Skip to content

Drill – by Sarah Palin

October 16, 2009

sarah_palinOctober 16, 2009 4:00 AM


Petroleum is a major part of America’s energy picture. Shall we get it here or abroad?

By Sarah Palin

Given that we’re spending billions of stimulus dollars to rebuild our highways, it makes sense to think about what we’ll be driving on them. For years to come, most of what we drive will be powered, at least in part, by diesel fuel or gasoline. To fuel that driving, we need access to oil. The less use we make of our own reserves, the more we will have to import, which leads to a number of harmful consequences. That means we need to drill here and drill now.

We rely on petroleum for much more than just powering our vehicles: It is essential in everything from jet fuel to petrochemicals, plastics to fertilizers, pesticides to pharmaceuticals. Ac cord ing to the Energy Information Ad min is tra tion, our total domestic petroleum consumption last year was 19.5 million barrels per day (bpd). Motor gasoline and diesel fuel accounted for less than 13 million bpd of that. Meanwhile, we produced only 4.95 million bpd of domestic crude. In other words, even if we ran all our vehicles on something else (which won’t happen anytime soon), we would still have to depend on imported oil. And we’ll continue that dependence until we develop our own oil resources to their fullest extent.

via Drill by Sarah Palin on National Review Online.

  1. October 17, 2009 5:39 AM

    Guess WE disagree would be the understatement but the world is full of opinions and ideas and I understand yours, now have U looked at the Natural Gas side like PickensPlan and the Wind side as per GE making WIND TURBINES ???

    Power the trucks with Natural Gas and get refueling stations w/ Nat Gas would be the ONLY way U get elected in 2012 (((and ENDORSE WIND POWER))…….just a suggestion

    Drill Baby Drill translates to POLLUTE BABY POLLUTE to me and the green movement…….good luck, go GREEN and U might have a slim chance

  2. Jason S permalink
    October 17, 2009 6:17 AM

    hey windy – why is oil shipped in tankers across an ocean more “green” than oil that we have here? last time i checked, we are still an oil-based economy that will depend on oil until your green movement comes up with something better than windmills, which reached their full potential hundreds of years ago. Agreed on natural gas, but using our own oil until we find better alternatives only makes sense. so far the only thing the green movement has given us is toilets that you have to flush 3 times and use twice as much water to do the same job. so i say drill, but keep looking for cleaner, better ways that will not strangle our economy in the meantime. you say go green, I say go smart and practical and use common sense. how about nuclear power?

  3. carterthewriter permalink
    October 17, 2009 6:19 AM

    No matter how you deal with it, the results of combustion leads to the emmission of harmful pollutants and the very nature of sustaining life releases harmful emmissions which nature finds a use for to sustain other life forms.

    Shall we sue every dentist who filled your teeth with lead and mercury?

    The argument is not about the effects, but more about who stands to profit from changing our way of life.

  4. DEO permalink
    October 17, 2009 7:33 AM

    Palin represents the Dark Ages…just regurgitated BS.
    Maybe we should ask Fabio what HE thinks????

    Sarah Palin/Tonya Harding 2012!

  5. juanita v permalink
    October 17, 2009 9:32 AM

    Agree w/Sarah Palin and with your good rebuttal point(s) Jason S.

  6. geoff permalink
    October 18, 2009 10:41 AM

    Last time I bothered to really look hard at the issue, my conclusions were that liberals were just as dependent on petroleum as were conservatives. I’ll begin to believe the “green” plank when I see them giving up their iPhones and other such high-tech modern “necessities” – something that incurs petroleum consumption as much as anything else (consider secondary and tertiary consumption sources as well as what might have been consumed directly for production and distribution of iPhones).

    Meanwhile, the reality is our daily life and economy depend on oil. Alternatives would be great but they are years off. Nuclear power would help immensely but also would be years off. So, we need oil. Face it. That being the case, I find it hugely hypocritical for liberals to prevent domestic oil production… “hey, you other oil exporters, it’s ok for you to pollute and scar your environment, but we don’t want to see that happen over here…” It’s a disgustingly egotistical attitude and in the end it’s going to bring us all down.

    Palin’s right.

  7. Raymond in DC permalink
    October 18, 2009 10:50 AM

    Despite our own prohibition of drilling off our own coasts, nothing stops Cuba from drilling in the adjoining water. And indeed, such drilling is now underway, likely siphoning off oil resources that extend into *our* territorial waters. Someone please tell me how that makes economic, environmental, or political sense.

    carterthewriter writes, “No matter how you deal with it, the results of combustion leads to the emmission of harmful pollutants…” Thanks for at least noting the plural – that there are multiple potential pollutants, of which CO-2 is only one of arguable significance. (Other typical combustion-related pollutants are far lower today then they were a generation ago.)

    I agree with Palin that vehicles will rely on hyrocarbon-based fuels for years to come. The notion that we should avoid exploiting oil and gas resources (as if we won’t continue to import) while we focus strictly on “green” or “renewable” resources (currently supplying hardly 2% of US energy needs) is simply foolish. We *could* be doing more to promote conservation (the cheapest energy source), regulatory reform in the electricity supply sector, research into potential “game changing” technologies, and so on. But abominations like Waxman-Markey (cap-and-tax) and the even more appalling Copehhagen treaty will do far more harm than most imagine.

  8. owyheewine permalink
    October 19, 2009 6:27 AM

    So many totally ignorant responses continue to baffle me. Our society is and will be based on hydrocarbons. I don’t like government mandates, but maybe compulsary science courses featuring thermodynamics may be needed. I would like to see a proposal for alternate energy with a real energy balance. It won’t happen because the numbers don’t work.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: