Obama Moritorium on Drilling May Cost Tens of Thousands of Jobs

[IWS]

Obama’s Moratorium Disaster: “Tens of Thousands” on Gulf Coast Will Lose Their Jobs Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, June 10, 2010, 12:05 PM An a$ to kick?On May 27, President Obama instituted a six-month moratorium on all drilling in water depths greater than 500 feet and stopped work on 33 Gulf deepwater exploration rigs, except under special circumstances. The president’s decision will force tens of thousands of Gulf Coast employees to lose their jobs.

EnergyTomorrow Blog posted this information today:

Several organizations have offered estimates of the drilling moratorium’s impact on consumers, the U.S. oil and natural industry, and the nation’s energy security:

• Adam Sieminski of Deutsche Bank predicted that U.S. oil production could fall by 160,000 barrels of oil per day by next year. (Financial Times)

• Bernstein Research said delays from the moratorium and rising costs stemming from new safety regulations are likely to raise the marginal cost of deepwater production by about 10 percent. (Financial Times)

• Paul Cheng of Barclays Capital warned that the higher costs could eliminate small independent companies who compete for drilling projects against the majors. (Financial Times) He also predicted an 11 percent drop in deepwater oil production. (Houston Chronicle)

• The Houston Chronicle reports that two large oil-services companies are relocating workers from the Gulf of Mexico to onshore North America drill sites and Brazil.

• The National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA) predicts that relocation is just part of the pain to be suffered by energy workers. Burt Adams, NOIA’s chairman, said in a statement, “the [president's] order will be felt by the families of tens of thousands of offshore workers who will be unemployed.”

API’s chief economist John Felmy discussing the potential short effects of Obama’s moratorium:

http://gatewaypundit...rigs-to-brazil/

 

[hugo]

It makes no sense to shut down active wells . Most accidents occur in the starting up or shutting down process. I live in Houston. It is going to get ugly.

 

[RaE]

Get ugly indeed.

 

[Builder]

Sounds like outsourcing to me.

 

[Phreakwars]

Drill, baby drill!! I need cheap gas and I want it NOW.

.

.

 

[snafu]

Drill, baby drill!! I need cheap gas and I want it NOW.

.

.

I couldn't agree with you more Phreak. Nice to see you've come around to reality.

 

[Times]

Drill, baby drill!! I need cheap gas and I want it NOW.

.

.

I couldn't agree with you more Phreak. Nice to see you've come around to reality.

Sure beats the alternative, imagine how many "poor" are hurt by gas prices leaping up in price for example. I love it when the Liberals pretend to be looking out for the "little" guy while they crush him under their heel. The only reason they want to push less oil and more "alternatives" is because they own most of the interest in these alternatives. GE for example is possitioned to make the most money from the cap-and-tax program and guess who has been one of the biggest blind supporter of Obama? GE, imagine that.

Even the "experts" Obama turned to for advice have said stopping drilling is a very bad idea, but why should Obama listen to the experts............?

 

[Builder]

Sure beats the alternative, imagine how many "poor" are hurt by gas prices leaping up in price for example.

You mean the "poor" people trading in oil? Or every other bastard being screwed over at the pump?

I love it when the Liberals pretend to be looking out for the "little" guy while they crush him under their heel.

Making an effort to avoid another catastrophic environmental disaster that will clearly overshadow the Exon Valdez "mishap", is, in your opinion, nothing more than a political stunt? Clearly, the oil barons had no viable contingency plan to cover such an event, and you are blaming your prez? What's Obama got to do with their lack of foresight? And as far as handling catastrophes, remember hurricane Katrina? Who said this? "You're doing a great job, Brownie." ?????

The only reason they want to push less oil and more "alternatives" is because they own most of the interest in these alternatives.

Hmmm, I clearly remember your last prez saying how developing alternative fuel sources was paramount to his plans for lessening the reliance on oil from foreign nations. He even suggested using grass to power your insatiable need for fuels. What happened to that plan?

GE for example is possitioned to make the most money from the cap-and-tax program and guess who has been one of the biggest blind supporter of Obama? GE, imagine that.

Cap and tax? They can't cap it. And again, that is the fault of the oil company. Not your current prez.

Even the "experts" Obama turned to for advice have said stopping drilling is a very bad idea, but why should Obama listen to the experts............?

Perhaps he has an agenda that does not include flogging a dead horse.

 

[IWS]

Sounds like outsourcing to me.

Yep. Outsourcing not only facilitated by the Obama administration, with the moritorium sending drilling rigs overseas, but financed by it also...

Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling Too bad it's not in U.S. waters.

You read that headline correctly. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is financing oil exploration off Brazil.

The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a "preliminary commitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount.

http://online.wsj.co...eTabs%3Darticle

 

[Builder]

Yep. Outsourcing not only facilitated by the Obama administration, with the moritorium sending drilling rigs overseas, but financed by it also...

It's all about balancing trade under the FTA.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c3510.html#2010

 

[Times]

You mean the "poor" people trading in oil? Or every other bastard being screwed over at the pump?

I said it correctly, the poor, the guys who are hurt the most by Liberals screwing around with the oil supply only to try and gain political points (oh, and funnel money into their own pockets from the companies like GE who are possitioned to make the most money).

Making an effort to avoid another catastrophic environmental disaster that will clearly overshadow the Exon Valdez "mishap", is, in your opinion, nothing more than a political stunt? Clearly, the oil barons had no viable contingency plan to cover such an event, and you are blaming your prez? What's Obama got to do with their lack of foresight? And as far as handling catastrophes, remember hurricane Katrina? Who said this? "You're doing a great job, Brownie." ?????

I blame Obama for "knee jerk" political actions that make things worse, not better.

I blame Obama for ignoring the experts in the field and doing whatever helps him and his political agenda instead of doing what is best for all americans.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/10/experts-say-obama-misrepresented-views-justify-offshore-drilling-ban/

In a letter the experts sent to Salazar, they said his primary recommendation "misrepresents" their position and that halting the drilling is actually a bad idea.The oil rig explosion occurred while the well was being shut down – a move that is much more dangerous than continuing ongoing drilling, they said.

They also said that because the floating rigs are scarce and in high demand worldwide, they will not simply sit in the Gulf idle for six months. The rigs will go to the North Sea and West Africa, possibly preventing the U.S. from being able to resume drilling for years.

They also said the best and most advanced rigs will be the first to go, leaving the U.S. with the older and potentially less safe rights operating in the nation's coastal waters.

Hmmm, I clearly remember your last prez saying how developing alternative fuel sources was paramount to his plans for lessening the reliance on oil from foreign nations. He even suggested using grass to power your insatiable need for fuels. What happened to that plan?

The biggest two problems with alternative energy sources is the systems are not viable without Government assistence (bio fuels for example get Government subsidies, if you took away the subsidy, their price per gallon would put them out of reach to the average American). The second problem is even if you created a new reliable and cost effective fuel for cars, the poor would be the last to be able to afford the new cars. As we withdraw from oil based energy, the cost will sky rocket and the people hurt the most by that time are the poor who will be working the hardest to try and survive.

Drilling more now would actually help the poor during those times because we could control the supply as we wean ourselves off oil products. As we use less oil, we will need to import less oil, eventually reaching a point where we can supply our own need instead of getting it from somewhere else. This would mean a lower impact on the poor.

Cap and tax? They can't cap it. And again, that is the fault of the oil company. Not your current prez.

The new policies will cause heating costs in the north to tripple in cost, that is not the oil companies, that is Obama and the Liberals screwing the poor.

Do you know that the "evil" oil companies make less profit on oil sales than the Government does? While the oil companies take all the risk, the Government makes a massive amount of 'free' money off of their work, and ask yourself another question, as we force the lower use of oil, where does the Government make up such a huge amount of loss tax revinue?

Perhaps he has an agenda that does not include flogging a dead horse.

Like Al Gore, they are in it for the money, they own the foundations of these alternative areas and stand to make so much money they will make the "oil barrons" you speak of look like poor orphans.

Either Obama is listening to the experts or he is not. If he is ignoring the experts, there must be a reason that has nothing to do with the facts or the situation that the experts know more about than he does. So if not based on the need, what else could Obama be basing his decisions on?

Personal and political gain seem the most likely.

 

[IWS]

As the Gulf Coast shores continue to be coated with crude, the Obama Administration has only accepted assistance from 5 countries out of 28 who offered to assist the US with the cleanup.

The State Department posted this on their website.

28 countries have offered to help assist the United States with the worst environmental disaster in American history. Only 5 offers have been accepted the rest are under review.

 

[Builder]

As the Gulf Coast shores continue to be coated with crude, the Obama Administration has only accepted assistance from 5 countries out of 28 who offered to assist the US with the cleanup.

What is with that stance? The former prez rejected help from heaps of capable nations in the Hurricane Katrina crisis.

Is it pride? Or national security? Seems to me when you have a disaster on such a tremendously damaging scale, any help would be welcomed.

 

[hugo]

As the Gulf Coast shores continue to be coated with crude, the Obama Administration has only accepted assistance from 5 countries out of 28 who offered to assist the US with the cleanup.

What is with that stance? The former prez rejected help from heaps of capable nations in the Hurricane Katrina crisis.

Is it pride? Or national security? Seems to me when you have a disaster on such a tremendously damaging scale, any help would be welcomed.

Never understood it. If I need mouth to mouth resucitation I ain't gonna hold out for the pretty blonde.

 

[Times]

I believe the "reimbursement required" column is the most important consideration. When America goes out to help in places like Haiti, we pay for the help we provide most of the time, when other people help us they have their hands out.

If the majority of this "help" is only an attempt to make money off our problem then I would be careful about accepting "help" too.

 

[IWS]

This is refreshing news...

U.S. Deepwater Drilling Ban Lifted by Federal Judge

June 22 (Bloomberg) -- A New Orleans federal judge lifted the six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling imposed by President Barack Obama following the largest oil spill in U.S. history. Shares of drilling services companies jumped on the news.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/06/21/bloomberg1376-L4FFWA07SXKX01-6NCM0129GHL8E7IC20E1H6TLT9.DTL#ixzz0rbnn73l8

 

[Times]

I like this part:

"Continuing to drill at these depths without knowing what happened does not make any sense," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

So if the deep water drilling may not be safe, why not release the ban on the shallow drilling they would rather do? Safer. cheaper, creats jobs, and ensures a better supply of oil for all Americans, but liberals don't want that for some reason..........

 

[atlantic]

Maybe they could find some room for some more Census workers :unsure:

 

[jokersarewild]

I'm quite curious as to why the only people that seem to be causing problems are "liberals". I'm sure others are responsible in their own ways.

 

[Anna Perenna]

I'm quite curious as to why the only people that seem to be causing problems are "liberals". I'm sure others are responsible in their own ways.

You'll soon learn the gospel according to TimesJoke and IWS:

"Liberals" are to blame for absolutely everything