Sure enough, America has at least 3 times more oil than Saudi Arabia and a democrat does not want to drill?

Question

http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/30/magazines/fortune/Oil_from_stone.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2007103105

This is a low figure. Estimates are at 2 trillions barrels

Hey bluerig. Their is enough oil in colorado to supply the world for over 500 years.

Read the article, not using ground water. It takes 1,700 gallons of water to make 1 gallon of ethanol and it is all ground water.

Groundwater tables in some states, including Missouri, have been drawn down to dangerously low levels near some ethanol plants, said David Pimentel, an ecology and agriculture professor at Cornell University.

The figures cited by both Martin and Pimentel include only a plant's production of ethanol, not the water it takes to grow corn. After adding that, about 1,700 gallons are needed to produce every gallon of ethanol, Pimentel said.

The entire water-use picture, coupled with the fuel it takes to produce ethanol, makes long-term, mass production of ethanol unsustainable, Pimentel said.

"I wish it were sustainable, I'm an agriculturalist," he said. "I wish this whole ethanol deal was a major benefit, but you've got to be a scientist first and an agriculturalist second."

If you want to whole article I can get it to you.

COLORADO GOV. DEMOCRAT BILL RITTER- you must not have read the article.

Eating meat creates more carbon than all transportation combined. Here is your link.

http://www.glennbeck.com/steakoutourfuture/

Maybe the reason why babies from China are having birth affects is because they continue to put LEAD in their toys!!!!!!!!!!!

Click on the link to the right>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://www.investmentu.net/ppc/t4mideastoil.cfm?kw=X300H917&ovmtc=content&ovadid=8361974522

Answer 1

Just look in Congress and see who voted against drilling in ANWR and vote them out!

The Senate voted 52-48 in favor of the amendment, with eight Republicans joining 43 Democrats and one Independent.

These eight Republicans were Senators Chafee, Minnesota's Norm Coleman, Maine's Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, Oregon's Gordon Smith, Ohio's Mike DeWine, Arizona's John McCain, and Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois.

The five Democratic Senators who voted to open ANWR were Louisiana's John Breaux and Mary Landrieu, Georgia's Zell Miller, and Hawaii's Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye.

Psst....you down there, look up!

Answer 2

This will actually be prevented by our wonderful environmentalists groups. They wil claim that it will "Harm" the environment even though we can do it with minimal impact on the environment. This is the case in Anwar. We could drill with little consequence to the area. Yet... those little weenie environmentalists groups intervene and the left bows at their feet. These groups often times result in more harm to the environment than good. Just ask anyone in So. Cal. right now. I am sure they are so happy that these groups stood in the way of clearing out the underbrush so "nature" could take it's course. Now there are 7 dead and 2,100 burned to the ground. Sure this puts a smile on their little faces... They hate human advancement. They hate that we utilize what the earth has provided for us. We need to make a stand against these tree huggin wackos.

Answer 3

Which Democrat doesn't want to drill? The story makes no mention of THAT at all.

And this shale oil recovery process SOUNDS good in theory, but that is all it is so far: a THEORY. At MOST they will be able to produce 3 million barrels a day by 2030. We currently use 22 million barrels a day in the US. By 2030, that will be up around 50 million. Drilling for less than 5% of need is not economically feasible, unless crude oil is selling for MUCH more than it is now.

Cold Fusion theories sound good too, but they fail in practice, as every other shale-oil recovery process has been, as your own source points out, 28 years oftrying have only made disastrous consequences, commercially, environmentally, etc.

Will you please put down the Black Bottle you're sucking on and try to envision a world with clean air, where the water coming out of your tap is better than "bottled water" could be, where you don't have to have "warnings" and "alerts" about the air quality in your city on your local weather forecasts? A world with no skin cancer cases, because the hole in the ozone layer has shrunk or closed completely (I live in Arizona, the skin cancer capitol of the world and I have had several dozen growths removed from my arms, my neck, etc.)?

You scream about tobacco smokers and second hand smoke, yet allow billions of obsolete internal combustion engines to inefficiently burn hydrocarbon chains incompletely, resulting in pollution, soot, heat, noise (all byproducts of inefficient engineering) by the kiloton, polluting the air, the water and the soil we need to survive.

If you want to see OUR future, just look at yesterday's news stories about China's explosive increase in birth defects in babies, completely the fault of run away pollution of their environment.
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22666936-948,00.html

(If "Pro-Lifers" care about the fetus so much, are they planning any protests in China in the near future? Not only do they tend to abort their female fetuses, as a personal choice, they are killing off [through mutation] MOST of their offspring. Why are only Americans going to Hell for abortion?)

When will "Pro-Business at Any Cost" Rightwingers realize if they kill off all the little people, they will have to raise their own children, prepare their own meals and mow their own lawns?

What would you suggest the US do, if NASA, through some "Voyager" type Space Probe/ Planet Analyzer, discovered that Saturn has virtually unlimited pools of already refined gasoline deposits, enough to slake this planet's petro thirst for the next billion years? Would you be willing to have the government fund Big Oil's trips to get this boon and bring it back here to us (all for a very good profit of course)?

What if that same gasoline (it's ametaphor for ANY fuel) was being SHOWERED on the Earth for at least half of each day, and the only thing stopping us from using it is Big Oil hasn't found a way to make people pay for free sunlight yet?

Answer 4

Do you want to trade ground water for oil?

Is that a sustainable prospect?

Edit: I'm referring the the equivalent of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill in your local aquifer.

Answer 5

It's not the democrats but rather the economics that have held back exploiting shale oil. Oil companies aren't going to make the investments required to develop the technology unless they know it will be profitable.

Answer 6

Interesting... I was not aware that Dem's had sole power over drilling in the US. I would think that an admin that could wage war at will would be able to bypass that. Especially during the first 6 yrs where it was Republicans, Republicans, and more Republicans in charge. It's almost as if... as if both parties are against drilling.... that can't be!

Answer 7

It's not a complicated concept. America should be at the forefront of DEVELOPING OTHER ENERGY SOURCES now.

Today.

BEFORE we run out and that stupid "panic element" takes over.

It's common sense! WHY on earth would you RUIN the land/water/air to continue pursuing oil when we all know the oil is going to run out?

TIME FOR ALTERNATE ENERGY.
***************************
Hey Ron: Shale is not a viable option. It takes more energy to process it than it is realistically worth.

Answer 8

That's about right. We have literally TONS of our own oil, but if we tapped it then the Dem's could not claim that Iraq was all about oil...

Answer 9

I don't understand this either.

Answer 10

gluttons, enablers