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.

 

And rightfully so.:laugh:

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.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

At this point anything said is just speculation. Nothing more or less. So why not stop the speculating. Start doing something(offshore drilling), while we wait for a long term solution to be available(alternative fuels).

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.

 

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

Why can't both be done? Why can't we drill domestically and look for alternatives?

 

Why are Democrats, and I am not saying either one of you are Dem, so against allowing increased domestic drilling?

Why can't both be done? Why can't we drill domestically and look for alternatives?

 

Why are Democrats, and I am not saying either one of you are Dem, so against allowing increased domestic drilling?

 

Makes too much sense:creepy:

At this point anything said is just speculation. Nothing more or less. So why not stop the speculating. Start doing something(offshore drilling), while we wait for a long term solution to be available(alternative fuels).

 

 

Like I said, Republicans have, with a degree of certainty not justified by the data, portrayed increased drilling as THE answer. People miffed about $120 fillups of their Suburbans think this will help. It won't. The Republicans have grossly overstated the economic benefits of drilling.

Like I said, Republicans have, with a degree of certainty not justified by the data, portrayed increased drilling as THE answer. People miffed about $120 fillups of their Suburbans think this will help. It won't. The Republicans have grossly overstated the economic benefits of drilling.

 

I'm a republican. I've never claimed this to be the solution, really not even sure how much or if it will have a worth while impact. However I know it's better than doing nothing and continuing to speculate(like much of America does these days). As for those that're ticked off about it costing $120 to fill up their SUV. Buy a compact car, or don't drive unless it's necessary.

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?

It is not a solution to the problem. It is like relieving the symptoms of liver disease by getting drunk.

 

To the next statement, because it is harder, it is more expensive, and it is real change. But if we don't do it now, all the cheap and easy energy we are taking will dry up.

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.

 

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

1. I think the most efficient way of developing alternative fuels is through the market. If it is profitable (short or long run) someone will take the initiative.

 

2. You would know better than I would on that. Let me pose this question: Is 100% energy independence for America possible?

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.

:thumb: Agreed, good move by the Dems, both economically and politically.

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.

First of all, domestic drilling will add jobs and more money coming into the US, so there is some benefit of drilling, but that is besides the point.

 

Second of all, I don't have a problem with any of those ideas (except for the increased funding for public transportation products, for various reasons), as long as they are coupled with more drilling.

 

Thirdly, you, with a few others on this site, have been becoming quite adept at finger pointing and partisanship. Since the Republicans support drilling, you must be against it. I take this position- let's do both. Let's drill, let's research alternative fuels, let's give tax incentives for actions that reduce our demand for oil.

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.

Let me get this straight. You are saying that oil companies fear a collapse in oil prices if an alternative fuel was developed- but if we had a price floor, then they would develop that alternative fuel? I think that if there was truly a viable, practical, and affordable alternative fuel, oil companies (or any companies, for that matter) would be developing and researching it (which I'd assume they are now).

 

I don't think a price floor would increase that R&D. It just doesn't make sense. They won't view a price floor as protection, because if the demand for oil actually shifts downward enough that oil companies the market price was below the price floor, then either the government will essentially subsidize the difference and/or they will produce too much oil. I can't envision a scenario in which the government begins to pay the oil companies- it is political suicide. I think gas companies would realize this, and likewise realize how a price floor is just smoke and mirrors.

 

I'd appreciate more explanation though, because it is a very interesting proposition :thumb:

Let me get this straight. You are saying that oil companies fear a collapse in oil prices if an alternative fuel was developed- but if we had a price floor, then they would develop that alternative fuel? I think that if there was truly a viable, practical, and affordable alternative fuel, oil companies (or any companies, for that matter) would be developing and researching it (which I'd assume they are now).

 

I don't think a price floor would increase that R&D. It just doesn't make sense. They won't view a price floor as protection, because if the demand for oil actually shifts downward enough that oil companies the market price was below the price floor, then either the government will essentially subsidize the difference and/or they will produce too much oil. I can't envision a scenario in which the government begins to pay the oil companies- it is political suicide. I think gas companies would realize this, and likewise realize how a price floor is just smoke and mirrors.

 

I'd appreciate more explanation though, because it is a very interesting proposition :thumb:

 

 

 

Read this article. It does a decent job of explaining the idea:

 

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_31/b4094000658012.htm

It is not a solution to the problem. It is like relieving the symptoms of liver disease by getting drunk.

 

To the next statement, because it is harder, it is more expensive, and it is real change. But if we don't do it now, all the cheap and easy energy we are taking will dry up.

I'm not saying it is a solution. Just that it won't do anything to hurt, it can only help the problem. It's fairly clear right now that our country is probably at least a decade if not much longer towards getting away from oil dependency. Let's do this right now so we can at least bandage the bleeding until we find away to totally stop it.

 

People like Al Gore have invested quite a bit of money into alternative energies, I have to think that if they were close to ready we would know about it. I would love for an alternative renewable source, but it's not there right now, and by lifting the ban you aren't tacking on money to our growing deficit, so go for it.