Drill Baby Drill
I liked the video game style graphics with the Cuba off the Florida coast. I’m serious, It looked good
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2008 at 0745 hrs
While I disagree with the premise that drilling offers the solution the ad implies I’ve gotta say that’s a really good commercial.
At the same time this who cheering for drilling strikes me as extremely odd, and void of any real understanding of how great the problem really is.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2008 at 0847 hrs
I’m willing to consider drilling, sure. But I want someone to really and truly explain to me what the benefits are going to be, now and in the future. Not exact numbers, perhaps, but estimates. I want to know what I’m going to get out of it. My understanding is that we’d stand to gain very little, and I suspect that it would only serve as a distraction from better solutions to the energy problems we face. I fear that it’s a sop to oil companies while doing almost nothing to benefit our economy or the global climate crisis. if I’m wrong, and there’s enormous benefit to be had, then someone should start explaining. And make it convincing. So far it hasn’t been.
Also, I find it seriously strange that people are cheering “drill, baby, drill!” as if they’re at a friggin’ rock concert. What’s that about, anyway? All I can think of when I see that is: you’re a bunch of brainless idiots.
I say we incentivize fuel efficiency, alternative sources, and go nuclear.
Posted by scott on September 09, 2008 at 0906 hrs
Just another cheap political stunt.
How about some real policy John?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2008 at 0925 hrs
At the same time this who cheering for drilling strikes me as extremely odd, and void of any real understanding of how great the problem really is.
Drill baby Drill!!!!!
I say we incentivize fuel efficiency, alternative sources, and go nuclear.
The incentive for fuel efficiency is already as great as it could possibly be scott. Have you seen the price of gas?
As for alternative sources… Anything thats a legitimate alternative that offers value over petroleum. I’m all for it.
Nuclear… Hell yeah.
Also, I find it seriously strange that people are cheering “drill, baby, drill!” as if they’re at a friggin’ rock concert. What’s that about, anyway? All I can think of when I see that is: you’re a bunch of brainless idiots.
I think I can safely speak for many like myself when I say that I find it seriously strange that anyone would be against drilling? Why? It defies logic.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2008 at 0930 hrs
I find it seriously strange that anyone would be against drilling? Why? It defies logic.
It doesn’t, though. Like I wrote above, it does nothing for the environmental problems associated with fossil fuel use. It jeopardizes the environment where it is harvested. It doesn’t represent large enough amounts to do anything meaningful for our dependence on foreign sources of fuel. So, no, I don’t think being against it—or being merely skeptical, as I am—defies logic.
Posted by scott on September 09, 2008 at 0940 hrs
Like I wrote above, it does nothing for the environmental problems associated with fossil fuel use.
Why don’t you just say what you really believe… That you think government should limit peoples use of gas and such? You’d support limits on how much/how often and where people could drive don’t you?
It jeopardizes the environment where it is harvested.
Bunk
It doesn’t represent large enough amounts to do anything meaningful for our dependence on foreign sources of fuel.
Not true
Whats it to you Scott? Aside from point 1, which I think is what you really have an issue with, whats it to you if we drill? If you in your infinite geological engineering wisdom is correct, and it doesn’t represent large enough amounts to affect oil prices… whats it to ya? I’m ready to let the people who are going to put billions on the line to go drilling cause they think its going to be profitable have at it. I’m willing to bet that companies ready to invest billions in exploration and drilling know a little more about whats out there than scott. (no offense intended)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2008 at 0953 hrs
void of any real understanding of how great the problem really is.
Drill baby Drill!!!!!
Talk about self incrimination.
It defies logic.
Well said xxpboy.
Love the red polo.John, not so much.
Hey Kev where does John stand on earmarks?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2008 at 1005 hrs
Excuse me, “well said” xxpilot?? He basically accused me of holding beliefs which I most certainly do not hold. Then he dismissed my main points with one word rejoinders “bunk!” If that’s “well said” then I’m a lipsticked pit bull.
I think I clearly outlined my positions, complete with my concerns about all this drilling you are cheering for, in comment 6. If someone has information to help me understand that I am wrong about any of it, then let’s have it. If all you have is “bunk,” and spurious accusations, then I think I’ll stay with the opinion I am leaning toward: no need for more drilling.
Posted by scott on September 09, 2008 at 1105 hrs
If someone has information to help me understand that I am wrong about any of it, then let’s have it.
We’re all tired of wasting our time with you. You have your preconceived notions, and we’re not going to change that. You’ve been beaten over the head with facts on this topic before, and you stubbornly refuse to accept them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2008 at 1140 hrs
Look, I’m trying to be reasonable on this. And reasonable people can disagree with “drill, baby, drill.” Seriously.
Anyway, if you’re sick of wasting your time with me, does that mean I can stop reading your comments as they won’t be directed at me anymore?
Posted by scott on September 09, 2008 at 1149 hrs
The issue is that we have a petroleum-based economy - and not just what we put in our gas tanks. I believe that somewhere in the vicinity of 50% of every barrel goes to “other” products: roads, plastics and plastic product, etc.
We are years away from being able to replace petroleum with reliable and effiecient alternatives. We also need to proceed cautiously else we hit the law of unintended consequences again (think food prices and ethanol). Other little tidbits to consider - the price and availability of: silicon that is used in solar cells, or nickel used in hybrid car batteries and steel. Or how about that it would take 250,000 wind turbines to equal the power generated by the 42 nuclear reactors currently on the grid.
Drilling for our own oil and gas reserves, will most certainly help us gain some modicom of energy independence. The off-shore drilling would also bring in revenues to the states fortunate enough to have these reserves - just like Alaska. The money that Alaska just rebated to its citizens wasn’t from a “windfall profit tax”, it was in the negotiated percentage of royalty payments made to the state for the use of the land.
It will also buy us time. Time to transition the economy, time to build more nuke plants, time to allow the market to transition into more “fuel efficient” transportation. Not everyone can just ditch their vehicle for a hybrid right now - there aren’t enough available, not everyone can afford them, not everyone wants to.
No one is claiming that drilling is the only answer. But to exclude it from being a big chunk of that answer for now is short-sided at best - it will destroy our economy at worst.
“Drill, baby, drill”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2008 at 1153 hrs
How does drilling buy us time? It takes years to explore and exploit oil fields, and it costs a lot of money to do it. Better to use the time and money available to us on alternative forms of energy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2008 at 1207 hrs
It takes years to explore and exploit oil fields, and it costs a lot of money to do it.
Its not your money steve… let the market dictate what its willing to spend.
Better to use the time and money available to us on alternative forms of energy.
The time and money will flow to the best form of energy. If that was alternative money will flow there (and certainly is) Why are you so incessant with your desire to shun viable options. Why do you write them off?
I’ve never heard a pro-driller say “screw solar” or say no to alternatives.
It takes years to explore and exploit oil fields
And in ten years people will be thanking the people who pushed for drilling now.
I sure wish they’d started drilling 10 years ago, don’t you?
I think you anti-drillers are scared. Scared that they are going to find LOTS of oil. I don’t think you want cheap gas again. Cheap gas means people will drive their cars again, and OMG a few people might even buy big SUV’s again. Thats like your WORST nightmare isn’t it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2008 at 1215 hrs
It is indeed my money. It’s money that comes out of my wallet to pay for gas and utilities, and it’s money that the government takes out of my check to pay for wars while oil companies get big tax. And wind and solar have to beg for even a fraction of the same treatment.
And no, I don’t wish they had “started drilling 10 years ago.” We’d soon be in the same situation anyway, with more pollution.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2008 at 1235 hrs
And wind and solar have to beg for even a fraction of the same treatment.
If wind and solar provided a good return on investment compared to fossil fuels they wouldn’t need to beg for anything. The demand would be so high they’d be reeling in cash faster than they could count it.
and it’s money that the government takes out of my check to pay for wars
This has nothing to do with our discussion… Hard for you to get over the whole war thing… I understand.
If I had my way, we’d have never needed to go over there, but thats besides the point.
while oil companies get big tax.
Blah blah blah… we’ve heard this all before. Try again…
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_kind_of_tax_breaks_does_the.html
Both candidates are referring to H.R. 6, the 2005 energy bill that contained $14.3 billion in subsidies for energy companies. However, as we’ve reported numerous times, a vast majority of those subsidies (all but $2.8 billion) were for nuclear power, energy-efficient cars and buildings, and renewable fuels research. In addition, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the tax changes in the 2005 energy bill produced a net tax increase for the oil and gas companies, as we’ve reported time and time and time again. They did get some breaks, but they had more taken away.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2008 at 1248 hrs
I sure wish they’d started drilling 10 years ago, don’t you?
Why? So oil could be $122.50 a barrel instead of $123?
I think you anti-drillers are scared. Scared that they are going to find LOTS of oil. I don’t think you want cheap gas again. Cheap gas means people will drive their cars again, and OMG a few people might even buy big SUV’s again. Thats like your WORST nightmare isn’t it?
i’d be ecstatic if they found a lot of oil. But you’re right about one thing. The more petroleum-based “solutions” we go with, the less we’ll be pursuing real solutions. The ones that will improve our global warming problem. (Which I guess you don’t believe in, right?)
Posted by scott on September 09, 2008 at 1337 hrs
The ones that will improve our global warming problem. (Which I guess you don’t believe in, right?)
We see evidence of climate change. Whether thats a trend or a cycle remains to be seen.
I have not observed any proof that humans are responsible for it.
And I think before we go orgasming legislation we should be basing it on proven fact, not observations and theories.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2008 at 1345 hrs
Why? So oil could be $122.50 a barrel instead of $123?
As my math teacher use to say Scott… You should really “show your work”
I’m sure in addition to geological engineer you also have a background in economics and supply/demand pricing models for petroleum too.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2008 at 1347 hrs
If you really want to shore up the economy, you build the energy infrastructure. Period.
You drill off-shore, you build clean coal and nuke plants. These create jobs - lots and lots of jobs. Good paying - non-exportable jobs.
From the people that design them, to the people that build them, to the suppliers that support them and provide the raw materials, to the people that have to operate them.
Lots and lots of jobs - in a relatively short period of time.
And a good strong economy to boot.The high-tech alternative stuff. Well, that is employing some research scientists right now, but jobs - not for many years yet. Solar panels could also be easily built in, say China? Takes a big honkin’ carbon footprint to ship goods from overseas (for those of you who care).
And yes Scott, I am far more concerned with energy independence and shoring up the economy than I am with the completely unproven anthropomorphic global warming hooey (and I live a mile from the ocean). Please explain the 5000 year old dudes being found underneath the glaciers - must have been warmer back then too, huh?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2008 at 1415 hrs
“Look, I’m trying to be reasonable on this. And reasonable people can disagree with “drill, baby, drill.” Seriously. “
You site an article by MSNBC..
Come on anything without a slant or a bias?
Anything…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2008 at 1434 hrs
As my math teacher use to say Scott… You should really “show your work”
Okay.
Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department. [link]
And that’s of course the link I provided above, which leads us to
You site an article by MSNBC..
Come on anything without a slant or a bias?
I just don’t know where to go with you people when a news article from a major outlet is reporting on a DOE report just doesn’t count for you.
the completely unproven anthropomorphic global warming hooey [...] Please explain the 5000 year old dudes…
Again, I have no place to go with you, as you dismiss the findings and opinions of the majority of climate experts worldwide. I’m kind of left with nothing more. I admit it. After you dismiss MSNBC reporting on the DOE, and also all the major climate reports issued by the global scientific community, no. I have nothing other than that.
Posted by scott on September 09, 2008 at 1508 hrs
I actually am not completely against off-shore drilling. I don’t mind it being PART of a larger solution, with some caveats.
In the event of an ecological disaster (oil spill, etc) the company is COMPLETELY responsible for COMPLETE cleanup, and a LARGE monetary penalty. Regardless of the reason: terrorism, mother nature, drunk employee, etc. If this is as profitable as everyone presumes, then the risk is worth the reward.
And there shall be NO drilling within the boundaries of wildlife preserves. Sorry, ANWAR is off limits.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2008 at 1540 hrs
Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.
Well Scott, I guess its a good thing that we aren’t just talking about drilling in ANWR which is what your link mentions. We can also drill offshore around the continent. Domestically… Hell, I’d drop some derrigs in lake superior if there was oil to be had.
as you dismiss the findings and opinions of the majority of climate experts worldwide.
We had dramatic changes in the climate on this continent thousands and thousands of years before the combustion engine was invented. I think its well documented things like retreat of glaciers and size of ice shelfs etc. I don’t think its well proven what the cause of that is.
And all of the scientists who are offering their OPINIONS on these observations surely have a strong incentive to ring the alarm bell as it would mean more funding for them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2008 at 1542 hrs
I could go with that. But it has to be part of this nutritious breakfast, as it were.
Posted by scott on September 09, 2008 at 1545 hrs
xxpilot, as I said: once you’ve dismissed their opinions, there just really isn’t anywhere else to go with you. The rampant know-nothing-ism and anti-intellectualism in the Republican party just takes my frickin’ breath away. First it’s evolutionary biology, then it’s global warming, next it’ll be that unproven “round earth theory.” I’m sorry, I give up. I cannot reason in the face of unreason. I cannot prove something to people who seem impervious to proof. I cannot empirically demonstrate something to people for whom empiricism doesn’t count.
Posted by scott on September 09, 2008 at 1552 hrs
The rampant know-nothing-ism and anti-intellectualism in the Republican party just takes my frickin’ breath away
Well… I think thats a stretch and I’m sure its mutual but regardless… I’m not a republican anymore
xxpilot, as I said: once you’ve dismissed their opinions
I’m sorry, I give up. I cannot reason in the face of unreason. I cannot prove something to people who seem impervious to proof.
Scott, you start off with opinions and end up with “proof” how did you get from point a to point b?
I agree that we have observed many demonstrations of climate change. (as listed above, glacial retreat, size of icepack etc) But I have not seen your “proof” that humans are causing it?
I swear if you’d been around with the dinosaurs you’d blame them for the ice age.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2008 at 1558 hrs
I know, it’s just so ridiculous that I believe these things! I mean, just because the majority of the worlds experts on the subject say so, why would that sway anyone?
Gravity, pshaw! Haven’t you ever held down your little brother and dangled spit over his face only to slurp it back up before it falls? Gravity shmavity. The spitty-slurpy thing remains totally unexplained!!!1
Posted by scott on September 09, 2008 at 1601 hrs
You’re being childish scott.
I’m actually a bit suprised. Either you’re less smart than I thought you were or you’re just being argumentative.
We can observe gravity.
We can observe climate change.
What I haven’t seen is proof that humans are causing climate change.
You don’t seem to be able to grasp the difference there.
I don’t need a million experts to tell me there is gravity. I can see it myself.
I don’t need a million experts to tell me the earth is round. We have photographic documentation.
We don’t have that kind of certainty regarding the cause of climate change.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2008 at 1642 hrs
Sorry scott,
Apparently my sarcastic intonation did not translate well.
I agree with you, anyone whose sole mantra is, drill baby drill, lives in a dream world if they think that is going to bring about cheap gas at the pump.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2008 at 1651 hrs
I’m just really, really frustrated. I know when the game is rigged. You ask for something and I provided it—then you say that it doesn’t count. You ask me to “show my math,” and I provide a story about a department of energy study—but that’s no good, because it’s being reported by a news outlet that you inexplicably dismiss as unreliable. It’s exactly the same phenomenon with global warming. Even though I have the majority of the world’s experts on my side, with years and years of data and study, an army of links to it all—it’s no good. You don’t trust them. You deny their authority on the matter. And there’s no where to go with it. No way to win.
Posted by scott on September 09, 2008 at 1655 hrs
Here’s my opinion, for what it’s worth.
One needs to understand that our entire infrastructure of energy . . . or 99.99% of it . . . is based on fossil fuels. Coal, oil, gas. You can make all the electric cars you want, force us to use fluorescent bulbs, conserve, and whatever, and we’ll still need the oil. ALL forms of transportation depend on it. As has been pointed out, many products rely on oil. Like it or not, oil helps our economy go ‘round. To completely overhaul our infrastructure, would be mind blowing. The efficiencies received from burning fossil fuels is unmatched.
There is no alternative. Not right now, anyway. It’s a pipe dream (get it?). For all the complaints about how much it costs to search and drill . . . that cost pales in comparison to retrofitting the entire country with some “new” form of energy. We’re decades away. Fossil fuels will represent the majority of our energy needs for the distant future. Other forms will simply supplement need.
As for the environment, acres of solar or wind farms is better? ‘Cause, you’d need A LOT of them to equal what a coal plant can put out.
Climate? There are ways to burn more cleanly. Funny that it’s the left that prevents most expansion to cleaner burning plants.
What we should be doing, is pushing natural gas as Pelosi doesn’t know it’s a fossil fuel. Maybe we could slip it past her.
As for benefit, it will come. The market would react right away. Future generations could operate more confidently knowing that we’re supplying our own oil. That our economy won’t be in a virtual headlock by foreign supplies, that war might be avoided as our “interests” will be here, that we’ll have the resources necessary to carry us over to whatever the “alternative” is.
Plus, drilling domestically will provide many, many living wage jobs.
Posted by jimi on September 09, 2008 at 1658 hrs
Scott… tell me you aren’t this stupid?
I think you’re playing dumb because you don’t have an answer.
You provided a study about ANWR. We are not talking about just drilling in ANWR. We’ve been discussion drilling offshore also. So stop playing f’ing stupid. So show my a study that says that all the oil in ANWR and offshore and everywhere else where we can drill isn’t enough to have a substantive affect on the oil market.
Then you try to compare gravity and the CAUSE of climate change? Good lord… No offense to retards, but you’re being retarded. That analogy doesn’t fit.
I submit that we have observed documentation of climate change. Noone has proof humans are causing it. The experts are NOT unanimous, and I’m quite certain that a good if not exhaustive portion of your “experts” are all interested in more government funding for their crusade to prove humans are the cause of global warming.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2008 at 2050 hrs
Total Entries: 19655
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 08:28 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 65
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 08:59 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).