Will lifting oil drilling bans in the U.S. lower the price of oil?

  • News
  • Thread starter sketchtrack
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Lifting Oil
In summary, there is a debate on whether lifting the bans on drilling for oil in the US will have any significant impact on the price of oil. Some argue that buying foreign oil supports terrorism and that drilling at home will lower prices, but these arguments are questionable. Opening up more areas for drilling may bring in more money and jobs, but the impact on prices may not be significant for several years. Additionally, the technology for offshore drilling may need to be imported from other countries. Ultimately, the announcement of drilling may not have a direct effect on current oil prices and other factors, such as declining demand, may have a greater impact.
  • #36
Once again. ANWR contains less than 15 bbls (50% prob), a lot less than the OCS. While it once again will not hurt, it is not going to affect the price of oil in any significant manner either. The big thing about ANWR is that it is relatively cheap oil so the profits are much higher than in the OCS (where for many wells, the profits are near zero for even $100 a barrel oil).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
This probably has a bigger and certainly an immediate impact of the price of oil.

http://news.yahoo.com/story/nm/20080812/us_nm/usa_oil_demand_dc;_ylt=AmTZMZvUzYKlnfXQ.jgi1gNH2ocA [Broken]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. oil demand during the first half of 2008 fell by an average 800,000 barrels per day (bpd) compared with the same period a year ago, the biggest volume decline in 26 years, the Energy Information Administration said on Tuesday.

In its latest monthly energy forecast, the EIA said the huge drop in demand was due to slower U.S. economic growth and the impact of high petroleum prices.

The drop in U.S. oil demand helped offset a 1.3-million bpd increase in petroleum consumption in nonindustrial countries during the first half of the year.

Meanwhile -

http://news.yahoo.com/story/nm/20080812/us_nm/volt_list_dc;_ylt=AlKzR3jOCp3Ncd36lVERJUpH2ocA [Broken]
DETROIT (Reuters) – In a bid to show the demand for the upcoming all-electric Chevrolet Volt, a proponent of the car has released details of an unofficial waiting list for the vehicle with over 33,000 prospective buyers.

Lyle Dennis, a New York neurologist who has emerged as a prominent enthusiast for the battery-powered car from General Motors Corp, has been assembling a list of prospective Volt buyers for over a year through his Web site GM-Volt.com.

On Tuesday, Dennis released details gleaned from the list showing that 33,411 people had signed up to show their intent to buy a Volt when the rechargeable car is released in 2010.

The list shows the highest number of potential Volt buyers in California, Texas, Florida and Michigan. It also includes potential buyers from 46 countries outside the United States.

The average price buyers were willing to pay for the car was $31,261 -- . . . .

. . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
It's really tough to say if drilling anywhere will have an effect. If OPEC lowers their collective production quota by an equivalent amount of new oil on the market as a result of US production nothing will change. If a lot of new oil hits the market from a number of sources and OPEC maintains or increases their production quota and demand remains flat or falls then the price will go down. But how likely is all that?
 
  • #39
As far as drilling the Outer Continental shelf goes, it won't happen anytime soon.

There is a shortage of the huge drilling ships that are used in deep water drilling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/business/19drillship.html?hp

Most of the existing ships are headed for Brazil. This includes the "West Polaris" which has been leased by Exxon.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a8V5CHwdycrk&refer=home [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #40
chemisttree said:
It's really tough to say if drilling anywhere will have an effect. If OPEC lowers their collective production quota by an equivalent amount of new oil on the market as a result of US production nothing will change. ...
Well OPEC's oil income will change, substantially lower, if they do that.
 
  • #43
So is he also to blame for causing them to go so high in the first place? Sort of like taking $10 from someone and then giving them back $5 after a lot of begging and having them thank you for it?
 
  • #44
mheslep said:
Note that in the US at least, no deaths have ever been attributed to commercial nuclear accidents. Second, though waste is a complicated problem, source [2] does not support your claim of 'problem for mankind.. thousands of years'.

Nuclear waste remains radioctive for thousands of years, thus it's a problem for thousands of years.

It's not like your biodegradable trash you throw out every week.
 
  • #45
mheslep said:
So? As your link states, ANWR is 1.5 million acres. The proposed drilling requires only a few dozen acres.

So? So the point is it's a nature PRESERVE.

Do you know what the R stands for in ANWR? It means it's land put aside for the wildlife and habitat meant to be protected from human exploitation.

I don't care about how little you think the footprint will be. I don't care if you only need one micrometer of the land. You can't have ANY of it, or else it defeats the whole purpose of having a wilderness preserve in the first place. Once you drill there it opens the floodgates for a slippery slope. Drill for oil there today and tomorrow watch Yellowstone converted into a giant shopping mall. It's not about protecting a dozen acres. It's about protecting the sanctity of a wildlife refuge.
 
  • #46
Mental Gridlock said:
Nuclear waste remains radioctive for thousands of years, thus it's a problem for thousands of years...
Some radio isotopes have long half lives, some do not. Radioactive materials are not a 'problem' just because they are radioactive. That's begging the question.
 
  • #47
Mental Gridlock said:
So? So the point is it's a nature PRESERVE.

Do you know what the R stands for in ANWR? It means it's land put aside for the wildlife and habitat meant to be protected from human exploitation.

I don't care about how little you think the footprint will be. I don't care if you only need one micrometer of the land. You can't have ANY of it, or else it defeats the whole purpose of having a wilderness preserve in the first place.
You are begging the question again: "It's a Reserve because its a Reserve". The 'R' is an artificial title assigned by people, and it can just as easily be undone. There was no Reserve sign put at the entrance to ANWR at its creation. BTW, I "don't care" what you think I can or can not have.
Once you drill there it opens the floodgates for a slippery slope. Drill for oil there today and tomorrow watch Yellowstone converted into a giant shopping mall. It's not about protecting a dozen acres. It's about protecting the sanctity of a wildlife refuge.
Slippery slope arguments, esp. without evidence (and they never have any) are unpersuasive.
 
  • #48
edward said:
As far as drilling the Outer Continental shelf goes, it won't happen anytime soon.

There is a shortage of the huge drilling ships that are used in deep water drilling.
And what's worse is that the Jones act says you can't use them.
All ships working between US ports must be built/maintained in US owned yards. So apart from suddenly catching up on 30years of Scottish/Norwegian rig technology you are going to have to find some 300m deep fjords around Galverston to build them in.
 
  • #49
mheslep said:
You are begging the question again: "It's a Reserve because its a Reserve".

It's a reserve because it's the LAW. It's not just an arbitrary title. The land is protected by law so by going there and drilling it is in violation of the law.

BTW, I "don't care" what you think I can or can not have.

But your government cares.

Slippery slope arguments, esp. without evidence (and they never have any) are unpersuasive.

You said it yourself. The reserve status can easily be undone, so they can easily undo the protected status of all of your national parks. If they can easily take the ANWR protection away, then they can do the same for yellowstone and level it to make a giant shopping mall. They argue drilling in ANWR will have economic benefits, create jobs etc. so they will say the same thing to exploit other protected lands and build whatever they want on them. Once you set the precedent, it opens the floodgates. That's why it's important to stand to your principles and not let ANY encroachment happen, even one mm of protected land exploitation isn't tolerable for this reason.

And there is plenty of historical proof of the slippery slope in action. Like after 9/11 the government decided they needed to take away a certain right of the people to combat terrorism and keep the people safe. Some smart people opposed saying NO RIGHTS AT ALL should be taken. But they did anyway. Before you know it, rights have been vanishing left and right and are still vanishing and people just got used to it.

People's property is ONLY to be seized for public use, per the constitution. Yet once upon a time, somebody said it should be okay to take a certain property for a commercial use, to create jobs, economic revitalization or what have you. They allowed it. Then even the supreme court ruled it was okay. Now the US has a widespread epidemic of people's homes being taken to make way for corporations and people are having their houses taken left and right. All because at one point they thought it was acceptable. And if the government has no qualms about taking property from its people, they certainly won't care about taking it from animals.

Give them an inch and they take a mile. That's how your government works.
 
  • #50
mheslep said:
Some radio isotopes have long half lives, some do not. Radioactive materials are not a 'problem' just because they are radioactive. That's begging the question.

They aren't a problem just because they are radioctive? Radioctive means they emit harmful radiation that poisons people and the environment; it's a problem by definition.

They are a "problem" because they contaminate the soil and water, and are a danger to people and animals.

Also it's not just like you can dump it somewhere and forget about it. Disposal sites must be monitered and protected and secured. Yet the waste can stay active for tens of thousands of years.. Even if you can protect the waste now, who is going to look after it 500 years from now? Or 5000? It's quite an unfair burden to place on our decendents, making them take care of the waste produced for our own use. And that's provided there even is a government in place in the future that can look after it.
 
  • #51
Mental Gridlock said:
Radioctive means they emit harmful radiation that poisons people and the environment; it's a problem by definition.
No, radioactive means they emit radiation - not that it's harmfull.
Harmfull depends on several factors.

What kind or radiation (alpha=not a big problem, beta worse, gamma generally bad)

How radioactive, things with a very long half life (eg. Pu) decay slowly and so only emit very small amounts of radiation. Things with a very short half life (eg. H3) emit a lot of radiation for a brief time but then become harmless quickly.
The bad ones are the half lives similair to a human lifespan.

It's chemical activity. Insoluble Pu or U in granite not a big problem. Radon that you can breathe into your lungs = bad, ceasium/iodine that build up in your body = worse.

They are a "problem" because they contaminate the soil and water, and are a danger to people and animals.
Only if they are harmfull.

Also it's not just like you can dump it somewhere and forget about it. Disposal sites must be monitered and protected and secured. Yet the waste can stay active for tens of thousands of years..
It's better than other pollutants, mercury and arsenic are still going to be as toxic at the end of the universe. The radioactive waste is getting safer all the time.

The waste problem is made worse by not reprocessing the most active (and therefore the most dangerous but also the most valuable components) for political reasons. But at least the waste is contained and stored. Try removing all the polution and CO2 produced by a coal power station form the atmosphere and storing it until it's no longer harmfull.
 
Last edited:
  • #52
Mental Gridlock said:
They aren't a problem just because they are radioctive? Radioctive means they emit harmful radiation that poisons people and the environment; it's a problem by definition.
Its a matter of degree, one can not just declare its a problem without weighing this against possible risks. Sunlight can be harmful. Drinking too much water can be harmful. Shaking a vending machine can be harmful. BTW, more people have been killed by falling vending machines in the US than by radiation from fission power plants.

Also it's not just like you can dump it somewhere and forget about it. Disposal sites must be monitered and protected and secured. Yet the waste can stay active for tens of thousands of years.. Even if you can protect the waste now, who is going to look after it 500 years from now? Or 5000? It's quite an unfair burden to place on our decendents, making them take care of the waste produced for our own use. And that's provided there even is a government in place in the future that can look after it.
Perhaps, but again that is a matter of degree. At some point one can argue that waste buried deeply enough underground in geological stable formations is even less of a threat than 'natural' toxic materials closer to the surface.
 
  • #53
OPEC cuts production

OPEC cut back 500000 bbl/day and price barely moved.

Sept. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil rose after OPEC urged its members to comply with output quotas, a move that would reduce supplies by 500,000 barrels a day.

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries agreed at a meeting in Vienna to a total production limit for 11 members of 28.8 million barrels a day, unchanged from previous targets. OPEC Secretary-General Abdalla El-Badri said this means it will trim ``oversupply'' by about 500,000 barrels a day.
...
Crude oil for October delivery rose 66 cents, or 0.6 percent, to $103.92 a barrel at 9:30 a.m. on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Which means a before/after loss in income of ~$50M/day for OPEC. Of course if the price had continued to fall to say $80 from over capacity they'd be out $560M/day.
 
  • #54
In related news:
WASHINGTON — As Congress prepares to debate expansion of drilling in taxpayer-owned coastal waters, the Interior Department agency that collects oil and gas royalties has been caught up in a wide-ranging ethics scandal — including allegations of financial self-dealing, accepting gifts from energy companies, cocaine use and sexual misconduct.

In three reports delivered to Congress on Wednesday, the department’s inspector general, Earl E. Devaney, found wrongdoing by a dozen current and former employees of the Minerals Management Service, which collects about $10 billion in royalties annually and is one of the government’s largest sources of revenue other than taxes.

“A culture of ethical failure” besets the agency, Mr. Devaney wrote in a cover memo.

The reports portray a dysfunctional organization that has been riddled with conflicts of interest, unprofessional behavior and a free-for-all atmosphere for much of the Bush administration’s watch.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Lest someone claim this is a conspiracy from the left wing media, here's more sources:
Reuters
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iKt4CePAt-tJqdPld1mZxbC4nsXwD934371G0 [Broken]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122107135333120223.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Sep10/0,4670,InteriorOilTrysts,00.html

PS: For some reason, Chevron has decided not to co-operate with the investigation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
Gokul43201 said:
In related news:


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Lest someone claim this is a conspiracy from the left wing media, here's more sources:
Reuters
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iKt4CePAt-tJqdPld1mZxbC4nsXwD934371G0 [Broken]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122107135333120223.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Sep10/0,4670,InteriorOilTrysts,00.html

PS: For some reason, Chevron has decided not to co-operate with the investigation.

It was probably the only government dept that wasn't just sitting around doing nothing:bugeye:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
Gokul43201 said:
In related news:


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Lest someone claim this is a conspiracy from the left wing media, here's more sources:
Reuters
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iKt4CePAt-tJqdPld1mZxbC4nsXwD934371G0 [Broken]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122107135333120223.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Sep10/0,4670,InteriorOilTrysts,00.html

PS: For some reason, Chevron has decided not to co-operate with the investigation.

I always thought that if you wanted a life of debauchery - lots of sex and drugs - you had to go into the rock and roll busines. Who'd have thunk that the oil business or Department of the Interior would offer the same "perks"...?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #57
these are precious finite resources that need to last a really long time. the price should be high to encourage careful husbandry of them. subsidies could be made available to the poor and needy but for the general user they should be expensive. helllooo? do we think the goal should be to encourage the wastage of natural resources as quickly as possible? how stupid is that? the injustice seems to be that the profit goes almost exclusively to oil companies that poach off the resources owned by the public.

or so it seems to me...but what do i know? after all, i was never mayor of wasilla. and i do not personally own any assault weapons.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #58
mathwonk said:
these are precious finite resources that need to last a really long time. the price should be high to encourage careful husbandry of them. subsidies could be made available to the poor and needy but for the general user they should be expensive. helllooo? do we think the goal should be to encourage the wastage of natural resources as quickly as possible? how stupid is that? the injustice seems to be that the profit goes almost exclusively to oil companies that poach off the resources owned by the public.

or so it seems to me...but what do i know? after all, i was never mayor of wasilla. and i do not personally own any assault weapons.

Good point. I own assault weapons so let me help you out. You don't have to "husband" natural resources. The market will determine when they are running out. As they wear thin, the price will go up. No need to hold them back. Let the market set the price, not the government by restricting access.
 
  • #59
A recently released report indicates that speculation was a definite factor in the oil price surge. I find the third paragraph of this quote to be quite ironic.

Co-authored by hedge-fund manager Michael Masters, the report said that from January to May the institutional traders poured $60 billion into commodity markets, causing rapid spikes in crude prices.

After record highs were hit in July, traders yanked their billions to reap huge profits, allowing prices to nosedive and wreak even more damage on the way down for some investors.

Much of the cash used for the heavy betting was said by many portfolio chiefs to have been a result of the hundreds of billions in liquidity the Federal Reserve pumped into Wall Street banks. That cash enabled their big institutional clients to binge on commodities, which they'd traditionally avoided.
.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09112008/business/speculation_drove_oil_prices_up__report_128573.htm

Edit: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission does not agree with the report. On the other hand if they did agree heads would be rolling.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09112008/business/speculation_drove_oil_prices_up__report_128573.htm
 
Last edited:
  • #60
mgb_phys said:
No, radioactive means they emit radiation - not that it's harmfull.
Harmfull depends on several factors.

What kind or radiation (alpha=not a big problem, beta worse, gamma generally bad)

How radioactive, things with a very long half life (eg. Pu) decay slowly and so only emit very small amounts of radiation. Things with a very short half life (eg. H3) emit a lot of radiation for a brief time but then become harmless quickly.
The bad ones are the half lives similair to a human lifespan.

It's chemical activity. Insoluble Pu or U in granite not a big problem. Radon that you can breathe into your lungs = bad, ceasium/iodine that build up in your body = worse.


Only if they are harmfull.


It's better than other pollutants, mercury and arsenic are still going to be as toxic at the end of the universe. The radioactive waste is getting safer all the time.

The waste problem is made worse by not reprocessing the most active (and therefore the most dangerous but also the most valuable components) for political reasons. But at least the waste is contained and stored. Try removing all the polution and CO2 produced by a coal power station form the atmosphere and storing it until it's no longer harmfull.

You're right.. I shouldn't go off topic anyway.
 
  • #61
deckart said:
Let the market set the price, not the government by restricting access.

I don't think the government is trying to set the price or restrict access. Looks like they are just trying to protect the environment. And rightfully so.
 
  • #62
deckart said:
Good point. I own assault weapons so let me help you out. You don't have to "husband" natural resources. The market will determine when they are running out. As they wear thin, the price will go up. No need to hold them back. Let the market set the price, not the government by restricting access.

I disagree. Our dependence on foreign oil is a National Security issue. The problem is that every one except the Middle Eastern countries and Russia are at or past peak oil. The Arabs and Russia however are not. This means that if that these countries can manipulate the price to destroy our local alternatives (by flooding the market) and then suddenly cut supply to sky rocket the price (that may happen due to a war rather than a deliberate act). This would wreck our economy which needs a steady stream of energy at a predictable price.

Keep in mind, the word is predictable. If we depend only on one or two countries for our supply then it is anything but predictable. The reason the OCS has not been developed up to now has nothing to do with tree hugging or liberals. The Republicans controlled both the Congress and the President for years. They could have overturned the ban at any time. It is because the oil out in the OCS is so expensive that the oil companies didn't want to drill since there was no profit. This was due to the Saudis flooding the market with cheap oil. With no interest from the oil companies the Republicans didn't want to risk the political fallout so they did nothing. Even now they are afraid to invest their money because they are afraid the Saudis will flood the market again and lower prices.

We would be much better off to put a heavy tax foreign oil and create a local PREDICTABLE market for energy even if it cost us more in the short run.
 
  • #63
This is interesting!

Can Offshore Drilling Really Make the U.S. Oil Independent?
Even if U.S. energy policy goes "drill baby drill," there will be no escape from the vicissitudes of the global oil market
By Emily Gertz
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=can-offshore-drilling-make-us-independent
. . . .

In fact, oil companies have yet to take advantage of the nearly 86 billion barrels of offshore oil in areas already available for leasing and development. So why are they chomping at the drill bit to open up the moratorium waters and survey them anew?

"Oil company stocks are valued in large part based on how much proved reserves they have," says Robert Kaufman, an expert on world oil markets and director of Boston University's Center for Energy and Environmental Studies. Translation: just having more promising leases in hand would be worth billions of dollars.
So it appears that the drive to drill oil is about artificially supporting the value of oil company stocks, and really has little or nothing to do about bringing the oil price down or ensuring oil supply or security of the US. Clearly, more efficient use of current energy supplies is necessary.

. . . .
"Do you think oil companies are going to sell [U.S. oil] to U.S. consumers for anything less than top price?," he asks. "The answer is no."

What if Congress mandated that the offshore oil could not be exported? "The question of how much of that product that comes out, where it goes, I don't think Congress can dictate," industry rep Penniman says. "It goes onto the market. It's a free market system…but it is up to Congress [to pass] the laws on what they will and won't open."

Such a move could in fact increase the nation's energy costs. "Any time you impose a constraint, like 'oil from Alaska cannot go to Japan,'" Kaufman notes, "you're saying, 'don't do the cheapest thing, do something more expensive.' So everybody pays a little more. Where the free market does work very efficiently is to minimize transportation costs" for oil—which are determined by many factors, including the location of the nearest refinery that can handle the particular characteristics of the crude oil being shipped.

Kaufman dismisses as "nonsense" any promises that offshore drilling could make the U.S. "oil independent." Even if it could somehow insulate itself from the ups and downs of the global oil market, he notes, the U.S. would have to make a huge leap in domestic oil production to replace what it buys from overseas.

"At its peak in production, which occurred in 1970s, the U.S. produced about 10 million [barrels of oil] a day," Kaufman says. "Now, after 30 years of fairly steady decline, we produce about five million barrels a day," whereas we consume 20 million barrels daily. "Whoever talks about oil independence has to tell a story about how we close a 15-million-barrel gap."

. . . .
 
  • #64
Astronuc said:
This is interesting!

Can Offshore Drilling Really Make the U.S. Oil Independent?
Even if U.S. energy policy goes "drill baby drill," there will be no escape from the vicissitudes of the global oil market
By Emily Gertz
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=can-offshore-drilling-make-us-independent
So it appears that the drive to drill oil is about artificially supporting the value of oil company stocks, and really has little or nothing to do about bringing the oil price down or ensuring oil supply or security of the US. Clearly, more efficient use of current energy supplies is necessary.
Note that the first quoted paragraph about leases was an unreferenced claim by the article author, with no connection to the statement by Kaufman the referenced expert.
 
<h2>1. Will lifting oil drilling bans in the U.S. immediately lower the price of oil?</h2><p>No, lifting oil drilling bans in the U.S. will not immediately lower the price of oil. It takes time for new drilling operations to start producing oil and for the market to adjust to the increase in supply.</p><h2>2. How much of an impact will lifting oil drilling bans in the U.S. have on the price of oil?</h2><p>The impact of lifting oil drilling bans in the U.S. on the price of oil is uncertain. It depends on many factors, such as global demand for oil, production levels in other countries, and economic conditions.</p><h2>3. Will lifting oil drilling bans in the U.S. lead to a significant increase in domestic oil production?</h2><p>It is possible that lifting oil drilling bans in the U.S. could lead to a significant increase in domestic oil production. However, it is not guaranteed as there are many factors that can affect production levels, such as technological limitations and market conditions.</p><h2>4. Will lifting oil drilling bans in the U.S. decrease our dependence on foreign oil?</h2><p>Lifting oil drilling bans in the U.S. may decrease our dependence on foreign oil, but it is not a guarantee. Even with increased domestic production, the U.S. will still rely on imports to meet its energy needs.</p><h2>5. Are there any potential negative consequences of lifting oil drilling bans in the U.S.?</h2><p>There are potential negative consequences of lifting oil drilling bans in the U.S., such as environmental impacts and potential conflicts with local communities. It is important to carefully consider all potential consequences before making any decisions regarding oil drilling bans.</p>

1. Will lifting oil drilling bans in the U.S. immediately lower the price of oil?

No, lifting oil drilling bans in the U.S. will not immediately lower the price of oil. It takes time for new drilling operations to start producing oil and for the market to adjust to the increase in supply.

2. How much of an impact will lifting oil drilling bans in the U.S. have on the price of oil?

The impact of lifting oil drilling bans in the U.S. on the price of oil is uncertain. It depends on many factors, such as global demand for oil, production levels in other countries, and economic conditions.

3. Will lifting oil drilling bans in the U.S. lead to a significant increase in domestic oil production?

It is possible that lifting oil drilling bans in the U.S. could lead to a significant increase in domestic oil production. However, it is not guaranteed as there are many factors that can affect production levels, such as technological limitations and market conditions.

4. Will lifting oil drilling bans in the U.S. decrease our dependence on foreign oil?

Lifting oil drilling bans in the U.S. may decrease our dependence on foreign oil, but it is not a guarantee. Even with increased domestic production, the U.S. will still rely on imports to meet its energy needs.

5. Are there any potential negative consequences of lifting oil drilling bans in the U.S.?

There are potential negative consequences of lifting oil drilling bans in the U.S., such as environmental impacts and potential conflicts with local communities. It is important to carefully consider all potential consequences before making any decisions regarding oil drilling bans.

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
34
Views
10K
Replies
133
Views
24K
Replies
47
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
88
Views
12K
  • General Discussion
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
4K
Back
Top