Attempt to rekindle Domestic Oil Drilling...

[evince]

These unused areas could produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day


when will you realize this industry doesnt give a rats ass about this country and is just using this oppertunity to get more under their control for the decades to come?

Im so tired of people buying their bullshit.

 

[Damocles]

First of all, you need to read and write more carefully. I'm tired of getting into pissing matches with you after you write something that is completely off base (France has "removed their reliance on foreign sources of energy") and then misrepresenting what I wrote (I wrote that France is "heavily reliance (sic) on foreign sources" whereas you say "As for France being entirely reliant on foreign sources of energy"). Just slow down. France has not removed their reliance on foreign sources of energy and I never claimed they were entirely reliant on foreign sources of energy.

As for the whole dependency thing, it's really not that big of a deal, particularly if we reduce consumption. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars in pursuit of domestic oil supplies to prevent us from being held hostage by our foreign suppliers, which is pure folly, is just plain stupid. The money is better spent elsewhere, like developing alternatives.

I agree. I should have said "less reliant" rather than suggest they were not reliant on foreign sources.

However, suggesting that we cannot do both is just short-sighted. And reliance on foreign sources is important. Without that reliance we would not be in the ME currently mucking around with people's lives. To pretend that our national security would not change for the better if we ended our addiction to the foreign oil teat is just short-sighted inanity based on partisanship.

The D's want more money spent on research, so we can't let companies build the bridge to the future!

Again, you are short-sighted, and minimalizing the very real effects that our dependence has on our national security. We can create something exciting, or we can just be partisan. I'll start trumpeting no research cash to spend on alternative energy and that we should drill in DH's yard because we need that, you just suggest again that there is no importance to our reliance on foreign sources of oil. We can ignore the very real effects of our dependence all the while and we'll all be smilie happy and dependent idiots together.

 

[uscitizen]

Uh, I'm fairly certain that France is pretty heavily reliance on foreign sources of energy. Sure, they have a shitload of nuclear, but that's not the whole ball of wax.

The whole "foreign sources" argument is kind of silly anyway. It doesn't always make a whole lot of sense to do yourself what others can do more cheaply and efficiently.

Yeah why we have stagnant wages and have offshored so much of our manufacturing. Why the result of globalization on the USA is inevitable.

 

[uscitizen]

These unused areas could produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day


when will you realize this industry doesnt give a rats ass about this country and is just using this oppertunity to get more under their control for the decades to come?

Im so tired of people buying their bullshit.

The question is will they actually drill it ? Or just secure leases to sell it to us later at a higher price. Ie get a further lock on the market ?

 

[Damocles]

These unused areas could produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day


when will you realize this industry doesnt give a rats ass about this country and is just using this oppertunity to get more under their control for the decades to come?

Im so tired of people buying their bullshit.

Again, what part of "I agree they should drill or get off the pot so to speak" meant that there is nothing to concern us there?

However, creating the national drive to energy independence would benefit us greatly, including more domestic sourcing.

If there is a national drive for this, don't you think some laws would change and they'd remove access to idiots who are not going to help?

 

[uscitizen]

Westinghouse Corp's next generation of nuclear plants are VERY well designed.

Design and implementation are not the same thing.

but I agree in principle, we should be able to make good safe nuke plants now.

 

[Bonestorm]

I agree. I should have said "less reliant" rather than suggest they were not reliant on foreign sources.

However, suggesting that we cannot do both is just short-sighted. And reliance on foreign sources is important. Without that reliance we would not be in the ME currently mucking around with people's lives. To pretend that our national security would not change for the better if we ended our addiction to the foreign oil teat is just short-sighted inanity based on partisanship.

The D's want more money spent on research, so we can't let companies build the bridge to the future!

Again, you are short-sighted, and minimalizing the very real effects that our dependence has on our national security. We can create something exciting, or we can just be partisan. I'll start trumpeting no research cash to spend on alternative energy and that we should drill in DH's yard because we need that, you just suggest again that there is no importance to our reliance on foreign sources of oil. We can ignore the very real effects of our dependence all the while and we'll all be smilie happy and dependent idiots together.

The problem is our reliance on oil. Where it comes from is completely irrelevant. Just repeating the claim that I am short-sighted doesn't prove your case that foreign sources of oil are a serious national security issue. Further, it may be true that we are mucking around in the ME becasue of oil, but that is only because our leadership wants to muck around in the ME. China, Russia, France, Germany, India and a whole host of other countries do little to no mucking around in the Middle East yet they still can buy plenty of Middle Eastern oil.

The bottom line is that attempting to increase the supply of oil will do nothing to work to eliminate the real problem, our dependence on oil generally. Rather, it will serve to do nothing more than maintain the status quo for a longer time period.

And I'm not being partisan. It just reality.

Oh, and there's no oil in my backyard. I've checked already.

 

[evince]

Again, what part of "I agree they should drill or get off the pot so to speak" meant that there is nothing to concern us there?

However, creating the national drive to energy independence would benefit us greatly, including more domestic sourcing.

If there is a national drive for this, don't you think some laws would change and they'd remove access to idiots who are not going to help?

Kathy seems to be buying it.

 

[Damocles]

The problem is our reliance on oil. Where it comes from is completely irrelevant. Just repeating the claim that I am short-sighted doesn't prove your case that foreign sources of oil are a serious national security issue. Further, it may be true that we are mucking around in the ME becasue of oil, but that is only because our leadership wants to muck around in the ME. China, Russia, France, Germany, India and a whole host of other countries do little to no mucking around in the Middle East yet they still can buy plenty of Middle Eastern oil.

The bottom line is that attempting to increase the supply of oil will do nothing to work to eliminate the real problem, our dependence on oil generally. Rather, it will serve to do nothing more than maintain the status quo for a longer time period.

And I'm not being partisan. It just reality.

Oh, and there's no oil in my backyard. I've checked already.

Where it comes from is not irrelevant. That is inane to a level of extremity.

The more we reduce reliance of foreign sources the less likely another Iraq becomes. Doing all of them at once and creating an urgency that people can agree with is wise. To rely solely on an anti-carbon stance is partisanship and inane.

 

[Damocles]

The problem is our reliance on oil. Where it comes from is completely irrelevant. Just repeating the claim that I am short-sighted doesn't prove your case that foreign sources of oil are a serious national security issue. Further, it may be true that we are mucking around in the ME becasue of oil, but that is only because our leadership wants to muck around in the ME. China, Russia, France, Germany, India and a whole host of other countries do little to no mucking around in the Middle East yet they still can buy plenty of Middle Eastern oil.

The bottom line is that attempting to increase the supply of oil will do nothing to work to eliminate the real problem, our dependence on oil generally. Rather, it will serve to do nothing more than maintain the status quo for a longer time period.

And I'm not being partisan. It just reality.

Oh, and there's no oil in my backyard. I've checked already.

How deep did you drill? I'm sure I can find something with more checking.

 

[Bonestorm]

Where it comes from is not irrelevant. That is inane to a level of extremity.

The more we reduce reliance of foreign sources the less likely another Iraq becomes.

This is stupid, unless you actually believe that Iraq was a war that was necessary to secure the oil resources of Iraq and to ensure that we could purchase a commodity that they badly needed to sell. And if you believe that, you are indeed stupid. You don't need to invade countries to get them to sell you stuff that you need to buy and they need to sell.

Reliance on oil is the problem, not specifically reliance on foreign oil.

 

[Damocles]

This is stupid, unless you actually believe that Iraq was a war that was necessary to secure the oil resources of Iraq and to ensure that we could purchase a commodity that they badly needed to sell. And if you believe that, you are indeed stupid. You don't need to invade countries to get them to sell you stuff that you need to buy and they need to sell.

Reliance on oil is the problem, not specifically reliance on foreign oil.

This is stupid. Seriously so.

Do you think we'd be in Iraq if oil was not a concern, or even if it was a smaller concern? Do you think we'd even mess around in the ME if such concerns were not very real?

If you don't think the reliance on oil sources effects our national security it is because you are purposefully ignorant, there is no other explanation.

 

[Bonestorm]

This is stupid. Seriously so.

Do you think we'd be in Iraq if oil was not a concern, or even if it was a smaller concern? Do you think we'd even mess around in the ME if such concerns were not very real?

If you don't think the reliance on oil sources effects our national security it is because you are purposefully ignorant, there is no other explanation.

Do you think we would be in Iraq if anyone other than Bush were president back in the heady days of 2002-03?

Reliance on foreign oil certainly impacts our foreign policy, but that doesn't mean that we have to go to war just to ensure that we can buy oil.

 

[Damocles]

Do you think we would be in Iraq if anyone other than Bush were president back in the heady days of 2002-03?

Reliance on foreign oil certainly impacts our foreign policy, but that doesn't mean that we have to go to war just to ensure that we can buy oil.

However, without it even Bush wouldn't have gone there.

The more we reduce foreign reliance on oil will have a positive impact on our national security.

Do you think 9/11 would have happened if we didn't have US forces in the ME because we weren't attempting to ensure supply? Do you honestly believe that our reliance on foreign sources of oil does not impact our national security in any way?

If you do, then I can't believe you are intelligent enough to type, I don't believe you are that stupid so it must be for a different reason that you minimalize the very real effect this has on national security. Ignoring the reality doesn't change it, it just makes you look silly.

 

[uscitizen]

Do you think we would be in Iraq if anyone other than Bush were president back in the heady days of 2002-03?

Reliance on foreign oil certainly impacts our foreign policy, but that doesn't mean that we have to go to war just to ensure that we can buy oil.

Yep, but Bushco and his sheep saw it as the only option.
Of course it did do well for oil co profits and the MIC.

 

[Damocles]

Yep, but Bushco and his sheep saw it as the only option.
Of course it did do well for oil co profits and the MIC.

The only-option thing is definitively reliant on the need for oil. Without that reliance we wouldn't have been messing there for so long as to cause the current problems. With no cost benefit, Iraq likely wouldn't even have gone into Kuwait. Instead we just gotta keep buying that stuff, feed the beast.

 

[uscitizen]

The only-option thing is definitively reliant on the need for oil. Without that reliance we wouldn't have been messing there for so long as to cause the current problems.

what about freedom, yellow cake, mushroom clouds, etc

You are now accepting it was and is for oil and still say we should stay in Iraq ?

 

[Damocles]

what about freedom, yellow cake, mushroom clouds, etc

You are now accepting it was and is for oil and still say we should stay in Iraq ?

I am stating that the cause for the attack on 9/11 to begin with was because of this reliance. What came after is all after-effects of our stupid insistence on foreign reliance.

Of course, not reading what I actually say is your forte.

We wouldn't have been worrying about attack from that sector at all if we had removed ourselves from the reliance on foreign sources of oil. All of the Bush arguments would have been moot.

 

[uscitizen]

I am stating that the cause for the attack on 9/11 to begin with was because of this reliance. What came after is all after-effects of our stupid insistence on foreign reliance.

Of course, not reading what I actually say is your forte.

We wouldn't have been worrying about attack from that sector at all if we had removed ourselves from the reliance on foreign sources of oil. All of the Bush arguments would have been moot.

You refuse to answer the question then ?

Yes this was a diversion, but an important one.

that was kinda like a Dixie dance there Damo.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Currently, energy companies are not producing oil or gas on 68 million acres of federal land already under their control. Of the 47.5 million acres of federal land leased onshore by oil and gas companies, only about 13 million acres are actually producing oil and gas. Offshore, only 10.5 million of the 44 million leased acres are currently producing oil or gas. These unused areas could produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day, nearly double current domestic oil production. That would nearly double total U.S. oil production, and is more than six times the estimated potential peak production from ANWR.

My God, the left has really latched on to this idiotic talking point.

1) Not every acre of land under lease is going to have oil to produce.

2) Off shore drilling (especially deep sea) has only been economically viable to drill for the past few years..... and they are tapping them as fast as they can given the record oil prices.

3) During the 1990's it was not economically viable (due to the significantly undervalued oil prices) to open new sites ANYWHERE. (Oil was about $10 barrell in 1999)

4) That said, in cases where the oil compnaies sit on leases when it IS economically viable to drill... THEN those leases should be revoked. But that it the exception, not the rule.