We have roads already, not hovercars, so an alternative vehicle will need wheels with tires on them, made from…petroleum! Also belts, hoses, etc.
Airplanes…how are they going to fly us around without jet fuel? Are we even talking about developing an alternate engine or source of fuel for them?
Heating oil…still use a lot of that too.
Lawn mowers…
Heck, there are probably a billion things (petroleum jelly) made from this stuff.
I know getting ourselves out of gasoline-powered cars is a good first step as they are likely the largest contributor to oil consumption (love to see a breakdown on that, btw), but we can’t act like once we all have hydrogen or electric cars that we will magically no longer need oil.
It sure would be nice for all of us to be driving safe hydrogen powered cars by 2020, no longer needing to import oil and getting by on our own supply for all the other things we need oil for.
But in order for that to happen, we’d need to start drilling now.
I am really, really, really a fan of the development of alternative energy, and I think we should have a crash program to develop it just like we had a crash program to land a man on the moon in the 60s. It should be our number one priority.
With that said, what the hell is so bad about offshore drilling in the first place? Haven’t most of the worst oil-related accidents involved tankers importing oil, not offshore rigs?
First of all, I too would love to see the pie chart that breaks the US consumption of oil, and what sectors that consumption occurs in.
Second, you are absolutely right. There are many things we consume that require oil. I disagree that your point validates the argument for drilling more. I think you point highlights the importance of transitioning to non gasoline-powered vehicles. Obviously that would drastically reduce the nation’s annual oil usage.
If we make that transition I’m confident (although I have nothing to substantiate my assertion) that we would be able to use our existing oil reserves and oil refining capabilities to manage the other uses.
I could be completely wrong about that (again, seeing that pie chart would probably help my argument considerably).
See here re environmental effects. There are also esthetic objections to the sight of the rigs – a big deal in Florida as so much of our state economy depends on tourism.
Environmental impact aside, I would counter by pointing out that the oil platforms visible from the beaches of southern California do not seem to adversely affect our tourism economy.
I do realize when I say, “Environmental impact aside…” I’m asking one to ignore a HUGE portion of the argument against offshore drilling, but I wanted to address the aesthetic impact directly.
Fair enough, we do have plenty of attractions that draw travelers. But cities like Newport Beach, Huntington Beach and Long Beach are destinations in their own right. From any of those beaches you can see oil rigs, but travelers still flock to them. And all of those locations require at least a little travel time to get to the typical southern California attractions, like Disneyland.
That being said, I’m willing to concede that my point is more of an apples to oranges comparison. Guess I’ll just have to travel to Florida to check out the beaches. Oh, wait, it’s humid and the east coast surf isn’t up to west coast surf. Never mind, I’ll just keep looking at my oil platforms.
Well, I’ll start off by admitting my bias; I’m a drilling engineer.
I think that we need to develop our off-shore resources particularly those in the Gulf of Mexico but I am against drilling in ANWAR. There is a large infrastructure in the Gulf to exploit the petroleum resources and initial wells could be drilled and put on line as soon as 6 months. Full development would take more time but some impact would be felt almost immediately. With closed loop systems that have zero drilling emissions and the ability to drill multiple wells off a single platform, the footprint from drilling and producing wells is drastically smaller then it was in the mid-nineties. I see little downside but a large possible upside.
ANWAR on the other hand has minimal infrastructure to use. In fact the natural gas produced on the North Slope of Alaska is either reinjected or burned because it is not economical to transport it to market. It would take years just to build pipelines connecting the new field and only partial production would ever make it to market. Until we are able to fully exploit the Northern Slope I see no reason to expand our half-assed production.
Drilling off California is slightly different then the Gulf because of the quality of the oil produced (it is of lower value) and the fact that most of the reservoirs are close enough to shore that several companies are drilling horizontal wells from shore to tap these reserves. I am in favor of allowing increased drilling from the platforms that already line the California coast and even their expansion so that more wells could be drilled but I believe that there will be economic limitations to what companies will be willing to do.
We can’t allow increased gas prices to cause us to react, without thinking, in any direction that may lessen our suffering we need to be thoughtful and increase our spending in the directions that will be most helpful. In the short term drilling in the Gulf of Mexico will have an impact, also incentives for reducing consumption. In the next decade exploitation of unconventional reservoirs (oil shales, coal bed methane, and tar sands) as well as an increase in use of alternative fuels. In the long run our best hope is to shrink our need for oil to the barest necessities.
People will whine about anything. They whine about seeing oil rigs. Boo Hoo. They also whine about the visual impact of wind turbines. Hell, people complain about the smell of fertilizer as they drive through farming regions. We need to get past this bullshit about being afraid to do something just because some stupid fuck doesn’t want to look at it or smell it during their 15 minute visit to the region. :rolleyes:
Seriously, if you want to consider the impact on this country, consider that we import roughly 12.5 million barrels of oil per day. At $140 per barrel, this is $1.75 billion dollars per day, or over $600 billion dollars per year that we’re paying to other nations for our oil fix. That’s a huge outflow of dollars, mostly to countries that are not exactly the best of friends or the best of people.
Any portion of that which we could reduce at this point and put back into our own economy would be a huge boon.
At $20 a barrel, I wouldn’t worry about the outflow. At $140 a barrel, it becomes problematic.
Do we have refining capability such that additional oil reserves, once being pumped, could add to the oil supply? Somewhere along the line, I’ve gotten the impression that refining was as much if not more of a bottle neck than pumping the oil itself.
I agree with Chimera, I think if nothing else, it would help our economy to have more domestic oil production. Also, I don’t really see what’s so bad about drilling in ANWR, either. For what it’s worth, a high school friend of mine told me his dad worked on the Trans-Alaska pipeline and that according to him, the populations of animals nearby actually increased after the pipeline was built because the heating system for the pipeline gave off warmth and animals actually congregated to it, and their mating was somehow stimulated by that. Don’t know if it’s actually true or not.
Possibly showing my ignorance here: Oil is sold on a world market; does it matter whether a given barrel of oil is pumped out of a well in Saudi Arabia or within sight of a Florida beach?
I plead ignorance also, but if what you are saying is the case, than would increased oil production by the US have any actual effect on the price of each barrel? All other oil producing countries would have to do is decrease production to increase demand and prices would still be high.
Well, if that’s the case, wouldn’t countries just buy more US oil? So even if the price stays the same, more of the market share is going to the US, meaning other oil-pumping countries would see less money come their way.
It’s a matter of who gets the money. Some Saudi prince, the Iranian Clerics, Hugo Chavez, or an American Oil Company?
Now there is a point of intelligence in buying foreign oil. It saves our own reserves for later in the cycle or for national emergencies (such as World War), and it gives under-developed countries a large income with which they can theoretically develop themselves into modern nations (or squander it foolishly on palaces and showcases).
But there also comes the point where the outflow of cash becomes a bleeding wound on your economy. Again, $20 a barrel = $91 billion a year = manageable and less than our outflow to China. $140 a barrel = >$600 billion a year = serious danger to our economy and the value of a dollar.
To be sure, as others have said, the long term solution is to find alternative energy sources and reduce our dependence on oil (foreign or domestic). But such a thing is neither easy, nor accomplished overnight. We can’t simply hand-wave it away and stop buying oil, nor can we build an entire (fictitious) alternative energy supply just by throwing money at it.
Yes to drilling. Drill everywhere. Make sure that everyone can get a good long look at every bit of earth that’s drawn up and every drop of oil that’s drawn out. No mistakes. See, because no matter how much we’re “forced” by high prices to seek alternative energies, the ones most efficient and the ones most readily available will always be the ones we seek out first because the market is driven by profit, not rabid environmentalism.
Personally, I’m all for the planet, yay earth and whatnot, but nothing we cut ourselves out of is going to keep China and India from their voracious demands. They give less than a shite about the environment and we won’t be able to get them to care until they’re all obese and driving SUV’s
We, by ‘weaning’ ourselves from oil (which we ain’t, as **FoieGras[/b[ has pointed out) are handing our economic future over to the world and saying 'hey, it’s up to you guys, whaddya think?"
With regards to the environment, for offshore drilling in the US all the rigs are now zero discharge, basically nothing, drilling cuttings, washdown fluids, nada goes over the edge. The rigs are also required to cut down on diesel fumes emmisions as well, so the industry is moving in the right direction with that one.
With respect to produce water, referenced in the wikipedia link, regulations are comming to ensure produced fluid is reinjected. (drill cuttings are also reinjected these days), same goes for flaring.
With regards to visual impact the sites are quite a way offshore (40-50 km is my understanding) however for areas closer to land the THUMS project offshore Long Beach looks like this. Not perfect, not a total disaster either (ok bueaty eye of beholder and all that)
Personally Iagree that this is a pure election gimmick and we would probably be looking at least 5 years from seismic to an onstream platform.
That said it would be benficial to allow seismic and exploration/delineation drilling to get a better handle on the reservoirs and proove up reserves, that would at least provide some comfort to the markets that additional production could become available.
I mentioned in another thread, 10-15 years ago I would not think it would be wise to let the industy anywhere near these areas. Today, I think we have a better handle on loss control, substantially better technology to handle the environmental risks, and a much greater environmental awareness combined with some big sticks to enforce compliance.
I don’t understand this argument. Who cares how long it takes? If we’d started drilling in ANWR when Carter signed the legislation to do so, maybe we wouldn’t be in this mess now.
It’s the old argument, “I can’t go to law school…I’ll be 45 when I graduate in three years.” To which I reply, “And how old will you be in three years if you don’t go to law school?”
Because simply put there aren’t enough reserves in ANWR (or offshore) to make a big enough impact on our current demand. Oh, I agree with NBC…we probably could and should be looking into developing them, if for no other reason than to find out the exact extent of the reserves. Also, the injection of capital (to those evil Big Oil companies) is also desirable. But it won’t solve or even put a dent in our real problem because even if you could bring every drop of oil to the market tomorrow (which isn’t going to happen), it would only ease speculation a touch…and would only have a minimal effect on the current price of oil in the medium and long term. It’s a political stunt to get people who are worried about the current price of gas to think the Republican’s have a plan (or even a clue) how to ‘fix’ this problem.
Had we developed these reserves during the Carter administration we would have completely wasted them as there were several oil gluts between then and now…and they would most likely be well drawn down today instead of still, you know, in reserve.