Should American lawmakers allow for more drillling/refining of oil?

[jayhawk]

We in America have a bit of a problem; it seems that gasoline at a national average of $4 is the breaking point for the citizens to start asking what can be done. Being used to gas prices about 50-75% less only a few years ago, Americans are really finding it difficult to pay for gas, as wages have not reflected the rise of the cost of daily living.

On the other hand, this public land was not originally set aside to be used for private corporations in the search for resources. In ANWAR for example, oil rigs will take up approximately 2000 acres, which is .1% of ANWARS 75 million acres. TO an environmentalist, this is a great concern.

Here are the pros of allowing drilling on public land:

-less dependence on foreign holders.
-less consumption of global reserves.
-lower prices over the long run.
-low environmental impact.

Here are the cons of allowing drilling on public land:

-potential environmental impact.
-prices will take XX amount of time to recede.
-certain political groups will be offended and demonstrate their ire.
-loss of jobs in the overseas market.

I am trying very hard to objective on this, but you the reader, do not have to be. Express away!

[Viper007Bond]

Tough call. On one hand, is the kick in the face we need to finally start moving away from gas? I mean, if we dropped the prices, no one would buy hybrids, etc. It'd be like what happened after the late 70's -- cars got small for a while, but then everyone forgot and went back to big cars.

On the other hand, gas is getting much more expensive at a faster rate than our pockets can keep up with and in this time of poor economy, is it really what we need?

Basically I see it as a short term solution as we're gonna run outta gas relatively soon anyway.

[KaJuN]

I think it would be a good bandage for our current situation. Hybrids aren't really viable as a long-term solution since they rely on the same fossil fuels we're running low on. And we're still several years away from having electric vehicles that are usable in the real world. These new technologies are also expensive which keeps them out of reach of those struggling the most with the sharp rise in gas prices. If the oil is there we may as well use it, right? Unfortunately many people have no choice but to drive because the way our country is set up and the lack of public transit in many areas.

Another thing that could help would be to relax the legislation against diesel engine in normal cars. They're everywhere in Europe and as far as I can tell Europeans aren't going around coughing on diesel exhaust gases which supposedly pollute the air. If we're running low on petroleum products it makes sense to find ways of using less of it and diesel allows for exactly that.

[BlaRo]

I used to be against drilling in the ANWAR, but like most Americans this sentiment's been changed by $4/gal gas.

If there was a way to drill in the most environmentally friendly way possible, I don't see why we couldn't increase production there. The public demands both environmentalism AND cheap gas, and both of them just don't mix. This means that support for drilling will increase, but the pressure will be on to find a responsible way to do it.

If politicians actually listened, they would find themselves bathing in a sea of support. We will surely hear more of it in months to come.

Because we're such a transportation-dependent society, high gas prices impacts almost everything: the price of everything goes up in accordance because of the rising prices of transporting things to stores, for example. So it's clear that something MUST be done, but it's not known how urgently a solution needs to come.

[Firecat]

Is this about ANWR specifically, or are we talking about drilling other areas or coastal drilling or just opening more refineries? Becuase then my answer would be different on each.

But generally speaking, I would say yes. As I understand it, drilling in ANWR won't have a large impact on prices and it would take +- a decade before any oil is extracted. So it's not going to help the current situation we are in.

I was just reading an article about how China raised its fuel prices, and that caused the price per barrel to drop almost $5. The fuel crisis is not just affecting the United States, the best way to solve this problem or "problem" is to involve other countries in the solution. I'm sure there are ways that the United States herself can impact prices in the short term, but I don't know enough on the topic to begin with.

[Scooby5]

It is not the supply of oil that's the biggest problem for prices right now so drilling for more technically should not make a difference. It's the hedge funds and Wall Street that have been pushing the price up most recently, not all the rubbish about China and India consuming it like soup.

The US anyway has to get used to "normal" prices like the rest of us. This is a shrinking commodity so there has to be a level of punishment for using it up. Petrol prices are the best you-use-you-pay mechanism but alternatives need to be in place....... and bio-fuel is not the alternative. Diesel, more bang for the buck, and available right now together with Hydrogen development are two better ideas than bio-fuel.

[Steve Levin]

The drilling is needed just to slow the cost of energy; given that it's likely only 10 percent of what we import, it's not going to bring oil back down to 20 dollars a barrel. But even delaying the the advent of $9/gal gasoline by a few years will be a good thing.

At the same time, we need to incent people to buy more efficient cars, etc. Perhaps through a gas guzzler tax which is collected annually. And use the proceeds of that tax towards providing a tax credit for lower-income filers that purchase cars that get exceptionally high mileage.

Steve

[BlaRo]

Originally Posted by Steve Levin

At the same time, we need to incent people to buy more efficient cars, etc. Perhaps through a gas guzzler tax which is collected annually. And use the proceeds of that tax towards providing a tax credit for lower-income filers that purchase cars that get exceptionally high mileage.

Steve

I think there's enough various taxes already. Taxing has proven ineffective in the past even when gas was $20 a barrel, why would it be any more effective now?
High gas prices are incentive enough, taxing will only make things worse. It would just be a burden on those who are unable to switch cars immediately, or can't switch cars altogether (people who genuinely need trucks, etc.).

The government has already frustratingly tried various ploys to get people to drive hybrids, like free HOV lane usage, special "High-Efficiency Vehicle Parking" (which I use all the time at the local mall because those are always empty and my car's ULEV, dammit! ), and other responses, but people have still bought massive trucks that they're only now beginning to whine and bitch about. Anything the government does in regards to the market would be meddling, they need to concentrate on things they can directly control (such as drilling) instead of trying to alter the buying habits of its people indirectly. Let time sort it out as people start buying FOR SALE signs for their Expeditions.

This sounds pretty Republican, I reckon.

[thedguy]

I'm edging toward no. The more fuel goes up the more there will be demands for alternative sources and more fuel efficient cars and a better public transportation system. Hell since fuel has been going up the train has been practically packed (so the news says anyway), and hybrids and anything that gets 35+mpg is pretty much sold out at car dealerships.

[Firecat]

So don't try to lower prices and let people struggling to put food on the table for their families suffer?

[Scooby5]

Originally Posted by Firecat

So don't try to lower prices and let people struggling to put food on the table for their families suffer?

Do the same or similar to what Malaysia did.....

Put petrol prices up 40% overnight then give a tax credit back to the poor. What's so hard about that? Even give tax credit back to companies if they are running a truck etc.

Those that can afford to pay, do. It's a mistake to go back to lower prices - it's better to use the income to fund the alternatives that are so desperate.

[CyberMonkey]

I voted no. However, I might be in a ivory-tower-situation as I don't have to pay for gas (don't have my own car), nor do I own a transportation company or something like that.

However, I still think it's a bad idea. It might help to keep the prices steady for a couple of years, after which they will inevitably rise again.

Why not encourage green technologies (no, I'm not only talking about hybrids here, but also about wind power, solar power, even nuclear fusion and in shorter term cleaner and safer fission reactors)? They are the future, not burning oil. A complete economy can be based on technologies like that, so why not start now instead of waiting ten years, only making all problems worse in the meantime?

[chaos386]

As has been said before, the current price of oil is due mainly to speculation, not demand outstripping supply, so drilling in ANWR won't do much to lower prices, especially since it'd take years to get the approval and then a couple years after that to actually produce any oil. Basically, there are no quick fixes (I'm also of the opinion that it's precisely this sort of short-sighted thinking that has led to high gas prices being such a problem in the US right now, but anyways...).

I'm no expert in nuclear power, but it seems to me that making it legal again and investing in it is a much better bet for the US, especially in the long term. The US has more fissile material than crude oil, after all.

[Scott]

The US refineries need to retooled so that they can refine the heavy/ sour crude and that would fix a lot of the issues in the US specifically. I am not sure what the capabilities of other refineries are, but I know that US is set up to refine light, sweet crude almost exclusively and that is a big part of the issue. There is PLENTY of heavy crude out there, we just do not have the ability to refine it. Fix that and you fix a lot of the issue.

I also think someone needs to focus on making the dollar strong again, as it stands right now it is not looking that will happen anytime soon and that bothers me!

[Scott]

Yeah the nuclear power thing is a VERY good idea. People get all scared when they hear those words, but it is a damn safe form of power generation and it is ZERO emissions.

[wooflepoof]

Yes, we should be able to drill. The big issue was with environmentalists but modern drilling techniques have almost NO environmental detriment. Its MORE unsafe to send I think huge tankers across the sea, i.e. the Exxon Valdeze. As far as nuclear power, gofer it.

HELL, Chinas drilling just out into international waters, quite close to the US. there's 480 BILLION barrels of oil out there apparently. Lets get at it prices are going to continue to skyrocket esp. w/ China growing at 10% per year and India demanding more as well its very much a matter of increased demand and the UAE wanting a few more 14 star hotels.

[thedguy]

Originally Posted by Firecat

So don't try to lower prices and let people struggling to put food on the table for their families suffer?

I'm still working on that part, but Scooby5's suggestion isn't a horrible one. BTW I'd like to point out that I, along with several friends, aren't exactly rich kids from the suburbs...

[Scooby5]

CNN's Wolf Blitzer was asking a McCain representative if America should do more drilling and the answer was YES, but the next question was how long would it be to start getting the oil onshore and that answer was 5-years.

The ONLY good it would do now is tell "the market" of America's intention to reduce its 60% dependancy on foreign oil to source it's own. Wrong answer, in 5-years so much can be done to reduce the amount of consumption itself rather than almost accept the same level of consumption but simply pump more of "our own oil" to become more independant. Great! Quicker use up what limited oil there might be, it took millions of years to "make" oil and we're bursting through it in a blink by comparison.

Blitzer had the gaul to ask the same representative if America should get "special discount" from Iraq on its purchases of oil "based on the amount of money America has pumped into the country". I couldn't believe my ears....... it's been discussed a hundred time before the rights and wrongs of going to war but its not just Americans that are being killed in Iraq, American companies are doing "very nicely thank you" in investments in the coutnry and Halliburton is just the tip of the family run empire stripping oil assts bare. It was America that led the war into Iraq so now wants it's reward? It was only a matter of time before this question reached the media outlets but i have to say i was a little surprised it popped up in an International channel like CNN.