The title sums up what I have to say on this topic. Additionally, this is quite unusual for me to touch upon politics except when it pretty much immediately relates to real estate. Part of my writing this article is two-fold. Firstly, because the idea itself is abhorrent to me. And secondly, because here our government goes again selling out to big business. Seriously now, they are the only ones that are going to profit from this.
With that said, I’m quite disturbed with the notion of our ending a 27 year moratorium on offshore drilling that was actually signed by Pres. Bush’s father and he is currently asking for congress to end. But before we go on with this part of the tale, let’s look at the implications of Offshore Drilling.
Gas prices are high and it’s affecting all of us. Unfortunately, those with less income are affected the most. But the fact of the matter is that gas prices are high and will remain so for a very long time. That’s just a simple fact. Even with Saudi Arabia stepping up their production, it will have little effect on the price of crude oil in the overall scheme of things.
For arguments sake, let’s say that we allow offshore drilling. Actually, let’s stop for one second for a further explanation, we are not just talking about offshore drilling, but that of also drilling in the wilderness. OK, with that said, if we were to drill, it would take 7-10 years before we’d see any results. On top of that the oil that can be uncovered will most likely not have much effect on prices anyway.
Now granted, we do have a major stockpile of crude. So much so, that at today’s consumption it would last us 2½ years. Maybe the government should consider tapping into that as opposed to our environment? Just a thought! I’m not suggesting depleting all of the reserves, but…
The purpose here is not to sway anyone from one party to another. It is not intended to be a political debate. It seems the two prospective presidential candidates are both on opposite sides of this issue. Sen. McCain is following in the President’s footsteps.
What really bugs the bejesus (see I said a nicer word that I really would have liked to say) out of me, is that I hear the Governor of Florida, Charlie Crist, doing a complete turnaround in an apparent political pandering to Sen. McCain because he’s looking for a place on his ticket or in his cabinet. Oh yes another, our illustrious Senator, Mel Martinez, has also supposedly changed his mind and is backing the removal of this moratorium. But we won’t go into his background and his abysmal stay at HUD.
It appears that a good part of this election will be putting the fear in people, just as we’ve seen in previous ones where they utilized so-called ‘terrorism.’ We know that a good part of that turned out to be a bunch of bunk, but by then it was too late. I hope again that history won’t be repeating itself as it so often has.
In his Gettysburg Address, President Lincoln stated that we will have a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” The sad thing is that in this day and age we need to change the word ‘people’ to ‘big business’ and the saying will have a more accurate meaning. It doesn’t matter how this drilling will affect the general population. That’s of little or no consequence. Is it any surprise that we’re consistently widening the wealth disparity gap in this country?
Enough, let’s get back to the original premise here. The possible harm and destruction to the environment is too great a price to pay. We need to seek other alternatives and learn to wean ourselves off of petroleum based products. I am more concerned about global warming and the impact of fossil fuel on our lives and environment.
I have great concern that a major mistake will be made by opening up our shorelines and wilderness to the drilling for oil. The impact to our environment and lives can be more costly than the price of fuel itself. This is not something that should be taken lightly. Granted, neither should what we are paying for the price of fuel, but this type of consumption has been the American Way. Seriously, did we, as an overall society, learn a lesson from the embargos of the 70’s? Obviously not!
We need to wake up, if we haven’t already. The ‘Me’ society is over with. This idea of conspicuous consumption needs to be reigned in. What kind of legacy are we going to leave to our children? Yes, we as a society have progressed so very much, but at what cost? Enough already, or there won’t be any roses to smell!
Marc -what an incredibly well thought out and presented post. You say "We need to seek other alternatives and learn to wean ourselves off of petroleum based products. " All i could add to this -is "Amen". Without getting into the polytical debates (which I don't do on the blogs), this is the real long term answer to our never ending dependency on oil. This may sound contradictory, but the higher the oil prices will go, the more incentive there would be for people to want to invest into alternatives. When the "oil pain gets" gets really bad, it would happen.
I agree with Faina, Marc. I have high regards on your thoughts and opinions on such matters. Excellent way of articulating this. In the end, we will have to sleep in the very bed we chose to make.
Marc: I agree with you that offshore drilling will not help in this crisis. We are using 1 million barrels of oil per day. We are going to have to cut back using oil until the automobile industry comes up with enough hybrids, until we find alternative fuels like flex fuels, and wean ourselves off oil dependency and put the oil-rich countries in the sand/dirt where they came from.
Faina - Thank you and actually, what more can I say. We are obviously in agreement.
Jason - Exactly! You are a wise man, my friend. We've done that and we are doing that, but hopefully we will learn a freakin' lesson.
Jan - We definitely need to do something.
I agree that we need to look towards alternative forms of energy. In the long-term renewable sources of energy are the only way to go. I do think however that in the short-term if we do increase drilling it would make the speculators back off in a big way and cause gas prices to drop quite significantly. The U.S. is already drilling off of Texas and Louisiana with minimal harm to the environment. I don't know if drilling off of Florida is the answer, but doing nothing and hoping that in 10 years things will be different is not the answer either. In 10 years gas might just be $10 per gallon. A frightening thought. We will all be out of business if something like that happens.
Rob - I'm sorry, but I have to partially disagree with you. The beginning of your statement is absolutely correct. It would be nice to think that speculators would back off, but we'd have to talk about massive drilling for that to happen and they are quite aware of the time element involved. So I don't think that this will do much in lowering the price of crude at the present time. Yes, there is a lot of drilling in the western Gulf. You say there is minimal harm to the environment. I'm not so sure of that, I think we may not hear about it, but what about the area where the rigs are located. You can't tell me that there is very little harm there, with slug being put back into the waters, etc. from the drillings. Now, we may not have seen it on shore, but... In Europe, they are already paying much higher prices than we are and have been for a while. No, I don't think more drilling is the answer, but as you say, looking for more long-term renewable sources and alternative forms of energy.
The main thing is that we need to do something besides what we are doing now. Major changes are needed in order to reduce the cost of energy for the average American. It is really putting a hurt on the average person right now, and I don't see any relief in sight.
Rob - I don't deny in the least what you are saying! And we all have to do our part to release our stronghold on oil-based product consumption and then to further take that to another level and look at ourselves and the carbon footprint that we are imprinting upon the environment. It's the only environment that we have and what we do to it - negatively and positively - it what we are leaving our children and the next generations to come.
Marc, I heard a thing on NPR yesterday with guys from both major parties and oil guys, and they claim even if we were to pull out every drop of oil off the coasts, extract all of the shale oil, and everything else we can find, and the price at the pump still won't go down. And even the Republicans and oil guys agreed. I vote for the birds.
Patricia - Exactly!! The problem is, which piece of information is going to really get into the hands of mainstream America? Right or wrong, that's what the majority will believe. Geez, is this twisted or what?
Marc - You're right about the need to research and develop alternatives. And hopefully, enough consumers will be able and willing to make the shift to those alternatives. (There are some hopeful signs of progress already in that direction.) However, the vast majority either will not switch easily or cannot make the switch, often due to the alternatives' higher costs.
Meanwhile, petroleum is what drives most of this country's (and the rest of the world's) vehicles. And petroleum is being drilled for in many places around the world. And, as it has been noted in the media, a couple of other countries are already preparing to drill for it just off the coast of Florida.
It makes no sense for us to keep our hands tied - barring us from tapping our own resources - due to fear of imagined ecological disaster. (You yourself said you're "not sure" about ecological damage, and "we haven't seen" the damage. And if we haven't seen damage, where's the logic in freezing all progress for fear of disaster?)
Sure, just getting started planning and drilling now isn't going to suddenly drop the price of oil and gas. But not planning and drilling, most certainly will lead to an increase in the price of oil and gas. (Just look at recent history for confirmation of that.) And the other proposal that some politicians have made - to increase taxes on oil and gas - will most definitely increase the cost of the product to the end consumers... the very ones who can't afford to "go green."
There is no quick-fix for the problem of high gas prices. The big oil companies, while selling record-breaking amounts of oil and gas, are of course making record profits for their shareholders. And those shareholders include many "normal" people who have pensions and other retirement accounts. Those shareholders are counting on the oil companies to earn 8 to 10 cents on the dollar for them. Yet, certain politicians pander to voters by declaring that minimal profit margin to be a "windfall" which needs to be punished through extra taxation. (Note: those same politicians will never talk about profit margin, nor will they mention the fact that the various levels of government - local, state, and federal - combined collect more tax money from each gallon of gas sold than the oil companies earn.)
Side note regarding profit margin: How long would Realtors last if it took $3,600 to $3,700 in investment and expense for each $4,000 commission check? (In other words, earning a net of $300-$400 on average for each home sold.) That's the equivalent of what the oil companies are doing. They collect about $4.00 for a gallon of gas made from oil, but they net about 30 to 40 cents. They're just selling billions and billions of gallons of oil and gas now that more and more developing countries are using oil and gas.
There is no really good short-term solution. Although a few of us can work from home, walk, or ride bicycles, that isn't a viable alternative for most here in the States. So the long-term solution should include both pursuit of alternative energy sources and development of existing resources... especially those that are already being (or preparing to be) tapped by others.
David - I have to agree with you when you talk about the costs of these alternative energies and that some will not be able to afford them.
In regard to the environment, you quoted me as saying two phrases, which I never did. They, the professionals, are still unsure of the impact on the biodiversity of the Gulf due to oil drilling. There have been many reports about the decline to the Texas coast and much of this has been attributed to oil drilling. There have also been reports of such in the wilderness as well.
The reason that the moratorium was put into place 27 years ago and signed by the first Pres. Bush in '91 was because of the damaging effects to the environment. I'm sure this wasn't just done on a whim.
The amount of oil that would be uncovered via drilling in our wilderness and offshore will not produce enough to lower costs. Besides the fact, that we will be paying higher prices just to support those drilling efforts. Also the proposed plan by McCain and I think Bush are also asking for subsidizes to be put in place. And these are going to be paid how - oh I know! - higher gas and oil prices.
To me in my humble opinion, it appears to be a lose, lose situation for the American public.
Marc - it seems like we agree on being resigned to high oil and gas prices for the short--term. And we also mostly if not completely agree on the issues related to alternative energy sources.
As for me misquoting you, I'm sorry. The only thing I directly attributed to you was the bolded part of: "You yourself said you're "not sure" about ecological damage, and "we haven't seen" the damage."
I got that, perhaps mistakenly, from your response to Rob where you said, "You say there is minimal harm to the environment. I'm not so sure of that, I think we may not hear about it, but what about the area where the rigs are located. You can't tell me that there is very little harm there, with slug being put back into the waters, etc. from the drillings. Now, we may not have seen it on shore, but..."
I can see how those weren't direct quotes, so I should not have put them in quotation marks, but rather noted that they were slightly paraphrased. It just seemed to me to be as close as I could get without getting rather verbose and restructuring my sentence to make the same point. That point being: the harm to the environment has (so far) not been quantified nor reported. And it certainly hasn't been reported to be significant enough to warrant tying our hands while our neighbors and many other countries profit from our resources.
You said, "The amount of oil that would be uncovered via drilling in our wilderness and offshore will not produce enough to lower costs."
I've read reports that we have as much oil as several of the countries who are part of OPEC who have the largest reserves. How can roughly doubling the supply not drop the price? (I look at the supply of houses available for sale, and note that due to the increase in supply, the prices have dropped. In those places where the supply has increased the most, the price has generally dropped the most.) It's very basic economics.
But, again, even if Congress approved the oil companies for exploring and drilling for oil it would be 5-10 years (or possibly more) before we'd see any of that supply. So, in the short-term, we're just going to have to deal with the higher prices.
David - My error in your quoting of me. But we must be reading different articles. Actually, when I first answered you earlier, I re-researched my data and was thinking of quoting some of the sources and footnoting, but also didn't want to be verbose & just paraphrased. If I'm not mistaken, there is only supposedly 138 billion gallons (and that's the high estimate depending on whom you talk to) that could possibly be drilled for along our coasts and in the wilderness. That is no where near what any of the countries of OPEC have. Just run a simple Google search on Oil Reserves and check out the charts.
Anyway, enough! This is not meant to be a debate. We obviously agree on certain things and disagree on others. I respect your opinion as I see you respect mine. I am not here to try to alter anyone's point of view. I am just trying to be a dissemination of information and therefore my opinion of such.