A REAL Presidential Candidates Speech

[HFWR]

I'm reasonably supportive of drilling in ANWR, and other ideas to increase domestic supply, though it seems that Bush and Co. have very few other ideas except supporting the status quo; i.e. Big Oil, Archie Bunker Midland, etc...

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFWR I'm reasonably supportive of drilling in ANWR, and other ideas to increase domestic supply, though it seems that Bush and Co. have very few other ideas except supporting the status quo; i.e. Big Oil, Archie Bunker Midland, etc...

I'm opposed to a lot more drilling unless it came with comprehensive strategies for the development of alternative sources AND alternative energy infrastructure. Even just 3% of $2 trillion worth of oil as an excise tax would raise $60 billion for it. Just drilling isn't going to solve anything other than a short-term blip in oil production. Something needs to be in place when that short-term blip is finished.

I really believe this nation needs alternative energy and eliminating the dependence on foreign oil as this generation's Manhattan Project or Apollo Program. I think it is that important, and I consider it to be a very real national security and sovereignty issue. This oil could not only reduce the amount of money we send to nations that hate us, it could raise money for R&D and production of an alternative energy infrastructure.

The Republicans seem to want to drill everything with no long-term cohesive energy policy. The Democrats just say NO, period, and seem to think we can wave a magic wand and suddenly be awash in alternative energy sources overnight.

No, we need more oil NOW and we need a comprehensive, focused strategy over a decade or two to sharply reduce our dependence on it. Neither side's status quo will accomplish both of those things. Let's go ahead and get a few years of increased supply...but aggressively use the extra time that buys us to develop a new energy infrastructure in the future.

[chinaco]

I am having problems reading the small text. Would you increase the size a little more?

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 I'm opposed to a lot more drilling unless it came with comprehensive strategies for the development of alternative sources AND alternative energy infrastructure. Even just 3% of $2 trillion worth of oil as an excise tax would raise $60 billion for it. Just drilling isn't going to solve anything other than a short-term blip in oil production. Something needs to be in place when that short-term blip is finished. I really believe this nation needs alternative energy and eliminating the dependence on foreign oil as this generation's Manhattan Project or Apollo Program. I think it is that important, and I consider it to be a very real national security and sovereignty issue. This oil could not only reduce the amount of money we send to nations that hate us, it could raise money for R&D and production of an alternative energy infrastructure. The Republicans seem to want to drill everything with no long-term cohesive energy policy. The Democrats just say NO, period, and seem to think we can wave a magic wand and suddenly be awash in alternative energy sources overnight. No, we need more oil NOW and we need a comprehensive, focused strategy over a decade or two to sharply reduce our dependence on it. Neither side's status quo will accomplish both of those things. Let's go ahead and get a few years of increased supply...but aggressively use the extra time that buys us to develop a new energy infrastructure in the future.

What alternative energy source do you have in mind? If you take away some of the shamefully false economies --- solar, wind, hydro, biodiesel, ethanol, etc are all more expensive - some of them by huge margins. If there was a viable alternative, I am sure some enterprising folks would be all over it. I'd invest in and use alternatives if they were even nearly breakeven, who wouldn't? I own a hybrid car, but I know the economics don't justify it, there's a limit to how far most people will go without the economics to induce them. There are several countries exploiting alternative energy sources more than the US, but is there any country doing so for any reason other than political mandates and/or substantial subsidies/offsets to encourage development?

It all sounds great until someone has to pay for it, then the populace, politicians and everyone else loses interest - not a big surprise. When alternatives become economically viable, they'll be developed - but I'd be surprised if anything significant happens until then.

I wouldn't be so quick to lay this on the politicians either. Tell me we couldn't significantly reduce our demand on an individual basis with very little effort. Drive fuel efficient cars (we walk right by them to buy SUV's), use less HVAC energy - a few degrees can help, add more insulation to yor house, carpool once in a while, drive less, buy florescent bulbs (they pay for themselves pretty quickly now) and I could go on an on...what are WE waiting for?

[clifp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Want2retire Thought you all might be interested (or not?) in this U.S. map of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources: http://www.mms.gov/ooc/Assets/PowerP...pt#264,3,Slide 3 It shows graphically where a lot of the country's remaining oil and gas resources are located.

Want2retire am I reading this slide correctly?

Roughly speaking 40 billion barrels by the gulf states.
11 billion of the Pacific coast.
24 billion off Alaska.

Even at 20 million barrels a day that is 10 years worth of oil, that seems pretty significant to me.

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp Want2retire am I reading this slide correctly? Roughly speaking 40 billion barrels by the gulf states. 11 billion of the Pacific coast. 24 billion off Alaska. Even at 20 million barrels a day that is 10 years worth of oil, that seems pretty significant to me.

That is how I read the slide and I am glad someone looked at it. I do not have the projections on how long these quantities will last.