Why? When Bush SR. did this, oil was $10 a barrel. Why does it suprise you that now that it is around $140 a barrel that things changed? Think a little deeper, K?

 

There is nothing slippery about this. Congress has to vote on this every year to keep the ban on off shore drilling. They have been doing this since 1981. When oil was cheap, it made sense. I didn't mind using up other countries oil and saving ours. But now that the price of a barrel of oil is so high, it is time to be self sufficiant with oil while other means of energy is invented. Bush did the right thing. It just happens to be an election year. The congress has to vote on the ban by september 30... I am betting that they will ignore the vote and let the bill expire. That way they can say they didn't vote to drill... and didn't vote not to drill.. now there is sleezy. Fact is we need to drill now. Come october first, when they let the bill expire, oil prices will drop by 1/3 on the speculation of new drilling.

 

The fatcats wallets fatter is NOT a true story. There wages are dependant on the board of directors and job market factors. For the 20th time, the oil companies are publicly owed with stocks. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

 

It's funny that you say this like it's only one party that is profiting from the oil prices. I looked at the DOE web site and found some interesting stuff.

On 1/22/2001 when Bush took office the average price of gas was $1.511/gal.
On 1/6/2007 when the Dems took over Congress the price of gas was $2.354/gal.
On 7/14/2008 the price of gas is $4.164/gal.

So 6 years of Bush gave us a $.843/gal price increase.
18 months of Dems in Congress gave us a $1.81/gal increase.

Yet you say it is the Republicans fault for the gas prices. Care to explain you logic here?

 

How quickly we forget... it was the Republicans who were trying to get congress to drill offshore and in anwar all the way back to 2002. Since the Democrat controlled congress has come into power, the fight has taken a back seat since they knew they didn't have the votes to get it passed.

Simply, yes. They'll be miles away and won't be visible from shore. Ironically, if people would turn around on some of those scenic beaches, they'd see tar residue piled several feet high from oil spills caused naturally by offshore earthquakes.

Since its a speculative market, prices will go down. People are bidding up the price of oil and trying to buy it "cheap" for 10 years from now when they think it will be $200/bbl. We can thank Clinton for letting speculators into the market by the way. Previously, only those in the industry were allowed to speculate. They also had to take delivery. Now anybody can speculate, and they only have to put up as little as 5% cash up front.

 

This will have no effect on the actual drilling, because of the environmentalist lawsuits. Currently, there are several areas off of Alaska and California that ARE open to drilling- the leases have been sold. Unfortunately there is something like 15,000 lawsuits that have to be adjudicated first. If more areas are opened, multiply that figure by at least tenfold.

Where it may help, is one of the MAIN reasons that oil is so high: the speculators. Every time a dictator in the middle east farts, the speculators drive the price up. When news of increased supply, whether 10 years off or not, may curb the outrageous speculation going on.



Edit: oops. sorry Benny, just read that your last part was basically the same as mine about the speculators.

 

Do a little research, The public{poor ba5tards like me added together own a very small percentage of the stock in these companies. The upper say 5% own 90% of the wealth in this country.

We don't add up to much.

 

X2 Drill now and the speculation that sets the price for oil will calm down. We will not see a drastic reduction in price, but it will be stable.

And I agree with building more refineries, or at least up the output capacities of existing ones.

BTW I cannot remember any type of oil spill from drilling operations being reported, big oil shipping disasters yes, but not drilling. I cannot see how this is going to ruin tourism. This is 2008, not 1972, drilling has become more controled. Let them explore, most likely in 90% of the areas they drill, it will be non profitable and that will be the end of it.

 

OK wave your magic wand and come up with a new energy source. we need time to figure out this new magic source so why not use what we have now until we do have something better

 

http://www.pickensplan.com/

 

I like that, But the key words he used that will cause problems.
"everyone has to cooperate"
That seems impossible. We can't seem to get 3 people to cooperate
But I like that plan.

 

Was a different point in time with different pressing concerns.

 

Was it votes or money

 

Now that is just mean! Probably both!

 

Who is it that is investing into drilling? I don't agree that it would take 20 years to get a return, but if it did, isn't that a concern for the investers? Aren't they aware of the risks of investing?

If it takes 5 years to get any oil out, which I don't believe it does, why is that a bad thing? Wouldn't that give more time to come up with viable alternatives?

I'm not the smartest guy around so, could you help me understand how it would be more efficient to just find a completely new source of energy when just about all of us are using vehicles that burn pertoleum, of which we know there is more to be had? In addition to the vehicles we use there are many other things that we rely on every day that are derived from oil. Here in the northeast, a lot of people heat their homes with heating oil. Is the alternative for our transportation going to be the same for our heating?

We need money. This money that is being "burned away" in Iraq would have otherwise been spent on oil for the American consumer? I don't think so. The money comes from investors. The democrats, with whom you are sharing an increasing number of talking points with, are proposing taking profits from "big oil". It seems to me that "big oil' is in the prime position to fund the research needed to come up with viable alternatives and make a fortune doing so. Our governemnt isn't there to make prices for commodities cheap, but one of their rolls is national defense. I'd rather the government "burned away" money in Iraq and other fronts in the war against terrorists than try to fund innovation.