As it would take ten years to pump the 1st drop of offshore oil, how is this a "short term" solution?

Question

It would take another 20 years for this additional 2% to impact the market.

Other than jumping onto bandwagons, should people actually think things through vs grabbing hold of political party smoke and mirrors?

Where is JFK's leadership and vision when we need it most? Is that what makes Obama so appealing?

Answer 1

I heard it may only take 5 years before the new gas hits the market - but the point is still there.



If the REAL solution takes about the same amount of time to inact as the TEMPORARY solution, why ever bother with the temporary solution?



But we don't know how long it will take to create alternative fuels. We could have the bugs worked out in 5 years, or it could take 20.



We could have the new gas at our pumps in 5 years or it could take 20.



If it takes 20 yrs to fix the alt fuel problems & only 5 years to get the gas to the tanks, then pumping more is a real help.



But if it takes only 5 years to fix the alt fuel problems & 20 years to get the gas to the tanks, then pumpin would be a waste of resources!



I don't know the answer.



(Ethanol has been a major disappointment. And considering the crop devestations due to flooding & the food shortages worldwide, we should stop diverting corn to use for ethanol. As important as our fuel problems are, actual starving people are MORE important!)

Answer 2

Sorry Ada S but the cut and paste you gave is misleading. You say :The reason is simple: the U.S. has an estimated 3% of global petroleum reserves, but consumes 24% of the world's oil.



The US may have 3% of the reserves in a long term view but consumes 24% currently. This is like saying America consumes a million loaves of bread a year but there are only 10000 loaves in the store now. It's a misleading statistic. The writer of that is comparins reserves to consumption. Even if you could do that and assume wrongly that we could access all 3% at once it would mean we could supply 1/8th of our needs. That's not too shabby. The facts would remain that it would be better to ease our dependence on questionable supplies of foreign oil and that our domestic production is half of what it used to be.



To the original poster, Obama does not have any short term fixes for this problem. What we need is long term solutions and you're complaining about using one of them. Nuclear energy, electric cars, wind energy, solar energy, none of them are going to pop up tomorrow and solve our problem.

Answer 3

First. These are very misleading numbers which have nothing to do with affecting the markets...



If Israel threatening Iran can bump the price 5% in one day... and an announcement from American oil companies about helping pump in Iraq can bring it down more than 2%... how will the speculators react to actually seeing new drill and pumps in the US... for that matter, I would say that simply lifting the ban on drilling in the US would cause the speculators to SPECULATE an increase in supply. The investors and speculators themselves are on record as saying the US has too many restrictions on domestic energy production...



Remember, we are talking about oil FUTURES... and the price of gas is directly related to those FUTURE prices...



It is pretty simple. Lift the ban, the investors will react! It has never once failed... Ever!

Answer 4

Bush has already destroyed the National Park System and the environment and NOW allows the corps to pollute the rivers and streams again. It apparently bothers him that the pristine coast has NOT been destroyed by him yet! Is it the last thing he needs to destroy or does he have more up his sleeve?



Petrobras will have PLENTY of fuel and oil and nat. gas on the market in 2010 or 2011 and the rest will be "surplus".



May we IMPEACH Bush now? And if we do can we get rid of Cheney and Pelosi at the same time?



Where do we get these idiots? Bush family inbreeding?



:-)

Peace

Answer 5

Why drill off shore? Why waste time building platforms in the ocean when there is plenty of oil on land? We need our own energy source while we're working on alternative fuels. The price is much less of an issue than our national security.



EDIT: I just saw a piece on the news. Wild Catters are drilling for oil now because the price of a barrel of oil makes it worth the investment now. Looks like, as usual, the private citizens and private enterprise are going to come through.

Answer 6

Yeah, JFK's leadership. The one that created the bay of pigs and then stranded the guys there because he suddenly realized it was a bad idea? Obama's leadership? What leadership? He changes his mind with the polls, ie distancing himself from his mentor, leaving his church, wearing his lapel pin, and when he isn't scripted, we see a very different side of him.



The truth is it wouldn't take 20 years to get that oil to the gas pumps, though it would take at least 5. It would be a lot more than 2% that would make it to market as well. Why do you liberal Democrats prefer to keep us beholden to the Middle East rather than have us independent from them? I just don't understand that.

Answer 7

In ten years we might be paying $30 a gallon and you will still be saying the same thing.



If you were building a house, would you not put a roof on it if it wasn't raining that day? It might rain one day.



Our neighboring countries have greatly increased oil production while ours has decreased. Too bad we weren't as smart as the Mexicans and Canadians. We knew all of this 10 years ago and the democrats were impeding it then too. At least they are consistent if not intelligent.



Imported oil is responsible for over 1/2 or our trade deficit. Yet the democrats do nothing.



What is the democratic solution? Oh, that's right, tax the companies that produce the oil. That'll work.



If you think there is any way our economy won't require petroleum in 10 years you are incredibly naive.



fs

Answer 8

It doesn't take ten years to erect an oil derrick. And JFK, the architect of the Bay of Pigs and the lightweight who got snookered by the Soviet Union out of bases in Turkey during the Cuban Missile Crisis, had vision and leadership qualities which are quite dubious in retrospect. But, to answer your question, I need to point out that price is affected, according to the efficient markets theory, by many factors, including beliefs and perceptions about future supply and demand. Accordingly, just the mere knowledge that the US is finally doing something about allowing new offshore exploration would cause downward pressure on price.

Answer 9

You must not be aware of how many oil well pumps exist in the United States and how many of the have been restricted from pumping anything. If there are three on a piece of land, only one can legally pump oil. Government restrictions, heafy fines get imposed if violated, loss of property and land becomes a legal action. Go figure.

Answer 10

It's not a solution to anything. Our focus should go into developing alternate sources of energy, like we would have if Al Gore had been president. Obama is the only candidate who is ready to stop pandering to the instant gratification crowd, and look at the big picture. That is true leadership.

Answer 11

Because it affects the speculation in oil. From your name I assume you are from Chicago where commodity futures are bought and sold. You should be well aware of the huge swings in prices that result from changes in information of this type.



If you don't understand this take the tour of the Exchange and talk to some of the people in the commodity (not oil) business. They understand this completely.

Answer 12

I'm not worried about right now. There's nothing we can do about right now.



What I'm worried about is 5-10 years down the road...like they should have been thinking 5-10 years ago.



Personally, I think this makes Obama extremely short-sighted and shows his utter lack of experience and wisdom.

Answer 13

Again Chi, I heard this argument 10 years ago during the Clinton era when gas jumped over $2/gallon. Now it is $4/gallon. 10 years from now, it will be $8/gallon. We must prepare for the future. There is no short term solution outside of less demand and less government intervention. (like where the democrats want to tax windfall profits....wtf sense did that make?)



Drill, drill, drill.....we must start NOW. not later....NOW.

Answer 14

If the Democrats didn't block oil production 20 years ago, we would not have the issue we see before us now!

So when do we START?

Answer 15

Nothing is changed unless you start sometime. Think about that... should we have not worked on the Internet because it would take years to get going. Should we have not fought the Civil war because it would take years to win? And lets be sure to stop looking for ways to cause less pollution, it will take years to really work. Ask B'ho about that.

Answer 16

But there's a flaw in that logic: even if tomorrow we opened up every square mile of the outer Continental Shelf to offshore rigs, even if we drilled the entire state of Alaska and pulled new refineries out of thin air, the impact on gas prices would be minimal and delayed at best. A 2004 study by the government's Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that drilling in ANWR would trim the price of gas by 3.5 cents a gallon by 2027. (If oil prices continue to skyrocket, the savings would be greater, but not by much.) Opening up offshore areas to oil exploration — currently all coastal areas save a section of the Gulf of Mexico are off-limits, thanks to a Congressional ban enacted in 1982 and supplemented by an executive order from the first President Bush — might cut the price of gas by 3 to 4 cents a gallon at most, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. And the relief at the pump, such as it is, wouldn't be immediate — it would take several years, at least, for the oil to begin to flow, which is time enough for increased demand from China, India and the rest of the world to outpace those relatively meager savings. "Right now the price of oil is set on the global market," says Kevin Lindemer, executive managing director of the energy markets group for the research firm Global Insight. President Bush's move "would not have an impact."



The reason is simple: the U.S. has an estimated 3% of global petroleum reserves, but consumes 24% of the world's oil. Offshore territories and public lands like ANWR that don't allow drilling may contain up to 75 billion barrels of oil, according to the EIA. That may sound like a lot, but it's not enough to make a significant difference in a world where global oil demand is expected to rise 30% by 2030, to nearly 120 million barrels a day. At best, greatly expanding domestic drilling might eventually lower the proportion of oil the U.S. imports — currently about 60% of its total supply — but petroleum is a global commodity, and the world market would soak up any additional American production. "This is a drop in the bucket," says Gernot Wagner, an economist with the Environmental Defense Fund.

Answer 17

who cares if it takes 10 years we will still need it in 10 years I say we drill more now and also look for alternative fuels the worst that could happen is 10 years from now we don't need oil so we export it which would only help our economy.

Answer 18

It isn't short term. So since it will take a long time should we do nothing? Had Clinton signed the bill handed to him in the mid 1990s we would be realizing results right about now..



Bill in Kansas: Brianwashed??

Answer 19

I heard a clip of Schumer from TEN YEARS AGO, making this same argument. Perhaps if he had taken a different attitude and thought about the US in the long term, we would be reaping the benefits today. All of this short sightedness is going to kill us!

Answer 20

Feel good PR. The politicians excel at lip service. Sort of like buying a car loaded with accessories, then finding out they don't work later.

Answer 21

And I have not heard any other solutions from the other side. The Republicans are not advertising this as a short term solution, that is liberal spin. This is a solution that combined with other solutions can make us energy independent.

Answer 22

Chi..

it shows Americans we are thinking about our Children for the future



Had we acted 10 years ago....we would not be in this problem...



if we do nothing now...then we will be saying....the same thing 10 years from now...



its common sense really

Answer 23

It isn't. Who said it was short term?

Answer 24

Obama is no JFK



Quit be brianwashed by MSNBC and CNN



Why are people like you in such a hurry to make this a Socialist nation?

Answer 25

It's the shortest road for attempted GOP victory.