Oil sex scandal may affect drilling debate

"I pledge allegiance to the flag carried by Obama for the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all by the Democratic party."

While I have been on the fence, I think this story marks an epiphany for how will rationalize my voting for the presidency (which has been a difficult on individual merits and drawbacks). The basis of my decision now is based upon the following question: Which candidate will best undo the damage of the Bush presidency? I normally vote republican but Bush has damaged the party - I also think conservatism needs to be redefined. We now have a democratically controlled Congress and perhaps with a democratic president we can not only effect many beneficial changes but also undo the damage to the environment, our approach to international affairs and reliance on big oil and increasing corporate influence on our daily lives. We need to send pink slips to many of those that received bonuses and jobs in the Bush administration and restore balance and sense to our domestic spending, restore the checks and balances to our financial systems, focus our efforts on the hearts and minds instead of military action, focus efforts on alternative energies, limit corporate influence. Yes, Bush is part of the oil industry and he is squandering our nations riches, our and our children's future; he seems to be for the status quo and lack of regulation which has led our financial disaster. In light of this and my epiphany, I'm voting democratic for a need catharsis. McCain is too close to Bush to effect the changes necessary.

"and the Republican senators and representatives who are still opposing renewable energy development and still supporting the big oil companies should be VOTED OUT OF OFFICE in November!"

But the same people who push for renewable energy development are the same people supporting the big oil companies, the ones not supporting big oil corporations are the ones not REALLY pushing for alternative energies, so your comment doesn't even make sense. Of course, to say Republican and not Democrat is absolutely ridiculous. Heck, Obama has seen millions of dollars from big oil, and tens of millions from big ethanol (which brings in higher percentage profits than oil, in the double digits higher).
It's the big oil companies that are pushing the STRONGEST (along with Republicans when looking at actual policy and funding moves instead of speeches and comments) and funding the most for alternative energy research, as they, being the corporations with the manpower and funds, will be the same ones to run those alternative energy companies as well. Thousands of windmills owned by the same oil interests (there is no actual owner of a major corporation, it's simply the same investors that actually control the companies), production of hydro-power owned by them, solar research and technologies, etc....that's the same people as oil corporation investors. The only difference will be in the staffing, as tens of thousands who work in the oil industry will not have experience in other energy fields and will lose their jobs.
Thankfully though, oil is mostly run through the use of contract companies to come in and do the work (people complain about Halliburton and their no-bid contract, but Halliburton doesn't actually do most of the work, they STILL must take bids from all those contract companies, the same ones who would bid if it was a different company offered the no-bid), and those contract companies send their employees to varied projects that bring experience in everything from oil refineries to natural gas lines to paper mills to ethanol stations to hospital construction to oil rig design to airport construction, allowing for a possible transition as nwe technologies and projects become available. Just to stick with Halliburton for a second, that company is one of the greatest supporters of wind and hydro power. Why? Well, they own those two, most companies in charge of their production are simply subsidiaries of one or another larger corporation. The company has built several hospitals, quite a few schools, a couple of the ethanol refining stations, a Honda production facility that is building those hydrogen powered cars, and many other projects.
Oil corporations (meaning the same investors since they're not owned by any individual or even small group of men or women, control regulating by dozens of individuals) are the ones with the money, the training, and the manpower, and they will be the same ones controlling alternative energy, as for the most part they already are. If it's the companies you hate and not the oil itself, then using new energy sources won't change a thing for you. If you say not to support oil companies but to support alternative energy, then you're left with nobody to produce that alternative energy, and nobody to build the plants needed to refine that energy, or the mindwills and dams, etc. needed to produce it.

Look maybe its just me but has anyone here ever been to a large corporate party? Drugs Alcohol and sex are par for the course I hate to break it to the democrats but just cause people like getting wild and crazy it is no excuse to stop Drilling. Yes these people need to be disciplined but if you think this was any different than what went on at the democratic national convention last week you are sadly mistaken.

The mayor of denver suspended the Marijauna laws just for the Dems that should tell yuou something.

Yes, I worked for five of the largest corporations in America and yes I've seen it and have also seen very high execs walked out. Aside from that, if you have been reading you know most Democrates are not saying no drilling, they are saying do it with caution, restrict the possible Valdez type incidents and do not depend on it for a permanent solution. Have you noticed that even Republican states don't want drilling close to their shores..........sort of "not in my backyard". Too bad we have not outgrown that immature thought process.

Are you People actually buying into this such a scandal wake up this has nothing to do with the republicans if you did not notice the guy in charge was a democrat thats #1 #2 are you willing to give obama and his cronies old man biden boys the chance to raise your taxes do you actually believe that he can cut 95% of the americans taxes hey i have a bridge in brooklyn to sell you you people believe this but then again i smoked and did not inhale ? remember that one and I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN? HOW ABOUT THAT ONE you people do not find it funny that this comes out on the eve of voting? are you that ignorant oh and in an election year hmmm they did not find this how about schumers buddy rangle renting rent controled apartments in harlem and collecting donations for his self proclaimed community center on official stationary and you say that this problem comes from the republicans look in the mirror i guess that donkey has kicked you too many times in thew head

take a closer look at the people in CO, they're federal employees (read union members) not appointees, from a LIBERAL state (read Democrats) taking bribes and payoffs, now I understand.

I wonder how the federal employees feel about being thrown under the bus by their union's bought and paid for Democrat politicians?

This isn't just any-ole Interior Office, this is the Minerals Management Service which is responsible for overseeing and collection of royalties on oil and natural gas extracted from government (OUR) land - these are in the Billions of dollars...

Having worked for the federal government, not the agency in question, I have seen my fair share of lack of oversight that has been brought about by downsizing. Most of it has been going on for the last 4-5 years. The result has been less accountability to the taxpayer because that is the way the executive branch wants it. That is a lot of reason that employees are leaving or can't wait to retire. The pride in ones work is no longer there. The spirit in doing the work, that you've trained for and performed, has disappeared.

You can't keep cutting overhead to be successful. You can't contract out all of the work, because the contractor only wants to make the money. When you have high turnover, such as contract work, you lose your knowledge base of what has been going on over the years, because all they care about is how much money can they make with the least amount of cost to do the job. The result is profit!

Unless something is done, it is just going to get worse.

Our poor energy policy is a direct result of over regulation by the democrats.

No new nuclear plants in 30 years.

No new refineries.

no offshore drilling.

Very limited onshore drilling.

Clean coal at the expense of industry. (not a bad thing necessarily but it should be looked at)

Our current energy strategy is to use our strong dollar to purchase the worlds oil supply not a bad strategy until something goes wrong like right now!!!!

No they are not seperate issues. The MMS activity eliminates the possibility of a good energy policy........which really is don't let big oil control it's own regulation. Right now the fox owns the hen house.

"The energy policy of the United States and the alleged wrongdoing of less than 60 people in the MMS Office in Denver would seem to me to be seperate issues. What does one have to do with the other?
I doubt than anyone who is serious about energy policy and with the best interest of the country and the world would allow this to influence their good judgement."

Exactly. It takes a HUGE stretch to make this anything to do with ANY political administration. But we have some serious spinners in Congress, and they seem to think they can magically make this an excuse to convince people their ideas are better, despite the fact that this doesn't change a thing when it comes to needed actions, it just changes which employees will be working in that building come Monday. The tiny bit of respect I had left for those in Congress just went down from hearing them use an unrelated event like this to spin their own policies.
Here's a perfect example of the stupidity some Senators are saying right now, this showing as such an obvious excuse on their part that their reaching miles and miles to use this only hurts their own credibilities. Heh, he seems to have mixed up who was causing the problems here:
""This is why we must not allow Big Oil's agenda to be jammed through Congress," said Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who strongly opposes any expansion of offshore drilling, especially closer to Florida."

Say Beckwolf, have you noticed they already have allowed it to influence their judgement? For instance Exxon still hasn't paid their Valdez fine.

Beckwolf I remind you the first government supported training program was the CCC, created by FDR a Democrate. Most of the job training programs were Democrate proposed and the Republicans knew the couldn't eliminate them without loss. I have worked for the Job Corp and I'll tell you there are very few Republicans even working there. Please rethink giving training program credit to the Republicans. They really are good at claiming credit for good actions even when that credit doesn't belong to them

oh yes and the democrats also responsible for the cia irs welfare fbi any other 3 letter words and yes they have all been involved in their own scandals like the info they gave the congress a few years ago that was supposedly altered? hey lets worry about the real crooks like schummers buddy in NY rangle renting 4 rent controlled apts in harlem and not paying his taxes on his villa oh and also taking donations for his self proclaimed legacy community center and ny is DEMOCRAT RUN why are they not making that a big story. wake up on the eve of talks about oil drilling boom SCANDAL why does this not sit well with me maybe because it reminds me of that old saying I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN.....ANOTHER IN THE DEMOCRATIC LEGACY

Beckwolf's quote up top regarding how the same people running big oil will be running the renewable energy corporations is right. Joe six-pack can figure that one out by watching ten million tv commercials on developing wind power by T Boone "Swiftboat" Pickens for chrissake! And I honestly hope that Pickens make billions by doing something great for America- good for him, honestly- that's innovation and entrepenuership that we need.

The problem is that Bush has made a mockery of government agencies. In many cases they are run by people who spent the Clinton years lobbying to restrict the power of those same agencies! So when we hear that millions (billions?) of dollars have not been collected from oil companies by the agency responsible for collecting that money we have a hard time blaming that on a few coked-up sluts. It doesn't pass the smell test.

That's the core integrity problem that pervades government as a direct result of Bush's poor leadership. Capitalism is good. Smart people should make money. But all too often they're just stealing it, and that has to change.

Big al, You should make that, the big oil companies, "are" screwing us.

"Hmmmm...how will the Republicans blame this on Clinton?"

Hmm, how will the Democrats blame this on Bush? One accusation would make no more sense than the other. The only people it involves are the idiots throwing wild parties at work, no political administration is even marginally involved here. This isn't even a political issue, despite some certain propaganda spinners trying to use these unrelated actions to give an excuse for why their poor ideas suddenly become more acceptable.

Nah, Clinton is old news now...

How about immigrants..... nah to out there.... Obama's elitism.... maybe..... Al-queda..... way to overused.... so many things to blame, don't know which one to pick from.

well if you like the same vote for McBush...I wanna see a change so I will vote for Obama!

I agree. Bill Clinton knows all about drilling. Well, when it comes to interns at least.

LOL! He did have a containment issue though. His spill almost brought down the presidency.

LOL I didn't hire the guy to preach at my church. He did better at the job I hired him for than the current guy.............but then everybody has, so that doesn't say much

This is more than all big business. At this point, oil runs the world, which includes our personal lives.

We have to break our dependence on oil, not just foreign oil. As long as oil is the controlling factor, we are all controlled.

the congress is DEMOCRAT MAJORITY SCARY IS IT NOT

not between 2002 and 2006...

mike-520648 needs to pull his head from his ass...or is he really happy with what his dollar, in his pocket, buys him compared to ten years ago "when clinton ran the executive" branch? What about getting rid of the "evil-doers" in this world...bin laden is still running free...all in the name of the republican partys God called money...it's time for "REAL" change and not four more years of "McBush & his oil corp buds!

It will keep us dependent on our oil. We already are dependent on oil. No amount of wishing is going to change that. IF drilling will take 10 years to effect the situation how long will inventing take? 50 years plus? We need to drill here drill now research here research now. It all has to work together.

RIGHT ON piglizard! The best comment on the post and definately American, as opposed to Democrate or Republican. You got my vote! And to O'Neill, are we the same America that did the Manhatten project? If we are than all we have to do is decide to go for it and we will be independent in short time. Remember, we are Americans and we can do!

The best agenda is to buy the oil as long as necessary and have ours when theirs runs out. We need to control the level of consumption in order to, reduce the costs and have better control of the prices, in order to, buy more time, to look for new ways to minimize the use of fossil fuels.
At the pace this renewable energy policy is going, it might take another 50 years to come up with a feasible alternative.
In the mean time, we aren't using petroleum unnecessarily, we aren't causing more harm to the environment, and we will always have the oil there when we have to use it.
Hate to use the "R" word, but, in the best interest of our national security and in order to protect our freedoms, the oil industry must be regulated, forever.
Look back at the "Teapot Dome" scandal of the 1920's. Think what you will, but this seems eerily similar.

brad thinks this??? "It will keep us dependent on our oil. We already are dependent on oil. No amount of wishing is going to change that. IF drilling will take 10 years to effect the situation how long will inventing take? 50 years plus? We need to drill here drill now research here research now. It all has to work together." well brad it's time to ween ourselves off the oil!

And very tasty food at that. Oil is the culprit. We have to get away from it or we are lost.

You are absolutely right! The Republicans who have lied, cheated and stolen everything....including Bush and his ilk, should be severely punished. We can find room in our prisons....or just deport them.

"I'm in Canada, and while I am unaware of the laws in the states, I know in Canada bribing any form of civil authority, whether they be elected or employed, is a criminal offense punishable by massive fines as well as I believe up to 10 years in prison."
It's the norm in Canada as well. You're thinking of a different set of laws, which are actually more stringent in this country than in yours. Bribing constitutes an offer in exchange for a contract, that contract being a requirement to receive what is offered. A gift or incentive is offering something without requiring a set offer in return, giving something and then hoping it will influence a decision, but not making it mandatory with the belief that gifts free from requirements will bring additional projects and contracts in the future. This is what happened here and is what is 100% fully legal in Canada and to my knowledge every country.
Incentives aren't considered bribes in this country or any other. If they were, everyone who ever pushed for a new school or hospital would be thrown in jail as well. Cash and prize incentives are done within EVERY industry. Schools, hospitals, construction and engineering companies, distribution companies...all offer incentives. And to take it a step further, a construction company buys the materials for whatever it's building by purchasing from multiple vendors. All of those vendors, be it PVC manufacturers out to simple nuts and bolts suppliers, provide gifts and buy lunches for those within the procurement staff of these construction companies. The media loves to mention that oil does it too because people willfully choose to be ignorant to the fact that giving "gifts" is the normal procedure among every industry in existence, and they fail to report the difference between a legal gift and an illegal bribe. Not a single company designed to distribute windmills or build a dam for hydro-electric power or build a hospital or a shelter for the needy hasn't offered incentives as well (especially the vendors who want to sell their equipment needed to build those projects). Procurement staff being offered free lunches and get-togethers, tickets to sporting events, cash, vacations...all the normal procedure (whether moral or not), and no industry in the entire world, whether it being pure profit or pure humanitarian, avoids that policy of interaction.

Bribery is taken very seriously. If there was any it will be prosecuted that is the purpose of the investigation. The sex didn't seem like prostitution it was just wild and crazy corporate party stuff. Drug use is a seperate issue not even relevant to the investigation. This is a whole lot of nothing except for the bribery and innappropriate consulting businesses.

Unfortunately our large corporations are very good at making sure their are no trails. The actions are taken at low level and the initial direction to act is never actually seen, heard or (gasp) written. Best example is the law that says we can not bribe an foreign official. If it isn't done your product stays on the dock or, more likely, just vanishs. So it is another no see no tell. That leaves the high levels clean under the law.

rtp000

Very good last paragraph - It really is something to think about. The middle east would be losing a great deal of money if we were to find an alternative fuel. Their riches would someday cease to matter.

The sad thing is finding that alternative fuel source will take some time and lots of money.
Hopefully Americans will be willing to make sacrifices to get the job done.

Either you're for the people and OUR prosperity (Democrats) or you are greedy and only think of yourselves (Republicans).....end of story.

"Either you're for the people and OUR prosperity (Democrats) or you are greedy and only think of yourselves (Republicans).....end of story."

Either you're for the people and OUR prosperity, supporting the poor, middle class, and rich alike, with pushes for strong business growth to provide opportunities for EVERYONE (Republicans), or you are greedy and only thinking of yourselves, pretending to help the people while at the same time attacking businesses, resulting in damage to the poor and middle class the most without any regard for that suffering (Democrats).....end of story. You just mixed the political parties up, there's something FAR more accurate.

"Either you're for the people and OUR prosperity (Democrats) or you are greedy and only think of yourselves (Republicans).....end of story."

I'm only here now and not still living in a car as I was for quite some time because of Republican work incentive programs, something the Democrats have fought against for quite some time. Republican values regarding the poor brough me an opportunity to build a resume and clean clothes, so that I was able to establish a real address and eventually find a job outside of Republican assistance. You want a real definition and example of Republicans versus Democrats, here you are. Work incentive programs gave me a chance to finally establish a real residence in my own apartment, and now I financially contribute to a poverty level that has one less person in it. More people outside of poverty, more to provide for a lowering number in poverty (helping those who cannot work), thus helping EVERYONE.
And what do the Democrats want? Eliminate work assistance, switch to pure social assistance. This provides food and a roof for the poor, but not a single opportunity to ever get out of poverty and lead a better life. What does this prove? Democrats do their best to keep people in poverty, throwing bread crumbs and kicking them back to the curb so that they can feel better about themselves by saying that they gave those crumbs. Does it actually help anyone in poverty lead a better life? Not a single bit. Without Republican programs to help the poor, I'd still be living out of a car. If the Democrats had their way, I'd still be living their today. They push VERY hard to keep people in poverty, giving them more people to throw crumbs to so that they can magically convince people that they are doing good, when they're doing nothing but stomping out hope even as they praise all their good work and charity.
Now in just this one issue alone (I can name over a dozen more where your definition of each party is proven very wrong), which is the party helping people and which holding them down? Greedy and only thinking of themselves, I think work incentives prove beyond any valid doubt that this fits the Democrats infinitely more than the Republicans, who push to bring the poor up into a decent working class life. Your definition is so backwards, as seen from my own personal experience, it's not even funny.

Beckwolf, I noticed that you have an answer for everyone's comment and I have a question for you. you claim that drilling will solve all of our problems but according to how the oil is drilled and sold in AK, that oil is not for US consumption.

Are you saying that you & republicans will issue a law on the record that all oil produced here will not go to the global storage and sold from the seas at the current charges?

I don't understand how oil drilled in AK and sold to Japan only will not be the same for any oil drilled off shore.

I only hear drill, drill like you guys want to bomb bomb bomb Iran. I don't see how this will be the solution and why not include the cost of inflation in the cost of oil.

Also I thought we (US) got our oil from Venezuela and Mexico not the Mideast. Also isn't the oil from ME heavy duty not 'sweet' for gasoline?

Also I can give the opposite of my life under republicans...lost a great job (lower management for 15 years at AT&T) but during Bush Sr, got the pink slip and was out of work for 18 months...Under Clinton I prospered but now I have three grown children moved back into my home.

All three served this country, one without work and without insurance, 2 strokes and only 35 years old. So don't tell me how great the republicans are, for that are dirt in my eyes.

I don't place anyone on high except my God but I tell you I am truly not better but people like you might be...is it true that after making $90K you don't pay FICA?

So have two questions but the main one is the oil and the drilling of it and how it will be dispersed.

Who cares where the oil is used. THe taxes taken from the oil will benefit all americans. THe lowered costs will benefit all americans. Oil does not belong to the American people it belongs to whoever pulls it out of the ground.

you pay fica on the first 90,000 of your income. The program is not meant to be a charity but it is intended as a pension for the individual with built in insurance. That is the reason people collect social security even people who really don't need it. Because they paid in. It is a well meaning but terribly poorly designed program. If it were privatized Americans would see vastly greater amounts of wealth in their retirements. But the government is worried about the people that would invest poorly and be left with even less than the pittance bestowed upon them.

YOu didn't lose your job because of the Republicans you lost your job because you weren't needed anymore by your employer. Life is tough Republicans try and help by getting government out of our lives Dems try and help by collecting more of our money and giving it to the government to take care of all of us. Look how well the government handled Freddie and Fannie situation billions lost because of government trying to hybrid with business it doesnt work and will always fail. If you want to see real pain check out foreign healthcare systems.

Just for fun you should research people with your daughters condition in England and see if they are truly better off than you guys. I am not saying this to be mean I have great empathy for your situation I just feel our system is better equiped to deal with it.

Interesting. You like Republicans for less government. England and Canada have a government run health care system and it works very well. Yes I've heard the cons of it but it does work and is better than nothing, which is what we have. If we had a system like yours it would be more government and therefor in you eyes a Democrate thing. Under the English/Canadian system doctors are not millionaires but that is OK with me.

Check out the cancer survival rates for patients treated in England vs those treated in the USA. Also do the same for Canada (its a little tougher because alot of them come over here.) They may provide healthcare for everyone but more people survive over here.

a quote from beckwolf......Either you're for the people and OUR prosperity, supporting the poor, middle class, and rich alike, with pushes for strong business growth to provide opportunities for EVERYONE (Republicans), or you are greedy and only thinking of yourselves, pretending to help the people while at the same time attacking businesses, resulting in damage to the poor and middle class the most without any regard for that suffering (Democrats).....end of story. You just mixed the political parties up, there's something FAR more accurate....ONE THING THAT IS ACCURATE beckwolf...REPUBLICANS ARE ONLY CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR OWN WEALTH...NOT AMERICA's....time for you to pull your head from your sorry-ass & smell some roses instead of the same ole sh*t!

this is why California is in a financial and energy crisis...

Financial crisis staggers California
Governor outlines draconian budget cuts
By Nick Davis
5 February 2003
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

California Governor Gray Davis, facing a massive $36 billion budget deficit, is pressing for adoption of an austerity budget for the current year in addition to the $10.2 billion in mid-year reductions which came in December. Under threat that California bond ratings will be downgraded, or that the state will be declared insolvent, the Democratic governor is engineering massive cuts in social programs and tax increases that affect the poorest and most vulnerable residents of the state.

As recently as 1999 the state was running a $20 billion surplus. The surplus came in great measure from the boom in computer and telecommunications companies that produced scores of overnight millionaires. Grossly overvalued shares in these companies provided a fictitious tax base from employee stock options and capital gains. Today's deficit is largely the outcome of the collapse of the stock market bubble and the decimation of Silicon Valley in the greater San Francisco area. When the collapse came, the state lost $6.2 billion in personal income taxes overnight.

Since big business pushed through a 1978 voter initiative, Proposition 13, which severely limited property tax increases, the state has been forced to rely on more volatile income taxes for 45 percent of its $100 billion annual state expenditure.

Other causes of the deficit included highly questionable investments of state funds, tax breaks to corporations and the rich, lavish building projects like Staples Sports Center and a new NFL football stadium in Los Angeles and the looting of the state's treasury by energy companies in a manufactured energy crisis in 2001.

There was no looting there was just incredible incompetence on the part of the energy buyers. They purchased energy far into the future at rates that were ridiculous because of fear. I know I watched it happen.

"It would seem that increased production domestically is the same as a meth addict switching dealers. He is still an addict, he is just getting his drug from a different source. It does nothing to address to root cause and does nothing to get us any closer to resolving the dependency issue."

Ummm, actually what you've said explains why drilling here IS a necessity. We ARE addicted to oil, you know, it being required to run or build ANYTHING right now, even the computer you used to send your post. We are still addicted, a better word of course that is more accurate is that we are still dependent. Now we have options on where we get this from, getting our drugs from a different source as you put it.
If we are to remain addicted to it, as no technology exists to eliminate it entirely (can't build a windmill even without oil, can't maintain it for a week without that oil), then what we SHOULD focus on is the SOURCE, obtaining it from the best source possible in order to minimize costs as much as possible (just like that meth addict trying to find the source that will bring the best product with the best deal, something we SHOULD be doing for anything we are dependent on). This situation isn't even pretending to address the root cause, and it's not designed to get us closer to resolving any dependency issues.
The entire purpose, the single point to this, is to find the best source while other programs exist to focus on reducing dependency. Do you ignore your addiction and let yourself die while you looking for a solution, or do you keep yourself alive while also trying to find an answer? This is an entire country you're talking about, of course you don't just stop using. Find the best source (your own example is perfect, the source is exactly what this is about), while slowly reducing dependency with new technologies that might not require as much oil, as production requires oil, every alternative fuel even requires oil to produce (perfect example and a show of a huge problem is corn ethanol, with current technology it takes almost three gallons of oil to make ONE of very inefficient ethanol, actually INCREASING our oil dependency while claiming to be an alternative meant to reduce that dependency). Until we come up with something that actually works (and even then some oil will probably always be needed in production, maintenance, and lubrication, even if not needed to power motion), do what you can with what you have. The best approach is ALWAYS two sided. Help with short term policies while focusing on the long term. Why let everyone suffer while we stand around waiting for new methods. Work on the method you have, use what you are dependent on under the best means possible (such as drilling at home to reduce foreign dependency, even without seeing a significant change at the pump, that price change not being a huge importance regarding why this needs to be done), keep everything running as smoothly as possible with the addiction that you have, while at the same time looking for ways to curb that addiction. Focus only on one, either maintaining dependency or only looking at means to exist without needing as much decades down the line as technology allows, and you're hurting the very people that you claim to be helping.

"The solution is to reduce dependency on carbon based products, develop sources that are renewable and clean, and build new industries in this country based on those new technologies. That allows for winners all around (all except for the oil magnates and those in their pockets"

Think a bit realistically on this for a minute. First off, who do you think is pushing the hardest for these alternative energies? Oil companies aren't just dealing in oil. The same companies are building hospitals, paper mills, schools, ethanol plants, and funding billions upon billions into alternative energies. The same companies of today will be making the profits off of the technology of tomorrow. The company that only looks at oil and not bridging over to other energy options is the company that fails, plain and simple. The companies are NOT tied and chained to oil, the ones who are the most dependent on it are the professionals who have no skills regarding those other energies, and thus will lose their jobs from the transition.
The greatest amount of funding for alternative energies comes from those oil companies, so they remain winners along with everyone else. Of course, the solution you mention is many, many decades away, if possible at all, since every alternative energy we have also requires oil to produce and maintain. Therefore, the best solution is to focus on two issues at once, whereas ignoring oil to favor other energy sources would only cripple us. We need to focus on maintaining inventory control over oil here, while simultaneously focusing on energy sources that reduce (but most likely never eliminate) the need for that oil. If we maintain ANY need for oil, even if only for maintenance, production, and lubrication, we still need to focus on maintaining as much control over that as possible. Even with new energy sources, it will still remain, and those corporations that purchase oil from countries to run through the refining process and sell back to them and other nations will be just as important in those new energies, and considering the cost and scope, will be just as needed to make it work.

"Think a bit realistically on this for a minute. First off, who do you think is pushing the hardest for these alternative energies? Oil companies aren't just dealing in oil. The same companies are building hospitals, paper mills, schools, ethanol plants, and funding billions upon billions into alternative energies. The same companies of today will be making the profits off of the technology of tomorrow.?"

Oh Really-Check the facts:

Investment in Alternatives

Rhetoric: Industry says it is investing heavily in renewable and alternative technology. The American Petroleum Institute (API) has claimed that, "In North America over the last five years, the oil and gas industry has invested almost $100 billion on renewable, alternative and advanced emerging energy technologies." (API letter to Members of Congress, 3/30/07)

Reality: Industry is hardly investing in renewable, non-petroleum energy. When the industry breaks down investment in what it terms "renewable, alternative and advanced emerging energy technologies," very little of the $98 billion spent on these technologies was invested in renewable or alternative energy sources. Only $1.2 billion of the $98 billion advertised by the industry as investment in renewables and alternatives was actually spent on renewable sources of energy between 2000 and 2005. This funding was not spent on renewable fuels but on production of electricity from wind, solar, geothermal, and landfill gas. (American Petroleum Institute, "Facts on Fuel")

The oil and gas industry has invested heavily ($86 billion over five years) in refining heavier sources of petroleum, including tar and oil sands and oil shale, and on turning waste and residue hydrocarbons into usable products. The industry has also modestly invested ($11 billion) in combined heat and power and vehicle fuel efficiency technologies. The amount invested in the next generation of energy is a tiny fraction of investment and an even smaller fraction of industry profits that could be invested in clean technologies.

When asked to provide their companies' investment in non-petroleum energy supply and production during a November 2005 hearing, the CEOs of the five largest oil companies reported little investment. Exxon reported investing a "negligible amount" in non-petroleum energy, and ChevronTexaco included coal and natural gas investments in its tally. (ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco responses to Questions from the Record of Joint Committee Hearing regarding Energy Pricing and Profits, Senate Energy and Natural Resources and Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committees, 11/9/05)

Both public and private investment in energy R&D have declined. Investment in energy research and development has been steadily falling despite rising geopolitical, environmental, and economic risks of dependence on oil. Investments in energy R&D by U.S. companies fell by 50 percent between 1991 and 2003. Total private sector energy R&D is less than the R&D budgets of individual biotech companies. Since the mid-1990s, both public and private sector R&D spending has been stagnant for renewable energy and energy efficiency. (Daniel M. Kammen and Gregory F. Nemet, "Reversing the Incredible Shrinking Energy R&D Budget," Issues in Science and Technology, Fall 2005)

Big Oil is an "obstacle" to alternative fuel stations. Big oil companies are using their market power to discourage service stations from stocking or offering E85 fuel and to create rules that make it difficult for consumers to compare prices for, fill up with, or purchase E85. Exxon Mobil and BP require their franchised stations to buy fuel exclusively from them, and neither company offers E85. Station owners must apply for exceptions to purchase E85. ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips require an E85 pump to be set away from the other pumps and do not allow stations to list E85 on their primary sign listing fuel prices. Chevron recommends that stations install new storage tanks and pumps worth about $200,000 at their own expense to offer E85, rather than using existing tanks and pumps. BP will not allow its franchised stations to offer payment by credit card at E85 pumps. (Wall Street Journal, 4/2/07)

Thanks for posting this!

"I'd laugh if I wasn't crying. The likelihood that offshore drilling will decrease fuel at the pump more than pennies has about the same likelihood that black holes created by the LHC will swallow the Earth."

Well, that might be an issue if the main purpose was to decrease prices. Of course, that's NOT the issue or main purpose, so this is a completey unrelated statement. The purpose is to reduce foreign dependencies and establish a more regional control of our own supply, granting not just a more stable cost (not a major reduction but stability), but also inventory control. This stability allows for a greater focus simulteneously on reducing dependency; it's not meant to act alone, and it is not designed to reduce actual oil dependency in the slightest.
Focus on alternative means while ignoring current dependencies is just as bad as focusing solely on oil and trying to maintain its need. Oil will most likely always be needed, at least for the next hundred years minimum, as nothing can be produced without it. We can work on technologies to reduce its need for motor control, but the production of those means still requires that oil, as does maintenance (wind turbines are a perfect example, as they are oil dependent to function but reduce the amount needed for energy, keeping us dependent but reducing useage, still therefore requiring oil refining to continue). A perfect example of how so-called alternative energies can actually increase dependency on oil, look at corn ethanol. With our current technology, it takes close to three gallons of oil to produce ONE of inefficient ethanol. So it in essence more than triples the amount of oil your car requires in order to move. That's not decreasing dependency, that's a rather large increase. We don't have the means to eliminate dependency, so we need to focus on controlling it until we can eliminate it. Of course, as long as people push to make a profit by fooling people into believing a certain technology is reducing dependency when it's really increasing it, such as that ethanol and in many models, even some hybrids, we'll continue heading in the wrong direction.
Oh, and since you mentioned the LHC, I'm VERY excited to see what happens. Wth past particle accelerators being the only reason we have television, microwaves, and many of the antibiotics and medicines in existence today, a faster collision opens us up for so many more possibilites, just from a medical perspective even, it's very, very exciting. Of course, this actual DOES relate to the topic, since this opens up the potential for newer, more efficient energy formations as well, at a cost of a mere $10 billion over 14 YEARS, compared to the $10 billion paid every single year to ethanol corporations in subsidy buyouts which is just pocketed as profit by one of the highest percent profit companies in the world, trumping oil by the double digits (oil is of course one of the least percent profitable industries in existence, profits shown so high simply due to the level of volume sold and not how much they make off of each gallon).

Well said. I'll counter--or not (I'm not convinced that I know your position, a problem that occurs sometimes when speaking with thoughtful people), and add that we'll need oil reserves more in 30 years to "reduce dependency" than we need to drill them now. The fastest short-term route to reducing dependency is more efficient use of the resource. And the fastest route to more efficient use of resources are prices that reflect a resource's long-term value. Historically, countries that insulate their consumers from price shocks tend to do better economically in the short run, but overall worse in the long run. So I don't have any problem with gas at $4 a gallon--I've increased efficiency to accommodate the price, and my family's garage is 30% more fuel-efficient than it was 6 months ago. We'll wring it out more if need be. In 20 years we'll all think that the oil companies were giving it away in '08. According to inflation-adjusted prices, it probably still underestimates the value of the resource at $4 a gallon.

And yes, about the LHC, the merger of particle physics and cosmology in the past 30 years is staggering, and we've barely begun to realize how it's going to change our view of things. It's was in my astronomer father's lifetime that the Universe expanded from stars, to galaxies, to Big Bang and the expansion, and now, possibly within, our lifetimes to even far bigger than that.

Forgot to add, I agree all the way with you on the gasohol industry. Ethanol may have a place in energy policy, but the way it has been implemented has been all about protectionism, pork-barrel politics, transfer of wealth from hard-working people to politically-connected groups, and overall rip-off of the American consumer. What a fraud.

"Well said. I'll counter--or not (I'm not convinced that I know your position, a problem that occurs sometimes when speaking with thoughtful people), and add that we'll need oil reserves more in 30 years to "reduce dependency" than we need to drill them now. The fastest short-term route to reducing dependency is more efficient use of the resource. And the fastest route to more efficient use of resources are prices that reflect a resource's long-term value."

Thanks. You're right, oil reserves are needed for that line 30 years from now. I am, however, an advocate for drilling today, as I believe that doing so closer to that thirty year mark is a riskier move than pre-emptive action, as well as increasing the potential for a much higher cost to initiate that action.
Greater efficiency is the ultimate short term answer, but one of the problems I see today is a lack of interest in one or the other, either short term or long term. True efficiency requires multiple implementations, a short term policy meant to assist for better long term planning while maintaining stability until those long term implementations have taken effect. If we can drill today to establish that reserve thirty years down the road, while creating a more efficient use of today's supply, adjusting prices to reflect those long term resource values you were mentioning, I think we'd be in the best position we can manage. That of course would require a solid measure of control, yet another area that would need a complete overhaul.
Anyway, my basic position, drill today, but not for any claims of cheaper gas or immediate effect. Rather, drill today to establish a stronger base for that period in the future, while adjusting prices to reflect a more accurate long term value, continuing to fund researching alternative energy sources while basing all this under the assumption that oil will STILL remain a needed commodity, and thus continue planning as such to keep from hurting ourselves if technologies aren't created as fast as planned or as efficiently as possible (I don't expect to eliminate oil dependence completely in areas such as production, not for a long, long time at least).
I'm still hoping that the LHC will provide some new insight into energy methods, but I tend to focus on the medicinal applications when discussing it with people since many don't know of the benefits this practice has actually produced, and medicine is something that becomes easy to equate to their lives. An astronomer father, lucky. Nothing like that in my family. My fiance comes from a geology father (she's a paleontologist and student working on her Phd), his job leading to her being raised in Indonesia as a child, then the Galapagos Islands, New Zealand, and Australia. My interest in the sciences is huge (never been able to decide on which career I'd enjoy the most, since I love everything from paleontology to particle physics to robotics to archaeology to molecular mechanics to geology to astronomy). Oh well, this just makes me a big reader, and projects like this always make me even more of one :)
Anyway, work is done and I myself have a degree I have to focus on tonight in electrical engineering (28 years old but stalled my schooling for a few years while serving in the Navy as a nuclear electrician). I'm out of here, time to leave this dusty old refinery my field assignment contract has placed me in for the next couple of months. Have a good night, and I hope the debating goes well for you.

"I'd like to know how many of the staff were political appointees & how many were contractors, since 7 out of 10 gov't employees are now contractors."

Actually, NONE were political appointees, these weren't political based positions. I might be wrong on this one, but based on the job descriptions, I don't believe any were contractors either, as those positions are generally permanent slots. They were simply employees, nothing more, with no political appointment or required party affiliation. They are entirely unrelated to political administrations of either side.

"Starting now, it will take 20 to 25 years to fully develop alternatives, get them into the markets, and convert all of our current oil guzzling systems to a different fuel source."

Try in the three digit numbers (if ever), not 20 to 25, as anything developed in the next 20 to 25 years will still require large amounts of oil to produce. Much like ethanol, multiple gallons of oil just to produce one of its own, as far as that one goes it increases dependency instead of decreasing, but even those that AREN'T scams and DO help still require oil to produce, even as they lower total dependency. There is no production or maintenance oil substitute, none even mentioned or hinted at yet. You can't make a windmill or maintain it without oil, we can't build a dam without oil, we can't produce gas free cars without oil, every oil alternative still requires that oil to produce. In the next 20 to 25 years, we can reduce our useage, but by no means is there even the option of eliminating it, not only do we not have the technology in the works for going THAT far, we don't even have a suggestion on the table as to how.

My point was that the gas pump is not going to get cheaper, so if you want to pay less and give less to other countries, get more efficient at using it. The result of drilling harder without using it more efficiently is that we will be in even a worse bind 8 years from now. Wasn't that our energy "policy," if you call it that, for the last 8 years?

Blunt-headed solutions exacerbate the problems they are purported to solve; which as they get worse are pointed to by those who mismanaged as reason for doing more of the same. If you look at a global map of energy usage (check this week's Economist article on countries causing global warming vs those suffering the consequences) the US looks like a man living on twinkies, hot dogs, pizza and beer in a world living on rice and water. Increasing prices have the virtue of making people more efficient at consuming resources. I'm all for increased gas prices. Prices set demand, so had we had an energy policy, we'd have probably have higher prices, but a lot less going to OPEC, and more going to maintaining infrastructure. No, I'm not talking about Alaskan bridges to nowhere. I'm talking about bridges that don't collapse, universal health care, and high-speed trains.