Quote:
Originally Posted by asaris
1. I'm guessing that most of the 'available oil' cited is in fact prohibitively expensive to reach. So the claim is technically true, but misleading. But that's just a guess.
2. I doubt the money paid will be enough to make a large impact on the federal budget, and even less on the state budget.
3 (and the real point I wanted to make) it's not so much that the 20 years part means it's a bad idea; it's that drilling off-shore is being touted as a solution to the high gas prices we're suffering now. So the fact that more drilling won't make a difference for at least 10 years means that it's probably being used as a cheap political ploy.
|
Improving technology is making difficult oil easier to get, while have a smaller impact on the environment.
Every little bit helps.
Drilling off-shore is a bad idea? I disagree.
-----Added 17/9/2008 at 12 : 36 : 02-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ace...I would put it another way.
We are supposed to be the country of great innovators, technology development, entrepreneurship.....
If, as a nation, we made a serious coordinated national commitment to alternative energy, we could probably have affordable solutions in place and on a wide scale before (within 15-20 years) we would ever see a drop of oil from the areas of the OCS currently under a drilling moratorium.
Start with T Boone Pickens' plan that could reduce our dependency on foreign oil by 20-30% |
I don't think the need for oil will ever go to zero. I support continued exploration and development of oil resources and investing in alternatives. Basically, I agree with you, but we seem to differ perhaps on our future needs for oil. If there is a 20 year tail, I don't want our nation to be caught in a period where we could have a supply but failed to invest in it 20 years prior.