Would you pay $6 to $8 per gallon to stop offshore drilling?

[Shapecity]

Prices Could "Skyrocket"

"While we dream about a new energy system that is decades in the future, the prices that consumers will have to pay for things like gasoline, electricity, and diesel would just skyrocket" if America halts offshore driller, Hofmeister tells Aaron and Henry in the accompanying segment. "Prices could get to the point where fixed-income and low-income people are simply taken out of the personal mobility marketplace, which would be a shock and unnecessary because of our unwillingness to produce domestic resources."

But as Aaron asks: "People also don't want oil washing up on their beaches, whether it's in the Gulf of Mexico or Florida or maybe up the East Coast. Do you that think the American public is going to say, 'We don't want you drilling at all offshore?' "

Only if the American public is willing "to accept $6 to $8 [per gallon] gasoline as the alternative, when they can get it," Hofmeister replies.

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticke...lling-says-former-shell-exec-yftt_499176.html

 

[BoBoBREWSKI]

Go buy a Prius!

 

[BrianFromWA]

I asked this very thing in the oil thread....though I also think that natural gas, heating and electricity prices will rise. As it is, I'm already paying about 190/mo in heat/electricity. If that doubles, that's not good. Triples, starts to hurt a bit. And I'm not one of the many living paycheck-to-paycheck...many of my neighbors would be hosed if their heating/electricity went up 400 a month.

 

[Wheels]

F that man

 

[Tortimer]

NO fucking way! We need to keep drilling starting with Alaska.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Drilling is fine. But these companies need to realize that this is our oil. This is a natural resource of every American. These oil companies need to treat it as such. BP (a foreign company) took needless risks the resulted in the wasting of a valuable natural resource. BP does not operate as safe and careful as American based oil companies do in this country. That is a fact.

 

[NJNetz]

Nope.

I can't accept paying $3.

 

[mook]

It obviously needs better regulation, and better enforcement of existing regulation. But I'm not opposed entirely to offshore drilling for the near-term.

I'd prefer to see taxes raised on gas to artificially raise the price to spur growth in other areas. Send rebates to those in poverty. Cut income taxes. Basically design it so the net effect isn't an increased or decreased tax burden for the average joe, but so that taxes are paid to discourage people from doing things we don't want them to do (use gasoline) and encouraged for things we want them to do (work). (Right now we do the exact opposite.) Maybe raise the gas tax rate in metropolitan areas and decrease it in rural areas. I figure rural people have far fewer alternatives, and they necessarily drive more and so would be taxed more without some kind of adjustment.

A side benefit would be that more taxes would be deducted at the pump (which is extremely simple to manage) and less on April 15th (extremely annoying to manage).

My idea appeals to liberals because it weans us off gas. My idea appeals to conservatives because it involves tax cuts in the long-run. (Once you completely wean yourself of paying for gasoline, you effectively get a pretty sweet tax break.)

It's a common sense, middle-road idea that either side should get behind. What's not to like?

 

[Tortimer]

Drilling is fine. But these companies need to realize that this is our oil. This is a natural resource of every American. These oil companies need to treat it as such. BP (a foreign company) took needless risks the resulted in the wasting of a valuable natural resource. BP does not operate as safe and careful as American based oil companies do in this country. That is a fact.

I agree with your post. If you compare BP's safety record with other major oil companies it isn't even close. BP has a terrible record and has at least 100 times more safety violations then the next oil company.

 

[Shapecity]

It obviously needs better regulation, and better enforcement of existing regulation. But I'm not opposed entirely to offshore drilling for the near-term.

I'd prefer to see taxes raised on gas to artificially raise the price to spur growth in other areas. Send rebates to those in poverty. Cut income taxes. Basically design it so the net effect isn't an increased or decreased tax burden for the average joe, but so that taxes are paid to discourage people from doing things we don't want them to do (use gasoline) and encouraged for things we want them to do (work). (Right now we do the exact opposite.) Maybe raise the gas tax rate in metropolitan areas and decrease it in rural areas. I figure rural people have far fewer alternatives, and they necessarily drive more and so would be taxed more without some kind of adjustment.

A side benefit would be that more taxes would be deducted at the pump (which is extremely simple to manage) and less on April 15th (extremely annoying to manage).

My idea appeals to liberals because it weans us off gas. My idea appeals to conservatives because it involves tax cuts in the long-run. (Once you completely wean yourself of paying for gasoline, you effectively get a pretty sweet tax break.)

It's a common sense, middle-road idea that either side should get behind. What's not to like?

Great idea Mook. We need to break this philosophy of rewarding people to stop doing the wrong thing instead of being proactive and rewarding people who do the right thing. Income tax is ridiculous especially in regards to OT & Bonus. You work hard to earn more money, sacrifice, and they take away 50% of that right off the top?

 

[Rodolfo]

I agree with your post. If you compare BP's safety record with other major oil companies it isn't even close. BP has a terrible record and has at least 100 times more safety violations then the next oil company.

BP takes care of their oil platforms, like the British take care of their teeth. Very poorly.

 

[MARIS61]

More to the point, I will vote against any politician who okays offshore drilling or any other additional drilling on public land.

All the doubling of oil prices would do is bury a dying industry and speed development of it's less costly, less polluting alternatives.

 

[BrianFromWA]

the problem with not knowing anything about science other than what politicians tell you is that they don't know themselves (and I'm not lumping you in, Maris, I'm lumping in most of the populace of the US who barely got a HS education and have problems balancing checkbooks and understanding compounding interest--yet we expect them to understand energy efficiency, etc.).

"Less costly, less polluting" alternatives? Who's doing that trade study? People knowledgeable about trafficking energy to 120M homes across the US (Big Oil and Utility) or those who have grandiose, yet flawed scientifically view of the environment and pollution (say, Greenpeace)? I don't necessarily trust either of those two choices.

And with more people being born, more restrictions on energy supply -- sorry to say, but the oil industry is nowhere close to "dying". Much as I wish it was. But then again, that'd be bad for the millions in the US whose 401(K) is primarily tied up in mutual funds heavy into oil stocks.

 

[BrianFromWA]

More to the point, I will vote against any politician who okays offshore drilling or any other additional drilling on public land.

All the doubling of oil prices would do is bury a dying industry and speed development of it's less costly, less polluting alternatives.

So your ideal politician is someone who stands behind his distaste for the military, and will guarantee to vote against drilling on public land?

More to the point, would you be in favor of BP or the like being able to purchase chunks of our littoral areas for oil drilling?

 

[BlazerWookee]

Hell, no.

 

[Minstrel]

I'd be in favour of more nuclear energy to phase out oil as fuel.

 

[blazerboy30]

I'd be in favour of more nuclear energy to phase out oil as fuel.

Sign me up for this.

BTW, I believe you meant "nukular".

 

[BrianFromWA]

It's tough to do nuclear power in a vehicle, unless it's part of the electric plug-in-your-car generation system where plants are providing the electricity. Fuel would be too heavy and hazardous to have in every car.

 

[Minstrel]

It's tough to do nuclear power in a vehicle, unless it's part of the electric plug-in-your-car generation system where plants are providing the electricity. Fuel would be too heavy and hazardous to have in every car.

That's what I was thinking. Electric cars, and the electricity comes from nuclear power. Even prior to that though, it would be nice to use it for non-vehicle fuel.

BTW, I believe you meant "nukular".

I always misspell it.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

It's tough to do nuclear power in a vehicle, unless it's part of the electric plug-in-your-car generation system where plants are providing the electricity. Fuel would be too heavy and hazardous to have in every car.

We just have to start making DeLoreans again.

 

[Denny Crane]

If I drove the best electric car today from San Diego to Vegas, I'd have to stop about 80% of the way there, plug the car in, and wait around for 4 hours (at least) for it to charge up again. In theory, it's great to have one vehicle that gets you to work and back (and errands, etc.) without needing a recharge. People still need to go longer distances than the battery powered vehicles can go.

I'm happy walking or taking the bus for almost everywhere I go these days. I don't go very far from about a 5 mile radius from where I live, most days.

But $8 gas would affect everyone to an enormous degree.

The current economic crisis is largely based upon a spike in food prices due to shortages from turning food into ethanol. $8 gas would drive up the price of everything delivered anywhere by truck, the price of a bus ride, the price of air travel, etc. If people are barely making it on their current paychecks or extended unemployment benefits, the increase in prices for everything gives them a choice of making the mortgage payment or their food and/or medicine.

There's a reason why oil is used - it's efficient. 2x more efficient than coal, and 30x more efficient than solar/wind/whatever.

Nuclear, at least, means we won't have to sit around in the dark without ice cubes.

 

[Mediocre Man]

No.


Invade the oil fields in the middle east and call it a day.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I think they should only allow off shore drilling on the east cioast and in the gulf.

 

[Mamba]

Fuck no.

Drill baby, drill.

 

[barfo]

If I drove the best electric car today from San Diego to Vegas, I'd have to stop about 80% of the way there, plug the car in, and wait around for 4 hours (at least) for it to charge up again. In theory, it's great to have one vehicle that gets you to work and back (and errands, etc.) without needing a recharge. People still need to go longer distances than the battery powered vehicles can go.

Well, driving to Vegas is the most important thing. Until they come up with a Vegas-mobile, I'm not on board.

The current economic crisis is largely based upon a spike in food prices due to shortages from turning food into ethanol.

Damn, I thought it had something to do with the housing bubble.

barfo

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

More to the point, I will vote against any politician who okays offshore drilling or any other additional drilling on public land.

All the doubling of oil prices would do is bury a dying industry and speed development of it's less costly, less polluting alternatives.

I somewhat agree. Until the price of gas hurts we will not get serious about alternatives.

 

[Blaze01]

fuck no