8 of 13

Produce

Write now Article Tools

With President Bush and Republican Presidental nominee John McCain calling for a lift of the moratorium on drilling on the outer continental shelf, the American People get to hear from liberals and enviromentalists about the many reasons that drilling in these areas would be a waste of time.

If they actually stuck with the truth, that they will resist drilling no matter the benefits, then the people of this country could assess the situation and press political leaders to take action that is in our best interests. Unfortunatly, they perpertrate lies and disinformation so voters will not actually realize what is happening and believe that we are not passing up much by letting this oil sit under the ocean floor while we pay $4 a gallon for gasoline.

Along with the usual argument that it will take a decade for these reserves to make a difference in world energy markets(exactly why drilling needs to start ASAP), liberals and enviromentalists are now arguing that there is only a tiny amount of oil in these restricted coastal areas. They say this in the same breath with the statement that there are upwards of 100 billion barrels of crude in these areas. Thus the question, 100 billion barrels is a small amount?

Most Americans, most people actually, consider Iraq an oil-rich nation. This is with good reason. Iraq has proven reserves that are surpassed by only a few nations in the world. As far as I know, only Saudi Arabia and Canada boast greater amounts of known oil.

Iraq's proven reserves-115 billion barells- or only 15 billion more than is generally believed to be locked up in America's "no-drill zones".

How can this vast sum of black gold be derided as a drop in the hat compared to American oil consumption? Granted, the numbers for Iraq are proven reserves while the hundred billion barrels off of US coasts are a total figure. I have a hard time believing that Americans cannot extract the resources through continous advances in technology. We are currently drilling wells in the Gulf of Mexico that are at depths once thought untouchable. We are currently producing shale oil in the Rocky Mountains that was once thought unextractable.

If one were to only count the amount that is believed to be easily extractable, then there is merely 30 billion barrels between the off-shore drilling sites , and the Artic Refuge in Alaska. There is no way that an additional 30 billion barrels of supply wont help the US energy shortage and reduce imports.

Liberals also fail to aknowledge that there WILL be a massive conservation effort in this country. As a matter of fact is has been going on for thirty years, and will vastly accelerate with the price of oil and gasoline at historic highs for the forseeable future. Highway miles have already dropped a few percentage points in the month following $4 a gallon gasoline. Combined with new drilling, new nuclear, and the many new technologies now being developed conservation could help The US become energy independent. However, no single push is going to secure our future.

That brings me to another argument(presented by a liberal) that blew my mind recently. I forget who said it, unfortunately. But, this person said that America is just not a resource rich nation. I almost fell out of my chair. This is a perfect example of liberalism's "give me" attitude. America is not resource rich? I guess that we're not resource rich because we dont have vast deserts filled with pools of "enviromentally friendly petroleum". Then I guess that the greatest economic machine in world history has been fueled by foriegn oil from the get-go. No, it is fueled by American know how. Unbelievable.

Learn more about this author, Tim Mccardle.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Is conservation or increased domestic production the key to reducing foreign oil dependence??
We want to hear your view. Write now!