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

BHiatt · 07-02-2008, 10:36 AM

Hide it in the cars they make -- and sell it to us.

Ephra Connor · 07-02-2008, 11:02 AM

Nuclear = Good but scary and misunderstood
Wind = Good but 'not in my back yard'
Solar = Good but not good enough yet
Coal = Bad and dirty even with "Clean Coal Plants"
Oil = Why even bother

There's a new trend towards wave and tidal electricity generation that could be a real solution: baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-md.energy21may21002018,0,7755158.story

Sorry, I'm too new to add the link.

legridder155 · 07-02-2008, 12:42 PM

Ban, you are the one buying into the liberal left redrich.

Tight-Waist · 07-03-2008, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by ban basketball

We need no more increased land for offshore drilling. What we need is to ask the oil companies why they aren't drilling on the millions uopn millions of acres of offshore land leased to them at present.

Keep in mind that what they are asking for is more land, but yet they are not drilling on the vast, vast majority of land that has already been leased to them. Why?

Who cares anyway? Let's bring back the electric car.

Since you are so ignorant about oil & gas matters I will try to explain this to you.

Companies are NOT successful with every well they drill. But you do learn something about the area with each well you drill. Thus you buy several leases hoping one or more of them are productive. One well pospects are very rarely drilled and are almost always very bad economics. Offset wells are where the money is made and that requires having the leases BEFORE the first well is drilled or you will missout on the rights to drill your offsets.

As you improve the quality of your geology (ie your knowlege of the subsurface formation and content) you may decide to purchase some new leases and either extend or let others lapse. Sometimes larger companies buy leases to give themselves leverage in other companies expected AOIs (areas of interest).

Rest assured ban, oil companies purchase leases for a purpose, but they are not always solely for the purpose of drilling that well.

Tight-Waist · 07-03-2008, 05:02 PM

Has anyone mentioned that if Bill Clinton hadnt vetoed drilling in ANWR we'd be reaping its benefits today?

Cyclone85 · 07-03-2008, 06:58 PM

Oh -- Tight--Tight---Tight....you got it all wrong, man!! It would only be an extra million barrels a day of supply to the U.S. Seriously, what would a million barrels a day do to the fussy supply growth curve vs. the demand growth curve? It's only a 5% margin for error. What do we have now? 0% So what's an extra 5%? Remember, according to Harry Reid (who is always on the right side of every economic and social issue known to man), says we cannot 'drill drill drill' our way out of this energy crisis. Tight -- listen to Harry.

Bill Clinton was absolutely dead on for vetoing ANWR and the pristine area where they wanted to drill. Just wondering, does anybody have an actual photograph of where the actual drill site was to be? How big of an area did it entail?

Originally Posted by Tight-Waist

Has anyone mentioned that if Bill Clinton hadnt vetoed drilling in ANWR we'd be reaping its benefits today?

Tight-Waist · 07-03-2008, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclone85

Oh -- Tight--Tight---Tight....you got it all wrong, man!! It would only be an extra million barrels a day of supply to the U.S. Seriously, what would a million barrels a day do to the fussy supply growth curve vs. the demand growth curve? It's only a 5% margin for error. What do we have now? 0% So what's an extra 5%? Remember, according to Harry Reid (who is always on the right side of every economic and social issue known to man), says we cannot 'drill drill drill' our way out of this energy crisis. Tight -- listen to Harry.

Bill Clinton was absolutely dead on for vetoing ANWR and the pristine area where they wanted to drill. Just wondering, does anybody have an actual photograph of where the actual drill site was to be? How big of an area did it entail?

Well, maybe we should take 5% OUT of the supply and see what happens? The fact is we need ANWR, and all offshore areas. And now as oil keeps rising, and rising and rising what to environmentalists want to do? Thats right, they want to close off more and more areas from domestic production.

The area of ANWR is roughly the size of NJ, DL, RI, and CONN. The area to be used for drilling is SMALLER than Dulles Airport and is on the NORTH SLOPE which is barren of trees and is nothing more than frozen tundra.

My question to them is.... is one part of the earth better than another? I mean we hear all this about interdependence and hurting just one part hurts all the rest, so why are they willing to sacrifice the living desert at the benefit of frozen tundra? Why allow drilling in Texas, but not in Wyoming? Why in the gulf of Mexico and not off the coast of California?

Cyclone85 · 07-03-2008, 07:35 PM

Tight -- don't make me do this. I told you to listen to Harry Reid; comply. You must comply.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqR0Ui0g3wI

Originally Posted by Tight-Waist

Well, maybe we should take 5% OUT of the supply and see what happens? The fact is we need ANWR, and all offshore areas. And now as oil keeps rising, and rising and rising what to environmentalists want to do? Thats right, they want to close off more and more areas from domestic production.

The area of ANWR is roughly the size of NJ, DL, RI, and CONN. The area to be used for drilling is SMALLER than Dulles Airport and is on the NORTH SLOPE which is barren of trees and is nothing more than frozen tundra.

My question to them is.... is one part of the earth better than another? I mean we hear all this about interdependence and hurting just one part hurts all the rest, so why are they willing to sacrifice the living desert at the benefit of frozen tundra? Why allow drilling in Texas, but not in Wyoming? Why in the gulf of Mexico and not off the coast of California?

Cyclone85 · 07-03-2008, 07:41 PM

Wait a minute; are you sure? I was led to believe that ANWR was like 80% of Alaska and that the drill site would be 78% of ANWR. The TV commercials show running water, little bunnies skipping around, cougars feeding the bunnies, antelope, and tiny little black bears playing in trees.

The rules of logic dictate that the commercials and your statements cannot both be correct simultaneously. One is accurate and the other is not.

I must investigate before the fireworks start.

Originally Posted by Tight-Waist

(snippage)

The area of ANWR is roughly the size of NJ, DL, RI, and CONN. The area to be used for drilling is SMALLER than Dulles Airport and is on the NORTH SLOPE which is barren of trees and is nothing more than frozen tundra.

(snippage)

FloggingSully · 07-05-2008, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by Tight-Waist

Has anyone mentioned that if Bill Clinton hadnt vetoed drilling in ANWR we'd be reaping its benefits today?

Ya, gas would be $4.10 and rising instead of $4.15 and rising! I can't believe we missed out on such a golden opportunity.

Maybe if the republicans could have gotten their act together in the 6 years they controlled the legislative and executive branches, we'd all be saving a dollar every time we filled up now.

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

Politics & Religion