rhinefire

Feel free to read the attached link about our glorious traitor Bla-bla and hisso-o-o-o concern about the environment that he is loaning $2,000,000,000 to (South) America for offshore drilling. Oh, those horrible big oil companies (only here in the states of course) and their total hatred for the environment. Lying dirty scum but at least he is lying to the left as well.

Hot Air Blog Archive Good news: Obama backs off-shore drilling! Update: A Soros connection?

__________________
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

-Thomas Jefferson (who owned slaves and had sex with them)

ashurbanipal

Just a quick point--where exactly would you like to drill here in the U.S., or offshore near the U.S.?

The idea that there's much oil to find here is not well supported by the geological evidence. There are small patches off the east coast, but it's not clear that it won't cost more to develop them than will be recovered from them. We have explored the North American continent, with a few exceptions in the far north. We know what's here.

South America underwent the same intensive exploration over the last decade, and near the end of that period, the large brazillian offshore field was found. It's got enough oil to be worth drilling, and if we fund it, we'll be able to get the oil.

Seems like simple enough logic to me. Send the development dollars to where there is actually oil, be the first to do so, so that we get the oil.

Baralis

Why should our government send our tax dollars to a company that had an 18 billion dollar profit last year that has large agreements to sell their product to China? They should pay for their own research.

The possible Soros connection is a different matter. While it does come across as fishy without proof its only coincident. If I had to take a guess I would say there is a reasonable possibility that Soros may have had some influence in the deal. I doubt there are any politians that dont have shady back deals going on.

Kernel Sanders

There is already a thread on this topic

ConservaBill

This action stands alone as irrefutable proof that BO's intent is not to bolster the American economy .. but to drive a stake in it!

apdst

If there was no oil, why do the oil companies want to drill?

Seems to me that the only people who push the, "we're all outta oil", mantra are the folks that are opposed to harvesting it. The oil companies aren't going to spend billions of dollars going after something that doesn't exist.

Why not fund drilling here and put Americans to work?

__________________
...you're the kind of man it's a pleasure to hang. If all you can talk is guff, you can talk it to the Devil. --Gus McRae

ConservaBill

Will if the Dear Leader had NOT signed a moratorium on exploration in the dark of night on his 4th day in office (driving the FIRST stake in our economy in the process).. here's a list:

Offshore N.C.
Offshore Atlantic Fl.
Florida straits
Anwar Provence
Offshore GOM

just for for starters!

BTW which liberal scien-politico did you get THAT tidbit of misinformation?

ashurbanipal

I've no doubt that Obama has his share of shady back-room deals. However, the article posted goes too far IMO--the brazillian field (which still goes by a couple of names) is the largest find in this hemisphere in quite a while. We're making overtures towards Brazil for the same reason we make overtures towards any country--they have something we want. It's the couteous thing to do to offer them something in return. If they don't reciprocate, we can respond appropriately to that.

Brazil does have trade agreements with China. Given that China buys our debt, our doing something that benefits China's economy benefits our own.

All of this said, we are playing a losing game, and this discussion is a moot point. We could have sent them 18 trillion dollars. Wouldn't matter.

ashurbanipal

They'd like to explore. No one has said anything about drilling that I've heard. As you will read in the link I post below, oil companies spent a whopping two hundred thousand dollars per quarter in 2007 lobbying congress for the right to explore those areas. Call it 1 million dollars per year.

Now look at their profits, and tell me that's not a pittance.

Well, meet the first one who doesn't. Here's my position in a nutshell:

1) It's far too late on climate change and pollution. We passed the line where we are utterly doomed in 2005--actually probably sometime in the 1970s.

So as far as environmental issues go, we're already fooked, so it doesn't really matter whether we drill more or not. In the meantime, a little more oil can help us be more comfortable.

2) However, it's estimated that there could be up to 18 bbls along the east coast. Those estimates are based on the 2k survey by the U.S. Geological survey, which suffered from major methodological flaws. I'll be happy to discuss those in depth with you if you like; in the meantime, it's worth noting that since then, they have been dreadfully wrong on every projection they've made. They've become an untrustworthy source as far as most people are concerned.

There probably is some oil there, especially off the Carolina coasts and the coast of Florida. The geology is right for it. But that's really all we know; we don't even have adequate seismic surveys. Even assuming that we could recover 18 bbls, that amounts to a 900 day supply for the U.S. at our current rates of consumption. We would face some serious technical challenges in recovery that would slow the rate of flow down signficantly. That 18 bbls--if it's there--isn't likely to be all in one place. We'll need more rigs, and then they'll have to be deployed. Etc. Etc.

The real kicker comes when you realize that even if we start today, it will be about 20 years before we start to harvest the first barrels of oil. At current and projected decline rates, the pooch will already have been screwed by then. At the projected decline rates, if we start now, we'll be recovering oil from the east coast in 2029. In that same year, we'll be producing roughly 15 mbpd worldwide. We're producing about 82 mbpd right now. The maximal flow rate for the east coast is going to be something less than a million barrels per day, so it's hardly going to do anybody any good.

I would suggest you read these articles:

There May Be Oil Offshore, But…

Why Exxon Won't Produce More

ashurbanipal

See my post to apdst, above.

I did not get it from any...whatever that is you wrote. I base my information on spending several years listening to geologists, oil economists, physicists, geostatisticians, oil investment bankers, and other such people--the best and brightest in their fields--debate the oil and energy situation. I chose to believe those people who:

1) Made the most successful predictions (note: no one made 100% accurate predictions, but the actual events favored those with pessimistic views much more than optimistic).

2) Based their arguments on correct and comprehensive information, and employed valid reasoning from that information.

I'm not a liberal in any sense that most people--you or most others on these boards--would likely understand. Our so-called "liberal" politicians are a bunch of scumbags, just as are our so-called "conservative" politicians.