Attempt to rekindle Domestic Oil Drilling...

Damocles

Damocles

Accedo!
Staff member
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/16/gas.prices/index.html?eref=rss_politics

Lawmakers seek oil-drilling compromise

From Ted Barrett and Deirdre Walsh
CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two bipartisan groups -- one in the House, one in the Senate -- are trying to rekindle stalled energy-legislation by forging a compromise to expand domestic oil and gas drilling.

The compromise would include new domestic drilling to satisfy Republicans and promote conservation and alternative energy sources to satisfy Democrats, several lawmakers said.

The group in the Senate says its plan probably would allow drilling in new areas of the outer continental shelf, an idea vehemently opposed by Democratic leaders.

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, is bucking his party's leadership by supporting new drilling. He said he and the other senators advocating the deal are "people who are all seriously concerned about the issue who want to find solutions that are most likely to involve compromise."

More at link...
 
If I were in the Senate/Congress I would be in this group.

I'd also pursue adding language to make it a national drive, like the moon landing, to end reliance on foreign energy sources. Working through any means, including creating a bridge to the future with domestic sources and nuclear power.
 
As I posted the other day, offshore drilling will take a while. New surveys will be done before drilling. the surveys are old and done with old tech.
 
uscitizen said:
As I posted the other day, offshore drilling will take a while. New surveys will be done before drilling. the surveys are old and done with old tech.
Click to expand...
All the more reason to get started. The longer we wait the longer it will be before we can find ourselves less reliant on foreign sources. At the same time we should be creating new nuclear power plants and building new refineries while working towards the future sources that will end our reliance on carbon-based energy.
 
Why do so many fail to see the very real opportunity we have here to be the producer of future energy sources?
 
Damocles said:
Why do so many fail to see the very real opportunity we have here to be the producer of future energy sources?
Click to expand...

Because if it can't be ready 'tomorrow' then it can't help us yesterday.

:)

Seriously... those same people that spout that crap of "but it will take 5 years" are the ones that are demanding an increase in R&D investment into alt energy. Which coincidentally, will also take several years at a minimum to get on line.

The two bipartisan groups have it right. We should be doing both and they should beat this idea over the heads of the opposition in both parties until they realize the stupidity of their "our way is the only way" bullshit.
 
Damocles said:
All the more reason to get started. The longer we wait the longer it will be before we can find ourselves less reliant on foreign sources. At the same time we should be creating new nuclear power plants and building new refineries while working towards the future sources that will end our reliance on carbon-based energy.
Click to expand...

Only thing on the nuke, we first need to establish what we are going to do with the radioactive waste. If we can't even agree on that ....
Also we need to ensure very stringent construction practices on nuke plants.
Cost cutting will not work very well on them.
 
uscitizen said:
Only thing on the nuke, we first need to establish what we are going to do with the radioactive waste. If we can't even agree on that ....
Also we need to ensure very stringent construction practices on nuke plants.
Cost cutting will not work very well on them.
Click to expand...
We can follow the plans where it has been successful already. Yeah, people often don't like France, but they have done what we are only now arguing about, they have removed their reliance on foreign sources of energy.
 
Damocles said:
We can follow the plans where it has been successful already. Yeah, people often don't like France, but they have done what we are only now arguing about, they have removed their reliance on foreign sources of energy.
Click to expand...


Uh, I'm fairly certain that France is pretty heavily reliance on foreign sources of energy. Sure, they have a shitload of nuclear, but that's not the whole ball of wax.

The whole "foreign sources" argument is kind of silly anyway. It doesn't always make a whole lot of sense to do yourself what others can do more cheaply and efficiently.
 
Why the fuck are they not drilling in areas they already have the go ahead on?

Why do they always need NEW areas to drill?

You know why ? because its just a fucking ploy to get more approved.

When will you realize they will fight alternative energy with every little inch we give them?
 
Dungheap said:
Uh, I'm fairly certain that France is pretty heavily reliance on foreign sources of energy. Sure, they have a shitload of nuclear, but that's not the whole ball of wax.

The whole "foreign sources" argument is kind of silly anyway. It doesn't always make a whole lot of sense to do yourself what others can do more cheaply and efficiently.
Click to expand...
It does.

This is so short-sighted it baffles the mind. Imagine being the producer and seller of future energy needs rather than a user. The difference between being the dealer and the user of drugs comes to mind. Who is enriched in that scenario?

Dependence is a clear term with a meaning, one can simply cut our supply to bring the US to their knees.

As for France being entirely reliant on foreign sources of energy. They are the only net exporter of electric energy in Europe.

While they still use oil for their cars their dependence is far lower than ours, not just because they drive less. Now imagine supplying them with the replacement.
 
I think this is going to happen sooner than later and the geological surveys have already been done, albeit by the government, not by the oil companies. The public is demanding it, the politicians will react.

I've been saying for years now that the government should offer incentives for private development, much like they should have done NASA.
 
Currently, energy companies are not producing oil or gas on 68 million acres of federal land already under their control. Of the 47.5 million acres of federal land leased onshore by oil and gas companies, only about 13 million acres are actually producing oil and gas. Offshore, only 10.5 million of the 44 million leased acres are currently producing oil or gas. These unused areas could produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day, nearly double current domestic oil production. That would nearly double total U.S. oil production, and is more than six times the estimated potential peak production from ANWR.
 
Desh said:
Currently, energy companies are not producing oil or gas on 68 million acres of federal land already under their control. Of the 47.5 million acres of federal land leased onshore by oil and gas companies, only about 13 million acres are actually producing oil and gas. Offshore, only 10.5 million of the 44 million leased acres are currently producing oil or gas. These unused areas could produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day, nearly double current domestic oil production. That would nearly double total U.S. oil production, and is more than six times the estimated potential peak production from ANWR.
Click to expand...
You act as if every acre first needs to be drilled directly from that acre, secondly would be a net producer.

While I agree they should drill or get off the pot so to speak, this is not the smoking gun you seem to think it is. With horizontal drilling they can now drill under acreage from off-site areas making the need to effect as much land negatively as we have in the past greatly reduced. It also assumes that acreage they had to secure in order to secure productive land is all productive. They are forced to pay for non-productive land so they can gain access to the productive areas.

The reality is, opening more areas for exploration can increase production and reduce our need for foreign sources, and that coupled with a drive toward alternative sources as well can and will be a positive for our nation in the future. Saying we must continue to be the addict while we look into better drugs is just rubbish.
 
uscitizen said:
Only thing on the nuke, we first need to establish what we are going to do with the radioactive waste. If we can't even agree on that ....
Also we need to ensure very stringent construction practices on nuke plants.
Cost cutting will not work very well on them.
Click to expand...
Westinghouse Corp's next generation of nuclear plants are VERY well designed.
 
Damocles said:
It does.

This is so short-sighted it baffles the mind. Imagine being the producer and seller of future energy needs rather than a user. The difference between being the dealer and the user of drugs comes to mind. Who is enriched in that scenario?

Dependence is a clear term with a meaning, one can simply cut our supply to bring the US to their knees.

As for France being entirely reliant on foreign sources of energy. They are the only net exporter of electric energy in Europe.

While they still use oil for their cars their dependence is far lower than ours, not just because they drive less. Now imagine supplying them with the replacement.
Click to expand...


First of all, you need to read and write more carefully. I'm tired of getting into pissing matches with you after you write something that is completely off base (France has "removed their reliance on foreign sources of energy") and then misrepresenting what I wrote (I wrote that France is "heavily reliance (sic) on foreign sources" whereas you say "As for France being entirely reliant on foreign sources of energy"). Just slow down. France has not removed their reliance on foreign sources of energy and I never claimed they were entirely reliant on foreign sources of energy.

As for the whole dependency thing, it's really not that big of a deal, particularly if we reduce consumption. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars in pursuit of domestic oil supplies to prevent us from being held hostage by our foreign suppliers, which is pure folly, is just plain stupid. The money is better spent elsewhere, like developing alternatives.
 
Yet, Chuckie Schumer thinks that increasing SA output by 50 million barrels a day will make a difference?

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDY1NTUyN2ZhM2I0MzIxMzQwYWVlNWRiYThiMTdlNDM=

Schumer Inadvertently Makes the Case [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

A Hill staffer e-mails:

For all of you writing (or reading about) how much ANWR, OCS and other increased domestic production would affect the price of gas, please note what Sen. Schumer just said on the floor about the impact of increased production in Saudi Arabia.

“If they produced half a million barrels more oil a day the price would come down a very significant amount and, at the same time, it would stop the speculation that keeps driving up the price of oil.”

Keep in mind, ANWR alone is projected to produce one million barrels a day, every day. In fact, if President Clinton had not vetoed legislation opening up a small portion of ANWR thirteen years ago (1995), a million barrels a day would be flowing from ANWR right now, helping to keep prices down at the pump.

So if Sen. Schumer believes that a half million barrels a day from SAUDIA ARABIA would cause the price of oil to “come down a very significant amount,” just think what a million barrels—produced here in AMERICA through AMERICAN jobs—would do to lower the price of gas.

Don’t take it from me, take it from the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee.
Click to expand...

And since I'm quite certain the National Review is not to your liking, here's an earlier MSM piece, where he says 1 million barrels:

http://www.al.com/opinion/press-register/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1215440111303100.xml&coll=3
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top