• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Domestic Drilling

Additional domestic drilling will reduce oil prices


  • Total voters
    57
perhaps you've heard of a place called "the gulf of Mexico", and a ban that was put into place?

LOL! Ah yes, the time traveling Obama strikes again when he went back in time and caused the largest off-shore drilling disaster in history.

other than that though, the current administration hasn't really "stopped" drilling so much as it has stopped expansion.

Where has Obama stopped expansion?
 
LOL! Ah yes, the time traveling Obama strikes again when he went back in time and caused the largest off-shore drilling disaster in history.

:shrug: obama didn't cause the problem there - a long history of a foolish policy that forced the drills out beyond the safe reach of the technology did. if we had allowed closer drilling years ago, I agree, no disaster.

Obama is only responsible for his response.

Where has Obama stopped expansion?

President Barack Obama will not be allowing new drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico for at least seven years...

Obama Bans New Deep Water Drilling...

As Gas Prices Rise, Obama Delays New Domestic Drilling...

and so on and so forth.
 
:shrug: obama didn't cause the problem there - a long history of a foolish policy that forced the drills out beyond the safe reach of the technology did. if we had allowed closer drilling years ago, I agree, no disaster.

Obama is only responsible for his response.

Making sure it was safe to resume drilling after the worst off-shore drilling disaster in history was prudent for those of us concerned with safety.




This is due to safety issues as well. From your own article:

"Salazar said the seven-year ban is being imposed as a result of lessons learned from the April 20 explosion of BP's Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf, which killed 11 people and triggered one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history.

An estimated 4.9 million barrels (206 million gallons) of oil gushed into the Gulf before the broken well, 5,000 feet below the surface, was capped.

There is a broader recognition of the need for a more "robust safety regime" and additional environmental analysis in the Gulf, Salazar told reporters.

He dismissed concerns that the decision will seriously damage efforts to further develop domestic energy resources, noting that roughly 29 million acres already under leases in the Gulf have not yet been developed.

Rep. Ed Markey, one of the most vocal BP critics in Congress, said the announcement shows the White House "has heeded the lessons of the BP disaster."

"This plan will move America forward on a prudent path until we can ensure that when an oil company drills ultra-deep, it is ultra-safe," the Massachusetts Democrat said. "Opening up wide swaths of our coasts to oil drilling before we put the proper regulatory measures in place would have been a mistake."

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, said it is "good the president is listening to the people of Florida."


This again was the temporary ban due to safety concerns following the worst oil disaster in history.


LOL! This is simply an opinion blog from the RNC. :sun
 
Obama Didn't Stop Drilling!

Yes he did, see, here are some examples.


Well Those Don't Count Because He Claimed It Was For A Good Reason!

:roll:
 
Let's all go back to riding horses and make it a duty of all of congress to clean up the dung.

Seriously, drilling will not hurt, it can only help. If we don't do something and soon, we will be in deep doo-doo.
 
Obama Didn't Stop Drilling!

Yes he did, see, here are some examples.


Well Those Don't Count Because He Claimed It Was For A Good Reason!

:roll:

Only a fool ignores safety issues when you have unnecessary loss of life.
 
Last edited:
Let's all go back to riding horses and make it a duty of all of congress to clean up the dung.

Seriously, drilling will not hurt, it can only help. If we don't do something and soon, we will be in deep doo-doo.

I have no problem with drilling if people want to as long as it is done safely and is protective of the environment. Just keep in mind what the experts have said, it will not effect world oil prices becuase of the rate of growth of world consumption. So knock yourselves out if you want! :sun
 
Only a fool ignores safety issues when you have unnecessary loss of life.

:roll: if you want to reduce risk to the workers - let them drill closer to the shore or on land.
 
Speculation accounts for about a third of the price of oil. If we get serious about drilling more and becoming energy independent, speculation will be that there will be more oil in the future. The price will drop.

From what I've read, there is something like 200 years worth of natural gas that is available through domestic drilling which is more than any OPEC nation has in oil. There are alternatives.

And, imo, speculation ruins a supply and demand economy. It's ridiculous that speculators can gamble on how much oil might cost in the future. This distorts the market, and shouldn't be allowed.

Alternative energy investment is far too expensive and still has many unknowns. It will take a long time to even harness that energy and when it is I can only imagine how expensive it will be. We have enough oil for another 100+ years and need to depend on that as to not hurt families and businesses. An economic recession is a horrible time to begin a transfer in energy production.

Sure we can work on it, but lets make sure we are in a situation where it can be done.

The technology exists already, but those with interests in oil deny that the public would purchase such cars. Of course, that's silly. There's no reason why such technology couldn't be mass produced. (I'm not sure if this has already been mentioned, but it's very interesting):

Cars that run on air

Cars that run on water

Cars that run on natural gas

Making sure it was safe to resume drilling after the worst off-shore drilling disaster in history was prudent for those of us concerned with safety.





This is due to safety issues as well. From your own article:

"Salazar said the seven-year ban is being imposed as a result of lessons learned from the April 20 explosion of BP's Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf, which killed 11 people and triggered one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history.

An estimated 4.9 million barrels (206 million gallons) of oil gushed into the Gulf before the broken well, 5,000 feet below the surface, was capped.

There is a broader recognition of the need for a more "robust safety regime" and additional environmental analysis in the Gulf, Salazar told reporters.

He dismissed concerns that the decision will seriously damage efforts to further develop domestic energy resources, noting that roughly 29 million acres already under leases in the Gulf have not yet been developed.

Rep. Ed Markey, one of the most vocal BP critics in Congress, said the announcement shows the White House "has heeded the lessons of the BP disaster."

"This plan will move America forward on a prudent path until we can ensure that when an oil company drills ultra-deep, it is ultra-safe," the Massachusetts Democrat said. "Opening up wide swaths of our coasts to oil drilling before we put the proper regulatory measures in place would have been a mistake."

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, said it is "good the president is listening to the people of Florida."



This again was the temporary ban due to safety concerns following the worst oil disaster in history.



LOL! This is simply an opinion blog from the RNC. :sun

Unless I'm mistaken, the reason for the recent oil spill was negligence, similar to the Exxon spill in the 80s. I wonder if better regulations would make a difference if drilling were still allowed.
 
You are only going to have so many short-term jobs for a declining product that is contributing to climate change. Much smarter to create jobs for the clean energy we will depend on in the future! We have to think long-term if we are to be able to compete in the future world markets. :sun

There is no long term, if our economy never recovers.
 
Has the World Already Passed “Peak Oil”?

"The year 2006 may be remembered for civil strife in Iraq, the nuclear weapon testing threat by North Korea, and the genocide in Darfur, but now it appears that another world event was occurring at the same time—without headlines, but with far-reaching consequence for all nations.

That’s the year that the world’s conventional oil production likely reached its peak, the International Energy Agency (IEA) in Vienna, Austria, said Tuesday.

According to the 25-year forecast in the IEA's latest annual World Energy Outlook, the most likely scenario is for crude oil production to stay on a plateau at about 68 to 69 million barrels per day.

In this scenario, crude oil production "never regains its all-time peak of 70 million barrels per day reached in 2006," said IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2010.

In previous years, the IEA had predicted that crude oil production would continue to rise for at least another couple of decades.

Now, because of rising oil prices, declines in investment by the oil industry, and new commitments by some nations to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the new forecast says oil production is likely to be lower than the IEA had expected.

End of Cheap Oil

The projected flat crude oil production doesn’t translate into an immediate shortage of fuels for the world’s cars and trucks. IEA actually projects that the total production of what it calls “petroleum fuels” is most likely to continue steadily rising, reaching about 99 million barrels per day by 2035.

This growth in liquid fuels would come entirely from unconventional sources, including "natural gas liquids," which are created as a by-product of tapping natural gas reservoirs.

(Quiz: “What You Don’t Know About Natural Gas”)

The consequences for the world’s energy consumers of this increased reliance on natural gas liquids and other unconventional fuels are stark.

"The age of cheap oil is over," said Fatih Birol, IEA chief economist.

"If the consuming nations do not make major efforts to slow down the oil demand growth, we will see higher oil prices," Birol said, "which we think is not good news for the economies of the consuming nations."

Has the World Already Passed

What's next? An article about how global warming is going to destroy mankind?
 
OK, but why are we so damn slow to convert to other forms (geothermal, wind, solar, nuclear).
And where is our "official energy strategy" ?
What are our government people doing , other than sitting and arguing ?
So solar is only partial, with a long pay-back....so what.
Geothermal is expensive - here we must have government subsidies.
Coal is cheap, but realistic environmental standards are a must, we should have nearly the same standards as the Chinese.

Because they're unreliable and too expensive.

Not to mention that everytime someone wants to build a windmill farm, solar farm, nuke plant, or dam, the treehuggers file a law suit to stop it.
 
:roll: if you want to reduce risk to the workers - let them drill closer to the shore or on land.

I did not force BP to drill in unsafe depths. You ask why they do not drill closer to shore or on land? "Offshore drilling presents environmental challenges, especially in the Arctic or close to the shore."
Offshore drilling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They have never stopped drilling on land, the only problem is production continues to decline from our peak production in 1971.
 
Its only common sense because most people only care about the short gains and not the long term cost. The short term gain are a few jobs and maybe slightly lower gas prices. The long term cost is a depletion in reverses, enviormental damage (since the oils that is left is in risky areas,) etc. The oil that gettable in Brazil is easier to get than the oil left in the US. I personally am against the president giving money to other countries to grow their businesses, let the investors do that. However, it is less enviormentally costly to do it in Brazil because of where they will be getting their oil. The money is that is being given is to modernize their methods to also reduce the environmental cost.

Also, you are forgetting where the Oil we have left actually is.

How is that?
 
Let's all go back to riding horses and make it a duty of all of congress to clean up the dung.

Seriously, drilling will not hurt, it can only help. [/b]If we don't do something and soon, we will be in deep doo-doo.[/b]

That's what Obama is shooting for.
 
The Bush recession has already improved.

I guess the unemployment rate going back up to 9% tipped you off as to how much the economy has improved?
 
In the long run, domestic drilling will help lower the price. Next week, not so much...
 
In the long run, domestic drilling will help lower the price. Next week, not so much...

next week we might see a dumping by the futures traders; who won't want to hold on to a commodity that we are set on depreciating.

but that is all moot; because Oil is no longer necessary - finally a sustainable, infinite, alternative energy hallelujah!

 
I voted just to see how many fools there are that believe increased domestic drilling will lower oil prices. Does anyone who voted yes understand that oil is a global commodity and priced by global demand? The only way the US could attempt lowering domestic oil prices is by nationalizing oil and we'd still need to import a majority of consumption, at prices that would soar if the single largest consumer (USA) took its production out of the globsl market. Who would subsidize lower prices, that big government advocates of increased drilling seem to despise while demanding continued subsidization of the oil and gas industry? US education has obviously failed the citizenry if some posters on this forum actually believe increased domestic drilling would lower oil costs.
 
I did not force BP to drill in unsafe depths. You ask why they do not drill closer to shore or on land? "Offshore drilling presents environmental challenges, especially in the Arctic or close to the shore."
Offshore drilling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They have never stopped drilling on land, the only problem is production continues to decline from our peak production in 1971.

of course it presents "challenges" me digging a hole to plant a tree in my back yard presents "challenges".

drilling on land or closer to shore presents fewer "challenges" than deep-sea drilling. If you really gave a hoot about workers safety, you'd be championing letting the rigs move in closer to shore.
 
I voted just to see how many fools there are that believe increased domestic drilling will lower oil prices. Does anyone who voted yes understand that oil is a global commodity and priced by global demand?

yes. do you understand that demand is only one factor in price, and that the other is supply? that shipping costs money? that refinement does as well? that these things will also be built into the price?
 
Because they're unreliable and too expensive.

Not to mention that everytime someone wants to build a windmill farm, solar farm, nuke plant, or dam, the treehuggers file a law suit to stop it.

legislation that limits the definition of "standing" in regards to this issue would go amazing lengths in making our energy sector and government more efficient.
 
of course it presents "challenges" me digging a hole to plant a tree in my back yard presents "challenges".

drilling on land or closer to shore presents fewer "challenges" than deep-sea drilling. If you really gave a hoot about workers safety, you'd be championing letting the rigs move in closer to shore.

Oil production in the US peaked 40 years ago, that's why they are drilling offshore. I've looked at the risks versus benefits off-shore drilling and decided its no longer makes sense for the country. :sun
 
in my home state of alaska, there are hundred of leases on land the state arranged with the oil companies which, if developed, could provide tens of thousands of jobs; more than our state population of roughly 600,000 could support in regards to the demands for skilled workers and administrators. however the federal government, specifically obama, has called for a cease on all offshore oil production. why restrain such industry? we cannot function in a competitive world market as a society of baristas and social workers. with effective and responsible resource management and development, jobs will be available, money will stay in the united states and the revenues generated through private incomes and taxes will allow us to progress as country. what i hate to hear are environmentalists halting economic development while people are without jobs, while they drive cars and increase demand, while whatever we refuse to develop on our soil is developed elsewhere then imported at significant cost. some one is going to get the oil, or the timber, or the gold... lets make sure we are the ones to do it. responsibly and as an example as industrial and progressive leaders of the world.
 
Back
Top Bottom