What does it matter where it comes from? Does it matter who builds your car? I for one would rather see the oil purchased from uncle sugar than cousin abdul. Maybe we could put the profits into a social security lock box. But you miss the point; what would happen to the price of corn if we decreased demand by outlawing ethanol. Correct, it would drop like a rock. The same thing happens if you increase supply. You want domestic production because it will increase supply (lower prices) and americans will be the ones paid to drill it (good for the economy).

As far as the quotes of 70-100 million acres under lease not being utilized. You would have to define utilized. The dems are defining it as not producing oil. There are a lot of steps to go before you get to the oil production phase. The first step is God has to put the oil there. Can anyone give me a reason for not producing oil on your leased property if it is available in quantities that you can make a proffit on. Keep in mind if you don't use your lease it expires after 5 years and someone else can come in and take advantage of your exploration.

Drilling in ANWAR requires only 3% of the land to tap the oil.

Not one drop of production oil was spilled in the gulf of mexico during or after Hurricane Katrina.

Cuba, Vietnam, and China (all well known environmental titans) are getting ready to drill off the cost of Florida.

 

I just looked at up the info for ANWR. The whole thing is 19.6 million acres. 2,000 acres is what they want to use for a drilling operation. Divide 2,000 by 19.6M and you get about .0001

Now the paper in the printer right next to where you're sitting, if it is 8.5X11, has 93.5 square in. Multiply that by .0001 and you get, rounded off, .01 inches squared--or the area enclosed by a square 1/10 of an inch each side.

If you print a page with nothing but a capital "O", you'll have a nice visual image of the ratio of drilling area to ANWR. I'm sure the polar bears can squeeze by without that.

I went to the zoo so you'd better double check my math.

WW

 

I forgot: Times New Roman 12

 

The reason we are producing less today is not because we are running out. We are producing less because the most promising areas to drill are off limits due to gov. regulations.

Allowing exploration and drilling in productive areas (off shore) would increase production. From the 1980s to the present there has been so much gov. regulation and opposition to drilling and exploration that there is not enough incentive for oil campanies increase production. And Obama wants to impose huge taxes on oil companies profits! Kinda understandable though, since he actually thinks high gas prices is a good thing.

If the US gov would show they are serious about relaxing regulations against oil and encourage drilling in all available productive areas, and promoting alt. energy like nuclear, coal, biofuel, hydrogen it would lower oil prices immediately. Last week prices went up $3 in one day simply because of fears of Israel attacking Iran, if the speculators knew we (US) were serious about producing more oil prices would drop.

The idea that the world is at it's max oil output is a joke. The saudis and the rest of the middle east can increase production anytime they want to; why would they want to? There is no shortage of oil anywhere. Is there any gas company anywhere that can not buy enough oil?

 

BINGO !we have a winner .
BTW if we do start to drill for oil it STAYS here !
Absolutely amazing to me that a small group of individuals can keep a country hostage as long as it has ,but then again you tell a lie enough times ppl start to beleive said lie.

 

I'm hearing lots of pretty ideas/theories here about how additional drilling is a solution, but no data. The fundamental question is how is additional drilling, particularly off-shore, going to offset price? How?

Here's what the politicians/analysts on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc., aren't telling you. Twenty years ago in this country your average drilling rig/platform was retired by age 25. Today, in the United States, your average rig/platform is 27 years old. So, our rigs our extremely old, even if there was a dramatic amount of oil in the OCS (That's Outer Continental Shelf for those not in oil), we won't be able to produce rigs fast enough to offer up the sort of extraction/production that we need to sustain our consumption here in the U.S.

...And consumption is our primary undoing here. World oil production has flattened out @ 85 million bbl/day back in 2005. In other words, we haven't been able to produce any more than that since, despite our best global exploration/production efforts. In the U.S., we consume 21 million bbl/day, that's 1/4 of the world's oil production. We're 5 percent of the world's population. See the problem?

Now here's where it gets real interesting. The politicians should have known better, because a lot of people who were dismissed as kooks years ago told 'em this would happen. But politicians don't take measures to mitigate future problems; They are fundamentally reactionary creatures. This is exactly what's going on right now. McCain, as an example, was always staunchly opposed to offshore drilling by our coasts...now he's running in a presidential election, he's got 4-5 dollar fuel, people are nervous. Now he wants offshore drilling, not because it's the prudent thing to do, but because it gets him votes. And, of course, your average American voter falls for it because their IQ is noticeably on the left side of the bell-curve.

So, lets assume, drilling rigs and platforms just magically appear over night. We drill the OCS extensively. This effort will sustain our current oil consumption here in the U.S. for another 10 years, that's it. I'll be 40 years old then...dealing w/ the same problem...again. More drilling, obviously, delays the inevitable. I'd rather we focus on a more comprehensive solution to our energy situation so we don't have to keep re-visiting the same problems over and over again.

The analysts on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and the politicians of course, are so far behind on the energy crisis we're facing, it's not even funny. They're all out to lunch in my view. We will pay for their lack of leadership/initiative.

 

Mr. Bush, Lead or Leave
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: June 22, 2008
Two years ago, President Bush declared that America was “addicted to oil,” and, by gosh, he was going to do something about it. Well, now he has. Now we have the new Bush energy plan: “Get more addicted to oil.”

Actually, it’s more sophisticated than that: Get Saudi Arabia, our chief oil pusher, to up our dosage for a little while and bring down the oil price just enough so the renewable energy alternatives can’t totally take off. Then try to strong arm Congress into lifting the ban on drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

It’s as if our addict-in-chief is saying to us: “C’mon guys, you know you want a little more of the good stuff. One more hit, baby. Just one more toke on the ole oil pipe. I promise, next year, we’ll all go straight. I’ll even put a wind turbine on my presidential library. But for now, give me one more pop from that drill, please, baby. Just one more transfusion of that sweet offshore crude.”

It is hard for me to find the words to express what a massive, fraudulent, pathetic excuse for an energy policy this is. But it gets better. The president actually had the gall to set a deadline for this drug deal:

“I know the Democratic leaders have opposed some of these policies in the past,” Mr. Bush said. “Now that their opposition has helped drive gas prices to record levels, I ask them to reconsider their positions. If Congressional leaders leave for the Fourth of July recess without taking action, they will need to explain why $4-a-gallon gasoline is not enough incentive for them to act.”

This from a president who for six years resisted any pressure on Detroit to seriously improve mileage standards on its gas guzzlers; this from a president who’s done nothing to encourage conservation; this from a president who has so neutered the Environmental Protection Agency that the head of the E.P.A. today seems to be in a witness-protection program. I bet there aren’t 12 readers of this newspaper who could tell you his name or identify him in a police lineup.

But, most of all, this deadline is from a president who hasn’t lifted a finger to broker passage of legislation that has been stuck in Congress for a year, which could actually impact America’s energy profile right now — unlike offshore oil that would take years to flow — and create good tech jobs to boot.

That bill is H.R. 6049 — “The Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008,” which extends for another eight years the investment tax credit for installing solar energy and extends for one year the production tax credit for producing wind power and for three years the credits for geothermal, wave energy and other renewables.

These critical tax credits for renewables are set to expire at the end of this fiscal year and, if they do, it will mean thousands of jobs lost and billions of dollars of investments not made. “Already clean energy projects in the U.S. are being put on hold,” said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association.

People forget, wind and solar power are here, they work, they can go on your roof tomorrow. What they need now is a big U.S. market where lots of manufacturers have an incentive to install solar panels and wind turbines — because the more they do, the more these technologies would move down the learning curve, become cheaper and be able to compete directly with coal, oil and nuclear, without subsidies.

That seems to be exactly what the Republican Party is trying to block, since the Senate Republicans — sorry to say, with the help of John McCain — have now managed to defeat the renewal of these tax credits six different times.

Of course, we’re going to need oil for years to come. That being the case, I’d prefer — for geopolitical reasons — that we get as much as possible from domestic wells. But our future is not in oil, and a real president wouldn’t be hectoring Congress about offshore drilling today. He’d be telling the country a much larger truth:

“Oil is poisoning our climate and our geopolitics, and here is how we’re going to break our addiction: We’re going to set a floor price of $4.50 a gallon for gasoline and $100 a barrel for oil. And that floor price is going to trigger massive investments in renewable energy — particularly wind, solar panels and solar thermal. And we’re also going to go on a crash program to dramatically increase energy efficiency, to drive conservation to a whole new level and to build more nuclear power. And I want every Democrat and every Republican to join me in this endeavor.”

That’s what a real president would do. He’d give us a big strategic plan to end our addiction to oil and build a bipartisan coalition to deliver it. He certainly wouldn’t be using his last days in office to threaten Congressional Democrats that if they don’t approve offshore drilling by the Fourth of July recess, they will be blamed for $4-a-gallon gas. That is so lame. That is an energy policy so unworthy of our Independence Day.

 

Nice read MacMan...

 

If you are in favor of drilling, at least go onto Newt Gringridge website and sign the petition for "Drill Here Drill Now. Maybe it won't do anything, but it only takes 45 seconds out of your day. And I can only image how many seconds are wasted on APC (no disrespect).

 

The left of 1960: We can't put a man on the moon for 10 years so lets get started.

The left of 2008: We can't tap that oil for ten years so what is the point.

I guess they assume we will all be dead from global warming by then so no need for the oil.

If Kugman is so smart, why dosen't he get George Soros to quit funding Obama under the table and invest in alternative energy. With his billions soros couls put a solar powered wind mill in every drive way. Subsidies don't work. They encourage inefficient solutions and drive efficient solutions out of the market. See ethanol.