 |
| Big Oil Wants to Drill on Federally Protected Land |
|
| Written by Miranda Marquit | |
| Monday, 26 May 2008 | |
Photo:mandj98, Creative Commons, Flickr Could Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon see oil wells? When members of Big Oil companies (XOM, CVX, COP, BP, RDS-B) appeared before Congress last week, one of their laments was that there isn't enough oil drilling allowed in the United States. In addition to asking for an increase in offshore drilling, Big Oil executives also want drilling on Federal lands. You know, in places like Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon (because our national treasures should also increase the amount of money in the coffers of Big Oil executives). How is this idea being received? The Wall Street Journal reports that more people are opening up to the idea of increased oil drilling in the United States: Increasing U.S. oil production would require overturning decades-old moratoriums that limit offshore drilling and accelerating leasing of federal lands, moves that would trigger a swift and vigorous political backlash. Still, as gasoline prices continue to climb and squeeze household budgets, the momentum appears to be gaining to open up new areas.Unfortunately, this is more of the same thinking we have been seeing since President Bush's economic address last month. It looks like ANWR is no longer the only target of oil drilling. But the concerns about how long it would take ANWR to become viable could be applied to Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon as well. Is it really in our best interest to sink billions into drilling for oil and spend our time increasing drilling, when that time could be better spent creating more efficient and forward-thinking technologies? One of the problems is that the American people want solutions now, and unfortunately we are at a point where there are no immediate solutions to rising energy costs. Even increased drilling in the U.S. wouldn't relieve the pressure in the immediate term. It may help a little bit, as other countries see that we're "serious" about independence from foreign oil, but that same effect could be achieved if serious efforts were being made to rely on alternative energy sources. Imagine if lawmakers announced that they would be seriously funding developments in hybrid technology, rather than giving subsidies to Big Oil companies. Even an increased focus on ethanol, environmentally dubious as it is, would show OPEC nations that we are "serious" about energy independence. Why is it that our solution to the old problem of oil scarcity is to drill more oil? This is a 20th century solution that has no place in the 21st century. Big Oil executives and politicians need to stop talking as though drilling in areas of natural beauty will suddenly solve our energy problems. It won't. It would take years, and the costs would be high. And in the meantime, we would be ignoring innovative possibilities that could end our dependence on oil altogether. Diclosure: I do not invest in Big Oil companies. Site disclaimer. Alternative Energy 
BP 
Big Oil 
COP 
CVX 
Miranda Marquit 
Opinions 
XOM 
Comments
(2)
...
written by Matthew Venia , June 09, 2008
So you don't reference where yellowstone and the grand canyon come in and you don't offer a solution. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. The vast majority of those federal lands are actually several miles off shore. And if enough red tape was cut, people would see oil from there in as little as two years, not ten.
...
written by Miranda , June 09, 2008
I linked to the story about opening up areas of the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone. The link goes to 24/7 Wall Street. Yes, most of the federal lands in question are off shore, but onshore drilling is still being considered. ANWR would take ten years, and I suppose if you got rid of the red tape it would happen in two years (but not immediately). But the solutions I mention above include developing the technologies we currently have (improving hybrids) and even using ethanol as a bridge. I suggested solutions above. And they are to do with looking forward using American innovation rather than looking back to the 20th Century and relying on fossil fuels. Even in your two-year time frame, if we focused the time and money that would go into drilling, it would be possible to make great strides in cleaner, more cost-efficient energy development.
Tag it:           | |
| Last Updated ( Tuesday, 27 May 2008 ) | |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
| Company Profiles |
| Individual Profiles |
| Movie Reviews |
| Culture-Celebrity |
| Opinions |
| Staff Recommendations |
| Resources |
 ThePanelist Latest Postings Alternative Energy Christian Investing Climate Women Neubert's Trades Social Culture Technology |
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed