Town Square

Post a New Topic

Americans Overwhelmingly Favor Offshore Drilling

Original post made by sam on Jun 17, 2008



Rasmussen reports that 67 percent of Americans favor offshore drilling, while 18 percent oppose.Web Link

67% Support Offshore Drilling, 64% Expect it Will Lower Prices

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey—conducted before McCain announced his intentions on the issue--finds that 67% of voters believe that drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California, Florida and other states.
Only 18% disagree and 15% are undecided.

Nearly all voters are worried about rising gas and energy prices, with 79% very concerned and 16% somewhat concerned

The Outer Continental Shelf moratorium, passed in 1981, bans exploration for offshore natural gas and oil deposits.
Barack Obama, McCain's opponent for the White House, voted against an effort to lift the ban last year in the Senate.

Comments (47)

Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 17, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Fine. We'll start by drilling off Florida, where Gov Jeb Bush and his bro blocked it.


Posted by Kevin, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 17, 2008 at 3:27 pm


We should just allow the major oil companies to decide where to drill. Maybe it will be Florida, but it might be California, Texas, New York, etc.. They are ready to go in ANWAR.

It is long past time that we liberate our oil companies to do what they do best, find oil.


Posted by Stupid Americans, a resident of Fairmeadow
on Jun 17, 2008 at 3:34 pm

Duh!!! And how many Anericans live in regions where the drilling will occur. And how many Americans are grossly uninformed about the pathetically small difference that offshore drilling would accomplish. Anything to keep the ignorant ones in their SUV's, I guess.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 17, 2008 at 3:46 pm

"And how many Americans are grossly uninformed about the pathetically small difference that offshore drilling would accomplish"

Stupid...why don't you prove how smart you are by providing a realistic estimate of the oil reserves (in bbl) within the legal boundries of this country. Then compare and contrast your answer with your statement about "small differences".

This should prove interesting....

Remember, don't be stupid.


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 17, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Gary: Why don't YOU prove how smart you are by providing a realistic estimate of the oil reserves (in bbl) within the legal boundries of this country? Then compare the price at the pump under conditions of full domestic production with the price assuming the present production patterns continue. Document your data and your analysis.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 17, 2008 at 4:19 pm

"Gary: Why don't YOU prove..."

Paul,

Because I don't want to do the homework for Stupid.

If you happened to pay attention, you will recognize that I do do my homework. Facts matter. I would not have bothered to ask the question, unless I already knew the answer.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Walter E. Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 17, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Yup, some uv us am so dum we thunk that increasing the supply of sump'n will lower the price. Shuckens, we's even thank putin' muny in Amurken pockets 'stead o' furin pokets is a good thing.


Posted by sam, a resident of College Terrace
on Jun 17, 2008 at 4:28 pm

In April 2008, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) released a report giving a new resource assessment of the Bakken Formation underlying portions of Montana and North Dakota. The USGS believes that with new horizontal drilling technology there is somewhere between 3.0 and 4.5 billion barrels (480◊106 and 720◊106 m3) of recoverable oil remaining to be discovered in this 200,000 square miles (520,000 km≤) formation that was initially discovered in 1951. If accurate, this reassessment would make it the largest continuous oil formation ever discovered in the U.S.

A 1993 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5% probability) barrels (0.9 to 2.5 km≥) of technically recoverable oil exists in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 area, with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (1.7 km≥). In addition, in the entire assessment area, which covers not only land under Federal jurisdiction, but also Native lands and adjacent State waters within three miles (5 km), technically recoverable oil is estimated to be at least 5.7 billion (95%) and as much as 16.0 billion (5%) barrels (0.7 to 1.9 km≥), with a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels (1.2 km≥). Economically recoverable oil within the Federal lands assuming a market price of $40/barrel (constant 1996 dollars - the highest price included in the USGS study) is estimated to be between 3.4 billion (95%) and 10.4 billion (5%) barrels (0.5 to 1.7 km≥), with a mean value of 6.8 billion barrels (1.1 km≥).



The United States has the largest known deposits of oil shale in the world, according to the Bureau of Land Management and holds an estimated 2,500 gigabarrels of potentially recoverable oil.

Enough to meet U.S. demand for oil at current rates for 110 years.

However, oil shale does not actually contain oil, but a waxy oil precursor known as kerogen. For this reason and because there is not yet any significant commercial production of oil from oil shale in the United States as of 2008, its oil shale reserves do not meet the petroleum industry definition of proven oil reserves.


Posted by Kate, a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 17, 2008 at 4:35 pm

Others are drilling a few miles outside U.S. limits. America needs to wise up fast. We are in a crisis and noone is going to help us because they all are jealous of us and thereby hate us. I don't want to be punished while the economy of other major powers, some extremely hostile, grow.

Paul - I think we should start drilling off the shores of Massachusetts and Florida. You know the area where Senator Kennedy has blocked it for years because he doesn't want it in his backyard. Who cares about how much the average American pays at the pump so long as Senator Kennedy can continue sailing in his over-priced yacht. The Kennedy compound would lose a whole lot of value if drilling were possible. It's odd how you only picked on Bush and not Kennedy . . . or is it?


Posted by ng, a resident of Hoover School
on Jun 17, 2008 at 4:53 pm



At least Al Gore is benefiting from the price of energy

NASHVILLE - In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President's home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

"A man's commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home," said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.
"Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption."

In the past year, Gore's home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.

In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature.
The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore's Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.

After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore's massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient.
Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home's windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the "green" overhaul.

Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize.

In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.

"Actions speak louder than words, and Gore's actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity," Johnson said. "Gore is exploiting the public's concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile."


Posted by Jane, a resident of Professorville
on Jun 17, 2008 at 5:09 pm



What's he doing in there? growing marijuana?

He's gotten much fatter, and it takes more to cool a morbidly obese person than one who is at the optimum weight.

This isn't particularly surprising. Algore has NEVER been one to actually PRACTICE conservation.

What amazes me is his huge flock of devoted followers, who hear this information and dismiss it, because what he says is so important! My momma always told me that what you DO is way more important than what you SAY, but obviously not with the Gorebots.


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 17, 2008 at 5:34 pm

You throw around a lot of numbers, sam, but you haven't given us the relevant facts: what are the per unit well to wheel production costs, what is the feasible well to wheel production capacity at any given wellhead price level, and what's the net pump price with and without developing these reserves?


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 17, 2008 at 5:42 pm

Point is, Kate, that Jeb & George don't like offshore drilling either. Let's face the facts. George W got his way with a compliant Republican congress for 6 years, but he never opened up the ANWR. But he and his bro Jeb did put the Florida offshore off limits to drilling. As an oilman, Bush has been and remains a total failure.

BTW, have you considered drilling your own front yard? You can do it if you have the mineral rights. Check your deed. You'd set the example for those coastal hippies and, if there's oil down there, you'd get rich too. Go for it.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 17, 2008 at 6:17 pm

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Paul, please educate us about the differences among mineral rights, surface rights, environmental impact reports, local legal restrictions, environmental group lawsuits, legislative delays (enviromental lobbyists) , etc. Could be an interesting story for Vanity Fair.


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 17, 2008 at 6:34 pm

I don't have a position, just a profound skepticism of fact-free notions.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 17, 2008 at 7:51 pm

How many billion barrels of actual American (known) reserves, currently locked down by governmental fiat, would need to be released, in order to tip the market in a direction that is deflationary?

If all of American terriotry was in play, what is your best estimate of oil reserves?

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

In the meatime, it looks like America is, finally, confronting this issue. GWB and McCain have, finally, got at least one gun blazing...Obama is still behind the curve, except on nuclear power. Since Obama and GWB and McCain all believe in nucler power, maybe we could just all agree on this, and start issuing permits to build. Then we could all argue about oil, coal, solar, etc. That would be a good compromise starting point to the presidential campaign.


Posted by Kate, a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 18, 2008 at 7:38 am

Paul- Democrats Dianne Feinstein of California, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ron Wyden of Oregon, and Robert Menendez of New Jersey also voted against the bill that would have allowed drilling off the coast of Florida.

Gov. Bush did not favor the bill because it lacked the environmental safeguards that he had proposed. One of those safeguards was to prevent any drilling within 150 miles of the Florida coastline. I don't think that's an unreasonable position. I think both Pres. Bush and Gov. Bush did the right thing.

Get your facts straight before you start complaining about Republicans. Responsible Republicans and Democrats acted appropriately after reading the provisions of the bill in front of them that would have allowed drilling without regard to protecting the coastline. I'm all for drilling, but not in all circumstances. If the drill platforms are at least 150 miles off our coastline, I say we should go for it before another hostile nation does the same.

Oh, by the way - I'm a real person.


Posted by Walter E. Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 18, 2008 at 9:34 am

I do agree that the Bush brothers were wrong to oppose drilling. Way back when GOO was demanding a ban on drilling, I objected and predicted this current situation of skyrocketing oil prices and deterioration of our living standard. Back then, the late Dr. Petr Beckman published a newsletter called Access to Energy, decrying the assault on energy production. The only person I knew who ownd an oil well, the late Betty Reed, gained little from her lease because the price of oil was then so low as to make pumping unprofitable.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 18, 2008 at 10:49 am

My point exactly, Kate. The Bush bros aligned with the environmentalists to put Florida offshore waters off limits. Those Democrats could not have done it by themselves. Nor could they have blocked ANWR drilling - Bush was either asleep at that switch for years, or maybe he is a closet environmentalist. (Have you heard of the extreme environmentalism features he built into in his Crawford ranch house?)

Now, how many billions of barrels would be left fallow in that 150 mile exclusion zone off Florida?




Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 18, 2008 at 10:53 am

"The only person I knew who ownd an oil well ... gained little from her lease because the price of oil was then so low as to make pumping unprofitable."

Great illustration of a point I've been making, Walter: Rising prices will bring more production from previously unprofitable sources. It's the market. We can have all the oil we're willing/able to pay for. Thanks.


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 18, 2008 at 10:55 am

Um, the last post above signed Gary should be signed Paul. I have no idea what happened. Sorry Gary.


Posted by Kate, a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 18, 2008 at 11:35 am

Paul - You missed my point. Your original post focused your anger entirely on the Bush family. I was merely pointing out that it takes more then the Bush family to prevent drilling. It appears from your later posts that you are angry at Democrats also, so I guess we're on the same page now.

With the current price of gas I think everyone is beginning to understand that drilling is necessary. We may not all like that fact, but it is a fact now. The sooner we drill the better.


Posted by ten18, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 18, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Since the latest pricing trend seems to be driven largely by speculation, the mere news that we are planning to aggressively exploit our own resources will probably be enough to impose some downward pressure on prices.


Posted by Oil lovers are dinosaurs, a resident of South of Midtown
on Jun 18, 2008 at 7:32 pm

"However, oil shale does not actually contain oil, but a waxy oil precursor known as kerogen. "

Right you are, and its WAY more expensive to process oil shale. Gary is still not doing his homework. He forgets - like Jane and the other grease lovers,, that the California Coastal Commission can nix any changes made at the Federal level. Also, Arnie is opposed to offshore drilling. Isn't that the dickins'?


Posted by ten18, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 18, 2008 at 10:08 pm

"Oil lovers are dinosaurs" - people like you are just amazing. I guess you don't understand that everything you do, everything you eat, everything you can imagine is facilitated by that liquid you seem to hate so much - and it will be for many years to come. Do yo have a job? Do you have lights in your house? Where do you think the energy for those things comes from? The pipe dream of alternative energy is decades away. Right now, we need oil in the pipelines. Don't forget - even the computer you type your silliness on - is essentially made from, and powered by oil or some other fossil fuel.

Call me a dinosaur - I like my standard of living, and I see it slipping away - for the most part because of misinformed, and agenda-driven environmental fascists.


Posted by Oil lovers are dinosaurs, a resident of South of Midtown
on Jun 18, 2008 at 11:03 pm

ten18, I LOVE my standard of living, but I now know that my standard of living can be maintained without oil, after a period of some discomfort, self-sacrifice, and minor dislocation.

Of _course_ I understand that oil is ubiquitous. What _you_ don't understand - even after the war and pestilence caused by the pursuit of liquid gold - is that the ubiquity of oill is a _problem_. Probing our shorelines, threatening environmental degradation, and keeping oil arbitragers wealthy is not my idea of a healthy, sustainable future.

The fascists in this story are those who hold - and pursue - oil at any cost, no matter the human or environmental (both connected toll.

I fully understand the inconvenience that we are about to face; I am frustrated by some of the changes that I will be compelled to make, in the short run. Present sacrifice for future gain. Isn't that the basic value that drove America since day one? Keep that in mind, and try to open your mind to a new way, because it's coming whether you want it to, or not.


Posted by Walter E. Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 19, 2008 at 6:49 am

"ten18, I LOVE my standard of living, but I now know that my standard of living can be maintained without oil, after a period of some discomfort, self-sacrifice, and minor dislocation."
Or, as your predecessors put it, you gotta break eggs to make an omelet.


Posted by ten18, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 19, 2008 at 8:25 am

Dinosaur - I really think you're underestimating the ramifications of our government's ineptitude regarding our energy situation - now a crisis. The energy crisis, combined with the housing crash, potential runaway inflation, and the upcoming consumer credit meltdown, could put this country into a depression. Cheap and plentiful energy has given us unparalleled economic prosperity. If current trends continue, we're going to experience more than "discomfort" and "inconvenience." This crisis is going to affect everything - not just people in their "SUVs."

I don't disagree that alternatives need to be developed. However, right now, we need oil - our own oil - it's still plentiful, and we need to exploit it.


Posted by ng, a resident of Hoover School
on Jun 19, 2008 at 1:40 pm

The fight over energy and how to lower gas prices threw the Rocky Mountain West into the spotlight Wednesday when President Bush urged Congress to repeal a moratorium on the development of oil shale.
In a speech that spurred protests from Democratic leaders and environmentalists, Bush called for harvesting oil from shale rock found in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah.
The president also advocated drilling for oil in coastal waters and the Alaskan wilderness, saying the tight supply is pushing up gas prices.

500 Billion barrels is a 76 year supply.

The price of today's oil and gasoline are driven by speculation, due to a weak dollar and restrictions on drilling (politics).

Since the price is based on speculation, drilling would have an immediate effect (over night). Increasing interest rates would do even more...

If McCain and Congress were to abide by the Constitution, oil would be dirt cheap.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 19, 2008 at 2:09 pm


"Gary is still not doing his homework. He forgets - like Jane and the other grease lovers,, that the California Coastal Commission can nix any changes made at the Federal level"

Ah, dinosar, perhaps you should do your own homework. The CCC's jurisdiction only covers three miles off the coast.

Web Link

This may come as a complete surprise to you, but the outer continental shelf is beyond the three mile limit.


Posted by Walter E. Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 19, 2008 at 2:51 pm

The California Costal Commission has veto power on onshore support facilities, and advisory power for further out. Not one California politician of either party openly advocated resumption of drilling in the past few years.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 19, 2008 at 3:16 pm

"The California Costal Commission has veto power on onshore support facilities, and advisory power for further out. Not one California politician of either party openly advocated resumption of drilling in the past few years."

All true, Walter, however "build it, and they will come." Even if the platforms need to be floating out there and positioned, supported from Oregon or Washington or Alaska,...or Mexico, California will be forced to come around...especially if the federal government gets tough with federal funds. Also, don't forget, California citizens are not going to be happy with high gasoline prices for much longer, and the good-paying jobs of oil infrastructure are going to look very appealing.

It is a new day, and the Dem leadership doesn't really understand its major base (which is blue collar working class folk, the teachers / governmental employee unions (think CalPers impending collapse) and the trades unions. Rich, elite Dems and environmetalists are in for a rude, and well-deserved, awakening.


Posted by sam, a resident of College Terrace
on Jun 19, 2008 at 3:18 pm

As the calls for domestic drilling grow louder, some Democrats have another idea: nationalize the oil refineries!

During a House briefing yesterday, Democratic Rep. Maurice Hinchey said, "We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market."


comments:

"Explicit, in-your-face socialism. Hugo Chavez couldn't have said it any better."

"It's a short trip from railing about 'obscene profits' to cheerleading Hugo Chavez-style takeovers of private industry."

"Is your Democratic Party so fearful of winning two elections in a row and having to take the reins of power that you've simply decided to throw yourselves on your swords? Or have you perhaps spent too long in cozy chats with Hugo Chavez that some of his thinking is creeping into the cloak rooms of Congress?"

"are packaging this nationalization scheme in the same way all communists do: let 'the American people' own the oil companies. It's a complete sham, a lie, and an unbelievably manipulative and condescending one."

Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters's made similar call to "socialization" a few weeks ago. How many more Democrats agree?

"This makes two congressional Democrats on record within the past month as supporting an overtly socialist 'solution' to gas prices." As The Gateway Pundit says, "Viva la revolucion!"


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 19, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Why didn't I see through this sooner? Bush's proposal is only election-year politics. Ignore it.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 19, 2008 at 3:35 pm

"Why didn't I see through this sooner? Bush's proposal is only election-year politics.+

Paul, if you left out the word "only" in your (above) quote, I would, at least partially, agree with you. It IS politics...but it is also based on the reality of resoruce exploitation issues. Scarcity breeds high prices (dah?). The problem for your side is that you and yours have been pushing for high prices for decades, now (via supply restrictions). We supply-siders believe that maximum production of a resoruce produces lower prices, and greater prosperity for the many; we don't believe in pinching off resources to the poor, like you do, Paul.

I want someone to get very rich, if he/she provides resoruces/services for the many. I do not want confiscatory taxation to deprive the many of the opportunities provided to us by the talented few. Given that I can invest in a company, via the stock market, I can have my cake and eat it, too...I get provided with a resoruce or service, AND I can make money by doing so.

Ah...the MIRACLE of capitalism and freedom!


Posted by Mike, a resident of College Terrace
on Jun 19, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Gary, "Scarcity breeds high prices"

Really? Diamonds are not scarce; their supply is manipulated. Enron created false scarcity. And so on. Capitalism 101


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 19, 2008 at 5:26 pm

"Gary, "Scarcity breeds high prices"

Really? Diamonds are not scarce; their supply is manipulated. Enron created false scarcity"

Indeed, Mike, market scarcity breeds high prices. Supply and demand, Mike (Econ 101). Of course, I know that you are referring to manipulation in the market (a non-free market), for example cartels or monopolies...Enron took advantage of such government manipulations. Although this is the typical leftist thinking, it is, on rare occasions, correct. Clearly, there is a governmental oil cartel (OPEC), but what is the best way to break it out into free competition, other than to actually provide free competition of supply? The ONLY way to do this is to allow PRIVATE oil companies to drill, and discover oil, within U.S. territorial waters...then to maximize their profits (let's all hope so!).

Diamonds? Who cares, really...trivial stuff...women will survivie without diamonds...they are NOT forever (well, OK, the diamonds are close to that, but the marriage isn't even close)! Go complain to De Beers about it.

In the meantime, we need domestic oil production, and the ones who will be blamed for not providing it are the elite liberals. Absolutely NONE of this was necessary, Mike. It was you and yours who provided the poisoned dinner for us. You will be served your own supper...by your own Dems! How ironic....


Posted by sam, a resident of College Terrace
on Jun 19, 2008 at 5:35 pm


We could in fact take anti trust litigation against OPEC in American courts with a very good chance of winning big


Posted by Outside Observer, a resident of another community
on Jun 19, 2008 at 10:24 pm

Despite speculation, OPEC, and a host of other influences on the price of oil, it all really comes down to supply and demand.

If the Liberals won't allow drilling to increase supply, then reduction in demand is the only alternative.

While the liberals think the developed world will sit by and allow their economies and standard of living to be destroyed for a "Holy Grail" of "carbon neutral" living by allowing oil to be priced beyond intrinsic value, I'm a little more pragmatic and base that on human history.

If supply doesn't increase, the nuclear arsenal of the developed world will be used to reduce demand.

Don't believe me? Well study the history of warfare. It's all about resources.



Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 20, 2008 at 11:03 am

From the US Government: "access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."

"Although a significant volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources is added in the OCS access case, conversion of those resources to production would require both time and money. In addition, the average field size in the Pacific and Atlantic regions tends to be smaller than the average in the Gulf of Mexico, implying that a significant portion of the additional resource would not be economically attractive to develop at the reference case prices."

Read the full report for details: Web Link


Posted by Mike, a resident of College Terrace
on Jun 20, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Outside Observer,

Once, a long time ago, someone invented the wheel. THAT's the kind of thinking you need to curry favor with, instead of zero sum nonsense based on fear.



Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 20, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Paul,

Here is a little hint for you:

Web Link

"Proven reserves" is NOT the basis of rational policy making.

The real issue is: Can oil production keep pace with demand, IF free exploration is allowed, combined with new technologies? The answer is almost certainly "yes".

There are significant geopolitical implications embedded in this question, because the Mideast does NOT contain the majority of oil reserves on this planet.

You need to dig deeper, Paul.


Posted by Outside Observer, a resident of another community
on Jun 20, 2008 at 5:47 pm

Mike,

Before the wheel, man invented the stone axe, and it's that part of our basic nature that will come boiling back to the surface if we're pushed hard enough.

The German reparations in the treaty of Versailles brought us Hitler.

We've already got Bush and a failed "war for oil" policy.

The next leader to "push back" is likely to be more competent and more successful.

Bush brought down two countries predicated on the 3000 deaths on 9/11. Can you imagine what could be justified by, say, a nuclear strike on Israel by Iran?

As for "zero sum nonsense", Liberals actions to prevent drilling make it a "zero sum" game, and yes I do agree THAT is nonsense.





Posted by Thinking Outside The Political Box, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 20, 2008 at 8:21 pm

I have a simply question for all you drilling advocates (Gary in particular, who I think knows enough to know the "real" numbers and not the inflated ones he keeps pushing):

How about instead of drilling in every "nook and cranny" (which, by the way, all the experts agree still won't get us to "oil independence"), we instead launch a national campaign to covert to electric cars (first via hybrids, then to full-electric as the technology develops) which won't then require oil to run. Doesn't THAT make a heck of a lot more sense than this proposed "chicken-with-their-head-cut-off" approach of drill, drill, drill?


Posted by Engineer, a resident of South of Midtown
on Jun 20, 2008 at 8:31 pm

Thinking Outside,

Please tell us where the electrical generation will come from to charge all those electric vehicles.


Posted by Also outside, a resident of Greater Miranda
on Jun 21, 2008 at 3:55 am

Outside - yes, isn't the market now getting close to allowing for investment in other sources (nuclear)?

Wouldn't the short term benefits of drilling be outweighed by the long term slow down in the use of these other sources, and permanent damage to environmentally sensitive areas?

I don't see the picture here. Republicans advocating government interference to skew essential market forces. Shame.


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 23, 2008 at 2:05 pm

'"Proven reserves" is NOT the basis of rational policy making.'

It's very hard to pump oil that ain't there.

'The real issue is: Can oil production keep pace with demand, IF free exploration is allowed, combined with new technologies? The answer is almost certainly "yes".'

Wishful thinking, shading to pure fantasy.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Services, Dining and Shopping Downtown in Palo Alto
By Steve Levy | 16 comments | 1,988 views

Handmade truffle shop now open in downtown Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 2 comments | 1,597 views

It's the End of the World as We Know It: "Snowpiercer"
By Anita Felicelli | 0 comments | 1,355 views

The Last Grape
By Laura Stec | 12 comments | 1,141 views

Why is doing nothing so difficult?
By Sally Torbey | 5 comments | 843 views