Reasons why not to drill for domestic oil

[Parkbandit]

Just wanted to get the reasons from the liberal minded folks as to why we should not drill our own resources. Hopefully, we can have a frank and open discussion about each point.

So far, I've heard:

1) Destruction of the 'prestine paradise'

2) It will take 5+ years until we get the oil to market

3) We can't drill our way out of this crisis

4) It won't break us of our oil addiction.

[Warriorbird]

6. We might need it later when we invade Iran.

7. Something unfortunate and terroristic affects Saudi Arabia, Canada, or Mexico

[Gan]

8. The SNAKES man! The Snakes!

9. It will piss off OPEC.

10. It will just make Exxon exec's richer.

[NocturnalRob]

11. Gives the tree-huggers something new to bitch about

[crb]

Barack Obama claims that high oil prices are not a problem, that the problem was merely that they rose too quickly. He let slip with that statement a core liberal belief that they mostly just whisper about. Liberals want high oil prices, because high oil prices lead to alternative developments, and the environmental groups tell the liberals that these alternatives are good (the naive and malleable limosine liberals are so easy to influence). Who sits on the boards of environmental groups? Environmental entreprenuers who want their products mandated by government (http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120882720657033391.html) (and people think only oil companies are powered by money? The #1 stock for 2007 was a solar company, it went up around 600%).

I find it hard to reconcile that position with these:



3) We can't drill our way out of this crisis

4) It won't break us of our oil addiction.

If indeed it won't matter as they like to shrilly state, why are they worried it would lower prices and then hinder the development of alternatives?

Either it would help oil prices, or it wouldn't, can't have it both ways Obama.

[CrystalTears]

12. Allows liberals to be broken records about invasions and wars.

[Seran]

There is no reason to not drill our own resources, but it is correct in saying we will not see a direct benefit for several years until the infrastructure is in place to allow the oil to flow into our market. Even in ANWR with several prominant oil companies already drilling in the state, they would need several months of drilling test wells, laying pipe, and getting a cogen plant operational before the oil would even begin to be extracted.

[Gan]

You're forgetting about the ICE ROAD TRUCKERS!

FEARZ THE ICE ROAD TRUCKERS!

They will get the product to market.

:whistle:

[Fallen]

People's sigs are so long it makes me think there is atleast 2 other posts after the last one I read as I scroll down.

[Miscast]

This is why I take the train.

[Gan]

People's sigs are so long it makes me think there is atleast 2 other posts after the last one I read as I scroll down.

This is why I dong view sigs anymore. Even my own. :(

[El Burro]

This is why I dong view sigs anymore. Even my own. :(

???

[Celephais]

People's sigs are so long it makes me think there is atleast 2 other posts after the last one I read as I scroll down.
We have a rule about a pixel limit for the height of an image in the sig... yet somehow it's perfectly fine to have multiple images stacked ontop of each other, or enough quotes to go over that height. The max height is 250px I believe, my sig changes heights between 200-250px as a reference.

[Fallen]

People that have super long sigs YET have signatures blocked are fucking evil, evil people.

Edited to add, LOOK AT MY SIG YOU FUCKS

[Miasmal Forest, Hanging Tree]
A great, grotesquely malformed oak tree towers overhead. Skeletons and bodies in advanced states of decomposition dangle upside down from the tree's contorted branches like obscene fruit. Scattered among them are ankle and footbones still attached to fraying lengths of rope. Beneath the tree is a jumble of mouldering bones and fallen skeletons. The stink of corrupt flesh hangs heavy in the fog.

[Kembal]

This reason is for offshore oil drilling on the Gulf Coast (and the southern East Coast) specifically: Hurricanes will cause massive oil spills. Louisiana had some nasty ones after Katrina.

[Danical]

Gan doesn't like viewing dongs anymore. :(

[AnticorRifling]

Gan doesn't like viewing dongs anymore. :(

That's a lie.

[crb]

This reason is for offshore oil drilling on the Gulf Coast (and the southern East Coast) specifically: Hurricanes will cause massive oil spills. Louisiana had some nasty ones after Katrina.

They we're bad and were contained. There aren't any volunteers off the coast of louisiana brushing down oil soaked gators are there?

[Warriorbird]

No. There were a lot of fish/shellfish/shrimp killed however.

[Kembal]

They we're bad and were contained. There aren't any volunteers off the coast of louisiana brushing down oil soaked gators are there?

Well, considering it's 3 years since the hurricane, it'd be fucking horrible if they weren't contained. There were 44 onshore oil spills that hit SE Louisiana. (there were 124 offshore oil spills)

Contained or not, that level of oil spills would put a major crimp in the economy of any state that relied on tourism. (i.e. Florida)

[Keller]

(6) Our national reserves should be reserved for national emergencies. [that's the most important one for me. It follows that I think we should explore all options in the Gulf if that store will be tapped by China in Cuban waters, but we should allow purely domestic owned reserves to be reserved until there is truly an emergency.]

[Gan]

Gan doesn't like viewing dongs anymore. :(


That's a lie.

Slander! *(the second part)

[crb]

Well, considering it's 3 years since the hurricane, it'd be fucking horrible if they weren't contained. There were 44 onshore oil spills that hit SE Louisiana. (there were 124 offshore oil spills)

Contained or not, that level of oil spills would put a major crimp in the economy of any state that relied on tourism. (i.e. Florida)
Thankfully no one is suggesting we drill offshore in Florida.

McCain merely wants the people of florida (and georgia, etc etc) to have the option to drill offshore if they want to.

Obviously, if the people of Florida decide it is worth the risk to tourism money to increase oil money then that is their choice, isn't it?

Plus... China is already drilling 45 miles off of key west, who do you think will do things cleaner and safer? Us or the chinese?

[Tisket]

Plus... China is already drilling 45 miles off of key west

Plainview: Drainage! Drainage, Eli! Drained dry, you boy! If you have a milkshake and I have a milkshake and I have a straw and my straw reaches across the room and starts to drink your milkshake. I drink your milkshake! I drink it up!

[Kembal]

Thankfully no one is suggesting we drill offshore in Florida.

McCain merely wants the people of florida (and georgia, etc etc) to have the option to drill offshore if they want to.

Obviously, if the people of Florida decide it is worth the risk to tourism money to increase oil money then that is their choice, isn't it?

Plus... China is already drilling 45 miles off of key west, who do you think will do things cleaner and safer? Us or the chinese?

Uh, China is not drilling 45 miles off of Key West or any other part of Florida. Even the Vice President, after making this claim, has reversed himself and said this is not the case.

[Latrinsorm]

You know how those damn "chinese" are, Kembal. Can't trust 'em!! They're probably NINJA drilling.

[Deathravin]

#1 reason to not drill for domestic oil... PB wants it.

Good `nuff for me.

[Parkbandit]

#1 reason to not drill for domestic oil... PB wants it.

Good `nuff for me.

I want you to live a long, long life...

[Deathravin]

Oh, why thank yo... oaaaahhh... wait a minute... Oh, you so clever... Mesa no smart like yousa... ooooh... mesa bow down to kiss feet of masta of comebacks...

[Tisket]

Oh, why thank yo... oaaaahhh... wait a minute... Oh, you so clever... Mesa no smart like yousa... ooooh... mesa bow down to kiss feet of masta of comebacks...

Jesus, JarJar Binks-like comments are as annoying in text as actually hearing them.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

They come up with a car that drives like my Mustang and pulls like my Dodge quad cab that gets uber mileage, I'm buying it. I really love my vehicles, the only thing I dislike is the poor mileage; 15 for the pickup, and 22.5 for the stang.

[Warriorbird]

Well... multiple examples exist. They're just way too expensive. The cool thing about electrics is all of their power is always available. There's no peaks and valleys.

[Gan]

Well... multiple examples exist. They're just way too expensive. The cool thing about electrics is all of their power is always available. There's no peaks and valleys.

Always available, just finite. And not readily renewable (like refilling a gas tank and continuing your trip).

I'd like to see battery/power cell technology improve before I make an investment into electric. There's no doubting the power of electric motors, if weight (or battery) isnt an issue, you can have an electric motor that can dwarf the horsepower of a petrolium fueled engine.

[Kembal]

Always available, just finite. And not readily renewable (like refilling a gas tank and continuing your trip).

I'd like to see battery/power cell technology improve before I make an investment into electric. There's no doubting the power of electric motors, if weight (or battery) isnt an issue, you can have an electric motor that can dwarf the horsepower of a petrolium fueled engine.

If GM is able to pull off what they want to with the Chevy Volt, you'll find something pretty close to what you're looking for.

There's a pretty good article in the Atlantic about GM's effort right now...here's the link:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/general-motors

[Gan]

Very interesting.

Long article, but good. Thx.

[Parkbandit]

Barack Obama claims that high oil prices are not a problem, that the problem was merely that they rose too quickly. He let slip with that statement a core liberal belief that they mostly just whisper about. Liberals want high oil prices, because high oil prices lead to alternative developments, and the environmental groups tell the liberals that these alternatives are good (the naive and malleable limosine liberals are so easy to influence). Who sits on the boards of environmental groups? Environmental entreprenuers who want their products mandated by government (http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120882720657033391.html) (and people think only oil companies are powered by money? The #1 stock for 2007 was a solar company, it went up around 600%).

I find it hard to reconcile that position with these:



If indeed it won't matter as they like to shrilly state, why are they worried it would lower prices and then hinder the development of alternatives?

Either it would help oil prices, or it wouldn't, can't have it both ways Obama.

I really liked the closing quote from that link crb:

"We all have a responsibility to be environmental stewards. But that stewardship requires that science, not political agendas, drive our public policy."

I couldn't agree more.

[Warriorbird]

Me either.

:)

[Clove]

Barack Obama claims that high oil prices are not a problem, that the problem was merely that they rose too quickly. He let slip with that statement a core liberal belief that they mostly just whisper about. Liberals want high oil prices, because high oil prices lead to alternative developments, and the environmental groups tell the liberals that these alternatives are good (the naive and malleable limosine liberals are so easy to influence). Who sits on the boards of environmental groups? Environmental entreprenuers who want their products mandated by government (http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120882720657033391.html) (and people think only oil companies are powered by money? The #1 stock for 2007 was a solar company, it went up around 600%).

If indeed it won't matter as they like to shrilly state, why are they worried it would lower prices and then hinder the development of alternatives?

Either it would help oil prices, or it wouldn't, can't have it both ways Obama.As I've pointed out often, alternative energy solutions for vehicles won't develop until oil becomes expensive enough for consumers to be seriously interested in alternatives. The next question that should be asked is, do we need alternative energy solutions? To put it another way, should we reduce our oil consumption? If you believe that vehicle emissions are at unacceptable levels the answer is "yes". If you believe that we shouldn't be reliant on other countries (or cartels) for our supply of a crucial natural resource the answer is "yes". It really gets down to whether or not it's a direction we need to take ourselves in or not.

Of course someone is going to profit from it, and if you're in a group that's been pushing for it why WOULDN'T you invest in it? While this may be a reason for bias, it doesn't speak to the basic question: Is this the goal we should be focused on?

Otherwise all you're observing is that some of its proponents are personally invested in the outcome and it distracts from the key issue.

Frankly, Obama was stating the obvious when he commented on price rising too quickly but he does have a point. I do personally feel we need to have a serious plan for reducing our dependency on gasoline and I don't think it will happen naturally in the market without great upheaval, or deliberate government planning. Personally I would like to see the following:

A maximum effort to exploit our domestic oil resources.
Expanded refining.
Legislation changes to close loopholes in futures and commodities trading.
No more tax deductions for oil companies that invest in alternative energy R&D. Use their taxes for that instead.
A gradual gas tax increase over 20 or 30 years aimed at artificially raising the price of gasoline to encourage businesses and consumers to seek out and demand alternative energy vehicles, while at the same time providing excess revenue to be used for R&D and incentives.

[Parkbandit]

A gradual gas tax increase over 20 to 30 years isn't the answer... as we will simply adapt to the new price. A BIG price increase, like the one we are experiencing now, is the only way to bring about change the way you believe will happen.

[Daniel]

but you'll destroy the economy!!!!111!

[Parkbandit]

but you'll destroy the economy!!!!111!


I think it's still a retarded idea.. thanks for putting it out there.

Oh, did you know that the US military uses something like 60% of the total US energy!?

Fucking dipshit.

[Clove]

A gradual gas tax increase over 20 to 30 years isn't the answer... as we will simply adapt to the new price. A BIG price increase, like the one we are experiencing now, is the only way to bring about change the way you believe will happen.Not when cheaper alternatives begin to show up. Don't be silly PB.

[Parkbandit]

Not when cheaper alternatives begin to show up. Don't be silly PB.


Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. I'm concerned about the here and now, not some magical future where we get all of our energy from magical pixie dust.

Gradually artificially increasing the price of oil will not have the effect you think it will. We will just gradually increase the pay we get to compensate for the increase.. and the companies will just pass on the increase in price of their goods and services to the consumer. We will adapt.. like we always have. I remember when gas was less than a dollar a gallon.

Dramatically taxing the shit out of oil will have the effect you desire, but at the cost of the world's economy. There has to be some middle ground where we can still maintain our economy AND push more money into the R&D of alternatives.

[Clove]

Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. I'm concerned about the here and now, not some magical future where we get all of our energy from magical pixie dust.

Gradually artificially increasing the price of oil will not have the effect you think it will. We will just gradually increase the pay we get to compensate for the increase.. and the companies will just pass on the increase in price of their goods and services to the consumer. We will adapt.. like we always have. I remember when gas was less than a dollar a gallon.Yes we will adapt- by manufacturing cars that go further on less and reducing our consumption.

Look, if you knew that in 10 years gasoline would be no less than 10 dollars a gallon and each year you saw it go up 60-80 cents a gallon- would your next vehicle purchase be a gas-guzzling pickup truck? How would you feel about that job with the 30 mile commute? What if you were a manufacturer? If you -knew- that fuel was being purposefully made more and more expensive- where would YOUR market focus be?

Now let's get back to the extra tax revenue. We'd be taxing more than we need to keep the infrastructure up... so what do we do with that extra revenue? Put it into incentives for industry to produce more efficient and alternatively fueled cars, and into incentives for consumers to buy more efficient/alternatively fueled cars.

You do the same with the extra taxes we receive from oil companies who are no longer able to get deductions for R&D.

The problem comes when you eventually have to ween off the incentives so you can start paying for infrastructure again. At some point you reach a critical mass where so few consumers are paying taxes on gasoline that you have to look for a different structure to "fuel" your road repairs, bridge building etc.

I'm interested in the here and now too- I'm not talking about pixie dust you condescending old man :P. Hence my first priorities, fixing the futures and commodities trading loopholes and exploiting as much domestic oil opportunities as possible.

Taxing the shit out of oil increasingly over time would work just fine- it just doesn't need to go up 75 cents in 90 days.