Should we Drill?
- Thread starter TeryT
- Start date
TeryT
New member
Poll Results thus far
Thanks everyone for participating. 72% in this poll said to lift the moratorium on drilling! (combination of two choices).
I was also listening to PBS and the Mclaughlin Group. To my surprise, they were touting how drilling in ANWR's 2,000 acres amounted to less than one tenth of one percent of the area. They also noted that no oil was spilled from off-shore rigs after Katrina. This is telling many that the technology has vastly improved.
Very surprised to hear PBS talking this way, since they normally espouse something of a left leaning agenda.
There also seems to be some dispute about how much is in the ground in ANWR - some sources seem to say not much, while I heard someone else say there was enough to fully supply the US for twenty years! (or maybe they were talking about the entire North Slope?)
Thanks everyone for participating. 72% in this poll said to lift the moratorium on drilling! (combination of two choices).
I was also listening to PBS and the Mclaughlin Group. To my surprise, they were touting how drilling in ANWR's 2,000 acres amounted to less than one tenth of one percent of the area. They also noted that no oil was spilled from off-shore rigs after Katrina. This is telling many that the technology has vastly improved.
Very surprised to hear PBS talking this way, since they normally espouse something of a left leaning agenda.
There also seems to be some dispute about how much is in the ground in ANWR - some sources seem to say not much, while I heard someone else say there was enough to fully supply the US for twenty years! (or maybe they were talking about the entire North Slope?)
Jeff Kleb
New member
From what I have heard, the area of actual 'drilling' in ANWR will be somewhat larger than Dulles (VA) Airport -- in part of an isolated area that is thousands of square miles.
Drilling there is only part of the solution, though, as we should also be looking at offshore drilling and obtaining oil from the new reserves discovered in Montanta and the Dakotas. Additionally, coal and geothermal reserves are abundant in the USA -- not to mention all of the natural gas that remains to be harvested.
It is certainly not a lack of resources that is our problem, but the cojones to go and get them.
:bash:
Now, once we get at this "new" oil, we still have the refinery capacity issue to deal with. All the crude oil oozing from the ground won't do a bit of good until we make it into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, kerosene, etc., etc.
As a proud, patriotic citizen, I just can't stand the idea of our President (or any other prominent leader) groveling at the feet of some oil sheik begging them to lower prices or increase production. Somehow it just seems so......well, unAmerican.
What I would like to see is a "Flux Capacitor" from the 'Back To The Future' movie. Now that would be cool.
:biggrin2:
:girl:
P.S. On another note, I find it funny to hear everyone kvetching about gas prices when they seem to have enough dough to buy beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets.
TheBlueWave
New member
Waaay to many choices on this poll 
Let's face it here folks. The hydrogen economy is still a very very long way off. Ethanol is a sham, scam, or whatever you want to call something that can't turn a profit with subsidation. The solar powered car is a pipe dream, and hybrids are too costly to justify the fuel savings (well, as gas prices increase that statement loses clout). The only way to get around for less money is by getting more domestic oil to the domestic refineries. This is only the short term, however. Long term needs to see more technology develop, but in the mean time there is an economy to run!
I drive slower lately, and I've noticed that others are doing the same. There is also less traffic on the roads during non-peak hours which would lead me to believe that people are driving less, as well. All good things.
See you at the pump!
Let's face it here folks. The hydrogen economy is still a very very long way off. Ethanol is a sham, scam, or whatever you want to call something that can't turn a profit with subsidation. The solar powered car is a pipe dream, and hybrids are too costly to justify the fuel savings (well, as gas prices increase that statement loses clout). The only way to get around for less money is by getting more domestic oil to the domestic refineries. This is only the short term, however. Long term needs to see more technology develop, but in the mean time there is an economy to run!
I drive slower lately, and I've noticed that others are doing the same. There is also less traffic on the roads during non-peak hours which would lead me to believe that people are driving less, as well. All good things.
See you at the pump!
TeryT
New member
CJ3Flyr
Super Moderator
simple said:
:iagree: To me ANWR is representative of how ridiculous the whole thing has gotten. Drilling in ANWR is not going to destroy a wilderness. Whether it's smart to drill there in terms of oil production/capacity is whole other discussion. I suspect there are much more lucrative locations in the 48 and offshore.
I get precariously close to head explosion due to the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) phenomenon. We are in 2008. The technologies employed in modern extraction are clean and safe. I think everyone has images of 1930's style operations that had no contingencies for spills, leaks and fires.
I want to live with energy independence which is a huge key to our sovereignty, security and financial security. My opinion is HAIMBY (How About In My Back Yard), please!
:awais:
:cheers:
Last edited:
004Gunner
New member
CJ3Flyr
Super Moderator
004Gunner those articles are freakin sweet!
I would tell the greenies an unintended consequenses of fighting big oil fields and offshore drilling is unattended rigs. Offshore or rigs in a dedicated oil field are probably more closely monitored than scattered Mom & Pop rigs (as far as potential environmental hazards are concerned). They need to get more reasonable.
We are on the verge of and need to continue with new, non-oil technologies. For the very near term and over a 20-50year window we need oil!:awais: We can harvest it and burn it cleanly, today. As far as CO2 footprint is concerned, give me a break... 1 good volcano blows us away.
All just IMHO...
:cheers:
I would tell the greenies an unintended consequenses of fighting big oil fields and offshore drilling is unattended rigs. Offshore or rigs in a dedicated oil field are probably more closely monitored than scattered Mom & Pop rigs (as far as potential environmental hazards are concerned). They need to get more reasonable.
We are on the verge of and need to continue with new, non-oil technologies. For the very near term and over a 20-50year window we need oil!:awais: We can harvest it and burn it cleanly, today. As far as CO2 footprint is concerned, give me a break... 1 good volcano blows us away.
All just IMHO...
:cheers:
XJeepguy
Member
What ever your going to get, will be just be traded on the commodities market anyways . North America probably wouldn't see a drop .
If you try and change things and let only the US use that oil it would upset the entire oil commodity market. No matter where , on US soil you drill its not going to help one tiny bit as far as prices go .
If you try and change things and let only the US use that oil it would upset the entire oil commodity market. No matter where , on US soil you drill its not going to help one tiny bit as far as prices go .
TeryT said:
Last edited:
Jeff Kleb
New member
Many of you here are too young to remember, but oil prices took a nose-dive back in '86 partially because of a few words uttered by Ronald Reagan.
We had come out of the two false 'energy crises' of the 1970s and early part of the 1980s. Remember odd/even rationing, $5 fuel purchase limits and waiting in line for gasoline? Well, it was not fun! Jimmy Carter's "state of malaise" did not do much to make us very proud as US citizens.
President Reagan called for deregulation of the petroleum industy and mentioned domestic oil exploration and - Voila! - gasoline prices went down as low as 69 cents a gallon here in VA in July of 1986. No, it was not quite that simple; but some of the big-wigs at OPEC were actually afraid that the USA would harvest some of our own energy. They sought to keep us dependent upon them (successfully, of course - if you look at things now) by reducing their prices in order to keep us from developing our own resources. Why go after our own stuff it is cheaper to get it from them, right?
Well, times have changed on the world market, other nations are competing for the same resources (China, India, etc.) and the glut of oil is ancient history. Nonetheless, we have a huge advantage over most other countries because we do have the capability to obtain more oil from domestic reserves. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal, with enough to provide at least a century of energy at current & projected usage. We also have plenty of crude oil - although getting to it will prove challenging; and most of our natural gas remains untouched. There is always ethanol & methanol, but each has its own set of issues - both environmental and with transportation.
A long-term strategy will definitely have to involve "alternative" forms of energy - from hydrogen technology to solar, wind or geothermal; but we are still dependent upon traditional petroleum for our nation's industry and transportation.
We need to expand current resources and develop new ones. This is true for both the short- and long-term prosperity of our great nation. Shutting down our econmy, sitting in the dark and watching the rest of the world run rings around the USA is NOT what we should be doing. This is America, dammit!!
:bigok:
It has been mentioned before, but expanding our refining capacity is of prime importance NOW. All the crude oil in the world is useless until it can be converted to gasoline, jet fuel, diesel fuel, heating oil, kerosene, etc., etc., etc. We have not built a new refinery since Gerald Ford sat in the Oval Office - which is inexcusable for a country such as ours.
As Larry The Cable Guy would say, "Git 'er done!"
:awais:
Happy Fourth of July to all of my fellow citizens!!
Last edited:
Methodical
New member
ANWR is alleged to be able to provide a million barrels a day for ten years.
The hippies say that it would only last a year. Thats because they calculate it as providing ALL US oil needs (as in, no imports or other oil sources... thats how long anwr would last if all US oil were to come from it).
it would triple alaskan production...
and at $200 per barrel a day, at a million barrels a day
It would amount to 73 billion dollars a year, literally pumped into the american economy, rather than shipped overseas and further devaluing the dollar.
The time is now.
The hippies say that it would only last a year. Thats because they calculate it as providing ALL US oil needs (as in, no imports or other oil sources... thats how long anwr would last if all US oil were to come from it).
it would triple alaskan production...
and at $200 per barrel a day, at a million barrels a day
It would amount to 73 billion dollars a year, literally pumped into the american economy, rather than shipped overseas and further devaluing the dollar.
The time is now.
Last edited:
JB.
New member
If the US had adopted Nuclear Power at the same rate as France, we'd have put 200 billion fewer tons of carbon in the atmosphere and be well below the Kyoto targets. Now, just exactly which group was the primary contributor in bringing us to the "environment" we see today?
They have little credibility and should be ignored and dismissed as we drill in every nook and cranny we can find.
They have little credibility and should be ignored and dismissed as we drill in every nook and cranny we can find.
Jeff Kleb
New member
I am surprised that nobody mentions the downward effect on prices that would occur if more drilling were to begin domestically. Back during the 1980s, Reagan merely mentioned ramping up domestic capacity and fuel prices fell like a rock.
I remember buying unleaded regular for 69 cents a gallon during the summer of 1986, mostly caused by fears among the OPECkers that the USA would move towards energy independence.
But even if we do find a way to "drill here now" and obtain more crude oil (regardless of cost), we still need to increase our refining capacity. We can't just pump crude out of the ground and run our cars and trucks on it. It has to be refined into dieel, Jet A, gasoline, kerosene, etc., etc., before it is useful to us.
Get on the stick, Congress and do what is right!!
Prices just fell dramatically. It doesn't require that we talk about drilling domestically, it doesn't even require us to drill domestically. The only thing needed to drop prices is less demand. When gas prices surpassed $4.00 a gallon demand dropped, and the refineries could no longer unload the gas at the higher prices... in return, prices dropped.
Those advocating drilling really need to revisit macroeconomics and microeconomics that you took in college (assuming you went to college). This is really basic stuff guys.
The whole "drill now" movement was simply put forward by some Republican strategist that felt he or she would have a way to motivate voters to get to the polls and "drill baby, drill". When I see the people with bumper stickers with this slogan or even parroting it themselves it simply allows me to clearly identify the lemmings who get their news through chain emails.
Those advocating drilling really need to revisit macroeconomics and microeconomics that you took in college (assuming you went to college). This is really basic stuff guys.
The whole "drill now" movement was simply put forward by some Republican strategist that felt he or she would have a way to motivate voters to get to the polls and "drill baby, drill". When I see the people with bumper stickers with this slogan or even parroting it themselves it simply allows me to clearly identify the lemmings who get their news through chain emails.