Off shore drilling - Who really benefits?

After reading the article in the link at the end of this blog I finally figured out the real purpose of hotly debated off shore drilling.


First, it is important to understand that US off shore drilling already occurs off the shores of California and Louisiana. This drilling occurs in only 8 million acres of the 43 million acres that is leasable for oil drilling.


This made me wonder if there is so many acres still not leased for drilling, why would we need to more leasable acres?


OK, well to answer this you need to understand that drilling has various costs based on how deep the drill needs to go; the deeper the more costly.


The oil companies have drilled in all the shallow areas where the cost of drilling low. Now they are looking for new areas to drill, not because it will change the price of gasoline to you or I (the US Dept. of Energy predicts "insignificant" changes at the pump), but because it will continue to keep their profits high. These companies that are making huge profits and gains refuse to spend some of their ridiculously huge profits on deeper oil drilling. They are the supporters of more offshore drilling disregard the harm to the environment for spillage and eye soar of the drill itself only to benefit these companies.


So, who is really pushing for these new off shore drilling locations? It came from Bush, a formal Oil executive, in 2006 when he requested new exploration for oil. This was blocked, largely by California senators and the California Governor because of the impact to sea life. Now Bush is back pushing even stronger becase, and in my opinion, he is looking for what work he can do after his disastrous 8 years in office. The only place he can go is back to the family business of oil (nobody else will likely even want to hear his opinion). While he is in office he is trying to find ways to make his next job more profitable. Remember, these new drilling areas will not change the price at the pump, do not have more oil available then the already leasable space (in fact have less than what is currently available), and are only cheaper areas to drill to raise more profits for the oil company.


Who benefits? Oil companies and their executives! Does that make sense? To me I would rather focus on the existing areas for drilling at the expense of the wealthy oil companies, and divert even more funds to developing the US infrastructure to handle public alternative fuel stations. Soon, the automotive companies will have huge inventories of alternative fuel vehicles ready for you and I to purchase. However, if there is no place to "fill up the tank" with alternative fuel, than all this will be a waste. That translates to more automotive industry struggles, which means loss of jobs, and a weakening of the economy.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-07-13-offshore-drilling_N.htm