Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: Should we drill for oil off the coastal United States and in Alaska?

  1. #1

    Should we drill for oil off the coastal United States and in Alaska?

    [url]http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/18/bush.offshore/index.html[/url]

    [QUOTE] WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush asked Congress Wednesday to permit drilling for oil off America's coasts -- on the outer continental shelf -- to combat rising oil and gas prices.
    If President Bush can persuade Congress, more oil rigs like this one off Canada could appear off U.S. shores.

    If President Bush can persuade Congress, more oil rigs like this one off Canada could appear off U.S. shores.

    Bush also renewed his demand that Congress allow drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, clear the way for more refineries and encourage efforts to recover oil from shale in areas such as the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.

    Bush said that the basin potentially contains more than three times as much recoverable oil as Saudi Arabia's proven reserves, and that the high price of oil makes it profitable to extract it.

    "In the short run, the American economy will continue to rely largely on oil, and that means we need to increase supply here at home," said Bush, adding there is no more pressing issue than gas prices for many Americans.

    The request came a day after presumed Republican presidential nominee John McCain issued the same call.

    "For years, the president has pushed Congress to expand our domestic oil supply, but Democrats in Congress have consistently blocked such action," White House Press Secretary Dana Perino told CNN.

    Opponents of offshore drilling say it would harm aquatic ecosystems by eroding wetlands, contaminating the water with chemicals, polluting the air, killing fish and dumping waste.

    Bush has long called for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil exploration, but Perino said he now wants to go further.

    "With gasoline now over $4 a gallon, ... he will explicitly call on Congress to also pass legislation lifting the congressional ban on safe, environmentally friendly offshore oil drilling," Perino said.

    She added, "As with several existing Republican congressional proposals, he wants to work with states to determine where offshore drilling should occur, and also for the federal government to share revenues with the states. The president believes Congress shouldn't waste any more time."

    At a campaign event in Houston, Texas, McCain made similar comments.

    "We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States," he said. "But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. And I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use." Video Watch McCain state his new position on drilling »

    He said lifting the ban could be done "in ways that are consistent with sensible standards of environmental protection."

    McCain's plan would let individual states decide whether to explore drilling possibilities.

    According to his campaign, presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama wants to invest $150 billion over the next 10 years to establish a green energy sector, create a national low-carbon fuel standard to ensure that the fuel is more efficient, and invest in clean energies like solar, wind and biodiesel.
    advertisement

    New drilling already could be in the works 50 miles off the Florida coast -- by Cubans, not Americans, with help from China and other allies. A rich undersea oil field stretches into Cuban waters near the Florida Keys.

    "The people I represent can't understand how we can possibly let China end up with rights to our oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico because we say we're not going to do it and they say, 'OK, we'll do it and we'll work with Cuba, if we have to, to do it,'" said U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tennessee. "That's really asinine."[/QUOTE]

    What do you think?

    Why not drill in these areas for the short run AND invest heavily in making clean energy an efficient, realistic solution. Why can't we do both?

  2. #2
    Problem with the premise of your question: There is no short run impact. It can take up to 10 years to get anything into the market.

  3. #3
    end of the day we are talking about price relief in cents not dollars. I don't think it will have the effect supporters are hoping for.

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2589292]Problem with the premise of your question: There is no short run impact. It can take up to 10 years to get anything into the market.[/QUOTE]

    There is no short term impact to anything energy related. That is not a reason to ignore one possible source that taxpayer money will not be needed for.

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2589348]There is no short term impact to anything energy related. That is not a reason to ignore one possible source that taxpayer money will not be needed for.[/QUOTE]

    WB do you work for an oil company? What about the billions of subsidies they already get for drilling and R&D? You meant to say no further taxpayer money will be needed maybe?

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2589371]WB do you work for an oil company? What about the billions of subsidies they already get for drilling and R&D? You meant to say no further taxpayer money will be needed maybe?[/QUOTE]

    We should not give subsidies to the oil companies and we should not give subsidies or protect the bio fuels industry, something Obama is a big supporter of. I have no love for the oil or the corn business but I would rather buy a smaller car and be able to afford to eat than the reverse.

    I would be fine with allowing oil companies to drill off shore if the border states approve as long as it's not funded by taxpayers.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2589348]There is no short term impact to anything energy related. That is not a reason to ignore one possible source that taxpayer money will not be needed for.[/QUOTE]

    That may be, but the premise of the question was flawed. That's all I was pointing out.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2589292]Problem with the premise of your question: There is no short run impact. It can take up to 10 years to get anything into the market.[/QUOTE]

    While that's true, it's pretty realistic to estimate that it would take at least twice as long for the eco-friendly energy to hit the market in any substantial measure.

    Why not allow drilling in Alaska and off the coastal United States while also investing heavily in renewable, clean energy?

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=MachineGunFunk;2589432]While that's true, it's pretty realistic to estimate that it would take at least twice as long for the eco-friendly energy to hit the market in any substantial measure.[/QUOTE]

    Plug ins will be on the market in 2010.

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,943
    No. Keep the price high and encourage the market to turn to other sources of energy.

    The reward is not worth the risk. Bitonti is right, the price of oil will be impacted by cents not dollars, and it will take a decade before this oil reaches the market.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2589472]Plug ins will be on the market in 2010.[/QUOTE]

    That is a small first step that will not do anything for the Airline, Shipping or Trucking industries and not to mention the United States Military.

    Is it a start? Yes and it's step in the right direction.

    But I'm talking about a massive overhaul of the United States economy's energy consumption process.

    Drill now AND invest heavily in new technologies.

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=MachineGunFunk;2589521]
    Drill now AND invest heavily in new technologies.[/QUOTE]

    Does it really matter if ten years from now the price of Gasoline is $5.60 or $5.80 per gallon?

    I would argue it doesn't. It's a cosmetic change - the underlying truth that cheap gas is gone forever doesn't change with increased drilling. this is not a supply problem it's a demand problem and by the time new drilling comes online there will be a whole new generation of global oil consumers.

    Plug ins will help the other types of oil products, if the demand for gasoline lessens that's more crude being pushed as Jet fuel.

    I have said this before I will say it again, if the USA could somehow manage to get Iraq online, that would be a real effect on prices. Cheap labor, plentiful fields and easy to extract. Local drilling means local labor, which means unions, high costs.

  13. #13
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Forked River, NJ
    Posts
    4,729
    [quote=MachineGunFunk;2589262][URL]http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/18/bush.offshore/index.html[/URL]



    What do you think?

    Why not drill in these areas for the short run AND invest heavily in making clean energy an efficient, realistic solution. Why can't we do both?[/quote]

    Better late than never. This should have been done after the oil crisis in the late 70's. Back then, there was a lot of rhetoric on the subject but it never really translated into any meaningful action. If this had been done, our reduced dependency on foreign oil would not have us backed into a corner, as we are today.

    That said, I do not want to see the environment destroyed in order to pump oil. My solution to this issue would be to withhold the existing subsidies from the companies who do not meet a new and improved stringent set of rules aimed at mitigating the environmental impact. Can we guarantee that no harm will be done to environment? Of course not. BUT, we can take steps to minimize the possibility.

    Meanwhile, we must also put more effort into cultivating alternate sources of energy.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE]Bush said that the basin potentially contains more than three times as much recoverable oil as Saudi Arabia's proven reserves, and that the high price of oil makes it profitable to extract it.[/QUOTE]

    If that were true I'd be all for drilling in ANWR. But every reputable source puts the yield at far lower, a literal drop in the bucket that won't affect global supply very much at all.

  15. #15
    plus, and someone please correct me if I am wrong here, I thought the US exported most of it's own oil and imported the oil we actually use domestically...

    if that is the case, and the ANWR oil is just a drop in the bucket...how would that help?

    I stand by my original thought anyway, the increased oil and gas prices will help make us more alt energy focused than any gov't program ever could....we will find and create alt sources simply to save money.....

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=piney;2589696]plus, and someone please correct me if I am wrong here, I thought the US exported most of it's own oil and imported the oil we actually use domestically...

    if that is the case, and the ANWR oil is just a drop in the bucket...how would that help?

    I stand by my original thought anyway, the increased oil and gas prices will help make us more alt energy focused than any gov't program ever could....we will find and create alt sources simply to save money.....[/QUOTE]

    Anwar is only a small part of the area that is off limits to oil and gas drilling.

    [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/washington/19drill.html?pagewanted=2&hp[/url]

    [QUOTE]The Congressional moratorium was first enacted in 1982, and has been renewed every year since. It prohibits oil and gas leasing on most of the outer continental shelf, 3 miles to 200 miles offshore. Since 1990, it has been supplemented by the first President Bush’s executive order, which directed the Interior Department until 2000 not to conduct offshore leasing or pre-leasing activity in areas covered by the legislative ban. In 1998, President Bill Clinton extended the offshore leasing prohibition until 2012. One person familiar with the deliberations inside the White House said that Mr. Bush was briefed on Tuesday by his top aides, including Joshua B. Bolten, the chief of staff, and that the aides recommended lifting the executive order.

    No one knows for certain how much oil is in the moratorium area. The federal Energy Information Administration estimates that roughly 75 billion barrels of oil in the United States may be found in all areas of the country that are now off limits for development, and that 21 percent of this oil — or about 16 billion barrels — is covered by the offshore moratorium.[/QUOTE]

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    yes....a long time ago....

    it's like owning 100 acres of land but not planting a garden then relying on your neighbor for garden grown tomatoes....

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2589795]yes....a long time ago....

    it's like owning 100 acres of land but not planting a garden then relying on your neighbor for garden grown tomatoes....[/QUOTE]

    it's more like owning 10 feet of land. The oil we are talking about is not enough to measurably change anything, let alone fill all local demand.

  19. #19
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2589802]it's more like owning 10 feet of land. The oil we are talking about is not enough to measurably change anything, let alone fill all local demand.[/QUOTE]

    funny thing- this is the same line of thinking the environuts passed off on nuclear energy 30 years ago- the potential reward would not be great enough so fuq it-

  20. #20
    Why not? OPEC nations still have decades worth of oil left and they will continue to produce and ship crude oil until it runs out. We should tap into whatever we have and make a long term investment for energy independence.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us