Why not oil?
By Brian Kirwin | June 22, 2008
Filed Under Uncategorized |
Today’s Virginian-Pilot editorial offers their suggestion for more internet capacity. They think limiting bandwidth is a bad idea.
At best, though, such measures are temporary. As more and more media migrate to Internet-based delivery, the need for bandwidth will only grow. Which means there’s only one real solution: Make more.
The same is true for energy, my friends. Limits on usage only get you so far. In the end, supply must meet demand.
Comments
32 Responses to “Why not oil?”
Leave a Reply
Podcast: Virginia Politics On-Demand-
Convention Coverage Sponsors
BlogNetNews Del. John Cosgrove Sen. Ken Cuccinelli Mrs. Brenda Haegley
Mr. John Harvie
Mr. James Hoyt
Del. Tim Hugo Ms. Thelma and Ms. Rosie Gilbert Del. Sal Iaquinto Mr. Michael Katchmark Mr. Patrick Salyer Del. Terrie Suit Mr. Amit Singh
Your donation of $50 will ensure conservative, local coverage of the convention and list you as an official sponsor.
-
What is Bearing Drift?
Bearing Drift was established in 2004. The name comes from the relative motion of objects at sea. If there is no bearing drift, and the distance between you and the object is closing, there will be a collision; therefore, action must be taken. Most navigational rules say to avoid collision, turn to starboard -- the right!
- Jeffersoniad
- badrose
- Bearing Drift
- Below The Beltway
- CatHouse Chat
- Conservativa
- Contemporary Conservative
- Crystal Clear Conservative
- Deo Vindice
- Good Sense
- J's Notes
- Leslie Carbone
- On The Spot
- Rappahannock Red
- Reagan's GOP
- Rick Sincere News & Thoughts
- Right-Wing Liberal
- Scott's Morning Brew
- Shaun Kenney
- Sic Semper Tyrannis
- Skeptical Observer
- Virginia Podcasting Network
- Bill Bolling answers questions on state budget and national politics
- Goode and Perriello debate in Charlottesville
- Navy veteran and former POW Galanti explains why he supports McCain for president
- Chris Graham of the Augusta Free Press on the Vice Presidential choices
- Senate candidate Gilmore touring Virginia to address energy production
-
Support Bearing Drift!
Get your BD gear from CafePress:
Sure thing. After all, remember when that fiber cut in the southwest left cleanup crews mopping up 0s and 1s for months? All those images of jackalopes drowing in porn and spam were just so heartbreaking.
BTW, thanks for helping me realize something Brian. I thought that creepy “my friends” refrain that McCain seems to put in front of every other sentence was just some bizzare attempt to sound more personable. But when you used it above, I realized there must be something more to it, and knowing your idolization of Reagan helped me quickly realize the source. I guess that’s one way to try to claim Reagan’s legacy - recycle his speech patterns.
OMG… Reid Greenmun says “my friends” all the time too! Yes, definitely kinda creepy.
Those two comments show why Americans have so little hope in the left of doing anything to lower gas prices.
Really? Maybe you meant some other Americans, because this seems to indicate otherwise. Central Americans maybe?
Dang it, i hate it when i ruin a point with hasty proofreading.
Don’t worry, Jeremy. You ruin your points even with excellent proofreading.
So you’re saying that my points must have merit in them to to begin with, or else they couldn’t be ruined after the fact….
Why do i feel like Jim Carey all of a sudden?
Because you’re acting like The Cable Guy
My kingdom for a political party that will answer YES! to the question: “Do we need more oil or do we need more conservation?”
I’d like to hear from some environmentalists who say: “Global warming is such a massive threat that we need to regulate the bejeebus out of everything AND build nuclear power plants.”
I’d like to hear from some Republicans that say, “Yeah we need more oil, sending billions to Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela is crazy and we need to do something about it.” (Note: The Bush admin says this, but they’ve had seven years and done zilch.)
Now, who said this:
“Those who preside over the worst energy shortage in our history tell us to use less, so that we will run out of oil, gasoline, and natural gas a little more slowly. Conservation is desirable, of course, for we must not waste energy. But conservation is not the sole answer to our energy needs.”
“Large amounts of oil and natural gas lay beneath our land and off our shores, untouched because the present administration seems to believe the American people would rather see more regulation, taxes and controls than more energy.”
“Make no mistake. We will not permit the safety of our people or our environment heritage to be jeopardized, but we are going to reaffirm that the economic prosperity of our people is a fundamental part of our environment.”
Um, I’m gonna guess Reagan?
Correct!
Conservation is one part of your answer, Hampster. Environmentalists are not completely opposed to nuclear. But for now here’s the best solution to problem…
You see, four times more natural gas and oil is available in areas already open to drilling than in waters protected by the moratorium, and the industry is using only a fraction (18-20%) of what it already has access to. These unused areas could produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day, nearly double current domestic oil production. We don’t need to open new areas for drilling. This is a “drilling decoy” as Rep. Maurice Hinchey puts it. “When Big Oil already has tens of millions of acres available to them right now, it’s cynical of them to come to Congress and ask for more drilling territory”, he said. That is why he and others have introduced a bill that compels oil companies to utilize the 68 million acres onshore and offshore that are being leased by big oil companies, but not used to produce energy. “Oil corporations are trying to take control of as much land now during the oil-friendly Bush administration years, but are holding off on drilling until the price of oil soars to $200 or $300 a barrel so that they can make even greater profits” said Hinchey. “By stalling energy production, these major energy corporations are cheating the American people out of a domestic oil and natural gas supply, causing prices to unfairly and unnecessarily soar at the pump. The federal government has made tens of millions of acres available for oil and gas development. It’s the energy companies that are refusing to produce and now we will make them pay if they continue to refuse to increase our domestic supply.”
Nice cut-and-paste, Eileen. No source, no cite, no credibility.
http://www.lvtsg.com/biz_news/publish/fed_gov/article_26734.shtml
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/il05_emanuel/Use_It_Lose_It.html
http://www.dems.gov/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC=%7BD68CD0B2-1442-4804-9F6B-AF67DE7FF585%7D&DE=%7BA67E9920-DC17-43C4-B5FF-2DCE030C5561%7D
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h6251_ih.xml
So if the oil industry isn’t really going to drill in places they have access to, why not call them on their bluff?
If you open the coasts up to drilling and then nobody does anything with the opportunity, we’ve advanced the debate and we can move on to other issues, right?
Or are Dems and enviros afraid there is a lot of oil available off shore and that oil companies might actually start producing enough to lower prices and increase consumption?
You can’t have it both ways.
The idiocy of this is astounding. I had to walk around the room before sitting at the keyboard, it was so mind-bogglingly vapid.
Let me get the liberal logic straight:
1 - Oil companies are greedy
2 - They want to drill in places they are not currently allowed
3 - We already let them drill in certain places, but they won’t
4 - Oil companies are greedy
Geez, there’s no one on earth who knows better where there’s oil than oil companies! Perhaps they don’t want to drill there because they don’t believe there’s oil there. (In related news, there was no women’s golf championship in Saudia Arabia today.)
And exactly why would liberals want oil companies to drill there — those same liberals who are against drilling generally — is it because they know there’s no oil there? The same reason the oil companies don’t want to?
Now, these same “greedy” oil companies want access to the outer continental shelf or ANWR. Why? Because there’s oil there.
So, let’s see. Eileen would have us believe that oil companies just WON’T drill where they already have permission … but they are so greedy that they will spend BILLIONS of dollars to explore areas where they are currently barred from.
Follow me, Eileen?
Drill where you are allowed for virtually nothing — and guaranteed no oil, versus drill where you know there is oil and lay out billions in advance.
What would you do?
Don’t answer that. I already know.
You’re right, Chase. The fact that Eileen wants oil companies to drill in the small areas they are currently allowed tells you how little oil there is there.
Boys, did either of you read Thursday’s VP? There on page 10 was a map from the U.S. Department of Interior depicting where 115 billion barrels of potential offshore oil reserves are located.
Off the Gulf Coast, 72 barrels.
Off Alaska, 27.
Off the Pacific, 13.
Off the Atlantic, 4.
Q. Where’s the bulk of reserves?
A. Not in the Atlantic
Q. Where is there the existing expensive infrastructure to support drilling and production?
A. Not in the Atlantic
Q. Where are the areas already open to drilling?
A. Not in the Atlantic
Q. Where does the US Navy have objection to drilling?
A. On 72% of Virginia’s proposed drilling zone
Uhm, Eileen. How are you so sure what’s off the Atlantic when it’s been illegal to even explore there?
We know because between 1976 and 1983, oil and gas companies dug more than 50 exploratory wells off the Atlantic, then abandoned them.
Then if you say there’s no oil in the Atlantic, what spills are you so afraid of?
Brian, considering your readership here, I have deliberately not argued against offshore drilling for environmental reasons. But if you want me to, I can oblige. I can mention how there is an environmental cost (which translates to financial costs for clean-up/mitigation) to even just exploring for natural gas. Once exploratory drilling commences, the toxic drilling discharges and other routine drilling impacts are similar for either oil or gas exploration and eventual oil or gas development. Normal drilling operations generate an average of 180,000 gallons of waste muds containing toxic metals such as mercury and lead, per well, with most being dumped into surrounding waters. Each drilling platform also normally discharges hundreds of thousands of gallons of toxic “produced” water every day containing benzene, arsenic, lead and other pollutants.
And before you mention how safe for the environment drilling is, let me mention how according to the Coast Guard, more than 7.1 million gallons of crude oil were spilled in at least nine major incidents and 35 smaller incidents as a direct result of Hurricane Katrina alone.
What else ya’ got, Brian?
I got the American people, who for decades have opposed stone-age environmentalist whackos who think that human beings are the scourge of the planet.
Oh brother…
I’m posting this as part of McCain’s artificial blog commenting campaign. For details see… http://tinyurl.com/6ormqf
Or, when the McCain campaign removes this embarrassing page you can see the cached page from google here … Preview of http://tinyurl.com/57xtq9
McCain told me to do it…
As usual, BK resorts to anger and name-calling as a stand-in for logic and education on the issues.
That’s anger and name-calling, Ragnar? Obviously you’ve only recently gotten married
I have much to learn obviously…