RNC begins hexagonal attack on Obama

[MODU]

You have to have a short-term, mid-term, and long-term approach to energy, which Obama doesn't seem to understand.  He makes it sound that we can jump to a long-term solution in a matter of a few years, which, even if we flipped the switch on something like hydrogen tomorrow, we'd still need to increase oil production and refining for the next decade, just to deal with current fuel demands on existing cars and machinery.

I reject the idea that supporting oil drilling is the determining factor for "having a short-term plan," and if you're opposed to drilling, you are missing important parts of a real solution. We can't supply our way out of this problem. Even if we could produce enough to move the markets--a debatable scenario--any excess we can create would be eaten up by a few hundred thousand or million more new commuters moving to suburbs built at an unsustainable distance from jobs or work, or by a few million people in India or China now earning enough to buy cars of their own, because that's economically rational at that price point. That is not a short-term plan, it's a decision that carries environmental costs (both local and in terms of carbon emissions) as well as potential and uncertain benefits and represents an avoidance of the real issues. It's also sought as a symbolic victory by people who oppose environmentalism in general.

I'm not saying it would move the markets, it would stabilize domestic prices while increase national tax revenues, slowing or decreasing the trade deficit, and putting more people to work, since we are going to need more oil than we are consuming right now for at least the next 10 years.  There is no magic switch that is going to decrease that from happening.  I can't see why people would cut off their nose despite their face on this issue.  If you want to find a long-term solution to our energy needs, you need to take into account both the near-term and mid-term solutions.  And trying to starve a society to death by denying energy supplies is simply asinine.  Both parties are guilty of having their heads wedged up their backsides on this issue.

[Brittain33]

I'm not saying it would move the markets, it would stabilize domestic prices while increase national tax revenues, slowing or decreasing the trade deficit, and putting more people to work, since we are going to need more oil than we are consuming right now for at least the next 10 years.

Those are the benefits; how do we measure the costs? I recognize that environmental issues are often symbolic, but I do not think that is the sum of it. Does off-shore drilling pose any risk of damage, short-term or long-term to the coastline? Is the precedent of keeping nature preserves off-limits, given that the pristine nature can never be reversed, valuable in its own right? What of the carbon dioxide emissions created by raising supply to that level--how do we evaluate that?

Those calculations aren't being run, and they're also highly subjective. I think it's plausible for someone to run the calculations and decide these costs outweight the benefits, calculated differently from how you would, and conclude we need to move toward a post-petroleum or mitigated petroleum economy and it is not worth the risks or damage to the environment to hedge things in the short-term.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not a binary question, either you have oil or you don't. We're going to have expensive oil no matter what we do, whether we drill off the coast or not. The question is whether we have it perhaps marginally less expensive, and contibuting to reducing our trade deficit and financing our government, with the risks and environmental damage inherent in the process, or whether it's marginally more expensive, we leave the oil in the ground, we don't damage the environment, and everyone's quality of life is a smidge worse. We all recognize no one can throw a switch and make gasoline $1.20 again, so we have to be honest about how narrow the margins are we're playing around in.

[Brittain33]

Drilling has just become this cultural football now, with being opposed to be part of being the modern metrosexual.

I recognize that ANWR is the environmentalist version of the partial-birth abortion ban, but is drilling off-shore that much of an academic issue? Does it really not carry a risk of disaster? (Again, speaking as someone who doesn't know the answer.)

[Flying Dog]

The U.S Dept. of Interior says that the risk of an oil spill in the Atlantic is one in seven. They also say that the risk of another oil spill in the Pacific before 2030 is 99%.

Think about this, if Florida started building oil wells and one had an accident, then that could conceivably ruin Florida's economy. Since they are dependent on tourism (Beach's)

[J. J.]

The U.S Dept. of Interior says that the risk of an oil spill in the Atlantic is one in seven. They also say that the risk of another oil spill in the Pacific before 2030 is 99%.

Think about this, if Florida started building oil wells and one had an accident, then that could conceivably ruin Florida's economy. Since they are dependent on tourism (Beach's)

If the produce oil, that dependence may be lessened.

Still, authorization should be done carefully.

[MODU]

Does off-shore drilling pose any risk of damage, short-term or long-term to the coastline? Is the precedent of keeping nature preserves off-limits, given that the pristine nature can never be reversed, valuable in its own right? What of the carbon dioxide emissions created by raising supply to that level--how do we evaluate that?

As far as off-shore drilling goes, you pose a higher risk of environmental damage caused by tankers than from oil rigs.  The rigs are designed to take the abuse of the sea and from storms (some are even designed to withstand assaults from sea ice).  Tankers on the other hand are at the mercy of the waves (see my whole thread covering my brothers ship last December off the coast of Oregon).  Plus, as often referenced, the rigs and MODU's that were in the path of Katrina in the Gulf did not cause any environemntal damage when the storm rolled through.  So your only real impact on the coast line would be visual ... and that would usually require the use of binoculars in order to see the platforms.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since the risk of environmental impact is low, option 1.

[Torie]

The U.S Dept. of Interior says that the risk of an oil spill in the Atlantic is one in seven. They also say that the risk of another oil spill in the Pacific before 2030 is 99%.

Think about this, if Florida started building oil wells and one had an accident, then that could conceivably ruin Florida's economy. Since they are dependent on tourism (Beach's)

Hardly. Maybe in one location for one season.

[Torie]

Thanks for your reply.  You'll have to work with me here, since investing is not exactly on my horizon.  How does what you're saying reconcile with this IMF white paper?  I don't think that long-dated future prices are the same thing as spot prices.

We're getting a little into Chinese here, but I'm trying to do my best without actually learning anything (gross)

The IMF article states basically what I stated:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The article does chat about uncertainty perhaps having some impact on futures prices, without getting very specific. It may in any event be wholly rational, rather than an irrational speculative "bubble" on the margins. Uncertainty can lead to a long tail on the bell curve of possibilities, including the omega event, where basically oil prices shoot through the roof, as supply collapses as the big Saudi field plays out, the major Mexican field dries up (production there as we speak is falling sharply), and it proving extremely expensive to bring new fields online, that are tough to drill, and measure what they will produce, and how expensive it will be. If there is a 10% chance of $500 oil in 5 years, that adds fifty bucks roughly speaking to the futures price, and thirty five bucks or so to the spot price.

[exopolitician]

Basically when I first read the topic, I thought it said "RNC begins homosexual attack on Obama..."

I was like....oh..?

[Albus Dumbledore]

That's their next strategy if the hexagonal attack doesn't work out. They'll deploy Craig, Crist and Foley.

[Flying Dog]

The U.S Dept. of Interior says that the risk of an oil spill in the Atlantic is one in seven. They also say that the risk of another oil spill in the Pacific before 2030 is 99%.

Think about this, if Florida started building oil wells and one had an accident, then that could conceivably ruin Florida's economy. Since they are dependent on tourism (Beach's)

Hardly. Maybe in one location for one season.

Wrong.

[Torie]

Enlighten me FLEM. Have you been researching risk assessment studies on this issue? 

[MODU]

Basically when I first read the topic, I thought it said "RNC begins homosexual attack on Obama..."

I was like....oh..?

"Oh baby . . . Oh baby . . ."

[Flying Dog]

Enlighten me FLEM. Have you been researching risk assessment studies on this issue? 

Your thinking too short-term. Oil exposures and spills are long-term events and don't dissipate for quite a while. For example, oil residue from the Exxon Valdez will be visible on the Alaskan coast for nearly 30 years to come.

[Torie]

Enlighten me FLEM. Have you been researching risk assessment studies on this issue? 

Your thinking too short-term. Oil exposures and spills are long-term events and don't dissipate for quite a while. For example, oil residue from the Exxon Valdez will be visible on the Alaskan coast for nearly 30 years to come.

The resorts won't clean up the sand on their beaches eh? 

[Torie]

Different forms of energy, particularly over a longer time horizon, have some degree of substitutability. Power plants that produce electricity can be switched from oil or coal to nuclear. The production of coal itself uses a lot of oil.

They may be substitutable, but it appears that petroleum is a negligible source of energy for electricity, dwarfed both by natural gas and by coal. Nuclear generated seven times as much power as oil in 2005 and the ratio has only gone up as oil prices have increased. There is very little oil to be squeezed out from that sector and back into the transportation sector, where use is determined by demand for transportation about all else. The only way a nuclear energy plan would lead to reduced gasoline prices, IMO, would be if it were coupled with news reports of a credible electric car. It's ultimately all about transportation.

I think petroleum would have to get even more expensive before coal ceases to be an extraordinarily cheap form of fuel for generating electricity, but I am not aware of how much the cost of oil contributes to the cost of coal.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/STEO_Query/steotables.cfm?periodType=Annual&startYear=2005&startMonth=1&endYear=2009&endMonth=12&tableNumber=22

Hey B33, in a violation of the law of Newtonian physics, I was wrong and you were right. 

[Flying Dog]

Enlighten me FLEM. Have you been researching risk assessment studies on this issue? 

Your thinking too short-term. Oil exposures and spills are long-term events and don't dissipate for quite a while. For example, oil residue from the Exxon Valdez will be visible on the Alaskan coast for nearly 30 years to come.

The resorts won't clean up the sand on their beaches eh? 

The Alaskans did clean up their coast. The problem is that it keeps washing up again. Continually with the tides.

[Torie]

Assuming that is true (got a link?), the water is warmer around Florida. How long did the oil keep coming onto the Santa Barbara coast back when? And those waters while warmer than in Alaska, and still much colder than around Florida.

[Brittain33]

Hey B33, in a violation of the law of Newtonian physics, I was wrong and you were right. 

With Google, all things are possible.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Drilling has just become this cultural football now, with being opposed to be part of being the modern metrosexual.

I recognize that ANWR is the environmentalist version of the partial-birth abortion ban, but is drilling off-shore that much of an academic issue? Does it really not carry a risk of disaster? (Again, speaking as someone who doesn't know the answer.)

Is there anything us humans do that doesn't carry a risk of a disaster?

The truth is that these offshore oil rigs are largely safe.  It's not like a slew of them don't exist already.

I'm not quite as opposed to this coastal drilling as I used to be.  Not for reasons of lowering the spot price of oil—supposedly, it won't do much for that.  Instead, I like coastal drilling as a way to dramatically increase revenues to the federal government through oil royalties.

[Flying Dog]

Assuming that is true (got a link?), the water is warmer around Florida. How long did the oil keep coming onto the Santa Barbara coast back when? And those waters while warmer than in Alaska, and still much colder than around Florida.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=environmental-effects-of

Another problem is that the oil seeps below the sand and it is very hard to get rid of.

....and I'm not even beginning to dive into the possible effects on wildlife in both coastal and marine ecosystems.

[Torie]

Assuming that is true (got a link?), the water is warmer around Florida. How long did the oil keep coming onto the Santa Barbara coast back when? And those waters while warmer than in Alaska, and still much colder than around Florida.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=environmental-effects-of

Another problem is that the oil seeps below the sand and it is very hard to get rid of.

....and I'm not even beginning to dive into the possible effects on wildlife in both coastal and marine ecosystems.

Thanks for the link FREM. I appreciate it. Are "coarse intertidal sediments" in play in Florida?