• commentary
  • THURSDAY JUNE 26 2008 6:00 AM

Here Come The Oiltards

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.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Next

Comments
sick

sick

Minneapolis, MN
June 2003

JUN 27, 2008 05:21 AM

ericwine said:
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.



I'm going to have to check into it later to make sure, but I think there's a large difference between Iceland and the US in terms of how easily each can access geothermal energy.

Iceland, for example, is one of the most volcanically and geologically active places on the planet. Geothermal energy is relatively easy to access.

The only place in the US with that kind of activity that I can think of off-hand is Yellowstone. Accessing geothermal power there would be similar to trying to drill for oil in the ANWR.

Don't get me wrong; I'm a big fan of geothermal energy. I just have to research the viability of its use in the US, and think a comparison to Iceland is stretching things a bit far.


As for drilling offshore and in ANWR, of course it's a stupid idea that won't produce any real effects. But it's entirely possibly that the perception of someone doing something to increase supply will cause a decrease in prices. The market is irrational like that.

gdarklighter

gdarklighter

San Diego, CA
August 2005

JUN 27, 2008 07:25 AM

SergeantPsycho said:
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.


Waste that stays on the ground is still waste.

Horrorflick

Horrorflick

Detroit, MI
February 2003

JUN 27, 2008 11:43 AM

You know what's really fucked? One of the main reasons the price keeps going up are all these able-bodied, fresh out of Harvard/Yale/Whatever the fuck MBA douche-squeeze bastards investing in oil futures/hedgefunds/whatever the fuck you call that shit. You know why they're doing it? Because it's in such short supply! Kinda like there's one really ugly man on an island with 12 really pretty girls and he just happens to own (and be able to defend) the only patch of ground on said island capable of growing food. Just because he's a greedy fuck and he can, he demands that the girls supply him with unlimited sex in exchange for food. Lovely, isn't it? (I know it's a poor analogy, but it's just the same shit over and over. Greedy, bloodless fucks in the "haves" column sticking it to the rest of us in the "have nots" section. I hope your children are all savagely raped before their teens, and you have to watch.

puke puke

Stiles

Stiles

Oakland, CA
November 2002

JUN 27, 2008 11:53 AM

^^^ oil trading is worldwide. The upside of that kind of market is the super-cheap oil pricing we had for years ( remember $1.10 gas in 1999? That was less than 10 years ago). The downside is what we have now.

Speculation is making oil somewhat more expensive, but demand is doing a lot more. If we can get China, Mexico and all the other countries that subsidize retail pricing to reduce or end that practice, worldwide demand will drop a lot faster and lead to much lower prices than if you restricted or even banned oil futures trading on US markets. Trading banned in the US will simply move offshore to other less regulated markets.

Horrorflick

Horrorflick

Detroit, MI
February 2003

JUN 27, 2008 11:59 AM

Stiles said:
^^^ oil trading is worldwide. The upside of that kind of market is the super-cheap oil pricing we had for years ( remember $1.10 gas in 1999? That was less than 10 years ago). The downside is what we have now.

Speculation is making oil somewhat more expensive, but demand is doing a lot more. If we can get China, Mexico and all the other countries that subsidize retail pricing to reduce or end that practice, worldwide demand will drop a lot faster and lead to much lower prices than if you restricted or even banned oil futures trading on US markets. Trading banned in the US will simply move offshore to other less regulated markets.



Let me be a little more clear on this point: Anybody that makes money off the suffering backs of poor people deserves to watch their children savagely raped and gruesomely violated until they die. Period.

Virtute

Virtute

Brooklyn, NY
July 2007

JUN 27, 2008 12:03 PM

Subrosa said:

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.



The opinion was based on a Rand study that showed the median compensatory:punitive ratio in these sorts of actions was 1:1. They then decided that would be an appropriate cap for federal maritime torts. It looks a lot like a first step towards punitive caps in tort actions. It creates appealing persuasive authority for state courts looking to curtail punitive damages in their jurisdictions.

Stiles

Stiles

Oakland, CA
November 2002

JUN 27, 2008 12:43 PM

Horrorflick said:

Let me be a little more clear on this point: Anybody that makes money off the suffering backs of poor people deserves to watch their children savagely raped and gruesomely violated until they die. Period.



I get what you're saying, but where do you draw the line? The bulk of manufacturing is done by poor people in the developing world, including computer chips, LEDs, shoes, and most anything plastic.

SergeantPsycho

SergeantPsycho

USA
January 2007

JUN 27, 2008 04:30 PM

Stiles said:

Horrorflick said:

Let me be a little more clear on this point: Anybody that makes money off the suffering backs of poor people deserves to watch their children savagely raped and gruesomely violated until they die. Period.



I get what you're saying, but where do you draw the line? The bulk of manufacturing is done by poor people in the developing world, including computer chips, LEDs, shoes, and most anything plastic.



Let's not forget that making those parts is a better paying job than they might have other wise.

SergeantPsycho

SergeantPsycho

USA
January 2007

JUN 27, 2008 04:33 PM

gdarklighter said:

SergeantPsycho said:
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.


Waste that stays on the ground is still waste.



It's not so much that it stays on the ground. It's that you can put it in metal cans, and that gives a lot more options on how to dispose of it, rather than having it enter the air and out of your control.

Also, countries like France reprocess their waste, so it's even less of a problem.

cpkz

cpkz

Portland, OR
September 2006

JUN 27, 2008 04:59 PM

SergeantPsycho said:

Stiles said:

Horrorflick said:

Let me be a little more clear on this point: Anybody that makes money off the suffering backs of poor people deserves to watch their children savagely raped and gruesomely violated until they die. Period.



I get what you're saying, but where do you draw the line? The bulk of manufacturing is done by poor people in the developing world, including computer chips, LEDs, shoes, and most anything plastic.



Let's not forget that making those parts is a better paying job than they might have other wise.



Yeah, because that's not a completely pathetic excuse.
"well if they weren't getting paid 5cents/hr, they'd be getting no money! We're doing a good thing, really!"

tessandra

tessandra

I'm lost
June 2008

JUN 27, 2008 05:36 PM

well I must say that all of that there above is pretty irrelevant since all of our oil probs are about to be fixed!!! the arctic is melting and it is our manifest destiny to claim all the oil that is gradually becoming available for drilling!
http://thecureforanythingissaltwater.blogspot.com/2008/02/us-can-claim-more-arctic-territory.html

Stiles

Stiles

Oakland, CA
November 2002

JUN 27, 2008 07:06 PM

SergeantPsycho said:

Stiles said:

I get what you're saying, but where do you draw the line? The bulk of manufacturing is done by poor people in the developing world, including computer chips, LEDs, shoes, and most anything plastic.



Let's not forget that making those parts is a better paying job than they might have other wise.



Maybe, maybe not. Many of these countries have little to no workplace and environmental protections, and involve exposure to chemicals that are heavily regulated or outright banned in the western world.

If their lives are cut short because they get arsenic poisoning working unprotected in an LED plant, or they get crippled from carpal tunnel making the same shoe 14 hours a day and are then fired and unemployable, are they really better off than before?

SergeantPsycho

SergeantPsycho

USA
January 2007

JUN 27, 2008 07:21 PM

Stiles said:

SergeantPsycho said:

Stiles said:

I get what you're saying, but where do you draw the line? The bulk of manufacturing is done by poor people in the developing world, including computer chips, LEDs, shoes, and most anything plastic.



Let's not forget that making those parts is a better paying job than they might have other wise.



Maybe, maybe not. Many of these countries have little to no workplace and environmental protections, and involve exposure to chemicals that are heavily regulated or outright banned in the western world.

If their lives are cut short because they get arsenic poisoning working unprotected in an LED plant, or they get crippled from carpal tunnel making the same shoe 14 hours a day and are then fired and unemployable, are they really better off than before?



There are a lot worse jobs than that. Like working in a Chinese coal mine for example. Besides, they might have to raise the price for those products, at which point we'll be having a thread (started by FTR of course) about how LED manufactures are evil greedy corporate types out ot gouge poor people by raising prices.

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

JUN 27, 2008 07:26 PM

SergeantPsycho said:
There are a lot worse jobs than that. Like working in a Chinese coal mine for example.


you know, i could grab the baseball bat i keep near the door and go beat a random stranger to death. that would be worse than if i just went out and punched a random stranger in the mouth with my fist. does that mean it's okay for me to go out and punch random strangers in the mouth?

cpkz

cpkz

Portland, OR
September 2006

JUN 27, 2008 10:39 PM

motorfirebox said:

SergeantPsycho said:
There are a lot worse jobs than that. Like working in a Chinese coal mine for example.


you know, i could grab the baseball bat i keep near the door and go beat a random stranger to death. that would be worse than if i just went out and punched a random stranger in the mouth with my fist. does that mean it's okay for me to go out and punch random strangers in the mouth?



well motor...we have laws against violence like that here.

but if you want to cross the street, we'll not only watch you do it, but pat you on the back and call you a Good American.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Next

featured interviews