A short term solution to lowering our dependence on foreign oil

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Forrest B. Allen on July 13, 2008 at 12:37pm

"I believe in using alternative energy sources where economically viable, and they will be in the long term. This measure will give us time to get them going."

Sorry, history does not support this. Alternative energy has gotten only lip service for many years, even though oil reserves were underestimated 40-50 years ago: we thought back then that we'd have run out by now. If we drill ANWR, we can stall off for another ten years of driving our Hummers, but we would just squander that time as we have in the past. And if you think the Saudis are charging us too much now, just wait until ALL our oil is gone.

Look at history to see how we "prepare" for looming emergencies: World War II, hurricanes, whatever. Little is done until the crisis actually occurs: only then is any real action taken.

The ANWR is our strategic reserve and should be reserved for when we really need it, and that time has not yet come. High oil prices now are what will drive alternative energy development, and we need that to happen. Drilling ANWR now would be like burning your furniture to heat your house.

Permalink Reply by Jerry S on July 13, 2008 at 12:38pm

http://www.sierraclub.org/arctic/maps/images/wells-large.jpg

If you look at the web site, you will notice that there are a lot of other places that are now and could be drilled. The problem is that they are inferring that the only place that needs to be drilled is in the ANWR. It is not about that that is only location that the oil companies want, it is the precedence that will be set. Once that wildlife refuge be encroached upon, (something that was set aside by Congress for future generations to enjoy), then the gates will be opened and they will be working on drilling in national parks and any where else they want to drill. That is what they are really after, not just some innocuous place in the tundra. The battle is not really about that particular field, it is other encroachments that would then be open to them. The gates will then be open to drill anywhere they want, even the National Park nearest you.

It would take about 10 years to produce the first drop of oil out of that ANWR field anyway. And the expense of bringing in that field would be tremendous because of its inaccessibility, both because of required really high wages and huge transport costs.

It would take a lot less time to re-start drilling off shore in Florida and California, but we can't do that because of the wealthy beach-front landowners would scream bloody murder. How much progress would be made once someone suggested that we start drilling off shore in front of Donald Trump's house? We could have off-shore rigs up and pumping in a couple of years.

The following is an excerpt from GWB's 2001 State of the Union Address (his first):

.......... As we meet tonight, many citizens are struggling with the high costs of energy. We have a serious energy problem that demands a national energy policy. The West is confronting a major energy shortage that has resulted in high prices and uncertainty. I have asked Federal agencies to work with California officials to help speed construction of new energy sources. And I have directed Vice President Cheney, Commerce Secretary Evans, Energy Secretary Abraham, and other senior members of my Administration to recommend a national energy policy.

Our energy demand outstrips our supply. We can produce more energy at home while protecting our environment, and we must. We can produce more electricity to meet demand, and we must. We can promote alternative energy sources and conservation, and we must. America must become more energy independent............

Well it has been 7 1/2 years later since that speech and so far, not much has been done, with a Republican Congress for 6 of those years. How many nuclear plants have
been planned? How many new Hydro-electric dams have been built? What about putting money into coal based fuel? The US is the equivilent to Saudi Arabia for coal.

What about conservation? How about the federal mandates on CAFE standards for the Humves? Ford F-250's? Cadillac SUV's?

It took JFK and LBJ 9 1/2 years to get us to the moon, and GWB can't even build one new nuclear power plant or get a CAFE standard passed on a GMC Tahoe since that speech.

Permalink Reply by Ethan on July 18, 2008 at 11:24am

To quote Gary Cooper, "yep."

Permalink Reply by Rick Archer on July 13, 2008 at 12:49pm

Carl,
Bush is the worst President in the history of the U.S., he makes Hoover look good. I am educated enough to know that your knowledge is lacking if you think ruining what is left of our wilderness area is the answer to a world wide shortage of oil that no country will be immune to. Thank God that Clinton vetod that legislation. Drilling is not the answer, but then isn't that why will are all here? Well, at least some of us.

Permalink Reply by Erich Montalvo on July 13, 2008 at 12:54pm

My name is Erich Montalvo. I'm am VP of Operations for a company called Hydrocore, Inc. Our first project converts landfill trash into unleaded gasoline and commodity products in a zero pollution environment. If anyone has a means to get me in front of Mr. Pickens, I'm certain that a solution will be on the horizon.

We are developed, tested, and proven while providing robust financial returns. If conscious capitalism is the next movement in this country, then my company can provide solutions.

Please call me at 865-405-4175 for further questions.

Permalink Reply by Rick Archer on July 13, 2008 at 12:56pm

RD Davis,
Are the oil companies losing money? Isn't $10 billion a quarter enough? I'm not going to play the political games of who did what. I blame the entire federal government over the last 50 years for not promoting alternative sources of fuel when they first knew there was a problem. Everyone has passed the buck and it continues. They only way we fix this is if we as citizens act and force the government to react. Oil is not the answer and neither is nuclear energy (see 3 Mile Island) but wind power, solar energy, fuel cells...etc..are.

Permalink Reply by Joe Lalumia on July 13, 2008 at 12:59pm

It is complete madness to not explore any and all resources at our disposal. This includes ANWR, all on and off shore probable reserves-- including the massive shale formations in the central USA. We really do not know what our true reserves happen to be---- since our politicians have ruled them off limits ------------- and only about 35% of the public lands are opening to the same drilling regulations as private property. The majority of these public lands have many many restrictive drilling covenants placed on them by our government. PLUS-- over 40 government agencies that must approve all drilling permits! This is completely CRAZY!

Permalink Reply by Carl Burnham on July 13, 2008 at 1:36pm

Brock, Patrick, and others - you all made excellent points. The biggest problem is red tape. Government needs to be more streamlined, and let business visionaries take the lead.

With American ingenuity anything can be done. Look at us after Pearl Harbor. We mobilized, built planes, ships, tanks, and got it done. Course, that was when government was only a fraction of its' current size. With the situation in Washington tangled up in finger pointing, legislative wrangling, and lobbyist money little gets done.
Domestic oil is a short term solution. I guarantee that if the barren ANWR section of land were opened up that T. Boone Pickens would be first in line. He has become rich by taking advantage of opportunities, which is what makes our country so great. What other country has a problem with so many immigrants wanting to come to their shores? Do you see people rushing to Mexico, Canada, or anywhere in Europe to establish a new way of life?
Another problem we have are refineries that are 30 plus years old. Having 40 agencies to go through for oil drilling is insane.
Our infrastructure needs a strong foundation and a solid energy policy is the key.

The problem is getting politicians to come to agreement on getting things done, and do away with mindless regulations that don't make sense and are counterproductive to our economy and prosperity, especially in our highly competitive global economy. One is the Davis Bacon Act, which requires that wages be raised to certain levels causing projects to be much more costly than they could be.

Permalink Reply by Dave on July 13, 2008 at 2:02pm

I'm not much of an environmentalist, but I have come to the conclusion that oil is no longer the answer. More oil drilling only means more dependance on oil! This country put a man on the moon in less than ten years (when we all worked together). Are we so addicted to oil that we can't come together to figure out a solution to our power needs, in the same short amount of time. This country is only laking a president that will use his "bully pulpit" to rally the country!

Permalink Reply by Carl Burnham on July 13, 2008 at 2:04pm

Are you sure you were in the coastal area? The north slope is a huge general area, and the coastal section geographically is different.

Here are further details about the coastal plain area -
http://www.anwr.org/features/pdfs/realanwr-page1.pdf

This gives a background the few wildlife that is occasionally seen in the area, and how caribou, wolves, moose, etc. have co-existed with oil and gas development for 30 years in the Prudhoe Bay area -
http://www.anwr.org/Background/

It doesn't sound like somewhere I'd want to spend my vacation...

"On the coastal plain, the Arctic winter lasts for 9 months. It is dark continuously for 56 days in midwinter. Temperatures with the wind chill can reach -110 degrees F. It’s not pristine. There are villages, roads, houses, schools, and military installations. It’s not a unique Arctic ecosystem. The coastal plain is only a small fraction of the 88,000 square miles that make up the North Slope. The same tundra environment and wildlife can be found throughout the circumpolar Arctic regions. The 1002 Area is flat. That’s why they call it a plain."

Permalink Reply by Kim on July 13, 2008 at 2:16pm

Why invest in a temporary solution of drilling, when there are options of wind and solar energy that can exist for many generations. It's a waste of resources and money to go the drilling for oil route. Settle for something that will last.

Permalink Reply by Carl Burnham on July 13, 2008 at 2:37pm

Kim -
Mainly because as someone else has said, we have the technology and the expertise to quickly drill. We also have a stockpile of oil in our strategic petroleum reserve. It should be partially made available. Wind/solar will take longer to get established, which will be needed as well. There have been too many studies and experimental projects. Government needs to ease up on their restrictive bylaws and hampering legislation to ensure that we have a strong energy infrastructure.

We need to utilize all of the viable resources where it is economically feasible.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 11
• Next ›
• Page