Iz Man wrote:......How do we increase supply? Pretty simple.
Drill, drill, and drill; and build more refineries, something that hasn't been done in 30+ years.
Drill in ANWR, where the footprint would be less than .1% of the completely barren wasteland that it is.
Which, if the
best estimates are correct might supply the US needs for at most, 30 years. As for more refineries ... In the short term, that will increase supplies, but it won't reall and truly make more oil ... it will just mean we use it up quicker.
Bill Clinton said no to ANWR because it wouldn't be worth it given it would take at least 10 years to see any real affect from drilling in the area. That was in 1995.
There was more to it than that. Rember the Valdeze? Alaskan fisherment are STILL waiting their promised compensation ... and some biological communities may never fully recover. The Alaskan oceans feed not only us, but countries around the world.
Estimates of the damage to other resources is also high.
Is irrevolcably destroying all that worth a mere 30 years (at
most) of fuel? Then what? Then we have no oil ... again AND no resource.
Better to wait until the TECHNOLOGY gets better so it can be taken without damage.
Drill in the Gulf of Mexico. Where our illustrious gov't says no, but that its ok for China to drill 40 miles off the coast of FLA.
hmm.. I guess all those rigs out there
IN THE GULF are giant fishing platforms?
You are talking about more rigs, perhaps. BUT, that just means we drain the pools quicker, not that there are more of them.
Drill off the coast of California.
Hmm ...again, I guess those bright lighted things off Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, etc. are just huge shipping boueys?
There is talk of more drilling off of
northern California. Those are also prime fishing grounds ... At one time, so many salmon were caught they fed folks during the depression who could not afford meat. Now, even the lower grades bring in $3-4 a pound at the market. (smoked can be $30-40 a pound or more).
A LOT of work has been done out west to partially bring those fisheries back. AND they have been highly successful. There is still a long way to go, but many, many economists, biologists, etc. all say that the short-term benefit is far outstripped by the damage such drilling would do.
Furthermore, the shelf out there is a LOT deeper than in the Gulf .. or even southern California near the Channel islands. The Humboldt (earthquake) fault lies up there, too. This oil will almost certainly be taken ... eventually. But, again, the technology needs to improve.
Increase the development of shale oil exploration in Montana, Colorado, and Dakotas.
Talked to any Geologists lately?
The days of finding truly new oil sources is essentially gone. There is some small possibility up in Canada, a very few other places. BUT, what oil exists is pretty well known. We know how oil is formed, what kinds of rocks produce it.
The oil that Is available still is very difficult to process and get to. In some cases, it is just not technologically practical or cost-effective. In other cases, the damage that would be caused is just too great with current technology.
The REAL answer is not to "find more oil" ... the real answer is to get away from our severe dependence on oil all together. Ironically, this is one way in which the higher oil prices are probably good. Now, there is much more economic incentive to really look at and pursue these alternatives.
While we do all this, build more nuclear power plants.
being considered, but do the words "Three mile Island" ring a bell? How about Yucca mountain? (which is STILL not authorized as a dump...)
Build more wind & solar generating systems.
Hmm... say, maybe a company by the name of Gentec might do that out by State College, or another few projects down in Texas.. yeah GOOD IDEA .. which is why folks are already doing it.
Supply & demand is a very simple economic law.
Yes, but we don't currently have the technology to just genera new minerals. We are pretty much stuck with using what we have.
If we abide by it, we can solve this problem
.
No, because supply of oil is static. Its not like widgets that you can just go out and create more. Even GROWN resources, like crops, timber, etc. are subject to many more limitation than "widgets". That is why you cannot just apply many economic models that work quite well in "standard" businesses to natural resources. AND that is why we need folks educated in BOTH natural resources and business ... and why many colleges are now creating or expanding programs to do just that.
OH, and you forgot two of the most promising possibilities.
Geothermal. In particular, you can set up a geothermal heat pump type system for your house. IN our area, a $10,000 initial investment means almost no future heating OR cooling costs for your house. You need some land, but not a huge amount. You do still need a bit of electricity to run the pump... but that's it. (wind/solar anyone?)
Hydrogen. Iceland is using this. The technology has unfortunately not received a lot of government support. (unlike gas drilling, etc.) Using it for auto fuel would mean revampig a lot of infrastructure. Still, it presents a far more useable long-term solution than biofeuls or any of the other options presented.
Biofuels. We are alreay seeing the problem here. Crops to grow fuel are competing with crops to grow food. It is a "good deal' for people (of the world) only if the fuel comes from waste. So far, it is prime corn and grains. That is almsot as bad as relying on oil.
