Thanks Dumbocrats!

[quote]bald eagle wrote:
pat wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
pat wrote:
http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-

local_drill_onlinejun12,0,6418121.story

We have reserves off our own coast yet the democrats prefer we keep buying oil from people who’d rather see us dead. Brilliant! Most of us have learned, when will the government catch up? Is this the “Change we can believe in?”

Yep. All the dems fault. The GOP didn’t have control of the Congress and White House for 6 years. Nope. Never happened.

Oh no, the republicans fucked up royally in their tenure, no doubt. They share the blame in their lack of foresight and do-nothingness. But in the situation we are in today, where what has to happen is blatantly obvious the democrats fucked up and fucked us a royally as they could. I guess they get off on intentionally fucking up this country.

The repub congress had the votes in the 90’s but Clinton vetoed it. They voted again (on ANWR anyway) and it lost by one vote - unfortunately that one vote was John McCain. Bush would have signed it.

So yes, the republicans were close when they had control. However, remember that no one really has control of the Senate until you have 60 votes. The repubs did not have 60.

The repubs are not perfect but there are far more of them who want to drill in ANWR and off the coasts than there are dems. Just remember - China is getting ready to drill about 70 miles or so off the coast of Florida in Cuban waters. But we can’t.

Brilliant. When are some of you out there going to realize the dems do not really want lower gas prices. Oil is evil. The left thinks we already use too much of the world’s resources now.

Obama said the following recently - ‘we can’t set our thermostats on 72 and expect the rest of the world to say o.k.’ - give me a break. I really don’t care what the rest of the world thinks. But this is how the left sees America - it sees this country as the problem in the world.

America is not the problem - it is the model. It is the only country in the world where people will risk their life just to make it to our soil. In order to chase the American Dream. That’s funny I can’t seem to recall any other country being in that category.

The Russian Dream - nope. The German Dream - nope. The French Dream - nope. No, it is the American Dream that reigns supreme in the world.

The party of the left is the democratic party - where America is the problem. No thanks.

[/quote]

Sounds like you love ethanol, too.

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
pat wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
pat wrote:
http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-

local_drill_onlinejun12,0,6418121.story

We have reserves off our own coast yet the democrats prefer we keep buying oil from people who’d rather see us dead. Brilliant! Most of us have learned, when will the government catch up? Is this the “Change we can believe in?”

Yep. All the dems fault. The GOP didn’t have control of the Congress and White House for 6 years. Nope. Never happened.

Oh no, the republicans fucked up royally in their tenure, no doubt. They share the blame in their lack of foresight and do-nothingness. But in the situation we are in today, where what has to happen is blatantly obvious the democrats fucked up and fucked us a royally as they could. I guess they get off on intentionally fucking up this country.

The repub congress had the votes in the 90’s but Clinton vetoed it. They voted again (on ANWR anyway) and it lost by one vote - unfortunately that one vote was John McCain. Bush would have signed it.

So yes, the republicans were close when they had control. However, remember that no one really has control of the Senate until you have 60 votes. The repubs did not have 60.

The repubs are not perfect but there are far more of them who want to drill in ANWR and off the coasts than there are dems. Just remember - China is getting ready to drill about 70 miles or so off the coast of Florida in Cuban waters. But we can’t.

Brilliant. When are some of you out there going to realize the dems do not really want lower gas prices. Oil is evil. The left thinks we already use too much of the world’s resources now.

Obama said the following recently - ‘we can’t set our thermostats on 72 and expect the rest of the world to say o.k.’ - give me a break. I really don’t care what the rest of the world thinks. But this is how the left sees America - it sees this country as the problem in the world.

America is not the problem - it is the model. It is the only country in the world where people will risk their life just to make it to our soil. In order to chase the American Dream. That’s funny I can’t seem to recall any other country being in that category.

The Russian Dream - nope. The German Dream - nope. The French Dream - nope. No, it is the American Dream that reigns supreme in the world.

The party of the left is the democratic party - where America is the problem. No thanks.

Sounds like you love ethanol, too.[/quote]

Not at all - I like oil and I do not subscribe to the notion that we are running out. Alternatives are fine but let’s not demonize oil and oil companies. There are plenty of people searching for viable alternatives as the pay day will be huge when it is found. As for now drill and drill some more.

[quote]100meters wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
100meters wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
100meters wrote:
bald eagle wrote:

The dems do not want to drill because they want high prices. Many want higher taxes on gas to discourage use. Oil is evil to a dem. It was Bill Clinton who said a few yrs ago that we needed to slow down this economy to save the environment.

While I realize that you probably like to freestyle and just kind of make up shit as you go, it’s always fun to point out the made up shit.

Clinton said:

�??And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada �?? the rich counties �?? would say, �??OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions �??cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.�?? We could do that.

But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren.

The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world�??s fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.�??

gee…context helps alot don’t ya think?

and now back to you and Mick28 just making up shit…

What did I make up? Context? Slow down our economy is slow down our economy. Also, you do know Obama recently said he wished that gas prices had risen more slowly? More slowly? You mean he wants higher gas prices? Why, I can’t believe that.

He isn’t saying slow down our economy. He’s actually making the opposite point. See?

Whatever, keep lapping up the democratic crap. The dems and others on the left see America as the problem using too much of the world’s resources. You did see where Obama said that about gas prices didn’t you? He said he wished they would have risen more slowly.

I guess he thinks the high prices are good. He thinks that because he believes we are using too much of the world’s resources. That means he wants us to use less - well that means less economic activity.

The concern isn’t over “using too much of the world’s resources”. The concern is ever increasing demand for a finite and (relatively) maxed out resource, and the side effects (presence in Middle East, etc.) of using said resource.

So the philosophy, which is debatable is “lets heavily invest in R&D on alternatives/fuel efficiency/etc. and the economic exploitation of those alternatives and related technologies for American gain.”

Also, Obama/Dems want increased economic activity. Decreased economic activity not typically a winner at election time (see last 8 years/McCain)

P.S. Funny you glossed over misleading folks (already gullible enough 'round here as it is) on Clinton.

The thing is Mick28 “believes” this shit. Telling him lies and steering him wrong ain’t gonna help much.

(Plus he’s retarded–it seems wrong to manipulate the retarded)

[/quote]

I don’t know if we need to start calling people retarded.

Of course they will not say they want decreased economic activity right now - they are too busy promising jobs in every small town in America. But they do want high gas prices because they want less consumption of oil.

By the way - oil is not maxed out. Given the advances in technology in the last 25 yrs alone - I think the next 100 yrs would absolutely blow us away if we were still around.

So I don’t think we need to be concerned about oil supply - but we darn sure better be willing to drill. We have plenty of oil and natural gas but it won’t do us any good if we are not willing to go get it.

What reason is there for not drilling? Don’t tell me the environment - we can get it out in a very clean and responsible way. And do not give me global warming. Give me something else. I’m serious - as a democrat (which I know you are) tell me why we should not drill for more oil.

[quote]bald eagle wrote:

By the way - oil is not maxed out. Given the advances in technology in the last 25 yrs alone - I think the next 100 yrs would absolutely blow us away if we were still around. [/quote]

This is a very interesting point you bring up. “If we are still around”

Well, you’re right. If we are still around, and if energy is still plentiful, technology in 100 years will be unfathomably more incredible than what we have today. However, it would be, particularly risky to bank on that future, when it just so happens Oil, or the lack thereof, may be exactly the cause for why we won’t be around in 100 years.

It should be noted. It won’t take running out of oil for us to feel severe economic and political backlash. I am not a doomsayer by a long shot. I do not believe most of the peak oil gloom and doom talk that is circulated around the internet.

But the economic reality is that perceived value of a commodity often matters more than actual value. In Oil’s case, the perceived availability will matter more than actual availability when it comes to economic repercussions.

As to why we should not drill for more oil. Well we can if we want, but the question we need to ask is whether or not we wish to continue investing into a product that can only last so long, knowing that the further we invest into it the greater the impact will be when it does slow down.

OR

Do we choose to invest more(time and money) into different technologies that have the potential to provide significant financial returns in the future, as well as an infinite energy supply?

Usually I err on the side of conserving spending and saving money where applicable, except where a potent financial return can be realised. In this situation, non-oil power sources are the future, one way or another. It is just a matter of when we start to adopt them, and how we go about doing it.

[quote]bald eagle wrote:
100meters wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
100meters wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
100meters wrote:
bald eagle wrote:

The dems do not want to drill because they want high prices. Many want higher taxes on gas to discourage use. Oil is evil to a dem. It was Bill Clinton who said a few yrs ago that we needed to slow down this economy to save the environment.

While I realize that you probably like to freestyle and just kind of make up shit as you go, it’s always fun to point out the made up shit.

Clinton said:

�??And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada �?? the rich counties �?? would say, �??OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions �??cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.�?? We could do that.

But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren.

The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world�??s fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.�??

gee…context helps alot don’t ya think?

and now back to you and Mick28 just making up shit…

What did I make up? Context? Slow down our economy is slow down our economy. Also, you do know Obama recently said he wished that gas prices had risen more slowly? More slowly? You mean he wants higher gas prices? Why, I can’t believe that.

He isn’t saying slow down our economy. He’s actually making the opposite point. See?

Whatever, keep lapping up the democratic crap. The dems and others on the left see America as the problem using too much of the world’s resources. You did see where Obama said that about gas prices didn’t you? He said he wished they would have risen more slowly.

I guess he thinks the high prices are good. He thinks that because he believes we are using too much of the world’s resources. That means he wants us to use less - well that means less economic activity.

The concern isn’t over “using too much of the world’s resources”. The concern is ever increasing demand for a finite and (relatively) maxed out resource, and the side effects (presence in Middle East, etc.) of using said resource.

So the philosophy, which is debatable is “lets heavily invest in R&D on alternatives/fuel efficiency/etc. and the economic exploitation of those alternatives and related technologies for American gain.”

Also, Obama/Dems want increased economic activity. Decreased economic activity not typically a winner at election time (see last 8 years/McCain)

P.S. Funny you glossed over misleading folks (already gullible enough 'round here as it is) on Clinton.

The thing is Mick28 “believes” this shit. Telling him lies and steering him wrong ain’t gonna help much.

(Plus he’s retarded–it seems wrong to manipulate the retarded)

I don’t know if we need to start calling people retarded.

Of course they will not say they want decreased economic activity right now - they are too busy promising jobs in every small town in America. But they do want high gas prices because they want less consumption of oil.

By the way - oil is not maxed out. Given the advances in technology in the last 25 yrs alone - I think the next 100 yrs would absolutely blow us away if we were still around.

So I don’t think we need to be concerned about oil supply - but we darn sure better be willing to drill. We have plenty of oil and natural gas but it won’t do us any good if we are not willing to go get it.

What reason is there for not drilling? Don’t tell me the environment - we can get it out in a very clean and responsible way. And do not give me global warming. Give me something else. I’m serious - as a democrat (which I know you are) tell me why we should not drill for more oil.[/quote]

I gave you the reason for not drilling.
But again, oil companies already have a lot of federally given land that they aren’t drilling on. Giving them more land to not drill for 10 years (and more for advanced methods) to pull out tiny amounts of oil (relative to global reserves) that brings the price of gas down a few cents, until the next day it goes up a dime doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

[quote]bald eagle wrote:
pat wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
pat wrote:
http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-

local_drill_onlinejun12,0,6418121.story

We have reserves off our own coast yet the democrats prefer we keep buying oil from people who’d rather see us dead. Brilliant! Most of us have learned, when will the government catch up? Is this the “Change we can believe in?”

Yep. All the dems fault. The GOP didn’t have control of the Congress and White House for 6 years. Nope. Never happened.

Oh no, the republicans fucked up royally in their tenure, no doubt. They share the blame in their lack of foresight and do-nothingness. But in the situation we are in today, where what has to happen is blatantly obvious the democrats fucked up and fucked us a royally as they could. I guess they get off on intentionally fucking up this country.

The repub congress had the votes in the 90’s but Clinton vetoed it. They voted again (on ANWR anyway) and it lost by one vote - unfortunately that one vote was John McCain. Bush would have signed it.

So yes, the republicans were close when they had control. However, remember that no one really has control of the Senate until you have 60 votes. The repubs did not have 60.

The repubs are not perfect but there are far more of them who want to drill in ANWR and off the coasts than there are dems. Just remember - China is getting ready to drill about 70 miles or so off the coast of Florida in Cuban waters. But we can’t.

Brilliant. When are some of you out there going to realize the dems do not really want lower gas prices. Oil is evil. The left thinks we already use too much of the world’s resources now.

Obama said the following recently - ‘we can’t set our thermostats on 72 and expect the rest of the world to say o.k.’ - give me a break. I really don’t care what the rest of the world thinks. But this is how the left sees America - it sees this country as the problem in the world.

America is not the problem - it is the model. It is the only country in the world where people will risk their life just to make it to our soil. In order to chase the American Dream. That’s funny I can’t seem to recall any other country being in that category.

The Russian Dream - nope. The German Dream - nope. The French Dream - nope. No, it is the American Dream that reigns supreme in the world.

The party of the left is the democratic party - where America is the problem. No thanks.

[/quote]

Let us make no mistake. The republicans had plenty of opportunity to do things that would have kept us out of the situation and they did nothing.
It is even dumber now that our worst fears have been realized, to still do nothing and for the same reasons we did nothing before. That is titanic stupidity. I think Ted had this brain tumor for decades…it would explain a lot.

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
pat wrote:
I love ethanol…

It shows.

[/quote]

LOL! I am just glad your avatar doesn’t look like a corn-hole anymore…

[quote]pat wrote:

Let us make no mistake. The republicans had plenty of opportunity to do things that would have kept us out of the situation and they did nothing.
It is even dumber now that our worst fears have been realized, to still do nothing and for the same reasons we did nothing before. That is titanic stupidity. I think Ted had this brain tumor for decades…it would explain a lot.[/quote]

I seem to remember someone wanted to drill for oil in Alaska. If we started it then it would be coming on-line soon.

If we cap out carbon emissions that will solve the problems.

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
bald eagle wrote:

By the way - oil is not maxed out. Given the advances in technology in the last 25 yrs alone - I think the next 100 yrs would absolutely blow us away if we were still around.

This is a very interesting point you bring up. “If we are still around”

Well, you’re right. If we are still around, and if energy is still plentiful, technology in 100 years will be unfathomably more incredible than what we have today. However, it would be, particularly risky to bank on that future, when it just so happens Oil, or the lack thereof, may be exactly the cause for why we won’t be around in 100 years.

It should be noted. It won’t take running out of oil for us to feel severe economic and political backlash. I am not a doomsayer by a long shot. I do not believe most of the peak oil gloom and doom talk that is circulated around the internet.

But the economic reality is that perceived value of a commodity often matters more than actual value. In Oil’s case, the perceived availability will matter more than actual availability when it comes to economic repercussions.

As to why we should not drill for more oil. Well we can if we want, but the question we need to ask is whether or not we wish to continue investing into a product that can only last so long, knowing that the further we invest into it the greater the impact will be when it does slow down.

OR

Do we choose to invest more(time and money) into different technologies that have the potential to provide significant financial returns in the future, as well as an infinite energy supply?

Usually I err on the side of conserving spending and saving money where applicable, except where a potent financial return can be realised. In this situation, non-oil power sources are the future, one way or another. It is just a matter of when we start to adopt them, and how we go about doing it.

[/quote]

We are not that far apart. I say do everything - drill more, wind, nuclear, coal, and so forth. You have to remember we still have a lot of machinery, cars, etc. that rely on oil and that will not go away anytime soon no matter how much we invest in new technologies. We don’t want to cripple our economy with high gas prices if we don’t have to. That does not make any sense.

[quote]100meters wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
100meters wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
100meters wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
100meters wrote:
bald eagle wrote:

The dems do not want to drill because they want high prices. Many want higher taxes on gas to discourage use. Oil is evil to a dem. It was Bill Clinton who said a few yrs ago that we needed to slow down this economy to save the environment.

While I realize that you probably like to freestyle and just kind of make up shit as you go, it’s always fun to point out the made up shit.

Clinton said:

�??And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada �?? the rich counties �?? would say, �??OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions �??cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.�?? We could do that.

But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren.

The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world�??s fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.�??

gee…context helps alot don’t ya think?

and now back to you and Mick28 just making up shit…

What did I make up? Context? Slow down our economy is slow down our economy. Also, you do know Obama recently said he wished that gas prices had risen more slowly? More slowly? You mean he wants higher gas prices? Why, I can’t believe that.

He isn’t saying slow down our economy. He’s actually making the opposite point. See?

Whatever, keep lapping up the democratic crap. The dems and others on the left see America as the problem using too much of the world’s resources. You did see where Obama said that about gas prices didn’t you? He said he wished they would have risen more slowly.

I guess he thinks the high prices are good. He thinks that because he believes we are using too much of the world’s resources. That means he wants us to use less - well that means less economic activity.

The concern isn’t over “using too much of the world’s resources”. The concern is ever increasing demand for a finite and (relatively) maxed out resource, and the side effects (presence in Middle East, etc.) of using said resource.

So the philosophy, which is debatable is “lets heavily invest in R&D on alternatives/fuel efficiency/etc. and the economic exploitation of those alternatives and related technologies for American gain.”

Also, Obama/Dems want increased economic activity. Decreased economic activity not typically a winner at election time (see last 8 years/McCain)

P.S. Funny you glossed over misleading folks (already gullible enough 'round here as it is) on Clinton.

The thing is Mick28 “believes” this shit. Telling him lies and steering him wrong ain’t gonna help much.

(Plus he’s retarded–it seems wrong to manipulate the retarded)

I don’t know if we need to start calling people retarded.

Of course they will not say they want decreased economic activity right now - they are too busy promising jobs in every small town in America. But they do want high gas prices because they want less consumption of oil.

By the way - oil is not maxed out. Given the advances in technology in the last 25 yrs alone - I think the next 100 yrs would absolutely blow us away if we were still around.

So I don’t think we need to be concerned about oil supply - but we darn sure better be willing to drill. We have plenty of oil and natural gas but it won’t do us any good if we are not willing to go get it.

What reason is there for not drilling? Don’t tell me the environment - we can get it out in a very clean and responsible way. And do not give me global warming. Give me something else. I’m serious - as a democrat (which I know you are) tell me why we should not drill for more oil.

I gave you the reason for not drilling.
But again, oil companies already have a lot of federally given land that they aren’t drilling on. Giving them more land to not drill for 10 years (and more for advanced methods) to pull out tiny amounts of oil (relative to global reserves) that brings the price of gas down a few cents, until the next day it goes up a dime doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

[/quote]

That’s not a reason. Tiny amounts? I don’t think so. What skin is it off of your back or anyone elses if we have more supply? What is the downside? Remember the more oil we produce here at home means the more money that stays in this economy.

From the Wall St. Journal June 12th. edition.

Drill! Drill! Drill!

June 12, 2008; Page A15

Charles de Gaulle once wrote off the nation of Brazil in six words: “Brazil is not a serious country.” How much time is left before someone says the same of the United States?

One thing Brazil and the U.S. have in common is the price of oil: It is priced in dollars, and everyone in the world now knows what the price is. Another commonality is that each country has vast oil reserves in waters off their coastlines.

Wonder Land columnist Daniel Henninger says America needs to get serious about its oil and gas resources. (June 11)
Here we may draw a line in the waves between the serious and the unserious.

Brazil discovered only yesterday (November) that billions of barrels of oil sit in difficult water beneath a swath of the Santos Basin, 180 miles offshore from Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo. The U.S. has known for decades that at least 8.5 billion proven barrels of oil sit off its Pacific, Atlantic and Gulf coasts, with the Interior Department estimating 86 billion barrels of undiscovered oil resources.

When Brazil made this find last November, did its legislature announce that, for fear of oil spills hitting Rio’s beaches or altering the climate, it would forgo exploiting these fields?

Of course it didn’t. Guilherme Estrella, director of exploration and production for the Brazilian oil company Petrobras, said, “It’s an extraordinary position for Brazil to be in.” Indeed it is.

At this point in time, is there another country on the face of the earth that would possess the oil and gas reserves held by the United States and refuse to exploit them? Only technical incompetence, as in Mexico, would hold anyone back.

But not us. We won’t drill.

California won’t drill for the estimated 1.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil off its coast because of bad memories of the Santa Barbara oil spill �?? in 1969.

We won’t drill for the estimated 5.6 billion to 16 billion barrels of oil in the moonscape known as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) because of �?? the caribou.

In 1990, George H.W. Bush, calling himself “the environmental president,” signed an order putting virtually all the U.S. outer continental shelf’s oil and gas reserves in the deep freeze. Bill Clinton extended that lockup until 2013. A Clinton veto also threw away the key to ANWR’s oil 13 years ago.

Our waters may hold 60 trillion untapped cubic feet of natural gas. As in Brazil, these are surely conservative estimates.

AP
While Brazilians proudly embrace Petrobras, yelling “We’re Going to Be No. 1,” the U.S.'s Democratic nominee for president, Barack Obama, promises to impose an “excess profits tax” on American oil producers.

We live in a world in which Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez use their vast oil and gas reserves as instruments of state power. Here, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid use their control of Congress to spend a week debating a “climate-change” bill. This they did fresh off their subsidized (and bipartisan) ethanol fiasco.

One may assume that Mr. Putin and the Chinese have noticed the policy obsessions of our political class. While other nations use their oil reserves to attain world status, we give ours up. Why shouldn’t they conclude that, long term, these people can be taken? Nikita Khrushchev said, “We will bury you.” Forget that. We’ll do it ourselves.

Putin intimidates Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic states and Poland with oil and gas cutoffs, while Chávez uses petrodollars to bankroll Colombian terrorists. Cuba plans to exploit its Caribbean oil fields within a long tee shot of the Florida Keys with help from India, Spain, Venezuela, Canada, Norway, Malaysia, even Vietnam. But America won’t drill. Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida said just last month he’s afraid of an oil spill. Katrina wrecked the oil rigs in the Gulf with no significant damage from leaking oil.

Some portion of the current $4-per-gallon gasoline may be attributable to the Federal Reserve’s inflationary monetary policy or even speculators. But we can wave goodbye to the $1.25/gallon gasoline that in 1990 allowed a President Bush to airily lock away the nation’s oil and gas jewels. This isn’t your father’s world of energy. New world powers are coming online fast, and they need energy. We need to get back in the game.

The goal shouldn’t be “energy independence,” a ridiculous notion in an economically integrated world. It’s about admitting the need to strike a balance between the energy and security realities of the here-and-now and the potentialities of the future. Some of our best and brightest want to pursue alternative energy technologies, and they should be encouraged to do so, inside market disciplines. But let’s at least stop pretending the rest of the world is going to play along with our environmentalist moralisms.

The Democrats’ climate-change bill collapsed last week under the weight of brutal cost realities. It was a wake-up call. This is the year Americans joined the real world of energy costs. Now someone needs to explain to them why we �?? and we alone �?? are sitting on an ocean of energy but won’t drill for it.

You’d think the “national security” nominee, John McCain, would get this. He’s clueless �?? a don’t-drill zombie. We may mark this down as the year the U.S. tired of being a serious country.

It really is staggering. The rest of the world is happily drilling oil while yammering about global warming while the fools in Washington refuse to look out for American interests.

on Kudlow tonight - we have an estimated 2 trillion barrels of oil reserves in this country plus the oil shale. 2 trillion is 300+ yrs alone. The far left has control of the dem party and oil is evil in their eyes. They despise capitalism. Too many dems in congress are beholden to them.

We need to march on DC. Until enough of these guys start feeling heat in their own district they will not budge.

This is just not that hard to figure out. It is beyond frustrating. Kind of like having a million dollars in savings but refusing to tap it and pull out 100k to save your 500k house.

I have never heard that 2 trillion barrels of oil reserves could operate our economy for 300 years, I have also not heard 2 trillion barrels in reserves. Could you cite that please?

Maybe that estimate assume current usage, but usage increases at a non-linear rate. It would be impossible to accurately predict how long 2 trillion barrels would really last.

But the crucial point is that as soon as you start operating on reserves, your economy will feel a tremendous strain because growth would have effectively stopped. It is not enough for the market to be sustaining, it needs input and it needs growth in order to be healthy.

Estimates about remaining oil that I have heard float around the 100 year mark, with some optimistic figures about things ilke oil shale, extending that maybe to 150. But again, it is impossible to accurately predict.

One thing is certain. As more countries(India and China for instance) start to require more Oil, Geopolitical tensions will increase. If wars break out, they will consume oil at a significantly faster rate than without them.

Oil Crises is not about running out of Oil as much as it is about production slowing down.

It does not do anyone good to pass off the topic by saying “Oh, well, we have XXX years left” When there are so many factors affecting the rate of consumption, but more importantly, the rate of production.

[quote]bald eagle wrote:
We need to march on DC. [/quote]

Don’t forget to post pictures.

[quote]bald eagle wrote:
on Kudlow tonight - we have an estimated 2 trillion barrels of oil reserves in this country plus the oil shale. 2 trillion is 300+ yrs alone. The far left has control of the dem party and oil is evil in their eyes. They despise capitalism. Too many dems in congress are beholden to them.

We need to march on DC. Until enough of these guys start feeling heat in their own district they will not budge.

This is just not that hard to figure out. It is beyond frustrating. Kind of like having a million dollars in savings but refusing to tap it and pull out 100k to save your 500k house. [/quote]

Best to just ignore Kudlow.

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
I have never heard that 2 trillion barrels of oil reserves could operate our economy for 300 years, I have also not heard 2 trillion barrels in reserves. Could you cite that please?

Maybe that estimate assume current usage, but usage increases at a non-linear rate. It would be impossible to accurately predict how long 2 trillion barrels would really last.

But the crucial point is that as soon as you start operating on reserves, your economy will feel a tremendous strain because growth would have effectively stopped. It is not enough for the market to be sustaining, it needs input and it needs growth in order to be healthy.

Estimates about remaining oil that I have heard float around the 100 year mark, with some optimistic figures about things ilke oil shale, extending that maybe to 150. But again, it is impossible to accurately predict.

One thing is certain. As more countries(India and China for instance) start to require more Oil, Geopolitical tensions will increase. If wars break out, they will consume oil at a significantly faster rate than without them.

Oil Crises is not about running out of Oil as much as it is about production slowing down.

It does not do anyone good to pass off the topic by saying “Oh, well, we have XXX years left” When there are so many factors affecting the rate of consumption, but more importantly, the rate of production.[/quote]

Everything is an estimate. However, we use the same amount of oil per day as we used 30 yrs ago thanks to technology. We can assume with reasonable certainty that efficiencies will continue to rise.

Also, other sources of energy like wind and nuclear offer significant savings as does natural gas. So it is fair to say that daily use of oil could trend down over time even as we grow the economy.

The estimate of 300+ yrs is taking the 2+ trillion in reserves and dividing by daily use of 18 million barrels currently.

The point is if we were pumping out an additional 2 million barrels per day right now the price would be significantly less. That is 2 mil less that we would need to buy from overseas. That is quite a bit of money staying here.

[quote]100meters wrote:

I gave you the reason for not drilling.
But again, oil companies already have a lot of federally given land that they aren’t drilling on. Giving them more land to not drill for 10 years (and more for advanced methods) to pull out tiny amounts of oil (relative to global reserves) that brings the price of gas down a few cents, until the next day it goes up a dime doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

[/quote]

Okay, the next question is does this federally given land have any oil on it. I am not talking a few quarts, I mean enough to justify the cost of drilling, while in these other areas we are not allow to drill on has a verifiably large oil stash?

Honestly, I would be interested in knowing how much oil is available on this land they already have.
IMO, however, if there is significant oil there they should drill in all places where it is.

I am not a big fan of laws and restrictions, but in this case I would like to see a temporary law that mandates that the only oil we import is due to a domestic deficit vs. the fact that it is still more lucrative for the oil companies to import it than to drill and maintain equipment. After all they are going to go for the biggest profit margin and that is still way higher from imports.

[quote]bald eagle wrote:

The estimate of 300+ yrs is taking the 2+ trillion in reserves and dividing by daily use of 18 million barrels currently.

[/quote]

I’m still not sure where you are getting the 2 trillion figure. Estimates have suggested that there was ~2 trillion barrels of oil, but since we’ve started using oil, we’ve burned up almost 900 billion barrels of it. Leaving us with ~1.2 trillion barrels left in the world(give or take 100 billion).

The US consumes over 20 million barrels a day. The WORLD consumes ~90 million barrels a day.

There has been talk about massive untapped oil fields beneath the Rocky mountains, but part of the problem with ‘massive untapped fields’ is that the logistics involved in extracted this stuff can end up becoming so cost inefficient, that you’re better off not extracting it to begin with. Which is to say, it would have no effect on our gas prices. If it is true that there is upwards of trillions barrels in oil shale under the Rocky mountains, that is great… only if we can COST EFFECTIVELY extract it. Otherwise it may as well not be there, because it won’t ‘solve’ anything.

But, I am by no means convinced that the world is in an oil crisis of epic scale, however, I think it is dangerously disingenuous to write it off with a “ah, we’ll just find more oil” or “oh, science will bail us out” mentality. Even if that is somewhat true. It is irresponsible.

As it stands, I think we would be very wise to diversify our economy as much as possible. There will always be a need for petroleum, until the ICE can be effectively replaced. But there is no need to burn petroleum to power our homes and to power much of our industry, and the more we can diversify, the longer our oil will last, the less we will actually need it, the cheaper it will become, and in all likelihood, the safer we will be, since we won’t be starting wars over it.