Here are some real numbers to review for you:
The U.S. consumes about 20 million barrels (3,200,000 m鲁) daily. If the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil reserves were used to supply 5% of the U.S. daily consumption -- most is imported from Canada (19%), Mexico (15%), Saudi Arabia (11.5%), Nigeria (10.5%) and Venezuela (10.5%)[11] -- the reserves, using a low figure (estimates of how vast the amount of oil is in ANWAR) of 4.3 billion barrels (680,000,000 m鲁), would last approximately 4300 days, or almost 12 years. Using the high estimate, the reserves would last approximately 11800 days, or 32 years. Using the increasing price of oil this supply (with 10.5 billion barrel mean and crude oil at over $120 a barrel) would be worth 1,260,000,000,000.00 ($1.26 trillion).Ho wmany of you think opeining ANWAR to drilling would materially change supplies and cost of oil?
It wouldn't.Ho wmany of you think opeining ANWAR to drilling would materially change supplies and cost of oil?
What logic is there in your argument? Just because drilling in Anwar will not completely solve the energy problem it is not worth doing? That is silly. Sure it isn't the solution to everything but I don't remember anyone saying it was.
No one oil well can solve everything but we have far more oil that we are not drilling for than Anwar alone. But that oil is a big part of the answer. Thirty years is a long time. A lot of technology will become avaliable during that time.
*
In the short term, no, since it will take time to set up and begin accessing that oil. But as a long term contributor to the supply yes. And you need to realize that you're using ANWAR to the exclusion of other American reserves. You include those and the impact is significant. You also discount the evolving technology that allows us to access oil reserves in places we couldn't before.
The other day a guy 'struck oil' in his back yard in Indiana. We're not running out of oil. We've mined coal for thousands of years. We've only used oil for about 75.
It wouldn't change anything, eventually we are still going to run out, and its going to ruin the economy the longer we remain suckling the oil teat. Its time to take a step ahead and start to look toward the future. Start testing alternative fuels, more efficient energy sources. There is no need to drink every drop of oil before we decide its time to try something else. Oil is old news.
ANWAR will not have a material impact. We all need to modify our lifestyles ( car pool, walk, mass transit) in the short and intermediate term and give technology and economies of scale a chance to work. This is not a problem unique to the USA and we cannot unilaterally provide a remedy.
They've recently discovered huge reserves in North Dakota. The mid west is full of untapped oil fields that were discovered since the 1970's. ANWAR could be just the start, and contrary to enviro-wacko propaganda, drilling doesn't harm the envionment.
It wouldn't lower it, because the Oil Companies, whether it is right or wrong, in your opinion, would just keep the profit, because they know people are used to paying what they are paying, and still need it, no matter what the price.
So what's your point? Does one farm provide all the corn crops for the country? No. Does that mean the farmer might as well stop harvesting his corn? No again. No one has ever said ANWR was the entire answer. But to use that as an argument to not seek oil in our own country makes no sense.
Start punching holes anywhere there might be oil.
I doubt very much if it will drop the price a great deal but it might slow the increase.
Most importantly it will reduce our dependence on others.
ANWR is only a piece of it. Gulf reserves are enormous. Any additional production of that size will affect prices on the down side and move us away from foreign dependence.
All these idiots need to think beyond what Fox Noise and the amBushed admin. tells them. We need to move beyond oil, period. More drilling just postpones the problem at best.
It wouldn't but there is no solution to this crisis,so we might as well blame each other.
It's all oil, and we'll still be paying $3 to $4 to whomever we get it from. We need to force them to give us back our electric cars!
Clinton vetoed ANWR drilling back in 95.
true, but at least it would be a start.
I think drilling in ANWR will materially benefit the U.S. and even the world but it should also be part of other energy initiatives such as converting coal in Montana to synthetic oil - according to Montana governor this is about 200 years supply for the U.S., drilling in the Dakotas and off-shore given that there are now much cleaner methods for drilling. We should however at the same time continue developing nuclear and renewable energy sources like wind, hydrogen, hydro-electric, and be brave and sensible enough to drop other initiatives that look like dead-ends.
This informative insightful article sheds light on what's really driving the cost of oil.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c鈥?/a>
Regardless, cheap easy to access oil is a limited resource and we cannot sustain living as if it were an unlimited resource. In spite of large reserves, eventually it will become more expensive to extract oil than anyone can afford to pay. While there is still some left to fuel industry, we must create alternatives and bring them online.
Harnessing the sun in the Sahara sounds promising.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/worl鈥?/a>
I dare you to cite your source.
ANWAR is a drop in the bucket.
What is wrong with people that they refuse to absorb facts? What is wrong with people that they refuse to CHANGE THEIR HABITS TO MEET PRESENT CONDITIONS?
Which means we MUST stop overconsuming because oil WILL run out.
Not tomorrow, but it WILL.
Do you wait until the last sheet is snatched off the toilet paper roll before you go out to buy more? No, of course you don't.
Destroying ecosystems is NOT THE ANSWER.
Using our huge brains to find OTHER energy sources is the answer.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Why do liberals think that by NOT drilling offshore we can become independent of foreign oil?
There are approximately 250 million registered vehicles on the road today,plus trains and ships commercial of about 12,746,126.
So how in the world can we fuel ALL of these vehicles on technology that is NOT invented yet? They all run on oil based fuel, not some pipe dream of ';green fuel';, why is Obama not using his ';highly intellectual'; brain and allowing us to drill NOW?Why do liberals think that by NOT drilling offshore we can become independent of foreign oil?
Because the magic energy fairy is going to wave her magic wand and alternative fuel sources are going to magically appear.
Or at least the plan is to use our vast supply on alternative fuel sources...How? Don't bother them with the pesky little detailsWhy do liberals think that by NOT drilling offshore we can become independent of foreign oil?
I think offshore drilling is a little overrated. I think we should be drilling on US lands plain and simple. And I think this is where the Obama administration is showing a clear lack of common sense. He needs to stop catering to the energy lobbyist and tell them they need to come up with X number of barrels of oil via this SITE thats not being used, this SITE thats not being used, this SITE thats not being used, and this SITE thats not being used. Get my drift. And he should create a strategic reserve that will marginalize the OPEC regimes. C'mon oil is at 40 dollars and the DOW is at 6800; When the DOW was at 8500 oil was $33. The OPEC cartels are still able to squeeze us of a few extra bucks. Not to mention Energy Companies are making more of a margin on gasoline now that the price is low and knowing since the consumer is used to being jacked they can make that extra few cents now that price are at some-what of a bottom.
We arent looking to become independant in the oil industry, we are looking to become the hub of the new industries of natural and renewable energies-wind,water,solar and such. Causing such scars to our natural enviorment would be a waste. by putting all resources into making the new technologies as soon as possible, we will be doing the best for our planet AND our pocketbooks
I have been very curious about this. I think liberals are not interested in becoming energy independent through obtaining our own oil. They view oil as the problem regardless of where it comes from. These same people are driving their cars everyday and complaining about high gas prices. There's some hypocrisy there.
We don't have enough of it to make a dent in our usage. If we use what we have (drill for more) it won't do anything to fix our problem. So why ruin the surroundings for nothing? I would be all for drilling if it would make a difference.
Because we only produce 3% of the world's oil while we consume 25% of it.
As far as I'm concerned, drilling is all well and good, but only for the purpose of bolstering our Strategic Petroleum Reserves for an emergency.
brazil is now completely dependent on alternative fuel, they no longer use oil, they use sugarcane, the technology is out there we just havent adapted to it yet
OK genius: What happens when we run out of offshore oil?
Sorry, my mistake
OK genius: What happens when we run out of offshore oil before developing a viable alternative?
we have oil. it's not a shortage. so why drill for more. we need to get off of it. We gotta go through ';withdrawal';. He knows what he's doing. That's why he's president and your not. relax..
';Drill Baby Drill!';
PALIN 2012
(and NOT Jindal the ';Walt Disney Candidate';.)
Drilling is fine anywhere you find oil.
You must however ensure that no damage to beaches or wildlife will occur.
Because that would require thinking, not feeling.
Because they are as smart as dirt.
They WANT the US economy to fall to its knees so mother earth will get well.
just one more thing they ignore.
remember its all about feelings,not facts.
increase public transportation. may buses now run on clean natural gas (like propane) not fuel. nevermind that they've already built cars that run on vegetable oil and require little modification of cars we already have. less horse power, but who really needs 500 horse power
increase funding to build these cars (solar, electric, etc. they do exist, companies just decided there was no market for them and were wrong)
recycle and use what we have more efficiently (most of foreign oil goes into the production of things like plastic, jet fuels, etc and most of it is wasted because we're gluttons. we need to use what we have better)
also, seriously look into magnetic trains and such. they go slightly over half as fast as jets (which is still pretty fast) and use not even 1% of the amount of fuel jets do. they cost about 200 million to build and implement. cheap? no, but you'll get your money back in ticket sales. it's just another bit of technology america just wouldn't consider, but it utilized in other parts of the world.
it's all about thinking outside the box. besides, even if we start drilling now, we won't have the oil for another 10 years (it doesn't come out of the ground and go into a pump). and by that time, technology will have advanced even if we do NOTHING (dont' fund the sciences, etc). so what will the point have been? you'll have caused massive destruction for no purpose.
Back in the middle 1970s people cautioned that we need to find alternatives to middle eastern oil, during the oil embargoes, and there was talk of finding alternative energy sources, as soon as the embargo ended the talk about alternative fuel sources was stopped.
Last summer when gas gasoline prices topped 4.00 dollars a gallon, the talked renewed about the need for alternatives, as soon as the price of oil dropped and gasoline dropped to as low as 1.30 a gallon, the talk stopped again.
Then Obama made a key mistake with vetoing Former President Bush's bill, allowing off shore drilling and drilling in the Alaska wilderness, with treehuggers leading the march.
What they will not admit is that drilling is safer today, than at any other point in history, which is the number one complaint by treehuggers and environmentalist's, although it would not end our dependence on foreign oil, it would greatly reduce it, while the hunt for an alternative to crude oil.
Obama vetoed Bush's bill, that opened those areas offshore and the Alaskan Wilderness, where it wouldn't have ended our dependence on foreign oil, it would have greatly reduced it, however, foreign governments control the price by the amount they drill and export, if they want to raise the price, they drill less, if they want it lower the drill more and export it. Simple as that.
It's sad to see propaganda victims like you pretend to have any intelligence at all. Big Oil already owns the rights to drill millions of acres of land within the USA. They chose not to drill. They want the rights to the offshore drilling just to have the monopoly.
Drilling offshore makes it more likely that there will be oil spills and pollution of the ocean, some of our most sensitive natural areas, and ruin some of our biggest tourist draws. What part of that don't you understand?
Remember JFK's challenge to go to the moon? We need the same drive to find alternate energy. As some else mentioned, Brazil has become energy independent, and so should the USA. Start thinking outside the box!
We're ';Drilling'; all over the place, including offshore.
So how in the world can we fuel ALL of these vehicles on technology that is NOT invented yet? They all run on oil based fuel, not some pipe dream of ';green fuel';, why is Obama not using his ';highly intellectual'; brain and allowing us to drill NOW?Why do liberals think that by NOT drilling offshore we can become independent of foreign oil?
Because the magic energy fairy is going to wave her magic wand and alternative fuel sources are going to magically appear.
Or at least the plan is to use our vast supply on alternative fuel sources...How? Don't bother them with the pesky little detailsWhy do liberals think that by NOT drilling offshore we can become independent of foreign oil?
I think offshore drilling is a little overrated. I think we should be drilling on US lands plain and simple. And I think this is where the Obama administration is showing a clear lack of common sense. He needs to stop catering to the energy lobbyist and tell them they need to come up with X number of barrels of oil via this SITE thats not being used, this SITE thats not being used, this SITE thats not being used, and this SITE thats not being used. Get my drift. And he should create a strategic reserve that will marginalize the OPEC regimes. C'mon oil is at 40 dollars and the DOW is at 6800; When the DOW was at 8500 oil was $33. The OPEC cartels are still able to squeeze us of a few extra bucks. Not to mention Energy Companies are making more of a margin on gasoline now that the price is low and knowing since the consumer is used to being jacked they can make that extra few cents now that price are at some-what of a bottom.
We arent looking to become independant in the oil industry, we are looking to become the hub of the new industries of natural and renewable energies-wind,water,solar and such. Causing such scars to our natural enviorment would be a waste. by putting all resources into making the new technologies as soon as possible, we will be doing the best for our planet AND our pocketbooks
I have been very curious about this. I think liberals are not interested in becoming energy independent through obtaining our own oil. They view oil as the problem regardless of where it comes from. These same people are driving their cars everyday and complaining about high gas prices. There's some hypocrisy there.
We don't have enough of it to make a dent in our usage. If we use what we have (drill for more) it won't do anything to fix our problem. So why ruin the surroundings for nothing? I would be all for drilling if it would make a difference.
Because we only produce 3% of the world's oil while we consume 25% of it.
As far as I'm concerned, drilling is all well and good, but only for the purpose of bolstering our Strategic Petroleum Reserves for an emergency.
brazil is now completely dependent on alternative fuel, they no longer use oil, they use sugarcane, the technology is out there we just havent adapted to it yet
OK genius: What happens when we run out of offshore oil?
Sorry, my mistake
OK genius: What happens when we run out of offshore oil before developing a viable alternative?
we have oil. it's not a shortage. so why drill for more. we need to get off of it. We gotta go through ';withdrawal';. He knows what he's doing. That's why he's president and your not. relax..
';Drill Baby Drill!';
PALIN 2012
(and NOT Jindal the ';Walt Disney Candidate';.)
Drilling is fine anywhere you find oil.
You must however ensure that no damage to beaches or wildlife will occur.
Because that would require thinking, not feeling.
Because they are as smart as dirt.
They WANT the US economy to fall to its knees so mother earth will get well.
just one more thing they ignore.
remember its all about feelings,not facts.
increase public transportation. may buses now run on clean natural gas (like propane) not fuel. nevermind that they've already built cars that run on vegetable oil and require little modification of cars we already have. less horse power, but who really needs 500 horse power
increase funding to build these cars (solar, electric, etc. they do exist, companies just decided there was no market for them and were wrong)
recycle and use what we have more efficiently (most of foreign oil goes into the production of things like plastic, jet fuels, etc and most of it is wasted because we're gluttons. we need to use what we have better)
also, seriously look into magnetic trains and such. they go slightly over half as fast as jets (which is still pretty fast) and use not even 1% of the amount of fuel jets do. they cost about 200 million to build and implement. cheap? no, but you'll get your money back in ticket sales. it's just another bit of technology america just wouldn't consider, but it utilized in other parts of the world.
it's all about thinking outside the box. besides, even if we start drilling now, we won't have the oil for another 10 years (it doesn't come out of the ground and go into a pump). and by that time, technology will have advanced even if we do NOTHING (dont' fund the sciences, etc). so what will the point have been? you'll have caused massive destruction for no purpose.
Back in the middle 1970s people cautioned that we need to find alternatives to middle eastern oil, during the oil embargoes, and there was talk of finding alternative energy sources, as soon as the embargo ended the talk about alternative fuel sources was stopped.
Last summer when gas gasoline prices topped 4.00 dollars a gallon, the talked renewed about the need for alternatives, as soon as the price of oil dropped and gasoline dropped to as low as 1.30 a gallon, the talk stopped again.
Then Obama made a key mistake with vetoing Former President Bush's bill, allowing off shore drilling and drilling in the Alaska wilderness, with treehuggers leading the march.
What they will not admit is that drilling is safer today, than at any other point in history, which is the number one complaint by treehuggers and environmentalist's, although it would not end our dependence on foreign oil, it would greatly reduce it, while the hunt for an alternative to crude oil.
Obama vetoed Bush's bill, that opened those areas offshore and the Alaskan Wilderness, where it wouldn't have ended our dependence on foreign oil, it would have greatly reduced it, however, foreign governments control the price by the amount they drill and export, if they want to raise the price, they drill less, if they want it lower the drill more and export it. Simple as that.
It's sad to see propaganda victims like you pretend to have any intelligence at all. Big Oil already owns the rights to drill millions of acres of land within the USA. They chose not to drill. They want the rights to the offshore drilling just to have the monopoly.
Drilling offshore makes it more likely that there will be oil spills and pollution of the ocean, some of our most sensitive natural areas, and ruin some of our biggest tourist draws. What part of that don't you understand?
Remember JFK's challenge to go to the moon? We need the same drive to find alternate energy. As some else mentioned, Brazil has become energy independent, and so should the USA. Start thinking outside the box!
We're ';Drilling'; all over the place, including offshore.
Have U S politicians been irresponsible by not letting us drill for oil here in America?
they are just helping to add to the worldwide shortage of energyHave U S politicians been irresponsible by not letting us drill for oil here in America?
Yes, our legislative leaders have been irresponsible but so have our large oil companies.
First, for not drilling and building more refineries in the US.
Second, for not promoting and providing incentives for alternate fuels and energy sources.
Third, for deregulating the Railroad Systems which has laid waste to a viable altenative for freight and commuter transit.
Fourth, for not promoting and providind incentives for energy conservation and energy management.
Last but not least, for not putting the USA first and foremost in their legislation and agendas. A global society is great if and when everybody plays by the same standards and on even playing fields. That my fellow Americans will never happen so we need to protect our own interests first and foremost. Not to say we should not be a good neighbor to other countries across the globe but not at the expense of our nation.
This country was built on innovation and hard work. Roll up our your sleeves because a lot of work needs to be done and our government will only be persuaded by the voters. Demand more from them and send them packing if they don't start focusing on our domestic problems.Have U S politicians been irresponsible by not letting us drill for oil here in America?
Without a doubt. While the market is dominated by supply and demand... we sit here with a large supply (but untapped) and a large demand. So we've got an artificially low supply, inflating prices. China and India have a huge demand for oil in comparison to what it use to be.
Our politicians shouldn't have the right to dictate to the American people and business what they are allowed or not allowed to do, based on some green ideology.
Hey libs... go get in your Prius' and leave the Y! board alone... you're aggravating.
Yes; With India and China consuming more and more, it has been and will continue to be a supply and demand issue, and the price being set by OPEC. The problem is that most people do not understand supply and demand economics and what the structure is of the cost of gas per gallon. Do you know that we are using more oil now than EVER before! People are driving at an alarming rate. Do you realize how much petroleum鈥檚 used in making plastics and then how many things we use are made of plastics? The oil company makes about 12 cents a gallon as profit. The rest is made up of Federal and State taxes, the cost of exploration and the cost of production, Refining and then the cost of the additives that we have to put in the gas (we call it designer gas, thanks to the environmentalist wacko's). Do you know that we have not built a refinery in almost 60 years? (thanks again environmentalist). The refineries that we have are working at capacity and that is not enough to keep up with demand. Do you know that we hardly get any oil from the Middle East? Yes we are not in Iraq for oil, they have enough to export but not as much as you think. Even iran imports most of their oil. Most people think that is where it all comes from. Not true. We get our oil form Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and Africa, in that order. What we get from Saudi is a very small %. You want the cost of gas to drop....STOP driving or at the very least cut back 10% and you'll see gas prices drop. In addition to that we need to open up the ANWR for drilling and off our coasts and the Gulf, as well as exploit the new found pools in the Wyoming Range (thanks again environmentalist) OR come up with an alternate fuel. Even if you had a viable economic alternative fuel source, the production and the distribution of it is decades away. Wake up people, cut back!
Seems that way to those of us who are being gouged by high gas prices. Truth is, they're saving it for end of world oil crisis, which is probably smart on their part. But, it will be for the rich who can afford it at that time. We're talking serious times of worry; like where no countries have gas but the US reserves it for warfare and the rich who will pay $1000 barrel will be heavily rationed only in sake of financing said war.
I LOVE these supply and demand people.....I will state something I have stated for several days now.....
have you gone to a gas station and NOT been able to get gas?? Seems to be an ample supply to me. No gas lines...no gas stations NOT having gas......
The price has gone up because of the commodity brokers and the devalued dollar. Why are people so dense?? Oil companies have CLOSED refineries...we had 3 times as many in the 70's....they have choosen to close them.
ANWR has enough oil to only fully supply the US for 90 days. It won't do any good. It' s a stupid waste to drill there.
Stop listening to Rush and do your own homework people.
No, the oil companies will drill wherever and whenever they want. They will always try to get their oil from the cheapest sources - that's business.
ANWR oil and Colorado shale oil is more expensive to procure right now so they buy it elsewhere.
Yes, limiting the further exploration, obtaining and processing of domestic crude is not only irresponsible but also shows a lack of regard for those countries that supply us with oil. Typical political hypocrisy.
extremely! Not one presidential candidate is offering that as a solution. Meanwhile, my savings is being drained every month so birds and squirrels can mate in Alaska. Maybe i misread the part of the bible that says that God gave man Dominion over the world and its resources?
No.
It would be irresponsible to destroy our country just so some ****** can drive a 12mpg humvee around their subdivision.
Instead, we need to devote resources to ending this countries dependence on oil.
Starting now.
It is the liberal rich that are prohibiting it, a lot of politicians have been pushing for it. Hug a tree baby
I think they've been irresponsible by not funding a quicker alternative fuel solution to get us off foreign oil completely. My take on this is not an environmental one. It's about our independence.
Yes, but not as much as they have been responsible for shipping US businesses to China and India. Thats who is burning up the extra gasoline.
Very much so. Our Politicians have acted irresponsible since the 1970's if truth be known.
yes,it has cost the us jobs and money. they did not stop it by accident,they need the us to be hurting so they can give out hand outs and get more people in their folds
Yes and by making it difficult to build more refineries.
Most definitely !!
oh yes definately.
TOTALLY YES!
I believe so.
YES!!!
yeah! screw the poler bears! lets go to Allaska!
Yes, they have. But let's all get together and re-elect the basterds again.
Yes, our legislative leaders have been irresponsible but so have our large oil companies.
First, for not drilling and building more refineries in the US.
Second, for not promoting and providing incentives for alternate fuels and energy sources.
Third, for deregulating the Railroad Systems which has laid waste to a viable altenative for freight and commuter transit.
Fourth, for not promoting and providind incentives for energy conservation and energy management.
Last but not least, for not putting the USA first and foremost in their legislation and agendas. A global society is great if and when everybody plays by the same standards and on even playing fields. That my fellow Americans will never happen so we need to protect our own interests first and foremost. Not to say we should not be a good neighbor to other countries across the globe but not at the expense of our nation.
This country was built on innovation and hard work. Roll up our your sleeves because a lot of work needs to be done and our government will only be persuaded by the voters. Demand more from them and send them packing if they don't start focusing on our domestic problems.Have U S politicians been irresponsible by not letting us drill for oil here in America?
Without a doubt. While the market is dominated by supply and demand... we sit here with a large supply (but untapped) and a large demand. So we've got an artificially low supply, inflating prices. China and India have a huge demand for oil in comparison to what it use to be.
Our politicians shouldn't have the right to dictate to the American people and business what they are allowed or not allowed to do, based on some green ideology.
Hey libs... go get in your Prius' and leave the Y! board alone... you're aggravating.
Yes; With India and China consuming more and more, it has been and will continue to be a supply and demand issue, and the price being set by OPEC. The problem is that most people do not understand supply and demand economics and what the structure is of the cost of gas per gallon. Do you know that we are using more oil now than EVER before! People are driving at an alarming rate. Do you realize how much petroleum鈥檚 used in making plastics and then how many things we use are made of plastics? The oil company makes about 12 cents a gallon as profit. The rest is made up of Federal and State taxes, the cost of exploration and the cost of production, Refining and then the cost of the additives that we have to put in the gas (we call it designer gas, thanks to the environmentalist wacko's). Do you know that we have not built a refinery in almost 60 years? (thanks again environmentalist). The refineries that we have are working at capacity and that is not enough to keep up with demand. Do you know that we hardly get any oil from the Middle East? Yes we are not in Iraq for oil, they have enough to export but not as much as you think. Even iran imports most of their oil. Most people think that is where it all comes from. Not true. We get our oil form Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and Africa, in that order. What we get from Saudi is a very small %. You want the cost of gas to drop....STOP driving or at the very least cut back 10% and you'll see gas prices drop. In addition to that we need to open up the ANWR for drilling and off our coasts and the Gulf, as well as exploit the new found pools in the Wyoming Range (thanks again environmentalist) OR come up with an alternate fuel. Even if you had a viable economic alternative fuel source, the production and the distribution of it is decades away. Wake up people, cut back!
Seems that way to those of us who are being gouged by high gas prices. Truth is, they're saving it for end of world oil crisis, which is probably smart on their part. But, it will be for the rich who can afford it at that time. We're talking serious times of worry; like where no countries have gas but the US reserves it for warfare and the rich who will pay $1000 barrel will be heavily rationed only in sake of financing said war.
I LOVE these supply and demand people.....I will state something I have stated for several days now.....
have you gone to a gas station and NOT been able to get gas?? Seems to be an ample supply to me. No gas lines...no gas stations NOT having gas......
The price has gone up because of the commodity brokers and the devalued dollar. Why are people so dense?? Oil companies have CLOSED refineries...we had 3 times as many in the 70's....they have choosen to close them.
ANWR has enough oil to only fully supply the US for 90 days. It won't do any good. It' s a stupid waste to drill there.
Stop listening to Rush and do your own homework people.
No, the oil companies will drill wherever and whenever they want. They will always try to get their oil from the cheapest sources - that's business.
ANWR oil and Colorado shale oil is more expensive to procure right now so they buy it elsewhere.
Yes, limiting the further exploration, obtaining and processing of domestic crude is not only irresponsible but also shows a lack of regard for those countries that supply us with oil. Typical political hypocrisy.
extremely! Not one presidential candidate is offering that as a solution. Meanwhile, my savings is being drained every month so birds and squirrels can mate in Alaska. Maybe i misread the part of the bible that says that God gave man Dominion over the world and its resources?
No.
It would be irresponsible to destroy our country just so some ****** can drive a 12mpg humvee around their subdivision.
Instead, we need to devote resources to ending this countries dependence on oil.
Starting now.
It is the liberal rich that are prohibiting it, a lot of politicians have been pushing for it. Hug a tree baby
I think they've been irresponsible by not funding a quicker alternative fuel solution to get us off foreign oil completely. My take on this is not an environmental one. It's about our independence.
Yes, but not as much as they have been responsible for shipping US businesses to China and India. Thats who is burning up the extra gasoline.
Very much so. Our Politicians have acted irresponsible since the 1970's if truth be known.
yes,it has cost the us jobs and money. they did not stop it by accident,they need the us to be hurting so they can give out hand outs and get more people in their folds
Yes and by making it difficult to build more refineries.
Most definitely !!
oh yes definately.
TOTALLY YES!
I believe so.
YES!!!
yeah! screw the poler bears! lets go to Allaska!
Yes, they have. But let's all get together and re-elect the basterds again.
Should our government drill for oil in the Artic Refuge?
It will save us a whopping penny per gallon in 20 years. To oppose, e-mail a message to your Senators and Representatives go to
nrdcactionfunf.orgShould our government drill for oil in the Artic Refuge?
No it will pollute the entire region in the arctic and it is highly risky as the biodiversity will get effected even more we can save it for future generations why b so greedyShould our government drill for oil in the Artic Refuge?
No. The private sector should do it!
Yes, the government should allow drilling in the Arctic Refuge not so much to save a buck or two at the pump as to help make US more secure in our supply. Our economy depends on oil. Until we can wean ourselves off the stuff with an effective alternative we are at the mercy of hostile foreign governments. The Arctic would probably allow us to cut out Argentina and development of ethanol based fuels would allow us to cut out more. Retool and re-tune. We changed over from lead-based gasoline to no-lead a couple of decades ago (most of you reading this probably never knew we once used leaded gasoline). We can make the same type of change to an alternative fuel in a few years with the same commitment. BUT IN THE MEANTIME...drill in Alaska so we can get a cushion.
We should drill for oil in ANWAR.
The environmental wackos predicted the number of caribou would decrease if the Alaska pipeline was built. The pipeline was built and the number of caribou increased.
The wackos were wrong about the Alaska pipeline, and they are wrong again.
Best wishes !
I am not nearly as concerned about the price of gas as I am about The United States having to cater to the every whim of countries that hate us in order to get the oil we seem to need. We have the resource, we should use it. We are hypocritcal if we think it is okay to drill on someone elses baren wasteland but not our own. The caribou will get used to it and the 100 people on earth who have ever been to the area probably never want to go back. I say lets drill!!!
yes they should drill there...no one knows how much per gallon it would save us, but it would produce 1,000,000 barrels of oil per day(est). And it would only require drilling in 4% of the region. The other 96% would remain undisturbed. We buy oil from Canada of which draws oil from the same bed that we could be drawing it from if we would drill there.
Yes!
Well i say not yet, only because we aren't done yet draining our competition of their oil.
NO! Why do we need to drill in environmentally sensitive areas just to get more oil? What happens when the pipeline leaks or the drilling goes wrong? endangered species will suffer because we wanted to save a buck at the gas pump. Is that really fair?
In Wyoming, there is an area that belongs to the Navy. It is called the Teapot Dome. If is full of oil, but since the Navy owns it, they don't drill there. Why not?
So we'd save money . . . and potentially wipe out what's left of the Arctic Refuge. Seems like a lame tradeoff. Why don't we all stop driving so damn many cars by ourselves? Or live like we actually give a **** about the world?
no, george bush and his neo - con cronies have milked and destroyed the world resources enough.
I vote we compost george and his mysterious skull %26amp; bones backers and end the Zionists hold on the world and its resources.
If you want to save the world, oust bush, give the Palestinians back theyre land, and water supplies and leave Iran in peace.
Oil is a state of mind, ignore oil, and freecycle instead
nrdcactionfunf.orgShould our government drill for oil in the Artic Refuge?
No it will pollute the entire region in the arctic and it is highly risky as the biodiversity will get effected even more we can save it for future generations why b so greedyShould our government drill for oil in the Artic Refuge?
No. The private sector should do it!
Yes, the government should allow drilling in the Arctic Refuge not so much to save a buck or two at the pump as to help make US more secure in our supply. Our economy depends on oil. Until we can wean ourselves off the stuff with an effective alternative we are at the mercy of hostile foreign governments. The Arctic would probably allow us to cut out Argentina and development of ethanol based fuels would allow us to cut out more. Retool and re-tune. We changed over from lead-based gasoline to no-lead a couple of decades ago (most of you reading this probably never knew we once used leaded gasoline). We can make the same type of change to an alternative fuel in a few years with the same commitment. BUT IN THE MEANTIME...drill in Alaska so we can get a cushion.
We should drill for oil in ANWAR.
The environmental wackos predicted the number of caribou would decrease if the Alaska pipeline was built. The pipeline was built and the number of caribou increased.
The wackos were wrong about the Alaska pipeline, and they are wrong again.
Best wishes !
I am not nearly as concerned about the price of gas as I am about The United States having to cater to the every whim of countries that hate us in order to get the oil we seem to need. We have the resource, we should use it. We are hypocritcal if we think it is okay to drill on someone elses baren wasteland but not our own. The caribou will get used to it and the 100 people on earth who have ever been to the area probably never want to go back. I say lets drill!!!
yes they should drill there...no one knows how much per gallon it would save us, but it would produce 1,000,000 barrels of oil per day(est). And it would only require drilling in 4% of the region. The other 96% would remain undisturbed. We buy oil from Canada of which draws oil from the same bed that we could be drawing it from if we would drill there.
Yes!
Well i say not yet, only because we aren't done yet draining our competition of their oil.
NO! Why do we need to drill in environmentally sensitive areas just to get more oil? What happens when the pipeline leaks or the drilling goes wrong? endangered species will suffer because we wanted to save a buck at the gas pump. Is that really fair?
In Wyoming, there is an area that belongs to the Navy. It is called the Teapot Dome. If is full of oil, but since the Navy owns it, they don't drill there. Why not?
So we'd save money . . . and potentially wipe out what's left of the Arctic Refuge. Seems like a lame tradeoff. Why don't we all stop driving so damn many cars by ourselves? Or live like we actually give a **** about the world?
no, george bush and his neo - con cronies have milked and destroyed the world resources enough.
I vote we compost george and his mysterious skull %26amp; bones backers and end the Zionists hold on the world and its resources.
If you want to save the world, oust bush, give the Palestinians back theyre land, and water supplies and leave Iran in peace.
Oil is a state of mind, ignore oil, and freecycle instead
Why would it take more time to drill for domestic oil then it took us to land on the Moon?
The enviro left always points out that it will take 10 or 15 years
to see one drop of gas at the pumps from new domestic
sources. Upon reflection of this, the realization came upon
me that it took less time time to commit to and realize landing
men on the Moon!!!
Are the enviros just really blowing smoke up our collective
rear ends yet again?!?!?
...CHG...Why would it take more time to drill for domestic oil then it took us to land on the Moon?
You just hit this one out of the park!Why would it take more time to drill for domestic oil then it took us to land on the Moon?
They were all saying that in the 70's when we had the oil embargo and gas was rationed...when you could get it.
Here it is ';30+'; years later, imagine if we had the sense to prepare for the future....
You can now really see what idiots politicians and environmentalists are, and the oil companies are no better
Back then regular was 94 octane, now ';premium'; is 92...
Diesel was always considerably cheaper that gas and takes less to produce, now in many places it's 80+ cents higher than gas.....
They have the leases on millions of acres of land to drill on, but why drill and use our oil when you can use theirs and make ';record'; profits every quarter
According to the government's own figures, that oil will reduce the price of gas by only a few cents. That's because it will be sold on the world market.
We have 3% of the world's oil, 4% of the world's population, and are responsible for 25% of its consumption. Anyone who tells you we can drill our way out of this crisis is lying to you.
What we should have done -- everybody knew it -- is what they did in Europe and Japan -- tax gas and raise fuel economy standards. As a result, European and Japanese cars get on average twice the mileage of cars here. But Detroit wouldn't hear about raising fuel standards, and when former president Bush tried to increase the gas tax his proposal was blocked by conservative Republicans. Newt Gringrich then passed a law that made it impossible for Congress to raise economy standards.
If conservative Republicans, with the help of Democrats in energy producing states, hadn't blocked those measures, this whole problem never would have occurred. Now, it's going to take years to fix and we're all going to pay the price.
One things for certain: the fix will have little to do with domestic drilling -- there isn't enough oil here for that, and even if there were, the people of Florida and New Jersey and California are never going to allow drilling off their coasts because they've seen what oil company promises have done to their beaches. The best that can do is improve the balance of trade a bit. It will come about through more efficient vehicles and alternative fuels such as hydrogen and batteries.
The actual time it would take to set up and drill for oil would be within a week or less. What takes the time are endless court battles and legal wrangling to get it done, not to mention greasing of palms and favors for favors-- adding to the costs of what is and should be a very simple operation.
Yeah they're blowing smoke. It won't be instant maybe a a year or two at most before the infrastructure is complete. IF and that's a big if the oil companies are actually on board with it. They might not be they're making money hand over fist right now why would they want to lower the cost of oil? They probably want to maintain the status quo with prices going up.
Of course we could do it more quickly than what their talking points say. I am surprised though every time they make that lame argument , they are actually admitting that they are shortsighted, we will need oil in ten years also. Dont forget if Clinton had not vetoed the ANWAR drilling bill we would be getting that oil on the market now, he used the same excuse. Incredible.
It does not take more than a few months to commence the drilling process. It will be less than two years before oil begins to flow. I am a old guy from New Jersey. I saw oil refineries being built decades ago, such as the huge Hess refinery in Woodbridge. A new oil refinery from ground breaking to production is less than a year. Don't believe the BS environmental (emphasis on the mental) people are espousing. They are lying. It is what they do.
*
It wouldn't. The wells were drilled here in 70's and capped. Uncap and pump. The reports are two hundred years supply for America. Select any article from this search page link.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Gull+Is鈥?/a>
The oil companies have reported the biggest time constraint is the amount of time that Congress takes in issuing permits. On average 25 years.
There was never any price on the race to the moon. Kennedy asked and we delivered. That's the beauty of knowledge for knowledge sake.
However, when market forces are involved it's a bit more complicated. Space isn't a commodity, but petrol certainly is.
I think its refineries, we need more, Big oil is keeping the price HIGH we need more refineries, There is no shortage
Because we don't have to beat the Soviets to it.makeup ideas
to see one drop of gas at the pumps from new domestic
sources. Upon reflection of this, the realization came upon
me that it took less time time to commit to and realize landing
men on the Moon!!!
Are the enviros just really blowing smoke up our collective
rear ends yet again?!?!?
...CHG...Why would it take more time to drill for domestic oil then it took us to land on the Moon?
You just hit this one out of the park!Why would it take more time to drill for domestic oil then it took us to land on the Moon?
They were all saying that in the 70's when we had the oil embargo and gas was rationed...when you could get it.
Here it is ';30+'; years later, imagine if we had the sense to prepare for the future....
You can now really see what idiots politicians and environmentalists are, and the oil companies are no better
Back then regular was 94 octane, now ';premium'; is 92...
Diesel was always considerably cheaper that gas and takes less to produce, now in many places it's 80+ cents higher than gas.....
They have the leases on millions of acres of land to drill on, but why drill and use our oil when you can use theirs and make ';record'; profits every quarter
According to the government's own figures, that oil will reduce the price of gas by only a few cents. That's because it will be sold on the world market.
We have 3% of the world's oil, 4% of the world's population, and are responsible for 25% of its consumption. Anyone who tells you we can drill our way out of this crisis is lying to you.
What we should have done -- everybody knew it -- is what they did in Europe and Japan -- tax gas and raise fuel economy standards. As a result, European and Japanese cars get on average twice the mileage of cars here. But Detroit wouldn't hear about raising fuel standards, and when former president Bush tried to increase the gas tax his proposal was blocked by conservative Republicans. Newt Gringrich then passed a law that made it impossible for Congress to raise economy standards.
If conservative Republicans, with the help of Democrats in energy producing states, hadn't blocked those measures, this whole problem never would have occurred. Now, it's going to take years to fix and we're all going to pay the price.
One things for certain: the fix will have little to do with domestic drilling -- there isn't enough oil here for that, and even if there were, the people of Florida and New Jersey and California are never going to allow drilling off their coasts because they've seen what oil company promises have done to their beaches. The best that can do is improve the balance of trade a bit. It will come about through more efficient vehicles and alternative fuels such as hydrogen and batteries.
The actual time it would take to set up and drill for oil would be within a week or less. What takes the time are endless court battles and legal wrangling to get it done, not to mention greasing of palms and favors for favors-- adding to the costs of what is and should be a very simple operation.
Yeah they're blowing smoke. It won't be instant maybe a a year or two at most before the infrastructure is complete. IF and that's a big if the oil companies are actually on board with it. They might not be they're making money hand over fist right now why would they want to lower the cost of oil? They probably want to maintain the status quo with prices going up.
Of course we could do it more quickly than what their talking points say. I am surprised though every time they make that lame argument , they are actually admitting that they are shortsighted, we will need oil in ten years also. Dont forget if Clinton had not vetoed the ANWAR drilling bill we would be getting that oil on the market now, he used the same excuse. Incredible.
It does not take more than a few months to commence the drilling process. It will be less than two years before oil begins to flow. I am a old guy from New Jersey. I saw oil refineries being built decades ago, such as the huge Hess refinery in Woodbridge. A new oil refinery from ground breaking to production is less than a year. Don't believe the BS environmental (emphasis on the mental) people are espousing. They are lying. It is what they do.
*
It wouldn't. The wells were drilled here in 70's and capped. Uncap and pump. The reports are two hundred years supply for America. Select any article from this search page link.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Gull+Is鈥?/a>
The oil companies have reported the biggest time constraint is the amount of time that Congress takes in issuing permits. On average 25 years.
There was never any price on the race to the moon. Kennedy asked and we delivered. That's the beauty of knowledge for knowledge sake.
However, when market forces are involved it's a bit more complicated. Space isn't a commodity, but petrol certainly is.
I think its refineries, we need more, Big oil is keeping the price HIGH we need more refineries, There is no shortage
Because we don't have to beat the Soviets to it.
Why does Barack Obama opposes offshore drilling and gas tax to be paid by oil companies?
Obama's position:
Obama opposes offshore drilling in all areas in the United States. The offshore drilling will be a good opportunity for our country to have its new oil and increase its reserves. If we will allow offshore drilling, it will be a big help for our country.
Barack Obama also opposes gas tax holiday. That means the tax should be paid by YOU and not by the giant oil companies that earns a lot.
See how his change will work for YOU?Why does Barack Obama opposes offshore drilling and gas tax to be paid by oil companies?
Oil companies are behind him.Why does Barack Obama opposes offshore drilling and gas tax to be paid by oil companies?
you are what is considered a ';low information voter';. And i'm voting for change--you got a problem with that?
UNTIL WE CAN REFINE THE OIL IT WONT DO THAT MUCH GOOD , WE HAVEN'T HAD A NEW REFINERY BUILT IN OVER 30 YEARS
sounds pretty good
Why a ';Drill Here, Drill Now'; Approach Will Help America Pay Less at the Pump
Is more drilling for American oil an essential part of lowering energy costs and freeing us from dependence on foreign sources of energy? The typical response of critics is a resounding “NO!” and includes several common arguments, which are not supported by the facts.
MYTH: Oil companies currently have 68 million acres of leased public lands that contain large amounts of economically recoverable oil available. Drilling in these areas could generate 4.8 million barrels a day so opening up more land is not necessary.
FACT: The estimates on the amount of oil available in those 68 million acres have been derived by assuming that the unused acres can produce the same amount as those acres being used. However, much of the land leased to oil companies has already been explored and determined not to carry enough recoverable oil to justify drilling. This is in stark contrast to the other 97% of currently banned offshore resources and areas with shale oil, where enormous quantities are known to exist.
That opponents to greater U.S. exploration believe they understand better than petroleum engineers how we obtain oil from drilling is absolutely ridiculous.
MYTH: Drilling will not provide any short-term relief in the price of oil because it will take many years before new drilling will lead to new supplies.
FACT: This same argument has been used for the past several decades to prevent us from using more of our American oil, leading to our current dependence on foreign oil and the supply crunch we are currently experiencing. Does this mean critics of greater American energy exploration were wrong 10 years ago, 20 years ago, and 30 years ago but are suddenly right today now?
Drilling more now will increase supplies in the future. And higher supplies lead to lower prices. Currently, the world is operating at or near full capacity, so there is very little slack in the system, and any disruption causes spike in price. This is partly why commodities and other investors have invested so heavily in oil, driving up prices. They recognize demand will continue to increase and that current supply has artificial limits, especially in the United States.
Opening up new oil fields in the U.S., even if new supplies won’t actually reach our gas tank for several years, would immediately impact the amount of upward speculation on long-term commodity investment in oil. Oil speculators will see a greater supply ahead and will see that the future of oil is less constrained on the supply side. Moreover, fears of Middle Eastern turmoil or South American unrest that could disrupt supply shipments will be much less of a reason to drive up the price of crude if a stable U.S. can supply millions of barrels of additional oil. Which represents a more stable source of oil, Colorado or Caracas?
Finally, nobody is suggesting that our nation’s energy strategy should be solely dependent on domestic production of oil. We all recognize that alternative energy sources – such as wind and solar - need to be developed. But more American oil must be a part of an American energy solution.
MYTH: The U.S. only has a small percentage (from 2-6%) of the world’s oil supplies, and since oil is a global commodity, our increased production won’t affect prices much if at all.
FACT: This estimate of 2-6% of the world’s oil supplies does not hold up to scrutiny.
In oil shale alone, found in the Green River Formation in parts of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, the U.S. has approximately 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil, or over three times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. This comes from a midpoint estimate in a 2005 RAND study done at the request of the Department of Energy, and a higher end estimate puts the number at over one trillion barrels.
Furthermore, there are vast areas of the United States and its outer continental shelf where it is illegal to even look for oil. Exploration routinely yields additional resources far larger than initial estimates.
Resources from oil shale and additional oil resources that are likely to be discovered are not included in the estimates of American oil supplies.
MYTH: Drilling offshore will lead to ocean spillage, damaging wildlife and beaches.
FACT: In fact, virtually all of the pollution and “spillage” comes from large tankers transporting oil from other countries and natural seepages. Thus, drilling for our American oil would actually reduce the risk of oil pollution by reducing the number of international oil tankers entering our ports.
Offshore spills have occurred, but offshore drilling companies have an exceptional record of preventing spills and minimizing environmental damage, due primarily to technological innovation. Norway, which is a major exporter of oil and acquires all of it from offshore, also has an outstanding record of drilling in the sea, and there’s no reason why we would take fewer precautions than the Norwegians. Everyone promoting offshore drilling wants to do it in compliance with environmental safeguards, which in the United States are some of the most stringent in the world.
This is unlike other nations, such as China, which announced a partnership with Cuba in 2006 to start drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. That nation’s dismal environmental record should force Congress to make a decision: Do we let another nation drill for oil near us and risk major environmental catastrophe, or do we do it ourselves with better environmental protection?
MYTH: The price of oil has increased due to “over-speculation” by energy commodities traders and outlawing or heavily regulating energy trading is the best way to dramatically reduce the price of oil.
FACT: When analyzing the effect of speculators on the price of oil it is important to distinguish between the activity of a healthy commodity futures market and “over-speculation.”
A healthy commodities futures market responds to the supply and demand realities of actual commodity suppliers and consumers. As Robert Murphy from the Institute for Energy Research explains, a healthy futures market can be a stabilizing influence on oil. By buying when prices are low and selling when prices are high, speculators actually push up the low prices and push down the high prices. America wants a healthy futures market on the price of oil.
So oil speculation does play a role in the price of oil. Single-day price spikes from supply disruption fears, for example, are often the work of speculation, but the price typically readjusts. The key question, then, is if “over-speculation” is occurring. “Over-speculation” in a futures market is when activity in the speculative markets themselves cause an artificial, higher demand for a commodity that does not reflect the demand of actual consumers. This causes an artificial, real-world price increase.
So have oil speculators distorted the global demand for oil, leading to the sharp price rise?
The data suggest not. If the price of oil truly was above the natural level dictated by supply and demand, we would see an increase in global inventory of oil. This is because when prices rise, production increases and consumer demand falls. If the speculative markets were adding extra demand to the market, all that oil purchased would have to be stockpiled somewhere. However, there is no evidence of any such hoarding, meaning that commercial consumers are purchasing every barrel produced. By definition, that means that the price is in line with real-world supply and demand. Despite the rise in prices, consumers continue to buy, meaning supply and demand fundamentals are in line. This means the speculative markets are functioning as they should and are not having a distorting effect on the price of oil.
Furthermore, long-term bets that the price of oil will rise rather than fall on the New York Mercantile Exchange have dropped over four fold since the price of a barrel went above $100. Traders are now shorting oil almost as much as they are betting on its price increase in the long term. Again, this data suggests that the speculative markets are functioning as they should.
So if the energy futures markets are operating as they should, passing new laws outlawing or more heavily regulating these markets will do nothing to lower the price of oil in the intermediate or long term. In fact, it would likely have two effects that could actually drive up the price of oil.
First, new regulations would reduce the stabilizing impact futures markets play on the price of oil described above. Second, they would likely drive energy futures markets outside of the United States, where they would be even less regulated than before. The loss of this financial activity would hurt America’s already sluggish economy, weakening the dollar even more. Considering that the decline of the value of the dollar has been estimated to account for as much as 30% of the recent surge in oil prices, the long run effect of would be to raise the price of oil even more.
So if you want the price of oil to be more volatile and ensure that Dubai and Singapore become the future centers of commodities trading, passing new laws heavily regulating the energy futures trading is a great idea. However, it will not lower gas prices.
MYTH: Drilling for unconventional sources, such as tar sands or shale oil, is too costly and creates a large carbon footprint, among other environmental problems.
FACT: The aforementioned RAND study demonstrated that if the price of a barrel of oil was as “high” as $90, current technology would make oil shale competitive in the market. With a barrel of oil approaching $140, the notion that extracting oil from shale is too expensive is simply untrue.
The environmental footprint argument would make more sense were it not for rece
The gas tax holiday has been widely panned by economists as a bunch of hot air and American voters were smart enough not to buy it. Offshore drilling will do nothing to improve oil prices, they will instead potentially ruin the environment and tourism (which is why those areas have been so staunchly against it all this time)
What is the next pie in the sky fad you will criticize Obama for not going along with? Should we send rockets to the moon to drill for oil? Should we pray to Jesus to make gas prices go down?
Obama opposes offshore drilling in all areas in the United States. The offshore drilling will be a good opportunity for our country to have its new oil and increase its reserves. If we will allow offshore drilling, it will be a big help for our country.
Barack Obama also opposes gas tax holiday. That means the tax should be paid by YOU and not by the giant oil companies that earns a lot.
See how his change will work for YOU?Why does Barack Obama opposes offshore drilling and gas tax to be paid by oil companies?
Oil companies are behind him.Why does Barack Obama opposes offshore drilling and gas tax to be paid by oil companies?
you are what is considered a ';low information voter';. And i'm voting for change--you got a problem with that?
UNTIL WE CAN REFINE THE OIL IT WONT DO THAT MUCH GOOD , WE HAVEN'T HAD A NEW REFINERY BUILT IN OVER 30 YEARS
sounds pretty good
Why a ';Drill Here, Drill Now'; Approach Will Help America Pay Less at the Pump
Is more drilling for American oil an essential part of lowering energy costs and freeing us from dependence on foreign sources of energy? The typical response of critics is a resounding “NO!” and includes several common arguments, which are not supported by the facts.
MYTH: Oil companies currently have 68 million acres of leased public lands that contain large amounts of economically recoverable oil available. Drilling in these areas could generate 4.8 million barrels a day so opening up more land is not necessary.
FACT: The estimates on the amount of oil available in those 68 million acres have been derived by assuming that the unused acres can produce the same amount as those acres being used. However, much of the land leased to oil companies has already been explored and determined not to carry enough recoverable oil to justify drilling. This is in stark contrast to the other 97% of currently banned offshore resources and areas with shale oil, where enormous quantities are known to exist.
That opponents to greater U.S. exploration believe they understand better than petroleum engineers how we obtain oil from drilling is absolutely ridiculous.
MYTH: Drilling will not provide any short-term relief in the price of oil because it will take many years before new drilling will lead to new supplies.
FACT: This same argument has been used for the past several decades to prevent us from using more of our American oil, leading to our current dependence on foreign oil and the supply crunch we are currently experiencing. Does this mean critics of greater American energy exploration were wrong 10 years ago, 20 years ago, and 30 years ago but are suddenly right today now?
Drilling more now will increase supplies in the future. And higher supplies lead to lower prices. Currently, the world is operating at or near full capacity, so there is very little slack in the system, and any disruption causes spike in price. This is partly why commodities and other investors have invested so heavily in oil, driving up prices. They recognize demand will continue to increase and that current supply has artificial limits, especially in the United States.
Opening up new oil fields in the U.S., even if new supplies won’t actually reach our gas tank for several years, would immediately impact the amount of upward speculation on long-term commodity investment in oil. Oil speculators will see a greater supply ahead and will see that the future of oil is less constrained on the supply side. Moreover, fears of Middle Eastern turmoil or South American unrest that could disrupt supply shipments will be much less of a reason to drive up the price of crude if a stable U.S. can supply millions of barrels of additional oil. Which represents a more stable source of oil, Colorado or Caracas?
Finally, nobody is suggesting that our nation’s energy strategy should be solely dependent on domestic production of oil. We all recognize that alternative energy sources – such as wind and solar - need to be developed. But more American oil must be a part of an American energy solution.
MYTH: The U.S. only has a small percentage (from 2-6%) of the world’s oil supplies, and since oil is a global commodity, our increased production won’t affect prices much if at all.
FACT: This estimate of 2-6% of the world’s oil supplies does not hold up to scrutiny.
In oil shale alone, found in the Green River Formation in parts of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, the U.S. has approximately 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil, or over three times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. This comes from a midpoint estimate in a 2005 RAND study done at the request of the Department of Energy, and a higher end estimate puts the number at over one trillion barrels.
Furthermore, there are vast areas of the United States and its outer continental shelf where it is illegal to even look for oil. Exploration routinely yields additional resources far larger than initial estimates.
Resources from oil shale and additional oil resources that are likely to be discovered are not included in the estimates of American oil supplies.
MYTH: Drilling offshore will lead to ocean spillage, damaging wildlife and beaches.
FACT: In fact, virtually all of the pollution and “spillage” comes from large tankers transporting oil from other countries and natural seepages. Thus, drilling for our American oil would actually reduce the risk of oil pollution by reducing the number of international oil tankers entering our ports.
Offshore spills have occurred, but offshore drilling companies have an exceptional record of preventing spills and minimizing environmental damage, due primarily to technological innovation. Norway, which is a major exporter of oil and acquires all of it from offshore, also has an outstanding record of drilling in the sea, and there’s no reason why we would take fewer precautions than the Norwegians. Everyone promoting offshore drilling wants to do it in compliance with environmental safeguards, which in the United States are some of the most stringent in the world.
This is unlike other nations, such as China, which announced a partnership with Cuba in 2006 to start drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. That nation’s dismal environmental record should force Congress to make a decision: Do we let another nation drill for oil near us and risk major environmental catastrophe, or do we do it ourselves with better environmental protection?
MYTH: The price of oil has increased due to “over-speculation” by energy commodities traders and outlawing or heavily regulating energy trading is the best way to dramatically reduce the price of oil.
FACT: When analyzing the effect of speculators on the price of oil it is important to distinguish between the activity of a healthy commodity futures market and “over-speculation.”
A healthy commodities futures market responds to the supply and demand realities of actual commodity suppliers and consumers. As Robert Murphy from the Institute for Energy Research explains, a healthy futures market can be a stabilizing influence on oil. By buying when prices are low and selling when prices are high, speculators actually push up the low prices and push down the high prices. America wants a healthy futures market on the price of oil.
So oil speculation does play a role in the price of oil. Single-day price spikes from supply disruption fears, for example, are often the work of speculation, but the price typically readjusts. The key question, then, is if “over-speculation” is occurring. “Over-speculation” in a futures market is when activity in the speculative markets themselves cause an artificial, higher demand for a commodity that does not reflect the demand of actual consumers. This causes an artificial, real-world price increase.
So have oil speculators distorted the global demand for oil, leading to the sharp price rise?
The data suggest not. If the price of oil truly was above the natural level dictated by supply and demand, we would see an increase in global inventory of oil. This is because when prices rise, production increases and consumer demand falls. If the speculative markets were adding extra demand to the market, all that oil purchased would have to be stockpiled somewhere. However, there is no evidence of any such hoarding, meaning that commercial consumers are purchasing every barrel produced. By definition, that means that the price is in line with real-world supply and demand. Despite the rise in prices, consumers continue to buy, meaning supply and demand fundamentals are in line. This means the speculative markets are functioning as they should and are not having a distorting effect on the price of oil.
Furthermore, long-term bets that the price of oil will rise rather than fall on the New York Mercantile Exchange have dropped over four fold since the price of a barrel went above $100. Traders are now shorting oil almost as much as they are betting on its price increase in the long term. Again, this data suggests that the speculative markets are functioning as they should.
So if the energy futures markets are operating as they should, passing new laws outlawing or more heavily regulating these markets will do nothing to lower the price of oil in the intermediate or long term. In fact, it would likely have two effects that could actually drive up the price of oil.
First, new regulations would reduce the stabilizing impact futures markets play on the price of oil described above. Second, they would likely drive energy futures markets outside of the United States, where they would be even less regulated than before. The loss of this financial activity would hurt America’s already sluggish economy, weakening the dollar even more. Considering that the decline of the value of the dollar has been estimated to account for as much as 30% of the recent surge in oil prices, the long run effect of would be to raise the price of oil even more.
So if you want the price of oil to be more volatile and ensure that Dubai and Singapore become the future centers of commodities trading, passing new laws heavily regulating the energy futures trading is a great idea. However, it will not lower gas prices.
MYTH: Drilling for unconventional sources, such as tar sands or shale oil, is too costly and creates a large carbon footprint, among other environmental problems.
FACT: The aforementioned RAND study demonstrated that if the price of a barrel of oil was as “high” as $90, current technology would make oil shale competitive in the market. With a barrel of oil approaching $140, the notion that extracting oil from shale is too expensive is simply untrue.
The environmental footprint argument would make more sense were it not for rece
The gas tax holiday has been widely panned by economists as a bunch of hot air and American voters were smart enough not to buy it. Offshore drilling will do nothing to improve oil prices, they will instead potentially ruin the environment and tourism (which is why those areas have been so staunchly against it all this time)
What is the next pie in the sky fad you will criticize Obama for not going along with? Should we send rockets to the moon to drill for oil? Should we pray to Jesus to make gas prices go down?
I am a democrat can someone tell me why democrats dont want to drill for oil in alaska reserves?
Please no stupid answersI am a democrat can someone tell me why democrats dont want to drill for oil in alaska reserves?
Because it will completely destroy the natural habitat of alot of endangered animals. This world doesn't exist for us to just develop, develop, develop. There is a alot of beauty in it that should be left for our children to see. If they can find a way to do it that does not destroy 100s of acres with oil fields alot more congressmen and women would be supportive of it.I am a democrat can someone tell me why democrats dont want to drill for oil in alaska reserves?
I think that Exxon Valdez scared a whole lot of people. ANWR is meant to be tundra and the technology has advanced dramatically since the old days of even 10 years ago. Great Britain and Norway drill the North Sea.
I think that whoever wants to drill it, should have to bond for say $1 billion in environmental damage, and each of the employees should be bonded.
In sum, the Democrats, to the extent that they are not milking it for partisan advantage, are living in the past - Exxon Valdez. McCain thinks the same way as the Democrats.
They use the indefensible arguement that it will destroy the environment, but there just aren't any valid studies to back that position. It's all politics to bring down the American economy, and bring in government control. This applies to drilling offshore, in the Gulf, goal gas, and shale oil reserves. We need to drill now and build new and modern refineries.
I'm not sure either, except that the just seem to want to be on the opposite side when any issue comes up.
I remember when they talked about Anwar in the early 2000's and the Democrat arguement seemed to be ';but what good would that oil do us NOW, that oil will not be here for like seven or eight years';. Well that oil would be just about showing up right NOW.
Enviromentalists and many members of Congress are getting rich off of solar panels,windmills,and alternative modes of transportation.
Cleveland Oh has ordered double size buses.
Meanwhile,they blame the oil companies and refuse to let us drill and refine.
It's crazy, the damn GOVERNER of Alaska is begging Congress to start drilling in her state b/c gas is almost $5/gallon there.
The left-wing loons have become so sold on global warming, its clouding their judgement.
I guess for the same reason Republicans don't want to drill for oil off the Florida coast.
Because it will completely destroy the natural habitat of alot of endangered animals. This world doesn't exist for us to just develop, develop, develop. There is a alot of beauty in it that should be left for our children to see. If they can find a way to do it that does not destroy 100s of acres with oil fields alot more congressmen and women would be supportive of it.I am a democrat can someone tell me why democrats dont want to drill for oil in alaska reserves?
I think that Exxon Valdez scared a whole lot of people. ANWR is meant to be tundra and the technology has advanced dramatically since the old days of even 10 years ago. Great Britain and Norway drill the North Sea.
I think that whoever wants to drill it, should have to bond for say $1 billion in environmental damage, and each of the employees should be bonded.
In sum, the Democrats, to the extent that they are not milking it for partisan advantage, are living in the past - Exxon Valdez. McCain thinks the same way as the Democrats.
They use the indefensible arguement that it will destroy the environment, but there just aren't any valid studies to back that position. It's all politics to bring down the American economy, and bring in government control. This applies to drilling offshore, in the Gulf, goal gas, and shale oil reserves. We need to drill now and build new and modern refineries.
I'm not sure either, except that the just seem to want to be on the opposite side when any issue comes up.
I remember when they talked about Anwar in the early 2000's and the Democrat arguement seemed to be ';but what good would that oil do us NOW, that oil will not be here for like seven or eight years';. Well that oil would be just about showing up right NOW.
Enviromentalists and many members of Congress are getting rich off of solar panels,windmills,and alternative modes of transportation.
Cleveland Oh has ordered double size buses.
Meanwhile,they blame the oil companies and refuse to let us drill and refine.
It's crazy, the damn GOVERNER of Alaska is begging Congress to start drilling in her state b/c gas is almost $5/gallon there.
The left-wing loons have become so sold on global warming, its clouding their judgement.
I guess for the same reason Republicans don't want to drill for oil off the Florida coast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)