Until the next hurricane comes along and jacks up gas prices. Everyone will be screaming "Why the hell is all of our oil infrastructure in one spot vulnerable to hurricanes!?!"
Its amazing how concentrated and vulnerable our energy infrastructure is yet virtually no one cares.
There are some suggesting in here that won't happen again and gas won't hit $4 or higher again.
How quickly they forget.
Brainonska511
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2005
- 28,659
- 13,788
- 136
People care, they just don't want the next refinery or oil off-loading platform for tankers near them.
Except lefties always argue it takes 10 years to get that oil........kind of difficult to do that quickly in an emergency.
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 66,260
- 14,689
- 146
Harvey's "hero and Traitor-in-Chief," George W. Bush, is about to fuck the country in many ways by undoing environmental regulations that will benefit his friends in big business.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/55441.html
His record on the environment is already far less than sterling...but he's about to undo a century of work and progress in one fell swoop...
The rules relaxing drilling around the National Parks is just one more example of Bush thumbing his nose at the American People.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/55441.html
His record on the environment is already far less than sterling...but he's about to undo a century of work and progress in one fell swoop...
The rules relaxing drilling around the National Parks is just one more example of Bush thumbing his nose at the American People.
Pepsei
Lifer
- Dec 14, 2001
- 12,895
- 1
- 0
i think by the time our enemies ran out of oil, the drilling technology would be improved (just like how we can now drill places that we couldn't get to 10 years ago), and our Strategic Petroleum Reserve would be able to supply us enough oil for what.. a month?
hmmm need to store more oil....
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,829
- 3
- 0
This is a good analogy, except the logging would be done BY the big lumber company, AND the only price decrease would be from the increased supply from your land. And you'd have to be stupid to despoil your backyard to increase the lumber supply by 0.00000001% so you can save a few fractions of a cent.
"Drill here drill now" makes no sense except in ideological campaign speeches, and especially not when "here" is next to a national park.
When you lock up nearly 40% of the lands in the west in national parks or reserves or military bases or some other govt operation. It is going to be hard to drill anywhere without hitting govt land.
On the flip side the govt owning so much land introduces other issues such as it doesnt generate taxes or get developed for the good of the country. The most obvious case is right in this thread. We continue to live off foreign powers oil supply, get into wars, because we wont drill on public land. The good of the people isnt being served by locking up oil and natural gas fields and forcing us to buy from places like Saudi Arabia or VZ.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
I'm OK with responsible drilling, and yes I know that "responsible" is up for debate, however there is no economically viable means which exists that will significantly free us from imported oil. All OPEC would have to do to completely undermine drilling efforts is turn down the tap to 3/4. The only thing which will free us from dependency from foreign oil is not to use oil as a fuel source at all. Now the counter argument is that it will take a decade or more to get something like hydrogen up and running. It will also take about that long to get drilling to the point where we get something out of it, and the oil industry has shown no real interest in improving refinery capacity.
If OPEC turned down the tap to 75% and we were able to adjust our own domestic supply accordingly their influence on the market would be smaller. All they would do is cut their nose to spite their face. As it stands right now our domestic supply is so pitiful we are at the whims of these govts and the instability surrounding them.
Of course getting off oil is the ultimate goal. But that isnt going to happen for decades. Right now our biggest problem is the entrenched corn ethanol interests in washington. But that is for another thread.
The more oil we pump at home the less oil the OPEC nations have to wield power with.
Of course getting off oil is the ultimate goal. But that isnt going to happen for decades. Right now our biggest problem is the entrenched corn ethanol interests in washington. But that is for another thread.
The more oil we pump at home the less oil the OPEC nations have to wield power with.
Not caring enough to do something about it is the same as not caring. My state will continue to profit like crazy from our current and future oil policy. On the other hand, eventually something really bad is going to happen. A single decently thought out terrorist attack could make it a very cold winter in the NW, or significantly reduce our gas supply, or remove a significant portion of the fuel used to generate electricity.... Same thing with a serious storm, you thought the refineries being down was bad? If Port Fourchon ever takes a hit significant enough to put them out of operation for a lengthy period of time this countries energy supply will be FUBARd.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
The point is that there isn't enough oil to do that. Sure you can point to oil sands, and I can point to tritium mining on the moon. Both are about as economically feasible. It isn't what exists, but rather what can be obtained at a given and sustainable price point.
As it is now, there isn't enough economically recoverable oil to do as you suggest. Sure it's good to have domestic oil, but don't make the mistake that it's going to make a significant change in the short or long run. I'm in favor of it not so much as an energy source, but a domestic source of raw materials. We are in a real sense burning our clothing and homes which are in part made from petroleum products. Doesn't seem smart to me.
I believe our reserves in shale oil are near 1 trillion barrels. We dont need to replace the worlds oil supply. But getting 1.5 million barrels from ANWR, 2.5 million barrels from the OCS, 1 million barrels from shale oil in the rockies. We just doubled our domestic output. When OPEC cuts production by a half million barrels. It wont hurt as much.
The point is to make moving off oil as smooth and easy as possible. Spiking energy costs and starting wars over it is not the best way to ween us off that supply of oil. We also need to supply ourselves with enough oil to make it through the transitionary period. I dont see a reaslitic alternative source on the horizon for 20 years. Corn ethanol will take that long to be killed in congress. Battery power lacks a national infrastructure and range to do it. We are going to be using hybrid type cars for awhile. Those require gasoline or diesal to run.
There are many ways to create jobs which do not wreck our National Parks. How about we take that money and invest it into clean coal and new energy technologies/infrastructure instead?
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
There's an old old saying "Commercial fusion is just 20 years away, and will always be". I think that saying started in the 60's. Since that time not a month's worth of the Iraq war budget has been spent on it. I think you are overly optimistic about shale, because of water concerns however if as much political will had been spent on getting that working as in fighting over domestic oil, it would probably be a fait accompli. As I say, by all means drill with an eye on the environment, but to me it's more diversion preventing long term solutions. While you and I want to move on to other options, in DC its more about the oil corporations than the public good. "What's good for GM is good for America" is still the mindset of some, although hopefully Obama will make some changes. I'll not hold my breath though.
Drilling for oil doesn't cost money, it makes money for the taxpayers. It's ridiculous shit like solar that hasn't done a thing for 30+ years now.
Too bad Obama wants to bankrupt coal plants, eh?
I only wonder if the Bureau of Land Management is anything like the Minerals Management Service that was literally sleeping with the big oil companies and doing lines of coke off their secretaries asses all while ignoring millions of oil royalties that were due the federal government?
Drill, stupid, drill!
Drill, stupid, drill!
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 66,260
- 14,689
- 146
That last part is a wonderful argument, but unless it was specifically written into the lease that the oil was strictly for domestic use, the Big Oil companies would just put it on the open market and sell it for the highest price anyway...
NO Profit for the American people.
I'm 100% in favor of requiring ALL oil drilled/pumped in the USA to be so limited.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter