Our lives revolve around oil. Oil brings food to our stores, comprises the fibers in our carpets and makes the plastic in our DVDs. With demand so high it’s no wonder attention has turned to supply, with some advocating the U.S. lift the ban against drilling for oil off its coasts. Is offshore oil drilling a golden opportunity, or would it only create a tidal wave of disaster?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
I live in West Fla and offshore is very little oil as it has been drilled for 75 yrs without any luck. There is some oil, NG there but not in big pools and so little just a 2mph increase in the CAFE standards over 3 yrs would be larger amount in savings.
The US has 3% of the worlds oil supply left, enough for 10 yrs if we met all our needs. So do we pump that out fast or leave some for our children?
Yet by making more eff cars, NG trucks and adding many EV's, we can be independent in 10 yrs if we tried. But Detroit needs to get on the stick!!
I got tired of waiting as thousands have and built or converted cars to electric. My 2 seat sportwagon gets the equivalent of 400 mpg cost wise. Google EV clubs, EV racing for clubs, links, lists. Only listen to those driving EV's every day as they are the only ones who know. EV's are easy, just have to use the right parts, EV batteries like golf cart batteries.
Put the full cost in oil and it's price will be $1.50-2/gal higher instead of in my income tax, health, military costs. Put this in it's price and the energy problem will solve itself. Just why do we still subsidies oil?
The recent price rise was caused by hitting peak oil. Next time it'll hit $5/gal+ unless we keep our oil use down and drop it farther, depriving oil dictators, terrorist of their cash flow that supports them. Iran is hurting now and we can bankrupt them by doing this solving our worst terrorist problem. You choice, support terrorism or use less oil.
Jerryd
- jerryd
October 29, 2008 8:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
You said:
"But, a more appropriate way to consider the issue is that if the OCS could provide additional production of 1 million barrels per day (b/d) of oil, our Persian Gulf imports could be reduced by up to 40 percent. At 1 million b/d, 19 billion barrels would last about 50 years."
Oil is a global commodity which is sold on the open market to the highest bidder. Do you really believe that any oil found in, on or under U.S. land or the OCS will be for the exclusive use of the U.S.?
Further you said:
"However, modeling exercises that do not capture the influence of market expectations – a critical feature of price formation – are not suitable to understanding the full market impact of an increase in available supply options. Moreover, greater supply should dampen price volatility, all else equal, which is another desirable outcome."
You speak of supply, but not of the other side of the equation, demand. What evidence is there that "all else [will be] equal"? Isn't the explosive economic growth of China and India a significant factor in the increasing demand for oil?
Market forces bump into the wall of OPEC and the oil Companies - supply is controlled; demand is out of control.
Surely, alternatives must be found - and sooner rather than later.
- GraemeCR September 13, 2008 7:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
To answer your first question, any oil produced here will be consumed here, unless we end up producing so much that we become net exporters. This is because part of the value of oil extraction is embedded in its cost to transport to market, and US produced oil will carry the smallest transport cost if it is consumed domestically. One exception could be oil produced in Alaska, but that is another issue. In general, however, additional supplies will displace imports and lower prices globally, not just in the US.
Your second point is well taken. Demand growth is a critical issue. I have addressed demand side responses in other articles I have written. I think efficiency and conservation are potentially very powerful, as was demonstrated in the 1980s in the US. During that time our average on-road fuel efficiency (not the window sticker but actual mpgs) increased from about 12 mpg to over 20 mpg. This enabled us to drive more, see more cars on the road, yet consume virtually the same amount of fuel. Unfortunately, policy did not continue the trend of stricter CAFE standards, and the SUV revolution ensued. We are now on the verge of witnessing a long overdue mandated increase in efficiency. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is, we will remain reliant on today's technologies for some time to come, even with increased efficiency. Thus, we can think of ways to smoothly transition to the world that we desire, or we can demand abrupt change. The latter option comes with high fixed costs, a fact that history has borne out on more than one occasion.
- Kenneth B Medlock III September 16, 2008 10:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Whether or not we drill for oil, I am looking at the big picture. People are saying "Drill, drill, drill" but why are those same people NOT saying "Conservation is by far our fastest way to reduce cost of and dependence on imported oil? The strongest push should be to conserve, including auto efficiency (CAFE standards), insulation, and incentives for solar heating and other non-polluting, quick-to-implement technologies. Second, there should be a strong look to the future, with a far larger commitment to renewable energy research than the current administration is supporting, and I believe far more than the candidates support (we will see what they do AFTER the election). So, whether to drill is not exactly the right debate. It is a sideshow and possibly a relatively brief transition to a much better future of lowered fuel consumption and increased renewable output and storage. If anyting, exploration and drilling on current landholdings will be faster and less expensive, and less risky, than offshore drilling.
- PlanetThoughts September 23, 2008 3:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
To begin, I simply point you to the last sentence of the last argument I present in this debate.
Conservation is indeed a very powerful tool. In fact, it is something that I have constantly promoted in many different forums. To illustrate, consider the fuel savings if we could cut our driving by 30 miles per week, which amounts to roughly 13% of the average driver's mileage per year. This amounts to carpooling or telecommuting once per week for many Americans. This reduction in demand, amounting to close to 1.5 million barrels per day, would have a significant impact on price. However, this does not mean we should not also pursue supply-side options.
I also agree with your comment regarding basic research into alternatives. This should be clear from my arguments in this debate. My proposal to use royalties to support such research has been picked up in Washington. I know of at least one Senate proposal that intends to do just this. We will have to wait and see where it goes.
One additional point is that the last sentence in your comment is not necessarily true. Economies of scale are very important in the resource extraction industries, so per unit costs are very much dependent on the expected ultimate recovery from the development. Your statement therefore assumes there are large untapped deposits in "current landholdings" and that no such deposits exist offshore.
- Kenneth B Medlock III September 23, 2008 7:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Your points are reasonable; however, mine are also correct, as we are talking about slightly different topics. For example, you did as requested and presented the case for drilling for more oil, and you did so rather well. However, the result is that once more there is some passing mention of conservation and of research into alternative energies, but the primary focus that the reader will hear about is just the drilling aspect. For example, where is mention of the ability to raise car mile-per-gallon standards as of three years from now? Where is mention of subsidies to build up mass transit? it is not that you are wrong Kevin as far as you go, but the debate is not the right one.
If money is set aside from OCS oil profits, how much will that amount to? I doubt it will match what i believe is necessary - the equivalent of a war-time intense effort by all citizens. It is a strong commitment to urgent development of conservation options and of alternate energy sources, because burning a lot more fossil fuels may trigger passing of tipping points.
Regarding my last sentence, I meant that the cost of offshore oil exploration and developing new rigs outweighs the benefit of that added oil in the market. Still, I would like to see the economic numbers in various scenarios to better understand the tradeoffs.
Thank you.
- PlanetThoughts September 23, 2008 7:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
planetThoughts-
You ask: "If money is set aside from OCS oil profits, how much will that amount to?"
Let's assume the areas under discussion are opened up for exploration. Let's further assume a peak rate of 2 million extra barrels of oil per day come on the market due to this action, at a price of $100/barrel. This 2 million is the peak rate reached by North Slope production in 1988.
Reasonable expected government revenues:
1) $3-4 billion in lease bids. This much was generated in a recent Gulf of Mexico area wide sale, and also in Alaska's recent Chukchi Sea sale.
2) At royalty rates of say 20%, this would mean $40 million per DAY, or $15 billion per year in new revenues, to be allocated between the states and feds as they see fit.
3) About $60 billion in revenues from the companies producing the oil, so additional state and federal tax revenues perhaps in the range of 10 to 20 billion.
4) Thousands of new quality jobs, therefore new income pumped into local economies.
5) 730 million barrels per year purchased domestically rather than imported, or $73 billion annual improvement in the US trade balance. Meaning a stronger dollar, downward pressure on interest rates, and lower borrowing costs.
However, it's not possible that "money is set aside from OCS oil profits". Otherwise, who would drill for the oil? Would you if you received no profit for it? However, why not set aside some percentage of lease bids, royalties, or income taxes for alternative energy research? As you can see above, this could be in the mid to high tens of billions of dollars.
You say: "I doubt it will match what i believe is necessary - the equivalent of a war-time intense effort by all citizens. "
Why do you phrase it as a zero sum game? Both can be done, drilling and large scale alternative R&D, in parallel. Why not? In fact, alternative energy research is already proceeding at a furious pace in the private sector. Can you imagine the incentive to be the first company to produce a commercial substitute for oil? If you're the CEO, you'll become fabulously wealthy, and a world hero as well.
When will alternative energy be able to scale up to replace fossil fuels? What if we follow your policy advice, and it turns out that it will take another 25 years for this to happen at a cost that won't severely damage the economy?
You can legislate research funding, but you can't legislate the pace of scientific discovery.
- hitac September 27, 2008 5:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Isn't the world's total oil production somewhere around 80 million barrels per day? Even if off-shore drilling did produce 1 million barrels per day, how would this significantly lower the gas prices, especially with demand increasing so rapidly?
Are Republicans so bad at economics these days that they don't understand the market for oil is a global one? Are McCain and Sarah Palin really that stupid? Or are they intending to nationalize the oil industry along the lines of Hugo Chavez's socialist revolution in Venezuela?
The only way we're going to turn this country around is by putting people with at least a reasonable amount of intelligence into the white house, regardless of their party affiliation. I'm sorry but "reasonable intelligence" doesn't remotely describe either McCain or Palin. I wish Obama would say it: his Ivy League background, his years as a law professor, his experience which required him to use and develop his brain, are actually quite relevant to holding the job that requires the most important and complex decision-making in the land. McCain, of course, sees this "thinking" experience as negative or irrelevant.
If we want to continue to be a prosperous society, we need to elect somebody with brains who can begin to undo what the past eight years of Idiocracy have done to this nation.
- Tederloin September 16, 2008 4:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
To answer your first question, if supply is perfectly elastic, then any increase will have no effect, regardless of how large it is. However, if supply is constrained (so that we are in an inelastic region of the supply curve as most have argued, i.e.- it is near impossible to increase supply at any price), then any increase in supply will have a significant effect on oil price. The exception to this is if demand is highly elastic. However, you will be hard-pressed to find any evidence that this is indeed the case.
Opening the OCS could also provide benefit by altering the perception of future supply availability. The notion that expectations influence price is foreign to many people, but they certainly do. I have outlined this briefly in an objection within this debate, but more is available in any advanced microeconomics textbook.
To this point, I have laid out in other articles that the OCS is only one very important part of a portfolio approach that must be adopted. I invite you to view the articles and FAQs posted at the Baker Institute website.
Much of the rest of your comments are reflective of your own very passionate feelings regarding the candidates. I will not broadly comment on this in order to stay centered on the debate. But with regard to the OCS, to be fair, both candidates are in favor, to at least some extent, of expanded access. Moreover, both have actually changed positions on this, McCain simply did it first. I recently interviewed with Petroleum Economist (yet to be printed) where I laid out my thoughts on the candidates and energy policy in general. Unfortunately, I do not think either has a grasp on the realities of the energy market, going beyond the OCS debate. We must remember that the OCS issue is but one in the energy policy space, and energy policy is but one issue that this country must tackle. Albeit, energy policy has not been this important an issue since the late 1970s.
- Kenneth B Medlock III September 16, 2008 10:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"Opening the OCS could also provide benefit by altering the perception of future supply availability. The notion that expectations influence price is foreign to many people, but they certainly do."
Wouldn't the effect of a perception change be an increase in demand?
- reckoner September 22, 2008 3:07PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
The shift in perception would likely encourage an increase in demand. But the extent of the increase is what's at issue. Given that the price elasticity of demand is relatively small, a downward shift in price would beget only a small increase in demand. So, the answer to your question is yes, but the effect of shifting the supply curve is likely to dominate.
Now, it is important to recognize that other factors are likely to increase demand, especially for natural gas. The effect of economic growth is one that tends to shift demand out at any price, so additional supply will be needed to abate dramatic increases in price. (This is where alternatives also play a role, by the way). With regard to natural gas in particular, climate policies will favor its use in power generation over coal, and the ability to deploy natural gas using capital in power generation quickly makes it a favored fuel for the next decade at least. Couple this with a push to diversify our vehicle fleet toward natural gas, and we have the potential to see demand rise dramatically. This is precisely why I think the natural gas potential in the OCS holds the greatest promise. We will need additional fuels, and among the carbon-based fuels natural gas is the least carbon intensive. Shouldn't we promote policies that encourage smart use of our resources as we transition to a world where carbon-based fuels are a thing of the past. We can do this the right way, or we can do it the wrong way, with the latter being laden with greater potential for volatility and potentially large macroeconomic costs.
- Kenneth B Medlock III September 23, 2008 1:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
An old saying "When you are up to your Butt in alligators it is no time to devise a way to drain the swamp".
Yes we use too much oil! Yes the "Leaders" in Congress have been negligent! Yes neither of the Presidential candidates and certainly not Pelosi and Reed have a clue as to what to do! Yes, "We the People" have been negligent in not forcing Government to develop alternatives over the past 30+ years.
Lots of people are at fault. We can dwell on blame or try to elect intelligent politicians (only kidding) or be proactive and drill for oil in every conceivable site possible and use every existing technology to get the economy under control. While we are saving ourselves we can also be planning a Manhattan Project type of development effort for alternative fuels. We can do this if we try. We have the intelligence and know-how all we need is enthusiasm and a positive attitude.
There are no easy answers. Wind Energy still cost more to build than it will ever make on production, Solar is even worse from an economic pay back perspective. Not to mention the lack of predictable sustainable production control. Coal can be made clean at a reasonable price and we have more coal than anyone. Gas is readily available with infrastructure in place. Oil is available and the infrastructure is in place but requires additional drilling and refining capacity. Nuclear is safe, clean, efficient and the infrastructure is in place. Nuclear waste disposal issues are far more political than technical. The Biggest problem not discussed with regard to Nuclear is finding enough technical talent. America needs an explosion of young people to go into engineering and the sciences.
Therefore, Drill within 50 miles, Push hard on clean coal technology, Push hard on Nuclear expansion and push hard on technical training for the current and future generations of young people. Eventually we will feel the Win, Win when logic and know-how over come political expediency and press-for-profit driven dooms day fear.
Remember, we are Americans. We innovate and overcome, that is what makes us as a nation stand-out in a bleak world. It is time for all of us to stand up and demand more responsible, intelligent, and thought provoking social, political, technical, and Governmental “Leadership”. The choice to succeed or be a fading memory is ours and ours alone. As one of the hero’s of Flt 93 said “Lets roll” we have nothing to loose!
- jodantec September 17, 2008 8:21AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I think that we should allow offshore drilling for two reasons 1. That it could help with our current problem of gas prices and 2. It would provide a huge amount of jobs.
If we could drill for more oil then it would obviously help lower gas prices. I know that studies have shown that it is possible that there could not be as much oil in the outer continental shelf that people have previously estimated, but even if there is enough out there to solve the problem long enough so that we can come up with a way to solve the enrgy crisis.
I know for a fact that in areas of the deep South, especially in southern Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi, as well as many parts of Texas, many people go work in the off-shore oil industry. Where I lived in South Louisiana it was extremely common for the men to go work off-shore right out off high school. Although it is a dangerous job, many men will do it because the pay is very good and there is are great opportunities for advancement. This does not include the amount of jobs that are provided by the refineries that are in New Orleans and Houston.
- Cajun72 February 5, 2009 9:06AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You said: "[drilling] could help with our current problem of gas prices."
It would help if you read up on the other side of the argument. If you had, you would have realized that the impact on gas prices has been estimated to be just a few cents lower. Is it your opinion that this small decrease in the price will solve our current financial issues? What's more, the effects would probably be a about decade or so from now. What, I wonder, are we going to do about the energy crisis in the meantime? Money that our government could be spending researching alternative fuel sources will be spent drilling instead.
As a second point, you said: "it would provide a huge amount of jobs."
This is a valid point. However, increased research on alternative energy also has the potential to provide employment opportunities. Research and testing requires scientists, supervisors, technicians, etc. Either way you turn, there will be jobs. Down one path are the oil drilling and refining jobs which, as you pointed out, are dangerous. Down the other are jobs that are far safer and probably pay just as well, but these jobs would better America and the world. I know which I would choose.
- Yesterday February 8, 2009 3:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I don't think that a small price decreaase will solve our current financial issues, I think that it will help alleviate the problem until we can find a better, more permanent solution to the problem. My thought process behind that is that if we can lessen our dependance on foreign oil then we should be able to better control prices. Off-shore drilling is the solution in the meantime. Besides the fact that although the government does control where we dig, they do not control who drills there.
I see what you are trying to say that research will also provide jobs, but the jobs they provide are not in a generalized field. How many jobs will be provided if they are for those who are scientists and researchers? Oil-rig jobs will cater more to the masses.
- Cajun72 February 11, 2009 9:31AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Honestly, if you all really think about it, the effects of BOTH drilling offshore and the alternative -whatever that may be- will take about a decade or so in order to see more of a change. Everyone is so caught up in "How are we going to fix it, NOW!?" To be quite serious, I am not sure that there is a solution that would fix our problem now. However, we do have to start somewhere, and that somewhere should be with offshore drilling (option A) AND finding alternative resources (option B). This would allow most everyone to be happy, and it would create almost two times the jobs that just doing one alone would.
- kirbi February 11, 2009 4:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
65,000,000 acres are leased. Most are not active. No equipment is available to drill, no ships are available to move it and there is no more refinery capacity. Now is the time to develop new technologies for a more sustainable energy plan. We all know now speculation is the problem, not the supply. This is a fake arguement to continue the gauging of the American people. The oil companies want the rest to pad their assets. Make no mistake, if they get it they won't drill on it. Why would they?
- tjhawknest33 September 23, 2008 7:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
To begin, the OCS lease statistics are available from the MMS at http://www.mms.gov/ld/PDFs/OCSstatusMap8e (3).pdf. You are significantly off the mark.
As for your objection, I do not understand why exactly you object. According to your argument, lifting the moratorium will not result in any drilling anyway. So, then, what does it matter if the moratorium is lifted?
Your claims about rigs, ships and refineries are short run arguments. Refinery capacity has been expanding, both internationally and domestically, precisely because demand for refined products has been growing. Rig lease rates have sky-rocketed over the last several years, making it profitable for rig owners to add capacity and they are doing so. (Rigs are not simply lying. As with any industry, unutilized capacity is undesirable.) Also, there is no shortage of tankers. More generally, your argument assumes that no investment in delivery infrastructure will occur, which is simply not borne out by history.
Also, recall that the price of oil was under $10 per barrel in 1998, just ten years ago. You should note that even during that time, these same companies were calling for the moratorium to be lifted in literature prepared by the NPC for the DOE. I hardly see how this can be equated to gauging.
- Kenneth B Medlock III September 23, 2008 9:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Your statistical link is dead. You still don't address why companies don't drill on the acreage they are already leasing. I don't buy the supply problem arguement. I'm not an economist but it seems to me that if the product is selling this well then why flood the market with more? You are well aware that Exxon made the most money ever in the history of man last year. Just because it may be there it doesn't mean we have to give it to the oil companies. Eventually the oil will run out. Scientists agree the earth is in crisis and it's time to turn our sites on sustainable energy. Since the taxpayers will bail out the mortgage lending industries, there will be little borrowed money to use to jump start new energy industries. I will conceed that oil will continue to be used in the interim. Oil companies ought to have to prove there is no oil on the land already leased before getting more. Incidentally, this is mostly political anyway. A package was offered allowing off-shore drilling 50 miles off-shore using American-made tools and labor, if voters in each states agree and an end to tax subsities. Conservatives rejected the package.
- tjhawknest33 September 25, 2008 8:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
tjhawknes133,
I suppose it follows then that we should have stopped drilling in 1930. After all, in 1930 we didn't have enough equipment to supply US demand in WWII, let alone present demand.
Drilling rigs and infrastructure are built as demand grows. History proves it. Your argument (and I have heard it many times) is without merit.
- hitac September 26, 2008 8:34PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If we cut our dependency on oil in other areas, there would be no need to either drill for it or kill for it. Why not wave generators?
Why not focus efforts on running cars on... rice? or (kill me now)... crazy thought... hemp?
Why is there so much focus placed on oil? OIL! A great book, but a dirty energy source. I like my fossil fuels, honestly I do. Just as much, if not more, as I like my squishy soft toilet paper and my flushing toilet.
But oil is not the answer. It's a horrible choking cloud of life-destroying sickness. It's a poison! (That I fully intend on loving, but that needs to be controlled and curbed.)
- SocialistBetty December 25, 2008 12:28AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
It's all fine and dandy to focus on alternative resources, but meanwhile why not drill off-shore on our way to becoming less dependent on foreign oil?
We are going to have to be dependent on somebody's oil in the time it will take us to convert to a alternative method, so why depend on foreign oil from the middle east? Why not depend on our own oil, and give our country more of a say in the high prices of oil-based products?
If we would just drill off-shore, we could spend our time and effort into discovering new and more renewable resources that we could be dependent upon. More U.S jobs for U.S. citizens could be provided if we would just drill off-shore. Our country's unemployment rate could drop dramatically if we would just drill off-shore. We could spend less time worrying about whether we could go places in our much loved gas guzzling cars if we would just drill off-shore.
So why not be dependent on OUR oil instead of FOREIGN oil for the decade or so it will take for us to switch to a more renewable resource?
- kirbi January 25, 2009 12:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I would also add that offshore drilling is not likely to affect the R&D programs of alternative energy companies. The incentives for them to develop a commercial alternative to fossil fuels is huge. Many people pose this as a zero sum proposition, but I really don't believe it is.
Alternative energy research will therefore in all likelihood continue apace regardless of whether the US opens up its offshore to exploration. According to Data360 ( http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=369 ), almost 10% of US venture capital was going to alternative energy development in 2006. I assume that figure has got quite a bit higher in the past two years.
The only scenario which might negatively impact alternative eenrgy research is if new oil discoveries are far greater than anyone now suspects even in optimistic cases, and a flood of new oil in the market depresses prices. But denial of the possibility of even moderate expected price impact is one of the key arguments of those who oppose offshore drilling.
Given the geologic realities, current large field decline rates, and projected global demand growth, I don't think oil market busting new production is a particularly likely scenario.
- hitac September 27, 2008 6:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
We are obviously already very addicted to oil. This can be easily spotted when the topic of the day is "Did you see those gas prices?!"
Like Medlock said if we make a smooth transition from oil to a new resource, everything will be fine. We Americans need to slowly ween ourselves off of our addiction, just as smokers do with all those patches and pieces of gum.
What is going to make the difference in offshore drilling is all in how we approach it. We can in no way approach it as the only solution. We need to approach it as something that will get us by while we slowly become less dependent on oil.
No one ever said that it was going to be easy to become independent from oil. Actually, it is bound to be quite difficult, but we are going to have to find the determination to do it. It will have to be done one day, so why not go for it now?
- kirbi January 25, 2009 12:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
No one can deny the fact that the US is addicted to oil. "The first step to fixing your problem is admitting that you have one." That statment not only applies to the 12step process at an AA meeting, it also applies to our nation right now. We are hoplessly addicted to oil and the only way we are going ti fix it is by A. finding an alternative ebergy source and B. by gradually weaning ouselves off of it. By doing those things then it will be possible to bet our addiction.
- Cajun72 February 17, 2009 8:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Last time I checked the existing wells provided lots of hard working Ameicans with jobs. Starting with the engineers that design the wells and the construction workers that build them and continuing through the sailors that move them into place and the workers that operate and maintain them.
What help hard working Americans is doing nothing. Yes we need to develop alternatives but in the interim we need to do what we can with the resources at hand. It does no good to tell a drowning man you're building a boat to save him while refusing to toss him the lifesaver at the end of the dock.
- Aegiltheugly September 23, 2008 1:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Not only does "Big Oil" provide jobs for hard working Americans, but it also does help "Big Oil." However, "Big Oil" does not just benefit "Big Oil." "Big Oil" must benefit itself because we have an economic system based on capitalism, and capitalism is all about profit. If they have put the money into the oil business, then they should be in the right when getting money out of it.
Everyone is just so wrapped up in how much big oil businesses benefit, but it is probably simply because people wish that they would be able to benefit from it as well. However, they fail to recognize that they do indeed benefit from the success of big oil companies. We rely on oil to fill our cars, keep us safe, and keep us going. When oil companies have success, our gas prices go down, and it is able to make our day a little brighter because we didn't have to spend all of our paycheck on buying gas.
So really, "Big Oil" benefits everyone in our nation in some form or fashion.
- kirbi February 11, 2009 6:07PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Wake up and pay attention and demand the truth and the proof! Offshore drilling is indeed a very dirty, toxic, smelly, dangerous business. It is not at all like John McCain and his parroting cohorts say, as they thoughtlessly try to prey on people's fears out. They all either foolishly or deliberately say without research or reason: "Drilling for oil offshore is safe enough you know, why during our two biggest hurricanes Katrina and Rita, not a drop of oil spilled all of those platforms stood up." I guess none of the 134 lobbyists that work on McCain's campaign staff for their hero's Buffalo Bill, that musty old maverick and his sidekick little carbine carrying Caribou Barbie had enough time to look up the records of the U.S. Coast Guard which state that during and in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina alone 9 million gallons of oil was spilled. Oil spilled offshore, onshore, and into the Mississippi River. This record, like so many others has been hidden in plain sight since late 2005. This giant spill was really a total from over 564 separate oil spills, some totaling over 3 million gallons in one location alone and covering whole towns oozing and leaking unchecked. Another fact recorded by the U.S. Coast Guard is that over 113 oil platforms were completely destroyed and even more were damaged, over 453 lines/pipes were severed and/or damaged as well. These rigs, platforms, and pipelines as the oil companies explain, are shut down proceeding a storm, however what isn't ever mentioned is they are not purged of the thousands of gallons of gooey crude they are either holding ready to be piped ashore or loaded on to tankers that goes straight into the Gulf of Mexico when these rigs are blown apart by hurricanes. This is exactly what happened according to the Coast Guard's early estimate, over 743,000 gallons of oil poured right into the Gulf of Mexico as a result of Katrina. Also according to Coast Guard records every year since 2000, 1.3 million gallons of oil is spilled into to the Gulf in a category called incidentals. The Coast Guard directs you to add that figure to any spill/spills happening in the particular year you are researching to get a accurate total. This would make the total amount of oil spilled as a result of Hurricane Katrina + incidentals (1.3 million gallons + 9 million gallons equal a total of 10.3 million gallons of oil spilled. It would make it the 2nd. largest oil spill in U.S. history, second only to the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska which was 10.8 million gallons. A horrible cost of this industry in the small towns, usually poor, built in close proximity to the refineries all around the Gulf Coast area. This is the cost of Cancer and other horrible degenerative diseases, these places are called cancer clusters. People in those towns have a well documented history of disfiguring tumors and an above average early and high death rate. There are always hidden costs of oil, the drilling of it, the refining of it, the shipping of it, and living in proximity to it. I'm not saying do not drill for oil, I'm saying do not drill for any more oil - so not drill anymore. We can do better than this - we can transition to cleaner energy the only thing standing in the way is the oil lobby. I say no more! The economics are not on the people's side and once we o.k. more offshore drilling we'll effectively chip away more, and more of the wetlands and barrier islands. They are our coastlines natural defenses and once they're gone, they're gone for good. I say No More Morons, No More Drill Baby, Drill - or Drill Here, Drill Now chanting! There are big, enduring consequences for this kind of short- sightedness and we the people are the ones left to pay - Let's all invest our federal money, (subsidies) in pursuing a better way.
- Barbara September 18, 2008 4:10AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
McCain and Palin did not just focus on the need for offshore oil drilling. They also very clearly indicated that we did indeed need to find better solutions to our oil addiction, but I guess some people failed to hear that.
Sure some oil was spilled during Katrina and other hurricanes, and I know it seems like a lot. However, if you were to think more on the positive side, you could ask yourself questions like these: What if more oil had spilled? Weren't we lucky that more oil didn't spill?
Anytime oil is involved, there are always chances that it will spill, but does that mean that we should just stop trying? I think not. We need to get back up on the bike and try again, but with a little more caution. We don't have to stop doing something in order to start finding an alternative. We really need to realize that we can multitask a little more, and we can be a little more open to new, and old, ideas.
- kirbi February 11, 2009 5:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Anything we do will in some way afffect the environment, the only question is how. I think that if we drill off-shore then it needs to be in a way that will have a positive affect on the environment. At the same time I realize that it is possible that the there cold be some adverse effcts on the environment and I am OK with them as long as they are neither too severe or in having some negative we can fix our oil problem.
I am definitly for wildlife conservation, but only to a certain extent. Like all things in life, everything must be done in moderation. If we go too far either way on this issue, then this problem will either still be here or there will more problems in the future.
- Cajun72 February 17, 2009 8:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I have been opposed to expanded offshore drilling on the grounds that it won't lower gas prices. But there's an interesting piece in today's (9/15/08) New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/opinion/15hahn.html , arguing that the royalties and tax revenue generated from developing offshore fields (and ANWR) could run into the hundreds of billions. That's of benefit to the US, even if gas prices remain completely unaffected. The authors go on to suggest that a political deal could be struck, involving investment in alternative energy, protection of other wilderness areas, etc.
The world is going to keep consuming oil until it's gone or it's uneconomical to extract it. Doesn't it make sense to capture some of the economic benefit of that for the US economy, especially if some of those economic benefits can - via political compromise - by invested in other environmentally friendly programs that could potentially far outweigh any degradation caused by drilling?
- dmonasg September 15, 2008 10:50AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
OUR CARS WON'T RUN ON WIND OR SOLAR POWER YET!!!
Actually, what got us into being so dependent on oil started long before the government had anything to do with it. The steam engine that ran on coal was more of a beginning to our oil and other not so renewable fossil fuel problem. When Henry Ford's assembly line started up making the new hot item on the market, we got hooked on the much loved and addictive oil. Thomas Edison, among others, were trying to invent an electric car at the time when cars were just catching on. However, by the time Edison got his electric car perfected (for the time), it was already about five years into our addiction. Edison's electric car did not catch on because Americans were not willing to sacrifice their faster combustion engines for Edison's slightly slower, more economically friendly electric engine. If Edison had just perfected his electric car a few years sooner, then we might not be struggling to live a more oil-free life today.
However, we still don't want to have our worlds completely rocked by having to change our pace of life to fit our slower energy source. It would change everything. So, that is why we must stick with finding more oil until we can find a cleaner energy source that is just as efficient.
- kirbi February 11, 2009 5:34PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The US also had about 3% of the world's reserves 30 years ago. By your logic, we should not have drilled Prudhoe Bay or the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Those areas now provide about 25% of US domestic production. What do you think gas prices would be now if we took 1.5 million barrels per day off the US domestic market? Additionally, those areas took 10 years to bring online, so again by your logic they should never have been developed. You seem to be saying that if it benefits our children instead of us, then it's not worth doing.
The percentage of reserves argument is irrelevant. If the oil industry found 50 billion barrels of oil in the offshore in the next 5 years, that would amount to about 4% of the world's reserves. But it could double US oil production. That's not insignificant. Reserves are not the primary driver of price. Production is.
Your reference to the DOE forecast shows that you don't know the difference between a plan, an estimate, and a fact. The DOE could be off by miles. There could be 20 times what they forecast. Or there could be nothing at all. You don't know until you drill it. You also discuss offshore drilling only in terms of gas prices. You disregard the macroeconmic impacts. A not unreasonable 1 million barrels per day could generate, at $100 oil:
1) $3-4 billion in lease bids
2) $20 million per day in royalty revenues to state/fedearl agencies
3) $4 billion in state taxes per year
4) $13 billion in federal taxes per year
5) $40 billion per year that stays ion the US rather than going overseas
6) because of #5, a stronger dollar, lower interest rates and inproved trade deficit
7) thousand of quality jobs
And you claim that drilling is only good for Big Oil.
Additionally, you fixate on absolute price impact. What about the relative impact? What would be the price impact if we suddenly removed this hypoethitcal 1 million barrels per day from the market in 2025?
Exlpain to readers why drilling offshore would keep us dependent on oil. Alternative eenrgy now accounts for about 10% of US venture capital. The economic incentives are huge. Exxon's drilling plans in offshore California are not going to make one bit of difference to solaror wind industry R&D programs. Especially if as you say drilling will have no price impact. This is an example of using hollow slogans as policy tools. Your statement is meaningless. It's not an either/or proposition. The oil and alternative industries will continue to invest in parallel.
"83% of the respondents said they want to end our dependence on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable energy sources." Yes and probably 50% are assuming some kid of magical fairy dust will appear. The average American is as poorly informed on energy matters as you are. But wishing doesn't make it so, I'm afraid. The same DOE you cite in defense of your views also forecasts petroleum liquids consumption in the US to rise from 40 to almost 50 quadrillino BTU's by 2030.They forecast current global production of around 85 million barrels per day rising to 112 million per day by 2030.
- hitac September 26, 2008 5:14PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The real issue behind the importation of oil is the amount of US currency that gets sucked out of the country. We need to do what we can to change that.
- EdR77203 September 26, 2008 11:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You can't always just think about yourself and your generation. Shouldn't you think about what is best for your country as a whole in the future? It is pretty obvious that there is no immediate solution to our oil problem or our where-are-our-renewable-resources-because-we-need-them-now problem. I think that people really just enjoy sitting back and complaining about it rather than actually trying to make a difference. Yes, we need renewable resources. Yes, we need to become independent from oil. However, I think that people have forgotten that you have to work hard for the things that will really make a difference. Plus, in order to help yourself, sometimes you need to help others as well. So, why not put some hard work into making the next generation's lives a little bit better? They will know what you did for them, and they will be willing to do the same for the generations after them.
So, go drill!
- kirbi January 25, 2009 1:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I think that you make several excellent points, the main one being that we need to work to make life better for future generations. In order for a change to be made, at some point we need to quit fussing about whose fault it is and how to fix it Right Now and do what needs to be done. We will not be able to find an easy fix to an old problem. I am an athlete and know from experience that when you develop a bad habit it takes a lot of time and a lot and practice to fix that.
- Cajun72 February 11, 2009 9:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The only reason we use these kinds of fuels is because of history and we need a new history, a change, one that Obama, seems to forget about. Im tired of the same old thing so why not listen to some of our most educated and intelligent students and try a different resource for fuel!
We need new and inovative means to power the next generation and its not with gasoline~ this economy has for too long catered to big oil companies and they are now calling the shots so I say STOP IT! Im seriously at the point to tell ALL baby boomers out there to go on welfare to break this countrys financial back in two, we are already suffering from Obama stress fractures with all his bailouts and stimulus pressures and it wouldnt take much to bring this country to its knees and maybe then someone would listen that status quo is not working anymore. Does change always have to follow drastic measures, cant we be smart enough, to not suffer a Sept. 11 to our economy or must we suffer great losses everytime inorder to have a wake up call? I hope not.
- angelmama August 14, 2009 6:13AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
We already know how to drill. However, we don't know what our next major resource that is going to take the place of oil is yet. So, it is pretty obvious what the logical thing to do here is. DRILL!
Why are food costs at an all time high? Oh, it is because of high oil prices that could be reduced if we would just do what we know how to do, and just drill! It makes sense; I promise. The food products have to be transported from place to place by cars, trucks, airplanes, and boats that all rely on an oil-based product. Food prices are raised due to oil prices. The food products are, most of the time, packaged in plastic containers and/or wraps, and plastic is an oil-based product. Once again, food prices are raised due to oil prices. Do you see the pattern here?
So when you say "offshore drilling threatens our fish stocks and ocean resources," the actual wildlife of the ocean is not your major concern. It is how it could possible effect the prices of food IF there was an oil spill. That is a pretty big "if."
- kirbi January 25, 2009 1:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
This whole argument about the 68 million acres is aimed at the idiot constituency who believe anything that is repeated enough times by the media and special interest groups.
I could go look for my keys over on the table where the light is good, but I already know they are in the room with the locked door, and I don't have the key. My wife has the key, so I guess I have to wait until she gets home.
Congress holds the key to lower retail gas prices for consumers, but the party in control of congress at the moment (dems) is so beholden to special interests that they adjourned and went out on the campaign trail without giving us the keys. I say throw the bums out.
- joelinda September 14, 2008 8:36AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Democrats submitted a reasonable bill giving oil companies more leases 50 miles off shore if the states want it (states rights), use American made equipment and labor, end oil tax subsidies and invest in alternative energies (funny, oil company advertisements say they are doing just that). Republicans don't like it and Bush might have to veto it. So much for the emergency Congress was supposed to stay and work on. I say we are throwing the bums out.
- tjhawknest33 September 23, 2008 7:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The dems have controlled congress for the last few years and are only just now doing anything. I say, vote out all incumbents and make the special interests buy off a whole new batch. Then throw them out in two more years. Rinse and Repeat.
- joelinda September 23, 2008 9:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Dems have been in "control" for 2 years with the most fillabusters in history carried out in those two years. Trent Lott was quite up-front about thier intentions when he said they were going to roadblock everything and then run against the do-nothing Congress. Rinsing and repeating is wasting too much shampoo when we could buy the good stuff at the salon and go to publicly funded campaign finance. This would gain us a seat at the table. Right now we can't afford the wood. If you aren't living in a cave you are seeing on the TV and internets that the lobbyists and corporations are about to pull off the biggest heist in history. That 3 page document was an equivelent to a stick-up.
- tjhawknest33 September 25, 2008 8:51PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The lobbyists get their power from contributing to the re-election campaigns of incumbents. If we change the culture of US voters to one of voting out the incumbent, then the lobbyists would lose much of their leverage. Lobbying in its current form is the real evil of US politics.
Meanwhile, drill more in the US. Build nuclear, coal, and wind farm power plants. Find ways to make ethanol and bio-diesel from non-food materials like algae, weeds, and wood. Also, convert fleets to natural gas. Just a serious threat of backing for any of these initiatives, will have an immediate impact on the futures and spot markets for oil.
- joelinda September 28, 2008 4:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
This post by the NRDC shows that it does not understand basic concepts of the exploration process.
Some reasons for inactive leases:
1) Your prospect covers 300 acres, but the lease it sits on covers 2385 acres. The lessor does not want to subdivide it. You lease all of it or none of it.
2) You lease a trend. You have an idea for a prospect, and you see a group of them lying in a given area. You lease all of them now to ensure that competitors don't outbid you for the others if your first one is a success. You don't drill them all at once, even if you could. You drill one, you learn from it, if it works, you drill more.
3) Some leases are actually owned outright by oil companies. They may have historical origins, such as old railroad right of way grants or land swaps. They may not be prospective, and the mineral rights may therefore have little or no market value.
4)It takes time and costs a lot of money to drill prospects. You have to locate rigs, you have to allocate funds from the budget. You can't do everything at once. It might take a year or more to secure a rig contract.
5) Many companies are staff constrained due to massive industry layoffs throughout the 1980's 90's and early 2000's (20 years of relatively poor oil company performance). This can cause drilling schedules to slip. I know of many cases of this. It's real.
6) Your company ranks prospects, and some fall at the bottom. Those leases may sit idle while you try to sell them, or until you get to the bottom of the pile. It acn easily take a year to locate a buyer and sign a contract.
7) you've drilled a dry hole in one prospect, and you have leases on similar adjacent prospects. You decide they are too risky and you don't want to drill them. You hold the acreage until it expires, or the next rental payment is due.
Others could identify many more reasons.
Additionally, you seem to think that there is a simple linear formula that relates lease surface area to oil reserves. But the reality is that some leases are better than others. If Acme Oil has 10,000 acres onshore, and its best prospect may have 5 million barrels, and it finds after a successful bid that it could drill a lease offshore California for a 500 million barrel prospect, what do you think they's do?
You claim that an environmental disaster is a certainty. Yes since the 1969 spill, over 7200 wells have been drilled in offshore California without one serious spill incident. 80,000 wells have been drilled in the offshore Gulf of Mexico, and I know of no serious spills due to drilling on the American side. The risks are not zero, but you wildly exaggerate them.
You say that the 10 year time frame is a reason not to drill. So you must believe we shouldn't have drilled on the North Slope, or in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. The UK shouldn't have drilled the North Sea, and Brazil is acting foolishly in their deepwater plays. If it benefits our children, and not us, it shouldn't be done. Correct?
You pose this as an either/or debate. Oil or alternatives. But the DOE you quote also says that oil consumption will be rising steadily through 2030. Meanwhile alternative energy companies, with huge incentives for success (taking OPEC's market share?) are getting mountains of cash. Both can go on in parallel. In fact, legislation could be written to allocate offshore royalties and bonus bids to alternative energy research. Why not?
What we really need in the energy debate is informed contributors looking at all possible solutions, and contributors who are able to think critically. Those who attempt to make arguments on subjects they don't understand, or who attempt to frame a real and serious problem in the simplistic 1960's language of good guys and bad guys, like the NRDC, are not helping anyone.
- hitac September 26, 2008 5:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If oil companies have sufficient oil inland, it is a purely selfish act to stake out oil fields offshore to insure their continued profit.
- Joseph February 10, 2009 8:34AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
graemeCR said: "Oil is a global commodity which is sold on the open market to the highest bidder. Do you really believe that any oil found in, on or under U.S. land or the OCS will be for the exclusive use of the U.S.?"
New oil production found in the US offshore wil simkly displace the equivalent volume of current US imports. The US imports 2/3 of the crude oil it consumes; it would make no sense to export oil from California or Florida, for example, and then turn around and reimport it from somewhere else. Another way of looking at this i to ask yourself, if you were a refiner in Maaysia, why would you want to pay the extra tariff for California oil? Wouldn't it be cheaper for you to buy it from a closer source?
But anyway we only need to look at the historical record to see that these assumptions are valid. If you go to the Einrgy Infomration Administration website ( http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_wkly_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_w.htm ), you can find US crude oil export data. You will see that the US currently exports about 25,000 barrels of oil per day (all to Canada), but has been producing about 5,100,000 barrels per day (except recently due to hurricane Ike). That's a 0.5% export ratio. Furthermore, US crude exports have held at this level since about 2002. From 1991 through 2001, crude exports averaged about 1.5% of domestic production.
How many new barrels of oil do you think the US industry has brought onstream since 2002? Since 1991? Almost none of it has been exported, and none at all from the offshore Gulf of Mexico, where a fairly large percentage of new US oil has been found.
When the data is examined critically, this popular assumption is proven to be wrong.
- hitac September 27, 2008 10:32AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
1
1
1
0
0
0
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Should the U.S. Allow Offshore Oil Drilling?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Drill baby drill but it ain't going to change the real problem.
Hi my name is America, and I'm addicted to Oil.
[Audience responds, "Hi America"]
I became addicted to oil because for over the last 30 years I have not invested in signfigant mass transit systems in the South and West which are the areas of the country with the most population growth. (San Francisco, Atlanta, and Seattle are exceptions.)
Then I have created a car culture that is fueled now by buying the largest and most obtrusive vehicles on the road, SUV's. People want to be seen. I mean hey I am America we are a flashy set of folks. Problem is SUV's are gas guzzlers. At the same time I have not required more strigent fuel standards. The big 3 have not changed their engineering and marketing designs. It took a Japaneses car maker Toyota to understand making more cost efficient and fuel efficient cars will sell. Oh well.
Also at the same time even though its pretty obvious that we've grown too large for just oil. I mean America uses 25% of the world's oil and has less than 5% of its people. Yea I'd say we just a wee bit out of control.
Get this too. As other countries and companies can see my addiction they keep going up on the product at crucial times. Damn I know they're hustling me, I'm just so addicted I can't say no.
What is this? There's more Oil in Alaska!?!?!! Then drill!!!! It won't be available for at least another 7-10 years? That's okay, I'll just keep going off what I have. As long as I can get more soon. [Counselor chides in this won't make much of a change in consumption and price if any.]
What it alone won't make up for the expected increases in energy consumption? But its more right? It'll taste better right being American right!?!?!?! Good enough for me!!!!
So keep giving me gas and not giving me my methadone of hybrid cars, better city planning, and renewable energy. I'll clean up. I promise. Just let me ride down the street in my Expedition in rush hour traffic through downtown okay?
I
- D Reck September 11, 2008 10:29AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
oil leases
I think instead of giving lucrative oil leases to the oil companies the politicians should set up a division within the national parks to drill and mine on federally controlled land. The division could go to Alaska or where ever they could get oil on the market the fastest and drill. They could build a pipeline to ship the oil across federal land and sell it at market price. $4-5.oo per barrel could be put into a fund devoted to clean up of federal land even to the point of returning the land to its natural state once the oil is gone. Half the profits could be used to finance other drilling and mining operations. The other half could be used to finance environmentally friendly projects. Instead of leading the world in pollution the US could lead the world in the fight against global warming.
- Alan123 September 14, 2008 6:01AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Face Reality
You are wrong on so many points. First off, hybrid cars aren't the answer. They are cars that get good gas mileage but not atronomically good and when they are buring gas, they are creating emmisions just like any car. In fact, in the 1970's they had cars like the Chevette that got better gas mileage. Never mind the huge environmental impact of the batteries for a hybrid. Did you know that a Hummer has less of an environmental impact than a Prius for the first 2 1/2 years? If you really cared about the environment, you'd be driving a 1970's Honda whose environmental footprint is near zero.
While we should absoluetly be pouring tons of money into other renewable fuel sources, the reality is we are decades at best away from getting off our oil addiction.
And for you to say that offshore drilling is bad for the environment, you make no sense what so ever. Do you think the Saudis are worried about the environment? Do you think Chechnya is concerned about greenhouse gases? How about worker safety? Think that they are worried about that in Yemen?
And what do you think causes oil spills? Oil tankers, the ships that currently bring us our oil. How many hurricanes need to rip through the gulf with zero damage for you to wake up to the obvious? Because if you are really an environmentalist, you should be screaming to drill here instead of importing a drop of oil from overseas.
Lastly, don't forget that in the last 20 years there have been 100 million barrels of oil spilled due to offshore drilling, 95%+ of which outside the US. Whereas over 650 million barrels of oil are spilled every single year by that enemy of the environment, mother nature.
Environmentalist extremists are wacked. We need electric cars, never mind that we don't have the electricity to run them because we can't use nuclear thanks to dopey movies from the 1970's like China Syndrome. We can't damn rivers because it will hurt fish. We can't use wind power because it kills birds. We can't drill here. But we need to get off foreign oil. The day I see Al gore ride a bike somewhere, I'll buy into the movement.
I AM an environmentalist and I am for nucelar energy which produces no greenhouse gasses, I am for safe and monitored offshore drilling under any circumstances but especially considering the laternative of getting oil from some where else and having it shipped here, I am for wind power (my apologies to the bat population), I like hydrogen fuel cells if the hydrogen can be produced by renewable means.
- Pliskin
October 2, 2008 11:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not too many real people buy into this
Interesting how the zealots have identified oil as the one commodity in existance that would not go down in price if there was more of it. Great idea on their part but it will fail because people are just smarter than that.
- aninformedcitizen September 15, 2008 6:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Offshore oil drilling won't fix anything
Oil is a non-renewable reasource, so drilling more out of the Earth isn't going to give us any more than is already there. Instead of using a temporary fix, we need to invest more in green technology so it's as eco-friendly as possible and availible to everyone. Until we can use this alternate technology, there are other solutions. Walk, ride a bike, take the bus... do anything that you can to reduce your consumption of oil.
- madninjamonkey
December 14, 2008 11:24PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Riding your bike isn't a solution
The thought that offshore drilling won't fix anything is absurd. Look at the money that drilling brought to Texas. You don't think that kind of money might be useful to researchers trying to find your "eco-friendly" solution? Money does not grow on trees, especially in this economy. The income offshore drilling could bring to this country would definitely help the economy. While you are correct in saying that oil is not a renewable resource, you seem to believe that that means we should stop using it. We need to come up with renewable sources, true, but we still have plenty of oil left to use before we get there. The gas companies won't mind that we don't use gas anymore if they own the nuclear power plants that power the future.
- richardsonkr
January 15, 2009 9:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Reply to richarsonkr
When you say, "the money that drilling brought to Texas", don't you mean, "the money that drilling brought to the Texas oil companies"? For some reason, I don't exactly see the CEOs of oil companies lining up to fund wind and solar power.
I don't advise nuclear power because we don't know what do to with the radioactive waste, which isn't safe at all for us or the environment.
Oil drilling hurts the environment, so even if there is still some left, it doesn't mean that we should wreck the world to tap into it.
And just to be contrary - money does grow on trees. It's made out of paper.
- madninjamonkey
January 15, 2009 9:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
TFQYA
When I say, "the money that drilling brought to Texas," I mean exactly that. Farmers who owned land with oil in it sold to the oil companies for big bucks, the oil companies hired huge numbers of people, and all of the stockholders (who are regular people, despite what Nancy Pelosi would have you believe) and many employees, not just the CEOs, got very rich. With all this extra cash coming in, everyone not invested in the oil company now had a great deal of newly wealthy consumers who helped business throughout the state. Everyone wins. I mean what I say.
With or without your stamp of approval, nuclear power is the most viable renewable power source we have left, though it may not be the most PC. Most people who think for themselves and question authority, and don't worship at the green altar support nuclear energy. That doesn't necessarily mean that other forms of energy are invalid, it simply means that they are as of now inferior. Not to say more research and development couldn't change that, but it certainly seems like reinventing the wheel to me.
As for oil drilling hurting the enviornment, recent history has shown us that if we don't drill for it, the Chinese will. Either we can drill for it, with our heightened sensitivity for the enviornment and our numerous safeguards, or we can let the Chinese, who frankly don't give a damn, so long as they get their oil. Furthermore, since we don't have a valid solution to the energy problem other than injecting more oil into the equation, this is what needs to happen. Using a bicylce as your primary mode of transportation is simply not feasible in this country.
Trying to ban everything that "hurts the enviornment" is ridiculous. Humans aren't good for the enviornment. Since I don't think you want to eliminate the human race (though there are those who do) we're going to have to do the best we can with what we have. There is a lot that goes into drilling for oil, especially at sea, that makes it as safe for the enviornment as possible. As for nuclear, we do know what to do with the waste. We put it in drums and bury it a few miles down in big rooms with concrete walls with lead in them. They're even looking at new technology that will let them convert radioactive waste back into material usable for fission. You reall need to stop drinking the green kool-aid and start Thinking For Yourself and Questioning Authority. You don't have any argument other than "That's not good for the enviornment."
And just to correct your contrary remark, money does not grow on trees. It's made out of cotton. Furthermore, even if it did grow on trees, simply printing more money has invariably made the situation worse, not better.
- richardsonkr
January 16, 2009 6:56AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Let's drill
America won't quit using oil, and if we're going to use it, why not use our own? We're trying to become less dependent on imported oil, and this to me seems like it would help alot. The U.S. consumes way too much oil. Why not keep the industry in the U.S.? Yes, the U.S. oil companies are disgustingly rich, but someone's getting paid regardless, we either help our economy or help the economy in the middle east. The way our's is looking, we should do whatever possible. Offshore drilling would create more industry in the U.S., meaning more jobs. Nobody would complain about cheaper gas prices. It seems like a good idea to me.
- ice cream man
February 11, 2009 1:02PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No
America has to get away from oil. We need better energy alternatives. Of course, this doesn't exactly answer the question, and just saying we need to break the oil addiction doesn't clear everything up. Change may take time. I think we should at least restrict offshore drilling, if not abolish it. But America needs to change so that there will be no need for copious drilling.
- nonplus22
February 11, 2009 8:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.