Do you think offshore (USA) drilling is the answer to the oil crisis?

If We Drill in the U.S., We Don't Get the Oil





By Cenk Uygur, Huffington Post. Posted August 1, 2008.











The oil that comes from offshore drilling will belong to the multinational firm, like Exxon-Mobil and will go to world markets, not us. One thing has been driving me crazy about this drilling debate -- everyone seems to assume that if we drill for oil in the US, that we will get the oil. And hence, we won't be dependent on foreign oil anymore. But we won't get anything, Exxon-Mobil will.





The oil that comes from that drilling will not be United States property (Republicans aren't suggesting we nationalize the oil companies, are they?). It will be the property of whichever oil company got the rights to that contract. They can then sell it to whoever they like -- and they will. They will sell it on the world market, so the Chinese will have just as much access to the oil that comes out of the coast of Florida as we will.





The Democrats have done a decent job of beating back the argument that this will effect prices in the short run, or even in the long run. But no one has addressed the point above. The Republicans make it seem like we won't be dependent on foreign oil -- and that prices will go down in the US -- if we have our own oil. But it won't be ours. And it will be sold on the world market, so its effect on global oil prices will be even smaller.





When we ask the question of whether there should be drilling off the coast of Florida or in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we should ask the question this way -- would you be comfortable with the Chinese or the Germans or Russians or the Saudis drilling on American land? Because for all intents and purposes, they will be.





Large multi-national firms like Exxon-Mobil are not US property. They sell to the world and their allegiance is to corporate profits. So, when they drill, they drill for the whole world, not just us. Some might find that heart-warming, but it certainly has nothing to do with the US having more oil or lower prices


Do you think offshore (USA) drilling is the answer to the oil crisis?
I've been trying to make this point for weeks, but conservatives are somehow convinced that oil companies are so patriotic that they would keep the oil here, rather than sell it on the global market.Do you think offshore (USA) drilling is the answer to the oil crisis?
It's part of the answer to increase worldwide supply.





Alternative energy research and Conservation are other parts.





Oil is up all over the world. Increasing world supply will help.





Huffington BTW has proven itself to be a biased Liberal rag.



First of all this came from the Huffington Hate. The site is full of Liberals haters. You can not put any stock from that site. Of course we would get the oil. Stop reading from the Left wing hate sites.
No demand growth will continue to grow larger and faster than any supply increase we can create.





Repairing the value of the dollar will be the best solution to problem.. Just look at today oil down more than 3 and the dollar index is up only 1
The wise one says it is a piece of the puzzle. The other pieces are further reducing consumption and developing alternative energy sources, including harnessing the wind.
Of course not. If it was the answer then the oil companies would have already begun drilling on the 40 million plus acres they already hold leases to.
What oil crisis? I have encountered absolutely no delay or shortage every time I pull into a gas station to get gas.






Yes. And cheesecake is the answer to obesity.
Drilling = idiot's desperate solution
no because its illegal
More oil is the answer for our oil addiction in the same way that more heroin is the cure for heroin addiction.
No I think Bush getting the !@#$ out of office is the solution to this ';crisis'; and a whole lot more.
of course. Why do we have to depends on other countries?
What crisis? There is no shortage of oil
The article you posted ignores several points, one amongst them the fact that there's nothing stopping oil drilled in the U.S. from getting to U.S. refineries. If Ahmadinejad or a handful of other leaders really wanted to, he could start closing down ports and pipelines in and around Iran, to his country's detriment, but which would cause the price to skyrocket suddenly. Now the U.S. does have the SPR but it has a max drawdown rate of only about 4.5 MBPD, which is far less then what we import. In such an event, having an additional 2-3 MBPD of oil available nearby would be real handy.





It's also worth pointing out that an XOM project would be far more environmentally friendly and efficient vs. buying oil from Nigeria or Central Asia, and we'd see more wealth go to an American company and from there to American shareholders and taxes to America, rather then go to some other country.





As for your bold question, I see it as part of the answer. One analogy I saw this morning is that if you saw someone out of shape and lethargic, would you recommend that he diet or exercise? Or wouldn't you recommend both? It seems like the Reps stress the supply side of the equation while the Dems stress the demand side. Both sides are extremely important right now.
The wise one is correct. Lifting the ban and permitting oil companies to drill is only one piece of the puzzle. More has to be done in terms of giving incentives to the oil companies to actually develop the leases (new ones and the currently held ones). Right now they can sit on them and do nothing without any consequence - and since they're making a ton of money, they have no reason to spend their money to develop their leases.
Drilling, drilling, and drilling is a quick fix for a bigger problem. The main problem is that the United States depends on foreign oil for a source of energy and even if the US did not depend on foreign oil, there should be some sort of alternative that should be developed because there is only so much oil on the planet.





Why not develop alternative sources of energy if it would benefit the health of humans and be cheap at the same time?
what our idiot congress(not all though) and that ignoramus nancy pallossi don`t seem to understand even if it does take ten years you have got to start somewhere. they don`t seem to care that there are going to be people here long after there gone. i wish we could throw all their asses in jail along with the lobbiest and special interest groups for endangering the lives of our future children and our childrens children.
We need EVERYTHING! Before its TOO LATE! It may be TOO LATE NOW! DRILL HERE DRILL NOW FOR GOSH SAKES! What is the BIG DEAL! We will have plenty of Alternatives in 50 YEARS!





You are MIS-INFORMED! The Oil Companies WANT TO DRILL where we have OIL!


The Only reason DEMOCRATIC NANCY PELOSI WON';T allow a VOTE in CONGRESS is she KNOWS THEY WILL PASS THE DRILLING!


Then she looks like a IDIOT cause prices of gas will go down 50CENTS per gallon!


Exxon DOES ALL THE WORK! They make less money than OPRAH DOES! What does SHE DO?


That Billions they make GOES TO THE EMPLOYEES- THAT DRILL UP THE OIL!








Dems that do not support DRILLING are just mad at the Oil Company EXXON , cause EXXON wants to BUY BACK THE STOCKS THAT THESE DEMOCRATS OWN!





TRUE!!! They are corrupted in the MONEY HUNGRY RING! They can't get enough MONEY!


Check it out! Democrats by Majority are RICHER than Republicans!
I think it's a good idea, but not the only idea. We should also invest in alternative energies while drilling, and get congress to make Solar, Wind, and Water powers more affordable to the American Consumer. I would love to put up some solar panels on the roof of my house, but the $40,000 price tag isn't exactly something I can pull out of my account in one day.
No - most of the world's oil has been extracted in the first place and is gone.





What bothers me, is that folks would opt for drilling and consuming this oil before considering that conserving our last remaining resources may be a better option. Why should we consume this and have nothing in 10 years? Isn't that short-sighted and doesn't that leave future generations with nothing?





Not to mention, we have not had any accurate geophysical explorations of the extent of any potential reserves. One would think the first plan of action would be to determine how much exists first, then a cost-benefit analysis in order to hold any true debate.





Right now, folks are politicizing these areas, when in fact, we don't know what, exactly, is at stake.
i wouldnt call this a crisis, but to answer your question, i think it would significantly helpthe economy. allowing US businessmen to get thier resources domestically will help lower the cost to them, and we should see some of that trickle down and give us lower gas prices. it will stimulate our economy by creating jobs, someone has to maintain, construct and operate oil rigs. someone will need to transport extracted oil, and with more supply, more people will be needed to work refineries etc. this move of workers to the gulf coast/alaska will boost the housing market in the area since these people will need places to live.





your point about us trading with other nations is kind of pointless because eveerything we do nowadays is on a global market.