Priligy online now, save money

SEP 15

Recent Comment

"Yes, we absolutely need to focus our resources on alternative, renewab..."

View all Comments


Via Architecture2030

Hits: 33161
Comments (65)Add Comment
written by AirunJae, September 15, 2008
Anyway you could make this taggable/postable (yay for making up words) in other sites like Facebook, etc? This seems to put things in perspective for those short-sighted enough to want drilling.
written by Ken Roberts, September 15, 2008
How is it short sighted to want to use all of the resources you have? A small increase is better than no increase... a fact that eludes many Ecogeeks and best price cialis online democrats alike.
Uh... What?
written by Kris, September 16, 2008
Sorry? `All the resources you have'? I was under the usefull link daily cialis impression that we're talking about OIL here... What exactly do you mean by `better'?

Sure, using all the renewable resources you have available is a good idea. Using all the diminishing finite (and apparently environmentally destructive) resources available nothing but short sighted. Plus the increase is close to negligible, so why bother wasting money, effort and yet more resources bending over backwards to bleed the oil reserves dry? It's embarassing.
Sorry Ken
written by Morgan Mghee, September 16, 2008
But in this case, that bit of oil isn't going to effect prices, there simply isn't enough of it to even hint at denting the supply. Another problem with wanting to add it to the supply, no one says the oil companies have to keep it here in the i recommend best price for cialis US. It's a global market, and the companies have defended their right before congress to continue making profits. In business it comes down to risk vs profit. Here the risk exists however large or small and the profit (in the sense of lower prices for Americans, certainly the oil companies would profit) does not exist at all.
written by AirunJae, September 16, 2008
It is short-sighted because it is further ripping up the environment for a microscopic gain 10-20 years from now. Further, I believe that there is already quite a bit of land that has already been ok'd for use by the Oil companies, but there's a big push for offshore drilling. How about we spend the effort into getting off of oil, and transitioning to making our own energy to possibly bring new jobs to the U.S.. That seems like something all Americans, regardless of political affiliation would be in support of... but maybe not?
So true and yet...
written by Karl, September 16, 2008
Despite the only here levitra next day harsh reality of the problems we face in the future and the direness of our current situation all I can think of right now is "that would make an awesome t-shirt design". The internet has corrupted me.
Other factors
written by duke, September 16, 2008
What this does not account for is the other factors that will be in place 5, 10, 15 or 20 years from now... with all of the alternatives out there from solar, to hybrids, to bio fuels, etc. who is to say we might be completely self sufficient at that point? The fact is the more self-sufficient we are, the better, right?!?!?!
Yeah, right...
written by Merp, September 16, 2008
Why in the world would we limit ourselves to offshore drilling? Getting out of this mess is going to take hitting every single petroleum deposit the US has, and taking those resources and energy and using it to drive production of wind farms, new nuclear plants, solar panel factories, and every other alternative source under the sun. Get the price down slightly to get some breathing room, then go nuts leaving burning hydrocarbons behind.
supply and demand... not
written by wypatt, September 16, 2008
what most Americans don't know is that oil prices are not determined by supply and demand, if that was the case gas prices would be somewhere around 20 cents a gallon. Oil prices are based purely on speculation and a monopoly by O.P.E.C. The simple fact that the u.s. is drilling would lower prices based on speculation alone...
written by Ken Roberts, September 16, 2008
Egatz! Ignorance abounds.

Firstly, yes all oil produced in the United States must be sold in the United States. Not that it would make any economic sense to do it any other way, but I don't imagine any of you know anything about economics.

So what's the sense in drilling for oil? Well, let me tell you. Those 0.2 millions of barrels of oil a day are worth about $100 per barrel. You don't need to be a genius to understand that it adds up to a whole lot of money very quickly, and that's even giving the benefit of the doubt that your number is accurate.

With 70% of our oil coming from overseas, that's a huge transfer of wealth to places like Russia, Venezuela, and Iran. Conveniently almost no other country in the world is placing such large reserves of oil off limits. It appears that we're the cheapest 100mg viagra delivered overnight only ones so willing to shoot ourselves in our collective foots.

Any environmental damage from drilling in our coastal shelf will be minimal, as seen from experience in other countries. No one is seriously arguing that coastal drilling will be environmentally damaging, and even ANWR drilling is debatable.

People here live in some fairy tale land where we're going to be no longer using oil in 10 years, or even 20 years. That isn't going to happen. If you all actually read the technology information presented here every day, then you'd all realize that. We already have a $500 billion deficit for 2009, and yet somehow you think that the government is going to be able to invest enough money in alternative energy to make us independent in 10 years? Don't bet on it.

I'm all for expanding alternative energy production and consumption. I make sacrifices in my life to help push that cause along. Yet to stick our heads in the sand and not take advantage of the resources we have, while in a state of transition, is moronic. Does it make any sense that we're importing oil from other countries that drill on their own continental shelves, and in their own deserts and tundras, while we refuse to drill in ours? Of course not.

Even the people of the tourist-heavy state of Florida is pushing for offshore drilling. All of the talk of environmental damage is overdone. Certainly it would be less damage than getting oil from shale or sands.
Offshore Drilling
written by Hank, September 16, 2008
Is it bad because it's bad for the environment, or because it's bad energy policy? I'm fine with either answer...and I'm willing to say both.

One thing that I didn't (and won't) say is that it's bad economic policy. It's great economic policy, but it has nothing, I repeat NOTHING to do with the energy crisis, and that's what that graph shows.
Escape from the online cialis cheap box
written by dt, September 16, 2008
"A small increase is better than no increase".

Why is an increase needed at all? Wouldn't reducing our dependency on oil 1% over the next 10 years have the buy generic viagra online same effect?
written by Mike, September 16, 2008
You ain't getting off oil any quicker than us Europeans. You're investing all your money trying desperately to stave off a total financial collapse leading to a protracted depression. We're in the same boat but about 12 months behind. The last few times that the US and Europe worked together the results were pretty good (WWI, WWII, Cold War, etc.) Like you guys we're sending loads of money to crappy foreign countries supporting arses like the Iranians.
Time we got together to sort both our continents out so we become energy independant.

Also then all those annoying little countries won't have a huge stick to hold over our heads and international politics will become easier for us :)
judge for yourself
written by matt, September 16, 2008
I think everyone should read the data, rather than just relying on someone else's graph:

I don't think we will be off of oil anytime soon, and I would be more than happy to have an electric car, but only for the primary reason of not sending my money over to the middle east so those idiots can build 6 star hotels, indoor ski resorts, and fund terrorism. This world would be better off without the huge transfer of wealth going on.
But I do know that in California, we don't have the infrastructure to support thousands, if not millions of electric cars...we can barely push enough electricity during the summer with everyone's AC going full blast.
Drill now, keep as much money at home as we can, build better, cleaner cars, and invest in nuclear power and the infrastructure to support it.
Existential problem
written by Terris Linenbach, September 16, 2008
Great one Mike!

We are facing an existential problem that could very well result in the mass collapse of food distribution. People said it wouldn't happen to Wall Street and it did.

We need to take drastic measures. Drill on the land that's been leased and create a New Deal that rewards entrepreneurs with tax credits for solar, wind, and 100% electric vehicles.

Hybrids are a sham.
written by Terris Linenbach, September 16, 2008
I move to store the spent fuel rods in Matt's basement. Can I get some ayes or amens?
written by Ken Roberts, September 16, 2008
From the DOE link that Matt provided, it shows that about 40.92 billion barrels of oil are technically recoverable and potentially available for leasing and development in the OCS. At $100 a barrel, that comes out to around $4.092 Trillion dollars. Of course no one expects oil to stay at a mere $100 per barrel for very long.

In natural gas, you have 210.37 Trillion cubic feet of clean-burning fuel. At a 2007 average price of $7.17 per thousand cubic feet, that's another $1.508 Trillion dollars. Like oil, natural gas prices are only going up over the long term.

So are we seriously going to laugh at around $5.6 Trillion dollars in energy, while still importing the exact SAME resources from overseas? Really?

For those of you interested in the ANWR numbers, it's about another 10.4 Billion barrels (mean estimate). That's about another $1 Trillion.

Now I want you to all get out of the "OMG OIL IS BAD" mindset and think about those numbers, and the good you could do for the environment with the money. Lets face it, us drilling for oil is going to have negligible effect on supply and demand. Very little extra oil will be burn because of it. What will happen, however, is that our oil will replace some of the oil coming from overseas. That means that we can spend the money however WE choose, including on environmental causes.

All of the jobs created in the US due to that oil drilling will be taxed, and the money sent to Uncle Sam. The capital gains returns will also be taxed, as will the profits. In addition, the US government (or the States) can impose large licensing fees, or otherwise just auction off the drilling rights. Overall, that's a LOT of tax money coming into the government.

So here's my proposal. Drill here, drill now, and invest the money in alternative energy. Money doesn't grow on trees (not even rich peoples' trees), so oil money is a good way to raise the tramadol online without a prescription capital that we need to transition to alternative fuels.
Trillions of Dollars
written by Sam Crutsinger, September 16, 2008
Some of you keep bringing up all these trillions of dollars that this oil is worth. Sorry, but that's not really much of an argument. I'm not sitting on those mineral rights. I don't work for an oil company. I won't see any of those trillions of dollars. Before you say that it will be put back into the local economy, where's Exxon spending their record profits? Are they hiring me? Well, actually, they did hire me for a gig a few years ago and I got stiffed for $800 of my invoice. They still owe me money for services rendered. I don't trust them to spend a dime here in the states.
Who said offshore US oil has to go to US
written by Ike Masterson, September 16, 2008

I would like to see your source on the assertion that offshore US oil has to go to the US. Seriously, it does notmake sense. Middle Eastern countries, to an extent, have government operated oil production, hence they take in the profits and have cheap as water oil. We, the US, do not. Exxon, Chevron etc are corporations who do not give a rat's ass about what is good for the United States; they exist to make a profit. It does not make economic sense for them sell in the U.S. when they can get better prices elsewhere, even factoring in the shipping costs.

Your argument holds if all the offshore oil went into our tanks, but I don't see that happening. ExxonMobil and US oil majors have other markets around the globe. They don't have to exclusively sell it to us. They might pay taxes, but that isn't the same thing as all those trillions you're touting.

I agree that oil will still be our primary fuel source in twenty to thirty years. As fast as our progression in alternative energy technologies goes, unless we get a massive massive massive push we'll be lucky to have a ten percent conversion rate in in twenty-five years.

Rather than drill, I personally think we should be weaning ourselves off the amount we guzzle. I don't drive a fuel efficient car, but through walking/biking I only gas up about once a month. I understand that is not possible for everyone, but some people will drive two miles to the grocery store in their 5k pound SUV.
written by Andrew, September 16, 2008
This should be a T-shirt. It would sell well what with the election and all.
Yes to offshore drilling . yes to nuclea
written by toddlorensinclair, September 16, 2008
Yes to everything ... we need it all. Just the approval of offshore drilling will drop the price on oil ... without even starting drilling.
Any decrease in oil prices due to the ap
written by Keith, September 16, 2008
would be very short lived and very small. All OPEC has to do is agree to cut production. If they really wanted to erase the effect of US drilling they could drastically cut production for a short time and we'd all be begging for more oil like little orphans. We need energy independence. That means viable energy alternative should be priority one.
written by tom desrosier, September 16, 2008
When you pull back the cover on this rather bleak graph, you find this measure: "59 billion barrels of oil and 288 trillion cubic feet of natural gas"

The graph isnt telling the whole story - if we want the levitra for daily use oil sooner and if we want to pump it faster - thats easy; thats policy.

Tom Desrosier
written by Mike Zoril, September 16, 2008
Silly Americans, you should've listened to Ron Paul.
written by Jiff Jones, September 16, 2008
LOL, Nicely put. Could not have said it better myself!

written by Tax Jobs, September 16, 2008
Even though Al Gore keeps stressing on the point that we are depleting natural resources, the government continues to look for other sources of oil rather than spend that on discovering new sources of energy.
written by Anthony, September 16, 2008
by Terris Linenbach , September 16, 2008... I move to store the spent fuel rods in Matt's basement. Can I get some ayes or amens?

It's interesting you indirectly make the case for nuclear power while trying to belittle it. Did you realize that you could store all the spent fuel rods needed to power new york city for 100 years in a basement ? The storage problem for nuclear waste is an "invented" mythological problem. The amount of material we're talking about is so small that we could store it above ground in one spot, and hire a few hundred scientists to monitor it, and a few hundred troops to constantly protect it from theft. Similar to how you keep your computer data safe, you keep moving it to different containers as technology improves. I'm totally against sticking it in a mountain and forgetting about it. It needs to be monitored, which isn't that hard.

Many people don't understand the 'scale' of this problem. We need so much energy to continue to grow and be more productive and advance as a society. Wind and Solar are cute.. but they are too small. We need _BIG_ power. Nuclear power has been silently supplying 20% of the US electric grid for the past 30 years. ( from 100 plants. ) All the while harming only a few individuals who worked in the plants. ( One who is up for a darwin award. ) More workers die in acquiring fossil fuels ( drilling and mining. ) each year, then have _EVER_ died in the history of civilian nuclear power.

In addition. The fact that we "burn" things for fuel has cause pretty much all our environmental problems. You are breathing radioactive elements right now from your remote/local Coal Power plant. We nearly went the way of Rome when we decided to burn Lead in gasoline. It's all about scale. 500 nuclear plants would supply 100% of the grid. I think wind and solar can fill in the gaps and help us expand even further. Please, don't leave out _BIG_ energy, and don't discount nuclear power because of myths of the 60's. It _is_ the only power source big enough to displace oil. Its pollution can be mitigate by innovation, and its power can be expanded by invention.

I do eat my own dog food. I went to college less then 4 miles away from 3 nuclear reactors. I've lived the rest of my life less then 10 miles from another one. All I've notice is the electricity is cheap, and the air is clean. Sound good to you?
0.2 mb/d?
written by Oooska, September 16, 2008
Where did this mythical 0.2mb/d number come from?

Drilling in ANWR alone would reach a peak of 0.876mb/d in 2025 (not counting off-shore drilling):

The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025.

Enough to make any significant dent in what we pay? Probably not. But if you're going to use numbers, cite your bloody sources!
Free Market! Free Market!
written by Tim, September 16, 2008
I really wish we could drill into some of these boneheads skulls that we have not nationalized our oil infrastructure. The drilling, extracting and refining will still be done by international corporations that will place the extra supply on the international market.

If you want to drill, fine, but be friggin' honest about it. Drilling won't make anything cheaper for us, but it will make a lot of oil people even more wealthy.
not an option!
written by d0d, September 16, 2008
see the levitra england mess we have now with OIL?
the same mess and samples viagra cialis worse, we will have in half
a century if we push nuclear fission again.
nuclear fission is NOT an option.

- all nuclear waste produced in the USA at
this very moment is stored where it was created,
that is at the nuke plant. the radioactive waste (today) has nowhere to go. if there's no way to dispose of the radioactive waste, why create more? :-

what we need is more "efficiency" and more "renewable".
I love how...
written by Ken's Mom, September 16, 2008
...The Internet is full of experts like Ken. No really he seems to have his finger on the pulse of this whole oil debate. In fact... Let's put him in charge of our oil reserves and drilling rights. Did any one on this thread catch that he uses the word foots as the plural of foot? Feet! Any who, I digress, the plan to bleed resources dry is pretty much horrible. What happens when we bleed it all dry and it turns out we need it? Then my friends you are up a proverbial creek without a metaphorical paddle. Start developing solar, and wind, and leave the oil alone. And Ken you need to come upstairs now for dinner it's getting cold. You can play your MMORPG's later honey.
written by MarkR, September 16, 2008
While the Chart may be correct, Here is why I'm in the Drill here Drill now camp. Right now our Economy is screwed, Drilling here will bring much needed jobs, While it won't solve the problem It will also help keep more money in Americans pockets. In the mean time we need Conserve and work on alternative energy infrastructure. I'm really digging the Pickens Plan right now.
written by Oil_makes_Plastic, September 16, 2008
You forgot to show how most of the US oil is sold overseas because the OIL companies get more money selling it there, then selling it here to make gas.
So the chart doesn't quite show the whole story...
Is it Canada?
written by Jerry Chappell, September 16, 2008
But the chart says "Foreign Oil". I'd like to see this bottom section broken down into "Canadian Oil", and "Foreign Oil" to see how the chart changes. The trade between the US and Canada is huge, so that portion of the Foreign Oil shouldn't really be as scary as the rest.
This Ken guy is so wrong...
written by David D., September 16, 2008
I worked in the Oil Industry my whole life until I started my own Solar Company a few years ago. This Ken guy has no clue what he is talking about.

Let me be clear, I have no problem with us drilling for oil. The environmental impact get's overblown. Yes, it's messy when you are drilling but once oil is found there is really very little environmental impact on the area.

Where Ken is so, so ignorant is in his thinking that there is such a thing as "American" oil. There is not. Oil is a commodity and it is open market. Now, most oil drilled in the US does stay in the US but that is just because it's cheaper to refine it and sell it here than it is to ship it somewhere else. But the problems we face are caused by worldwide demand, and drilling oil here can not be seen as "increasing American supply" because that's not the way it works. As a world wide commodity ALL supply is grouped together. So adding 200,000 barrels a day to the world wide supply is meaningless. The sad truth is that OPEC controls the buy viagra soft tabs price by regulating their output, something that would be illegal in the US (it would be considered monopolistic behavior if out oil producers tried to work together to regulate prices).

I don't want to drill more American oil. Not because of the environment but because this is a finite resource. People don't realize everything that oil provides us. Look around you, everything that is plastic (your phone, your computer, that keyboard you are plinking on) that is all oil. If we run out it isn't just our cars that stop, we go back to the iron age. We need to save our supplies for when we really need them. We need to invest in renewable energy, all types (wind, solar, geothermal, wave, etc.) not only to cut our reliance on oil but so that we can once again lead into the technology of the future. We are a country of very smart people who insist on doing very dumb things.
written by Mark, September 16, 2008
The folks using the Energy Information Administration statistics for ANWAR should also note that they predict that oil prices will be $27 in 2025 and the oil from ANWAR will constitute 0.5%-1.5% of total WORLD consumption. Both of these numbers are grossly inaccurate.

Careful where you cherry pick your information, Ken.
stop driving so god damn much and so god
written by fuzzbollah, September 16, 2008
As I drive to work every day at 60 mph, just about every other vehicle on the road passes me, as if there is no crisis at all. And I'm not talking about merely a slow gain and pass, everyone FLIES by. Just the simple act of slowing down to 60 mph helps me to gain 10-20 percent better fuel economy than by going 70 mph. Imagine what would happen if every driver did this simple action, gas consumption would decrease by 10 percent or more almost immediately, and the dynamics would change.

Also, I think every household should have some kind of solar hot water, solar PV panels, and/or wind generators, with excess energy generated being fed to the grid, and the household paid a fair price for the energy generated. This should be mandated and subsidized by the government.
Profits Vs Profit Margins
written by Michelle, September 16, 2008
Of course Exxon is making record profits... however, they do NOT have a record profit margin... or do any of you know the difference? A PROFIT MARGIN is how many cents per dollar you make on each thing you sell. If you sell a "widget" for $1.00, but have to SPEND $0.90 in manufacturing, salaries, and taxes, you've only actually MADE $0.10 on that one widget, or a 10% profit margin. If you sell 1 million of those widgets, you make $100,000, but that's still only $0.10 per widget. But they don't teach that in most schools...

Here is a list of profit margins of different industries: You will see Oil is nowhere near the top. What makes them a more evil target than silver, copper, shipping, steel????

Or the fact that near 50% of their gross income is already going to taxes?
Re: Is it Canada?
written by Vic, September 16, 2008
No it wouldnt be as scary. But they are looking
at new markets in Asia.
You said it, David D
written by JFinger, September 16, 2008
To me and my fellow fistys, David D speaks to the realities of our present predicament. Well said.
Short, Unexpected, Credible = well done!
written by rewinn, September 16, 2008
This great graphic conveys the message instantly. Well done!
written by Andrew Leinonen, September 16, 2008

Now I want you to all get out of the "OMG OIL IS BAD" mindset and think about those numbers, and the good you could do for the environment with the money. Lets face it, us drilling for oil is going to have negligible effect on supply and demand. Very little extra oil will be burn because of it. What will happen, however, is that our oil will replace some of the oil coming from overseas. That means that we can spend the money however WE choose, including on environmental causes.

The fatal flaw in that argument is that it assumes that the status quo will remain the same for the next twenty years. Sooner or later, renewables will be cheaper than fossil fuels - in some cases, they already are. Once you reach that crossover point, the economic incentive to extract oil goes downhill.

On the other hand, instead of trying to play 2nd fiddle to resource cartels, America can do what it (at one time, anyway) does best, and innovate. A relatively trivial amount of money spent investing in establishing a dominant renewables industry (companies like Nanosolar are a good start) provides US companies with an intellectual and economic advantage that can be leveraged around the world.

The largest growth economies in the world are not developed countries - they are developing countries, many of which do not have well established infrastructure, either for electricity or for transportation. Smart, decentralized renewables make much more sense for these regions than fossil fuels (not only because of price, but also because of reliability and availability). If the US can become a manufacturing powerhouse again in the field of renewables, we can do far more for our economy than $4 trillion (that's gross revenue, too, remember) over 20 years.

US solar revenue is predicted to be $69.3 billion in 2008. In 2007, it was $15.6 billion. While I don't expect growth on such an unprecedented scale to continue forever, current projections put it at 20-30% for the next 5 years, anywhere. If you can think of a better place to put your money in fossil fuels, be my guest...
written by Scar McDyess, September 16, 2008
Sure, drilling will bring new jobs, but developing solar, wind, geothermal, etc will bring entire new industries.

Not only will this bring new jobs, but if we let this chance pass us by we'll end up in the same boat as we are now, relying on other nations. Only instead of oil, we'll be paying for photovoltaic and wind generator technology from Germany and Japan when we should by supplying the rest of the world with it.

Just look at Detroit. Our manufacturers are completely reliant on Japan and China for batteries and hybrid transmissions.

Obama's Ford Escape Hybrid? Built using patents licensed from Toyota with a Sanyo battery and an Aisin (Toyota) transmission. Plus Ford can't get enough parts from its suppliers to produce a large number anyway- only 20,000 a year while Toyota plans on building 450,000 Priuses in 2009.

Alternative and renewable energy is going to happen whether we like it or not, the only thing that is up to us is whether we are going to be a world leader when that time arrives.
To Ken Roberts
written by Martin, September 16, 2008
I agree that it is good to keep our money in the US but I do not agree that the Government can't invest enough money into renewable fuel. SO far the we use it levitra 6 free samples war in Iraq which is being fought over oil (If you believe otherwise your a retard) and has cost us well over $1 TRILLION now you are telling me if you used that money to irrigate the Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and all the other vastly empty states and grow algae we could not meet oil demands.

At a low estimate algae produces 10,000 gallons per acre a year or a little less than 1 ton of biomass with up to 50% lipid (oil) content. Yes it will require a lot of land but we have plenty of unusable desert land.

A $1 Trillion investment would have gotten us a lot further than the war in Iraq.

Green is the only way to KEEP US ALIVE in the future.
written by Ken is an idiot, September 16, 2008
70% of oil is foreign you say. 200 million barrels of oil a day you say. We start drilling off-shore like McOld/Same/HockeyMom wants us to, it will have no effect until 2030, when the new rigs become operational. By then (20 years from now), if we do the smart thing and say fuck oil, we'd be pretty well on our way to being heavily dependent upon renewable, smart energy sources. And that would be much much better as an instant and viagra sale online constant positive multiplier than your strategy, which would do nothing until 2030, and then would only make that 70% dependency 69.9 or 69.8% dependency for maybe a decade. But you clearly don't have the capacity to make the right choice so you can just go sit in the padded rooms with Bush who gave us that $500billion deficit.
Graph does not correlate to EIA link
written by Mark, September 16, 2008
To begin, the graph, while effective at communicating its message, is not supported by the link to EIA. Not that I doubt the message. But the message should be supported by source data.

Second, the EIA projections are questionable. Look how the trends reverse once they reach the vertical dividing line. The technical term for such projections is bull$hit.

Third, unfortunately, the fossil-fueled internal combustion engine isn't going away any time soon. Our dependency is just too strong. However gasoline and Diesel fuel can be substituted to some limited extent and end-use efficiencies can be increased.

The good news is that unconventional natural gas resources have real promise. My concern is these resources will continue to be squandered by relatively inefficient "electrotechnologies" such as "plug-in" electric vehicles.

70% Of oil does not come from overseas..
written by Trevor, September 16, 2008
It comes from freaking Canada. Not exactly what you would call a member of the axis of evil. None comes from Iraq, minimal amounts from Saudi Arabia(15-20% if I remember correctly).

Tell McCain to define "foreign oil" for you.
written by Mark, September 16, 2008
Yeah, Canada is our major supplier

But for how long and/or from what. Google the cialis online no prescription term tar sands
The reason the oil companies want this n
written by Todd, September 16, 2008
They have a friend in the government. The basic reasons for pushing so hard right now, especially while Bush is still in office is simple. Bush is an oil man, he and his friends stand to profit after leaving office from a combination of the high price of oil & acquiring new drilling spots, not to mention the fact that the refineries control supply. So he has a vested interest in allowing offshore drilling. They don't care that it won't be able to be used for another 20 years. They have little concern over the environmental destruction that will take place, nor does anyone know the exact extent of that destruction. Erosion of the continental shelf couldn't be good for any coastal community, especially given the frequency & intensity of recent weather patterns. I for one, do not want to perpetuate our addiction. Basically this is an attempt to maximize profits for oil companies and giving a false sense of hope to those who are being gouged on energy costs. And yes it is gouging, when they won't build additional refineries & the ones they have are so centralized that any disaster can cause a huge spike in gasoline, even when reports are that oil dropped below $100.00 a barrel.
The reasons the oil companies want it now is they have a better chance of getting something passed before a more responsible administration comes into office. The oil companies are quite aware that they have places approved for drilling, but their greed dictates that they want more allocated before we do finally switch to an alternate energy source, at which time their profits fall, and that offshore oil will be all but worthless.

written by Ken Roberts, September 16, 2008
You people need to quick looking at this situation as an either/or scenario. Drilling for oil does not mean that you cannot develop alternative energy. On the contrary, it brings new money into the government for with to develop that energy, and it provides new jobs for Americans so that they can better afford the green premium.

I posted further DOE information a minute ago, but it did not post for some reason.
Oil Consumption, not Production
written by Peter, September 16, 2008
This graph is measuring oil consumption, not oil production. Give me a graph that shows oil production of off-shore drilling and we'll talk again.
written by Ken Roberts, September 16, 2008
To the people screaming "OMG Corporations will get the money!", that is irrelevant and only partially true. The rights to drill the oil must be leased, bring in tax revenue. To drill the oil the companies must hire workers, benefiting the economy. Those workers will then also be taxed. The corporations must order new rigs and additional supplies, further benefiting our economy. Etc etc. Hell, even the corporate profits mostly stay in the US.
written by barius, September 16, 2008
I agree that it is not an either/or situation. However, you are ignoring the political implications of opening up virgin territories to the oil industry.

While the ANWR could generate 5 trillion in revenues in about 20 years, it doesn't change the fact that the cost of oil will not change by one penny due to this tiny amount of production. The environmental cost, on the other hand, represents an incalculable loss. Further, opening up these areas sets a political and we choice pfizer levitra legal precedent to do it for other industries. Why should the forestry industry be prevented from cutting down old-growth forests like those in our national parks if the oil industry isn't prevented from doing so in an even more unstable ecosphere like the ANWR?

While I don't entirely disagree with your economic analysis, I do think you are being short sighted. Investment in renewables and their respective industries will do far more good than drilling in the ANWR. Renewables now represent the 'low hanging fruit' of the energy industry. Continuing to debate crumbs like the ANWR is only distracting politicians and the public from the more important issues.

Since you will never convince the 'greens' that drilling in ANWR is a good idea, you should just stfu and help us all to focus on the big investments that really matter.
written by Ken Roberts, September 16, 2008
Hey I'm not trying to convince any of you that drilling is the right idea, I'm just defending drilling from the horde of ignoramuses who call it short sighted and worse.

I also do not think that ANWR is really that environmentally critical, or that drilling there would do much harm. Have you ever BEEN to Alaska? The whole state might as well be a wildlife reserve, as there is no one there! The idea of needing a wildlife reserve in a state so unpopulated is just ridiculous to me. I think most people just assume that it is important, because it exists, without really taking the time to examine it.

I agree that OCS drilling and ANWR are distractions, which is exactly why the environmental movement just needs to get out of the way and let them happen so that we can focus on other things. If you drill in ANWR and OCS, then the ONLY option left is to push sustainable technologies. Instead you are artificially creating a dichotomy.
written by Terris Linenbach, September 16, 2008
Anthony, I was not making the case for nuclear power. As much as you and the hawks like it, it's not going to fly, and it's not because of the "environmentalists." You're welcome to put the rods in your basement, and in your ancestors' too. If you're such a man, there's lots of cheap real estate in Chernobyl. Say hi to Sarah for me.
2 trillion barrels
written by Gorman, September 16, 2008
Most people don't even realize that in Colorado and Utah there is over 2 trillion barrels of oil that just started to get drilled. The Oil Shale Reserves in western Colorado for example. Already owned by the government. That is more oil then the entire middle east. Yes, it will help now but we still need a broader approach for better, cleaner energy. Nuclear power and renewable power are two options. There is a lot of research into renewable power. Including sea currents and air currents in cities to move turbines.
written by Terris Linenbach, September 16, 2008
I regret the following corrections: "ancestors" -> descendants. Chernobyl -> "near Chernobyl"

Hey folks, we are typing on machines that consume massive amounts of electricity and at least in California, PG&E said it wasn't possible. Markets make it possible.

We need 100% electric vehicles and let the market meet the demand.

I'm not your enemy. Iran is not your enemy. China is not your enemy. al Quaeda is not your enemy.

GM, Ford, Toyota, Whatever-Benz, Exxon-Mobil are the collective enemy.
written by Virgil, September 17, 2008
Oil shales is a joke. The amount of energy required to get the oil out (dig the shale up and centrifuge it), ad the resulting environmental devastation (big piles of shale lying around in heaps, leaching crap into groundwater) are just too big of a price to pay.

Yes, there's oil there, and we CAN use it if we want to, but that doesn't mean we SHOULD do it.
No WAR, No Drill, Solar Solution!
written by Uncle B, September 17, 2008
It is the cost of WAR that is killing the U.S. economy!If the U.S. had chosen to be a moral people, and leaving Iraqi oil alone, and following Al Gore, decided to develop the South Western deserts, with the technology of the times - solar/thermal-molten sodium - electricity installations, for the same amount of money as that war cost, ($650 Billion), today, we would be tapping into the largest, renewable, sustainable, energy source the world has ever known. It would have paid every energy bill in the U.S.A. for maintenance fees only - FOREVER! It would be equivalent to an oil field that can NEVER run dry! Low cost electric power, and storeable hydrogen gasoline replacement from the electricity, for all!
After the millions of murders, and $650 billions of dollars, borrowed from our children’s futures and pissed away, with thousands of our own and others maimed and disfigured for life, millions of families utterly destroyed, ours and theirs, we are no closer to Iraqi oil production than the Iraqis are!
The next time you hear a blithering idiot spoiled brat, drunken, drug addicted, sociopath, rich Arabic saber dancing daddie’s boy oilman, stand at a microphone and threaten YOUR safety with someone ELSE’S weapons, remember what you lost America, remember, and weep! (also see
written by Buck, September 17, 2008
Does off shore include Canada? Cause Canada is not offshore, and the dollars we give them for oils comes back in other goods. We have a healthy trade with Canada.

I think MOST of the offshore defined in that graph is really canada, and it is not bad.
written by James Love, September 18, 2008
I'm not sure Americans should consider Canada's oil supply "foreign oil". Technically it is, but we're not about to cut you off. If Canada is eliminated from the chart, how much is non-North American oil?
written by David, September 29, 2008
While pursuing solar and wind power is worthwhile it will not replace oil. They are sources of electricity. Yes, some day electric vehicles will be commonplace. But until then we need oil and more of it. Also it is not yet economical to store wind and solar power. So where do we get our power when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining.
Why is it that nobody here seems to be interested in using nuclear power for electricity. Or for that matter natural gas or coal gasification for electrical power.
I agree that we need to develop ad use all the sources of alternative and renewable energy that we can. We also need to increase our conservation efforts. But it will be a long time until we can change our transportation system to run completely on another source of energy. Until then we need to increase our development of our oil and natural gas resources for economic and national security reasons.
By the way we also import natural gas not just oil. while most of our imported natural gas comes from Canada, their production is declining at the same time that our use of it is growing.
written by David, September 29, 2008
Oil shale is no joke. There are actually new methods of production that do not require the mining of the shale first. Basically heat is used to induce the oil trapped in the shale to loosen its bonds so that it can flow like normal oil. While it is energy intensive, it is economical and results in a net positive increase in energy.
Eco Dreams
written by Castus, September 30, 2008
I consider myself to be a realist with this. I think we need to focus on new energy sources. Oil has peaked, worldwide, which means the end of our massive economic growth is pretty much about to hit - and a big decline US side means a big decline world wide.

The problem is, as David D said, that oil not only supplies energy - this is only part of what it does. The byproducts of refining petroleum include such varied things as pharmaceuticals, plastics and only for you generic viagra from china possibly most critically - petrochemical fertilizers that enable us to feed the amount of people on Earth with varying degrees of success.

The systems we have right now are VERY efficient in terms of supplying energy as well as these products. Not to mention, our entire industrial base relies on petroleum based energy to produce goods and continue churning, and this is one thing that simple electricity is not able to replace.

It's a problem of scale, as has been said before - these other energy sources are nice but they do not and will never be able to completely scale up, unless you look at things from an unscientific, magical land viewpoint.

So, people here. What is your guys' solution to replacing plastics, petrochemical fertilizers, energy, industrial base, pharmaceuticals, road tar and all other petroleum products (READ: EVERY PRODUCT YOU USE) with something else that is efficient, possible and SCALES UP to our current levels of energy? Please, I'd love to hear that things aren't as bad as I think.

Because if I'm right, and the evidence points to that (I can provide sources after if you guys want me to), then the only way we're going to continue is a massive localization of economy, huge amounts less of energy consumption and pretty much the dismantling of global trade.
written by amanda, October 26, 2008
Yes, we absolutely need to focus our resources on alternative, renewable energy. Unfortunately, the same environmentalists protesting drilling because of the impact on wildlife also protest any type of power source. Anything we can build large enough to have any sort of impact at all on our energy needs also impacts the environment or area wildlife. Instead of picking their battles and accepting the cleaner alternative they stop any sort of progress at all. To the person wanting to irrigate the desert for algae, where will you get the water? California already pays farmers not to farm their land so the water can go out the rivers for spawning fish. We can not have wind turbines and viagra order solar farms because of the danger to birds. Heck in my neighborhood they can not even widen a 3 mile stretch of road that adds 30 minutes to my commute because of an endangered grass.

Also to those thinking new energy sources will bring jobs, you are correct. It will bring them to Mexico as the natural gas plants in California did. None of the ports would allow the natural gas to be offloaded in their community so we built a pipeline instead. 3000 jobs for Mexico, good for them! Canada may get in on providing energy for us too because while they do care about the environment they are sane and realize what is in their best interest economically.

Absolutely we should find alternatives to oil, but don't think the US not drilling will stop the oil from being drilled. China is drilling off Cuba now. Do you think they will follow the same environmental and safety guidelines that US companies follow?

The environment is one of the most important issues that the world faces right now but our local environmental protections force other countries to pick up the slack because of the massive amount of resources we consume. Not just energy, all products. Some of the places growing food, and making our toys do not care about the environment at all so while we may save a species of fish, in doing so we may be the cause of a forest disappearing.

Write comment

security code
Write the displayed characters


Are you an EcoGeek?

We've got to keep 7 billion people happy without destroying our planet. It's the biggest challenge we've ever faced....but we're taking it on. Are you with us?

The Most Popular Articles