Why are Liberals opposed to drilling?

Question

If the only opposition is that it would take time or environmental worries, I'm not buying it.

Answer 1

How about 68 million acres that are already leased but aren't being drilled.

Answer 2

All leftists who oppose drilling are hereby directed to stop using cars, buses, planes, trains, and anything requiring fossil fuels.

Don't want to do that?  Then shut your traps when we want to drill offshore and in the ANWR.

Answer 3

They enjoy being dependent on foreigners for everything, it helps confirm their belief that the US is weak.

Answer 4

It is designed to make America weak.

Answer 5

why do people always blame liberals for the worlds problems. Call up Mr. Bush and ask him why we are not drilling.

Answer 6

Do you realize how big are 68 million acres which are not being drilled by oil companies?

Answer 7

You are correct.  IF we had done this years ago, we would not be in the predicament we are today.  WAKE UP PEOPLE.  We do have the resources to last hundreds and hundreds of years.  It WILL get to market before those pronouncing it can't.  IT IS DOABLE........we as a Nation can do anything.  LET'S GET THE BALL ROLLING, OUST all those Politicians who are NOT doing right for this Country or its legal Citizens.

I want to add, all I hear is excuses from most.  It will take years on end.  THEY already have capped wells.  Alternatives.

People, we desperately NEED this oil today, tomorrow, and in the future.  At the same time we can work ON VIABLE ALTERNATIVES, which by the way is going to take longer to get to market than would drilling for oil.  Either you are against this Country and what it stands for.....DRILL..........or you are listening to every wacko on the Planet who has an agenda to DESTROY THIS COUNTRY.

Answer 8

Here's another.  It will not solve our energy problems.  It will put off the necessity of moving on to other sources of energy besides fossil fuels.

Answer 9

But according to a government report, offshore oil wouldn't have much of an impact on supply or prices until 2030. Update, June 24: At a town hall event on June 23, McCain didn't claim that offshore drilling would lower prices in the short term, but that it would provide "psychological impact that I think is beneficial."

Since 1981, there has been a federal moratorium banning any new drilling in these areas. Any rigs that were already up were permitted to continue extracting oil, and many are still operating in the Gulf Coast.

But among the biggest questions about McCain's proposal to lift the moratorium are how soon any new drilling would produce a significant flow of oil, and how much oil is sitting there in the first place. As recently as May 29, at a town hall appearance in Greendale, Wis., McCain noted that lifting the moratorium would be at best a band-aid for the nation's energy problems and that the oil it would provide wouldn't be available anytime soon: "[W]ith those resources, which would take years to develop, you would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels," McCain said. "We are going to have to go to alternative energy."

He certainly has the right to change his opinion on policy options. But the facts are more in line with his earlier statement that drilling would not offer short-term relief for energy prices. The Energy and Information Administration concluded in a 2007 report that:

EIA: The projections in the OCS (Outer Continental Shelf) access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.

Something that takes 22 years to deliver significant results hardly qualifies as a "short-term" solution.

Why would it take so long? To vastly oversimplify: First, the government has to identify properties to be leased and hold a lease sale. Then, winning bidders need to contract with drilling rigs (all of which are booked for the next five years, according to the New York Times), drill exploratory holes and analyze core samples – "They drilled 75 holes in the North Sea before they figured out the geology" sufficiently to begin drilling productive wells, says Lucian Pugliaresi, president of the oil industry-funded Energy Policy Research Foundation Inc. And then, if oil is found, companies would have to order and put in place production equipment, build pipelines to get the oil to shore, and get various permits and environmental analyses every step of the way.

Update, June 24: On Monday, June 23, McCain was asked about his offshore drilling proposal at a town hall event in Fresno, Calif. According to MSNBC, he didn't claim that it would bring short-term relief in terms of supply or gas prices. Instead, he said there could be a psychological benefit. Here's his response:

McCain, June 23: I don't see an immediate relief, but I do see that exploitation of existing reserves that may exist -- and in view of many experts that do exist off our coasts -- is also a way that we need to provide relief. Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial.

Been Down This Road Before

Also in his Tuesday speech, McCain was wrong to imply that regulation was the only thing standing in the way of building more refineries:

McCain: There's so much regulation of the industry that the last American refinery was built when Jerry Ford was president.  

McCain is correct that the last oil refinery was built during Ford's presidency; however, he was incorrect to conclude that it is because "there's so much regulation."

Regulation certainly plays a contributing role, but the bottom line is that owning a refinery is tough business. We've laid out the cost/benefit analysis of operating a refinery here and found that it would take 13 years of operation for one to turn a profit. However, there are still groups that are trying.

Answer 10

not  bush , ask nancy p . ask clinton y no refinerys . all this c**p started from clinton .  ASK   CHINA