We get most of our oil from Canada. I don't agree with offshore drilling just because there's a chance of a spill then our beaches are f***ed.
Results 21 to 30 of 30
Thread: Offshore Drilling Hearing
Apr 4, 2009, 02:24 AM #24
Message: "Offshore Drilling: Not The Answer"
Your voice is urgently needed right now to prevent the sacrifice of your favorite coastline to dangerous offshore oil drilling impacts. 4 upcoming public hearings will determine what actions the Obama Administration will be taking this fall with regard to allowing, for the first time, new offshore oil and gas drilling in our most sensitive coastal waters, and for approval of renewable energy industry proposals off of our coast.
US Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, is holding 4 public meetings to talk about the federal government's plans for new offshore drilling.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Atlantic City Convention Center
One Convention Boulevard
Atlantic City, New Jersey
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
McAlister Auditorium Building
43 McAlister Drive
New Orleans, Louisiana
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Dena'ina Civic and Convention Center
600 West Seventh Avenue
Thursday, April 16, 2009
University of California, San Francisco
Mission Bay Conference Center,
1675 Owens Street
San Francisco, California
TIME: At each location, doors will open at 8:00 a.m. and meetings will begin at 9:00 a.m. Meetings will conclude by 8:00 p.m., with breaks tentatively scheduled from 12:00 - 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. Please refer to http://www.mms.gov/5-year for final schedule information for each meeting.
MEETING OVERVIEW: After opening remarks, the Secretary and Interior agency staff will present a brief overview of the Department's findings regarding Outer Continental Shelf (OSC) energy resources.
The rest of the meeting will be devoted to hearing from public and private interests on best approaches to developing a comprehensive offshore energy plan that includes the development of traditional and renewable sources of energy on the OCS.
PLEASE RSVP: If you can attend the public meetings, then please formally RSVP to let the US Department of the Interior know that they should hold a spot for you, at the meeting. Space is limited. Simply email DOI_Events@ios.doi.gov to RSVP.
MORE INFO: Visit www.nottheanswer.org
UNABLE TO ATTEND? If you are unable to attend the hearing, written comments will be accepted through September 21. Please submit your comments electronically at: http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/not_the_answer_03_09, or by mail to:
Ms. Renee Orr,
Chief, Leasing Division at Minerals Management Service
318 Elden St.
Herndon, VA 20170-4817.
The Surfrider Foundation
Apr 4, 2009, 01:16 PM #25
I have a bunch of guys who want to go to support the drilling so we'll be up there.
Apr 4, 2009, 03:08 PM #26
"Cap and Trade" gained huge momentum during the Reagen Administration because it symbolized a market-oriented approach in contrast to a regulatory approach. The impetus for cap and trade was to address the acid rain problem plaguing the northeastern United States and Canada.
It is curious to see so many people on this forum advocating for a Soviet-era style industrial policy, not unlike many parts of China today, which ignores environmental protections because they are intrusive to unfettered production.
I am ambivalent to the issue of offshore drilling. I am not part of the "anti-energy" camp. However, I also see potential offshore oil and gas fields as a strategic reserve and national security hedge, and not a solution to current, near- and mid-term energy use. The nation has ample capacity to produce and conserve energy.
Please shed some light on this statement, "If things had been run correctly over the last 40 years, we would have been off oil as we know it, already. But that did not happen due to greed and lies and wicked humans doing what they do best, being wicked."
other then the obvious economic gains in many areas, do not think for a minute that the National Security issue is not as important, if not more so then any economic benefit. But most do not think in those terms so,...it kind of goes without saying for a few of us.
I may have used an extreme word,"wicked" to describe our government and those in that profession. But it was meant to have the desired effect and it works in the context, for me at least.
The 40 years I spoke of is actually directly linked to the National Security you spoke of as well, Explain to me why I could take three to four groups of 20, semi-trained persons with minimal equipment and effectively shut down the key refineries in this country. No new refineries have been built in how long? Why? Wonder what would happen to the price of gas then, or the economy? Strange how that has not been done yet, guess we are lucky.
I am tried of writing now, The DP was good and I am a little tried. This is a good topic and can be educational for all those willing to understand both sides to this very important issue.
Apr 4, 2009, 04:44 PM #28
I remain perplexed by the use of the word "wicked" to describe our government and those in that profession. How can you label the institution and the people in it as wicked and at the same time ignore corporations and companies of all sizes, non-corporate groups, and individuals?
Regarding "The 40 years I spoke of is actually directly linked to the National Security you spoke of as well, Explain to me why I could take three to four groups of 20, semi-trained persons with minimal equipment and effectively shut down the key refineries in this country. No new refineries have been built in how long? Why? Wonder what would happen to the price of gas then, or the economy? Strange how that has not been done yet, guess we are lucky."
I don't understand the context of 40 years. Why not 20, 60 or 80 years? From a national security and economic perspective, using the action teams that could shut down refineries this is really not so different than being able to do the same to many large chemical and nuclear facilities and water supplies. People with ill will can cause lot's of damage (regardless of their motivation, e.g., Oklahoma City). One of the solutions is to decentralize the nodes of production (refining), e.g., build refineries in Delaware Bay, Indian River and Norfolk. Another option would be to diversity and decentralize energy production (and conservation). An investment in a modernized energy grid would be akin to the national security act that built our interstate highway system.
Apr 4, 2009, 06:14 PM #29Senior Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- over there, around here
Apr 4, 2009, 08:41 PM #30
Conservative Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (D, MD-6) has been arguing for several years that oil and gas are fossil fuels [pun indeed], in other words, a fuel of the past and that alternative sources of energy should be pursued in addition to conservation.
Funny statements such as,
"With the shortages in oil, which have driven up the price of gasoline, they want me to vote to drill in ANWR and offshore. I have got 10 kids, 16 grandkids and two great-grandkids, and I ask them, if you can drill in ANWR tomorrow, what would you do the day after tomorrow? And there will be a day after tomorrow.
We are leaving our kids a horrendous debt, growing by leaps and bounds. Not with my vote, if you will check the record, but we are leaving them that debt. And I ask those who would like me to vote to drill in ANWR and offshore, wouldn't it be nice if I left my kids and my grand-kids and my great grandkids a little energy to deal with this horrendous debt?"The next is a quote also from Hyman Rickover. You can see why I believe this will be shortly recognized as perhaps the most insightful speech given in the last century. ``I suggest this is a good time to think soberly about our responsibility to our descendants.'' Wow, 51 years ago, and there are very few who are thinking soberly at all about this today.
``I suggest this is a good time to think soberly about our responsibilities to our descendants, those who will ring out the fossil fuel age. We must give a break to these youngsters by cutting fuel and metal consumption.''