Drill Baby Drill

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]thefederalist wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Tax those evil oil companies…I mean who the hell do they think they are making a profit![/quote]

That has got to be the dumbest thing ever. The oil companies already pay the government far more than their profit. All they do is hold the profit on gas to about 8 cents a gallon. They are going to make that no matter what. If they charge the companies 5 more cents a gallon, the price just goes up 5 cents a gallon. It’s already around 40 cents I believe.[/quote]

ummm it was a joke.[/quote]

lolol he heard the word “tax” and flipped a shit. [/quote]

Ya I noticed that…whats even worse is I’m pretty sure the oil companies do not pay the government “far more than their profit”. How exactly can you pay the government far more then you make? [/quote]

Their net profit would be negative, and he implies this is an ongoing thing…Kimpossible

There is also a question whether Obama’s act was to open for drilling, or to begin “studies” regarding the possibility of selling leases in the future.

Most certainly no one has been authorized to go drill now.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I don’t know enough about the process involved to say whether this is good or bad.

But I’m not a fan of drilling in general, although necessary, and if he opens up ANWR for drilling I won’t vote for him again.

I’ve got to read more before making a call on this, but I’m much more of an environmentalist than a drilling fan. [/quote]

I am surprised to hear you say this, seriously. You allow an occasional glimmer of sensibility to shine through if God is not under discussion. I sincerely thought this would be one of those times. Oh well.
[/quote]

Why? I’m stating that I don’t know whether this will be good or bad. I’m not a fan of drilling because of the possible environmental impacts, but offshore drilling, as far as I can tell, has been relatively clean. Transporting the stuff in barges seems to be more of a problem.

Again, I don’t consider myself educated enough in the subject to really comment on it… drilling is obviously necessary, and maybe with newly developed technology it will be worth it to get to the harder to reach reserves.

However, again, I’m dead set against drilling ANWR. It’s a wildlife reserve and should stay that way, regardless of oil. I am much more concerned with conservation than I am with the amount of oil that could come out of there- which, while it might be a significant amount, wouldn’t impact oil prices any time in my lifetime.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I don’t know enough about the process involved to say whether this is good or bad.

But I’m not a fan of drilling in general, although necessary, and if he opens up ANWR for drilling I won’t vote for him again.

I’ve got to read more before making a call on this, but I’m much more of an environmentalist than a drilling fan. [/quote]

I am surprised to hear you say this, seriously. You allow an occasional glimmer of sensibility to shine through if God is not under discussion. I sincerely thought this would be one of those times. Oh well.
[/quote]

Why? I’m stating that I don’t know whether this will be good or bad. I’m not a fan of drilling because of the possible environmental impacts, but offshore drilling, as far as I can tell, has been relatively clean. Transporting the stuff in barges seems to be more of a problem.

Again, I don’t consider myself educated enough in the subject to really comment on it… drilling is obviously necessary, and maybe with newly developed technology it will be worth it to get to the harder to reach reserves.

However, again, I’m dead set against drilling ANWR. It’s a wildlife reserve and should stay that way, regardless of oil. I am much more concerned with conservation than I am with the amount of oil that could come out of there- which, while it might be a significant amount, wouldn’t impact oil prices any time in my lifetime.[/quote]

Environmental impacts are almost unmeasurable. Katrina hit and there were no issues with th erigs out there. Cargo is the spliller.

Don’t qualify this by your life span. Isn’t it our duty to push for the future benefit? Protect our way of life. We need to rid ourselves on dependancy of foriegn oil…and other products as far I I’m concerened. Not to say ban imports, but lets get our own reliance in check.

I am waiting for the day I see an ALL AMERICAN gas company…drilled, collected and refined here. I can’t find even one.

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

Don’t qualify this by your life span. Isn’t it our duty to push for the future benefit? Protect our way of life. We need to rid ourselves on dependancy of foriegn oil…and other products as far I I’m concerened. Not to say ban imports, but lets get our own reliance in check.

[/quote]

“Protecting our way of life” would mean developing new energy sources and strategies, not trying to put a stopgap measure, if you can even call it that, on foreign dependence of a finite supply of fossil fuel that’s awful for the environment anyway.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

Don’t qualify this by your life span. Isn’t it our duty to push for the future benefit? Protect our way of life. We need to rid ourselves on dependancy of foriegn oil…and other products as far I I’m concerened. Not to say ban imports, but lets get our own reliance in check.

[/quote]

“Protecting our way of life” would mean developing new energy sources and strategies…[/quote]

Isn’t that what we’re talking about here?[quote]

not trying to put a stopgap measure, if you can even call it that, on foreign dependence
of a finite supply of fossil fuel [/quote]

Right there, in your own words, you cited why this is a good deal. Did you intend to do that?[quote]

that’s awful for the environment anyway.[/quote]

Oil from the Virginia coast is no more awful for the environment than oil from Oman.[/quote]

Maybe I’m not clear on what you’re saying, but I’m saying that it’s not worth it to cause great damage to the environment in order to gain what’s left of the world’s oil… when we could be using the same money and technology to develop cleaner fuels and move away from the fossil fuels as a whole, which we should be doing.

And I’m not so much talking about offshore drilling here, as much as I am referencing the ANWR reserves.

[quote]thefederalist wrote:

p.s. also, Sarah Palin is hot.[/quote]

Do you think that’s why the press raped her? No, no they did it because they’re lefties like the guy they helped elect. Sorry, I forgot for a second.

[quote]thefederalist wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]thefederalist wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Tax those evil oil companies…I mean who the hell do they think they are making a profit![/quote]

That has got to be the dumbest thing ever. The oil companies already pay the government far more than their profit. All they do is hold the profit on gas to about 8 cents a gallon. They are going to make that no matter what. If they charge the companies 5 more cents a gallon, the price just goes up 5 cents a gallon. It’s already around 40 cents I believe.[/quote]

ummm it was a joke.[/quote]

lolol he heard the word “tax” and flipped a shit. [/quote]

Ya I noticed that…whats even worse is I’m pretty sure the oil companies do not pay the government “far more than their profit”. How exactly can you pay the government far more then you make? [/quote]

Their net profit would be negative, and he implies this is an ongoing thing…Kimpossible[/quote]

My rant was against obama, the media that allow him to make such statements and the idiots who believe him, not the poster whom I was agrying with. People actually believe obama when he says the way to fix high oil prices is to raise oil taxes. That’s kimpossible.

And yes. Profit = gross - expense

Taxes are an expense in my book. Why would you consider something profit that is automatically taken from you? It’s why I make more money where I live now than if I lived in California, even if the jobs paid the same. After tax profits are lower than taxes on gas.

When you buy a gallon of gas, more of that money goes into government pockets than oil company pockets. ESPECIALLY if you factor in regular corporate taxes in addition to the oil and gas taxes.

A little critical thinking would have gone a long way on that one guys.

I guess Obama just wants to tax evil things. We have evil rich people, evil oil companies, and evil wall street. Man who is next?

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You’re convinced “great damage to the environment” is imminent if more offshore drilling were allowed? Have you found this to be the case in the Gulf of Mexico where offshore drilling is abundant?[/quote]

No- as I said I’m not talking about that. I have yet to see an oil spill not caused by a barge.

Manner of speaking. But should the government give incentives on finding and refining new energy sources, oil companies would likely shift money from researching new ways of getting at oil to researching new things as a whole. Just an idea.

I’m not saying windmills. Don’t put words in my mouth. You know exactly what I’m saying.

[quote]

There are numerous studies that show fossil fuels lasting hundreds of years.[/quote]

Yea, I doubt it.

[quote]
And I’m not so much talking about offshore drilling here, as much as I am referencing the ANWR reserves.

Any kind of drilling and massive damage to the environment. Maybe not oil spills per se, but the constructuion, the working, etc… it should be left alone. Unequivocally.

So building a house on land is less damage to the environment. Have you seen the artificial reefs being made under water by these platforms being sunk. I think the damage that is done is in turn fixed once they move on. I believe that the Oil Companies see the damage they have done in the past and they are trying to make it better when they are done. Just my thoughts.

Thanks Rosie for your thoughts to.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

Don’t qualify this by your life span. Isn’t it our duty to push for the future benefit? Protect our way of life. We need to rid ourselves on dependancy of foriegn oil…and other products as far I I’m concerened. Not to say ban imports, but lets get our own reliance in check.

[/quote]

“Protecting our way of life” would mean developing new energy sources and strategies, not trying to put a stopgap measure, if you can even call it that, on foreign dependence of a finite supply of fossil fuel that’s awful for the environment anyway.

[/quote]

I agree. Drilling for more oil is only a temporary solution. It’s kind of like a meth freak who’s going broke buying meth from other people all the time, so he decides to make it himself to save money. Nuclear power is the wave of the future. There are enough natural gas reserves in Alaska to provide us with our own energy source until the technology to create virtually waste-free nuclear power using LIFE reactors is realized.

https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/missions/energy_for_the_future/life/

See, it’s this kind of shit that I’m worried about. Really worried about. EVen Christie isn’t for this, and even though he’s a Republican, I really like the things he’s done.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/033110_NJ_politicians_environmentalists_blast_Obama_drilling_plan_.html

N.J. politicians, environmentalists blast Obama drilling plan

Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Last updated: Wednesday March 31, 2010, 7:32 PM
BY JAMES M. O’NEILL
The Record

New Jersey Democrats, Republicans and environmentalists on Wednesday attacked President Obamaâ??s plan to open the Atlantic coastline south of New Jersey for oil and natural gas drilling â?? a move they said could put New Jerseyâ??s beaches and tourism industry at risk.

â??It makes no sense environmentally or economically,â?? said David Pringle of the New Jersey Environmental Federation. â??Best case scenario we will get grease balls on our beaches, but we could also get a catastrophe. This could undermine our tourism, which is one of the top three industries in New Jersey.â??

At a press conference Wednesday, Obama announced plans to allow exploration off the Atlantic coastline from Delaware on south to the central coast of Florida. Drilling would also be allowed in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, if a congressional moratorium is lifted, as well as along the northern coast of Alaska. Exploration off Virginia could begin as early as 2012.

While drilling would be prohibited off the coasts of New Jersey â?? as well as the New York, New England and Pacific coasts â?? New Jersey officials and environmentalists said drilling off the Atlantic coastline would cause real harm to the Jersey Shore. Prevailing currents along the Atlantic coast move south to north, so any spill from drilling activity off Delaware or Virginia coasts would inevitably befoul New Jersey beaches, environmentalists said.

Governor Christie also expressed concern about offshore drilling Wednesday. â??I oppose the idea of drilling off the coast of New Jersey,â?? Christie said, noting that Obamaâ??s proposal includes areas off the northern tip of Delaware near Cape May. â??New Jerseyâ??s coastline is one of our economic engines and I would have to be really convinced of both the economic viability and environmental safety of oil and gas exploration off our coast. At this point, Iâ??m not convinced.

He said he would withhold judgment for now about whether to join any lawsuit that might arise to block the presidentâ??s policy.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, like Obama a Democrat, issued an even stronger statement condemning the plan.

â??Giving big oil more access to our nationâ??s waters is really a kill, baby, kill policy â?? it threatens to kill jobs, kill marine life and kill coastal economies that generate billions of dollars,â?? said Lautenberg, a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

â??Offshore drilling isnâ??t the solution to our energy problems, and I will fight this policy and continue to push for 21st century clean energy solutions,â?? he said.

Lautenberg noted that when the Exxon Valdez spilled 11 million gallons of oil in Alaska in 1989, the oil spread 470 miles. The Virginia coast is less than 100 miles from New Jersey. And drilling off Delawareâ??s northernmost shore could potentially put rigs within 12 miles off the coast of Cape May, environmentalists said.

The beaches and beach towns of New Jersey generate about $50 billion in economic activity yearly and employ nearly 500,000, Lautenberg said. He noted that when medical waste washed up on a New Jersey beach in 1988, â??a panic ensuedâ?? and the state lost a third of its annual tourism revenue.

The stateâ??s multibillion-dollar fishing industry would also be threatened, said Sen. Bob Menendez, who said he was â??deeply concerned about the threat coastline drilling poses to the Jersey Shoreâ??s economy.â??

But Rep. Frank A. LoBiondo, whose district also includes Shore communities, said Obamaâ??s announcement echoes his own position on expanding offshore drilling. â??While my opposition to drilling off New Jersey has not changed, I have supported legislation allowing states to decide if they want to explore off their shores,â?? LoBiondo said in a statement. â??Combined with increased nuclear, solar, wind, biofuels and conservation efforts, expanded offshore drilling will enhance our national security and lead our country to energy independence.â??

The Obama policy would open large areas to drilling for the first time. Research conducted in the 1970s and 1980s indicated the presence of oil deposits off the Atlantic shoreline.

â??Given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth and produce jobs, and keep our businesses competitive, we are going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy,â?? the president said Wednesday.

Critics see the move as a way for Obama to court Republican votes for climate change legislation.

But Menendez said he told the Obama administration that if they do not protect New Jersey from the effects of coastal drilling in the climate change bill, then his vote is in question. At the very least, he said, drilling should be prohibited within 125 miles of the Jersey shoreline. Under the plan announced Wednesday, drilling must be done at least 3 miles from shore and in federal waters.

Obama seemed ready Wednesday for criticism.

â??There will be those who strongly disagree with this decision,â?? he said. â??But what I want to emphasize is that this announcement is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies more on homegrown fuels and clean energy.â??

Obama mentioned areas where the administration has invested in clean energy projects, such as producing advanced batteries for more efficient vehicles, upgrading the power grid, and doubling capacity to generate wind and solar power.

Thursday the administration will announce that new standards for auto efficiency will be finalized.

E-mail: oneillj@northjersey.com

Also- I might add, many of the people in favor of offshore drilling tend to be from GOP run states in the center of the country…

the states along the coast… don’t actually want it.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

Don’t qualify this by your life span. Isn’t it our duty to push for the future benefit? Protect our way of life. We need to rid ourselves on dependancy of foriegn oil…and other products as far I I’m concerened. Not to say ban imports, but lets get our own reliance in check.

[/quote]

“Protecting our way of life” would mean developing new energy sources and strategies, not trying to put a stopgap measure, if you can even call it that, on foreign dependence of a finite supply of fossil fuel that’s awful for the environment anyway.

[/quote]

I agree. Drilling for more oil is only a temporary solution. It’s kind of like a meth freak who’s going broke buying meth from other people all the time, so he decides to make it himself to save money. Nuclear power is the wave of the future. There are enough natural gas reserves in Alaska to provide us with our own energy source until the technology to create virtually waste-free nuclear power using LIFE reactors is realized.

https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/missions/energy_for_the_future/life/

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/12/proposed-laser-ignition-fusionfission.html[/quote]

If this type of energy is available in the near future that is pretty cool. Never heard of this type of technology before. I dont understand why we have been reluctant to use Nuclear Power more frequently in the past. I guess Three Mile Island, and Chernoble sp really put a damper on that for us here in the US.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Also- I might add, many of the people in favor of offshore drilling tend to be from GOP run states in the center of the country…

the states along the coast… don’t actually want it. [/quote]

Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama are for it. I can not believe Florida is going to let China use Cuba as a platform to drill for our oil off the coast.