Off shore drilling evidently isn't the answer

[ncmalko1]

The demand and price for oil is increasing because of WORLDWIDE demand, specifically Asia. According to an article I read is that Asia will just buy the oil found off our shores. The article stated that the oil companies don't give a rats a$$ about the Americans need. Money goes to the highest bidder. Also stated was that this oil wont be ready for atleast a decade.

Any thoughts??

[Carr]

you know they been saying this for over 10 years about how it so called won't produce oil for 10 years, yet if we drilled 10 years ago we would have the oil now. but clinton turned it down. it will only take 2 years at the most to get oil but at least 10 years of red tape to get through before you even drill. thanks congress!!!

[ncmalko1]

But the issue is pointless. Asia will bid on all the oil found anyway.

[Carr]

they are already drilling off the Florida cost now. plus there oil drillers are state owned by them. oil companies like exxon only drills 2% of the whole. the rest is from state owned oil countries.

[G. Price]

It is pretty simple if you understand supply and demand.

Oil production increases and the price will drop.

[Carr]

Originally Posted by G. Price

It is pretty simple if you understand supply and demand.

Oil production increases and the price will drop.

exactly

[ncmalko1]

But demand is so extremely high that it wont drop. Thats what I got out of the article. I've never heard of a state owned gas company either. I'm not saying your wrong.... but who?

[Carr]

the middle east like the sudie's is all state run oil companies, china has their own state oil companies now too.

[86NYGN]

Originally Posted by Carr

you know they been saying this for over 10 years about how it so called won't produce oil for 10 years, yet if we drilled 10 years ago we would have the oil now. but clinton turned it down. it will only take 2 years at the most to get oil but at least 10 years of red tape to get through before you even drill. thanks congress!!!

So you say that it is Clinton's fault? So by using your reasoning it is also Bush's fault because he, just 2 days ago, finally lifted the presidents ban on offshore drilling and he has been in office over 7.5yrs. Also I believe that the congress was run by the other party until 2006 so by again using your reasoning it is also the previous majority in Congress that did nothing.

[BLACK6PACK]

Demand has been on a slight decline lately (last year or so). You have to get information from more than one source. I would say that the slight decline is due to the prices. It is a tricky problem. Supply goes up from drilling, price drops, demand goes back up. We have to drill. Pump out more oil, and price will drop. We just need to develop alternate power sources over the next 20-30 years while pumping oil and keeping the price reasonable.

[Weester]

Get a clue.....

1. First they have to find the oil

2. Then they have to build the platforms

10 years + before they can go to market!


And finally, the cost of oil will not go down because of the costs involved in the production. Its simple/cheap to remove oil from the ground(like in the middle east) and very costly to remove the oil from the bottom of the ocean. The oil companies now want to drill in the mid west and the ocean because oil is over 100.00 a barrel. They have had opportunity to drill/explore in the ocean for years and havent done so.

[IEATV8S]

GOP kills Democrat oil drilling proposal
Bill attempted to block momentum toward allowing offshore exploration

WASHINGTON - House Republicans on Thursday killed a Democratic plan designed to spur drilling on already available federal lands in Alaska, the West and the western Gulf of Mexico.

Republicans scoffed that the Drill Act — imposing a tougher “use it or lose it” rule on leases already held by oil companies — would do little to boost exploration. They renewed their demand to open up the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and the eastern Gulf of Mexico to exploration.

The bill won a 244-173 majority, but still failed because it did not get a two-thirds margin under rules requiring a supermajority vote. Democratic leaders appeared to choose the unusual process because it allowed them to deny Republicans a vote on opening up new offshore areas for drilling.

Democrats pointed out that any new offshore leasing — sought by the administration, most Republicans and some Democrats — would not produce oil for a decade or so and therefore would not effect today’s $4-plus per gallon gasoline prices.

But with voters so angry over gas prices, Democrats felt the need to burnish their pro-drilling credentials in the face of unrelenting GOP pressure to open up the Outer Continental Shelf to oil exploration.

“Drill. Drill. Drill,” said Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. “Drill here. Drill now.”

Democrats again called on President Bush to release some oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in an attempt to immediately drive down prices.

As debate began, the White House weighed in with a veto threat. It said a Democratic provision requiring oil and gas companies to develop on already leased lands before obtaining new leases would curb future U.S. production.

“By blocking some firms from competing for new leases, this legislation would further increase gasoline prices that already exceed $4 per gallon,” the White House said in a statement.

On the eve of the vote, the Interior Department issued a major new lease in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve. The Democratic bill would require a more active department leasing program on the reserve, which is to the west of the off-limits Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. The reserve is the subject of a long-standing battle between environmentalists and the oil lobby.

With the rise in pump prices, public opinion on energy issues is shifting in favor of a more permissive stance on drilling, even though the idea of opening the Atlantic and Pacific coasts or the eastern Gulf off Florida’s beaches to oil and gas companies long has been seen as a nonstarter.

Democrats are scrambling to appear pro-drilling — hence the “Drill Act” title for Thursday’s bill — even as leaders such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., are dead set against reversing the drilling bans.

Democrats say the industry should first go after oil and natural gas on 68 million acres already leased.

Democrats also say Republicans are simply seeking political advantage with a pro-drilling plan that won’t deliver new U.S. oil for another decade or so, and that the GOP’s fixation on drilling is a smoke screen for the administration’s inability to prevent the sharp spike in gasoline prices.

Bush this week lifted an executive prohibition on drilling for oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf. He acknowledged that getting any oil to market would take a lot of time. An annual ban by Congress remains in place.

“By his own admission yesterday, the president said this is not going to have an immediate impact,” Pelosi told reporters Thursday.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., moved to begin debate on a bill aimed at curbing speculation in the oil markets that Democrats say has contributed to the rapid rise in the price of oil.

The bill would increase staffing at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and require the agency to curb the size of speculative positions held by traders who aren’t using the markets for legitimate hedging purposes.

Republicans hope to use the bill as a vehicle for votes on further offshore exploration, among other pro-energy production measures.

[Gothmog]

I said it before,
Pretend you are an oil company and find a huge stash of oil offshore. DO you


A. Dump that oil on the market as fast as you can to lower the price

or

B. Trickle that oil onto the market, so your company can get in on $4 a gallon



WAKE UP PEOPLE!

[The Blob]

Goth... the answer is "A".

Except the reason to dump it on the market as fast as you can is to take advantage of the record price.

If you found something that was selling for more than it has ever sold for before... a lot more... what would you do, gamble that the price will go still higher or sell and assure yourself of record breaking profits?

(That was a rhetorical question... you would sell.)

[RobsIron]

Originally Posted by ncmalko1

The demand and price for oil is increasing because of WORLDWIDE demand, specifically Asia. According to an article I read is that Asia will just buy the oil found off our shores. The article stated that the oil companies don't give a rats a$$ about the Americans need. Money goes to the highest bidder. Also stated was that this oil wont be ready for atleast a decade.

Any thoughts??

Nice to see that you realize its not Bushes fault.

The article is right except the oil companies care about the US. We use 25% of all oil produced. Thats a big chunk to ignore. Bush announced to lift the offshore drilling ban 3 days ago and oil has dropped steadily since. It is now up to the Democratic lead Houses to make it happen. We'll see.

Repubs and Dems haven't done anything for drilling in 30+ years. Both parties have allowed environmentalists to dictate our energy policy. Its never too late to start imo.

[henschman]

Originally Posted by ncmalko1

The demand and price for oil is increasing because of WORLDWIDE demand, specifically Asia. According to an article I read is that Asia will just buy the oil found off our shores. The article stated that the oil companies don't give a rats a$$ about the Americans need. Money goes to the highest bidder. Also stated was that this oil wont be ready for atleast a decade.

Any thoughts??

wtf is wrong with a company selling its product to the highest bidder? anybody in their right mind who wants to stay in business would do that. and why should they take into account america's need? is an oil company a business, or an expensive charity? they exist to make their shareholders wealthy (which are mostly americans).

i really don't care what happens to oil prices. cheap gas is nice, but it's bound to go up eventually, and the sooner it does, the more demand there will be to develop an alternative, and therefore the more research and development will be directed toward that. I just hope the government stays the hell out of the way, instead of thinking that they know exactly what technologies will be the eventual answer, subsidizing them, and driving investment away from other promising avenues. but of course everybody on here knows that the government will never be able to resist getting its filthy hands on this issue.

[Gothmog]

Originally Posted by The Blob

Goth... the answer is "A".

Except the reason to dump it on the market as fast as you can is to take advantage of the record price.

If you found something that was selling for more than it has ever sold for before... a lot more... what would you do, gamble that the price will go still higher or sell and assure yourself of record breaking profits?

(That was a rhetorical question... you would sell.)

wrong

they will trickle it on to the market, then make up excuses why they cant up production, and they will also send the republicans out to the media to tell people ridiculous tales about how demand in the world has gone up 200% in two months and thats why we have high prices- yeah demand in china- yeah that's the ticket

[salvageV6]

Not only China but there's the selfish lying lefty Americans with 5 cars per person sucking up all that gas as well.

Yeah, that's the ticket.