Offshore Drilling and ANWR

So Bush wants offshore drilling and McCain now believes we should do it as well. The dem's are still blocking it with the reasoning that the oil industry already has some offshore space and they aren't using it well enough.. so why should we give them more? Who elected that logic into office?

So.. we all know drilling now won't do anything for us know.. but it'll help 5-10-15-20 years down the road.. so why not start now? It'll help in the future.. we need alternatives, but we also need more oil, period. Plus it'll be great if we can develop 100% renewable AND sell off our own oil in 20-30-40 years...

cardinal5150 wrote:So Bush wants offshore drilling and McCain now believes we should do it as well. The dem's are still blocking it with the reasoning that the oil industry already has some offshore space and they aren't using it well enough.. so why should we give them more? Who elected that logic into office?

So.. we all know drilling now won't do anything for us know.. but it'll help 5-10-15-20 years down the road.. so why not start now? It'll help in the future.. we need alternatives, but we also need more oil, period. Plus it'll be great if we can develop 100% renewable AND sell off our own oil in 20-30-40 years...

Agreed. I don't know if it's true or not, but I heard someone say onetime that think of the ANWR region as the size of a tennis court (for you Card!), and then put a newspaper folded in half down in one spot on that court. That represents the area of drilling they want to do. But oh no, some want to make sure that the polar bears can mate with the moose (does "moose" have a plural, or is just mooses? ) or some other silly reason for not drilling there.

I'd rather see amerikans cut back on their consumption first.

Um, big shocker, but this is a dumb idea. There is a serious risk of spillages, that wil lthreaten wildlife and tourism. Sure, call me a liberal tree hugger etc, that is fine. It's a political snow job, based on these factors:

- of the oil reserves alone the 3-200 miles continental shelf is about 18 billion barrels. The US uses 7 billion barrels of oil a year.
- it will take between 6-10 years before the first drilling rig/gizmo would be operational.
- There is no guarantee that the global oil prices will not continue to climb globally
- there is no way that the companies that would drill this oil would sell it in the US for cheap, vs selling It abroad for more.

So we would not see a drastic drop (if any drop at all) in gas prices, since diring the 6-10 years we were drilling, global demand would probabaly grow by more than the 18 million barrels under the continental shelf anyway.

Even if the oil companies would decide to cut their profits in order to sell this oil domestically, that oil would amount to only 2.5 years of US consumption.

*sources BBC, others

Drilling technology in the U.S. has improved greatly from the oil spill days of the 70's. Hurricane Katrina closed down the gulf tearing up off shore platforms; and the oil spills were??? Thats right nowhere. Other than the Exxon Valdez have you heard of any major ecological disasters in Alaska??? Can't think of any. The oil pipeline was suppose to destroy the caribbou...ooopppsss no negative effects.

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/section003_group001/home

We can only guestimate what is below the surface offshore and in Alaska. Prudoe Bay was suppose to be done with by now, but still delivering oil. Brazil wasn't suppose to have off shore oil, and they had a major discovery.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/11/08/brazil.oil.ap/

Now I agree it will take years to get this oil into production, but if it takes 5 to 10 years. Just think of what the cost of a barrel of oil will be then.

I am all for alternative energy, but we are still going about it slowly. You want electric cars, but we see no real increase in production of electricity. We already have brownouts etc. due to lack of electric capacity. Where are the nuclear power plants to grow our electric grid. Many homes are heated by natural gas, along with many electric plants, due to enviromental regulation against coal power plants. I can see the insane prices of natural gas very soon due to demand and again no production of natural gas allowed by the tree huggers.

So... does anyone really care whether the US government continues to subsidize Oil energy?

IMHO, we should either completely stop, or drastically reduce Oil energy subsidies and divert them into the production of Solar, Wind, and (maybe a little) Nuclear infrastructure. The big question I have, which I'm sure is next to impossible to predict, is whether this will have a positive or negative impact on domestic US gasoline prices.

Any thoughts?

meta4 wrote:So... does anyone really care whether the US government continues to subsidize Oil energy?

IMHO, we should either completely stop, or drastically reduce Oil energy subsidies and divert them into the production of Solar, Wind, and (maybe a little) Nuclear infrastructure. The big question I have, which I'm sure is next to impossible to predict, is whether this will have a positive or negative impact on domestic US gasoline prices.

Any thoughts?

No problem from me for taking away their subsidies. Do I think they will moan about it? Yeah, but I really don't see them curtailing current production due to the lack of subsidies.

I have no problem using government money for solar, wind and nuclear. You could put me down for battery technology also for hybrids and electric cars.

Scooby01_98 wrote:

meta4 wrote:So... does anyone really care whether the US government continues to subsidize Oil energy?

IMHO, we should either completely stop, or drastically reduce Oil energy subsidies and divert them into the production of Solar, Wind, and (maybe a little) Nuclear infrastructure. The big question I have, which I'm sure is next to impossible to predict, is whether this will have a positive or negative impact on domestic US gasoline prices.

Any thoughts?

No problem from me for taking away their subsidies. Do I think they will moan about it? Yeah, but I really don't see them curtailing current production due to the lack of subsidies.

I have no problem using government money for solar, wind and nuclear. You could put me down for battery technology also for hybrids and electric cars.

I forgot about the fuel cell and battery stuff. Those would be key catalysts for adapting to an oil-less energy future. One thing my father in law mentioned a few weeks ago was that around the time of the Gas Crisis of the 70's, companies were claiming that synthetic oil could be produced for something like $50 per barrel that was suitable to refine into gasoline, and had better emissions performance.

Brown's/Klein's gas possibilities are interesting as well. Those could turn out to be very lucrative energy production technologies as well as having an extremely low impact on pollution. Generating a combustible gas from the electrolysis of good 'ol H2O which can retrofit into traditional gasoline combustion engines could keep gasoline engine industries from becoming extinct.

I just googled for it, and can't find the link that I came across a couple weeks ago. It was a Canadian company which made electrolysis cells for Semi-Trucks. It looked like the real deal. Memory is a little fuzzy, but the kits cost between $4, and $30k depending on size and ammount of gas produced. They didn't tout specific MPG gains because Semi's have a wider range and a wider terrain than most small cars.

Jugomugo wrote:I'd rather see amerikans cut back on their consumption first.

i agree jugo! and hows tricks these days for you?

Jugomugo wrote:I'd rather see amerikans cut back on their consumption first.

I heard a sound bite on the radio that said in the last 6 months, Americans have traveled an estimated 18 million miles less... I tried to glean some frame of reference for understanding how much of a reduction that is, but it's a relatively plastic and squishy concept IMO.

meta4 wrote:

Jugomugo wrote:I'd rather see amerikans cut back on their consumption first.

I heard a sound bite on the radio that said in the last 6 months, Americans have traveled an estimated 18 million miles less... I tried to glean some frame of reference for understanding how much of a reduction that is, but it's a relatively plastic and squishy concept IMO.

Actually, it's 18 billion miles less, with a 'b'. Now you're the one sounding like Dr. Evil.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/18/driving.cutbacks/index.html

pez wrote:Um, big shocker, but this is a dumb idea. There is a serious risk of spillages, that wil lthreaten wildlife and tourism. Sure, call me a liberal tree hugger etc, that is fine. It's a political snow job, based on these factors:

- of the oil reserves alone the 3-200 miles continental shelf is about 18 billion barrels. The US uses 7 billion barrels of oil a year.
- it will take between 6-10 years before the first drilling rig/gizmo would be operational.
- There is no guarantee that the global oil prices will not continue to climb globally
- there is no way that the companies that would drill this oil would sell it in the US for cheap, vs selling It abroad for more.

So we would not see a drastic drop (if any drop at all) in gas prices, since diring the 6-10 years we were drilling, global demand would probabaly grow by more than the 18 million barrels under the continental shelf anyway.

Even if the oil companies would decide to cut their profits in order to sell this oil domestically, that oil would amount to only 2.5 years of US consumption.

*sources BBC, others

So you don't feel it would be prudent for us to at least investigate what is up in ANWR and the NPRA ares in Alaska to see if perhaps the high estimates (equal to 30 years of imports) are accurate?

Markwes wrote:Actually, it's 18 billion miles less, with a 'b'. Now you're the one sounding like Dr. Evil.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/18/driving.cutbacks/index.html

Naw, just means that I need to get my ears checked, or someone (can't remember who was hosting) at NPR needs to enunciate.

But I DO get your reference and so far this morning I don't need any help keeping my pencil sharp.

yea...and lets have the total cost of the study before its undertaken..including where/how all the study money is used..and lets keep in mind the length of time it would take, plus the projected expense and length of time of getting to production point IF the high estimates are proven.

i personally prefer to use that money to start fuel-from-landfills or other more immediate alternatives.

meta4 wrote:and so far this morning I don't need any help keeping my pencil sharp.

Hey, I resemble that comment.

Ok, I found a really interesting article about this Canadian company who makes small water electrolysis "brown's gas" generators for vehicles. I got really excited when I read A VP at the company drives a 2000 Jeep Cherokee and has seen 30% increase in gas mileage.

It's a really cool article if anyone wants to take a look.
http://pesn.com/2005/11/25/9600207_Innovative_Hydrogen_Solutions_Inc/

And the company site: http://ihsresearch.com/index.php

[quote="cardinal5150]
So you don't feel it would be prudent for us to at least investigate what is up in ANWR and the NPRA ares in Alaska to see if perhaps the high estimates (equal to 30 years of imports) are accurate?[/quote]

It's my understanding that there are 68 million acres of land that have been leased to oil companies that have not been developed/touched. I would rather see that looked at before we touch the other areas. Also, in senate testimony a few months ago, the oil companies said they are uninterested in building more refineries here even if they were given the land (old military bases) which have some infrastructure. The oil companies have also gone on record as stating additional crude oil is useless without additional refineries, which will also take years to build. Oil is fungible, 29% of what we retrieve will go to China and India, 29% to the US and the rest to other countries (something Chavez failed to realize). What about all the facilities that were decommissioned because the cost of extraction was too expensive when oil was around $30 a barrel? With oil at its current price, is it still too expensive to look at re-opening those facilities? Big oil companies bought up all those independent refineries and closed them down due to the cost of extraction; if they were willing to abandon their claims to those and the 68 million acres they hold leases on then I might be more inclined to entertain off-shore and ANWAR drilling.

True.. I consider more refineries to be a given.. I just never think to drop that tidbit into my rants...

meta4 wrote:Ok, I found a really interesting article about this Canadian company who makes small water electrolysis "brown's gas" generators for vehicles. I got really excited when I read A VP at the company drives a 2000 Jeep Cherokee and has seen 30% increase in gas mileage.

It's a really cool article if anyone wants to take a look.
http://pesn.com/2005/11/25/9600207_Innovative_Hydrogen_Solutions_Inc/

And the company site: http://ihsresearch.com/index.php

the following link provides some additional links regarding hydrogen uses and programs in Canada

http://www.hydrogeneconomy.gc.ca/links_e.html

The following is about Iceland:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgGlE97rJl4

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/archive/2208013.stm

Read an article today that Bush is requesting Congress to lift the ban when in fact there is an Executive Order prohibiting drilling signed by his father, all he would have to do was revoke the Executive order and drilling could commence but he wants congress to take the fall in the coastal states popularity ... coward. Have some balls George ... if you want to drill revoke your dad's executive order.

Bman wrote:Read an article today that Bush is requesting Congress to lift the ban when in fact there is an Executive Order prohibiting drilling signed by his father, all he would have to do was revoke the Executive order and drilling could commence but he wants congress to take the fall in the coastal states popularity ... coward. Have some balls George ... if you want to drill revoke your dad's executive order.

So you propose he bypasses congress completely and puts his own agenda ahead of what the nation might want? Seems that's what you're railing against him for Iraq on.. or at least that's what the Dem's like to play.. they always ignore that congress voted to go to war...

cardinal5150 wrote:

Bman wrote:Read an article today that Bush is requesting Congress to lift the ban when in fact there is an Executive Order prohibiting drilling signed by his father, all he would have to do was revoke the Executive order and drilling could commence but he wants congress to take the fall in the coastal states popularity ... coward. Have some balls George ... if you want to drill revoke your dad's executive order.

So you propose he bypasses congress completely and puts his own agenda ahead of what the nation might want? Seems that's what you're railing against him for Iraq on.. or at least that's what the Dem's like to play.. they always ignore that congress voted to go to war...

Bush lost his balls now that his approval rating is lower than Nixon, Hoover and Carter ... lowest approval rating of any modern President. Not sure what constitutes modern but that is how the press is reporting his approval rating. Bush just wants Congress to take the wrath for this move when this ban was created by an executive order, end it with an executive order. Poor George ... he's lost his balls.

cardinal5150 wrote:

Bman wrote:Read an article today that Bush is requesting Congress to lift the ban when in fact there is an Executive Order prohibiting drilling signed by his father, all he would have to do was revoke the Executive order and drilling could commence but he wants congress to take the fall in the coastal states popularity ... coward. Have some balls George ... if you want to drill revoke your dad's executive order.

So you propose he bypasses congress completely and puts his own agenda ahead of what the nation might want? Seems that's what you're railing against him for Iraq on.. or at least that's what the Dem's like to play.. they always ignore that congress voted to go to war...

That man-crush Bman has on Obama has made him lose just about all rational thought. I'm hoping that after November, the Bman that at least follows a bit of logic will return.

Markwes wrote:That man-crush Bman has on Obama has made him lose just about all rational thought. I'm hoping that after November, the Bman that at least follows a bit of logic will return.

Remember back in the 'old' days when we hoped it would end after the Indiana primary?

Markwes wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:

Bman wrote:Read an article today that Bush is requesting Congress to lift the ban when in fact there is an Executive Order prohibiting drilling signed by his father, all he would have to do was revoke the Executive order and drilling could commence but he wants congress to take the fall in the coastal states popularity ... coward. Have some balls George ... if you want to drill revoke your dad's executive order.

So you propose he bypasses congress completely and puts his own agenda ahead of what the nation might want? Seems that's what you're railing against him for Iraq on.. or at least that's what the Dem's like to play.. they always ignore that congress voted to go to war...

That man-crush Bman has on Obama has made him lose just about all rational thought. I'm hoping that after November, the Bman that at least follows a bit of logic will return.

What rational thought have I lost? I am just quoting an msnbc article that Bush could end this by reversing the executive order signed by his father, but he does not want to ruin his 22% chance at a legacy.
How does this remotely involve my man-crush on Obama, I have not brought him in a long time.