"Drill baby drill"-- Cuba will-- 60 miles off Florida!!

[healthmyths]

geez.. I wonder why..
North Dakota, Spurred by Energy and Ag Boom, Has 3.2 Percent Unemployment!

 

[boilermaker55]

You idiots that are SO against "drill baby drill" in U.S.A. waters consider the below if you want Cuba with little or no experience and will enthusiastically control any oil spill of U.S.A. coast!

U.S. officials are trying to make sure the American coastline will be protected as Cuba begins drilling a deep water oil well later this year about 60 miles off the Florida Keys If Repsol's Cuba well, which is in slightly deeper water, experienced a blowout, the well could gush oil into the Straits of Florida, where it would be carried by the Gulfstream currents up the East Coast.

Neither of the two companies that developed capping capability has U.S. government permission to operate in Cuba.

U.S. Will Inspect Cuban Deep Water Oil Well - WSJ.com

Hey think about this and what you are saying drill baby drill rightwing nut.
Quote:Quote: Originally Posted by Lovebears65
Been saying this for months.But the EPA is so far up our asses , says we cant drill because of the environment. So, if Cuba drills there and there is a spill I guess none will go to our shores. The EPA sucks and needs to be reformed bad. I am not saying it should be done away with but they need a huge CUT in their policies.
Boilermaker55:
Perhaps you do not see they hypocrisy in your statement(s).
You are so afraid of Cuba fouling our shores and yet you curse th EPA who prevents oil companies from doing the same thing.
And yet, it is perfectly acceptable by many Americans to let companies move to Mexico and other third world countries because...........wait for it.........they have less EPA type regulations. So they can pollute their countries for American Corporate profits.
A viscious style you have their with money and profits.

 

[uscitizen]

Interesting to note that none of the wealthy want coal fired power plants, chemical companies, refineries in their back yards nor oil wells in sight of their beach front mansions.

Do you honestly think "drill baby drill" Palin would want a drilling rig or refinery in her back yard?

FL is a red state and does not allow offshore drilling a move backed by 2 Bushes.

so just STFU about the EPA and tree huggers keeping offshore drilling off the FL coast.

 

[healthmyths]

You wrote" drilling rig or refinery in her back yard?"

Unbelievable your hyperbolism!
The whole ANWR drilling footprint is equal in size to if you placed a postage stamp on a football field!

Yet idiots who have NEVER lived in Alaska much less understood the enormity of the place can with other idiots BLOCK Alaskans and the rest of America lower gas costs because you have NO IDEA of what you are writing about!

TALK about NIMBY? Ted Kennedy all in favor of "alternative energies" BLOCKED off shore wind turbines in his back yard! Perfect example of hypocrisy in action!

Also there is a concept known by MOST common people as "COMMON SENSE"!
You idiotic statement about the EPA shows YOU have no common sense!
The EPA blocked Shell's $4 billion off shore drilling in Alaska because of this totally ignorant reason: because a village 70 miles away with 245 people MIGHT MIGHT be exposed to what??
"consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project.

Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.
The leases alone cost $2.2 billion.
The closest village to where Shell proposed to drill is Kaktovik, Alaska. It is one of the most remote places in the United States. According to the latest census, the population is 245 and nearly all of the residents are Alaska natives.
The village, which is 1 square mile, sits right along the shores of the Beaufort Sea, 70 miles away from the proposed off-shore drill site.
EPA Rules Force Shell to Abandon Oil Drilling Plans | Vision to America

Stupidity thy name is the EPA and people like US CITIZEN!.. NOT A CITIZEN for sure!

 

[Douger]

The Chinese are already slant drilling outside territorial waters for the oil off Florida.

Here we have oil that we aren't going after and yet we will stand by and let China and Cuba go drill for it??

Our leaders are idiots..

Slant drilling
Was that a jab at the people that own you ?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Interesting to note that none of the wealthy want coal fired power plants, chemical companies, refineries in their back yards nor oil wells in sight of their beach front mansions.

Do you honestly think "drill baby drill" Palin would want a drilling rig or refinery in her back yard?

FL is a red state and does not allow offshore drilling a move backed by 2 Bushes.

so just STFU about the EPA and tree huggers keeping offshore drilling off the FL coast.

Who the hell has a backyard so big as to hold an oil refinery?

BTW.. the libs don't want windmills off the coast of Mawtha's Vinyid either.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Should be a state's right. If Florida endured a spill, or even the presence of oil tankers-and our tourism would drop. Our economy is based on tourism, and the sales tax from tourists is a main reason why we don't have a state income tax. Personally I don't want off-shore drilling here, and it has nothing to do with the EPA, or the environment. If other states want to allow off-shore drilling-fine. But as far as I know it's not something the people of Florida want, and we should be allowed to ban drilling off or our waters if we wish.

 

[healthmyths]

you wrote"Should be a state's right. If Florida endured a spill, or even the presence of oil tankers-and our tourism would drop. Our economy is based on tourism, a"
Then why does the EPA exist? Florida as an EPA why duplication?
But here is a even simpler question...
Where would there be more risk in drilling 5,000 feet or 100 feet?
I know that sounds complicated but where would there be a bigger risk?

Ah.. but again.. the EPA/and people like you that have FORCED deeper drilling are seeing the effect of your wise decisions to force drilling in now 35,000 feet in the Atlantic by Brazil and your president says "We'll be your best customer"!

Totally dumb .. also one other complicated question for you that so concerned about tourism in FL... do you live in FL like I do?
Do you know how many miles you can see out into the Gulf when you stand on Ft. Desoto Beach like I have? You have no idea do you? And the reason for that question is "visually pollution" issue the ignornati complain about in drilling off FL!

 

[JamesInFlorida]

you wrote"Should be a state's right. If Florida endured a spill, or even the presence of oil tankers-and our tourism would drop. Our economy is based on tourism, a"
Then why does the EPA exist? Florida as an EPA why duplication?
But here is a even simpler question...
Where would there be more risk in drilling 5,000 feet or 100 feet?
I know that sounds complicated but where would there be a bigger risk?

Ah.. but again.. the EPA/and people like you that have FORCED deeper drilling are seeing the effect of your wise decisions to force drilling in now 35,000 feet in the Atlantic by Brazil and your president says "We'll be your best customer"!

Totally dumb .. also one other complicated question for you that so concerned about tourism in FL... do you live in FL like I do?
Do you know how many miles you can see out into the Gulf when you stand on Ft. Desoto Beach like I have? You have no idea do you? And the reason for that question is "visually pollution" issue the ignornati complain about in drilling off FL!

First of all, it's sad that you use use blanket terms over me. If you think I'm one "those people", I suggest you read some of my others posts on these boards. I've said time and time again that I don't support the OWS' stance on income inequality, am pro-life, pro-death penalty, won't be voting for Obama in 2012. It's sad that you have to rely on boxing me in nice and perfect for what you assume I am (and both know what assuming makes you).

Actually I do in live in FL. And if you don't think what happened in Louisiana would crush our tourism industry (like it did there)-you're out of your mind.

So let me make three key points:

1) If an oil spill like the one in the Gulf a year or so ago happened near FL-what would it do to our economy here?

And much more importantly:

2) I clearly said it's a "state issue" in my post. If you were smart enough, you'd realize in Florida our waters extend to about 10 and a half miles off the coast. Anything beyond that is (constitutionally) federal land, and thus is no longer a states right issue.

3) American companies drilling offshore wont necessarily lower our prices of oil. This is because whether it's an American company, or a foreign drilling the oil-they'll have to sell at the equilibrium (market) price for the goods. If one foreign company that's drilling offshore decides to raise their prices in the US-the consumer will most likely purchase it elsewhere. And for the record the country we import the most amount of oil from is Canada.

PS-since 5,000 feet is not anywhere near the 10 miles or so until you reach federal waters, then the answer is YES it falls under the 10th amendment of the US Constitution. The law is very clear-cut about waters 5,000 feet off of the coast (using YOUR number), a quick Google search will tell you that. Anybody who actually boats out here (and I do), is at least somewhat familiar with the distinction of state vs federal waters.

 

[healthmyths]

You wrote:
If an oil spill like the one in the Gulf a year or so ago happened near FL-what would it do to our economy here?

A) The deeper the water the greater the risk! Duh..
Deepwater was over a mile of water before the bottom and THAT was the problem.
Are you aware that in
2.8 billion in 100 feet or less off Gulf coast
.3 billion in Virginia
10.0 billion in Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) Alaska Oil Anwar
If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected.
500.0 billion in Bakken Formation
6,000.0 billion barrels of oil equivalent. America's total oil shale resources
6.513.1 Trillion BARRELS

But people like you are so concerned about another spill you lose all common sense!
If it weren't for this ill-placed concern THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE PROBLEM!

2) I clearly said it's a "state issue" in my post. If you were smart enough, you'd realize in Florida our waters extend to about 10 and a half miles off the coast.
And as I CLEARLY stated State or Federal isn't the issue.. it's YOUR STATE of MIND and other people that seemingly NEVER understand it is more riskier drilling in 5,000 feet of water then in less then 100 feet!
YET your STATE of MIND that it is just as risky drilling in 100 feet as 5,000 feet states volumes for you and opponents total lack of common sense and one of the reasons for our cost of gas and loss of jobs!

3) American companies drilling offshore wont necessarily lower our prices of oil.
So if over the next 5 years if half of the 6 trillion barrels of domestic oil enters the market that doesn't have an affect on prices?
Are you aware of the concept known as "supply and demand"?

 

[Gadawg73]

None of you adress the main fact.
Where are the oil companies lobbying for more drilling in America?
Lame.
Why would they? They can buy at the spicket other places and waste NO capital for exploration and drilling.
Demand is the problem. Always has been.

 

[healthmyths]

You wrote a totally UNSUBSTANTIATED wildly hyperbolic statement here:
"Where are the oil companies lobbying for more drilling in America?"
Do you understand.. NO ONE BELIEVES your wild stupid idiotic hyperbole ?

FACTS: WHERE????

Big Oil lobbies the Congressional Deficit Supercommittee
the American Petroleum Institute (API), have been actively coordinating a massive public lobbying exercise, putting out a simple message or two. Don’t handcuff the oil and gas industry. Investing in the exploration and production of US oil and gas will drive the government’s revenue growth and employ thousands of people.

The argument goes like this, if the industry is offering both economic growth and an immediate jobs plan, it would be counterproductive to take away the tax incentives that would encourage this expansion. The industry is not only looking to keep its tax breaks, but also to cut back on clean air and other environmental regulations that block or slow projects and add to costs.

A couple of weeks ago Chesapeake Energy’s CEO was talking about America getting its swagger back by ramping up natural gas production.

Big Oil lobbies the Congressional Deficit Supercommittee


The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement in six months since the moratorium was lifted approved about 85 percent fewer exploration and development plans for the Gulf of Mexico than the average from 2005 to 2010, according to the report today by Englewood, Colorado-based IHS.
“The pace of plan and permit approvals is significantly below historical norms,” the report said. “A sustained slowdown in the Gulf of Mexico is already having a negative impact on job creation and domestic oil production, and will do so even more in 2012.”


Oil Exploration Approval by U.S.

 

[Samson]

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=112150

BP received permission Wednesday to return to the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico to drill its first well after the Deepwater Horizon incident–the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history.

The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) said BP's drilling permit, which was originally submitted in January 2011, has met the bureau's new safety requirements

 

[Gadawg73]

You wrote a totally UNSUBSTANTIATED wildly hyperbolic statement here:
"Where are the oil companies lobbying for more drilling in America?"
Do you understand.. NO ONE BELIEVES your wild stupid idiotic hyperbole ?

FACTS: WHERE????

Big Oil lobbies the Congressional Deficit Supercommittee
the American Petroleum Institute (API), have been actively coordinating a massive public lobbying exercise, putting out a simple message or two. Don’t handcuff the oil and gas industry. Investing in the exploration and production of US oil and gas will drive the government’s revenue growth and employ thousands of people.

The argument goes like this, if the industry is offering both economic growth and an immediate jobs plan, it would be counterproductive to take away the tax incentives that would encourage this expansion. The industry is not only looking to keep its tax breaks, but also to cut back on clean air and other environmental regulations that block or slow projects and add to costs.

A couple of weeks ago Chesapeake Energy’s CEO was talking about America getting its swagger back by ramping up natural gas production.

Big Oil lobbies the Congressional Deficit Supercommittee


The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement in six months since the moratorium was lifted approved about 85 percent fewer exploration and development plans for the Gulf of Mexico than the average from 2005 to 2010, according to the report today by Englewood, Colorado-based IHS.
“The pace of plan and permit approvals is significantly below historical norms,” the report said. “A sustained slowdown in the Gulf of Mexico is already having a negative impact on job creation and domestic oil production, and will do so even more in 2012.”


Oil Exploration Approval by U.S.

Uh, you left out a small part of the lobbying that is 100% of what the oil companies DO:
Tax credits for ALL of their capital expenditures related to their exploration and drilling efforts.
News flash for you there Moe: Oil companies, and most other companies that have truly VARIABLE expenses in all of their exploration, rely on INVESTMENT CAPITAL for all of their exploration and drilling. Who in their right mind invests in a company that has NO reliable data as to ROI in the oil business? (natural gas is another matter but the delivery system is not in place for that for autos and guess who IS NOT investing in that? Companies that begin with an O and end with a L and is a 3 letter word)
Oil lobbying, because of the vast amount of risk involved, is strictly for tax considerations. Not saying I blame them and not saying that is a bad thing but the oil companies would rather buy at the spicket than risk ANY of their $$. Sound business practice. No one invests in this market in oil exploration with the current tax structure in this country.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

You wrote:
If an oil spill like the one in the Gulf a year or so ago happened near FL-what would it do to our economy here?

A) The deeper the water the greater the risk! Duh..
Deepwater was over a mile of water before the bottom and THAT was the problem.
Are you aware that in
2.8 billion in 100 feet or less off Gulf coast
.3 billion in Virginia
10.0 billion in Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) Alaska Oil Anwar
If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected.
500.0 billion in Bakken Formation
6,000.0 billion barrels of oil equivalent. America's total oil shale resources
6.513.1 Trillion BARRELS

But people like you are so concerned about another spill you lose all common sense!
If it weren't for this ill-placed concern THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE PROBLEM!

2) I clearly said it's a "state issue" in my post. If you were smart enough, you'd realize in Florida our waters extend to about 10 and a half miles off the coast.
And as I CLEARLY stated State or Federal isn't the issue.. it's YOUR STATE of MIND and other people that seemingly NEVER understand it is more riskier drilling in 5,000 feet of water then in less then 100 feet!
YET your STATE of MIND that it is just as risky drilling in 100 feet as 5,000 feet states volumes for you and opponents total lack of common sense and one of the reasons for our cost of gas and loss of jobs!

3) American companies drilling offshore wont necessarily lower our prices of oil.
So if over the next 5 years if half of the 6 trillion barrels of domestic oil enters the market that doesn't have an affect on prices?
Are you aware of the concept known as "supply and demand"?

1) A spill from 100 or 5,000 feet would crush our tourism industry. Do you really think people in the northeast, or other areas of the country/world are going to say "oh but the leak happened 100 feet off the coast! It's ok to go there!"? Of course not-they'll simply take their tourism (and money) elsewhere. This isn't the only option they have for a vacation.

2) You can spin it all you want-but you can't deny the fact that drilling in the waters up to 10.5ish (I forget the exact amount) miles off-shore is a state issue, as it's in state waters. I don't want any state (much less my own), to become victim of big government reaching over their constitutional rights.

3) The supply-demand curve is a normal curve when discussing the oil industry. The equilibrium price is driven more by the demand, rather than the supply. You cannot look at oil's price the same way in which you do most goods or services. When the supply of oil goes up, prices don't automatically drop. If you have to drive to work and the price of gas is $2.50 per gallon, or $3.50 a gallon-does that mean you'll purchase less gas if it's at a higher cost, or pursue other options (which most of those use gas as well)? While it may be nice to pay the lower price, the reality is you'll still purchase the same amount of gas-because you need to.

 

[uscitizen]

You wrote:
If an oil spill like the one in the Gulf a year or so ago happened near FL-what would it do to our economy here?

A) The deeper the water the greater the risk! Duh..
Deepwater was over a mile of water before the bottom and THAT was the problem.
Are you aware that in
2.8 billion in 100 feet or less off Gulf coast
.3 billion in Virginia
10.0 billion in Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) Alaska Oil Anwar
If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected.
500.0 billion in Bakken Formation
6,000.0 billion barrels of oil equivalent. America's total oil shale resources
6.513.1 Trillion BARRELS

But people like you are so concerned about another spill you lose all common sense!
If it weren't for this ill-placed concern THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE PROBLEM!

2) I clearly said it's a "state issue" in my post. If you were smart enough, you'd realize in Florida our waters extend to about 10 and a half miles off the coast.
And as I CLEARLY stated State or Federal isn't the issue.. it's YOUR STATE of MIND and other people that seemingly NEVER understand it is more riskier drilling in 5,000 feet of water then in less then 100 feet!
YET your STATE of MIND that it is just as risky drilling in 100 feet as 5,000 feet states volumes for you and opponents total lack of common sense and one of the reasons for our cost of gas and loss of jobs!

3) American companies drilling offshore wont necessarily lower our prices of oil.
So if over the next 5 years if half of the 6 trillion barrels of domestic oil enters the market that doesn't have an affect on prices?
Are you aware of the concept known as "supply and demand"?

1) A spill from 100 or 5,000 feet would crush our tourism industry. Do you really think people in the northeast, or other areas of the country/world are going to say "oh but the leak happened 100 feet off the coast! It's ok to go there!"? Of course not-they'll simply take their tourism (and money) elsewhere. This isn't the only option they have for a vacation.

2) You can spin it all you want-but you can't deny the fact that drilling in the waters up to 10.5ish (I forget the exact amount) miles off-shore is a state issue, as it's in state waters. I don't want any state (much less my own), to become victim of big government reaching over their constitutional rights.

3) The supply-demand curve is a normal curve when discussing the oil industry. The equilibrium price is driven more by the demand, rather than the supply. You cannot look at oil's price the same way in which you do most goods or services. When the supply of oil goes up, prices don't automatically drop. If you have to drive to work and the price of gas is $2.50 per gallon, or $3.50 a gallon-does that mean you'll purchase less gas if it's at a higher cost, or pursue other options (which most of those use gas as well)? While it may be nice to pay the lower price, the reality is you'll still purchase the same amount of gas-because you need to.

Just as mountain top removal methods of coal extraction ruin tourist industries in the coal fields of appalachia.

Or water polloution in our streams and lakes ruin the tourist industry for water recreation and fishing.

why is fuel just as cheap in FL as in a state that produces and refines oil products?
It should cost more.

 

[Samson]

You wrote:
If an oil spill like the one in the Gulf a year or so ago happened near FL-what would it do to our economy here?

A) The deeper the water the greater the risk! Duh..
Deepwater was over a mile of water before the bottom and THAT was the problem.
Are you aware that in
2.8 billion in 100 feet or less off Gulf coast
.3 billion in Virginia
10.0 billion in Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) Alaska Oil Anwar
If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected.
500.0 billion in Bakken Formation
6,000.0 billion barrels of oil equivalent. America's total oil shale resources
6.513.1 Trillion BARRELS

But people like you are so concerned about another spill you lose all common sense!
If it weren't for this ill-placed concern THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE PROBLEM!

2) I clearly said it's a "state issue" in my post. If you were smart enough, you'd realize in Florida our waters extend to about 10 and a half miles off the coast.
And as I CLEARLY stated State or Federal isn't the issue.. it's YOUR STATE of MIND and other people that seemingly NEVER understand it is more riskier drilling in 5,000 feet of water then in less then 100 feet!
YET your STATE of MIND that it is just as risky drilling in 100 feet as 5,000 feet states volumes for you and opponents total lack of common sense and one of the reasons for our cost of gas and loss of jobs!

3) American companies drilling offshore wont necessarily lower our prices of oil.
So if over the next 5 years if half of the 6 trillion barrels of domestic oil enters the market that doesn't have an affect on prices?
Are you aware of the concept known as "supply and demand"?

1) A spill from 100 or 5,000 feet would crush our tourism industry. Do you really think people in the northeast, or other areas of the country/world are going to say "oh but the leak happened 100 feet off the coast! It's ok to go there!"? Of course not-they'll simply take their tourism (and money) elsewhere. This isn't the only option they have for a vacation.

2) You can spin it all you want-but you can't deny the fact that drilling in the waters up to 10.5ish (I forget the exact amount) miles off-shore is a state issue, as it's in state waters. I don't want any state (much less my own), to become victim of big government reaching over their constitutional rights.

3) The supply-demand curve is a normal curve when discussing the oil industry. The equilibrium price is driven more by the demand, rather than the supply. You cannot look at oil's price the same way in which you do most goods or services. When the supply of oil goes up, prices don't automatically drop. If you have to drive to work and the price of gas is $2.50 per gallon, or $3.50 a gallon-does that mean you'll purchase less gas if it's at a higher cost, or pursue other options (which most of those use gas as well)? While it may be nice to pay the lower price, the reality is you'll still purchase the same amount of gas-because you need to.

Just as mountain top removal methods of coal extraction ruin tourist industries in the coal fields of appalachia.

Or water polloution in our streams and lakes ruin the tourist industry for water recreation and fishing.

why is fuel just as cheap in FL as in a state that produces and refines oil products?
It should cost more.

"Tourist industries in the coal fields of appalachia?"



You compare FL tourism with WV?

 

[healthmyths]

you are so wrong..1) A spill from 100 or 5,000 feet would crush our tourism industry.

Evidently YOU never dove to 100 feet versus 5,000 ft (which by the way 5,000 is not possible without a submersible).

WHICH was my POINT.. a 100 ft water depth is so easy to contain I'm going to shout!
THERE WOULD BE NO MASSIVE SPILL like there was from the 5,000 FT!
Do you understand the tremendous difference in risk factors???

2) You can spin it all you want-but you can't deny the fact that drilling in the waters up to 10.5ish.. and state's right are NOT the ISSUE!

It is the False premises that you and others keep filling uninformed people with that is KEEPING the billions of royalties and 1,000s of JOBS from Florida's OIL!

You and the other anti-drilling are so dumb about the economics involved!
FACTS: from this site: Florida::Gross Domestic Product & Income
Private Industries $652,509 87.26%
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $182,776 24.44%
Trade, Transportation & Utilities $139,956 18.72%
Government $95,225 12.74%
Professional & Business Services $87,504 11.70%
Education & Health Services $69,205 9.26%
Leisure & Hospitality $42,674 5.71%
Manufacturing $38,424 5.14%
Construction $33,542 4.49%
Information $31,759 4.25%
Other Services $19,901 2.66%


You wrote"
3) The supply-demand curve is a normal curve when discussing the oil industry. The equilibrium price is driven more by the demand, rather than the supply. You cannot look at oil's price the same way in which you do most goods or services.
Sure... of course you should also look at this...

2) Oil versus Tourism..
On the cost side of the ledger they calculate that it would cost $17 per barrel to produce offshore oil at $50 per barrel and $20 per barrel at $100 per barrel. They incorporate a Minerals Management Service estimate of $700 million as the cost of the environmental damage [PDF] caused by producing 10 billion barrels of oil offshore. They include an estimate of damage caused by greenhouse gases produced by burning the oil as fuel, and the direct costs of local air pollution, and traffic congestion and accidents. So what did they find?
At $100 per barrel, outer continental shelf oil production of 11.5 billion barrels of oil would reap $1.15 trillion in revenues, lower oil prices by $99 billion, and reduce the costs price disruptions by $51 billion, resulting in total benefits of $1.3 trillion. Drilling costs would be $238 billion, environmental costs and greenhouse gas damages would total $2 billion, the costs of local air pollution, traffic congestion, and traffic accidents would be $22 billion, $33 billion, and $38 billion respectively. So the total costs of producing 11.5 billion barrels of offshore oil would be $332 billion. Hahn and Passell calculate that at $100 per barrel, the net benefits of producing offshore oil would come to $967 billion, or a trillion dollars. They note that even if the total costs were doubled in both scenarios, “the qualitative conclusion that resource development passes any plausible benefit–cost test still holds.”
Weighing the Benefits & Costs of Offshore Drilling - Reason Magazine

And Florida's share would be close to $10 to $20/barrel which would make OIL royalties directly adding nearly $300 million a year..which is more than Tourism!

 

[rdean]

The Chinese are already slant drilling outside territorial waters for the oil off Florida.

Here we have oil that we aren't going after and yet we will stand by and let China and Cuba go drill for it??

Our leaders are idiots..

Ridiculous. More nonsense.

I bet you even believe Obama took a trip costing 200 million dollars a day.

 

[uscitizen]

1) A spill from 100 or 5,000 feet would crush our tourism industry. Do you really think people in the northeast, or other areas of the country/world are going to say "oh but the leak happened 100 feet off the coast! It's ok to go there!"? Of course not-they'll simply take their tourism (and money) elsewhere. This isn't the only option they have for a vacation.

2) You can spin it all you want-but you can't deny the fact that drilling in the waters up to 10.5ish (I forget the exact amount) miles off-shore is a state issue, as it's in state waters. I don't want any state (much less my own), to become victim of big government reaching over their constitutional rights.

3) The supply-demand curve is a normal curve when discussing the oil industry. The equilibrium price is driven more by the demand, rather than the supply. You cannot look at oil's price the same way in which you do most goods or services. When the supply of oil goes up, prices don't automatically drop. If you have to drive to work and the price of gas is $2.50 per gallon, or $3.50 a gallon-does that mean you'll purchase less gas if it's at a higher cost, or pursue other options (which most of those use gas as well)? While it may be nice to pay the lower price, the reality is you'll still purchase the same amount of gas-because you need to.

Just as mountain top removal methods of coal extraction ruin tourist industries in the coal fields of appalachia.

Or water polloution in our streams and lakes ruin the tourist industry for water recreation and fishing.

why is fuel just as cheap in FL as in a state that produces and refines oil products?
It should cost more.

"Tourist industries in the coal fields of appalachia?"



You compare FL tourism with WV?

It is a matter of scale, and is an important part of the Appalachian economy.

I do not personally care if all the beaches in FL are oil covered since I do not like to go there.
Kinda like you seem to be about appalachian wilderness I guess?

The Orlando tourism industry and cruise industry would survive anyway.