I'd like to see technical information regarding that. There hasn't been a real major find in the lower 48 in a long time..
If it were the case, we would not need to import oil.
Originally posted by: alent1234
Originally posted by: tangent1138
Originally posted by: charrison
With that being said, we are not running out of oil anytime in the near future.
estimates put it at the next 10 to 40 years. i'm not sure about your definition of "near future" but in my lifetime and definitely in my children's lifetime is near future to me.
The problem is that people don't understand the concept of peak oil. it's not when we're at zero that it's a problem. it's as soon as we can't drill the same amount as last year, and it goes down each year after that. that's when countries start fighting for oil. China vs. USA? it's possible. we'll be the biggest oil consumers at that point.
most people: "eh, i'll drive less". driving less is the least of our problems. how about no power because we don't have enough nuclear plants? how about no food because the food is an average of 1500 miles from the suburbs?
this is why we need to find alternate energy sources NOW.
which estimates? The US alone has enough oil in the 50 states to last at least 100 years and most likely a few hundred more. Too bad that oil is politically blocked from being extracted by people that keep saying we are running out of oil.
Originally posted by: alent1234
Google Rocky Mountain shale deposits. Shell says they can make a profit on them at $40 a barrell. There is at least 1 trillion barrels of oil in there, but its off limits due to enviro-nazis. Then there is ANWR, the eastern Gulf of Mexico which is still off limits and the eastern continental shelf (forgot the exact name).
Sorry, but good planets are hard to find. Morons who argue in favor of progressively eating away at the environment in the name of "progress" or "development" either don't understand that the earth is a finite resource, or they are so driven by their personal greed that they don't care. If humanity continues on it's current course, the foreseeable endpoint is, we will populate and pollute ourselves into extinction.Originally posted by: Proletariat
Meh its your state. As long as the majority of Alaskans want it who cares. Its their loss in the end game.
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: alent1234
Google Rocky Mountain shale deposits. Shell says they can make a profit on them at $40 a barrell. There is at least 1 trillion barrels of oil in there, but its off limits due to enviro-nazis. Then there is ANWR, the eastern Gulf of Mexico which is still off limits and the eastern continental shelf (forgot the exact name).
It creates a lot more pollution according to what Google and Wikipedia bring up.
And we should be spending more time and money on how not to use oil, not extend our use.
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: alent1234
Google Rocky Mountain shale deposits. Shell says they can make a profit on them at $40 a barrell. There is at least 1 trillion barrels of oil in there, but its off limits due to enviro-nazis. Then there is ANWR, the eastern Gulf of Mexico which is still off limits and the eastern continental shelf (forgot the exact name).
It creates a lot more pollution according to what Google and Wikipedia bring up.
And we should be spending more time and money on how not to use oil, not extend our use.
The people that say it is more polution are the same people that say we should not develope anything. The method shell is developing heats up the shale in the ground, then pumps out the oil. SO it would appear the impact is quite minimal.
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: alent1234
Google Rocky Mountain shale deposits. Shell says they can make a profit on them at $40 a barrell. There is at least 1 trillion barrels of oil in there, but its off limits due to enviro-nazis. Then there is ANWR, the eastern Gulf of Mexico which is still off limits and the eastern continental shelf (forgot the exact name).
It creates a lot more pollution according to what Google and Wikipedia bring up.
And we should be spending more time and money on how not to use oil, not extend our use.
The people that say it is more polution are the same people that say we should not develope anything. The method shell is developing heats up the shale in the ground, then pumps out the oil. SO it would appear the impact is quite minimal.
Well, from what I've read, it sounds good for pollution, but I'm having trouble finding anything about its footprint. There the obivous problems going the non-Shell way (Pit-mining has a huge footprint), but I can't find anything, so far anyways, on the heater-rod way.
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: alent1234
Google Rocky Mountain shale deposits. Shell says they can make a profit on them at $40 a barrell. There is at least 1 trillion barrels of oil in there, but its off limits due to enviro-nazis. Then there is ANWR, the eastern Gulf of Mexico which is still off limits and the eastern continental shelf (forgot the exact name).
It creates a lot more pollution according to what Google and Wikipedia bring up.
And we should be spending more time and money on how not to use oil, not extend our use.
Originally posted by: alent1234
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: alent1234
Google Rocky Mountain shale deposits. Shell says they can make a profit on them at $40 a barrell. There is at least 1 trillion barrels of oil in there, but its off limits due to enviro-nazis. Then there is ANWR, the eastern Gulf of Mexico which is still off limits and the eastern continental shelf (forgot the exact name).
It creates a lot more pollution according to what Google and Wikipedia bring up.
And we should be spending more time and money on how not to use oil, not extend our use.
don't plan on a replacement for oil for at least 20 years
Originally posted by: EatSpam
You know we can't that. It would cut into Big Oil's entitlement to profits if they spent some on alternative research, and gasp, diversifying their business.
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: EatSpam
You know we can't that. It would cut into Big Oil's entitlement to profits if they spent some on alternative research, and gasp, diversifying their business.
If there was financial incentive into doing so they would have, but as long as people like John Kerry own SUVs and gas guzzlers they don't have to.
1 year of oil is better than 0 years of oil. If we leave it in the ground we'll still be dependent on foreign resources.
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: alent1234
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: alent1234
Google Rocky Mountain shale deposits. Shell says they can make a profit on them at $40 a barrell. There is at least 1 trillion barrels of oil in there, but its off limits due to enviro-nazis. Then there is ANWR, the eastern Gulf of Mexico which is still off limits and the eastern continental shelf (forgot the exact name).
It creates a lot more pollution according to what Google and Wikipedia bring up.
And we should be spending more time and money on how not to use oil, not extend our use.
private industry is already putting billions of $$$ to work
don't plan on a replacement for oil for at least 20 years
So? We have plenty for quite some time, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look for alternatives.
In a move certain to please Canadian politicians, U.S. house leaders late Wednesday abandoned an attempt to push through a hotly contested plan to open an Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil drilling.
They dropped the plan because they feared it would jeopardize approval of a sweeping budget bill Thursday.
Canadian Environment Minister Stephane Dion has said the plan will disrupt a caribou herd that migrates through the Yukon to the refuge.
He said that would make life harder for aboriginals who depend on the herd for food.
The actions were a stunning setback for those who have tried for years to open a coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil development, and a victory for environmentalists who have lobbied hard against the drilling provisions. U.S. President George W. Bush has made drilling in the Alaska refuge one of his top energy priorities.
The House Rules Committee formalized the change late Wednesday when it issued the terms of the debate when the House takes up the budget package on Thursday.
The decision to drop the ANWR drilling language came after GOP moderates said they would oppose the budget if it was kept in the bill.
Last week, the Senate included ANWR drilling in its version of the budget, so the matter will have to be thrashed out in negotiations between the Senate and House, if the budget is approved by the House.
Protection of the Alaska refuge from oil companies has been championed by environmentalists for years. The House repeatedly has approved drilling in the refuge as part of broad energy legislation, only to see their effort blocked each time by the threat of a filibuster in the Senate.
The budget bill is immune from filibuster, but drilling proponents suddenly found it hard to get the measure accepted by a majority of the House.
That's because Democrats heartily oppose the overall budget bill, giving House Republican opponents of drilling in the Arctic enough leverage to have the matter killed.
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: EatSpam
You know we can't that. It would cut into Big Oil's entitlement to profits if they spent some on alternative research, and gasp, diversifying their business.
If there was financial incentive into doing so they would have, but as long as people like John Kerry own SUVs and gas guzzlers they don't have to.
1 year of oil is better than 0 years of oil. If we leave it in the ground we'll still be dependent on foreign resources.
Originally posted by: charrison
Disappointing, guess we will have to wait and see what happens.
ANWR has been in and out of so many bills it is not even funny.
Originally posted by: Orignal Earl
Looks like its been dropped
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/...109.warctic1109/BNStory/International/
In a move certain to please Canadian politicians, U.S. house leaders late Wednesday abandoned an attempt to push through a hotly contested plan to open an Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil drilling.
They dropped the plan because they feared it would jeopardize approval of a sweeping budget bill Thursday.
Canadian Environment Minister Stephane Dion has said the plan will disrupt a caribou herd that migrates through the Yukon to the refuge.
He said that would make life harder for aboriginals who depend on the herd for food.
The actions were a stunning setback for those who have tried for years to open a coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil development, and a victory for environmentalists who have lobbied hard against the drilling provisions. U.S. President George W. Bush has made drilling in the Alaska refuge one of his top energy priorities.
The House Rules Committee formalized the change late Wednesday when it issued the terms of the debate when the House takes up the budget package on Thursday.
The decision to drop the ANWR drilling language came after GOP moderates said they would oppose the budget if it was kept in the bill.
Last week, the Senate included ANWR drilling in its version of the budget, so the matter will have to be thrashed out in negotiations between the Senate and House, if the budget is approved by the House.
Protection of the Alaska refuge from oil companies has been championed by environmentalists for years. The House repeatedly has approved drilling in the refuge as part of broad energy legislation, only to see their effort blocked each time by the threat of a filibuster in the Senate.
The budget bill is immune from filibuster, but drilling proponents suddenly found it hard to get the measure accepted by a majority of the House.
That's because Democrats heartily oppose the overall budget bill, giving House Republican opponents of drilling in the Arctic enough leverage to have the matter killed.
Better a smaller increase than a bigger one.Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: zendari
If there was financial incentive into doing so they would have, but as long as people like John Kerry own SUVs and gas guzzlers they don't have to.
1 year of oil is better than 0 years of oil. If we leave it in the ground we'll still be dependent on foreign resources.
ANWR doesn't decrease our dependence on foreign oil, it lets it not get quite as high as it will; but the amount of foreign oil needed will still increase no matter what.
You must be talking about the scope of your thinking. Any impact on oil supplies from ANWAR is ten years out and speculative, at best. The returns just don't justify financial or ecological costs.Originally posted by: zendari
Better a smaller increase than a bigger one.Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: zendari
If there was financial incentive into doing so they would have, but as long as people like John Kerry own SUVs and gas guzzlers they don't have to.
1 year of oil is better than 0 years of oil. If we leave it in the ground we'll still be dependent on foreign resources.
ANWR doesn't decrease our dependence on foreign oil, it lets it not get quite as high as it will; but the amount of foreign oil needed will still increase no matter what.
Originally posted by: Ferocious
I'm not sure about this issue at all.
But it would seem that ANWR should be left alone as an emergency source should OPEC ever boycott the USA or something like that. Don't drill there just to sustain corporate profits for a few years.