Obama Rejects New Atlantic Ocean Oil Drilling (usatoday.com) 176
mdsolar writes: The Obama administration will abandon its plan to allow new offshore oil drilling on the U.S. southeast coast, dealing a blow to petroleum companies that had hopes of tapping new reserves. The Interior Department is set to announce today that it will not auction off certain drilling rights for Atlantic Ocean waters off the coast of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. The reversal comes after environmentalists, coastal residents, and the U.S. military vocalized opposition to the plan. It also comes amid declining industry investment in new exploration and production activities as oil prices fell by about 70% since late 2014 -- although the industry is still seeking long-term investment opportunities under the assumption that oil prices will recover.
Oil prices (Score:2)
"recover". Interesting phrasing. Unless you're trading it, it's a resource most of us would like to stay reasonably priced.
- From a state investigated multiple times for the highest national gas prices for no reason; especially on 9/11.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not about the oil price it is all about fossil fueller share prices. All talk of recovery is talk because there is a solid shift away from fossil fuels, with the result there are more fossil fuels in the ground in reserve than will now ever be needed. So with the bulk of fossil fueller share price based upon the stuff in the ground rather than what they are selling, they are trying really hard to maintain the illusory value of their shares. Lobbyist will be out in force to crush the electric vehicle,
Re:Oil prices (Score:5, Insightful)
That was all horseshit. Low oil prices never created a threat of recession. Except maybe a recession in the trading accounts of oil speculators and energy companies.
For everyone else, it was stimulative to the economy to have oil prices low.
Re: (Score:2)
By 'us' he might mean Russia.
The propagandists are sunk costs. Might as well post something until they find someone saying something honest about Pootin.
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on where your state gets it's GDP. Manufacturing states, and farming states would be loving it. IT states would be indifferent. Oil producing states however would be feeling it quite badly.
That said on a global scale a recession is normally correlated with an upward surge in oil prices.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you have missed Mario Draghi screaming "deflation".
Re: (Score:2)
Actually low commodity prices often have a negative impact on the economy. It is not just the rich oil traders that are hurt but the workers in the oil fields, the people in the towns that sell stuff to the oil field works. The retired people that have oil stocks in 401ks. The people that work in the factories that make the tools used in the oil fields...
Everything is connected and a crash in the prices in one market will have more than the simplistic effects that you are spouting off.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the neo-liberal hogwash. Oil field economies are almost always in boom or bust cycles. Prices are prices. Most of the country is not an oil field and if you find retired people with their money in oil stocks, please give them a dope slap for me.
If what you say is so, then high
Re: (Score:2)
"If what you say is so, then high gas prices should mean a booming economy and we know that's not true."
Very high gas prices are bad for the economy just as very low prices are. The same is true for all commodities and frankly most systems.
If the price of a commodity is to low then production drops and you get shortages and then the price goes up and you have inflation and the prices rise.
If the price of a commodity is to high you will often see a glut of production followed by a market crash.
"Oil field eco
Re: (Score:2)
Then it's good that we don't have either right now, isn't it?
Economics is the softest of all social sciences. It is little more than political agenda dressed up in sloppy math. Parapsychologists laugh at how ridiculous economists are.
Re: (Score:2)
There are currently more people working in renewable energy industries than in fossil fuel extraction industries in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a source for that. And if true is a terrible statement about the practicality of renewables. If true that points to renewables demanding many times the labor costs of fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I got it wrong. What I should have said was renewable energy produces more jobs per unit of energy produced than fossil fuel energy. Right now there are probably more people employed in fossil fuels than renewable energy as an absolute number. What do the labor costs matter if they can offer competitive pricing? When you consider the external costs of fossil fuels, renewable energy is very competitive. Renewable energy is still in its infancy or just beyond and I expect it will become labor ef
Re: (Score:2)
That was all horseshit. Low oil prices never created a threat of recession. Except maybe ...
Well, here in Oklahoma it has indeed caused a recession, as Oil and gas extraction and processing is our #1 (legal) industry. There are some areas of Texas and Alaska that probably aren't particularly peppy right now either. However, for the country at large you are quite correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Brother, you've got to get out of Oklahoma. It's the worst place in the country. It's so bad that in the 1930s, even the dirt did its best to get out of the state.
Re: (Score:2)
That was all horseshit. Low oil prices never created a threat of recession. Except maybe a recession in the trading accounts of oil speculators and energy companies.
For everyone else, it was stimulative to the economy to have oil prices low.
To a point. Several of my friends working in oil and gas lost their jobs. The salaried employees were laid off, and the contract ones typically ran out a contract and could not find a new contract. I saw several posts on Facebook that families were cancelling Christmas (gifts) since they didn't have a job and didn't know when they would have one. Some are in danger of losing their houses, or are already in the process. Even if they had emergency savings, there's only so long that can last.
Low oi
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying, "There can't be global warming, because it's cold outside today!"
Why would the US Military oppose this? (Score:2)
After all, it's another local source of fuel for their stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
(1) They may have underwater things out there, or worry they provide cover to enemy subs
(2) Because if it's dug up now, it gets used up. If it's underwater, we can start digging it up when the giant war starts. Because, who cares where the oil is dug up (militarily) during peace? We can get it from trade. But during war, that's when we need it.
Re: (Score:2)
Lease letting, exploration, drilling and pipeline don't happen overnight. If you want it ready for a war, then all that stuff (especially the exploration and pipe laying) needs to be done beforehand.
Re: (Score:3)
"(2) Because if it's dug up now, it gets used up. If it's underwater, we can start digging it up when the giant war starts. Because, who cares where the oil is dug up (militarily) during peace? We can get it from trade. But during war, that's when we need it."
If a war starts then it's too late to go drilling for oil. What do these ships that go drilling for oil run on? That's right, oil. If there is a shortage of oil then it could be real hard to find the oil to go looking for more oil. We need those we
Re: (Score:3)
The military has a strategic reserve to bide them over til the North Atlantic fields come online. And we can start developing them as a crisis develops.
It'll take a lot less time than ANWR to get up and running. ANWR has freezing temperatures reducing the worktime to 1/5 of the year and limited human access during that time. Plus new pipelines and such.
Re: (Score:2)
The US military is also working hard to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels.
no pay, no way (Score:2)
Wait for Trump (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If he's smart, he'd wait until the price of oil to recover so he can sell those drilling rights for a higher price.
I think that both Democrats and Republicans alike would agree that drilling for more oil now in the middle of a supply glut is a bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You can call Trump a lot of things, but dumb is not one of them.
You do not succeed in businesses without having some smarts.
Re: (Score:2)
You can succeed in property development and seedy casino deals without much intelligence if you have the resources to stop a well deserved kick to the backside from reality that should be hard enough to "smart" every time you sit down.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd go with arrogant, boisterous, bombastic, argumentative, privileged, ruthless, uncompromising, hateful, bullying, and pandering. Smart? Not really. Mix all the former in with a wealthy family and some luck and you don't need to be smart. Like you said, not dumb is good enough.
Re: (Score:2)
You can call Trump a lot of things, but dumb is not one of them.
You do not succeed in businesses without having some smarts.
Not exactly true. Many smart people do not succeed in businesses or lives. Some dumb people do succeed in live (but may not in business). You don't need to be smart, just average. Most of the time, you need to be at the right place at the right time (luck may be?).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
True. He's not stupid. He just panders to stupid people.
And there's the ivory tower elitist thinking that they know all about how people are voting, and the reason why. Useful tip: You're the reason why people are voting for Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm the reason people are stupid? OK there guy.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I'm the reason people are stupid? OK there guy.
Two posts, and you've successfully proven the "I know what's best, and if you don't listen you're stupid/people are just stupid" line of thinking. Yeah that's not backing firing at all, and why there's a growing general disdain to: political elite, academia, ideologues, sjw's and those crowing about "social justice." And people turning around and saying e-fucking-nough.
Hey you know that vote in Florida? The one where all the pollsters said that Trump wouldn't win...
Re: (Score:2)
Trump can't win a party that opposes him, even if he taps into some of the disparate parts. Also, enjoy your herpes and death from the flu, since you hate education so much you must hate its products as well which include modern medicine.
I'm always glad when some brainless ideologue get's their panties in a twist and makes baseless assumptions. It's a shame, you should have actually posted with your actual account.
Re: (Score:3)
What the GP says is correct, he panders to idiots. You may vote for him for other reasons, but his campaign is aimed at idiots who think they can kick all Muslims out or that their lives are being ruined by political correctness.
Re: (Score:2)
What the GP says is correct, he panders to idiots. You may vote for him for other reasons, but his campaign is aimed at idiots who think they can kick all Muslims out or that their lives are being ruined by political correctness.
So I guess that means Hillary is pandering to the mentally retarded? And her campaign is aimed at allowing unfettered access across the border, as well as ensuring that H1B's rule the day. But considering the number of people who believe that political correctness(or only their speech) is the only way that's allowed I guess so. Especially after the events of moveon.org and her support of shouting down other people.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes you read a comment that's just so foaming-at-the-mouth raving batshit that you realize instantly there is no point even trying to reason with this person. Their mind is closed by rage.
Re: (Score:2)
That phrase, like a jesus fish on the back of a car, is, to me, the marker of an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that both Democrats and Republicans alike would agree that drilling for more oil now in the middle of a supply glut is a bad idea.
Keeping the glut going keeps gas princes low.
That gets votes, even though the two are not related really.
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe that, invest in oil field services companies. Their stocks are in the toilet right now.
Re: (Score:2)
I've done some recent financial moves that are putting money into a few of those companies. I am not a short-term investor. I have every reason to believe the prices will skyrocket again - and I've got the patience to wait and no need for the money in the interim. They'll likely made huge, huge jumps and I expect it to be quite profitable.
It's akin to my rooting for VW's stock to tank even further. I'm hoping for the other foot to drop with VW and, when that happens, I'll buy a bunch of shares and hold them
Re: (Score:2)
The time to invest in new oil rigs is when the price is low, just before they start going back up.
Unfortunatley, the more companies think the price is going to go up, the more investments in new oil rigs there'll be, and the more new oil rigs there are, the lower the prices will be.
Vote mdsolar down in the firehouse... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK guy who avoided a 7 digit ID by like 607 accounts. We'll all sure take directions from you.
Here's an idea. If you don't like a story, don't fucking READ it. No one is holding a gun to your head.
Holy fucking shit, is everyone this retarded?
The idiotic holy war against Timothy has been going on since back when Cmdr. Taco was around. Didn't work on him, won't work on anyone.
Accept that not every story is going to be your cup of tea and fucking move on, like an adult. It's not like you can't look at the sum
Re: (Score:2)
No, most people here use UID's as credentials, because by the time they've been around awhile they know that people with low UID's know what they're actually talking about.
Something that's forgotten quite often is that back in it's day, people who have a sub 200k UID usually know what they're talking about, since the site itself was built for them.
Re: (Score:2)
I was told it was 5 digit and down, but you tell yourself whatever you like, sweetie.
Re: (Score:2)
That part was actually a joke. The user ID thing is a joke that has been going on for a while.
The rest was totally serious though.
President Obama (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
doesn't work that way, when economy picks up the oil will flow.
Electric cars are expensive toy for the wear-the-nails crown; not priced for average joe
Another economy will pick up instead (Score:2)
As for electric cars, the entire point is to shift pollution. Lower costs for something else don't help if your local government tells you to get your SUV out of the place due to smog. China appears to be heading that way too
Re: (Score:2)
nonsense, global market for equipment new and used. plenty of people looking for work. plenty of people with the skills and experience in manufacturing doing other things at moment but would do that if the price is right. I'm one of them, CAD/CAE/CAM is where I was and if someone coughed up the bucks I'd do it again
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting perspective. Are you sure you put any thought in at all before composing your reply? Surely you know better than what you have written?
Re: (Score:2)
Obama's doing them a favor (Score:3, Informative)
The oil companies are sitting on more proven reserves than can ever be pumped and burned if we are going to avoid catastrophic climate change. Even the Saudi's recognize it and that is why they are pumping as much of their oil as possible now (even at low prices) because they know it will be worth even less in the future. They're even trying to sell all of their oil assets now to some sucker who believes "oil will make a big comeback".
Most oil companies have oil assets on their books which will be worthless in the future (Google "stranded assets").
Coal is already done and finished and bankrupt.
Oil is next... it will take a while to go away (just like IBM and Microsoft are coasting on past glories) but there is no future growth in oil.
So, Obama is doing them a favor by preventing them from throwing money at Arctic drilling and Atlantic coast drilling. They should thank him (and look for another business opportunity).
Re: (Score:2)
Nice friends we have, after attacking Iraq for them and everything.
The reversal comes after... (Score:2)
Russia gave up in Syria?
Cheap energy means cheap energy (Score:3, Interesting)
We are going to need oil for at least another 30 years. How can I say this? Simple. Boeing has been making planes on a 30 year schedule for a very long time. Any plane they produce today they intend to see flying for the next 30 years. These planes burn kerosene, and they will for 30 years. Therefore we need oil for the next 30 years.
Not enough for you? You think that isn't enough? That we'll just make new planes that don't need oil? What about trucks, tractors, bulldozers, ships... Let's stop here at shipping for a bit. As much as people might not like it but the world's shipping infrastructure runs on diesel fuel. No diesel fuel and shipping moves at the pace of horses and sails. That is unless we have the time to make a smooth transition to whatever comes next. Perhaps what comes next is synthetic diesel fuel, derived from algae or nuclear power. If we cut ourselves off from cheap oil then we could cut ourselves off from whatever could replace it.
To put up windmills takes coal fired aluminum smelting, diesel fueled trucks and construction equipment, and so on. If the price of oil goes up then the price of construction goes up, the price of shipping goes up, the price of materials goes up, therefore the price of windmills go up. Solar panel prices go up, ethanol prices go up, energy in whatever form gets more expensive.
Energy is energy. Expensive oil means expensive everything. Not drilling for oil does not make windmills or solar panels cheaper. As odd as it may sound we need cheap oil to move away from oil. We need to make oil so cheap that it becomes worthless. If we make energy cheap then it becomes unprofitable to drill for it. The path to cheap energy is infrastructure. Right now infrastructure is built with the energy from oil.
Besides, not drilling for oil in the USA means we buy it from somewhere else. Does anyone out there believe that any other nation will drill oil as responsibly, clean, and safe, as the USA would? If people want to prevent oil spills then we should be drilling for it under the supervision of the US EPA. Also, wars are fought over oil, what if oil from the USA were cheaper than from the dictators of the world? Would these despotic assholes be in power if they could not sell their oil? We need to make oil so cheap that they cannot profit from it. Impossible? Perhaps, but can we at least try?
Not drilling for oil in the USA is only making the world a less free, dirtier, and more dangerous place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We are going to need oil, but less of it. Aircraft are getting more efficient. Cars are getting more efficient and going electric (hybrid/EV). Oil burning electricity generation is being phased out.
Shipping is an interesting example. Large ships are already starting to go hybrid. Trucks are already hybrid, and some places have fully electric buses now. Sure, there will still be some oil powered vehicles probably long into the future, but nothing like the number we have today.
Windmills and solar PV already p
Re: (Score:2)
"We are going to need oil, but less of it. Aircraft are getting more efficient. Cars are getting more efficient and going electric (hybrid/EV). Oil burning electricity generation is being phased out."
Do you believe that after 30 years of burning oil, and perhaps less and less every year, that we won't still need new wells to replace those that run dry? I don't know how long an oil well will produce oil but I'm quite certain that it's not more than 30 years. We will need more oil.
"Shipping is an interestin
Oil won't just go away (Score:2)
I've said as much as soon as people started talking about electric cars in any meaningful way. Oil used for personal transportation may go away, but there are plenty of things we depend on too heavily in our current way of life to go anywhere.
Planes being one as you mentioned. Passenger planes use oil, no getting around it. Unless we want to go back to Zeppelins that take a week to get anywhere, there isn't much for alternatives.
Ocean Shipping. You like the global market, and getting widgets from China, wel
Re: (Score:2)
We are going to need oil for at least another 30 years. How can I say this? Simple. Boeing has been making planes...
Here's another for you: used cars. It takes a newly-built car about 30 years to cycle (almost) completely out of the market. The average age of a car on US roads today is more than 11 years old. There are 14 million cars on US roads that are 25 years old or older.
So even if the entire auto industry switched to electric next year (which they aren't even close to doing), we'd still need gasoline production for 30 more years.
Re: (Score:2)
Screw kerosene and energy. We'll need oil to produce all the plastics we currently make. Modern medicine alone owes a great deal to having an endless supply of cheap, virgin, sterile, packaged plastic devices. Long after we're all driving electric cars, we'll still be pumping oil for manufacturing reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously we're going to be using oil as fuel far into the future, since it has tremendous energy density. That doesn't mean we have to get all the oil we can right now. Equally obviously, the cheaper we make oil, the less incentive to look for any replacement.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously we're going to be using oil as fuel far into the future, since it has tremendous energy density. That doesn't mean we have to get all the oil we can right now.
If we don't drill for it soon then we might not have the time, energy, or resources to drill for it later. As pointed out elsewhere this oil reserve is a valuable military asset. If war breaks out then we are going to need access to oil right away, not a year later. Failing to drill now puts the USA at an economic and military disadvantage.
Equally obviously, the cheaper we make oil, the less incentive to look for any replacement.
Do you honestly believe that people will stop looking for oil alternatives if oil gets cheap? Energy is a trillion dollar industry. Anyone that can take a fraction o
Re: (Score:2)
If we don't drill for it soon then we might not have the time, energy, or resources to drill for it later.
That's quite illogical. If we need it later the value will increase enough to make drilling worthwhile.
If war breaks out then we are going to need access to oil right away, not a year later. Failing to drill now puts the USA at an economic and military disadvantage.
Wow, I don't even know where to begin with that one. I guess I'll start with the fact that it's a last century argument. The kind of war I'm sure you're referring to has been supplanted by MAD. On top of that, the pentagon can take care of its own needs if it feels the *current* reserve isn't enough. I'm not even sure you believe your own fear-mongering here.
Do you honestly believe that people will stop looking for oil alternatives if oil gets cheap?
Due to natural market incentives? Yes, obviously
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we should tax oil to make it more expensive and then use the proceeds to subsidize the low-income population. After all, global climate change could kill people. I don't want to see people dead, do you?
So, we tax carbon so that the price goes up, then we give subsidies so that the poor can afford the taxes? How does this actually lower the amount of carbon produced? I believe that you didn't think this through.
Is it also possible that the carbon taxes raise the costs to businesses to the point that they have to lay off people? How does being unemployed help out the poor?
Sure, climate change could kill people but that's years from now. Being unemployed or taxed to the point a family cannot afford both
Republican heads explode (Score:2)
- We love sucking the Kochs of big oil ! We must be angry ! ...
- But the military was against this, and we love the military cock too, we must be happy !
- But the Kochs gave us lots of money ! We must be angry
- But the military has all those juicy defense contracts that keep all our other funders happy, so we must be happy !
Obama did this, don't matter what we know, don't matter what else was says - nothing else matters except that Obama did this - we get to be angry no matter what.
Re: (Score:3)
The oil companies want to buy the leases now while they're cheap.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Liberals don't care about the middle class. They constantly tell me how people in Alabama are so uneducated that they shouldn't be allowed to vote. They are constantly interrupting Trump rallies, specifically Bernie Sanders supporters. They favour censorship and believe they should be allowed to prevent you from expressing an opinion they don't like, see Citizen's United case. They oppose school vouchers because it might let the poor kids get a better education at "their" schools. On top of all that, i
Re: (Score:2)
What's your point ?
Liberals want NO politicians bribed in ANY parties.
That democratic politicians are not on the same page as their voters is hardly an unusual event in politics, which also accounts for a lot of Sander's support - as he is the only candidate who actively campaigns AGAINST the influence of the rich on politics for EITHER party.
No. Trump doesn't count. Trump IS the rich. He is NOT defending the middle class from rich people buying government favours -he's cutting out the middle man and trying
Re: (Score:2)
Your welcome to elaborate on why you think we shouldn't care any more. I just assumed it was because most people where you live have switched to electric.
However I suppose you could have been talking about how gas is currently so cheap no one cares if they only get 5MPG
The only current non fossil contenders I am aware of are electric and hydrogen. I don't see hydrogen beating out electric and tesla happens to be the biggest name in EVs right now.
Re: (Score:3)
and tesla happens to be the biggest name in EVs right now.
Nissan actually sells more EVs though.
Re: (Score:2)
You presume the public prefers paying more for oil so government can collect more money to spend, rather than have lower prices to pay directly from their pockets.
Re: (Score:3)
Gas prices are lower today than they were during the Bush Administration.
You stupid sonofabitch.
As promised (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Gas prices are lower today than they were during the Bush Administration.
You stupid sonofabitch.
I'm pretty sure you've been bitch-slapped over this issue before, so here it goes again:
Chu: DOE working to wean U.S. off oil [politico.com]
“We agree there is great suffering when the price of gasoline increases in the United States, and so we are very concerned about this,” said Chu, speaking to the House Appropriations energy and water subcommittee. “As I have repeatedly said, in the Department of Energy, what we’re trying to do is diversify our energy supply for transportation so that we have cost-effective means.”
Chu specifically cited a reported breakthrough announced Monday by Envia Systems, which received funding from DOE’s ARPA-E, that could help slash the price of electric vehicle batteries.
He also touted natural gas as “great” and said DOE is researching how to reduce the cost of compressed natural gas tanks for vehicles.
High gasoline prices will make research into such alternatives more urgent, Chu said.
“But is the overall goal to get our price” of gasoline down, asked Nunnelee.
“No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy,” Chu replied.
So when the price of gas was $4/gal and higher, Obama had ZERO interest in trying to lower gas prices.
Now you're here trying to give credit to Obama for lower gas prices? Calling you dumb as a post would be an insult to every acorn with dreams of being buried, sprouting, growing up, getting cut down, and then sawed into a post, you stupid dumbfuck.
Any unlike you, I back up my clai
Re: (Score:3)
You'd do better to worry about the price of health care. That's what's skyrocketing. When we get cancer from all that pollution it'll take every dime I have to make my co-payments.
Re: (Score:2)
The price of health care has been skyrocketing for a long time. The ACA is, among other things, causing more competition for health insurance plans, which has some possibility of restraining the increase.
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't read up on how that's working out I take it? As Pelosi said, we had to pass it to find out what's in it. Now we're finding out. One company in particular has started working the system in many States to virtually take over. People, especially younger people, have started to figure out that they are better off to pay the penalty as it saves them many thousands of dollars. If they get something really bad they can always pick it up later. They need a lot more subsidies than they thought. A
Re: (Score:2)
It's a big change. Obviously, there's going to be ways to game it at first. Obviously, the ACA needs to change in various unpredictable ways, and that was clear well before it passed.
However, the Republican-controlled Congress much prefers to pass bill after bill to repeal the whole thing, knowing that they're accomplishing absolutely nothing, to working to improve the situation. I've never seen a Congressional group so proud of doing absolutely nothing but whining.
Congress isn't going to be control
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, I think the obstructionism isn't going anywhere anytime soon. The big problem this year is that many conservative voters feel that their Republican representatives let them down by not doing enough to stop Obamacare. Thus you wind up with Trump. The good old boys that run the party hate him but he's got millions of people voting for him. I know people that registered to vote for the first time in decades just to support him. There's a lot of very pissed off people. Poor republican elites
Re: (Score:2)
Another big problem is that the ACA, for all its flaws, has helped a good many people, who think it should be reformed rather than ended. There seems to be this crazy quest for ideological purity going on in the Republican Party, worse than the Democrats around 1970, and a belief that Republicans fail only when they're not extreme enough. The Democrats recovered, and became more reasonable before 1976 even with the problems Nixon caused the Republicans. I don't know about the Republicans. Their rigid i
Re: (Score:2)
People don't pick their President for his competence. It's all based on salesmanship.
Re: (Score:2)
A bizarre comment to an article about drilling in the Atlantic. I'm trying to figure how this is W's fault.
Re: (Score:3)
If you let the guy you like make police state rules, you don't get to complain when the guy you hate uses them.
What I'm trying to understand is how the hell the GP got himself convinced that not selling drilling rights which he is under absolutely no obligation to sell, qualifies as "police state" behavior at all...
Re: (Score:2)
So you're one of those assholes who likes to do the "-1 Disagree" mods.
Re:God Will Be Mad (Score:4, Funny)
God loves you. I don't, but God does.
Re: (Score:2)
We cannot however burn the bodies of the climatologists. God may think we're using them for energy...
Re: (Score:2)
You might love the smell of napalm in the morning, but God, by all names, really loves the screams of the tormented in the morning.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's hang onto them until Saudi Arabia runs out of oil in a couple of centuries. Think what they'll be worth then.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't sweat it, the oil's not going anywhere. If we need it then we have it available. Let's suck Saudi Arabia dry first, it's cheaper.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But the fact is that to the contrary, I do care about the next generations: I want them to enjoy a prosperous, stable society with a small government and a high quality of life. I don't want them to live wondering how it must have been once upon a time in the early 21st century when energy was cheap and widely available, which, and nothing else, allowed people to have their own detached homes, travel without restrictions and have a life expectancy approach
Re: (Score:2)
"In other words, of course one day oil will become irrelevant - but not because of green social engineering, or because we will use something greener. It will be because we will use something superior."
Just like the Stone Age didn't end out of a lack of stones.
Government actions that make oil use expensive will not bring a swifter end to the "oil age", quite the opposite really. Expensive energy makes it more difficult to find alternatives. Research into new technologies needs resources, and those resourc
Re: (Score:2)
Really? If we have two substitutable goods, X and Y, in a market, and the price of X goes up, more Y will be produced and sold. Very simple microeconomics. Therefore, if we have fossil fuel energy and non-fossil-fuel energy in the energy market, and the price of fossil fuel energy goes up, then more non-fossil-fuel energy will be produced and sold. The only way for this to fail is if the price increase in X paralyzes or destroys the economy, and if it's that potentially devastating we have excellent re
Re: (Score:2)
I saw a talk by a physicist/chemist that was working on new battery technologies. A very smart man, had a doctorate in his field, doing research on solid state physics. He explained that to do his research he needed to use equipment that took a lot of power, X-ray machines and such. This takes energy and money. The people that work in his lab needed to get paid or they will move on to other work. He said he'd do things like switch off the lights at the breaker box at the end of the day so that they'd k
Re: (Score:2)
We're not at a subsistence economy. We have money for plenty of luxuries, and we've demonstrated that modern economies are very resilient to slow changes. Raising the cost of fossil fuels, and returning that money to the economy in other ways, doesn't affect the economy much, and we'd still have lots of money to spend on things like research. If our economy was anywhere near as sensitive to energy costs as you seem to think, it would have been devastated at various times in the last few decades.
And, y
Re: (Score:2)
Technology X is cheap because we aren't counting all the costs. Technology Y is maturing, but not yet mature, and is becoming cheaper and more efficient. I want to tax X partly in order to encourage the development of Y, and partly to allow the market to handle the unknown but probably frightening costs we're not billing Technology X for.
Do you really think Technology Y is one technology, and that there's no competition there? Do you really think that energy prices will be pinned forever above the cur
Re: (Score:2)