Bush lifts offshore drilling ban in symbolic move - Page 4 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 07-16-2008, 05:11 PM   #31
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 102
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowtieguy View Post
i was ready to defend you, as you stand alone on this thread. but after that statement...

let's review:

Bush orchastrated 9/11
Bush voted ALONE for the iraq war
Bush is influencing the price of crude oil
Bush is responsible for the aftermath of Katrina(and caused it for that matter)
Bush caused the housing market fiasco
Bush is responsible for the California wild fires
Bush is making the moon move away from the earth, which is the true cause of global warming

did i miss anything?

WE HAVE FOUND THE ANTI-CHRIST!
Bush manipulated intelligence reports to push the war.
Bush's good buddies, the Saudi Royal family are influencing oil prices, so to some degree so is he.
Bush is responsible for the aftermath of Katrina since people are still homeless years later.
__________________

froggy81500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2008, 05:27 PM   #32
Registered Member
 
civic_matic_00's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 101
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by froggy81500 View Post
Civic, we could go on for days, if not years, about keeping our money here in this country. Its insane to think our economy hangs at the mercy of some other countries. But as many of us are well aware, it does.
yep, it's insane and it can and should be fixed. look at it this way, if more money goes out of your checking account that what goes in, you'd be in trouble. more money goes out of the US for oil than what goes in, we are in trouble!

Quote:
Part of what I was getting at with my initial post in this thread was that I hope people in general don't hear of this news of off-shore drilling and thing things will change in the near future. It won't, the effects of this decision are long off. And yes it will take not just the President to approve such measures. Someone should be questioning why for all these years we've been funnelling money overseas for stuff we have right in our backyard. That is the disturbing part.
the affect of the decision will be immediate and will also ensure lower prices in the future. as I've stated in my previous post, there are oil wells that were capped after the moratorium was put in place. these oil wells can produce thousand of barrels of oil within weeks if they are re-opened.

it is distrubing why we are sending money overseas, and that is part of my point. why send all of those money overseas if we have the same resource within our borders? I can guarantee you that no one in Congress can give you a good answer on that one. the decision to stop domestic oil drilling was based on environmental fears and not based on economic logic. maybe 20 to 30 years ago, those environmental fears were warranted, but as of today, we have the technology to harvest oil safely and efficienty. that needs to be placed into consideration and when Americans start understanding that, the resistance to domestic oil drilling will start to wane. there is absolutely no reason for us to block domestic oil drilling whatsoever. it will speed up development of atlernative energy and ensure that we are not at the mercy of OPEC.

Quote:
And as far as technology for alternative energy sources go, take a look at history and see what has and hasn't been accomplished since the last energy crises in the 1970's. I find it odd that a country like the USA could not have developed better solutions in 30+ years. For crying out loud, George Washington Carver and Henry Ford developed ethanol fuels almost a century ago.
I know full well that there have been major strides in Alternative energy. yet as of today, alternative energy will not, and can not, replace oil for our energy needs. nor can alternative energy replace all other oil byproducts that we used in our everyday lives.

if you find it odd that a country like the USA could not have developed better soultion, then you have to ask why. lack of funds, lack of real political will to do so. ethanol in its present process in the US is totally inefficient. corn to ethanol will never help our energy needs, yet politicians keep spouting off that more ethanol is needed. if and when cellulosic ethanol becomes efficient, then you will see ethanol finally give us the benefits that it can give, but until that becomes a reality we will not see ethanol as the savior politicians touted it to be. problem is, ethanol from other sources are not being supported by most politicians. Obama himself keep touting corn ethanol instead of supporting ethanol from other sources. heck, the Chinese are building plants for ethanol processing from Sorgum which will yield three times the amount of ethanol compared to corn. so how is it that the Chinese are willing to do this instead of the US. Politics in the US are blocking many practical alternative energy initiatives, and that is the most simple explanation for it.

as you've said, we can go on for years and years debating it, but it remains that Politics is playing big role in the lack of Alternative enegy progress, the high price in energy cost, and it should change.

the way I see it, open the country for domestic oil drilling (which can have immediate results in lowering prices by simply opening capped oil wells that can start producing thousands of barrels of oil within weeks), and ensure that for every barrel of domestic oil the government should subisdize one solar panel or a wind turbine for homeowners and businesses. do that and we can eliminate our dependency from foreign oil. do nothing, and we will keep sending $700 billion (and that figure will go up) to other countries with nothing in return except maybe suicide bombers.

once the government subsidizes solar panels and wind turbines you will see that market expand exponentially and cause the price to drop to acceptable levels. once that market stabilizes subsidies can move on to other alternative energy initiatives. that could also reduce oil usage for electricity by more than 30% or higher within just a few years instead of decades. when that happens, the US can be 100% free of foreign oil and the domino effect will be on its way in reducing dependence on oil even from domestic oil.
__________________

__________________
civic_matic_00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2008, 06:06 PM   #33
Registered Member
 
civic_matic_00's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 101
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by froggy81500 View Post
Bush manipulated intelligence reports to push the war.
I do know for a fact that 500 tons of Uranium have been sold to Canada by the new Iraqi government to be used as nuclear fuel. 500 tons of uranium would've made thousands of dirty nuclear bombs if they fell into AL Qaeda's hands.

Quote:
Bush's good buddies, the Saudi Royal family are influencing oil prices, so to some degree so is he.
no better way to slap the Saudi's around than to tell them that we are now going to produce our own oil and make oil price drop to basement levels. futhermore, we can also tell the Saudi's that we will now sell oil to all of our allies to further reduce theirs and OPECs influence on oil price. since Bush is for drilling domestic oil, I don't think he's that friendly to the Saudi's at all.

Quote:
Bush is responsible for the aftermath of Katrina since people are still homeless years later.
Katrina is responsible for the the aftermath. people who stayed instead of heeding calls for evacuation is responsible for the loss of life. No one is solely responsible for nature's wrath. while it is true that there are many who are still homeless because of Katrina, it would be hard to place the responsibility solely on one man since the State of Louisiana is just as accountable for the problem, and that same goes for the mayor of New Orleans.
__________________
civic_matic_00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2008, 06:38 PM   #34
Site Team / Moderator
 
Jay2TheRescue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 4,657
Country: United States
Location: Northern Virginia
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by civic_matic_00 View Post
I do know for a fact that 500 tons of Uranium have been sold to Canada by the new Iraqi government to be used as nuclear fuel. 500 tons of uranium would've made thousands of dirty nuclear bombs if they fell into AL Qaeda's hands.



no better way to slap the Saudi's around than to tell them that we are now going to produce our own oil and make oil price drop to basement levels. futhermore, we can also tell the Saudi's that we will now sell oil to all of our allies to further reduce theirs and OPECs influence on oil price. since Bush is for drilling domestic oil, I don't think he's that friendly to the Saudi's at all.



Katrina is responsible for the the aftermath. people who stayed instead of heeding calls for evacuation is responsible for the loss of life. No one is solely responsible for nature's wrath. while it is true that there are many who are still homeless because of Katrina, it would be hard to place the responsibility solely on one man since the State of Louisiana is just as accountable for the problem, and that same goes for the mayor of New Orleans.

If I might add one thing here... How about a novel idea like people being responsible for themselves? That is the basis of freedom, right? If I build my house on a floodplain, and my house gets flooded, and I didn't have flood insurance well that's my fault. I should have made better decisions. It's not the government's responsibility to rebuild my house for free, on the same floodplain so it can flood again. Yes, the government has an important role. To come to the immediate aid of citizens in need. I'm sure they got FEMA trailers to live in, and low cost loans were made available to rebuild. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
__________________






Jay2TheRescue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2008, 06:48 PM   #35
Registered Member
 
civic_matic_00's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 101
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay2TheRescue View Post
If I might add one thing here... How about a novel idea like people being responsible for themselves? That is the basis of freedom, right? If I build my house on a floodplain, and my house gets flooded, and I didn't have flood insurance well that's my fault. I should have made better decisions. It's not the government's responsibility to rebuild my house for free, on the same floodplain so it can flood again. Yes, the government has an important role. To come to the immediate aid of citizens in need. I'm sure they got FEMA trailers to live in, and low cost loans were made available to rebuild. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
I totally and absolutely agree!
__________________
civic_matic_00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 04:22 AM   #36
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 44
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowtieguy View Post
i was ready to defend you, as you stand alone on this thread. but after that statement...

let's review:

Bush orchastrated 9/11
Bush voted ALONE for the iraq war
Bush is influencing the price of crude oil
Bush is responsible for the aftermath of Katrina(and caused it for that matter)
Bush caused the housing market fiasco
Bush is responsible for the California wild fires
Bush is making the moon move away from the earth, which is the true cause of global warming

did i miss anything?

WE HAVE FOUND THE ANTI-CHRIST!
I was thinking of the NASDAQ bubble bursting, Enron, and 9/11 all happening in the first year of his administration for starters myself. A having been in motion before he even took office. That should have alone been enough to send us into a a deep recession, let alone a depression. Lets not forget the threat of MCI.

I hold both Bush and Congress responsible for the pisspore policy after Katrina and more heads should have rolled in both. Granted Bush did call for more cooperation between the different burrows. Did he get it? Heads should have rolled in at the federal, state, and local areas of goverment.

Bush dose have some responsibility in the housing market for pressing for sup prime loans to show he had done something. That was a self made disaster waiting to happen.

As to the CA fires, how about simple little things like clearing out the under brush and thinning out of forest. Keeping grass cut back a certain amount of feet. Bad policy's were in place before Bush and the environmentalist pressuring congress to keep the current status quo is a decision I can't support.

OM
OokiiMamoru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 05:48 AM   #37
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 42
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay2TheRescue View Post
If I might add one thing here... How about a novel idea like people being responsible for themselves? That is the basis of freedom, right? If I build my house on a floodplain, and my house gets flooded, and I didn't have flood insurance well that's my fault. I should have made better decisions. It's not the government's responsibility to rebuild my house for free, on the same floodplain so it can flood again. Yes, the government has an important role. To come to the immediate aid of citizens in need. I'm sure they got FEMA trailers to live in, and low cost loans were made available to rebuild. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
Now thats just crazy talk
ron22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 08:17 AM   #38
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,460
Country: United States
Location: north east PA
Quote:
most people that oppose domestic oil drilling also fail to see, whether they know it or not, that the US government will earn billions as well, not just from the lease of oil properties but from taxes of the profits of the companies that would drill and produce the oil.
The problem with openning it up now is that the government, and thus the people, will be negotiating from a position of weakness, if we open them up now. The cries of windfall taxes started because sweet heart deals the oil companies got under Clinton. That administration gave tax breaks and such for the developement of hard to get, exspensive, oil without a cluase for a time when such fields become profitable. The windfall tax isn't a tax on profits, it's a tax break that needs to be ended.

Clinton did right with the stragetic oil reserve. He opened it up, sold the oil at the market price, and then filled it back up when the prices dropped.

We do need new refineries. Then why did Bush and the oil companies say no when the Saudis othered to build new ones? The Sauds don't mean us well, but they don't want us turning away from oil.
trollbait is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 10:10 AM   #39
Registered Member
 
bowtieguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,873
Country: United States
Location: orlando, florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by froggy81500 View Post
Bush manipulated intelligence reports to push the war.
Bush's good buddies, the Saudi Royal family are influencing oil prices, so to some degree so is he.
Bush is responsible for the aftermath of Katrina since people are still homeless years later.
Bush being an oil man IS IN FACT a moot point, thank you Civic_Matic_00.

people should be responsible for their own poor decisions. again thank you Civic_Matic_00.

In case you haven't heard or do not know, LOCAL GOV'T has jurisdiction over natural disasters BEFORE and DURING the event. People were advised to get out and those who could not, were offered FREE transport(buses and trains) out. but the wonderful, liberal mayor and governor refused this free assistance.

for 200+ years we've known that that city, which is surrounded by 3 bodies of water, is super vunerable to any strength of hurricane. and the levies were not significant enough in size nor strength. so you can blame every president since the Louisiana purchase if you fancy!

we were hit pretty hard a few years ago(4 hurricanes in 1 season), but we made provisions to prepare for the worst. and that leads me back to the original subject:

many, like us, have made preparations to cut energy usage to deal w/ high fuel costs and the related rise in the cost of goods and sevices. the middle and lower classes are being squeezed to financial ruin, and IT IS TIME TO DRILL FOR OIL.

it seems one by one liberal congressmen/women are changing their view on this idea. certainly some do care about the rest of us; and more certain, many more are motivated by getting another term!!!
bowtieguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 05:38 PM   #40
Registered Member
 
civic_matic_00's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 101
Country: United States
A good article regarding the democrats claim that oil companies are not drilling on the current 68 million acre lease so that price would spike up:

http://brokengovernment.wordpress.co...-do-not-drill/

68 Million Acres and Oil Companies Do Not Drill
July 16, 2008

If you listen to Harry Reed, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Democratic strategists on talk shows, or read opinion pieces written in the far left newspapers, like the New York Times, you have heard/read that we do not need to open up new areas for drilling, because the oil companies are sitting on 68 million acres and they have not bothered to drill on those acres.

This is propaganda against drilling. This is a bogus argument based on talking points by the far left to prevent drilling. These people want to eliminate fossil fuels from our energy diet at all cost and they will do this without regard to who is hurt and what it does to our national security and our economy. Renewable energy is simply not ready to fully power this nation, and it will not be ready for 15 years or more. That is why Barack Obama wants to invest $150 Billion in renewable research over the next ten years.

The following is information from the American Petroleum Institute that refutes the Democratic talking points that the oil companies have 68 million leased acres to drill on and that they should drill on these leases first.

Here are questions and answers to why drilling takes place or not on the 68 million acres. The API makes a lot more sense then these reckless individuals who will spout just about anything to prevent drilling.

The facts about non-producing federal leases:

CLAIM: Oil and natural gas companies are given leases by the government and purposely don’t produce from them to increase prices.

FACT: Companies pay billions of dollars for the right to explore on federal lands. If the company does not produce within the lease term, it must give the lease back to the government, and the company does not recover the billions of dollars it may have invested.

CLAIM: Companies let many of their leases sit idle and don’t produce them

FACT: Companies actively develop their leases – but not every lease contains oil or natural gas in commercial quantities. In many cases, the so-called “idle leases” are not idle at all; they are under geologic evaluation or in development and could be an important source of domestic supply. However, this does not mean all leases have the potential to produce. Companies can evaluate leases for several years only to determine that they do not contain oil or natural gas in commercial quantities. The road to bring the oil and natural gas to market — obtaining the lease, evaluation, exploration and production — is a long and complicated one.

CLAIM: If the lease doesn’t contain oil or natural gas, then the company shouldn’t have bought it.

FACT: There are tremendous risks and challenges involved in finding and producing oil and natural gas. There is no guarantee that a lease will even contain hydrocarbons. It is not unusual for a company to spend in excess of $100 million only to drill a dry hole. A company usually has only has limited knowledge of resource potential when it buys a lease. Only after the lease is acquired, will the company be in the position to evaluate it, usually with a very costly seismic survey followed by an exploration well.

CLAIM: There’s absolutely no reason for a company not to produce if it finds oil or gas on the lease.

FACT: If the company finds resources in commercial quantities, it will produce the lease. But there can sometimes be delays – often as long as seven to 10 years – for environmental and engineering studies, to acquire permits, install production facilities (or platforms for offshore leases) and build the necessary infrastructure to bring the resources to market. Litigation, landowner disputes and regulatory hurdles can also delay the process.

CLAIM: The vast majority of federal and gas resources are already available for development.

FACT: In the Lower 48 states, about 85 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf and 67 percent of onshore federal lands are off-limits or facing significant restrictions to development. There is no way, at this stage, to determine exactly the extent of the resources off-limits because many of these areas have not been subject to inventory studies in decades.

CLAIM: Non-producing leases could provide a major source of new supplies.

FACT: Many of these leases will provide a major source of new domestic supply once they are developed. Companies are actively developing the leases, and in addition to paying for the lease, they must also pay rent to the government while they conduct development and exploration efforts. But this process takes time. Reducing the time companies have to develop a lease or increasing the costs imposed by government will not increase supply for American consumers. Nor will denying access to areas of oil and natural gas potential like the Atlantic and Pacific OCS.

CLAIM: Increased domestic drilling activity has not led to lower gasoline prices, and more leases and drilling won’t help either.

FACT: Our nation needs more supplies of all forms of energy, including domestic oil and natural gas, to meet its growing energy demand. Increased drilling has helped the United States offset the natural declines in domestic oil and natural gas production from older fields. Greater drilling activity tends to produce more supply. Fundamental economics suggest that additional supplies put downward pressure on prices.

CLAIM: Companies should be penalized for not producing from their leases.

FACT: Oil and gas companies take all the risk with federal leases. Not only do they pay billions to obtain leases, they pay to hold them while they are spending even more capital to determine if these leases contain resources. Penalties on leaseholders on top of those fees would only discourage U.S. exploration and production, at a time when the United States needs all the energy it can get.
__________________

__________________
civic_matic_00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.