LTLFTcomposite wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12 ... lling.html
“This is exactly the time we need to start developing the area,” Nick Loris, an energy expert at the Washington D.C.-based conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, told FoxNews.com. “It will take more of a hurdle given what Obama has done, but it can be undone.”
Sure. Drill the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge for the last large conventional oil field in the USA. After that, then what? At the 7.7 billion barrel number, that is about four months and a few days of supply for the world.
So drill the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, and four months and a few days later hold hearings on where to drill next. Need a hint? There isn't a place like this left to drill in the USA. Or, sure, small fields and various unconventional oil.
Big oil fields mean cheap oil. Small oil fields mean more expensive oil. Drilling and fraking is more expensive. Tar sands are more expensive. Oil shales are even more expensive. Coal to liquids? Really need to ask? More expensive. Willing to pay a lot, there is a huge amount of coal. Dirty, expensive, but can still run boring old cars...
Sure. Drill the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge in the rapidly warming Arctic. Better design everything need to drill and extract oil so that it can survive melting permafrost. The methane craters. Better make provisions for rapid shoreline erosion, as the increasingly ice free Arctic Ocean pounds the shore during the unfrozen winters to come.
Sure. Drill the last large oil field. Go out with a bang!
Fossil fuels need to end. And they will. One way or another.