Dick Cheney has weighed in with his answer to the nation's energy woes:
Vice President Cheney yesterday called for a substantial increase in domestic drilling for oil and other natural resources, including in environmentally sensitive areas, saying that only increased production -- and not new technology -- will satisfy the nation's demand for energy.
"We are an economy that runs on petroleum. Some 20 million barrels of it a day. That can and will change over time, but it will be a very long time," said Cheney, former head of U.S. oil company Halliburton. "We'd be doing the whole country a favor if more of that oil were produced here at home."
He chastised Congress for not opening up coastal areas and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, and bemoaned the fact that Cuba and China have forged a partnership to drill near the Florida coast, while the U.S. has declared waters near Florida off-limits. "Even the communists have figured out that a good answer to high prices is more supply," he said. [UPDATE: Looks like the claim of Cuban-Chinese drilling near Florida is bogus, even though it's become a GOP talking point. (Thanks, Laurence.)]
Here's a video of his comments:
E.U. pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 4:04 am
12 Jun 2008
Testing and inflating tires at emissions stations would free up more oil than drilling in the ANWR, as would a few percentage points increase in average gas mileage, as would a few miles per hour slower on interstates, and on and on. The truth is that he wants to get the money out of the ground while he still has a measure of influence.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
hapa Posted 4:11 am
12 Jun 2008
off-shore drilling? thumbs up! energy security! revenue!
off-shore wind? thumbs down! aesthetically! it ruins the view! and the people who propose it are in a different political group! all kinds of really good reasons that are cost-benefit measurable, i have the figures in my office, i'll show you later.
remember: nobody doesn't like a swimming at an oily beach, or looking at "money" in the form of an oil platform on the horizon.
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 5:36 am
12 Jun 2008
The China-Cuba connection is "akin to urban legend," said Sen. Mel Martinez, a Republican from Florida who opposes drilling off the coast of his state but who backs exploration in ANWR.
"China is not drilling in Cuba's Gulf of Mexico waters, period," said Jorge Pinon, an energy fellow with the Center for Hemispheric Policy at the University of Miami and an expert in oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. Martinez cited Pinon's research when he took to the Senate floor Wednesday to set the record straight.
Even so, the Chinese-drilling-in-Cuba legend has gained momentum and has been swept up in Republican arguments to open up more U.S. territory to domestic production. Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech Wednesday to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, picked up the refrain.
Ped Shed Blog
Permalink
hapa Posted 6:16 am
12 Jun 2008
It seems to me that Gulf of Mexico production will drop to non-economic levels for many of these fields within the next few years, even with secondary recovery methods. I asked whether the Brutus platform could be moved to another location, since it still has most of its 30-year lifetime left. I was told that the only way this would work is if a new location is found that is of approximately the same depth (2,985 feet) as the current location.
At this point, few new drilling sites are opening up in the 3,000 foot depth range. I expect that this is one reason that Shell (and others) are very interested in getting the portion of the Gull of Mexico near Florida opened up for exploration. If further Gulf exploration is delayed for 15 or 20 years, it may be necessary to start over with new platforms. By that time, onshore pipelines may also have deteriorated with disuse, and trained personnel may be unavailable.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 9:50 am
12 Jun 2008
Permalink
mwildfire Posted 11:05 am
12 Jun 2008
Permalink
Cacaoatl Posted 11:22 am
12 Jun 2008
Permalink
el mono Posted 11:39 am
12 Jun 2008
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 10:19 pm
12 Jun 2008
Shu pas a vende.
Permalink
racc Posted 4:18 am
13 Jun 2008
High-speed rail is faster than driving or flying for many trips.
Permalink
Zephaniah Posted 6:05 am
13 Jun 2008
Real reasons for high cost of gasoline:
1. oil comanies gouging, and the Republicans have been fighting hard against a windfall profits tax to collect some of the oil companies' profits which have doubled in the last few years.
2. of a decades old policy of large subsidies for fossil fuels production and tiny amounts of support for wind, solar, and geothermal which could provide cheaper cleaner electricity if they were allowed to compete fairly.
3. electric cars could now be the norm, if the Congress had not repeatedly voted against requiring auto and truck manufacturers to produce vehicles that get better mileage.
Why are they taking this position that totally ignores the fact that continued use of fossil fuels is cooking our planet? (Sen Coburn R OK, Sen Allard R CO & others) The only problem this might solve is how to increase their campaign contributions. Also, maybe they really do need huge vehicles with tinted windows.
Permalink
greenleafyvegan Posted 2:25 am
05 Sep 2008
Permalink