Obama unveils offshore drilling plans

[BDKJMU]

If one drop of oil or 1 cubic foot of natural gas comes from this decision then I say kudos to Obama but I doubt if we will see either.

Most likely thanks to the Republicans.

You would think that they would want to see this passed.........after all, they were certainly gung ho when Bush proposed it.

And most of the donks were gung ho against it when Bush proposed it.

[clenz]

For all of those that are worried about what small oil leaks will do to the environment stop. There are natural leaks all over the Earth.

From an article written by K. A. Kvenvolden and C. K. Cooper in the December 2003 journal Geo-Marine Letters.

[img]Recent%20global%20estimates%20of%20crude-oil%20seepage%20rates%20suggest%20that%20about%2047%%20of%20crude%20oil%20currently%20entering%20the%20marine%20environment%20is%20from%20natural%20seeps,%20whereas%2053%%20results%20from%20leaks%20and%20spills%20during%20the%20extraction,%20transportation,%20refining,%20storage,%20and%20utilization%20of%20petroleum.%20The%20amount%20of%20natural%20crude-oil%20seepage%20is%20currently%20estimated%20to%20be%20600,000%20metric%20tons%20per%20year,%20with%20a%20range%20of%20uncertainty%20of%20200,000%20to%202,000,000%20metric%20tons%20per%20year.%20Thus,%20natural%20oil%20seeps%20may%20be%20the%20single%20most%20important%20source%20of%20oil%20that%20enters%20the%20ocean,%20exceeding%20each%20of%20the%20various%20sources%20of%20crude%20oil%20that%20enters%20the%20ocean%20through%20its%20exploitation%20by%20humankind.[/img]


As for larger oil spills, like the Exxon Valdez, while human clean up is needed, one of the best forms of clean up is natural clean up. Oil is carbon, it is a natural thing. I really wish I could remember the title of the book I had to read for my Environmental Science class, but it pointed out that the 1964 earthquake in Alaska was far worse than the Exxon Valdez. The class was taught by Kurt Pontasch (http://www.ir.uni.edu/OSP/browsescreen2 ... gy&idNo=77" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), who was a big name during the Exxon Valdez spill, but due to the pressure from the public and media his, and his colleagues side of things weren't listened too.

[BDKJMU]

As as far as any worry about spills due to Hurricanes:

"...Both hurricanes registered as category-5 storms with maximum sustained winds of 175 mph, peak wind gusts up to 235 mph and central pressure as low as 902 mbar. MMS estimates that 3,050 of the Gulf’s 4,000 platforms and 22,000 of the 33,000 miles of Gulf pipelines were in the direct path of either Hurricane Katrina or Rita resulting in the destruction of 115 platforms, damaged to 52 others, damage of 535 pipeline segments, and near total shut-down of the Gulf's offshore oil and gas production. Fortunately for all, due to the prompt evacuation and shut-in preparations made by operating and service personnel, there was no loss of life and no major oil spills attributed to either storm."
http://www.mms.gov/tarprojectcategories ... naRita.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I dont care about oil spills in any way.

The ocean seeps more oil into itself every day than is pumped out of the earth in 2 months.


We couldnt replicate that if we tried to do it on purpose.

[native]

It's not much of a reversal. He has banned more drilling than he has allowed. But it is good as far as it goes.

[BDKJMU]

It's not much of a reversal. He has banned more drilling than he has allowed. But it is good as far as it goes.

Exactly. One of several examples:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29017638/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BDKJMU]

On a related note, a big discover(estimated 100 million barrels) was announced in the Gulf of Mexico a couple of weeks ago:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 42114.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This follows a MUCH bigger discovery in the Gulf announced last fall: (estimated more than 3 billion barrels):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125189057895179241.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... 4RUTBIl_3Q" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Appaholic]

...A National Petroleum Council study released last week reports that 40 billion barrels of America's "recoverable oil reserves are off limits or are subject to significant lease restrictions"...
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnist ... =110010391" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The US, the 3rd largest oil producing country in the world behind Russia and Saudi, consumes about 19.5 billion barrels a day as of 08'. Import about 57% percent of that, 11.1 million barrells a day (also export about 1.8 million barrels of that heavy crude- we need the light sweet sh*t).
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplaine ... _home#tab2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
But only import about 18% of that (about 2 million barrels a day) from the Persian Gulf nations.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplaine ... il_imports" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just think, if we opened up access to that est 40 billion barrels that are off limits, that would be 50 years worth of what the US currently imports from the Mid East....

Well, the announcement this week should open up 30mil of the estimated 40mil barrels. The other 10mil are non-negotiable IMO. It was designated a Wildlife Refuge for a reason. We can gain the other 10mil barrels through conservation & re-thinking our fixation on plastic packaging....

[clenz]

...A National Petroleum Council study released last week reports that 40 billion barrels of America's "recoverable oil reserves are off limits or are subject to significant lease restrictions"...
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnist ... =110010391" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The US, the 3rd largest oil producing country in the world behind Russia and Saudi, consumes about 19.5 billion barrels a day as of 08'. Import about 57% percent of that, 11.1 million barrells a day (also export about 1.8 million barrels of that heavy crude- we need the light sweet sh*t).
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplaine ... _home#tab2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
But only import about 18% of that (about 2 million barrels a day) from the Persian Gulf nations.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplaine ... il_imports" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just think, if we opened up access to that est 40 billion barrels that are off limits, that would be 50 years worth of what the US currently imports from the Mid East....

Well, the announcement this week should open up 30mil of the estimated 40mil barrels. The other 10mil are non-negotiable IMO. It was designated a Wildlife Refuge for a reason. We can gain the other 10mil barrels through conservation & re-thinking our fixation on plastic packaging....

This. There is so much stuff made from oil it is amazing. It's not just that these things are made of oil, it is the overpackaging that causes a lot of issues too. Go to a Wal Mart, local grocery store, etc.. and look to see how over packaged things really are. The use of plastics are at almost sickening levels.

[Appaholic]

It's not much of a reversal. He has banned more drilling than he has allowed. But it is good as far as it goes.

Exactly. One of several examples:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29017638/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yep. I disagree with this decision. The leases may be near, but they are not IN the national parks or refuge. It's public land without special designations/protections containing resources needed by the public. We can't continue to maintain our current lifestyle while at the sametime forbidding access to the very materials that enable our lifestyle. It's a choice.....

[93henfan]

The use of plastics are at almost sickening levels.

Should have listened to that tip...

[ASUG8]

I'm reading a lot of "not in my backyard" comments, and I agree to a point. Most people want:

* Clean sand and water at the beach
* Unobstructed coastal views
* Edible seafood
* No strip mining
* No deforestation
* No acres of unsightly windmills or solar panel farms
* Protection of national parks

It's a hard decision, and Appa is right - we can complain all day about the things mentioned above while driving our SUV around and leaving the TV and lights on at the house all day. The bottom line is that we choose a lifestyle and that causes us to use resources of some sort. Until we're able to get away from being such a consumption hungry nation we're going to continually run into tough choices like this.

I don't really care from a political perspective who decides to drill or not, but there's certainly plenty of hipocrisy on either side of the aisle when it comes to energy policy. Tough times require tough decisions.

[BDKJMU]

...A National Petroleum Council study released last week reports that 40 billion barrels of America's "recoverable oil reserves are off limits or are subject to significant lease restrictions"...
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnist ... =110010391" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The US, the 3rd largest oil producing country in the world behind Russia and Saudi, consumes about 19.5 billion barrels a day as of 08'. Import about 57% percent of that, 11.1 million barrells a day (also export about 1.8 million barrels of that heavy crude- we need the light sweet sh*t).
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplaine ... _home#tab2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
But only import about 18% of that (about 2 million barrels a day) from the Persian Gulf nations.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplaine ... il_imports" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just think, if we opened up access to that est 40 billion barrels that are off limits, that would be 50 years worth of what the US currently imports from the Mid East....

Well, the announcement this week should open up 30mil of the estimated 40mil barrels. The other 10mil are non-negotiable IMO. It was designated a Wildlife Refuge for a reason. We can gain the other 10mil barrels through conservation & re-thinking our fixation on plastic packaging....

You've got million confused with billion. As far as ANWR, give me a break. The speck of ANWR that was proposed for exploration in the past (about 1/10 of 1% of the total area of ANWR, which would still leave 99.9% off limits) is a barren frozen Tundra of mud and rock that not even 100 people see a year. Don't pay attention to the enviro donk propaganda that the area of proposed drilling is some wilderness serengeti. Using the modern technology of slant drilling they don't need that much surface area. 10-15 billion barrels of oil estimates. Tens of thousands of jobs, many of them union (which the unions were backing it (at least in the early 2000s). The Alaskan people have voted heavily in favor of it.

[Ibanez]

One thing it won't do is lower the price of gas at the pump. The bottleneck is the refinery, not the supply of crude.

Yep.

And I'm going out on a limb....careful, this runs counter to all of my Liberterian leanings....our government should take some decommisioned military bases & use the land to construct & run a refinery or two... ...yes, I said it....

As Houndawg stated, the bottleneck in our oil supply is refining capability. And oil (& it's availability), being as vital as it is to our economy & national interests, should be nationalized like our military....

fire away....

The government should buy back the land, if available and build a refinery?

[Appaholic]

Well, the announcement this week should open up 30mil of the estimated 40mil barrels. The other 10mil are non-negotiable IMO. It was designated a Wildlife Refuge for a reason. We can gain the other 10mil barrels through conservation & re-thinking our fixation on plastic packaging....

You've got million confused with billion. As far as ANWR, give me a break. The speck of ANWR that was proposed for exploration in the past (about 1/10 of 1% of the total area of ANWR, which would still leave 99.9% off limits) is a barren frozen Tundra of mud and rock that not even 100 people see a year. Don't pay attention to the enviro donk propaganda that the area of proposed drilling is some wilderness serengeti. Using the modern technology of slant drilling they don't need that much surface area. 10-15 billion barrels of oil estimates. Tens of thousands of jobs, many of them union (which the unions were backing it (at least in the early 2000s). The Alaskan people have voted heavily in favor of it.

millions, billions...what's the difference?

Regarding ANWAR, that's a matter of opinion & values. Some (myself included) hold wilderness sacred & it's value isn't measured in how many people visit it annually, but moreover, how few people get a chance to disturb the wilderness. The small amount of land currently designated wilderness should remain as such IMO. There's always a reason not to protect any land where natural resources could be harvested (The Bureau of Reclamation wanted to place dams on either end of Grand Canyon & flood the bottom in the 60's). With the crowded conditions within Washington DC, I imagine you could also make a case for creating jobs within the Construction industry building some high-value homes overlooking the Potomac on what is currently Arlington National Cemetary. The land was designated & protected as Wilderness for a reason. Once you rationalize removing it's protection, it gets easier to remove the protections on future Protected Areas once something of value is located within their borders.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Well, the announcement this week should open up 30mil of the estimated 40mil barrels. The other 10mil are non-negotiable IMO. It was designated a Wildlife Refuge for a reason. We can gain the other 10mil barrels through conservation & re-thinking our fixation on plastic packaging....

You've got million confused with billion. As far as ANWR, give me a break. The speck of ANWR that was proposed for exploration in the past (about 1/10 of 1% of the total area of ANWR, which would still leave 99.9% off limits) is a barren frozen Tundra of mud and rock that not even 100 people see a year. Don't pay attention to the enviro donk propaganda that the area of proposed drilling is some wilderness serengeti. Using the modern technology of slant drilling they don't need that much surface area. 10-15 billion barrels of oil estimates. Tens of thousands of jobs, many of them union (which the unions were backing it (at least in the early 2000s). The Alaskan people have voted heavily in favor of it.

Exactly correct.

[93henfan]

You've got million confused with billion. As far as ANWR, give me a break. The speck of ANWR that was proposed for exploration in the past (about 1/10 of 1% of the total area of ANWR, which would still leave 99.9% off limits) is a barren frozen Tundra of mud and rock that not even 100 people see a year. Don't pay attention to the enviro donk propaganda that the area of proposed drilling is some wilderness serengeti. Using the modern technology of slant drilling they don't need that much surface area. 10-15 billion barrels of oil estimates. Tens of thousands of jobs, many of them union (which the unions were backing it (at least in the early 2000s). The Alaskan people have voted heavily in favor of it.

So let's go ahead and violate our national preserves. Here's hoping we find oil under Yosemite, Yellowstone, etc. The Grand Canyon would look great with oil derricks straddling the Colorado. If they discover some oil under NY Harbor, maybe they can relocate the Statue of Liberty.

Seriously, you have to draw a line somewhere. I say leave ANWR alone. We'd be better off figuring out how to reduce our demand by 10-15 billion barrels over the several decades that it would take to destroy ANWR. That would be the smart approach.

[BDKJMU]

You've got million confused with billion. As far as ANWR, give me a break. The speck of ANWR that was proposed for exploration in the past (about 1/10 of 1% of the total area of ANWR, which would still leave 99.9% off limits) is a barren frozen Tundra of mud and rock that not even 100 people see a year. Don't pay attention to the enviro donk propaganda that the area of proposed drilling is some wilderness serengeti. Using the modern technology of slant drilling they don't need that much surface area. 10-15 billion barrels of oil estimates. Tens of thousands of jobs, many of them union (which the unions were backing it (at least in the early 2000s). The Alaskan people have voted heavily in favor of it.

millions, billions...what's the difference?

Regarding ANWAR, that's a matter of opinion & values. Some (myself included) hold wilderness sacred & it's value isn't measured in how many people visit it annually, but moreover, how few people get a chance to disturb the wilderness. The small amount of land currently designated wilderness should remain as such IMO. There's always a reason not to protect any land where natural resources could be harvested (The Bureau of Reclamation wanted to place dams on either end of Grand Canyon & flood the bottom in the 60's). With the crowded conditions within Washington DC, I imagine you could also make a case for creating jobs within the Construction industry building some high-value homes overlooking the Potomac on what is currently Arlington National Cemetary. The land was designated & protected as Wilderness for a reason. Once you rationalize removing it's protection, it gets easier to remove the protections on future Protected Areas once something of value is located within their borders.

The proposed drilling area ISN'T within the designated wilderness area. ANWR is about 19 million acres. 8 million is designated Wilderness area. The area designated for exploration is a separate area in ANWR, Area 1002, about 1.5 million acres
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Nat ... ife_Refuge" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The area of the proposed drilling is about 2,000 acres. 2,000 acres out of 19 million, in a section of ANWR that is a barren wasteland. Not the type of "Wilderness" you're thinking of:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/anwr.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BDKJMU]

You've got million confused with billion. As far as ANWR, give me a break. The speck of ANWR that was proposed for exploration in the past (about 1/10 of 1% of the total area of ANWR, which would still leave 99.9% off limits) is a barren frozen Tundra of mud and rock that not even 100 people see a year. Don't pay attention to the enviro donk propaganda that the area of proposed drilling is some wilderness serengeti. Using the modern technology of slant drilling they don't need that much surface area. 10-15 billion barrels of oil estimates. Tens of thousands of jobs, many of them union (which the unions were backing it (at least in the early 2000s). The Alaskan people have voted heavily in favor of it.

So let's go ahead and violate our national preserves. Here's hoping we find oil under Yosemite, Yellowstone, etc. The Grand Canyon would look great with oil derricks straddling the Colorado. If they discover some oil under NY Harbor, maybe they can relocate the Statue of Liberty.

Seriously, you have to draw a line somewhere. I say leave ANWR alone. We'd be better off figuring out how to reduce our demand by 10-15 billion barrels over the several decades that it would take to destroy ANWR. That would be the smart approach.

Give me a break. Read the above response.

You're comparing Yosemite and the Grand Canyon to 2,000 acres of barren, frozen, wasteland.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Thats what "they" do.

[BDKJMU]

You've got million confused with billion. As far as ANWR, give me a break. The speck of ANWR that was proposed for exploration in the past (about 1/10 of 1% of the total area of ANWR, which would still leave 99.9% off limits) is a barren frozen Tundra of mud and rock that not even 100 people see a year. Don't pay attention to the enviro donk propaganda that the area of proposed drilling is some wilderness serengeti. Using the modern technology of slant drilling they don't need that much surface area. 10-15 billion barrels of oil estimates. Tens of thousands of jobs, many of them union (which the unions were backing it (at least in the early 2000s). The Alaskan people have voted heavily in favor of it.

Exactly correct.

Thanks. And the thing is, most of the people against drilling in that miniscule speck of ANWR also decry our dependence on foreign oil, esp the mid east. ANWR's lowball estimate of 10 billion barrels would equal about 15 years worth (about 2 million barrels a day) of what we get from those camel jockeys over in the mid east.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Thats what "they" do.

[93henfan]

You're comparing Yosemite and the Grand Canyon to 2,000 acres of barren, frozen, wasteland.

Where are you getting 2,000 acres from? The proposed drilling area (area 1002) is over 150,000 acres, or 75 times as large as you are claiming. Area 1002 is the habitat for polar bears, lemmings, five species of birds, and 260 Inupiat natives in the village of Kaktovik.

What's the pressing need to drill there and disrupt that? Reducing consumption is the smarter alternative to lining XOM's pockets for oil we won't see for a long, long time, and in a quantity that won't make much difference.

The quicker we can get off oil, the better. Why perpetuate the inevitable and keep financing big oil and Saudi royalty?

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

You're comparing Yosemite and the Grand Canyon to 2,000 acres of barren, frozen, wasteland.

Where are you getting 2,000 acres from? The proposed drilling area (area 1002) is over 150,000 acres, or 75 times as large as you are claiming. Area 1002 is the habitat for polar bears, lemmings, five species of birds, and 260 Inupiat natives in the village of Kaktovik.

What's the pressing need to drill there and disrupt that? Reducing consumption is the smarter alternative to lining XOM's pockets for oil we won't see for a long, long time, and in a quantity that won't make much difference.

The quicker we can get off oil, the better. Why perpetuate the inevitable and keep financing big oil and Saudi royalty?

I thought polar bears were dying because of global warming not drilling in ANWAR? Is there anything we cant link to polar bears?

The war in Afghanistan maybe? Think again. If given the choice, polar bears prefer 5 to 1, opium over other any other drug. Extacy came in a very distant second place.


do some research on where they want to drill before posting again.

[93henfan]

Where are you getting 2,000 acres from? The proposed drilling area (area 1002) is over 150,000 acres, or 75 times as large as you are claiming. Area 1002 is the habitat for polar bears, lemmings, five species of birds, and 260 Inupiat natives in the village of Kaktovik.

What's the pressing need to drill there and disrupt that? Reducing consumption is the smarter alternative to lining XOM's pockets for oil we won't see for a long, long time, and in a quantity that won't make much difference.

The quicker we can get off oil, the better. Why perpetuate the inevitable and keep financing big oil and Saudi royalty?

I thought polar bears were dying because of global warming not drilling in ANWAR? Is there anything we cant link to polar bears?

The war in Afghanistan maybe? Think again. If given the choice, polar bears prefer 5 to 1, opium over other any other drug. Extacy came in a very distant second place.


do some research on where they want to drill before posting again.

Nice drivel. Do you have any kind of intelligible point to make?