2008 General Election Discussion Thread

[Balta1701]

Then we are still cutting those losses some because of the drilling. We're still increasing supply.

 

People have been shouting "OMG! NO OIL IN A DECADE!" since the early 1900's. The EIA predicts a peak in about 30 years, not 4.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/36645.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petrole...upply/index.htm

And that same EIA says that the likely impact of doing a hell of a lot of drilling off the coasts of the U.S. would be "Insignificant" in several ways through 2030 in a 2007 report.

The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.

 

Similarly, lower 48 natural gas production is not projected to increase substantially by 2030 as a result of increased access to the OCS. Cumulatively, lower 48 natural gas production from 2012 through 2030 is projected to be 1.8 percent higher in the OCS access case than in the reference case. Production levels in the OCS access case are projected at 19.0 trillion cubic feet in 2030, a 3-percent increase over the reference case projection of 18.4 trillion cubic feet. However, natural gas production from the lower 48 offshore in 2030 is projected to be 18 percent (590 billion cubic feet) higher in the OCS access case (Figure 21). In 2030, the OCS access case projects a decrease of $0.13 in the average wellhead price of natural gas (2005 dollars per thousand cubic feet), a decrease of 250 billion cubic feet in imports of liquefied natural gas, and an increase of 360 billion cubic feet in natural gas consumption relative to the reference case projections. In addition, despite the increase in production from previously restricted areas after 2012, total natural gas production from the lower 48 OCS is projected generally to decline after 2020.

 

Although a significant volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources is added in the OCS access case, conversion of those resources to production would require both time and money. In addition, the average field size in the Pacific and Atlantic regions tends to be smaller than the average in the Gulf of Mexico, implying that a significant portion of the additional resource would not be economically attractive to develop at the reference case prices.

[StrangeSox]

And that same EIA says that the likely impact of doing a hell of a lot of drilling off the coasts of the U.S. would be "Insignificant" in several ways through 2030 in a 2007 report.

 

I'm not saying it would have a significant impact on price, and certainly not in the immediate future.

 

I really don't understand why you bring up 2012 as the year of peak oil production, though.

[southsider2k5]

Then we are still cutting those losses some because of the drilling. We're still increasing supply.

 

People have been shouting "OMG! NO OIL IN A DECADE!" since the early 1900's. The EIA predicts a peak in about 30 years, not 4.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/36645.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petrole...upply/index.htm

 

when I was in early elementary school my science textbook said that we would be out of oil by the year 2000.

[Balta1701]

when I was in early elementary school my science textbook said that we would be out of oil by the year 2000.

Clearly, this means that no scientist should ever be trusted when making an estimate of oil production curves.

[southsider2k5]

Clearly, this means that no scientist should ever be trusted when making an estimate of oil production curves.

 

Or closer, it means that this is an inexact science, and all of these numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. They just don't know with a real degree of certianty what the reality is when it comes to the supply of energy miles under the earth.

[Balta1701]

Or closer, it means that this is an inexact science, and all of these numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. They just don't know with a real degree of certianty what the reality is when it comes to the supply of energy miles under the earth.

However...the fact is, there are more than a few estimates out there, each with its own basis. I'm sure you've all seen the "Hurricane track prediction maps" where different models produce different results about where exactly a hurricane is going to hit, there's always one or two outliers that have Katrina hitting South Carolina or something like that...right now, we have more than enough data and estimates to play the same game with oil peak estimates. Here's what the December one looked like. The EIA curve is the blue one that shoots off the chart away from everything else.

 

 

One particular problem with the EIA/IEA numbers is that they assume that the numbers countries give for their reserves, like what Saudi Arabia says their reserves consist of, are honest. I can give easy data that would suggest that is wrong...

 

 

Despite the fact that over the last few years oil prices have gone up by a factor of 5 or 6, world oil production has been at essentially a bumpy plateau for years. If you believe the EIA numbers, that plateau should have ended years ago as the price spiked.

[Heads22]

So, honest question...

 

Why would we allow Cuba to drill where we won't allow Americans to? I'm not saying we should, but why can they?

[Heads22]

when I was in early elementary school my science textbook said that we would be out of oil by the year 2000.

 

Not to mention your social studies book viewed the Civil Rights movement as "trouble down the road".

 

[Balta1701]

So, honest question...

 

Why would we allow Cuba to drill where we won't allow Americans to? I'm not saying we should, but why can they?

Well, the short answer is that they actually can't...but the reason it keeps coming up is that for most sea-bordering nations, the nation is granted by the law of the sea (A treaty the Republicans really don't like and for some reason won't ratify) an "Exclusive economic zone" which allows that country access to all the resources and mineral wealth contained within that boundary, which is 200 miles thick. Cuba however sits 90 miles from the Coast of Florida, so their economic zone would hypothetically impinge upon ours, and if you use your imagination and think what would a boundary 200 miles thick around Florida and cuba look like, the Cuban one would be wider and would sort of extend around the bottom and the sides of Florida's because Florida is much narrower.

 

After a little bit of research, it seems that because the boundaries would sit on top of each other, the result is that they basically split the difference and draw the boundary half way between Cuba and the U.S. The U.S. has imposed a moratorium (Not a ban btw) on drilling within certain specific coastal waters, starting I believe in the late 70's after a bad oil spill off the Channel Islands in the Santa Barbara area that contaminated a lot of preserved coastline. California, Florida, and a couple other spots have enacted state bans and a national moratorium was also established covering some of those zones.

 

The idea then is that Cuba allows drilling in these regions, doesn't have the technology to do so, brings in the Chinese, and they slant-drill down to get at resources that ought to belong to the U.S. It's simply untrue, but that's the story.

[Heads22]

Well, the short answer is that they actually can't...but the reason it keeps coming up is that for most sea-bordering nations, the nation is granted by the law of the sea (A treaty the Republicans really don't like and for some reason won't ratify) an "Exclusive economic zone" which allows that country access to all the resources and mineral wealth contained within that boundary, which is 200 miles thick. Cuba however sits 90 miles from the Coast of Florida, so their economic zone would hypothetically impinge upon ours, and if you use your imagination and think what would a boundary 200 miles thick around Florida and cuba look like, the Cuban one would be wider and would sort of extend around the bottom and the sides of Florida's because Florida is much narrower.

 

After a little bit of research, it seems that because the boundaries would sit on top of each other, the result is that they basically split the difference and draw the boundary half way between Cuba and the U.S. The U.S. has imposed a moratorium (Not a ban btw) on drilling within certain specific coastal waters, starting I believe in the late 70's after a bad oil spill off the Channel Islands in the Santa Barbara area that contaminated a lot of preserved coastline. California, Florida, and a couple other spots have enacted state bans and a national moratorium was also established covering some of those zones.

 

The idea then is that Cuba allows drilling in these regions, doesn't have the technology to do so, brings in the Chinese, and they slant-drill down to get at resources that ought to belong to the U.S. It's simply untrue, but that's the story.

 

Gracias.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Let the War Begin:

McCain Officially Accepts Public Financing

Obama Rejects Public Financing

 

Obama ($100+ million) vs McCain ($84 million) + "Hit-Job" 527s

[Balta1701]

Let the War Begin:

McCain Officially Accepts Public Financing

Obama Rejects Public Financing

 

Obama ($100+ million) vs McCain ($84 million) + "Hit-Job" 527s

So, for honesty's sake I have to fire in on this one. The thing McCain has going more strongly for him is probably 527's, but they also have a solid advantage in the RNC which is able to raise more money from big donors also.

 

But...let's face it, whether Obama says so or not, there are still Democratic 527's hitting McCain. I'll give you an example, Moveon.org's 527 PAC is running an anti-McCain ad campaign right now along with AFSCME hitting him on the endless occupation rhetoric.

[mr_genius]

I'll give you an example, Moveon.org's 527 PAC is running an anti-McCain ad campaign right now along with AFSCME hitting him on the endless occupation rhetoric.

 

is that a real ad? it's kind of hilarious. so now McCain is snatching up newborn babies in the middle of the night to send them into Iraq. good call moveon.org

 

almost as good as their 'General Betrayus' add

[HuskyCaucasian]

But...let's face it, whether Obama says so or not, there are still Democratic 527's hitting McCain. I'll give you an example, Moveon.org's 527 PAC is running an anti-McCain ad campaign right now along with AFSCME hitting him on the endless occupation rhetoric.

And Obama should have them shut down IMO.

[HuskyCaucasian]

is that a real ad? it's kind of hilarious. so now McCain is snatching up newborn babies in the middle of the night to send them into Iraq. good call moveon.org

 

almost as good as their 'General Betrayus' add

Yea, that ads pretty lame. They have tons of money and that is the best they can do?

[HuskyCaucasian]

I wanted to throw this idea past yo guys to see what you think:

Recently we have heard that the wives of the 2 candidates should be "off limits" from attacks. Well, why not take it a step farther... get them OFF the campaign trail all together. Why not just say "hey, it's you and me John. Just us. no wives".

[Cknolls]

So what happens if we drill everything in sight and in 2012 the amount of oil the world is able to pump out of the ground starts declining precipitously because we've crossed over the global production peak and there's no where left to go but down?

 

 

Peak oil is a fantasy. How much oil is there in the Arctic? How about the Shale deposits? Atlantic and Pacific? We don't know because we haven't surveyed there for how many years?

[Cknolls]

Let the War Begin:

McCain Officially Accepts Public Financing

Obama Rejects Public Financing

 

Obama ($100+ million) vs McCain ($84 million) + "Hit-Job" 527s

 

 

Oh I forgot 527's are Republican only.

[Cknolls]

So, for honesty's sake I have to fire in on this one. The thing McCain has going more strongly for him is probably 527's, but they also have a solid advantage in the RNC which is able to raise more money from big donors also.

 

But...let's face it, whether Obama says so or not, there are still Democratic 527's hitting McCain. I'll give you an example, Moveon.org's 527 PAC is running an anti-McCain ad campaign right now along with AFSCME hitting him on the endless occupation rhetoric.

 

 

How about the $500 million dollars the unions will spend trying to b*** Obama? That doesn't count right? In addition to the estimated $500 million the Tribune says he could raise by Nov.

[BigSqwert]

Race is tight in Georgia right now.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Oh I forgot 527's are Republican only.

Chew on This..

MoveOn To Close Its 527 In Response To Obama's Candidacy

 

MoveOn, the advocacy group supporting Barack Obama, has decided to permanently shutter its 527 operation, partly in response to the Illinois Senator's insistence that such groups should not spend on his behalf during the general election, I've learned from the group's spokesperson.

 

MoveOn's decision, which will dramatically impact the way it raises money on Obama's behalf, is yet another sign of how rapidly Obama is taking control of the apparatus that's gearing up on his behalf.

 

By shuttering its 527, MoveOn is effectively killing its ability to raise money in huge chunks from labor unions, foundations, and big donors who would give over $5,000. The decision doesn't mean MoveOn will stop spending on Obama's behalf. Instead it will raise money exclusively with its political action committee, whose average donation is below $50 and will even be raising money with things like bake sales starting this weekend.

Edited June 20, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[southsider2k5]

Chew on This..

MoveOn To Close Its 527 In Response To Obama's Candidacy

 

But not after getting its baby killer ad out there... And if you really think this means it is going away, you are sadly mistaken. They will find another form. They always do.

[HuskyCaucasian]

But not after getting its baby killer ad out there... And if you really think this means it is going away, you are sadly mistaken. They will find another form. They always do.

They've basically been reduced to a small money fund raiser at best.

[southsider2k5]

They've basically been reduced to a small money fund raiser at best.

 

History dictates that the attack organizations regroup and reform in another way. They always do. Especially with a guy like George Soros behind the scenes, they probably don't even need the money anyway.

[BigSqwert]

History dictates that the attack organizations regroup and reform in another way. They always do. Especially with a guy like George Soros behind the scenes, they probably don't even need the money anyway.

You are correct. Getting rid of the 527 aspect is smoke and mirrors.