PDA

View Full Version : The results of Obama's oil drilling moratorium and increased regulations: Disaster



OnePimpTiger
02-06-2011, 09:01 AM
Deepwater rigs moved out of the Gulf of Mexico (http://af.reuters.com/article/congoNews/idAFN2726555420110127)


Some of the 30-plus deepwater rigs that were in the Gulf of Mexico have moved to other markets, first because of a U.S. halt called last May after BP Plc's (BP.L: Quote) well blowout, and then because of the lack of permits once the moratorium was lifted.

Below are rigs contracted to work in the Gulf of Mexico that have been or will be moved to other regions.

Listed are 7 deepwater rigs who either will be moving or not returning to the Gulf because of the Obamastration policies after the BP spill. Instead, they'll be setting up shop in Africa or South America. For someone who claims to be against shipping American jobs overseas, Obama is really good at it. After years and years, decades and decades, why is it still so hard to understand that increased government intervention and regulation has a damaging effect?

sanfran22
02-07-2011, 10:44 AM
No doubt..........And I think China is coming over here to set up shop and take oil under us as well.....awesome.

INTIMADATOR2007
02-10-2011, 10:57 PM
Paid 3.05 a gallon this morning for gas $72 fill up ....Drill Baby Drill..
After this moron president gets booted in 2012 . There should be thousands of wells being drilled in the Gulf ....

shortking98
02-11-2011, 08:11 AM
It would keep those jobs in the US but I highly doubt having the 7 extra drilling operations would lower the cost of gas any

duane1969
02-11-2011, 08:54 AM
Paid 3.05 a gallon this morning for gas $72 fill up ....Drill Baby Drill..
After this moron president gets booted in 2012 . There should be thousands of wells being drilled in the Gulf ....

It is $3.15 a gallon here...yours is cheap LOL


It would keep those jobs in the US but I highly doubt having the 7 extra drilling operations would lower the cost of gas any

7 rigs today, 5 next month, 8 the month after that...soon there are no rigs in American waters and we are paying $20 a gallon. The issue isn't the 7 rigs, it is what the rigs leaving represents. Look at the big picture.

shortking98
02-11-2011, 09:00 AM
7 rigs today, 5 next month, 8 the month after that...soon there are no rigs in American waters and we are paying $20 a gallon. The issue isn't the 7 rigs, it is what the rigs leaving represents. Look at the big picture.

The oil companies know they have drivers over a barrel and will raise the prices as high as they possibly can. I don't think it matters where the oil comes from, the prices will be high either way

edit- The article also indicates this was over a 7-8 month period that these rigs left, not a day or a month as your post implies

habsheaven
02-11-2011, 09:39 AM
Suck it up!!! We pay a $1.16ish a LITRE. You do the math. lol

duane1969
02-11-2011, 06:24 PM
Suck it up!!! We pay a $1.16ish a LITRE. You do the math. lol

Comes out to about $4.38 a gallon. How much of that $1.16 is taxes?

Theodor Madison
02-11-2011, 06:43 PM
The Ruskies bought and bailed out BP the company. Be drilling for the Ruskies, leaving USA purchasing crude from the middle east. Just like holding a knife to our throats.

tylermckinzie
02-11-2011, 10:31 PM
What a moron, closing down all those drilling platforms..... jeez, I miss 2008, when had those platforms running and were only paying $4.15 a gallon for our gas! <br />
<br />
Our cost of gas is below 2007 and...

INTIMADATOR2007
02-11-2011, 10:54 PM
" The job shift is a valid point, but anyone making a connection to the cost of gas because of it needs to open their eyes."

__________________

I don't belive the oil rigs being shut down has anything to do with the price of gas today . Opec is not helping anything ,neither is the dollar & the unrest around the world , But removing oil wells today will impact the price of gas we/and our children pay in the future. We must use OUR resources, and not shut anything down .

limitedplay50
02-11-2011, 11:00 PM
Is it any surprise anything he touches goes to crap. He ran on an Anti-Bush platform yet pushes nearly the same agenda.
Problem with this is the only good thing could be if his base turned against him. It would help with getting some of the union heat of our backs and out of our wallets.
His domestic policies have failed, thus his agenda has turned 100% global. Now we see Egypt I heard about the oil a couple weeks ago.
I would suspect he will sink his teeth in to the Egypt mess because I do believe part of his agenda was to get us all some breathing room from the unions so far not much if any.

habsheaven
02-11-2011, 11:01 PM
Comes out to about $4.38 a gallon. How much of that $1.16 is taxes?

To be honest, I couldn't tell you. It is hidden in the price for a reason. The province uses the tax "for road maintenance" and other "expenses". There is also a federal tax component in there.

tylermckinzie
02-11-2011, 11:22 PM
" The job shift is a valid point, but anyone making a connection to the cost of gas because of it needs to open their eyes."

__________________

I don't belive the oil rigs being shut down has anything to do with the price of gas today . Opec is not helping anything ,neither is the dollar & the unrest around the world , But removing oil wells today will impact the price of gas we/and our children pay in the future. We must use OUR resources, and not shut anything down .

either method is simply passing the cost down the road anyway- that's why it's called a non-renewable resource.

The only chance we have for the future is to find alternative energy sources. 80 years ago we had no computers, no televisions, no internet, no call phones, on and on and on. However, all our cars ran on gasoline. It's time we put some of that development into the energy area. Unless, of course, you believe oil companies have such a committed relationship with politicians that neither side wants to see that day arrive.

tutall
02-11-2011, 11:37 PM
either method is simply passing the cost down the road anyway- that's why it's called a non-renewable resource.

The only chance we have for the future is to find alternative energy sources. 80 years ago we had no computers, no televisions, no internet, no call phones, on and on and on. However, all our cars ran on gasoline. It's time we put some of that development into the energy area. Unless, of course, you believe oil companies have such a committed relationship with politicians that neither side wants to see that day arrive.

First off issues like this do impact gas prices because it creates investors to act. If the investors think the prices will go up there will be in influx in buyers so the price will artificially raise much like it did in 2008....

Second, I dont think anyone is disagreeing with the need to find other alternatives to oil but right now as we speak oil is what makes this country move. Not just in our every day commutes but the trucks, planes, and some trains that move items all over the country. The plastic tubs and cellophane wrappers our cards come in... the Milk jug we drink milk out of every morning... All these items come from oil. We can look for alternatives all we want but until we find something that produces energy as efficiently as oil I dont see it going anywhere. For years people have though ethynol was the answer.... Go fill your vehicle up with even 10 percent ethynol and see how far it gets you. I can just about promise you, you will not get the same mileage as pure gasoline. We also run into issues of food supply (which I think is totally ridiculous considering the amount of farmland each year that is not harvested) and needing more of it. I have heard things about coconut oil, cacao beans, and even coffee beans being turned into energy but they also said it would take something like 1.2 million coconuts to fly a 747 from Hawaii to LA. Unless you can find some serious coconut farms I think this is a little out of the question.

limitedplay50
02-11-2011, 11:48 PM
First off issues like this do impact gas prices because it creates investors to act. If the investors think the prices will go up there will be in influx in buyers so the price will artificially raise much like it did in 2008....

Second, I dont think anyone is disagreeing with the need to find other alternatives to oil but right now as we speak oil is what makes this country move. Not just in our every day commutes but the trucks, planes, and some trains that move items all over the country. The plastic tubs and cellophane wrappers our cards come in... the Milk jug we drink milk out of every morning... All these items come from oil. We can look for alternatives all we want but until we find something that produces energy as efficiently as oil I dont see it going anywhere. For years people have though ethynol was the answer.... Go fill your vehicle up with even 10 percent ethynol and see how far it gets you. I can just about promise you, you will not get the same mileage as pure gasoline. We also run into issues of food supply (which I think is totally ridiculous considering the amount of farmland each year that is not harvested) and needing more of it. I have heard things about coconut oil, cacao beans, and even coffee beans being turned into energy but they also said it would take something like 1.2 million coconuts to fly a 747 from Hawaii to LA. Unless you can find some serious coconut farms I think this is a little out of the question.


speculative investing, hmmmmmmmmm you wouldnt be asserting that Obama would be giving Wall Street another bail out now would you?

duane1969
02-11-2011, 11:51 PM
Actually we could cover more of our usage if our wells were actually drawn from. The average Middle Eastern well produces several thousand barrels per day. The average American well produces about...

OnePimpTiger
02-12-2011, 12:01 AM
When I read this article and posted this thread, I was thinking about how government intervention more often than not damages rather than helps, about how Obama always talks about putting an end to jobs being shipped overseas while enacting policies that cause them to be shipped overseas, about how on top of the damage the oil spill caused, this is adding to it by hurting the job market and economy of the area....and what did the conversation immediately turn to? The price of gas...ie how will this affect me. I guess that can't be faulted necessarily, but any thoughts on the other effects of the Obamastrations position?

tylermckinzie
02-12-2011, 12:54 AM
When I read this article and posted this thread, I was thinking about how government intervention more often than not damages rather than helps, about how Obama always talks about putting an end to jobs being shipped overseas while enacting policies that cause them to be shipped overseas, about how on top of the damage the oil spill caused, this is adding to it by hurting the job market and economy of the area....and what did the conversation immediately turn to? The price of gas...ie how will this affect me. I guess that can't be faulted necessarily, but any thoughts on the other effects of the Obamastrations position?

No no, I was more poking fun at those trying to make that argument, I agree your original focus was totally different.

Personally, I think you can play either side of the argument you wish. Read this article:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/Deep-water-drilling-permits-expected-soon-1009878.php

You can argue that the moratium on deep water permits has been offset by shallow water permits:


Thirty-one shallow-water permits have been granted since June, including one Friday morning, Bromwich said. Nine shallow-water permit applications are pending, and at no time since the Macondo accident have more than 15 permits been in line awaiting review, he said.


Five permits for new wells are pending, he said, but they are held up primarily by requirements that the industry finish building systems capable of responding to a subsea blowout such as last year's.

It sounds as though deep water drilling permit increases are not too far away. But then again, that must be because I am optimistic, you can pretty much find something to support either side of the discussion.

OnePimpTiger
02-12-2011, 09:35 AM
No no, I was more poking fun at those trying to make that argument, I agree your original focus was totally different.

Personally, I think you can play either side of the argument you wish. Read this article:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/Deep-water-drilling-permits-expected-soon-1009878.php

You can argue that the moratium on deep water permits has been offset by shallow water permits:


Thirty-one shallow-water permits have been granted since June, including one Friday morning, Bromwich said. Nine shallow-water permit applications are pending, and at no time since the Macondo accident have more than 15 permits been in line awaiting review, he said.


Five permits for new wells are pending, he said, but they are held up primarily by requirements that the industry finish building systems capable of responding to a subsea blowout such as last year's.

It sounds as though deep water drilling permit increases are not too far away. But then again, that must be because I am optimistic, you can pretty much find something to support either side of the discussion.

But you left out the paragraphs before and after the shallow-water permits:


Permits for drilling in shallow water, typically less than 500 feet, resumed last year, albeit at a much slower pace than before the spill amid new safety and environmental rules.

Thirty-one shallow-water permits have been granted since June, including one Friday morning, Bromwich said. Nine shallow-water permit applications are pending, and at no time since the Macondo accident have more than 15 permits been in line awaiting review, he said.

“Is that the pace industry would like? No. Is it at the highest level we saw before the accident? No,” Bromwich said. But the pace has been steady, and the industry has not been applying for many permits, he said.

The ocean energy bureau shifted staff to speed up the permit review process last year, but soon found it wasn't necessary.

“We don't have enough permits to fully occupy the people that we transferred,” he said. “We expected the flow to pick up, but it really hasn't.”

Everything has slowed down. And I'm sorry, but "expecting" things to pick up does not offset actually losses.

tylermckinzie
02-12-2011, 10:20 AM
Agreed- but if I were in charge, I wouldn't be giving out permits for deepwater drilling until they can meet regulations preventing another disaster. After the regulations are met we'll see how the...

BGT Masters
02-12-2011, 11:20 AM
Gas is $3.30 here. :( Had we done the responsible thing decades ago and switched to an alternative we wouldn't be in this mess. Sales in other means other than gas powered vehicles will increase when we are able to produce more affordable ones. Perhaps the Hydrogen Fuel Cell. I admit my knowledge is limited but it sounds promising if it can be made more affordable.

OnePimpTiger
02-12-2011, 06:01 PM
There were regulations in place to prevent disasters before this one and there will be another disaster after these regulations. No regulation will ever work better to prevent another disaster than...

tylermckinzie
02-13-2011, 01:12 PM
There were regulations in place to prevent disasters before this one and there will be another disaster after these regulations. No regulation will ever work better to prevent another disaster than the billions of dollars and good will BP lost as a result of this one.

True, but just because regulations won't be guaranteed to prevent another disaster doesn't mean they shouldn't be followed. After Sept. 11th you couldn't take liquids or box cutters on planes anymore. Some day a different "tool" will probably be used. Some day we'll probably have another disaster, but that doesn't mean new regulations shouldn't be in place.

OnePimpTiger
02-13-2011, 01:43 PM
True, but just because regulations won't be guaranteed to prevent another disaster doesn't mean they shouldn't be followed. After Sept. 11th you couldn't take liquids or box cutters on planes anymore. Some day a different "tool" will probably be used. Some day we'll probably have another disaster, but that doesn't mean new regulations shouldn't be in place.

I agree, but when you put together the fact that the regulations in place have worked well up until this spill, that the new regulations will not stop disasters, that an oil company that lost billions of dollars will obviously pay much closer attention to this in the future regardless of what regulations are put in place, that other oil companies are taking close notes of this lesson learned, etc...is it really worth the government piling on insult to injury to an already devastated industry and region? Typical government overreaction.

It kills me that people think the government putting in new regulations is the only thing that will keep this from happening again. It's really a pretty simple line of logic: Oil companies are in business to make money...this oil spill cost them billions of dollars...losing billions of dollars is very bad business...continue practicing bad business and you won't be around for long. No one, especially not the government, has more incentive to prevent this from happening again than BP itself.

tylermckinzie
02-13-2011, 01:50 PM
I agree, but when you put together the fact that the regulations in place have worked well up until this spill, that the new regulations will not stop disasters, that an oil company that lost billions of dollars will obviously pay much closer attention to this in the future regardless of what regulations are put in place, that other oil companies are taking close notes of this lesson learned, etc...is it really worth the government piling on insult to injury to an already devastated industry and region? Typical government overreaction.

It kills me that people think the government putting in new regulations is the only thing that will keep this from happening again. It's really a pretty simple line of logic: Oil companies are in business to make money...this oil spill cost them billions of dollars...losing billions of dollars is very bad business...continue practicing bad business and you won't be around for long. No one, especially not the government, has more incentive to prevent this from happening again than BP itself.

I can see that point as well.... but if you really just wanted my opinion on the whole situation, I am loathe to figure out why we have so many foreign producers in the Gulf anyway? Why don't we require U.S. drillers to be U.S. Companies with U.S. workers?