Obama to allow oil drilling off Virginia coast

[SRF]

Ain't gonna happen. The various environmentalist groups will launch court challenge after court challenge and keep the whole issue tied up in legal tussles. This, of course, with the covert backing of the Department of the Interior. So Obama looks good for okaying drilling without having to actually do it.

 

[ed007]

Hard to figure because while I do bash GOPers mainly...I don't play politics. I state my disagreement with policy accordingly irrespective of who trumpets it.

I don't simply "agree so much with Obama"....much of what I post doesn't amount to agreement with Obama as much as it amounts to refuting nonsense and clarifying the actual facts.

Ok. I just wanted a bit more clarification which you have provided. The more you explain the more I understand. :hatsoff:

The truth is stranger than fiction - understanding HM is not as simple as you might think. I tried and gave up a long time ago but every now and again I can't resist giving it another try especially as I can see I'm not the only one having this problem. It's interesting and I think I'm making progress or praaaaaagress as you say in America. :dunno:

In fact, ed....in this very thread I state that I don't particularly agree with this policy. Pay closer attention I guess.

I can't disagree with that. :hatsoff:

However, remember I'm coming from a different place. I'm not American. I don't read most of the American political threads as most of the time I don't know what "y'all" are talking about. :dunno:

I only read the title of the thread, post 16 & 17 and made post 18.

Many outside America know Obama but we have little knowledge about many of the other dudes and issues. :dunno:

What do/did I agree with Obama on? Reinvesting in the country's infrastructure, ending the Iraq experiment, redoubling our efforts in Afghanistan, closing GiTMO, reforming health care, nuclear nonproliferation, among other reasons...Why I voted for him? Because he was the smartest, most pragmatic candidate and was a stark contrast to play as you go McCain and his silly "running" mate...(what was her name again?)

:glugglug:

Closing GiTMO? He's trying. I'll give Obama that much. :thumbsup:

Saying it and actually doing it are very different as I'm sure he, you and I now realize. His original deadline has long since past. Let's see how long it takes for Obama to get it done. :2 cents:

 

[Hot Mega]

Ain't gonna happen. The various environmentalist groups will launch court challenge after court challenge and keep the whole issue tied up in legal tussles. This, of course, with the covert backing of the Department of the Interior. So Obama looks good for okaying drilling without having to actually do it.

There is no win politically for Obama on this nor do I think he's weighing a political calculus with this policy. His enviro-whack constituency will be fuming (no pun) and may support him less while the "drill baby drill" whacks will simply attack him on it for (fill in the blank reasoning) and won't support him anyway.

Obama did this because in his mind he believes it is the reasonable thing to do. This is what you had to know you were getting with the man. He will engage in what he believes is the best policy (to the occasional chagrin of some of his party mates and supporters) not the best politics.

 

[LaLiLuLeLohan]

There is no win politically for Obama on this nor do I think he's weighing a political calculus with this policy. His enviro-whack constituency will be fuming (no pun) and may support him less while the "drill baby drill" whacks will simply attack him on it for (fill in the blank reasoning) and won't support him anyway.

Obama did this because in his mind he believes it is the reasonable thing to do. This is what you had to know you were getting with the man. He will engage in what he believes is the best policy (to the occasional chagrin of some of his party mates and supporters) not the best politics.

The GOPers I've seen so far have all backed the idea. Sure, they nitpick and say it needs to be done faster and bigger, but that's the game. Gingrich applauded Obama for it.

 

[Hot Mega]

The GOPers I've seen so far have all backed the idea. Sure, they nitpick and say it needs to be done faster and bigger, but that's the game. Gingrich applauded Obama for it.

Flat out approval and support?? Or "yeah buts"? "yeah buts" are just another way to lodge an attack.

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

I think it's a good thing. The United States should be using it's own resources instead of getting them from everybody else.

Hey, if you don't want out oil we'll give it to China...

 

[Will E Worm]

We need oil. And dammit, Virginia is a commonwealth. That'll teach 'em.

Oildude

Have another cupcake and go back to sleep.:thumbsup:

I'm eating McDonalds.

I'm lovin it! :yummie:

 

[D-rock]

Now, there is this theory that oil is running out, "peak oil" or something. If that is true, well, necessity is the mother of invention so then alternative energy would be supported by the markets and there would be no need for the government to subsidize it but us consumers would be demanding it, and by demanding it I mean asking for it or buying it instead of the rioting and demonstrating kind of demanding. So for now, let's finish up that oil and then when we do run out of oil the market will support alternative energy.

That right there shows one of the huge enormous of our economic system. The fact that no matter how important something is or how necessarily it will become we never do it until there is some profit that can be made from it, and even then only if that profit is over some other method that's much worse for us other than raking in the cash. Necessity might be the mother of invention, but have you ever considered that most people might not see the true necessity of something, or by the time there is an undeniable overriding necessity it might already by far too late. Even that doesn't take into account there might not be any quick new inventions once we start getting around to non-half-assed solutions. Sadly human nature has a way of putting convenience over sustainability or the well being of everybody when it comes to what they consider "necessary". Maybe what you should be saying is that instead us starting to drilling for oil all that time ago so we would have it now, we should have been researching alternative energy solutions decades ago even if it wasn't profitable so we would have them now and the worlds problems over energy wouldn't be so bad.

 

[calpoon]

Now, there is this theory that oil is running out, "peak oil" or something. If that is true, well, necessity is the mother of invention so then alternative energy would be supported by the markets...

Bullshit. That Market spurs technological innovations is a myth. The light bulb, telephone, radio and airplane were all invented by people with no economic backing. In fact, no market for these products even existed at the time because they were sheer imaginative design application, not replacement for an existing market product.

Alternatives to fossil fuel energy sources have all been designed and manufactured and continue to be improved upon for decades, the only thing that is standing in their way for development and implementation is in fact the Market itself.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Hey, if you don't want out oil we'll give it to China...

But who will protect you when they attack us/you when they are the "world superpower" in 30 years???

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

But who will protect you when they attack us/you when they are the "world superpower" in 30 years???

Denmark

 

[calpoon]

But who will protect you when they attack us/you when they are the "world superpower" in 30 years???

And it's sad, really, isn't it? To me the problem with America in the last 40 years or so is not a single or even multi political ideological platform, but just all around poor decision making by both the government and the public and a disregard for long term planning.

I think it's the idea of "Lets not deal with it until we absolutely can't cover up the fact that it's a problem anymore, let alone before it got that way in the first place."

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Denmark

No. That's where I'm moving. I am part Danish after all.

And it's sad, really, isn't it? To me the problem with America in the last 40 years or so is not a single or even multi political ideological platform, but just all around poor decision making by both the government and the public and a disregard for long term planning.

If you think our economy is bad now:

A chorus of economists, government officials and elected leaders both conservative and liberal is warning that America's nonstop borrowing has put the nation on the road to a major fiscal disaster — one that could unleash plummeting home values, rocketing interest rates, lost jobs, stagnating wages and threats to government services ranging from health care to law enforcement.

David Walker, who audits the federal government's books as the U.S. comptroller general, put it starkly in an interview with the AP:

"I believe the country faces a critical crossroad and that the decisions that are made — or not made — within the next 10 years or so will have a profound effect on the future of our country, our children and our grandchildren. The problem gets bigger every day, and the tidal wave gets closer every day."

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan echoed those worries just last week, warning that the federal budget deficit hampered the nation's ability to absorb possible shocks from the soaring trade deficit and the housing boom. He criticized the nation's "hesitancy to face up to the difficult choices that will be required to resolve our looming fiscal problems."

The AP/Ipsos poll of 1,000 adults taken July 5-7 found that a sweeping majority — 70% — worried about the size of the federal deficit either "some" or "a lot."

But only 35% were willing to cut government spending and experience a drop in services to balance the budget. Even fewer — 18% — were willing to raise taxes to keep current services. Just 1% wanted to both raise taxes and cut spending. The poll has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

The nation's political leaders could hardly be said to have a mandate calling for fiscal responsibility.

But bigger worries lie ahead.

The nation's three biggest entitlement programs — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — make promises for retirement and health care (for the elderly and the poor) which carry a huge price tag that balloons as the population grows and ages.

Add it up: current debt and deficit, promises for those big programs, pensions, veterans health care. The total comes to $43 trillion, says Walker, the nation's comptroller general, who runs the Government Accountability Office. That's where the $145,000 bill for every American, or $350,000 for every full-time worker, comes from.

The biggest trade deficit is with China, too, at $162 billion. Japan is next, at $75 billion.

In a very real sense, the U.S. economy is dependent on the central banks of Japan, China and other nations to invest in U.S. Treasuries and keep American interest rates down. The low rates here keep American consumers buying imported goods.

But the lack of fiscal discipline in the United States is undermining the value of the American dollar, thereby lowering the value of the U.S. Treasuries in foreign banks. As the dollar's value drops, other nations' willingness to keep investing cannot last, says Nouriel Roubini, an economics professor at New York University.

If those banks reduced their dollar holdings or were simply less willing to invest so much, it could spark a sharp fall in the value of the dollar. And that could create a host of economic problems.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2005-08-27-growing-debt_x.htm

It can always get worse.

 

[CunningStunts]

Another campaign Promise goes down to BHO.

 

[Hot Mega]

Another campaign promise goes down to BHO.

Yeah...bummer. I guess in so doing he cares more about the 2 or 3 promises he did keep with this announcement. In fairness to him though, he did say he wasn't ideological about it per se and if he saw evidence offshore drilling would help some circumstance he wasn't opposed to considering it. Apparently he has been looking into the feasibility for about a year. If nothing else, the guy can juggle.

If the guy can hammer out all of this shit with all of the shit going on around him...the fuck is he gonna do with all of his free time when the country is not in crisis mode..

 

[Ceska]

...nor do I think he's weighing a political calculus with this policy...

Obama did this because in his mind he believes it is the reasonable thing to do. This is what you had to know you were getting with the man. He will engage in what he believes is the best policy (to the occasional chagrin of some of his party mates and supporters) not the best politics.

:eek:

:rofl: :1orglaugh

...oh ... oh my God ... you were serious....


No political calculus at all? Pure, carefully contemplated, sensible policy - nothing more?


Have you considered...

1) An effort to woo legislators needed to pass his broader climate bill?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62T06520100331
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html

2) An effort to shift the debate...

"..to make energy security the centerpiece of the climate debate"
"to shift the climate-change debate ... toward a patriotic discourse [of energy security] winning a public in which, almost unbelievably, skepticism about global warming is on the rise. What this is about is finding a way to make the necessary energy changes more palatable to a broad public. "

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/theg...egy-behind-obama-s-drilling-announcement.aspx

3) To call the other side's bluff

Peter Maass

"— drilling to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce gas prices is a charade. President Obama seems well aware of that, in a sense calling the other side’s bluff. With 2 percent of the world reserves, there is no way to extract our way to lower prices or energy independence; the impact will be between “not at all” and “hardly at all.”

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/whats-behind-obamas-drilling-plan/


This move is nothing if not political.


David Roberts

The most important thing to understand about President Obama’s announcement on offshore drilling is that it’s mostly for show. Its intended effects are political — corralling more Senate votes for a climate bill and defusing anticipated voter anger over gas price spikes. Even on those grounds, however, it’s unlikely to succeed.

Obama is now committed to drilling, and asked for no firm commitments in exchange.

Oil companies aren’t even drilling in most of the offshore areas they already have leased — some 34 billion barrels worth of leases are going unexploited, mainly because the cost of offshore drilling is prohibitive at today’s oil prices.

According the U.S. Energy Information Administration, there likely won’t be any oil from these new offshore areas until 2017, and full production won’t ramp up until 2030. Even when it does, it will produce some 100,000 new barrels a day — about 1/1,000 of total global supply. The impact on oil prices will be “insignificant,” says the Energy Information Administration, and it won’t make America any less dependent on foreign oil, either.

How much oil was that again?

It is not known how much potential fuel lies in the areas opened to exploration, although according to Interior Department estimates there could be as much as a three-year supply of recoverable oil and more than two years’ worth of natural gas, at current rates of consumption.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html

 

[Mayhem]

some 34 billion barrels worth of leases are going unexploited, mainly because the cost of offshore drilling is prohibitive at today’s oil prices.

Can we take a moment and ponder this? They can't make a buck at today's fucking oil prices? Jesus Tapdancing Christ, exactly how much should we shell out at the pump so that the oil industry can keep the sweat stains off their pillow?

Even when it does, it will produce some 100,000 new barrels a day — about 1/1,000 of total global supply.

I don't recall anyone around here giving a jackrabbits left asscheek about the "global supply." It's how much we need. In other words, Domestic Supply. Fuck what China, Russia or anyone else needs. They can hand-job the Arabs on their own. The oil we drill needs to go to our own consumption. And, 100,000 new barrels a day seems like a pretty good number to me.

"— drilling to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce gas prices is a charade. President Obama seems well aware of that, in a sense calling the other side’s bluff. With 2 percent of the world reserves, there is no way to extract our way to lower prices or energy independence; the impact will be between “not at all” and “hardly at all.”

OK, who is this tool, and why did you bother to quote him? "Don't bother with your own oil guys, just keep buying from others....because I say so." Of course, we will never become totally independent for our oil needs (but go ahead and keep talking to me like I'm an idiot, I don't mind). But, any reduction in our dependency on others helps. How is this not obvious? If that doesn't cause a material reduction in our price, too bad. Perhaps it will make us less vulnerable to price increases. Is that not worth striving for?

Seriously, some of you need to get off your knees, wipe off your chin, open your eyes and think for yourselves. Just because it's in print, that doesn't mean it's the gospel. These quotes are ridiculous.

 

[Facetious]

^
Yeah, I agree. But I'd like those resources to be homegrown, sustainable and non-threatening to the environment.

You're hopelessly emotional

''Linda Krop's letter "Santa Barbara Deal Stops Drilling" (July 18) brags about stopping Santa Barbara Channel oil drilling and demonstrates the short-sightedness of the environmental movement. The largest problem within the channel is not drilling, but natural oil seepage. Oil and gas trapped in the Monterey Shale below the ocean floor seep up through fissures. It has been estimated that there are two billion barrels alone under an area known as the Coal Point Seeps.

Natural oil seepage in the Santa Barbara Channel was first recorded by Spanish explorer Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo on Oct. 16, 1542. He even used the tar from the seepage, known as asphaltum, to waterproof two of his ships, just as the native Chumash Indians did with their canoes. English explorer, George Vancouver, in his exploration of the Pacific Coast in 1792 while looking for the Northwest Passage, noted in his log book that the Santa Barbara Channel was covered in all directions with an oily surface so thick that the entire sea took on an iridescent hue. . .''] more

Perhaps man's intervention could actually relieve the environment . . . .

 

[Ceska]

I thought you were just ranting ... until I noticed that you were actually responding to me. So I suppose I'll reply.

OK, who is this tool, and why did you bother to quote him?...

If you read the post, I was quoting those analysts (left, right, center and everywhere) to make the point that the decision was unquestionably a political one. That's all. Not to state that I agreed with everything they wrote... (btw.. they don't agree with each other on everything).

I don't recall anyone around here giving a jackrabbits left asscheek about the "global supply." It's how much we need.

Do you understand why global supply is important? It helps to determine the price of the oil that ... wait for it ... we need.

... that "global supply" you don't give a "jackrabbits left asscheek" about is where we get our oil... go figure

In other words, Domestic Supply. Fuck what China, Russia or anyone else needs. They can hand-job the Arabs on their own. The oil we drill needs to go to our own consumption.

News flash. The US is not a net exporter of oil. It should be obvious that their point is not that the available oil under consideration is miniscule compared to global supply "therefore we won't be able to export it to China, Russia and everyone else". The US consumes FAR more oil than it produces. So of course the oil we drill is for our own consumption.

Their point is that it will not significantly lower prices or lead to U.S. energy independence.

And, 100,000 new barrels a day seems like a pretty good number to me.

...Seriously, some of you need to get off your knees, wipe off your chin, open your eyes and think for yourselves. Just because it's in print, that doesn't mean it's the gospel. These quotes are ridiculous.

Well golly, if 100,000 barrels a day sounds like a lot to you then it must be. Right? Just because you dun thunk it I suppose that makes it gospel.
Not like those silly facts from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and the U.S. Department of the Interior referenced above.

100,000 barrels a day is significantly less than 1% of US oil consumption.
A fraction of a percent at today's consumption needs.

The fact that it "seems like a pretty good number to you" is irrelevant.

 

[Red Spyder]

Bullshit. That Market spurs technological innovations is a myth. The light bulb, telephone, radio and airplane were all invented by people with no economic backing. In fact, no market for these products even existed at the time because they were sheer imaginative design application, not replacement for an existing market product.

Alternatives to fossil fuel energy sources have all been designed and manufactured and continue to be improved upon for decades, the only thing that is standing in their way for development and implementation is in fact the Market itself.

Yup, there was no market for those products when they were invented but they were definetely a necessity for the people so a market was created. So it could be with alternative energy sources but how well do they work at the present time? In fact, as you said that those inventions were created by people with no economic backing, what is stopping all of you from inventing, developing and implementing an alternative? I mean, a more efficient, less polluting, and CHEAPER way of getting energy would definetely attract a good portion of the energy market.

Anyway, just on a side note, I've always wondered, if liberals are so much smarter than us backward conservatives, why don't they all go away and perfect alternative energy sources? If liberals were really that smart, and since they've been bitching about green energy for decades, why is it that they haven't perfected them yet? I mean, the foundations for that technology already exist. Why not? IMMHO: Because they're useless when it comes to producing someting but not when it comes to demanding something