I know there are a lot of solutions in the works to make us energy independent, like corn, hydrogen, hybrids and other tech solutions. Many of these are impractical at best and offer little in near term results. How may of you would like to see the US start drilling for our own oil? If the world keeps on its current course, we'll have to do it sooner or later. I'm wondering if we should start now. The western world has proven that it will not give up its life style no matter what the cost. As a whole, we won't car pool, ride the bus or downsize. The only answer for Americans, then is to start drilling. What do you think?
energy independence
- Thread starter Louie's gone fishing
- Start date
- Status
what makes you think we don't drill now?
I think we should, both to increase supply and lessen dependence on foreign sources, especially the sources that sponsor activites that are against our interests. Don't hold your breath though. People will keep on buying Citgo if it's a cent cheaper.
We drill now, but we don't drill some known sources because they have been put off limits. In the future, those that vote down drilling should ride a bicycle.
Wouldn't drilling current off-limit areas only result in a pittance? Investing in in-situ oil shale processing would be a good start. Not sure if there's enough money in it @ $65/BBL.
I don't agree. I think $6 a gallon gas would have most American's reconsidering their attitude towards conservation. Plus, those kind of fuel prices would open up the door to more alternative energy sources.
Not that I am against drilling or I am for $6/gal gas. Just making a point
Well we had a big find in the Gulf and ANWR would be a bit more than a pittance. These would take some years and would help a bit. Oil shale may come close to economic sense, but has some environmental issues as well.
I don't know about "mathematically impossible" but there certainly are no easy answers on this test.
I don't know about "mathematically impossible" but there certainly are no easy answers on this test.
This is a sore spot with me. May I rant a bit? The Gulf of Mexico Coast is referred to as the U.S. Energy Coast. Except for Florida all coastal states on the Gulf have offshore drilling. Reserves do exist off the west, east, and Florida coastlines but have been put "off limits." NIMBY pure and simple. So, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama pay the price for supplying a large part of domestic production and refining of oil for the entire nation in the form of the undesireable consequences which support the no drill bans for the rest of the coastal areas. Pollution and loss of coastal wetlands to name two. Bad for everybody else. OK for the Gulf Coast. Drilling activities in Louisiana contributed in part to the loss of protective wetlands and barrier islands which worsened the effects of Katrina and Rita. The latest blow has come in the form of GOM offshore open loop LNG terminals known to be aquatic life killers. Only one is going forward from what I understand after much protest. Ever hear of Port Fourchon? It's cajun for 'energy bottleneck.' Even without another hurricane or the unlikely terrorist strike, simple ongoing soil subsidence threatens the integrity of miles and miles of pipelines crucial to even having a domestic oil industry. Did I forget the stategic oil reserves? Louisiana salt domes. Alaska obviously does their part to say the least. Western states onshore, too. More drilling ELSEWHERE? You bet. Only seems fair.
Pablo,
Here's any interesting link that may explain and also breaks Gasoline down quite nicely!
http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html
Scroll 1/4 way down to pie-chart on right.
Here's any interesting link that may explain and also breaks Gasoline down quite nicely!
http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html
Scroll 1/4 way down to pie-chart on right.
Even if we add all other possible drillling sites. They will do little better than provide the 30% that we produce (import 70%) this is bc other wells are dying.
Short answer. Short answer..conservation is our only hope till we can .....do what....really not much.
Short answer. Short answer..conservation is our only hope till we can .....do what....really not much.
A version of this has been posted before:
World Oil Reserves by Country as of January 1, 2006:
Top three in Billions of Barrels: Saudi Arabia 264; Canada 179; Iran 133.
World Oil Reserves by Country as of January 1, 2006:
Top three in Billions of Barrels: Saudi Arabia 264; Canada 179; Iran 133.
JHZR2
Staff member
I agree with these statements, but will put a few additions...
Same as above, but we must also reduce our consumption, and utilize liquid fossil fuels only in applications where they are mandaory for viability.
Lessen our overall consumption, and any solutions that are out there are longer lasting and easier to implement.
Minimize liquid fuels use in applications where it is not necessary for viability, e.g. no oil fired power plants, no oil fired homes when there is city gas available, etc. - Because liquid fuel is MANDATORY for the realization of transportation of people, goods and services in an efficient, simple manner with established infrastructure. Nuke, coal, and alternative sources can make up for oil and NG fired powerplants.
JMH
Wake up people. We have a huge crisis brewing with Iran and the atomic bomb. Do any of you remember 1973? It is going to be a lot worse this time.
"Wake up people. We have a huge crisis brewing with Iran and the atomic bomb. Do any of you remember 1973? It is going to be a lot worse this time."
Well, right or wrong, I think some uf (spelled without the "o") us have a similar opinion. I do believe that there is relief on the horizon and we are making significant steps toward relieving our oil dependency. Regardless of those that say nay may think; I believe we are making headway. From what I've read there will be more nuclear and coal electrical power producing facilities. US off shore drilling have produced significant finds of late. Areas of high wind energy are being utilized. Technology is making ethanol production more efficient and from raw materials that will not interrupt our food supply. If you add all these factors together, I think it adds up to the US using a whole lot less petro based products in the future. Well, this is just my opinion.
Well, right or wrong, I think some uf (spelled without the "o") us have a similar opinion. I do believe that there is relief on the horizon and we are making significant steps toward relieving our oil dependency. Regardless of those that say nay may think; I believe we are making headway. From what I've read there will be more nuclear and coal electrical power producing facilities. US off shore drilling have produced significant finds of late. Areas of high wind energy are being utilized. Technology is making ethanol production more efficient and from raw materials that will not interrupt our food supply. If you add all these factors together, I think it adds up to the US using a whole lot less petro based products in the future. Well, this is just my opinion.
Half the polution of the oceans by oil and gas is from natural seepage. It has been proven many times that this natural seepage is releived by drilling. Of the coast of Santa Barbara, every 6 years there is the same amount of seepage as the Exxon Valdez. When Katrina hit, there were not major leaks and one hundred and eleven platforms were damages or totally destroyed. Since 1969 most new drilling has been banned. It is supposted to protect us. I think we need to add one more thing to complete the protection package. We should slaughter a lamb and howl at the moon. This summer a film crew when to Alaska to document the damage done by the Exxon Valdez. They could not find the location of the grounding and instead of reporting that, they cancelled the project. They were funded to show the damage, not document it, a statement they made to one of the work boat captains. The film crew was really upset, because they did not get paid. They were supposed to be funded by Greenpeace. Instead they got stiffed. Sometimes this environmant stuff is dirty business, pun intended.
"It has been proven many times that this natural seepage is releived by drilling"
Yep, LarryL, let's take advantage of this seepage and capture this product so it can be used beneficially; rather than just let it escape and add to the ozone depetion. Just my opinoin.
Yep, LarryL, let's take advantage of this seepage and capture this product so it can be used beneficially; rather than just let it escape and add to the ozone depetion. Just my opinoin.
Until the US can offer its own internal energy sources at competitive prices compared to worldmarket we will never be energy independent. Its irrelevant what consumers want, major energy users are corporations who look at bottomline not the political aspect of it.
Just dig it all up and burn it...anyold how, no matter how inefficiently.
Then any and all alternatives become viable, and none of us are dependent on anyone but our own wits.
I'm sick of being on the same boat as those actively drilling 4" holes in the hull, while I try to minimise my extractions/(emissions).
We'd be better off if fossil fuel had a true zero value (like oxygen), then we'd be over it really quickly.
Then any and all alternatives become viable, and none of us are dependent on anyone but our own wits.
I'm sick of being on the same boat as those actively drilling 4" holes in the hull, while I try to minimise my extractions/(emissions).
We'd be better off if fossil fuel had a true zero value (like oxygen), then we'd be over it really quickly.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
