Drill Here, Drill Now?

Putting cynical populism, ignorance of global security and environmental vandalism into perspective… “Drill Here, Drill Now” is not even a short term solution, it’s a long term road to nowhere (via garrett).

In fact, that’s precisely what returning a Republican to the White House will be after eight years of cronyism, incompetence and mismanagement: A Road to Nowhere.

But hey — at least they have a bridge to sell you!

This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Drill Here, Drill Now?

  1. Patrick Britton says:

    I was hoping to find news on this Ubuntu blog about Ubuntu but was surprised to find partisan politics instead. If I wanted to read a political rant I’d go to the other million sources out there, turn on the tv or open a news paper, I don’t go to a blog I thought would be about Ubuntu.

    Please tell me why this is hosted by Ubuntu and what it has to do with Linux?

  2. jdub says:

    @Patrick Britton: Welcome to my blog where I write about stuff that I care about. You may have found this on a community aggregator, but what you read there is first and foremost the product of individuals… indeed: Planet Ubuntu is a window into the world, work and lives of Ubuntu developers and contributors.

  3. perro says:

    besides, if it not were for this post I wouldn’t know about this graphic that so clearly and nicely shows what the offshore drilling would accomplish. Thanks Jeff!!

  4. Wahoo says:


    It’d be different if this was one political post in the midst of some good FOSS/Ubuntu ones.

    However, all I see from you on planet is random crap that teenagers send to each other.
    Do you even develop/contribute to Ubuntu anymore? because if I was just reading your blog, I’d say not. If it is supposed to be a window to your work and life, how about giving us both sides, including your work?

  5. flows says:

    Well, that’s how international markets work like. Do just a little bit (like increasing the amount of produced oil, start a little war in Iraq, against Iran or whatsoever), and all the analysts will start providing negative predictions. Oil becomes expensive than. What the US government wants to achieve is no long-term solution, it’s a mean to stabilize market prices.
    However, I don’t appreciate that, either.
    By the way, it’s election time in the US. Bush has to offer ideas in order to help John McCain and his party.

  6. pvanhoof says:

    I’m sure Europe, Russia, … are already preparing for another eight years of foreign US policies.

    I wonder if this time it will all still be relatively peaceful (other than the countries that got targeted, it was all relatively peaceful in the rest of the world).

    Drilling Alaska’s oil sure ain’t going to help getting the chess pieces in a better position.

    Oil is and will be expensive because increasingly the product is becoming harder and harder to get. In a free capitalism, the kind that the US are so fond of, that means the product will get increasingly expensive. Obviously free capitalism is not ruling when it’s about oil. State influence to keep the price low is enormous. As a high price would, so is the current administration believing, weaken US economy.

    I guess that explains the conclusion that drilling for oil will improve said economy (it wont, it’s not a oil but a structural problem, in the US).

    In a free capitalistic system high prices means that alternatives will be developed. Alternatives being developed means new technology and new markets appearing.

    I just hope the converting wont go together with a few new big wars.

    I wish it was not nonsense. I really hope that the world can cope with another four or even eight years of catastrophic (sorry I have no other word for it) US foreign policy.

  7. jdub says:

    @Wahoo: Here’s an idea… how about I write my blog, and you write yours? I’m not about to adopt your policy on my blog, and I imagine you wouldn’t be particularly interested in adopting mine. Perhaps you’d prefer to comment on the issues, or just ignore the posts you don’t like?

  8. ethana2 says:

    I, for one, found this very informative. I wish more candidate speeches would include graphs like this instead of just buzzwords.

  9. Theo says:

    Hi Jeff,

    I realize that this is your blog and that you are entitle to post absolutely whatever it is that you wish to post on it; however, this is the only blog that is on Planet Ubuntu that doesn’t feature more Ubuntu content than anything else. I’m not trying to be a jerk, but I don’t see what the point is in having your blog aggregated when you talk about day-in-the-life stuff. Most of us subscribe to Planet Ubuntu for Ubuntu posts (and a few day-in-the-life-stuff on the side).

    I realize that “Planet Ubuntu is a window into the world, work and lives of Ubuntu developers and contributors” but I imagine that when looking through that window we’d see at least some developing and some contributing. Instead we get posts about flickr and your political ideas.

  10. jdub says:

    @Theo: Sure, and there are people who are on Planet Ubuntu who blog about all kinds of things I (and others, all in different ways) don’t care about.

    But most readers just skip by the things they’re not interested in, comfortable in the knowledge that it really has no impact on their life, and thus they need not be whining little turds to the authors of posts they skip.

    Case in point: Your comment took longer to write than pressing page down. Why so much effort for such little result or satisfaction? It’s not like I’m going to change the way I write my blog because it inconveniences you…

    Welcome to the complex, interesting and challenging natural multiplicity of reality, as brought to you (in this case) by my blog.

  11. seth says:

    I find it interesting that people feel they must continue to force statistics down peoples throats about either candidate. I could take a survey or make a graph that is 100% one way or the other. The problem with data is the person taking the data is never able to be totally unbiased. There is always something that will cloud the judgement. In all actuality voting in the United States has turned into a “voting for the lesser of two evils.” Neither candidate has wowed me, but neither candidate has made me say I can’t vote for them. The real issue is how do we fix the mess that is occurring in this country. Whether it originated from Bush or Clinton or further back. Unfortunately I don’t think either candidate can make that difference.

  12. Jeff,

    What steps do you propose to solve the world-wide energy crisis (the eventual depletion of fossil-fuels)? I also saw the statistic that claimed 12,954 nuclear power plants were needed to replace fossil-fuel-based energy.

    Surely wind, solar, biofuels, geothermal and other renewable sources cannot solve this problem. Is there no solution then?

    Is humanity doomed? Please tell us!


  13. jdub says:

    @seth: Of course, these are not “statistics […] about either candidate”. They just demonstrate the reality behind whether a particular policy position is legitimate. πŸ™‚

  14. jdub says:

    Tristan: Ignoring the underlying sarcasm in your comment, the issue at stake is which candidate has a more realistic understanding of the position we’re in, and what needs to be done about it.

    The USA could be (and, in fact, could already have been) the leader in green energy technology. Personally, I hope Australia beats the USA to the punch. πŸ˜‰ Drilling “here and now” is a populist strawman, and is very clearly not a plan for the future — be it the future of energy or security.

    Fighting over oil is like fighting over drugs: A lot of people get hurt, the bad guys get rich, and you’re pushing your resources and attention away from resolving the problem. The best thing to do is to help everyone get off the drugs in the first place.

  15. David says:

    Sorry to see whats going on here. I always thought that people who view blogs on planet.gnome would be a little brighter. Evidently they can’t even read that that damn chart is provided by the US Energy Information Administration. Thats incredibly partisan – morons. I don’t see a candidates name here. I see a post that supports the idea that tons of people have been saying… Drilling offshore isn’t going to help us.

  16. Morkin says:

    Aside from your obvious attempt at tackling a complex issue, you may want to take a course in Political Science to understand the idea of Populism. You have used it incorrectly, associating it as an ideal of favorability rather then it’s correct use of an assembly of the Bourgeoisie vs. the Establishment.

    I also think that you need not bog down the Planet. I understand that this is your blog, and you may do with it as you please, but it doens’t belong on the Planet. I would suggest Huffingtonpost.com or DailyKos for your rants, they don’t belong here.

  17. perro says:

    the best part about this graph is that the data comes from the U.S. ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION (a U.S. governmental institution).
    and it is no statistics. Is DATA, in other words, FACTS


  18. jdub says:

    @David: Sadly, and this surprises me, it seems that the whiners are mostly coming via Planet Ubuntu. Seems they haven’t been quite as exposed to the “Planets are for People” idea as most Planet GNOME readers. πŸ™‚

  19. seth says:

    The reason for the flaming:

    “In fact, that’s precisely what returning a Republican to the White House will be after eight years of cronyism, incompetence and mismanagement: A Road to Nowhere.”

    Pure speculation. But, this is @jdub’s blog. And he is entitled to his own opinions. But along with having his own opinion, he needs to be ready for attacks from people with different beliefs. Maybe someone reading this will have his/her mind changed because of the post and ensuing rants/flames. The great thing about America is the freedom of speech. But people attack the very people that are supposed to be upholding this right.

  20. Steven says:

    I don’t see it as a problem that this blog is on the planet. I do however find it amusing that you ridicule the idea of drilling for more oil. Increased supply reduces price, it’s really very simple economics (and there was a paper recently turned away from being published in a journal on this subject with the reason that it added nothing and was already well understood, to lazy to find the link now maybe somebody else can find it).

    It’s also rather naive to think that this is THE long term solution. It’s not up to the government to solve the energy problems, it’s up to us. What the government could and should do is remove the regulation barriers that are in place that hamper new energy research, and various groups to stop pushing these overly broad and restrictive regulations (several environmental groups come to mind here). Government has rarely (if ever) been the source of real innovation, and only in the last few decades have they become a major source of funding.

    People need to stop whining for the government to fix their problems, get off their *ss, and do some work.

  21. dontunderstand says:

    I’m confused by this chart. It seems that initiating new drilling in the US spurs drilling more foreign oil. This chart seems to suggest that doing a little bit of drilling in the US will greatly increase the supply and cause huge drops in price!

    What I don’t understand is why people support Obama’s plan for energy, which ironically is the same as Bush’s… just throw money at the problem and see what happens. Bush has pushed a ton of federal government tax dollars into research into stuff like hydrogen fuel cell cars, and absolutely nothing has come out of it. Obama’s plan is to do the same!! I’m all for the green energy movement, but I think its time for the government to sit on the sidelines and let the market figure it out. Companies like WalMart don’t want to pay these high energy prices, and are moving their trucks to biodiesel, adding skylights in their buildings and turning off the lights, and improving the efficiency of everything. And they aren’t wasting my money in the process, rather, just saving me it.

  22. Russ says:

    The report the graph is based on is flawed due to a mistake in expected oil prices. The report was made with the assumption that oil would drop from its 2006 “peak” of $60 down to somewhere below $50:


    Given current oil prices, much more than 200,000 barrels per day could be drilled, and within a much shorter time frame. Ditto with off limits shale deposits.

  23. Max says:

    I subscribe to Planet Ubuntu is because I want to hear about open source projects, not because I want to hear a software developer talk about politics. I am sure you are a very talented developer and it is a shame that you don’t use this spotlight on your blog whole heartedly for the people who gave you your job and your fame, Ubuntu and FOSS. To a lot of us, Ubuntu is sacred. Don’t make Ubuntu political and let us hear about your specialty in working for Canonical and developing Ubuntu.

  24. Erik Snoeijs says:

    @david & @perro : Like perro said its just the data that’s provided. So its not the opinion of the U.S. ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, nor do we know what methods are used to create the graph from the data. The data might be fact, the graph however is interpretation.

    However more to the point the last time i read about it, both candidates where looking at drilling in the U.S. for oil, so this is hardly a statement against one of the guys.

    But like other people have already said, the problem with oil is much much larger then if we there is going to be drilling in the U.S. or not, at the current rate the finding of new oil and the amount of oil they can get from those new spots does not equal to the loss in efficiency of old spots + increase in consumption in the long run. (I don’t have a link for it, but there was a rather extensive amount of research published about this)

    Unless we find some magic place where there is still massive amounts of easily (cheaply) available oil the price will keep rising, and like pvanhoof already said, this will quite literally force us to start using alternative means. Even if we do find this place (russia’s bet is apparently on the north pole) its a temporary solution, because of the simple reason that oil is a finite resource.

    Now having said that, i would also like to comment on the people complaining about political posts on planets and such. If you are highly offended by political messages then you are S.O.L., its that season again so to no surprise its getting discussed everywhere. Now i can already tell you that complaining about it will simply fail, because nobody really cares. A much saner solution is to use one of the many greasemonkey scripts out there to strip away blogs you don’t like from planets. Its client side filtering so you have total control.

  25. Jake says:

    @perro: considering that the data in the graph occurs in the future, you have it exactly backwards – they are by definition statistical projections, not facts.

    Notice that projections like this never take into account who is in office. That’s because it doesn’t matter. Expanded offshore drilling *may* represent that little yellow sliver, but all of the Obama Facebook pages in the world aren’t going to put a dent into those hulking grey curves, either.

    Don’t turn this into a McCain vs. Obama thing. Neither of them are big enough to make a dent in this, and you’re kidding yourself if you think that a politician is going to solve the problem. The market, combined with natural pressures will decide how the energy is produced, how it is consumed, and how it is conserved. PS – we control the market by what we do every day, not who we vote for on November 4th. But I guess armchair Americans won’t be voting on November 4th anyway.

  26. Matthew Berg says:

    Russ beat me to the main issue with the EIA report – “technically recoverable” estimates based on drastically incorrect price projections are useless.

    Their access case also includes the assumption that “leasing would begin no sooner than 2012”, but the U.S. Minerals Management Service is planning on accelerating the time table in light of the drastic run up of oil prices. The current request for comments doesn’t include the land currently under a moratorium by congress, but should congress allow the ban to lapse (seems likely) those leases will likely also be offered earlier than the EIA projections.

    Explotation is also “assumed to proceed at rates similar to those seen in the early development of the Gulf region” which ignores that some of the land is under existing lease and already has extensive exploration done. Some estimates peg production within a year of rescinding the moratorium.

    And finally, as the MMS notes, current estimates of total reserves are very conservative as exploration has been banned in most of the areas for 20-30 years.

    Is it the end-all be-all solution? Of course not, and nobody has said that it is. Will it have an immediate impact on pump prices? Debatable. Certainly not drastic, if at all. But how is that an excuse for dismissing long term gains (and other short term gains, such as job creation)?

  27. Sagar says:

    @Russ: Where do you see the assumption that oil prices would drop? I wasn’t able to find it in the linked report.

    Also, the report concludes that “Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant. ” That conclusion seems to make moot the question of exactly how much and when OCS wells would produce.

  28. richard says:

    You probably believe in global warming too, HA.

    If you can’t post something about ubuntu or linux please don’t post this garbage or get your blog off of planet ubuntu.

    It amazes me how blind people can be about the US and how the economy works. Do you know that a year ago oil was around $50/barrel and gas at the pump was $2.22 at that time. and when it tripled at $150 it never went over $5 when theoretically it should have almost been $7. Most of what you see at the pump is related to futures and to what the imaginary price is or will be.

    We haven’t had a refinery built in this country in over 30 years! And by beginning to we will bring up morale and we can stop subsidizing other countries oil with tax benefits and begin to be self sufficient.

    WHAT A CONCEPT! Please take your left wing spin and regurgitate it on someone else!

  29. Walther says:

    @ The people that say this is such a good graph and perro:
    What do you mean FACT? Did you notice that of the 25 years plotted in this graph we only know the numbers for the first 2 or 3? The rest is all projection, not fact.
    You don’t know what the national energy consumption is going to do, nor what other energy sources will be used, nor what OPEC will do in the next 20 years. 80% in that graph is speculation.
    The only message from this whole story is that drilling will give us about 2% of our current consumption in about 15 years. And that is not going to help.

    @jdub: You can post whatever you like on your blog.

  30. Sagar says:

    @Russ: I managed to find the numbers[1], and it looks like the EIA did in fact increase short-term (until 2013) price estimates by about 25%, and long term price estimates by about 10%.

    While I’ve had a hard time finding good numbers for how long it takes to get a rig up and running, I haven’t seen any estimates under five years (2013 is five years from now). The incentive for monetizing fields, then, is only about 10% higher under the new estimates.

    I’m skeptical that would result in “much more” than .2mb/d being drilled, and within a “much shorter” time frame.

    I know nothing about shale deposits, so no comment on that.

    [1] http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/aeo_2008analysispapers/woppt.html

  31. Ian says:

    jdub: “Sure, and there are people who are on Planet Ubuntu who blog about all kinds of things I (and others, all in different ways) don’t care about.”

    That’s fair enough. Yet this line of criticism seems legitimate. What DO you do for Gnome? And why don’t you ever post about it?

  32. Russ says:

    Sorry sugar, I linked to the wrong page. This should help:


  33. perro says:

    “You probably believe in global warming too, HA. ”
    well, I suppose that in a country were roughly 50% of the people don’t “believe” in evolution, you are aloud not to “believe” in global warming.
    so richard, you probably also believe that planes fly because of some sort of miracle πŸ˜€

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments will be sent to the moderation queue.