Bush urges Congress to repeal moratorium on oil shale drilling

[NineInfinity]

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9628639

"We can develop this resource, but we need to do it in a way that proves up the potential for jobs, economic stability and protects scarce water resources." [/qoute]

"We need to first make sure the government exercises as much arbitrary power as possible before we allow anyone to promote technological progress "

Edited June 19, 2008 by NineInfinity

[softwareNerd]

I wonder if people realize this: if Britain and Norway had a 200-mile restriction, they would not have any North-sea oil; no "Brent" crude. (The black line in the graphic is drawn about 200 miles from the U.K.'s coast, the other lines (purple) are about 50 miles off U.K. and Norway.)

Edited June 19, 2008 by softwareNerd

[ruveyn ben yosef]

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9628639

"We need to first make sure the government exercises as much arbitrary power as possible before we allow anyone to promote technological progress "

Where is Ellis Wyatt when we need him? Probably in Galt's Gulch.

ruveyn

[K-Mac]

Well, if refining capability is further strangled, it won't matter where we drill for oil.

[DragonMaci]

I wonder if people realize this: if Britain and Norway had a 200-mile restriction, they would not have any North-sea oil; no "Brent" crude. (The black line in the graphic is drawn about 200 miles from the U.K.'s coast, the other lines (purple) are about 50 miles off U.K. and Norway.)

The same would be true of the gas and oils fields in NZ like the Maui gas and oil field, which is shipping oil overseas for refining and burning off the gas. There are also several other places that are believed will turn up as good prospects. In fact many believe NZ will be the next Norway if enough of the prospects turn out to be as good as predicted. All of them or almost all of them are offshore, meaning NZ would not become the next Norway no matter how good the prospects are if we had such a restriction.

[D'kian]

I wonder if people realize this: if Britain and Norway had a 200-mile restriction, they would not have any North-sea oil; no "Brent" crude. (The black line in the graphic is drawn about 200 miles from the U.K.'s coast, the other lines (purple) are about 50 miles off U.K. and Norway.)

Well, it's easier and cheaper to drill for oil closer to shore than farther away. It's also easier and cheaper to ship that oil to the mainland. So naturally that's where you start looking and, if you find anything, exploit your findings. That's because the ocen gets deeper the farther you are from shore, which is sefl-evident to anyone who ash ever gone to the beach.

There is oil to be found in deeper waters, sure. But it's more expensive and riskier overall. Therefore it is irrational to go after more expensive, riskier resources when the cheaper, less risky ones remain untapped.