• commentary
  • THURSDAY JUNE 26 2008 6:00 AM

Here Come The Oiltards

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

Comments
Varuka_Salt

Varuka_Salt

I'm lost
October 2006

JUN 28, 2008 03:55 PM

Green Crude

The future is here.

Carbon Neutral
No Sulfur emissions
Does not compete with food crops or land
Continuous supply.
Can be refined in existing facilities, transported in existing pipelines, and used in existing engines.

EDIT: Don't even argue with him. The right wing "green will ruin the economy" has been disproven over and over again. Green is better for the environment and good for the economy. Unless you're an oil welfare queen.

SergeantPsycho

SergeantPsycho

USA
January 2007

JUN 28, 2008 04:01 PM

Stiles said:

SergeantPsycho said:

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.



That is some sorry-ass reasoning you have there.

Saying quadruple amputees have it worse than triple amputees does not make it OK to cut off people's limbs.



Unlike cutting off some one's limbs, keeping a person out of a coal mine is a mutually beneficial arrangement. We get our products cheaper, and they get more money (and in a relatively safe environment) than they would otherwise. Perhaps they should raise their pay, which would raise the costs of the products, which would then sell less, which would result in less revenue, which would mean they'd have to lay off some of those workers. Which would mean they might have to work at less favorable jobs. Going back to your metaphor, that's like cutting off the triple amputee's remaining limb.

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

JUN 28, 2008 04:09 PM

SergeantPsycho said:
Perhaps they should raise their pay, which would raise the costs of the products, which would then sell less, which would result in less revenue, which would mean they'd have to lay off some of those workers. Which would mean they might have to work at less favorable jobs. Going back to your metaphor, that's like cutting off the triple amputee's remaining limb.


for a while, possibly. but if we insist on fair wages for laborers, and work to even out trade and labor imbalances, we can eventually raise the global standard of living. your way, we keep on making the poor poorer and the rich richer.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

JUN 28, 2008 04:39 PM

stockula said:

mingol said:

stockula said:
The size of our demand is irrelevant.


Remarks like this one are the reason people all around the globe just love Americans.


So...we should seek approval ahead of our own interests and our citizens' well-being and prosperity? Does any other country do that? No. Why then should America?



Because it's in your interest to do so. If you want to retain any confidence from the rest of the world, you need to behave like responsible citizens of the world.

And, yes; other countries do do that. Kyoto ring any bells?

SergeantPsycho

SergeantPsycho

USA
January 2007

JUN 28, 2008 05:26 PM

motorfirebox said:

SergeantPsycho said:
Perhaps they should raise their pay, which would raise the costs of the products, which would then sell less, which would result in less revenue, which would mean they'd have to lay off some of those workers. Which would mean they might have to work at less favorable jobs. Going back to your metaphor, that's like cutting off the triple amputee's remaining limb.


for a while, possibly. but if we insist on fair wages for laborers, and work to even out trade and labor imbalances, we can eventually raise the global standard of living. your way, we keep on making the poor poorer and the rich richer.



Exactly what is a "fair wage"? I'm sure the Chinese workers consider working in a manufactoring plant for Wal-Mart and making twice what they would in a farm in some rural back water more than fair. And if your going from working on a farm and then making twice as much at a manufactoring plant, you're getting richer, not poorer. If you lose your job, even "for a while", you're definitely getting poorer.

roubles

roubles

I'm lost
June 2008

JUN 28, 2008 07:54 PM

No mention of the US dollar which is the main reason for exploding commodity prices. Oil has more than doubled in a year but demand certainly hasn't doubled so that doesn't explain the huge rise. What has happened is the FED has slahed the discount rate to 2% which is half the inflation rate of 4% (I look at the CPI with food and energy not the "core rate" nonsense). If you want to knock down the price of oil and food here's 2 actions that will knock it down immediately
1. Raise rates above 4%
2. Cut spending-start with getting out of Iraq and stop trying to run the world.
While China and India's economy aren't at the US level(yet), they are growing at a blistering pace because they're spending their money developing their economy while the US is chasing boogeymen all over the globe.

cpkz

cpkz

Portland, OR
September 2006

JUN 28, 2008 08:43 PM

stockula said:,
while starving the poor and killing birds.



...
You made me cry. I had hoped my entire life I would never hear an argument as ignorant as this in my life.
You crushed me stockula, you crushed my hope that there were intelligent right wing nuts. You may have even crushed my hope that there are intelligent people in the world, period.

I hope you know how you hurt me...

/slitwrist.

mingol

mingol

Singapore
July 2005

JUN 28, 2008 09:33 PM

stockula said:

mingol said:

stockula said:
The size of our demand is irrelevant.


Remarks like this one are the reason people all around the globe just love Americans.


So...we should seek approval ahead of our own interests and our citizens' well-being and prosperity? Does any other country do that? No. Why then should America?


The United States has a population of 300 million - less than 5% of the world's population - yet consumes 25% of the world's oil.

If the U.S. were the world's only developed country those numbers might make sense, but it isn't, not by a long shot. American habits are simply wasteful, and yet people like you blithely assert that the size of America's demand is "irrelevant."

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

JUN 29, 2008 12:51 AM

SergeantPsycho said:
Exactly what is a "fair wage"?


one that encourages long-term economic growth for both payer and payee.

JuniorBarnes

JuniorBarnes

Forest Grove, OR
April 2007

JUN 29, 2008 01:09 AM

stockula said:
So...we should seek approval ahead of our own interests and our citizens' well-being and prosperity? Does any other country do that? No. Why then should America?



"Our citizens' well-being and prosperity" is based solely on the well-being and prosperity of the planet, and it is in "our own interests" to do whatever is necessary to protect it. Drilling and spilling more oil in order to keep pace with obscene, gluttonous increases in demand does nothing to achieve that end. That, smart guy, is why the lawsuits don't stop, and they're not going to.

I can say with confidence that I've never resisted ad hominems more strongly than I am resisting them right now...

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

JUN 29, 2008 01:11 AM

JuniorBarnes said:
I can say with confidence that I've never resisted ad hominems more strongly than I am resisting them right now...


ah, you must be new here. welcome to CE!

defaultx

defaultx

I'm lost
February 2006

JUN 29, 2008 09:19 AM

Varuka_Salt

Varuka_Salt

I'm lost
October 2006

JUN 29, 2008 10:04 AM



Fuck Metallica. Ungrateful corporate whores!

Ferretbite

Ferretbite

Mexico
September 2006

JUN 29, 2008 02:37 PM

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:



Fuck Metallica. Ungrateful corporate whores!



With a miserable new album name.

Cigarette

Cigarette

Cleveland, OH
April 2004

JUN 29, 2008 03:29 PM

SergeantPsycho said:

Stiles said:

SergeantPsycho said:

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.



That is some sorry-ass reasoning you have there.

Saying quadruple amputees have it worse than triple amputees does not make it OK to cut off people's limbs.



Unlike cutting off some one's limbs, keeping a person out of a coal mine is a mutually beneficial arrangement. We get our products cheaper, and they get more money (and in a relatively safe environment) than they would otherwise. Perhaps they should raise their pay, which would raise the costs of the products, which would then sell less, which would result in less revenue, which would mean they'd have to lay off some of those workers. Which would mean they might have to work at less favorable jobs. Going back to your metaphor, that's like cutting off the triple amputee's remaining limb.



Alternatively, their products aren't purchased at all and instead, they are bought from an ethical company and the unethical company realizes it can only remain competitive by establishing a fair compensation package and and reasonable working conditions for laborers which can be achieved via cuts in executive salaries. Labor wages aren't the only source of cutting expenses. Between the President and Chairman of GM, they made over $15 million last year. How many jobs could have been saved with a little bit of that money? Jeff Immelt at GE makes $12 million/year himself but they had to lay off some 400 employees in Wisconsin this month. Round up a couple CEOs, CFOs, COOs, Chairmen, Presidents... all of the sudden, you've got a couple hundred million in extra spending money lying around!

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Next