F... gas prices

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I'm pretty "pro-environment," but I have to wonder what harm would it do to drill in Alaska. Supposing we drilled in some remote forest and there was a spill, would it be that hard to clean up? I would think that a oil spill on land would be pretty contained.

I'm pretty sure that there are no forests where they want to drill. I think it is too far north for there to be any trees. I do know that drilling for oil has become a lot more environmentally friendly and that spills are very rare. Also, where they drill for oil will only take up 2000 acres out of ANWR's total area of 1.5 million acres, so it won't really have that big of an affect on the area.

Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.

Alaska Oil Anwar

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by saden1

After you sucked Alaska dry what's the game plan? If people referred to drilling ANWR as a short term solution I'd have less of a problem but people act like it's a viable solution which solves the fundamental problem. What happens 10-15 years from now? Drilling ANWR is a hack just like the gas tax relief being flaunted.

Who ever said this was a long term solution? This is something that will help us NOW, which is what we need. The future plan is some kind of alternative energy, but right now, none of them are economically feasible. Right now we need more oil and the only way to do that is to drill for more.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by saden1

After you sucked Alaska dry what's the game plan? If people referred to drilling ANWR as a short term solution I'd have less of a problem but people act like it's a viable solution which solves the fundamental problem. What happens 10-15 years from now? Drilling ANWR is a hack just like the gas tax relief being flaunted.

I think it is pretty evident that our oil addiction is a big problem. I also believe that drilling in Alaska isn't a cure-all. However, I think it's an option we should pursue, given that will buy us time to find more permanent solutions.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I think it is pretty evident that our oil addiction is a big problem. I also believe that drilling in Alaska isn't a cure-all. However, I think it's an option we should pursue, given that will buy us time to find more permanent solutions.

Suppose ANWR is depleted, where is your emergency/strategic reserve going to come from?

[Dogtag]

Good luck safely towing a 30 foot long 10,000 lb trailer down the highway at the proper speed limit with anything but an SUV.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

Suppose ANWR is depleted, where is your emergency/strategic reserve going to come from?

Good point. I guess we should forget drilling in ANWR because it will run it too.

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by saden1

Suppose ANWR is depleted, where is your emergency/strategic reserve going to come from?

Drilling offshore in the Atlantic and the Pacific, the Bakken oil field in Montana and North Dakota, the 1.5 trillion barrels of oil shale under Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The technology to extract the oil from the shale has improved greatly, so we can get that oil if we really need it.

What do you suggest we do about our huge oil problem? I know that you probably want to find alternative energy sources, but we need a lot more time to develop them. This will buy us that time.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by saden1

Suppose ANWR is depleted, where is your emergency/strategic reserve going to come from?

Did you mean to imply that ANWR is our current emergency/strategic reserve? If so, ANWR is pretty crappy strategic reserve. I'm no oilman, but I think it's safe to say that it would take months or even years to set up rigs and pipelines for us to start getting oil from ANWR. So, if you're concerned about having an emergency/strategic reserve, don't you think we should get moving on drilling in ANWR asap? Currently, ANWR isn't a resource we can rely on to effectively deal with crises.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by steveo395

Drilling offshore in the Atlantic and the Pacific, the Bakken oil field in Montana and North Dakota, the 1.5 trillion barrels of oil shale under Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The technology to extract the oil from the shale has improved greatly, so we can get that oil if we really need it.

Umm, why aren't the energy companies drilling these supposed bountiful locations in the Atlantic and Pacific? And why aren't they investing in drilling these oil shells? Maybe the government should be helping them out? Get real, if it's clean and viable you bet your ass it would be happening right now. Oil companies are happy where they are and could care less about the environment.

Originally Posted by steveo395

What do you suggest we do about our huge oil problem? I know that you probably want to find alternative energy sources, but we need a lot more time to develop them. This will buy us that time.

Massive government funded, academia centered research into alternative fuel (water based solution in particular). Real investment in mass transit.

[Daseal]

Exactly, if we just get more oil, it won't solve any issues. We'll continue to put big oil in charge of finding alternative energy sources (Hell, they might have an engine that runs on water, but they would never tell us -- they're looking for energy they can charge a high premium for.). Go to MIT, give them a boat ton of money, and we'll have ideas within years.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Exactly, if we just get more oil, it won't solve any issues. We'll continue to put big oil in charge of finding alternative energy sources (Hell, they might have an engine that runs on water, but they would never tell us -- they're looking for energy they can charge a high premium for.). Go to MIT, give them a boat ton of money, and we'll have ideas within years.

Yeah, while I don't know much about the oil industry and how to solve the problems facing us, I agree that we shouldn't be putting the oil companies in charge of finding alternative solutions to oil. It needs to be put in the hands of companies that would actually benefit from finding alternate solutions, oil companies would rather keep getting paid than find a better solution.

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by saden1

Umm, why aren't the energy companies drilling these supposed bountiful locations in the Atlantic and Pacific? And why aren't they investing in drilling these oil shells? Maybe the government should be helping them out? Get real, if it's clean and viable you bet your ass it would be happening right now. Oil companies are happy where they are and could care less about the environment.

Massive government funded, academia centered research into alternative fuel (water based solution in particular). Real investment in mass transit.

They're not drilling there because the government won't let them.
They are investing in oil shale.
Why would oil companies want to stay where they are when there is more oil for them to drill, thus allowing them to make more money.

This is going to raise taxes a lot when we're in a recession... not a smart move. The government is already doing some investing and so is the private sector. Just give it time and there will be a viable solution. Mass transit is never going to work here as well as it does in Europe. Our country is totally different. Everything is a lot farther apart and there are a lot less cities.

[Daseal]

steveo -- Mass transit will never be as effective as Europe, no doubt. However, it could be far more efficient in urban areas.

[FRPLG]

Anyone who thinks we are ever getting off of oil without the oil companies actually leading the charge is fooling themselves. The best way to get off of oil is to make it worth the oil companies time and efforts and ultimately lead to more profit for them.

Plain and simple, oil companies have more resources to make this happen than anyone else. They just need the motivation. Removing OPEC from the equation(finding alternate sources of oil (ANWR, deep gulf drilling and oil shale) clears a major hurdle in creating a truer free market in the oil industry (OPEC is a cartel. It is the exact opposite of a free market entity). Once that happens then the market forces will start to churn and we will get the most effective and efficient transition to new energy. It may take a while but it wont bankrupt our country, is completely feasible and probably represents our best chance at an effective transition. A transition that leaves us our place in the world economy and maintains our standard of living.

We need to start getting serious with mandating alternate fule vehicles. Within a reasonable, but aggressive timeframe we need to have an achievable goal percentage-wise for alternate fuel vehicles. I'd say 20% new cars sold in 10 years can be done. This stimulates a new energy market which will have somewhat less barriers to entry increasing competition and spurring innvoation. At the same time we need to offer some type of serious tax incentive for oil companies. I know it sounds like more of the same but in the end IT HAS TO BE PROFITABLE for oil companies to do this. Some type of structured tax incentive that dies away over 30 years will be enough time-wise and incentive-wise to build a new architecture and create a more complete transition.

If we force big oil to do this by creating a super competitive market we will be better off as a country in so many ways.

[Daseal]

FRPLG -- I disagree. Cpayne and I talked about this earlier. What source of energy is our best bet? Hyrdrogen. Oil companies will struggle mightily to make much in the way of profits off of hydrogen. Why would the oil companies ever go after that, it would kill their business. It has to go through academia as a previous poster said, they aren't in it for money, they're in it to find a solution.