Sentiment shifting on drilling off S.C.
AP Photo/SHELL
Two years ago, any talk of drilling offshore in South Carolina for oil or natural gas was dead in the water. Today the tide may be turning.
President Bush on Monday lifted an executive ban on new offshore drilling that has stood since his father was president. The move doesn't open the oceans offshore yet; a congressional ban is still in place. But the move comes as Congress considers a new round of proposed legislation to allow drilling in new areas.
If the legislation passes, it's widely expected that individual states would be left to decide whether to allow drilling off their shores, an idea that has support in both the South Carolina congressional delegation and state Legislature. Less than a week ago, the South Carolina Republican Party endorsed exploring for oil offshore.
Bush's order comes in an election year with voters suffering sticker-shock at the gas pumps, a different popular sentiment from the one that helped derail a 2006 congressional attempt to open the coast.
"I think everyone is more open to it than they were, myself included," said Reid Melton, a Summerville resident who organized a commuter group to push for better bus service. "The reservations are there. But with (gasoline) prices what they are ... there's a much larger group of people who are not going to oppose it now."
The state's congressional delegation largely supports at least exploring, and the potential tax and royalty revenue for a cash-hungry state was enough to get state legislative leaders interested two years ago.
U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., called it a common-sense solution to bringing down the price of gasoline at the pump. U.S. Rep. Henry Brown, R-S.C., who has steadfastly pushed for offshore drilling, called it a good first step in an "all of the above" approach to developing more energy resources.
The lifting of the drilling ban comes a month after Gov. Mark Sanford asked Bush to make a national marine monument out of a huge expanse of coral reefs along the Continental Shelf, where drilling would likely take place. Sanford has opposed drilling because of the risk to tourism, the state's largest revenue source, and the coastal ecosystem that drives much of it — "unless someone can show him some compelling evidence why the benefits would outweigh the risks," said press secretary Joel Sawyer.
The Continental Shelf offshore hasn't been closely studied or test-drilled and it's an open question how much petroleum or gas might be out there. The work that's been done suggests there's a "reasonably good chance" of finding enough natural gas worth drilling for, said James Knapp, a University of South Carolina geology professor who formerly worked for Shell Oil Co. exploring Gulf of Mexico oil fields.
Regional industry and environmental groups have seen the sea change in popular sentiment.
Larry McKenzie of the S.C. Farm Bureau Federation, said members support anything that would further exploration offshore, particularly for natural gas, because natural gas is used to make nitrogen fertilizer, and the price increase for fertilizer has been staggering.
"As long as there's strong environmental protections," McKenzie said. "We think the safeguards are there now."
But there are other concerns about the overheated atmosphere of the discussion, said Hamilton Davis, of the Coastal Conservation League. Davis and Nancy Vinson of the league emphasized a U.S. Energy Department analysis that said gas from any new offshore drilling wouldn't make it to the pumps before 2030 and wouldn't significantly affect prices.
"This is not about gas prices. This is about taking advantage of gas prices to do something that everybody thought two years ago was a bad idea," Davis said.
Phil Siegrist of Mount Pleasant is a retired ITT marketing executive who worked in the Middle East. He said the sooner offshore drilling is opened up the better, whether or not there's an immediate payoff at the pump, for a different sort of reason.
"Because you send a message to people that there's a crisis and we ought to get to work on it," he said. "Americans have to wake up and begin conserving. The American people are missing the conservation issue."
People are talking, said Melton, the Summerville resident. Transportation dominated the conversation at a party he threw over the weekend, and he didn't bring the subject up.
He doesn't think more offshore drilling is a quick fix or a long-term solution. The money spent drilling offshore here could be better spent, and the best use of any natural gas or oil out there might be to save it for the future or a disaster situation when the country vitally needs it.
"I don't think we're in the disaster mode yet," he said.
Reach Bo Petersen at 745-5852 or bpetersen@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 81 comment(s)
Posted by rjcontego on July 15, 2008 at 3:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
the beaches in south carolina have dark sand so a little industrial pollution from oil drilling wont be too noticeable...heck, a spill or two would only last a couple of months, hopefully it will happen in the winter and not affect tourism... anything to keep help the poor gas industry!..cant wait until 2030 when this little inconvenience will be cleared up by all the drilling...now that's foresight!
Posted by steve on July 15, 2008 at 5:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Has anyone consulted the Pawley's Island "Grey Man" about this?
I do think that any politician, from our state that supports off-shore drilling, be open and frank on how it will personally effect their holdings. Word is that some lawmakers and their crony's have been buying up land for refineries in Georgetown and Conway.
As to the Farmers Bureau; Why aren't they encouraging farmers to change over those tobacco fields to wind energy? Unfortunately farmers can not grow hemp products which tobacco farms are well suited to produce. That's another topic and tax revenue for another time.
Posted by moonpie on July 15, 2008 at 6:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
is this oil going to be sold to the US market only? if not you will see no impact only the oil companies will.
Posted by theronce on July 15, 2008 at 6:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The oil companies are already here and have at least one capped well.
Posted by majorjohnson on July 15, 2008 at 6:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Quit beefing about the oil companies. Those profits are owned by shareholders, and 98.5% of energy shareholders are 401K and pension accounts. Oil companies, distributors and retailers all together make less profit than the government makes in taxes on a gallon of gas, so where oil companies are providing retirees and future retirees with the money to retire, providing thousands of jobs and providing a needed resource, their profit is miniscule compared to the chunk of gas prices that comprise taxes.
Drill and get the refineries built. This problem wasn't created by the oil companies, it was created by government.
Posted by FiscalConservative on July 15, 2008 at 6:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I love how the left says we shouldn't drill because the oil wouldn't be available for X amount of years. If we used their logic, there would be no alternative energy in development because that isn't going to be ready in the near future also. I hope we do get off of oil but we will need our own in case we or countries we get it from go to war. We also get our oil from countries that hate us. That would be like the NAACP hiring the KKK to run their offices. That was a little bit of a reach there but I am trying to tie multiple stories together. Ya'll see my point.
Posted by kma71 on July 15, 2008 at 7:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I've heard on many news shows that there is enough oil in Alaska to supply the U.S. for 200 years! Start drilling NOW!!
Posted by Tammie on July 15, 2008 at 7:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lol @ tripsa...you leave Flipper out of this!
I think they should drill also.
Posted by rgalloway9 on July 15, 2008 at 8:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Profundly bad idea.
First, the reality of the situation is that there is not a similar shortage of natural gas (the resource that most experts believe lies off our shore) to the shortage that exists in crude petroleum. NG prices are quite high, but unlike petroleum, not because stocks are short, rather because of sympathetic market reactions (speculation, etc.) to petroleum prices. Stocks of NG are actually quite plentiful.
Secondly, it will be a minimum of a decade before these resources can be made available, by which time natural gas prices are almost certainly going to be well below current levels. That makes it very unlikely that any natural gas found off the SC coast can be economically harvested and utilized.
Finally, if petroleum is found in sufficient quantity and formation to be drilled economically (very unlikely) we can kiss our current tourism industry goodbye and call in the casinos, just as the Mississippi coast did way before Katrina. Walk the beach at Biloxi, dig your feet in the sand and look at the black residue on the bottoms of your feet, and that was the case before Katrina. Katrina caused hundreds of spills losing over 700,000 gallons of crude petroleum as it headed for the Gulf shore. Do we want that?
This is classic election year pandering to a public scared to death about gasoline prices and the economy in general. Drilling off the US East Coast will not alleviate our situation now or in the future.
Posted by cappy on July 15, 2008 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In an interview several months ago (CNN I belive)the CEO of Exxon stated that new exploration wasn't planned in the near future. When asked how he could justify the record profits of the oil industry when people had to decide to buy groceries or gas he stated that was their problem. His job was to give shareholders a return for their investment and he was good at his job. If you think that opening new areas for drilling will reduce gas prices, think again. We went through this in 1970. Gas shortages, long lines waiting to pump 10 gallons,reduced speed limits, climbing gas prices. When the price got to what the oil industry wanted suddenly we had plenty. The Gulf of Mexico is full of wells that are capped off, waiting to be tapped. At night you can see flames of natural gas burned to release pressure from pipes instead of using it. We need to start using the resources we have here instead of shipping it overseas where the price is higher.
Posted by Riptide on July 15, 2008 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
During Hurricane Katrina, I don’t recall any oil spills from the offshore oil platforms in the Gulf.
Posted by The_Bone on July 15, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gadsden is wrong about Katrina and the lack of oil spills. Shortly after the hurricane, teams of contaminants experts were sent out to survey for damages. They found numerous oil spills, many of which were throughout the low lying marsh areas. I know this b/c I know one of the people who was called into survey the damages. I've seen the pictures.
I grew up fishing the oil rigs off SW Louisiana. They are great for fishing. But putting them right off the coast is probably not the best idea. They are an eyesore and all kinds of junk falls off the rigs, eventually floating up along the coast. I won't go into detail about the time we were fishing one rig and watched as they flushed their human waste into the water.
I'm not saying no to more drilling. But there needs to be a comprehensive approach that includes all the energy options AND conservation. It drives me nuts that the country that put a man on the moon can't get past this decades-old nonsense that keeps us from developing a national energy policy. It's too easy for our elected officials to either say no to development or no to conservation. We need real leadership to step up and put forth a comprehensive solution.
Drilling by itself isn't going to get us out of this. But the arguement about how it would take X years to get any oil out of the ground is weak. We've been saying that for 20 years. If we would have purused drilling way back when, we would already be getting oil. Of course, oil prices are set on the world market, so those people that think there would be abundant cheap oil are wrong as well.
Hopefully, the high gas prices we are paying today will finally get these guys to do something.
Bring me a Democrat that will take a legitimate look at exploring ways to develop energy. Or give me a Republican that will take a legitimate look at conservation. The first one to do that will get my vote. Otherwise, it's the same old stuff that isn't going to get us anywhere.
Posted by shoelaces on July 15, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Drill, drill, drill your wells
up and down the coast,
lowering all our gas bills
let's cheer and make a toast!!
Whatever already!!! Shut up and do something!!! People can talk alternative sources all day long but nobody is really doing anything feasible. So called hybrids cost wayyyy more than a good old gas guzzler so that isn't an option. Our public transportation sux so that isn't an option.
Maybe there should be a race. Alternatives vs. drilling and refining. Just do something!!
DRILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GALLOWAY, do you have a website with real statistics to back up your information on the oil spills from Katrina? I would like to read more about this....
Posted by algorelost on July 15, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Drill now and drop all taxes on gas. Biggest profiter on gas is the goverment. No overhead and the just sit back and collect money for nothing.
Posted by The_Bone on July 15, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Re oil spills:
here's a link from the American Geological Institute. Not exactly an enviro rag.
http://www.geotimes.org/feb06/feature_oi...
One of the particulalry challenging aspects of clean up after Katrina was the fact that so much of the oil was up in the salt marsh.
BTW... Comments like ColdBeer's just make poeple on the other side dig in their heels.
Posted by ln1959 on July 15, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
During Katrina, and Rita there were about 17,700 barrels of oil spilled. Like most of the posters on here would say, just goggle Katrina oil spill.
Posted by common_sense on July 15, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The fact of the matter is, the world will be dependent on fossil fuels for at least 50 years, while we transition to other forms of fuel. In the interim, we need all the oil that we can get. Congress fails to realize that by not acting to allow drilling & fast-tracking of refineries, they are placing our economic & national security at risk.
Actually, I think they do realize this, but simply don't care.
I'm just sayin...
Posted by guidedbystewart on July 15, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I seriously doubt they will find any oil of the coast our State, so really it will be a waste and time and money to look(don't you think if we had oil, they would have found it long ago?).
Besides, What many of you don't understand is that the better we are at exploiting a resource, the quicker we use that resource up (yes folks, and oil is a nonrenewable resource, once it is gone it is gone). You guys don't seem very concerned to what kind of environment you are leaving your children and grandchildren?
Posted by common_sense on July 15, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is the lazy person that does not look to renewable resources and who only wants to simply continue what they have been doing because it is what they know.
It is the fool who also puts all their eggs in a single basket.
I'm just sayin...
Posted by shoelaces on July 15, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Archdude, my 4 Stroke engine on my boat is efficient.
Alternatives are great but in the meantime we need to use what we have.
Again, I don't see these magical alternatives as being cost effective for me personally. I have a small SUV, paid for, and pretty fuel-efficient. Why would I want to trade it in for a more expensive, small car that can't do what I need it to do? I can and have adjusted my lifestyle some but there are some things I am not willing to compromise on.
I am sure I am not alone on this one.
Posted by justmyview on July 15, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Is there really enough oil within the United States that would allow us to do away with the importing of foreign petroleum? Who will build the refineries to process the oil? Will we ever see gasoline at$2.00 per gallon again?
Posted by a_set_love on July 15, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We find ourselves in a situation where the price of gas has
increased to a sky high level since the 2006 elections. This has been passed on thru transportation costs for everthing we purchase. We find it hard to afford the cost of food, utilities and the cost of getting to work.
The direct cause of this problem is from the elected officials we have sent to Congress. We hear from "Liberal" senators and congressmen that they don't care about our safety or standard of living. They will "not" allow drilling offshore East/West coasts of America.
By doing this "they" are causing the oil prices to climb and us to suffer needlessly.
IT IS TIME FOR CONGRESS TO REMEMBER ONE THING AND REMEMBER IT WELL...... YOU DO NOT OWN THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA.
"WE THE PEOPLE" PUT YOU IN OFFICE.... YOU WORK FOR US AND WE CAN AND WILL TAKE YOU OUT OF OFFICE.
Posted by iobriant on July 15, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Does anyone actually think that drilling for oil is going to have an effect on gas prices? The prices are set by the market, and right now the largest growing forces in the market are China and India. Their demand will only continue to increase. If I'm looking to sell my oil, am I going to sell it to the US at a "fair" price, or am I going to maximise my profits and sell it to everybody at the higher price set by demand?
Offshore drilling is a gamble. No-one knows for sure if there is any oil down there. The only way to find out is to drill. Until you strike oil, and then get proven oil production out of it (not all wells are created equal) its all just a big guessing game. (An educated guess, but a guess nonetheless.) Urge the legislature to invest in cleaner, renewable energy, rather than staving off the inevitable at huge costs. The money spent on oil exploration could be used for renewable energy research to propel the US ahead, not keep us where we are.
Posted by lowcountrylover on July 15, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
GAS WAS $2.30 A GALLON IN 2006 BEFORE THE DEMOCRATS WON CONGRESS.NOW ITS $4.00 A GALLON. THATS ABOUT ALL THE DEMOCRAT CONGRESS HAS DONE. THANKS ALOT!
Posted by jeff61 on July 15, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by Tammie on July 15, 2008 at 7:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lol @ tripsa...you leave Flipper out of this!
I think they should drill also.
I agree totally..... Flipper was not preventing drilling offshore and I see no need to drill through his head. He should be left out of this. However any one in congress against drill... well.... I', just saying
Posted by wjhamilton3 on July 15, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All that oil isn't handled off shore. After it's pumpued up, it has to be landed somewhere, stored in large tanks and sludge has to be disposed of. Raw crude oil has a lot of stuff in it which is taken out before it's sent to the refinery: sand, salt, dirt, and gunk. That, too has to be stored and transported, on land. You can't pump raw crude oil long distances through pipelines without cleaning it up first. Of course you have to build the pipelines and pumping stations as well. Would you like to run it through Mt. Pleasant or James Island and where, exactly would you plan to put them?
In Nigeria they solve these problems by dumping the sludge in wetlands where it poisons the environment and causes cancer. The locals solve that problem by punching holes in the pipelines and stealing the oil, which the sell on the black market because they're poor despite the fact that their country has huge oil reserves. This conflict is probably going to be resolved by holding a war very shortly, which will probably disrupt world oil supplies, leaving the toxic sludge where it is, impoverising the oil thieves and killing a lot of people. Nigeria should probably be one of the wealthiest countries in Africa, but it has a miserable standard of living for most people.
Oil usually makes a small group of people wealthy at the expense of many others. The multinational corporations, probably owned by Saudi Arabia now, don't get rich by leaving the wealth where the oil was. Unless you have a tiny native population which can all go on Government dole like many nations in the Middle East had, don't bet on local wealth from the production of local oil.
However, when it's been pumped dry and the disposable company which produced it has filed bankruptcy, guess who will be paying for the cleanup?
Posted by shoelaces on July 15, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah, well my gated community doesn't allow such eyesores as wind generators or solar panels.... :) Not to mention what would happen if I put up a clothes line.
Arch, do you have black glasses with white tape around the middle? How many pocket protectors do you own???
Really, I am not calling you a nerd or geek. It sounds like you are well-informed. It was just an easy joke to make. I apologize for my ignorance and lack of compassion..
Good discussions...but now I have to go burn some fossil fuels for awhile.
Posted by farfallaspeaks on July 15, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with congress. Oil companies have plenty of leases to public land with plenty of oil already.
Besides, all this war for oil, and now we have to drill on our beaches????
This is so stupid.
Drilling off the coast is dangerous because of all the hurricanes we have. We won't see the oil for at least 10 years anyways, by then, we could come up with better energy technology.
Anything Bush wants, I say do the opposite. He has already caused enough problems.
Say we DID drill off our coast. Would the oil stay in South Carolina?? It should, but it won't. We will take chances and pollute our coasts so that the rest of the country can have more oil IN 10 YEARS....
Drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge?
That makes my heart bleed.
South Carolina has enough pollution from all the port activity. You all would sacrifice our beaches to drive your big SUV's.
This is a very touchy subject for me, so I really don't care what any of you conservative Bush loving idiots have to say. I have not, and will not read any of your stupid opinions. I watch CSpan and keep up with what politicians have to say on the issue, not all of you ignorant right wingers who don't even know what is going on with oil companies or this WAR for that matter. You go ahead and believe everything you hear on Fox News, and let the smart people decide what is best for this country.
Posted by coolfreaknbeans on July 15, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't care if it takes 10 years to produce results.Time will pass whether we do something or not.Lets face it- speculation alone has caused a lot of the rise in gas prices.When we started seriously discussing this publicly(including the fact that we could have more oil than the Saudis just in Anwar alone)Saudi immediately started producing more.Just us starting the process alone will start to drive down prices just because of fear from the other suppliers.Just because we would drill now doesnt mean our brains shut down to alternative solutions too.We should drill now while working on other ideas.We can't sit around on our butts while toying around with ideas.We need action!The crazy environmentalists crack me up.They burn down luxury homes being built to protest.What in hell do these nut jobs think burning a house down does to the environment?
Posted by farfallaspeaks on July 15, 2008 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
lowcountry lover
Although I would prefer to vote Democrat than Republican, I agree that the Democrats really suck. Sometimes I wonder if I should just vote for Nader.
Read below. Democrats and Republicans are really the same.
I am torn, should I vote for the lesser of two evils, thus giving either party my vote to continue to dismember our constitution, or should I vote for Nader or the green party, thus voting against all the evil of the Repubs & Dems.
WE ARE LIVING IN SOME REALLY SAD TIMES.
The following is not to promote one party over the other, but to show you how Democrats and Republicans are really the same.
Since that overwhelming Democratic victory, this is what the Democratic-led Congress has done:
* Repeatedly funded -- at the White House's insistence -- the Iraq War without conditions;
* Defeated -- at the White House's insistence -- Jim Webb's bill to increase the intervals between deployments for U.S.
troops;
* Defeated -- at the White House's insistence -- a bill to restore habeas corpus, which had been abolished by the Military Commissions Act, enacted before the 2006 election with substantial Democratic and virtually unanimous GOP support;
* Enacted -- at the White House's insistence and with substantial Democratic and virtually unanimous Republican support
-- the so-called Protect America Act, vesting the President with extreme new warrantless eavesdropping powers;
* Overwhelmingly approved the Senate's Kyl-Lieberman Resolution, to declare parts of the Iranian Government a "terrorist organization," an extremely belligerent resolution modeled after those which made "regime change" the official U.S.
Government position towards Iraq;
* Deleted from a pending bill -- at the direction of the House Democratic leadership and at the insistence of the White House -- a provision merely to require Congressional approval before the Bush administration can attack Iran;
* Overwhelmingly enacted -- at the White House's insistence, and with substantial Democratic and virtually unanimous GOP support -- the "FISA Amendments Act of 2008," to vest the President with broad new warrantless eavesdropping powers and to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, all but putting an end to any chance for a real investigation and judicial adjudication of the Bush administration's illegal NSA spying program;
* Confirmed, with the indispensable support of two key Democratic Senators, Bush's nominee for Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, despite his support for radical Bush theories of executive power and his refusal to oppose torture;
* Stood by passively and impotently while Bush officials flagrantly ignored their Subpoenas and refused to comply with their investigations.
All I ask from everyone is that they educate themselves on issues before coming to a conclusion. I change my mind all the time, it's called being "open minded." Sometimes even people's posts give me a different perspective, and that is why I read them.
Posted by Riptide on July 15, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Personally I would like to see an oil platform right in front of the Kennedy’s compound in Hyannis Port blocking a sunrise over the ocean and then another one for the Hollywood crowd on Malibu Beach blocking the sunset in California. These people get so much pleasure seeing the working people of this country suffer is enough to make a skunk vomit.
Posted by Cid95 on July 15, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why does it have to be an either / or thing?
We should be looking for sources of oil AND developing alternative energy solutions. Everyone speaks of demand like it is static - it's not! India and China and other developing nations will need millions and millions more bbls in 5 years and 10 years than they do today.
Fact: There is loss oil in the world today than there was yesterday, and there will be less tomorrow than there is today. Plan for it!
Posted by YankeeLady on July 15, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Right on, farfallaspeaks! The politics of fear and the blinders of Bush stupidity will be the ruination of the country and the planet, but then again, who cares as long as the inveterate right wingers can fill up the big 'ol SUV and not have to THINK about what's happening around them. Just listen to FOX and parrot what they tell you.
Posted by Rebel_Yell on July 15, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Once again the lower clas is being tricked by big business. Wag the dog, the me-first crowd is ready to pounce on this one so they can keep driving the big cars they couldn't afford in the first place. Just like the home foreclosure crowd--they are getting what they deserve for not living within their means. As a conservative republican, I'm perfectly content paying for gas at its current price or even higher and consider it a luxury. There's no reason to open up SC's coastline to satisfy the me-first crowd who have no foresight or understanding of what this will mean to our coastline.
It's ridiculous to see all the trust in energy companies to do it right when every SC river and harbor is already full of mercury from energy companies. If anything, drill more in Alaska and start developing better car and energy technology. I'll vote for no taxes or drilling--stay out of my wallet, my bedroom and our ocean. I have absolutley no trust that an energy company will put our natural resources before profits nor do the lower class posters understand that. Hopefully, McCain will not get wrapped up in the big business push to rape our resources while the lower class SUV owners are willing to sell the state's soul to the devil. Arggghhhh at the ignorance displayed on this forum by the majority of posters. Watch NC do the smart thing and not authorize drilling while SC's me-first and poorly educated crowd pushes for it without a care so long as they can save $10 at the pump. Wag the dog, the plan is coming together for big business just as it was written up.
Posted by suec on July 15, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
$2 a gallon gas so that people can spend their money on crap at WalMart, go out to eat every night, and buy garbage video games for their kids.
Seriously. How many of you are really having to choose between food or gas? That doesn't mean chosing McDonald's over TBonz to save $. I mean how many of you go to bed hungry at night becuase you had to put gas in your car?
I was in the grocery store last week and a guy walked in with 2 kids. They werre wanting him to buy something and he says (rather loudly), "We can't afford it. Thank President Bush and the oil companies for that!". Then I see him at the checkout counter with a case of Bud. I would almost bet he bought cigarettes too.
For so long, Americans have not had to choose between anything. We could have it ALL. if we couldn't afford it, we just charged it.
Posted by guidedbystewart on July 15, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Standing Ovation Rebel_Yell!!!
Posted by a_set_love on July 15, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
farfallaspeaks / Yankeelady -> What strange little people you are. So much venom and hatred you hold for your fellow citizens you seem all too willing to sell your soul to your "Liberal" masters for a crumb from their table.
Hopefully you are smart enough to understand it's "OUR" table they are eating from. The liberals are taking the food from your and my children and growing fat off of it.
Posted by greyrider on July 15, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's called "technology" people. Trying to compare the technology of today with that of the Exxon Valdez era is laughable. The risks of NOT drilling are far worse than the risks of drilling.
Posted by slimbo6969 on July 15, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree that we need to start drilling off the coasts of America and we need to start now...
It will take 3 to 5 years for the oil companies to even start this process... The platforms will take at least this long to be built...
If you think the price of oil is high now and we have to wait on these platforms to be built and drilling to start we will be paying much more than what we are paying now... What will our economy be like then…
Right now oil producing countries can charge what they want for oil (supply and demand) and we can not do anything about it... If we start producing more of our own oil and cut our dependence on foreign oil the price should and would decrease as our production increased our demand for foreign oil would be decrease and the price should also decrease…
One last thing… What happens when the foreign oil dries up… It will be to late then for the United States to start drilling… We need to start now for our future and our children’s and grandchildren’s future…
Posted by farfallaspeaks on July 15, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rebel yell, good point.
I'm glad the price of gas has gone up. It's made people finally realize we need to find new technologies, and protect our environment. It's forced people to look into rails, more public transportation, walking or biking, buying local, and cleaner energy technology. Unless you make the conservative earth hating right wing pay more money to fill up their SUV's, they refuse to even think of these sorts of inconveniences.
Oil is a diminishing natural resource. There are so many other more ecologically friendly ways we can get energy.
Actually, the technology is already there. It's the oil companies and big businesses have bought them out, and then we never hear about it again. Just like the electric car in the 80's. You all should watch "Who Killed the Electric Car". It's a great documentary.
I thank God my parents bought me a Honda CRX when I turned 16 back in the early 90's. That little car gets 45 miles to the gallon, and has lasted me until today. They STILL make cars like that, and better. If you go to Europe, you'll see a whole bunch of cars like the SMART, and others. Made specifically for Europeans, who prefer tiny cars that consume little gas. For some reason, those cars are not allowed to be sold to Americans. Not sure why. The Europeans have changed their way of life around high gas prices without drilling in protected areas. WHY CAN'T WE???
Oh, and if I sound angry, why shouldn't I be?? Our country is collapsing and we are nearing a recession. Our main source of energy is destroying us, and yet, we can't live without it. I worry for my little girl and the world she is growing up in.
Posted by coolfreaknbeans on July 15, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rebel_Yell - In one sentence you say"...I'm perfectly content paying for gas at its current price or even higher and consider it a luxury."And a few sentences later you say "....stay out of my wallet..."Which is it?One moment gas is a luxury which you have no problem paying top price(getting ripped off)for,then you say stay outta my wallet?I am NOT perfectly content getting ripped off and anyone who is,isnt that bright or just insanely arrogant.Other countries pay under .50 cents a gallon.And for anyone who thinks SUV drivers are the only ones affected are idiots.High fuel prices have made everything go up in price including food(which WE ALL need).Food isnt a luxury.What a stupid comparison referencing people who bought $500k homes they couldnt afford to people needing food and gas.
Posted by farfallaspeaks on July 15, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
coolfreaknbeans,
Food you can get locally. The food you get from other countries, or the other side of the world that does not grow here is a luxury, and yes, you need fuel to get it here.
Buying water from France is a luxury. We have plenty of clean water here (for now).
Who said SUV drivers are the only ones affected? No, they just add to the problem, that's all.
Posted by coolfreaknbeans on July 15, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Trust me farfallaspeaks,my water isn't from France.Nor is any of the other foods I eat.LOL I don't know of where to get any canned goods locally either.Fruits and veggies are definitely best locally grown!(safer too)I was referencing rebel_yells comment about "lower class SUV owners..."Which is funny considering how many little rich women are crawling in and out of their suburbans or escalades.
Posted by ZUMAN on July 15, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Check the video on the main page...LOL
http://nozzlerage.com
Posted by suec on July 15, 2008 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think Farfellas comment about "lower class SUV owners" was referring to people who really could not afford them to start with, but bought them anyway. Now they can't afford to put gas in them.
Just like these people who bought houses, knowing full well that if they had a tire blow out that month then they wouldn't be able to make the house payment.
It is time people learned a little bit about self control.
Posted by Chance08 on July 15, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Who wants to go swimming in an oil field?? I sure as hell don't. Our main income for the most part is Tourism. What will they think if they go want to go swimming and we have a swim advisory because of an oil spill or our local fishing or shrimping industry gets contaminated. Also its going to take years to help our current situation anyway. We have to conserve what we have and cut back on what we don't need. yes we will have to make sacrafices, carpooling, more efficient use of our time and money and gas. Renewable energy is one way to go and slowly transition our mind set into a more efficient economy and society. I guess time will tell with both.
Posted by zoomru on July 15, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All Elected Officials...
"Its the ENERGY .... STUPID !! "
DRILL .... Now !
WIND ..coastal FARMS and Ceasar's HEAD... NOW!
REFINE ... across from HESS .... NOW!
Solar.. Now!
BIO-FUEL.. Now!
http://www.valcent.net/s/
Ecotech.asp?ReportID=182039
Electric Mass transit ...NOW!
Energy from TRASH...NOW
www.startech.net
New Building Codes.. NOW!
www.polysteel.com
NET-METERING for power ...NOW!!
Will OUR state LEAD in anything???
Posted by farfallaspeaks on July 15, 2008 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, in 2012, we might have another ice age when the fresh water from our ice caps mixes with the salt water, or perhaps our poles will shift, which Scientists say we are overdue for.
Even in America, we'll be screwed.
The natural disasters will kill any hope of having any kind of coast at all. Putting oil rigs in the middle of it is a bad idea.
Also, since when was caring for our environment ever a bad thing? Sure there are some crazy extremists out there, but one bad apple shouldn't spoil a bunch.
Look at how our society has progressed environmentally speaking, over the past 20 years! It's all thanks to liberals, who have a more progressive and educated way of thinking. Conservatives hold us back in the dark ages, when to keep people in line, some of you suggest leaving a dead, decaying, lynched body in the park as a warning to others (Mouth of the South).
Boy, I would really hate to have to explain that one to my 2 year old when we go for a stroll in the park.
Posted by farfallaspeaks on July 15, 2008 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
tripsa, have you taken your medication today?
Posted by theronce on July 15, 2008 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is so easy to fall into this culture of fear. Some of the conservatives here sound like the leftists and environmental extremists, succumbing to the fear and mimicing their pretentiousness and sky-is-falling solutions. Man, do all the alternative stuff, but, for now, drill. Have we done everything wrong. No, we've mostly done the right things the right way. There's plenty for all and plenty for all to do. We need a little work at the edges in dividing the stuff up, but you got to keep going to keep going.
Posted by fragdemon on July 15, 2008 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Zoomru.... why do you continually post stupid stuff that makes no sense? Have some decency and type out a legitimate well-thought out response.
Posted by GG on July 15, 2008 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ya know..Somebody is going to set up drilling off the many miles of US coasts; it might as well be US companies, instead of China or some other anti-American country.
We just need to stop talking about it and get started building drilling sites.
Posted by zoomru on July 15, 2008 at 5:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
fragdemon,
I try all types of nifty styles to get people to think about what I comment on.
Drill ...Now? Well...by all means. If we have any OIL here in South Carolina, WHAT are we waiting for? If the companies want to spend the money to DRILL... Go ahead. We have great technology.
WIND..Now! We have wind on our Peaks in the UPSTATE and coastal wind right here; all along our coastline. These resources should have already been tapped. The turbines at www.selsam.com as an example in addition to the turbines made by GE in the upstate are a "No Brainer"
Refine... NOW! Why can't we put a refinery here? If one is going to be built, might as well be here across from the HESS facility in North Charleston.
Solar....NOW! Make it condusive for people to put solar panels up on their roofs to aid in heating water or their house. Get Net-metering going with the power companies to receive power that people produce in excess. When you fly over and see all the roof tops of warehouses and walmarts alone in this state, our power companies are single minded. We need teamwork.
Bio-Fuel ...NOW!! Go to the link for VALCENT
Building Codes.. NOW! Just by changing the building codes to have NEW construction all built out of concrete and steel with ICF forms would do wonders in energy conservation. All homes to have flat roofs to enable solar water heaters and aid in home heating would be a major advancement.
ENERGY from Trash... NOW! By plasma-fying our trash instead of sending it to the incinerator or landfill would offer a continual energy source but in addition protect the environment and offer four different tax revenue streams. COLDBEER knows of this solution and realizes what a raping we may get if the INCINERATOR contract is renewed for another twenty years. This will be a major campaign issue in the upcoming November elections for all city and county officials running for office or NOT.
Mass transit....NOW! Statewide plan and buildout...PERIOD!
Posted by rollo on July 15, 2008 at 7 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Can you imagine the use that the old shipyard could be put to if we were to start mfg. oil and gas platforms there? The jobs that would be created? Most of the shipyard would have to be updated, but anyone who knows anything about demolition, construction, utility infrastructure, anything to do with planning major manufacturing operations would have to go into hiding to avoid having a good job. And if refineries were built in the state, the competition for qualified workers would double.
Add the various other potential energy sources, coal, nuclear, solar, wind, tidal hydro, hydrogen, and whatever follows the explosion that will follow the unleashing of American energy ingenuity, and the future is limitless.(until the naysayers and NIMBYs find a voice again.)
Fossil fuels are still necessary, and will be with us for hundreds of years into the future, but fossil isn't the solution. ENERGY is the solution!!
Right now we have to do everything we can to acquire every bit of energy we can from whatever source, and put it to good purpose. Otherwise, farfallaspeaks, your daughter will have no future.
Posted by rollo on July 15, 2008 at 7:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
These naysayers are a trip!!!
'Coastal Conservation Society or whatever' says that there's no use in drilling, because they will fight against it and prevent production for 22 yrs,(until 2030). Melkin, another anti-progress "progressive" says that we should leave that potential energy where it is until we find ourselves in an "emergency".
Well if the production will take 22yrs, what good will the resources do us in an emergency??!!!!!
Typical "PROGRESSIVE" lack of THINKING!!
Posted by Spartan on July 15, 2008 at 8:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Drill! We've had our heads stuck in the mid-east sand for decades too long. Drill and drill now.
Posted by a_set_love on July 15, 2008 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ya baby, we've got to drill more.
Posted by DontSpamMeBro on July 15, 2008 at 8:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hmmm....Bush says "Drill" and oil prices drop 9 bucks a barrel. If Congress would get off their dead butts and drop their "ban" imagine how much farther the price would fall. Idiots.
Posted by Vituperator on July 15, 2008 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OPEC is squeezing supplies at the pump and driving the prices up through the ceiling to fatten their profits. OPEC has calculated (correctly thus far) that Americans are too polarized and weak-willed to do anything about it. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia said, "Get used to it." Or put another way, "Let the kafir eat cake."
The energy ball is now squarely in the laps of the Democrats in Congress. People can grouse and moan and groan all they want about what one political party did or did not do yesterday and last month and last year. That was then and this is now. The Democrats and their extreme environmentalist supporters have had a stranglehold on energy development in this country for the better part of 40 years and the Democratic Party now is telling us the same things that King Abdullah is telling us. They must be working out of the same press office.
Now the rubber is finally hitting the road. As this energy crisis and the accompanying economic consequences are only going to get worse, we will soon find out if King Abdullah is right. Either we will get busy with developing our own domestic energy AND alternate energy or we will just sit here on our butts doing nothing but proving he is right: that we are too polarized and to weak-willed to do anything about it.
Cake, anyone?
Posted by farfallaspeaks on July 15, 2008 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think tripsa, a set of love, spartan, cold beer and mouth of the south should go start their own country in a land far far away.
Oil companies have plenty of leases to plenty of public land. This is the main reason Congress will not allow this. Why don't they drill there? Because they want to get their dirty hands on everything.
You will all be very sorry when your child isn't able to swim in the waters of our beaches because the hurricanes destroyed all the oil rigs. You are willing to sell your beaches to the devil if it means paying a little less in gas to fill up your SUV.
Posted by DontSpamMeBro on July 15, 2008 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here's the link for all the doubters out there:
html/http://kudlow.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjMyNDljNTQ5MThjNWE3YTAzYWYzMmZmNDVmMjA0ZWY=
Posted by DontSpamMeBro on July 15, 2008 at 9:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry....try this one:
http://kudlow.nationalreview.com/post/?q...
Posted by farfallaspeaks on July 15, 2008 at 9:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks dontspambebro for the link on Bush's stupid move.
2 points for all the evil corporate oil bastards.
In the meantime...
This afternoon, at approximately 5 p.m. (EDT), the Clerk of the House of Representatives gave the first reading of the Article of Impeachment of President George Bush. Article One charges the President with deceiving Congress with fabricated threats of Iraq WMDs to fraudulently obtain support for an authorization of the use of military force against Iraq.
2 points towards defending our constitution
Posted by Vituperator on July 15, 2008 at 9:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As soon as King Abdullah and his OPEC cronies see we are seriously going about the business of developing our own domestic energy resources they will ramp up production and the price of oil will drop like a rock.
They will do this to discourage our domestic energy development, but we need to be smart enough to keep forging ahead and just tell them to go pound sand!
Posted by Don on July 15, 2008 at 9:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think it's funny that because gas is $4 per gallon, you want to drill. No discussions about it when gas was $2. Drilling off the coast of SC is a gennie you can't put back in the bottle. Everything built by man has flaws. Safety? Remember Three-Mile Island? Exxon Valdeze, Exploding space shuttles? Titannic? I can go on. The fact is we really don't need more oil. Watch Who killed the electric car (Blockbuster has it). GM made a great electric car in the 90s. They could make it today. Go 500 miles for 9 dollars. It would work for 90% of US families. Honda makes a Hydrogen car with almost zero emmissions. Charge it at home with a generator that provides power and heat as well. We should have gotten off oil 50 years ago. If you want something in the ocean, use proven tide and wave-powered generators.
Posted by farfallaspeaks on July 15, 2008 at 9:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
oil companies,
"We're going to raise our prices to outrageous highs, make the country panic, and give them an excuse to let us drill in protected areas, until they let us do it, and then we'll lower all our prices so people think it's a matter of supply and demand"
Why did the price go down? We don't have the oil YET!?
Because they can change their prices as they please.
IMPEACH!!!
Posted by farfallaspeaks on July 15, 2008 at 9:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
tripsa, your cold beers have done more harm and created more stupidity, addictions, violence, and DEATHS in this world than my weed. Why don't you go and drink some more beers, beat your woman, and then go pass out. Isn't that what you drinkers do?
It's not my fault weed is illegal. I would be perfectly happy paying the Pharmaceutical companies for it. But for now, I'll have to settle for buying it from some good old North Carolina mountain hippie folks. Hey, at least I'm buying local!
Where did you get your beer from? How much trash are you creating with your bottles and cans, and how much is it costing you? I bet it costs more than my weed.
I shall say you are very uneducated on the subject.
Since you brought it up, here is a little bit of info you DRUNK!
1. Marijuana is far less addictive than alcohol.
2. Deaths from the two substances. There are hundreds of alcohol overdose deaths each year, yet there has never been a marijuana overdose death in history. The consumption of alcohol is also the direct cause of tens of thousands of deaths in the U.S. each year.
3. Alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs, and using just 10 times what one would use to get the desired effect can lead to death. Marijuana is one of – if not the – least toxic drugs, requiring thousands times the dose one would use to get the desired effect to lead to death. This “thousands times” is actually theoretical, since there has never been a recorded case of marijuana overdose.
4. Long-term marijuana use is far less harmful than long-term alcohol use.
5. The United Kingdom's Science and Technology Select Committee considers alcohol far more harmful than marijuana.
6. There has never been a documented case of lung cancer in a marijuana-only smoker, and recent studies find that marijuana use is not associated with any type of cancer. The same cannot be said for alcohol, which has been found to contribute to a variety of long-term negative health effects, including cancers and cirrhosis of the liver.
7. Studies find alcohol use contributes to the likelihood of domestic violence and sexual assault and marijuana use does not.
8. Studies find alcohol use contributes to aggressive behavior and acts of violence, whereas marijuana use reduces the likelihood of violent behavior.
9. Alcohol use is highly associated with violent crime, whereas marijuana use is not.
10. Alcohol use is prevalent in cases of sexual assault and date rape on college campuses. Marijuana use is not considered a contributing factor in cases of sexual assault and date rape, as judged by the lack of discussion of marijuana in sexual assault and date rape educational materials.
Now, if you'll excuse me...
Posted by Vituperator on July 15, 2008 at 9:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The rule of the environmental insane asylum is at its end. I can already hear the tortured screams of its inmates as we prepare to drill.
Drill here! Drill now! Pay less!
Posted by DontSpamMeBro on July 15, 2008 at 10:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
farfallaspeaks: "Thanks dontspambebro for the link on Bush's stupid move. 2 points for all the evil corporate oil bastards."
What a hoot you are. Puff, puff, pass you bogart. The point of the article is that the BS restrictions the leftist greenies have imposed on this country over the past 30-40 years are now costing us big bucks. Bush's statements, and the resulting price drop, show that we're being jacked, whether it's by the Arabs, the "speculators" etc. Write your Marxist/Left Wing/Democrat reps in Congress and instruct them to drop their idiotic opposition to drilling. The "millions of leased acres" strawman no longer passes muster. Those "millions" of acres hold very little oil.
Posted by farfallaspeaks on July 15, 2008 at 10:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
tripsa, you are a very very sad person.
While you waste your time looking up all of the comments I posted, and thank you very much for reposting them, I'm working for myself (I have my own business working on the computer, which I am supporting 3 people on right now) and getting work done. I don't have time for your stupid crap. Go read something you drunk!
Posted by 512c on July 15, 2008 at 10:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Right on Farfalla.
We will kill the rest of the environment with our ignorance as we put tons and tons more up in the air of Gaia's burnt blood *oil* in our plastics (which pollute the sargasso sea and the mid pacific gyre) we have already soiled our nest enough, it's time to wake up, and smell the sewage. We need to evolve our economy, Europe's new economy of green tech is producing tons of money, while we let our politicians sell the farm.
Posted by farfallaspeaks on July 15, 2008 at 11:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this."
Albert Einstein, "My First Impression of the U.S.A.", 1921
(an immigrant)
Posted by farfallaspeaks on July 15, 2008 at 11:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
democracynow.org
Posted by farfallaspeaks on July 16, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
tripsa,
Why do you find it so hard to believe that someone can smoke weed every day, and run their own business from home (legally). While you're probably suffering from a hangover this morning, I'm perfectly fine getting up at the butt crack of dawn and getting back to work, taking care of my child, my household, and fixing breakfast for my hard working, well paid, pot smoking-architect husband who may have designed the roof that's hanging over your head.
You are super ignorant when it comes to the matter of cannabis.
I suggest you go do some research and get back to me. Prohibition STARTED organized crime. Again, go read something. I don't buy my weed from organized crime, and I don't grow it myself, that WOULD be stupid.
Actually, my weed most like this time came from a North Charleston cop who confiscated it from someone.
I would supply you with a little bit of literature on the matter, but like I said, I got more important things to do than try to educate those who refuse to look at the truth, in fear of being proven wrong.
Oh, and thanks for the info on Einstein you googled. You really didn't get my point at all.
Posted by farfallaspeaks on July 16, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tripsa, I'm sure those who participated in the amsa study were also alcoholics, crack heads smoked cigarettes, and just wanted to get some free weed. There are several false studies out there, and most of the time, you can find some information that contradicts it.
Your research in the 70's is outdated and should not even be taken into consideration. Your taste in music sucks too btw.
Here is a little bit of up-to-date info for you.
In January 2008, the American College of Physicians (ACP) — the largest medical specialty
organization and the second largest physician group in the United States, representing over 124,000
members — released a landmark position paper calling for legal protection for medical marijuana
patients, reconsideration of marijuana’s federal classification as a Schedule I drug (banned for medical
use), and expanded research. Entitled “Supporting Research into the Therapeutic Role of Marijuana,”
the paper cites extensive evidence for the clinical safety and efficacy marijuana and its active
components, called cannabinoids.
ACP is one of the world’s most prestigious medical societies and publishes Annals of Internal
Medicine, the most widely cited medical specialty journal in the world. ACP joins the Institute
of Medicine, American Public Health Association, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, American
Nurses Association, American Academy of HIV Medicine, and dozens of other medical and health
organizations that support medical marijuana access. Key excerpts from the report are below.
goodbye
Posted by farfallaspeaks on July 16, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good!
Posted by justmyopinion7 on July 17, 2008 at 1:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
YEAH TRIPSA, GO SMOKE A JOINT. YOU ARE UUUUUPPPPTTIIIIIGGGGHTTTTT!!
Do you really believe half the crap you post?
DRILLING IS STTUUUUUUPPPPPIIIDDDDDDDDDD
Posted by Don on July 18, 2008 at 10:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Oil Man himself says we can't drill our way out of this....... Quote....
America is in a hole and it's getting deeper every day. We import 70% of our oil at a cost of $700 billion a year - four times the annual cost of the Iraq war.
I've been an oil man all my life, but this is one emergency we can't drill our way out of. But if we create a new renewable energy network, we can break our addiction to foreign oil.
On January 20, 2009, a new President gets sworn in. If we're organized, we can convince Congress to make major changes towards cleaner, cheaper and domestic energy resources.
read it here...
http://www.pickensplan.com/
Posted by rgalloway9 on July 23, 2008 at 6:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Shoelace: Source MSNBC: "The Coast Guard estimates more than 7 million gallons of oil were spilled..." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9365607/)
Posted by gringa on September 16, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The potential to gain 6 months worth of oil is not reason enough to drill up the whole east coast. Think of the damage it will do to the tourism in the area. I've seen an oil spill, swam in it, surfed in it... coming out with globs of crude black gunk stuck all over me and my board. Tourists don't want to swim in black gunk. The tourism industry has much more potential to bring money to the SC economy than does the oil industry.
Posted by gringa on September 16, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
pulling up 6 months worth of oil is not reason enough to drill up the whole east coast. Think of the damage it will do to the tourism in the area. I've seen an oil spill, swam in it, surfed in it... coming out with globs of crude black gunk stuck all over me and my board. Tourists don't want to swim in black gunk. The tourism industry has much more potential to bring money to the SC economy than does the oil industry.
(sorry if this is a double post - didn't see it come through)