Reply
Wed 2 Jul, 2008 08:42 am
Looks like Big Oil is winning it's goal to increase drilling in protected areas. How long will it be before people recognize what Big Oil is doing?
---BBB
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
Gas Prices Pump Up Support for Drilling
Support for Conservation and Environmental Protection Declines, More Favor Drilling in ANWR
July 1, 2008
Amid record gas prices, public support for greater energy exploration is spiking. Compared with just a few months ago, many more Americans are giving higher priority to more energy exploration, rather than more conservation. An increasing proportion also says that developing new sources of energy -- rather than protecting the environment -- is the more important national priority.
The latest nationwide survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted June 18-29 among 2,004 adults, also finds that half of Americans now support drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, up from 42% in February.
The public's changing energy priorities are most evident in the growing percentage that views increased energy exploration -- including mining and drilling, as well as the construction of new power plants -- as a more important priority for energy policy than increased conservation and regulation. Nearly half (47%) now rates energy exploration as the more important priority, up from 35% in February. The proportion saying it is more important to increase energy conservation and regulation has declined by 10 points (from 55% to 45%).
In surveys dating to 2001, majorities or pluralities had consistently said that greater energy conservation and regulation on energy use and prices was more important than increased energy exploration.
Partisan Gap over Energy Exploration Disappears
Much of the increase in support for energy exploration has come among groups that previously viewed this as a less important priority than energy conservation -- young people, liberals, independents, Democrats, women and people who have attended college.
Fully half of people ages 18 to 29 (51%) now say expanding energy exploration is a more important priority for energy policy than increasing energy conservation and regulation; only about a quarter of young people (26%) expressed this view in February. The proportion of liberals who say expanded energy exploration is the more important priority also has doubled (from 22% to 45%).
The gender gap in attitudes about whether greater exploration or greater conservation is the more important priority has disappeared, as women have become much more supportive of expanded exploration (up 18 points).
Similarly, more independents (19 points) and Democrats (16 points) view increased energy exploration as the more important priority. About the same proportions of Democrats (46%) and Republicans (43%) now say expanded exploration, rather than increased conservation, should take precedence; in February, far more Republicans than Democrats expressed this view.
ANWR Drilling Still Politically Divisive
In contrast with overall opinions about energy exploration, views about drilling for oil and gas in ANWR remain politically divided. As was the case in February, about twice as many Republicans as Democrats favor drilling in ANWR (75% vs. 36%). Support for oil and gas drilling in the Alaska wildlife refuge has increased sharply among Republicans (12 points), but only modestly among Democrats (five points).
Support for ANWR energy drilling has increased across age groups, but Americans ages 65 and older continue to support this at much higher levels than do those younger than 30 (62% vs. 37%). More women favor ANWR drilling than in February, but women continue to be less supportive of drilling for oil and gas in the Alaska wildlife refuge than men (45% vs. 56%).
Iraq War Views Stable
Public opinion about the war in Iraq has changed little over the past few months. A narrow majority (52%) says that the U.S. military effort is not going well; 44% say things in Iraq are going very or fairly well. That is identical to the balance of opinion in April; in February, a slightly greater percentage (48%) said things were going well in Iraq.
The public also remains divided about whether to bring home U.S. troops as soon as possible (52%), or keep them there until the country is stabilized (43%). As in previous surveys, most of those who support a troop withdrawal from Iraq say it should gradual rather than immediate (35% gradual vs. 16% immediate).
By 50% to 42%, more Americans believe that the United States will succeed, rather than fail, in achieving its goals in Iraq. In April, opinion about whether the United States will succeed was a bit more closely divided (47% definitely/probably succeed vs. 46% definitely/probably fail).
As has been the case since October 2007, a majority of Americans (55%) believe the United States made the wrong decision in using military force in Iraq. Just 39% say the war was the right decision.
Find a description of the survey methodology and the topline questionnaire at people-press.org
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Just as BBB's mindless assertion.
Brand X wrote:Just as BBB's mindless assertion.
You mean the assertion that "big oil" is lobbying for drilling in protected areas?
BBB
I did a little research and discovered that American Solutions's General Chairman is Republican Newt Gingrich. American Solutions is Gingrich's organization.
BBB
I'm sure oil companies are looking for LESS land to drill in all the time....protected or not.
Brand X wrote:I'm sure oil companies are looking for LESS land to drill in all the time....protected or not.
Well, sarcasm aside, that basically means that you concur with BBB.
So, what exactly was "mindless" about her assertion?
Because she framed it like there is malice involved...like Big Oil can't wait to disturb some protected environment just for that purpose.
America's untapped oil
America's untapped oil
Lawmakers lay into big oil for leaving million of acres untouched while at the same time asking to drill in Alaska and off the coasts.
By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: June 29, 2008: 12:07 PM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Oil companies and many lawmakers are pressing to open up more U.S. areas for drilling. But the industry is drilling on just a fraction of areas it already has access to.
Of the 90 million offshore acres the industry has leases to, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico, it is estimated that upwards of 70 million are not producing oil, according to both Democrats and oil-industry sources.
One Democrat staffer said if all these existing areas were being drilled, U.S. oil production could be boosted by nearly 5 million barrels a day, although the oil industry said that number is far too high and one government agency said it was impossible to estimate production.
Recent proposals to open up offshore coastal areas near Florida and California, as well as Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, might yield 2 million additional barrels, according to estimates from various government sources that also stressed the difficulty in making forecasts. The United States currently produces 8 million barrels of oil and other petroleum liquids a day and consumes about 21 million.
Oil companies "should finish what's on their plate before they go back in line," said Oppenheimer analyst Fadel Gheit.
Some Democrats also charge that oil companies are deliberately not drilling on the land to limit supply and drive up oil prices.
"Big Oil is more interested in pumping up prices and pumping up their own profits rather than pumping more oil," said Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass), who has co-sponsored a bill to charge oil companies a fee for land they hold that's not producing oil. "We should not even begin discussing handing over more public land to the oil companies until they first use [the land] they already hold."
But the oil industry says it pays millions of dollars for these leases, and that it would not make sense to purposely leave the areas untapped.
Rather, years of exploration is required before drilling can even begin. In some cases, no oil is found on leases they hold. In others, drilling the wells and building the pipelines takes years. It is especially hard now that a worldwide boom in oil exploration has pushed up the prices - and timelines - for skilled workers and specialized equipment.
"No one is sitting on leases these days," said Rayola Dougher, senior economic advisor for the American Petroleum Institute. "Those making those assertions don't understand the bidding and leasing process."
Gheit agrees that it's unlikely that hoarding is going on.
With prices at $135 dollars a barrel, everyone is trying to pump as much as they can, he said. But fearing oil prices will eventually fall, the industry is leery about making too many investments in the fields it has - many of which are in deepwater areas that can be pricey to develop.
Instead, they're holding out, hoping the government will open areas closer to shore that would be cheaper to work on.
The presumptive Republican candidate John McCain has come out in favor of lifting bans on oil-drilling off most of the East and West coasts of the United States. Added supply, the thinking goes, would ultimately bring down the price of oil. The bans were enacted in the 1970s following several coastal oil spills.
Critics say lifting the bans would do little to ease the nation's energy crisis in part because it would take years to produce meaningful amounts of oil, noting how much is currently going untapped.
Gheit hasn't seen the legislation proposed by Markey and others, but he thinks the government should revise the leasing process to encourage more drilling on existing areas before it puts more acres up for bid.
So let China drill in the Gulf?
We need to drill for more oil NOW while we ALSO create alternatives.
What would the Oil Futures price be IF we began drilling and finding oil TODAY?
BBB, somehow I am going to guess you have a car? If you don't like gasoline and oil, sell it, please. And if you use natural gas in your home, get rid of the service, please. And if you use electricity from a power plant that uses oil or coal or natural gas, quit using it. Charge your computer on a solar panel or something. And if you aren't willing to walk the walk, then quit your whinin about Big Oil.
Furthermore, quit buying produce like bananas and stuff that is trucked in a few hundred miles. I can't even imagine all the stuff you would need to quit buyin, and you better start plantin a garden quick if you don't want to starve.
I am going to guess if it wasn't for Big Oil, you wouldn't be able to even power up your computer, so you need to offer one big apology to Big Oil. Without them, your life would be nothin. You would have nothin, no food, no clothes, no power, no vehicles, no modern house, nothin. Not even a horse could survive without hay that was probably baled with a gasoline powered tractor pulling a baler.
Big Oil will always win, because there are always going to be enough simpletons like Okie who will swallow whatever bullshit these companies shovel out, and won't believe anything that goes against what the scumbag big oil lobbyists and the scumbag bought-and-paid-for politicians in their pockets want you to believe.
It's amazing to me, that every oil fanatic seems to think that people didn't get on before the stuff was injected into our everyday lives. I mean, apparently people didn't have food, houses, clothes, bananas, or horses before oil came around. I wonder how we all got here, actually, considering all the things that Oil invented.
Cycloptichorn
For one thing, there were a lot less of us. For another, before oil was "invented", we had much lower expectations.
Cycloptichorn wrote:It's amazing to me, that every oil fanatic seems to think that people didn't get on before the stuff was injected into our everyday lives. I mean, apparently people didn't have food, houses, clothes, bananas, or horses before oil came around. I wonder how we all got here, actually, considering all the things that Oil invented.
Cycloptichorn
Not an oil fanatic, just a realist. Without it, where would you be, cyclops?
kickycan wrote:Big Oil will always win
Why oh why can't little oil win one just once?
I don't understand why they can't first develop the fields they already have access to, first, before spreading out further.
edgarblythe wrote:I don't understand why they can't first develop the fields they already have access to, first, before spreading out further.
Maybe because that wouldn't create/win any arguments with EPA crowd? It's the only explanation I can think of. People are feeling the pain at the pumps and any kind of quick fix (which it won't be)sounds good and would trump any kind of environmentalist arguments thereby putting their cause back a couple of years.(Just wild guessing; I doubt surely that is really the answer.) From what I understand it will take years to feel any impact and it won't last all that long in any event. This is why it makes sense to invest in alternative oil sources outside of the environmentalist aspect of it all.
I am not personally involved in the environmentalist/oil drilling aspect of it all. But it does irk me when I see big oil making record profits while we have pay more and more at the pumps. I don't see why drilling for more oil will make any differences in our prices at the pumps when the oil companies are already making record profits. I mean what are they loosing at this point which causing the price of gas to rise higher and higher while they keep making more and more profits. Something just simply doesn't add up.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace