Dems: we object to off-shore drilling, even if gas is $10/gallon

And how again is offshore drilling supposed to significantly help with gas prices?

 

I think the Dems are fools on this one.

 

I think anyone who believes offshore drilling will help the gas of price today is a fool.

 

I think anyone who does not believes offshore drilling will help the gas of price today is a fool.

 

Well, I don't think FB is a fool. He is a great service to the liberal political machine...he should get money and an award,...preferably from taxpayers...

 

btw, I don't think you're a fool

 

source

[rquoter]
McCain's drilling won't dent gas prices
By Robert Farley
Published on Thursday, June 19th, 2008 at 06:09 p.m.


SUMMARY: McCain uses today's high gas prices as the foundation for his pitch to lift the federal ban on offshore drilling. But while there may be many strong arguments for offshore drilling, oil experts and economists say relieving today's fuel prices isn't one of them.

When Sen. John McCain dropped his energy bombshell, calling for the federal government to lift restrictions on offshore drilling for oil, he began by noting the high price of gas these days.

“With gasoline running at more than four bucks a gallon, many do not have the luxury of waiting on the far-off plans of futurists and politicians,” McCain said in a speech on Tuesday in the oil hub of Houston, Texas.

“As a matter of fairness to the American people, and a matter of duty for our government, we must deal with the here and now,” McCain said, “and assure affordable fuel for America by increasing domestic production.”

The political momentum for offshore drilling has always risen and fallen along with gas prices. But while there are strong arguments that can be made in favor of offshore drilling, reducing the cost of gas “here and now” isn’t one of them, according to oil experts and economists - many of whom support the plan.

For starters, the lead time for oil exploration takes years. Even if offshore drilling areas opened up tomorrow, experts say it would take at least 10 years to realize any significant production. And even then, they say, the U.S. contribution to the overall global oil market would not be enough to make a significant dent in the price of gas.

“Drilling offshore to lower oil prices is like walking an extra 20 feet per day to lose weight,” said David Sandalow, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and author of Freedom from Oil. “It’s just not going to make much difference.”

It takes years to bring new oil wells online, said Mike Rodgers, a leading oil expert with PFC Energy in Washington. Companies need to drill exploratory wells, then discovery wells around the exploratory wells that show promise. Shipyards that build platforms, a two to three year endeavor, are already booked solid.

“It’s foolish to sell it as a short-term solution to high gas prices,” Rodgers said. “Opening off-shore drilling would have no impact whatsoever on gas prices today.”

That being said, Rodgers is a proponent of offshore drilling.

Most forecasters believe we are in for more dramatic prices hikes as international demand grows, particularly in rapidly developing countries such as India and China. As demand rises, Rodgers said, it would be good for the U.S. to have more of its own supply.

If there is a larger domestic supply of oil in the future, he said, “you would hope” it might soften prices some.

But even long term projections on the impact of offshore drilling don’t promise much relief at the pump.

An analysis performed by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the independent statistical and analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy, found in a report published in 2007 that opening up the outer continental shelf in the Pacific, Atlantic and eastern Gulf regions would result in production no sooner than 2017, and would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil production before 2030.

“Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant,” the report concludes.

The EIA also researched the impact of crude oil production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. To put it in scale, ANWR is believed to have a potential for 10.4 billion barrels of crude oil, a little more than half of the projected potential for the offshore areas McCain has proposed opening.

ANWR would add only 1 to 2 percent to the overall world oil supply, said Philip Budzig, who authored the report for the EIA. The report concluded drilling there would subtract anywhere from 41 cents to $1.44 per barrel of crude oil around 2025. That translates to a savings of just a couple pennies per gallon at the pump. Again, in 2025.

Budzig noted that the report was prepared when oil was going for about $65 a barrel. It’s now double that. So, in theory, savings might be double what he projected last year.

The case for offshore drilling becomes more compelling when you look long term, Budzig said.

Increasing domestic oil production will lower the U.S. trade deficit, he said, putting less stress on the dollar.

“It’s sort of like investing in your kid’s education,” Budzig said.

Former Florida Sen. Bob Graham told the St. Petersburg Times he was horrified by McCain’s plan.

“I doubt there’s an economist alive that would make the case that there’s a near or longer term relationship between the moratorium and the price of gasoline,” Graham said.

Several economists who spoke to PolitiFact backed that up.

“Obviously, if you do offshore drilling now it’s not going to give any short term help on the supply of oil,” said Paul A. Samuelson, a professor of economics at MIT and winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize in Economics. “That’s far away.”

Dr. A.F. Alhaji, an associate professor of economics at Ohio Northern University and an international expert on oil markets, said he supports offshore drilling as a long-term way to lower dependence on foreign oil and thereby improve national security.

However, he said, “I have a problem linking the drilling to current gas prices for political reasons. The reality is there is no correlation between today’s prices and what gasoline will be discovered in the outer shelf.”

In fairness, McCain made many arguments when making his case for lifting offshore drilling bans - including enhanced national security. But he left little doubt that the fundamental impetus was to provide some relief to the high prices Americans are paying for gas “here and now.” And that argument holds little weight. We rule it False.

[/rquoter]

Stupit Nobel Prize winners.

 

Prove it, sweetie

 

Thanks for your support. That's what I get for the quick paste...

 

hate em'

 

So increasing the supply of oil won't lower prices at the pump? That's the Democrat argument.

Ok, then why does Nancy Pelosi claim that releasing 700 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would lower prices at the pump?

Either an increase in supply does lower gas prices or it doesn't. Which is it?

 

forest from the trees

Do you think a short term reduction in price is going to solve the problem?

 

Of course an increase in supply lowers gas prices, the point is that a lifting of the off-shore ban won't provide more supply in the short run. It is actually a long term solution - but the point is it won't make a dent in gas prices in the near future. It's not like you remove the ban and get oil from there tomorrow. Thus the arguement that the Dems are hurting our current oil prices by upholding the ban is a logical fallacy.

If someone wants to argue the democrats are hurting future oil prices, they may have a point - but of course you'd then need to go into a cost benefit analysis about the long term prices v environmental damage caused as a result.

 

It won't do anything short term or long term. It'll help a little in the middle.

 

No, actually that's the Nobel Prize winning economist argument.

They are both the type of stupid pandering that politicians are fond of and which any reasoning adult should be able to see through. The difference being that Pelosi's pandering won't cause massive, widespread destruction to the environment in exchange for the benifit of oil companies. It is just stupid, pointless pandering.

 

Here's the thing, while they are slapping the backs of political similar minded "scientists",...They are disregarding logical non partisan voices:...

"Clearly, drilling is not the solution to our oil dependence, but any serious energy proposal has to be comprehensive and include more oil supply and production off the outer continental shelf," said Robbie Diamond, president and founder of Securing America's Future Energy, a nonpartisan group committed to reducing the nation's dependence on oil.

In the short term, oil prices could go down slightly if Congress lifts its moratorium on new offshore drilling, which has been in place since 1981, because the market would factor in the prospect of additional oil supplies later on. But the actual oil would not be produced for 10 to 12 years.

I'd rather listen to a non-partisan voice on this issue, than an award winner,...(preferably with tax payer money, albeit)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...fshore_drilling_not_a_quick_fix_analysts_say/

 

trees to forest....no, but as has been stated non-partisan ish...any serious energy proposal has to be comprehensive and include more oil supply and production off the outer continental shelf....

 

Oil doesn't magically sprout out of the coast just like that. You need to build up the infrastructure which takes time. It'll be a long time before you even see the effects of the increase in supply of crude. I don't know what Pelosi is talking about but I get the impression that it's IF you want an immediate bump in supply, this is the way to do it.

Not only that but.. aren't American gasoline refineries already effectively operating at full capacity? We already had to import 150 million barrels of gasoline last year.

 

I don't get the point of the protest. The House voted to close debate, it passed, and now the Republicans on the losing side are throwing their toys out of the pram?