BLOG VIEW  |  HEADLINE VIEW
SUBMIT NEWS  |  RSS FEED  |  SEARCH

Here Come The Oiltards

THURSDAY JUNE 26 2008 6:00 AM

Submitted by FearTheReaper. Edited By erin_broadley.

TAGS: Oil, Offshore Drilling, Anwar

There are a couple of reasons why gas prices are shooting through the roof. One, is obviously because oil companies get to make a shit load of money and they know our current government won’t do anything about it. Another reason is because the oil companies want to drill in places they can’t. They want access to coastal areas and parts of Alaska that are currently off limits. With skyrocketing oil prices, they believe Americans will support new Congressional laws to allow offshore drilling. It’s really an awesome win-win for the douchebag oil companies.

Sure enough, a new Rasmussen poll came out this weekend claiming “67% support offshore drilling, 64% expect it will lower prices.” If true, those people are obviously retarded. Anyone who believes allowing drilling off the coast of any state will decrease gas prices is a fucking moron. I’m going to write that one more time, just in case I was too subtle; if you believe drilling off the coast of any state will lead to a drop in prices you are an incredible retard. Got it? Super, let’s move on.

Of course, the Rasmussen poll was a complete pile of shit, because it was a push poll. Check out the second question asked.


“In order to reduce the price of gas, should drilling be allowed in offshore oil wells off the coasts of California, Florida, and other states?”


Um. Hey, Rasmussen, drilling won’t reduce the price, so why are you asking the question like that? Someone slip a check into your dirty little hands?

I’m a crazy environmentalist. I’d rather you die than an acre of land destroyed. I think you are less important. Deal with it. But this isn’t an environmental argument, it’s common sense.

First of all, offshore oil drilling only makes sense when prices are high. You know why? Turns out it’s expensive to drill in the fucking ocean.


If exploration were allowed, permits would have to be granted, and before that environmental concerns must be addressed. Drilling also would have to make economic sense: Offshore drilling is expensive, and the more remote the site, the more costly it is.


Remember the Texas oil boom of the seventies, when prices were sky high, and then they crashed and it wasn’t profitable to drill for oil anymore? Yeah, same thing. Prices will go down because this is an oil bubble, just like the stock bubble and the housing bubble.

If our oil offshore were to have an effect on gas prices, there would need to be a shitload of it out there. There is not.


Recoverable reserves off U.S. coasts in now-banned areas probably contain only about 16 billion barrels.

The U.S. consumes about 20.6 million barrels a day, about 60 percent from foreign sources.


Weeehooooooo! Let’s get that shit! We might save a whole 5 cents at the pump!

Those 16 billion barrels would give us 2.5 years worth of oil – under today’s usage. In 10 to 20 years, when we actually would begin using that oil, it would obviously be a lot less. Sound good? Yeah? Well, how about this?


The Energy Information Agency estimates that the total amount of oil in the offshore zone in question is about 16 billion barrels. If we assume that it would take about ten years from the day of authorization to get to peak production and that most of the oil is pumped out over 30 years, this would translate into a bit over 1 million barrels of oil a day.

That would be equal to about 1 percent of world production in a decade. If we assume a long-run demand elasticity of 0.3, this would imply a drop in world prices of approximately 3 percent. In today’s prices, we would be looking at a drop in the price of a barrel of oil from around $135 to $131. If this were passed on one to one in gas prices, we might expect to see a drop in the price of a gallon of gas from around $4.00 to around $3.92 a gallon.


The Energy Industry Administration believes allowing drilling off the coast won’t offset prices at the pump until 2030. How fucking awesome is that? Of course, I’ve learned not to believe any government agency that exists under Bush, so it’s probably more like 2040. There are quite a few problems involved in getting oil right now.

Just having the oil doesn’t mean you can get the oil. Turns out we’ve got a ship problem. A shortage of ships used for deep-water offshore drilling promises to impede any rapid turnaround in oil exploration and supply.


In recent years, this global shortage of drill-ships has created a critical bottleneck, frustrating energy company executives and constraining their ability to exploit known reserves or find new ones.


But the oil companies don’t care about that because they don’t want to open up the offshore areas for drilling now, they want it for the future. If they wanted to drill for oil now to alleviate our gas problem, they could drill in areas where they already have access. And they have plenty of land to drill in.


Oil companies and many lawmakers are pressing to open up more U.S. areas for drilling. But the industry is drilling on just a fraction of areas it already has access to.

Of the 90 million offshore acres the industry has leases to, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico, it is estimated that upwards of 70 million are not producing oil.


Nice. And it won’t stop them from getting Americans riled up to drill offshore.


Oil companies "should finish what's on their plate before they go back in line," said Oppenheimer analyst Fadel Gheit.

With prices at $135 dollars a barrel, everyone is trying to pump as much as they can, he said. But fearing oil prices will eventually fall, the industry is leery about making too many investments in the fields it has - many of which are in deepwater areas that can be pricey to develop.

Instead, they're holding out, hoping the government will open areas closer to shore that would be cheaper to work on.


Right. See, the oil companies aren’t making enough profit to go after the oil where it would be more expensive to get, in the places they already have access to, they want it easy and close to home. And the right wing is attempting to use the current crisis – created by Bush de-regulation – to get their hands on the coasts.

Maybe if Exxon would actually pay damages owed from the Valdez spill, they might be allowed to lease new land. But 20 years after the spill, Exxon seems to finally have won their battle in the courts this week - destroying the lives of many, many people. Lesson learned. The oil companies can go fuck themselves. If they wanted to get at our coasts, they wouldn't have fought that lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court.

Most importantly, opening up new areas for drilling is backward thinking. The time has come to move away from gas. Some countries are moving quickly to alleviate the energy problem.


The Japanese government will introduce tax credits and subsidies to encourage household use of solar energy starting next year. The details will be determined in August when the budget is created. The incentive will decrease the cost of a solar photovoltaic system by an estimated 50% within 3 to 5 years.


What a bunch of dicks. We didn’t kill them all and then re-plant, just to have them turn their backs on our oil companies. Or course, here in the US, we are dragging our feet.


Unfazed by pressure from Democrats and the business community, Republicans for the second time in a week prevented the Senate from taking up a tax bill providing more than $50 billion in renewable energy credits and tax breaks for families and businesses.


Take your time, kids. While they are at it, the right wing is lying through their assholes. Check out Chris Wallace on Fox this weekend – and be sure to stick around to the end for the name of the segment’s sponsor.

Wallace lied, plain and simple. Katrina did extensive damage to oil platforms and refineries. Here are some pretty pictures of the oil spills from space. The right wing is shameless. Either that or Chris Wallace is a lying douchbag. Wait! Maybe it’s both!


Hurricane Katrina's floodwaters unleashed 1 million gallons of oil from one of the massive storage tanks at Murphy Oil's nearby refinery. The spill spread over 1 square mile and stained 1,700 homes, making it one of the largest environmental spills to occur in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.


And it was far from the only one.


A Houston Chronicle review of data from the National Response Center shows that the two storms caused at least 595 spills, incidents that released untold amounts of oil, natural gas and other chemicals into the air, onto land and into the water.


And they think we should open up areas off Florida to drilling? Really? I have a question: Do hurricanes ever not hit Florida?

Anyone who thinks that opening up these areas to drilling will lead to a big drop in prices is a simplistic monkey. It will make no difference. This plan is only for the oil companies and the play is being made now because Bush is leaving office, with a high chance of a Democrat taking over.


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.


And if you’re wondering how much oil is in ANWR– it’s half of the estimated 16 billion barrels offshore, which makes ANWR even more ridiculous an argument to make. If we did allow companies to drill in all these locations, the total estimated saving is….$2.25 per barrel. That’s 6 cents a gallon, or as it is known by non-retards, horseshit.

I completely get why the oil companies make this type of push. It’s what companies do. And Republicans solely serve the interests of big business, so they are also acting as they should. But the everyday idiot on the street spouting this as a solution is a fucking tool. So, next time you hear some right wing moron tell you we need to open up our coastlines and environmentally sensitive areas of Alaska, tell them to go fuck themselves. And kindly explain that they are retarded.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Next

Mr_Matt_

Mr_Matt_

Hollywood, FL
July 2005

JUN 26, 2008 06:16 AM

Don't forget that in case there is an ecological disaster, the oil companies won't be held responsible.


ANCHORAGE, Alaska --
Mike Lytle, a third-generation fisherman from the coastal village of Cordova, said many residents there were walking around stunned, shaking their heads.

A lot of people he knows were planning their retirements with the $2.5 billion in punitive damages that Exxon Mobil Corp. was expected to pay the nearly 33,000 victims of the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

But the Supreme Court dashed their hopes Wednesday, deciding to cut the punitive damages for the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster to $507.5 million. That translates to an average of $15,000 per victim.




The vote in favor of Exxon was 5-3. Concerning weather or not Exxon was liable for any punitive damages was 4-4.

So where was the tie-breaking vote?


Justice Samuel Alito, who owns Exxon Mobil stock, took no part in the case.

GrayRains

GrayRains

El Paso, TX
January 2008

JUN 26, 2008 08:49 AM

The sad thing is, I was actually half sold on allowing drilling. Reading this just added some much needed common sense to the whole thing, and I'm surprised I didn't even bother to think about the time needed to actually start pumping offshore oil.

-facepalm

Amazing how easy it is to be sold on something you don't understand....

OneWithAll

OneWithAll

Charlton City, MA
October 2005

JUN 26, 2008 08:53 AM

mad mad mad mad mad mad mad mad mad mad mad mad mad mad mad

OpticNerve

OpticNerve

Waltham, MA
November 2003

JUN 26, 2008 08:54 AM

I guess it's too much to hope that criminalizes polluting, whether through willful act or negligence. Wait a minute...

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

JUN 26, 2008 08:58 AM

Mr_Matt_ said:
Don't forget that in case there is an ecological disaster, the oil companies won't be held responsible.


ANCHORAGE, Alaska --
Mike Lytle, a third-generation fisherman from the coastal village of Cordova, said many residents there were walking around stunned, shaking their heads.

A lot of people he knows were planning their retirements with the $2.5 billion in punitive damages that Exxon Mobil Corp. was expected to pay the nearly 33,000 victims of the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

But the Supreme Court dashed their hopes Wednesday, deciding to cut the punitive damages for the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster to $507.5 million. That translates to an average of $15,000 per victim.




The vote in favor of Exxon was 5-3. Concerning weather or not Exxon was liable for any punitive damages was 4-4.

So where was the tie-breaking vote?


Justice Samuel Alito, who owns Exxon Mobil stock, took no part in the case.



Look, I'm no fan of that result nor of Alito, but he recused himself properly. He did not vote and that was exactly what he should have done. It warrants mentioning that he would have voted with Exxon almost assuredly.

It also warrants mentioning that the Court ruling said that the punitive damages to Exxon were excessive based on Maritime common law (a subject I know less than nothing about), but not that they had to pay no damages whatsoever. They had compensatory damages in excess of a couple of billion, if I recall correctly.

Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

JUN 26, 2008 09:02 AM

Mr_Matt_ said:
Don't forget that in case there is an ecological disaster, the oil companies won't be held responsible.


ANCHORAGE, Alaska --
Mike Lytle, a third-generation fisherman from the coastal village of Cordova, said many residents there were walking around stunned, shaking their heads.

A lot of people he knows were planning their retirements with the $2.5 billion in punitive damages that Exxon Mobil Corp. was expected to pay the nearly 33,000 victims of the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

But the Supreme Court dashed their hopes Wednesday, deciding to cut the punitive damages for the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster to $507.5 million. That translates to an average of $15,000 per victim.




The vote in favor of Exxon was 5-3. Concerning weather or not Exxon was liable for any punitive damages was 4-4.

So where was the tie-breaking vote?


Justice Samuel Alito, who owns Exxon Mobil stock, took no part in the case.



Tho it is a great sum of money how were people going to retire on 75,000 each?

Stiles

Stiles

New York, NY
November 2002

JUN 26, 2008 09:02 AM

Subrosa said:

It also warrants mentioning that the Court ruling said that the punitive damages to Exxon were excessive based on Maritime common law (a subject I know less than nothing about), but not that they had to pay no damages whatsoever. They had compensatory damages in excess of a couple of billion, if I recall correctly.



The punitive damages were cut to $507 million to match the compensatory damages of $507 million.

NPR coverage

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

JUN 26, 2008 09:04 AM

Stiles said:

Subrosa said:

It also warrants mentioning that the Court ruling said that the punitive damages to Exxon were excessive based on Maritime common law (a subject I know less than nothing about), but not that they had to pay no damages whatsoever. They had compensatory damages in excess of a couple of billion, if I recall correctly.



The punitive damages were cut to $507 million to match the compensatory damages of $507 million.

NPR coverage


Ah. Half a billion. My mistake.

Again, I know nothing of maritime law, but the idea that punitive damages cannot exceed compensatory damages seems totally ridiculous since it's not that way anywhere else. But whatevs.

jessferfun

jessferfun

San Francisco, CA
May 2003

JUN 26, 2008 10:11 AM

thanks ftr. this was one of your better ones.

ericwine

ericwine

Charlotte Hall, MD
January 2007

JUN 26, 2008 11:09 AM

While it's true that increasing supply will lower prices (one of the first things you learn in ECON 101), but that assumes demand and production costs remain steady. As FTR points out, offshore drilling is expensive and won't increase supply significantly. At best, it's a wash. We could drill on land if we find an oil field big enough to justify it, but if it existed, we'd have found it already. IIRC, the recent oil strike in North Dakota is only about 3.2 billion barrels, about 5 months' worth.
Back in March, I ran across a column at the right-wing site Newsmax, written by its editor in chief, Christopher Ruddy, which is worth reading whatever you think of Ruddy, his site or his politics.
Declare War on Oil Before It's Too Late
He starts off suggesting the money spent in Iraq would've been better spent on energy independence (well, duh!) and cites T. Boone Pickens on the transfer of wealth from the US and its allies to countries like Iran, Russian and Venezuela.
Environmentalists might argue with Ruddy's advocacy of coal and nuclear energy, but he also suggests:


Geothermal energy. You may not know this, but Iceland gets 99 percent of its electricity from geothermal means.

Drill deep into the earth and you get heat. Pour water down the hole and it vaporizes to steam. Steam can turn turbines to create electricity. Advocates say that a fully developed geothermal energy program in the U.S. could provide all American energy needs 2,000 times over.

Geothermal plants already provide thousands of megawatts of electricity to Northern California and Nevada.


Wind power. This natural form of energy also is feasible. American wind energy installations currently produce enough electricity on a typical day to power the equivalent of more than 2.5 million homes, but the potential exists for far more wind power production. Pickens says whole sections of the Midwest could harvest enormous energy from such wind farms.



I'd like to know the sources for the bolded part.

Nolan_Void

Nolan_Void

Salisbury, NC
July 2004

JUN 26, 2008 11:27 AM

You think that's bad? Look at who McCain is lining up for his cabinet:

MisterEnrolled

MisterEnrolled

Birmingham, AL
October 2005

JUN 26, 2008 11:41 AM

Don't forget

lucidtrips

lucidtrips

I'm lost
March 2007

JUN 26, 2008 12:14 PM

On a random note to do with oil, I love how the Mayors and Obama are pushing to say they wont use the "dirty Oil" coming from the oilsands up here in Alberta but they are fine with using oil from other places where perhaps the enviroment is less damaged but thousands are killed or displaced.

Truth be told I am happy they are doing it because our government is whoring out our resources to the US and China and maybe they will push them to clean up there oil sands projects or even cancel NAFTA.

SergeantPsycho

SergeantPsycho

Hampton, VA
January 2007

JUN 27, 2008 03:54 AM

Nolan_Void said:
You think that's bad? Look at who McCain is lining up for his cabinet:



It's probably worth nothing that the criticism of Nuclear power in the form of Duke Nukem is unfounded, as unlike coal and oil fired planets, it doesn't spew waste into the atmosphere.

FearTheReaper said:
I'm a crazy environmentalist. I'd rather you die than an acre of land destroyed. I think you are less important. Deal with it.



I'm curious FTR, if you'd rather us die than an acre of land, would you be willing to sacrifice yourself to save that same acre?

Nolan_Void

Nolan_Void

Salisbury, NC
July 2004

JUN 27, 2008 04:28 AM

I think he was speaking to the people who would rape the land unnecessarily for fun and profit.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Next

Now Hear This

Last Comment 4 HR by orbro

Now Hear This

Last Comment 4 HR

There's like a half-hour of video here. You should do a vlog. More ...

Asshole Fuckface Roundup #74

Last Comment 5 HR

Parents who are accustomed to carrying guns around may not think anything of going into child-related... More ...

An Encounter With Jonathan Shaw's Narcisa

Last Comment 6 HR

thanx gurlz... u rrrrrule!! xx jonathan shaw and narcisa More ...

SuicideGirl: Bob

Bob

Terrible Woman's MySpace Alias Leads to Teen's Suicide.

Last Comment 21 HR

But, it's delivered poorly...really poorly. Unless, it's not a joke, in which case, it's a good place... More ...

Bail The Shit Out Of Detroit

Last Comment 11/30/08 by Shalome

Bail The Shit Out Of Detroit

Last Comment 11/30/08

Oh my fucking god. More ...

Filtering the Truth: Religion - Friend or Foe?

Last Comment 11/30/08

I'm just going to skip over the mass orgy that's going on and say my piece: I don't think religion is... More ...

SuicideGirls Interview: Kinky Friedman
SuicideGirls Interview: Les Claypool
SuicideGirls Interview: Marty Krofft