On the drilling issue republicans should use the lines democrats have been using to attack Bush. The no drill position of democrats is a "failed policy of the past" and it's "time for real change". Also, bring up the democrats kowtowing to special interest environmental groups. It's the no drill policy that's responsible for sending 700 billion to foreign governments every year. Until we develop better alternatives, the oil we use should be coming from domestic supplies as much as possible.

Has anybody thought about what an easy target offshore drilling rigs are for terrorist? Its a disaster waiting waiting to happen.

Dave's right. We should stop building skyscrapers, dams, power plants, cargo ships...

Dave - "Has anybody thought about what an easy target offshore drilling rigs are for terrorist? Its a disaster waiting waiting to happen."

Yepper... just think of all those rigs in the Gulf of Mexico with literally dozens, I repeat... DOZENS of people working on them.

As opposed to say... the WTC that had potentially 10's of thousands or the Sears Tower that has about the same.

Thanks Dave, surely the stupid terrorists will see the error of their ways!

/sarc off

1. A terrorist would not have to enter the US to blow up an oil rig.

2. The economic cost of blowing up an oil rig would probably be about 1000 times greater then blowing up a skyscaper, dam, power plant or cargo ship.

Unfortunately, this is all just politics and not any short term solution to immediate gas price problems. Gas will unfortunately hit $7 to $10 a gallon long before any new drilling brings new oil. It sounds good to voters, even if it may never provide them a drop of oil. The process of oil exploration, drilling and refining will take every day of ten years before any motorist will see a drop of oil from any new off-shore drilling sites.

In 10 years, the internal combusion engine may also be well on the way out as the fuel cell automobile may become more possible by that time. Texas oilman, T. Boone Pickens is advancing a plan to use natural gas to power new cars as natural gas only costs the equal of $1 a gallon by comparison to gas.

Even though I have no problem affording gas myself, I like to drive fuel efficient motorbikes most of the time rather than the big 16mpg Oldsmobile. I got 94mpg with a four stroke motorbike, and about 50mpg in a more powerful and faster two stroke model. I don't know of any automobile that even comes close to 94mpg. You can carry two bags of groceries in one model and three bags of groceries in the larger model. You can drive any of these motorbikes all through the city, because either can go at least 40-45mph. The faster one can go as high as 70mph with some high performance add-on parts. You hardly ever see ads for such high mileage forms of transportation like this because most Americans still believe in the big and heavy car and are unwilling to trade in four wheels for a two-wheeler like a motorcycle or scooter as of yet. But when you can drive one to two weeks on just one gallon of gas, then it is time to at least consider a two-wheeler of some sort if you're healthy and attentive enough to drive one. Driving for up to two weeks on one $4 gallon of gas is a pretty good deal, in my opinion.

Yepper... just think of all those rigs in the Gulf of Mexico with literally dozens, I repeat... DOZENS of people working on them.

Its not about the number of people. Al Queda has said their plan was to economically ruin the US through terror attacks.

Paul,

What kind of bike do you ride?

I just read that Royal Dutch Shell just shut down an oil rig in Nigeria. It was attacked by terrorist about a month ago.

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=56456

Odd how we don't read about stuff like that in the U.S. Especially since a U.S. Captain was kidnapped during the attack.

"The economic cost of blowing up an oil rig would probably be about 1000 times greater then blowing up a skyscaper..."

Dave, when did you stop trying?

Do you think there's nothing finished at Ground Zero in NYC 7 years later just because they couldn't decide on a design?

Meanwhile, the most crossed bridge in Minnesota(I-35W in Minneapolis) will be back in service just 13 months after it fell.

http://projects.dot.state.mn.us/35wbridge/index.html

According to a state government website, the economic impact has been a net loss of about $60 million. How much was lost at the WTC on 9/11? The point is is that an oil rig miles away from shore can be reconstructed for a much lower cost than a skyscraper. Don't worry Dave. There's a lot more things you can wrong about, if you just keep trying.

Here's a direct quote from Al Qaeda

"We should strike petroleum interests in all areas which supply the United States"

Article:
Big Cities' Oil Sectors Top Targets for Terror

House Republicans are taking this serious as well -- The American Energy Act (HR 6566):

a comprehensive energy bill that takes an "all of the above" strategy to end our dependence on costly foreign oil and reduce gas prices in America. At a Capitol Hill news conference this afternoon, the Members of Congress will also demand Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi end her opposition to American-made energy and allow a vote on the bill.

With $4 gas prices this can gain massive support if they can get the media to stop their Obamadrooling for three minutes or so!
David

Dave -

We had a LOT of oil rigs damaged and sunk and blown ashore during Katrina. The oil industry went "Shit happens" and rebuilt. That's what insurance is for, and safety valves and cutoffs.

Terrorists trying to take out an oil rig with a boatload of explosives? Well, you really need to confine an explosion for best effect - and most oil rigs at sea level are both pretty open AND made of pretty thick steel. You might bend a leg some - but chances are it's not going to sink unless you've got a chance to get on and set numerous charges in strategic places - and there you're going to run into another problem.

Now, I don't know about you but having known a couple of roughnecks I pity the terrorists who try to take over an oil rig - the oil workers have got a LOT of good improvised weapons handy, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if most of them have rifles on hand for target practice on sharks and such.

And the roughnecks will be just plain PISSED when they figure out what's going on.

As far as the media ignoring the piracy aspect of the captain of the oil ship being taken hostage - would you REALLY expect them to report that? It's really, really hard to put a PC spin on something like that. Much better to ignore it completely.

2. The economic cost of blowing up an oil rig would probably be about 1000 times greater then blowing up a skyscaper, dam, power plant or cargo ship.

You sure about that number, Dave?

The point is is that an oil rig miles away from shore can be reconstructed for a much lower cost than a skyscraper.

Not when you add the cost of clean up and other business's affected. When the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground it spilled 250,000 barrels and cost $2.5 billion to clean up. That does not include the cost of other business's that were impacted by the pollution such as fishermen.

But that was just an oil tanker with a fixed amount of oil in it. Imagine if its a well? Will it even be possible to shut it off after an attack or will it just keep gushing until the oil runs dry.

We had a LOT of oil rigs damaged and sunk and blown ashore during Katrina. The oil industry went "Shit happens" and rebuilt. That's what insurance is for, and safety valves and cutoffs.

The safety valves were shut off before the storm hit. Since terrorist do not give advance warning they will be usesless.

I don't know if insurance covers terrorist attacks, but thats a moot point because the entire country would suffer great economic hardship and the insurance would only go to the owner of the rig.

I don't know if insurance covers terrorist attacks

They do.

thats a moot point because the entire country would suffer great economic hardship and the insurance would only go to the owner of the rig.

No, Dave, all offshore producers carry, in addition to other coverage, pollution coverage that will cover damages to other property. Dave, do you have any knowledge of business liability insurance, pollution insurance and bonding?

Yay! With the Bush Dept. of Energy saying that ANWR drilling will result in a $.75 drop in the price of oil (not gas) in 17 years, this obstructionist obstinance will hand the Dems more wins in November! Woo-hoo!

I said I didn't know if oil rigs are covered. But its a moot point because the drain on the economy would essentially be the same even if it is covered. I don't have time to explain this to you now if you don't understand.

The above was in response to #17.

I would like to see something in that legislation to promote further research and development for alternative energy in conjunction with allowing more drilling. After all, our goal is to wean ourselves off foreign oil permanently. I'd like to hear what, if any, plans there are.

And Dave, dude, give it up.

Dave -

I really don't see the point behind trying to have a conversation with you. Ever hear of a blowout protector? Have any idea of the maze of safety features used in oil drilling at sea BECAUSE of the chances of a pipe rupturing? Or the ability to see at quite a distance boats and ships approaching an oil rig?

You think the guys on the rig aren't going to fight back?

You have ANY idea of the changes in design to prevent something like the Valdez happening again? Or are you determinedly ignorant, preferring instead to cling to your fantasies of ultrapowerful terrorists against helpless, delicate, cowering oil rig workers, afraid they might (horror of horrors!) ruin their manicures if they tried to fight the terrorists?

Yeah. Dream on, bud.

Great comedy Dave. Are you doing parody of liberal positions? If you are, you're doing an awesome job!

HughS,

No, Dave, all offshore producers carry, in addition to other coverage, pollution coverage that will cover damages to other property. Dave, do you have any knowledge of business liability insurance, pollution insurance and bonding?

Provide a link that proves oil rigs are covered by terrorist attack? Otherwise your talking out of your a$$.

But its a moot point because the drain on the economy would essentially be the same even if it is covered.

Dave
You obviously understand nothing about insurance, or reinsurance.

Liability coverage for off shore rigs is a risk distributed globally. Ever heard of Lloyd's?

No domestic insurance company would ever accept that type of risk in whole. They always transfer the risk via reinsurance and hedging.

Pick your debates more carefully, Dave. You are out of your element on this topic.

Dave,

I do share your grave concerns about the endless oil that will gush out that will then only reduce gas by $0.75.

The only thing that will allow me to sleep tonight is knowing that no muslim terrorist will attack their brother barack when he is president.

"Dave -

I really don't see the point behind trying to have a conversation with you."

Actually, I think Dave is having conversations with himself, and typing them out so we can share in them.

John F Not Kerry -

Sad thing is - I don't think he's acting. He really is ignorant of the technology involved and the economics, preferring instead to trot out talking points and bumper stickers.

I don't see much point in trying to educate him. The night's too short and he already knows everything - so how can anything contrary to his beliefs penetrate?

John F Not Kerry #27 -

Okay... hadn't thought of it like that. It seems more like a kid trying to come up with something, ANYTHING, that would get him some adult attention.

#21 - Oyster -

There's a couple of interesting things that may be coming down in the next couple of years.

There's Emc2 Fusion - apparently reading between the lines their WB-7 prototype is working pretty well (discussion board here - they get deep into the math of it) and the next step might be a 100 MW prototype. If their results scale up the way they expect, in 10 years oil will be useful as a chemical feedstock and fuel for antique cars, but that'll be about it and we'll be weaning ourselves off gasoline.

Then there's a company I could have sworn was a scam, Blacklight Power - which has really dubious physics but is apparently making 50KW heat output prototypes.

I'm going to go with Murphy's Law on that one - doesn't matter what the theory is, if he's getting reproducible output of more than he's putting in, and willing to distribute prototypes - then maybe theory needs to be changed.

Add in some of the advances in low-cost inkjet printed solar cells, and if I were an oil tick I'd be thinking about nuclear power. Oh, wait - they are.

JLawson, wow - the Emc2 stuff, in particular, was way over my head :)

Dave makes a perfect case (unintentional) for drilling in Alaska and processing oil shale in Co.
The first person who says that drilling won't help for 10 years within my earshot will be getting their a** off the ground. I'll pay the assult fine. That is the most stupid argument to ever come from anyone so you know it came from the democrats and started about 30 years ago. 30 minus 10 = we would have had new oil supplies 20 years ago. Kindergarden math, too complicated for a democrat. If we never start, we will never get there. Think I'll send that to Harry Reid, he might be able to find a third grader to read and explain it to him. Never mind Peeeloshi, Botox has killed her brain and made mush of her bug eyed face.

Dave, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about but I am not surprised, you being a lefty and all. Oil rigs are totally safe. If pressure is released and the automation system senses it is too much, it will cap and shut down the drilling. Now, go about your juvenile ways and leave the grown ups alone. Anyone who thinks if a modern day rig depends on a guy with a wrench to shut it down is not intelligient enough to be here. Bye, bye. ww

Paul,

Unfortunately, this is all just politics and not any short term solution to immediate gas price problems. Gas will unfortunately hit $7 to $10 a gallon long before any new drilling brings new oil. It sounds good to voters, even if it may never provide them a drop of oil. The process of oil exploration, drilling and refining will take every day of ten years before any motorist will see a drop of oil from any new off-shore drilling sites.

Democrats have been making this same argument against domestic drilling for over 20 years! It's now obvious that argument has lead directly to the failed no drill policy, and it's time for change. With polls showing 70 plus percent of Americans in favor of drilling, democrats have two choices, get out of the way of drilling or be moved out of the way by the American electorate. The domestic drilling issue could do to democrats in 2008 what the Iraq war issue did to republicans in 2006.

Also, your statement is factually untrue in several areas. First, democrats think that speculation is responsible for driving up the price of oil and are trying to pass legislation to address it. Speculation is sensitive to any perceived change in supply or demand going out years into the future. Authorizing drilling would have a significant and immediate impact on the price of oil because no one wants to get caught in a bubble market when it bursts. Second, the current record for discovering offshore oil and bringing it to market is less than four years. That means we could have more domestic oil by the next presidential election.

We need more domestic supply as a matter of national security. Besides the huge transfer of wealth, Iran is going to cause us trouble at some point and they are holding the US hostage with their threat of closing the straits of hormuz. Knowing how devastating that would be to the US emboldens Iran to reckless action. Liberals talk about not going to war over oil, but don't want to take effective action to minimize that possibility. I'm holding those who oppose opening up domestic drilling responsible for any future war over oil, and I won't be alone.

Finally, we do need to move beyond oil, but only when alternative technology is developed enough to replace oil. Given the political reality of climate change, that means we need to go nuclear as well as develop wind, solar, and a viable electric powered transportation system. Anything less and our quality of life and our security as a nation will be threatened. That means congress must act to open Yucca mountain and fast track the nuclear permitting process as well as limiting court interference on the behalf of environmentalists.