<p>Some numbers to work with: Drilling off the coast of FLA would bring the price of gas down from $4.00 to $3.92 a gallon.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Beat</a> the Press Archive | The American Prospect](<a href=“http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=06&year=2008&base_name=oil_vs_the_environment_what_is]Beat”>http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=06&year=2008&base_name=oil_vs_the_environment_what_is)</p>
<p>Many of the follow-ups to that “analysis” dispute those estimates as low in several areas–more oil may be produced by three to four fold and the change in price might be far greater at the margin. We have had a 35% price increase based mostly on speculation. The threat of a supply boost alone will reduce the prices more than 5%.</p>
<p>Drillers 76% Non-drillers 20% , if price for oil continues to climb, it’s a self fullfilling prophecy!</p>
<p>barrons:</p>
<p>Could you provide links to analyses that refute the one I excerpted? Thanks!</p>
<p>Even if the 1 million barrels per day were accurate and given that similar production from ANWR is expected, this would allow us to be totally free from our oil dependancy on Saudi Arabia and also be able to set the terms with Hugo.
[Crude</a> Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries](<a href=“http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html]Crude”>http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html)</p>
<p>If you keep adding those millions of barrels per day, pretty soon they amount to something.</p>
<p>An article that seeks to present both sides of the issue:</p>
<p>[On</a> U.S. coasts, a rethink on oil drilling? | csmonitor.com](<a href=“http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0620/p02s02-usgn.html]On”>On U.S. coasts, a rethink on oil drilling? - CSMonitor.com)</p>
<p>One factor that does not seem to be taken into account: the effect of annual typhoons and storms on oil drilling off Florida. How would that affect safety and cost?</p>
<p>Just go to the comments section of your own link.</p>
<p>Also on another angle–the threat of more oil will drive these guys back under the rugs.</p>
<p>[Nation</a> & World | Speculators are behind rising oil costs, some say | Seattle Times Newspaper](<a href=“http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008013898_oiltrade24.html]Nation”>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008013898_oiltrade24.html)</p>
<p>Very few offshore losses happened with Katrina.</p>
<p>“One factor that does not seem to be taken into account: the effect of annual typhoons and storms on oil drilling off Florida. How would that affect safety and cost?”</p>
<p>We currently have production in the Gulf of Mexico which I think that anyone would agree can be the most hostile of environments. Drilling off the coast of Florida could make for a good place to do research and development on techniques to maximize safety which would then be useful for offshore drilling around the world.</p>
<p>Meanwhile-BO has his own friends in the energy game.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin</a></p>
<p>^Yes, I’m not happy about this. It’s contributing to the food crisis.</p>
<p>Barrons’ reality:
Real world reality: [MMS</a> Press Release - 2006](<a href=“http://www.mms.gov/ooc/press/2006/press0501.htm#Table%201]MMS”>http://www.mms.gov/ooc/press/2006/press0501.htm#Table%201)
</p>
<p>The issue with off shore drilling is the potential impact on beaches and wildlife. From your source:
</p>
<p>So, in reality your data on platforms destroyed is actually evidence that can be used to allay the fears of those concerned about damage to tourism and wildlife. If a cat 5 hurricane can rip through and destroy over 100 platforms and yet no damage to beaches or wildlife occurred, that’s a pretty impressive result. The damage to the platforms is a cost of doing business and is rightly incurred by the oil companies.</p>
<p>Ethanol production from sugarcane is far less expensive than ethanol produced from corn. Also, sugarcane is not a major staple for food, so using it for ethanol will not drive up the price of food for a lot of people around the world. </p>
<p>Brazil has this market covered already, and I think we should remove the taxes on ethanol imported from Brazil. They have had this comparative advantage since the 70’s when they decided to wean themselves from foreign oil. I think about 50% of the cars in Brazil can run on ethanol, we should follow their lead if we want to be energy independent. </p>
<p>Ethanol produced from corn is not economically efficient, we should cut our losses and move on to other efficient ways to produce ethanol.</p>
<p>By losses I meant oil lost into the water which was minimal and what people are worried about and was the topic at the time. Nobody is much worried about damages to platforms. That’s the oil company and their insurer’s risk.</p>
<p>What they use to produce ethanol from sugarcane has zero effect on food sources/prices cause they use the bagasse, which is the waste product of sugarcane production. So you actually maximize the output of a sugarcane enterprise by using both the sugar (for sugar) and the waste (for ethanol). There is a new sugarcane ethanol plant starting up in Louisiana, with 3 or 4 more coming in Texas, and maybe Florida. I read in the paper, but can’t recall the company, that they are planning multiple ethanol plants, so as to site them near the growing locations to reduce transportation/processing costs. Sugar ethanol is also cheaper to produce than corn ethanol, cause with corn they have to transform the corn into a sugar before they can turn it into ethanol, and that step is eliminated if you use sugar to begin with (even the bagasse).</p>
<p>A lot of this info I got thru an email debate with relatives in the oil companies, plus the newspaper. Also, the other reason to site these plants near the cane fields is that, in Texas and Lousiana, they are also near the pipelines that distribute the final product, so that reduces costs as well. All w/o adversely affecting the food supply.</p>
<p>Don’t know that much about sugar cane growing, but wouldn’t the acreage devoted to growing sugar cane take away acreage for other crops? Isn’t that really what is causing the price of all food products to go up - the fact that so many acres are now being devoted to corn?</p>
<p>Technically, what the storms are called around Florida is hurricanes. Typhoons are the storms in the Pacific. Same type of storm, different names for different oceans.</p>
<p>No. These are existing cane fields. They are going to where the people are already in the sugar cane business. In fact, the additional revenue is going to help them stay in business so the US sugar growers don’t lose as much to cheaper foreign sugar (is what I was told). One of my relatives (god I have like a zillion cousins) in the agriculture business says it is actually an increased demand in China and India for eating meat that is driving up the price of corn. Now that they can afford meat, with their increased economy, they want to eat meat and not just rice, and so they want corn fed beef. Plus there’s a drought in Australia that’s also affecting things.</p>
<p>The reason why Obama is supporting ethanol production is corn–which is important to Illinois. Corn is important to combatting food shortages world-wide.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Ethanol</a> fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel]Ethanol”>Ethanol fuel - Wikipedia)</p>