I am listening to Ed Schultz about drilling for oil

[nels25]

he states that drilling in the US will not do any good. He makes a point.

But here is where the rubber will meet the road and we had better be able to meet the challenge.

The chairman of OPEC states that oil could hit $200 a barrel.

Long before it does (if it does) the price of a gallon will get into the $5 - 7 dollar realm or better. When it does the public clamor for drilling in ANWAR, the gulf of Mexico, or/and of the California coast.

Egged on by GOP congress critters and you have all the makings of a huge headache for us going into the 2010 bi elections (and remember the party holding the white house usually does not fair well in bi-elections).

This is just the sort of issue if not handled deftly can cost us our majority in the house.

If you combine this with the rapidly rising cost for food (brought on at least in part by turning corn/grain once grown for human use an now instead used for ethanol) and the possible backlash only gets worse.

we can tut, tut if we so desire, but those same Joe and Jane six pack that Hillary is playing to now are not going to have tolerance/patience for this situation, they will demand action.

And if they think there is oil in the ground that is accessible (again with the GOP talking points ringing in their ears) they are going to start to fulminate for it's access AKA: drilling.

We have already lost some credence due to the way the overall ethanol fiasco as unfolded, even Al Gore refuses to address it when asked therefore making him an easier target for his enemies.

Any way this could explode in our face, we had best handle it correctly.:dilemma:

[Breeze54]

1. Is he also talking about this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3220295&mesg_id=3221479

What online radio is it?

[Cant trust em]

6. www.bigeddieradio.com

I listen to WWRL in New York.

[Breeze54]

Thanks but is he still talking about it?

If not, I'll pass.... his voice grates on my nerves.

[Cant trust em]

14. It will probably come back now and then

a lot of the time people will call in after he's done with his arranged segment.

[LisaM]

2. Nothing will do any good except using less oil. Period.

Everyone should do their best to carpool, use public transportation, and combine errands. I know this is easier for some people than others, but we need to reduce oil usage, drive more fuel efficient cars, and stay home one day a week if we can (or at least walk to do our errands).

[Solon]

3. Give the people the facts, like saying ANWR has, at most, 300 days worth of oil, and...

we can't access it for a decade or so, and the nearest ports it would be shipped to are in Japan, not the United States. Most of the major offshore reserves are no bigger than ANWR, according to estimates, and some are possibly quite a bit smaller. In addition, the fact is that these are estimates, we don't KNOW that oil is actually there, not until we drill, and drilling a dry hole would be a waste of resources we can ill afford.

We need to tell people in the United States the truth, that their lifestyle burns too much oil, and isn't possible in the near future. They will either have to adapt to a new, less car based, lifestyle, or try to latch onto the past.

[nels25]

24. I have heard their is a big oil deposit

just of Texas in the gulf.

Remember that their is supposed to be large oil deposits claimed by Cuba and more supposedly just off the coast of Mexico in the Atlantic.

We may be reticent to drill but they will not be (imagine Cuba being egged on Chavez, and assisted by China) how to you think that will play with the greater public once the GOP gets their spin on it.

I agree with your points, however I think that getting the public at large to agree to a major lifestyle adjustment is going to be tricky at best.

All other major lifestyle adjustments in this country have generally been associated with growth and a positive gain in ones over all ability to live and enjoy their lives.

In more than a few ways we are going to be forced by circumstances to advocate a reduction and maybe to the publics way of thinking a loss of lifestyle and some comforts associated with it, again not the best argument to be making with a irate GOP preaching drilling and a market economy.

My basic point is this is not going to be as easy a nut to crack as we would hope, and God help us if we come across as high and mighty know it alls who are lecturing to the common folks (something I have had thrown in my face about Al Gore so often that if I had a nickel for each time I could go to a Brewer game a pay for their best seats).

[gatorboy]

4. Why tune in to Fox news for right wing talking points? We can get an eye full here from "Democrats".

:eyes:

[PVnRT]

9. Huh?

How is saying that drilling for oil in the U.S. not a solution a right-wing talking point?

[gatorboy]

16. I'm talking about the body of the OP's thread.

"We have already lost some credence due to the way the overall ethanol fiasco as unfolded"

Really? Where have you read that?

[nels25]

25. I may be guilty of misinterpretation

but with all the calls about a food crisis from the UN.

I have read pieces blaming the production of ethanol for taking out corn crops that normally would have been used for human consumption or grain for cattle.

This in turn I have read has lead to an increase in coast due to farmers having to feed their life stock different and more expensive grain.

It also is thought to be the cause for higher cereal prices, and milk prices.

That is where I read it.

[gatorboy]

31. Do you people even try anymore?

The UN reference is a nice touch. :rofl:

[nels25]

32. Ok smart one

I will try to refrain from being snarly, it costs so very much in respect and ultimately votes.

But since you want sites try the following.

Last night on NBC Nightly News they had a story about the use of corn for ethanol causing food prices to rise.

Also check out todays (April 30) Washington Post and they also have a front page article mentioned.

I also imagine that if you googled it you would find other stories.

Have fun, and try and play nice.

[blondeatlast]

20. "WE had best handle it correctly..." Uh, huh.. Glad someone else picked up on that! nt

[iamjoy]

5. Who Would Benefit

It is certainly worth a lot of votes in Florida - few people in my state want rigs off our coast or oil slicks on our beaches.

How much oil is in the Gulf - and who would benefit from its extraction? The oil companies have already demonstrated that that they will not reduce their profits in order to share savings with consumers. Furthermore, if we do drill in these areas, what do we do when that supply runs dry?

It may be inevitable, though. And perhaps the solution is a compromise in which everyone gets something, and everyone has to give something. Higher fuel efficiency standards in cars PLUS investment in energy alternatives (solar, wind, etc) PLUS nuclear PLUS drilling in ANWAR and maybe the Gulf too.

[Cant trust em]

7. any money used for additional exploration should be matched by money for R&D for renewable energy

Exploration is a short-term solution. Renewable energy is the long-term solution.

[nels25]

28. Now that is the kind of answer

we can sell to the public and still retain or political majority.

See I do not think the public would have much of a problem with a compromise of this sort at all.

Where we may be in jeopardy of cutting our throats is by stating to the public at large that their will be drilling no how and no way with out giving a really good reason why (and unfortunately if it gets as bad as looks like it might, environmentalism and green will not be as important to some as it has been) the backlash will be quite large to deal with.

I say again we need to approach this with intelligence and explain to the public at every point why we want to do what we are proposing.

AND WE CAN NOT LOOK LIKE WE ARE CONDESCENDING TO THE OVERALL PUBLIC.

[MiniMe]

8. Alternative fuels are the only answer. Either electric, battery, hydrogen,

etc will cut down on gas. Perhaps start shipping by train instead of truck would help. Solar Energy. Isn't that where the tax breaks for big oil were supposed to be going to?

[bdamomma]

12. that is the only answer, alternative fuels and we could do it

if we didn't have the oil cowboys in charge. Sickening truly sickening, they must shoot it up in their veins.

[MiniMe]

22. I think they just shoot up the profits.

Refined gas is what they are all about.

[dkf]

10. I say better we save it for if we really get in trouble...

[Dave From Canada]

11. I hate to say it, but Bush may have been right about A.N.W.R.

There could be several hundred thousand more barrels of oil per day available for North American consumption. There could also have been tens of thousands of jobs, mostly unionized jobs created as a result of it. I also hate to say it, but it seems as though the same people complaining about the economy and lack of jobs, and the high price of gas, are the same people who restrict the exploration and development of oil anywhere. On the bright side, North Dakota has discovered a significant deposit of oil.

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/04/10/ndoil/

I know this may not be a popular stance, but I figured since Rev. Wright can be defended for claiming the government created AIDS to kill black people, then maybe my thoughts about oil may be defended as well. *fingers crossed*

[Breeze54]

13. I hate that you said it too!

He's wrong! He's ALWAYS wrong!! :grr:

ANWAR doesn't have enough and it's federal preserved land!

[MiniMe]

21. ANWR doesn't even have a year's worth of oil, and it would take 10 years

before any could be produced from there, even if they started drilling now. ANWR is not an answer, it isn't even a bandaid.

[B Calm]

23. Where's all that Alaska oil going now? You really think by drilling

oil in A.N.W.R. it will benefit us? GET REAL!

[MiniMe]

27. Exactly. We are selling oil that is already drilled in Alaska to other countries

[NickB79]

26. First, the US uses 21 MILLION barrels a day or more

A few hundred thousand barrels a day of output would be 1% of US oil demand. A literal drop in the bucket.

Secondly, the North Dakotan fields are oil shale buried deep underground, with a possible 4 billion barrels extractable (the other 396 billion barrels, we can't get out). 4 billion barrels of oil is only ~7 MONTHS worth of US oil consumption at current rates! The fact that the oil is in shales underground makes extracting it like sucking a milkshake through a straw with a sponge between the two. Flow rates are going to be slooooow, so that only a few hundred thousand barrels a day might be possible from the entire field.

We can't drill our way out of this energy crisis. All we can do is learn to make every drop count and try to find some forms of alternative energy that can at least keep the lights on and food on the shelves.

Whew, and I didn't even get into what burning more oil will do to global CO2 emissions and the crumbling Arctic ice sheet.

[nels25]

30. Perhaps Nick

but my point is that the public may not put up with a no drilling no how policy if the price of a gallon reaches to $6 -9 dollars a gallon (and sadly in next 2 years that is not an unthinkable situation).

If we do nothing with our own resources, while watching nations such as Cuba, Brazil, Russia and others pursue exploration/exploitation of theirs.

We run the risk of having a very pissed off electorate on our hands, you may not like it but that is going to be a fact of life. And if we do have a pissed of public by and large due to high energy costs between 09/10 don't thing for a minute that the GOP will not exploit it for all their worth to take away our house majority. Can't happen?? I am not so sure if this is the way it goes down.


I just want to inject a little perspective and common sense in this matter.

Let the gas price continue to rise (which it will) and then do a poll and I have a Jackson that says that drilling will become a lot more palatable to the public, and we will have to deal with that fact.

[B Calm]

33. Perhaps we should demand that the free oil they are getting now in Alaska

and selling it overseas, should be used here before we go and drill somewhere else!

[Richard Steele]

29. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and thus appear foolish. nm

[Blue_In_AK]

15. Just a minor quibble here...

It's ANWR, not ANWAR ... Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

[gatorboy]

17. He can't help it.

Right wingers always have WAR on the brain....

[Blue_In_AK]

18. Gotcha...

I always think of Anwar Sadat when I see it spelled that way. Maybe if people were forced to say "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge" every time it comes up, they would remember that it's a WILDLIFE REFUSE, not a giant oilfield.

[sandnsea]

34. It's just Arctic Wildlife Refuge, or Arctic Refuge

If we want people to think about the animals instead of the oil. I wish more people would just stop using ANWR altogether.

[blondeatlast]

19. "backlash against the use of ethanol. WE had best handle it correctly. Thank you for your concern...

Somehow, I never tire of saying that! :eyes: