<p>I heard an interesting analysis from a commodities speculator who called into the Rush Limbaugh program (hold applause or jeers, please - this is serious).</p>
<p>She said that ANY (significant) effort to increase the supply of oil would be viewed by bidders as a signal, however slight, that the price of the commodity would decrease in the future. She said the speculators would race (not walk) for the lower priced futures contracts to avoid losing money. As a result, the push downward on prices would lower the actual cost of the product to more reasonable market values.</p>
<p>I believe, based on her comments, all that would be necessary to create the rush to the door is for Bush to rescind the Executive Order banning drilling in ANWAR or something like approval to drill off Florida. No actual drilling would be needed.</p>
<p>The Chinese saying they will raise fuel prices by 18% may also work.</p>
<p>"Boudreaux said that in addition to the $1 billion paid in settlements to the state and federal governments, the company has spent $2.2 billion on cleanup and paid $300 million to Alaskans who could show that their livelihoods were damaged.</p>
<p>The company is contesting a $5 billion verdict for punitive damages that has twice been ruled unconstitutional by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.</p>
<p>Although plaintiffs in that case have cited Exxon’s profit last year of $36 billion – a record – Boudreaux said the company is publicly owned and owes stockholders a duty not to pay an unconstitutional claim.</p>
<p>“Profits are irrelevant to this case,” he said. “The case has to do with whether or not we should be punished any more than the $3.5 billion we’ve already paid for the spill that happened 17 years ago.” "</p>
<p>Punitive damages are just that - punitive. As is stated in the article, this is a publicly held company and the punitive damages would be paid by shareholders. Pension funds, etc. It is moving through the courts and I am sure the company will exhaust the legal means necessary to protects its assets. It is working within the legal system.</p>
<p>So, no, Alaska has not seen money from that particular settlement, but has received money from Exxon as stated above. </p>
<p>Ya Betcha. The State should also sell Its oil to whom ever pays it the most. Doesn’t the State owe its People to get the best deal possible? In fact they should be playing the option/future markets now and lock in the pricing. Never turn down a good thing.</p>
<p>Who has the rights to the offshore drilling in the gulf? There are already offshore drilling platforms owned by Shell, Chevron, etc in the gulf. True, thay cant be sen from the coast, but as for me, I wouldnt mind having a few dot the horizon if it makes us less dependent on external sources of oil. Drill away. I still support alternative energy and renewables, but its time to stop the unnecessary litigation and let us take care of ourselves to include both preserving natural resources and our economy. Surely there is some way to work this all out in a cooperative fashion.</p>
<p>^^ Thats a vague statement. Are you trying to say that the water temperatures would change and this could affect weather patterns? How can oil rigs contribute to “an even greater Katrina?”. Can you back up such statements with fact?</p>
<p>Since foreign oil companies are already drilling less than 100 miles from Florida’s shore with the permission of Cuba this discussion seems like a moot point.</p>
<p>Private (actually, corporate socialist) control of oil resources has been a disaster here (with 65 million acres already leased, and not a single new refinery in 35 years), while a boon to every state-owned or operated company in the Middle East and Latin America.</p>
<p>Last year there was a “small” oil spill in the SF Bay. This year, all the salmon have mysteriously disappeared.</p>
<p>Off shore drilling doesn’t involve rigs 100 miles from shore. There is massive destruction to the surrounding environment from equipment, ecological niches are destroyed, the environment and ecology suffer further.</p>
<p>Global weather changes are involved with the ecological and environmental changes. Katrina was so severe because of ecological changes in the surrounding waters - not just because the levees were inadequate.</p>
<p>Drilling in Alaska will also do enormous environmental damage, that will have other consequences.</p>
<p>Cut down on your energy consumption, don’t destroy the environment.</p>
<p>Florida already has sewage problems on the beaches because the pipes that empty into the Atlantic don’t extend far enough. Sewage is washed onto the beaches in Miami.</p>
<p>It is not only about drilling…we need refineries…NJ has Garden State as their slogan, but when you drive the NJTPKE @ exit 13 you need to hold your breath due to refineries, (most people don’t realize that NJTPKE exists to make a U-Turn between PA and NJ).</p>
<p>I lived in AK, I find it interesting that every state of the Union gets to determine what is best for AK! If you live in AK, you would understand that the citizens care more about the earth and their wildlife, than anyone in the lower states! Their fishing and hunting laws are intense (G*d forbid you catch 2 Salmons in 23:59 minuts, b/c you will be facing a huge fine) Schools are built so that every child can walk! The most ironic part is their gas prices are higher than most states (again no refinery…they drill, but then it is shipped back). You cannot go into Denali unless you take 1 of their buses, so the emission level will not hurt the animals!</p>
<p>What makes some voter from South Caroline say they know what is best for Alaska? Alaska now makes more money from their permanent fund from tourism than Oil, which was the foundation of the fund. How would South Carolina feel if Alaska started to say that homes built on the ocean front is creating problems? Would S.C. who gets tons of Real Estate taxes from Ocean front properties want Alaskan residents to state that they our endangering the eco-sphere?</p>
<p>Ask a Florida resident we must drill in either Alaska or Florida to protect the US economy… which one would they chose(I am guessing AK)…now ask the Alaskan resident the same ?..my guess is AK! Here’s the difference…I never met anyone in Alaska who was not in awe, I lived there 3 yrs, and never in my life will I ever see such beautiful landscapes. People who live there elect to live there, they love everything about it! If they want it, why or we fighting them? All anyone is stating is I know better even if I don’t live there!</p>
<p>BTW watch the Discovery channel ICE ROAD TRUCKERS! They show how if there is a spill that it is the priority compared to getting the load to site!</p>