By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Obama wants the US to drill for oil. Concerned.

TheRealMafoo on 31 March 2010

This I agree with. I think we should be drilling for oil, so I like the move. What concerns me, is Obama has been against drilling. What changed his mind? If I had to guess, it has more to do with what's going on (and what will be going on) in the middle east.

It might be a sign that due to future events, he knows our supply will diminish. Anyone else think this is connected to future foreign policy move? 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/31/obama.energy/index.html?hpt=T1

 



Around the Network
Doobie_wop on 31 March 2010

If it get's the US military out of the Middle East faster, then good on him.



Bet with Conegamer and AussieGecko that the PS3 will have more exclusives in 2011 than the Wii or 360... or something.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3879752

NJ5 on 31 March 2010

Almost two years ago we had a debate about oil drilling in America:

http://vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=45820

I believe this quote from one of the linked articles shows that this is not important enough to significantly change supply or to reduce dependency from foreign sources:

The EIA found that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf of Mexico regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil production or prices before 2030. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in EIA's "no access" reference case.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

badgenome on 31 March 2010

I'm inclined to think that it's more of a political decision than a strategic one.



TheRealMafoo on 31 March 2010
NJ5 said:
Almost two years ago we had a debate about oil drilling in America:

http://vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=45820

I believe this quote from one of the linked articles shows that this is not important enough to significantly change supply or to reduce dependency from foreign sources:

The EIA found that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf of Mexico regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil production or prices before 2030. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in EIA's "no access" reference case.

Depends on how it's done. Also, we get a lot of oil from other parts of the world, not just the middle east.

I mean, if the US said "Our #1 priority is to remove oil from these parts of the world", we can do it in a lot less then those times. If we had to do with with the rules set in place today, then I agree. It will take a very long time to get up to speed.



Around the Network
ManusJustus on 31 March 2010

Obama is trying to gain political favor from Republicans here. I have environmental objections to the decision, but at the end of the day the best way to promote clean, stable energy is to make it more viable rather than to make other means less viable.

I'd still rather see the oil bans continue, even if it is environmentally safe its a good idea to hold on to that oil for when prices greatly increase, which will happen as demand increases and supply diminishes.



TheRealMafoo on 31 March 2010
ManusJustus said:
Obama is trying to gain political favor from Republicans here.

It will be a cold day in hell before a Republican votes for Obama. I don't think that's his motive. Maybe some independents however.

What Democrats just did with the healthcare bill (turn it into a 50/50 vote), did far more to hurt him, then anything he can do in the future to help him with that party.



HappySqurriel on 31 March 2010

Personally, I think of it as being a potential precursor to enacting legislation to stop using "Dirty Oil" from the Athabasca Oil Sands; and this will be a meaningless act (China will buy that oil) to punish the Canadians for not extending our mission in Afghanistan and to placate environmentalists.



NJ5 on 31 March 2010
TheRealMafoo said:
NJ5 said:
Almost two years ago we had a debate about oil drilling in America:

http://vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=45820

I believe this quote from one of the linked articles shows that this is not important enough to significantly change supply or to reduce dependency from foreign sources:

The EIA found that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf of Mexico regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil production or prices before 2030. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in EIA's "no access" reference case.

Depends on how it's done. Also, we get a lot of oil from other parts of the world, not just the middle east.

I mean, if the US said "Our #1 priority is to remove oil from these parts of the world", we can do it in a lot less then those times. If we had to do with with the rules set in place today, then I agree. It will take a very long time to get up to speed.

Oil is fungible. It matters little where you're getting it from. If you start buying it from place X instead of place Y, someone else will buy it from place Y and nothing changes.

All that matters is basically worldwide production and consumption.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Kasz216 on 31 March 2010

Hm... to me it sounds like it's going to be a "smoothing" issue to energy companies to accept his new energy legislation.

"The president will announce today additional measures that will boost domestic energy production and promote clean energy innovation,"

The "Promote clean energy innovation part really doesn't fit. Also he stops some previously approved Alaskan drilling.