Quote :

"Perhaps we need a President McCain who will make it easier for new refineries to be built ... "

And how pray tell is he going to do that with a Congress and several entrenched interests that will stand in his way?

This is a country that doesn't have rule by decree. It requires a coalition of interests pursuing the same goal to get anything done. And even then if it goes against another coalition of interests pursuing the opposite goal, all you really have is one big stalemate and the status quo will reign supreme. Take a look at Bush's push for an amnesty for example.

Democracy's broken people. We all need to just get our guns and solve problems the old-fashioned way.

[Edited on June 18, 2008 at 8:38 AM. Reason : /]

6/18/2008 8:29:18 AM

vote republican in your congressional and senate races too.

6/18/2008 8:30:34 AM

^ Like Elizabeth Dole is worth a rat's ass. Name one thing she's done as senator other than run the National Republican Senatorial Committee in the ground in 2006.

[Edited on June 18, 2008 at 8:40 AM. Reason : /]

6/18/2008 8:39:12 AM

I'm just telling you how we can get to drilling our own fields.

6/18/2008 8:40:18 AM

^ We are drilling our own fields! We're producing 5.1 billion barrels of oil per day in this country per our own government statistics at the link I provided, http://www.eia.doe.gov . Why are we exporting 1.8 billion barrels of oil per day, a third of our daily production, to other countries if we want energy independence? Cause for every barrel we ship out, that's another barrel we have to ship here. So there's 1.8 billion barrels of oil per day, a little more than 10% of our country's daily use, we could use that for free and we don't have to worry about Middle Eastern politics or falling Mexican production or Nigerian oil worker strikes with it.

And then there's all the old oil derricks still lying around with concrete caps on them. This country used to be Saudi Arabia with all the oil we produced. The international price of oil for a long time was set by the Texas Railroad Commission. The price of oil was set by them for a long time at 5 cents per barrel of oil. They had a meeting one night and decided "we're doubling the price of oil, it's now 10 cents per barrel of oil". That's how much power this country had due to our oil, we were OPEC before OPEC existed, and our OPEC was the Texas Railroad Commission. The reason all those derricks were shut down was cause the oil production at those derricks was not profitable at $10 or $15 per barrel of oil. They most definitely are at $100+. Those derricks are still approved for oil production, their licenses were never rescinded. So their owners can open them up. This is happening in Los Angeles County of all places. Why isn't this happening more widespread across the country? You can look at the production numbers and see it's not.

Are you one of these people that when presented with facts ignore them if they don't fit your argument?

Now if you're going to ignore all this and say, "no, McCain just needs to approve more drilling." The only way this will happen is to remove people's right to oppose something or have any voice. You're arguing for autocracy and not democracy. So get out your gun and shoot liberals, and install conservatives in power forever while making liberals the subservient class. I'll get out a bag of popcorn and watch.

(And for the record, everything LoneShark wrote regarding sweet crude vs. sour crude is 100% true. A lot of our refineries can only refine the sweet.)

[Edited on June 18, 2008 at 9:04 AM. Reason : /]

6/18/2008 9:02:23 AM

Dude, doing anything to prohibit oil exports from the US would be fucking SUICIDE.

There are a lot of countries right now eying their oil fields and thinking "it would be a popular move to decree this only for domestic consumption". Or at least sell it domestically what what it takes to produce, and not what it sells at in the market. Lots of places are already doing that. Everyone one that does so hurts the prices that we're paying. I mean, one of the best things we can expect for the price of oil is for the the big Indian oil company to bankrupt itself thereby being forced to remove the subsidies.

Make no mistake, giving away 'your' oil for lower than the market price for a domestic market is the exact same as subsidizing oil. Subsidizing oil means the government paying for someone's gas. This is a bad idea, and it is the only way you can get rid of that 1/3rd of our oil production - which is only 40% of the amount of oil we use in the first place.

If the United States started hoarding its oil, you would see an international panic. I can't even imagine. I know it's hard to think about, but it is very important to allow that amount to continue to be exported. If we export 2 zigs while at the same time import 2 zigs from somewhere else, believe me, one way or the other the market has a reason for it.

6/18/2008 10:04:53 AM

worldwide oil production is only 85m barrels a day.

6/18/2008 10:11:30 AM

Quote :

"Fuck oil. Anyone who doesn't see this as the perfect time to move away from it and instead advocates more drilling is incredibly short-sighted and stupid."

Why? If now is the perfect time to move away from oil then in 25 years after we have finished drilling would be an ever better time.

Any moving away from oil we can manage today can still be managed decades from now. So why the rush? Allow drilling, keep investing in alternatives, and when the time comes around again we will be ever better prepared and more capable. What is probably a very difficult transition today might become easy in a quarter century.

6/18/2008 10:13:56 AM

Quote :

"If the United States started hoarding its oil, you would see an international panic."

I think that's already happened.

Come on everyone, we need to stop being children on this issue. This simple point still remains:

Quote :

"for every barrel we ship out, that's another barrel we have to ship here"

If you want this country to have "energy independence" as it's been called in political lingo, that means we have to have the ability to take care of ourselves without depending on foreign oil sources.

Here's the numbers simplified:

March 2008:

Net Domestic (exports removed): 3.3 million barrels of oil per day
OPEC: 5.9 million
Non-OPEC: 6.6 million

Total: 15.8 million barrels of oil per day

Now if we add in that 1.8 million barrels that were marked for export, we can drop our OPEC imported oil down to 4.1 million barrels. Let's look at OPEC's March 2008 numbers:

Saudi Arabia: 1.5 million barrels of oil per day
Nigeria: 1.2 million
Venezuela: 1.0 million
Iraq: 0.773 million
Other OPEC countries: 1.4 million

Iraq numbers are going up, obviously. The Saudis are as much tied to the American government's hip as Britain and Israel. But look at these numbers, we could drop Venezuelan oil entirely if he wanted to. Just keep a bit more than half of our exported oil and it makes up for the shortfall of dropping Venezuelan oil. And we could completely ignore Chavez cause he no longer has any effect on this country. We wouldn't be dependent on some foreign government or monarch for doing this, we could do that within the year.

[Edited on June 18, 2008 at 10:25 AM. Reason : /]

6/18/2008 10:20:39 AM

I'm sure that people who import the oil from us will love that. In fact, wouldn't this just be a great way to piss off BOTH our allies and our enemies, not to mention create relative sweet/sour oil local shortages and drive the price of oil up even more!

That would seriously aggravate the one big problem that we're faced with to solve another problem that's not really all that much of a problem.

6/18/2008 10:33:23 AM

If it was that easy, the people that control this stuff would have done it along time ago.

Smarter people are handling the issues.

6/18/2008 11:07:31 AM

I apologize if this has already been covered, but how in the hell is this a "short term solution" to anything? Or, put another way, what kind of definition of "short term" are we talking about?

Throwing up an offshore drilling site isn't something you do in a weekend. It's a fairly substantial construction project which then requires its own complex infrastructure to be useful. There'd be a lot of months of $4/gal gas before the things were even online.

Not that it will necessarily matter much when that happens. I've not read anything to suggest that we have sufficient oil resources, offshore or otherwise, to make ourselves anywhere near self-sufficient. Meaning that OPEC and the rest still has us by the short 'n curlies.

Even if, by some divine miracle, we had enough oil to keep ourselves running cheaply along, it would start going overseas, where it would be selling for more. So we're still getting screwed, except now we're getting screwed exclusively by good old fashioned American oil companies, and don't even have Arabs and Hugo Chavez to blame for it.

Look, I've got no problem with offshore drilling, let's go ahead and do it. But let's not convince ourselves it's a solution to much of anything.

6/18/2008 12:17:42 PM

Quote :

"America has its head firmly positioned in its own ass "

I snickered.

6/18/2008 12:18:30 PM

Quote :

"I'm sure that people who import the oil from us will love that. In fact, wouldn't this just be a great way to piss off BOTH our allies and our enemies, not to mention create relative sweet/sour oil local shortages and drive the price of oil up even more! That would seriously aggravate the one big problem that we're faced with to solve another problem that's not really all that much of a problem."

Then why don't you and other Americans call out Congress for their energy independence bullsh*t? Why are all the voters in this country pussies? Are you scared of your politicians? Why don't you vote them out!?!

Courtesy of my favorite Detroit writer, some advice for Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain on energy and oil.

Quote :

"Obama has been back-pedaling on his view of America’s car companies ever since he blasted them in a speech before the Economic Club of Detroit last February. Back then Detroit was totally responsible for its plight, and Barack was going to fix things first by chastising them for their blatant incompetence and then by jamming technological “help” (of a virtually meaningless amount) down Detroit’s throat so that the local automakers could get with the program. Oh, and add new higher fuel economy requirements to help speed the change too. It was a ballsy speech at the time and, I naively thought, a measure of Obama’s convictions, which was admirable. But that was until he showed up a couple of months later decrying the sad state of Detroit and its car companies and lamenting what has happened to the men and women displaced by the plummeting fortunes of the Detroit automakers – and saying he would help us all rise up and get back on our feet again. Now I get the fact that things said on the campaign trial mean little (like zero) once a candidate is actually in the White House, but still, Obama’s flip-flopping has bordered on the transparently pathetic. And here he was in Detroit just this past Monday night (at Joe Louis Arena) spouting his views – listen carefully, folks, because clever speech writing does not constitute a cohesive policy in my book – saying we’re going to be alright because he will pull Detroit up by its bootstraps through new green technology and enlightened trade policies, while he’s saving the planet, ending wars and fixing whatever else ails this country. Wow. All that and Al Gore’s endorsement too. But then again, John McCain is no better. Once again he’s muttering about his lame-brained “gas tax free” summer to “help the American people,” which is so resoundingly stupid I can barely muster the words to describe it, other than the fact that it marks a new low in pandering for votes in this country. What next, John? Every citizen who votes for you gets a free gas card worth 100 gallons if you’re elected? It’s that absurd. McCain is also a founding member (along with Obama) of the “finger snap” brigade when it comes to talking about fixing Detroit’s problems. As in, each candidate has policy advisors who clearly know jack about the depth and breadth of the U.S. manufacturing crisis that Detroit has signaled - given its “canary in the coal mine” place in the manufacturing sector – and, completely ignoring that, generate a series of “finger snap” initiatives that look great on paper in side-by-side comparisons in the media and sound great in stump speeches, but in effect do little to seriously address the underlying problems on the table. But then it’s on to the next issue, problem not solved but “addressed” enough for the media and the average voter. Talk about the quintessential definition of lip service. Stop treating America’s so-called energy “policy” as a strategic afterthought. I’ve read your statements and I’ve heard your speeches, but I’ve seen and heard nothing concrete about what you’re actually going to do about it. Why is that? Why is it easier to blame Detroit (or whoever the whipping boy du jour is) for all of its problems than it is to stand back and be realistic about the energy needs of this country going forward, and knowing that Detroit will have to play not just a bit part, but a crucial role? And no, this problem isn’t going to be solved by a bunch of venture capitalists in Silicon Valley promoting their “magic" cars, either. Unless you plan on earmarking trillions of dollars for a comprehensive national mass transit program in this country (which would take at least a good 20 years to become a reality at best), then you better work with the automakers and the energy companies and craft a policy that makes the most sense for the entire nation. "

6/18/2008 1:14:55 PM

Quote :

"We're producing 5.1 billion barrels of oil per day in this country"

i know you misspoke but i wanted to be the nagger that pointed out that you mean million...because we currently use like 7.6 billion barrels a year

6/18/2008 1:43:42 PM

I pointed it out first

Quote :

"worldwide oil production is only 85m barrels a day."

6/18/2008 1:52:33 PM

Quote :

"I've not read anything to suggest that we have sufficient oil resources, offshore or otherwise, to make ourselves anywhere near self-sufficient."

I have:

Quote :

"The United States has the largest known deposits of oil shale in the world, according to the Bureau of Land Management and holds an estimated 2,500 gigabarrels of potentially recoverable oil, enough to meet U.S. demand for oil at current rates for 110 years. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale

6/18/2008 1:57:36 PM

Do you realize what it takes to get oil from oil shale? It's like strip mining but with more CO2 emissions. We'd be better off drilling in Alaska and off shores.

Quote :

""Canada, which exports more oil to the U.S. than any other country, already faces problems meeting its pledge to cut CO2 emissions largely, because of its mushrooming heavy-oil production. By 2015, Canada's Fort McMurray region, population 61,000 is expected to emit more greenhouse gases than Denmark, a country of 5.4 million people." In Northern Alberta, the oil-sands boom is remaking the landscape. The mining operations have clear-cut thousands of acres of trees and dug 200-foot-deep pits. The region is dotted with large man-made lakes filled with leftover waste from the mining operations. To chase off migratory birds, propane cannons go off at random intervals and scarecrows stand guard on floating barrels.""

-http://www.theviewfromthepeak.net/index3.html

6/18/2008 2:18:51 PM

READ THE AL GORE THREAD. THIS SHIT IS A HOAX. HE'S MAKING A SHIT TON OF MONEY AND SPENDING CARBON CARELESSLY WHILE SCARING THE BEJESUS OUT OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU INTO NOT DRILLING OUR OWN OIL.

6/18/2008 2:21:08 PM

^ whoa, salisburyboy flashback there.

6/18/2008 2:22:04 PM

except i'm not offering a conspiracy theory. I'm showing you a direct link between hysteria and Al Gore's bank account, except you refuse to see it.

6/18/2008 2:25:36 PM

Al Gore is the only one bringing up the topic of global warming.

FACT.

6/18/2008 2:28:59 PM

so he must be alone in order to create a hysteria that he profits from?

6/18/2008 2:29:29 PM

Quote :

"THIS SHIT IS A HOAX."

Quote :

"except i'm not offering a conspiracy theory. I'm showing you a direct link between hysteria and Al Gore's bank account, except you refuse to see it."

Your argument for why global warming is a hoax depends on the assumption that Al Gore is the only one raising awareness.

I was just pointing out the stupidity of that argument.

6/18/2008 2:33:11 PM

stupidity is awarding a con artist with a nobel prize.

6/18/2008 2:53:35 PM

i did a race that promotes awareness of breast cancer last weekend.

true story.

6/18/2008 3:06:38 PM

Quote :

"Do you realize what it takes to get oil from oil shale? It's like strip mining but with more CO2 emissions. We'd be better off drilling in Alaska and off shores."

Sure, I know about oil shale and it's drawbacks. I'm not so convinced that you do, though. You talk about it and then provide a quote about Alberta's oil sands, which is completely different from oil shale.

My point was that we have the reserves right here in our backyard if we want to develop them. Energy is a "pick-your-poison" kind of thing. We spend billions every year in "energy security" costs, i.e. protecting our allies in the middle east while indirectly funding terrorism and being dependent on the greed and good graces of Saudi Arabia. If we can tip the scale so that we are producing most of the energy we consume, we won't be so reliant on that fucked up region of the world, and we won't have to spend all that money on the military protecting our interests. We just need to fairly weigh the environmental costs of increased domestic production versus all the external costs of doing business with OPEC.

6/18/2008 3:30:38 PM

Prawn Star:

Well, fair enough. Of course, I (and the OP) was talking about oil which can be drilled, and not "funny rocks that we have to dig up that don't actually contain any fucking oil."

But moving past that, from what I'm reading on wikipedia, "Shale oil does not contain the full range of hydrocarbons used in modern gasoline production, and could only be used to produce middle-distillates such as kerosene, jet fuel, and diesel fuel."

So does your quote mean that our shale oil can meet our demand for those middle-distillates for the next 110 years? I mean, that's swell and all, but my car runs on gas and the only thing I use kerosene for is starting fires. And yeah, I get that using shale for all those things would free up more regular crude for gasoline, but...that still leaves the question of what precisely your 110 year figure refers to.

Actually, using the search, I can't find any part of your quote anywhere in that article.

[Edited on June 18, 2008 at 4:09 PM. Reason : ]

6/18/2008 4:06:49 PM

Quote :

"Closely held Solazyme Inc. is set to announce shortly that its algae-derived biodiesel meets the American Society for Testing and Materials specification for diesel fuel. This means it can go into existing diesel engines without modifications. Solazyme says it is the first diesel derived from algae to meet these standards. Before you go out and sell the farm to invest, a couple caveats: 1) ASTM doesn’t police or put their stamp of approval on these claims; it’s up to Solazyme’s competitors to knock it down if untrue; 2) numerous companies are producing oil from algae, but none are doing so economically and at a meaningful scale – yet."

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/06/10/green-grow-solazyme-claims-algae-biodiesel-meets-fuel-standards/

*chants*

algae algae algae!

if algae can't do it, then no one can!

6/18/2008 4:13:24 PM

Quote :

"Why are we exporting 1.8 billion barrels of oil per day, a third of our daily production, to other countries if we want energy independence? "

we cant refine it anyway.

6/18/2008 4:17:36 PM

^^^ Good catch. My quote actually came from this wiki page, under US oil reserves:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

Quote :

"But moving past that, from what I'm reading on wikipedia, "Shale oil does not contain the full range of hydrocarbons used in modern gasoline production, and could only be used to produce middle-distillates such as kerosene, jet fuel, and diesel fuel." So does your quote mean that our shale oil can meet our demand for those middle-distillates for the next 110 years? I mean, that's swell and all, but my car runs on gas and the only thing I use kerosene for is starting fires. And yeah, I get that using shale for all those things would free up more regular crude for gasoline, but...that still leaves the question of what precisely your 110 year figure refers to."

Good questions. My understanding is that the shale oil produced from pyrolysis is suitable in the applications listed as well as some others, but must undergo further refining in order to be used in gasoline production. It is not a direct replacement, but nevertheless it could be used to replace crude in a lot of applications.

Based on sheer volume of recoverable oil shale, it is estimated that we have enough of the stuff to completely supply our oil needs at current levels for 110 years. Whether that is feasible due to the environmental concerns or extraction / refining constraints is anyones guess. Nevertheless, today Bush called for more investment into oil shale development.

[Edited on June 18, 2008 at 4:28 PM. Reason : 2]

6/18/2008 4:25:10 PM

We are not going to get off the Saudi oil anytime soon. It is far too cheap for us not to import and much better for us to be invested in their reserves rather than China.

6/18/2008 4:32:42 PM

Quote :

"I pointed it out first"

Pin a rose on your nose.

Take the "b" in the word "billion" that appears three times in the post and replace it with an "m".

So Ouerve, do you think we should be exporting a third of our domestically-produced oil. Remember,

Quote :

"every barrel we ship out means another barrel we have to ship in"

[Edited on June 18, 2008 at 4:38 PM. Reason : /]

6/18/2008 4:34:36 PM

Quote :

"$2.00/gal he was against it. $4.00/gal the situation changes. GOOD. FINALLY. While we explore alternative forms of energy, we should be tapping our own wells for our own financial stability. If the US was to make a real effort to drilling for oil, the price would go down TOMORROW because speculators would be gambling on an increased supply. Mere talk would draw the prices down. John McCain, good move."

agreed.

can someone explain to me why bush was against this in the past? was it his father (who prohibited offshore drilling in 1990)?

6/18/2008 5:51:29 PM

Offshore drilling was prohibited in 1981.

Bush was never "against" offshore drilling. He just never pushed for it.

At $2.00 per gallon, it's a political loser. At $4.00, it gains traction. Unfortunately, we needed to lift the ban 5 years ago in order for it to have an impact now. Poor planning is a reality of politics (and to a lesser extent, free markets).

[Edited on June 18, 2008 at 6:06 PM. Reason : 2]

6/18/2008 6:04:48 PM

I find it odd that no one seems to be advocating a decrease in energy consumption but rather where we are going to get our next oil crack fix.

6/18/2008 6:54:47 PM

because we want to be able to live our lives in effectively the same way, ie drive to and from work every morning and evening, be able to overnight a package a few states away, go to a restaurant and eat something that was flown in, fly to visit relatives on holidays, etc...the idea is to hopefully come up with multiple sources of cleaner energy that allow us to maintain our current ways of life while emitting less co2

6/18/2008 7:00:03 PM

There are ways that we can do those things but at a higher efficiency which itself is a resource. Think about what the price of oil would be if we just consumed even 90% of what we do now but maintain our standard of living by changing our consuming habits and demanding more efficient products.

6/18/2008 7:09:12 PM

well if you decreased the demand for oil the supply would go up and prices should drop...but what about the people who use public transportation because the gas prices are high? I'll use Charlotte as an example...ridership on the light rail line has gone up a good bit over the last 6 months or so as gas prices have skyrocketed...now the light rail is only a year or so old anyway so we don't have great data about ridership over the long term but it makes sense that people might say "you know what, these gas prices are just too high, i'm going to drive to the park and ride and take the train to save money"...then when gas prices go back down if we can somehow decrease the demand that much, i think many of those people would go back to driving

i mean, if you have an exam and cant be late for it, you dont necessarily want to rely on the wolfline being on schedule...people love their cars

6/18/2008 7:12:39 PM

It's not just cars, which can be made a LOT more efficient, but the whole scope of energy consumption and waste generation. People have this over spend and over consume mentality and have been taught never to think of the long term consequences. Don't confuse this with any call to regulate consumption or anything but more along the lines of a change in thinking. Think about what we buy, where we buy it and where it comes from.

6/18/2008 7:19:37 PM

Quote :

"My understanding is that the shale oil produced from pyrolysis is suitable in the applications listed as well as some others, but must undergo further refining in order to be used in gasoline production."

This may be true. It'd be nice to have some reason for believing it other than your word, since at the moment the only source I've seen disagrees.

Even if it can, it sounds like yet another layer of complication to the process that already involves the act of distilling the kerogen from the rocks themselves, which of course have to be dug up and transported in rock form rather than through pre-existing oil infrastructure.

All this extra refining process would be needed, and we're not even expanding the refineries for regular ol' crude oil that we're already familiar with.

But OK, after all that, maybe it is worth it, just in terms of not being too expensive and damaging. I'm a long way from convinced on that point, but I'll take it for the sake of argument, because I'm lightyears farther away from being convinced that our investment shouldn't be placed into research on something that isn't fucking oil. Or oil-esque, in the case of shale.

6/18/2008 8:26:19 PM

Well, when it comes to investment, smart people with a lot of money try to predict future winners in the market. And there has been over $10 billion invested in R&D of oil shale, showing that at least some people believe it holds a lot of promise. Exxon, Chevron and Shell are all working on projects to see if they can make it work.

And with respect to mining the stuff, the key here is "in-situ retorting", which is basically heating the shit up underground until the oil separates from the rock and you can pump it out.

6/18/2008 8:49:05 PM

Quote :

"Pretty much anything that has read my posts know that I am probably the most environmentally savy person in TSB. Some of the kool-aid drinkers may find this hard if not impossible to believe but I am not opposed to the concept of offshore drilling. My only hang up about drilling on the shelf has been potential ecological impact. As far as I know proposed offshore drilling does not impact any reef systems nor any other environmentally sensitive areas. Also, I would give in on offshore drilling as a concession for stopping the crusade to drill in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. I was very pleased with McCain when I learned that he is an opponent to drilling in "ANWR" and I can only hope that he doesn't end up caving on that point just to please the ill-informed. That said if the biggest complaint against offshore drilling is that it is going to mess up someone's ocean view then boo-fucking-hoo. From what I have read the chances of a spill of even leakage is fairly nominal. I would be more apt to believe we are doing more damage to our oceans by the garbage and toxins we dump into them everyday then would be felt by oil platforms. Now, I welcome anyone to find solid numbers to refute these claims."

The nebulous mantra that has been embedded in our brains that oil rigs and offshore drilling do not contribute a significant source of pollution is bullshit. Anyone who buys into this has never been to the Gulf or seen the damage firsthand. All it takes is ONE incident or problem and the damage is irreversible. The beaches off Louisiana and Texas smell like shit. I lived out there for a few months. I was also on the R/V Oregon II at sea in the Gulf of Mexico and saw the hazards created.

The addition of onland terminals and land-based infrastructure is the worst part. The drilling platforms may disrupt benthic (thats the seafloor) environments to a degree and escapement of pollutants (metals and effluence) may not be disastrous (although quite significant), but the pollution from terminals (obviously in coastal areas) is a major ecological problem.

Now I can't speak for every other offshore site, but the proposed offshore drilling off Florida doesn't sit well with me at all. Now, I don't want to pay $4.25 a gallon either, but this is for short-term gain and playing Russian Roulette with a highly sensitive ecosystem. Its not going to drive gas prices waaaay down like many of us have in mind. The area in the Eastern and Northeastern Gulf cap where drilling would most likely be arranged is a critical spawning ground for fisheries in the snapper-grouper complex. In addition, thanks to the Loop Current and Tortugas Gyre, the majority of effluence and pollution will make its way down to the lower Florida Keys and likely into Florida Bay... creating an additional obstacle for fisheries productivity and putting sensitive coral reef systems at risk... not to mention coastal tourism.

HockeyRoman, I'm not attacking you at all, but pointing out the misconception that offshore drilling is this clean answer for our gasoline crunch and shouldn't be a concession to leave Alaska alone. I can't speak for other coastal areas, but I do know that offshore Florida is a bad idea. I sure as hell don't like paying Texa$ to fill up on gasoline. But I think its time we stop feeding our petrol-addiction and be more innovative in our enegy demands.

[Edited on June 19, 2008 at 1:06 AM. Reason : : blah blah]

6/19/2008 12:56:58 AM

I appreciate the clarification and wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment. Now you have the real challenge of convincing the oil crack addict wingnuts that run rampant in this thread.

6/19/2008 7:13:06 AM

you know what happens when you spill this right?


nothing.

6/19/2008 9:15:21 AM

^Do you know how many states have the right climate for that? The east coast is too humid for solar POWER PLANTS (yes, we can and should use solar hot water heaters here).




here's where I found the image:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pv_cell_light.html

[Edited on June 19, 2008 at 10:05 AM. Reason : .]

6/19/2008 10:04:19 AM

I agree with FitchNCSU, drilling in ANWR makes far more sense to me. Pollution from drilling and transportation are far easier contained on land than in seas which are frequented by hurricanes.

Annoying a few elk will seem insignificant compared to the carnage when drilling platforms get broken loose by a hurricane.

6/19/2008 10:11:02 AM

This has probably been posted already, but what the hell, I'll post it again.

Quote :

" WASHINGTON — If Congress were to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, crude oil prices would probably drop by an average of only 75 cents a barrel, according to Department of Energy projections issued Thursday. The report, which was requested in December by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, found that oil production in the refuge "is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices.""

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/38223.html

There's also this, which seems a little odd:

Quote :

" Congressional Democrats introduced a bill last week to compel oil companies to begin utilizing federal land they already lease. "Oil companies are sitting on 68 million acres they have already leased from the American people for the purpose of oil and natural gas production," said Sen. Bob Menendez, D-New Jersey. "It is about time they use these resources already at their disposal instead of waiting for more federal handouts and pushing to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or up and down our coasts," he added."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/18/bush.offshore/index.html?iref=newssearch

6/19/2008 4:30:20 PM

Quote :

"^Do you know how many states have the right climate for that? The east coast is too humid for solar POWER PLANTS (yes, we can and should use solar hot water heaters here)."

Well then it's great that that's not a power plant

6/19/2008 4:59:57 PM

that is a picture of solar though correct? do you know what the basic power able to be produced at one of those in relation to the surface area of solar panels?

6/19/2008 5:03:07 PM