from: RiversideGator on August 06, 2008, 05:47:32 PM
BTW, here is Obama's plan to bring lower fuel prices to Americans:

(http://www.drudgereport.com/tg.jpg)

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 06, 2008, 07:38:24 AM
I said I saw and heard Pickens on Face or Meet... Could have been some other sunday news interview. Cannot find it but it does not matter...  I know what I heard.  The difference between T Boone and you Midway is he is putting his money where his mouth is.  He is investing BILLIONS for a wind farm in Texas... He fully expects to make a profit from it.  Feel free to put solar panels and a wind mill on your house Midway... I encourage it.  I believe what you will find however is that it DOES NOT MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE to do so at the Midway household.  For years I have waited... and waited for solar to make ECONOMIC SENSE so I could tap into this free and clean energy.  I am still waiting because at this time it STILL CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED by my houshold.  But please feel free to install at your house.  When you are up and running let me know and I will come over, shake your hand, buy you a beer, and gaze in awe at your solar array or windmill.  Every American should take a serious look at solar and wind... I encourage and believe in it... It will surely happen when alternatives come down in price or traditionals raise enough for alternatives to compete.

Until that blessed day comes we are reliant on coal and oil... for the forseeable future.  The pro drillers are simply saying that to reduce our dependance on foriegn oil and help bring down the price... Drilling our own natural resources is only common sense...

Quote from: RiversideGator on August 06, 2008, 05:45:39 PM
Translation:  You just nailed me and I have no answer to what you said but I am too proud to admit it.

Quote from: Midway on August 06, 2008, 07:05:18 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 06, 2008, 07:38:24 AM
I said I saw and heard Pickens on Face or Meet... Could have been some other sunday news interview. Cannot find it but it does not matter...  I know what I heard.  The difference between T Boone and you Midway is he is putting his money where his mouth is.  He is investing BILLIONS for a wind farm in Texas... He fully expects to make a profit from it.  Feel free to put solar panels and a wind mill on your house Midway... I encourage it.  I believe what you will find however is that it DOES NOT MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE to do so at the Midway household.  For years I have waited... and waited for solar to make ECONOMIC SENSE so I could tap into this free and clean energy.  I am still waiting because at this time it STILL CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED by my houshold.  But please feel free to install at your house.  When you are up and running let me know and I will come over, shake your hand, buy you a beer, and gaze in awe at your solar array or windmill.  Every American should take a serious look at solar and wind... I encourage and believe in it... It will surely happen when alternatives come down in price or traditionals raise enough for alternatives to compete.

Until that blessed day comes we are reliant on coal and oil... for the forseeable future.  The pro drillers are simply saying that to reduce our dependance on foriegn oil and help bring down the price... Drilling our own natural resources is only common sense...

Um..  as I recall, you excoriated some poor fellow the other day because he misspelled HK's name, and therefore you discounted everything else on that clip.

That having been said, how would you even know what Pickens said if you can't so much as remember where you heard it? Why should anyone attach any credence to your assertion?

Maybe it was just a dream?

Who knows?

Quote from: stephendare on August 06, 2008, 09:20:37 PM
are you serious that the only people who are even half way denying the bush story is fox?

QuoteBoth Harrimans and Bush were partners in the New York investment firm of Brown Brothers, Harriman and Co., which handled the financial transactions of the bank as well as other financial dealings with several other companies linked to Bank voor Handel that were confiscated by the U.S. government during World War II.

Union Banking was seized by the government in October 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act

Quote

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT (“TWEA”)
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 50. WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
TITLE 50 APPENDIX -- WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT OF 1917
ACT OCT. 6, 1917, CH 106, 40 STAT. 411

Sec. 5. Suspension of provisions relating to ally of enemy; regulation of transactions in foreign
exchange of gold or silver, property transfers, vested interests, enforcement and penalties
(b) (1) During the time of war, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, and
under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or
otherwise--
(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit
or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, and the importing, exporting,
hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion, currency or securities, and
(B) investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition
holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of,
or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions
involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest,
by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;
and any property or interest of any foreign country or national thereof shall vest, when, as,
and upon the terms, directed by the President, in such agency or person as may be designated
from time to time by the President, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may
prescribe such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or
otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such
designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or
furtherance of these purposes; and the President shall, in the manner hereinabove provided,
require any person to keep a full record of, and to furnish under oath, in the form of reports
or otherwise, complete information relative to any act or transaction referred to in this
subdivision either before, during, or after the completion thereof, or relative to any interest
in foreign property, or relative to any property in which any foreign country or any national
thereof has or has had any interest, or as may be otherwise necessary to enforce the provisions
of this subdivision, and in any case in which a report could be required, the President may, in
the manner hereinabove provided, require the production, or if necessary to the national
security or defense, the seizure, of any books of account, records, contracts, letters,
memoranda, or other papers, in the custody or control of such person.
(2) Any payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery of property or interest therein, made
to or for the account of the United States, or as otherwise directed, pursuant to this subdivision or
any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder shall to the extent thereof be a full
acquittance and discharge for all purposes of the obligation of the person making the same; and no
person shall be held liable in any court for or in respect to anything done or omitted in good faith in
connection with the administration of, or in pursuance of and in reliance on, this subdivision, or any
rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued hereunder.
(3) As used in this subdivision the term "United States" means the United States and any place subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, [including the Philippine Islands, and the several courts of first instance
of the Commonwealth of the Philippine Islands shall have jurisdiction in all cases, civil or criminal,
arising under this subdivision in the Philippine Islands and concurrent jurisdiction with the district
courts of the United States of all cases, civil or criminal, arising upon the high seas]: Provided,
however, That the foregoing shall not be construed as a limitation upon the power of the President,
which is hereby conferred, to prescribe from time to time, definitions, not inconsistent with the
purposes of this subdivision, for any or all of the terms used in this subdivision. As used in this
section the term "person" means an individual, partnership, association, or corporation.
(4) The authority granted to the President by this section does not include the authority to regulate
or prohibit, directly or indirectly, the importation from any country, or the exportation to any country,
whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission, of any information
or informational materials, including but not limited to, publications, films, posters, phonograph
records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news
wire feeds. The exports exempted from regulation or prohibition by this paragraph do not include
those which are otherwise controlled for export under section 5 of the Export Administration Act of
1979 [50 USCS Appx. @ 2404], or under section 6 of that Act [50 USCS Appx. @ 2405] to the
extent that such controls promote the nonproliferation or antiterrorism policies of the United States,
or with respect to which acts are prohibited by chapter 37 of title 18, United States Code [ <=1> 18
USCS @@ 791 et seq.].
Sec. 16. Offenses; punishment; forfeitures of property
(a) Whoever shall willfully violate any of the provisions of this Act or of any license, rule, or
regulation issued thereunder, and whoever shall willfully violate, neglect, or refuse to comply with
any order of the President issued in compliance with the provisions of the Act shall, upon conviction,
be fined not more than $ 1,000,000, or if a natural person, be fined not more than $ 100,000, or
imprisoned for not more than ten years or both; and the officer, director, or agent of any corporation
who knowingly participates in such violation shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $ 100,000
or imprisoned for not more than ten years or both.
(b)(1) A civil penalty of not to exceed $ 50,000 may be imposed by the Secretary of the Treasury on
any person who violates any license, order, rule, or regulation issued in compliance with the
provisions of this Act.
(2) Any property, funds, securities, papers, or other articles or documents, or any vessel, together
with its tackle, apparel, furniture, and equipment, that is the subject of a violation under paragraph
(1) shall, at the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, be forfeited to the United States
Government.
(3) The penalties provided under this subsection may be imposed only on the record after opportunity
for an agency hearing in accordance with sections 554 through 557 of title 5, United States Code,
with the right to prehearing discovery.
(4) Judicial review of any penalty imposed under this subsection may be had to the extent provided
in section 702 of title 5, United States Code.
(c) Upon conviction, any property, funds, securities, papers, or other articles or documents, or any
vessel, together with tackle, apparel, furniture, and equipment, concerned in any violation of
subsection (a) may be forfeited to the United States

Quote from: Midway on August 06, 2008, 09:25:46 PM
Riverside gator as a boy:

(http://action.credomobile.com/TMW11-07-07colorlowres.jpg)

Quote from: Midway on August 06, 2008, 09:55:04 PM
Uh Oh... Prescott is lucky he didn't wind up in the slammer....Can't remember though...was WWII a declared war? I think I heard something about that on some TV show somewhere...I wonder if there was any tackle?

Quote from: stephendare on August 06, 2008, 10:19:32 PM
Well Midway, River posted the FOX story as a thorough and complete debunking of the whole funding the nazi's affair.

QuoteI dont know how this thread went from oil drilling to Prescott Bush's alleged ties to the Nazis.  However, new documents have been declassified which show that he had a minimal involvement based on him being a partner at Brown Harriman.  It appears to have been a pro forma arrangement only rather than an active business relationship.  Here is the story (Fox News) on it

QuoteWhy he did this, I don't know, as he had already earlier conceded the point that Bush was quite rightly described as having funded the nazi's, but with the proviso that when he first started doing it, it wasnt illegal.  He was curiously silent on the funding and money management AFTER it was illegal, but I felt sure that if he was willing to take baby steps towards reality, then I could accomodate him by pretending not to notice that his reality antennas were still deliberately turned down to minimum reception.

Quote from: stephendare on August 06, 2008, 11:24:30 PM

Quote from: RiversideGator on August 06, 2008, 11:22:16 PM

Quote from: Midway on August 06, 2008, 09:55:04 PM
Uh Oh... Prescott is lucky he didn't wind up in the slammer....Can't remember though...was WWII a declared war? I think I heard something about that on some TV show somewhere...I wonder if there was any tackle?

Perhaps the reason why Prescott Bush was never prosecuted was because he was not guilty of any crime.  Did that answer ever occur to you, midway?

I bet it was just like that Scooter Libby Trial.

Or the Impeachment of George Bush...

Obviously when people break the laws, we immediately prosecute them, and never do anything at all for political reasons.

QuoteUnion Banking was owned by a Dutch bank, Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaardt N.V., which was "closely affiliated" with the German conglomerate United Steel Works, according to an Oct. 5, 1942, report from the federal Office of Alien Property Custodian. The Dutch bank and the steel firm were part of the business and financial empire of Thyssen and his brother, Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza, the report said.

The 4,000 Union Banking shares owned by the Dutch bank were registered in the names of the seven U.S. directors, according a document signed by Homer Jones, chief of the division of investigation and research of the Office of Alien Property Custodian, a World War II-era agency that no longer exists.

E. Roland Harriman, the bank chairman and brother of former New York Gov. W. Averell Harriman (search), held 3,991 shares. Bush had one share.

Both Harrimans and Bush were partners in the New York investment firm of Brown Brothers, Harriman and Co., which handled the financial transactions of the bank as well as other financial dealings with several other companies linked to Bank voor Handel that were confiscated by the U.S. government during World War II.

Union Banking was seized by the government in October 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act (search).

No charges were brought against Union Banking's American directors.

QuoteNazi Germany

Once the Nazi dictatorship took hold, however, Thyssen began to have second thoughts. Although he welcomed the suppression of the Communist Party, the Social Democrats and the trade unions, he disliked the mob violence of the SA. In 1934 he was one of the business leaders who persuaded Hitler to suppress the SA, leading to the "Night of the Long Knives". Thyssen was horrified, however, at the simultaneous murder of various conservative figures such as Kurt von Schleicher.

Thyssen accepted the exclusion of Jews from German business and professional life by the Nazis, and dismissed his own Jewish employees, but he did not share Hitler's violent anti-Semitism. As a Catholic, he also objected to the increasing repression of the Roman Catholic Church, which gathered pace after 1935. The breaking point for Thyssen was the violent pogrom against the Jews in November, 1938 known as Kristallnacht, which caused him to resign from the Council of State. By 1939 he was also bitterly criticising the regime's economic policies, which were subordinating everything to rearmament in preparation for war. [1]

[edit] World War II

In September 1, 1939 World War II broke out. Thyssen sent Hermann Goering a telegram saying he was opposed to the war, shortly before leaving for Switzerland with his family. He was expelled from the Nazi Party and the Reichstag, and his company was briefly nationalised.

Quote from: stephendare on August 06, 2008, 11:52:41 PM
There is literally nothing left to say to you River.

You are either actually delusional or playing an elaborate game of mental patty cake, which is worse than being delusional.

If I were you I would read the material again and sleep on it, or I would ask my wife what she thought before I answered again.

The statements couldnt be any balder and you have already admitted to the inherent truth of this in a previous debate.

Quote from: stephendare on August 06, 2008, 11:55:26 PM
Its already been posted several times, and you are exposing yourself as an idiot.

Quote from: RiversideGator on August 06, 2008, 11:19:19 PM

Quote from: Midway on August 06, 2008, 09:25:46 PM
Riverside gator as a boy:

(http://action.credomobile.com/TMW11-07-07colorlowres.jpg)

The fact that you find this cartoon amusing explains a lot about you, midway.  I have read it before on numerous occasions and it is literally the least funny cartoon I have ever read.   ;)

Quote from: RiversideGator on August 06, 2008, 11:22:16 PM

Quote from: Midway on August 06, 2008, 09:55:04 PM
Uh Oh... Prescott is lucky he didn't wind up in the slammer....Can't remember though...was WWII a declared war? I think I heard something about that on some TV show somewhere...I wonder if there was any tackle?

Perhaps the reason why Prescott Bush was never prosecuted was because he was not guilty of any crime.  Did that answer ever occur to you, midway?

Quote from: Midway on August 07, 2008, 09:02:26 AM

Quote from: RiversideGator on August 06, 2008, 11:22:16 PM

Quote from: Midway on August 06, 2008, 09:55:04 PM
Uh Oh... Prescott is lucky he didn't wind up in the slammer....Can't remember though...was WWII a declared war? I think I heard something about that on some TV show somewhere...I wonder if there was any tackle?

Perhaps the reason why Prescott Bush was never prosecuted was because he was not guilty of any crime.  Did that answer ever occur to you, midway?

Perhaps Prescott didn't wind up in the slammer is because FDR thought it might be counter to the war effort to put a well connected and politically powerful GOB in jail?  Oh, excuse me! That could never happen in riversidegatorworld^tm.

Why don't you just say: "Please, Moonbat, keep your childish ramblings to yourself?" You know you want to.

Quote from: Midway on August 07, 2008, 08:55:25 AM
Disturbing...pathetic...even moronic, but not funny.

Quote from: Midway on August 07, 2008, 09:02:26 AM
"Please, Moonbat, keep your childish ramblings to yourself"

Quote
A supply of things that might happen at some time in the future is NOT a 'supply' that will meet the price that arises from 'demand' in the near future.

Quote from: stephendare on August 07, 2008, 01:29:49 PM
A supply of things that might happen at some time in the future is NOT a 'supply' that will meet the price that arises from 'demand' in the near future.

Quote from: stephendare on August 07, 2008, 01:58:02 PM
Doctor K.  If you went to the store, and told them that you wanted a lower price on the basis of all the future pasta that Ronzoni was going to be making, the store clerk would make decisions as to whether you were dangerous or not.

This argument isnt about supply and demand.  Its nominally about the theory that one might possibly be able to psych out the market based on potential policy changes.

It doesnt create a single ounce of 'supply', nor does it cancel out a single gallon of 'demand'.

The truth, which has been repeatedly posted on this site is that there are millions of acres of land which the oil companies have rights to that they havent even cracked open yet.

Why isnt the potential 'supply' from those sights affecting the 'demand' and the market?

having this discussion is literally ludicrous.

Im not sure what my own position on offshore drilling is.  It would depend on a couple of factors i suppose.   Need.   Protections and controls.   Guarantees that they would only be for our domestic markets.

But I am offended that some people think we are so damned stupid that we can be buffaloed by these nonsensical arguments which do nothing except give away resources for free to trillionaires.

Quote from: stephendare on August 07, 2008, 02:53:21 PM

This argument isnt about supply and demand.  Its nominally about the theory that one might possibly be able to psych out the market based on potential policy changes.

QuoteThe California nearshore and coastal areas are replete with natural seeps.  It is estimated that over 1,000 barrels of oil each week are released into the environment from these seeps.  (From the Coal Oil Point seeps alone, almost 200 barrels a day may be entering the ocean.)

QuoteThere is some evidence that commercial production of the reservoirs offshore has reduced the amount of oil that would naturally seep into the marine environment by reducing pressure in the reservoirs.

Quoteaccidental spills from platforms represent about one percent of petroleum inputs in North American waters and about three percent worldwide.

Quote from: stephendare on August 07, 2008, 05:45:32 PM
Yes, Winston.  2 + 2 = 5.

Quote from: gatorback on August 07, 2008, 01:35:04 PM
During the past storm I saw a graphic showing the locations of the offshore drilling platforms.
What a mess.  The gulf of mexico near TX and LA are filled with them.  Like nasty billboards every 1/25 of a mile--do you really want to see that off FL?

QuoteThe Oil Tax Cut Is Good for Growth, Lower Inflation, and Solving the Credit Crunch   [Larry Kudlow]

The tax-cut effects of lower oil prices are the single-biggest economic story right now. Even with Fannie Mae’s terrible reported earnings, stocks are up 240 points in today’s trading. Why? Because oil is down another $4 to $116. That’s a more than 20 percent drop from its peak in mid-July, about the time President Bush launched his drill, drill, drill offensive to roll back the moratorium on offshore and domestic production, including shale and ANWR.

Bush removed the executive moratorium order, and now the entire country is clamoring for Congress to remove its moratorium. So far the Reid-Pelosi Democrats continue to dither and oppose new drilling. And as Kim Strassel wrote in today’s Wall Street Journal, the so-called “Gang of 10” compromise is a lousy deal. Obama is flirting with that compromise, but he has basically positioned himself as the anti-driller. Fortunately John McCain has repositioned himself as the pro-driller, and his rising polls show popular support.

But oil markets see the political tide in favor of drilling. As poll after poll is released â€" showing huge public support for drilling â€" oil traders are selling contracts short in anticipation of greater oil supplies in the future. And while all this is going on, the oil shock of the past six-to-nine months has curbed energy demand and promoted conservation. In other words, markets work. The combination of expected future supply increases and a pullback in demand is working to bring down prices.

Quote from: Midway on August 08, 2008, 08:19:52 AM
We don't have the benefit of your superior eugenics, so that's the best we can do.

We're just human, as opposed to  you, who are superhuman.

Quote from: RiversideGator on August 08, 2008, 04:36:06 PM
Thanks for recognizing the truth finally, midway.   ;)

Quote

Eugenics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution": Logo from the Second International Eugenics Conference, 1921, depicting it as a tree which unites a variety of different fields.
"Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution": Logo from the Second International Eugenics Conference, 1921, depicting it as a tree which unites a variety of different fields.[1]

Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.[2] Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier and more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering.

Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral. Historically, a minority of eugenics advocates have used it as a justification for state-sponsored discrimination, forced sterilization of persons deemed genetically defective, and the killing of institutionalized populations. Eugenics was also used to rationalize certain aspects of the Holocaust. The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[3] drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin. From its inception eugenics was supported by prominent people, including H.G. Wells, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, William Keith Kellogg and Margaret Sanger.[4][5][6] G. K. Chesterton was an early critic of the philosophy of eugenics, expressing this opinion in his book, Eugenics and Other Evils. Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities. Funding was provided by prestigious sources such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and the Harriman family.[7] Three International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenicists with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York. Eugenics' scientific reputation started to tumble in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rüdin began incorporating eugenic rhetoric into the racial policies of Nazi Germany.

Since the postwar period, both the public and the scientific communities have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced racial hygiene, human experimentation, and the extermination of undesired population groups. However, developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the end of the 20th century have raised many new questions and concerns about what exactly constitutes the meaning of eugenics and what its ethical and moral status is in the modern era.

QuoteWe're just human, as opposed to  you, who are superhuman.

Quote from: Midway on August 09, 2008, 10:37:25 AM
Have you used that tire gauge yet?

QuoteNearly two-thirds of Americans (64 percent) support offshore oil drilling, according to a new Rasmussen poll. And 42 percent say offshore oil drilling would have the biggest impact in terms of reducing oil prices. Only 20 percent of Americans now oppose offshore drilling. And in terms of reducing oil prices, building more nuclear plants and developing more fuel-efficient cars rate only 16 percent.

Public support for drill, drill, drill clearly continues to grow. And that’s one key reason why oil prices continue to fall. In today’s trading oil is off another $2 to $113 a barrel, despite the war between Russia and Georgia. According to government sources in Georgia, the Baku pipeline is still functioning and oil is flowing through Georgia.

Let me return to my theme that the plunge in oil prices is solving the economy’s problems. In today’s stock market trading, while overall prices are up 100 points, retailers and banks are the leading sectors. This follows on last Friday’s huge 300-point jump, largely on the strength of collapsing oil. Retailers and financials led Friday’s action also.

As oil and gas pump prices descend, homeowners will have more extra cash to pay their mortgages on time. This means the mortgage bonds owned by banks are worth more. Hence the oil drop solves the credit crunch as well as the housing decline.

And there’s more. Gold has dropped another $35 today to $830 an ounce. The greenback is up again. This means of course that the oil drop solves the inflation problem as well. Essentially, we are witnessing a complete reversal of the damaging oil shock that has been the single-biggest economic depressant this year. You couldn’t ask for any better news.

And I want to repeat my view that the reversal to lower oil prices is a function of a) lower energy demand through greater conservation in response to the prior price increase and b) the likelihood that Congress will reverse its ban on drilling. Oil traders are selling the black gold in anticipation of greater future energy supplies. The InTrade prediction markets are showing a 45 percent probability that the congressional ban on drilling will be removed before year-end. In early July this contract was less than 10 percent. We are watching a combination of economic and political forces acting to depress oil prices.

Quote'Snake Oil'

Debunking three 'truths' about offshore drilling
   
Tuesday, August 12, 2008; Page A12

THE NATURAL Resources Defense Council Action Fund has taken out full-page ads in this newspaper and others to decry offshore drilling for oil as "George W. Bush's Gasoline Price Elixir" that is "100% Snake Oil." The environmental group calls on supporters "to stop the giveaway of our coasts." It is urging visitors to its Web site to send a pre-written letter to their members of Congress that says, "I am not buying the lie . . . that sacrificing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and America's coastal waters to oil drilling would make a real difference in gas prices -- either today or twenty years from today!" And the missive adds, "With just three percent of the world's oil reserves, our nation simply doesn't have enough oil to impact the global market or drill our way to lower prices at the pump."

The NRDC's arguments above neatly encapsulate the position taken by environmentalists and other opponents of offshore drilling. And they include a couple of good points. Contrary to the baldly political suggestions regarding lower gasoline prices by President Bush and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), drilling would make no impact on today's pain at the pump because it would be years before any oil flowed from the Outer Continental Shelf. We agree that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, with its varied and sensitive ecosystems, should be preserved. In the quest for new sources of energy, there are trade-offs. That pristine area must remain off-limits. But there are three "truths" masquerading as fact among drilling opponents that need to be challenged:

· Drilling is pointless because the United States has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. This is a misleading because it refers only to known oil reserves. According to the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service (MMS), while there are an estimated 18 billion barrels of oil in the off-limits portions of the OCS, those estimates were made using old data from now-outdated seismic equipment. In the case of the Atlantic Ocean, the data were collected before Congress imposed a moratorium on offshore drilling in 1981. In 1987, the MMS estimated that there were 9 billion barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. By 2006, after major advances in seismic technology and deepwater drilling techniques, the MMS resource estimate for that area had ballooned to 45 billion barrels. In short, there could be much more oil under the sea than previously known. The demand for energy is going up, not down. And for a long time, even as alternative sources of energy are developed, more oil will be needed.

· The oil companies aren't using the leases they already have. According to the MMS, there were 7,457 active leases as of June 8. Of those, only 1,877 were classified as "producing." As we pointed out in a previous editorial, the five leases that have made up the Shell Perdido project off Galveston since 1996 are not classified as producing. Only when it starts pumping the equivalent of an estimated 130,000 barrels of oil a day at the end of the decade will it be deemed "active." Since 1996, Shell has paid rent on the leases; filed and had approved numerous reports with the MMS, including an environmentally sensitive resource development plan and an oil spill recovery plan that is subject to unannounced practice runs by the MMS; drilled several wells to explore the area at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars; and started constructing the necessary infrastructure to bring the oil to market. The notion that oil companies are just sitting on oil leases is a myth. With oil prices still above $100 a barrel, that charge never made sense.

· Drilling is environmentally dangerous. Opposition to offshore drilling goes back to 1969, when 80,000 barrels of oil from an offshore oil well blowout washed up on the beaches of Santa Barbara. In 1971, the Interior Department instituted a host of reporting requirements (such as the resource development and oil spill recovery plans mentioned above) and stringent safety measures. Chief among them is a requirement for each well to have an automatic shut-off valve beneath the ocean floor that can also be operated manually. According to the MMS, between 1993 and 2007, there were 651 spills of all sizes at OCS facilities (in federal waters three miles or more offshore) that released 47,800 barrels of oil. With 7.5 billion barrels of oil produced in that time, that equates to 1 barrel of oil spilled per 156,900 barrels produced. That's not to minimize the danger. But no form of energy is perfect or without trade-offs. Besides, if it is acceptable to drill in the Caspian Sea and in developing countries such as Nigeria where environmental concerns are equally important, it's hard to explain why the United States should rule out drilling off its own coasts.

The strongest argument against drilling is that it could distract the country from a pursuit of alternative sources of energy. There's no question that the administration has been lax on that front. True leadership would emphasize both alternative sources and rational approaches to developing oil and natural gas. No, the United States cannot drill its way to energy independence. But with the roaring economies of China and India gobbling up oil in the two countries' latter-day industrial revolutions, the United States can no longer afford to turn its back on finding all the sources of fuel necessary to maintain its economy and its standard of living. What's required is a long-term, comprehensive plan that includes wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels and nuclear -- and that acknowledges that oil and gas will be instrumental to the U.S. economy for many years to come.

Quote from: stephendare on September 16, 2008, 01:06:45 PM
Well I guess it turns out that the off shore drilling DOES lead to environmental spills and ruin the beaches.

Who woulda thunk it?

Quote from: RiversideGator on September 17, 2008, 12:46:13 AM



I'm sorry.  Where does it say that the storm caused off shore drilling platforms to leak oil in this article?

Quote from: Ocklawaha on September 17, 2008, 01:37:32 AM
I tend to agree that this is not spillage from the well heads or pump jacks. Even if it were the amount is very small. Trouble is the oil and water mix is an ugly mix. 1 drop of light-sweet crude will render 25 litters of water undrinkable. One gallon of Gasoline will destroy 750,000 gallons of water.

Quote from: RiversideGator on September 17, 2008, 12:46:13 AM

Quote from: stephendare on September 16, 2008, 01:06:45 PM
Well I guess it turns out that the off shore drilling DOES lead to environmental spills and ruin the beaches.

Who woulda thunk it?

I'm sorry.  Where does it say that the storm caused off shore drilling platforms to leak oil in this article?

Quote from: lindab on September 17, 2008, 08:36:19 AM
The oil industry has been touting their safe rigs. Even if we take the oil industry at it's word, where the heck do you think the oil goes to shore? Oil pipelines along the Gulf coast bottom create a network coming ashore to storage and refineries. If we have east coast oil wells off Florida and Georgia those pipelines will come ashore somewhere near us. Storage tanks and industrial facilites are needed. Where will they be put?

Quote from: tufsu1 on September 17, 2008, 08:38:03 AM

Quote from: RiversideGator on September 17, 2008, 12:46:13 AM

Quote from: stephendare on September 16, 2008, 01:06:45 PM
Well I guess it turns out that the off shore drilling DOES lead to environmental spills and ruin the beaches.

Who woulda thunk it?

I'm sorry.  Where does it say that the storm caused off shore drilling platforms to leak oil in this article?

head...meet sand!

Quote from: lindab on September 17, 2008, 08:36:19 AM
The oil industry has been touting their safe rigs. Even if we take the oil industry at it's word, where the heck do you think the oil goes to shore? Oil pipelines along the Gulf coast bottom create a network coming ashore to storage and refineries. If we have east coast oil wells off Florida and Georgia those pipelines will come ashore somewhere near us. Storage tanks and industrial facilites are needed. Where will they be put?

(http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/hurricanes/katrina/murphyoil/images/120905_clip_image002.jpg)

This is the Murphy Oil spill at Chalmette, LA. About 1600 homes were affected by this spill.

http://www.uscg.mil/npfc/docs/PDFs/osltf_report_hurricanes.pdf
Less than one year after Katrina, the Coast Guard's report to Congress showed -

OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND HURRICANE IMP ACT
Appendix
--
Summary of Hurricane Katrina & Rita Related Spills
As of January 24, 2006 there have been over 9 million gallons of oil released from six major
and five medium spills. Inaddition there have been over 5,000 minor spill responses. New
minor spills are being identified and responded to daily.
Summary of 6 major incidents:
.
The Bass Enterprises, South Cox Bay facility at Cox Bay, LA, suffered two tank
failures. 3,800,000 gallons were discharged; 1,900,000 gallons recovered to date.
Efforts to identify and remove lingering pollution continue.
.
The Bass Enterprises North facility at MM 36 LMR suffered shifted and leaking
tanks. 460,000 gallons were discharged; 116,000 gallons recovered to date. Efforts to
identify and remove lingering pollution continue.
.
The Shell Nairn facility in Port Sulphur, LA, suffered a ruptured pipeline. 140,000
gallons were discharged; 11,000 gallons recovered to date. Additional cleanup pends
due to private property access issues.
.
The Murphy Oil facility in Mereaux, LA, suffered a ruptured tank. 1,100,000 gallons
discharged; 750,000 gallons recovered to date. Coast Guard responders conducted
initial gross oil containment; EPA retains lead for overall sitejurisdiction. Hundreds
of homes in the adjacent areas were saturated by oil. Household cleanup continues.
Media reports that many homeowners have accepted a settlement with Murphy Oil,
while other homeowners have initiated a class action lawsuit.
.
The Chevron Pipeline Empire facility in Port Sulphur, LA, suffered a pipeline
rupture. 1,400,000 gallons discharged; 75,000 gallons were recovered. Efforts to
identify and remove lingering pollution continue.
.
The Shell Pilot Town facility in Pilot Town, LA, suffered a breached pipeline.
1,100,000 gallons discharged; 950,000 gallons were recovered. Efforts to identify
and remove lingering pollution continue.
Summary of 5 medium incidents:
.
The Sundown East facility in Potash, LA, suffered ruptured tanks and piping. 52,000
gallons were discharged; 16,000 gallons recovered to date. Response efforts to
identify and address the sources of persistent sheening are ongoing.
.
The Sundown West facility in Potash, LA, suffered ruptured tanks and piping. 13,000
gallons were discharged; 8,000 gallons recovered to date. Efforts to identify and
remove lingering pollution on private property continue.
.
At the Chevron Port Fourchon Pipeline facility, in Port Fourchon, LA, a potable water
tank was lifted by the hurricane and impacted valves and pipelines in the facility tank
farm. 54,000 gallons were discharged; approximately 45,000 gallons of diesel/water
mix recovered to date.

Page 8
OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND HURRICANE IMPACT
.
At the Texas Point
-
Sabine Services facility near Sabine, TX, one 504,OOO-gallon
capacity tank was lifted and moved 3 miles into a marsh by Hurricane Rita. 34,000
gallons were discharged; approximately 12,000gallons of#2 diesel was removed
:£Tomthe tank and surrounding area. Removal operations were conducted by
constructing a temporary pipeline to a tank barge. Efforts to identify and remove
lingering pollution continue.
.
At the Dynergy Venice facility in Venice, LA two tanks ruptured. 25,000 gallons
discharged; 19,000gallons were recovered. Efforts to identify and remove lingering
pollution continue.

Other Significant Incidents:
.
-
An integrated tug and barge struck a submerged oil platform
that was sunk by Hurricane Rita. Unknown amount of oil discharged (possibly up to
3 million gallons). 1,400,000gallons has been recovered. Another approximately 2
million gallons have been lightered :£Tomthe damaged vessel. The barge has been
towed to a shipyard and is undergoing inspection prior to disposal. The responsible
party reports response expenditures to date of approximately $36 million. CG
OSLTF funding ceiling currently at $450K with $360,000 expended against the
ceiling to date. The responsible party's limit of liability is $11.7 million. They have
contacted the National Pollution Funds Center regarding the submission of an excess
ofliability claim against the OSLTF

Quote from: will on September 17, 2008, 09:14:49 AM
It is the enormity of the consequences of the accident that is the issue. If a coal mine collapses, a handful of miners will tragically die. If a large oil spill occurs, hundreds of miles of shoreline are devastated for years.

However, the main reason not to drill is global warming. Burning fossil fuels is ruining the world - why on earth would you want to drill for more of the stuff? We need a radical move off fossil fuels entirely. We've only been large consumers of the stuff for about a hundred years. Surely we can wean ourselves off such a short term habit if we think long term.

Quote from: will on September 17, 2008, 09:14:49 AM
It is the enormity of the consequences of the accident that is the issue. If a coal mine collapses, a handful of miners will tragically die. If a large oil spill occurs, hundreds of miles of shoreline are devastated for years.

However, the main reason not to drill is global warming. Burning fossil fuels is ruining the world - why on earth would you want to drill for more of the stuff? We need a radical move off fossil fuels entirely. We've only been large consumers of the stuff for about a hundred years. Surely we can wean ourselves off such a short term habit if we think long term.

Quote from: apvbguy on September 17, 2008, 08:44:58 AM

Quote from: tufsu1 on September 17, 2008, 08:38:03 AM

Quote from: RiversideGator on September 17, 2008, 12:46:13 AM

Quote from: stephendare on September 16, 2008, 01:06:45 PM
Well I guess it turns out that the off shore drilling DOES lead to environmental spills and ruin the beaches.

Who woulda thunk it?

I'm sorry.  Where does it say that the storm caused off shore drilling platforms to leak oil in this article?

head...meet sand!

move over and make room for the rest of us

Quote from: will on September 17, 2008, 09:14:49 AM
It is the enormity of the consequences of the accident that is the issue. If a coal mine collapses, a handful of miners will tragically die. If a large oil spill occurs, hundreds of miles of shoreline are devastated for years.

However, the main reason not to drill is global warming. Burning fossil fuels is ruining the world - why on earth would you want to drill for more of the stuff? We need a radical move off fossil fuels entirely. We've only been large consumers of the stuff for about a hundred years. Surely we can wean ourselves off such a short term habit if we think long term.

Quote from: will on September 17, 2008, 01:47:04 PM
No one seems to be willing to give up anything to address the climate issue. The immediate, short term answer to the problem is to reduce demand for energy - but so far as I can tell, very few are willing to alter their habits at all. We're faced with a difficult problem here: we need to get off oil asap but we don't have a viable large scale alternative. Some times we are required to make sacrifices in order to succeed. World War II would not have been won without the self-sacrifice of millions who rationed and worked long hours in the war effort. I think something similar is needed here. To continue with business as usual, to continue to drill and consume as we always have, would be as selfish and short-sighted a path as possible.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 23, 2009, 06:39:04 PM
The beaches all have little "Tar Wipe" stations.  

OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 23, 2009, 07:37:42 PM

Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 23, 2009, 06:39:04 PM
The beaches all have little "Tar Wipe" stations.  

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qT-kf8quf0A/SZ6scYYvU5I/AAAAAAAABQs/giaOPSTwHPA/s400/beach+tar.jpg)

OCKLAWAHA

Great...just what we need...

Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 23, 2009, 06:59:20 PM
Look at the bright side stjr, at LEAST we'd get Crist out of Tallahassee.

Quote from: heights unknown on April 23, 2009, 07:47:57 PM
If they drilled off of Jacksonville's Beaches and found a huge swath of oil, wouldn't that mean more jobs and increased prosperity for the Jacksonville/St. Augustine area?  We would also have an influx of fortune 500 companies (possibly) and our port would swell with increased activity (yes?).

Heights Unknown

QuoteThe network of crude oil pipelines in the U.S. is extensive. There are approximately 55,000 miles of crude oil trunk lines (usually 8 - 24 inches in diameter) in the U.S. that connect regional markets. The map below shows some of the major crude oil trunk lines in the U.S.:

(http://www.pipeline101.com/Overview/images/CrudeLines.gif)

Quote...pipelines are generally the most economical way to transport large quantities of oil or natural gas over land. Compared to railroad, they have lower cost per unit and higher capacity. Although pipelines can be built under the sea, that process is economically and technically demanding, so the majority of oil at sea is transported by tanker ships.

Oil pipelines are made from steel or plastic tubes with inner diameter typically from 10 to 120 cm (about 4 to 48 inches). Most pipelines are buried at a typical depth of about 1 - 2 metres (about 3 to 6 feet). The oil is kept in motion by pump stations along the pipeline, and usually flows at speed of about 1 to 6 m/s. Multi-product pipelines are used to transport two or more different products in sequence in the same pipeline. Usually in multi-product pipelines there is no physical separation between the different products. Some mixing of adjacent products occurs, producing interface. This interface is removed from the pipeline at receiving facilities and segregated to prevent contamination.

Crude oil contains varying amounts of wax, or paraffin, and in colder climates wax buildup may occur within a pipeline. Often these pipelines are inspected and cleaned using pipeline inspection gauges pigs, also known as, scrapers or Go-devils. [1] These devices are launched from pig-launcher stations and travel through the pipeline to be received at any other station down-stream, cleaning wax deposits and material that may have accumulated inside the line.

...Components
Pipeline networks are composed of several pieces of equipment that operate together to move products from location to location. The main elements of a pipeline system are:

A pipeline schematic.- Initial Injection Station - Known also as Supply or Inlet station, is the beginning of the system, where the product is injected into the line. Storage facilities, pumps or compressors are usually located at these locations.

- Compressor/Pump Stations - Pumps for liquid pipelines and Compressors for gas pipelines, are located along the line to move the product through the pipeline. The location of these stations is defined by the topography of the terrain, the type of product being transported, or operational conditions of the network.

- Partial Delivery Station - Known also as Intermediate Stations, these facilities allow the pipeline operator to deliver part of the product being transported.

- Block Valve Station - These are the first line of protection for pipelines. With these valves the operator can isolate any segment of the line for maintenance work or isolate a rupture or leak. Block valve stations are usually located every 20 to 30 miles (48 km), depending on the type of pipeline. Even though it is not a design rule, it is a very usual practice in liquid pipelines. The location of these stations depends exclusively on the nature of the product being transported, the trajectory of the pipeline and/or the operational conditions of the line.

- Regulator Station - This is a special type of valve station, where the operator can release some of the pressure from the line. Regulators are usually located at the downhill side of a peak.

- Final Delivery Station - Known also as Outlet stations or Terminals, this is where the product will be distributed to the consumer. It could be a tank terminal for liquid pipelines or a connection to a distribution network for gas pipelines.


Leak detection systems
Since oil and gas pipelines are an important asset of the economic development of almost any country, it has been required either by government regulations or internal policies to ensure the safety of the assets, and the population and environment where these pipelines run.

Pipeline companies face government regulation, environmental constraints and social situations. Pipeline companies should comply with government regulations which may define minimum staff to run the operation, operator training requirements, up to specifics including pipeline facilities, technology and applications required to ensure operational safety. As an example, in the State of Washington, it is mandatory for pipeline operators to be able to detect and locate leaks of 8 percent of maximum flow within 15 minutes or less.

The social situation also affects the operation of pipelines. In third world countries, product theft is a problem for pipeline companies. It is common to find unauthorized extractions in the middle of the pipeline. In this case, the detection levels should be under 2 percent of maximum flow, with a high expectation for location accuracy.

Different types of technologies and strategies have been implemented, from physically walking the lines to satellite surveillance. The most common technology to protect these lines from occasional leaks is known as Computational Pipeline Monitoring Systems or CPM. CPM takes information from the field related to pressures, flows, and temperatures to estimate the hydraulic behavior of the product being transported. Once the estimation is done, the results are compared to other field references to detect the presence of an anomaly or unexpected situation, which may be related to a leak.

...As targets
Pipelines can be the target of vandalism, sabotage, or even terrorist attacks. In war, pipelines are often the target of military attacks, as destruction of pipelines can seriously disrupt enemy logistics.

Quote from: tufsu1 on April 23, 2009, 08:50:57 PM
the tourism aspect is pretty large...more so on the Gulf Coast (like Clearwater, Sarasota, and Naples) then here.

Answer this....how many people do you know that go to the beaches in Mississippi, Louisiana, or northern Texas?

Quote from: heights unknown on April 23, 2009, 09:28:09 PM
Ocklawaha, is that your foot?  Not that I am a foot fetish but I think we really didn't need to see "funky feet" on the forum.

Heights Unknown

Quote from: heights unknown on April 23, 2009, 09:26:10 PM

Quote from: tufsu1 on April 23, 2009, 08:50:57 PM
the tourism aspect is pretty large...more so on the Gulf Coast (like Clearwater, Sarasota, and Naples) then here.

Answer this....how many people do you know that go to the beaches in Mississippi, Louisiana, or northern Texas?

More than you think...especially in the late spring, summer, and possibly early autumn months.

Heights Unknown

Quote from: tufsu1 on April 24, 2009, 07:54:50 AM
really...tourists from other states flock to their beaches...how come I've never seen any promotion/advertising other than for the casinos in Mississippi?

Quote from: Doctor_K on April 24, 2009, 08:47:41 AM

Quote from: tufsu1 on April 24, 2009, 07:54:50 AM
really...tourists from other states flock to their beaches...how come I've never seen any promotion/advertising other than for the casinos in Mississippi?

You live in Florida.  Advertising agencies are not going to target a beach-dwelling demographic in *Florida* to come to *their* beaches.  It's a waste of advertising dollars and energy.

However, if you go north, the situation changes.  I have family in Alabama who I see on a quasi-regular basis, and I see commercials for the Gulf Coast beaches in Mississippi and whatnot quite frequently.

Further, since there are more people livingin Texas than in Florida, my guess is that the answer to "how many people go to Texas beaches" is: "probably more than do here."

Florida probably gets more tourism dollars out of central Florida's theme parks than all the beaches combined anyway.  No, I don't have facts, but that'd be my guess and I wouldn't be at all surprised if that was indeed the case.

LindaB said earlier that the limit was 3 leagues/10 miles.  Can you even see 10 miles out from the beach anyway?

QuoteSame as the windfarm off nantuket island.

Quote from: lindab on April 24, 2009, 10:34:10 AM
Mississippi has oil and gas wells mostly in the northern part of the state.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 24, 2009, 09:59:58 AM
The problem is people who actually have the nerve to advocate for oil drilling for American oil reserves get painted unfairly as anti green or alternative energy.  It simply is not true.  I... and everbody I know fully and heartily endorse research, development, and deployment of ALL energy sources and modes of transportation.  I / we understand however that these new systems simply cannot and do not compete YET with traditional energy sources.  The traditional resources MUST continue to be exploited until such time as the alternatives become a reliable AND economical replacement.

Conserve and Go green... I am behind it 100%.

In the meantime... Keep drilling. :)

Quote from: vicupstate on April 24, 2009, 02:12:44 PM
I would not visit a beach where I can visibly see an oil rig, or in any way would know (tar in the sand, etc.) that one is nearby.  

Quote from: vicupstate on April 24, 2009, 02:12:44 PM
Those alternatives will never compete with oil, while oil is cheap.  Oil will remain cheap if we allow even the most pristine lands and waters to be 'drilled'.  Therefore, there will never be a genuine alternative.  Therefore, if global warming is indeed happening, it will continue to happen.

Quote from: Doctor_K on April 24, 2009, 02:36:33 PM

Quote from: vicupstate on April 24, 2009, 02:12:44 PM
I would not visit a beach where I can visibly see an oil rig, or in any way would know (tar in the sand, etc.) that one is nearby.  

Why not?  Because you can see it?

Quote(i.e. a conservative's wet dream)

Quote from: Clem1029 on April 24, 2009, 02:44:22 PM

Quote from: vicupstate on April 24, 2009, 02:12:44 PM
Those alternatives will never compete with oil, while oil is cheap.  Oil will remain cheap if we allow even the most pristine lands and waters to be 'drilled'.  Therefore, there will never be a genuine alternative.  Therefore, if global warming is indeed happening, it will continue to happen.

Wow...thank you for summing up one of the problems with the environmental movement so succinctly...not "more" energy, not "cheaper" energy, but (significantly) more expensive energy...and if you can't afford it, well, tough crap.

I'd say "unbelievable," but it's sadly completely believable since it's been happening for years.

Quote from: Clem1029 on April 24, 2009, 02:44:22 PM

Quote from: vicupstate on April 24, 2009, 02:12:44 PM
Those alternatives will never compete with oil, while oil is cheap.  Oil will remain cheap if we allow even the most pristine lands and waters to be 'drilled'.  Therefore, there will never be a genuine alternative.  Therefore, if global warming is indeed happening, it will continue to happen.

Wow...thank you for summing up one of the problems with the environmental movement so succinctly...not "more" energy, not "cheaper" energy, but (significantly) more expensive energy...and if you can't afford it, well, tough crap.

I'd say "unbelievable," but it's sadly completely believable since it's been happening for years.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 24, 2009, 03:10:59 PM

Quote(i.e. a conservative's wet dream)

So where does this come from?  I dislike oil rigs as much as you.  But they have to go somewhere...  You sound a bit like Ted Kennedy and the Nantucket windmills... The Kennedy's did not want to see those either... :)

QuoteWhat is sad is that you don't see the end result of your 'live for the day', half-baked choice to reject what the environmentalists are saying.     

Alternatives must be found to Oil because: 1) too many of the people that we have to buy it from don't like us, and that compromises our security and safety, and 2) because it's use pollutes the planet.

Therefore, it is IMPERITIVE that alternatives be found, and the sooner the better.  However, if we allow oil to continue to be drilled anywhere that it exists, the low cost of oil will eliminate the potential profit in developing alternatives. Therefore, no alternatives will be developed.  Therefore, we will CONTINUE to be at the mercy of the Middle East and CONTINUE to pollute.  This cycle will not end as long as we continue to open new areas to oil drilling, even the beautiful beaches of FL or the wilderness of Alaska.     

If we as a society determine that FL and Alaska SHOULD be protected (which they should be just because they DESERVE to be), then the economics of supply and demand will drive the development of the alternatives energy sources. The alternatives WILL become cheaper once the profit motive creates suppliers that fill the demand.  It is no different than Plasma TVs or Granite countertops.  As more people bought them, new suppliers arose and brought down the cost.  But that comes later, not at the outset.

Either we continue down the same path we have since the '70's and continue our Oil dependence or we say some areas are off limits, and if that means the cost of oil is higher, then that will hasten the development of alternatives, which in time will settle at their true equilibrium price.

QuoteWhen strident environmentalists make it "either or" you lose the debate because there's this pesky thing called reality not on your side. "Both/And" is the only way to answer the problem.

QuoteThe 'OR', was ignored as the conservative presidents have encouraged an oil-only policy since 1980

QuoteI am open to additional drilling in some areas, but within 12 miles of shore is preposterous.

QuoteThe people that pay millions to live on the ocean/gulf don't do so to look at oil rigs.

QuoteThat's okay, once the tourists stop coming, you can always start a state income tax.   

QuoteAlternative energies can't be implemented overnight

QuoteGood luck getting Republicans to vote for it

Quote from: tufsu1 on April 24, 2009, 07:54:50 AM

Quote from: heights unknown on April 23, 2009, 09:26:10 PM

Quote from: tufsu1 on April 23, 2009, 08:50:57 PM
the tourism aspect is pretty large...more so on the Gulf Coast (like Clearwater, Sarasota, and Naples) then here.

Answer this....how many people do you know that go to the beaches in Mississippi, Louisiana, or northern Texas?

More than you think...especially in the late spring, summer, and possibly early autumn months.

Heights Unknown

really...tourists from other states flock to their beaches...how come I've never seen any promotion/advertising other than for the casinos in Mississippi?

Quote from: vicupstate on April 24, 2009, 03:31:23 PM
W

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 24, 2009, 03:10:59 PM

Quote(i.e. a conservative's wet dream)

So where does this come from?  I dislike oil rigs as much as you.  But they have to go somewhere...  You sound a bit like Ted Kennedy and the Nantucket windmills... The Kennedy's did not want to see those either... :)

We have gotten by without oil rigs within sight of FL beaches so far, we can continue to do so. FL doesn't have to whore itself out for 1.6 billion a year.  

QuoteFL doesn't have to whore itself out for 1.6 billion a year.   

Quote from: vicupstate on April 24, 2009, 03:29:54 PM

If we as a society determine that FL and Alaska SHOULD be protected (which they should be just because they DESERVE to be), then the economics of supply and demand will drive the development of the alternatives energy sources. The alternatives WILL become cheaper once the profit motive creates suppliers that fill the demand.  It is no different than Plasma TVs or Granite countertops.  As more people bought them, new suppliers arose and brought down the cost.  But that comes later, not at the outset. 

Either we continue down the same path we have since the '70's and continue our Oil dependence or we say some areas are off limits, and if that means the cost of oil is higher, then that will hasten the development of alternatives, which in time will settle at their true equilibrium price. 

Under my scenario, in 20 years, we still have pristine Alaska wilderness and FL beaches, we aren't polluting the planet any longer, we aren't dependent on foreign oil, and we have multiple energy choices which we keep prices in check.

Under your scenario, in 20 years , there will be more pollution, more ruined wildernesses, more ruined beaches, we will still be dependent on foreign oil with no alternatives.

Take your pick.   

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 24, 2009, 06:41:11 PM

The key here is "future"... we still live in the "now" and will for quite a long time.

Quote from: FayeforCure on April 27, 2009, 02:17:56 PM

Conservatives CAN endorse conservation.

Quote
Efficient and viable alternative energy sources must be pursued but not to the detriment of our culture, society, and standard of living.

Quote
Posted on Monday, 04.27.09

THE LEGISLATURE
Oil companies push Florida legislature for offshore drilling
Late in the legislative session, a group of mostly anonymous oil and gas companies have hired at least 20 lobbyists to push bills that would allow offshore drilling in Florida.
BY LUCY MORGAN AND MARY ELLEN KLAS
Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau

TALLAHASSEE -- Dangling the promise of millions for the state's dwindling budget, a group of mostly unidentified oil and gas companies are bankrolling a last-minute fight to bring offshore drilling to Florida's coastline.

Florida Energy Associates, a corporation formed in December by Daytona Beach lawyer Doug Daniels, has hired at least 20 of the state's most prominent lobbyists to push bills through the legislature in the final week of session. Most of the lobbyists were hired in the last 10 days but the proposal has been planned for months.

The measure, slated for votes in the House and Senate this week, would give the governor and Cabinet authority to approve oil and gas exploration 3 to 10 miles off the Florida coast.

RUSHED

The sudden appearance of the issue near the end of a troubled legislative session has sparked outrage from environmental groups and Democrats in both houses who question why it surfaced with little time for discussion and debate.

Gov. Charlie Crist initially said he was willing to look at the measure but has since questioned the way lawmakers have rushed the bill through.

''Whenever you do something like that, you want to make sure that it's well thought out, that it's done in a very deliberate manner and that people have an opportunity to review it in a reasonable way,'' Crist said Friday.

QuoteOh yes it must be!  For the good of the planet!  The hell with us!

QuoteThe sudden appearance of the issue near the end of a troubled legislative session has sparked outrage from environmental groups and Democrats in both houses who question why it surfaced with little time for discussion and debate.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 27, 2009, 03:15:58 PM
So Vic and Faye seem to agree that keeping energy prices artificially high and supplies artificially low to encourage growth of alternatives is good policy?  Wow...  :o

Quote“The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 has received criticism for the so-called "Enron loophole," 7 U.S.C. §2(h)(3) and (g), which exempts most over-the-counter energy trades and trading on electronic energy commodity markets. The "loophole" was drafted by lobbyists for Enron working with senator Phil Gramm[3] seeking a deregulated atmosphere for their new experiment, "Enron On-line."[4]” Several Democratic legislators introduced legislation to close the loophole from 2000-2006[5][6] but were unsuccessful. In September 2007, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) introduced Senate Bill S.2058 specifically to close the "Enron Loophole" [7] This bill was later attached to H.R. 6124, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, aka "The 2008 Farm Bill". President Bush vetoed the bill, but was overridden by both the House and Senate, and on June 18, 2008 the bill was enacted into law.[8]. One specific reason behind its introduction was to address the record high oil prices of the 2000s energy crisis.”

Quote from: lindab on April 27, 2009, 07:33:04 PM
The Florida  House of Representatives has just passed a bill by a vote of 70 to 43 to open up state waters to oil drilling.

Now the legislation is headed to the Florida Senate.
If you oppose this  bill you need to speak up somewhere other than this forum.

QuoteSorry Bridge Troll, if you don't yet understand that oil prices were artificially high in 2008 due to rampant (unregulated)speculation until the Enron Loophole was closed on June 18, 2008, then you have a lot of catching up to do.

QuoteAll of the oil taken out of Alaska goes to JAPAN!

QuoteOil from Florida would go to the Carribean for refining and then be re-imported to the US or sent to Latin American countries.

QuoteDoes the U.S. export domestic oil? If so, how much, to where and why?

Name: Jack Camilleri
City & State: Mill Valley, Calif.


Question/Comment: Does the U.S. export domestic oil? If so, how much, to where and why?

Paul Solman: U.S. oil exports are up to 1.6 million barrels a day, according to a recent Reuters report. That's 9 percent of total refining capacity: 17.6 million barrels (abbreviated "bbl," no one is sure why).

By contrast, we import something like 13 MMbbl (13 million barrels) daily. Main recipients of our oil exports: Mexico, Canada, Chile, Singapore and Brazil.

Quote
The "b" may have been doubled originally to indicate the plural (1 bl, 2 bbl), or possibly it was doubled to eliminate any confusion with bl as a symbol for the bale.

QuoteDirectional wells are drilled for several purposes:

    * Increasing the exposed section length through the reservoir by drilling through the reservoir at an angle
    * Drilling into the reservoir where vertical access is difficult or not possible. For instance an oilfield under a town, under a lake, or underneath a difficult to drill formation
    * Allowing more wellheads to be grouped together on one surface location can allow fewer rig moves, less surface area disturbance, and make it easier and cheaper to complete and produce the wells. For instance, on an oil platform or jacket offshore, up to about 40 wells can be grouped together. The wells will fan out from the platform into the reservoir below. This concept is being applied to land wells, allowing multiple subsurface locations to be reached from one pad, reducing environmental impact.
    * Drilling "relief wells" to relieve the pressure of a well producing without restraint (a "blow out"). In this scenario, another well could be drilled starting at a safe distance away from the blow out, but intersecting the troubled wellbore. Then, heavy fluid (kill fluid) is pumped into the relief wellbore to suppress the high pressure in the original wellbore causing the blowout.

Most directional drillers are given a well path to follow that is predetermined by engineers and geologists before the drilling commences. When the directional driller starts the drilling process, periodic surveys are taken with a downhole camera instrument ("single shot camera") to provide survey data (inclination and azimuth) of the well bore.

These pictures are typically taken at intervals between 30-500 feet, with 90 feet common during active changes of angle or direction, and distances of 200-300 feet being typical while "drilling ahead" (not making active changes to angle and direction)

During critical angle and direction changes, especially while using a downhole motor, an MWD (Measurement While Drilling) tool will be added to the drill string to provide continuously updated measurements that may be used for (near) real-time adjustments.

These data indicate if the well is following the planned path and whether the orientation of the drilling assembly is causing the well to deviate as planned. Corrections are regularly made by techniques as simple as adjusting rotation speed or the drill string weight (weight on bottom) and stiffness, as well as more complicated and time consuming methods, such as introducing a downhole motor.

Such pictures, or surveys, are plotted and maintained as an engineering and legal record describing the path of the well bore. The survey pictures taken while drilling are typically confirmed by a later survey in full of the borehole, typically using a "multi-shot camera" device.

The multi-shot camera advances the film at time intervals so that by sealing the camera instrument into a tubular housing and dropping the assembly into the drilling string (down to just above the drilling bit), and then withdrawing the drill string at time intervals, the well may be fully surveyed at regular intervals (approximately every 90 feet being common, the typical length of 2 or 3 joints of drill pipe, known as a stand, since most drilling rigs "stand back" the pipe withdrawn from the hole at such increments, known as "stands".)

With modern technology great feats can be achieved. Whereas 20 years ago wells drilled at 60 degrees through the reservoir were achieved, horizontal drilling is now normal.

Drilling far from the surface location still requires careful planning and design. The current record holders manage wells over 10 km (6 miles) away from the surface location at a depth of only 1600â€"2600 m (5,200â€"8,500 ft). These are wells drilled from a land location to underneath the sea (Wytch Farm (BP), south coast of England, ARA (Total), south coast of Argentina (TFE) Dieksand (RWE), north coast of Germany, Chayvo (ExxonMobil), east coast of Sakhalin Island, Russia, and most recently Al Shaheen (Maersk Oil Qatar AS), Offshore Qatar.[1]

QuoteOil under our feet in Southwest Florida
By Tami Osborne, WINK News

Story Created: Jul 11, 2008 at 10:09 PM EDT

Story Updated: Jul 11, 2008 at 10:14 PM EDT
COLLIER COUNTY, Fla. - Could the answer to high oil prices be right under our feet here in Southwest Florida?
You may not know it, but we have at least nine sites here in Southwest Florida where oil has been drilled in the past.
But the question is whether its worth it to drill here again.
The Sunniland Field south of Immokalee in Collier County is the site of the first successful oil drill in Florida.
That happened back in 1943, and by 1954 the Sunniland Field was producing a half million barrels of oil each year.
"That field was very productive and was productive for ten years and beyond," America Oil and Gas Historical Society board member Kris Wells says.
Wells has done extensive studies on the history of oil in Collier County, and around the United States.
"Oil is getting more and more difficult to find," Wells says. "It requires a great deal more capitol investment, and time, and risk associated with it."
Although, decades ago Collier County was the source of hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil, Wells says its hard to say whether its worth it to start drilling here again because its just so expensive to put these holes into the ground and so many of them come up empty.
"Its still extremely risky. Even with all the advances of modern technology. I don't think we're at the 50/50 point yet of being able to find oil," Wells explains.
Wells says the last time he could find record of oil drilling in Collier County was 2004.
While we found at least nine sites in Southwest Florida where oil has been drilled, Wells says its up to geologists and venture capitilists to decide if it should be drilled here again.

QuoteWhen Florida Strikes Oil

Nobody in Florida expects to find the gold which the Spaniards failed to find, but there are many people in Florida who hope to find oil, and who are backing their hopes with cash. Oil exploration has been going on in Florida since 1903. Fiftythree oil wells have been drilled in the period since the first one was put down at Sumpterville, northeast of Tampa, by oil operators from Pennsylvania, who got down 2,000 feet before their money gave out. They did not find oil, but they did find all of the geological formations which they, as experienced oil men, expected to find.

Since then every successive study of Florida as a potential source of oil has given more encouragement to the belief that there are stores of "liquid gold" underlying the peninsula and that eventually somebody will tap them.

If and when that does occur, Florida will experience a boom besides which all of its previous booms will seem insignificant, from the silk-worm boom of a century ago, when people flocked to Florida in 1838 to plant mulberry trees and grow silk worms for an American silk industry that was to compete with Italy and China, down to the speculative land boom of the 1920's.

The belief that oil might be found in Florida was based originally upon purely a priori reasoning. There was oil all around the great semi-circle of the Gulf, from Vera Cruz and Tampico to Texas and, latterly, to Louisiana. There are oil wells producing out in the Gulf, drilled through the bottom of the sea off the coast of Louisiana. It seemed hardly credible, those who reasoned thus pointed out, that geology took any note of state lines. Why should not the oil formations under and around the Gulf of Mexico extend clear across to its eastern shore?

The enlargement of scientific knowledge of oil formations, of scientific methods of detecting oil indications and of the technology of oil drilling have continued to encourage wild catters to sink their drills in various parts of Florida. Fortythree wells were shallower than 4,000 feet, two went down deeper than 6,000 feet, every one of them showed "signs" which to experienced oil men's eyes encouraged the belief that there was oil in paying quantities somewhere under Florida. Oil men with experience in the Oklahoma and East Texas fields are not given to discouragement if they drill fifty or a hundred dry wells in a limited field before they bring in a producer; therefore oil men will tell the inquirer that there has really been no adequate oil exploration of Florida's forty million acres of potential oil land.

Actual oil and natural gas have been found in some of these wells. In 1927 J. L. McCord of Oklahoma struck promising sands saturated with crude oil at Monticello, just east of Talla hassee. A year earlier a well at Cedar Key on the Gulf Coast struck natural gas at a depth of 4,010 feet, which burned at the casing head for months. Faulty drilling equipment and technique and failing finances-the Florida real estate boom had just collapsed-caused the abandonment of this project.

The bringing in of the East Texas field in 1928, and of the Louisiana field shortly thereafter, stimulated interest in Florida's oil possibilities. In 1934 William F. Blanchard, an oil engineer with experience in the Pennsylvania fields, called an oil conference at the George Washington Hotel in Jacksonville. Representatives of most of the great oil companies attended and such interest was shown in the assembled data and reports of previous oil explorations that some of the large companies immediately began taking oil leases on Florida lands, all the way from Cape Sable at the southern tip of the peninsula, north to the Georgia line and west to Pensacola. By the Summer of 1937 there were more than 5,000,000 acres of Florida lands under oil leases. At two widely divergent points the most modern scientific apparatus for detecting the presence of subterranean oil formations was being set up, one oil well was being drilled and preparations were under way for two others, using the most up-to-date drilling equipment.

Great encouragement has been given to Florida oil exploration by a revision of its previously expressed opinion by the United States Geological Survey, which had held that Florida was outside of the range of possible oil-bearing sands. In its geological map of oil fields and possible oil fields published in 1934 the Geological Survey included the entire State of Florida as well as an adjoining strip of southern Georgia and Alabama. This was a result, in part, of geological explorations made in the course of the surveys for the Florida cross-state canal.

These and other recent geological discoveries have resulted in the complete abandonment by geologists of the belief long held, first publicly announced by a famous scientist of a century ago, Louis Agassiz, that the Florida peninsula is a coral reef. Scientists now recognize that it is a southerly extension of the Appalachian rock formations, overlaid with water-deposited limestone, and so is geologically identical with the lands to the North and West, in which oil has been found in enormous quantities.

The Gulf Oil Company, in 1937, had leased large acreage in southern Florida, and had begun explorations with the use of the same instruments which had enabled them to locate im portant oil fields in Texas and Louisiana. Another oil company was preparing to drill at Cape Sable, which is in a geological line with the oil and gas developments in Cuba. A third corporation, backed and headed by Mrs. Lucy Cotton Thomas McGraw, had explored several million acres in North Florida with the seismograph and had come to the conclusion, in which many oil engineers and operators agreed, that the country adjacent to the Suwannee River, near Live Oak, offered the most promising outlook for a successful oil development. Meantime, the test well in Lake County was going through geological formations of the type which spell hope to oil operators.

Unless all of the oil geologists are deceiving themselves by thinking that the signs which mean oil in Texas and Louisiana mean the same thing in Florida, there seems to be a reasonable chance that, sooner or later, Florida will strike oil.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 29, 2009, 12:06:58 PM
A very realistic solution!!  As opposed to the never do anything except wish for windmills...

QuoteThe 130-turbine, 24-square-mile cluster of windmills would be about 8 miles from Kennedy's home in Hyannis Port, and he has long opposed it.

QuoteHe said he's against the project because it would create a range of environmental and navigational problems and would hurt tourism, one of the area's key industries.

Quote"I definitely support alternative energy," Robert Kennedy told a local public radio program. But he insisted that the wind farm plan "makes no sense for the public because the costs it's going to impose on the people of these regions are so huge . . . probably larger than coal. This isn't just about wealthy people objecting to the diminishment of property values, but that's an important issue too," he added. "The aesthetics are going to forbid people from going there."

The alliance says the wind farm would spoil tourism, kill migratory birds and create a "permanent industrial facility in a pristine natural environment." And the towers would be illuminated at night to warn boats and aircraft, turning the coastline into a Christmas tree.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 29, 2009, 12:42:00 PM
Clearly the reasons to drill "so close to the shore" are to...

Irritate oil haters
Less distance to swim if it sinks
shorter commute
obscure everyones view
pollute the earth
practice in shallow water in prep for "the big time"
Since there is no oil there we need to keep our bits sharp
etc,etc,etc,...

If they are willing to pay Florida to drill for non existant oil we should let them... I mean no risk of spills yet we gain the cash and a great fishing spot.

Perhaps we can put a giant windmill atop the abandoned non producing oilwell...

Now THAT is thinking green! ;)

QuoteAesthetic pollution is just as bad as other forms.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 29, 2009, 12:57:26 PM

QuoteAesthetic pollution is just as bad as other forms.

Here we agree... 100%  I cannot say that anymore clearly.

But... reality dictates that if you want energy... you will use resources, despoil someones view, create some form of pollution, and to claim otherwise is folly.

Current technology DOES NOT ALLOW US TO HAVE OUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO!

Quote from: Dog Walker on May 05, 2009, 04:37:39 PM
"Extracting oil from shale (in effect, a rock) requires heating the shale and poses major environmental problems."

One of the major problems with oil shale is that when heated to remove the oil, it pops like popcorn and doubles in size.  You can't put it back in the hole it came out of since it won't all fit.  So it will just make mountains of toxic by product that will pollute all of the water that comes in contact with it.

Worse polluter than coal!  Cross it off the "available reserves" list.

Quote from: civil42806 on May 05, 2009, 07:53:00 PM

Quote from: Dog Walker on May 05, 2009, 04:37:39 PM
"Extracting oil from shale (in effect, a rock) requires heating the shale and poses major environmental problems."

One of the major problems with oil shale is that when heated to remove the oil, it pops like popcorn and doubles in size.  You can't put it back in the hole it came out of since it won't all fit.  So it will just make mountains of toxic by product that will pollute all of the water that comes in contact with it.

Worse polluter than coal!  Cross it off the "available reserves" list.

Okay so lets get this straight, shales is off the list, nuclear is off the list, wind is off the list (well at least if someone with money can see it, solar is off the list, can't erect panels in the mojave congress banned it, can't build the transmission lines anyway, environental groups are suing about the location, can't drill for more oil.


so..............................................................we go to our caves and bang our rocks together ;)

Quotebut we should build some more refineries too

QuoteOctober 4, 2009


Offshore drilling debate spurs interest across Florida

By Jim Ash
Florida Capital Bureau Chief

From Miami Beach to Tarpon Springs to tiny Captiva Island, Florida’s coastal governments and civic boosters are jumping feet first into the turbulent debate over offshore drilling.

Nearly 20 local governments and chambers of commerce have passed resolutions opposing moves by Congress or the Republican-led Legislature to promote offshore drilling in Florida. At least one local government arm, the Brevard County Tourist Development Council, is on record in support.

Proponents say resolutions are premature before objective analysis of the proposal and further point to polling that indicates a majority in favor of drilling.

Tallahassee Mayor John Marks, recently elected president of the Florida League of Cities, said the association has yet to take a stance on the issue, and is in no hurry to do so.

“I’m not even sure when we will take a position,” he said. “It’s too early yet.”

Supporters and opponents are meeting this week with a league advisory committee to make their cases.

Eric Draper, a lobbyist for Audubon of Florida and a chief opponent of offshore drilling, said the list of local governments opposing drilling belies recent polling by the industry.

This summer, Associated Industries of Florida touted a poll it commissioned by McLaughlin & Associates that showed 75 percent of Floridians supported, at least in concept, allowing offshore drilling in Florida. Twenty percent were opposed.

Pollsters interviewed 600 likely voters Aug. 12-13. The poll had a margin of error of 4 percentage points.

However, the same poll showed that when asked if drilling should be allowed anywhere on the Florida coast, support dropped to just 16 percent.

“We know that there is a hard-core number of people who think that cheap gas is more important than anything else,” Draper said. “The rest of their support is very soft.”

Nobody, including the industry, believes that if lawmakers approve offshore drilling, that gas prices will automatically plunge. It could take a decade before anyone realizes full production. But opponents accuse the industry of taking advantage of the latest gasoline crisis.

All of which is nonsense, said Florida Petroleum Council spokesman Dave Mica.
“Everything that I hear about public opinion is that we continue to see more and more support,” he said.

Mica and other supporters point to the Florida Association of Convention and Visitor Bureaus, an umbrella group, that has already come out in favor of offshore drilling.

Associated Industries of Florida President Barney Bishop isn’t worried about non-binding local resolutions, the result, he claims, of, “knee-jerk” reactions and grandstanding politicians.

“I don’t know what kind of debate they had, if any, in any of these commissions,” he said. “These are just out-of-touch politicians.”

Bishop said more light will be shed on the debate in December when the Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida is planning a series of public forums to vet the scientific and economic claims of both sides. The group is managed by the state Department of Community Affairs and was created by the Legislature in 2005 as a neutral vehicle to debate large public-policy questions.

“It’s a place where I think there will be an objective analysis,” he said.

Ericka D’Avanzo, regional manager for the environmental group Surfrider Foundation, said its 5,000 members are pushing local governments to pass anti-drilling resolutions. Chief targets are cities and counties in the districts of lawmakers who support offshore drilling, she said.

“If we can do that, I think we can turn the tide,” she said.

Quote from: mtraininjax on October 25, 2009, 07:45:04 PM
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, no one mentions this. With Florida's unemployment rate zooming past 11%, no one, no chamber has a plan on how to add more jobs to the local economies. Drilling would add new jobs and new tax revenues to the state. I've seen where it would not add maybe 50 million in state revenues, but then again, this is an estimate. What about the jobs?

QuoteMost workers live on the rigs themselves.  The rigs are built in far away places and towed into location so don't count on construction jobs.  Helicopters and boats ferry the workers and supplies to shore so there may be a small impact there, that is, if they come to our shores instead of one of the other Gulf states. The oil will travel in pipelines or ships to the refineries mostly in Texas, so after initially building the pipelines (again, if they are even routed through Florida), not many jobs there.

Quote from: mtraininjax on October 25, 2009, 09:20:43 PM
Surely the state will provide something like an incentive, to build the rigs using Florida workers, and possibly some sort of pipeline from the rigs to a refinery.  There has not been a new refinery constructed since the 70s, I am thinking we are due.

QuoteOffshore drilling will not bring jobs to Florida to any significant extent.

QuoteOffshore production platforms may be marvels of modern engineering, but none of that valuable petroleum makes its way out of the wells and into refineries without a great deal of human labor. In fact, larger oil rigs often employ more than a hundred workers to keep the platform running. As many of these rigs are located far from cities and shores, the employees (who range from engineers and geologists to divers and doctors) live for weeks at a time on these huge structures.


There are definitely pros and cons to working on an offshore platform. On the plus side, salary and benefits are usually pretty good, and employees typically enjoy long rest periods when they're not at sea. Employees will work one or two weeks on the oil rig, then spend one or two weeks at home. The downside, however, is that when they're at sea, they work 12-hour days, seven days a week. The weeks away from home can strain workers' home lives, as they spend half the year away from their family.

To help cope with these issues, petroleum companies frequently put a great deal of effort into providing comfortable living conditions for offshore workers. In many cases, quarters are on par with those found on major cruise ships -- featuring private rooms, satellite TV and even gym, sauna and recreation facilities. The food onboard also tends to be above average -- and available 24 hours a day. After all, work on an oil rig continues day and night, with employees working rotating schedules of daytime and nighttime shifts. Helicopters and ships bring in most of the necessary materials for day-to-day life on an oil rig, often through choppy weather conditions.

QuoteThe oil companies themselves say that the rigs will be built in Texas and Mississippi and towed on site.  So, no construction jobs on shore in Florida.

The oil companies themselves say that they will connect wells on the Florida Gulf Coast to their existing network of pipelines that already serve the Alabama and Mississippi well heads.  So some jobs for pipeline companies out of Texas and Louisiana while the connecting pipeline is being built.  I am sure that there will be some jobs in Florida supplying the pipe laying ships.

Once wells are producing there will be additional jobs in Florida for helicopter pilots to fly crews to the rigs, but the workers will be experienced already and probably from existing oil states, not Florida.

QuoteCrew
[edit] Essential personnel
Not all of these personnel are present on every platform, on smaller platforms workers will be responsible for several areas. The names shown are not industry-wide.

OIM (offshore installation manager) is the ultimate authority during his/her shift and makes the essential decisions regarding the operation of the platform.
Operations Team Leader (OTL)
Offshore Operations Engineer (OOE) is the senior technical authority on the platform
PSTL or Operations coordinator for managing crew changes
Dynamic Positioning Operator, navigation, ship or vessel maneuvering (MODU), station keeping, fire and gas systems operations in the event of incident
2nd Mate - Meets manning requirements of flag state, operates Fast Rescue craft, cargo ops, fire team leader.
3rd Mate - Meets manning requirements of flag state, operates Fast Rescue craft, cargo ops, fire team leader
Ballast Control Operator _ also fire and gas systems operator
Crane operators to operate the cranes for lifting cargo around the platform and between boats.
Scaffolders to rig up scaffolding for when it is required for workers to work at height.
Coxwains for maintaining the lifeboats and manning them if necessary.
Control room operators - Especially FPSO or Production platforms.
Catering crew will include people tasked with performing essential functions such as cooking, laundry and cleaning the accommodation.
Production techs for running the production plant
Helicopter Pilot(s) live on some platforms that have a helicopter based offshore. The helicopter flight crew transports workers to other platforms or to shore on crew changes.
maintenance technicians (instrument, electrical, mechanical)
[edit] Incidental personnel
Drill crew will be on board if the installation is performing drilling operations. A drill crew will normally comprise:
Toolpusher
Roughnecks
Roustabouts
Company man
Mud engineer
Derrickhand
Geologist
Well services crew will be on board for well work. The crew will normally comprise:
Well services supervisor
Wireline or coiled tubing operators
Pump operator

QuoteThere are a lot of arguments for and against offshore drilling, but I just don't see job creation as a good "for" argument.

QuoteCalifornia Says No Thanks to $100 Million; Never Mind to $4 Billion
Governor Schwarzenegger has just vetoed almost $500 million in budget line-item, in order to finalize the state budget. However certain environmental activists convinced the Assembly to deny an offshore oil drilling lease. While the drilling lease narrowly passed in the Senate the proposal eventually stalled in the Assembly. The lease would have provided an injection of $100 million dollars in 2009-2010, and about $4 billion over the next decade; not a bad deal for a state that is quite literally living on borrowed money.

Even after all the spending cuts and state worker furlough days, the state continues to be short on cash. The Assembly’s vote against the offshore drilling lease is troubling because it seems to lack any acknowledgment of California’s dire position both today and in the long term.

Offshore drilling in California would not only provide desperately needed funds to the state coffers but would also create high paying jobs.

QuoteThe lease would have provided an injection of $100 million dollars in 2009-2010, and about $4 billion over the next decade;

Quotebut would also create high paying jobs.

Quote from: jaxnative on October 26, 2009, 04:13:36 PM
Offshore drilling in California would not only provide desperately needed funds to the state coffers but would also create high paying jobs.

www/responsibleenergy.com

QuoteBecause of this general misunderstanding and misinformation CARE was founded in 2005 through cooperative efforts of a group of oil and gas producers in New Mexico who were tired of being beaten up by the media, and of misinformation planted there.

http://www.responsiblenergy.org/about.asp

QuoteNAICS 211. Oil and gas extraction. Establishments in this subsector operate and/or
develop oil and gas field properties. Such activities may include exploration for crude
petroleum and natural gas; drilling, completing, and equipping wells; operating
separators, emulsion breakers, desilting equipment, and field gathering lines for crude
petroleum and natural gas; and all other activities in the preparation of oil and gas up to
the point of shipment from the producing property. This subsector includes the
production of crude petroleum, the mining and extraction of oil from oil shale and oil
sands, and the production of natural gas, sulfur recovery from natural gas, and recovery
of hydrocarbon liquids. Establishments in this subsector include those that operate oil
and gas wells on their own account or for others on a contract or fee basis.

NAICS 213111. Drilling oil and gas wells. This subsector comprises establishments
primarily engaged in drilling oil and gas wells for others on a contract or fee basis. This
industry includes contractors that specialize in spudding in, drilling in, redrilling, and
directional drilling.

NAICS 213112. Support activities for oil and gas operations. This subsector
comprises establishments primarily engaged in performing support activities on a
contract or fee basis for oil and gas operations (except site preparation and related
construction activities). Services included are exploration (except geophysical surveying
and mapping); excavating slush pits and cellars, well surveying; running, cutting, and
pulling casings, tubes, and rods; cementing wells, shooting wells; perforating well
casings; acidizing and chemically treating wells; and cleaning out, bailing, and swabbing
wells.

QuoteJob Category Code & Description/Number of Direct Jobs
211 Oil and gas extraction (including NGL extraction) 368,451
213111 Drilling oil and gas wells 87,996
213112 Support activities for oil and gas operations 205,662
2212 Natural gas distribution (private) 108,900
2212 Natural gas distribution (public) 8,654
23712 Oil and gas pipeline and related structures
construction 97,817
32411 Petroleum refineries 70,410
324191 Petroleum lubricating oil and grease manufacturing 9,543
32412 Asphalt paving, roofing, and saturated materials
manufacturing 26,387
4247 Petroleum and petroleum products merchant
wholesalers 103,472
486 Pipeline transportation 39,377
44711, 44719 Gasoline stations 905,803
45431 Fuel dealers 90,817
Total Oil and Natural Gas Industry 2,123,291

QuoteDirect Employment - Oil and Natural Gas Industry - Louisiana: 109,003 (4.4% of state total)
Direct Employment - Oil and Natural Gas Industry - Texas:  432,147 (3.2% of state total)

QuoteDirect Employment - Oil and Natural Gas Industry - Florida 61,914 (0.6% of state total)

Quote from: stjr on October 26, 2009, 11:57:18 PM
To put U.S. oil industry jobs in perspective, the following is 2007 data from a study by the American Petroleum Institute ( http://www.api.org/Newsroom/upload/Industry_Economic_Contributions_Report.pdf ), the godfather of the oil and gas industry, about the industry's employment:

Oil well related job categories:

QuoteNAICS 211. Oil and gas extraction. Establishments in this subsector operate and/or
develop oil and gas field properties. Such activities may include exploration for crude
petroleum and natural gas; drilling, completing, and equipping wells; operating
separators, emulsion breakers, desilting equipment, and field gathering lines for crude
petroleum and natural gas; and all other activities in the preparation of oil and gas up to
the point of shipment from the producing property. This subsector includes the
production of crude petroleum, the mining and extraction of oil from oil shale and oil
sands, and the production of natural gas, sulfur recovery from natural gas, and recovery
of hydrocarbon liquids. Establishments in this subsector include those that operate oil
and gas wells on their own account or for others on a contract or fee basis.

NAICS 213111. Drilling oil and gas wells. This subsector comprises establishments
primarily engaged in drilling oil and gas wells for others on a contract or fee basis. This
industry includes contractors that specialize in spudding in, drilling in, redrilling, and
directional drilling.

NAICS 213112. Support activities for oil and gas operations. This subsector
comprises establishments primarily engaged in performing support activities on a
contract or fee basis for oil and gas operations (except site preparation and related
construction activities). Services included are exploration (except geophysical surveying
and mapping); excavating slush pits and cellars, well surveying; running, cutting, and
pulling casings, tubes, and rods; cementing wells, shooting wells; perforating well
casings; acidizing and chemically treating wells; and cleaning out, bailing, and swabbing
wells.

Note below that the industry includes as jobs gas station and convenience store employees, almost half of all their "direct" employees!

QuoteJob Category Code & Description/Number of Direct Jobs
211 Oil and gas extraction (including NGL extraction) 368,451
213111 Drilling oil and gas wells 87,996
213112 Support activities for oil and gas operations 205,662
2212 Natural gas distribution (private) 108,900
2212 Natural gas distribution (public) 8,654
23712 Oil and gas pipeline and related structures
construction 97,817
32411 Petroleum refineries 70,410
324191 Petroleum lubricating oil and grease manufacturing 9,543
32412 Asphalt paving, roofing, and saturated materials
manufacturing 26,387
4247 Petroleum and petroleum products merchant
wholesalers 103,472
486 Pipeline transportation 39,377
44711, 44719 Gasoline stations 905,803
45431 Fuel dealers 90,817
Total Oil and Natural Gas Industry 2,123,291

So, at best, oil drilling and related support constitutes a maximum of 30% of the industry.  Only about 18% explore and operate wells.  API implies there are about 178 million U.S. jobs, so direct employment in its industry amounts to only 1.2% (almost half of this in retailing) of all U.S. jobs.  Less than 0.4% of U.S. jobs are employed in exploration and production of oil and natural gas.

Below is employment in two of the biggest oil drilling and refining states.  Keep in mind that Texas is the HQ's for most of the large oil companies as well as home to most of the big refineries in the U.S. and that some 40% or more of these jobs may be thousands of gas station and convenience store employees:

QuoteDirect Employment - Oil and Natural Gas Industry - Louisiana: 109,003 (4.4% of state total)
Direct Employment - Oil and Natural Gas Industry - Texas:  432,147 (3.2% of state total)

For what it's worth, here is Florida in 2007:

QuoteDirect Employment - Oil and Natural Gas Industry - Florida 61,914 (0.6% of state total)

Obviously, we have to assume most of these Florida employees are pumping gas.

Conveniently, the API fails to break down jobs in each state by the job categories.  But, it's clear, offshore drilling is going to have little statistical impact on this state's job prospects.

QuoteTechnology can tap into oil reserves safely

October 16, 2009

When Congress let expire the moratorium on oil and natural gas exploration, the possibilities of new jobs, approximately $1.7 trillion in revenue and energy security were finally within reach. However, a year has passed, and America has yet to reap any benefits.

In Florida, support for offshore development has gained steam, as evidenced by state public opinion polls. Last year's advancement in the House opened the door on this issue and its potential economic benefits. And now, legislative leaders have pledged their support to revisit it next session.

We would do our state good by supporting lawmakers and pro-drilling advocates. According to an ICF International study, Florida could gain 13,142 jobs and $428 billion in revenues through offshore development, helping our state to overcome its nearly 11 percent unemployment rate. Given the benefits, why does the administration continue to delay development?

ICF International estimated that Florida's production from the Outer Continental Shelf could total 19.7 billion barrels of oil and 56.5 trillion cubic feet of clean-burning natural gas â€" providing part of America's energy solution, as our nation attempts to stay competitive in the face of increased globalization.

Through advanced technology, the oil and natural gas industry has reduced its environmental footprint, minimizing the impact on ecosystems and wildlife. The industry finds, develops and delivers oil and natural gas while leaving the Earth nearly untouched â€" a fact all Americans need to remember. With these technological developments, oil and natural gas companies can now access the same amount of reserves with half the number of wells it took 20 years ago.

The government estimates our nation's resources could power 65 million cars for 60 years and heat 60 million households for 160 years. And odds are, more resources lurk below ground. In 1987, the Minerals Management Service estimated approximately 9 billion barrels of oil lay in the Gulf of Mexico, and by 2006, that estimate ballooned to 45 billion.
Every day, industry, business and households across America rely on a steady supply of traditional fuels. Through the safe, clean expansion of drilling, our state can play a major role in contributing to these domestic needs, in part, helping to close the gap between those employed and those searching for work. For the good of our nation, lawmakers must seize the opportunity of an expired moratorium and expand domestic access.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on October 26, 2009, 04:42:48 PM
Woah... are you kidding me?? :o

QuoteThe lease would have provided an injection of $100 million dollars in 2009-2010, and about $4 billion over the next decade;

Quote from: civil42806 on October 27, 2009, 05:30:04 AM

Raise your hand if you know of anyplace they pump your gas for you?

Quoteeven though Texas sees less than $50 million and Alabama has never seen more than $200 million

QuoteOil Revenues Help Other States
Minerals help Wyoming, New Mexico, Alaska
By Justin Ewers
Posted February 1, 2008

It may be the worst of times in many states, but it's the best of times in some. Sales and income tax revenue is drying up in California and Florida, but some mineral-rich statesâ€"New Mexico, Montana, and Wyoming, for exampleâ€"are watching tax revenue grow from another income stream: oil.

In Alaska, where almost 90 percent of the state budget is fueled by taxes and royalties on oil and other minerals, the high price of oil has the state sitting on a roughly $3 billion surplus. Up north, the debate in the state Legislature isn't about what to cut but what to spend it on: A massive new hydroelectric dam near Anchorage is being discussed, as is an "energy rebate" that would hand out between $500 and $1,000 to every resident.

Texas, another oil-rich state, has built a $5.7 billion rainy-day fund over the past few years using gas and oil revenues, which usually account for only 3 percent of its total receipts. "Natural-resource-based states definitely did better in the last economic downturn," says Corina Eckl of the National Conference of State Legislatures. Those same states may stay high and dry this time around, too.

QuoteAlabama, Texas oil revenues below Florida estimates

The Associated Press

Published: October 21, 2009

Updated: 10/21/2009 07:14 pm


TALLAHASSEE - Texas and Alabama get far less money every year from offshore drilling in their state waters than advocates say Florida can expect, the state's environmental chief told a House panel Wednesday.

Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Michael Sole said Texas gets about $45 million and Alabama from $50 million to $300 million. That compares to an estimate by the pro-drilling group Florida Energy Associates that Florida's treasury can expect $2.25 billion a year from oil and natural gas production.

A drilling opponent jumped on that gap to cast doubt on the estimate.

"The math doesn't add up," said Eric Draper, policy director for Audubon of Florida.

He said the $2.25 billion estimate is based on an assumption 150 million barrels of oil could be pumped from Florida waters annually although Texas produces only 2 million and Louisiana 6 million.

Pro-drilling lawmakers argued that oil reserves in other Gulf Coast states, which have allowed drilling for decades, are dwindling while Florida's have yet to be explored.

"We need to find out what we have by exploring," said Rep. Charles Van Zant, R-Keystone Heights.

Existing law prohibits drilling in Florida waters, which extend three miles into the Atlantic Ocean and 10.35 miles into the Gulf of Mexico.

Opponents and proponents joined Sole, who said he was neutral, in testifying at the first of a series of meetings being held by the House Select Policy Council on Strategic & Economic Planning

The panel is chaired by Rep. Dean Cannon, R-Orlando. Cannon sponsored a bill that would have opened Florida waters to drilling as close as three miles from shore during this year's session. The House passed the measure, but it died when the Senate declined to take it up.

Senate leaders still are wary of reversing a long-standing policy against drilling. That again may short circuit what's potentially one of the hottest issues facing lawmakers as they prepare for the 2010 regular legislative session that opens in March.

Petroleum interests and other supporters argue drilling would provide the cash-strapped state with a new revenue source while helping the nation achieve energy independence. Environmentalists and their allies in the tourism industry say the risk of spills and other pollution to the state's beaches is too great.

"We will listen to experts and citizens from all sides of the issue and remain focused on helping restart Florida's economy while protecting our state's environmental treasures and our important tourism economy," Cannon said in a statement.

Sole said he's keeping an open mind but told the panel it also should consider competing uses for state waters including shipping lanes, fishing, aquaculture, military training and weapons testing and alternative energy such as harnessing wind and ocean currents.

He said another important factor is sand on the gulf bottom needed for beach renourishment because half of Florida's 825 miles of sandy beaches are critically eroded.

"The probability of a major oil spill admittedly is low," Sole said. "The data does show the higher risk issue is transportation. It's not the drilling so much, but it's the pipelines, the barges."

He showed the panel of map of hundreds of pipelines crisscrossing the gulf off Florida's neighboring states. He later said the state faced significant challenges to site just a single pipeline off Tampa due to the beach erosion issue.

QuoteIf we do develop natural gas wells in Florida waters, I hope they don't pipe it all to Texas.

Quote from: civil42806 on October 27, 2009, 05:30:04 AM

Obviously, we have to assume most of these Florida employees are pumping gas.

Raise your hand if you know of anyplace they pump your gas for you?

QuoteNAICS 44711. Gasoline stations with convenience stores. This subsector comprises
establishments engaged in retailing automotive fuels (e.g., diesel fuel, gasohol, gasoline)
in combination with convenience store or food mart items. These establishments can
either be in a convenience store (i.e., food mart) setting or a gasoline station setting.
These establishments may also provide automotive repair services.

NAICS 44719. Other gasoline stations. This subsector comprises establishments
known as gasoline stations (except those with convenience stores) primarily engaged in
one of the following: (1) retailing automotive fuels (e.g., diesel fuel, gasohol, gasoline) or
(2) retailing these fuels in combination with activities, such as providing repair services;
selling automotive oils, replacement parts, and accessories; and/or providing food
services

QuoteOil rig explodes off Louisiana coast; 11 missing

By KEVIN McGILL (AP) â€" 4 hours ago

NEW ORLEANS â€" An explosion rocked an offshore oil drilling platform, sending a column of fire into the sky and touching off a frantic search at sea Wednesday for 11 missing workers.

Most of the 126 workers on the rig Deepwater Horizon escaped safely after the explosion about 10 p.m. Tuesday, the Coast Guard said. Three were critically injured.

The rig, more than 50 miles southeast of Venice on Louisiana's tip, was still burning Wednesday afternoon. It was tilting about 10 degrees. There was no estimate of when the flames might be out.

Helicopters and boats searched the Gulf of Mexico for any sign of the workers who had not been accounted for.

"We're hoping everyone's in a life raft," Coast Guard Senior Chief Petty Officer Mike O'Berry said.

The Coast Guard said there were 17 workers evacuated by air and sea Wednesday morning but not all required hospital stays. Three were in critical condition, Rear Adm. Mary Landry.

The other 98 workers were being brought in by boat and were expected ashore Wednesday evening.

When the explosion happened, the rig was drilling but was not in production, according to Greg Panagos, spokesman for its owner, Transocean Ltd. in Houston. The rig was under contract to BP PLC. BP spokesman Darren Beaudo said all BP personnel were safe but he didn't know how many BP workers had been on the rig.

Adrian Rose, vice president of Transocean, said crews were doing routine work before the explosion and there were no signs of trouble.

Coast Guard environmental teams were on standby in Morgan City, La., to assess any environmental damage once the fire was out.

According to Transocean's website, the Deepwater Horizon is 396 feet long and 256 feet wide. The semi-submersible rig was built in 2001 by Hyundai Heavy Industries Shipyard in South Korea. The site is known as the Macondo prospect, in 5,000 feet of water.

The rig is designed to operate in water up to 8,000 feet deep and has a maximum drill depth of about 5.5 miles. It can accommodate a crew of up to 130.

A semi-submersible rig is floated to a drilling site. It has pontoons and a column that submerge when flooded with seawater. The rig doesn't touch the sea floor, but sits low in the water, where it is moored by several large anchors.

Last September, the Deepwater Horizon set a world deepwater record when it drilled down just over 35,000 feet at another BP site in the Gulf of Mexico, Panagos said.

"It's one of the more advanced rigs out there," he said.

Panagos did not know how much the rig cost to build, but said a similar rig today would run $600 million to $700 million.

Workers typically spend two weeks on the rig at a time, followed by two weeks off. It is equipped with covered lifeboats with supplies to allow them to survive for extended periods if they must evacuate.

Total offshore daily production in the Gulf of Mexico is 1.7 million barrels in federal waters; 6.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day is produced in those waters. There are about 35,000 workers offshore in the Gulf at any one time, according to MMS.

Joe Hurt, a regional vice president for the International Association of Drilling Contractors, said working on offshore oil rigs is a dangerous job but has become safer in recent years thanks to enhanced training, improved safety systems and better maintenance.

"In recent years, there's been a lot more money available and more money spent on training and safety," he said.

Transocean has 14 rigs working in the Gulf and 140 worldwide. There are 42 deep water rigs either drilling or doing workovers â€" upgrades and maintenance â€" in depths of 1,000 feet or greater in the Gulf of Mexico, according to the federal Minerals Management Service.

Since 2001, there have been 69 offshore deaths, 1,349 injuries and 858 fires and explosions in the Gulf, according to the agency, which did not break down the cause of the deaths, the severity of the injuries, or the size of the fires and explosions.

Associated Press Writers Alan Sayre and Mike Kunzelman in New Orleans and Cain Burdeau in Port Fourchon, La., contributed to this report.

QuoteSunken Oil Rig Off Louisiana Coast is Leaking

(http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2010/04/22/image6423213g.jpg)

The Coast Guard discovered Saturday that oil is leaking from the damaged well that fed a massive rig that exploded this week off Louisiana's coast, while bad weather halted efforts to clean up the mess that threatens the area's fragile marine ecosystem.

For days, the Coast Guard has said no oil appeared to be escaping from the well head on the ocean floor. Coast Guard Rear Adm. Mary Landry said the leak was a new discovery but could have begun when the rig sank on Thursday, two days after the initial explosion.

"We thought what we were dealing with as of yesterday was a surface residual (oil) from the mobile offshore drilling unit," Landry said. "In addition to that is oil emanating from the well. It is a big change from yesterday ... This is a very serious spill, absolutely."

Quote from: mtraininjax on May 12, 2009, 08:10:05 AM

Quotebut we should build some more refineries too

Uh yeah!  :P

Quote from: Lunican on April 26, 2010, 11:42:59 AM

QuoteSunken Oil Rig Off Louisiana Coast is Leaking

(http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2010/04/22/image6423213g.jpg)

The Coast Guard discovered Saturday that oil is leaking from the damaged well that fed a massive rig that exploded this week off Louisiana's coast, while bad weather halted efforts to clean up the mess that threatens the area's fragile marine ecosystem.

For days, the Coast Guard has said no oil appeared to be escaping from the well head on the ocean floor. Coast Guard Rear Adm. Mary Landry said the leak was a new discovery but could have begun when the rig sank on Thursday, two days after the initial explosion.

"We thought what we were dealing with as of yesterday was a surface residual (oil) from the mobile offshore drilling unit," Landry said. "In addition to that is oil emanating from the well. It is a big change from yesterday ... This is a very serious spill, absolutely."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/24/national/main6429004.shtml

QuoteI cant believe anyone is surprised by this.  I just want to shout a resounding "WE TOLD YOU SO" from the roof tops.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 26, 2010, 01:51:23 PM

QuoteI cant believe anyone is surprised by this.  I just want to shout a resounding "WE TOLD YOU SO" from the roof tops.

Who exactly is surprised?  I'm not...  I will join in the "I TOLD YOU SO"... but it doesn't mean anything.  Even the pro drillers (such as I) could have predicted a drilling accident in the future.  The only thing it changes is I am sure the will to drill is now gone.  The need to does not.  Our need for oil is not diminished one iota by this disaster... the dangers of transporting oil does not change and yet...

There is no substitute.  You make it sound as if the "pro drillers" would not prefer free,clean, and cheap, energy over what we have.  The fact is it does not exist... and will not for decades.

Quote from: stephendare on April 26, 2010, 12:47:35 PM
ah yes....another oldie but goodie.

Quote from: RiversideGator on July 22, 2008, 02:13:06 PM
The real truth is liberals want high oil prices.  They want these because they want society to be reoriented in ways that they prefer (more mass transit, denser development, to stop "global warming", etc) but that voters evidently do not want.  So, instead of going to the people and asking for a gas tax to raise oil prices to levels they prefer they do sneaky things like prevent drilling where known oil quantities are located, prevent the development of new refineries domestically, try to scare people, etc.  I think this is fundamentally dishonest and they should be ashamed of themselves.  I am personally all for denser development and more mass transit and less fossil fuel use but the shift has to be gradual and voluntary IMO.

QuoteWell thats odd.  If they are similar costs and output, except one pollutes and has ecological catastrophes and the other one doesnt, wouldnt that be more sensible?

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 26, 2010, 04:00:22 PM
Im with you Doc and DW... :)

Quote from: JC on April 26, 2010, 04:04:16 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 26, 2010, 04:00:22 PM
Im with you Doc and DW... :)

Of course you are. 

Emergencies and shortages are great motivators.

Quote from: Doctor_K on April 26, 2010, 04:14:51 PM

Quote from: JC on April 26, 2010, 04:04:16 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 26, 2010, 04:00:22 PM
Im with you Doc and DW... :)

Of course you are. 

Emergencies and shortages are great motivators.

For what?

Quote from: stephendare on April 26, 2010, 04:05:32 PM

Quote from: JC on April 26, 2010, 04:04:16 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 26, 2010, 04:00:22 PM
Im with you Doc and DW... :)

Of course you are.  

Emergencies and shortages are great motivators.

Especially for squeezing out top dollar on obsolete products!

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 26, 2010, 04:14:38 PM
Last I checked oil and gas were not obsolete but essential and there is most definitely a shortage of alternatives!

QuoteBiofuels Probably Have a Brighter Future in Aviation than Ground Transport
The U.S. military is the #1 consumer of oil in the world, and the Navy's ships and planes use a large fraction of the total. For strategic reasons first and environmental reasons second, the Navy has made it a goal to start using more home-grown biofuels to power its vehicles. The latest milestone took place last week when a F/A-18 Super Hornet multirole fighter jet, dubbed the "Green Hornet", flew for 45 minutes using a 50/50 blend of regular jet fuel and camelina-based biofuel.

(http://www.treehugger.com/fa-18-hornet-biofuels-Green-hornet-photo.jpg)

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/04/fa-18-super-hornet-fighter-jet-flies-50-50-biofuels-us-navy.php

QuoteMain Entry: 1ob·so·lete
Pronunciation: \ˌäb-sə-ˈlēt, ˈäb-sə-ˌ\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin obsoletus, from past participle of obsolescere to grow old, become disused, perhaps from ob- toward + solēre to be accustomed
Date: 1579

1 a : no longer in use or no longer useful <an obsolete word> b : of a kind or style no longer current : old-fashioned <an obsolete technology>
2 of a plant or animal part : indistinct or imperfect as compared with a corresponding part in related organisms : vestigial

Quote from: buckethead on April 26, 2010, 04:22:56 PM
I eagerly anticipate the onset of renewable energy that competes with (surpasses) the cost effectiveness of fossil fuels. There have been bold predictions and stunning presentations saying it is just around the corner.

QuoteFar From Free-Market Prices for Gasoline
gasoline petrol

True Cost of U.S. Gasoline is $15.14 per Gallon, Report Says
by Tom Doggett & edited by The Progress Report staff
So you think you're getting a good deal on a tank of gasoline these days? You wouldn't think so if all the oil industry tax subsidies received from the federal and state governments and other costs that went into producing that gallon of gasoline were included in the pump price.

Such external costs push the true price of gasoline as high as $15.14 a gallon, according to a new report released by the International Centre for Technology Assessment.

"In reality, the external costs of using our cars are much higher than we may realize," the Washington-based research group said in its report.

    Publisher's note -- for a deeper look at this, see Clifford W. Cobb's article here.  http://www.progress.org/cobb01.htm

The report examined more than 40 separate cost factors, the group said, that are associated with gasoline production but aren't reflected by the price of gasoline at the pump.

These external costs total up to $1.69 trillion per year, according to the report.

The group points out that the federal government provides the oil industry with tax breaks and massive corporate welfare handouts, so gasoline is artificially cheap for American consumers.

The Department of Energy is forecasting that the national price for regular unleaded gasoline will average $1.02 during the current quarter, which, when adjusted for inflation, is the lowest price on record for any three-month period.

Artificial, anti-free-market subsidies don't end at the federal level, as the group said most state income taxes are in turn based on oil firms' lower federal tax bills, which result in companies paying $123 million to $323 million less in state taxes.

In addition to tax breaks, the federal government provides up to $114.6 billion to the wealthy industry in giveaways and subsidies annually that support the extraction, production and use of petroleum, such as research and development and export financing.

The federal government also spends up to $1.6 billion yearly on regulatory oversight, pollution cleanup and liability costs connected to the oil industry, the group said.

In addition, U.S. military spending allocated to guard the world's petroleum resources totals $55 billion to $96 billion a year, according to the group.

QuoteIn addition to tax breaks, the federal government provides up to $114.6 billion to the wealthy industry in giveaways and subsidies annually that support the extraction, production and use of petroleum, such as research and development and export financing.

The federal government also spends up to $1.6 billion yearly on regulatory oversight, pollution cleanup and liability costs connected to the oil industry, the group said.

Quote from: buckethead on April 26, 2010, 04:34:09 PM
You can do better than that^

I do not claim to be an expert, but I don't believe biofuels are greener than fossil fuels when mass produced. This may not always be the case. The most promising venture IMO is algae to biofuels. Photosynthesis to 60 mph in 4 seconds.

Until someone, (even if by armed revolution), develops a better, cheaper means of powering modern society, fossil fuels will remain indespensible.

Quote from: Doctor_K on April 26, 2010, 04:37:03 PM

QuoteIn addition to tax breaks, the federal government provides up to $114.6 billion to the wealthy industry in giveaways and subsidies annually that support the extraction, production and use of petroleum, such as research and development and export financing.

The federal government also spends up to $1.6 billion yearly on regulatory oversight, pollution cleanup and liability costs connected to the oil industry, the group said.

And here I thought it was all W's fault, supporting his oil buddies.  It still happens?

And I still don't see how petroleum is obsolete.

Quote from: buckethead on April 26, 2010, 04:38:24 PM
I got the point. I doubt the source.

Quote from: JC on April 26, 2010, 04:39:33 PM

Quote from: Doctor_K on April 26, 2010, 04:37:03 PM

QuoteIn addition to tax breaks, the federal government provides up to $114.6 billion to the wealthy industry in giveaways and subsidies annually that support the extraction, production and use of petroleum, such as research and development and export financing.

The federal government also spends up to $1.6 billion yearly on regulatory oversight, pollution cleanup and liability costs connected to the oil industry, the group said.

And here I thought it was all W's fault, supporting his oil buddies.  It still happens?

And I still don't see how petroleum is obsolete.

Ohhhh, here we go with the distractions, thanks for bringing politricks into the equation.  Obama is as guilty as Bush, I forgot, it has to be said in the beginning of every thread!  Clinton was bad too, he blew it with NAFTA and blah blah blah...

Now can we get back on topic?

QuoteFeds may set Gulf oil slick ablaze

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Coast Guard officials are considering setting the Gulf of Mexico oil slick on fire as it moved Tuesday to within 20 miles of sensitive ecological areas in the Mississippi River Delta.

Officials say it could become one of worst spills in U.S. history.

Quote from: Doctor_K on April 26, 2010, 04:49:10 PM

Quote from: JC on April 26, 2010, 04:39:33 PM

Quote from: Doctor_K on April 26, 2010, 04:37:03 PM

QuoteIn addition to tax breaks, the federal government provides up to $114.6 billion to the wealthy industry in giveaways and subsidies annually that support the extraction, production and use of petroleum, such as research and development and export financing.

The federal government also spends up to $1.6 billion yearly on regulatory oversight, pollution cleanup and liability costs connected to the oil industry, the group said.

And here I thought it was all W's fault, supporting his oil buddies.  It still happens?

And I still don't see how petroleum is obsolete.

Ohhhh, here we go with the distractions, thanks for bringing politricks into the equation.  Obama is as guilty as Bush, I forgot, it has to be said in the beginning of every thread!  Clinton was bad too, he blew it with NAFTA and blah blah blah...

Now can we get back on topic?

Well we were on-topic.  Stephen was positing that fossil fuels are obsolete.  Bridge and I were suggesting that they weren't.  

You threw something in about change and catastrophe, and also an interesting counter-point of cost effectiveness to Bucket's train of thought.  You also managed to support Bridge's and my argument that fossil fuels and the things we get from them are, in fact, not obsolete.

I'm not at all a fan in theory of the federal government subsidizing the hell out of fossil fuels and petroleum.  However, if that means I can get gas at just shy of $3.00 a gallon as opposed to just shy of $15, all the better.  

Since there are no solar-powered cars on the market, nor fuel-cell or battery-powered cars that don't cost two legs and an arm, and since Jacksonville's mass transit is neither mass nor transit, I'll hang with my ICE car and $2.89 a gallon fossil fuel gasoline and await with bated breath the arrival of mass-produced, mass-marketed alternative-energy-powered vehicles.

QuoteEco-taxis zap CO2 emissions / Battery-switching demo project rolled out in Roppongi

Tomoko Echizenya and Makoto Fukumori / Yomiuri Shimbun Staff Writers

The government and companies, including automakers, are accelerating efforts to promote electric vehicles--the ultimate eco-cars.

On Monday, Better Place, a U.S. venture company, launched the world's first switchable-battery electric taxi service in Tokyo in partnership with major taxi operator Nihon Kotsu Co.

The project, using three vehicles with switchable batteries, is a demonstration experiment commissioned by the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry. The service is available to the public at a dedicated taxi stand on the first floor of the Roppongi Hills complex in Minato Ward, Tokyo, until July 31. The fare is the same as that of a conventional gasoline-powered taxi.

The main characteristic of the project is that batteries are changed at specialized switching stations.

Electric vehicles heretofore have been plagued by a combination of long battery charging times and limited travel range between charges.

This new type of electric vehicle, however, is capable of traveling about 300 kilometers a day by dropping off old batteries and picking up new ones at specialized stations. The old battery left at a station is recharged while the vehicle continues on its way with a new one.

"We'd like to have [this service] prime the pump to promote the mass use of electric vehicles," Better Place Japan President Kiyotaka Fujii said at a press conference in Tokyo on Monday.

Fujii pointed out that taxis account for only about 2 percent of the passenger cars in Tokyo, but 20 percent of total carbon dioxide emissions comes from taxis.

Meanwhile, local governments and automakers are sharing ideas on how to promote the wider use of electric vehicles.

Also on Monday, the First E-KIZUNA Summit Forum was held in Saitama. Representatives from two prefectures and 18 cities gathered at the forum and described subsidy programs provided by the prefectural and municipal governments for the purchase of electric vehicles.

The city government of Fujisawa, Kanagawa Prefecture, offers subsidies of up to 350,000 yen to those who buy an electric vehicle and meet certain conditions. For example, people who buy Mitsubishi Motor Corp.'s i-MiEV, which is priced at 3.98 million yen, can receive subsidies totaling about 2 million yen from the central and local governments.

Japanese automakers and U.S. companies also have begun to collaborate in research and development.

On Monday, Nissan Motor Co. and General Electric Co. announced they will jointly research charging technology for electric vehicles.
(Apr. 28, 2010)

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/business/T100427004136.htm