Bush Renews Call for Offshore Drilling

[ladiesbballcoach]

In some respects, yes. They were not responsible for the Arab oil embargo of the '70s, so we gave them permission to drill in Prudhoe Bay Alaska over the objections of many enviromentalists. (Those objections have since proven groundless). The great Alaskan pipeline was predicted to be the catalyst needed to limit our dependence on foreign oil until alternatives could be developed. Sound familiar? Thousands of oil wells in this country are capped because it would cost more to extract the low pressure, low volume petroleum than it would cost to import middle eastern oil. Well, now oil is $130 plus per barrel. Is is time to reopen these wells?

 

My point is, we have the means now to reduce or limit our dependence on imported oil bought from our most dangerous threats. I, for one, am willing to pay four bucks for a gallon of gas, but only if I see results.

 

Very good friend of mine is in the gas retail business. He has told me that it is not crude oil that is necessarily the problem although the high prices are an issue.

 

The present refineries are producing at 97% capacity and that is about as good as you are going to get. The other 3% is general shut down for maintenance or repairs.

 

He indicated the problem was that EPA guidelines hamper or make it near impossible to build a refinery presently at a reasonable cost. He said a new one has not been built since like the 70's.

 

Add into the fact that the communities where the refineries need to go, don't want them, and you have a problem in building refineries.

[Hatz]

Very good friend of mine is in the gas retail business. He has told me that it is not crude oil that is necessarily the problem although the high prices are an issue.

 

The present refineries are producing at 97% capacity and that is about as good as you are going to get. The other 3% is general shut down for maintenance or repairs.

 

He indicated the problem was that EPA guidelines hamper or make it near impossible to build a refinery presently at a reasonable cost. He said a new one has not been built since like the 70's.

 

Add into the fact that the communities where the refineries need to go, don't want them, and you have a problem in building refineries.

 

 

Kind of like prisons. Everyone demands that we have more, just not near their backyard.

[Hasbeen]

Very good friend of mine is in the gas retail business. He has told me that it is not crude oil that is necessarily the problem although the high prices are an issue.

 

The present refineries are producing at 97% capacity and that is about as good as you are going to get. The other 3% is general shut down for maintenance or repairs.

 

He indicated the problem was that EPA guidelines hamper or make it near impossible to build a refinery presently at a reasonable cost. He said a new one has not been built since like the 70's.

 

Add into the fact that the communities where the refineries need to go, don't want them, and you have a problem in building refineries.

 

See, this is one of the confusing issues. If our refineries are operating near capacity, how does opening up new areas for drilling improve our situation?

Edited June 19, 2008 by Pepper II

[True blue (and gold)]

See, this is one of the confusing issues. If our refineries are opperating near capacity, how does opening up new areas for drilling improve our situation?

 

Excellent point.

[H]

See, this is one of the confusing issues. If our refineries are operating near capacity, how does opening up new areas for drilling improve our situation?

 

 

According to the lead story in the Courier this morning, 58% of the cost of gasoline is due to the price of crude. If the price of crude goes down, the price of gasoline should be reduced even if there is a refinery capacity constraint.

[ladiesbballcoach]

See, this is one of the confusing issues. If our refineries are operating near capacity, how does opening up new areas for drilling improve our situation?

 

That is not confusing.

 

If you are producing something at 97% capacity and it costs you $130 per barrel to produce, it will cost you less to produce at 97% capacity if you can buy or find on your own at $75 per barrel.

 

But also, you can control the costs by opening up refrineries at the same time that can take that $75 per barrel cost and produce more gas that increases supply.

 

You increase supply and generally the product prices either a) level off; b) go down.

[Hasbeen]

My understanding is that each barrell we produce domestically goes onto the world market at the world price. Am I wrong?

[oldrambler]

No problem, Oldramber!

 

:thumb:

[John Anthony]

HUGE news out of China... they are raising gas prices as the GOVT is eating way to much of the cost. Many didn't think this would happen till after the Olympics but they are doing it now. Also, many are predicting China's economy to take a down turn after the olympics.

 

If China's demand drops significantly oil could drop by 40 dollars. This is the exact fear of OPEC and the Saudi's, gas so high that countries are backing off it.

 

Also heard Iraq is close to signing oil deals with western companies. They could boost oil by 1-2 million a day. The stars are starting to line up for an oil crash... the question is when?

[woodsrider]

Heard this morning OPEC is boosting production by 200,000 barrels per day and China will raise gas prices by 18%.

[leatherneck]

See, this is one of the confusing issues. If our refineries are operating near capacity, how does opening up new areas for drilling improve our situation?

 

In addition to LBBC's response, also keep in mind that if the oil going to our refineries was produced domestically, the domestic production would create thousands of jobs for American workers (a big benefit for our citizens and our economy) and our dollars would not be flowing to middle East countries/governments to purchase the oil, rather they would be staying in the U.S. reducing the trade deficit (another big benefit to our economy).

 

Honestly, there is no good reason we should not be drilling more off shore and in Alaska. Environmental concerns with off shore drilling have proven to be bogus.

 

While I am a big McCain supporter, I think his position on Alaska is wrong. But at least he's got the off shore position right. I chuckled when I heard Biden over the weekend accuse McCain of flip flopping on the off shore drilling issue (for those unaware, McCain previously was opposed to off shore drilling, but now is in favor of it). Biden called that flip flopping; I call it being willing to re-examine a position in light of the changing need for more U.S. production to try and bring down high oil prices. I call it being open minded and logical. Biden's choice, Obama, is steadfastly, and close mindedly opposed to both off shore and Alaska drilling. This is just another issue that helps identify my choice for President: McCain may not agree with my thoughts on issues all the time, but he's one heck of a lot higher in the batting average than Obama is.

[AcesFull]

My understanding is that each barrell we produce domestically goes onto the world market at the world price. Am I wrong?

You are half right. Domestically produced oil does go on the world market but depending on the volume that is placed into the market, the "world price" will be affected. Oil prices are not immune to the law of supply and demand and the best way to deal with speculators in the market is to drive the price down with additional production.

[True blue (and gold)]

In addition to LBBC's response, also keep in mind that if the oil going to our refineries was produced domestically, the domestic production would create thousands of jobs for American workers (a big benefit for our citizens and our economy) and our dollars would not be flowing to middle East countries/governments to purchase the oil, rather they would be staying in the U.S. reducing the trade deficit (another big benefit to our economy).

 

Honestly, there is no good reason we should not be drilling more off shore and in Alaska. Environmental concerns with off shore drilling have proven to be bogus.

 

While I am a big McCain supporter, I think his position on Alaska is wrong. But at least he's got the off shore position right. I chuckled when I heard Biden over the weekend accuse McCain of flip flopping on the off shore drilling issue (for those unaware, McCain previously was opposed to off shore drilling, but now is in favor of it). Biden called that flip flopping; I call it being willing to re-examine a position in light of the changing need for more U.S. production to try and bring down high oil prices. I call it being open minded and logical. Biden's choice, Obama, is steadfastly, and close mindedly opposed to both off shore and Alaska drilling. This is just another issue that helps identify my choice for President: McCain may not agree with my thoughts on issues all the time, but he's one heck of a lot higher in the batting average than Obama is.

 

I, too, don't consider it flip-flopping. I like a leader who is willing to change his/her mind after re-examining the issues or if circumstances change, even though his/her opponents may look at it as weak.

 

I do want to ask about the "bogus" part. Wouldn't you say that some risk exists, however small?

[All Tell]

I, too, don't consider it flip-flopping. I like a leader who is willing to change his/her mind after re-examining the issues or if circumstances change, even though his/her opponents may look at it as weak.

 

I do want to ask about the "bogus" part. Wouldn't you say that some risk exists, however small?

 

Risk exists in everything.

 

Build a city on land below sea level that has been reclaimed from wetlands and there's risk that someday something will happen to flood it but I don't hear anyone on the left even suggesting that New Orleans be abandoned because there is a risk it may flood again.

[True blue (and gold)]

Risk exists in everything.

 

Build a city on land below sea level that has been reclaimed from wetlands and there's risk that someday something will happen to flood it but I don't hear anyone on the left even suggesting that New Orleans be abandoned because there is a risk it may flood again.

 

Sounds like a good topic to debate in a whole separate thread. :thumb: Let's start this one sometime.