Posted 4 months, 5 days ago in 
Loading ...
With regard to the July 15 article about the Udall/Schaeffer debate, I believe senatorial candidate Mark Udall’s reference to “more drilling” was taken out of context.
Udall stated that “more drilling” should occur on the 68 million acres for which oil companies already have leases. Mr. Udall has also emphasized how we need to diversify our energy portfolio, with responsible development of energy resources. He has also stated that we need to find the right balance in developing these resources responsibly, and we cannot drill our way to energy security.
The right balance consists of a multitude of energy sources, including oil shale, solar, biomass, wind, natural gas, and cleaner burning coal. To complement the supply side of energy, we must also look at demand, and focus on ways to lessen overall consumption.
Diversity and creativity are key to resolving our energy woes, and senatorial candidate Mark Udall has demonstrated he is a proponent of both of these.
ELIZABETH ROWAN
Grand Junction
53 Responses to “Udall seeking balance for drilling”
Posted July 18th, 2008 at 2:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The point Mr. Udall neglected to mention is that we wouldn’t be energy insecure if the Democrats under President Clinton hadn’t instituted a ban on offshore drilling. It is quite interesting to watch the democrats scramble as it was their plan to increase gasoline prices by blocking drilling and refinery construction in the hope of making alternative fuel sources economically viable. (you will recall Sen. Obama’s statement that it wasn’t the high pump prices that concerned him, only the speed at which prices went up) However, with the success of drill here, drill now, save money, due to overwhelming public pressure, (an unintended consequence), they are now in full panic even to the extreme of trying to force release of our strategic oil reserves in order to counter the public call for new drilling. Don’t you just love it when a Democratic plan comes together.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 6:41 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
1982 5644
1984 4580
1988 2752
1992 1996
2001 1722
2008 2817
Why are these numbers pertinent. They are the total number of oil rigs operating during those years in the United States of America. While Big Oil Bob and the Republicans ballyhoo themselves as defending the energy interests and developing oil production within the United States, the actuality is a much different tale. Jimmy Carter by far and away drove up the number of rigs and potential US delivery then Ronald “All Star” Reagan crushed the US production of oil.
Do not be deceived by the ads. Big Oil Bob has more experience developing the oil fields of Iraq than he does developing the energy independence of America.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 8:35 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Now the Democrats would have you believe that it is the Republican party that has been the driving force behind the cutback on oil drilling. They never miss an opportunity to use the words big oil. Ask yourself who was it that stopped big oil from drilling off shore? And who was it that stopped big oil from drilling in ANWR? Your common sense will tell you that it was something bigger than big oil. That is what the Democrats don’t want you to understand. They have opposed oil drilling anywhere and everywhere for the past thirty years, and still oppose it today. Their argument that drilling will not produce any new oil for seven years is false. But ask yourself, by following the Democratic plan of not drilling, isn’t that a guarantee that we will not produce any new oil, ever? The inconvenient truth is that they want to take credit for stopping big oil on the one hand, and blame big oil and the Republican party for not drilling, on the other. Is OPEC and big oil guilty of price gouging? Of course they are. But there is a more powerful new player in town who wants to take an even bigger bite out of your wallet. This is necessary in order to make their alternative energy programs economically viable. They have to keep prices up at the pump, and the only way they can do that is to keep oil supplies down. That is why they are against drilling, and they are using environmental concerns to justify it. What they won’t tell you is that there has not been a significant oil spill related to off short drilling, in US offshore waters, for over thirty years. And meanwhile they point their finger at the Republican party and big oil as the villains. Don’t be deceived by their slight of hand. Keep your eye on common sense and your hand on your wallet. And make up your own mind as to how you should vote.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 8:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Fred: “Jimmy Carter by far and away drove up the number of rigs and potential US delivery then Ronald “All Star” Reagan crushed the US production of oil.”
Fred, please, expand on your comments. 1. Please tell us how Jimmy Carter drove up the number of rigs. 2. Please tell us how Ronald “All Star” Reagan crushed the US production of oil. 3. Please tell us why oil companies are drilling less in the US now than they used to.
Your comments are fascinating. Please continue.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 8:59 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: “Ask yourself who was it that stopped big oil from drilling off shore?”
Jeb Bush?
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 9:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ashhugger,
The answer to your question is the ban on offshore drilling has been in effect longer than Jeb Bush has been Governor of Florida. It was started by Bill Clinton. Ask yourself since George W. Bush lifted the ban on offshore drilling, why hasn’t the Democratically controlled congress done the same? I think it would be a most difficult sell to try to make the American public believe that the Republican party has opposed oil drilling. The Democrats have spent years calling themselves the “Green” party. It has only been since pump prices spiked that we now hear Democrats disavowing the green label, because they realize that it is the recognized motive for opposing oil drilling. Sorry Democrats, but you won’t be allowed to have your cake and eat it too. The American public recognizes that the law of supply and demand is what got us into this mess and drilling for new supply is what will get us out. Common sense.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 9:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
a_p,
Correct me if I am wrong ( I know you will ), but it seems to me that we MUST be drilling somewhere in the US. I have personally seen the rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and off the California coast. Are they sitting idle? Land men are swarming the North Dakota prairie and new oil millionaires are popping up in NoDak and Montana. Big Oil and Gas is drilling the hell out of Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico ( there is oil here, too) and rigs are still working in Alaska, New York, and Pennsylvania .
There are 68,000,000 acres still available for them to exploit, RIGHT NOW. You know that tired argument about all those millions of acres being marginal is poppycock. These guys aren’t stupid and they have thumper trucks and magnetic wave technologies that allow them to know how to locate the resource.
Bush and Cheney and their Band of Billionaires want access to the most sensitive areas in the country while they still have leverage to get it. They can always pick the low-hanging fruit. They want the whole tree. It is a land grab, plain and simple. Please get a copy of ” The Shock Doctrine ” by Naomi Klein. Read it with an open mind. You just might find some enlightenment there.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 9:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: Wrong, it wasn’t Clinton or W’s brother Jeb; it was Dad. George H.W. Bush issued the executive ban on offshore drilling which Junior just rescinded.
Every year since George the elder instilled the ban (June 1990), Congress — WHETHER under Democratic or Republican control, issued a parallel ban.
I do believe Congress today will reverse course and I believe as we speak negotiations are going on about the details, including environmental protections.
I am for lifting the moratorium, but I can see both sides of the issue as well.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 10:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
american-patriot said;
“The answer to your question is the ban on offshore drilling has been in effect longer than Jeb Bush has been Governor of Florida. It was started by Bill Clinton.”
Correction; The executive drilling ban was issued in 1990 by the first President Bush, and then extended by President Bill Clinton.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 10:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
DC, this Democratic claim that oil companies should not be allowed to drill offshore because there are a zillion acres where they can drill now, on land, and they aren’t, flies in the face of logic.
Drilling offshore is much more expensive than drilling on land. Why would oil companies want to drill offshore first if oil was available on land? Do you believe that oil companies’ primary motivation is to destroy the beaches of this country and that is why they would rather spend more to drill offshore?
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 10:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Trog is correct. Bush Sr. banned drilling offshore in 1990. The reason? The world was swimming in oil and the prce dropped to $10.
Now the world is facing an oil shortage and the price is at $130.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 10:16 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I read somewhere that our best bet for offshore drilling right now is natural gas (versus crude); that it is safer and cleaner from an environmental perspective, and that our current infrastructure makes keeping every drop of it in the U.S. the most profitable option as well.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 10:33 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Over 30,000,000 acres of the area already open to drilling IS offshore. If you look at the grid in the western Gulf of Mexico, you will see that the oil companies have only drilled part of the field.
Folks also seem to think that all of this drilling you clamor for happens in a vacuum. A few thousand square miles of the Louisiana coast have subsided because so much liqiud and gas have been removed. This was examined a couple of years ago in National Geographic.
Just as the Colorado Oil and Gas Association has lied repeatedly about the effects of the COGCCs’ rulemaking effort, the industry continues to mislead the public on this issue. There are many thousands of acres in Alaska between the North Slope fields and the ANWR that are available and waiting for the industry to exploit. Why don’t they? Because that is the low-hanging fruit I mentioned before.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 10:54 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
DC, oil companies continue to drill in areas where they are permitted to drill. A huge find by Chevron in the Gulf will be comming on line in a couple of years. You say that oil companies do not want to drill the “low hanging fruit”. But, you imply, that what they really want to do is drill the most difficult to reach fruit? Please tell me how that makes any sense.
I ask you again: Do you believe that oil companies’ primary motivation is to destroy the beaches of this country and that is why they would rather spend more to drill offshore?
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 11:03 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Argue over who’s fault it is, blame whoever did what, it doesn’t make any difference now. what matters now is that we learn to conserve what we have now, drill for more to hold us over for the next 20-30 yrs while the alternative fuel & energy sources, are being developed into the quantities that will be needed to lessen our dependence on the petroleum based energy sources we are currently argueing about now. The perception of the perdicament we are in right now didn’t just happen overnight. It be years for development to catch up if it ever does. But it has to start today. I myself am still drilling and will continue to do so until……
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 11:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Kelly Claussen,
You are right. Playing the blame game gets us nowhere. The only reason it is pertinent is because the Dems continue to block drilling. What nobody is saying is that we are working on two different agendas. The American people want more drilling and energy independence and are willing to put everything on the table, including alternatives and conservation. Their concern is the economy and getting out from under the OPEC hammer. On the other hand, the Al Gore Democrats are trying to remove drilling from the equation, because they know in their heart of hearts that their concern is not for the price of gasoline nor energy independence. They want the elimination of hydro-carbon fuel because of it’s effects on global warming. And they have drawn a hard line on this issue because they know without the hard line, alternatives are not economically viable. In plain language, they don’t care if the American taxpayer can afford enough gas to get to work on Monday. It’s their way or highway (no pun intended). Under these circumstances, there is no way to get away from the blame game. In the end, that is going to become the most important issue. Who is holding up the process? And that is what will force the Dems to the negotiating table.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 11:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
BFrog: “You say that oil companies do not want to drill the “low hanging fruit”. But, you imply, that what they really want to do is drill the most difficult to reach fruit? Please tell me how that makes any sense.”
Of course it makes sense! political sense! Big oil knows that it can drill in the large unprotected areas of Alaska just about anytime it wishes. These reserves represent the capital of many large oil companies which defines their wealth as a company. However, drilling in the ANWR and similar areas is possible only under a political regime where politicians in the pockets of the oil companies can be paid to look the other way with respect to environmental concerns while these sensitive areas are despoiled. Big Oil recognizes that is likely only during the remaining term of GW Bush and are desperately lobbying for the right to get things going before the current crooks are swept out of office by the Dems at the next election and these public lands are protected as they ought to be forcing the oil companies to start cashing in on their current capital.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 12:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Vlass: “Of course it makes sense! political sense! Big oil knows that it can drill in the large unprotected areas of Alaska just about anytime it wishes. These reserves represent the capital of many large oil companies which defines their wealth as a company.”
While I do not agree with you, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you are correct. You are telling us that the oil companies want to get their hands on off shore leases and Anwar now, while the crooks in the White House are still in office. But, that, even if they did, they would not drill in those areas until AFTER they have drilled their low hanging fruit? Am I understanding you correctly?
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 12:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I think that the “low hanging fruit” refers to the areas that they already have rights to drill, but haven’t yet. It doesn’t mean physically harder to drill areas.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 12:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BFrog: But, that, even if they did, they would not drill in those areas until AFTER they have drilled their low hanging fruit? Am I understanding you correctly?
If I were an oil man, (and I am assuming that they act rationally in their own best interests), I would begin immediate drilling in the ANWR if I got approval in order that the precedent could be established.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 12:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class, I looked at ANWR and wondered why the oil companies are not drilling in the areas adjacent to ANWR. The answer that I found was that oil availability in other parts of Alaska, not currently being drilled, are widespread as far as oil content and not economical to develop. If I were an oil man, (and I am assuming that they act rationally in their own best interests), I would have already been drilling in areas outside ANWR if I thought it was profitable to do so.
But let’s move on, the discussion I was having with DC did not include ANWR. We were discussing the OCS. Why not lease the OCS?
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 12:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alternatives are going to be economically viable whether there is expanded drilling or not. For those who think opening up more offshore and ANWR are going to cause any relief for the American consumer, I wish I could join in that fantasy … I hope you are right and I am wrong though.
AP, you are using this issue to bash Democrats. I am curious, is expanded petroleum production the most important issue for you in the upcoming elections? Or are their other issues over which you disagree with Dems even more vehemently?
Does this make sense? For example I disagree with Obama on a couple of things, but I REALLY appreciate the fact that he is not a reckless warmonger.
Others may care the most about energy policies, abortion, gun control, etc; I just find it interesting to now where people are coming from.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 12:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “I think that the “low hanging fruit” refers to the areas that they already have rights to drill, but haven’t yet. It doesn’t mean physically harder to drill areas.”
That is also what I understood. Which is why I asked, why would the oil companies prefer to drill on the OCS when it is cheaper to drill on land where they already have leases? Is it because they’re primary objective is to spoil our beaches?
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 12:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash: “Alternatives are going to be economically viable whether there is expanded drilling or not.”
I have to disagree. Alternatives are going to be MORE viable if drilling is reduced because that will raise the price of gasoline faster. That is what Al Gore wants. And the question for Americans is: is that what they want?
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 12:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish: I totally disagree that this is what Al Gore wants. Not trying to convince you you are wrong but just have to put it out there that there are others who see things in a completely different way.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 12:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, if my primary objective was to move as quickly as possible away from hydrocarbon combustion, I would want to see alternaties become economically feasible as rapidly as possible. The fastest way for this to happen, in a free market system, is for gasoline prices to rise. The proof of this is evident today. You can’t buy a Prius because the demand is through the roof and supply has not caught up. My son sold a one year old Chevy Malibu to buy a hybrid Honda Civic because his cost of gasoline was hurting his pocketbook. You disagree with this?
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 12:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog,
No, I think they’re primary objective is to drill as much as possible. If they have a chance to drill now on land that they won’t be able to get access to later, they’ll jump at the chance to drill on that land rather than the land they know they can get to any time.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 1:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, the discussion is regarding the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) where it is much more expensive to drill than on land.
We are producing 5 million barrels per day. We are importing 15 million barrels per day. We need to drill on land AND in the sea. The areas that are most feasible to be drilled will be drilled first. If oil companies are granted OCS leases and they don’t drill them, the leases will expire. The same goes for land leases currently available that are not being drilled.
So I ask again, why would oil companies want to drill in the most expensive offshore areas if they can find oil cheaper on land. Please keep in mind that just because land is leased for exploration it does not mean that there is oil there that can be economically extracted.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 1:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BullishFrog,
You are wasting your time looking for an answer.
It’s just not politically correct to allow drilling the OCS, but there are no legitimate reasons.
The people you keep asking know there are no reasons, so they can’t say anything that can be proven to be an outright lie by you or anybody else.
It’s a case of getting past the fog they keep trying to spray n your face in hopes that you will be distracted.
I trust you will have an excellent weekend.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 1:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
” No, I think–they’re– primary objective ”
That should be “THEIR”.
It is the English Language and as Alexander mentioned, words mean things and the wrong word only makes deciphering your comments that much more difficult.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 1:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog,
Even if the drilling is harder, if they know they won’t ever be able to get the leases again, it would seem to make sense to get them while they can. Other than that, I can’t say.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 1:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, as I wrote earlier, a lease must be drilled or it will expire. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you are right, that we will never have a Republican administration in power again, what is the worst that can happen if they are granted the leases now? That they will drill in the OCS first where it is much more expensive than drilling on land, while letting their land leases expire, where you are assuming there is plenty of oil that is cheaper to extract? I don’t see the logic there.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 1:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish, post 26 - You are not going to convince me that Al Gore is so single minded that he wants the economy to go completely to h— just so alternatives can come on line faster. Every intelligent person realizes that the movement toward alternatives is a long term process and we will continue to need fossil fuels for a long time.
I am not really interested in trying to convince you otherwise, like I said; just trying to reply to your question.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 2:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash: “Every intelligent person realizes that the movement toward alternatives is a long term process and we will continue to need fossil fuels for a long time.”
I would substitute the first word “Every” for the word “An” and then we would be in 100% agreement.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 2:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Let me re-satet that, I would substitute the word “An” for the word “Every” and then we would be in 100% agreement.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 2:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I have not met even moderately intelligent people who would disagree with that. The only disagreement comes between those who wish to go full speed forward, extracting oil at any price to our environment in the interest of short term solutions and those who believe that a somewhat slower pace should be adopted in order that our grandchildren will be able to fish in the streams and walk in the forests of an unpolluted America.
In every city I have visited in Norway, the streams run clean and clear through the city itself. the Lofoten Isalnds where much offshore drilling takes place are beautiful and clean and a mecca for tourists from around the world. This occurs in a country which is the 3rd largest oil exporter in the world.
This could happen here when we manage to thwart the greed and the short term interests of those who do not care about their descendants but just want to live in luxury now.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 2:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish, post 35, good edit.
Class — “The only disagreement comes between those who wish to go full speed forward, extracting oil at any price to our environment in the interest of short term solutions and those who believe that a somewhat slower pace should be adopted,”
Talking (and listening) to many “every day Americans” I believe the opinions come in every shade of gray. No one I have met wants to trash the environment (that is reserved for soulless monsters like Cheney); however people vary greatly in their opinions of what the environmental impacts are. When it appears that our economy is on the brink of total implosion and more people are in a dire personal financial state, the environment becomes less of a priority.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 2:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class, I believe you have stated in the past that you would agree that drilling in the OCS is acceptable to you as long as the drillers in this country follow the same environmental standards that the Norweigans follow in their off-shore drilling. If the Democratic leaders would make such demands in exchange for relenting on their prohibition, I think we would all be better off.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 3:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog,
Out of curiosity, why is it one or the other? Why can’t they drill in the areas they have now AND the OCS? The reason they can’t drill in the OCS is because they don’t have the leases, right? They do have leases for more easily accessible areas.
Why can’t they drill both if they can get the OCS leases now? Why wouldn’t they at least try?
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 3:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, they ARE drilling now. But reserves are dwindling. The OCS is believed to hold huge quantities of oil and gas. Much of the potential on land has been exhausted. Not all, but most. That is why US oil production has declined dramatically over the years. Even if OCS leases are granted, drilling will continue in areas where drilling is still permitted. It is not one or the other. We are importing 15 million barrels per day. Even if the OCS was opened, we would not come close to eliminating our imports through drilling alone. But every drop helps while we move to alternatives.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 3:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog,
Then what’s the issue? All I was doing in the beginning was pointing out what appeared to be a misunderstanding. I really haven’t studied this issue enough to discuss it with you guys.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 3:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Truer words were never typed by man…
” Then what’s the issue? All I was doing in the beginning was pointing out what appeared to be a misunderstanding. I really haven’t studied this issue enough to discuss it with you guys. ”
That pretty much covers every subject you have commented on…
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 3:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish
I am back. I wasn’t ignoring you, just had stuff to do.
The leases held by oil companies are money in the bank. They claim them as assets to attract investors, often overstating their reserves. This sometimes leads to an embarrassing need to restate their reserves when they stretch the truth a little bit too much ( Royal Dutch/Shell did this a couple of years ago). Through a well established series of maneuvers, they can extend these holdings out for years without developing them, thereby increasing their ” assets” and being more attractive to investors.
The companies know that they are running out of time to get these special places; ANWR, the Roan Plateau, Otero Mesa, the Red Desert, the HD mountains, etc. If they can get them opened up, it is almost impossible to close them.
As for offshore: There are many companies in the oil and gas business, thousands, in fact. They compete against one another. Some own ocean platforms, some own onshore rigs. It is a scramble and they fight a dog eat dog war aginst each other, trying to outmaneuver the competition for profit. Kerr/Macgee is already set up to drill and produce in the ocean, as are several others. The more reserves they can claim, the more investors they can attract, the more business they can do, the more profit they can make, the bigger the salaries , bonuses and stock dividends. Pretty simple, really.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 3:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh, one more thing.
The decline in domestic production had more to do with the worldwide price of oil than anything else. Just as OPEC regulates its’ output depending on the current market price, so do all companies.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 4:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ahhhh,
To shun, or not to shun.
That is the question.
From wickerpedier…
” Purposes
Shunning can be broken down into behaviours and practices that seek to accomplish either or both of two primary goals.
1. To modify the behaviour of a member.
This approach seeks to influence, encourage, or coerce normative behaviours from members, and may seek to dissuade, provide disincentives for, or to compel avoidance of certain behaviours.
Shunning may include disassociating the member by other members of the community who are in good standing.
It may include more antagonistic psychological behaviours (described below). This approach may be seen as either corrective or punitive (or both) by the group membership or leadership, and may also be intended as a deterrent.
2. To remove or limit the influence of a member (or former member) over other members in a community. This approach may seek to isolate, to discredit, or otherwise dis-empower such a member, often in the context of actions or positions advocated by that member.
For groups with defined membership criteria, especially based on key behaviours or ideological precepts, this approach may be seen as limiting damage to the community or its leadership.
This is often paired with some form of excommunication.
Some less often practiced variants may seek to:
* Remove a specific member from general external influence to provide an ideological or psychological buffer against external views or behaviour.
The amount can vary from severing ties to opponents of the group up to and including severing all non-group-affiliated intercourse.
Shunning is usually approved of (if sometimes with regret) by the group engaging in the shunning, and usually highly disapproved of by the target of the shunning, resulting in a polarization of views.
Those subject to the practice respond differently, usually depending both on the circumstances of the event, and the nature of the practices being applied.
Extreme forms of shunning have damaged some individuals’ psychological and relational health.
Extreme responses to the practice have developed, mostly around anti-shunning advocacy; such advocates highlight the detrimental effects of many of such behaviors, and seek to limit the practice through pressure or law.
Such groups often operate supportive organizations or institutions to help victims of shunning to recover from damaging effects, and sometimes to attack the organizations practicing shunning, as a part of their advocacy. ”
So scott, am I gonna be shunned or not?
Following the old religious act of shunning, the person being shunned was to be totally ignored and their very existence was denied by the members of the community.
So come on guys, ge your heads together and decide exactly what you mean when you say that you are going to “shun Willis”.
Posted July 19th, 2008 at 5:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Department of Energy analyst and Saint Ronnie’s Off-shore drilling czar speak(www.startribune.com/politics/state/25651194.html?location_refer=Art):
“It [oil shale] is sort of meaningless in the sense that it’s such a large resource base and we’re so far from producing it,” said Philip Budzik, an oil and gas analyst at the U.S. Energy Information Administration. “It’s not going to be tomorrow and it’s not going to be in 10 years.”
Even an advocate of expanded drilling and mining says it should be done in tandem with an aggressive government effort to lower consumption, which he says is the quickest route to lower gas prices.
“The low-hanging fruit is not energy production, it’s conservation,” said Robin West, an energy consultant who ran the U.S. offshore drilling program while assistant Secretary of the Interior under President Ronald Reagan. “The simplest way … is enforce the speed limit … and then drop it.”
Posted July 20th, 2008 at 8:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
DC, what you appear to be saying is that oil companies are mainly interested in acquiring leases, so they can look like they are increasing their reserves, but not as interested in producing oil. My friend, I do not buy that argument. Oil in the ground does not produce income. And what stockholders want is more income, not more assets sitting in the ground.
If what you say about extending oil leases ad infinitum, through legal maneuvering is correct, and I don’t have any way of proving or disproving this point, then the government can change the terms of their leaeses so this doesn’t happen. That does not seem to be an impediment to me.
Posted July 20th, 2008 at 9:51 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish,
Changing the terms of the leases is exactly what the Congress is talking about with the ” Use it or Lose it ” initiative.
Oil in the ground gives companies the influence to attract investors and leverages the companies ability to borrow money. I leverage property to establish an equity line of credit which enables me to build houses to sell. Because I am using a line of credit instead of a construction loan to build my product, I get a lower interest rate, which increases my profit. Lower interest rates…higher income.
I have never condemned energy companies as being some sort of evil entities (Dick Cheney, notwithstanding). They are profiteers. Always look at their activities from the perspective of maximum profit and the whole thing makes more sense.
Posted July 20th, 2008 at 10:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
DC, it seems, therefore, that you would not have a problem if the government were to employ the “use it or lose it” initiative in granting leaeses in the OCS.
I believe we have reached a compromise solution.
Posted July 20th, 2008 at 10:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish
Agreed, except that, as I said before(I think), there are already 30,000,000 acres available for or already leased in the Gulf of Mexico. There are gathering systems in place. Let’s insist that the companies drill it, before we give them any more, and then let the states decide if they want drilling off their coastlines. There are millions, maybe billions, of barrels of oil in the Alaska Petroleum Preserve, adjacent to ANWR, sitting there waiting to be produced.
We currently have the largest amount of oil in history in our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I think the figure is 700,000,000 barrels. Releasing just ten percent of that would lower prices in ten days. I think, also, we are seeing some drastic reductions in demand, even in China. While they are temporary, I’m sure, the combination of these factors show the speculators that the gorging at the trough is probably over. Mexico has started signing contracts for delivery as much as four or five years out at todays’ prices.
They, too, can see that this run up in oil prices is a huge profit making opportunity that has run its’ course. If you have oil investments, be careful you don’t get stuck holding some very expensive futures contracts.
Posted July 20th, 2008 at 11:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
DC, I thought we had reached a compromise and now you give me an except.
The Gulf of Mexico is being drilled and there has been a big oil find that will soon come on stream. We need to continue drilling there.
The Alska Petroleum Reserve has some oil in it but, from what I have read, the reason it has not yet been drilled, is because deposits are not contiguous enough in sufficiently large quantities, as they are in ANWR, to be economically viable.
Releasing oil from the pretoleum reserve may help temporarilly. But we are talking about initiatives in the OCS that will provide oil ten years from now.
As to pricing, I have argued on this site that speculation is responsible for a good portion of this year’s oil price increase and that we have a bubble in the oil market. That bubble may not be deflating.
But, long term, the price will climb back up if supplies are not continuously increased until the time comes when we have a substitute for crude oil that is economically feasible.
While we will be reducing our consumption here over the near term, the Chinese and the Indians will continue to raise theirs. We need to look ahead and plan for the next 10 and 20 years. Let’s remove the “except”.
Posted July 20th, 2008 at 1:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
We are close, Bullish, very close.
My experience with the industry companies and their lobby has not filled me with confidence that they can be trusted. I have, however, no inherent opposition to offshore drilling. If petroleum that is produced on the OCS of the USA can be restricted to use in the USA and the states were allowed to make the decision on a state by state basis, that would suffice. I prefer that we, as a nation, invest in renewable/sustainable energies on such a scale that, in twenty years, we will not need petroleum for fuel; only products. This, of course, is only my personal point of view and does not represent any organizations with which I am affiliated.
Posted July 20th, 2008 at 2:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
DS, I think we have a deal.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.