I think you're missing the point that "allow" generally equals "subsidize" when it comes to any energy initiative. The only large deposit of fairly easily extractable oil out there we're not allowing is ANWR. Everything else is small potatoes or needs $150/bbl oil to be profitable. And something tells me even then "allowing" ANWR would come with tons of tax breaks, govt help and govt taking on the riskiest parts of the venture.

As we all know these republican talking points are always dead-on sober assessments of the situation. So I won't even ask for a link. We'll just take this as fact.

i don't feel like doing the work for you but its out there and i am sure you will likely find that the firm that did the study was paid off by someone somewhere having something to do with oil and gas. so let's just say the number is somewhere between 1 and 1 million

I think a more interesting question would be to look at exactly what exploration they had been limited from doing, which is now open, and who ultimately will fund all the different phases of the exploration. Then also look at the last time a new territory was opened up and see how the oil industry's claims before that match up to what actually happened.

just curious... when did the republicans ever want anything to do with him? Or... with anyone who doesn't agree with them down the line?

I'm just saying... its not like most people have the impression that the parties have anytime recently played nice-nice with each other. And the republicans have already shown they'll torpedo bills filled with ideas they've formerly supported so long as Obama's name is on it.

My two cents- Good for Obama. Its consistant with his campaign. Its consistant with the idea that we need to be less reliant on foreign fuels.

The funny part is the "Drill baby Drill" crowd is not so supportive. I'd love to see some principles by those people but its too much to ask for.

I don't really know a whole lot about this but my understanding is that to drill offshore you have to pay the government for a lease, and no leases are being granted outside of the western gulf of mexico.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_offs...rilling_debate

This is what I'm talking about. How do we know these new areas are going to be any different than all the other areas they aren't developing?

Yes this looks correct from what I am reading. So that goes back to my original point, that if we aren't actually subsidizing offshore drilling but making money off it and reducing foreign oil dependence then that makes it a lot more appealing.

You can still argue that we're subsidizing it in a lot of indirect ways, but I don't buy most of the tenuous Greenpeace claims of abstract subsidies.

1. If they paid for a lease with certain terms, the government should abide by those terms and not revise them ex post.

2. If they paid for a lease and did not drill because they determined it would be unprofitable, this is not a net loss, so who cares?

Well, if they are the same, then they're not going to drill in the new places, either, so what's the problem?

Why doesn't this announcement move oil prices down? Are there multi-year futures in oil? Of course, right? Shouldn't some people who were holding oil with plans to sell it at a profit in the future use this info to decide not to do that anymore and sell now (or sooner than otherwise) which should depress the immediate price?

A couple points not mentioned in this thread (i think)

1) The various testing of the region (at least much of the atlantic shelf) was done about 25 years ago with outdated techniques. This isnt to say that we are going to find some fantastic ghawar but it is possible there is somewhat more than claimed.

2) This is a stop gap, certainly, but given our current very slow pace of investment in post oil infrastructure and the very large amount that will occur stop gaps can be important. This is similar to nuclear power (how much of a stop gap this is is REALLY sensitive to the technology, it is possible this is more in the partial solution camp than the stop gap camp but we dont know. Of course there is some effects of oil investments crowding out alternative energy investments but for the most part things that keep our society running just a little longer are important to give us the time to build the infrastructure and technologies that will be needed.

3) In response to comments by jiggs about oil companies going broke if they develop in the region....this might be true.....but there is no question that the people who should be deciding whether or not it is profitable is the oil companies. The situation with their current leases clearly shows they are not going to just rush to overinvest callously but this certainly doesnèt rule out the possibility that there are profitable investments in the region - particular as oil prices rise. It is kinda the same situtation as 2008 in alberta....if the prices rise to their 2008 levels again I am sure there will be a big rush back to alberta to try and deal with that ucky expensive tar sands they have.


Regardless, I echo those who say it is pretty trivial one way or anouther. It is unlikely to make much difference in either oil prices and availability or environmental degradation.

Investment in the region is quite uncertain and no matter what is at medium term away.

I am sure this will slowly get priced into the market, but these sort of uncertain long term affects are usually dominated by the day to day forces that cause swings.

here's Shrub's own energy team in their detailed study, "Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)." The sobering conclusion:

The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030...

Although a significant volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources is added in the OCS access case, conversion of those resources to production would require both time and money. In addition, the average field size in the Pacific and Atlantic regions tends to be smaller than the average in the Gulf of Mexico, implying that a significant portion of the additional resource would not be economically attractive to develop at the reference case prices.

Here's the result of a Florida state senate finding... note the key word: "negligible"

Report says oil supplies in Fla. waters negligible

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Estimated reserves in Florida waters would provide the United States with less than a week's worth of oil and have no discernible effect on prices at the pump or U.S. reliance on foreign oil, says a report released Friday as part of a state Senate review of whether a ban on offshore drilling should be lifted.

The report is the latest indication that the push to open Florida waters as near as three miles from the state's beaches may be waning, at least for this year.

Another is that all 12 lobbyists for Florida Energy Associates, a group pushing for lifting the ban have withdrawn, according to the Legislature's lobbyist registry.

I mean, really.... at what point do people admit it to themselves?... Terms like "technically recoverable" and and "could yield" and "optimistic estimates" carry zero weight when debating oil extraction investment.... What only matters are "proven reserves."

Again, this is merely an argument for investing in renewable energy. Not only do you accelerate the process by investing, you capture some of the surplus of the economic growth you predict in this sector. What's holding you back?

Who cares? If people who plan on having children are concerned about their prospective children's well-being, they can take that into account in allocating their own resources (including their income available for investment). If others value the well-being of future humans generally, the same argument applies. Their economic calculations (largely not conscious, of course) here will likely be discounted for uncertainty, but this is to be expected. Why should the desires of some parts of society for renewable energy stop those who believe they can profit from selling oil from doing so?

The fact that I have zero money to invest?


Who is stopping oil companies from profiting? I'm just talking about allocation of energy subsidies to position our country better for the future - which presumably would align with enough people's interest that they would vote in someone who promises (and follows through) to do so.

This post is unintentionally awesome, because the major opposition against this is basically one big concern troll.

I thought that was basically what the modern Republican party was, the core trolling the religious, racists, gun nuts and the fearful.

Get the oil out of the ground and use it. We can argue the finer points of politics, pollution, green energy, etc..., but if we are still using oil, why not produce it ourselves instead of buying it all from countries who are not friendly to us. If we stop using oil, then we won't have to produce or buy it. Until then, lets be a little more self sufficient. There is no need to make it a political issue.

it's not a political issue... it's a volume issue...

the amounts are negligible, as confirmed by state reports, the Bush Administration, the EIA, and the USGS, among many others.

This message brought to you by The Department of Inopportune Timing.

"The US administration has banned oil drilling in new areas of the US coast while the cause of the oil spill off Louisiana is investigated."

From what I understand this oil isn't going to be as bad as Prince William Sound, at least initially, because it's very sludgy by the time it reaches shore. Can anyone confirm? Although it also is still gushing, and might be for months, so that means it could still be worse.

It could obviously be worse, as you say, because they haven't stopped the gushing.

As far as the politics of it, nice timing on the Obama Admin triangulation strategy on drilling. If it hasn't happened already, I assume this will be Obama's Oil Spill any moment now. Bad beat imo

I think a lot of right-wingers are needing paradox blocker 2000 right now now:

Love drilling...

Want to blame Obama...

Oil companies always good...

Everything Obama's fault...

How... to... blame Obama... and still love drilling... must be some way GAHHHH!H!!!!!