Bush lifts offshore drilling ban in symbolic move - Page 7 - Fuelly Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 07-26-2008, 07:41 PM   #61
Registered Member
 
civic_matic_00's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 101
Country: United States
Pelosi?s Heinous Disregard of the Public Trust - OIL & Drilling

http://brokengovernment.wordpress.co...-oil-drilling/

Pelosi?s Heinous Disregard of the Public Trust - OIL & Drilling
July 23, 2008
On of the great injustices against the populace of this country is to have an elected leader intentionally try to mislead you to change public opinion. Nancy Pelosi is doing just that. On her web site and in her blog, The Gavel, she has expressed a number of opinions as fact or at least taken facts and shaped them to suit her desires. If this was simply anyone making these statements we could shrug it off. However, this is an elected leader holding the highest office in the House and is second in line to become President after the Vice-President, who at Government (our) expense maintains her Congressional Blog - consider that we pay for it, so we can be mislead. After reading her Blog Points, continue on to see what the EIA is and how independent it is. Read on to see why her points are intentionally misleading. This disinformation from Pelosi is a heinous disregard of the public trust.

Her blog states:

Just how big is Big Oil?s 68 million acres of oil reserves they COULD drill now?

? Would cover 94 percent of McCain?s home state of Arizona

? More than 2 ? times the size of Minority Leader Boehner?s home state of Ohio

Other interesting state comparisons:

? Equal to the size of Colorado
? Nearly 2 ? times the size of Pennsylvania
? Covers 130 percent of Kansas
? Twice the size of Florida
? Nearly twice the size of Illinois

Here are the facts about the Republican ?Drill More? Rhetoric:

? The fact is 80 percent of the oil available on the Outer Continental Shelf is already open for leasing?but the oil companies have decided it?s not worth their money to drill there. The Bush Administration?s own Energy Information Administration says drilling the OCS would have no impact on price until 2030, and then it would be ?insignificant.?

? The fact is that drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge wouldn?t yield any oil for 10 years?and then would only save the consumer 1.8 cents per gallon in 2025.

? All told, the U.S. has only 1.6 percent of world?s known oil supply. But every day, Americans use nearly a quarter of the world?s daily oil consumption.

The fact is, we can?t drill our way to energy independence.

The New Direction Congress is working to bring real relief to those feeling the squeeze from high gas and diesel prices and ensure the needs of families and businesses are put before the interests of Big Oil companies. The American people deserve a more affordable, energy efficient, cleaner, greener future.

__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________

NOW FOR THE TRUTH

Her argument is that there is not much oil to be found in new leases, then why drill. Well, if that is the case, lease that land for drilling and collect the royalties from the fools who pay for the dry leases. What is the harm of dry holes? In reality she knows oil is there, per the Bureau of Land Management and the EIA, and does not want more oil on the market to force you at whatever expense to wait for renewable energy, which is simply not ready. She apparently is ignoring what this will do to our economy, and our national security.

You should know that the Energy Information Administration is not Bush?s agency. The following is taken right from the EIA website

The Energy Information Administration (EIA), created by Congress in 1977, is a statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Energy. Our mission is to provide policy-neutral data, forecasts, and analyses to promote sound policy making, efficient markets, and public understanding regarding energy and its interaction with the economy and the environment.

Note this agency was created by Congress and not George Bush.

In addition the website also states (click any portion and it will take you to the website for validation:

The Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91) allows EIA?s processes and products to be independent from review by Executive Branch officials; specifically Section 205(d) says:

?The Administrator shall not be required to obtain the approval of any other officer or employee of the Department in connection with the collection or analysis of any information; nor shall the Administrator be required, prior to publication, to obtain the approval of any other officer or employee of the United States with respect to the substance of any statistical or forecasting technical reports which he has prepared in accordance with law.?

Another law, the Paperwork Reduction Act, does require that any data collection proposed by a Federal agency be approved by the Office of Management and Budget. However, the Administrator does not need to get the review and approval of anyone before he publishes any energy report.

Since its beginning, EIA has been challenged by the duty to respect Congress? intent to prepare policy neutral reports while fulfilling its role as an integrated office within the Department of Energy. EIA has found that complete transparency in the approach, methodology, and results of each of its products has gained the trust of its clients in the Department, the Congress, and elsewhere in the public. It is now recognized by its customers that EIA neither formulates nor advocates any policy conclusions, even though it often supports the Department with analyses and statistics.

To assure this message is explicit, all EIA products carry the following statement:

?This report was prepared by the Energy Information Administration, the independent statistical and analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy. The information contained herein should be attributed to the Energy Information Administration and should not be construed as advocating or reflecting any policy of the Department of Energy or of any other organization.?

As you can see the Energy Information Administration and the Administrator are insulated from the White House - that is the way Congress wanted it, yet Pelosi refers to it as if it is a stooge to George Bush. How disingenuous can she get!

She also refers to Big Oil - to make you believe that a few companies hold all these leases in some conspiracy. The truth is:

According to the American Petroleum Institute, it is estimated that 300-400 entities hold leases in the Rocky Mountain states. These entities include large and small companies, investment groups, etc. Each entity is bound by the same ?use it or lose it? provision that exists in current law.

There are 121 lease holders in US offshore areas. They consist of large and small companies, partnerships, consortia, etc. which purchased leases and are bound by the same leasing law as mentioned above.

Is big oil 400 entities or the121 off shore lease holders? These entities hold leases with the expectation to explore and drill - if they do not find oil in commercially large enough quantities, they do not drill. This drilling business is not about big oil, but about small to medium companies who make money by bringing oil out of the ground or out of the OCS.

The EIA estimate of ten yeas to drill and pump oil, includes 3 to 5 years to meet regulatory hurdles and is also due to the harsh weather in ANWR. Relax the rules and drill first where the climate is more suitable and oil will come online in 3 to 5 years. It is in the report - she just does not tell you this.

Pelosi conveniently does not tell you the truth to achieve her own far left agenda. Yet, your Speaker of the House is using a publicly paid for website to provide intentionally misleading information to the public for the purpose of shifting public opinion to her agenda.

No wonder her blog ?The Gavel?, on that website, is closed to comments - she has no interest in hearing what you have to say.


Also read about the 68 Million Acres at: 68Million Acres and Oil Companies Do Not Drill

I have learned one thing in life. When people have to obfuscate the truth and manipulate information to make their point, they simply do not have a good position.
__________________

__________________
civic_matic_00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 08:42 PM   #62
Registered Member
 
Snax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 758
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by civic_matic_00 View Post
you got that right. a select few thinks oil is bad so they are forcing the rest of the country to suffer high prices.
I don't think you followed the logic of what I just posted: The more we have, the more we will use. Prices only arbitrarily reflect the demand for a product at a specific point in time - not necessarily the supply. So it doesn't matter whether there is more or less supply when people are willing to pay the price to waste it. Is that making any sense?

Quote:
those who oppose more domestic drilling still doesn't accept the facts:

1) we are using the oil now, if it can be replaced with domestic oil, prices will drop due to higher supply. it will reduce the deficit, keep the money within the US and stop financing terrorists.
The major error in your assumption is that prices will fall. The oil companies control the supply to meet demand - and it is irrelevant to them where it comes from so long as they get a good margin for handling it. They don't care if it's Saudi oil or ANWR oil, so long as they have the supply of it locked up under their control. Increased domestic drilling will do nothing to change that reality.

Quote:
2) we can build all the windmills and solar energy plants but there is still no way to store all the energy that can be generated from these alternative energy source. if the wind blows hard one day and gone the next we will still need to ramp up coal fired and natural gas fired power plants which can't be shutdown right away. since the coal fired and natural gas fired power plants can't be shutdown, we would face an OVERLOAD of power if wind and Solar all of a sudden delivers peak capacity. ALL UTILITY companies agree that that is a major problem and that there is still no solution for it. the best solution for it is for home owners to install solar and/or wind turbines since that will not overload the power grid and cause breakers to trip. the solution for the power grid spike problem is still DECADES away.
Thinking inside the box on that one. There are lots of ways to handle this issue, number one of which is locational diversity for the wind generators. If it's not blowing in one place, it's a certainty to be blowing somewhere else. Likewise, overgeneration is hardly a significant obstacle. A windmill can be shut down in a very short amount of time. Likewise, hydro power provides another easily adjusted buffer to the peaks and valleys that might otherwise occur.

Quote:
3) there is still no alternative for oil for transportation,
I can't believe you really think that, or perhaps you didn't realize what you wrote. 'No alternative'?? It's vastly underdeveloped, but there most certainly are alternatives for transportation.

Quote:
for manufacturing, for byproducts. NONE! there is good research going on for soy based foam, plastic recycling (less than 1% of plastics can be recycled and that is a fact) but the process is still not economical and is still decades away.
And for that reason, few people would be likely to suggest that ALL oil production should cease.

Quote:
4) those who are for drilling domestic oil ARE IN FACT for alternative energy BUT WE DO ACCEPT AND REALIZE the fact that any alternative is DECADES AWAY. there is no magic solution to the problem. the only solution is to DO EVERYTHING, from conservation, to increase in alternative energy efforts, and to increase domestic oil drilling. one can not stand without the other. we can concentrate on alternative energy alone but we will continue to suffer high energy prices risk overloading the power grid on peak production and endure black outs. we can concentrate on conservation alone but that won't bring down demand fast enough to make a difference and will not increase funding for alternative energy since any profits made from conservation will be minimal everytime there is a disruption on the oil supply and spike oil prices again. we can concentrate on drilling for domestic oil alone but that will not solve the LONG TERM energy problem as production peaks and global demand keep on increasing. THE PROBLEM NEEDS MORE THAN ONE SOLUTION and that is a fact that all industries can explain to everyone if only those who are dead set on the environmentalist agenda will keep an open mind.
Drilling for more oil is NOT a solution however. It is a stopgap measure that only puts off the inevitable, and it will not stop us from importing oil.


Quote:
5) the only way to lower gas prices right now and for the long term is to increase oil supplies and refining capabilities domestically. the only way to increase funding for alternative energy is to use profits from domestic oil for alternative energy efforts. increasing alternative energy efforts without domestic oil drilling will not lower the deficit, and will force the government to raise taxes in order to supply alternative energy subsidies, and will force utilities to pass on the cost to the consumers.
Again, you are assuming that this is an open-market commodity. Supply does not dictate prices when a select few control the resources. They charge what people will pay. Giving them more supply just gives them more control to do that while further compromising our environment to the blight of more drilling and oil spills.

Quote:
6) the big oil companies in the US that they hate are actually PUNY compared to oil companies in China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, and other oil producing nations.
Frankly, I don't hate the oil companies for what they have done domestically, but rather for what they have done elsewhere. The exploitation for the purpose of empire building and the damage they have done to foreign environments far exceed what they have been allowed to get away with here.

Quote:
the facts are clear and 73% of Americans agree that we need to increase domestic oil production while we increase efforts in alternative energy. NO ONE, from any industry, from the academia, CAN tell you otherwise.
So 73% of Americans agree? What the heck does that prove? All that suggests to me is that they don't understand that the oil companies are more in collusion with each other over prices rather than competition. Again, increasing production will not solve that.

Quote:
economic factors are at play here, we are not living in a communist country, free enterprise need to do majority of the part in solving the energy crisis and free enterprise is governed by the universal laws of economics which is currently dictating that supply needs to be increased if we are to divert funds into alternative energy.
Are you really attempting to suggest that giving the oil companies even more control over supply will result in them investing more in alternative energies??? LOL!!! Get a grip! Their number one priority is to maximize profit. Investing in alternative energy doesn't provide nearly the return for them that cornering the market on oil does. For decades they have been doing a balancing act between charging as much as they can for the locked up supply vs. pushing people over the edge into alternatives. It's no coincidence that prices at the pump have begun to fall again as demand has started to falter and Detroit can't sell new trucks to save their asses. It sure as hell isn't because any significant level of supply increased. People are simply telling them with their dollars where the line is.

Quote:
I'd like to see anyone dispute these facts with practical ideas and evidence, but all that we'll ever see is that if you're pro-domestic drilling you're a "bad person."
See above.

Quote:
I've never bought an SUV or a pick up truck in my entire life. I have two vehicles and I am increasing their efficiency. my house have CFLs and LED lighting, my thermostat is set at 80 deg in the summer and 70 deg in the winter. if I can afford solar panels I would have it on my roof. my 8600 sq ft lot have nine trees (will have more soon) four of which are fruit bearing trees. I've personnaly bought trees from the Arbor day foundation and give them away to friends and family so they can plant them in their yards. we have 4 vegetable beds in the back yard, I do not use pesticides or chemical weed killers. I've planted trees in MANY DIFFERENT COUNTRIES (was in the military and I've traveled a lot and volunteered in many civic activities) compared to many environmentalists out there, I've done more in my lifetime than kids running around claiming to love the planet. I don't want any holier-than thou environmentalist telling me that I'm a "bad person" without knowing anything about me and everything I've done in my lifetime.
Just ponder this question: If your community were planning to place either a drilling rig in your neighbor's yard, or a windmill, which would you object the least to? That drilling rig may spill thousands of gallons of oil back into the soil, spoiling the sanctity of your neighbor's and your property for ages, in addition to the smell, noise, and potential ill health effects from it. Or you could deal with a few dead birds in your yard. Yeah, I know that's sugar coating it, but I have a hard time believing anybody would prefer the former.
__________________

__________________
LiberalImage.com

I think, therefore I doubt.
Snax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 08:57 PM   #63
Registered Member
 
Snax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 758
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by civic_matic_00 View Post
You should know that the Energy Information Administration is not Bush?s agency. The following is taken right from the EIA website
In February 2002, President Bush nominated Guy F. Caruso to the position of Administrator of the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a statistical agency within the United States Department of Energy (DOE) that provides policy-independent data, forecasts and analyses regarding energy. Mr. Caruso has acquired over 30 years of energy experience, with particular emphasis on topics relating to energy markets, policy and security. - http://www.eia.doe.gov/contacts/Caruso.html
Try to spin much??

Astounding.

Quote:
I have learned one thing in life. When people have to obfuscate the truth and manipulate information to make their point, they simply do not have a good position.
So it goes.

Ok, jabs aside, I will concede that misinformation flows heavily from both sides of this issue and I am no fan of Pelosi.
__________________
LiberalImage.com

I think, therefore I doubt.
Snax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2008, 12:36 AM   #64
Registered Member
 
civic_matic_00's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 101
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snax View Post
I don't think you followed the logic of what I just posted: The more we have, the more we will use. Prices only arbitrarily reflect the demand for a product at a specific point in time - not necessarily the supply. So it doesn't matter whether there is more or less supply when people are willing to pay the price to waste it. Is that making any sense?
well, I don't think you're follow the logic of what pro-domestic oil is following - replace what we are using now with domestic oil instead of imported oil. it would still be the same amount of oil within the US but is produced domestically. the same conservation efforst should remain, better yet increased, as well as increasing efforts in alternative energy. we do not advocate an increase in usage of oil within the US but only the replacement of imported oil used within the US.

Supply dictates a large percentage of oil price. that is why when Hurrican Dolly was first thought that it would hit the oil rigs in the gulf of Mexico, oil price spiked...oil price went down again when it was determined that Dolly would miss the oil rigs.


Quote:
The major error in your assumption is that prices will fall. The oil companies control the supply to meet demand - and it is irrelevant to them where it comes from so long as they get a good margin for handling it. They don't care if it's Saudi oil or ANWR oil, so long as they have the supply of it locked up under their control. Increased domestic drilling will do nothing to change that reality.
see answer above. you can not discount supply's effect on oil price. supply is the major factor in oil price. global demand for oil is increasing, current reserves are straining to meet the increasing demand. conservation and alternative energy is too slow and can not stem the tide of increasing demand. we will see oil at $200 per barrel unless global supply is increased, and more conservation and alternative energy comes on line.


Quote:
Thinking inside the box on that one. There are lots of ways to handle this issue, number one of which is locational diversity for the wind generators. If it's not blowing in one place, it's a certainty to be blowing somewhere else. Likewise, overgeneration is hardly a significant obstacle. A windmill can be shut down in a very short amount of time. Likewise, hydro power provides another easily adjusted buffer to the peaks and valleys that might otherwise occur.
locational diversity of wind generators would greatly depend on building more transmission lines. building more transmission lines will cost billions. billions that utilities will take time to raise and will surely be passed on to consumers. although the nation's power grid is built to be able to transfer power "efficiently" from one region to the next, it is highly dependent on the predictable amount of power generated by power plants within each region. that means that power plants (coal fired, natural gas fired, hydroelectric) that are already ramped up (the same ones that can not be shut down quickly) with a known generation capacity. electricity generated by wind and solar is still unpredictable and would still add a big boost in electricity (or lack of it) within a very short amount of time and that would still cause overloads or would still need backup power plants that would take time to ramp up. right now, the only way to prevent an overload would be to trip the breaker and waste that electricity by not letting it pass through the grid lest you burn up transformers and switch stations along the way...and the only way to have an efficient backup when wind and solar are producing is to keep conventional power plants ramped up...where's the savings there?

there is a project uderway in Preoria, IL that I know off that is testing batteries which can store power generated by alternative energy, there are projects like this all over the country but are not large enought to be commercially viable (see, even a pro-drilling idiot like me know about projects like these, I bet you didnt). these projects are promising but it currently costs $300 to $500 per killowatt hour, analysts are stating that it needs to come down to $150 per KWH in order for it to be commercially viable or else the consumers will end up with a huge increase in electric bills AGAIN (if the KWH cost goes down consumers would only take a "small" increase in power rates, but an increase nonetheless). the government can effectively subsidize that project with oil profits. The house of representatives new oil bill actually has an item included that will provide such subsidies gained from new oil leases. without the government subsidy, you will wait a long time for the utilities to install those power storage stations.

again, that is in line with the principle that we need to do everything that all pro-domestic drilling groups and individuals are supporting.


Quote:
I can't believe you really think that, or perhaps you didn't realize what you wrote. 'No alternative'?? It's vastly underdeveloped, but there most certainly are alternatives for transportation.
ok, then let me rephrase, no alternative that will replace it 100%. as you've said, it's VASTLY underdeveloped, how do you propose we VASTLY develop them? cost remains a big barrier. Again, under the new bil that in the house of reps, funds will be earmarked for alternative energy research derived from domestic oil profits. again, this is in line with what pro-domestic oil drilling folks are supporting - do everything not just one thing at a time.


Quote:
And for that reason, few people would be likely to suggest that ALL oil production should cease.
few people would likely suggest that all oil production should cease because oil is still needed by all countries. if we can keep majority of oil money being sent overseas for just a decade, alternative energy research can increase exponentially, and the alternative energy infrastructure can be built faster. I am not saying that we should be dependent on oil FOREVER, what pro-drilling people are saying is that we drill our own oil so we can keep the money within the US, fund more alternative energy efforts so that we can get rid of oil dependency faster. to keep sending money overseas is not the answer.



Quote:
Drilling for more oil is NOT a solution however. It is a stopgap measure that only puts off the inevitable, and it will not stop us from importing oil.
the "inevitable" is still decades away, the stop gap measure you're talking about can speed the process of inevitability by leaps and bounds and it will stop us from importing more oil. as funds for alternative energy increase we can become less dependent on oil. that is still something that you're purposely overlooking. no funds, no alternative energy, more funds, we get COMMERCIALLY VIABLE alternative energy FASTER. what's so hard to understand about that. I guess you'd rather tax everyone more, raise power rates, keep high gas prices in order to fund the restructuring of our power infrastructure. that'll take too long.



Quote:
Again, you are assuming that this is an open-market commodity. Supply does not dictate prices when a select few control the resources. They charge what people will pay. Giving them more supply just gives them more control to do that while further compromising our environment to the blight of more drilling and oil spills.
again, you are overlooking all market reactions every time oil supply is threatened. that in itself is proof enough that it is a supply driven commodity. giving the world more supply will lower prices, as for compromising the environment, show us some stats. it is already a proven fact that there's more natural seepage than actual oil spills. natural seepage that will be reduced when the oil is harvested. who's paying for the clean up of natural seepage - the taxpayers do, if an oil company is at fault for an oil spill (which is, again, a lot less compared to natural spills) they will pay for the clean up.


Quote:
Frankly, I don't hate the oil companies for what they have done domestically, but rather for what they have done elsewhere. The exploitation for the purpose of empire building and the damage they have done to foreign environments far exceed what they have been allowed to get away with here.
there you go, we are asking other countries to take the "environmental risk" of drilling for our power needs. how selfish of us to do so! no wonder the world hates the US. we have our own oil here, larger than than the oil reserves in Saudi Arabia, yet we, the money-grubbing-hateful-war-mongering Americans (as foreign countries love to label us) are sucking all the world resource. isn't it time we use our own resource right now? I'm glad you agree with me there.


Quote:
So 73% of Americans agree? What the heck does that prove? All that suggests to me is that they don't understand that the oil companies are more in collusion with each other over prices rather than competition. Again, increasing production will not solve that.
all that suggests is that as a nation, the citizenry is demanding that the government alleviate the economic effects of high energy prices. it suggests that the majority of the country want to use the natural resouce within our borders and it is the government's obligation to ensure that the resources owned by the people is utilized to benefit the people. again, you keep claiming that increase production will not solve anything regardless of all evidence found in market reactions. measeurs can and should be put in place to ensure that the country benefits from it and not just the oil companies. no matter whether or not the oil companies will and does fork out all of the cost in exploring, drilling, and refining the product, we can still force them to pony up some more and I bet you that they will.


Quote:
Are you really attempting to suggest that giving the oil companies even more control over supply will result in them investing more in alternative energies??? LOL!!! Get a grip! Their number one priority is to maximize profit. Investing in alternative energy doesn't provide nearly the return for them that cornering the market on oil does. For decades they have been doing a balancing act between charging as much as they can for the locked up supply vs. pushing people over the edge into alternatives. It's no coincidence that prices at the pump have begun to fall again as demand has started to falter and Detroit can't sell new trucks to save their asses. It sure as hell isn't because any significant level of supply increased. People are simply telling them with their dollars where the line is.
you still keep on suggesting that oil companies will have control of everything. why not do some research on environmental rules governing the oil industry and you tell me if they have full control of the industry. until then, I'll chalk it up to your lack of research.

oil companies in the US follow more environmental controls than oil companies in China, Russia, Saudi, Iran, Venezuala, Mexico COMBINED.


Quote:
Just ponder this question: If your community were planning to place either a drilling rig in your neighbor's yard, or a windmill, which would you object the least to? That drilling rig may spill thousands of gallons of oil back into the soil, spoiling the sanctity of your neighbor's and your property for ages, in addition to the smell, noise, and potential ill health effects from it. Or you could deal with a few dead birds in your yard. Yeah, I know that's sugar coating it, but I have a hard time believing anybody would prefer the former.
first of all, there is no space in my community for an oil rig. second of all, there's no oil in my community (except maybe on the asphalt roads, maybe Nancy Pelosi would want us to release that oil reserve). If there's oil under my own small plot of land, I will be the first one to sign an agreement with an oil company to drill there....but that agreement that I would sign will include stipulations that if they spill it, they clean it and it would have to be a good cleaning job. no reason the government can't do the same, guess what, all oil leases already have that stipulation! IMAGINE THAT! I would love to see a windmill in my community (I'm not Ted Kennedy or John Kerry that would hate to see windmills in their area), heck, I would love to install my own windmill in my backyard or on my roof. sadly, I can't afford it, even if I factor in the tax rebates.

in fact, there are natural gas wells in Texas right next to houses, and guess what, the locals love them and they say so!

your argument there is totally misleading. as the term OFFSHORE implies, it will be away from the population. unless you expect to see floating condominiums or a sprawling suburb within ANWR, the argument you just presented in that paragraph is moot. the current crisis can't deal with hypotheticals as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have been doing.

again, you have to keep an open mind with what pro-drilling folks are proposing. we are not saying that we should be dependent on oil forever. what we are proposing is that we replace the oil that we are using now with domestically produced oil so that we can in turn boost funding for alternative energy. it would speed up the process and FINALLY deliver COMMERCIALLY viable alternative energy that will reduce AND EVENTUALLY ELIMINATE our dependence on oil foreign or domestically produced. how is that so bad? it is a means to lower gas prices, boost funding for alternative energy, and SPEED UP the process of ELIMINATING our dependency on oil. it is not a proposal to INCREASE USAGE at all, I will welcome more regulations in transportation efficiency, but let us replace IMPORTED OIL with DOMESTIC OIL.
__________________
civic_matic_00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2008, 12:54 AM   #65
Registered Member
 
civic_matic_00's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 101
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snax View Post
In February 2002, President Bush nominated Guy F. Caruso to the position of Administrator of the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a statistical agency within the United States Department of Energy (DOE) that provides policy-independent data, forecasts and analyses regarding energy. Mr. Caruso has acquired over 30 years of energy experience, with particular emphasis on topics relating to energy markets, policy and security. - http://www.eia.doe.gov/contacts/Caruso.html
Try to spin much??

Astounding.


So it goes.

Ok, jabs aside, I will concede that misinformation flows heavily from both sides of this issue and I am no fan of Pelosi.

and who should be nominated to the post? someone with no experience in energy whatsoever? ok, let's put a banker in that spot and see how he does. you hire a pilot to fly a plane, you hire an accountant to audit financial books, you hire a person with experience in the energy sector to run an ENERGY AGENCY.
__________________
civic_matic_00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2008, 05:22 PM   #66
Registered Member
 
bowtieguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,873
Country: United States
Location: orlando, florida
Snax and Civic Matic,

you both make good points and debate convincingly. however, looking at the bottom line, i must side with Civic Matic.

drilling to give just the CHANCE to boost our economy is what i support. naturally, continuing to develope alternative fuels is advisable, as well as tax or fees on (over)consumption for those using more than needed(you know what is meant).

by chance we're wrong, the left will be closer to their goal of the end of oil and more jobs and money will be made.
bowtieguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2008, 08:01 PM   #67
Registered Member
 
VetteOwner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,546
Country: United States
need to have gas rationing like in WW2...have to display a sticker in your window which corresponds to how much fuel your allowed to use per year/quarter year...
VetteOwner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2008, 08:15 PM   #68
Site Team / Moderator
 
Jay2TheRescue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 4,657
Country: United States
Location: Northern Virginia
Quote:
Originally Posted by VetteOwner View Post
need to have gas rationing like in WW2...have to display a sticker in your window which corresponds to how much fuel your allowed to use per year/quarter year...
How about ration cards?
__________________






Jay2TheRescue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 05:57 AM   #69
Senior Member
 
Mayhim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 179
Country: United States
I have a hard time believing it's the right thing to do to ration something that is abundant and more expensive than what it should be already.

The oil-is-evil bandwagon is not one I believe in.
Mayhim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 06:25 AM   #70
Site Team / Moderator
 
Jay2TheRescue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 4,657
Country: United States
Location: Northern Virginia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Incredible View Post
I have a hard time believing it's the right thing to do to ration something that is abundant and more expensive than what it should be already.

The oil-is-evil bandwagon is not one I believe in.
I don't think it should be rationed either, I just thought cards would be more efffective than stickers. I believe that the market should take care of it, and the federal gov't should remove restrictions. In all honestly I believe congress should remove their restrictions on offshore drilling and leave it for the individual states to decide if they want drilling off of their coast. I know for a fact that Virginia wants to allow drilling off the coast because they want the revenue that offshore drilling would bring to the state treasury.

-Jay
__________________

__________________






Jay2TheRescue 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 10:12 AM.


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