If I understand the POV of you folks that are OK with drilling offshore, it's that it's OK to sacrifice the view, and the beach areas to get cheaper fuel. If I have oversimplified it, please correct me. This is a slippery slope, in my mind, because the determination then has to be just how much risk of pollution or destruction would be allowed to balance out the potential benefit. It's not jsut about a clean beach, although that should be good enough. It's not about a bordering state doing what they choose, yet risking our natural resources when things go bad, although that should be enough. I can't predict the date it would happen. Yet, the proponents of the Exxon Valdez also said that there would be no pollution. Historically, though, it will happen. And once an area is polluted, it takes generations to get it back. Big Deal, you say. So, it's a beach. or a salt marsh that got oily. No biggie. Except that the estuaries and beaches we have are kind of like Mother Natures nursery for most species of fish and shellfish. And, plenty of jobs are related to the diving, boating, fishing, and tourist industries. Once an estuary is gone, all forms of biodiversity that came from there are gone. I prefer a life with shellfish I can eat, jobs for my family on the coast, places to visit and tour, and a clean environment.
Forget the environment (just for this discussion) our country just does not have the geology to support the amount of oil we use. You could put 500 holes in the ground and at best have maybe a year or two's worth of oil. IMO you start cutting back on oil use now, start building nuclear reactors, and you save the small amount of reserves we have for future generations. A stated earlier, up until this month we have been buying oil on the open market and pumping it back underground for future needs. Why do we need to be so short sighted? Although solar/wind/nuclear power will helps us dramatically there are 100's of products that come from oil that we will need in the future (gasoline although important is in my mind the easiest to replace). The greedy bast*** in me says buy all their oil now and let them beg us in the future.
While I agree that pristine beaches and healthy estuaries are important, so is affordable energy. It really doesn't matter how many fish or shrimp are in the sound if the commercial fishermen are spending $5 a gallon for diesel and getting less than $2 a pound for their shrimp. They can't stay in business that way. My point is that rising gas prices are causing the loss of jobs anyway and you won't be able to afford to eat shellfish because it will be so expensive to harvest and deliver to the market place. I think we can all agree that we need to drill for oil here at home as well as looking for VIABLE alternative energy.
I agree with newlifetaxidermy. I understand everyone's point, but all this is not helping the fact that some people may lose jobs because they can't afford to get there. That means if there is no money coming in, no one can afford all the trips to the coast, which means tourism and all the money that brings is out the window. Things need to happen fast!!!
one question when was the last time a drill rig caused a spill even a small one it doesnt have to be huge. just a little one. Cruise ships probably dump more waste then a drill rig.
This one was spectacular so it gets its own link: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0320-02.htm This covers a broader scope http://www.oilrigdisasters.co.uk/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/opinion/19thu1.html It was almost inevitable that a combination of $4-a-gallon gas, public anxiety and politicians eager to win votes or repair legacies would produce political pandering on an epic scale. So it has, the latest instance being President Bush’s decision to ask Congress to end the federal ban on offshore oil and gas drilling along much of America’s continental shelf. This is worse than a dumb idea. It is cruelly misleading. It will make only a modest difference, at best, to prices at the pump, and even then the benefits will be years away. It greatly exaggerates America’s leverage over world oil prices. It is based on dubious statistics. It diverts the public from the tough decisions that need to be made about conservation. There is no doubt that a lot of people have been discomfited and genuinely hurt by $4-a-gallon gas. But their suffering will not be relieved by drilling in restricted areas off the coasts of New Jersey or Virginia or California. The Energy Information Administration says that even if both coasts were opened, prices would not begin to drop until 2030. The only real beneficiaries will be the oil companies that are trying to lock up every last acre of public land before their friends in power — Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney — exit the political stage. The whole scheme is based on a series of fictions that range from the egregious to the merely annoying. Democratic majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, noted the worst of these on Wednesday: That a country that consumes one-quarter of the world’s oil supply but owns only 3 percent of its reserves can drill its way out of any problem — whether it be high prices at the pump or dependence on oil exported by unstable countries in Persian Gulf. This fiction has been resisted by Barack Obama but foolishly embraced by John McCain, who seemed to be making some sense on energy questions until he jumped aboard the lift-the-ban bandwagon on Tuesday. A lesser fiction, perpetrated by the oil companies and, to some extent, by misleading government figures, is that huge deposits of oil and gas on federal land have been closed off and industry has had one hand tied behind its back by environmentalists, Democrats and the offshore protections in place for 25 years. The numbers suggest otherwise. Of the 36 billion barrels of oil believed to lie on federal land, mainly in the Rocky Mountain West and Alaska, almost two-thirds are accessible or will be after various land-use and environmental reviews. And of the 89 billion barrels of recoverable oil believed to lie offshore, the federal Mineral Management Service says fourth-fifths is open to industry, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaskan waters. Clearly, the oil companies are not starved for resources. Further, they do not seem to be doing nearly as much as they could with the land to which they’ve already laid claim. Separate studies by the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Wilderness Society, a conservation group, show that roughly three-quarters of the 90 million-plus acres of federal land being leased by the oil companies onshore and off are not being used to produce energy. That is 68 million acres altogether, among them potentially highly productive leases in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. With that in mind, four influential House Democrats — Edward Markey, Nick Rahall, Rahm Emanuel and Maurice Hinchey — have introduced “use it or lose it” bills that would force the companies to begin exploiting the leases they have before getting any more. Companion bills have been introduced in the Senate, where suspicions also run high that industry’s main objective is to stockpile millions of additional acres of public land before the Bush administration leaves town. This cannot be allowed to happen. The Congressional moratoriums on offshore drilling were put in place in 1981 and reaffirmed by subsequent Congresses to protect coastal economies that depend on clean water and clean coastlines. This was also the essential purpose of supplemental executive orders, the first of which was issued by Mr. Bush’s father in 1990 after the disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill the year before. Given the huge resources available to the energy industry, there is no reason to undo these protections now.
OK my two worthless cents on this. IF there is even the slightest chance that it might bring down the price of Oil, which would lead to a drop in fuel price, which would lead to drop in shipping cost of all products. Then NC and every other state in the US not drilling their hearts out are being foolish and blind. The simple fact that even if we only got a 100 barrels a day outta the thing that would be 100 less we were buying from over seas. Plus there is the job thing. Being a boost to the local economy 2-4 shifts of crews getting paid good wages and living in state that loves to tax the employee (and not the company!) they would be buying houses and spending in our state. Even a Democrap would have to see the good in that!
Hmmmm screw the environment we want cheap gas now? We went through this in the 1970s and did we learn anything? No, we did not. If the prices were lowered people would not buy more and have the demand drive the prices back up? No, we would never do that, just like we would not build huge gas guzzlers after the problem in the 1970s, right? There have been those pointing out the problems coming up for decades now and until it hits the pocketbook everyone wants to ignore it. Then they want a solution right now, regardless of the cost. We also need landfills and how many would oppose landfills going in near their homes? How about those drilling operations going in nearby? Does anyone wonder where all of that contaminated mud goes from the drilling process? It is much more than you see with a little water well and even more of a problem. Of course, a knee jerk reaction is the extent of much of our populations input and probably more than their understanding of the issues in many cases. Which is also probably why there is little planning for the future by many people. Why put money aside when I can get that sound system, TV or boat now. :banghead:
Wife got an e-mail the other day that I think would help the situation. We are currently buying oil at roughly $130 a barrel, meanwhile we are selling grain for roughly $7 a bushel. Now according to the math (rough estimate) there are 9.3 liquid gallons in a bushel which would make roughly 6 bushels to a barrel of oil. Now by simple math at $7 a bushel times 6 bushels it equals to roughly $42 for a "barrel" of grain compared to the $130 for a barrel of oil. Now if we were to start charging these outside countries that are buying our grain more money (especially to the oil producing countries) then perhaps we would honestly see the price of oil drop. If not then at least as a country we would have more revenue coming into our economy, or would have a larger reserve for our own use internally (as the latest stats I can find show that we as a country export at least a third of what is produced in the US). Craig
Even if there is enough oil for a production boom offshore, what makes any of you think that we'll get to keep it all for ourselves? It would be sold on the global market and much of it would go to whoever will pay the most resulting in bigger profits for the INTERNATIONAL oil companies. Granted if it is right offshore shipping costs are next to nil to ship to the US, but say they can still ship to China for a bigger profit...what then? All that environmental risk so China can have our oil. Unless, of course, you would expect the US government to step in and control the oil industry? The global market is adjusting to years of out-of-whackness in favor of the US. Now that fuel is expensive, people are trying to live closer to work. A certain amount of dense population centers enabling mass transit is exactly what this country needs. Of course, affordable housing is an issue, but that market is adjusting as well as the commuter diaspora unfolds. Now that food is expensive, people are planting gardens and visiting farmers markets to buy locally (significantly reduces fuel). All of this is an adjustment from years of convenience and as I have said many times over almost ten years on this board (old and new) CONVENIENCE is a very dirty word. Convenience is at the root of many societal ills such as obesity, energy dependancy, crime, etc.
The reason grain prices are what they are is because that is what the global market will bear. Do you not think that the price would be adjusted upwards if it could be? It probably can't because it can be bought cheaper elsewhere. We are not even the largest producer of grain anymore: http://nue.okstate.edu/Crop_Information/World_Wheat_Production.htm Not to mention lot of what we produce goes unused or farmers are subsidized not to grow it in the first place. Unless of course we want the government to step in and control the oil industry and agriculture now?
I think grain is a traded commodity just like oil. You can't set the price, the market sets the price.
If I remember right it takes almost as much energy to make grain into the liquid equivalent of oil, plus a lot of handling costs. The result of this Oranges to Apples comparison might make the costs a lot closer than you think.
Hught......the way I see it a "barrel" of grain will have alot lower overall costs to convert than a barrel of crude oil. The crude oil will have a lot higher handling costs due to the specialty nature of eveything involved from transportation, to packaging, and refining. Add in the fact that the same amount of crude oil costs more than double an equal amount of grain and the overall cost to convert creeps futher and futher apart with larger and larger volumes produced, unless of course the cost to convert oil gets cheaper with the greater the volume converted. Craig
If the grain industry did the same forecasting and predicting that the oil market does or threatened to decress prodcution then I'm sure the futures market would drive the price of grain up....just as it does oil. Craig
http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm Article on corn to fuel. I don't know how acurate this is but it from Cornell.
I thought it was semi-widely accepted the corn is one of the most ineffecient means of getting ethanol. And I guess in a sense Hught was correct in that I am comparing apples to oranges in that I have never in this thread promoted using grain to create ethanol, but I was comparing 2 futures market driven items, Though if Hught took the line that I was talking about converting grain to a biofuel, then that is an assumption on Hught's part that was incorrect. BTW........sugar cane is a much more effecient product to creat ethanol from. Craig
Well the only other way that I see to interpret your original statement is to say that anything, such as grain, that takes up the volume of a barrel should cost the same. In that case I would like to buy a barrel of Gold off of you. :mrgreen:
