NorEast Fishing Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
26,338 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
As we head towards November and the candidates start (hopefully) to define their stance on the issues, I think it would be great to keep the major topics in their own threads. Just my 2 cents.

That being said, McCain has come out looking to remove the federal restrictions on off-shore drilling. Wouldn't that be nice!


McCain Seeks to End Offshore Drilling Ban


By Michael D. Shear and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, June 17, 2008; A01

Sen. John McCain called yesterday for an end to the federal ban on offshore oil drilling, offering an aggressive response to high gasoline prices and immediately drawing the ire of environmental groups that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has courted for months.

The move is aimed at easing voter anger over rising energy prices by freeing states to open vast stretches of the country's coastline to oil exploration. In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, nearly 80 percent said soaring prices at the pump are causing them financial hardship, the highest in surveys this decade.

"We must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil," McCain told reporters yesterday. In a speech today, he plans to add that "we have untapped oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. . . . It is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions."

McCain's announcement is a reversal of the position he took in his 2000 presidential campaign and a break with environmental activists, even as he attempts to win the support of independents and moderate Democrats. Since becoming the presumptive GOP nominee in March, McCain has presented himself as a friend of the environment by touting his plans to combat global warming and his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in the Everglades.

Representatives of several environmental groups criticized him for backing an idea they said would endanger the nation's most environmentally sensitive waters.

"It's disappointing that Senator McCain is clinging to the failed energy policies of the past," said Tiernan Sittenfeld, legislative director for the League of Conservation Voters.

Sierra Club political director Cathy Duvall said McCain "is using the environment as a way to portray himself as being different from George Bush. But the reality is that he isn't." The group began running radio commercials yesterday that criticize McCain's environmental record in the battleground state of Ohio.

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama joined the criticism, calling the idea of lifting the ban the wrong answer to out-of-control energy prices. "John McCain's plan to simply drill our way out of our energy crisis is the same misguided approach backed by President Bush that has failed our families for too long and only serves to benefit the big oil companies," Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan said.

Energy policy -- led by the spike in gas prices -- is now a top-tier issue in the campaign, forcing both candidates to shift their attention from other domestic issues and foreign affairs. Spot prices for a barrel of crude oil briefly hit an all-time high yesterday, flirting with $140 a barrel before settling back to a bit less than $134.

In the Post-ABC poll, conducted Thursday through Sunday, about half of those surveyed called high gas prices a serious burden, while the issue emerged for the first time during the campaign as a top concern for voters. Obama held double-digit leads over McCain as the candidate more trusted to deal with gasoline prices and energy policy.

While both candidates have spoken about the need to shift to cleaner energy sources, they have proposed different ways to do so.

McCain backs federal subsidies for building more nuclear power plants, which he considers the best way to reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. He plans to begin outlining his energy proposals in the first of three major speeches today in Houston. Aides said the centerpiece of the speech will be the proposal to lift the ban on drilling, but McCain will also have harsh words for market speculators who are driving up the cost of oil.

"Investigation is underway to root out this kind of reckless wagering, unrelated to any kind of productive commerce, because it can distort the market, drive prices beyond rational limits, and put the investments and pensions of millions of Americans at risk," he will say in the speech, according to excerpts the campaign provided yesterday.

Obama backs using money raised through an auction of greenhouse-gas emissions credits to bolster research and development projects, while imposing requirements on how much renewable energy public utilities would have to buy.

Yesterday in the down-at-the-heels manufacturing city of Flint, Mich., Obama said that a new energy policy must be part of government efforts to revive the economy.

"Our dependence on foreign oil strains family budgets and it saps our economy. Oil money pays for the bombs going off from Baghdad to Beirut, and the bombast of dictators from Caracas to Tehran," Obama said. "Our nation will not be secure unless we take that leverage away, and our planet will not be safe unless we move decisively toward a clean energy future."

McCain's call for an end to the coastal oil drilling ban is at odds with his oft-stated view that drilling should remain off-limits in sensitive areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Asked by reporters about those places, McCain said yesterday that he still thinks the refuge is a "pristine" area and opposes drilling there.

The senator's push to end the ban is sure to annoy two key Republican allies -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist -- both of whom oppose drilling off their states' coastlines.

Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear noted the governor's overall support for McCain's candidacy but said: "There are things that he and the senator will agree on, and things they won't agree on." Crist said in a statement: "It has become increasingly clear that we must be pragmatic in protecting both our beaches and our economy. We look forward to the dialogue as we move forward to protect both our environment and our country's economic interests."

Congress created a moratorium on new drilling off the coast in 1981, and every president since then has extended it.

While McCain has traditionally sided with environmentalists on climate change, he has a mixed voting record on oil drilling and support for renewable energy.


Can somebody lease explain to me how tapping our own oil reserves is a "failed policy of the past"? It seems to have worked out pretty well for the Saudi's:rolleyes:
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
67,033 Posts
It is a "failed Policy of the past" because it goes against what all the envirowackos want. It's not a panacea, but it would at least build a bridge we could use while we climb toward alternative energy.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
12,952 Posts
MakoMike wrote:
It is a "failed Policy of the past" because it goes against what all the envirowackos want. It's not a panacea, but it would at least build a bridge we could use while we climb toward alternative energy.

Drill!!!!!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,928 Posts
So we drill offshore and we drill ANWAR and get a temporary influx of oil.

This will increase supply, prices will drop, and people will forget about alternative energy sources...;..the Hummer's and Suburbans will reign supreme again.

After some time, the oil runs out what do we do then ?

Drilling offshore, drilling ANWAR are only temporary fixes on a problem that needs it's root cause repaired as opposed to merely aleviating its symptoms.


Furthermore, 21 billion barrels is not in "Proven Reserves", which means that it's doubtful we really have that much oil or that much of it is even economically or technologically accessible. Also remember that the United States uses 20 million bbl/pd (Barrells Per Day) or about 7.3 billion barrels per year. So, even if we had 21 billion barrels in reserve, that we would mean we only have enough oil to supply for less then 3 years.

I saw another thread about Obama pacticing his "looking to the future" pose. Well, that is not a bad idea as it seems like McCain is interested in short term repairs, while Obama is a more strategic thinkiner looking far ahead.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
12,952 Posts
GradySailfish wrote:

So we drill offshore and we drill ANWAR and get a temporary influx of oil.

This will increase supply, prices will drop, and people will forget about alternative energy sources...;..the Hummer's and Suburbans will reign supreme again.

After some time, the oil runs out what do we do then ?

Drilling offshore, drilling ANWAR are only temporary fixes on a problem that needs it's root cause repaired as opposed to merely aleviating its symptoms.
Furthermore, 21 billion barrels is not in "Proven Reserves", which means that it's doubtful we really have that much oil or that much of it is even economically or technologically accessible. Also remember that the United States uses 20 million bbl/pd (Barrells Per Day) or about 7.3 billion barrels per year. So, even if we had 21 billion barrels in reserve, that we would mean we only have enough oil to supply for less then 3 years.

I saw another thread about Obama pacticing his "looking to the future" pose. Well, that is not a bad idea as it seems like McCain is interested in short term repairs, while Obama is a more strategic thinkiner looking far ahead.



Go build a boat and I am sure someone will help you move the boat.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
67,033 Posts
GradySailfish wrote:

So we drill offshore and we drill ANWAR and get a temporary influx of oil.

This will increase supply, prices will drop, and people will forget about alternative energy sources...;..the Hummer's and Suburbans will reign supreme again.

After some time, the oil runs out what do we do then ?

Drilling offshore, drilling ANWAR are only temporary fixes on a problem that needs it's root cause repaired as opposed to merely aleviating its symptoms.


Furthermore, 21 billion barrels is not in "Proven Reserves", which means that it's doubtful we really have that much oil or that much of it is even economically or technologically accessible. Also remember that the United States uses 20 million bbl/pd (Barrells Per Day) or about 7.3 billion barrels per year. So, even if we had 21 billion barrels in reserve, that we would mean we only have enough oil to supply for less then 3 years.


The "failed policy of the past" is really just being complacent about oil while we had it at a reasonable cost. The government should show some leadership in developing alternative energy while we have whatever hiatus the new oil brings us. As far as "proven reserves" goes, they said the same thing in Brazil, where they have just discovered what may be the world's largest oil field. IOW you don't know what you have until you go look. Also we have the tar sands and oil shale that is now economically viable to today's prices, but the congress it blocking the development of those areas. Its like they are deliberately trying to starve the country while pursuing the grail of alternative energy. They continue on this track and its going to play **** with our and the world's economy. In ten years we'll be a third world country.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
26,338 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
GradySailfish wrote:

So we drill offshore and we drill ANWAR and get a temporary influx of oil.

This will increase supply, prices will drop, and people will forget about alternative energy sources...;..the Hummer's and Suburbans will reign supreme again.

After some time, the oil runs out what do we do then ?

Drilling offshore, drilling ANWAR are only temporary fixes on a problem that needs it's root cause repaired as opposed to merely aleviating its symptoms.


Furthermore, 21 billion barrels is not in "Proven Reserves", which means that it's doubtful we really have that much oil or that much of it is even economically or technologically accessible. Also remember that the United States uses 20 million bbl/pd (Barrells Per Day) or about 7.3 billion barrels per year. So, even if we had 21 billion barrels in reserve, that we would mean we only have enough oil to supply for less then 3 years.

I saw another thread about Obama pacticing his "looking to the future" pose. Well, that is not a bad idea as it seems like McCain is interested in short term repairs, while Obama is a more strategic thinkiner looking far ahead.



So, what you prefer it to look for some eutopian "new Form of Energy" and let oil prices climb to the stratosphere in the mean time?:confused::confused:

We have an "alternative form of energy" called NUCLEAR POWER. Unfortunately Jimmy Carter and the environmentalist put the kabosh on that one too.

Let's review the alternatives:

Hydrogen Powered Cars - Require HUGE amounts of electricity to produce the hydrogen, so we will need more plants to produce more electrcity. Can't use nuke so it looks like more fossil fuel plants. Oops, can't do that, so we just put more burden on the grid. Wait, I know, rolling brown-outs. There you go! No sacrifice too small for the caribou!

Solar - Yeah, right! We'll just cover the state of Conneticut with solar panels just so we can try and power the NYC Subway system! Not there yet. IF it ever gets there, let us know.

Hydroelectric - Lets cover the bottom of the Hudson & east rivers with turbines. Verdant Power is already working on it. Let us know when that one can power the NYC Subways too.

Hybrid Vehicles - Not a bad start. Unfortunately the battery production is wicked on the environment and nobody has told me what we'll be doing with all the batteries that need to be replaced. I can't even throw out a 9 volt in the landfill. What do we do with all the Prius Batteries?

So, while someone comes up with some magic bullet for energy, DRILL, DRILL, DRILL here in the US and keep those dollars HERE!!!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,928 Posts
MakoMike, Oilshale and Oilsands are really, really interesting possibilities. The United States and Canada have TRILLIONS of barrels of the stuff.


As for Brazil's reserves, that 33 billion barrel figure contains quite a bit of uncertainty, but it nonetheless is a substantial find. As mentioned earlier, the oil shale and oil sands are VERY interesting and I've posted about them before. I wish I could find someone very knowledgeable about them and pick their brain. His majesty HJ said that idea is unfeasible, but he's a pessimist so I don't take him seriously in that regard.

Scott,

All of the ideas you posted have potential.

Scott Nuke plants are great, but we as a nation are pretty efficient at electricity generation. 52% of the US's electricity is still generated by burning coal. The rest of our electricity (January 2005) is produced by nuclear plants (20%), burning natural gas (15%), burning oil (3%), hydropower (7%), and other such as burning wood, geothermal, solar, wind, and miscellaneous (2%).

Oil Use

Our great consumption of oil comes from transportation, us driving fuel ineffecient vehicles. THATS where we need to cut back.

Electric cars for short hops are the best solution while clean efficient diesels can handle the long hauls.

I just think that the high fuel prices are giving us a "kick in the ass" to find better alternatives.

Anyway, and I'm asking this non-sarcastically, what are McCain's proposals on alternative energy ?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,242 Posts
There is no getting away from the fact that drilling for more domestic production is a TEMPORARY solution.
We have to fix both the supply side and the demand side of the equation.

We need to produce more of our own fuel AND we need to learn how to use less of it.
If oil is too affordable we will go back to wasting it.

As far as the hydrogen fuel / nuclear power thing goes, when it becomes too painful for consumers to pay for oil ? and they see other countries moving ahead and lessoning dependence on expensive oil - then they will demand the necessary changes.

Everything has a tipping point.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
67,033 Posts
SinkerBouncer wrote:
There is no getting away from the fact that drilling for more domestic production is a TEMPORARY solution.
We have to fix both the supply side and the demand side of the equation.

We need to produce more of our own fuel AND we need to learn how to use less of it.
If oil is too affordable we will go back to wasting it.

As far as the hydrogen fuel / nuclear power thing goes, when it becomes too painful for consumers to pay for oil ? and they see other countries moving ahead and lessoning dependence on expensive oil - then they will demand the necessary changes.

Everything has a tipping point.

That's something I can gree with. What scares the bejesus out of me though is that when we reach that "tipping point" where the majority of American demand something, like building nuclear plants, be done the economy will already be in the crapper and it will take 10 years to gett hose plants built.

FWIW on the tar sands/ oil shale front. The compnay I work for is just waiting for congress to stop blocking their development. We make a lot of the equipment that the operators will need to develop those sources. The developers are ready right now Canada is already moving forward and we are selling equipment to them. But the democrats ( not political rhetoric but acutal vote counts) are blocking their development here in the U.S.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,928 Posts
I've done some reading and it seems like its not Congress that is a major obstacle to oil sands but instead its the Canadian government. Apparently the Alberta oil sands are a pretty hot topic.

Congress has blocked the Coal to Oil proposals brought suggested, but thats only a temporary block until a cleaner process could be found, i.e. one that uses less greenhouse gasses then the existing process.

Mike, since you know a thing or two about this, is it really possible to economically extract the oil from the sand shale reserves and if so can it be done in quantities sufficient enough to meet at least some demand?

This post edited by GradySailfish 10:22 AM 06/17/2008
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
67,033 Posts
GradySailfish wrote:

I've done some reading and it seems like its not Congress that is a major obstacle to oil sands but instead its the Canadian government. Apparently the Alberta oil sands are a pretty hot topic.

Congress has blocked the Coal to Oil proposals brought suggested, but thats only a temporary block until a cleaner process could be found, i.e. one that uses less greenhouse gasses then the existing process.

Mike, since you know a thing or two about this, is it really possible to economically extract the oil from the sand shale reserves and if so can it be done in quantities sufficient enough to meet at least some demand?

All I know is that the potential operators see a profit in both of these sources right now. That's their business and I assume they know what they are doing. I also know that withing the past two weeks a Senate committee voted along party lines to prevent the opening up of the Montana oil shale to commercial exploitation. I am only talking about U.S. deposits, except for some Canadian oil shale which is currently being developed.

I do know that there is a huge amount of oil that can be theoretically extracted from the tar sands and oil shale, but it will take a while to build the processing infrastructure to deliver it to market. Just like the same thing with ore nuclear power and/or domestic crude oil reserves. That's the thing that really gets to me about all of this. We sit here looking at these long lead times and a lot people say, "well we shouldn't do that and it won't even help inthe short term." nothing will hel int he short term and IMHO we should be moving ahead with all of these long lead time alternatives. If we drill in ANWAR and along the coasts and find out we don't need all the oil, what have we (as a country) lost? The oil comanies may be out a few bucks, but I'm not sympathetic to that. Same goes for the tar sands/ oil shale and nuclear reactors. Can we have too much energy intot he future?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts
FYI The 3,000 Mile Oil Change Myth

It?s been a misconception for years that engine oil should be changed every 3000 miles, even though most auto manufacturers now recommend oil changes at 5,000, 7,000, or even 10,000 mile intervals under normal driving conditions.

Greatly improved oils, including synthetic oils, coupled with better engines mean longer spans between oil changes without harming an engine. The 3000 mile interval is a carryover from days when engines used single-grade, non-detergent oils.
It's a small step but,every little bit helps.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
231 Posts
I don't give a crap about caribou's, so I say let them drill in Alaska. Not sure how much it will help though. Regarding the shale oil, it is my understanding that a trememdous amount of water is needed for the extraction process, something that is in increasingly short supply in the southwest. If this process diverts significant amounts of water at the top of the Colorado river it would be a big problem for those downriver where shortages are already an issue.

This post edited by Slacker 11:05 AM 06/17/2008
 

· Registered
Joined
·
17,340 Posts
2 million barrels a day in a 85 million barrel a day useage worldwide would do nothing to the cost of oil...

Mcain's other brilliant idea is to lower the taxes on the oil companies so they can help us get off oil..



You don't need oil to produce electricity.

Natural Gas will do the job just fine. The US has a virtual unlimited supply of natural gas....power the plants with natural gas and procuce your clean burning hydrogen.

or just run your cars on it like thge smarter canadians do... problem solved. Politically, big oil won't let that happen.

Honda is also the only car company producing natural gas car. Can only be bought in NY or CA though, where ther aren't many pumps like say a state like UTAH which has 100x more pumps.. but they can't buy the cars there.

Mcain: Lower Taxes on the rich and the oil companies so that they will solve the energy problems. :confused:

Obama: Have the oil companies give back some obscene profit payments and expand the quest for an alternative fuel with the funding.

Scott and the happy Republicans: Drill drill drill all your answers are solved. (Or at least we can blame the democrats for not allowing it and deflect attention away from the problem..)
 

· Registered
Joined
·
702 Posts
likeitreallyis wrote:
Obama: Have the oil companies give back some obscene profit payments and expand the quest for an alternative fuel with the funding.


What will you say when someone decides that your pay is obscene?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
17,340 Posts
flattie wrote:
likeitreallyis wrote:
Obama: Have the oil companies give back some obscene profit payments and expand the quest for an alternative fuel with the funding.


What will you say when someone decides that your pay is obscene?



Pay my taxes of course... The republicans would rather them not and pass the burden onto the 10 year olds in this country by increasing the deficit...



 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
67,033 Posts
likeitreallyis wrote:
You don't need oil to produce electricity.

Natural Gas will do the job just fine. The US has a virtual unlimited supply of natural gas....power the plants with natural gas and procuce your clean burning hydrogen.

or just run your cars on it like thge smarter canadians do... problem solved. Politically, big oil won't let that happen.

Honda is also the only car company producing natural gas car. Can only be bought in NY or CA though, where ther aren't many pumps like say a state like UTAH which has 100x more pumps.. but they can't buy the cars there.

Make much more sense to just use the gas in the cars directly, does it not? Especially since we know that it takes more energy to produce a liter of hydrogen than the liter of hyrogen contains. Do you really think that we have a "liftime supply" of natural gas if we start burning it as a subsitute for gasoline? Its take a few parts and not much work to convert any gasoline burning car to propane (LNG), in fact almost every fork lift in the country is currently running on LNG, guess they can't refill them? But then we would have to build pipelines and LNG ports, which the NIMBYs won't let us do. So instead lets protect some wilderness that 99.99999% of the people of this country, who are paying for it via higher energy prices, will never see.

likeitreallyis wrote:
Obama: Have the oil companies give back some obscene profit payments and expand the quest for an alternative fuel with the funding.

Back to who, who did they take it from? By North Dakota standards you house in the northeast is "obscene" should the government take that too?
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top