$135 a barrel

[atrdriver]

Sorry, but I'm not in favor of utterly destroying the US environment just to extract some more oil when our resources would be better spent on developing alternatives.

Then don't bitch about the price of oil. With current drilling technology we can have a very small surface footprint and drill into fields all over. Have you ever looked to see how small the surface footprint would be in ANWR? It is miniscule. And I remember people saying that the Alaskan pipeline would "utterly destroy" the environment up there. What happened to that prediction?

 

[PCL_128]

Do you have any idea how much it costs in energy to produce that hydrogen? And where do you think all that electricity that it takes to make it (separate it actually) comes from? A lot of it comes from oil, and right now it is not cost effective to make it. Now if we converted 80-90% of our power production to nuke, then it would make sense. Right now it doesn't.

This is exactly why nuke power is so important. (something that Obama has supported, by the way) With nuke power, suddenly electric cars, hydrogen cars, etc... become a lot more efficient. When the power to make these vehicles possible comes from nuclear energy rather than oil or coal energy, then they make perfect sense. It's time to step into the 20th century along with the French (I can't believe I just said that) and get on the nuclear bandwagon. Personally, I find it to be a national embarrassment that we were the country to bring nuclear technology to the world, but we're far behind other countries in using it for power.

 

[Wesb737fo]

Do you have any idea how much it costs in energy to produce that hydrogen? And where do you think all that electricity that it takes to make it (separate it actually) comes from? A lot of it comes from oil, and right now it is not cost effective to make it. Now if we converted 80-90% of our power production to nuke, then it would make sense. Right now it doesn't.

You have a good point. Having worked in nuclear for 7 years, I will tell you I'm not a big fan from the "hazardous waste" standpoint, but if we really want hydrogen as an alternative fuel, then we have to make it cheaply (from a carbon footprint standpoint).

Nuclear would be a good way. Solar is another. The only problem with solar is the number of solar panels it takes to make one "tank" of H2. Does anyone remember seeing "addicted to oil" on the the discovery channel. I can't remember the exact figure, but I believe it was estimated that a solar array the size of Texas would be required to make enough H2 to satisfy %10 percent of the vehicles on the road today (current technology).

Either way how much longer is it going to take to really get us moving towards a solution?

 

[PCL_128]

Then don't bitch about the price of oil. With current drilling technology we can have a very small surface footprint and drill into fields all over. Have you ever looked to see how small the surface footprint would be in ANWR? It is miniscule. And I remember people saying that the Alaskan pipeline would "utterly destroy" the environment up there. What happened to that prediction?

I'm not opposed to limited drilling in ANWR. What I oppose is drilling off the coast and in sanctuary areas in the western US. But this is really irrelevant anyway, since the real answer to oil prices and getting away from middle-east energy is developing alternative fuels. We need nuke power, we need massive amounts of federal funding going towards developing alternative fuels and energy production, and we need higher standards for fuel economy in the mean time.

 

[atrdriver]

I'm not opposed to limited drilling in ANWR. What I oppose is drilling off the coast and in sanctuary areas in the western US. But this is really irrelevant anyway, since the real answer to oil prices and getting away from middle-east energy is developing alternative fuels. We need nuke power, we need massive amounts of federal funding going towards developing alternative fuels and energy production, and we need higher standards for fuel economy in the mean time.

Then you are back to having the government regulate what the car companies do and sell. That was what happened in the early 80's and what caused so many problems for the US auto industry. Let Americans decide what they drive. Gas will stay expensive, there is no doubt about that. There will never again be $1.00 gas. But there is no reason for oil to be as expensive as it is except for the speculation. That's what caused the tech "bubble" if you remember, and look what happened there. And again, the surface footprint of a drill site is tiny compared to the fields that it can reach. And with that reach, rigs can be placed over the horizon off coastlines so they can't even be seen from shore. But that's not good enough for the environmentalists. They want to deny Americans the standard of living that we are capable of, as long as they can have it themselves.

 

[PCL_128]

Then you are back to having the government regulate what the car companies do and sell. That was what happened in the early 80's and what caused so many problems for the US auto industry.

No, the problems for the US auto industry were caused by themselves. Horrible designs and shoddy product quality caused their problems. Increasing the standards for all vehicles sold in the US will not put them at a disadvantage, because imports would be held to the same standards. That's a level playing field.

And with that reach, rigs can be placed over the horizon off coastlines so they can't even be seen from shore. But that's not good enough for the environmentalists. They want to deny Americans the standard of living that we are capable of, as long as they can have it themselves.

No, it's not good enough. I'm a sailor. I don't want to go sailing off the coast of Florida and see oil platforms in every direction. I like the Gulf just the way it is. We have a beautiful country, and I have no desire to destroy it just so you can save $0.25 on a fuel that we need to be making obsolete. We need alternatives, not more oil.

 

[Dizel8]

I stand by my answer. There's a fundamental misunderstanding of how oil prices are set. You could no more produce "US oil, for the US" than you could tax foreign countries for using "our" air. Maybe not that dramatic, but close.

And I for one is glad, that you stand by your answer, like I said, back of the napkin idea, there are bound to be issues that I have not considered. Same reason why there are two of us upfront, to make sure there is a sounding board.

Obviously, my proposal is very different, and as such, it requires a different set of rules, but I stil don't find it unworkable. I think you can produce US oil for US consumers, just like you can produce nuclear power for US consumers. You just wouldn't sell the oil on the open market. Just like we don't sell a lot of military technology on the open market, national interest security and all.

Not to go all Chavez on you, because I am not planning reclaiming the current leases, after all, they have already been negotiated, not taking over the rigs or the refining facilities.

I wouldn't change the game, not require only this road, those workers, that rig etc., we already have protective rules in place, OSHA., etc. I would simply allow the oil companies to bid on extraction, obviously, they are smart people, they know what it would cost and more importantly how to do it. I have little doubt they would bid on it, just like Haliburton would bid on a contract if we invaded Kablakistan.

All along the supply chain, profits would be made, heck, you could even aliken this to when we had a regulated airline industry.

Most of the countries we buy oil from, are heavily involved in the bussiness, iow, they as a country, sadly in many cases not the citizens, profits from the oil. The Saudis own the show, Iran owns the show, Kuwait owns the show. I wouldn't even fault Chavez, had he done things the right way, which would be to pay the oil companies the fair market value of what was their "property" and then used his newfound source of wealth to improve the conditions in Venezuela. Instead he uses it to influence his neighbors and paying FARC.

So, just for conversations sake, let's say we consider my idea, we put the exctraction up for bid and you are tasked with making it workable, how would you do it?

 

[atrdriver]

No, it's not good enough. I'm a sailor. I don't want to go sailing off the coast of Florida and see oil platforms in every direction. I like the Gulf just the way it is. We have a beautiful country, and I have no desire to destroy it just so you can save $0.25 on a fuel that we need to be making obsolete. We need alternatives, not more oil.

So that makes you one of the NIMBY crowd.I don't want to see it. I don't want a nuke plant where I sail, or on the lake where I fish. I don't want to see an oil refinery on the coast where I sail. Seems to me that if you are not willing to be part of the solution then you are part of the problem. Yes, we need alternative sources of power. No, they are not going to be developed in the next 60 days. At the rate we are going our industry, as we know it, may well not be around in 2 or 3 years, and who knows what other problems we will have.

 

[PCL_128]

Drilling for more oil is not "being a part of the solution." It's a continuation of the same problem.

 

[atrdriver]

Drilling for more oil is not "being a part of the solution." It's a continuation of the same problem.

Alternative sources of energy are obviously needed. But what about some of the other products that are made from oil? Things like Ammonia, Anesthetics, Antihistamines, Artificial limbs, Artificial Turf, Antiseptics, Aspirin, Auto Parts, Awnings, Balloons, Ballpoint pens, Bandages, Beach Umbrellas, Boats, Cameras, Candles, Car Battery Cases, Carpets, Caulking, Combs, Cortisones, Cosmetics, Crayons, Credit Cards, Curtains, Deodorants, Detergents, Dice, Disposable Diapers, Dolls, Dyes, Eye Glasses, Electrical Wiring Insulation, Faucet Washers, Fishing Rods, Fishing Line, Fishing Lures, Food Preservatives, Food Packaging, Garden Hose, Glue, Hair Coloring, Hair Curlers, Hand Lotion, Hearing Aids, Heart Valves, Ink, Insect Repellent, Insecticides, Linoleum, Lip Stick, Milk Jugs, Nail Polish, Oil Filters, Panty Hose, Perfume, Petroleum Jelly, Rubber Cement, Rubbing Alcohol, Shampoo, Shaving Cream, Shoes, Toothpaste, Trash Bags, Upholstery, Vitamin Capsules, Water Pipes, Yarn. Are you willing to go without all these things too once we have that magic source of alternative energy?

 

[PCL_128]

If we no longer need oil for basic energy and transportation needs, then we'll have plenty of oil from existing sources to last millennia for all of the things you've mentioned. It's the use of oil for energy and transportation that gobbles all of it up.

 

[j32wreck]

Alternative sources of energy are obviously needed. But what about some of the other products that are made from oil? Things like Ammonia, Anesthetics, Antihistamines, Artificial limbs, Artificial Turf, Antiseptics, Aspirin, Auto Parts, Awnings, Balloons, Ballpoint pens, Bandages, Beach Umbrellas, Boats, Cameras, Candles, Car Battery Cases, Carpets, Caulking, Combs, Cortisones, Cosmetics, Crayons, Credit Cards, Curtains, Deodorants, Detergents, Dice, Disposable Diapers, Dolls, Dyes, Eye Glasses, Electrical Wiring Insulation, Faucet Washers, Fishing Rods, Fishing Line, Fishing Lures, Food Preservatives, Food Packaging, Garden Hose, Glue, Hair Coloring, Hair Curlers, Hand Lotion, Hearing Aids, Heart Valves, Ink, Insect Repellent, Insecticides, Linoleum, Lip Stick, Milk Jugs, Nail Polish, Oil Filters, Panty Hose, Perfume, Petroleum Jelly, Rubber Cement, Rubbing Alcohol, Shampoo, Shaving Cream, Shoes, Toothpaste, Trash Bags, Upholstery, Vitamin Capsules, Water Pipes, Yarn. Are you willing to go without all these things too once we have that magic source of alternative energy?

Find three things on that list that cannot be made without petroleum. Good luck.

Linoleum Flooring

Related Product Advice

• <LI style="LINE-HEIGHT: 18px">Cork Flooring <LI style="LINE-HEIGHT: 18px">Bamboo Flooring <LI style="LINE-HEIGHT: 18px">Forest Steward Certified Wood Flooring <LI style="LINE-HEIGHT: 18px">Reclaimed Wood Flooring <LI style="LINE-HEIGHT: 18px">Recycled Content Carpet
• Wool Carpet

This flooring is often referred to as a “one-hundred-year-floor” due to its durability and low maintenance requirements. Linoleum is considered a natural floor because it uses materials found in nature. As a natural product, it is non-petroleum based and biodegradable.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

My brother told me, 10-15 years ago, that were are stupid to use oil as a transportation fuel. Oil can be used for a myriad of important stuff. I see it as using dollar bills to heat my house with a wood stove.

Renewable Fuels are what is needed for long-term economic stability. We will need nuclear to tide us over until the Renewables can take over.

Probably, Natural Gas could help in the short term instead of gasoline as a transportation fuel.

Solar energy: A solar array about twice the size of Rhode Island would provide ALL the electrical energy needed to power the US.

Let's get ON IT!!!

cliff
YIP

 

[Dizel8]

Soverytired,

It also occured to me, while hanging out a the dogpark with the mutts, that we already allow the "goverment" to control a neccesity more important than oil. You use it every day, it is cheap, clean, you can buy it in the store, but often, it will cost a lot more than oil and in some cases it is imported from far away.

Final clue, without it you die in about 4 days!

 

[Smarta$$]

Not an expert, but pretty knowledgeable, so here goes.

The GS and Boone Pickins statements about $150-200/bbl. oil comes from the following FACTS.

-The world currently has the ability to produce somewhere around 85-86M bbls of oil a day; and the world currenly consumes about 83-84M bbls of oil a day. Meaning there is only about 2M bbls of spare capacity and any supply disruption (instability in Middle East, Nigeria, etc), and the market is in the Negative.

Current growth trends in the world economy (think China, India), call for an increase in demand for oil of about 4-5% per year, and current growth in supply (increase in production) of oil going forward is about 1% per year. So, the growth of oil being produced is very Very likely NOT going to keep up with the growth in Demand in the future years (at least 1-5yrs out).

The Saudis do have about 2M bbls of extra/spare capacity available; however, most of that crude is 'heavy sour crude' which is very expensive to refine, and further there are few refineries that have the capability to refine it.

Off the U.S. east coast (the outer continental shelf) there is an estimated 20-40 Billion Barrels of oil, and even more, there is Billions of cubic feet of 'clean burning' Natural Gas. WE, thanks to Congress and 'special interests' in the this Country, completely refuse to drill for it. ALL of the Oil Executives before congress yesterday, all said, open up these areas for us to drill for more oil here, Domestic Production. In the future, we will be paying $7-9.00/gal. for gas, and probably still refuse to develop our own oil reserves.

All our 'so called' leaders (and future so called leaders) keep talking about is "Wind and Solar" which are good future resources and should be employed to add to our future needs. However, my car does NOT run on Solar power and Doesn't have a Sail.

O.K. so I've gone on long enough. Hope it helps, for what its worth.

PD

20-40 billion barrels off the east coast. At 84 million barrels a day, it would add 220-440 DAYS of supply. That is a drop in a very big bucket. Will is help, some.

Some will say, yeah but it is a U.S. supply. So it will reduce our dependence on middle east oil? Right? Well oil is 132.00 a barrel today. How much is U.S. oil per barrel vs middle east oil per barrel. Or compare the cost of U.S. oil to the cost of Canadian oil. Yup, you guessed it, all 132.00 a barrel. It is a world comodity sold at whatever the going price is for a barrel of oil.

Now are US oil companies would benefit by abtaining the oil locally. But they would still sell it to us at the current going rate.

End result, no savings to you and I.

We have seen US demand go down, and prices go up. We have seen the saudi's offer to increase production by 2 million barrels a day, and the price still went up.

Hopefully, this bubble will burst. But not until there is something else to invest in. But with the supply and demand situation, oil would start to rise again anyway. In my opinion.

 

[Smarta$$]

Like I said in another thread, if we

1) announced new drilling in all the prohibited areas
2) announced new refinery construction
3) announced resumption of nuke plants

I would bet that the price of oil would drop by at least a third within a week. That would obviously help the current price, but it would also slam the speculators, which would be a good thing. But the enviromentalists are still blocking everything that would help this situation. And I guarantee that they don't care a bit what happens to the average American, or all those evil corporations.

Yeah those damn enviromentalists! Who needs a clean environment. We should go back to the rules of the 60's. You can poor any chemicals you want into any river or ground water supply. Just stick your hazardous waste into the land fills. That stuff takes years to make people sick. No big deal. Besides, you can't put the burden of dispossal on the helpless corporations! How would the CEO make his bonus?

And while we are in agreement, how dare the US government, or states for that matter, declare ANY land for National or State parks. What a waste. How can corporations make any money with those? What a waste of tax payers money. Who uses them things anyway?

I think we should abolish all enironmental laws. Give all of our State and National parks to the honest and honorable corporate executives. They are making it to hard for corporations to pay the shareholders.

 

[Soverytired]

No, it's not good enough. I'm a sailor. I don't want to go sailing off the coast of Florida and see oil platforms in every direction. I like the Gulf just the way it is. We have a beautiful country, and I have no desire to destroy it just so you can save $0.25 on a fuel that we need to be making obsolete. We need alternatives, not more oil.

I agree oil platforms are eyesores. Many feel the same way about wind farms, solar panels, coal fired plants (clean or otherwise), nuclear plants, oil refineries, shale oil digging, etc. This is the problem . . too many groups on all sides oppose any development of any kind because it upsets their sensibilities.

As long as America is a fabulously wealthy country, it's perfectly ok to foist the inevitable energy production trade-offs to other countries. For many reasons, this is no longer economically feasible.

Frankly, oil platforms and wind farms miles off the coast are not a concern to the non-sailing population of the US. Being able to afford liquid energy is. I'm truly sorry if that upsets the .000001% of the citizens that like to sail.

One further thought. You are correct that alternatives are preferable an must be developed. High costs will spur that development and innovation.

However, whatever myriad of forms this will eventually take, it's going to be an extremely energy intensive process to build up the infrastructure. The more expensive the energy is (i.e. oil), the more its going to cost to set up it's replacement.

The current US refinery, pipeline, and filling station distribution system took 100 years to build up and cost untold amounts with cheap oil. To put in it's replacement will cost far, far more. At some point, if oil becomes too expensive, it's questionable if the US will be able to put in a replacement without decades of major economic slowdown.

So . . . best to have oil to do it with. There's no other substance on earth that transports as much energy in such a great substance.

 

[Smarta$$]

Ya know, our way of life is not sustainable. Suburbs are a 75 year fad. If you don't like commuting an hour each way to work then move closer to work. If you don't like the high price of food, plant a garden or buy locally.

The last thing we need to do is urge congress to drill for oil now in every nook and corner of the planet. If we continue using oil the way we do, and drilling to maintain that use, then we will be right back where we are now in 20-30 years. Only difference is there will be 8-9billion people on the planet instead of 6.5. And it will be more of a burden for our kids than ut will be for us.

I want to keep my job as much as any of you, but life goes on. One of my favorite quotes , "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." Upton Sinclair. So get over your "it's my right" attitude.

I am so glad that we have a growing number of people in this country who are waking up to our stupidity and urging congress to do the right thing and not support more oil drilling.

I agree that our suburban life is not sustainable long term on oil. But look at the Tesla Roadster. It is an indication of what IS possible. Expensive now, but all new technologies are. It gets 220 miles to a charge, cost 1.50 to fill up, and does 0-60 in under 4 seconds. It is not the answer yet, but shows you what is possible.

http://www.teslamotors.com/

 

[Smarta$$]

I'm sure there is a jungle somewhere you can go live in and wear flip flops handmade from weaving vegetation. I'm all for drilling myself.

It will only work for so long. Your idea is to tell your kid or grandkid to go live in a jungle. This stuff is in a limited quatity. 84 million barrels a day? The planet is big, but it is only so big.

We need to find alternatives. Oil should be used only for things that have no alternative. Jets. Although there are alternate jet fuels, but they still need perfecting.

 

[Soverytired]

Soverytired,

It also occured to me, while hanging out a the dogpark with the mutts, that we already allow the "goverment" to control a neccesity more important than oil. You use it every day, it is cheap, clean, you can buy it in the store, but often, it will cost a lot more than oil and in some cases it is imported from far away.

Final clue, without it you die in about 4 days!

I suppose you're referring to water. If so, it's not government controlled in the way you're alluding to. City municipalities and state governments regularly regulate water as a utility (and fight about it on a federal level all the time), but it's hardly a "state" controlled resource.

To wit: I have water rights on my property, and have my own well. I can pump out as much or as little as I want, and sell it to whomever I want at any price that I want. I can even pump it out onto the ground until the well is dry. It's mine. I own it all, and I paid for that privledge. Welcome to the right of private property as defined by 500 years of English Common law.

Even if I were plugged into a city water system, there are no limits (beyond my wallet) as to how much I use, waste, or sell from the tap. No one does, because water simply isn't that valuable.

Apples and oranges.

 

[Smarta$$]

I agree. Start writing your congressmen to START DRILLING NOW!!! Although it will take ~10 years to see that oil, the price will drop immediately!! Speculators will then stop betting that the price of oil will keep going up because they will know that we will have alot more oil from our own country.

Write your congressman to start drilling now!!

Thats all WE can do.[/quote]

Why waste your time writing the 535 'morons' in Washington DC, they won't listen. They spent most of the hearings with the oil company exec. asking them "how much money they make"?? At least they are paid to create 'value' for the U.S. economy, their companies, and their shareholders; the people questioning them are paid, $200,000+/yr. (of taxpayer's money), and create 'NO value' for the people, the economy or anyone, and have NO Answers to the problem of 'world oil supply.' The oil company execs. told congress to open up areas in the U.S. for oil exploration (U.S. coastal waters, etc).
However, all of that is going to fall on 'deaf ears' as congress is just looking for 'someone to BLAME.'
The U.S. congress has done absolutely NOTHING in the last 30yrs. to improve the energy situation for this country. At least the oil companies have done their part (and are willing to do more) and made a profit along the way, and aren't we still a 'capitalist country' Again, NOTHING has changed in the last 30yrs. and probably won't until gas prices hit $9.00/gal., we have gas lines and shortages, and the economy is close to being destroyed, then 'maybe' just maybe they will do something. (probably not even then, sorry to say).

We are one of the only countries in the world that refuses to drill for oil and natural gas in 'our own' Terrritorial Waters.

A Government of 'special interest' by special interest and for special interest; for a country populated by totally ignorant/stupid people. A majority of the American public don't even understand the problem, as I keep hearing people just say, "its those greedy oil companies, or the evil speculators, or the Saudis"

Blame, Blame, Blame. NO Solutions, and don't want to even understand the problem.

Ethanol; a policial, 'special interest scam' most people in the know admit that now, congress won't stop it.

ALL of the presidential candidates are proposing 'CO2 Caps' (McCain has already introduced legislation), noticed that none of them have told the American public that one 'big' result is that Your electric Bill will 'double or triple' in the next 3-4 yrs. That will go great with the $5-6.00/gal. for gas.

PCL128, that 'PFT moron' said on this thread, that more regulation is what is needed, but he really, really is STUPID; too much Gov't regulation and control is part of what has got us into this situation. We haven't built a new oil refinery in this country in about 30yrs., even though there is a company in AZ that has been trying to build a refinery for the last 8-9yrs., unable to get the EPA and appropriate Gov't approval. Thanks to the innovation of the oil companies that have 'expanded and improved' existing refinery capacity in this country, or we would be dependant on Foreign countries (imports) for most of our gas/diesel/jet fuel. As a result of the current regulations and current environment, it is unlikely that a new refinery will NEVER be built again in this country, maybe one, but that will be it.

Again, NO ONE, especially the congress or any of the presidential candidates have any knowledge, real solutions, or are smart enough to solve the problem, short term.

So get used to oil at $120-160/bbl (possibly 180-200), and gas at $4.00-6.00/gal. for the next few years. Sorry to say.

Said enough for now, for what its worth. Now rant away.

PD

You do alot of name calling and disrespecting of others including the amercan public. I did not realize that you were the only smart one around.

 

[embpic1]

Drilling for more oil is not "being a part of the solution." It's a continuation of the same problem.

DING DING DING!! We have winner!!

Drilling for more oil is not the answer. That would just delay the inevitable. Finite resources will run out! Sure, we might delay the problem for us and out children. What about our grandchildren and great grandchildren. I sincerely hope that my grandchildren will know oil as a hazardous substance that you have to pay to get rid of.

Nuclear and solar power used to produce hydrogen and electricity really needs to come to the forefront. Sure there is the nuclear waste issues, but I am sure we can come up with a smart solution.

 

[PCL_128]

Frankly, oil platforms and wind farms miles off the coast are not a concern to the non-sailing population of the US. Being able to afford liquid energy is. I'm truly sorry if that upsets the .000001% of the citizens that like to sail.

The voters disagree with you. The voters of Florida and California have spoken with their votes repeatedly about not wanting anything to do with off-shore drilling. I lived in Florida for a while, and I remember it being a huge issue during a couple of state elections while I was there. The people just don't want those things off their coast. Period.

 

[Smarta$$]

You have a good point. Having worked in nuclear for 7 years, I will tell you I'm not a big fan from the "hazardous waste" standpoint, but if we really want hydrogen as an alternative fuel, then we have to make it cheaply (from a carbon footprint standpoint).

Nuclear would be a good way. Solar is another. The only problem with solar is the number of solar panels it takes to make one "tank" of H2. Does anyone remember seeing "addicted to oil" on the the discovery channel. I can't remember the exact figure, but I believe it was estimated that a solar array the size of Texas would be required to make enough H2 to satisfy %10 percent of the vehicles on the road today (current technology).

Either way how much longer is it going to take to really get us moving towards a solution?

In relation to a solar array, I say an energy show on discovery that said a 100 square mile solar array in the middle of the nevada desert would create enough electricity for the entire nation. Obviously, distribution from one location would be imposible with todays technology. But it does show the potential.

 

[Soverytired]

And I for one is glad, that you stand by your answer, like I said, back of the napkin idea, there are bound to be issues that I have not considered. Same reason why there are two of us upfront, to make sure there is a sounding board.

Obviously, my proposal is very different, and as such, it requires a different set of rules, but I stil don't find it unworkable. I think you can produce US oil for US consumers, just like you can produce nuclear power for US consumers. You just wouldn't sell the oil on the open market.

Not to go all Chavez on you, because I am not planning reclaiming the current leases, after all, they have already been negotiated, not taking over the rigs or the refining facilities.

So, just for conversations sake, let's say we consider my idea, we put the exctraction up for bid and you are tasked with making it workable, how would you do it?

Agreed on the "sounding board" comment. Getting into screaming fits and gross hyperbole gets old fast.

SHORT ANSWER: (my answer)

• Open up the Gulf Coast, the Pacific and the Atlantic Shelf to exploration and development.
• Drop any and all oil company US subsidizes to anyone who participates.
• Tax oil companies on their profits, and that's where the American people get "their" cut. (SMART USE of tax = alternative fuel development / LIKELY USE = Bobblehead museum in your congressman's next earmark)
• If you think their 7% annual profit is "obscene", raise their taxes, but every other industry (including airlines) who also makes similar annual profits taxes will raise as well.
• And oil MUST be sold on the open market, unless you want to start a major trade war and a collapse of the global economy.

LONG ANSWER: (yours, as I understand it)

This is "nationalization", however way you slice it. Whomever actually was awarded the leases, under your scheme the Federal government owns everything (because why stop at oil?), and they'll set a "fair" price, presumably below fair market value.

So . . . when I go and buy this heavily subsidized government oil, may I turn around and sell it on the open market for a tidy profit? Do I own it, or do I just get to use it at the governments sufferance? Do I have private property rights, or does the government just let me pay for the privilege of using things in whatever limited ways they allow? Do you really want this much control over your freedom by the federal government?

As to the "had Chavez done it the right way" comment: Every dictator that has ever seized privately owned assets always does this. It is always done for the "good of the people." And after a few years, production falls, the dictator and his cronies get rich, and the vaunted "people" are worse off than before.

What leads you to believe it would be any different here? Tax oil companies if you must; if a government overdoes it, they'll just bow out and stop producing. But nationalization is wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

[Soverytired]

You do alot of name calling and disrespecting of others including the amercan public. I did not realize that you were the only smart one around.

While we're critiquing here, how about you stop implying that anyone who wants to use oil must de facto want to roll-back 50 years of environmental regulation?

It's a straw man, and you know it. Plenty of people here want clean alternatives, but we're decades away from it. Oil is going to be a big part of whatever ultimate energy solution comes about, and is no more "evil" than corn-based ethanol is "good".

 

[Soverytired]

The voters disagree with you. The voters of Florida and California have spoken with their votes repeatedly about not wanting anything to do with off-shore drilling. I lived in Florida for a while, and I remember it being a huge issue during a couple of state elections while I was there. The people just don't want those things off their coast. Period.

Fair enough.

With all the calls for massive federal intervention proposed here though, at some point the desires of the "locals" in Florida and California are not going to be able to resist the pressure from the rest of the country to develop oil that isn't, strictly speaking, part of their state boundaries. Ultimately, it's the federal ban, not the state ban that's preventing off shore drilling.

A national problem, a national solution, right? It's a huge hot-potato now on the federal level, but this will change if oil keeps going up and up.

And heck, when gas gets to be $12-$16 a gallon, I suspect they'll be a push for a re-vote.

 

[Ticker]

The voters disagree with you. The voters of Florida and California have spoken with their votes repeatedly about not wanting anything to do with off-shore drilling. I lived in Florida for a while, and I remember it being a huge issue during a couple of state elections while I was there. The people just don't want those things off their coast. Period.

Vote all they like, the platforms will be there soon weather they like it or not. The difference is that the platforms won't be ours.

As we speak, Cuba, our little buddy Chaves in Venezuela, and the Chi-Coms are in the process of exploring and drilling for oil off our coast. But hey, they'll be 12 miles away. And I'm sure they'll be just as careful as we would regarding the environment. They're good like that.

 

[atrdriver]

• Tax oil companies on their profits, and that's where the American people get "their" cut. (SMART USE of tax = alternative fuel development / LIKELY USE = Bobblehead museum in your congressman's next earmark)

Typical liberal solution, tax the evil corporation. You do realize that a corporation NEVER pays tax don't you? All they do is add their tax into teh cost of the product, because to them a tax is part of the cost of goods sold. Nobody is holding hearings on banks, except those poor ones that need bailing out because of the real estate crash, but they were averaging 20% profit margins, while the average oil company is making less than 10% margin.

 

[atrdriver]

Yeah those damn enviromentalists! Who needs a clean environment. We should go back to the rules of the 60's. You can poor any chemicals you want into any river or ground water supply. Just stick your hazardous waste into the land fills. That stuff takes years to make people sick. No big deal. Besides, you can't put the burden of dispossal on the helpless corporations! How would the CEO make his bonus?

And while we are in agreement, how dare the US government, or states for that matter, declare ANY land for National or State parks. What a waste. How can corporations make any money with those? What a waste of tax payers money. Who uses them things anyway?

I think we should abolish all enironmental laws. Give all of our State and National parks to the honest and honorable corporate executives. They are making it to hard for corporations to pay the shareholders.

Be a smarta$$ is you wish, that is your name after all, but our technology is a lot better now than it was in the '60s. A very small footprint at the surface can cover a vast area of drilling. And we aren't talking about state parks here. But lets sat that we are. Lets say that Yellowstone Park sits on top of the largest oil reserve ever found. With current drilling technology, they could set up rigs on 1 square mile and cover the entire area under the park. Look at all the horrible damage that the Alaskan Pipeline did to the environment. Oh wait, there hasn't been any, despite what all the "experts" said when it was being built.