Give me a real argument as to why we should not be drilling for oil here in the U.S.?

And, if you think that we should be, perhaps you could enlighten others as to why???Give me a real argument as to why we should not be drilling for oil here in the U.S.?
There is no good argument for us not drilling anywhere in North America. We need to be looking for the replacement fuel for oil while we're at it but there is no way we should not be drilling anywhere on this continent. It is the only hope in the relatively near term of diminishing our dependency on foreign oil.Give me a real argument as to why we should not be drilling for oil here in the U.S.?
There isn't one. Nobody gives a damn about a bunch of s****y animals, not even liberals. Environmentalism is just a scam to make America a socialist country. Liberals just want to keep gas prices high so they can blame ';Big Oil'; and George Bush. Then the sheeple will elect some socialist Democrat who will ';fix'; the problem they created by socializing the Oil industry.





Enough government regulations! Either start drilling in Alaska or make liberal hippies pay exuberant fees at the pump to cover everyone else.
Ignoring the obvious environmental problems drilling would cause, I would remind you that the International Corporations that would be drilling for the new oil supplies will sell them to the highest International bidders, not necessarily the US.


When the Alaskan pipeline started carrying petroleum supplies, the majority was sold to Japan - not the US.


That's one reason to ponder.
We are. We produce about 5 million barrels/day. However, we use about 20 million barrels/day.





The estimates of oil in ANWR suggest about 7.7 billion economically recoverable barrels of oil (note, many high estimates use ';technically recoverable -- which is not an accurate measure). This oil would take a decade to access, and would then be recoverable over the next 20 (to 50) years. This means that the reserve could supply about about 330 million barrels of oil per year. 330 million divided by our current daily use of 20 million means that the reserve could supply about 16 days worth of oil each year, and only for twenty years. Thus ANWR is not a solution to the problem of dependence on foreign oil. In fact, we could save more oil than this every year if people simply inflated their tires properly before they drove.








And no matter how much we wish it, or no matter how much radio pundits proclaim it, there simply is not enough oil (light sweet crude) in the U.S. to satisfy our current needs.





We can not drill our way to energy independence. It is simply impossible.





Therefore, if we want real energy independence, we must look for alternatives to oil use. To pursue any other option is to perpetuate the current situation.
The purpose of drilling in the US is not just to lower prices, yet to get off our foreign supply of oil. 2/3rds of oil comes from Mexico and Canada , the other third is mixed from other sources.





What a benefit would it be to MOST of our oil come from the US or our close allies whose economies are simliar to ours.
We are drilling for oil here in the US. About 7 million barrels per day.
I love the spotted owl as much as the next liberal... but we need to be drilling. We need to be self-sufficient and we need a sustainable alternative fuel... yesterday.
Canada is using front end loaders to recover oil.
i'm liberal as liberal comes-and i think limited drilling should be allowed....
We are drilling oil here, there just isn't enough, so we import.
We need for congress to remove the tariffs on sugar cane ethanol from Brazil.
I Can't





Going to have a Polar Bear Steak now, bye
Because we like paying $5.00 a gal for gas and giving terrorist our money.
have u ever heard the term ';dont get high on your own supply';? its because we need every drop of ours.
If you're referring to ANWR (the Alaskan National Wilderness Reserve), I think the argument against it is that the harms outweigh the benefits. If we were to pump all the oil out of the area we would have enough for six months at our current consumption rates. The ecological damage would depend greatly on how the oil is drilled and transported as well as the occurrence of any possible mishaps (like the Exxon Valdez spill) and would outlast the benefits.





Other arguments against it are similar, that we're trying to squeeze every last drop of oil out, keeping it cheaper longer instead of allowing the market to do its thing, as scarce supplies and rising demand drive up costs, we find incentives to do what we eventually will have to do anyway -- develop alternatives.





Oil is a finite resource, when it's gone, It's gone, regardless of what we wish were true. We need to determine what kind of future we want to live in and focus on that. With a problem as big as peak oil there is room for lots of solutions so we shouldn't spend a lot of time fighting we should get to work on making it better.





BTW, we are drilling for oil here and have been for a long time. ANWR is controversial because it was set aside to provide habitat for other species, many of which are endangered. One reason protecting other species is important has to do with ecology and the networks of niches that organisms fill. We are all connected in our dependence on nature, even humans. We depend on nature for everything because ultimately everything comes from nature. If we loose too many species we may find that our own needs are no longer met.