PDA

View Full Version : Oil Thicker Than Blood?



Julie
02 Oct 05,, 14:01
Newsweek

Oct. 10, 2005 issue - Amid worries over rising fuel costs, congressional Republicans are pressing for a vote as early as this week to roll back a moratorium on oil and gas exploration off the nation's coasts. The move could prompt a showdown between President George W. Bush, whose administration is pressing for coastal oil exploration, and his brother Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who opposes offshore drilling in his state. Last week the House Resources Committee approved legislation that would immediately lift a ban on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, other coastal waters and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Although the bill would let coastal states maintain a buffer zone for oil rigs, an amendment would allow natural-gas drilling to come within five miles of the Florida coast. Governor Bush opposes the bill for fear that it could "encourage drilling in protected areas." A senior administration official in Washington, who requested anonymity due to the delicate subject matter, tells NEWSWEEK, "It's something that we are reviewing." Neither Jeb Bush's office nor the White House would say if the governor had recently discussed the issue with the president. Yet some opponents of the plan worry that oil may be thicker than blood when it comes to the governor's clout. "The president is respectful of Jeb's position," says Rep. Mark Foley, a Florida Republican who opposes offshore drilling. "But this is a nation of 50 states. You have to make the best decision for everybody, not just one state."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9557171/site/newsweek/

Bluesman
02 Oct 05,, 19:14
That this country has oil reserves within its reach and control that are going unexploited is criminal. We own it, we need it. We know how to recover it without destroying the environment. GO FOR IT, AND DO IT NOW!!! :mad:

astralis
02 Oct 05,, 19:19
unfortunately, the amount of oil in ANWR will, by even the most optimistic estimates, only last for weeks given current US demand. it is like treating a few light symptoms of a deadly disease. as has been repeated by the likes of friedman and zakaria, we need a manhattan project regarding other sources of energy years ago. our dependency on oil is a real stranglehold on american foreign policy.

Bluesman
02 Oct 05,, 19:28
unfortunately, the amount of oil in ANWR will, by even the most optimistic estimates, only last for weeks given current US demand. it is like treating a few light symptoms of a deadly disease. as has been repeated by the likes of friedman and zakaria, we need a manhattan project regarding other sources of energy years ago.

Incorrect. ANWR has VAST amounts of recoverable crude. And, like the reserves off of Florida, if they had been developed years ago, we would not find ourselves in this intolerable position re: foreign oil.


our dependency on oil is a real stranglehold on american foreign policy.

Also incorrect. Our dependency on FOREIGN oil is a real stranglehold on American foreign policy. But if we develop what we control - Gulf and Alaskan reserves - how much better off are we? LOTS, not the miniscule amounts claimed by opponents to ANWR development, or off-shore drilling.

We have the answers to our own problems.

astralis
02 Oct 05,, 20:04
bluesman,



Incorrect. ANWR has VAST amounts of recoverable crude. And, like the reserves off of Florida, if they had been developed years ago, we would not find ourselves in this intolerable position re: foreign oil.

USGS believes there are 10.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil in ANWR. current US consumption of oil stands at approximately 20.7 million barrels per day, and demand grows at roughly 1.5% a year. that is approximately enough for ~70 weeks of usage. again, not enough to do as much as you think. also, given that these oil fields will take time to develop, initial production won't take place till 2010 at earliest; it would peak in 20-30 years. US oil consumption will most certainly go up dramatically in the next 20-30 years, making ANWR's impact still smaller yet.



Also incorrect. Our dependency on FOREIGN oil is a real stranglehold on American foreign policy. But if we develop what we control - Gulf and Alaskan reserves - how much better off are we? LOTS, not the miniscule amounts claimed by opponents to ANWR development, or off-shore drilling.

We have the answers to our own problems.

yes, yes, of course it's foreign oil that's the problem. however, roughly 60% of US oil comes from abroad. i have doubts that gulf and alaskan reserves can fill this gap. and assuming that it could, at such high levels of tapping, how long would those reserves last? we have, including ANWR, a total of 21.9 billion barrels of proven reserves. given current and US future demand, how long will that last? oil is non-renewable after all; again, opening up domestic supplies of oil is only a treatment for the symptoms. it won't do anything to cure a medium-long term illness, an illness whose effect that will only increase if we do nothing but treat the symptoms.

BanliochFear
02 Oct 05,, 20:16
I think we need to drill our available resources to stave off any current fuel crises while also having a "Manhattan Project" to refine other fuel sources. Sharing our new tech with our allies would reduce demand for foreign oil and cripple many of the Middle Eastern economies. Without rich Saudi donations to terrorists, that would limit their activities. However, we do need to use oil now and should take every available step to exploit our own resources. For long term security, a new fuel source would be amazing and refreshing.

astralis
02 Oct 05,, 21:32
I think we need to drill our available resources to stave off any current fuel crises while also having a "Manhattan Project" to refine other fuel sources

that's a good idea. however, as the current fuel crisis actually is not as serious as all that, it is probably a better idea for now to increase imports from friendly countries such as canada and mexico, and save them in the strategic reserve. our domestic oil supply should act as our very own strategic reserve, to be tapped when a crisis truly hits. right now, with OPEC still opening its tap, we haven't tasted a true oil crisis since the 1970s. however, political instability in the region and the inevitable future scarcity of oil will demand a good reserve while we develop technologies that will bridge the oil gap.

see fareed zakaria's excellent article regarding this matter:

http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/082905.html

i disagree with his idea that no manhattan project is necessary. current technology is fine, especially if we implement them across the board; however, this only delays the day of reckoning: solutions to oil as a resource will need to be found sooner or later. why not make the investments sooner, while we still have oil, rather than later, when oil becomes more scarce?

Leader
02 Oct 05,, 21:49
Crude oil prices are just part of the problem. We should explore and develop the oil assets in our country, but that's not a complete solution. We also need to reduce consumption, increase refining capacity, and cut gas taxes.

indianguy4u
02 Oct 05,, 22:14
Whats big problem, drive & drive in those gasguzzlers SUV'trucks'. Who cares for per gallon figure, whats more imp is that is should be more that 5000lb beast like the one below.

astralis
03 Oct 05,, 00:44
We also need to reduce consumption, increase refining capacity, and cut gas taxes.

cutting gas taxes will very assuredly cause an increase in consumption, as price will fall. i like bush's idea of giving out rebates on hybrids; this should be set into place while hybrids become competitively economically on the market. but again, this will only be a middle-term solution.

Leader
03 Oct 05,, 00:50
cutting gas taxes will very assuredly cause an increase in consumption, as price will fall.

Correct, however, what I envision is a quid pro quo. The government cuts fuel prices by cutting taxes and increases fuel mileage standards. People would pay more for cars but less for fuel.

astralis
03 Oct 05,, 01:13
Correct, however, what I envision is a quid pro quo. The government cuts fuel prices by cutting taxes and increases fuel mileage standards. People would pay more for cars but less for fuel.

interesting, but i'm not sure what effect that will have. increasing fuel mileage standards would take some time to go into effect, as cars would need to be re-designed. at the same time, less gas tax now would spur an increase in fuel consumption with the cars we have today, and perhaps depress demand for new cars ("well, now that gas is cheaper, we don't really need to worry about gas efficiency as much...") with fuel-saving features.

it really depends on which lobby one would rather upset, the oil lobby or the automotive lobby. i believe a switch the other way around, by putting gas on taxes while giving out rebates on fuel-mileage cars, one would create a double incentive to conserve gas and get better cars while they're at it, too.

Leader
03 Oct 05,, 01:24
interesting, but i'm not sure what effect that will have. increasing fuel mileage standards would take some time to go into effect, as cars would need to be re-designed. at the same time, less gas tax now would spur an increase in fuel consumption with the cars we have today, and perhaps depress demand for new cars ("well, now that gas is cheaper, we don't really need to worry about gas efficiency as much...") with fuel-saving features.

It's a process. Making it happen overnight would be a mistake.

Praxus
03 Oct 05,, 01:42
cutting gas taxes will very assuredly cause an increase in consumption, as price will fall. i like bush's idea of giving out rebates on hybrids; this should be set into place while hybrids become competitively economically on the market. but again, this will only be a middle-term solution.

A decrease in the tax on gasoline will increase consumption, but who is to say that is a bad thing?

By increasing consumption, profit will increase. When profit increases they have more money to invest in extracting the harder to reach oil.

astralis
03 Oct 05,, 06:08
A decrease in the tax on gasoline will increase consumption, but who is to say that is a bad thing?

By increasing consumption, profit will increase. When profit increases they have more money to invest in extracting the harder to reach oil.


no, profit is the real motive why they are not investing in extracting the harder to reach oil today. do you think the oil companies of today are low on money, and that's why they're not doing so today? the reason why they're not investing in harder to reach oil is simply because that oil is unprofitable. it will only become profitable if gasoline prices go up, way up. otherwise, if consumption increases, profit will increase for the oil companies; they will have absolutely no reason to invest in such costly ventures if their normal oil operations garner them more money.

that's yet another advantage to increasing gasoline prices: oil companies, and auto companies, would be forced to innovate, stay on their toes. it would hurt the american economy in the short term, but it would very certainly help in the long term by making those companies invest in future technologies.