Bush to lift offshore drilling ban

[H]

I saw a commercial last night for T. Boone Pickens' plan for a large scale wind and solar investments. For those who don't know, Pickens is an old Texas oil man and is a very wealthy investor. Pickens' pitch pointed out that in 1970, the United States imported 24% of our oil needs. In 1990, it was 42%, and today it is nearly 70% and growing. Pickens himself says we can't drill our way out of this problem. The data I have seen on ANWR suggest its peak output would reduce U.S. oil imports by about 3%. Assuming an equal amount of production comes from incremental offshore production, we would still be reliant on imports for more than 60% of our petroleum if proponents of drilling in all off-limits areas currently being discussed get their way. That is nowhere near energy independence. And the Federal Government's Energy Information Administration has reported that best case peak ANWR oil production would only reduce global crude prices by about $1.40 per barrel and increased offshore drilling will have an insignificant effect on global crude prices.

 

The Republicans are implying that increased oil exploration in Alaska and offshore is the answer to $4.00 gas. They know that is not true. The answer to $4.00 gas is conservation and a shift to energy sources other than petroleum.

[UKMustangFan]

The answer to $4.00 gas is conservation and a shift to energy sources other than petroleum.

 

I completely disagree with the conservation agruement. I shouldn't have to change the amount I drive because other people can't afford gas.

[leatherneck]

I saw a commercial last night for T. Boone Pickens' plan for a large scale wind and solar investments. For those who don't know, Pickens is an old Texas oil man and is a very wealthy investor. Pickens' pitch pointed out that in 1970, the United States imported 24% of our oil needs. In 1990, it was 42%, and today it is nearly 70% and growing. Pickens himself says we can't drill our way out of this problem. The data I have seen on ANWR suggest its peak output would reduce U.S. oil imports by about 3%. Assuming an equal amount of production comes from incremental offshore production, we would still be reliant on imports for more than 60% of our petroleum if proponents of drilling in all off-limits areas currently being discussed get their way. That is nowhere near energy independence. And the Federal Government's Energy Information Administration has reported that best case peak ANWR oil production would only reduce global crude prices by about $1.40 per barrel and increased offshore drilling will have an insignificant effect on global crude prices.

 

The Republicans are implying that increased oil exploration in Alaska and offshore is the answer to $4.00 gas. They know that is not true. The answer to $4.00 gas is conservation and a shift to energy sources other than petroleum.

 

 

As to the bolded part, really? Seems the one's I hear, say that increased oil exploration in Alaska and off shore is part of the answer, not the answer. What Republican elected official has stated or implied that all we have to do is explore more in Alaska and off shore and then gas prices will drop. Links please.

[leatherneck]

I completely disagree with the conservation agruement. I shouldn't have to change the amount I drive because other people can't afford gas.

 

And while I generally support conservation, I really don't think in the long haul it is the answer. Oil is priced on supply and demand. In a free market, decreased demand would cause a decreased price assuming a constant supply. But the oil market is not a free market. Its closer to a monopoly with OPEC deciding what the supply will be. If demand dropped dramatically, OPEC could simply decrease supply dramatically to keep the price per gallon as high as they wanted it to be. The only hammer we'd have is to have our own domestic sources capable of satisfying our decreased demand (oops that means probably off shore drilling and in Alaska). The only real long term solution is to develop alternative sources of energy like wind, solar, nuke, domestic natural gas, cleaner ways to use coal, domestically produced bio fuels, etc. Bottom line is that we need IMMEDIATELY to stem the flow of U.S. dollars out of this country. The transfer of wealth due to our dependence on foreign oil is a huge threat to our economy and future standard of living.

[True blue (and gold)]

I don't know if it makes us independent or not. And really is that the issue? Shouldn't we start immediately doing multiple things to lessen our dependence of overseas providers of energy? What's wrong with immediately instituting Pickens plans for wind and solar power and continue research on biofuels (including eliminating subsidies to farmers to keep lands fallow) and immediately start the process of finding off shore and ANWR oil and improve mass transit and put other conservation steps in place and start building nukes? Its not a single step that will solve our problem. We should be doing everything and anything that will stop the mass exodus of US dollars overseas and lessen our dependence on countries to sustain our energy needs. Until we do all those things, we will be forced to keep our thirst for oil as a major factor in our international foreign policy. Conservation in and of itself is not the answer unless we want to continue to be dependent on foreign oil. And I'm not even sure it will lower the price, with China and India and the rest of the world probably not going to cut back their needs. I see their demand continuing to increase, so I doubt our conservation is the answer. And even if we dramatically conserved and the world demand dramatically decreased, doesn't OPEC just then respond by cutting the supply, which will keep the price high?

 

I agree...particularly with the building of new nuclear power plants. :thumb:

[True blue (and gold)]

I caught a 10 second blurb on TV a couple of days ago and wanted to see if anyone knew anything about it. ANWR is on the NE coast of Alaska. There was a map showing a highlighted portion of the NW coast of Alaska that has already been approved for drilling, with details that it contained more oil then ANWR. Does anyone know anything about this or it if is true?

[Hatz]

Estimated U.S. oil shale reserves total an astonishing 1.5 trillion barrels of oil - or more than five times the

stated reserves of Saudi Arabia.

 

Your facts and H's facts seem in conflict. One says it would be an enormous help and another says it will be of little impact at the pump.

[Hatz]

I don't know if it makes us independent or not. And really is that the issue? Shouldn't we start immediately doing multiple things to lessen our dependence of overseas providers of energy? What's wrong with immediately instituting Pickens plans for wind and solar power and continue research on biofuels (including eliminating subsidies to farmers to keep lands fallow) and immediately start the process of finding off shore and ANWR oil and improve mass transit and put other conservation steps in place and start building nukes? Its not a single step that will solve our problem. We should be doing everything and anything that will stop the mass exodus of US dollars overseas and lessen our dependence on countries to sustain our energy needs. Until we do all those things, we will be forced to keep our thirst for oil as a major factor in our international foreign policy. Conservation in and of itself is not the answer unless we want to continue to be dependent on foreign oil. And I'm not even sure it will lower the price, with China and India and the rest of the world probably not going to cut back their needs. I see their demand continuing to increase, so I doubt our conservation is the answer. And even if we dramatically conserved and the world demand dramatically decreased, doesn't OPEC just then respond by cutting the supply, which will keep the price high?

 

 

Great answer. :thumb: I would go one further. I'm looking for someone to talk about not just stopping the dollars going overseas for oil (as you put it) but also stopping jobs going overseas. What is our solution and answers there?

[True blue (and gold)]

Great answer. :thumb: I would go one further. I'm looking for someone to talk about not just stopping the dollars going overseas for oil (as you put it) but also stopping jobs going overseas. What is our solution and answers there?

 

I am in complete agreement there, too. I need someone to "educate" me on why promoting companies that do this actually helps us out.

[Hatz]

How much does our lack of new refineries or more refineries (sp?) hurt the price?

 

Is it a factor because we can only refine so much at a set rate that has been that way for what 20 or 30 years?

 

Is that a factor in the price at the pump? Some of you who are more into economics can tell me.

[leatherneck]

Great answer. :thumb: I would go one further. I'm looking for someone to talk about not just stopping the dollars going overseas for oil (as you put it) but also stopping jobs going overseas. What is our solution and answers there?

 

 

With 700 billion dollars a year staying in the U.S. think how many jobs that would create. It would be a whole bunch. Rather than our dollars going overseas to create jobs in those countries, we'd create jobs in the domestic solar and wind energy industries. Someone (hopefully a domestic manufacturer) would have to manufacture the solar panels and wind turbines; some one would have to construct and install them; someone would have to maintain them. That means more jobs. If bio fuel became more efficient, think how many jobs for farmers and producers that would be created. It would be a bunch. Someone has to manufacture the newly needed farm equipment (hopefully a domestic manufacturer like John Deere). If we did more domestic oil production, that would create jobs in the U.S. If we build more nukes, think of the engineering and construction jobs that will be created. Think of the jobs that will be created to run the nukes. Think of the trickle down jobs that would be created by creating all the new domestic energy jobs and by placing 700 billion dollars per year into our economy. People probably thought I was a lunatic when I posted that $4 gas was actually a good thing for us. If that high price is the catalyst for accelerating the development of solar, wind, nuke and increased domestic oil production, we'll someday thank the OPEC countries for getting greedy. The return to domestic energy I think will create millions of U.S. jobs. If McCain gets elected, I hope he selects Pickens to be the dude in charge of the federal energy department. This election might swing on what candidate first agrees to put Pickens plan in place if that candidate is elected.

[woodsrider]

Your facts and H's facts seem in conflict. One says it would be an enormous help and another says it will be of little impact at the pump.

You can find two sides to every story. It's just a matter of which side you choose to believe. At this point it's all speculation anyway. Take ANWR for example. Reports say there are reserves anywhere from 500,000 barrels a day up to 1,500,000 per day. With a total out put of 2 billion barrels up to over 4 billion. Where will it really be. H chooses to always use a mid-low number when making his point. Not that he is wrong but who says that it's right. What if the true number is closer to 1 1/2 million barrels per day?

 

I say forget all of it and let's just invade Canada. They have more oil reserves then anyone anyway.

[madman]

Why didn't Bush do this several years ago? If done several years ago, we might have had some resolution by now.

[H]

I completely disagree with the conservation agruement. I shouldn't have to change the amount I drive because other people can't afford gas.

 

 

With gas at $4 and possibly climbing, the conservation part largely takes care of itself. If maintaining your current behavior is worth paying $4 for every gallon of gas you use, don't change your behavior.

 

My point is that the big push to drill for oil in ANWR and offshore is an argument custom made to appeal to the not-very-well-informed. The production from these areas is not going to have hardly any effect on gas prices.

[cch5432]

Why didn't Bush do this several years ago? If done several years ago, we might have had some resolution by now.

People always cite this, and there was a Republican majority in Congress and the Senate, but FWIW, you can't get much done in the Senate without a 60-40 majority, and I don't believe that the Republicans have had that recently.