<p>As a lifelong Floridian I have long observed the desire to preserve income derived from visitors to the state. </p>
<p>Pristine waters and beaches outranked the need for energy, so the supposed billions of barrels of oil located in the strata below the Gulf remained off limits for decades.</p>
<p>Times have changed, however, as vehicle fuel now costs about $4 per gallon and people are losing jobs and quitting jobs in part due to the cost of energy.</p>
<p>Inflation, based again in part on the cost of energy, may be at hand which could further destabilize the U.S. economy.</p>
<p>Is it time for Florida to place one of its best assets at risk to help address the cost of energy?</p>
<p>We should drill off the coast of Florida. We should let Florida tax a portion of each barrel of oil extracted to help relieve its depress tax revenue stream from the housing crisis. We should apply a small tax on each barrel of oil taken and divert that money towards investing in alternative energy. Companies investing in alternative energy should receive interest free loans and grants to foster more energy innovation.</p>
<p>We should drill off the coast of the U.S.A., but giving any revenue to the states is madness. After all, THEY didn’t put the oil there. Permitting states to get rich off other people’s labors is flat inappropriate, and simply raises costs. Isn’t energy expensive enough already?</p>
<p>Not that this was the purpose of my post, but I believe Alaska pays its residents a regular sum due to oil revenues. Texas may have something similar.</p>
<p>Alaska actually has a “Permanent Fund” which was set up from the proceeds of oil lease sales. The fund capital is invested, and it is the proceeds from these investments which are divided to pay out the Permanent Fund Dividend. Here is a timeline:</p>
<p>and the above link goes into more detail about the monies that were used to initiate the fund.</p>
<p>Right now Governor Palin and the legislature are working on ways to make funds available to Alaskans to offset the cost of fuel for heating and the huge cost of fuel in the bush. </p>
<p>Many Alaskans want drilling in ANWR. We, like the Floridians above, see it as necessary to the economies of both Alaska and the United States.</p>
<p>I would wait until 1) sold my beach property; 2) Hope for global freeze so that you won’t be drilling in water but on land; 3) Hold out until oil is definitely on the downslope, making what comes out more valuable and less controversial. Of course if you are broke, like everyone else, then by all reasons, raid the bank. Alaska and Texas and Calif and all the other oiled states have done a fine job of investing the wealth, why not Florida? Can I be your unbiased advisor, I am from Oregon. </p>
<p>Anyone think that the price of “liquid gold” will decrease within our future life? The Almighty, made so much oil and gold. He/She made only so much land but you double up on the rooms or buildup or down. But oil, use it or someone else will.</p>
<p>Um, I wonder if people realize how the rules concerning energy development have changed. Here in CT we have seen “the future of energy” and it’s not “what was.” Electricity and natural gas pass through CT to NY, where residents there pay LESS than CT residents do. The gas pipeline was installed over CT objections, and in violation of CT law. None of that mattered, since energy regulation is now a federal perogative. Recently, a foreign corporation proposed a floating natural gas island sited in a recreational area that CT has spent billions to develop. One provision was that this recreational area would be off limits to CT residents so that the island would be “secure.” CT has no authority to prohibit this.</p>
<p>So yes, by all means lobby the federal govenment to drill offshore. But don’t do it with the assurance that Florida will reap the same benefits that oil production has provided Alaska and Texas. Your destiny might be that of LA, AL and MS, none of which benefit significantly from Gulf oil and gas production. BTW, is there any reason to believe that offshore production won’t be sold to the highest bidders? By now you might be wondering “well what’s in it for us?” Yes, exactly.</p>
<p>Here in Alaska the economic impact of drilling is not seen as the decline in gas prices but the addition of jobs on “the slope.” Also, the PFD is not based on oil pumped, but the lease monies that were earned and then put away so that the capital was preserved. The PFD is tied to the stock market, not our oil production.</p>
<p>So, in short, the benefit of oil production is, especially for Alaska, jobs. I would tend to think that the jobs would benefit any state, in spite of energy regulation.</p>
I keep hearing idiots, (usually Democrats) saying that drilling will have no effect on the price of oil today. That is absolute nonsense. Todays price of oil includes the market’s expectations for future supply and demand. For example, if the market learned that all of the oil in the world would evaporate on January 1st five years from now, the price today would go to $500 per barrel or some other high figure. Today’s market sees that supplies are not increasing at the rate demand is increasing because supply is limited. If we begin drilling for oil today, the market would know that more oil would come on board four or five years from now. The effect of knowing that there is more oil in the supply chain will not only limit the price of oil five years from now when it is comes into the supply chain, but it will reduce the price of oil today by eliminating the risk premium resulting from the expectation that we are running out of oil. </p>
<p>If people want the price of oil to stop rising and start falling immedately, we need to drill here, drill now so we can pay less.</p>
<p>momof1 - In 1994 a jury awarded Alaska fishermen and others $5 Billion as compensation for lost income from the Exxon Valdez debacle. That $5 Billion represents approximately six weeks of PROFITS for Exxon-Mobil, so clearly the company can afford to pay the court judgement.</p>
<p>Part of the reason it is so hard to drill off shore is that you have to put up with endless frivolous law suits by environmental special interest groups. Sad.</p>