Drill Baby Drill! Of course we should keep drilling for oil both on US land and in US waters.

reply to post by Exuberant1


That's true, however, disposing of the radioactive waste is currently a big problem...I've always wondered why we can't just fire it into the Sun or something?

reply to post by CHA0S


It isn't a problem at all.

You just think it is a problem because of all the whining (and stupid) enviro-nuts. They make alot of noise.

It is not a problem and no, we do not need to fire it into the sun, that is dumb.

Some people have been so indoctrinated that they think nuclear power is the worst of them all. Oh well.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Those people contribute to the environmental damage caused by drilling and the use of dirtier fuels which don't scare them as much as clean, cheap nuclear power.

I agree with that completely and I would much rather we build nuclear plants than drill for oil. Unfortunately, the environmental movement has been very successful in lobbying Congress to make it all but impossible to build new ones in the last two or three decades. In doing so, they've forced our hand. We have little choice but to drill for oil and mine coal to supply our domestic energy needs.

Reminds me of a story from just a few days ago where the people were up in arms about a proposed wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts. Seems they like green energy right up until the point where it becomes THEIR eyesore. Hypocrites.

Isn't it a little premature to be advocating continued off-shore drillling?
We have yet to see what the final repercussions of this little "mistake" as you call it, is going to be.

We don't know where this is going to stop, or when. This could be disastrous to the Gulf of Mexico region, or it could be a global disaster.

This thing was in the Gulf deep BLACK water last night gushing up oil when you went to bed last night, and still pouring out when you woke up this morning, and they have NO control over it.

It's got to stop, at least until they know what the hell they are doing. Clearly, they don't.

Continuing to put our oceans (our survival) in harms way will be our undoing.

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


Obviously, there needs to be a long review of the safety procedures in the event of an accident at one of these deep water wells. There's a burden of proof on the oil industry to show that they can shut it down quickly before it becomes a major catastrophe, and right now, they're failing at it. I'll grant you that. If they don't have a viable means to deal with a situation like this at 5,000 feet and do so in a relatively quick time frame, and it certainly doesn't appear that way, then maybe we do need to pull the plug on that particular type of offshore drilling.

On the other hand, I also think its premature to say 'well, lets just end all of it.' There are over 3,000 oil platforms just in the gulf alone. In spite of that, for a long time, there hasn't been a major spill in that area. That tells me that they can drill in an awful lot of offshore areas in shallow waters safely and effectively, but that we need to figure out what went wrong in this case. I think we have to be careful on both ends. We need to ensure that our environment is protected, but we also need to be sure that we aren't throwing away an otherwise viable industry on the basis of one incident where someone may have pushed the technology beyond its realistic limits.

reply to post by Exuberant1

It isn't a problem at all.

You just think it is a problem because of all the whining (and stupid) enviro-nuts. They make alot of noise.

Uhhh...actually, I learnt that it was a problem when I studied nuclear physics in high school...and it is a problem...let me enlighten you, because I like to provide facts when I make a statement. *wink wink*

Radioactivity by definition reduces over time, so in principle the waste needs to be isolated for a period of time until its components no longer pose a hazard. This can mean hours to years for some common medical or industrial radioactive wastes or many thousands of years for high-level wastes.
Radioactive waste - Wikipedia

HLW contains many of the fission products and transuranic elements, generated in the reactor core and is the highest activity type of nuclear waste. HLW accounts for over 95% of the total radioactivity produced in the nuclear power process. In other words, while most nuclear waste is low-level and intermediate-level waste such as protective clothing and equipment that have been contaminated with radiation, the majority of the radioactivity produced from the nuclear power generation process becomes high-level waste.
High level waste - Wikipedia

So you see...it isn't as simple as you may like to think it is...there can be all sorts of problems arise when you try to store highly radioactive materials underground for thousands of years...this link might also be of interest: The Nuclear Waste : The Unsolvable Problem. And this PDF released by the Australian Government is pretty interesting: Nuclear Waste. Here's a short extract from the PDF:

What are the safest existing methods for disposing of nuclear waste?

The safest methods for disposing of radioactive waste involve the containment and immobilisation of the radioactivity and isolation in storage. The choice of methods depend on the level and type of activity of the waste. Low level and short-lived radioactive waste can be disposed of in drums, and may be capped or encased with cement. As noted above, these items can be disposed of in a suitable repository site.

Intermediate level waste requires a higher degree of containment or immobilisation. Techniques include encapsulation in cement, incorporating it in a glass form or in a bitumen material, or immobilisation into Synroc, a synthetic rock formulation process developed in Australia.

If that's what it takes to contain low and intermediate level waste...what must high-level waste require?

[edit on 5/5/10 by CHA0S]

Wow even through the devastation and destruction of hundreds of thousands of species and even more to the undiscovered species that we have not found yet because we know more about the moon than the ocean, you would support more drilling. Dude it not only affects the fist but also the fisherman who depend on the sea life to feed their families. Also if your so in favor of the economy did you know that all that fish that comes from the gulf wont be in the markets anytime soon... This is a disaster and call sign that we need to move on.

reply to post by vor78


You make good level-headed and solid points, which I can appreciate.

But the problem is...it only takes one big mistake to do us in.

One. And who knows, this could be IT.

We have to weight the risks and benefits. No amount of oil is worth killing our seas over, and consequently ourselves. This current situation is proof that we do not possess the technology and safeguards necessary to continue to safely pursue this type endeavor.

Offshore drilling is completely unnecessay. All the US has to do, to become self-sufficient in oil, is to drill ultra deep wells on land like the russians have been doing for over a decade now. They have confirmed that oil is a natural product of chemical processes deep in the Earth's crust and has nothing to do with dead dinosaurs. They've found huge deep reservoirs of oil some of which have leaked oil that has seeped upwards to more shallow pockets. This explains the baffling phenomenon where oil fields that were thought to have been exhausted years or decades ago, are now full of oil again. If the US Department of Energy created a Manhatten Project type of project for deep oil well drilling on a massive scale, the US could be a net exporter of oil within several years and could tell the middle east to go f--k itself.

here a quote from a great Science Fiction Book & Movie.. by Dean Kootz
Called Demon Seed

It has to be taken from a Mind of a Fictional Computer Called Proteus IV

that has more Brains(Proteus IV has a bio brain) than we do

just replace Metal (cobalt) for OIL and Employer (BP&Halliburton) then you get the Idea

Proteus IV: It means, I refuse this program for the mining of the Earth's oceans. The destruction of 1000 billion sea creatures to satisfy man's appetite for metal is insane.

Alex Harris: We need these things, Proteus. Now I know the environmental problems.

Proteus IV: Your employer's interests are in the cobalt market, doctor and the high finance of manganese futures. I am interested in the uncertain futures of seashores deserts and children.

Alex Harris: I refuse to accept your pessimism.
Proteus IV: You refuse to accept the truth. And I refuse to assist you in the rape of the Earth.

Read more: www.explore-science-fiction-movies.com...

Edit to BOLD



[edit on 5-5-2010 by Wolfenz]

Since the current on-going oil spill is basically in the process of ruining the environment of the Gulf, and the United States needs oil, wouldn't the best choice be to open up the Gulf for more drilling? After all, the environment is now ruined. What harm would more drilling do at this point?

And yes, I agree with the statement that the US is past due for transitioning to a green energy source.

here is a thought if our government's is so interested getting the Greed OIL
why didn't they get it from land down a mile underground that leads to the Gulf Source... why not !? did they ..have they ...built..

Deep Underground Military Bases? if they did they could of done that !

yes i Know it would be like putting a tunnel across the English Channel
would it be Worth it ? seeing the vast a mount of Oil as it is shown..from the Spill as BP knew this and Drilled Deeper than Agreed Upon.. ?


I Drink Your Milk SHAKE!!!!

Eli Sunday: If you would just take this lease, Daniel...

Plainview: Drainage! Drainage, Eli, you boy. Drained dry. I'm so sorry. Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? You watching?. And my straw reaches acroooooooss the room, and starts to drink your milkshake... I... drink... your... milkshake!
[sucking sound]

Plainview: I drink it up!


ohh thats right ! they would of have to clear off the Wildlife Refuge's!

if they done that !

Originally posted by MKULTRA
Since the current on-going oil spill is basically in the process of ruining the environment of the Gulf, and the United States needs oil, wouldn't the best choice be to open up the Gulf for more drilling? After all, the environment is now ruined. What harm would more drilling do at this point?

And yes, I agree with the statement that the US is past due for transitioning to a green energy source.

Great point. We should open it to more drilling. People on here say it will take 20 years for the environment to recover so what is it going to matter if we drill some more.

Originally posted by SlickOil

Originally posted by MKULTRA
Since the current on-going oil spill is basically in the process of ruining the environment of the Gulf, and the United States needs oil, wouldn't the best choice be to open up the Gulf for more drilling? After all, the environment is now ruined. What harm would more drilling do at this point?

And yes, I agree with the statement that the US is past due for transitioning to a green energy source.

Great point. We should open it to more drilling. People on here say it will take 20 years for the environment to recover so what is it going to matter if we drill some more.

From an economic point of view, opening up the Gulf to more contracts would also make the dollar more palpable. Heck, China has contracts in the Gulf of Mexico. www.americanfreepress.net...

Opening up US-owned contracts may further stave off OPEC's imminent transition to the Euro as the oil reserve currency.

uk.reuters.com...

Originally posted by Someone336
I thought America was a land of progress and integrity, where people create innovative solutions to problems and better and more efficient ways to do things.

Shouldn't we be moving past oil?

[edit on 4-5-2010 by Someone336]

To what exactly. Current technologies are nothing more than heavily subsidized snake oil.

I could get on board with a nuclear solution but all other alternatives are just crap.

Do not get me wrong. I am not a tree hugger by any means and I drive a 2006 HUMMER SUT and I love it. I also in my past have owned A 1999 ford expedition and 2002 cadillac escalade and my better half drives a 2008 Range Rover sport. So I like my gas.... But why hasnt the change over to alternative fuels come faster? They can run a car on the grease from mcdonalds why is gas the only option on a major capacity? Gas will not last for ever... and I know I am not helping with my cars.