When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
36 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scott Malensek
15 years ago
That’s crazy tawk! I just saw Democrats on MSNBC telling us that it’s Republicans blocking their bills; that the way to lower gas prices is to raise taxes on gasoline providers (who in turn would never raise the price of gas to cover the new tax expense).
Curious, if President Obama is elected, and Democrats get veto proof majority in Congress, will my house get complimentary solar panels, geothermal heating, and 2 electric cars? Will I at least be able to get a tax credit covering the expense if I buy all that (yeah, like the leaves on my trees are greenbacks)? Shy of that….looks like we’re stuck w high gas prices and Democrat obstructionists.
Give it to theDemocrats to ntunderstand Economics 101. Supply / Demand. If you have a bigger demand and not enough supply, prices go up, and taxing BIG OIL will do nothing for supply and will not cut demand enough to make a dent. Econimics 101. I think I learned this is grade school and the Democrats do not understand it.
Jason
15 years ago
“Yet, they NEVER take any responsibility for the very mess THEY have created.”
I think it’s a bit disingenuous to suggest that anybody in Congress, as an individual, a group or a whole, has enough power to significantly affect the global economic forces that determine (to a large degree) gas prices.
Regarding ANWR, though – are you aware that there is only a six-month supply (3.2 billion barrels of oil) there, and it would take about 40 years before we got it all out? That’s 80 million barrels per year. The US currently uses that much oil in 4 days time. It’s hardly a drop in the bucket. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/
We need another solution, and that is to find alternatives to oil.
You have a good point about a windfall oil company tax – it does seem that the oil companies would just pass along the costs. But there is a caveat in that bill, from what I understand – it only taxes profits if they aren’t re-invested in alternative energy research. It’s a way to force oil companies to re-invest (not necessarily the best way to go about it, in my opinion). Don’t forget, folks, we’re going to see substantial decreases in world oil production in the next few decades, and eventually we’re going to run out. The time to find a solution is now. Among the bills mentioned above, the only one that seems to even remotely consider that is the “No More Excuses Energy Act”.
Jason: Your information is so totally WRONG I hardly know where to begin.
1. Democrats have passed and President Bush has signed every energy bill that Congress, run by DEMOCRATS has passed. How is it disingenous to suggest that they shouldn’t be blamed for not providing for ONE OUNCE of new oil in the bills they have passed?
2. On ANWR, you are not just WRONG, but you MUST be deliberately so. Have you bothered to read the Energy Administration and USGS projections that show ANWR producing approximately 1 million barrels of oil per day?
1) Either side can write all the laws they want, nothing is going to fix the fact that developing nations are dramatically increasing the global demand for oil, causing a rise in prices.
2) ANWR, as I said, is a drop in the bucket. Did you see the part in PDF you link to that said foreign oil dependence would be reduced from 70% to 66%. That’s hardly significant. Assuming a direct correlation, a 4% would cause a 4% drop in gas prices – about $.16 a gallon. And that’s not until ANWR reaches peak production, after 2015. By that time, how much will the global demand for oil have changed? How much will we be paying per gallon? $.16 is nothing. We need real solutions.
Do you have any references that point to revisions to the ANWR projections in the 2004 document?
Jason, per ANWR.org’s statement, it would be 15 years or more before gas and oil would be flowing.
The consensus of the geologic community is that the Coastal Plain of ANWR represents the highest petroleum potential onshore area yet to be explored in North America. This potential is believed to be on the order of billions of barrels of recoverable oil and may rival that of the Prudhoe Bayfield. Should leasing be permitted and subsequent commercial discoveries be made, it will be an estimated 15 years or more before oil and gas production from ANWR reaches market.
They do not present that ANWR, as the sole added supply, is the answer. However it’s contribution to the increasing needs and diminishing supply is considerable.
The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America’s best possibility for the discovery of another giant “Prudhoe Bay-sized” oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
ANWR should not be the only area opened to drilling, nor drilling the only option addressed. No one’s against alternatives. But I am against trying to solve the problem *only* with alternatives which are inadequate, and no where near ready to handle the load we need.
Our drilling technology and speed has improved remarkably. And time is only whizzing by each day we do nothing to address the obvious. We need to do it all… drill, oil, shale, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, hydro. It is only with a combination of them all we can do it.
And it’s most especially annoying that China can drill off of Key West, and we can’t. Huh??
Do not forget about the largest oil reserve in thw world under Montana to Colorado. I do not have the driect link at hand, but the largest reserve of oil is under the United States and Canada. Just a little more than a drop in the bucket. And the push for alternative energy takes years, we can not just force people to use it. That is not the way America works, or at needs to be before the liberals took over it. Freedom, liberty and induividualism is what made this country great and we are loosing it day by day. The government is too big and needs to be made smaller and lesser in scope of our daily lives. We do not nee the Nannay state of the EU or should I sat EUSSR. They act more likecommunist Russia than a democratic state.
A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority (who vote) will vote for those candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship.—Lord Thomas MacCauley
Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa. is leading the charge Wednesday, when he’ll push for an amendment to a spending bill that would open up U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles off shore for drilling. The first 50 miles off shore would be left alone.
“For 27 years, Congress has deliberately locked up vast offshore oil and natural gas reserves,” Peterson said, according to USA Today. “With the price at the pump increasing daily — with no end in sight — and the cost of natural gas trading at record levels, Congress needs to unlock these reserves.”
Most oil production and exploration has been banned since 1981.
According to Peterson’s office, the U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found along the U.S. outer continental shelf, the area affected by the ban.
Peterson is not alone in his desire to open up the shelf. An effort to unlock the resources has been underway in Congress in recent years, and several interest groups are backing the effort, too.
Jason’s solution is NO solution. His idea is identical to the socialists who would strangle the U.S. economy, perhaps forever, by cutting off the energy we need to continue positive economic growth in this country.
Of course when that happens, the socialists can leap forward with their next round of destructive dependence on government welfare which will sap the remaining wealth in this country until we nothing more than a second rate economic and military power.
Then of course the Chinese will dictate to us surrender terms which the socialists will happily sign and the once great American experiment in liberty will be dead.
Jason radically understated the amount of oil available in ANWR. The MINIMUM is three times higher than the 3.2 billion barrels he described.
It’s clear he is working on an agenda that does not have either energy independence or the health of the American economy and good of our people as it’s goal.
Note: the April 2008 estimate is 6.5 BILLION barrels of oil higher than the October 2007 estimate (which is here).
There’s plenty of oil right here in the U.S. It’s not a “drop in the bucket” but enough to fuel the United States for YEARS without foreign imports outside of North America as we transition to alternatives.
The only thing standing in the way of that alternative future are the Democrats and people like Jason.
They want to keep on doing things the same way they’ve always done things and expect that they will get different results.
In the meantime other countries are not only drilling and shipping away the oil that is right off of our shores they are also investing deeply in alternative energy options such as liquified natural gas and coal to oil.
In addition, these foreign oil platforms are slant drilling and actually taking the oil that rightfully belongs to us.
Dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuel is going to break the back of this country.
We are the only country in the history of the world which has refused to take advantage of our own natural resources.
Aye: You may recall that Curt posted these graphics a while back:
China is drilling about 50 miles from Key West. And do we think the Chinese have the same standards for eco safety that we do?
SoCal Chris
15 years ago
Three cheers to Senators Corker and Alexander of Tennessee!! I came across this article yesterday.
(the blogs at the end of the article I don’t agree with at all, but such is the opposition to positive solutions…tiresome, isn’t it?)
I like the idea of a Manhattan Project to develop a 21st Century energy solution. I’ve said the same thing about a dozen times. And we could pay for it all with the royalties and taxes we would collect from drilling for our OWN OIL instead of shipping the money to the Arabs.
But our friends like Jason here aren’t going to let us drill for oil and would strangle the economy that we need firing on all cylinders if we ever hope to develop a realistic alternative.
Jason
15 years ago
I’m all for the health of the American economy and energy independence. I think that relying on oil is short-sighted, and we need to pour more resources into the transition to alternatives, and less into drilling for dinosaur sludge.
So I was wrong about the amount of oil in ANWR. A drop in the bucket versus 3 drops in the bucket. It’s not going to make much difference in the price of gas, or significantly lead us toward energy independence.
10-16 billion barrels of oil is three drops in the bucket?
More like a TWO YEAR supply of ALL the oil America needs. But if you won’t let us drill there, and you won’t let us drill off the coasts and you won’t let us process the oil shale then we are NEVER going to be energy independent and our economy will suffer.
America has enough oil RIGHT HERE to be energy independent, with just a little help now and then from Canada.
SoCal Chris
15 years ago
Jason, I don’t think 1 million barrels of crude oil a day is 3 drops in the bucket. It makes sense when you look at the effectiveness of supply and demand. And, as was stated, this kind of relief, as well as in other areas in the country where we could drill safely, would give us more elbow room to work on alternative technologies.
I have to say something regarding the environmentalists and ANWAR. I know someone who grew up in Alaska, and personally saw the changes building the pipeline brought. No changes! I’m sure the environmentalists extreme were complaining about the wildlife and the land then, too. My friend said that the animals–adapted!! Can you believe it??? He witnessed the various critters walking about freely, no problems.
Obviously, the pipeline is not the same as oil drilling…but it’s my understanding that it can be done safely, with minimal effects on the surrounding environment.
Jason
15 years ago
Thanks for the intelligent and civil discourse, Chris.
1 million barrels a day is 1/20 of our current usage. In 2015, are we still going to be using that much? Increased population might balanced dropping consumption (thanks to higher prices), so maybe. I just don’t see a 5% increase in oil supply as that significant. How much do you think that will affect prices?
But, maybe every little bit helps. If drilling really could be done safely, maybe there isn’t any reason to oppose it. But I still wonder, are the operations privately funded? Who gets the profits? Who really benefits?
Yes they would be privately funded. The stock holders would profit. And everyone benefits because of lower gas prices,and lower food prices and everything else will be lower in price. Umm that is economics 101. So you think the government should drill and get the profits??? What would the benfit of that be????
Jason: There is no sound environmental reason not to drill for oil in ANWR, off the coasts or on the land in the U.S.
You might recall that Hurricane Katrina destroyed dozens of oil and gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Did you see any photographs of oil soaked beaches on the nightly news?
How many times do I have to say this? There is PLENTY of oil right here. ANWR is just one large pool of it that we know we can get at quickly. There are many more.
And the corporations which put up the money to drill and take the financial risks will also reap the financial reward. Oil companies currently make less % profit than nearly every other large American industry.
And who benefits from oil exploration right here in the U.S.? The American consumer and the federal government which would collect a bonanza of new tax revenue to fund all those alternative development programs.
The Caribou at Prudhoe Bay (on the North Slope to the west of ANWR). The Caribou love it there. And note that ANWR oil installations would be a fraction of this size. Technology has come a long way since this station was built.
And here are the Three Bears out for a stroll on top of the nice warm oil pipeline at Prudhoe. They’re probably on their way to eat some of the Caribou.
And here are some of the happy native residents of Kaktovik, which lies within the ANWR drilling area. Opinion polls consistently show locals overwhelmingly support drilling as it means jobs, money for schools and community development. Funny how liberals in the lower 48 states would deny them the same opportunity that lower staters enjoy.
SoCal Chris
15 years ago
LOL, Mike!!!! A picture is definitely worth a thousand words!! Thanks!!
Jason
15 years ago
No, I don’t think the government should drill or get the profits.
Then why ask who gets them. If a company drills they get a profit, then that goes into the stocks and the stock holders, you, me anyone with a retirement fund or a401k get the dividends.
Jason
15 years ago
You make a compelling argument, Mike. I still think you should quantify “PLENTY”… nobody seems to be addressing the 1/20th increase in oil supply that ANWR will bring. But you’re right, the locals will benefit, and the environmental impact may be minimal.
That’s crazy tawk! I just saw Democrats on MSNBC telling us that it’s Republicans blocking their bills; that the way to lower gas prices is to raise taxes on gasoline providers (who in turn would never raise the price of gas to cover the new tax expense).
Curious, if President Obama is elected, and Democrats get veto proof majority in Congress, will my house get complimentary solar panels, geothermal heating, and 2 electric cars? Will I at least be able to get a tax credit covering the expense if I buy all that (yeah, like the leaves on my trees are greenbacks)? Shy of that….looks like we’re stuck w high gas prices and Democrat obstructionists.
The DemocRats are intent on seeing this country fail and they’re doing everything they can to achieve it.
DemocRats won’t be happy until we’re all paying $8/gal, just like they do in Europe (their Utopia).
Give it to theDemocrats to ntunderstand Economics 101. Supply / Demand. If you have a bigger demand and not enough supply, prices go up, and taxing BIG OIL will do nothing for supply and will not cut demand enough to make a dent. Econimics 101. I think I learned this is grade school and the Democrats do not understand it.
“Yet, they NEVER take any responsibility for the very mess THEY have created.”
I think it’s a bit disingenuous to suggest that anybody in Congress, as an individual, a group or a whole, has enough power to significantly affect the global economic forces that determine (to a large degree) gas prices.
Regarding ANWR, though – are you aware that there is only a six-month supply (3.2 billion barrels of oil) there, and it would take about 40 years before we got it all out? That’s 80 million barrels per year. The US currently uses that much oil in 4 days time. It’s hardly a drop in the bucket.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/
We need another solution, and that is to find alternatives to oil.
You have a good point about a windfall oil company tax – it does seem that the oil companies would just pass along the costs. But there is a caveat in that bill, from what I understand – it only taxes profits if they aren’t re-invested in alternative energy research. It’s a way to force oil companies to re-invest (not necessarily the best way to go about it, in my opinion). Don’t forget, folks, we’re going to see substantial decreases in world oil production in the next few decades, and eventually we’re going to run out. The time to find a solution is now. Among the bills mentioned above, the only one that seems to even remotely consider that is the “No More Excuses Energy Act”.
Jason: Your information is so totally WRONG I hardly know where to begin.
1. Democrats have passed and President Bush has signed every energy bill that Congress, run by DEMOCRATS has passed. How is it disingenous to suggest that they shouldn’t be blamed for not providing for ONE OUNCE of new oil in the bills they have passed?
2. On ANWR, you are not just WRONG, but you MUST be deliberately so. Have you bothered to read the Energy Administration and USGS projections that show ANWR producing approximately 1 million barrels of oil per day?
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/service/sroiaf(2004)04.pdf
And these projections over the last 7 years have gone UP, not down. At least 10 billion barrels of oil and quite possibly 18 billion.
1 million barrels of oil from ANWR PER DAY translates into 27 million gallons of gasoline available to American consumers PER DAY.
It’s time that willful disinformation and environmental scaremongering was seen for what it is: A HUGE LIE!
“No More Excuses Energy Act”. Is that the one that was gonna raise gas prices by 53 cents a gallon?
Scott: Aren’t you thinking of Warner-Lieberman?
On the topic of oil – this is a worthwhile article to read.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0506.drum.html
That’s it Mike. Thanks
🙂
Mike,
1) Either side can write all the laws they want, nothing is going to fix the fact that developing nations are dramatically increasing the global demand for oil, causing a rise in prices.
2) ANWR, as I said, is a drop in the bucket. Did you see the part in PDF you link to that said foreign oil dependence would be reduced from 70% to 66%. That’s hardly significant. Assuming a direct correlation, a 4% would cause a 4% drop in gas prices – about $.16 a gallon. And that’s not until ANWR reaches peak production, after 2015. By that time, how much will the global demand for oil have changed? How much will we be paying per gallon? $.16 is nothing. We need real solutions.
Do you have any references that point to revisions to the ANWR projections in the 2004 document?
Jason, per ANWR.org’s statement, it would be 15 years or more before gas and oil would be flowing.
They do not present that ANWR, as the sole added supply, is the answer. However it’s contribution to the increasing needs and diminishing supply is considerable.
ANWR should not be the only area opened to drilling, nor drilling the only option addressed. No one’s against alternatives. But I am against trying to solve the problem *only* with alternatives which are inadequate, and no where near ready to handle the load we need.
Our drilling technology and speed has improved remarkably. And time is only whizzing by each day we do nothing to address the obvious. We need to do it all… drill, oil, shale, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, hydro. It is only with a combination of them all we can do it.
And it’s most especially annoying that China can drill off of Key West, and we can’t. Huh??
Do not forget about the largest oil reserve in thw world under Montana to Colorado. I do not have the driect link at hand, but the largest reserve of oil is under the United States and Canada. Just a little more than a drop in the bucket. And the push for alternative energy takes years, we can not just force people to use it. That is not the way America works, or at needs to be before the liberals took over it. Freedom, liberty and induividualism is what made this country great and we are loosing it day by day. The government is too big and needs to be made smaller and lesser in scope of our daily lives. We do not nee the Nannay state of the EU or should I sat EUSSR. They act more likecommunist Russia than a democratic state.
A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority (who vote) will vote for those candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship.—Lord Thomas MacCauley
The DemocRats have done it again!
Good job, traitors!
I’m glad to see the Republicans moving on this.
Let’s get the Dims on record.
The American people have had just about enough of the pump prices and this type of publicity and exposure will bring things out into the light.
The Dims voted it down
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_G0qesvVD1Q&feature=related
Imagine that. They voted down a bill that would help American tax payers. Never would have thought that could happen
Jason’s solution is NO solution. His idea is identical to the socialists who would strangle the U.S. economy, perhaps forever, by cutting off the energy we need to continue positive economic growth in this country.
Of course when that happens, the socialists can leap forward with their next round of destructive dependence on government welfare which will sap the remaining wealth in this country until we nothing more than a second rate economic and military power.
Then of course the Chinese will dictate to us surrender terms which the socialists will happily sign and the once great American experiment in liberty will be dead.
Jason radically understated the amount of oil available in ANWR. The MINIMUM is three times higher than the 3.2 billion barrels he described.
It’s clear he is working on an agenda that does not have either energy independence or the health of the American economy and good of our people as it’s goal.
Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less!
Full size image here.
Note: the April 2008 estimate is 6.5 BILLION barrels of oil higher than the October 2007 estimate (which is here).
There’s plenty of oil right here in the U.S. It’s not a “drop in the bucket” but enough to fuel the United States for YEARS without foreign imports outside of North America as we transition to alternatives.
The only thing standing in the way of that alternative future are the Democrats and people like Jason.
Yep,
They want to keep on doing things the same way they’ve always done things and expect that they will get different results.
In the meantime other countries are not only drilling and shipping away the oil that is right off of our shores they are also investing deeply in alternative energy options such as liquified natural gas and coal to oil.
In addition, these foreign oil platforms are slant drilling and actually taking the oil that rightfully belongs to us.
Dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuel is going to break the back of this country.
We are the only country in the history of the world which has refused to take advantage of our own natural resources.
Aye: You may recall that Curt posted these graphics a while back:
China is drilling about 50 miles from Key West. And do we think the Chinese have the same standards for eco safety that we do?
Three cheers to Senators Corker and Alexander of Tennessee!! I came across this article yesterday.
(the blogs at the end of the article I don’t agree with at all, but such is the opposition to positive solutions…tiresome, isn’t it?)
http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/news.php?viewStory=60739
SoCal:
I like the idea of a Manhattan Project to develop a 21st Century energy solution. I’ve said the same thing about a dozen times. And we could pay for it all with the royalties and taxes we would collect from drilling for our OWN OIL instead of shipping the money to the Arabs.
But our friends like Jason here aren’t going to let us drill for oil and would strangle the economy that we need firing on all cylinders if we ever hope to develop a realistic alternative.
I’m all for the health of the American economy and energy independence. I think that relying on oil is short-sighted, and we need to pour more resources into the transition to alternatives, and less into drilling for dinosaur sludge.
So I was wrong about the amount of oil in ANWR. A drop in the bucket versus 3 drops in the bucket. It’s not going to make much difference in the price of gas, or significantly lead us toward energy independence.
10-16 billion barrels of oil is three drops in the bucket?
More like a TWO YEAR supply of ALL the oil America needs. But if you won’t let us drill there, and you won’t let us drill off the coasts and you won’t let us process the oil shale then we are NEVER going to be energy independent and our economy will suffer.
America has enough oil RIGHT HERE to be energy independent, with just a little help now and then from Canada.
Jason, I don’t think 1 million barrels of crude oil a day is 3 drops in the bucket. It makes sense when you look at the effectiveness of supply and demand. And, as was stated, this kind of relief, as well as in other areas in the country where we could drill safely, would give us more elbow room to work on alternative technologies.
I have to say something regarding the environmentalists and ANWAR. I know someone who grew up in Alaska, and personally saw the changes building the pipeline brought. No changes! I’m sure the environmentalists extreme were complaining about the wildlife and the land then, too. My friend said that the animals–adapted!! Can you believe it??? He witnessed the various critters walking about freely, no problems.
Obviously, the pipeline is not the same as oil drilling…but it’s my understanding that it can be done safely, with minimal effects on the surrounding environment.
Thanks for the intelligent and civil discourse, Chris.
1 million barrels a day is 1/20 of our current usage. In 2015, are we still going to be using that much? Increased population might balanced dropping consumption (thanks to higher prices), so maybe. I just don’t see a 5% increase in oil supply as that significant. How much do you think that will affect prices?
But, maybe every little bit helps. If drilling really could be done safely, maybe there isn’t any reason to oppose it. But I still wonder, are the operations privately funded? Who gets the profits? Who really benefits?
Yes they would be privately funded. The stock holders would profit. And everyone benefits because of lower gas prices,and lower food prices and everything else will be lower in price. Umm that is economics 101. So you think the government should drill and get the profits??? What would the benfit of that be????
Jason: There is no sound environmental reason not to drill for oil in ANWR, off the coasts or on the land in the U.S.
You might recall that Hurricane Katrina destroyed dozens of oil and gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Did you see any photographs of oil soaked beaches on the nightly news?
How many times do I have to say this? There is PLENTY of oil right here. ANWR is just one large pool of it that we know we can get at quickly. There are many more.
And the corporations which put up the money to drill and take the financial risks will also reap the financial reward. Oil companies currently make less % profit than nearly every other large American industry.
And who benefits from oil exploration right here in the U.S.? The American consumer and the federal government which would collect a bonanza of new tax revenue to fund all those alternative development programs.
The Caribou at Prudhoe Bay (on the North Slope to the west of ANWR). The Caribou love it there. And note that ANWR oil installations would be a fraction of this size. Technology has come a long way since this station was built.
And here are the Three Bears out for a stroll on top of the nice warm oil pipeline at Prudhoe. They’re probably on their way to eat some of the Caribou.
And here are some of the happy native residents of Kaktovik, which lies within the ANWR drilling area. Opinion polls consistently show locals overwhelmingly support drilling as it means jobs, money for schools and community development. Funny how liberals in the lower 48 states would deny them the same opportunity that lower staters enjoy.
LOL, Mike!!!! A picture is definitely worth a thousand words!! Thanks!!
No, I don’t think the government should drill or get the profits.
Then why ask who gets them. If a company drills they get a profit, then that goes into the stocks and the stock holders, you, me anyone with a retirement fund or a401k get the dividends.
You make a compelling argument, Mike. I still think you should quantify “PLENTY”… nobody seems to be addressing the 1/20th increase in oil supply that ANWR will bring. But you’re right, the locals will benefit, and the environmental impact may be minimal.
You want to know what “PLENTY” is Jason?
I’ve shown this chart before but apparently you haven’t bothered to look at it:
That doesn’t even take into account the oil shales in the Rockies which are estimated to be many times greater than all the current fields shown here.
We could develop these fields as we transition away from foreign oil and have enough to power the entire country as we implement alternatives.