Hatuey

Disclaimer : I'm not an expert in economics, oil or gas prices and I don't pretend to be so if I've said anything that isn't correct you are more then welcome to try and explain whatever I've misunderstood.

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

Alright so I'm very interested in this whole issue with offshore drilling. To an obsessive extent. I've done a lot of reading on it. There are a lot of reasons for this obsession, the main one being that it ties to independence from foreign oil.

I've been listening to the arguments put forth by some of conservative and Republican posters so that we begin drilling ASAP. The main one being the relief it would bring to the working class and the poor in this country. Now this seems like a completely valid argument on the surface but I find there are a few flaws in this. I started off by looking at how soon we'd be able to use any of the oil coming from ANWR & other sources. Apparently the soonest would be within 3-4 years. Now this isn't bad but it seems to do away with the argument that we need the relief now. Not to mention we wouldn't even be using these sources at full capacity until somewhere in the next 2 decades. How big would such a drop be? Cents? Dollars? These are all questions which the proponents of offshore drilling can not answer even though they are directly related to what they are proposing.

The second reason I don't believe drilling in ANWR ASAP will bring gas prices down is because of Canada. Yes, that ice cube above us. Canada's Alberta province has built a pretty solid economy around oil but yet gas prices in Canada are actually higher then those in the U.S. - How can this be? How can Canada be paying more for oil when they have a fountain of it smack in the middle of the country? It seems a bit contradictory that they'd paying more even though they don't have the demand we do and a lot of supply.

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

Alright so there are my 2 cents and here is the poll question :

Will offshore drilling bring immediate relief?

__________________
Is Intolerant Because He Won't Let The Intolerant Run Other People's Lives.

Kandahar

And that's the SOONEST. Like, the estimate given from the most optimistic proponents of drilling. A more realistic estimate is 6-8 years.

Using the most optimistic figures, the United States has about 1.7 trillion barrels of oil beneath our land and off our shores. Using the most conservative figures, the ENTIRE WORLD has about 1.1 quadrillion barrels of oil. That means that America could produce, at most, 0.15% of the total world supply (and lower the cost of oil by about 0.15%).

Note that this is using the most OPTIMISTIC figures possible...and is before taking into account that not all oil is created equal, and American oil is simply harder and more expensive to drill than Saudi oil. It also does not factor in the reality that the Middle East has gotten pretty good at producing oil, whereas we're newcomers to the game. In reality, the cost of oil would almost certainly drop MUCH LESS than 0.15%.

That's more because of higher taxes, than of any problem with their oil production. If you ignore the taxes, I think Canadians and Americans pay approximately the same on average.

Of course not.

__________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams

jamesrage

I voted no.Unless they got those oil rigs are pre-built somewhere else and all they got to do is just stick them in place, it is going to take years to construct and to go through all the government red tape.


However eco-rats and politicians kissing the balls of eco-rats for votes have been saying for years it would take 5-10 years before we see any oil from those wells.I am pretty sure they said the same thing since they first made ANWR off limits.

__________________

jfuh

Absolutely not. Nor would it bring any form of relief - what it would do is nothing more than at the sacrifice of years of conservation of the area bring about a false sense of hope and security.
In reality it would only put the mindset to instead of tapping into a golden opportunity of market force development of alternative resources, more efficient and conservation minded technology.
It's only a matter of time before fossil fuels run out - that is the plain simple reality, you'd only be delaying the inevitable. With economic growth at let's just say 4~5% our demand for energy would only continue to rise. What the past has shown is that cheap oil only makes us even more reliant on it - there's no free market force to push in that direction and the blood sucking power hungry politicians won't do anything of sensibility for said technologies.
It would be nice to have a bit of an ease on the continuous rise of oil prices at the pump at least a leveling off so as to allow for the technology to make it to the market.
But in desperate times come brilliant innovation. This nation is definitively a nation of some amazing innovation - with the invisible hand pushing in the same direction I wouldn't be surprised if we will see this technology come out sooner than later.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming

John1234

I voted No for the poll.
I also voted Against drilling in 2004 as a Floridian.

When I voted against it, it was when the drilling was not needed.
It places Florida's #1 income at risk (tourism).
We Floridians need only to drive to Alabama to see the ugly sight of oil rigs from their beaches.

I think that current conditions outweigh my State's personal income security needs.
I do not want to see the oil rigs. Or have them contaminate my back yard when a hurricane creates a spill...
But I am willing to allow them now.

NOT because i think they will offer immediate relief.
But because they might offer relief at a time when we might need that relief infinitely more... 3-10 years in the future.

An alternate energy source needs to be the highest priority.
I do not only want to improve upon electric and hydrogen cars, but put resources into developing a completely new form of energy as well.

But while we do this, there is no reason not to open up some of our resources as a safe guard.
A serious energy crisis in this country would be unimaginable.
Millions would die.
We need to be working this from all angles. And working it together.

Ikari

It won't provide immediate relief, nor will it in the long run turn out to be very beneficial. First off, the refineries are still producing below full production, so you have to convince them to first stop supply setting. Doesn't matter how much oil you drill up if it's going to bottle neck at the refining step. Second, it's gonna take time to set all this up, and if we're this concerned instead of drilling offshore, we should be investing in some nuclear power plants instead.

__________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Reverend_Hellh0und

Who ever claimed "immediate relief"?


Do you invest your money with the same strategy?

__________________
كافر
Never forget those who died.
Never forget those who killed them.

Cephus

It not only won't bring immediate relief, it won't bring relief at all. Having all the oil in the world doesn't matter if you don't have the refining capacity and we haven't built a new refinery in 30 years.

__________________
I'm not anti-religion, I'm anti-hypocrisy.

Blog me! http://BitchSpot.JadeDragonOnline.com

Reverend_Hellh0und

Democrats just shot down building more refineries.

donc

Our current refineries are operating at 85%percent capacity now, and from 1975 to 2000,the EPA has received only one request for a refinery and it was approved.