The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the U.S. Atlantic coast waters may hold 37 trillion cubic feet of gas and nearly 4 billion barrels of oil, while the Pacific Coast has 10.5 billion barrels of oil and 18 trillion cubic feet of gas. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62T06520100330 If he does what W wanted to do for 8 years I will have a whole new respect for him. It's about time we start using our own oil and gas.
I think it is only natural that it come on the eve of the healthcare bill. Healthcare was not easy to pass. Republicans are now saying they are not going to cooperate on anything. How can the vote against an energy drilling bill? I don't think they can. So it makes a lot of sense to me.
Moderator Note This is the Earth Science forum, not the politics forum, If you want to talk politics, or the Protection and Affordable Care act take it elsewhere if you to discuss the mining policy mentioned in the OP, then feel free. There are already plenty of threads on this forum discussing the Protection and Affordable Care act.
I put this here because it is geological. I kind of knew it could turn political since I said what I did at the end of the OP, so I apologize. I would like to hear anyone who opposes us drilling our own oil/gas tell me why, with prices the way they are, we should not. If someone convinced me it was horribly detrimental to the country I may reconsider. I would like to read both sides of the debate on the mining policy.
Trippy--can you please move this to the politics thread? From what I'm reading today this is going to get very political. Thanks. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/03/president-obama-drill-baby-drill-.html
I think it only makes sense Sandy. We have huge reserves of natural gas and we should fully exploit those resources. I also think it imperative that we reduce our trade deficit. The easiest, fastest and best way to do that would be to develop our own energy resources. It would put tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of folks to work and drive good wages toward middle income Americans. Use of our own domestic energy resources is just good sense. The issue plaguing natural gas development at the moment is a new process called fracking. There are some environmental concerns, but I think the environmental concerns can be overcome. I have seen nothing yet that would led me to believe otherwise.
I looked this up on wikipedia, and all I found was a dirty word that Europeans use. There was also a link to something called ``hydraulic fracturing'', which was invented in the 1940's as a way to increase production from oil wells. Is this what you're talking about? In what sense is it a problem?
Looking for words in all the wrong places Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But it is hydraulic fracturing. They are using the technique in natural gas wells, fracturing the shale and using hydraulics to extract the natural gas. Below is an article from Newsweek describing the fracking process and the environmental issues. http://www.newsweek.com/id/154394 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing
To put it into perspective, the US uses about 7.5 billion barrels per year, so even if all those could be recovered, that is 2 years of usage. That's it....
This drilling is not going to affect price. But it will put more people to work. And I think it is strategicly a good political move....a bit gutsy, but I think Obama can pull it off. The key is he has to make sure his base will stay with him.
And these are also just estimates. There could be larger reserves or new reserves that haven't been found. At least now we have to option of looking for/exploiting those resources.
Hurray! Actually, it's perfectly logical. He's using momentum to move on to the next issue. I remember all this talk about the "do nothing" president. Huh. ~String
Interesting question, your question assumes that increased domestic production will increase supply. Global oil supplies are controlled by an Oil producer cartel. So increased global oil production typically results in lower cartel production. So in the end, you have done nothing but extend the reserves of the oil cartels and employ a few locals - overall global oil supply remains unchanged because of cartel supply manipulaition. Unless you can totally remove yourself from global oil markets and become energy self sufficient, you are going to continue to be locked into global price issues. But the oil industry has no interest in making the US energy independent. They like OPEC.
Ahh I see. America can't hope to compete in production with the OPEC countries as a whole, so any effects get washed out by OPEC's changes in output. Got it.
I didn't say America cannot hope to compete in production. I said it doesn't matter...as long as the US remains tied to the global oil markets and global supply continues to be manipulated by a cartel. The US could take itself off the global oil supply grid. And I think that is even a better idea. The US has huge reserves of natural gas and natural gas is a cheaper and cleaner burning alternative to gasoline (See T. Boone Picken's energy plans for the US).
Depends. If the supply comes on in a very weak stream during 20 years, the effect can be minimal or zero. The world's thirst for oil will just suck it up without noticing it. The Reps are fucked with this legislation. They would REALLY like to veto ANYTHING, but this was their idea originally, so they can't really do that. The bottomline with drilling is the "not in my backyard". Jeff Bush doesn't want it in the Florida coasts and others don't want it in their coast. If it happens 2000 miles away, I guess it is OK....
