Should we have drilling off our shores, or have it remain off-limits?

We could go full-tilt ahead and extract every last drop of petroleum from the planet  Maybe it's 15, 30, 45, or even 90 years later, we're still going to have to figure out something.  Guess what? Resources are finite.

I'm not in favor of more drilling, I'm in favor of this country getting its sh*t together when it comes to civil infrastructure!
::)

I am not into the offshore drilling idea.  All that time and money that the oil companies will get tax breaks for, then sell the oil to other countries, who will turn around and sell it back to us.  Nope.  Better to invest in alternatives, and to work on conservation of resources.  The hole we have dug is way to deep already.

End the oil tax breaks but increase drilling and build more refineries.

This was something I didn't know until just a day or two ago, it seems that the oil companies have a LOT of land open to them for drilling-but they don't use it. Now they want MORE land (i.e. off-shore and in Alaska). Instead of giving the oil companies MORE land, they should use the land they do have. There is a bill in Congress for the oil companies to "use it or lose it" on the land they lease for drilling for oil.

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=389&Itemid=1


Of course, I HIGHLY believe that we (the U.S. as well as the world) should start creating cars that run on something other than petroleum products.


Cat

We could go full-tilt ahead and extract every last drop of petroleum from the planet  Maybe it's 15, 30, 45, or even 90 years later, we're still going to have to figure out something.  Guess what? Resources are finite.


The catch-22 is that we - and I mean "we", as in the entire species - are lazy.  Necessity is the mother of invention.  And she's a mutha.  The sooner we run out, the sooner we develop the alternative.


I'm not in favor of more drilling, I'm in favor of this country getting its sh*t together when it comes to civil infrastructure!


False dichotomy.  Personally, I'm in favor of both.

The catch-22 is that we - and I mean "we", as in the entire species - are lazy.  Necessity is the mother of invention.  And she's a mutha.  The sooner we run out, the sooner we develop the alternative.


It is more then that.  Currently, there is no reasonable alternative to petrolum.  Biofuels simply tkae up to much landscape to produce.  Electric cars are a false hope, especially since the vast majority of out power comes from them.  Fuel Cells have some promise, but we are nowhere near making them cheap and efficient enough to replace gasoline.

And people tend to forget, the US is not in this mess alone.  Most people have insanely narrow viewpoints of the world.  We have among the cheapest gas in the world.  If such alternatives were really available, Europe and Japan would have been useing them years ago.

Personally, I think we should open up the tap, and let the oil flow as fast as we can.  Use it to try and break the back of OPEC.  It is little more then an international monopoly, and it needs to go away.  In much the same way that DeBeers had the world monopoly on Diamonds, until a decade or so ago when Russia opened up it's diamond pipeline and broke the back of that cartel.

Of course, that will ot be of much help to us, because we lack the refining capacity to turn all the oil into gasoline.  There have been no refineries made in over 20 years in this country.  Must like our other systems, our oil production, shipping, and refining systems are grossly out of date.  Pipelines are starting to break down, because of groups preventing the manufacture of new ones.  Refineries are operating at max capacity, yet we are still importing not only crude oil but gasoline.  We have oil in the ground to rival Saudi Arabia, but stupid laws prevent us from getting it.


I am not into the offshore drilling idea.  All that time and money that the oil companies will get tax breaks for, then sell the oil to other countries, who will turn around and sell it back to us.


This is often because of refining capacity.  We simply can't take even all the oil we produce (let alone import it) and convert it into gasoline.  So a lot is sent to other countries (Mexico for one) who refines it for us then ships it back.  This may not be good for us, but it is very good for Mexico.  And it is something that must be done, because nobody seems to want to authorize the construction of new refineries.


This was something I didn't know until just a day or two ago, it seems that the oil companies have a LOT of land open to them for drilling-but they don't use it. Now they want MORE land (i.e. off-shore and in Alaska). Instead of giving the oil companies MORE land, they should use the land they do have. There is a bill in Congress for the oil companies to "use it or lose it" on the land they lease for drilling for oil.


A lot of these "reserves" are sitting in places that it does little good.  For example, oil has been found in Idaho.

But what good does that do?  There are no refineries in Idaho.  That means that the oil will have to be piped (or trucked) to Western Oregon for processing.  Not a very efficient solution.  The same problem exists for huge amounts of the oil that is out there.  It is in places so far removed from the rest of the current infrastructure, it is simply to expensive to pump and ship to even be processed.

That is why off-shore drilling is so attractive.  It does not matter if the oil is in a remote area, it can be pumped directly onto a huge tanker and shipped wherever needed.  Anywhere that may be in the world.  You can't do that with oil found in a place like Wyoming.  It will have to be either trucked, trained, pipelined, or processed on site.


We could go full-tilt ahead and extract every last drop of petroleum from the planet  Maybe it's 15, 30, 45, or even 90 years later, we're still going to have to figure out something.  Guess what? Resources are finite.

I'm not in favor of more drilling, I'm in favor of this country getting its sh*t together when it comes to civil infrastructure!
::)


Well, we seem ti dissagree on that.  Myself, I believe that oil is a constant renewing resource, like gold, diamonds, coal, and the like.  There is constantly more oil being made, and it is simply a matter of finding it.  However, eventually we will outstrip the planet's ability to make it.  And I do believe that we are useing up the current supply.  But wait around a few million years, and there will be more oil available.

And I agree with the infrastructure.  Build refineries!  Build tons of them, big and small.  Build small ones near the smaller oil deposits, so we are no longer dependent on overseas refining.  Build more pipelines, so there is less waste and loss through more conventional transportation systems.

The catch-22 is that we - and I mean "we", as in the entire species - are lazy.  Necessity is the mother of invention.  And she's a mutha.  The sooner we run out, the sooner we develop the alternative.


If oil were weed, we'd be down to stems and seeds at the bottom of the baggie.
:P

There's boatloads of oil locked up in North America, the problem is that it costs a lot of energy (and if your energy comes from petrochemicals, it greatly cuts down on your return on investment) to get it.

We've known (ever since the first atomic pile went online) how to get to it. The offshore projects could have filled in the gap over the 10 years it would have taken to sweat out the oil from the shale.  Shale oil + nuclear reactors to provide steam and heat to cook the oil out of the rock = win. 

"Everybody's wondering what I'm doing with it. Oil shale. How many years ago was it that they gave up trying to get oil from shale, because it was too expensive? Well, wait till you see the process I've developed. It will be the cheapest oil ever to splash in their faces, and an unlimited supply of it, an untapped supply that will make the biggest oil pool look like a mud puddle."
  - Ellis Wyatt, a character from Atlas Shrugged

But we on the outside, aren't ever going to get to see that sort of thing happen, because there is no Ellis Wyatt, and if there was, he'd have long since left for Galt's Gulch.  Make it illegal to drill for oil, and only outlaws will have petrochemicals.

Of course, I HIGHLY believe that we (the U.S. as well as the world) should start creating cars that run on something other than petroleum products.


Cat


I concur! The people showing off their scooter power- good for you but what about the other 95% of us who work and need a car with room to carry the family, job related items or have to take a client to lunch?..I may love them but not enough for them to hug me down the highway in a 3 piece suit.

side thought-thought I heard someone invented a car that works on air! What next? The 'FART CART'?

If we had been drilling over the past 25 years, we would have been good competition against OPEC...but that's oil under the derric!

i guess i'm basically ok with offshore drilling but i get this sneaking suspicion that too many of its supporters have unrealistic expectations of what it will yield us. it probably wont be online for quite a number of years and the fact of the matter is that the environmental devastation being wrought by fossil fuels is getting harder and harder to deny. i mean look what's going on in the midwest now.

oil's not going to save us, and we need to move away from it. i only support offshore drilling because it seems to be the only way of getting the pesky issue out of the way so we can actually start fixing the problems we face, offshore drilling isnt going to do it. i think too many people think if we do offshore drilling we can hold onto our old SUV-and-McMansion lifestyles but that's over. there's no two ways about it. it's over.

i guess i'm basically ok with offshore drilling but i get this sneaking suspicion that too many of its supporters have unrealistic expectations of what it will yield us. it probably wont be online for quite a number of years and the fact of the matter is that the environmental devastation being wrought by fossil fuels is getting harder and harder to deny. i mean look what's going on in the midwest now.

oil's not going to save us, and we need to move away from it. i only support offshore drilling because it seems to be the only way of getting the pesky issue out of the way so we can actually start fixing the problems we face, offshore drilling isnt going to do it. i think too many people think if we do offshore drilling we can hold onto our old SUV-and-McMansion lifestyles but that's over. there's no two ways about it. it's over.


Already China is ahead of us as they have begun...we must start now..but our politicians areon vacation..we could write letters to them to tell them to start a program, not a discussion, they know what should be done for now.

i guess i'm basically ok with offshore drilling but i get this sneaking suspicion that too many of its supporters have unrealistic expectations of what it will yield us. it probably wont be online for quite a number of years and the fact of the matter is that the environmental devastation being wrought by fossil fuels is getting harder and harder to deny. i mean look what's going on in the midwest now.

oil's not going to save us, and we need to move away from it. i only support offshore drilling because it seems to be the only way of getting the pesky issue out of the way so we can actually start fixing the problems we face, offshore drilling isnt going to do it. i think too many people think if we do offshore drilling we can hold onto our old SUV-and-McMansion lifestyles but that's over. there's no two ways about it. it's over.


I don't even like that SUV and McMansion lifestyle to begin with. It's too damn phony! 8-P

Already China is ahead of us as they have begun...we must start now..but our politicians areon vacation..we could write letters to them to tell them to start a program, not a discussion, they know what should be done for now.

china's ahead of us in what? making sure we all choke? ;D i was watching jim cramer on CNBC and he was talking about how we should sell coal to china because they're in the market for it. (of course he failed to mention that china will burn that coal just as dirty as they please, since they have basically no environmental regs at all, and a life expectancy to match.)

see, where you see china and the US in competition, i see them as basically cooperating on an effort to get us all coughing and wheezing into early graves. dude, how much longer do you seriously think we can keep belching toxic fumes into the air? we're already in the 11th hour, all you have to do is look around to see that. the environmental thing isn't about spotted owls, it's about NOT DYING.  ::) we gonna have to start conserving, that's all there is to it. we're not gonna drill our way out of this one, and if it takes drilling and failing to make people see that, i guess that's the way it's gotta be. either we're smart and survive, or we're stupid and we die. right now the smart money's on stupid, i'm thinking. we'd rather have SUVs than breathe, evidently.

i guess i'm basically ok with offshore drilling but i get this sneaking suspicion that too many of its supporters have unrealistic expectations of what it will yield us. it probably wont be online for quite a number of years and the fact of the matter is that the environmental devastation being wrought by fossil fuels is getting harder and harder to deny. i mean look what's going on in the midwest now.

oil's not going to save us, and we need to move away from it. i only support offshore drilling because it seems to be the only way of getting the pesky issue out of the way so we can actually start fixing the problems we face, offshore drilling isnt going to do it. i think too many people think if we do offshore drilling we can hold onto our old SUV-and-McMansion lifestyles but that's over. there's no two ways about it. it's over.


I wish there was a way to bring back $1.50/gal. gas and at the same time develop more sustainable energy sources, but I'm afraid we can't have it both ways.  When oil became cheap and bountiful in the early '80s, we went into hardcore denial about the non-renewable nature of petrochemicals.  We forgot all about the solar panels and the diesel VW Rabbit that got 500 miles per tankful.  We let the car companies bring back the old boats of the sixties in a new form: The SUV, which was just trading width for height.  The public has the attention span of a brain-damaged puppy and we would repeat ourselves.

The problem is that even if you open up the offshore drilling sites, it's no guarantee anybody is going to hit a huge reserve. Hell, down in Brazil they got lucky and found 3 enormous reserves, whereas in the North Sea it can take a dozen to find much of anything.

Fact of the matter is this - Right now the price of gasoline is artificially inflated and will in time return to a level more fitting with our supply - demand economy. That is fact.

Fact of the matter is this - Oil is a finite resource and therefore instead of spending billions on finding a few more drops of it, logic dictates that spending billions developing other resources is a much more prudent way to go about things.

Electric Cars, Fuel Cells, Algae Oil... it's all there.

People talk about Electric cars having no future because our electricity comes from oil, hold on.. their called nuclear power plants, wind farms, hydro-electric plants and for the next 70-100 years, coal power stations. Fuel cells are the s**t!

Anyone see the footage of ANWAR...it's a 'dustbowl' and yet the 'environmentalists' are shouting it mustn't be disturbed! Hah!

* Couldn't remember which thread had someone worrying that if the US begins getting oil for themselves, the 'greedy' will still charge us $4+, as they get their $150 a barrel  ...don't think so....in Saudi Arabia they are paying something like 30 or 70 cents for their own fuel...

We would get our own cheap..then sell to Japan or wherever at high prices..yes, we can get more from Mexico but not as high as so far.So it sounds good for now as long as we stick to those figures.



 

End the oil tax breaks but increase drilling and build more refineries.


Of course, we need to drill for oil anywhere that we can.  However if that is all we do then we have not done enough.  My multi-point plan is as follows:

1.  Grant licenses for offshore drilling.  But the licenses must require the licensee to NOT shut down any producing wells that they already have in existence.  Additionally production quotas must be set for the new wells (ie, do not allow oil company to simply shut down said well because it would like to jack up oil prices).  Need to properly craft the associated regs, this is not an easy task but do it.

1a.  All offshore produced oil must be delivered into the United States for United States consumption.  Enforce this by requiring license holders to increase their crude oil shipments (and distillates) into the USA by at least the amount being pumped offshore.  Guarantees a net increase of domestic supply.  Corporate "shell holding companies" constructed to get around this requirement would be appropriately acounted for in the regs, so no loophole.

2.  Aggressive increases in automotive "CAFE" fuel economy standards.  I'm talking 40MPG by, say, 2015.  40MPG is firm, the 2015 I might take some counsel on faster/slower.  My car averages 37mpg highway and I once scored 41.  Tis a 4-door that holds 4 people very comfortably.  A 40 MPG cafe standard is doable and we already have the technology, with or without hybrids.

3.  CAFE standards established such that it becomes exceedingly expensive for Joe Six Pack to go out and get a 4-ton pick-me-up truck as a p*nis extender.  Only entities that are established businesses may purchase a truck over a certain size, or else you gotta pay a ridiculously high penalty tax.  (The proliferation of gas-guzzling "recreational" pickups and SUVs is a national disgrace).

4.  Aggressive approach to wind, solar, possibly coal gassigication/liquification, shale.

OK.. now many will like to dump on me about the more drilling.  Bottom line, we are where we are, and despite all other actions proposed, the problem is going to get worse and it takes considerable time to shift to alternative fuels, and for the average in-service auto fleet economy to improve significantly (lots of older cars out there).  So we need to get more oil in the medium term.  Otherwise we will choose between certain poverty and unemployment for millions of Americans or the risks of oil drilling.

If we do not get more energy into the economy... and pronto... we will be in a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge problem.  As it is, most of the airlines as we know them today are standing in line for bankruptcy within a year due to these fuel prices.

Note, we have offshore drilling going on today in the Gulf of Mexico, and there is no cataclysm happening.

Forgive this post if it seems combative, but I am angry.
I live in an area where selfish overconsumption and Mall Kulture have run amok.
A Stepford couple pulling up to  the market where Stepford Dad leaves Cadillac
Excalade idling while Stepford Mom goes in and gets a bottle of wine and a
bag Hot Dogs is status quo. The rest of the world got it decades ago.
Americans just cant seem to get it. You cant cure an insidious addiction by feeding it.
I almost wish the oil would just disappear and people would be forced to a more sane
lifestyle and infrastructures would be designed more efficiently. The Eisenhower highway
system and making the Auto the deity we bow down to obviously isnt working, 2008.
I try to do my part by riding my bike to work (20 miles a day) and only using my car
when I have business in another state.

Forgive this post if it seems combative, but I am angry.
I live in an area where selfish overconsumption and Mall Kulture have run amok.
A Stepford couple pulling up to  the market where Stepford Dad leaves Cadillac
Excalade idling while Stepford Mom goes in and gets a bottle of wine and a
bag Hot Dogs is status quo. The rest of the world got it decades ago.
Americans just cant seem to get it. You cant cure an insidious addiction by feeding it.
I almost wish the oil would just disappear and people would be forced to a more sane
lifestyle and infrastructures would be designed more efficiently. The Eisenhower highway
system and making the Auto the deity we bow down to obviously isnt working, 2008.
I try to do my part by riding my bike to work (20 miles a day) and only using my car
when I have business in another state.



I hear you, ChEcKeReD DeMoN ....

The US Government has been negligent over the past 34 years when it comes to fuel economy standards.  But it is not just the "Stepford Couples".

You see plenty of young kids, who live in apartments, work at the office or factory job, and have zero legitimate need for a pickup truck, and what's out in the lot?  A Ford F-350 Dualie with a big honking engine.

And you see couples who have one child (and only intend to have one child) cruising around in minivans (not nearly fuel efficient vehicles) claiming "well we could not find a vehicle with enuf space for us".  Gimmeabreak.

Finally, what's with the sudden "need" for SUVs and 4-wheel-drives and "crossovers"?  Did the American terrain all of a sudden experience major upheavals where people need to drive high-ground-clearance cars?  Again, this is simply waste that has been perpetrated by both the automakers and the general public, who would drive an SUV called the "Fecal Streak SVX" as long as it had 16 cup holders and a smattering of chrome.

Now, I do not want to outlaw pickups.  I just want to restrict access to high-fuel-consumption vehicles to entities that NEED these vehicles to conduct their established businesses.  Or families that are large (read: 5 or more people domiciled in same house, something like that).  Wheelchair-bound people obviously would need a bigger car to handle their gear. 

Back in WW2 we had gas rationing, I do not think that we need to go quite that far, but regulating large vehicles out of wasteful service is definitely doable.

Forgive this post if it seems combative, but I am angry.
I live in an area where selfish overconsumption and Mall Kulture have run amok.
A Stepford couple pulling up to  the market where Stepford Dad leaves Cadillac
Excalade idling while Stepford Mom goes in and gets a bottle of wine and a
bag Hot Dogs is status quo. The rest of the world got it decades ago.
Americans just cant seem to get it. You cant cure an insidious addiction by feeding it.
I almost wish the oil would just disappear and people would be forced to a more sane
lifestyle and infrastructures would be designed more efficiently. The Eisenhower highway
system and making the Auto the deity we bow down to obviously isnt working, 2008.
I try to do my part by riding my bike to work (20 miles a day) and only using my car
when I have business in another state.

20 miles of bike riding a day! wow, you must be fit.

i got me one of these, as i keep going on about.

http://www.raymermotorsports.com/yamaha/scooters/vino_classic/Images/vino125-black.jpg

it's not just crazy fuel efficient, it's fun. i have a bike too, and used it to get to the local mass transit before i got the scooter, but i think scooters and trains are gonna be the future in this country. i agree with you that i wish americans would get it faster and give up on big vehicles and long commutes, but gas prices still haven't been hyperinflated for very long and like it or not, cars are an intrinsic part of the american identity -- eisenhower and the IHS really changed this country's psyche and it's gonna take a long time to undo it.

20 miles of bike riding a day! wow, you must be fit.

i got me one of these, as i keep going on about.




Hey Tia !!
That Vino is Da BoMb !!

When I lived in Pennsylvania, I had a Stella

http://www.westpowersolutions.com/images/stella-silver.jpg

But I sold it because we had to move and are moving again, too.
As soon as we get settled permanently Im going to look at those new Zuma 125's for my
Gas powered vehicle.  Scooters Rock !!!!

I love the bicycle !  It gets me 'ready' for the morning. I feel good when I
arrive at work and gives me time to mentally prepare for the day. Im an old
man so if I can do it anybody can. It really doesnt take that much effort.
Everyone where I work arrives at work angry from something that happened
to them on the way in or gas prices. I think if they would try any alternative
transp at least their mental health would benefit. You cant start or finish your
day angry cuz over time it affects you negatively.
:)

Of course, we need to drill for oil anywhere that we can.  However if that is all we do then we have not done enough.  My multi-point plan is as follows:

1.  Grant licenses for offshore drilling.  But the licenses must require the licensee to NOT shut down any producing wells that they already have in existence.  Additionally production quotas must be set for the new wells (ie, do not allow oil company to simply shut down said well because it would like to jack up oil prices).  Need to properly craft the associated regs, this is not an easy task but do it.

1a.  All offshore produced oil must be delivered into the United States for United States consumption.  Enforce this by requiring license holders to increase their crude oil shipments (and distillates) into the USA by at least the amount being pumped offshore.  Guarantees a net increase of domestic supply.  Corporate "shell holding companies" constructed to get around this requirement would be appropriately acounted for in the regs, so no loophole.

2.  Aggressive increases in automotive "CAFE" fuel economy standards.  I'm talking 40MPG by, say, 2015.  40MPG is firm, the 2015 I might take some counsel on faster/slower.  My car averages 37mpg highway and I once scored 41.  Tis a 4-door that holds 4 people very comfortably.  A 40 MPG cafe standard is doable and we already have the technology, with or without hybrids.

3.  CAFE standards established such that it becomes exceedingly expensive for Joe Six Pack to go out and get a 4-ton pick-me-up truck as a p*nis extender.  Only entities that are established businesses may purchase a truck over a certain size, or else you gotta pay a ridiculously high penalty tax.  (The proliferation of gas-guzzling "recreational" pickups and SUVs is a national disgrace).

4.  Aggressive approach to wind, solar, possibly coal gassigication/liquification, shale.

OK.. now many will like to dump on me about the more drilling.  Bottom line, we are where we are, and despite all other actions proposed, the problem is going to get worse and it takes considerable time to shift to alternative fuels, and for the average in-service auto fleet economy to improve significantly (lots of older cars out there).  So we need to get more oil in the medium term.  Otherwise we will choose between certain poverty and unemployment for millions of Americans or the risks of oil drilling.

If we do not get more energy into the economy... and pronto... we will be in a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge problem.  As it is, most of the airlines as we know them today are standing in line for bankruptcy within a year due to these fuel prices.

Note, we have offshore drilling going on today in the Gulf of Mexico, and there is no cataclysm happening.



Glad someone can put it in words..only for #4 I see nothing that can harness enough wind or solar at this time.

The most affordable and useable energy efficient system is something called 'NU-Clear' energy. It is used by Europe and Japan and can be put into use within 10 years.
And Al Gore can even lay claim to it if he wants.

Gald someone can put it in words..only for #4 I see nothing that can harness enough wind or solar at this time.

The most affordable and useable energy efficient system is something called 'NU-Clear' energy. It is used by Europe and Japan and can be put into use within 10 years.
And Al Gore can even lay claim to it if he wants.



Yep, NU-Cu-Lar energy is also the cat's meow.  Since one of my largest customers is in the NU-CU-LAR biz, I'm all for it.  ;)

Yep, NU-Cu-Lar energy is also the cat's meow.  Since one of my largest customers is in the NU-CU-LAR biz, I'm all for it.   ;)

Regardless of the short-term and long-term hazards, nukes are just too damn expensive.  If you don't like big government programs, nue-cue-leear energy is not for you!

From what I heard now, Bush is STILL pushing the Offshore Drilling plan...as well as cut emissions by 2050.

Regardless of the short-term and long-term hazards, nukes are just too damn expensive.  If you don't like big government programs, nue-cue-leear energy is not for you!


However, they also release 0 greenhouse gasses.  That's right, none.

If people really care about "Greenhouse Gasses", you would think they would be all over themselved to eliminate all the oil, natural gas, and coal powered plants in favor of these.  And they produce so much more power per facility, they actually cost about the same when compared by wattage produced.


4.  Aggressive approach to wind, solar, possibly coal gassigication/liquification, shale.


Oil shale was once a much considered program, but it has largely been dead since the 1980's.  This is because of two things.

First, the "Oil Subsidy" that was used to found the test projects in places like Rifle Colorado was cancelled in 1986.  At that time gas sold for around $0.85 a gallon, and without those subsidies, it was impossible to make the research project break even.  I remember my mom making many trips there in the late 1970's, and how dissapointed her company was when the project was cancelled in the 1980's.

Also, over 70% of the oil shale in the US is on Government land, and strip mining in these areas has been forbidden.  Most experts think it will be at least 10 years until laws are rewritten to allow it to be a feesable alternative to conventional petrolium.

Regardless of the short-term and long-term hazards, nukes are just too damn expensive.  If you don't like big government programs, nue-cue-leear energy is not for you!


Fine.  Don't build big safe nukes for power generation.  Instead of using the heat to boil water and spin a turbine, use nukes as glorified steam generators, and use the steam to cut the oil out of the shale oil in the States, or melt the oil out of the tar sands in Canuckistan.

You could cut the safety regs considerably.  Any oil company willing to use a nuclear reactor as an underground heat source does so at the risk of contaminating their own oil field.  They'll be every bit as incentivized to build a safe reactor as someone building reactors for power generation under the umbrella of the federal "if it blows up, we've got your back insurance-wise".

Personally, I'd like to see both.  Cut the bloody red tape, tell the luddite wing of the tree-hugging community to suck it, and build the fleet of power-generating nuclear reactors that will supply enough energy to the grid to make electric vehicles a reality. Five years from now (if we skip the environmental assessments and ignore the howls of agony from the likes of the Sierra Club), we could have enough electrical generating capacity to tell the Saudis to go pound sand.  Economies of scale could then result in cheap means of carving oil out of the shale and the tar sands, which would (when coupled with a transition towards electric vehicles) give us enough of a petroleum surplus that our chemical/plastics industries would have tons of cheap oil available. 

For style points, nuclear generators produce electricity without any CO2 emissions, and a coal plant dumps an order of magnitude more radioactive crap into the atmosphere (radon gas during the mining of the coal, traces of uranium and thorium contaminants in the rock from which the coal is mined) than any nuclear plant. 

As long as I'm half-drunk and dreaming in technicolor, I'd throw a few billion into some standard fission plants, just to put the fear of God^H^H^HThe Market into the Saudis, but I'd also toss a few billion in R&D grants to folks working on the boron fusion cycle, maybe even long-shot technologies like nanocatalyzREDACTED.

Look.  Suppose you had a great source of energy; way cooler than plain old nuclear fission.  Problem is, just like nuclear fission, it could also make a pretty terrible weapon.  (After all, the more efficient the power source, the bigger the BOOM when you point it at something you don't like.)  Do you let the cat out of the bag - at the risk of losing a city in a few years?  Or do you twist the ratchet, wait for the entire world to clamp down on carbon emissions and cripple their economies - and then release the secret to the world... and hope that nobody naughty figures out the secret? 

Or maybe you just shrug your shoulders, and keep it under wraps until you think the world's ready for it.  Who is John Galt?

In lieu of John Galt, plain-old nuclear fission is probably the best bet we've got.  And at $145/barrel ($150 next week? $200+ if the Israelis bomb Iran and they retaliate by blocking down the Straits of Hormuz with the burning carcasses of oil tankers), and a trillion dollars for a failed invasion of Iraq, nuclear's getting cheaper every day.