|
Post by Tired in CV on May 30, 2010 23:14:28 GMT -5
There is more oil on land in the continental U.S. than there is in all our off-shore sites (drilled and undrilled). Due to the environmentalists, that will become the heritage for future users. But then, they will have new technologies that will require less oil (or maybe none at all)! It may have been better if they had allowed the drilling on land while they developed a better method of "deep" drilling off-shore! There are also more oil leases issued than you can shake a stick at. Republicans have consistently fought efforts to put a time limit on how long they can be held. No real compelling reason other than oil company profits for that. There is also more oil being traded on paper than we have in barrels. Republicans have not been unanomous concerning fighting efforts to put time limits on leases held. But, this is one of those tit for tat issues between the two parties. Many Republicans don't want time limits because if the time expires and the government retrieves the lease, they fear that the environmentalists influence over the Democrats will result in those leases not ever being released again. It stands that the majority of the Democrats do not want to issue any new leases, regardless of it's location or new technologies available to drill and retrieve. I have heard these comments from several Republicans. They would like to see limits too, but definately fear the actions of the Democrats in not allowing leases. There seemed a recent change at hand from some Democrats (particularly Obama) where new drilling was to be authorized. Then, a catastrophe in the Gulf! All bets are now off! Another strange issue about the leases, just because the company holds a lease doesn't mean they can drill on it. They still need to have additional authorization to begin drilling on that lease. The Democrats have held them up most of the time.
|
|
|
Post by cemilne on May 30, 2010 23:33:51 GMT -5
www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-rig-explosion-20100422,0,1672934.story When people start chanting "Drill, baby, drill", maybe we should consider that it never comes free. There is a price to pay, whether it is burning oil rigs or suffocated coal miners. Perhaps this is why some of us are so insistent on prioritizing conservation over increased production. MTBE was supposed to be the savior of gasoline, what happened? It seeped into water suplies, caused cancer, etc. When will you Enviros learn you can't fool with Mother Nature?
|
|
|
Post by cemilne on May 30, 2010 23:39:43 GMT -5
And STILL no concern for the 11 people killed in the explosion. I lived in Louisiana for 3 1/2 years, my neighbors worked on those rigs. Let's not forget them.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on May 31, 2010 0:02:46 GMT -5
www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-rig-explosion-20100422,0,1672934.story When people start chanting "Drill, baby, drill", maybe we should consider that it never comes free. There is a price to pay, whether it is burning oil rigs or suffocated coal miners. Perhaps this is why some of us are so insistent on prioritizing conservation over increased production. MTBE was supposed to be the savior of gasoline, what happened? It seeped into water suplies, caused cancer, etc. When will you Enviros learn you can't fool with Mother Nature? So true! So many ideas supported by the Enviros have proven to be not so good for conservation as you mentioned. Further, recycling of plastics is saving on landfills but is resulting in more pollution in the recycling process than if new products were freshly made. What is more important, cleaner water and cleaner air or less landfills? And that is only one process! Multiply it by thousands....
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on May 31, 2010 2:56:17 GMT -5
And STILL no concern for the 11 people killed in the explosion. I lived in Louisiana for 3 1/2 years, my neighbors worked on those rigs. Let's not forget them. Why do you think I called this thread the COST of energy?
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on May 31, 2010 12:37:33 GMT -5
www.latimes.com/news/local/immigration/la-me-0531-poll-20100531,0,2177522.story "The survey also showed a notable shift in how California voters view offshore oil drilling. The BP oil spill that has sent millions of gallons of crude gushing into the Gulf of Mexico dominated headlines during the polling period, and voters by a 48%-to-41% ratio said they opposed new drilling off the coast." Like animal said, just wait until gas prices go up. Then the numbers will reverse again...
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on May 31, 2010 13:06:58 GMT -5
There are also more oil leases issued than you can shake a stick at. Republicans have consistently fought efforts to put a time limit on how long they can be held. No real compelling reason other than oil company profits for that. There is also more oil being traded on paper than we have in barrels. Republicans have not been unanomous concerning fighting efforts to put time limits on leases held. But, this is one of those tit fot tat issues between the two parties. Many Republicans don't want time limits because if the time expires and the government retrieves the lease, they fear that the environmentalists influence over the Democrats will result in those leases not ever being released again. It stands that the majority of the Democrats do not want to issue any new leases, regardless of it's location or new technologies available to drill and retrieve. I have heard these comments from several Republicans. They would like to see limits too, but definately fear the actions of the Democrats in not allowing leases. There seemed a recent change at hand from some Democrats (particularly Obama) where new drilling was to be authorized. Then, a catastrophe in the Gulf! All bets are now off! Another strange issue about the leases, just because the company holds a lease doesn't mean they can drill on it. They still need to have additional authorization to begin drilling on that lease. The Democrats have held them up most of the time. The number of leases that are already authorized but not being drilled on kind of colors the argument. Your description of the motives of the Republicans in congress reads really nice but there is more tit for tat between those congressman and lobbyists than there is between the parties.
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on May 31, 2010 13:57:55 GMT -5
There is more oil on land in the continental U.S. than there is in all our off-shore sites (drilled and undrilled). Due to the environmentalists, that will become the heritage for future users. But then, they will have new technologies that will require less oil (or maybe none at all)! It may have been better if they had allowed the drilling on land while they developed a better method of "deep" drilling off-shore! There are also more oil leases issued than you can shake a stick at. Republicans have consistently fought efforts to put a time limit on how long they can be held. No real compelling reason other than oil company profits for that. There is also more oil being traded on paper than we have in barrels. "I am a suspicious type by nature and I just can't get over the timing of this disaster in the Gulf... Climate Change failure in Copenhagen now this... So many opportunities to fulfill the suspicious character here and no one has come forward with an explanation of "what happened" but lots of folks want to pull the plug on all the drilling, damnest thing yet hey? SOmething as simple as a few thousand bales of hay spread around to absorb the oil would really help right now but going forward I think we need to send Obama down to personally inspect every damn well before they continue with deep water drilling! Maybe Nappy can carry his tool pouch." To imagine a conspiracy about this particular spill reeks of 911 conspiracy theorists. I think the alarm sound you are hearing is for your own post. JDredd- society is much "greener" than it used to be if it makes you feel better. Young people are willing to recycle everything. I saw a young person the other day search for a recycle bin for over twenty minutes until she found one. I have students who will come early and stay late every day in order to run a recycling program. When I ask them why they are so motivated they say (in effect) that it makes them feel good to do something small where they live because the state of the environment looks like such a big problem when taken as a whole. How many here knew that BP held 51% of the company that was to monitor and clean up after the Valdez? How many also knew that it was BP that delayed the processes of clean up (due to bureaucratic bloat). Although Exxon received the public notoriety - it was BP that was to blame and is STILL to blame over the lack of cleanup from the Valdez spillage. (obviously the drunk captain holds responsibility for his actions) Then - this government - strangled by liberal thoughts and ways - has allowed BP to handle the deep drilling in the gulf. BP should have been fully prepared for an oil spill - the US government should have been prepared as well - not sitting on their duffs for weeks on end. IF that had been BUSH - he would be on his way out the door, excoriated and his family shamed forever. BO is to blame for the extent of the damage. Period. No excuses. Instead - BO has you libs following him like the Trekian Borg. As for conspiracy theories - most on this board would have attacked conspiracy theories faster than you libbies. BUT... this Administration has done its best to prove everything the EXTREMISTS have said would come into being. Now THAT is scary: wacky extremists are correct and the middle stream are not. Also... one last tidbit... although BP drills for OUR oil - very little comes to this country. Instead it goes to other countries AT OUR EXPENSE. As far as land leases - it takes time to drill and test. It takes longer when enviroNutjobs get in the way with made up information they feed the masses. The oil companies are told - yes you can drill, no you can't drill, yes you can drill, no you can't drill. They are told they can build refineries... no they can't drill refineries... yes they can... In the interim they spend billions to trillions of dollars - with minimal return. As far as green technologies - you cannot prove they are better for the planet. CFL lightbulbs not only damage eyesight - in many nursing homes they cannot be installed due the the gasses, lighting, if they are accidentally broken they can cause major issues. At least with Oil based products we KNOW the side effects - what do you all know of the 'green' technologies other than they address fake money (carbon credits) and those who promote it are the worst offenders of the environment?
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Jun 1, 2010 20:22:02 GMT -5
There are also more oil leases issued than you can shake a stick at. Republicans have consistently fought efforts to put a time limit on how long they can be held. No real compelling reason other than oil company profits for that. There is also more oil being traded on paper than we have in barrels. "I am a suspicious type by nature and I just can't get over the timing of this disaster in the Gulf... Climate Change failure in Copenhagen now this... So many opportunities to fulfill the suspicious character here and no one has come forward with an explanation of "what happened" but lots of folks want to pull the plug on all the drilling, damnest thing yet hey? SOmething as simple as a few thousand bales of hay spread around to absorb the oil would really help right now but going forward I think we need to send Obama down to personally inspect every damn well before they continue with deep water drilling! Maybe Nappy can carry his tool pouch." To imagine a conspiracy about this particular spill reeks of 911 conspiracy theorists. I think the alarm sound you are hearing is for your own post. JDredd- society is much "greener" than it used to be if it makes you feel better. Young people are willing to recycle everything. I saw a young person the other day search for a recycle bin for over twenty minutes until she found one. I have students who will come early and stay late every day in order to run a recycling program. When I ask them why they are so motivated they say (in effect) that it makes them feel good to do something small where they live because the state of the environment looks like such a big problem when taken as a whole. How many here knew that BP held 51% of the company that was to monitor and clean up after the Valdez? How many also knew that it was BP that delayed the processes of clean up (due to bureaucratic bloat). Although Exxon received the public notoriety - it was BP that was to blame and is STILL to blame over the lack of cleanup from the Valdez spillage. (obviously the drunk captain holds responsibility for his actions) Then - this government - strangled by liberal thoughts and ways - has allowed BP to handle the deep drilling in the gulf. BP should have been fully prepared for an oil spill - the US government should have been prepared as well - not sitting on their duffs for weeks on end. IF that had been BUSH - he would be on his way out the door, excoriated and his family shamed forever. BO is to blame for the extent of the damage. Period. No excuses. Instead - BO has you libs following him like the Trekian Borg. As for conspiracy theories - most on this board would have attacked conspiracy theories faster than you libbies. BUT... this Administration has done its best to prove everything the EXTREMISTS have said would come into being. Now THAT is scary: wacky extremists are correct and the middle stream are not. Also... one last tidbit... although BP drills for OUR oil - very little comes to this country. Instead it goes to other countries AT OUR EXPENSE. As far as land leases - it takes time to drill and test. It takes longer when enviroNutjobs get in the way with made up information they feed the masses. The oil companies are told - yes you can drill, no you can't drill, yes you can drill, no you can't drill. They are told they can build refineries... no they can't drill refineries... yes they can... In the interim they spend billions to trillions of dollars - with minimal return. As far as green technologies - you cannot prove they are better for the planet. CFL lightbulbs not only damage eyesight - in many nursing homes they cannot be installed due the the gasses, lighting, if they are accidentally broken they can cause major issues. At least with Oil based products we KNOW the side effects - what do you all know of the 'green' technologies other than they address fake money (carbon credits) and those who promote it are the worst offenders of the environment? Is it custom now to quotes a person and then write a post that has nothing to do with the subject of the post you quoted? Perhaps Bush could leave the ranch and help the president with this catastrophe. He has all that experience from Katrina. Perhaps now would be a good time for someone to look at the vast lease holdings that are not being blocked by environmentalists. They are used by oil companies as leverage for financial deals and are not contributing to our energy supply. You can argue that businesses need to be able to use their assets for financial gain, but you cannot argue that oil companies are unable to drill on land. Oil companies are not getting the sweetheart deals under this administration that they did under the last administration but then again they did not give Obama an airplane to use for the campaign (gratis from Enron). Bush was very kind to the oil companies regarding taxes. I heard that it was so they could re-invest in energy (renewable and other). What they actually did was buy back their own stock to preserve share value. Not always a bad thing to do, but in doing so the national debt increased. Of course the debt was not a problem then (according to Cheney-debt was not a problem Reagan showed us that). Green technology is a little more than just light bulbs. The environment is a little like social security. I heard concerns about social security when Nixon was president but it was always a problem for the next administration. You can put the environment way down on the list of priorities for as long as you want to but the problem does not get cheaper to fix. We need to have capital invested in areas that will employ people. Gasoline production is a capital intensive industry and not a labor intensive industry while many of the green industries will be both. The timing for it is very good. We just got a wake-up call and some people woke up. We need to do something about the environment and we need to employ people. I wonder if this is why Duncan Hunter Sr. was big on having the federal government kick start the industry (at least he was when he was running for president). I know your response will not deal with any of the points I have presented but it sharpens my typing skills (not that you can notice) nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Jun 2, 2010 0:48:44 GMT -5
Larry, without quoting all your comments about the existing oil leases, I will attempt to bring you up to speed a little bit. While much of what you stated is generally done in negotiations and leverage, the off-shore leases had been frozen in the matter of being able to drill them. Obama had just decided to open them up against the wishes of the environmentalists, of whom have been so successful in keeping the drilling from taking place with so many previous presidents INCLUDING BUSH! Of course, this accident has forced Obama's hand into preventing all future drilling again! That is a guarantee, right now, for all off-shore drilling and yet to be decided on land drilling (doesn't look good either).
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 2, 2010 21:29:50 GMT -5
I know some of you work REAL HARD to get other people to hate their government like you do; I'm hoping with the Gulf oil spill to be joined by lots of other people who will now hate OIL COMPANIES...
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Jun 2, 2010 21:41:41 GMT -5
I know some of you work REAL HARD to get other people to hate their government like you do; I'm hoping with the Gulf oil spill to be joined by lots of other people who will now hate OIL COMPANIES... All we know thus far BP was following established government guidelines if proven otherwise I’ll save my emotional opinion for a fact based opinion.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 2, 2010 22:05:09 GMT -5
I know some of you work REAL HARD to get other people to hate their government like you do; I'm hoping with the Gulf oil spill to be joined by lots of other people who will now hate OIL COMPANIES... All we know thus far BP was following established government guidelines if proven otherwise I’ll save my emotional opinion for a fact based opinion. Oh I'm sure there will be a big campaign by the right wing media to whitewash the oil company's role in all this, but how successful can it really be?
|
|
|
Post by Rocket on Jun 3, 2010 14:58:56 GMT -5
Here's my question: Why were we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?
Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama's tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we've had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
So we go deep, ultra deep -- to such a technological frontier that no precedent exists for. There will always be catastrophic oil spills. You make them as rare as humanly possible, but where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people? All spills seriously damage wildlife. That's a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation?
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 3, 2010 15:51:04 GMT -5
Here's my question: Why were we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place? Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama's tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we've had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. So we go deep, ultra deep -- to such a technological frontier that no precedent exists for. There will always be catastrophic oil spills. You make them as rare as humanly possible, but where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people? All spills seriously damage wildlife. That's a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation? My solution is no new drilling anywhere, but I guess I'm in a small minority.
|
|