Dems Kill Chances for Energy Independence?

Darla said:
ANWR has very little retrievable oil though, and ten years from now when anything we drilled could finally hit the market, it won’t affect our energy crisis. As you know, but I’ll be happy to restate this inconvenient fact as often as you’d like – Floridians do not want drilling off their coast, and that is why Jeb BUSH, told GEORGE BUSH, NO, and George BUSH, said, no problemo and that was the end of that.

Remind me again what party the BUSHS are in?
Click to expand...
Why must you always take such a tone? I prefer having conversations instead of insult wars.

Regardless of that, the reality is we have billions of barrels that we will purchase from an outside source because it is blocked against the will of those you pretend you are "protecting".

That is just one of the sources. The only one the left seems to want to talk about because they want to speak of oil limitations without regard to the natural gas and other sources of energy that could be tapped.

There is CO Shale, and some offshore sites that could be used as a temp measure to lower need for foreign sources as we aim towards total freedom from foreign dependence. Yet we continue to dip into the fungible foreign market for no reason other than a stubbornness.
 
Damocles said:
Regardless of that, the reality is we have billions of barrels that we will purchase from an outside source because it is blocked against the will of those you pretend you are "protecting".

That is just one of the sources. The only one the left seems to want to talk about because they want to speak of oil limitations without regard to the natural gas and other sources of energy that could be tapped.

There is CO Shale, and some offshore sites that could be used as a temp measure to lower need for foreign sources. Yet we continue to dip into the fungible foreign market for no reason other than a stubbornness.
Click to expand...

OK, Mister Dense, the point is that Desh is right, this is a not in my backyard issue, with the exception of ANWR, and that is the one that YOU want to talk about, and the only one. You don’t want to talk about Florida, because Repukes killed that, and they will continue to do so because their constituents don’t want it. Desh is correct. That is going to be an ongoing problem no matter how we go forward on the energy crisis. For instance, no one wants windmill farms in their backyards either. It’s a fact about America, and you can keep going on about “the liberals” because it serves your political purposes, but that just makes you political, and therefore, part of the problem, not part of the solution. Sorry.
 
Darla said:
OK, Mister Dense, the point is that Desh is right, this is a not in my backyard issue, with the exception of ANWR, and that is the one that YOU want to talk about, and the only one. You don’t want to talk about Florida, because Repukes killed that, and they will continue to do so because their constituents don’t want it. Desh is correct. That is going to be an ongoing problem no matter how we go forward on the energy crisis. For instance, no one wants windmill farms in their backyards either. It’s a fact about America, and you can keep going on about “the liberals” because it serves your political purposes, but that just makes you political, and therefore, part of the problem, not part of the solution. Sorry.
Click to expand...
It isn't a NIMBY issue in that case. Which is my point "Ms. Dense"...

You are being deliberately obtuse now.

In some cases it could be a NIMBY issue, but in that one it isn't. That is where "protection" actually works against the people in the area.

As for the other instances where it is a NIMBY issue. IMO, it is far more important to get off the foreign oil teat. We need to make it a priority.
 
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0403-26.htm

According to the most optimistic estimates, ANWR holds 10 billion barrels of oil. It is unclear, however, how much of it can be extracted at reasonable cost and without causing excessive environmental damage. At best, ANWR would pump out only about 1 million barrels per day in 2015, when all of the necessary pipelines are in place. That may seem a lot, but in fact it represents only 4% of anticipated U.S. petroleum consumption and 6% of all imports.

If long-term U.S. dependence on foreign oil was trending downward, an additional 6% reduction might make a dent in our reliance on foreign oil. But the opposite is true: According to the latest Department of Energy projections, U.S. reliance on imported petroleum will rise from 58% in 2010 to 65% in 2020 and 68% in 2025, and keep climbing after that. If the projections are accurate, the tiny fraction of U.S. imports potentially accounted for by ANWR would only grow smaller with each passing year.
 
ib1yysguy said:
... and it would lower the price per barrel by about $1.50/100+

All this talk about opening up reserves is just an excuse by Republicans to take advantage of people's present unhappiness with gas prices to exploit national preserves for oil companies' gain. It will make almost no difference to you at the pump.
Click to expand...

That is a complete load of crap. We have untapped oil in the neighborhood of 120 billion barrels. That alone is enough to supply the US with all its oil needs for over 7 years. That kind of supply increase would dramatically lower oil prices.

Obviously it would take time to get it on line, so every delay just means we suffer higher oil prices for that much longer. The complete stupidity of the "well, more oil won't effect prices much, so lets allow the rest of the world to keep drilling oil and we will just keep giving them our money to do so" argument is self-evident.

If we do not drill 50-200 miles off our coast... the Chinese and others will. But I guess you are all for outsourcing the jobs and the money.... because we all know the Chinese drillers are held to much higher standards than US companies.
 
Liberals killed the outer continental shelf drilling to Dhulatard, you ougth to read more than the sales on shoes.
 
IT IS A NATIONAL RESERVE!

That means we all get a hand in deciding if it gets drilled.

Go take a national vote and see how it turns out?
 
klaatu said:
Payback ? You dont play payback with the American Economy at stake. Its ridiculous and its going to be red meat for the Pubs this coming election..it will... mark my words.
Click to expand...

I agree with him. It most likely is payback for the alt energy bill. The stupidity of both parties never ceases to amaze me. Yes, the Dems will take a hit, but not as bad as the Reps hit from denying alt energy subsidies. Because the vast majority is on board with expanding alt energy, whereas drilling for more oil and nat gas tends to freak out the retards that think if we don't drill it means no one will.
 
exactly deshtard, thank you for saying no.
But then do show yourself totally economically retarded when you cry about a high price and totally restrict supply. Duhh!!!!
 
Topspin said:
Dems Kill Chances for Energy Independence?
Posted By:Tom Brennan
Topics:Politics & Government * Natural Gas * Stock Picks * Stock Market
Sectors:Oil and Gas
Companies:Devon Energy Corp * Chesapeake Energy Corp * FMC Technologies, Inc. * Dow Chemical Co * Schlumberger Ltd * Transocean Inc * Anadarko Petroleum Corp * Apache Corp * National Oilwell Varco Inc
A congressional subcommittee struck down an important bill, which could have opened up reserves worth billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, on Wednesday, Cramer said.

The measure would allow drilling between 50 miles and 200 miles off the U.S. coastline. Estimates for the reserves there were as high as 8.5 billion barrels of oil and 29 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, in addition to potential undiscovered resources of 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of gas.




Needless to say, Cramer’s a bit perplexed. Especially since increased supply is the only way to bring oil prices down from almost $137 a barrel. American consumers need that. So do American businesses. .......
Click to expand...

I'm calling bull$hit.

Every expert I've heard talk about this current $hit we're in says that the spike in oil is based on speculation and that the fundamentals aren't there to back it up which means this statement is full o $hit.
 
Desh said:
heres the deal guys.

The people who live in those areas that would be effected by the drilling dotn want it there.


One party is protecting the peoples interests and another is protecting the corporations interests.

I know which is which do you?
Click to expand...

Bullshit. The people in AK WANT to drill ANWAR. It means jobs to them. The population up there is not dense. The space needed to do the drilling is estimated to take up the same amount of space as LAX.

As for this bill... you are talking 50-200 miles off shore. Just who in the hell is that going to effect? Mermaids?
 
your a dumbass that's what i'm calling.
You work in finance and you don't understand supply and demand.
Read something other than move on. org
 
Desh said:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0403-26.htm

According to the most optimistic estimates, ANWR holds 10 billion barrels of oil. It is unclear, however, how much of it can be extracted at reasonable cost and without causing excessive environmental damage. At best, ANWR would pump out only about 1 million barrels per day in 2015, when all of the necessary pipelines are in place. That may seem a lot, but in fact it represents only 4% of anticipated U.S. petroleum consumption and 6% of all imports.

If long-term U.S. dependence on foreign oil was trending downward, an additional 6% reduction might make a dent in our reliance on foreign oil. But the opposite is true: According to the latest Department of Energy projections, U.S. reliance on imported petroleum will rise from 58% in 2010 to 65% in 2020 and 68% in 2025, and keep climbing after that. If the projections are accurate, the tiny fraction of U.S. imports potentially accounted for by ANWR would only grow smaller with each passing year.
Click to expand...
Every source should be used and we should make it a priority to get off the foreign oil teat. This is only one area, along with a national program like a more open "Manhattan Project" to create and manufacture the replacement source for carbon-based energy. There is no logical reason to maintain reliance on foreign sources by simply refusing to use any source we have to our own detriment.
 
Actually ..when you think about it... 50 to 200 miles off shore is not going to effect anyones "view" .. and I think the Ocean Brats in florida were wrong as well. Just as the North East Liberals were wrong for blocking WindMill Farms.
The fact remains... liberals are responsible for blocking drilling, refinery building and even green methods like Windmill Farms. But you guys have no problem using energy like the rest of us.
 
klaatu said:
Actually ..when you think about it... 50 to 200 miles off shore is not going to effect anyones "view" .. and I think the Ocean Brats in florida were wrong as well. Just as the North East Liberals were wrong for blocking WindMill Farms.
The fact remains... liberals are responsible for blocking drilling, refinery building and even green methods like Windmill Farms. But you guys have no problem using energy like the rest of us.
Click to expand...
I believe that they do this because of what I call the Gore Effect.

In his book in the 80s he spoke of taxing the crap out of gasoline to motivate the US to get on a difference source of energy. I think that they believe if we use our own sources people in the US wouldn't have as much motivation to make a new source of energy, or to lower their usage.

The assumption is that people in the US won't want to do anything if we source our own energy.
 
ib1yysguy said:
... and it would lower the price per barrel by about $1.50/100+

All this talk about opening up reserves is just an excuse by Republicans to take advantage of people's present unhappiness with gas prices to exploit national preserves for oil companies' gain. It will make almost no difference to you at the pump.
Click to expand...

While that may be true to a certain extent, WE NEED THE FUCKING OIL!!!

What the fuck is wrong with people like you? You support this shit but then say we need to do something about gas prices.

WTF are we supposed to do, smart guy?

You need to admit to yourself that you really don't understand what's going on.
 
Desh said:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0403-26.htm

According to the most optimistic estimates, ANWR holds 10 billion barrels of oil. It is unclear, however, how much of it can be extracted at reasonable cost and without causing excessive environmental damage. At best, ANWR would pump out only about 1 million barrels per day in 2015, when all of the necessary pipelines are in place. That may seem a lot, but in fact it represents only 4% of anticipated U.S. petroleum consumption and 6% of all imports.

If long-term U.S. dependence on foreign oil was trending downward, an additional 6% reduction might make a dent in our reliance on foreign oil. But the opposite is true: According to the latest Department of Energy projections, U.S. reliance on imported petroleum will rise from 58% in 2010 to 65% in 2020 and 68% in 2025, and keep climbing after that. If the projections are accurate, the tiny fraction of U.S. imports potentially accounted for by ANWR would only grow smaller with each passing year.
Click to expand...

Lets do that math Desh... from ONE source.... a million barrels a day at $135 per barrel oil. $135 million per day the country would not send to another country. That is about $50 billion per year that stays in the US. Is it small in comparison to the total US budget? Yes, but why piss away $50 billion?

Not only that, but your commondreams site is giving you the low estimates for ANWR. Also, this is ONE site.... and not the largest of the sites. ALSO, as others have mentioned, it completely ignores the Nat Gas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top