Yes, I Signed the Internet Petition

I'm with you ID. I usually don't do much with internet petitions but this one needs to be brought forward.

I signed it.

1) It will take years before any new drilling results in an impact on domestic production (hence the lowering of gas prices theoretically wouldn't occur for several years at the least)

2) The 18 billion or so barrels of oil that are believed to be offshore could only sustain America for a whole whopping 3 years. So at best it's a stop gap measure that won't solve anything in the long run (U.S consumes 20 million barrels per day of oil and produces just over 8, meaning nearly 60 % of your oil is imported... this is because U.S domestic oil production has been falling since the 70's, as was accurately predicted by Hubbert)

3) Current sky-high price of oil has very little to do with the actual supply. The reason it's so expensive is because of speculation and the falling dollar. The two go hand in hand. Big banks are desperate for capital since the collapse of their toxic junk bond market so they speculate on energy and food (this drives up the price, and helps spur on inflation)

As inflation goes up and the value of the dollar falls (which it is plummeting right now) folks decide to lock their money away in commodities not likely to fall in value, in order to try and reatain the current value of their dollar today as opposed to what it's reduced value will be tomorrow. So even more folks and companies (and sovereign wealth funds in other countries) speculate on food and energy on top of the big banks, driving the price up even more.

As food and energy goes up, so to do all other costs. Look at the trouble the airlines are in right now... that is just a beginning indicator of what is going to ripple through the rest of the economy (and already is)

The estimates are 5-10 years before the US sees the oil. Which then goes back to the same old question - if we dont drill now, how much older will the nation be in 5-10 years?

You are right, the problem was not created in a year. it will not be solved in a year. However failing to plan for the future is planning to fail. (boy I am a font of cliche's today).

Recovering Off shore and other domestic sources of oil wil not solve the problem of the spiraling price of oil. It will address the issue of getting off the dependence of foreign oil. And that is a big issue right now in the USA (along with the prices). Proven Oil reserves within the US are estimated to be well over 900 billion barrells. That is over a 100 year supply. While there is merit in hoarding your own stash and using others, the simple fact is that with the price so high, in 100 years, it is more than likely that other energy sources will be viable, so the US will be sitting on 100 years of goo, instead of an asset.

As for Online petitions, they are basically worthless. Letters to congress clowns are still the only thing they really listen to - if then.

You also need to take into account the issue that only conventional oil and gas is taken into account when determining oil and gas reserves.

If you consider a pyramid, at the top, and having less of, is conventional oil/gas - Cheap to extract but reserves are probably only going to last us 40-60 years at the current rate of consumption.. The further down you get, the more fossil fuel you have, but it's more expensive to extract .

Then there's the reason for actual oil prices increasing, it's not because we are running out of oil, it's because the rate at which we are discovering new oil is slowing down.

I think there is a lot of problems with the media hyping up fuel shortages and the example i'd like to give is from here in the UK. Shell had a petrol tanker drivers pay strike (10% of the uk's gas stations are owned by shell), leading to 8% of their gas stations running out of fuel. The media cleverly disguised this as 8% of the countries gas stations had run out of fuel, when in fact only 8% of 10% had. Greed is the cause of this, whose going to buy a news paper saying '0.8% of Uk petrol stations out of fuel'.

This in conjunction with the greed of the oil companies, whom hike up prices under the guise of an energy crisis being stirred on by the media leads us to where we are now. I agree with your petition by the way, and regardless of public opinion those reserves would get tapped, only several years down the lines.

I thought it was interesting that both candidates want to investigate speculators. If I'm not mistaken aren't we as a Nation (federal gov't) in there speculating too, in order to expand our national oil reserve???

The only way a speculator can influence the market in a lasting manner is to corner it. The Hunt brothers in texas and silver and of course the Dukes and Frozen OJ in Trading places. Otherwise, they are just guessing what the market is going to do - and win or lose based on their guess.

That's funny, the Energy Information Administration says that proven oil in the U.S is more like 21 billion barrels (again, a 3 year supply). May I ask where you got the 900 billion barrel figure? We are talking just oil here. If you include natural gas and oil shale, sure that changes the overall energy picture siginificantly but the simple truth is that anything you get from the oil shale will be ridiculously expensive to produce, therefore only making gas far more expensive than it is now. And natural gas is a different animal altogether that you can't easily power a traditional car from.

The truth that very few want to officially recognize is that U.S domestic production has been falling since the 70's. Not because of failure to expand the industry but because most of the easy to get stuff in big finds domestically has already been found and exhausted.

But let's step back and take a look at the bigger picture outside the U.S- worldwide, proven reserves will last us approximately 40 years at current rate of consumption..if it continues to rise as predicted it will be more like 35 years before our proven reserves is exhausted. Sure, after that there are unproven reserves but those are in much harder to get places and is of much lower quality (oil shale falls into this lower quality as it's not really oil but a precursor to it) will cost a LOT more to get. Think of it like this- once we exhaust current proven reserves the cost of extraction and production will guarantee that we'll be paying at least 10 dollars a gallon or more (Europe's already there, so nut much of a stretch of the imagination)

Instead of trying to prolong the inevitable with a band-aid solution that in no way addresses the real problems (those problems being market speculation and a denial of the facts about how much readily accessible oil there is left) we should instead be embarking on a manhattan project of alternative energy initiatives. Carter started these initiatives decades ago but Reagan cancelled most of them within the first 60 days of his administration. If we had stuck with them there would be mass produced viable alternatives to oil and gas dependency that we have today.

Instead, today there is nothing ready to go off the shelf. There are viable alternatives but they are neither mass-produced nor have they undergone the generational developments that make products better, smaller, more efficient and inexpensive. Our current situation with alternative energy solutions would be like if the 286 PC was invented and then left on the shelf for decades... without being mass produced or undergoing development (386, then 486, different processor architecture and memory, blah blah blah) it instead just sat there with only a handful ever produced and only being worked on by a small number of 'gee-whiz' hobbyists.

We've landed men on the moon, cracked the atom and succeeded in producing anti-matter. Surely we can overcome a dependeny on coal for electricity and oil for transportation!

Not really. Speculators also add volatility to the market, and derivatives often milk that volatility into money. The problem is, derivative counpound the speculation (since it's a lot easier to speculate when you are trading 1$-positions on a 100$ barrel than the actual 100$ barrel).

If they disallowed any strategy using derivatives outside of mere hedging, the market would be a lot less volatile, and the price would stop being inflated like it does actually. Some speculator see a way to make a quick buck by buying and selling oil or oil derivatives within a week. It leads to inflatuated prices (since the people buying after that week are seeking the very same strategy..)

Is it foolish to believe that there's some global conspiracy to just ignore alternative solutions until our oil runs as a means to gain more money from it? I mean look at two scenarios shall we:

 

1) Alternate Power source found, lets say for example we found a means to create Nuclear Fushion efficentley and on a large scale in say the next 2 years (we've actually being creating Nuclear Fushion for years in Oxford, but just not efficentley enough nor on a large enough scale) as so that everyone can drive electric cars that they charge on their mains power supply at home. Fushion has no radioactive waste, creates no green house emmissions and require only heavy water to power - which our planet has in abundance.

These would quickly replace conventional powerplants and motor veichles, leaving the oil companies without 99% of their consumer base.

 

2) Nuclear Fushion or other alternative methods go largley unfunded and when i say unfunded i'm talking in terms of the scale of as Artysim said, the Manhatten Project,  the nearst of which is the global  joint venture  named ITER  of the tune of £6.6billion dollars  (a laughable amount considering the amount of countries involved and compared to how much one country has spent on the Iraq WAR). Suh projects don't return much for another 20-25 years which guess what is roughly about the time we'll genuinley start seeing depletion of conventional oil reserves, by this time the oil prices would be so high that the oil companies will be beyond caring as they'd of no doubt be beyond caring after gathering such large amounts of wealth and more importantly power.

During this time the standard of living would of reduced dramatically, many developed countries will probably start to resemble 1970's England unemployment and poverity will be rife and Humanity will have lost about 30-40 years progress for the sake of making a few men extremley wealthy.

 

Ok these are scenario's, and i'm in a gloomy mood, but you get the idea. If Goverments were serious (especially the US - which is being run by Texas let us not forget, the home of oil billionaires), then we'd probably resolve the issue, or at least spend more money on it.

 

Not including Shale oil which bumps that way up and is now economically feasible.

But that is just what it is, and right now needed. I was in no way trying to say that drilling all over the US would creaTe a land of milk and honey. But like it or not, this world is petroleum based. And any alternative is going to take time to transition to. So while the figure of 40 years is a sliding window (it was 20 years just 20 years ago), eventually the spigot will run dry. The high prices are the message that things have to change. The question is to you want to slam into a wall at 60 miles an hour? or coast to a stop. Those dead set against using US oil are hoping for the former.

YOu will note I said in a lasting manner. And very short term (as measured in economic cycles) they can add volatitility to it (and at other times, calm them down). And yes some will win - but others will lose. Commodities are not like stocks. For every winner, there is a loser. The good ones win a lot. How else do you think the clintons parlayed $1000 into $100,000 in cattle futures? There were a lot of losers for them to win that big.

Let's drill that darn oil, now!

I'm all for alternative energy, but that oil would be very useful.

Unfortunately that is not how it works. When the price of oil drops groups like OPEC can simply lower production to get the price of oil back up to the level they wish to have it at. Currently the problem seems to be hedge funds driving up the prices. There are a few large hedge funds that are run by various people associated with the energy industry. Over the past few years these funds have grown quite substantially. Since you only need to put down a small percentage to buy futures you can control a large amount of the futures of a particular countries output with a decent size hedge fund. This is what has happened over the past few years. A few years back the law changed which created a way to hide certain futures trades by making them through various foreign exchanges.

One thing I noticed recently when Bush went to ask the Saudis to increase production was the response. The oil minister said none of our customers have asked for more. In other words , it looks like the hedge funds have brought the price of crude up to a point that is lowering demand. However since these hedge funds can control a large portion of the futures the price isn't going down like it used to. Demand has gone down but the prices haven't. The price of oil is currently detached from supply and demand economics.That is why the Saudis called for a meeting.

Add to that the fact that the U.S. currently has a large amount of influence on Iraqi Oil output. In any case it looks to me like these hedge funds, which as i said earlier are run by various people associated with the energy industry are influencing the price. In any case I suspect this is being done for two reasons. So that the oil industry can try to get public opinion changed in a last ditch effort to open up ANWR before the next election. It is also being used to influence Natural gas demand since higher crude prices will cause certain industries/consumers to switch to using Natural Gas.

In any case opening ANWR won't decrease the price since the oil companies involved and OPEC will simply lower production out of other sources to keep the price where they want it. Certain oil companies want ANWR open because the cost of recovery there is relatively cheap so they will have larger profit margins. Also certain Alaskan interests want it open because it will add tax revenues for them.

So go ahead and listen to all those new commercials from the oil companies and the API. And go ahead and keep listening to all the rhetoric coming from the politicians and their oilman friends. But don't ever believe that the oil companies want to take any less out of your pocketbooks.

Not necessarily.

Once it is established that the US will consume its own oil in a few years, current producers have to cope with a customer who will less from them in the future.

That would create competition between current producers because each of them will have to sell as much as they can in the remaining time.

Expectation - exactly what some are accusing speculators of doing. It would help as much as speculators would - very little and not lasting. Until the drilling comes on line.

But it would change the dynamics of OPEC. If it looks like it has a chance, look for OPEC to start funding Green Groups in the US (as if they are not already) to kill it. You dont let the pigeon off the hook on a sting.

Regardless of all the nonsense, there is no reason we should not be consuming our own resources.  Showing people like OPEC that we are willing to take other measures will be good enough.

Dr Guy I can't believe that is always the lefts response that it will take years to get the oil even if we start drilling now. So why bother? That's like saying it might take years to cure the cancer even if I start the chemo now.  I'm really glad you mentioned it, I was beginning to think I was the only one to think this is a crazy approach that some democrats are pushing on the people. They must want people to suffer the prices. The only thing I can think is that the economy isn't as bad as they would like it; Iraq is turning into a non-issue, so they need a crisis to ensure a political victory this fall. I hope the people see through it.

So is their theory to wait next year when gas prices are 6 bucks+ a gallon before they take action? We'll still be 5 years behind in drilling, don’t they understand that? And these are the people that want more of our money so they can spend it! There is no sense of reality in DC, and none on the way in November either.. Here's one for you don't put off till tomorrow what you can do today. I want alternatives to oil too, but they are a lot further than 5 -10 years down the road and when they do come oil will still be used for quite some time afterwards. As for Florida worried about their beaches, that's pretty noble. But Texas and other places that have the rigs have never had a problem. If it is a tourist issue then they should be worried who is going to be able to afford to drive to their beaches. I feel that it is really a handful of elitist, enviro-terrorists that really don't want anyone on the beaches at all, that are driving this in the name of tourism and ecology. 

I think the left wants to leave the Black Gold (Texas Tea) in the ground long enough until it is Black useless crap that we don't need anymore rather then extract the oil and make a little money on it.

This won't happen. ANWR will add about 1 mil/bbls per day production thru the pipeline at its max because of constraints involved with the alaskan pipeline. What the Oil companies will do is develop ANWR then reduce production in the Gulf of Mexico because deepwater drilling and recovery is much more expensive. The least expensive oil to recover is in Iraq. So as Iraq goes up from its current production of abt 2mil bbls/day to its expected max of 6-10 the oil companies will buy from there. ANWR will not reduce prices or reduce our reliance on foreign oil. It will help the oil companies make more profits, create more tax revenues for Alaska,and create a few jobs in Alaska but that is about all.

Reducing our countries oil consumption is the only solution. So the choices are what the U.S. can actually supply, and to use as much of the safest and cleanest alternatives that is economically feasible. There is no single solution.

If global oil consumption keeps increasing at its current levels in 20 years we will truly have an energy crisis. You are right we should use our own resources but more of our own oil is not the one to use. Certain uses of oil are very easy to change but others are not. For example it is very easy to have cars run on electricity which can be generated from a wide variety of energy sources. However ships are more restricted. They can use oil, coal, nat gas, or we can go back to the days of the sailing ship. Also nuclear but i don't think that's really an option as far as ships are concerned. Plastics are all made out of oil. A wide variety of chemicals used in daily life or used in industrial processes are derived from oil. Some of these chemicals can be derived from our shale but not all and not cheaply. Gasoline produced from shale is currently more expensive than what we pay at pump, but the price is kept down because we blend sources to get a more consistent price at the pump.

So it is probably wise to save our largest known remaining oil reserve until we switch some of the easier things from oil to something else.

No, I think it goes to their very core beliefs. They dont think, they "feel". They "feel" your problems. Real solutions call for thinking about the future, not just about today. They want to "make it all better" today, not for tomorrow. It is apparent from all the failed programs they have created and left to fester on the government dole, that they only want to show an appearance of solving problems, not actually solving them. Planning for 5-10 years down the road is not going to make anyone "feel" better today.

Unfortunately you have it backwards once again. The Dems side of the issue actually looks further into the future than than just when ANWR could come online. It looks at reducing oil consumption and switching to alternatives as not only a solution to future shortages of global oil supplies but also as it being a constant cause of conflict. The Dems energy policies have reflected this well back into the 70's but have been stifled at every turn. Take a look at other nations that reacted properly to the Energy Crisis back in the 70's and 80's when Aramco moved toward nationalization. Countries like Brazil and France have made themselves more oil independent so they don't need to go to war to fight to keep global oil supplies increasing to meet their own demand. If we did not still rely so much on oil we would not have to go to war to create democracies because we need their oil. We would not have to sell weapons to Saudi Princes because we need their oil. 9/11 would not have happened because our foreign policy concerning the middle east revolves around our need for oil. America's dependence on oil is a threat to our national security and our economy and has been for a very long time. We simply don't have enough domestic reserves to even come close to meeting our current demand.

So now we sit here more than 30 years after the real problem was identified and keep making the same poor decisions. This country was built on the back of the oil industry but if we don't start moving away from using it, it will also be what ends up destroying this country.

No, you have a misconception. While you may be right with the unspoken "in contrast" part about republicans, the simple fact is that the democrats have no plan. They want to demigogue the issue today, and say they are doing something. But they never have. Name one energy plan of the democrats that does not entail nationalizing a huge part of the private sector and that has accomplished a diddly dam?

There are none. They throw out crumbs to soothe the aching stomach and then walk away from the problem. They are showing it now (except for Obama, and I give him that). Look at what Pelosi and Ried are doing? Nothing except trying to place blame and raise taxes - neither of which is going to solve anything.

Talk about alternatives? That is all they do is talk. Obama has the right answer. Whether he will be allowed to follow through or not is a big question (after all, he can be no more than a president). But democrats are really the feel good, do nothing party. Have been for the last 50+ years. (And this is not to say the republicans are much better - they talk a better game, but never follow through - they cant stand to make the tough decisions that will not sit well in the present that build to the future - there only advantage is at least they see what needs to be done - they just never do it).

Hmmm, let's compare solutions.

RNC argument: Drill here Drill now pay less
DNC counter argument: That won't solve the problem for years.
RNC rebuttal: Results while not immediate will increase domestic production in near future.

DNC argument: Tax the CRAP out of the oil companies aka wind fall tax
RNC counter argument: that won't solve the problem and won't produce a lick of oil.
DNC rebuttal: that's sexist and racist.
RNC: WTF?


The bottom line is the DNC won't do ANYTHING to help our situation. They are the one's mainly responsible for our current condition. They moved to block ANWR and our coasts for drilling. Now the DNC wants to nationalize drilling (Waters) or Nationalize the refineries (Rep. Maurice Hinchey [D-NY]).

Please someone tell me ONE aspect of business that the gov't has taken over that has been profitable?