Bring It On!

Drill For Oil: It’s The “Environmentally Friendly” Thing To Solve Our Energy Crisis

May 1st, 2008 | by Windspike |

You have got to love the President unscripted when he has to answer questions that the public doesn’t usually get to put before them and rely on the seasoned press pool to do. When he’s answering questions, you find out what he really thinks and means. For example, he thinks drilling for oil in the ANWR is “environmentally friendly:

And we’ll look at any idea in terms of energy, except I will tell you this, that if Congress is truly interested in solving the problem, they can send the right signal by saying we’re going to explore for oil and gas in the U.S. territories, starting with ANWR. We can do so in an environmentally friendly way. They ought to say, why don’t we — I proposed, you might remember, taking some abandoned military bases and providing regulatory relief so we can build new refineries.

Last I checked, drilling and exploring for oil is about raping the land, not saving the land. But really, I seem to remember another president fixing the challenging oil prices by opening up the strategic reserve and that helped more then some tax rebate. This was suggested by congress, but just as typical SOP for GWB, he’s only interested if Congress puts forward ideas he likes, not solid ideas that may actually work.

Q Was that a “yes” on the moratorium?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I’m going to look at everything they propose.

Just the ideas I stuff down their throats that benefit my pals in big oil. He keeps on pushing the opening of ANWR:

Somehow if you mention ANWR it means you don’t care about the environment. Well, I’m hoping now people, when they say “ANWR,” means you don’t care about the gasoline prices that people are paying.

Really, when you suggest that we have…:

New technologies enables for — to be able to drill like we’ve never been able to do so before — slant hole technologies and the capacity to use a drill site, a single drill site, to be able to explore a field in a way that doesn’t damage the environment.

The person doesn’t realize that drilling the hole is damaging the environment from the very definition. Why doesn’t he go gang busters for alternatives beyond biofuels which inflate the cost of food stores?

But I digress what about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?

Q Fourteen senators, including your own Senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas, are calling on you to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. You’ve been asked that several times over the past few years. I know what your answer has been. But do you think now, with the rising prices, the record high oil prices, it’s time to change course?

THE PRESIDENT: In this case, I have analyzed the issue, and I don’t think it would affect price, for this reason: We’re buying, at the moment, about 67,000 to 68,000 barrels of oil per day, fulfilling statutory obligations to fill up the SPR. World demand is 85 million barrels a day. So the purchases for SPR account for one-tenth of one percent of global demand. And I don’t think that’s going to affect price when you affect one-tenth of one percent, and I do believe it is in our national interests to get the SPR filled in case there’s a major disruption of crude oil around the world.

Really, but we are talking about offsetting the cost of oil here in America, not the whole globe. You wouldn’t leak the reserve to China would you? Or do we have to pay down our debt to them for their help financing the Iraq mess you got us into?

Well…shit. Go ahead. Drill the Alaska Wilderness if it saves me ten cents a gallon. What the hell do I care if it contributes to global warming and I now have beach front property in Vegas.

  1. 5 Responses to “Drill For Oil: It’s The “Environmentally Friendly” Thing To Solve Our Energy Crisis”

  2. By rube cretin on May 1, 2008 | Reply

    “Opening ANWR now would be like stopping at the bathroom on your way to the electric chair; you’re only delaying the inevitable.” OILDRUM

  3. By manapp99 on May 1, 2008 | Reply

    The other side:

    “* Approve new Alaskan oil drilling already. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s pertinent parcel covers just 2,000 acres — a veritable raindrop in the Olympic swimming pool that is Alaska’s 365-million-acre territory. ANWR’s estimated 10.4 billion barrels could match or replace for 19 years the 1.5 million barrels of Saudi oil that America imports daily.

    ANWR also could equal or provide a substitute for American purchases of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez’s oil for 25 years. Interestingly enough, Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), who presided over the House’s late-March public dunking of top petroleum executives, applauds former Rep. Joe Kennedy’s (D., Mass.) program to provide poor people with Venezuela’s anti-American heating oil. One year’s worth of Chavez’s authoritarian charity equals just one day’s worth of ANWR’s all-American output. Guess which one enjoys the approval of the chairman of the House Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee?

    As for America’s 49th state, no one wants to rape Alaska’s wilderness. Environmentally friendly techniques direct numerous drill bits sideways, like covert tentacles, from a handful of surface holes. The allegedly fragile caribou seem quite aroused by all this; their Central Arctic Herd has quintupled from 6,000 in 1978 to 32,000 today. Meanwhile, petroleum development hums at Alaska’s nearby Prudhoe Bay.”

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/more_oil_drilling_please.html

  4. By windspike on May 1, 2008 | Reply

    Man,

    Thanks for the usual answer for the right. What’s another alternative? Something that doesn’t involve fossil fuels or drilling?

    Can you spin your brain in an environmentally friendly way?

  5. By manapp99 on May 1, 2008 | Reply

    It would be a start for the eviro wackos to understand that drilling for oil and gas today is no where near the same as it was 40 years ago. There has been considerable technological advances. Drilling a hole in the ground is not a huge impact on the environment. We drill holes all the time for other things such as water. Same holds true for nuclear power which the evironmental left has not allowed. While there is still an issue with the rods disposal new technologies are helping to minimize this. There are new technologies for clean consumption of coal as well and we have an abudant supply right here in the USA.
    I see us moving to other forms of energy such as solar and hydrogen however there are technological obstacles here as well. We are going to need to burn fossil fuel to some degree for the forseeable future no matter what course we take and it is foolish to not tap the reserves we have here. As Rube pointed out in another post, we should not wait until we are thirsty to dig for water.

    There is no magic wand for clean, renewable energy at the present but there are many around the world working on it. However we have seen with the bio fuels debacle that some moves can cause more harm than good. We should not act in haste or millions may be affected. Just like bans on DDT have caused the deaths of millions, biofuels are at least partially responsible for death due to starvation.

    How many are you willing to let dieto “protect” 2000 acres in Alaska?

    I feel that this is a problem that will not have a perfect solution, meaning we are not likely to find a magical solution that has no unintended consequences. It is for this reason that we should proceed cautiously. In my area we have abundant natural gas supplies in a area known as the Roan Plateau. Natural gas has been seen as a cleaner way to make electricity than coal, which we also have. So we drill for natural gas which has the side effect of producing great paying local jobs, and the enviros want to shut down the drilling due to a possible impact on the very common grouse. They have been going to court suing to have the drilling shut down which just adds to the cost of drilling. Natural gas prices go up and your electic bill goes up. The poor and working poor get the shaft and we keep drilling albeit at a higher cost.

    You can come here and see the drill sites which the drilling companies are required to clean up after they have drilled. With the exception of the cap off, I would challenge you to identify a year old drill site. These companies are good stewarts of the enviroment however anytime the “boogy man” big oil is involved the wackos on the left figure there must be something sinister going on. Look at the “evil” Haliburton. They provide mud services to the drilling rigs here and are a respected cog in the gear that allows us to turn up the thermostat and get heat. They provide many good paying jobs that cannot be outsourced. Yet the left has so demonized their company name that they cannot see the good they do.

  6. By windspike on May 4, 2008 | Reply

    Man,

    The trouble with drilling for oil is that there is nothing renewable about it. Thus, it’s not sustainable as an industry. Supply is shrinking daily, and in that usual supply demand curve sort of way, drilling anew only staves off the inevitable - higher gas prices.

    Thus, I would always vote in favor or less drilling not more because it gets us to better, sustainable and green solutions sooner than later.

    Dependency on foreign oil does not hinge on finding more oil locally. Sucking the oil from underneath the Arctic leaves a void - a cavity in the ground that cannot be healthy no matter what you fill it with. Moreover, the earth is not creating any new massive stores of crude for us to burn ad infinitum.

    So, in the end, your solution of more rather than less drilling is only a temporary one at that. Balanced with the retreating supply of natural wilderness, I don’t think the trade off is worth it.

    If trading with dictators for oil is so abhorrent to you, what is another alternative? You didn’t answer my first question. Magic wands aside, I would beg to differ. No perfect solution doesn’t mean there aren’t better solutions.

    Those solutions, for the responsible business person, must hit the triple bottom line - they must be profitable, SUSTAINABLE, and SOCIALLY (environmentally and otherwise) RESPONSIBLE. By The very definition, drilling for more oil when there is a very small finite supply misses on two components to which all businesses will need to conform if they wish to remain competitive going into the future.

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel