What makes you think it will take 5-10 years, when they know where the oil is? The research has been done in ANWR and the Gulf. As soon as the pull it out when can get it refined and to the Chevron! They say that as soon as the drilling starts the oil speculators will reduce the gas prices. They have that power, much like the increases from Ike, before the damage was even assesed.

This is from one of the articles you linked to earlier:

If, after spending tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, they find oil, they will need to make sure they recoup that investment. To do that, they lease not just the spot where they will drill, but tens of thousands of surrounding acres.

If oil companies didn’t lease that surrounding land, competitors could simply step in and drill down to the oil reserves — without having to spend the millions to find the oil. It’s as if the guy next to you put his straw in your milkshake and started drinking. What company would risk hundreds of millions of dollars without the protection provided by the ability to lease — and not develop — surrounding space?

Today, some of these leases are going undeveloped because the rigs and men to do the drilling simply are not available. There’s a manpower shortage and an equipment shortage.

The shortage of drill rigs, both onshore and offshore, is preventing oil companies from accessing known oil reserves. Industry sources I spoke with today say that most rigs are already leased for years, and there simply aren’t enough to meet demand. The New York Times confirms this with a story today on the shortage of drill ships.

So, there are several points to make here. Just because the oil companies "know" there's oil in the Gulf and ANWR, how will they overcome the points in this article? A shortage of rigs and workers? This shortage of rigs is one of the reasons they can't get to known oil reserves today. What makes McCain think that once the ban is lifted, the companies will automatically plop down a drill and start pumping oil?

The other part of this article that concerns me is the statement "they find oil, they will need to make sure they recoup that investment". Don't you think that Big Oil will raise the prices to recoup that cost? If they do it to recoup cost of taxes, why not do it to recoup the cost of drilling?

Most are about 35 miles off shore. I'll try to find a source on that one for ya..Wasn't the Valdez an oil barge? I don't think it was an oil rig. We have barges coming in and out everyday.

Yes, the Valdez was a tanker. I realize we are talking about oil rigs, but an oil spill is an oil spill. Doesn't matter where the oil originated, does it? If there's a spill, even 35 miles off shore, you don't think that will impact the coast?

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/15/w...omy-are-strong/

McCain Rally Comment

I don't know if he said this today or what.......

I will also say this.......I think it's wrong to blame a ideology for the current financial crisis. That may lend itself more to bad decisions than conservatism or liberialism.

But, I may be wrong.

Edited September 15, 200817 yr by Roman

It's not quite that simple.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/busines...9-1b14dean.html

"According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf will not have a notable impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production before 2030. And even then, the EIA projects, the effect on prices will be “insignificant.”

Yeah, there are arguments on both sides.

Here is an article from the NY Times

This is from one of the articles you linked to earlier:

So, there are several points to make here. Just because the oil companies "know" there's oil in the Gulf and ANWR, how will they overcome the points in this article? A shortage of rigs and workers? This shortage of rigs is one of the reasons they can't get to known oil reserves today. What makes McCain think that once the ban is lifted, the companies will automatically plop down a drill and start pumping oil?

The other part of this article that concerns me is the statement "they find oil, they will need to make sure they recoup that investment". Don't you think that Big Oil will raise the prices to recoup that cost? If they do it to recoup cost of taxes, why not do it to recoup the cost of drilling?

Yes, the Valdez was a tanker. I realize we are talking about oil rigs, but an oil spill is an oil spill. Doesn't matter where the oil originated, does it? If there's a spill, even 35 miles off shore, you don't think that will impact the coast?

I think the hope is that the oil companies will have take another hit in their profit margin to allow for more employees. If they buy less from OPEC the profit margin should begin to balance back out over time.

It will definitely not make sense if Congress lifts the ban, and then turns around and approves a windfall profit tax. It will then undoubtably not have an immediate impact because the oil companies will not be able to afford to drill right away.

Yeah, a spill is a spill, but we have always been in danger for that.

Maybe the main difference in our positions is that I think that one child is worth the effort whereas you may not think so.

The thing is, if the teachers are fine, what else can the government do? I guess that's what I'm getting at.

Yeah, there are arguments on both sides.

Here is an article from the NY Times

That really didn't answer the debate on how long it will take that oil to get to the pumps, did it? It merely speculated that oil in the OCR and ANWR could produce over 1 million barrels a day. How long will it take that oil to be harvested and refined?

That really didn't answer the debate on how long it will take that oil to get to the pumps, did it? It merely speculated that oil in the OCR and ANWR could produce over 1 million barrels a day. How long will it take that oil to be harvested and refined?

No one knows.

The argument is that the speculative increase in production will drop the price of a barrel. OPEC would probably be forced to ask less for their oil if they know that the US is in the game too. Its just a theory of competition. It may be a while before we actually produce a significant amount, but the knowledge that we are drilling will have an immediate impact on OPEC.

I think the hope is that the oil companies will have take another hit in their profit margin to allow for more employees. If they buy less from OPEC the profit margin should begin to balance back out over time.

It will definitely not make sense if Congress lifts the ban, and then turns around and approves a windfall profit tax. It will then undoubtably not have an immediate impact because the oil companies will not be able to afford to drill right away.

Yeah, a spill is a spill, but we have always been in danger for that.

"Hope" is not a plan. The argument that Big Oil will pass on tax increases to the public but not the expense of drilling a new oil field doesn't make any sense. If you believe they will pass on the cost of higher taxes to the consumer, but not R&D costs, how have you come to that conclusion?

No one knows.

The argument is that the speculative increase in production will drop the price of a barrel. OPEC would probably be forced to ask less for their oil if they know that the US is in the game too. Its just a theory of competition. It may be a while before we actually produce a significant amount, but the knowledge that we are drilling will have an immediate impact on OPEC.

OK. I was speculating at the most 15 years in my earlier posts, but Redd gave some pretty good arguments that it could be over 20 years.

I understand your theory about OPEC. But that's no guarantee. What if they decrease production because of the US drilling for oil more aggressively? Again, the cumulative affect will be null because we will be drilling for oil we would have gotten from OPEC.

In the end, it makes no difference. The sound bite is "drilling for more oil" will help reign in prices and the fact is, no one knows that for sure. Therefore, I stand by my belief that we should not drill for more oil and continue to destroy natural resources on theories, or hopes, or what have you.

Alternative fuels all the way.

"Hope" is not a plan. The argument that Big Oil will pass on tax increases to the public but not the expense of drilling a new oil field doesn't make any sense. If you believe they will pass on the cost of higher taxes to the consumer, but not R&D costs, how have you come to that conclusion?

The theory would be an immediate drop in price from OPEC to console Americans. The reduced price should allow for more room in their profit margin to hire more workers.

An increase on taxes will not in any way reduce the fundamental cost, it will only add to it. Therefore prices would go up.

Alternative fuels all the way.

I think Americans are ingenuative enough to handle an "all of the above" approach! Why not at least try drilling instead of insisting it wont work, when it might.

There is no guarantee for the success of alternatives, but we should at least try. I just dont understand why drilling is not one of the options that we should try..

The theory would be an immediate drop in price from OPEC to console Americans. The reduced price should allow for more room in their profit margin to hire more workers.

An increase on taxes will not in any way reduce the fundamental cost, it will only add to it. Therefore prices would go up.

That is your theory, I understand. But it doesn't address two big arguments.

1. There is no way of knowing that OPEC will "drop costs". Oil is a commodity, correct? The price of a barrel of oil is driven by market conditions, not OPEC. They may have some control over it, but it certainly is not the ultimate authority on the price of a barrel of oil. The market is. If OPEC lowers production because of our more aggressive stance on drilling for oil, how will that make the price per barrel go down? I would argue that even the oil speculators could interpret that as the beginning of more hostile relations between the US and OPEC and drive prices further upwards on the premise of an impending "oil war".

2. Again, how can you know that Big Oil will only pass on the cost of higher taxes to the consumer? Why wouldn't they build their cost of exploration and new equipment into the price of a gallon of gas? Particularly if they are getting less from OPEC?

That is your theory, I understand. But it doesn't address two big arguments.

1. There is no way of knowing that OPEC will "drop costs". Oil is a commodity, correct? The price of a barrel of oil is driven by market conditions, not OPEC. They may have some control over it, but it certainly is not the ultimate authority on the price of a barrel of oil. The market is. If OPEC lowers production because of our more aggressive stance on drilling for oil, how will that make the price per barrel go down? I would argue that even the oil speculators could interpret that as the beginning of more hostile relations between the US and OPEC and drive prices further upwards on the premise of an impending "oil war".

2. Again, how can you know that Big Oil will only pass on the cost of higher taxes to the consumer? Why wouldn't they build their cost of exploration and new equipment into the price of a gallon of gas? Particularly if they are getting less from OPEC?

There are all kinds of variations on possible situations, I just dont understand the insistance that It wont work. What do we have to lose?

OPEC raising prices would be very highly unlikely. We are their bread and butter and their best customers. Competition does not work that way in the marketplace, it drives costs down.

Edited September 15, 200817 yr by Casey008

I think Americans are ingenuative enough to handle an "all of the above" approach! Why not at least try drilling instead of insisting it wont work, when it might.

There is no guarantee for the success of alternatives, but we should at least try. I just dont understand why drilling is not one of the options that we should try..

IA that Americans, as a whole, could handle "all the above". The only candidate aggressively addressing "all of the above" is mine - Barack Obama. McCain's big argument is for drilling on the OTC and (if Palin's influence is felt), ANWR. Obama favors raising the fuel economy standards, plug-in hybrid cars, tax credits for purchasing advanced "green" vehicles, a low carbon fuel standard AND drilling for oil:

Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.

An Obama administration will establish a process for early identification of any infrastructure obstacles/shortages or possible federal permitting process delays to drilling in the Bakken Shale formation, the Barnett shale formation, and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.

I should say that for me, personally, I would rather not decimate a natural resource when there are other alternatives. But that's just me.

IA that Americans, as a whole, could handle "all the above". The only candidate aggressively addressing "all of the above" is mine - Barack Obama. McCain's big argument is for drilling on the OTC and (if Palin's influence is felt), ANWR. Obama favors raising the fuel economy standards, plug-in hybrid cars, tax credits for purchasing advanced "green" vehicles, a low carbon fuel standard AND drilling for oil:

I should say that for me, personally, I would rather not decimate a natural resource when there are other alternatives. But that's just me.

When did Obama become a supporter of drilling? John McCain is also an "all of the abover". I think this issue is where the candidates stances are the most similar, if BO is now a drill supporter.