Take the money used for drilling and invest in new technologies. If, as CC says, it will be 2030 before the oil comes onto the market, I fully expect oil to be near obsolete by then and sure as heck expect energy independence by then. You know when T Boone Pickens is bailing out of the oil market it's time for the rest of the US to follow suit.

Take what money? The thing about lifting a ban on offshore drilling is that it doesn't cost the government anything. Surely you aren't saying that the government should physically take money from the oil companies?

 

Drilling for more oil does not prevent us from developing alternative technologies. (Unless you want to formulate the argument that the more expensive gas is, then the more likely alternative fuels appear- but either way, it still results in very, very costly fuel for consumers).

 

If your intention is environmental, then you should want to stop the drilling, because A) it is "bad for the environment" and B) it pushes us closer to alternative fuel. However, things will just get more expensive.

 

But if your intention is reduce the burden on the American people, then drilling (as well as tax credits for R & D on alternative fuels) is the only way to go.

I agree with your assesment, and agree with the basic tenent that offshore drilling can help. I just think that a true commitment to developing alternate energy solutions, while expanding oil production is the right thing. I don't think we have a true commitment yet. I also disagree with the politization of drilling by both parties in the campaign season. From my experience, those in the industry that I dealt with knew that the commitment to alternative energy was the right way to go, and that they had the ability to do it, but because of the potential loss of money, didn't want to take that chance.

Agreed with what you are saying (especially the underlined), but clarify on the bolded.

 

Are you saying that oil companies don't want to invest in alternative fuels because they may lose money?

 

IMO, if that is the case, then maybe alternative fuels aren't as plausible as we seem to think. If you can't find a company out there willing to take a risk on it (because the likelihood of reward is so minimal), then I can't imagine it is close to reaching the market.

I have a question. Is the real problem supply or refineries? I've long felt that the limited number of refineries is the real issue that keeps the prices up and the oil companies wealthy. They won't build new ones. Maybe it's because no one wants them in their backyard but is it also because the more refineriers we have, the more production takes place? And if that is so then they would not be able to hold to the price/profit margin as tightly as they do now?

 

I caught just a bit of an interview with T. Boone Pickens a couple of days ago and he was saying that our refining capacity is fine. I dunno. Seems to go against everything I've read.

So what's the alternative solution? I have to read a leadership book for some stupid management class I have to take. It asks "When is the best time to plant a tree?" The answer is 25 years ago. When is the next best time? Right now. (Ironic metaphor because Clinton and Republican Congress did not drill 10 years ago)

 

All I am saying is that allowing offshore drilling can only help, and the market will sort the rest out. I am not guaranteeing large decreases in gas prices, but right now this is the most effective way to lower gas prices.

 

Allowing offshore drilling might help 10 years from now, but shouldn't we be focusing most of our efforts on alternatives?

I have a question. Is the real problem supply or refineries? I've long felt that the limited number of refineries is the real issue that keeps the prices up and the oil companies wealthy. They won't build new ones. Maybe it's because no one wants them in their backyard but is it also because the more refineriers we have, the more production takes place? And if that is so then they would not be able to hold to the price/profit margin as tightly as they do now?

 

Just from my limited knowlege(I don't want to be the oil/gas/energy expert on BGP- I don't mind being a Constitution expert)

 

Refineries are a bigger problem than supply, and one reason that supply isn't an issue, is because we purchase so much oil fro foriegn hands. I don't think that we've built a refinery in at least 15-20 years, maybe more. If supply was the bigger issue, there would be more flowing wells in KY, TN, VA, WV, PA. It's not to say that there arent companies that are drilling and pumping oil in those states, but I've personally seen about 35 wells that oil has been struck, and it's there, but the well has been capped to be pumped at a later date(this was in 2001-2003 they may be pumping now.) Many of these wells were operated by smaller companies. A lack of money avaliable to them may be a reason why those wells were not pumping at the time.

 

Once again, this is just from my knowledge and experience. If anyone else can provide better insight, or correct something that I post in error, please do so.

Allowing offshore drilling might help 10 years from now, but shouldn't we be focusing most of our efforts on alternatives?

I know you posted this while I made post #16 but I refer to it cause I (tried to) answer some of these questions. Then ask me from there.

 

But in any case, what more can the gov't do? How would restricting offshore drilling hurt?

Take what money? The thing about lifting a ban on offshore drilling is that it doesn't cost the government anything. Surely you aren't saying that the government should physically take money from the oil companies?

 

Drilling for more oil does not prevent us from developing alternative technologies. (Unless you want to formulate the argument that the more expensive gas is, then the more likely alternative fuels appear- but either way, it still results in very, very costly fuel for consumers).

 

If your intention is environmental, then you should want to stop the drilling, because A) it is "bad for the environment" and B) it pushes us closer to alternative fuel. However, things will just get more expensive.

 

But if your intention is reduce the burden on the American people, then drilling (as well as tax credits for R & D on alternative fuels) is the only way to go.

 

Agreed with what you are saying (especially the underlined), but clarify on the bolded.

 

Are you saying that oil companies don't want to invest in alternative fuels because they may lose money?

 

IMO, if that is the case, then maybe alternative fuels aren't as plausible as we seem to think. If you can't find a company out there willing to take a risk on it (because the likelihood of reward is so minimal), then I can't imagine it is close to reaching the market.

 

Think of it this way. Alot of buisnesses or investments require start-up costs to begin prodution, before making the money back later. Those companies that I know of, didn't think that the price of oil would go down, thus making the move away from oil would not be a more profitable one. They felt the price of oil would go up, and if they stayed in the oil buisness, instead of moving towards alternate sources, they would make more money in the immediate run. The money that would have to be spent for alternatives might be made back in the long term, but they didn't want to loose what they had.

I'd prefer we attack the problem (oil dependency) rather than struggle to relieve symptoms(oil supply) of the problem. We will only find ourselves in the same place down the road with this path. This is poor, shortsighted, appease the masses type leadership, no way around it.

Think of it this way. Alot of buisnesses or investments require start-up costs to begin prodution, before making the money back later. Those companies that I know of, didn't think that the price of oil would go down, thus making the move away from oil would not be a more profitable one. They felt the price of oil would go up, and if they stayed in the oil buisness, instead of moving towards alternate sources, they would make more money in the immediate run. The money that would have to be spent for alternatives might be made back in the long term, but they didn't want to loose what they had.

So what you are saying is that alternative fuels are not the most profitable option yet?

I'd prefer we attack the problem (oil dependency) rather than struggle to relieve symptoms(oil supply) of the problem. We will only find ourselves in the same place down the road with this path. This is poor, shortsighted, appease the masses type leadership, no way around it.

If we have more oil here, we become less dependent.....although does anyone know if we have the capabilities to produce enough oil to become self-sufficient?

I'd prefer we attack the problem (oil dependency) rather than struggle to relieve symptoms(oil supply) of the problem. We will only find ourselves in the same place down the road with this path. This is poor, shortsighted, appease the masses type leadership, no way around it.

I'm not understanding how this is a poor, shortsighted idea. I do agree that some of it is to appease the masses. But honestly, what would lifting the restrictions hurt? As cch said earlier it isn't going to cost the government any money to lift a ban.

 

I would agree that we need to look into alternative energies and try to develop them. But as cch alluded to earlier if the alternative energies were such a viable option, wouldn't a company have already jumped in and began?

They would be dumb not to. The memories from the last off shore spill have long faded, and EVERYONE is being hit hard with gas prices at all time highs. The Dems really didn't have much to gain at all by not allowing off shore drilling, but could've lost a good bit by not allowing it.

So what you are saying is that alternative fuels are not the most profitable option yet?

 

 

Yes, but I am not willing to say that they won't be profitable at all. My gut tells me that long term benifit far outweighs the short term problems we would have with a larger commitment to alternate sources.

 

 

If we have more oil here, we become less dependent.....although does anyone know if we have the capabilities to produce enough oil to become self-sufficient?

 

 

I would say that we don't have the capabilities to become self sufficient.

You give me an alternative solution (instead of sarcastic comments that add little to the discussion) and we can have decent political and economic debate, which is what P&R has been before.

 

It's easier to complain than to offer up solutions.

I'm glad the Democrats have taken this issue off the table for the election. The Republicans have long portrayed drilling as the solution to high gas prices and used the issue of drilling as a political club with which to beat up their political opponents.

I agree with your assesment, and agree with the basic tenent that offshore drilling can help. I just think that a true commitment to developing alternate energy solutions, while expanding oil production is the right thing. I don't think we have a true commitment yet. I also disagree with the politization of drilling by both parties in the campaign season. From my experience, those in the industry that I dealt with knew that the commitment to alternative energy was the right way to go, and that they had the ability to do it, but because of the potential loss of money, didn't want to take that chance.

 

Alot of these big oil companies are putting forth money and research into alternative fuels though. They realize that the well will run dry eventually, and they want to be prepared, and still top dogs in energy production when it does. It's going to take time, as for now. Offshore drilling is a must.

But if your intention is reduce the burden on the American people, then drilling (as well as tax credits for R & D on alternative fuels) is the only way to go.

 

That is not a true statement. Not at all. There is no real evidence that increased offshore drilling will "reduce the burden on the American people". The idea sounds good, but the reality is that any increased supply will be a trickle compared to the demand and there won't be a meaningful effect on prices. The real problem is exploding demand worldwide. The added supply, whatever it amounts to and whenever it might become available, will priced on the world market. You want to reduce the burden on the American people? Take aggressive actions that would encourage significant conservation. They could provide real relief with little or no time delay. Tax incentives for companies that provide telecommuting choices and staggered work schedules, reduction in speed limits, increased funding for public transportation projects, tax incentives for purchasing high fuel efficiency vehicles, etc. Republicans never seem willing to ask for any shared sacrifice or cooperation to benefit the public good.

 

 

 

IMO, if that is the case, then maybe alternative fuels aren't as plausible as we seem to think. If you can't find a company out there willing to take a risk on it (because the likelihood of reward is so minimal), then I can't imagine it is close to reaching the market.

 

The Federal Government should strongly consider putting a floor under the price of crude oil. That would encourage the development of alternative fuels, which many companies are unwilling to invest in for fear in a collapse in oil prices. As a result, we get the worst of both worlds, high oil prices and a reluctance to invest in alternatives. There are certainly viable alternative energy options out there, but, given the considerable fossil fuel infrastructure already in place, the barriers to entry are insurmountable. If we are truly serious about ending our addiction and dependence on oil, the real solution lies in making tough choices, not simply drilling more to push the day of reckoning off a bit further into the future.