Clearing up Florida oil-rig rhetoric: What does drilling mean f...

Mac-7 wrote:

<quoted text>
Agreed.
The sooner we get started on more drilling for oil in this country the sooner we will have that oil, whether it is 5 years or 10 years from now.

Chris wrote:

<quoted text>We? Exactly who will have this oil 5, 10, 15 or 20 years from now? Are we going to nationalise it? Or, as is legally required under current US law, are the corporations going to sell to the highest bidder?

Schwindt wrote:

Offshore oil drilling is an illogical, even a disastrous, solution to the problem of oil prices for three key reasons. First, there is always the concern over environmental damage caused by oil rigs or by the tankers carrying the oil across the Gulf of Mexico. A Harvard Medical School study in 2002 found that,“oil rigs contaminate sediments, fish and fish consumers with mercury at levels far exceeding EPA standards.” The report went further in saying that,“Operational discharges of water, drill cuttings and mud have chronic effects on benthic (bottom-dwelling) marine communities, mammals, birds and humans.” This means that there are severe environmental impacts to offshore drilling, providing a reason for keeping the moratorium.
Second, it will have no long term benefits to jobs or business. In a report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives it was found that,“Offshore oil and gas projects are notoriously expensive and, though they are initially pitched as purely private enterprises, they often require extensive government subsidies to succeed.” This will mean the government will have to invest large amounts of money to build up the infrastructure which means the benefits are decreased because of the projects inherent expensiveness. In addition, the report found that,“…offshore oil and gas projects create few jobs, and even fewer local jobs.” This is because of the length of time it takes to develop the necessary provisions for the project and because of the tremendous cost to the companies.
Third, it will have no effect on oil prices. Republicans in Congress make out the solution to be a miracle cure for the oil crisis, saying it will lower prices. The problem is not necessarily the amount of oil, but the time. According to the Orlando Sentinel it would take 5-10 years simply to get the gas to you. By then oil prices would have gone down and the US would no longer be in a recession. The length of time renders the project useless because it has no long term worth. We should focus instead on alternative energy which would be cheaper than gasoline (at the moment it is) and it would end our dependence on oil, providing more opportunities for economic development.

Chris wrote:

<quoted text>We? Exactly who will have this oil 5, 10, 15 or 20 years from now? Are we going to nationalise it? Or, as is legally required under current US law, are the corporations going to sell to the highest bidder?

Mac-7 wrote:

<quoted text>
I keep reading references by liberal critics of the oil companies to selling to the highest bidder.
I don't know why this troubles some people so much.
The oil companies will sell the oil at the market price, but I don't forsee them exporting it to China while American motorists have to wait in line for their gasoline rations.
Is that really what some people are afraid will happen?

Chris wrote:

<quoted text>Of course that is what will happen..

Mac-7 wrote:

<quoted text>
We are currently importing 60 percent of the oil we use.
So why would we export oil that we'll just have to turn around and import again?
This is an unfounded fear.

Chris wrote:

<quoted text>There are plenty of other people out there that would like that oil. Espically if the supply does not grow or actually shrinks like many people think will happen.