More Favor Drilling in ANWR


Will fast Eddie aka Barack change his stated energy policy from:

Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
Invest in a Clean Energy Future
Support Next Generation Biofuels
Set America on Path to Oil Independence
Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change


To

Drill in Anwr
Drill offshore
Process Colorado Oil Shale
Build more Nuclear plants
Mine more coal

Seems as ENERGY prices rise Obama's Tree Hugger energy policy might cause his poll numbers to drop.

Why does he have to abandon his "tree-hugging", long term solutions to our energy problems and accept conservative ideas exclusively?

We don't have enough oil to make a significant change in the world oil market. The shale oil in the Rockies can't be made into gasoline. It can be made into diesel and jet fuel, but it won't lower gasoline prices at all.

Opening ANWR would lower oil prices by 75 cents per barrel.

More offshore drilling does little at the pump.

Time article

NPR recording

McCain's "great" energy solutions won't immediately help either. Whatever we drill for goes to the world market, not just to the United States. You need to impact the international world oil market impact, not just the domestic one. That's going to take a lot more oil than what we have.

Quit touting these solutions like they are going to fix our problems. We need to drill, conserve, and find alternatives. Those are all long-term solutions.

perunapower Wrote:Why does he have to abandon his "tree-hugging", long term solutions to our energy problems and accept conservative ideas exclusively?

We don't have enough oil to make a significant change in the world oil market. The shale oil in the Rockies can't be made into gasoline. It can be made into diesel and jet fuel, but it won't lower gasoline prices at all.

Opening ANWR would lower oil prices by 75 cents per barrel.

More offshore drilling does little at the pump.

Time article

NPR recording

McCain's "great" energy solutions won't immediately help either. Whatever we drill for goes to the world market, not just to the United States. You need to impact the international world oil market impact, not just the domestic one. That's going to take a lot more oil than what we have.

Quit touting these solutions like they are going to fix our problems. We need to drill, conserve, and find alternatives. Those are all long-term solutions.

Last I checked diesel is selling for about $1/gallon more than gasoline so Shale oil does help the energy crisis.

I don't disagree that energy policies have to be approached from multiple fronts, but no where in Obama's policy does he mention oil exploration and drilling increased mining or REDUCING energy costs. It's all about the environment.

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:Last I checked diesel is selling for about $1/gallon more than gasoline so Shale oil does help the energy crisis.

I don't disagree that energy policies have to be approached from multiple fronts, but no where in Obama's policy does he mention oil exploration and drilling increased mining or REDUCING energy costs. It's all about the environment.

But it doesn't help gasoline prices which is what I said and what you were talking about when you said "Seems as gas prices rise Obama's Tree Hugger energy policy might cause his poll numbers to drop."

You presented shale oil as a solution to rising gas prices which is just misleading and ignorant.

Regardless, you proposed he change his energy policy from environmentally-based to drilling-based. That's equally as stupid. We need to attack this from multiple fronts, but claims that we can drill ourselves out of this problem, but the mean, tree-hugging liberals won't let us because the endangered spotted woolly rabbit might lose a carrot or two is outlandish. Such speak breeds ignorance in terms of what we should be trying to do to solve our energy problems.

Ok Peruna. So we do nothing. GREAT PLAN!

We are ALL screwed.:muttering:..and its all the blame of government. Without the interference of MOMMY GOVT...a unhindered free market would have been drilling,building refineries,building nuclear plants and be doing what ever the hell the consumers wanted through the response to market signals........Suck it up statists!!!!.....The unintended consequences of govt. intervention are coming home to everyone....and as usual...they SUCK.

What will be your tipping point?

Rebel Wrote:Ok Peruna. So we do nothing. GREAT PLAN!

What part of "we need to attack this from multiple fronts" did you not understand? Attacking from multiple fronts is a lot different than nothing. I suggest actually reading all of what I say instead of your usual selective reading habits.

perunapower Wrote:

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:Last I checked diesel is selling for about $1/gallon more than gasoline so Shale oil does help the energy crisis.

I don't disagree that energy policies have to be approached from multiple fronts, but no where in Obama's policy does he mention oil exploration and drilling increased mining or REDUCING energy costs. It's all about the environment.

But it doesn't help gasoline prices which is what I said and what you were talking about when you said "Seems as gas prices rise Obama's Tree Hugger energy policy might cause his poll numbers to drop."

You presented shale oil as a solution to rising gas prices which is just misleading and ignorant.

Regardless, you proposed he change his energy policy from environmentally-based to drilling-based. That's equally as stupid. We need to attack this from multiple fronts, but claims that we can drill ourselves out of this problem, but the mean, tree-hugging liberals won't let us because the endangered spotted woolly rabbit might lose a carrot or two is outlandish. Such speak breeds ignorance in terms of what we should be trying to do to solve our energy problems.

IF you are going to be that freaking technical gas prices would seem to related more to natural gas which shale oil would not be a substitute either. I guess you've never drank an Pepsi, Mt. Dew, etc. and referred to it as a "coke"? In any event, I edited my original post to read ENERGY prices instead of gas prices.

Using Shale Oil to make diesel would lower the cost of diesel increasing the demand for diesel vehicles lowering demand for gasoline thus lowering cost of gasoline. Mining coal for use in power plants would lower need for oil fired plants and allow that oil to be used for other purposes as well. Think McFly.

perunapower Wrote:What part of "we need to attack this from multiple fronts" did you not understand? Attacking from multiple fronts is a lot different than nothing. I suggest actually reading all of what I say instead of your usual selective reading habits.

...and I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY! However, you seem to be taking the position that we shouldn't drill.

Rebel Wrote:

perunapower Wrote:What part of "we need to attack this from multiple fronts" did you not understand? Attacking from multiple fronts is a lot different than nothing. I suggest actually reading all of what I say instead of your usual selective reading habits.

...and I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY! However, you seem to be taking the position that we shouldn't drill.

Damn skippy...This crisis is going to take efforts on every front. I just hope like hell that the govt. gets out of the way and allows the market to do what it does best....RESPOND. If the useless govt. wants to help...how about tax incentives for alternative energy...WAY beyond the normal....Lets get this PARTY started!!!!

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Damn skippy...This crisis is going to take efforts on every front. I just hope like hell that the govt. gets out of the way and allows the market to do what it does best....RESPOND. If the useless govt. wants to help...how about tax incentives for alternative energy...WAY beyond the normal....Lets get this PARTY started!!!!

Tax incentives? TAX INCENTIVES? How about getting rid of the f'n regressive, and VERY Communistic, tax system we have now and implement the Fair Tax? THAT would bring this country back to being a nation who prides herself on ingenuity and competitiveness.

perunapower Wrote:Quit touting these solutions like they are going to fix our problems. We need to drill, conserve, and find alternatives. Those are all long-term solutions.

We do need all three.

But drilling is actually the shortest-term and cheapest (with today's technology) solution. The five years cited for offshore drilling to have an impact is still a shorter time frame than any other alternative. And some effect will be felt sooner. Much has been made of the assertion that we are the only developed country not to have signed on to Kyoto; we are also the only developed country that restricts offshore drilling to the extent that we do. Many countries that are perceived as way more environmentally conscious than we are (e.g., New Zealand, Norway) have no problem permitting offshore drilling. But then again, they have a more consensus-building approach to environmental problems than our adversarial, command-and-control model.

Increased use of ethanol will require us to find additional sources of supply. That makes it a short-to-medium term solution, with some improvement annually but probably 10 years to really have significant impact. Continuing to subsidize inefficient corn-based ethanol is a loser. Also medium term, we need to look at biodiesel. And longer term we need to develop other biological alternatives (switchgrass and cellulose ethanol, biodiesel from multiple sources).

We need to convert from fossil fuel to electricity for primary movers of more automobiles, trains, and rapid transit. For that to be viable, we need significant increases in electricity supply. Nuclear, solar, and wind need to pick up a lot of that burden in the medium term.

Oil shale and coal liquifaction/gasification will enable us to use domestic resources to replace some oil imports. Moving to more nuclear, wind, and solar for electricity will free up more coal for these purposes.

Long term, we need a conscious policy to wean us from our dependency on oil, and particularly foreign oil. The numbers aren't there to indicate that we can get totally off oil. But if we develop alternatives aggressively, and if we get back into the business of developing our domestic oil, shale, and coal reserves, we can get to the point that we can significantly reduce our environmental damage while becoming a net exporter of energy. That would pretty effectively address the economic, envirionmental, and national security problems we currently face.

But there is no free lunch. It took Brasil 35 years, with an across-the-board national commitment. I think that time frame is reasonable for us, if we muster a similar level of commitment. If we had developed Brasil's level of commitment 35 years ago, we'd be there today. That's a reason not to delay one microsecond.

Rebel Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Damn skippy...This crisis is going to take efforts on every front. I just hope like hell that the govt. gets out of the way and allows the market to do what it does best....RESPOND. If the useless govt. wants to help...how about tax incentives for alternative energy...WAY beyond the normal....Lets get this PARTY started!!!!

Tax incentives? TAX INCENTIVES? How about getting rid of the f'n regressive, and VERY Communistic, tax system we have now and implement the Fair Tax? THAT would bring this country back to being a nation who prides herself on ingenuity and competitiveness.

Well..... Im not a fan of the FT...or...any damn tax.:muttering:
You know I believe that any taxation that is not "user based and voluntary" is theft and is immoral.
Im only working with the silly ass system we currently have.
I would agree though...that the FT would be an improvement over the current theft we currently suffer. I think it would be a small step toward my advocation of a total freemarket society.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Well..... Im not a fan of the FT...or...any damn tax.:muttering:
You know I believe that any taxation that is not "user based and voluntary" is theft and is immoral.

Do you realize how contradictory your statements are? You're not for the Fair Tax, but you're for a voluntary "user" tax. IT'S THE SAME THING!

Rebel Wrote:

perunapower Wrote:What part of "we need to attack this from multiple fronts" did you not understand? Attacking from multiple fronts is a lot different than nothing. I suggest actually reading all of what I say instead of your usual selective reading habits.

...and I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY! However, you seem to be taking the position that we shouldn't drill.

Where? I'm taking the position that many drilling proponents are overselling and overexaggerating the effect it would have on gasoline prices (e.g. Newt Gingrich, John McCain, George Bush, etc.).

By explicitly saying that we should do all, I am explicitly supporting the act of drilling for oil. I don't see how that could be misunderstood or misinterpreted.

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:IF you are going to be that freaking technical gas prices would seem to related more to natural gas which shale oil would not be a substitute either. I guess you've never drank an Pepsi, Mt. Dew, etc. and referred to it as a "coke"? In any event, I edited my original post to read ENERGY prices instead of gas prices.

Using Shale Oil to make diesel would lower the cost of diesel increasing the demand for diesel vehicles lowering demand for gasoline thus lowering cost of gasoline. Mining coal for use in power plants would lower need for oil fired plants and allow that oil to be used for other purposes as well. Think McFly.

Gas prices should not be equated with energy prices. One is a subset of another. When you say gas prices, I'm naturally going to assume you mean gasoline, not oil, not natural gas, not coal. But that's now irrelevant because you have changed it to read energy prices, but I would still like to know why Barack should change from environmentally-friendly solutions to oil-dependent ones. It makes no sense. He should mix them, yes, but not rely on oil-dependent ones exclusively, as you seemed to be proposing.

I'm not against mining for shale oil, but I'm not thoroughly convinced that it would cause a sharp drop in diesel prices either. It requires a different refining process that may be more expensive than traditional refining of crude oil. I honestly don't know how much it would cost, so I'm not going to delve into that. I do think it needs to be examined as a short-term solution.

I'd much rather us focus our investments in renewable and clean energy and see those as our long-term goals, rather than focus on coal, oil, and kerogen to meet our energy needs in the long-term. But in the mean time, we need to allow ourselves access to more oil, safely and in the most environmentally-friendly ways, to address our needs.

Rebel Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Well..... Im not a fan of the FT...or...any damn tax.:muttering:
You know I believe that any taxation that is not "user based and voluntary" is theft and is immoral.

Do you realize how contradictory your statements are? You're not for the Fair Tax, but you're for a voluntary "user" tax. IT'S THE SAME THING!

OK My Fizzle....You are not going to try and twistizzle my words.

You can try as you may to describe the FT as a voluntary tax if you wish...but thats just silly. In fact... Im against it for the main reason that it taxes people that "evade" taxes. Blackmarket sales...(which I advocate) become taxed...I admire and worship any and all attempts to evade the current system of theft, including drug dealers and illegal immigrants....That cute stripper supporting 2 kids by submitting herself to a bunch of learing hardons will not be able to evade your governmental theft....I like strippers

perunapower Wrote:I'm taking the position that many drilling proponents are overselling and overexaggerating the effect it would have on gasoline prices (e.g. Newt Gingrich, John McCain, George Bush, etc.).

I would still like to know why Barack should change from environmentally-friendly solutions to oil-dependent ones. It makes no sense. He should mix them, yes, but not rely on oil-dependent ones exclusively, as you seemed to be proposing.

I'm not against mining for shale oil, but I'm not thoroughly convinced that it would cause a sharp drop in diesel prices either.

I'd much rather us focus our investments in renewable and clean energy and see those as our long-term goals, rather than focus on coal, oil, and kerogen to meet our energy needs in the long-term. But in the mean time, we need to allow ourselves access to more oil, safely and in the most environmentally-friendly ways, to address our needs.

Saying that increased drilling will get us back to $2 a gallon (or even $3 a gallon) is overstating the effect. But that doesn't mean that it won't have a significant effect. The effect will be to enable us to hold the line at $4 (or $5 if it's up to that level by then) instead of rising to the $8-10 range. I'd call that a significant effect, to be sure. The same argument applies to the impact of shale oil on diesel. And to some extent, in the long run diesel and gasoline are substitutes, so yes, there would be an effect on gasoline demand and hence on gasoline pricing.

I'm glad you don't understand what NC Herd is getting at. I don't either.

My concern with the dems right now is that their idea of including drilling in the mix is to have the oil compaines drill on the 68 million acres that they presently have leased but haven't drilled. The reason they haven't drilled there is because THERE ISN'T ANY OIL THERE. They are drilling first in the places where they think there's a high probability of finding significant oil reserves. They are moving about as fast as they can; they are spending between 90% and 110% of profits, depending on the company, on new exploration; you wnat them to drill faster, increase their profits (j/k). Remember, you can't tell for sure that oil IS somewhere without drilling, but you can tell that oil ISN'T somewhere from geology (or at least that any possible reservoir is too small to make production econmically feasible). I've been trying to think of ways to make this clear, and have hit on the idea of allowing oil companies to bid on offshore leases with the proviso that they would release an equal amount of currently leased acreage for every new lease that they acquire.

Clean renewable energy needs to be the long-term focus; that is where dems have a better handle than repubs right now. But dems are wrong in way overplaying the short-term relief that can be provided by non-fossil sources. Repubs are partly to blame here too, because are implying that cost reduction is an achievable short-term goal, when in reality what is achievable short-term is some degree of stabilization at current levels.

I've been to India and I've been to China, and I've seen what's going on there. Greater Beijing alone is putting 100,000 new cars on the road a month. Translate that into demand and you will quickly see that we need drastic expansion of supply just to hold things where they are.

We are debating, and making, too many policy decisions based on a very narrow point of view that considers our internal situation only. This is not surprising given most Americans' lack of travel to, and understanding of, foreign countries. Our decisions about energy, about taxes, about health care, and about the environment need to be made with consideration given to what is happening, and to what works and doesn't work, in the rest of the world.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:Saying that increased drilling will get us back to $2 a gallon (or even $3 a gallon) is overstating the effect. But that doesn't mean that it won't have a significant effect. The effect will be to enable us to hold the line at $4 (or $5 if it's up to that level by then) instead of rising to the $8-10 range. I'd call that a significant effect, to be sure. The same argument applies to the impact of shale oil on diesel. And to some extent, in the long run diesel and gasoline are substitutes, so yes, there would be an effect on gasoline demand and hence on gasoline pricing.

I have a hard time thinking that our reserves are going to have that significant of an effect on gasoline prices. If we had a domestic oil market, then I would be more inclined to believe it would have that effect, but it's all internationally sold. I don't know if you listened to that NPR clip I posted prior in this thread, the guest on there, Henry Lee, the director of Environment and National Resources Program at Harvard, said the time table for offshore would be somewhere in the scope of 8-14 years from now, if it were allowed today. I think ANWR would be faster than that though, probably 5-8 years (?). The mere prospect of us drilling may drop it a few dollars, but without something substantive I don't think it'll have a tremendous effect for a few years, at the earliest.

I'm not saying it won't because I don't know for sure. I'm not a fortune teller, but more can't hurt in a market where demand exceeds supply. I think if we start drilling we'll more than likely slow the price increase and perhaps introduce some stability into a unusually volatile commodities market.

We also need to strengthen the dollar; that'll help more than drilling in my opinion. Unfortunately, that's also a complex problem that's not going to fix itself overnight.

Quote:Clean renewable energy needs to be the long-term focus; that is where dems have a better handle than repubs right now. But dems are wrong in way overplaying the short-term relief that can be provided by non-fossil sources. Repubs are partly to blame here too, because are implying that cost reduction is an achievable short-term goal, when in reality what is achievable short-term is some degree of stabilization at current levels.

Agreed.

Quote:We are debating, and making, too many policy decisions based on a very narrow point of view that considers our internal situation only. This is not surprising given most Americans' lack of travel to, and understanding of, foreign countries. Our decisions about energy, about taxes, about health care, and about the environment need to be made with consideration given to what is happening, and to what works and doesn't work, in the rest of the world.

Agreed. We need to be learning from other countries like many countries are learning from us. As much as this country likes to think it always knows best, there are other brains abroad creating solutions to the same problems and sometimes they will get better solutions than we will.

perunapower Wrote:We also need to strengthen the dollar; that'll help more than drilling in my opinion. Unfortunately, that's also a complex problem that's not going to fix itself overnight.

The dollar decline may be the biggest single factor in the price rise we are seeing. It's certainly a big factor in any event. The biggest impact on reversing that would be reducing imports. More domestic production would do much to accomplish that. Demand in places like India and China will cause the price to go up measured by some sort of weighted average of world currencies. Improving the dollar's standing relative to other currencies will mean that the impact in dollars will be much less than the impact in Euros or pounds or whatever. So, increased domestic drilling figures to cause the price of oil to stabilize or rise more slowly in dollars than the price in, say, Euros.

Rebel Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Damn skippy...This crisis is going to take efforts on every front. I just hope like hell that the govt. gets out of the way and allows the market to do what it does best....RESPOND. If the useless govt. wants to help...how about tax incentives for alternative energy...WAY beyond the normal....Lets get this PARTY started!!!!

Tax incentives? TAX INCENTIVES? How about getting rid of the f'n regressive, and VERY Communistic, tax system we have now and implement the Fair Tax? THAT would bring this country back to being a nation who prides herself on ingenuity and competitiveness.

You get a beer for that one. Bring on FairTax.