Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    344
    Post Thanks / Like

    Offshore Drilling

    Obama is currently trying to pass a bill that will shut down offshore drilling. This is very problematic, not only will it put many oilfield workers out of a job, but it will also increase gas prices, making us completely dependent on foreign oil. I live in south Louisiana, in a town where the majority of the people work for the oil field, most of them, work on offshore platforms. So if this bill is passed, won't my hometown turn into a ghost town?

    Many people in the oilfield have already been laid off due to the decreasing economy, but if this plan of his goes into effect, it will lay off even more jobs. The only resort for workers in the oilfield will be to work in foreign countries, if you think gas prices are high now, just imagine how bad it'll be if we rely solely on foreign oil. Why is he trying to increase our dependency on Muslim countries for oil? If anything, he should allow MORE drilling so that we can reduce oil trade.

    Now, yes, oilfield workers will make pretty good money working out of country. But, they will be in a different country and away from their families. So, not only will he increase gas prices, increase our dependency on foreign oil, put people out of jobs, but he'll also break up families. I'm curious about some of your thoughts on this topic, is there anything good that can come out of this that I'm not seeing?
    "You can do anything you want, but be prepared to take responsibility for your actions."

  2. #2
    Banned Indefinitely
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Nowhere special
    Posts
    192
    Post Thanks / Like

    Thumbs down Re: Offshore Drilling

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister X View Post
    Obama is currently trying to pass a bill that will shut down offshore drilling.
    Well, this is the first that I've heard of that. Is there a link somewhere to the bill in question? I really doubt that Congress or Obama would be interested in shutting down ALL offshore drilling.

    making us completely dependent on foreign oil.
    We're already dependent on foreign oil...last I checked, we were getting rough 60-something% of our oil from foreign countries.

    The only resort for workers in the oilfield will be to work in foreign countries
    ...or get another type of job here in the U.S.. It's also not like all the oil in the U.S. is pumped out from under the ocean yanno.

    Why is he trying to increase our dependency on Muslim countries for oil?
    He's not...what he's trying to do is get the country onto a sustainable energy path that has us relying on infinite sources of energy rather than finite sources of energy. Who knows if he will succeed though...

    If anything, he should allow MORE drilling so that we can reduce oil trade.
    We have no where near enough oil in the USA to satisfy our current demand for oil. Also, even if we did have enough oil, we don't have enough capacity to refine enough oil to satisfy our current demand.

  3. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    344
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Offshore Drilling

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Guy View Post
    Well, this is the first that I've heard of that. Is there a link somewhere to the bill in question? I really doubt that Congress or Obama would be interested in shutting down ALL offshore drilling.
    It's a cap and trade bill that they're trying to push. It's a law saying that you can only put x amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it's a way to lower carbon emissions. Unfortunately, as a result, it means that there will be less oil drilling because the government thinks it puts out "too much" carbon emission. No, I wouldn't say that ALL drilling would be shut down, but the majority of offshore drilling is being shut down which is putting good hard workers out of a job.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Guy View Post
    We're already dependent on foreign oil...last I checked, we were getting rough 60-something% of our oil from foreign countries.
    We're getting 60% now, but it would be much worse if it increases to lets say 80%. Point is, reducing drilling is never a good thing. If anything, I think that we should increase it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Guy View Post
    ...or get another type of job here in the U.S.. It's also not like all the oil in the U.S. is pumped out from under the ocean yanno.
    It's not just offshore he wants to shut down, but it is being shut down as a result of those environmentalist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Guy View Post
    He's not...what he's trying to do is get the country onto a sustainable energy path that has us relying on infinite sources of energy rather than finite sources of energy. Who knows if he will succeed though...
    So what, he wants us all to go solar?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Guy View Post
    We have no where near enough oil in the USA to satisfy our current demand for oil. Also, even if we did have enough oil, we don't have enough capacity to refine enough oil to satisfy our current demand.
    We do have plenty of oil in Alaska and in the Gulf of Mexico. According to the oil field, we have enough oil in Alaska to last us 100 years. Would the oil field lie about that kind of claim? Truth be told, the oil field has been fighting with the government about increasing drilling so they can get to those oil pockets, I don't know why, but the government has been refusing. If they would let us drill, we could become dependent, now I'm positive that it won't happen immediately, it takes time to set up the drills and start pumping it and processing it, ya know.
    "You can do anything you want, but be prepared to take responsibility for your actions."

  4. #4
    Banned Indefinitely
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Nowhere special
    Posts
    192
    Post Thanks / Like

    Thumbs down Re: Offshore Drilling

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister X View Post
    It's a cap and trade bill that they're trying to push. It's a law saying that you can only put x amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it's a way to lower carbon emissions. Unfortunately, as a result, it means that there will be less oil drilling because the government thinks it puts out "too much" carbon emission.
    Look, while I agree completely that Cap & Trade is a joke. I think that you're overstating the impact of whatever bill (and I'm still waiting to see that bill...hint, hint...) will have on offshore oil drilling.

    First, why would it only affect offshore oil drilling?? Secondly, most Cap & Trade schemes that I've heard of allow certain "polluters of CO2" to buy credits from other companies that are coming in under whatever the limit is on the "pollutant CO2". The oil companies are making plenty of money to pay these kind of credits IMO.

    Point is, reducing drilling is never a good thing. If anything, I think that we should increase it.
    I think that you're missing the point entirely. Even if the USA could magically extract ALL of the oil (oil shale, oil sand, etc.) that is contained within the borders of the USA instantaneously & refine all of it within our own borders (which we can't BTW), it wouldn't even last the USA 10 years. Peak Oil occurred in the USA in the early 1970s, and there's really nothing that we can do about that at this late date.

    The USA's "proven" oil reserves are around 21 billion barrels:
    https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2178rank.html

    The USA's "undiscovered but technically recoverable" oil reserves are around 45 billion barrels (and most of it are in areas that most people don't want to drill in and/or in forms [like oil shale] that are wildly expensive to extract & produce actual oil):
    http://bp2.blogger.com/_VyTCyizqrHs/.../USoil2007.JPG

    The USA consumes about 21 million barrels of oil daily (more than any other country...in fact, that's more than most of Europe & Japan combined):
    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html

    Peak Oil occurred in the USA in the early 1970s:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US...20_to_2005.png

    It's not just offshore he wants to shut down, but it is being shut down as a result of those environmentalist.
    Again, you've provided ZERO evidence that this is or will be the case in the future.

    So what, he wants us all to go solar?
    Ummm, no, but, by all means, we can certainly do better than the patheticly low less than 1% of power that's generated by solar here in the USA. Solar power in the USA is our largest available energy source. Also, the U.S. DOE has said that wind power could generate 20% of U.S. electricity by 2030, which is up from around 1% of the power that we generate currently.

    http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandh...view-demeo.pdf

    "Feds want wind power to generate 20% of US electricity by 2030"
    http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/27745

    "20% Wind Energy by 2030: Changing America’s Electricity Supply"
    http://www.eesi.org/072508_Wind_Energy_Supply

    Geothermal energy currently also produces less than 1% of the total U.S.'s electricity supply, but just nine western states alone have the potential to provide over 20% of nation's electricity needs in the future.

    http://www.geo-energy.org/publicatio...al%20Guide.pdf

    According to the oil field, we have enough oil in Alaska to last us 100 years.
    I dunno who "the oil field" is, but your numbers are way, way off.

    Would the oil field lie about that kind of claim?
    They do it all the time...they aren't quite as bad as GWB's buddies in OPEC though.

  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,134
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Offshore Drilling

    http://www.newtechspy.com/articles06/oildiscovery.html
    60 billion of the coast of Louisiana. Not a mere drop in the bucket if this source is not a charade.

    Really, though, the idea we need to decrease oil production in order to be more environmentally sound or be more energy independent is a hoax. We certainly can encourage alternative forms of energy, but it shouldn't result in a decrease of domestic oil consumption. Right now, there is no sound replacement for oil. It isn't wind (ask Pickens). It isn't natural gas. The environmentalists haven't will oppose many of the lines and infrastructure needed just as they do in opposition to oil. Other bio fuels are not dependable, particularly in the event of a natural disaster. Imagine a corn harvest wiped out due to drought as an example.

    So, yes, we should be investing in ways to seek greater energy independence. We should be investing in a more updated energy infrastructure for the future energy needs. We shouldn't be restricting huge swaths of oil production for the sake of appearing environmentally friendly. As we increase alternative sources of energy production, it is likely OPEC will limit its own production to exact greater per barrel costs. Increasing our own production, even as we seek and utilize alternative sources makes sense to partially offset the increased expected costs. Therefore, anything which arbitrarily limits oil production is damaging our economy and making the goal of energy independence more difficult to achieve.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  6. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Where ever you tell me, Drill Sergeant!
    Posts
    2,199
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Offshore Drilling

    The real fear for me when considering fossil fuels is their finite nature. I'm not all for cutting off our dependence on oil (although I would like to see a decrease in dependence on foreign sources) merely for environmental or economic reasons. Rather, I would hope we develop a viable alternative sometime before the total stock is depleted. I mean, what would we do if the last barrel was pumped out in 10 years? We'd be hosed.

    I like the idea of hydrogen catalysis as a form of mobile energy, but as of right now the process requires a substantial amount of electric energy to work... so hydrogen fuel itself is dependent on fossil fuels for the time being, namely coal. Recent advances in nuclear power are making it look like a somewhat more reasonable alternative than, say, 60's era nuclear technology, but fissile materials could be considered in the same category as fossil fuels, not to mention that the rendering of fissile materials also consumes quite a lot of electrical energy... which is dependent on fossil fuels.

    I want to see a reduction in oil and coal usage so the research and funding starts flowing more toward sustainable electrical energy creation, i.e. solar, wind, hydro, etc. If we solve that problem, we've also solved the problem of mobile energy, as the cost of creating hydrogen to use in vehicles will significantly drop both from a cost perspective and a reliance-on-fossil-fuel perspective.

    In the meantime, however, Drill, baby, drill! Stop paying OPEC, start paying ourselves, and in the meantime, figure out how to not use oil at all!
    The Signature Religion is the one true religion. I know this is true, because it says so right here in this signature.

  7. #7
    Banned Indefinitely
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Nowhere special
    Posts
    192
    Post Thanks / Like

    Wink Re: Offshore Drilling

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
    The real fear for me when considering fossil fuels is their finite nature.
    This is the entire point of my posts. Continuing to rely on finite sources of energy is like making a national suicide pack...it's silly & completely unnecessary.

    I like the idea of hydrogen catalysis as a form of mobile energy, but as of right now the process requires a substantial amount of electric energy to work... so hydrogen fuel itself is dependent on fossil fuels for the time being, namely coal.
    I've been a firm believer for quite some time now that hydrogen fuel cells are a pipe dream. We've been "20 years or so away" from supposedly making this technology work for over 20 years now. The new infrastructure alone that would be needed to make this kind of technology work is HUGE. We already have a distribution network (that needs upgrading for sure) for things like electricity and even natural gas.

    Recent advances in nuclear power are making it look like a somewhat more reasonable alternative than, say, 60's era nuclear technology, but fissile materials could be considered in the same category as fossil fuels, not to mention that the rendering of fissile materials also consumes quite a lot of electrical energy... which is dependent on fossil fuels.
    The political reality (whether one likes it or not) here is that we'll likely never see a real expansion (with truly new sites & not just expanded or extended nuclear power sites) in nuclear power in the USA. If I remember correctly, there's only about 80 or so years worth of viable uranium deposits left worldwide, and countries (like France) that have been gung-ho for nuclear power are already having a difficult time finding supplies of uranium. Plus, there's that nasty issue of having high-level nuclear waste that needs to be stored somewhere for something like 100,000 years. Basically all of the nuclear plants (both current & former) in the USA are permanent nuclear waste dumps.

    In the meantime, however, Drill, baby, drill!
    Ugh...this recent, nonsensical phrase is about as counter-productive a political phrase as I've heard in decades. The Right-wing loves to intentionally overestimate the amount of newly found oil reserves in the USA (and abroad) for purely political purposes. Almost all of the new "huge discoveries of oil" turn out to be a mere fraction of what is originally reported...Bakken, off-shore oil in Brazil & the USA, etc., etc....

  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Offshore Drilling

    You set priorities and then work out the details.

    Cap and trade is designed to be a market solution. You figure out the environmental cost of pollution then make people buy the right to create it so they offset the cost. Those who can cheapest reduce it pay less, those who invest in reducing pollution get paid off by those who don't.

    Now id doesn't always work out that way but that is the idea of it.

    We had **** like acid rain before we started cutting down on pollutants. We've made a lot of progress and the economy has grown like gangbusters. This trend will continue and industry will whine because they are forced to make some short term investments for long term gains which may not directly be their own.

    Those drilling operations that are beneficial and profitable will survive, those that aren't, won't. There is no special awesomeness about offshore drilling. If its making money do it, if not don't. If its wrecking natural resources make them pay for it, if not let them go for it.

  9. #9
    Banned Indefinitely
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Nowhere special
    Posts
    192
    Post Thanks / Like

    Smile Re: Offshore Drilling

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Cap and trade is designed to be a market solution. You figure out the environmental cost of pollution then make people buy the right to create it so they offset the cost. Those who can cheapest reduce it pay less, those who invest in reducing pollution get paid off by those who don't.
    Putting aside the issue of whether or not CO2 is really a "pollutant", the issue that I have with Cap & Trade is that it's not the best way to reduce real pollution. If you want to cut down on a particular nasty substance that's in our atmosphere, then just set an initial limit on that pollutant (based on the best science available), and then reduce that limit over-time in order to reduce the negative impact that the pollutant has on the atmosphere (or people or whatever). I understand that Cap & Trade is kind of, sort of trying to do just that, but I really think that the main issue with it is that it will raise hundreds of billions of dollars over the long-term for the feds, which is fine...granted that they put it to good use.

    We had **** like acid rain before we started cutting down on pollutants.
    Absolutely, but these gains were made by using the technique that I described above (along with stiff penalties for those that polluted more than they should have) & through international agreements that were tough on reducing known pollutants.

    We've made a lot of progress and the economy has grown like gangbusters. This trend will continue and industry will whine because they are forced to make some short term investments for long term gains which may not directly be their own.
    This is very true, and I have no problem with the feds "encouraging" businesses to make decisions based on what's in the public's long-term interests.

  10. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Offshore Drilling

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Guy View Post
    I understand that Cap & Trade is kind of, sort of trying to do just that, but I really think that the main issue with it is that it will raise hundreds of billions of dollars over the long-term for the feds, which is fine...granted that they put it to good use.
    Indeed. Its origin is in a kind of use the market not the government to decide how the cap is reached. We studied it extensively back when I was in Economics in College. Like any system it has lots of room for people to game it. The theory is all that money is used to offset the cost of the pollution, cleanup etc...

    I agree that calling it a pollution is an iffy proposition, there are arguments both ways and both valid, but I use it because these policies were designed for pollution control.

    Absolutely, but these gains were made by using the technique that I described above.
    True.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. McCain flip flops VS Obama flip flops
    By CC in forum Politics
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: October 23rd, 2008, 11:09 AM
  2. The Myth That Is Offshore Drilling
    By LiberalTruth in forum Politics
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: August 27th, 2008, 08:06 PM
  3. McCain And Paris Hilton
    By LiberalTruth in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: August 18th, 2008, 11:17 PM
  4. 'Culpable Negligence'
    By Snoop in forum International Affairs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 25th, 2006, 08:15 AM
  5. Offshore tutoring
    By Snoop in forum General Debate
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 9th, 2005, 12:16 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •