http://www.twincities.com/ci_9628970?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com

http://www.twincities.com/ci_9628427?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com

A couple interesting articles in the St. Paul Pioneer Press regarding the offshore oil drilling debate. It is interesting that those grabbing on-camera time to spout off about people's pain at the pump and the need for increasing our supplies do not say anything at all about the time frame involved in gaining any reward from lifting the ban on offshore drilling.

Most I hear is same as always. Even if we drilled today wouldn't see it on market for year if lucky and more like 5ish years.

But second we looked serious, like we would do it, it would scare the cartels and they probably would up production to try to drop price because we are easy to manipulate. But prices could drop in probably under 6 months of when we decided to do something like oh off shore drill next to the Chinese rigs in our gulf. Or some of the other places we cant because has nature is more important for long time.

But main issue I see is this. When I was a kid, Carter was prez and we had oil embargo and I remember talk about we should become energy independent. In college heard same BS that we should do something and same reasoning was used. First it was because of some animal or some other nature thing (see pic of Canadian rigs in ANWAR with carbou eatting next to the rigs). But when that failed it was always that we would but oh it would take 5 - 10 years. That to long of time to invest.

We could of been energy independent already.

We should invest and explore all resources. We should have nuke plants, solor, wind what ever. But instead out leaders enslave us into being dependent on unstable parts of the world.

If we were serious at all we would drill here and bring nuke plants on line. Then in that time frame we would discover the technologys of the future. Most experts say will take us 20-50 years to find/discover a new energy source. It wont happen over night. So the other resources would buy the time we need.

But then we had 30+ years of in-action. Of people taking money from people from the old energy to keep them on top. 30 years of some field mouse is more important then humans. So we will probably be paying 10 bucks a gallon soon and being told to enjoy it.

You don't start weaning the crackwhore of the dope by buying her a shiny new glass pipe.

Oil companies aren't drilling where they've already got leases to drill. So how is "opening up more leases" going to make any difference? The oil companies are paying rent on those leases, so hoarding them isn't free.
While the oil industry and some Members of Congress argue that opening more federal lands and waters would lead to lower gasoline prices, the facts prove otherwise.

In the last four years, the Bureau of Land Management has issued 28,776 permits to drill on public land; yet, in that same time, 18,954 wells were actually drilled. That means that companies have stockpiled nearly 10,000 extra permits to drill that they are not using to increase domestic production.

If we extrapolate from today's production rates on federal land and waters, we can estimate that the 68 million acres of leased but currently inactive federal land and waters could produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day.

That would nearly double total U.S. oil production, and increase natural gas production by 75%. It would also cut U.S. oil imports by more than a third, and be more than six times the estimated peak production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

http://courtney.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Natural%20Resources%20energy%20report.pdf

The Energy Information Administration says that even if both coasts were opened, prices would not begin to drop until 2030. The only real beneficiaries will be the oil companies that are trying to lock up every last acre of public land before their friends in power — Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney — exit the political stage.

The whole scheme is based on a series of fictions that range from the egregious to the merely annoying. Democratic majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, noted the worst of these on Wednesday: That a country that consumes one-quarter of the world’s oil supply but owns only 3 percent of its reserves can drill its way out of any problem — whether it be high prices at the pump or dependence on oil exported by unstable countries in Persian Gulf. This fiction has been resisted by Barack Obama but foolishly embraced by John McCain, who seemed to be making some sense on energy questions until he jumped aboard the lift-the-ban bandwagon on Tuesday.

A lesser fiction, perpetrated by the oil companies and, to some extent, by misleading government figures, is that huge deposits of oil and gas on federal land have been closed off and industry has had one hand tied behind its back by environmentalists, Democrats and the offshore protections in place for 25 years.

The numbers suggest otherwise. Of the 36 billion barrels of oil believed to lie on federal land, mainly in the Rocky Mountain West and Alaska, almost two-thirds are accessible or will be after various land-use and environmental reviews. And of the 89 billion barrels of recoverable oil believed to lie offshore, the federal Mineral Management Service says fourth-fifths is open to industry, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaskan waters.

Clearly, the oil companies are not starved for resources. Further, they do not seem to be doing nearly as much as they could with the land to which they’ve already laid claim. Separate studies by the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Wilderness Society, a conservation group, show that roughly three-quarters of the 90 million-plus acres of federal land being leased by the oil companies onshore and off are not being used to produce energy. That is 68 million acres altogether, among them potentially highly productive leases in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.
Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/opinion/19thu1.html?em&ex=1214107200&en=43d6628c9d468977&ei=5087%0A)
So this editorial claims that the oil companies are hoarding the leases in an attempt to fake some sort of energy crisis because they believe that the next administration won't be as friendly to the oil companies as the current one.

Drilling is a good idea. Under the following conditions.

1. Oil Companies show the capability, and make commitments to the least environmentally damaging methods of extraction

2. Oil Companies make commitments that 100% of all oil found in the US will be sent to US refineries. Oil Companies would get a faster process for building new refineries if they so chose, but, ZERO public funds would be used to help them build these refineries.

3. The Government creates a comprehensive energy policy which seeks to lower our oil consumption to the lowest possible levels. Including higher CAFE standards, the building of new Nuclear Power plants, and tax breaks for people consuming less energy.

4. A massive Manhattan Project like undertaking is passed and started focusing on exploring and developing new break throughs in every area of our consumption. This should be a public undertaking and done opensource style. While a elite core would work and live in a central hub, people from around the world could contribute or learn or take the work and run with it.

To me, the Internet, Open Source style is the way to go. If less energy is being used anywhere, it benefits everyone. Private companies or interests slow down and impede this process because of considerations of profit and market protection. This would have to be totally public funded with the goal being advancement.

Science can and does work like that. One needs to look no further than the Internet to see it. This Energy program can take that one step further and be one of greatest philanthropic undertakings in human history. A pure good for all time from the United States of America and potentially as great a gift to mankind as the Declaration of Independence.

They do those things, I have no problem with Continetal Shelf drilling, or ANWR drilling or Oil Shale development, or whatever.

Oil Shale development... I think I heard a soundbite where Bush said that in the Colorado river there was something like 800billion barrels.... wtf is oil shale, and why aren't we doing it?

Oil companies aren't drilling where they've already got leases to drill. So how is "opening up more leases" going to make any difference? The oil companies are paying rent on those leases, so hoarding them isn't free.

Indeed. This whole thing feels suspiciously like gross manipulation of public sentiment.

Push gas prices to $5/gallon and they can get any bill they want passed. Start a war with Iran, push prices to $10/gallon, and people would let Exxon set up oil rigs on their mothers' grave.

It is the process of extracting oil by heating oil shale rock to high temperatures and extracting synthetic oil.

The plus side is we posses 62% of the estimated 3 Trillion barrels in the world.

The bad news is that it requires a high level of processing and refinement. Because of that, at 2003 levels, the estimated price per barrel, after all over head was factored was about $95 bucks a barrel. Throwing in todays speculation and demand, the price would most likely be more than the light, sweet crude we get most of gas from today.

The other bad news is that it is fucking filthy. Estonia relies heavily on Oil Shale but it produces massive amounts of pollution which account for about 80% of its air and 30% of its water pollution.

The other, other bad news is that is uses massive amounts of water. In a time when the world is starting to be concerned about ariable water, and its future availibility, this might be akin to borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.

Oh, and as far as things ringing hollow.... Of Course! The Republicans arent looking for any real viable solutions, they are more concerned with trying to make high gas prices "Libruls" fault. So these false solutions are offered up and the reason why we are paying 4.00+ a gallon is because Liberals want to save the Spotted Owl, or some other crap

why aren't we doing it?

Cost of extraction (and the initial investment it would take to start) and, more importantly, the huge environmental impact....

AND

it's not the answer...getting less dependent on fossil fuels is the answer.

Timely:

LEsEvb1WsIY

I call cherry picking of data on that.

Price of silver, 1975-2007:
http://www.silverinstitute.org/price/hist_priceuk.php
Price of gasoline, 1970-2007 (use the nominal price column):
http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gasoline_cpi_adjusted.html

Ratio between the two, 1975-2007:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=prYt-wBVlnkBCH2WnjcgTKQ&oid=1&output=image

If the video was correct, the chart should have been approximately a flat line.

Here's another view of that data:

318

The spikes in silver correlate to speculation/hedging during periods of unusually bad inflation (the late 70s and the present). These are also the times when the gas price in dollars jumps upward too.

I think the overall message of the video holds true.

On an exponential plotting, you can really see the pattern well:

319

Im not sure what the guy from the video wants? Return to the barter system?

I'd assume the point of the video is to help people understand what's going on, not to advocate a particular solution.