Was Ahnold smoking a cigar when he said that? It would have been a nice touch.

He, gas prices, schmas prices, it would be a windfall for Louisiana, and we need the cash, ironically for wetlands restoration. (Yeah, I know thought the cunning plan through, yadda, yadda, yadda.)

I guess Arnie never heard of the law of supply and demand.

I have a real problem drilling off South Florida and the Florida Panhandle. Not for the beaches, too much, the developers have screwed the pooch there pretty much. The reef and the fish estuaries couldn't handle any more. That said. To Anwar or BUST!

dj_bigbird

I guess Arnie never heard of the law of supply and demand.

I guess dj_bigbird never was introduced to the concept of "lead time."

we should allow off-shore drilling.

and if we allow it today, in 8-10 years they'll start pumping a meaningful amount of crude

It might not, but aren't we supposed to be stopping our dependence on that ferign oyl? We should be exploring energy alternatives, but we're still going to require fossil fuels for a long time. May as well keep the money here instead of giving it to the Saudi's, Mexico & Venezuela.

dj_bigbird: I guess Arnie never heard of the law of supply and demand.

Ha, do you really think it makes a difference?

You are aware we sell most of our oil to multi-national oil companies anyway, who in return sell it back to us at a hugely inflated price? This is not "American" oil. It's just more territory for the oil companies to exploit.

It's odd how many people don't understand this basic concept. Most of that oil will end up in China, anyway.

Maybe they shoulda done it years ago, then it's effect would be felt now. C'mon, Arnie, think of the Children. They'll reap the benefits in the future. When you open a savings account, you see no immediate benefits. It takes time, Arnie.

BobtheFascist: but we're still going to require fossil fuels for a long time.

that's just the thing.

no, we won't. we could start building nuclear reactors today. we could start building infrastructure for hydrogen cars today. we could start mass producing electric cars today.

the only reason we aren't is because the easier, albeit worse, option of oil is still the easier option. it's losing that status quickly, why should we stop it?

BobtheFascist: It might not, but aren't we supposed to be stopping our dependence on that ferign oyl? We should be exploring energy alternatives, but we're still going to require fossil fuels for a long time. May as well keep the money here instead of giving it to the Saudi's, Mexico & Venezuela.

Ha, see, that's the common fallacy.

We sell our oil to companies like ExxonMobile, who are no more American than Toyota. Then we buy it back from them.

The whole "foreign oil" thing is a bit of a lie.

Roppy: When you open a savings account, you see no immediate benefits.

If you invest your tuppence
Wisely in the bank
Safe and sound
Soon that tuppence,
Safely invested in the bank,
Will compound

And you'll achieve that sense of conquest
As your affluence expands
In the hands of the directors
Who invest as propriety demands

You see, Michael, you'll be part of
Railways through Africa
Dams across the Nile
Fleets of ocean greyhounds
Majestic, self-amortizing canals
Plantations of ripening tea

All from tuppence, prudently
Fruitfully, frugally invested
In the, to be specific,
In the Dawes, Tomes
Mousely, Grubbs
Fidelity Fiduciary Bank!

Now, Michael,
When you deposit tuppence in a bank account
Soon you'll see
That it blooms into credit of a generous amount
Semiannually
And you'll achieve that sense of stature
As your influence expands
To the high financial strata
That established credit now commands

You can purchase first and second trust deeds
Think of the foreclosures!
Bonds! Chattels! Dividends! Shares!
Bankruptcies! Debtor sales!

Opportunities!
All manner of private enterprise!
Shipyards! The mercantile!
Collieries! Tanneries!
Incorporations! Amalgamations! Banks!

You see, Michael
Tuppence, patiently, cautiously trustingly invested
In the, to be specific,
In the Dawes, Tomes
Mousely, Grubbs
Fidelity Fiduciary Bank!

dj_bigbird: I guess Arnie never heard of the law of supply and demand.

As far as I've seen, the difference between the supply and demand for oil from May 2007 to May 2008 hasn't changed, and if anything, the demand has dropped.

But it'll make us FEEL better!

Confabulat: dj_bigbird: I guess Arnie never heard of the law of supply and demand.

Ha, do you really think it makes a difference?

You are aware we sell most of our oil to multi-national oil companies anyway, who in return sell it back to us at a hugely inflated price? This is not "American" oil. It's just more territory for the oil companies to exploit.

It's odd how many people don't understand this basic concept. Most of that oil will end up in China, anyway.

But don't you see? 5-10 years is more than enough time to bomb every other nation on the planet, thus leading the oil companies to sell only to us!

You Liberals really need to think before you speak.

Visualingo: dj_bigbird: I guess Arnie never heard of the law of supply and demand.

As far as I've seen, the difference between the supply and demand for oil from May 2007 to May 2008 hasn't changed, and if anything, the demand has dropped.

Domestic consumption is not the same as global consumption. The more you know!

Confabulat:
Ha, see, that's the common fallacy.

We sell our oil to companies like ExxonMobile, who are no more American than Toyota. Then we buy it back from them.

The whole "foreign oil" thing is a bit of a lie.

Bullshiat. Exxon is a publicly traded company, owned by American investors (including institutional investors, meaning if you have any sort of retirement plan, YOU probably own Exxon). Also, in 2007 Exxon paid over $30 billion in taxes to the federal government (about a rate of 41% on taxable income).

dj_bigbird: I guess Arnie never heard of the law of supply and demand.

I guess you've never bothered to study the facts of the situation.

21 billion barrels worth of oil divided by 21 million barrels a day burned in the United States equals how many days worth of oil?

Lando Lincoln: 21 billion barrels worth of oil divided by 21 million barrels a day burned in the United States equals how many days worth of oil?

Around 3 years.

burndtdan: BobtheFascist: but we're still going to require fossil fuels for a long time.

that's just the thing.

no, we won't. we could start building nuclear reactors today. we could start building infrastructure for hydrogen cars today. we could start mass producing electric cars today.


Electric cars, yes. Hydrogen cars? what a crock. The only advantage of hydrogen is that all the auto makers have to change is the fuel system. There's no way that charging a hydrogen cell with hydrogen generated from electrolysis and then burning the hydrogen is more efficient than just charging a battery and running an electric motor off it.

burndtdan: BobtheFascist: but we're still going to require fossil fuels for a long time.

that's just the thing.

no, we won't. we could start building nuclear reactors today. we could start building infrastructure for hydrogen cars today. we could start mass producing electric cars today.

For starters, oil is almost never used for electricity generation. We use our oil for transportation. Jet fuel, diesel, gasoline. It's not just everyday consumers that use fossil fuels, and until we figure out how to power our airplanes, trucks, and construction equipment some other way, fossil fuels will be needed.

We'll likely move beyond conventional oil in the next 15-20 years (just my rough guess, barring any new major discoveries) and start producing non-conventional gas-to-liquid fuels and other synthetics (INCLUDING BIOFUELS!)

/i'm down for nuclear power as well...and hydrogen
//has 100% green electricity

oldebayer: I guess dj_bigbird never was introduced to the concept of "lead time."

so, because of that, we should never start? or, because it will take a some time for that gas to get to market, the law of supply and demand is null and void?

Lando Lincoln: 21 billion barrels worth of oil divided by 21 million barrels a day burned in the United States equals how many days worth of oil?

1000 days. so, you're saying that once it's finished, we stop importing oil all together, and just get the oil from there? i can't imagine that's the plan they had in mind.

This is an ADDITIONAL 21 billion barrels, not the sum total. We already produce roughly half of our oil in the U.S.

By the way, if the eco-freaks hadn't stopped the building of refineries, drilling for domestic oil, and nuclear power plant we would have all that NOW, not in 10 years. We will need petroleum for many years to come, not just for cars. Trucks, airplanes, ships and trains also use petroleum, not just the family car.

bearsfolks: By the way, if the eco-freaks hadn't stopped the building of refineries, drilling for domestic oil, and nuclear power plant we would have all that NOW, not in 10 years.

it's amazing to me how everyone is pro-nuclear power and yet we're not getting started on any of these. who the fark is against it?

/would love a french-style grid, and an electric car to go with it.

Asa Phelps: Electric cars, yes. Hydrogen cars? what a crock. The only advantage of hydrogen is that all the auto makers have to change is the fuel system. There's no way that charging a hydrogen cell with hydrogen generated from electrolysis and then burning the hydrogen is more efficient than just charging a battery and running an electric motor off it.

Well, the advantage to hydrogen fuel cells is that they amount to a refillable battery, which is more appealing than a battery that could take hours to recharge and only transport you 20 miles on a charge.

Some of the new Li-battery chemistries have the potential to recharge in ~2 minutes without the explosion potential of existing Li-battery systems. That could allow recharging stations that allow quick recharge, but the range of purely electric cars would still be unsuitable for long range travel.

I'm still in shock from the fact that I actually voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger to be my governor, and that he's pretty much continuing to justify that vote.

bearsfolks: This is an ADDITIONAL 21 billion barrels, not the sum total. We already produce roughly half of our oil in the U.S.

It doesn't matter how much we produce here. Oil is fungible, and the oil industries aren't nationalized.

Thank you Obdicut

The corporatists and republican oil-shills have a lot of goddamned nerve to pull this offshore oil-drilling bullshiat when every idea they've had has screwed us. It's on their agenda, just like Iraq was, and our beaches would pay for it. Oil will be the same price, but I'm willing to pollute every other beach in the world but my own if it comes to that, not a chance.

burndtdan - that's just the thing.

no, we won't. we could start building nuclear reactors today. we could start building infrastructure for hydrogen cars today. we could start mass producing electric cars today.

But that's just the thing. We could start doing all of those things but it will take time to make the conversion.

I'm all for nuclear power. The problem we face in the States is the douchbags that can't get past their 1970's perception of it.

I don't believe hydrogen is the answer for cars. Not in the US at least. Not anytime soon. Even in Iceland where they are making huge strides in hydrogen technology, there are limitations. Even some of the top proponents of it are saying they aren't sure if it will work in the US simply because of our size. Even so, the avg fleet rotation is roughly 16 years. So realistically it's gonig to take the better part of 2 decades before we can really make a sizeable dent in our gasoline consumption.

Electric cars need batteries. And to make it worth while for the avg American to purchase an electric car they will need more than a 20-30 mile range. They'll need to hold enough juice to run 3 to 4 times that with the radio, nav stystem, AC, heat, etc running at the same time.

My position on oil has nothing to do with blowing off new or alternative technology. I just want to make sure that we still have it to keep our existing infrastructure running while we work on whatever is going to replace it. We've already made a big mistake with our gamble on corn based ethanol. I'd prefer we not be to hasty & make the same mistake on something else.

I'm starting to change my mind on not allowing US-born people to be President. The Governator has done better than I possibly imagined and my opinion of him goes a little bit each time I see a story like this.

GAT_00: I'm starting to change my mind on not allowing US-born people to be President. The Governator has done better than I possibly imagined and my opinion of him goes up a little bit each time I see a story like this.

FTFM

Yes, because the same oil companies that have been sitting on drill-able land in the US already are going to jump on board and start developing costal rigs which carry higher starting costs, higher insurance costs, higher maintenance costs, and will have a longer production lead time... all for amounts of oil which are 10-15% greater than the land contracts they already have, and not nearly as readily accessible (you can't put shore rigs everywhere)

you know, give them the damn water sites... you're going to have to nationalize the companies before anything of consequence happens out of them.

GAT_00: I'm starting to change my mind on not allowing US-born people to be President. The Governator has done better than I possibly imagined and my opinion of him goes up a little bit each time I see a story like this.

It's weird. If you had told me years ago that a former body-builder/cheesy actor/Republican guy from Europe would be my governor, and I'd like it, I wouldn't have believed it.

/especially the Republican part...

The Governator is correct, doing this will have no immediate impact on prices and, by the time it actually starts producing oil, the price won't go back down. The simple fact is that the oil companies are slowly, but surely, making sure all of us are willing to pay the price they set and they're going to continue to move it upwards. All offshore drilling is going to accomplish is more profits for them, not lower prices for you.

Net effect, the answer is to get off oil. While I, remarkably, have to give some props to Bush for investing some cash in the alternatives, it's not enough. If the money he spent on the pointless war in Iraq was spent on making the Middle East irrelevant, we might already be seeing the end of oil driving us around and the end of the Middle East as anything relevant. Can't sell oil? No money for insane fanatics.

It's mind boggling, these people who thing that increasing supply won't decrease demand. Sure, it might not happen soon.. but these are the same people who were opposed to increasing supply 10 years ago, when it would now be keeping prices down.

And to think, liberals accuse conservatives of being short-sighted.

If people stopped and thank for two seconds they'd all realize that McCain's idea for (1) eliminating the gas tax for the long weekend, and (2) offshore oiling won't do anyone any good. Well, that's not true. It will do the oil companies loads of good if people bought into McBush's proposal.

I mean seriously, the only way the gas price will go down is if there is more oil production (which won't happen) or government imposes the same restrictions they set for other companies that tend to monopolize the industry (which won't happen also).

Lionel Mandrake: It's weird. If you had told me years ago that a former body-builder/cheesy actor/Republican guy from Europe would be my governor, and I'd like it, I wouldn't have believed it.

You liked the special election? You enjoy the budget crisis?

I'm not clear what's so good about Arnie, exactly.

So Govenator, do you still back the Hydrogen Highway and the California High Speed Rail? The time is ticking away.

BiffDangler: It's mind boggling, these people who thing that increasing supply won't decrease demand. Sure, it might not happen soon.. but these are the same people who were opposed to increasing supply 10 years ago, when it would now be keeping prices down.

And to think, liberals accuse conservatives of being short-sighted.

Right, I mean, it's not like there's a finite supply of oil. If we just keep drilling on every square inch of the planet we'll surely be set forever! No reprecussions or anything either.

bearsfolks: Trucks, airplanes, ships and trains also use petroleum, not just the family car.

We've been able to power one of those five modes with electricity (no batteries required) for over a century. Too bad the US stopped investing in that mode in the 50s.

As a Californian I'd have to say the Governator hasn't done half bad. At the very least he kept campaign promises. Maybe it's because of the whole "not a career politician" thing. I'd say we should get some in Washington, but then I remembered Reagan. Eh.

Arbitrator: You liked the special election? You enjoy the budget crisis?

No. No.

I'm not clear what's so good about Arnie, exactly.

Didja read the article?

f00f: 1000 days. so, you're saying that once it's finished, we stop importing oil all together, and just get the oil from there? i can't imagine that's the plan they had in mind.

No, that's not what they have in mind, but at the same time I doubt that we're going to see big increases in daily production which would really drop the prices. Take ANWR, for example. ANWR has about 10 billion barrels up there (approx. 500 days worth) but they estimate peak daily production would be about 780,000 barrels per day, which is about 3% of our daily usage.

I haven't seen the projections for daily output if we tapped these 21 billion barrels, but I'm guessing that it really wouldn't affect prices all that much, just like ANWR wouldn't.

It would be great if we had 30 ANWR's to tap all at the same time, or 20 coastal reserves each with 21 billion barrels, because then we really might see some price drops, but the fact is that we do not.

Obdicut: bearsfolks: This is an ADDITIONAL 21 billion barrels, not the sum total. We already produce roughly half of our oil in the U.S.

It doesn't matter how much we produce here. Oil is fungible, and the oil industries aren't nationalized.

This.

We would either need to lower our demand or pump enough oil into the supply to offset what is currently 90 million barrels a day. Even by their best estimates, we'll probably save about a nickle off the price of gas.

To all those who associate oil profits with the Middle East, just remember that Russia is one of the leading suppliers of oil in the world. Sooner or later they're going to have a nationalistic grudge to settle.

It won't have an immediate effect, but if Clinton had allowed us to drill when he was president, we'd all be a lot better off right now. Time to quit thinking so short term.

Anytime soon, anytime soon, anytime soon...WTF ever happened to planning for the future?

Isn't this the generation who keeps bashing the boomers for not thinking ahead for them?

bearsfolks: This is an ADDITIONAL 21 billion barrels, not the sum total. We already produce roughly half of our oil in the U.S.

By the way, if the eco-freaks hadn't stopped the building of refineries, drilling for domestic oil, and nuclear power plant we would have all that NOW, not in 10 years. We will need petroleum for many years to come, not just for cars. Trucks, airplanes, ships and trains also use petroleum, not just the family car.

WRONG. Last year the US produced 6,879,000 barrels. We consumed 20,698,000 barrels per day. That's only 33%.

Show me some articles on how eco-freaks stopped big oil and big electricity from drilling and building new plants. She me some drilling permits that were denied because of eco-freaks raising concerns. Show me some permits for new nuclear plants that were denied.

You're talking out of your ass.

"You can't drill your way out of it" therefore
We will conserve our way out of it. Yea, that makes sense.

Drill already dangit, it may not make things better "RIGHT NOW" but it will a few years down the road.

/Oh that's right, the alternative for petroleum is ready for mass production tomorrow, no need to worry about drilling for oil.

//I say string up Jed, he was less evil when he barely kept his family fed!

Nemo's Brother: It won't have an immediate effect, but if Clinton had allowed us to drill when he was president, we'd all be a lot better off right now. Time to quit thinking so short term.

Fk, yeah. Clearly the solution is in long term thinking: threatening local economies with offshore drilling that might shave 5 cents off gasoline by 2018!

Brilliant!!

NYZooMan: Anytime soon, anytime soon, anytime soon...WTF ever happened to planning for the future?

Isn't this the generation who keeps bashing the boomers for not thinking ahead for them?

No, you're thinking of the group still in power. The baby boomers. Most of us haven't even gotten to vote yet.

It's mind boggling, these people who thing that increasing supply won't decrease demand. Sure, it might not happen soon.. but these are the same people who were opposed to increasing supply 10 years ago, when it would now be keeping prices down.

And to think, liberals accuse conservatives of being short-sighted.

That's because you ARE being short-sighted. What is the ultimate benefit of this plan? A delay. That's all it does, it buys the people of earth a bit more time to use up our precious oil. It is short sighted for the same reason that "fixing" social security by merely moving back the point that it fails is short sighted.

What is so hard to understand about the oposing viewpoint? Instead of pumping what would be hundreds of millions of dollars into offshore drilling that may buy us a few years, how about pumping those hundreds of millions into reusable non-destructive energy alternatives? In my opinion there isn't one magic bullet that replace oil, but a combination of alternatives could work.