<p>That said, the reason I am particularly skeptical of this movement to expand offshore drilling is because there is not much that the American people get out of it. The only plausible argument, in my opinion, for expanding it is energy security–lowering gasoline prices is not a plausible argument since it has already been well established that expanding offshore drilling will have little effect; there simply isn’t that much oil to be found. However, there is a rather big problem with this argument. Trying to address our energy security problems this way makes us more vulnerable to weather but less vulnerable to instability in the Middle East. Yes, this sounds good but when you think about it at least we can excercise some control over the Middle East. The fact that McCain had to cancel a trip to an oil rig because of Hurricane Dolly should have alerted Americans that “Hey, offshore drilling can be less predictable than the Middle East.” Basically, I don’t see how replacing something that is unpredictable with something that is even less predictable really increases your security.</p>
<p>As for subsidies and tax breaks, you can be assured that the oil companies will receive those if offshore drilling is expanded. It’s the only way they can increase production while remaining as profitable as they are now.</p>
<p>How do you know there is no oil offshore? Have you done seismic there? The oil campanies can’t even do exportation off shore to find out.</p>
<p>I don’t understand why so many want the US to be beholden to the Middle East for Oil. Oil prices have dropped since Bush announced we are going to take control by letting off shore drilling. </p>
<p>Oil companies will not get subsidies for offshore drilling, and so what if they do?
Farmers, AMD, green companies do now!</p>
<p>There is oil but there isn’t much of it. Anyway, the point I made was that drilling for oil off shore doesn’t exactly solve or at least improve the issue of energy security since weather can comprimise production too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ummm… no one is advocating that. </p>
<p>And, wow, I guess people actually do believe the BS McCain has been saying. You really think that Bush’s removing the executive ban on offshore drilling is what is responsible for lower prices? How did Bush’s lifting the ban accomplish this?</p>
<p>Everyone unfamiliar with this barefaced lie should read this:</p>
<p>If they do, that’s money being spent on an industry that is overly mature when it could be spent to nurture new growing industries like the alternative energy industry.</p>
<p>The cold, hard reality is that we need to spend money on both mature technologies and future technologies. We need immediate and long term plans in place and we need them NOW.</p>
<p>Offshore production is not affect by weather as much as you may think. It wasn’t safe for McCain to fly out to a rig 30 miles offshore right before a hurricaine. The rig was just fine!</p>
<p>Oil prices dropped after it was announced Bush was going to lift the ban. The mindset of the traders changed.</p>
<p>I agree we have to do both. We can’t fly airplanes with windpower! We can’t use solar to make plastic! We can’t use corn to make hoses for our cars!</p>
<p>There are new alternatives that may prove to be better than wind, solar or fossil fuel. More R & D need to be done!</p>
Why do you say that? If in fact there isn’t, then the people concerned about allowing offshore drilling won’t have any worries. However, how do you know?</p>
<p>^It didn’t change that much and the price per barrel changed the very next day after Bush announced his lifting of the offshore ban. Here look at this chart from NYMEX:</p>
<p>What are you talking about? How does a graph showing that the price went down refute my claims that the price went down primarily due to reduced demand?</p>
<p>NewJack88, in the futures market for oil, the amount of expected supply is factored into the price of the futures today (expected demand is also factored into the price), so you are both correct: the lift signaled a future increase in supply, and the demand patterns show a future decrease in supply. </p>
<p>These two forces will bring the price of futures for oil down today.</p>
<p>I agree with Tega. That is why the media is stressing that Americans have a short memory and if we go back to our old ways the price will go up again</p>
<p>But the future supply increase is not expected to be all that significant in comparison to the current size of the oil supply; thus, the price of oil went down primarily because of a decrease in demand.</p>
<p>We don’t know how much we can get from drilling, we need more exploration to determine the total amount. Current estimates suggest that we have quite a bit of oil underneath those places, and it is significant. </p>
<p>The future price of oil might not go down much because the demand from China and India is expected to go up, so an increase in supply with a much bigger expected increase in demand might not have a significant effect on price. These are all projections, the demand from China and India might be lower than expected 5 years from now.</p>