To drill or not to drill.
Pressure on both sides of the offshore oil question is building dramatically, particularly because of the presidential campaign. The column addresses the reality from an environmental perspective - perhaps surprising to many. The real problem with increased drilling is the temporary distraction that it provides in the necessity for developing hydrocarbon independence.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:32 am
I’m not sure I would call it a distraction. It is an important aspect to developing full energy independence in the US. The vast majority agree that alternative fuels must be researched and are the key to the future, but recognize that these sources of fuel are decades upon decades off from being fully developed. Just consider how long it took to get the current infrastructure in place for gasoline and diesel alone. Also, development of the means to capture wind and solar are highly contentious (read the letters to the editor at http://www.watertowndailytimes.com) for examples in the Lyme wind farm project) even amongst strong supporters. We need to increase our current drilling and refining capacities to tide us over until alternatives come on line. Even if increased drilling and refining will take a decade to show results, alternatives will take far longer.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
One caveat to domestic drilling proposals is the bottleneck created at the refining stage of the process. Whoever controls that has a noose around the neck of the world.
http://lagniappemobile.com/article/917
August 13th, 2008 at 7:28 am
Yes, refining is a vital step in the process. Currently, the US imports ~25% of the refined fuels it uses. That’s why we need both to have the artificial restrictions removed from them.