# Why Don't We Drill in the U.S. for Oil?



## Zoom-boing (Jan 14, 2011)

We want to get off of foreign oil, correct?  Then why don't we drill here for it?  I mean, within the U.S. (on land)?


----------



## Jeremy (Jan 14, 2011)

We're doing pretty good here.

North Dakota oil production forecast to surpass Alaska's: Oil | adn.com


But we do need to do more nationaly.


----------



## boedicca (Jan 14, 2011)

It's inane that we don't utilize our own resources while other countries are drilling off of our coasts.


----------



## Modbert (Jan 14, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> We want to get off of foreign oil, correct?  Then why don't we drill here for it?  I mean, within the U.S. (on land)?



We do. However, much like a drug addict, the U.S needs more smack to get their fix.


----------



## Madeline (Jan 14, 2011)

We do, Zoom-boing.

United States Oil - production - Economy

We just consume far more than we produce.


----------



## Modbert (Jan 14, 2011)

Jeremy said:


> But we do need to do more nationaly.



Such as where? The problem with drilling for oil in the first place for companies is finding deposits large enough to be profitable. The same problem occurs with pretty much any similar resource including rare earth metals.

There is also the issue that a lot of people don't want oil drilling in their backyard. Instead of trying to find another vein to stick the needle in (land being the vein, needle being the oil drill), the U.S is better suited finding a real solution instead of just a temporary one that merely delays the inevitable.

Never mind the fact we already drill a lot more than people think.


----------



## Modbert (Jan 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> We do, Zoom-boing.
> 
> United States Oil - production - Economy
> 
> We just consume far more than we produce.



Some things to point out about those numbers:

We're already #3 in the world. 

Take a look at the definition:



> Definition:* This entry is the total oil produced in barrels per day (bbl/day).* The discrepancy between the amount of oil produced and/or imported and the amount consumed and/or exported is due to the omission of stock changes, refinery gains, and other complicating factors.



Unless I'm misreading that, it would be over 9 million barrels a day. There are 42 gallons of oil in a barrel of oil.

42 gallons x 9 million barrels = 378 million gallons of oil produced a day.

378 million gallons of oil a day x 365 days a year = 137,970,000,000 gallons produced a year. Almost 138 Billion. That's billion, not million.


----------



## Modbert (Jan 14, 2011)

Another thing too, the U.S and the other two top countries (Saudi Arabia and Russia) are far ahead the rest of the pack.

Oil - production - Country Comparison



> 1	Saudi Arabia	11,000,000
> 2	Russia	9,870,000
> 3	United States	8,322,000
> 4	Iran	4,150,000



As reflected in CIA handbook updated numbers, the U.S is closing in on Russia for the #2 spot.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 14, 2011)

I asked because I saw this and wondered if we were drilling enough.  Could we drill more here to really make a difference in our foreign oil dependence -- or make more of a difference?  I realize this article is two years old.  It just made me wonder is all.



> 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montanas Bakken Formation25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate
> 
> The Bakken Formation estimate is larger than all other current USGS oil assessments of the lower 48 states and is the largest "continuous" oil accumulation ever assessed by the USGS. A "continuous" oil accumulation means that the oil resource is dispersed throughout a geologic formation rather than existing as discrete, localized occurrences. The next largest "continuous" oil accumulation in the U.S. is in the Austin Chalk of Texas and Louisiana, with an undiscovered estimate of 1.0 billions of barrels of technically recoverable oil.



USGS Release: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montanas Bakken Formation25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate (4/10/2008 2:25:36 PM)


----------



## Modbert (Jan 14, 2011)

Crude Oil FAQs - Energy Information Administration



> In 2009, about 51% of the petroleum consumed by the United States was imported from foreign countries.
> 
> "Petroleum" includes crude oil and refined petroleum products like gasoline. About 77% of gross petroleum imports in 2009 were crude oil. About 63% of the crude oil processed in U.S. refineries was imported.



Now wait, 51% was imported from foreign countries. Let's go back to our previous numbers from 2009 shall we?



Modbert said:


> Unless I'm misreading that, it would be over 9 million barrels a day. There are 42 gallons of oil in a barrel of oil.
> 
> 42 gallons x 9 million barrels = 378 million gallons of oil produced a day.
> 
> 378 million gallons of oil a day x 365 days a year = 137,970,000,000 gallons produced a year. *Almost 138 Billion.* That's billion, not million.



Of course, we can't assume that we use every drop of oil that is drilled here and that it's not exported. However, what % could it be? Not very high.

Crude Oil FAQs - Energy Information Administration



> Export of oil transported in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System was banned until 1996. Between 1996 and 2004, a total of about 95.49 million barrels of crude oil, equal to 2.7% of Alaskan production during that period, was exported to foreign countries. As of September 2009, no Alaskan oil has been exported since 2004.



And according to the U.S Energy Information Administration:



> In 2009, the United States consumed a total of 6.9 billion barrels of oil (refined petroleum products and biofuels), which was about 27% of total world oil consumption.



6.9 billion barrels (6,900,000,000) x 42 gallons a barrel = 289,800,000,000 Billion gallons of Oil used in the U.S per year.


----------



## Modbert (Jan 14, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> I asked because I saw this and wondered if we were drilling enough.  Could we drill more here to really make a difference in our foreign oil dependence -- or make more of a difference?  I realize this article is two years old.  It just made me wonder is all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is a really good question to ask. If you notice for a moment, your article discusses I believe the same thing Jeremy's does. However, let's take a step back and take a look at my post just before this. 3 to 4.3 billion barrels of Oil would not even last a year.


----------



## Madeline (Jan 14, 2011)

It's the same with Alaskan oil, Zoom-boing.  There are technological challenges to bringing this oil to the surface, and they drive up the costs.  So far, the oil companies have not found all such reserves economically viable.

But even if all oil fields in the US were under production, it would not eliminate our dependence on foreign oil....and it would drive up our costs, as consumers, quite a bit.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> It's the same with Alaskan oil, Zoom-boing.  There are technological challenges to bringing this oil to the surface, and they drive up the costs.  So far, the oil companies have not found all such reserves economically viable.
> 
> But even if all oil fields in the US were under production, it would not eliminate our dependence on foreign oil....and it would drive up our costs, as consumers, quite a bit.



But would it cut down (substantially) on our foreign oil dependence?  If yes, wouldn't that be worth the higher cost?  Hmmm . . . . .


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 14, 2011)

Modbert said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > I asked because I saw this and wondered if we were drilling enough.  Could we drill more here to really make a difference in our foreign oil dependence -- or make more of a difference?  I realize this article is two years old.  It just made me wonder is all.
> ...




When I read that it sounded like a lot to me.  After reading your numbers . . not so much.  

If we had more oil coming from the U.S. used in the U.S. (rather than exported), wouldn't it be worth the cost/expense of extracting it?


----------



## Madeline (Jan 14, 2011)

Some think so.  There are also environmental concerns where the Alaskan oil fields are concerned.....and that may be true of the others as well; I don't know.

But remember, this would deplete these fields....it's a short term solution at a high cost.


----------



## Modbert (Jan 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> It's the same with Alaskan oil, Zoom-boing.  There are technological challenges to bringing this oil to the surface, and they drive up the costs.  *So far, the oil companies have not found all such reserves economically viable.*
> 
> But even if all oil fields in the US were under production, it would not eliminate our dependence on foreign oil....and it would drive up our costs, as consumers, quite a bit.



It has gotten to the point that companies like ExxonMobil are drilling in the arctic waters of Canada:

Canada: Exxon, BP and Imperial Oil form joint venture to explore Canada's Beaufort Sea



> Exxon and Imperial acquired the Ajurak lease for nearly $600 million in 2007, and BP acquired the Pokak lease as part of a package of other Arctic assets in 2008. Both companies have conducted 3D seismic surveys, but haven't done any exploratory drilling of the sites yet.
> 
> Exxon and Imperial will each hold a 25% share in the joint venture and will be in charge of the operations; BP will hold the remaining 50% share.



Of course, one of the major problems being even be able to get crews up there in workable conditions. Never mind being able to drill.

Another interesting tidbit that this article does mention is that Imperial Oil (Canada's biggest Oil supplier) is also a subsidiary of ExxonMobil.

I did a paper on ExxonMobil this past semester. The short term is going to be great for a company like ExxonMobil. However, the long term future is oil is not quite what many are saying. This is why ExxonMobil has not only recently become the world's largest natural gas company (again) but are also making investments into petrochemicals in countries such as Qatar. They're currently working on a $6 billion complex there and diversifying their investments. Qatar is also home to four of the world's largest plants for LNG projects and crucial to ExxonMobil.

Another thing to note is that ExxonMobil and other oil companies have been and will continue to deal with is oil-rich countries which are not stable. Further resulting in price increases for oil.

CBC News - World - 7 oil workers kidnapped, Nigerian rebels say

From November:



> The main militant group in Nigeria's oil-rich southern delta said Tuesday it kidnapped seven local workers from an Exxon Mobil Corp. offshore rig and promised new violence in a region vital to U.S. oil supplies.
> 
> The hostage claim came as a military spokesman said soldiers had begun an operation to fight militants hiding in the region.





> Such raids, as well as the possibility of new militant attacks, could hurt the OPEC-member nation just as its oil production appears to be reaching levels seen before the insurgency began four year ago.



This is a very complex issue and people suggesting that drilling for more oil is the solution to our problems are ignoring a larger and deeper issue at hand here.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 14, 2011)

The reason that we don't Drill is because we are trying to ban co2 from going to the Atmosphere. That is what Obama is doing.


----------



## Modbert (Jan 14, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> *When I read that it sounded like a lot to me.  After reading your numbers . . not so much.  *
> 
> If we had more oil coming from the U.S. used in the U.S. (rather than exported), wouldn't it be worth the cost/expense of extracting it?



And that's the key thing to note here. 4.3 billion barrels sounds like a lot until you look at how much we use a year. Never mind barrels but also stepping back and looking at how many gallons. Gallons is a useful indicator considering that is how gas stations gauge oil use instead of in barrels for the general public.

The problem with getting more oil coming from the U.S is that other countries are willing to pay for that oil. Often, more then we are. China and India alone are driving up the need for more oil. Think about what would happen if China and India became like the U.S (it's already on it's way) in terms of oil usage within the next ten years. Think about what that would do for not only the U.S but for the world when it comes to oil prices and oil supply. Oil is not a renewable energy, one day, we will run out. At the going rate, it will be sooner rather than later.

In my opinion, I see the U.S response being like the rest of the world's as it was with the rare earth metal problem. In short summary, China had a monopoly on rare earth metals (used just about everything ranging from fighter jets to cell phones) due to driving out the competition by undercutting prices years prior. U.S and other countries did nothing about it until it was realized last year that China itself is going to run out by about 2013-2015 and has proceeded to cut off other countries including the U.S.

Now, think about the impact that would have if we could no longer use rare earth metals? All various types of industry would take a new hit as time is spent trying frantically to find a replacement as Japan is finally doing so.

However, now, U.S companies are finally getting back into mining for rare earth metals. Why? Because the supply is so low and the demand is so high that it's worth the cost and risk of being undercut by China again.

If you're interested in reading more about that, here's a previous thread of mine about it:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/147555-undermining-chinas-monopoly-on-rare-earth-elements.html

There are others as well.


----------



## Modbert (Jan 14, 2011)

Matthew said:


> The reason that we don't Drill is because we are trying to ban co2 from going to the Atmosphere. That is what Obama is doing.



Except, we're the #3 country in the world in terms of production of barrels drilled. Reality does not match your post.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> Some think so.  There are also environmental concerns where the Alaskan oil fields are concerned.....and that may be true of the others as well; I don't know.
> 
> But remember, *this would deplete these fields*....it's a short term solution at a high cost.



How long would it take for them to be depleted?


----------



## Modbert (Jan 14, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> How long would it take for them to be depleted?






An article from 2004:

Study: ANWR oil would have little impact - U.S. news - Environment - msnbc.com



> WASHINGTON &#8212; Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America&#8217;s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.
> 
> The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska&#8217;s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 *and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025*.



Remember, we use 6.8 billion barrels a year *now.* 876,000 barrels a day is 319 million a year. It would *peak* at 319 million a year by 2025.

And the kicker:



> But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import* two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge&#8217;s oil remained off the market*.



A decrease of less than 5%.

People (not saying you) who think the solution to our energy problems lie in the fields of Alaska are the same people who chase the end of a rainbow to find a Leprechaun pot of gold.


----------



## westwall (Jan 14, 2011)

Modbert said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > We want to get off of foreign oil, correct?  Then why don't we drill here for it?  I mean, within the U.S. (on land)?
> ...






US consumption of gasoline has actually been dropping since 2007.


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 14, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> We want to get off of foreign oil, correct?  Then why don't we drill here for it?  I mean, within the U.S. (on land)?



Because we're wicked smaht.  When the rest of the world runs out first, we'll be the only ones who have it.


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 14, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> We want to get off of foreign oil, correct?  Then why don't we drill here for it?  I mean, within the U.S. (on land)?



We do every day.  but for some strange reason it is not emphasized by the media.

I have a contract out to drill a well on my land.
If they hit gas I get free gas for my property if oil I get a royalty for every barrel produced.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> It's the same with Alaskan oil, Zoom-boing.  There are technological challenges to bringing this oil to the surface, and they drive up the costs.  So far, the oil companies have not found all such reserves economically viable.
> 
> But even if all oil fields in the US were under production, it would not eliminate our dependence on foreign oil....and it would drive up our costs, as consumers, quite a bit.



humm not from what I understand; we could put down and extract a hundred prudhomme bays and make a go of it. Delivery from large new sources there would require forward cost, maybe another pipeline etc...but in the end, we'd realize value.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 14, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> We want to get off of foreign oil, correct?  Then why don't we drill here for it?  I mean, within the U.S. (on land)?


Ecofascists and libtards are afraid America would become prosperous, self sufficient and debunk their crazy faith.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 14, 2011)

Matthew said:


> The reason that we don't Drill is because we are trying to ban co2 from going to the Atmosphere. That is what Obama is doing.


Yes, we are trying to do the impossible for no good reason.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 14, 2011)

Modbert said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > How long would it take for them to be depleted?
> ...



and we all know that this is done incrementally, 800k barrels there, 500k here, 250 there, pretty soon you're talking real oil...

frankly I say leave it at present production as to  targets and planned lease approvals etc. we go on a crash prgm. and build say, 200 nuclear power plants....


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 14, 2011)

Trajan said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



and us still without a taxpayer funded nuclear waste disposal site?


----------



## Trajan (Jan 14, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Modbert said:
> ...



good point, another namby issue. back to self starvation then...


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 14, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Modbert said:
> ...



What about recycling the spent fuel rods, ala France?


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 14, 2011)

Trajan said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



Nuclear_ fission _is not likely the answer.  It's _very_ expensive to build, even compared to other "Alternatives,"  and no state in the union wants the toxic waste.

IMO, there should be a fever, a dedication, a Manhattan project-style mad rush to build functioning fusion plants.  It's closer than you might have known...  But the timeline is sooooo slow at current progress...

ITER - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But a 30-year timeline?  Wtf, build that shit in like 10.  The cost of the entire project is only about $20B.  How much did the Pentagon spend this _month?_


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 14, 2011)

Look at the two graphs below. The first, the gap between the size of discoveries, and the production. 
The second, the production of the US.

File:GrowingGap.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:US Oil Production and Imports 1920 to 2005.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 14, 2011)

There are new nuclear technologies that even burn the by products for fuel. However, they are not developed yet, and no one has yet found a way to bring down the cost of building and operating the nuclear plants. I believe we will use nuclear as a base, in conjunction with geothermal and hydro, will form the base, with alternatives being the primary source.


----------



## Revere (Jan 14, 2011)

The enviro whackos are about de-industrialization.  The superpowers and those who want to be superpowers are cutting oil exploration deals all over the world as fast as they can.

Meanwhile, we're being suckered into thinking dependence on foreign oil is bad.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 14, 2011)

And Revere is very successfully all about idiocy.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 14, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Modbert said:
> ...



sounds good to me, but the timeline has got to shrink ala the tech.  being feasible for mass production. IF it is then hey I am in. 

Now, there is a whole magilla as to the geo-political aspect as to the cost of a nuke power plant as we know them today, balanced against the money we send overseas to folks whom ( who?) use it to make mischief as well. At the end of the day, if we decided to open all avenues for fossil fuel production we could vastly reduce what we send offshore ala money and the political picture would change vastly as well. 

Right now, we have a self imposed 'diet' imposed upon us. We are so worried about the environment while china and India,  Brazil go merrily along their way meanwhile WE are the Saudi  Arabia of coal and have VAST deposits of natural gas to boot. 

IF the pols really want to change behavior they could do what they did in Europe, raise the tax forcing us to restrict our usage but they are cowards, they won't, because it won't fly, so we stumble around somewhere in between....we don't have a rational  energy policy for several reasons that bing one of the biggest.


----------



## Modbert (Jan 14, 2011)

westwall said:


> US consumption of gasoline has actually been dropping since 2007.



Link? It's not that I don't believe you but I like to see what context that's in.


----------



## Modbert (Jan 14, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Ecofascists and libtards are afraid America would become prosperous, self sufficient and debunk their crazy faith.



And this thread was going along so well.


----------



## Modbert (Jan 14, 2011)

Personally, I believe the future for the time being will be in various alternative energies. I see electric making strides when it comes to automobiles and a push for safe Nuclear energy in the long run for homes and other areas. Especially if France continues to have such great results with their program.


----------



## Woyzeck (Jan 14, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> We want to get off of foreign oil, correct?  Then why don't we drill here for it?  I mean, within the U.S. (on land)?



I imagine for the same reasons a meth addict doesn't choose to make his own meth rather than buying from the dealers. He doesn't have the knowledge or means to sustain his addiction forever, and once it runs out or collapses he's back at the dealer's, anyway. Instead the healthier thing to do would be kick the addiction altogether, instead of making it from home.


----------



## Revere (Jan 14, 2011)

Can it be said you're addicted to that which enables you to be prosperous?

Who bastardizes the language so?


----------



## Modbert (Jan 14, 2011)

Revere said:


> *Can it be said you're addicted to that which enables you to be prosperous?*
> 
> Who bastardizes the language so?



This line of reasoning is something similar to someone who is addicted to cocaine talking about it makes them work better because they have more energy.


----------



## Revere (Jan 14, 2011)

Are all the other countries which desire to surpass the productivity of the US, and are signing foreign oil contracts as fast as they can, addicted fo foreign oil?


----------



## Woyzeck (Jan 14, 2011)

Revere said:


> Can it be said you're addicted to that which enables you to be prosperous?
> 
> Who bastardizes the language so?



Prosperous? Hrm, well I guess prosperity in my metaphor is similar to the meth addict getting a high from his drugs. But shouldn't we not have to get high from our drugs? Shouldn't we get natural highs from life, like we tell our kids? Isn't that form of prosperity healthier than the other one? You can always get high on life, but only on meth until the meth runs out.


----------



## Modbert (Jan 14, 2011)

Revere said:


> Are all the other countries which desire to surpass the productivity of the US, and are signing foreign oil contracts as fast as they can, addicted fo foreign oil?



Well you tell me Revere. We ignore alternate energy options, what happens the day when some if not all of those countries run out of their supply of their drug of choice (oil)? Well hey, those other guys have it! Let's go take it from them! 

You're ignoring the future while having an obtuse and unrealistic view of the present.


----------



## Revere (Jan 14, 2011)

Superpowers are superpowers because of oil.


----------



## Modbert (Jan 14, 2011)

Revere said:


> Superpowers are superpowers because of oil.



So do you have anything productive to add to the thread?


----------



## Revere (Jan 14, 2011)

Yeah, only idiots would suggest the US take a step backward industrially and abandon oil, while the rest of the superpowers in the developed world are exploring for as much as they can.


----------



## Modbert (Jan 14, 2011)

Revere said:


> Yeah, only idiots would suggest the US take a step backward industrially and abandon oil, while the rest of the superpowers in the developed world are exploring for as much as they can.



You clearly did not bother to read any of the posts in this thread or pay attention to reality at all. Nobody is suggesting we abandon oil tomorrow. However, we need to focus on alternate energy options instead of just moving full speed ahead with the solution in mind being that drilling in places like Alaska will solve all of our problems.

Why don't you go read some of my previous posts in this thread and make a intelligent conclusion from that?

The U.S and the rest of the developed world are exploring for oil as much as they can because they are addicted. Much like a heroin addict tears apart his home trying to find a little piece to get his fix after he ran out.

Face reality, we're going to run out of oil eventually. The day is coming sooner rather than later due to the rise of superpowers in countries such as China and India. The longer you want to ignore such facts, the longer you only hurt yourself by not looking at the full picture.


----------



## Woyzeck (Jan 14, 2011)

Revere said:


> Superpowers are superpowers because of oil.



Ah yes, oil, the magically superpower-granting substance that raises countries to deified gods. Once a country gets a hold of oil, no matter what its size, shape, stamina, economy, it too can compete with the greatest powers in the world from oil alone. Any other alternative source of energy will automatically revert that country to third-world country status, to be picked on by all the other Western nations when it comes time for recess.


----------



## Modbert (Jan 14, 2011)

Woyzeck said:


> Ah yes, oil, the magically superpower-granting substance that raises countries to deified gods*. Once a country gets a hold of oil, no matter what its size, shape, stamina, economy, it too can compete with the greatest powers in the world from oil alone.* Any other alternative source of energy will automatically revert that country to third-world country status, to be picked on by all the other Western nations when it comes time for recess.



Even the great country of Petoria!


----------



## Revere (Jan 14, 2011)

Woyzeck said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Superpowers are superpowers because of oil.
> ...



The difference between countries with prosperous people and countries with poor people is oil.


----------



## Revere (Jan 14, 2011)

You could make a case that France's nuclear program sustains it as a world power, but the enviro whack jobs in the US would never stand  idly by while permits for new nukes are issued here.


----------



## Modbert (Jan 14, 2011)

Revere said:


> The difference between countries with prosperous people and countries with poor people is oil.



Except all countries have prosperous and poor people. Even the U.S has poor people and Somalia has prosperous people. Also, last I checked, some of the biggest oil exporters in the world are also some of the poorest.

So using your argument, Saudi Arabia and Iran should be two of the world's largest superpowers. As I'm sure Nigeria and Algeria are as well.


----------



## Revere (Jan 14, 2011)

Modbert said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > The difference between countries with prosperous people and countries with poor people is oil.
> ...



Iran and Saudi Arabia have tremendous wealth and power due to oil and governments that effectively explore and develop it.


----------



## rdean (Jan 14, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> We want to get off of foreign oil, correct?  Then why don't we drill here for it?  I mean, within the U.S. (on land)?



Right wingers don't seem to understand that oil companies pay for leases to drill.  Any oil discovered goes on the open market.  There is no reason for it to be used here.  This is a capitalistic society, not communist China.  If the price starts to fall, the oil companies hold back to jack the prices back up.

It's hilarious that right wingers scream for "capitalism" and then whine about actual "capitalism".


----------



## Revere (Jan 14, 2011)

What are the promises of people who tell us the US can be a superpower on government subsidized windmills worth?


----------



## rdean (Jan 14, 2011)

Revere said:


> What are the promises of people who tell us the US can be a superpower on government subsidized windmills worth?



Link?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 15, 2011)

Woyzeck said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > We want to get off of foreign oil, correct?  Then why don't we drill here for it?  I mean, within the U.S. (on land)?
> ...


Oh yeah, that's an equivalent comparison.   Meth to oil.  Fire up the steam calliope the circus is back in town.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 15, 2011)

Modbert said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Ecofascists and libtards are afraid America would become prosperous, self sufficient and debunk their crazy faith.
> ...


Truth hurts don't it?


----------



## rdean (Jan 15, 2011)

Revere said:


> What are the promises of people who tell us the US can be a superpower on government subsidized windmills worth?



Because that's what all the Right Wing Scientists and Engineers, both of them, are accusing the Left of believing.


----------



## Jackson (Jan 15, 2011)

We should be drilling everywhere there is oil.  High cost?  Getting oil from outside sources who are calling their own prices is high cost.  It would also provide jobs.


----------



## Woyzeck (Jan 15, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



Well thanks for coming around again, people here love the circus acts! Especially the one when you give a snide, snobbish insult dismissing someone's post without giving any counterargument, and then a lolcats image. The kids go _crazy _for it these days.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 15, 2011)

Woyzeck said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Woyzeck said:
> ...


Better than intellectually disingenuous metaphors pretending to be intellectual, Good Will Nothing.  Kids go crazy?  You're right.  You have.


----------



## rdean (Jan 15, 2011)

Jackson said:


> We should be drilling everywhere there is oil.  High cost?  Getting oil from outside sources who are calling their own prices is high cost.  It would also provide jobs.



Why is this so difficult to understand?

IT'S NOT OUR OIL!

Oil companies lease government land.  If oil is discovered, it belongs to them.  Get it?  It belongs to them.  NOT US!  It belongs to them.

The oil is put on the open market.  If the price starts to drop, they withhold the oil, creating new demand, which raise the price.

Too many complain about socialism and communism and then turn around and say, "Drill baby drill".  If the oil belonged to us, we would be a "socialist" or a "communist" country.  But we are not.  We are a "capitalistic" country.  The oil belongs to the company that drills for it and pays the government for the right.

Come on people, "THINK!"


----------



## Rozman (Jan 15, 2011)

Because oil is bad....and the oil companies are bad and the people who RUN oil companies are bad and the people who work for oil companies are bad and the people who use oil are bad.


BAD BAD BAD ........


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 15, 2011)

The original question was why don't we drill for our oil. I believe at this point it has been established that we do not have enough oil to make an appreciable differance considering our appetite for the oil. And as long as we have to import this amount of oil, we will be beholden to the people that own the oil. To the point that we will have to accept unreasonable demands on their part. To the point that we have to pay a huge military bill to gaurd their oil so they can charge us whatever they choose for that oil.

In the meantime, we have a decreasing middle class whose wages have been going down in real money terms for 30 years. And, now with the weather related disasters, the food prices are going to go up at the same time as the price for oil rises. 

Yet, we have people here that are absolutely opposed to the idea that we can create an energy technology within our own nation that does not rely on oil. Even as the amount of oil this nation produces goes ever downward.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 15, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The original question was why don't we drill for our oil. I believe at this point it has been established that we do not have enough oil to make an appreciable differance considering our appetite for the oil. And as long as we have to import this amount of oil, we will be beholden to the people that own the oil. To the point that we will have to accept unreasonable demands on their part. To the point that we have to pay a huge military bill to gaurd their oil so they can charge us whatever they choose for that oil.
> 
> In the meantime, we have a decreasing middle class whose wages have been going down in real money terms for 30 years. And, now with the weather related disasters, the food prices are going to go up at the same time as the price for oil rises.
> 
> Yet, we have people here that are absolutely opposed to the idea that we can create an energy technology within our own nation that does not rely on oil. Even as the amount of oil this nation produces goes ever downward.





[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glvu26HJrPU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glvu26HJrPU[/ame]



So we build a few windmills and the problem disappears!!!! Gotta love the lefty solutions to shit............


"Energy technology".......laugh my balls off. Faux solutions...........we're decades away from energy solutions that make any sense at all. The real question is............will the government get the fcukk out of the way so that private enterprise can compete and develop energy solutions for the 21st century. As of now.....they do not exist.........except in the minds of those pulling the wool over the eye's of people too stupid to realize the snake oil sold by people producing windmills and solar panels and bio-fuels. Reminds me of that old Twilight Zone classic "To Serve Man"!!!!!!!........the k00ks being the people of earth and the tall alien bald guys.......The Kanamits....... the corporate genius's pushing windmills.


----------



## Woyzeck (Jan 15, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Nope, that's right kids, just insult your opponent instead of debating any points you take issue with. No need to reason why you're point of view is correct, just act like it is without supporting it!


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 15, 2011)

Wait... you think you actually made a point by claiming that oil was equivalent to methamphetamine.

How about you substantiate your lameass allegation?  I made 5 points that would fix this energy mess, pointed out that ecofascists and libtards are the main reason we can't seem to make headway on fixing this problem.

Of course you actually believe in the fantasy of Anthropogenic global warming and peak oil, so I doubt you have anything to say not worth more than mockery.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 15, 2011)

Why drill for our oil now?  Wait until we bleed the Middle East dry first, then Russia.  At $300 a barrel our oil will be mighty fine.


----------



## LCSHRINE (Mar 23, 2011)

Drill now, start a real energy program, get off your butts. Stop all the bull 
get a new leader that gets something done here, in this country.  Wake up america before its too late


----------



## dilloduck (Mar 23, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The original question was why don't we drill for our oil. I believe at this point it has been established that we do not have enough oil to make an appreciable differance considering our appetite for the oil. And as long as we have to import this amount of oil, we will be beholden to the people that own the oil. To the point that we will have to accept unreasonable demands on their part. To the point that we have to pay a huge military bill to gaurd their oil so they can charge us whatever they choose for that oil.
> 
> In the meantime, we have a decreasing middle class whose wages have been going down in real money terms for 30 years. And, now with the weather related disasters, the food prices are going to go up at the same time as the price for oil rises.
> 
> Yet, we have people here that are absolutely opposed to the idea that we can create an energy technology within our own nation that does not rely on oil. Even as the amount of oil this nation produces goes ever downward.



Good God, rocks. Build the technology and people will use it. No one is blowing up solar research labs. In the mean time I see no reason not to drill for all we can. Maybe it will calm the speculators down a bit. Announcing that drilling will begin in earnest all over America is bound to make a dent and create a few jhobs at the same time.


----------



## KissMy (Mar 23, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> We want to get off of foreign oil, correct?  Then why don't we drill here for it?  I mean, within the U.S. (on land)?



Our government really doesn't want to get off the foreign oil tit. The last remaining country with oil wins.


----------



## dilloduck (Mar 23, 2011)

KissMy said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > We want to get off of foreign oil, correct?  Then why don't we drill here for it?  I mean, within the U.S. (on land)?
> ...



I figure there is some truth to that. Just think of how valuable it will be when others start to run out. Hoarding from us now is a bit cruel tho.


----------



## KissMy (Mar 23, 2011)

dilloduck said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



I bet our government government plans on selling it to pay off the national debt when oil gets over $300


----------



## dilloduck (Mar 23, 2011)

KissMy said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



A lot of good that'll do me.


----------



## KissMy (Mar 24, 2011)

This entry below is the stock of proved reserves of crude oil in barrels (bbl). Proved reserves are those quantities of petroleum which, by analysis of geological and engineering data, can be estimated with a high degree of confidence to be commercially recoverable from a given date forward, from known reservoirs and under current economic conditions.


----------



## k2skier (Mar 24, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> We want to get off of foreign oil, correct?  Then why don't we drill here for it?  I mean, within the U.S. (on land)?



It goes back to when oil was first discovered in Saudi Arabia, now we trade weapons for oil with Saudi Arabia. It's all a fucking power and money trip now, and has nothing to do with oil independence.

Sleeping with the Devil
How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude

The Best Reviews: Robert Baer, Sleeping with the Devil Review


----------

