That's good to hear. We need it.
Maybe he should have a little chat with Comrade Pelosi.

Only idiots think we need it.

Dinki: Only idiots think we need it.

I don't think anyone is hailing this as the end all solution, but anything to ease the hurt on the economy and give us more time to research alternatives isn't a bad thing.

I think this is the first time I agree with ndotseth. I feel dirty.

Persepolis: I think this is the first time I agree with ndotseth. I feel dirty.

Don't feel dirty -- you're also agreeing with me.

wow, subby knows how to spell compromise.

I'm seriously impressed.

KaponoFor3: Don't feel dirty -- you're also agreeing with me.

Yeah, but that's not that rare.

The other guy, on the other hand, consistently posts the worst thought out, least informed viewpoints ever.

Persepolis: I don't think anyone is hailing this as the end all solution, but anything to ease the hurt on the economy and give us more time to research alternatives isn't a bad thing.


The problem is more drilling -

1. Won't help in the long run, because as soon as the price of oil drops a few dollars everyone will say "gee glad that's over" and go back to doing the same stupid things they have always done. Much as I'm not a huge fan of market forces in some areas, at least high oil prices create an impetus for moving to alternative fuels.

2. More oil = more pollution. Simply fact. We cannot continue on this path, it is madness.

3. The idea that the way to resolve the problem of a dwindling supply of a finite resource is to use that resource up even faster is just more madness.

Dinki: Persepolis: I don't think anyone is hailing this as the end all solution, but anything to ease the hurt on the economy and give us more time to research alternatives isn't a bad thing.


The problem is more drilling -

1. Won't help in the long run, because as soon as the price of oil drops a few dollars everyone will say "gee glad that's over" and go back to doing the same stupid things they have always done. Much as I'm not a huge fan of market forces in some areas, at least high oil prices create an impetus for moving to alternative fuels.

2. More oil = more pollution. Simply fact. We cannot continue on this path, it is madness.

3. The idea that the way to resolve the problem of a dwindling supply of a finite resource is to use that resource up even faster is just more madness.

Those three points all seem to assume that if we don't drill for oil, then we're magically already saved from the start.

The point of the matter is, we're in the middle of a huge oil addiction. To the point that it's crippling the economy. (You think it's the subprime mortgage meltdown that's killing us? Why do you think so many people have defaulted on their loans?) This needs to be cleared up.

No one is saying that drilling is the long term fix. But, we have to realize we're in a real bad place right now. If we keep delving deeper and deeper to our addiction to foreign oil, it'll be that much harder to get over to alternatives. (Bad economy == less innovation)

How about, we pass a bill making it OK to go forward with drilling, but make it contingent on continual funding towards the development of alternatives?

Persepolis: No one is saying that drilling is the long term fix.

I'm confused. If more drilling isn't a long-term fix and it also won't make any real difference in the short term, wtf is the point? To make us feel better that "at least we're trying"?

The only logic I've heard that seems reasonable is that it will have an immediate psychological effect on speculators. While I'm certain that will happen, why can't we take a different approach to resolving the speculation problem without exposing our coastlines to a greater likelihood of pollution?

Anyone who has read Obama's book "Audacity of Hope" would know that Obama is all about compromise when it is reasonable to do so. It makes a lot more sense than saying, "It's my way or the highway."

skinnycatullus: If more drilling isn't a long-term fix and it also won't make any real difference in the short term,

When did I say this?

I work in the finance industry, specifically for the government. (not in a cool field that relates to me doing something about we're talking about. more of a boring, buracrautic crappy way)

The bottom line is, our economy is in a really bad place right now. And a lot of people are blaming a lot of different things. (Foreclosures, High cost of food, commodities, Banks going under, cost of living expenses, lower interest rates, high inflation, etc)

The point of the matter is, this all boils down to our dependence of foreign oil. Billions of dollars leave our economy on a regular basis. As the prices for a barrel of oil go up, this just expedites the money going out. As well as causing the cost of transportation to increase, thus increasing the prices of goods and services.

So, families have to pay more to drive to the store, to pay more for goods, all at a time when the economy is doing even worse on top of everything due to the money leaving.

Lots of people who got loans who shouldn't have all of a sudden can't make their mortgages, homes get foreclosed, bringing down property values, which in our current point in society, is where the majority of people keep their wealth.

This isn't some conspiracy theory, butterfly effect crap. This is a very real concept we are seeing and living through.

If drilling for oil ourselves can both increase our supply of oil, and keep money within our economy, we can begin to (try to) reverse all the horrible effects we've been seeing recently.

Once we do that, we'll be in a better position to research alternatives than we are currently in our, "try and keep our head above water, hope we don't hit another great depression" mode we're in right now.

It has nothing to do with psychological effects. It's all about real manipulation of the economy, which we desperately need.

Man, I hope this gets green. I don't want to lose that post. I like it.

Persepolis: Man, I hope this gets green. I don't want to lose that post. I like it.

You could copy and paste it into your memoirs. ;)

JohnnyC: You could copy and paste it into your memoirs. ;)

Good idea. My memoirs are better thought out though, and I'm too lazy for that.

In my opinion, that's what makes my memoirs effective, their not first-draft style posts.

Persepolis: If drilling for oil ourselves can both increase our supply of oil, and keep money within our economy, we can begin to (try to) reverse all the horrible effects we've been seeing recently.

Are the companies that will be drilling for this oil owned by the US government?

Would they not desire to sell to the highest bidder anyway?

bulldg4life: Are the companies that will be drilling for this oil owned by the US government?

Ideally. This would help us two fold. Just increasing our supply temporarily would help some though, that's why I would choose it over NOT drilling. I would prefer it being an American company.

Persepolis: If drilling for oil ourselves can both increase our supply of oil, and keep money within our economy, we can begin to (try to) reverse all the horrible effects we've been seeing recently.

According to the EIA, offshore drilling is not expected to make any significant difference domestic oil production before 2030 and is not expected to make any significant difference on the price of oil at the wellhead, and drilling ANWR won't be able to reduce the price of oil be so much as a dollar a barrel by 2025[1][2].

Factor that in with the continuing decline of the dollar, China and India's demand growth, the lack of infrastructure necessary to actually drill, ship, and refine it and I am not really seeing the benefit of spending that money vs. something like solar thermal and plug in hybrids or increased fuel efficiency.

Persepolis: I would prefer it being an American company.

But, I would assume that these are large multi-national or large international companies that could not be bothered to cater to American interests.

(Granted, I do not know who drills for/owns the oil...I'm just assuming an ExxxxxxxxxxonMobil wouldn't really care where they got the oil)

Also, why are these companies sitting on the land they already own and instead are asking for more land to drill on?

[I am not picking on you..I honestly want to know and have so far been buried in rhetoric and random articles. And, you seem to be damn level-headed when explaining things, so I figure you know or know where to look]

Jon Snow: According to the EIA, offshore drilling is not expected to make any significant difference domestic oil production before 2030 and is not expected to make any significant difference on the price of oil at the wellhead, and drilling ANWR won't be able to reduce the price of oil be so much as a dollar a barrel by 2025[1][2].

Thanks for the sources. I'm going to refine my position a bit after I read them. (Uh oh. Flip flops.)

Jon Snow: Factor that in with the continuing decline of the dollar,

That's what I'm on about, we need to slow that down. I sincerely think it's due to our dependence on foreign oil that's causing most of the problems.

Jon Snow: the lack of infrastructure necessary to actually drill, ship, and refine it

I'm in favor of building this infrastructure.

Persepolis: I'm in favor of building this infrastructure.

If we're going to build an infrastructure that we lack, why don't we build the infrastructure needed for alternate energy resources?

bulldg4life: If we're going to build an infrastructure that we lack, why don't we build the infrastructure needed for alternate energy resources?

Because attempting to build an infrastructure for something that will help us long term, when we need to build infrastructure for something to help us short term doesn't make sense to me.

Long term is more important. No doubt about that. Short term is grounded in practicality. I'm of the position that if we don't turn the economy around, we're not going to be able to pull of any pie in the sky dreams of legitimate long term alternate energy sources.

Jon Snow: According to the EIA, offshore drilling is not expected to make any significant difference domestic oil production before 2030 and is not expected to make any significant difference on the price of oil at the wellhead, and drilling ANWR won't be able to reduce the price of oil be so much as a dollar a barrel by 2025

In the meantime, do you have any studies about how long it would take to fund/develop/implement alternative fuel sources to the point of decreasing oil dependence.

That's also an important part of the equation.

bulldg4life: Are the companies that will be drilling for this oil owned by the US government?

Would they not desire to sell to the highest bidder anyway?

Easy -- make the drilling rights contingent on the oil being sold in the domestic market.

Jon Snow: According to the EIA, offshore drilling is not expected to make any significant difference domestic oil production before 2030 and is not expected to make any significant difference on the price of oil at the wellhead, and drilling ANWR won't be able to reduce the price of oil be so much as a dollar a barrel by 2025[1][2].

You are missing the point -- it's not about the price, it's about the access and availability. Sure, I'd love to think that we won't NEED to have access to large amounts of oil in 2030, but what if we do? I'd rather do something now that could help us if that magic renewable energy fairy doesn't come as easily as we all hope.

bulldg4life: Also, why are these companies sitting on the land they already own and instead are asking for more land to drill on?

That assumes all land that the companies have leased have oil reserves on them. They likely don't. Don't forget, under federal guidelines, if the companies don't drill within a few years after acquiring the rights to drill, they lose the lease. Any land the oil companies have that they don't drill on is, most likely, because there is not oil there.

Persepolis: In the meantime, do you have any studies about how long it would take to fund/develop/implement alternative fuel sources to the point of decreasing oil dependence.

That's also an important part of the equation.

... and it is the part that is most people who are against drilling tend to ignore. Yes, it would be great to have a massive investment in renewable energy tech. Hopefully that would work and lead us to a sustainable, clean energy solution.

But what if it doesn't?

Then I'd much rather prefer to have easy access to domestic sources of oil, wouldn't you? I mean, I know I'd rather my money go to "Big Oil" than to the Saudi coffers.

Persepolis: I'm in favor of building this infrastructure.

Unfortunately, the oil industry isn't.

What to do?

Long term is more important. No doubt about that. Short term is grounded in practicality. I'm of the position that if we don't turn the economy around, we're not going to be able to pull of any pie in the sky dreams of legitimate long term alternate energy sources.

But what you are advocating is by definition not short term. It is mediumish term. At best. Which is a big, big if, relative to the dollar and demand. Both of which would be checked by American growth in clean energy tech.

In the meantime, do you have any studies about how long it would take to fund/develop/implement alternative fuel sources to the point of decreasing oil dependence.

It may sound like a dodge, but I believe in being honest more than scoring points, so I will have to for the moment say "it depends on what you're looking for". On the one hand, something like wind doesn't seem to reduce domestic oil consumption, but when you couple plug-in hybrids (which are people are doing now themselves and will be sold by the automotive industry by 2010) with wind or solar, it does. Give me a second to check and let me get back to you. Whatever I do pull, I will try to match timescales as much as possible.

KaponoFor3: You are missing the point -- it's not about the price, it's about the access and availability. Sure, I'd love to think that we won't NEED to have access to large amounts of oil in 2030, but what if we do? I'd rather do something now that could help us if that magic renewable energy fairy doesn't come as easily as we all hope.

Then your complaint should be with the domestic oil industry about why it isn't using the sweetheart deals it does get to increase extraction, refinement, and shipping capacity rather than fund FUD about climate change which is getting them repeatedly sued. If you want that oil to be able to be extracted and usable, support the infrastructure increase before the drilling. Then we'll know you're serious.

But what if it doesn't?

Then I'd much rather prefer to have easy access to domestic sources of oil, wouldn't you? I mean, I know I'd rather my money go to "Big Oil" than to the Saudi coffers.

The amount of oil available in remaining offshore drilling is less than what was available in the Gulf of Mexico before we opened that up. How much did that drive down prices? How much did that ensure American energy independence? Where is your position on California's right as a state to refuse offshore drilling?

Jon Snow: Unfortunately, the oil industry isn't.

What to do?

Get the government on the side of PRO-building the infrastructure I'm talking about? I mean, we're discussing what we would like to see the government do, after all.

Jon Snow: But what you are advocating is by definition not short term. It is mediumish term. At best.

All things presented, it looks like mediumish term is the fastest trek we have. Which leads me to:

Jon Snow: It may sound like a dodge, but I believe in being honest more than scoring points, so I will have to for the moment say "it depends on what you're looking for". On the one hand, something like wind doesn't seem to reduce domestic oil consumption, but when you couple plug-in hybrids (which are people are doing now themselves and will be sold by the automotive industry by 2010) with wind or solar, it does. Give me a second to check and let me get back to you. Whatever I do pull, I will try to match timescales as much as possible.

Okay, fair enough. But now we're in the "we don't know enough about all the options for sure" area. At this point, it's about guessing and trying to hedge our bets. We should continue thinking this situation out, which is why threads like this one (making fun of politicians reassessing positions) are ridiculous, however at this point, I believe trying to fix our economy via getting off our dependence of foreign oil AND bringing down the price of oil at the quickest pace possible should be at the top of our list of priorities.

Okay, I need to go now. It's really nice outside and there is alcohol to be consumed.

Jon Snow: If you want that oil to be able to be extracted and usable, support the infrastructure increase before the drilling. Then we'll know you're serious.

The infrastructure and offshore drilling are not mutually exclusive. They can be done at the same time.

Jon Snow: The amount of oil available in remaining offshore drilling is less than what was available in the Gulf of Mexico before we opened that up. How much did that drive down prices? How much did that ensure American energy independence? Where is your position on California's right as a state to refuse offshore drilling?

I've said before -- for me, offshore drilling is not about the price, but about the availability. I don't think the Gulf of Mexico drilling helped ensure America's independence because the rights to drill in the Gulf weren't made contingent on the oil extracted being sold in the domestic market. I'd wholeheartedly support offshore drilling with that caveat.

The states' rights issue is a little more sticky. On the whole, I'd support a state saying "no, you can't drill off of our shore". I don't think the Federal Government should have the right to say "you will allow Mobil/Exxon/Chevron to drill off your shore".

Persepolis: Get the government on the side of PRO-building the infrastructure I'm talking about? I mean, we're discussing what we would like to see the government do, after all.

So you want the government to build national oil extraction and refining infrastructure over a pittance of oil (vs. global demand), or just subsidize and pressure the oil companies to do what they (by the logic of "drill here, it will help") should have been doing anyway, knowing that it doesn't help in the long term?

But now we're in the "we don't know enough about all the options for sure" area. At this point, it's about guessing and trying to hedge our bets. We should continue thinking this situation out, which is why threads like this one (making fun of politicians reassessing positions) are ridiculous, however at this point, I believe trying to fix our economy via getting off our dependence of foreign oil AND bringing down the price of oil at the quickest pace possible should be at the top of our list of priorities.

There's only one answer to our situation in the long term. A diverse energy portfolio that acknowledges the benefits of nuclear (while not being McCain unrealistic about how much we can rely on it) and our availability of coal (carbon capture, or else... I don't know what we're not willing to gamble), and tidal, hydo, geo, photovoltaics, solar thermal, wind, etc. In the short term drilling doesn't help. So you're basically still in favor of a medium-range temporary "solution" that will only bring a short-term-at-best-and-even-then-so-minimal-that-we-are-literally-talking-cents relief in the future, when you want a short term and a long-term approach.

The question right now is investment. I can tell you with no trace of doubt that dollar that goes into domestic offshore drilling will be by definition be better spent on clean energy for future generations. I can't right this second promise you that by 2030 this will be true, but I can promise it will still be true before then.

KaponoFor3: The infrastructure and offshore drilling are not mutually exclusive. They can be done at the same time.

Not if you are talking about providing relief to the current taxpayers. You are offering, as I've said, a minor benefit to a group in the 2030s. The oil market is volatile, but it will possibly pop tiny bit and definitely increase. A Congressional lift (even before states allow it) on offshore drilling- if it did cause the price of oil to briefly decrease- would be more than offset by the signal to the market that the number one oil importer in the world has so little faith in the idea of stable oil prices that the junkie is flipping its own flop room for product- to make what kind of a difference?

How does us drilling not end up driving prices higher in the long run? I've cited how it doesn't help us in the short. So who in this undefined middle benefits?

KaponoFor3: On the whole, I'd support a state saying "no, you can't drill off of our shore". I don't think the Federal Government should have the right to say "you will allow Mobil/Exxon/Chevron to drill off your shore".

If you take states choices out of the equation, how much are you even expecting to be able to extract?

If Obama folds on this like he did on FISA I'm voting for Bob Barr.

CravenMorehead: If Obama folds on this like he did on FISA I'm voting for Bob Barr.

You've already stated once today that you're not voting for Obama, jackass.

STAY THE COURSE!!!! NEVER DEVIATE!!!

I still disagree with offshore drilling. Why are the oil companies so adamant about using offshore drilling when they've had millions of acres inside the United States to use for years? Who suddenly decided that offshore drilling is the new buzzword to save the world?

Obdicut: You've already stated once today that you're not voting for Obama, jackass.

Where did I do that?

Wow what a flip flopper Obama is. He's worse than Kerry.

He hasn't changed his position. His position wasn't about blocking offshore drilling at all costs, it was that offshore drilling isn't a quick fix for gas prices.

This actually is a decent compromise, unlike his FISA vote. He's getting a variety of alternative energy measures in exchange for allowing drilling off the Gulf of Mexico, with environmental restrictions in place and the bans still in place elsewhere.

Obama better grow a pair before November. The Republicans are nothing but suck right now, so why be such a namby pamby sissy boy? He better start acting like a liberal, an anti-Bush not just Bush-lite.

Funk Brothers: Wow what a flip flopper Obama is. He's worse than Kerry.

You've obviously confused Funk with Disco.

Funk was cool.

Out of curiousity, what is the actual source of this information besides this blog?

And even with the compromise, what about the states that say they won't allow it?

CravenMorehead: If Obama folds on this like he did on FISA I'm voting for Bob Barr.

RevMercutio: Out of curiousity, what is the actual source of this information besides this blog?

And even with the compromise, what about the states that say they won't allow it?

Clicky Linky (new window)

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."

wow...what a completely insane position to have! just crazy!

CRAZY I SAY!

Any band-aid they can muster to stop the hemorrhaging can only be positive. Obviously this or any other readily available domestic source won't alleviate our dependence on foreign sources by significant amounts. Still will be a few billion dollars which might not go to purchasing Russian MiGs for Venezuela. Which is why it should be supported; with alternatives not yet a viable we should be making efforts to increase domestic production-but only in addition to increased conservation and continued investment in a true replacement for our petroleum infrastructure. Little things...

Dinki: Only idiots think we need it.

If by "idiots" you mean "Responsible adults who want an energy policy that makes sense" you might be right.

It's okay, you'll understand when you're older.

Lenny_da_Hog: Funk Brothers: Wow what a flip flopper Obama is. He's worse than Kerry.

You've obviously confused Funk with Disco.

Funk was cool.

You are now entitled to any and all intartubes I have or ever will have.

/Disco Brothers, oh yeah...

When has Obama EVER stood his ground on an issue?

C'mon people, shouldn't you pick a leader who has lead before and who can stand up for what he believes in?

Obama is a lightweight pushover. We wouldn't be dealing with this if we nominated Hillary Clinton.

Obama is going to be a one term dud if he doesn't start showing some backbone. He needs to start acting like he is actually a member of the Democratic party and not some half-Republican party. All this talk about compromise is BS when the Republicans NEVER compromise on anything.

How farked is this country when the Republicans can be so reviled and have such a total dud of a candidate and still they get what they want. The only change is it's going to be a black man implementing shiatty right-wing policies.

randomjsa: If by "idiots" you mean "Responsible adults who want an energy policy that makes sense" you might be right.

It's okay, you'll understand when you're older.

I'd say it's more "People who want to throw the kitchen sink at our current single biggest problem as a nation" than "responsible adults who want an energy policy that makes sense". Unless you're referring to the "drill but don't conserve" folks, which kinda eliminates the "responsible adults" part.