Obama: Offshore drilling will not lower gas prices this year, next year or 5 years from now

FloggingSully · 06-26-2008, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by Cyclone85

I don't care if it is 10-years; I have young kids who want to have a prosperous life. Also, I don't think it would take 10-years especially if you don't have to build a pipe-line. We have domestic sources on U.S. soil that can't be drilled. It doesn't take 10-year for that. It doesn't take even a year.

I gave up 7-years of my life to study so that I could make a good living. It paid off. Should have I said, 'nah...7-years is too long....I'll just drink instead.'

-You can think what you want, I heard an interview with a guy from Chevron who said best case scenario it would be 10 years before any offshore drilling oil would hit the market. So in 10 years, when gas is $10, we might see a small decrease, pardon me for not jumping for joy.

-I'm also waiting to hear why we have any reason to believe that anyone would drill if we opened up more offshore drilling areas, they aren't drilling/exploring the areas that are already open.

fj1200 · 06-26-2008, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

- I'll worry about ways to make a noticable dent in transportation costs.

Sure you will, sure you will........

therick · 06-26-2008, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by fj1200

Oil from ANWR could be to market in 3 years, if we had to. But that is not the question. It is, whether drilling would lower prices, not when the crude could be refined.

Where did you get 3 years? US Department of Energy projects that it will take at least 10 years for the first oil to reach market and that if they opened ANWAR up to exploration and drilling today, it would affect oil prices by 75 cents per barrel by the time production is at it's peak. This is based on a report that came out on May 22, 2008.

http://www.adn.com/anwr/story/414808.html

I have read other reports that show that the effect on gas prices would be in the neighborhood for 2 cents per gallon when production reached peak capacity (projected to be in about 30 years).

Given that the reserves in the gulf are smaller than those in the arctic, how much do you think that oil will affect prices in 2030 when production is at it's peak? Another penny or two.....wow, let's do it! I mean if I can save a whole nickel per gallon 20-30 years from now, what are we waiting for?

http://www.factcheck.org/gas_price_fixes_that_wont.html

Just a few more facts about how more drilling will not do much to lower the price of gas.

Cyclone85 · 06-26-2008, 08:55 PM

Government projections are never right; they are always underestimated. Medicare Part D is a perfect example and so are the look-back projections from 10-years ago on the future expenditures of Medicare and Social Security. They never get it right.

Also, it is just impossible to project the price of a commodity that is traded on the open market like coffee. If I had a dollar for every projection of oil & gas that turned out to be correct, I'd be rich.

But to not drill so that we can keep supply growth consistent with demand growth is suicidal for our future. We have no economic future whatsoever if we don't loosen up restrictions on drilling. It's that simple. What self-respecting country would limit the energy that it can get for growth? No other country on earth is limiting energy exploration, but for the U.S.

Originally Posted by therick

Where did you get 3 years? US Department of Energy projects that it will take at least 10 years for the first oil to reach market and that if they opened ANWAR up to exploration and drilling today, it would affect oil prices by 75 cents per barrel by the time production is at it's peak. This is based on a report that came out on May 22, 2008.

http://www.adn.com/anwr/story/414808.html

I have read other reports that show that the effect on gas prices would be in the neighborhood for 2 cents per gallon when production reached peak capacity (projected to be in about 30 years).

Given that the reserves in the gulf are smaller than those in the arctic, how much do you think that oil will affect prices in 2030 when production is at it's peak? Another penny or two.....wow, let's do it! I mean if I can save a whole nickel per gallon 20-30 years from now, what are we waiting for?

http://www.factcheck.org/gas_price_fixes_that_wont.html

Just a few more facts about how more drilling will not do much to lower the price of gas.

fj1200 · 06-26-2008, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by therick

Where did you get 3 years? US Department of Energy projects that it will take at least 10 years for the first oil to reach market and that if they opened ANWAR up to exploration and drilling today, it would affect oil prices by 75 cents per barrel by the time production is at it's peak. This is based on a report that came out on May 22, 2008.

http://www.adn.com/anwr/story/414808.html

I have read other reports that show that the effect on gas prices would be in the neighborhood for 2 cents per gallon when production reached peak capacity (projected to be in about 30 years).

Given that the reserves in the gulf are smaller than those in the arctic, how much do you think that oil will affect prices in 2030 when production is at it's peak? Another penny or two.....wow, let's do it! I mean if I can save a whole nickel per gallon 20-30 years from now, what are we waiting for?

http://www.factcheck.org/gas_price_fixes_that_wont.html

Just a few more facts about how more drilling will not do much to lower the price of gas.

As usual it seems the leftees here lack any critical thinking skills. [Hey if someone wrote it, and it is in agreement with my political leaning, it must be true.] Do you really think the authors of these reports/articles can accurately foretell the future? Then why are they in the employment that they hold? It took three years to build the entire Alaska pipeline 30 years ago. It is laughable to think that it would take over 3 times as long to move oil less than 1/4 of that distance. As I said, "if we have to" we can.

Now it it not just the meager projected savings YOU state [which is more laughable than the 10 years] it is about the hundreds of thousands of American jobs, the effect on the futures market and the effect on the current price per barrell, as well as the communication to OPEC that the times are a changin.

You are also wrong about American oil reserves. They EXCEED the middle eastern reserves.

therick · 06-26-2008, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by fj1200

As usual it seems the leftees here lack any critical thinking skills. [Hey if someone wrote it, and it is in agreement with my political leaning, it must be true.] Do you really think the authors of these reports/articles can accurately foretell the future? Then why are they in the employment that they hold? It took three years to build the entire Alaska pipeline 30 years ago. It is laughable to think that it would take over 3 times as long to move oil less than 1/4 of that distance. As I said, "if we have to" we can.

Now it it not just the meager projected savings YOU state [which is more laughable than the 10 years] it is about the hundreds of thousands of American jobs, the effect on the futures market and the effect on the current price per barrell, as well as the communication to OPEC that the times are a changin.

You are also wrong about American oil reserves. They EXCEED the middle eastern reserves.

I love it when someone pigeon holes me as a lefty. They obviously don't know me, or know that I've spent whole election seasons going door to door to promote Republican candidates, and many more stuffing envelopes, etc. I used to be on a first name basis with my county's Republican party chairman as well as both of my U.S. Senators...Voinovich and DeWine. But, yep I must be a full blown lefty liberal. Anyone who believes that human beings have the duty and responsibility to use our God given intelligence to be the caretakers of our planet and the other living things that inhabit it must be a left leaning commie, right?

I agree that the projections are very conservative, however these are from people in the Bush administration who are making these projections. And there have been multiple sources and studies on the topic by the department of energy as well as the energy companies themselves and none of them site projections that are significantly different than the ones I mentioned.

The point is that unless we increase our refinery output (a private enterprise), then we'll continue to want for more gasoline than can be produced domestically. Not to mention that increased demand in places like India and China will continue to drive the price higher, even with the meager increases in supply that we may generate.

A better use of those funds is finding and developing alternative energy sources. Which is exactly what this country needs if it wants to reduce it's reliance on foreign oil and oil in general. An industry that could provide more jobs than anything the energy companies would provide keeping with the status quo of drilling. Living in the great lakes region, I'm acutely aware of the impact green technology and the manufacture of those products that would utilize clean fuels and use them more efficiently could do to the economy here.

fj1200 · 06-26-2008, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by therick

The point is that unless we increase our refinery output (a private enterprise), then we'll continue to want for more gasoline than can be produced domestically. Not to mention that increased demand in places like India and China will continue to drive the price higher, even with the meager increases in supply that we may generate.

A better use of those funds is finding and developing alternative energy sources. Which is exactly what this country needs if it wants to reduce it's reliance on foreign oil and oil in general. An industry that could provide more jobs than anything the energy companies would provide keeping with the status quo of drilling. Living in the great lakes region, I'm acutely aware of the impact green technology and the manufacture of those products that would utilize clean fuels and use them more efficiently could do to the economy here.

Sorry if I offended you with THAT term but your position is decidedly liberal.

Voinovich and DeWine are hardly "conservative" if anything they are of the McCain wing of the Repub Party.

Why are we limited to only doing one thing? We should be doing ALL of them, electric, clean, nuclear, and petroleum etc.

therick · 06-26-2008, 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by fj1200

Sorry if I offended you with THAT term but your position is decidedly liberal.

Voinovich and DeWine are hardly "conservative" if anything they are of the McCain wing of the Repub Party.

Why are we limited to only doing one thing? We should be doing ALL of them, electric, clean, nuclear, and petroleum etc.

Maybe that's why I like McCain so much. I was a huge fan of Kasich back when he was a rep. and I'm a fan of my current rep, Pat Tiberi. I guess I don't believe that governing from either extreme on the political spectrum is good for the country. I'm conservative by nature, but the far right scares me just as much as the far left.

You're right, we should be doing them all, but the problem is that as long as we keep our oil crutch, we won't be utilizing the others to their full potential. Nuclear is the obvious one that we don't use nearly enough. Electric, as it's produced now, isn't a long term solution, unless we're able to produce it more efficiently without the use of fossil fuels (again, Nuclear). Efficiency is the key here. Even the production of gasoline isn't an efficient process. The same goes for what is currently the most efficient way of producing hydrogen fuel. It still requires natural gas which must be drilled for and then converted in an extremely inefficient way.

I'm just hopeful that the U.S. will get to the forefront of technology developement in the area of transportation and energy developement like we were some 50 years ago. That's where the future is for us and our economy, not in drilling and pumping, although that will certainly be the way of things for most of my lifetime.

Cyclone85 · 06-26-2008, 11:11 PM

I like Kasich as well whenever I see him on TV commenting on a topic. McCain is starting to win me over bit by bit and his comments today after the ruling was music to my ears.

Regarding our energy policy, it is so typical of the U.S. to wait until it's almost too late. We now have a gun to our heads and we're suddenly looking for alternatives in a Manhattan Project. Oil (imo) is a beautiful thing as it has built our society into what it is today. We've grown because we've always had a cheap, abundant, and consistent supply of energy. We don't now and the effects are devastating as it obliterates the budgets of middle and lower class people. I know what lower class people make, and I know what it takes to feed a family and fill up a Cavalier with rust in the rear quarter panels. It's horrible; the gas that is -- not the rust.

What we need is a real competitor for oil. Once we have competition in a fuel to power our cars, that will really bring down the price of gas & oil.

Like China and France, the U.S. needs to get their nukes on.

Originally Posted by therick

Maybe that's why I like McCain so much. I was a huge fan of Kasich back when he was a rep. and I'm a fan of my current rep, Pat Tiberi. I guess I don't believe that governing from either extreme on the political spectrum is good for the country. I'm conservative by nature, but the far right scares me just as much as the far left.

You're right, we should be doing them all, but the problem is that as long as we keep our oil crutch, we won't be utilizing the others to their full potential. Nuclear is the obvious one that we don't use nearly enough. Electric, as it's produced now, isn't a long term solution, unless we're able to produce it more efficiently without the use of fossil fuels (again, Nuclear). Efficiency is the key here. Even the production of gasoline isn't an efficient process. The same goes for what is currently the most efficient way of producing hydrogen fuel. It still requires natural gas which must be drilled for and then converted in an extremely inefficient way.

I'm just hopeful that the U.S. will get to the forefront of technology developement in the area of transportation and energy developement like we were some 50 years ago. That's where the future is for us and our economy, not in drilling and pumping, although that will certainly be the way of things for most of my lifetime.

sgallan · 06-26-2008, 11:23 PM

I love it when someone pigeon holes me as a lefty.

Really? I always thought of you as a whacked out rightest.

Obama: Offshore drilling will not lower gas prices this year, next year or 5 years from now

Politics & Religion