[jojajn]

Originally Posted by wacahootaman

True, but why not increase production and at the same time decrease demand for oil by conservation and developing alternate technologies?

It cant be done overnite. But if you do both sides of the equation in 10 years we wont be held hostage to foreign oil imports.

It is stupid to declare massive oil prospects off limits to exploration and production while our economy crashes precisely because the cost of oil is bankrupting everyone.

Better late than never.

BTW, if Clinton would have not vetoed drilling in just 1/10th of 1 percent of ANWAR 13 years ago that oil would be comming on line now.

The oil companies are exporting a fair amount of oil that they drill for in Alaska. They make more per barrel selling it to Asia than here. If they want to drill in ANWAR, they ought to at least keep the oil here.

Also, the oil companies were "nationalized" the day they started accepting government subsidies! They have the best of both worlds, they accept our tax dollars and can still make a huge profit exporting oil to Asia and leasing out their oil rigs to the Persian Gulf. Subsidies without regulations- what a deal they got!!!

[jojajn]

Check this out.

US extends Alaska LNG exports to Asia - Upstreamonline

CRS Report: RS20540 - Alaska Oil Exports - NLE (http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/natural/nrgen-25.cfm - broken link)

http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/06jun/RS22142.pdf

Where will the oil drlled off the beautiful FL coastlines go?

[jojajn]

The oil companies may need to get some of their oil rigs back in order to drill off your coastlines. It seems they made more money leasing them out to the Persian Gulf than drilling for their own oil here. This was done after the oil companies were given huge tax subsidies (gifts), out of our tax dollars, with the condition that they would use these subsidies to DECREASE our dependence on foreign oil. Go figure!

Oil rigs stage exodus from Gulf of Mexico

[Ten]

Originally Posted by Spongedaddy

LMAO. Myth based? Things in the environment get heavier and more damaging by the year, but some still cal it myth based. So for a few of you when the water is undrinkable, the air unbreathable and most of humanity wiped out then you might say...okay there was something to that...too funny

Yeah, it's a real hoot. Especially when you realize that both water and air standards have made both substantially cleaner than 30 years ago and populations are increasing, which tends to argue against loss of life due to pollution.

Like I say, pop-environmentalism is, well, myth-based. And frequently proves itself so.

[Ten]

Originally Posted by Spongedaddy

It really is scary to see how many people are putting their attention on this when alternative, environmentally friendly fuel, can solve so many problems.

Actually, ethanol production just doubled and tripled food prices. We'll be safe from mythical pollution but we'll be dead broke. No problem there.

[wacahootaman]

Originally Posted by jojajn

The oil companies are exporting a fair amount of oil that they drill for in Alaska. They make more per barrel selling it to Asia than here. If they want to drill in ANWAR, they ought to at least keep the oil here.

Also, the oil companies were "nationalized" the day they started accepting government subsidies! They have the best of both worlds, they accept our tax dollars and can still make a huge profit exporting oil to Asia and leasing out their oil rigs to the Persian Gulf. Subsidies without regulations- what a deal they got!!!

At most 7 percent of Alaska's oil is exported to Asia. This is because California, its primary destination, has a large domestic supply that is increasing from new drilling. Plus, two refineries that were supposed to be built in California in the 80s were blocked by enviromentalists so California cant take all of Alaska's oil.

Some is shipped through the Panama Canal to the East coast but the Canal is to narrow for supertankers and they must round the horn of South America.

Billions of cubic feet of nat gas is burned off the Alaska oil fields cause there is not a pipeline to carry it to the lower 48. One is on the drawing board to hook up with an existing pipeline in Alberta Canada but it may be blocked by enviromentalists too.

If you write your mortgage interest on your home off your income taxes, you too are being subsidized by the Feds. Should the feds nationalize your home too? (They would have to fight the county tax collector for it, for the county is the actual owner of your home,not you)

Oil companies are subsidized by the oil depletion allowance which is a write off on their income taxes just like your mortgage interest.

[BlueWillowPlate]

Originally Posted by wacahootaman

At most 7 percent of Alaska's oil is exported to Asia. This is because California, its primary destination, has a large domestic supply that is increasing from new drilling. Plus, two refineries that were supposed to be built in California in the 80s were blocked by enviromentalists so California cant take all of Alaska's oil.

Venoco (broken link) has been enhancing their production and doing some new drilling in existing fields.
No question about it: the majority of Californians, at least the ones in the oil field area, are against new exploratory drilling. ETA: Might this change as time goes on? Perhaps.

Billions of cubic feet of nat gas is burned off the Alaska oil fields cause there is not a pipeline to carry it to the lower 48. One is on the drawing board to hook up with an existing pipeline in Alberta Canada but it may be blocked by enviromentalists too.

Hmm--who pays for it? And who will benefit financially? That is the question.
There appears to be non-environmental opposition here
and here (http://www.alaskajournal.com/stories/072008/hom_20080720041.shtml - broken link)
If Alaska should lose jobs from this, it does not look like such a good deal to me.
Assuming a deal was struck and financing achieved, maybe they could whip up that pipeline in months, but according to the EIA, oil recovery could take awhile (like, 2018) and might be problematic, and oil and natural gas production is expected to decline over time.
link
Maybe they should go ahead and do it, but aside from environmental issues, energy miracles should not be expected.
I'm not saying none of this stuff should be done, I know people need heat and gas etc. But this is not a simple, cut-and-dried situation.

[jojajn]

Originally Posted by wacahootaman

At most 7 percent of Alaska's oil is exported to Asia. This is because California, its primary destination, has a large domestic supply that is increasing from new drilling. Plus, two refineries that were supposed to be built in California in the 80s were blocked by enviromentalists so California cant take all of Alaska's oil.

Some is shipped through the Panama Canal to the East coast but the Canal is to narrow for supertankers and they must round the horn of South America.

Billions of cubic feet of nat gas is burned off the Alaska oil fields cause there is not a pipeline to carry it to the lower 48. One is on the drawing board to hook up with an existing pipeline in Alberta Canada but it may be blocked by enviromentalists too.

If you write your mortgage interest on your home off your income taxes, you too are being subsidized by the Feds. Should the feds nationalize your home too? (They would have to fight the county tax collector for it, for the county is the actual owner of your home,not you)

Oil companies are subsidized by the oil depletion allowance which is a write off on their income taxes just like your mortgage interest.

So what good would it do us to allow more drilling in Alaska if the oil can't get to where it is needed here in the U.S.?

[jojajn]

Originally Posted by wacahootaman

At most 7 percent of Alaska's oil is exported to Asia. This is because California, its primary destination, has a large domestic supply that is increasing from new drilling. Plus, two refineries that were supposed to be built in California in the 80s were blocked by enviromentalists so California cant take all of Alaska's oil.

Some is shipped through the Panama Canal to the East coast but the Canal is to narrow for supertankers and they must round the horn of South America.

Billions of cubic feet of nat gas is burned off the Alaska oil fields cause there is not a pipeline to carry it to the lower 48. One is on the drawing board to hook up with an existing pipeline in Alberta Canada but it may be blocked by enviromentalists too.

If you write your mortgage interest on your home off your income taxes, you too are being subsidized by the Feds. Should the feds nationalize your home too? (They would have to fight the county tax collector for it, for the county is the actual owner of your home,not you)

Oil companies are subsidized by the oil depletion allowance which is a write off on their income taxes just like your mortgage interest.

About oil company tax subsidies. I surely don't get this kind of tax break on my home mortgage.

ataxingmatter: Big Oil, Big Subsidies: Citizens For Tax Justice Says End Them Now

[jojajn]

Originally Posted by wacahootaman

True, but why not increase production and at the same time decrease demand for oil by conservation and developing alternate technologies?

It cant be done overnite. But if you do both sides of the equation in 10 years we wont be held hostage to foreign oil imports.

It is stupid to declare massive oil prospects off limits to exploration and production while our economy crashes precisely because the cost of oil is bankrupting everyone.

Better late than never.

BTW, if Clinton would have not vetoed drilling in just 1/10th of 1 percent of ANWAR 13 years ago that oil would be comming on line now.

That oil would be coming on line now and exported on a global market for private profit.

ANALYSIS-US oil firms seek drilling access, but exports soar - Forbes.com (broken link)

FL citizens have the most to loose from off shore drilling. Your economy is struggling and so dependent on tourism. I would get something it writing from the oil companies before you let them rape your state livelihood.