PDA

View Full Version : (Sep 21, 2009): "Groups spar over U.S. offshore drilling plan" (Reuters)


CGP
09-21-2009, 08:35 PM
READ @ REUTERS (http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Oil/idUSTRE58K4YB20090921)


Environmental and pro-drilling advocates pitched dueling messages about expanded offshore oil and natural gas production to the U.S. Interior Department on Monday, as the comment period on a Bush-era energy plan came to a close.

The draft five-year offshore drilling proposal offered in the last days of the Bush administration would allow drilling along the East Coast and off the coast of California.

Drilling was banned in most of the offshore areas of the United States outside the Gulf of Mexico for more than 20 years until Congress allowed the prohibition to expire last year.

Environmental groups and some lawmakers have raised concerns about the impact increased drilling would have on coastal areas.

The Alaska Wilderness League, along with about 20 other green groups, symbolically delivered comments to the department Monday from nearly 300,000 people opposing the proposed offshore leasing plan that would open much of the Arctic Ocean to drilling.

"We just wanted to let him know how many people there were across the country that were concerned about the proposed oil and gas development and the current oil and gas development that's going on in the Arctic," said Kristen Miller, government affairs director for the league.

Miller's group is pushing to halt all drilling in the Arctic Ocean until a comprehensive plan is developed to protect the area's fragile ecosystems.

Under U.S. President Barack Obama, the Interior Department extended the comment period for the draft drilling plan by 180 days. During that time the department held hearings throughout the country to gather public input on the proposal.

Supporters of expanded oil and natural gas production criticized the department for delaying a plan they say is essential to meeting U.S. energy needs.

The Institute for Energy Research submitted more than 13,000 comments Monday in support of the offshore plan.

"That plan was something that there was serious time spent on developing, making sure that it was done correctly. Now they've delayed it, which is in effect a de facto ban," said institute spokeswoman Laura Henderson.

Citing polls showing a majority of Americans support offshore drilling, Henderson said "those bans were lifted for a reason. They need to let people explore those areas."

The American Petroleum Institute also weighed in.

"It's time to end the delays," API President Jack Gerard said in a statement. "(The administration) must act now to ensure that America has the energy it needs today -- and in the future."



Continues at link...

CGP
09-22-2009, 12:58 AM
Any reactions to this?

mavfin
09-22-2009, 01:01 AM
Obama and Congress don't want to re-enact the politically unpopular drilling ban, but they're happy to delay any drilling indefinitely.

agatha
09-22-2009, 01:09 AM
People need to understand that the footprint left by today's oil rigs is so different from that of just 5 years ago. Believe it or not, there really are eco-conscious companies out there. They have employees who care about the environment.

Drilling would provide a lot of good paying jobs with great benefits for college and non-college educated Americans. Something that is in rather short supply lately.

mavfin
09-22-2009, 01:10 AM
People need to understand that the footprint left by today's oil rigs is so different from that of just 5 years ago. Believe it or not, there really are eco-conscious companies out there. They have employees who care about the environment.

Drilling would provide a lot of good paying jobs with great benefits for college and non-college educated Americans. Something that is in rather short supply lately.

Not to mention that down the road it would supply oil that we don't have to haul halfway around the world in a tanker.

Ikasu
09-22-2009, 01:16 AM
Production costs are too high to reduce short term and long terms prices.

TheTaoOfBill
09-22-2009, 01:36 AM
Offshore drilling brings us absolutely no benefit. By the time we get the oil into the market our oil consumption would have gone up by enough to where we are right back in the same position. We need to curb our addiction. Not continue shoving the needle into America's veins.

mavfin
09-22-2009, 01:39 AM
Offshore drilling brings us absolutely no benefit. By the time we get the oil into the market our oil consumption would have gone up by enough to where we are right back in the same position. We need to curb our addiction. Not continue shoving the needle into America's veins.

Even if we reduce our needs, we're still going to need some from somewhere. Might as well get the work done for it to come from domestic sources, and not be held economic hostage to some other country or area in the world. Also, as last year showed, it won't necessarily always stay this low in price. Domestic oil looked pretty good when gas was $4/gallon here in one of the lowest-priced states in the Union.

foxyladi
09-22-2009, 01:05 PM
People need to understand that the footprint left by today's oil rigs is so different from that of just 5 years ago. Believe it or not, there really are eco-conscious companies out there. They have employees who care about the environment.

Drilling would provide a lot of good paying jobs with great benefits for college and non-college educated Americans. Something that is in rather short supply lately.

fire up them drills

TheTaoOfBill
09-22-2009, 01:15 PM
Even if we reduce our needs, we're still going to need some from somewhere. Might as well get the work done for it to come from domestic sources, and not be held economic hostage to some other country or area in the world. Also, as last year showed, it won't necessarily always stay this low in price. Domestic oil looked pretty good when gas was $4/gallon here in one of the lowest-priced states in the Union.

You act like we don't drill any oil at all already.

We shouldn't need to drill more. We have the technology to reduce our oil consumption enough to only consume what we already produce. We should focus on building that infrastructure.

agatha
09-22-2009, 04:01 PM
You act like we don't drill any oil at all already.

We shouldn't need to drill more. We have the technology to reduce our oil consumption enough to only consume what we already produce. We should focus on building that infrastructure.




What technology and infrastructure do you support?

agatha
09-22-2009, 04:02 PM
Production costs are too high to reduce short term and long terms prices.



I don't follow.

TheTaoOfBill
09-22-2009, 04:07 PM
What technology and infrastructure do you support?

My priority order is Wind > Solar > Natural Gas > Nuclear > Coal > Oil

I think we should try our hardest to have our energy network as balanced as possible between those energies so that we aren't relying on one energy source too much.

So I support it all but there are some energy sources that I believe A. Aren't being capitalized on and B. would help reduce green house gases. So those energy sources get priority.

agatha
09-22-2009, 04:25 PM
My priority order is Wind > Solar > Natural Gas > Nuclear > Coal > Oil

I think we should try our hardest to have our energy network as balanced as possible between those energies so that we aren't relying on one energy source too much.

So I support it all but there are some energy sources that I believe A. Aren't being capitalized on and B. would help reduce green house gases. So those energy sources get priority.



Fair enough. My personal thoughts are to work in order of impact vs. time frame. So short term I like natural gas. We have the technology and infrastructure already in place. It is abundant and is even burned off in the refining process. Instead of cash for klunkers, I would have targeted SUV commuter vehicles for conversion to CNG engines.

Mid term, I like nuclear. I am holding out hope that the batteries for electric cars will be there. But what good is an electric car w/o cheap and clean electricity.

Another midterm approach I REALLY like is algea. It isn't part of the food chain, otherwise unusable land can be put to use, the delivery system is already in place, if one is inclined to believe in climate change, algea actually removes carbon from the air, it also grows incredibly fast (days vs. months)...

I like solar and wind too but the footprint per KwHr yields a mindboggling picture. I am always surprised at otherwise pro-environlment folks who support these. I do think things like school zone signs etc that run off solar panels are great.


I do find it interesting that you place coal above oil though.

Kbentleyis
09-22-2009, 07:32 PM
Pickens left the windmill project up in the air (no pun intended). It was the 10 billion price tag to run cable and errecting costs.

So, what is it going to be? We wait until the inevitable scientist to come up with a better solution that doesn't cost each of us thousands a year? Or do we go with the technology and know-how to put our country on financial stability and security of our nation?

Do we ride to work, whether it be public transportation or car?--or do we walk or bike it?