Why not drill?

[cleveramerican]

the technology exists to do it very safely, the high prices are not going to come down.
I read where the last six months price spike is like $1500 annually for an average family.
I know new drilling locations will take several years to affect the market price.
But I'm convinced that that timespan is shorter than any alternative wind or solar or bio-fuel options.

Its no more dangerous to the environment than your corner gas station.


ANWR, The continental shelf, the gulf of Mexico, the shale deposits.

If we don't go and get it China will
They(and us too) can drill at twelve degrees now, derricks in Cuba could empty the gulf while we sit on our hands.

[Vickers]

1. Garsh, what a swell idea!

*simulates masturbatory actions in your direction*

[EVDebs]

47. Drilling is unnecessary.

"The U.S. imports almost two-thirds of the oil we use. Over the next 20 years, our dependence on foreign oil could be almost completely eliminated if the average fuel economy increases to 45 mpg instead of 25 mpg."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/saving/efficiency/savingenergy.htmlEfficiencyConservation

(scroll down to 'transportation')

So, instead we're in Iraq for the oil..

It Was Oil, All Along
http://www.truthout.org/article/it-was-oil-all-along

"Oh, no, they told us, Iraq isn't a war about oil. That's cynical and simplistic, they said. It's about terror and al-Qaeda and toppling a dictator and spreading democracy and protecting ourselves from weapons of mass destruction. But one by one, these concocted rationales went up in smoke, fire and ashes. And now the bottom line turns out to be ... the bottom line. It is about oil.

Alan Greenspan said so last fall. The former chairman of the Federal Reserve, safely out of office, confessed in his memoir, "Everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

and then this from the June 26, 2008 (Santa Rosa, CA) Press Democrat

"From today's Press Democrat, Santa Rosa CA, letters to editor:

Editor: Joe Perry (letters, Saturday) is correct when he says no new oil refineries have been built in the US since 1976. In fact, in 1982 there were about 350 and now there are only about 150. Oil companies closed the others. In the last 25 years of the 20th century, the EPA received only one request for a permit to build a new refinery.

Why did they all close ? The top five oil refiners, Exxonmobil, et al, forced most of the independents out of business. They now control more than 60% of the oil refining in this country, and thus, the supply of what comes to the pumps.

Those independents refined around 1 million barrels a day. That gas, were it on the market today, would drive the price down.

The actions of these five companies is what drives the market. Ten years ago their profits were around 22 cents per gallon sold at the pump; now they are more than 60 cents. They don't want to refine more because the price would come down. We can't drill our way out of this system."

So, that about sums it all up for Obama's people when the 'debate' starts.

[Ian David]

2. You forgot the sarcasm tag. n/t

[spanone]

3. we need to get off oil, more digging is not the solution.

[Deja Q]

4. Very true, BUT

until fully weaned, what shall we allow in the mean time - global crash or worse?

I say, drill WHILE working on more efficient ways of transport - rail, light rail, walking... so much can be done that wouldn't cause the whole system to implode and go *boom*.

[spanone]

15. i disagree, put that drilling money into new technology.

[Deja Q]

19. I disagree too. Why not both?

Which was something I was loosely alluding to, but something has to be done for the short term - let's drill AND work on long term goals too. Unlike cheesy soap opera sci-fi being made today, there is no special reset button.

[cleveramerican]

10. getting off oil is a pipedream

its a good one, but its still many decades away.

[XRubicon]

33. Not if oil prices stay high

Oil is close to pricing itself out- alternatives are fast becoming economically feasible. I am not holding my breath though, I think the oil bubble will burst soon.

[wuushew]

34. Decades? Tell Sweden

http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/Article____14363.aspx

Swedes could soon be filling their cars with smuggled alcohol and animal remains. It is all part of a plan by the Swedish government to wean the country off oil within 15 years and thereby become the world's first oil-free country

[dysfunctional press]

50. bullshit.

mercedes said that they're 7 years from a gas-free auto.

[Doctor Cynic]

5. What does "our" mean?

The market for oil is global. If China has the money, all the oil from ANWR or a continental shelf will go to China. Or Japan. Or wherever.

And the "China is drilling near Cuba" statement is a myth cooked up by Big Oil.

[cleveramerican]

18. within "our" borders

is what I meant by "our"

[Doctor Cynic]

23. Read again.

The market for oil is global. A drop of oil pumped in Alaska can end up in China, or Australia, or Russia, or Peru.

Nothing says they have to sell it in the US market.

[SammyWinstonJack]

67. And it still goes to the highest bidder, which won't be us. Just like the oil from the pipeline in

Alaska isn't for our use, it's sold overseas. Get that?

[T.Ruth2power]

6. Reasons #1-10

[RazBerryBeret]

7. the better question is

WHY haven't they already drilled where they can?

More than 44 million acres of public lands are leased for oil and gas development, according to a new Wilderness Society analysis of Interior Department data. The analysis points to an explosion of drilling on federal lands, with 7,124 drilling permits (APDs) issued in 2007, a new record for the Bush Administration. Nationwide, the leasing is outstripping the oil and gas industry’s capacity to drill, as industry is drilling on only a quarter of the leases they hold.

I think the answer is because they don't want to drill, because they don't want the price to go down--and they need a scapegoat (dems) who won't "let" them drill and save the economy.

ANWR comes down to a power/land grab. the oil industry doesn't want to drill and create a glut, but they want to hold onto all the land they can for the future.

[cleveramerican]

13. the reason is....

until very recently we could still buy it cheaper

[stillcool]

32. I think it's bullshit...

Why are they not drilling right now? Why so anxious to get at Iraq oil? Why so anxious to get at South America's oil? I think someone needs to consider the profit margin for the oil companies. It is absurd to believe that if they truly wanted to drill anywhere in this country they would have any problem with Congress in getting the green light.

[me b zola]

62. So rather than post this drivel on DU

why not write to Exxon-Condoleza and ask them to begin drilling where they already can?

So our oil barons could "until very recently" buy oil cheaper than drilling themselves. So you concede that the problem isn't that we haven't handed over our natural resources to the oil barons, it's that their greed insist upon more, more, more--at our expense?

[MiniMe]

68. Fine. So why don't they start drilling on those 68,000 oil leases now?

The reason they are pushing this now is because we will most likely have a democrat as President very soon and the repukes will hopefully be losing a lot of seats in the House and Senate. If they don't pass it now, its not going to get passed for a long time.

[wuushew]

8. The first step in beating addiction is admitting you have a problem

I see no advantage to kicking the can down the road while the problem becomes even larger.

[bbinacan]

9. I agree

we need to do this as a stop gap measure while we work on alternative energy.

[dkf]

11. I'd rather we hold onto our supplies and use everyone else's.

One day we will need that.

[Deja Q]

22. I've read the same thing from people of many political parties

A crass, but logical idea if that is truly what is happening, which I somehow still manage to doubt.

And if the rumors of China slant-drilling are true, then what would be proposed to stop the buggering thieves?

[dkf]

28. I'm sure if it were true, we would know about it.

Bush & Cheney are not ones to let that sort of thing go.

[Bake]

85. I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!

Mwaaaaaaah haaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaa!

:evilgrin:

Bake

[JVS]

70. Exactly.

[defendandprotect]

12. ...because we can't burn any more fossil fuels --- that's over . . ..

have you heard about Global Warming yet?

We could have electric cars on our roads immediately ---

See the movie "Who Killed The Electric Car?"

California had thousands of electric cars on the roads and drivers who wanted to own them

but GM would only lease. From the late 1990's to 2000 plus, they were beautiful cars

and those driving them loved them.

After four or five years, GM demanded that they be returned and crushed them ALL.


Lots of money is spent by the oil and gas people to "convince" you to keep burning fossil

fuels --- because they OWN them!

Look into Global Warming, especially if you think you'd like to have a future ---

[cleveramerican]

24. Where is it "over"?

seriously, name me one place its "over"

nowhere in this country.

maybe someday but thats many decades away.

how do you heat your home? how do you get to work or away on vacation? How do your electric grid generate the electricity you use?

[defendandprotect]

41. If you understand Global Warming, "it's over" --- or you proceed to suicide . . .

Check into Global Warming if you don't understand this ---

Our natural resourses must be returned to the public under nationalization ---

We need to get electric cars on the road ---

If GM won't do it, we can raise a corporation to produce them and subsidize both

ends of it -- manufacture and purchase.

Can be done in 3-5 years ---


Neither do we have to drag electricity across huge grids --
wind, solar power and more local generators ---

All of these changes should have been made decades ago ---


PS: Just to encourage you to find out about Global Warming . . . we may actually
be close to the "tipping point" with no options for humanity ---
but we can always make things worse!

[cleveramerican]

44. I knew you couldn't name one single place on the entire earth.

how do you know global temperatures are not naturally cyclical and we have simply learned how to track it?
I think its rather arrogant to say anything man can do would ever affect the earth more than several billion years of time.
I think the earth will be fine, it's us who will go away.

[defendandprotect]

49. Scientists have known since the industrial revolution began . . .

pretty much immediately that our organized "bus-i-ness" was harming nature ---
in particularly they could see the effects on the trees. The trees are dying.
See: Charles Little "The Dying of the Trees" -- a current book, actually

Overpopulation is supressed as a subject -- but it doesn't take much in the way of
intelligence to figure out that the planet cannot cope with more than 6.5 billion people!
And the future repercussions of any further compounding of those figures.

Pollution of the planet is deadly in its extent --
We are doing great harm to all species, including ourselves -- and the planet.

The earth is a living organism and can be harmed; just as your own body can be harmed.

Consider that in the roughly 500 years since Columbus "discovered" America, we have
destoyed the environment. Fast work!

Scientists have been warning us of the Global Warming model since at least the 1950's . . .

See Scientists Warning to Humanity at bottom of page ---

And there have been a number of threads posted in last days at DU about the North Pole perhaps being ice free shortly.

The oil industry has propagandized the public over decades with lies and distortions and
misinformation ensuring them that Global Warming was not a problem.
Campaign contributions have "bought" government and legislators.
Bush/Cheney have deep oil industry connections.

Patriarchy, organized patriarchal religions - "Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over the Eart" -- are suicidal. These are licenses for exploitation of nature, natural resources and animal-life --
and even of other human beings according to various myths of inferiority.

That's pretty much it -- good luck!




* * * * * * *


SCIENTISTS WARNING TO HUMANITY/
GLOBAL WARMING


http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/1992-world-scientists-warning-to-humanity.html
1. Scientist Statement
World Scientists' Warning to Humanity (1992)

Some 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences, issued this appeal in November 1992. The World Scientists' Warning to Humanity was written and spearheaded by the late Henry Kendall, former chair of UCS's board of directors.
INTRODUCTION


Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.
THE ENVIRONMENT


The environment is suffering critical stress:


The Atmosphere
Stratospheric ozone depletion threatens us with enhanced ultraviolet radiation at the earth's surface, which can be damaging or lethal to many life forms. Air pollution near ground level, and acid precipitation, are already causing widespread injury to humans, forests, and crops.


Water Resources
Heedless exploitation of depletable ground water supplies endangers food production and other essential human systems. Heavy demands on the world's surface waters have resulted in serious shortages in some 80 countries, containing 40 percent of the world's population. Pollution of rivers, lakes, and ground water further limits the supply.

Oceans
Destructive pressure on the oceans is severe, particularly in the coastal regions which produce most of the world's food fish. The total marine catch is now at or above the estimated maximum sustainable yield. Some fisheries have already shown signs of collapse. Rivers carrying heavy burdens of eroded soil into the seas also carry industrial, municipal, agricultural, and livestock waste -- some of it toxic.


Soil
Loss of soil productivity, which is causing extensive land abandonment, is a widespread by-product of current practices in agriculture and animal husbandry. Since 1945, 11 percent of the earth's vegetated surface has been degraded -- an area larger than India and China combined -- and per capita food production in many parts of the world is decreasing.


Forests
Tropical rain forests, as well as tropical and temperate dry forests, are being destroyed rapidly. At present rates, some critical forest types will be gone in a few years, and most of the tropical rain forest will be gone before the end of the next century. With them will go large numbers of plant and animal species.


Living Species
The irreversible loss of species, which by 2100 may reach one-third of all species now living, is especially serious. We are losing the potential they hold for providing medicinal and other benefits, and the contribution that genetic diversity of life forms gives to the robustness of the world's biological systems and to the astonishing beauty of the earth itself. Much of this damage is irreversible on a scale of centuries, or permanent. Other processes appear to pose additional threats. Increasing levels of gases in the atmosphere from human activities, including carbon dioxide released from fossil fuel burning and from deforestation, may alter climate on a global scale. Predictions of global warming are still uncertain -- with projected effects ranging from tolerable to very severe -- but the potential risks
are very great.


Our massive tampering with the world's interdependent web of life -- coupled with the environmental damage inflicted by deforestation, species loss, and climate change -- could trigger widespread adverse effects, including unpredictable collapses of critical biological systems whose interactions and dynamics we only imperfectly understand.


Uncertainty over the extent of these effects cannot excuse complacency or delay in facing the threats.
POPULATION


The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth's limits. Current economic practices which damage the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations, cannot be continued without the risk that vital global systems will be damaged beyond repair.


Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth. A World Bank estimate indicates that world population will not stabilize at less than 12.4 billion, while the United Nations concludes that the eventual total could reach 14 billion, a near tripling of today's 5.4 billion. But, even at this moment, one person in five lives in absolute poverty without enough to eat, and one in ten suffers serious malnutrition.


No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.
WARNING


We the undersigned, senior members of the world's scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.
WHAT WE MUST DO


Five inextricably linked areas must be addressed simultaneously:

We must bring environmentally damaging activities under control to restore and protect the integrity of the earth's systems we depend on.
We must, for example, move away from fossil fuels to more benign, inexhaustible energy sources to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the pollution of our air and water. Priority must be given to the development of energy sources matched to Third World needs -- small-scale and relatively easy to implement.


We must halt deforestation, injury to and loss of agricultural land, and the loss of terrestrial and marine plant and animal species.


We must manage resources crucial to human welfare more effectively.


We must give high priority to efficient use of energy, water, and other materials, including expansion of conservation and recycling.


We must stabilize population.
This will be possible only if all nations recognize that it requires improved social and economic conditions, and the adoption of effective, voluntary family planning.


We must reduce and eventually eliminate poverty.
We must ensure sexual equality, and guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions.
DEVELOPED NATIONS MUST ACT NOW


The developed nations are the largest polluters in the world today. They must greatly reduce their overconsumption, if we are to reduce pressures on resources and the global environment. The developed nations have the obligation to provide aid and support to developing nations, because only the developed nations have the financial resources and the technical skills for these tasks.

Acting on this recognition is not altruism, but enlightened self-interest: whether industrialized or not, we all have but one lifeboat. No nation can escape from injury when global biological systems are damaged. No nation can escape from conflicts over increasingly scarce resources. In addition, environmental and economic instabilities will cause mass migrations with incalculable consequences for developed and undeveloped nations alike.
Developing nations must realize that environmental damage is one of the gravest threats they face, and that attempts to blunt it will be overwhelmed if their populations go unchecked. The greatest peril is to become trapped in spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic, and environmental collapse.


Success in this global endeavor will require a great reduction in violence and war. Resources now devoted to the preparation and conduct of war -- amounting to over $1 trillion annually -- will be badly needed in the new tasks and should be diverted to the new challenges.


A new ethic is required -- a new attitude towards discharging our responsibility for caring for ourselves and for the earth. We must recognize the earth's limited capacity to provide for us. We must recognize its fragility. We must no longer allow it to be ravaged. This ethic must motivate a great movement, convincing reluctant leaders and reluctant governments and reluctant peoples themselves to effect the needed changes.

The scientists issuing this warning hope that our message will reach and affect people everywhere. We need the help of many.
We require the help of the world community of scientists -- natural, social, economic, and political.
We require the help of the world's business and industrial leaders.
We require the help of the world's religious leaders.
We require the help of the world's peoples.
We call on all to join us in this task.

[RadiationTherapy]

69. WOW, maaaann. You are SOOOO counter-culture!

How can you even type that shit?

[cleveramerican]

82. wife, mortgage, kids

I'm a middle aged suburban dad who mows his lawn on saturday.

I stopped giving a shit about being "counter-culture" years ago.
These days hoping I can hang on fills my time

[RadiationTherapy]

84. It's faux "counter culture" because both of us know that a large majority of science and

common sense points to your statements being very incorrect and, quite simply, in the way.

[AllieB]

76. Have you read anything about Global Warming?

I don't mean Glenn Beck's book. GW is happening, and we're part of the problem.

[dysfunctional press]

51. there is a reason why they were leased, and why honda will only lease the hydrogen fuel-cell cars...

they were/are WAY too expensive to purchase. i don't know the production costs of the ev-1, but honda has already admitted that it's hydrogen fuel-cell cars cost them several hundred thousand dollars apiece to manufacture.

[Gold Metal Flake]

14. They can drill. No one is stopping them.

They have the leases and the permissions. So, ask them "why not drill". Don't ask us.

[Deja Q]

26. Proof?

[Gold Metal Flake]

42. A wealth of info at this link...

http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=2816

[Arctic Dave]

16. OK, I stopped laughing, now I can reply.

First, what makes you think that we are not drilling right now. Our oilfields are so busy we can't find drilling rigs or people to man them. Second, stop the insanity! Otherwise known as speculation, that will help more then anything. Third, I am assuming by "twelve degrees" you mean the angle at which you can drill a reservoir. My answer to that is, read more current drilling publications, they can do a lot more then that.

[XRubicon]

17. Because there is no shortage

Stop speculators and add value to the dollar by stopping the feds printing presses.

[Deja Q]

20. No shortage YET, and I do agree the speculators are a considerable influence...

But down the road, other solutions need to be enacted. EVERY solution can already be done; we just need to do it. And it takes time... and, fortunately, we still HAVE time.

[marmar]

21. The little oil they'd dredge out of ANWR would not make a DENT in prices....

.... Even in a few years. It's pointless, and a potential environmental disaster. (Even though rocket scientist Michele Bachmann thinks the caribou will like the "warmth" of the pipeline.)

You don't cure a crack addict by letting him stay on crack a little longer. You've got to take drastic measures to end the addiction, even if it's initially very painful.

[Deja Q]

25. They could teleport oil from Mars, tons of it, and prices would not make a dent.

Speculation and other BS is clearly the immediate concern.

Memorial Day holiday; prices did not go down like they did in previous years. Indeed, prices shortly went up for no reason at all.

It is not a supply issue.

Maybe it's merely a wake-up call. Regardless of underlying reality or otherwise.

[Lorien]

55. ANWR; possible 2-3% of average American usage for six months to a year

and how much will Halliburtan charge the American taxpayer to build 1,000 miles of road over an unstable bog that was-until recently-permafrost? The repug talking heads will always have this one to bat around because it won't be done (unless we have 12 more years of neo-cons to fleece Americans). Even the oil companies have no real interest in it, and GOP politicians only see it as "a symbolic defeat of liberalism" (real quote).

[ironbark]

73. Just passing through

About two years ago I watched a documentary about an Environmental Impact Study Team going in to check out the Arctic Oil and Caribou migration patterns. Two or three four wheel drives drove in across the permafrost and the team set up camp for the night. When they got up in the morning there was a small stream flowing right up to the camp that wasn’t there the day before.

Tires create tracks in frost, tracks create shadows, darker frost melts…..
wherever you drive you get a stream flowing.

And >that< was the impact of the sensitive Environmental Impact Study Team.

Go for it guys! Send the Rigs in!

[TZ]

74. Yup

For once you and I are in TOTAL agreement. This drilling has minimal impact on sensitive ecosystems
is nonsense. Just look at the dirty mess that the places in Alaska that do allow drilling are.

I don't believe drilling would be anything but a short term solution..that would leave long term damage. This is not an answer. Investing in RENEWABLE energy IS.

[Gore1FL]

27. You can save as much annually as drilling would produce

by raising the average mpg in this country by 1. Technology exists now to improve it by more than that every year as cars are replaced. Before the first drop of oil is claimed (or spilled) a sensible conservation approach would yield a greater benefit by orders of magnitude.

[Democrats_win]

29. The money & time we wasted in Iraq could have been used for coastal drilling.

It would take a great deal of wisdom to figure out where we should go. We can't just stop using oil. Maybe the occam's razor of drilling is best.

We can't forget that the Middle East still has a lot of oil and it's quality oil with low production costs---that is, unless you insist on adding in the cost of blood.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. We don't own any large cheap oil resources left to drill.

Our domestic peak arrived years ago. ANWR is a drop in the bucket. There are no significant offshore reserves that would make a difference. Shale oil - well you don't actually drill for shale, you extract it through an environmentally brutal and energy intensive process and you end up with raather expensive oil.

We cannot drill our way out of the mess we are in. They are lying to you, pandering with simple-minded solutions so that you can keep on driving your big ass SUV and not pay for it at the pump.

[tabasco]

36. And the simpletons believe the propaganda.

Just look on this thread.

Sad.

[cleveramerican]

40. whats more simplistic than.....

saying we need to get off oil.
I am way more pragmatic than that.
for nearly all of us that is simply not an option.

[dysfunctional press]

52. "simply not an option"...what will you do in two years when gas is approaching or over $10/gallon?

"simply not an option"- hahahahahahahahahaha...:rofl:

like we have a say as to when the oil runs out?

methinks you might want to get a little more flexible on your outlook- lean times are coming.

[cleveramerican]

80. I HAVE become more flexable

i used to agree with most of you.
until a tankful of heating oil got to nearly $1000
5 years ago its was barely $400

[tkmorris]

81. And yet, somehow you think more drilling will help

It won't and the reasons WHY it won't have been explained to you many times over. You appear not to accept that reality, but you never say why.

There are things we can do to reduce the price of oil, but drilling isn't one of them, not really. Beyond that we ultimately will have to move to alternatives, and the sooner we invest time and resources into doing that the better off we will be. It really is that simple.

[cleveramerican]

83. I don't have any answers

all I have is what I go through or what somebody tells me same as the rest of you.

I accept reality more than most of the responders.
I know the high prices are KILLING me.
and I know I need some relief.
so I am throwing out all assumptions.


and I know I'm not alone.

which is why my question is HOW you know?

[sellitman]

37. Bravo!

You pegged it.

Saved me use of my thumbs on this iPhone.

[XOKCowboy]

56. Here is what shale oil exploration looks like...

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=rifle+co&ie=UTF8&ll=39.502054,-107.878361&spn=0.077353,0.177841&t=h&z=13

This is just west of Rifle CO. All of those little squares is either a well or supply site. You can zoom in and out and pan around. Note all of the roads linking the sites. Also note that the river just south of I-70 is the Colorado River which drains most of western Colorado and eventually supplies Las Vegas and most of southern CA with water. This is just one area. Use Google Maps to search west and north of here to see the same grid of new drill sites.

This is an extremely expensive way to extract oil but at $120+ per barrel it's full steam ahead. Even the outfitters/sportsmen are against this rape of what some see as just waste land but others see as habitat for deer, antelope, elk and a place that millions of people use for recreation each year. It's also high desert and any damage done now will be evident for hundreds of years.

Don't give me that bullshit that drilling techniques are safe now. It's the RW and Big Oil blowing smoke up your ass. As for the OP he needs to go back and get some new RW talking points. These ain't playing well.

[Kansas Wyatt]

31. Stop playing their game and call their BLUFF.

In a unified position, the Democratic Party should stand together and call their damn bluff by agreeing to allow them to do this, provided that they can immediately explain how that would help Americans and what guarantees they are providing to Americans for doing this.

Stop dancing to their tune, and dump it all back into their laps to stutter and stammer about.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

35. Cuz it hurts so bad.....

[angrycarpenter]

38. I was looking at the maps of leases in the gulf today

I was trying to find who owns the leases right off shore of my home here. I didn't find it but I did notice that the central gulf leases were sold to the highest bidder, a company called BHP Billiton getting most of them. They are one of the worlds largest mineral and oil companies based in Australia.

The oil that is technically ours is sold to foreign companies to sell on the open market and most of it never sees our country. The payment is taken in the form of royalties paid in crude that goes directly into the strategic reserve. Again it is no real relief to our problem.

Nearly all of the leases are owned by foreign companies.
They sell the oil overseas.
what makes it to our shores is gobbled up by the government.
We buy the oil we use from Saudi while our own oil is sold to Asia.

How can more drilling help? Instead of leasing our fields as a whole to an American company they are chopped up into tiny squares and sold off one at a time at an auction to whomever can pony up the cash. So you have several companies working the same field trying to out do the other in production.

The process of oil production in the gulf is far more complicated than I believed. Any simplistic solution Quickly runs into a leasing system that seems to favor foreign companies over our own.

[End Of The Road]

39. What possible good would it do to drill for more oil?

It won't bring the price down. Global financial meltdown might bring the price down, but who'll have the money to buy it then?

There is plenty of oil to last us for many many years to come. It's just not CHEAP oil any longer, for you and me.

[unkachuck]

43. why drill?

....are we suffering from a shortage of oil, or an abundance of greed?

[frog92969]

45. Screw oil!

Seriously.

We've been held back long enough.

[dkf]

46. Well maybe just around Cuba then...

And I do think if we don't want to drill, we better have a really really really good plan for substitute energy.

Listening to Obama doesn't give me much confidence on that front. He needs to be a lot more detailed on how we will live in a post oil world. I'm starting to get worried that he doesn't get it.

[Indiana_Dem]

59. I met and gave Barack a book on peak oil--

Richard Heinberg's "The Party's OVer: Oil, War & the Fate of Industrial Societies". This was at a town hall meeting on farming and energy before my primary in Indiana. I also gave him my peak oil blog link that has many other links. I told him when this was all over (meaning the primary & possibly the GE at the time) to sit down and read it. He might have skimmed it a little by now. Someone told me they think he has read some of it because recently he was spouting out some figures that were in the book regarding global & domestic demand, supply, etc. per day and year.

I'm also meeting with my Rep. Tuesday morning at a re-election kick-off and I'm going to personally hand him a letter and the same book for him to read. I also wrote in the letter that I gave the same copy to Barack and to contact his fellow Rep. Roscoe Bartlett from MD because he knows a great deal about the issues facing us concerning oil and fossil fuel depletion.

So, hopefully, if enough people hound them on the issue intelligently, they may get the drift from some of us. I think Barack has at least a little clue after his opposition to the gas tax holiday and saying we can't drill our way out of the problem. I think he just has so many different issues to focus on right now that it's almost impossible to sit down and study the implications of this issue alone. One day he speaks to the Jewish electorate, the next day he has to switch to speaking with the Hispanic/Latino electorate and on and on....so I just think he doesn't have the time to sit down yet and fully absorb this. I believe he will once he gets into office. I'm sure someone will brief him and he'll get a chance to study it more...probably getting a better picture from the behind the scenes of things than we can.

[dkf]

60. Yeah, but if he needed to read that book I find it scary in itself.

I first heard of peak oil when someone asked Howard Dean about it. That was ages ago.

[Indiana_Dem]

63. He may not need to. I just gave it to him just in case.

I didn't have long to speak to him as other people were waiting, so I didn't have a chance to ask him anything (as I was also starstruck with him standing there open to anything I had to say but not enough time to say it!)

[MilesColtrane]

48. Why don't we just pursue the technology to convert...

...caribou, moose, otters, sea birds, and fish directly into precious oil?

They're generally annoying and they don't really contribute anything to the American way of life anyway.

[Monk06]

53. Let me pull the veil from your eyes a little bit concerning mineral and O/G exploration

and development.

You can drill like there's no tomorrow but
you won't add one gallon of oil to the market
for the next ten years. That is the time it
takes between identifying a resource through
geophysics to exploration drilling to define
the resource and a bankable feasibility study
to determine that the resource can be developed
with a reasonable internal rate of return.

Meanwhile there is no way of determining what the
market price of the commodity is going to be when
a production decision is made.

Take ANWR for example. The resource estimate for
ANWR is based entirely on Geophysical Surveys
There hasn't been one confirmation hole drilled
to determine whether there is a resource there
let alone an economically feasible reserve.

In terms of economics ANWR might as well be on the
moon for all we know about its potential.

[Lorien]

54. And invading Iraq really drove down the price of oil, didn't it?

wise up. it ain't the supply-at least not yet. Google "petro dollars" and then get back to us.

Oh, and by the way; how DO you intend to get the oil out of ANWR when the permafrost is no longer permafrost? Just how expensive will it be to build infrastructure across 1,000 miles of bog that freezes for a few months out of every year?

[B Calm]

66. Invading Iraq was all about raising the price of oil! Mission Accomplished!

[AndyTiedye]

57. Because…

[Xenotime]

75. You made the best point. Haven't we fucked up this earth enough?

[johnaries]

58. Because the timespan is LONGER than the alternative options.

It will be at least 10 years before we see any oil from new drilling. There are many alternative options that can be ready much, much sooner.

As far as the market prices, the market has been manipulated. Finish closing the Enron Loophole and institute other regulations and the price of oil will drop by half in less than 30 days.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. Because they ALREADY have plenty of places they can drill

and have CHOSEN not to

You tell me WHY?

[galledgoblin]

64. ...because it'd save 75 cents per BARREL

meaning we'd save 3 cents a gallon at the most, and we'd risk polluting one of the few remaining wildernesses on American soil.

even a clean industrial site has spills and has to build infrastructure that will leave an impact.

drilling in ANWR is not even a temporary fix.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/19/161118/727/443/538577
http://daftparrot.com/2008/06/18/anwr/

[B Calm]

65. They already have productive wells drilled on leased land! They have them capped

off and will start pumping the oil whenever the price is right.

[JVS]

71. We need to save that oil for when people finally break down and admit we need nuclear reactors

Then using that oil we can construct a bunch of reactors that form the basis of our new energy system.

[Buzz Clik]

72. "If we don't go and get it China will". Good call.

China is going to drill in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, and Colorado.

[rhett o rick]

77. Clever American, ha! You have to be joking. I am serious.

where do I start:

Just drill more. That's the thought process that got us where we are today. That's what the oil companies crammed down our throats for the last couple of decades. At best only a temporary fix (pun intended, please people pay attention).

And we do not have a shortage of wells already drilled but capped by the oil companies. They are artificially holding down the supply to get us frightened into........... into............. come on I know you can get this...........YES YES MORE F******* DRILLING.

Other countries in the world have gotten themselves off their dependence on oil because they started a decade ago. Not us, our answer pushed by the oil companies and their corp-media was then.........more drilling.

More drilling will only postpone the problem.

Now is the time you can say it, go ahead you were pulling our legs, right??

[rhett o rick]

78. EXXON ALERT, EXXON ALERT. nm

[KG]

79. Its no more dangerous to the environment than your corner gas station?

have you been to a gulf beach in texas?

[LSK]

86. Global warming??????

Enjoying the record floods and tornados this year????