dBspl

Where in this statement do I claim conservation and alternative fuels will replace all the foreign imports? Developing our own resources (drilling), is the only way I see that can guarantee that. That was the basis of the post. If all you guys want to believe that technology is available on the required scale to replace our dependence on oil, that's fine with me. I hope you're right. Personally, I prefer to have a safety net. Enjoy all the furture OPEC oil... dbspl

mdeneen, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, or improve conservation, or develop renewable alternative energy. I doubt anyone is against that. All I'm saying is that it's going to take a very, very long time to develop those energy resources to the point they can significantly reduce our reliance on oil. Crude oil is embedded in almost everything aspect of our lives. The world food supply could not maitain it's level of output or efficiency without crude oil. If an OPEC country managed to withold oil exports for a period of time, this could result in higher food prices, or worse, shortages of food. In a world of 6.5 billion people, that means somewhere (probably in third world countries) people will die. All I'm saying is that we have to bridge that gap with the energy resources we can develop ourselves, relatively quickly. Not only that, but it will have a remarkable positive effect on our economy. Right now, the US has to borrow $3 billion a week from countries like China just to pay for imported oil. This deficit spending is what ultimately leads to the devaluation of the dollar. And when the dollar falls, foreign countries unload more dollars, and of course that leads to further devaluation of the dollar. It is madness. If you think we can replace crude oil with solar power and wind energy, or any other "new" resource anytime soon, I believe you are mistaken. They both have a bright future, but at 1% of our current energy production they have a long, long way to go. And I'm not calling anyone a communist. All I'm trying to do is point out the fact, whether we're aware of it or not, that we finance terrorist and support OPEC countries that are mostly hostile dictatorships, and regardless what we do, that will not change over at least the next 5 years. We may not be able to become to completely oil independent, but maybe we can become OPEC independent. I'll take that... dbspl

Do you really wanna help America...Then try this... Stop bank-rolling terrorist! Stop supporting Dictatorships! Keep high-paying oil jobs in this country! Keep the wealth of this country here at home, supporting this economy! All of this can be accomplished by simply developing the energy resources under our feet. dbspl PS Please note that nowhere did I mention anything about lowering the price at the pump. Gas prices will remain high, and that will take care of the conservation and alternative fuel side of the equation.

The US consumed as much petroleum as the next five largest consuming countries combined last year. That is, 300 million Americans consumed as much oil as 2.8 billion people living in China, Japan, India, Russia, and Germany. Combined, those five countries still had a higher GDP than the US. I remember reading somewhere that if Chinese per capita consumption equalled that in the US, it would require the resources of another planet earth to satisfy the demand. There are two ways to satisfy our oil demand - get more or need less. I think we can effectively lower our demand cheaper and quicker than we can increase our supply. I'm still seeing soccer moms driving Hummers to the grocery store. For now anyway, isn't it a better strategy to deplete the resouces of "all of those people that want to kill us" and save our own resources for when we really need them? For those that like easy slogans, instead of "drill here, drill now" they should be saying "waste theirs, save ours." What is wrong with - get more AND need less? Maybe that way we can make ourselves energy independent. Wouldn't that be nice, too? And I'm having trouble understanding why we would send 100's of billions of dollars to people that want to kill us. How smart is that? I would also argue that we really do need it now, but that's just my opinion. But I might point out that by the time you realize you really need it (like for a war), it's already too late. It takes years to put the infrastructure in place to get it out of the ground efficiently. Anyway, If we really believe we can replace it with alternative fuels, doesn't it make sense to get it out of the ground now while it's still worth something? dbspl

I agree... This country consumes 22 million barrels of oil a day and we only produce 5 million. The rest is imported. In ten years I hope our total consumption is a lot less, but I'm reasonably sure we will still consume far more than what we'll produce at that time if we don't develop our own resources. That difference is still going to equate to 100's of billions of dollars, if not in the TRILLIONS. Why would anyone want to send that kind of money, and those jobs, out of the country? Especially to people that want to kill us! The government recently handed out a stimulas package worth $150 billion. If we start drilling now, in a few years oil production could genrate the equivalent of several of those stimulas packages a year. I think our economy could use it... dbspl

I could be mistaken, but as far as I'm aware, most oil leases have a term limit. It's typically 5 years, but could be any length of time. Oil companies also pay a bonus at the beginning of the lease, so it is in their best interest to drill a well (assuming they believe anything is there) before the lease is up. I also wonder what percentage of those leases are in areas of known shale oil, or are in "mature" fully developed conventional oil areas? Drilling wells in developed oil patches may not be economic if the well produces less than 100 barrels a day. This country is full of mature producing wells that produce less than 10. Digging addtional holes in these areas is taking a lot of risk. Shale oil also has its problems. It's very difficult and slow to extract (not to mention expensive). In some cases it requires different drilling equipment and infrastructure. I know drilling in the Bakken formation (North Dakota shale oil) is going on at a feverish pace. Oil & Gas companies are tripping over each other trying to drill holes. Oil production there is climbing, but at a very modest pace. Conventional, "untapped", oil reserves have the highest potential pay off. Since drilling is a very risky business, I can understand why oil companies would be more interested in a "sure thing". I personally can't hold that against them. dbspl