This is breathtaking. Check out this page at Hot Air, and watch the video there. Absolutely amazing.
The Democrats make it painfully clear that even when gas gets to $10 a gallon they will not permit drilling our national reserves, which contain enough oil to keep us going another 100 years.
I begin to question the sanity of the Democrats. What we need is to get our own domestic reserves in service, to protect our economy, while we develop the alternate energy sources we will be needing.
I’ve seen numbers reported that say we are paying $700,000,000,000 per year to foreign countries that don’t like us, to provide us with oil. Since we’re willing to do that, and we will burn that oil even at that cost, I don’t see why we shouldn’t drill our own reserves, consume the same amount of oil, and keep all that money.
This will protect our economy while we institute a program to develop alternatives.
I’d also like to point out that there is recent evidence that there may not be as much urgency to make this switch in a big hurry, anyhow.
-Popgun
August 2, 2008 at 2:13 pm |
Alternative fuels, mass transit, conservation. Congress can not work towards these because WHY ?
ASK YOUR CONGRESS PERSON THIS QUESTION.
August 2, 2008 at 2:22 pm |
Skubaduk,
Congress can, and should, work towards alternative fuels, mass transit and conversation, just as you say. However, we need to also drill for our oil reserves in order to protect our economy at the same time that we pursue alternatives. Our economy won’t handle going cold turkey on oil until we have the alternatives already in place and ready to go, both technically and economically. We need the oil in order to make a graceful transition. Currently the democrats are blocking republican efforts to allow new drilling.
-Popgun
August 5, 2008 at 11:53 am |
We live in a global economy … increasing OUR oil production without being able to control OPEC’s output doesn’t necessarily cause a surplus of supply … OPEC simply cuts back their production and the same level of commodity remains present. OPEC controls 75-80 percent of the worlds oil, and they know that they can easily adjust the price of the commodity by adjusting supply. The only drilling that should be done should be in the heads of people that ACTUALLY believe that we can control world oil prices with our meager domestic supply of oil. JUST USE LESS … THAT WILL CAUSE A SURPLUS TO EXIST.
August 5, 2008 at 1:57 pm |
Hi, Mike;
Well, the point is, we’re not trying to ‘control world oil prices’. Our goal is to get off oil entirely, transitioning to renewable alternatives; which we cannot technologically do today. We need a supply of oil to make the transition. It would be to our advantage to buy oil from our own companies, rather than buying it from overseas. Even though this means profits for the oil companies, the money will be in American hands, providing a great many jobs for Americans while providing us the oil now being purchased overseas. This will help protect our economy, while giving us the time to make an orderly transition to alternatives.
Using significantly less oil is not really an option at present for those of us who live a long way from work, or if our houses need heating or cooling; at least, not until there is a viable alternative. Such conservation can help some, but it won’t be sufficient to ameliorate the problem. It certainly won’t result in a surplus, as you state. The fact is, every country needs oil in increasing amounts; but there’s only so much in the ground. We need to use everything we have available while we transition to alternatives. Most of us will suffer, you and me included, if our economy collapses because we’re too stupid to use the resources available to us.
And, one more point. Our ‘meager’ domestic supply is sufficient to meet the needs of our country for around the next hundred years at today’s level of consumption. If we can get 20 years out of it, we’ll have time to make that graceful transition to alternatives.
“Drilling… in the heads of people” is hardly a solution…
-Popgun
August 6, 2008 at 9:17 am |
You seem like a nice person but honestly you live in a dream world. The cost of domestic oil FAR far exceeds foreign oil. Factored into the price is not only the oil itself and transportation to market but exploration and equipment costs. EACH deep-water off-shore rig costs the oil companies around 100 million dollars to build and untold amounts for maintenance and operations. The biggest oil find in recent US history was Prudhoe Bay … 40 years ago. the Alaskan pipeline had to be built to channel the oil to market. It cost 8 billion dollars and continues to cost 210 million dollars in maintenance each year. It’s all comes down to economics … hey i’ll tell you what … you go to Walmart and get them to buy domestic product at a substantial premium over buying foreign … and afterward i’ll approach Exxon and see if i can talk them into not taking that 12 BILLION dollar profit per quarter and instead drill in the 95% Alaskan wilderness land that they already have FULL unrestricted access to … or the 45% existing off-shore area that they currently have rights to. Now I wonder why they aren’t drilling there now ….. As far as how much oil we have take a look at the US Geological survey well listings at http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-oil-fields. The US CURRENT consumption is 20 million barrels per day or 7.5 billion barrels per year. Show me where the 1 trillion barrels of US (only) consumption will come from in your 100 year estimate. Remember that Chevron has already stated that 95% of world oil fields have already been found and the majority of the operating wells are on the downside of the production cycle . … c-ya … Mike
August 6, 2008 at 10:14 am |
Hi, Mike; Well, thanks, you seem like a nice person too. I suppose which one of us lives in a ‘dream world’ is a matter of opinion. Interesting debate. Comments on your last post: Oil reserves previously known but non-economical, have become economical to extract as the market price of oil has increased, and as the extraction technology has advanced. The oil companies have in fact developed the required technology, anticipating the need to extract what used to be marginal. As far as drilling in the 0.01% of ANWR that would be needed, one reason it is attractive is that there is a pipeline system already pretty close to that location, that ties into the Alaska Pipeline. Regarding the off-shore rigs, while some new ones might need to be built, the first thing that would happen would be to move existing rigs from areas that are played out. Those rigs would be producing oil within two years. Oh, and regarding drilling in the areas that are already open for access – it doesn’t do any good to drill where there is no oil, dude.
Now, you clearly don’t want us to drill. So you must be in favor of continuing to send somewhere between $300 billion and $700 billion per year overseas? Because, make no mistake, we will burn the oil – we have to have it, at present, because our entire civilization is based on it. Why pay other countries when we can get it out of the ground here?
Your earlier post says that if we use less, it will create a surplus. Sorry, not going to happen. We may use less, but it won’t make a significant difference in the long run. Take me, for instance. No matter how you slice it, I have to drive to work, one way or the other. I bet this is true of you, too.
You and I are in agreement that we need to move to other technologies and quit using oil. I’m all in favor of that. We just differ in the way we’re going to get there.
I’m in favor of using American resources so we can make this transition without going broke, without causing economic collapse, and without funding other countries that don’t like us. I’d rather pay my neighbor (American oil company) than Venezuela or Iran (who really would like to destroy us). It’s for sure we’re going to pay somebody, because at the moment, we have to have oil to survive. Additionally, no matter how you slice it, opening up drilling would create many thousands of jobs, virtually overnight. Another bonus.
Your referenced list of oil wells only lists current wells. It does not list the Green River formation in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming that has a conservatively estimated 800,000,000,000 recoverable barrels of oil. It does list an estimated further 10,400,000,000 barrels at ANWR. Ignoring for the moment off shore sources, thats 810,400,000,000 barrels, divided by 20,000,000 BPD (your number) = 40,520 days = 111 years.
I didn’t make those numbers up. Do the math. We do have the resources to make a graceful, economical transition to alternative sources of energy.
-Popgun.
September 22, 2008 at 1:14 pm |
[...] Democrats have sandbagged every effort to solve the oil crisis. Even the measure that just got past the house is designed to minimize it, not to make it plentiful. Obama is on board with this one, too; although he flip-flopped once it became painfully obvious that the huge majority favor drilling now, and drilling everywhere. Obama even made a statement, when asked about it, that he would ”prefer that the rise in prices had not been so sudden.” (That may not be an exact quote). The Democrats don’t care that you have to pay a lot more for gas this year than last year. [...]