[Disclaimer: guest opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the blog administrators.]
There is a general misconception of what oil drilling in the US means. What most people think is that the oil we drill in the US stays in the US .
The politicians say “it makes us more independent” and somehow it helps the amount of oil available for US consumption. Not necessarily.
Once the oil is pumped out it goes into a commodities pool along with OPEC oil and is sold to the highest bidder like Japan China , etc. The basic idea is that there is little differentiation between a commodity coming from one producer and the same commodity from another producer – a barrel of oil is basically the same product, regardless of the producer. It doesn’t matter if it’s off-shore or the Alaska Pipeline or Canada.
So the only thing “Drill Baby Drill” means is more profit for oil companies and that doesn’t count the subsidies we give big oil for exploring off-shore.
If we don’t stop off shore drilling soon we deserve these oil spills!
total rubbish. abu dhabi, dubai and the other gulf fiefdoms have glittering skylines and a trillion bucks in the bank because of their sprawling date farms? the more national resources, be they minerals or intellectual capital or whatever, that a country has to offer the other citizens of the planet, the richer that country will be. if america wants to stop oil production, it will impoverish america. but that’s what the left wants anyway, since we’re a downright mean country and the focus of evil in the modern world. last i heard, mexico venezuela cuba china are not stopping their exploration for oil in the gulf of mexico
Yeah! Like the Exxon Valdez! Wait….that’s not right….
But who owns those oil wells?
The United States owns no oil wells. The United States doesn’t produce oil.
I don’t particularly want to stop oil production but we need to focus on who keeps the marbles at the end of the day in this country.
the federal government doesn’t exactly have a stellar reputation for efficiency (post office vs. fedex). if you want to nationalize the oil industry and get rid of those evil oil companies, you can, but murphy’s law will still apply, and disasters will still occur
e, I never said I wanted to nationalize the oil industry.
“If we don’t stop off shore drilling soon we deserve these oil spills!”
Agreed. If we continue to be a stupid race, we deserve to become extinct.
The dilemma is, we need oil. We can take it from the solid ground or from under water such as lakes, gulfs and oceans. Which place impacts the least short term? Which place impacts least long term?
If there is an accident, where can the accident be controlled? Land or sea.
And we haven’t even started on transporting the oil. How do we get it from point A to point B? What are the environmental issues there?
There are no easy answers. This is an industry that, like mining, will never be safe regardless of government regulation. Can’t live with it and can’t live without it.
That’s a good point. The US only produces 2 percent of the world’s oil but uses 20 percent. All the oil in the US would not be enough to meet our demand.
That is why we have to depend on the mid east for oil, as well as countries like Russia, Venezuela and Nigeria. None of these countries like us very much so expect to pay a lot of money for our demand for oil for many years to come.
One of the investment houses released a statistical study this year that analyzed the impact of lobbying and campaign contributions on investment returns. They found a statistically significant relationship implying that investors can get better returns by investing in the corporations that do the most influence-buying.
We will never get our problem of oil dependency until control until we address this influence-buying. Our elected officials, from Corey Stewart to Barack Obama represent the dollars flowing into their campaign coffers rather than the people who voted for them.
The best solution is to let the “free market” genuinely work. (1) Eliminate special tax breaks and other subsidies for oil companies. (2) Stop opening up public land for drilling. (3) However, if you do open public land for private use, ensure the taxpayers get a competitive price for their resources. (4) Invest in public goods such as research in basic science to promote alternatively technologies. This action also promotes education in science and technology, an area in which the US is falling behind other nations.
I favor strongly “free market” solutions but become incensed when a corporate thug pays off politicians to get their way and then says the government should stay out. At the moment, our economy is one of crony capitalism and corporate welfare.
The main problem with my ideas is that with the millions and billions of dollars at stake anyone who tries to run on such a platform would face an opponent with many times the financing, professional campaign and media people, and overwhelming odds stacked against them.
Look at what’s happening now as the developers locally are coming up with the cash to ensure they don’t lose Corey Stewart or Wally Covington in 2011. No different from the oil companies in national politics.
If the $20 million or so candidate A gets were not given to the candidate to buy his/her influence, would that money possibly turn in to a dividend?
@Moon-howler
The corporation would not make the contribution unless it anticipated the influence bought therefrom to generate even greater returns than the amount of the contribution itself. True, if they didn’t make the campaign contribution they would have those funds for other uses, including dividends. However, its an investment just like any other expenditure that is expected to produce a solid return.
From an investor’s perspective, this is all great if you can pick the companies that buy influence most effectively. From a social or economic point of view it represents a market failure. It means that resources are being diverted based on politics rather than their most efficient use.
Results; continued reliance on oil when we could have used the same resources decades ago to develop alternative technologies. Where would you prefer to see your tax dollars go? Payoffs and preferential treatment to oil companies, or scholarships, education and research grants to scientists? Those grad students just don’t have the money to buy off politicians.
The premise of Moon’s question is that we’re talking about how best to use the oil company’s money. We need to look much more broadly than that. Do we want a system that allows influence-buying to divert resources from other sectors to the oil sector? That’s what we’ve got now. My guess is that if politics and influence-buying had not been part of the equation, fossil fuels would be only a small part of our energy infrastructure now. The Gulf oil spill would have never happened.
Likewise, do we want a local system that allows influence-buying to add to the stock of tax-negative residential housing that we must subsidize, instead of lower taxes, better schools, more parks, etc.
When developers are pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into Corey Stewart’s coffers to feed his egomania and drive to become Lt. Gov. and beyond, is he going to push for their interests our ours? Is he going to promote good government, or support the corrupt senior management we have?
If tea parties or coffee parties truly wanted to effect change in government, that would be the place to start: Getting rid of influence peddling
Right now no one can afford to fun for office unless they are personally wealthy or are recipients of influence peddling. That needs to change if we are really gong to change the way we do business.
Otherwise, the tea and coffee gangs are just going to make people tap dance for a different boss but the real motivator, money, has not changed.
NTK, well presented arguement. I disagree but it sounds good. 🙂
If the govt ‘holds’ something or has ownership of something there will always be influence peddling. Has been since the founding.
I think saying that we want ‘lobbyists’ to go the way of the dodo is pie in the sky. Our current administration started off on that promise and within days couldn’t maintain it. We have to accept that when the government pulls the strings on things; people will be hired to work on behalf of those clients to get a piece of that pie.
What were your thoughts on the DISCLOSE Act? You may have heard in the news that the -D sought the NRA’s approval and granted them a pass on it if they would agree not to fight against it.
While I share the feeling that just because you have more money doesn’t mean you should get more of a vote; I still want those people to have a seat at the table – a voice if you will – and have those non-profits, unions and corporations the 1st Amendment ability to lobby congress and to make speeches pro or against something.
Developers pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars doesn’t get Mr. Stewart or any other person ‘votes’. They might help him spread his message but at the end of the day a man or woman in a booth hits that button and hitches his/her wagon to a policitian.
Money is not evil. It’s just a tool.
Just some info to spread more fuel on the fire….
“In 1970, there were 550 billion barrels of oil reserves in the world and between 1970 and 1990 the world used 600 billion barrels of oil. So reserves should have been overdrawn by 50 billion barrels by 1990. In fact, by 1990 unexploited reserves amounted to 900 billion barrels.” And that doesn’t count the tar sands in Alberta or the shales of Venezuela and the Rocky Mountains, which collectively contain 6 trillion barrels of heavy oil, 20 times the proven reserves in Saudi Arabia.
From http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmI2YTdlNWQ2YWZhN2E2OGU1Y2JlOGMwMzBkYWI3YmE=
So, if you limit to the shale oil in the US, we actually do have enough domestic supplies to make us oil independent. What we do not have is the political will to go get it.
And back to who do we mean by we? There are some unholy alliances there.
It is Carter esq – the whole conversation. The whole Administration is Carter esq.
Don’t miss the point, We don’t need to consolidate new oil supply in the United States. What we need is an alternative to carbon based products so we don’t destroy more of the planet. Not only do we need to make the United States environment friendly, we have to drag the rest of the world along with us or it won’t work.
I don’t really buy into that arguement. We have oil. We have plenty of it in the US. Let’s use it.
I have no objection to alternative or renewable (whatever term is correct, I don’t know) energy sources as I see them having a strategic military value. The idea however that we should penalize the use of oil or subsidize the use of alternative energy is wrong. Allow the market to decide.
If I want my car to run off a battery thats great. But if I want a 305 Chevy..something that makes flesh bounce at 80 paces when you push the throttle hard at an intersection.. that’s my business.
Granted, our of principle I wouldn’t buy anything from Government Motors and would rather go with Ford for a beefy ‘American’ (made in Mexico) car.
How do you feel about the Polar Ice melting and changing the weather patterns so we can’t grow crops to feed ourselves or the animals we raise for food?
We’re not talking about your right to own a “muscle car” we’re talking about survival!
I don’t think enough data exists to support your idea that we’re on the brink.
If the market wants to move towards wind, solar, wave, nuke, geothermal, etc that’s great!! It helps our war machine have cheaper access to oil. But, let the market decide it without the visible hand of government.
Do we need to be on the brink? It is rather hard to imagine that fossil fuels and what we know about their residue don’t harm the environment.
Look at what a volcano does to the evironment.
We can’t just sit here and remain complacent. We have to start looking to the future. Now how fast must we move? That is probably the part that is debatable.
I’m not saying that I’m against renewable energy (the DoD is a major investor in green technologies to maintain the fight against terrorism and our future wars) but I am against the govt interfering with the ability for the energy market to figure out which technology is best and most cost beneficial to consumers and providers.
WOOOHOOO!!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-22/u-s-deepwater-oil-drilling-ban-lifted-today-by-new-orleans-federal-judge.html
“Even after the catastrophic events of Sept. 11, the government only shut down the airlines for three days,’’ Louisiana said in court papers seeking to lift the ban. Diamond Offshore Co., owner of the world’s second-largest floating drilling rig fleet, has filed a separate lawsuit against the regulatory agencies over the ban in Houston federal court. That suit, which accused the government of illegally “taking’’ its drilling contracts, worth up to $500,000 a day, has a scheduling conference in Houston this afternoon before U.S. District Judge Nancy Atlas.