Obama sets out energy future for less dependency on oil

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
BBC News

President Barack Obama has vowed to reduce US oil imports by one-third in little more than a decade.

He said in a speech in Washington that America had to "get serious" about a secure and affordable energy future.

Higher oil prices are threatening to hamper US economic recovery and there is growing dissatisfaction among car drivers with pump prices.

Mr Obama said the US must move towards getting 80% of its electricity from clean energy sources by 2035.

"We cannot keep going from shock to trance on the issue of energy security, rushing to propose action when gas prices rise, then hitting the snooze button when they fall again," he said during a speech at Georgetown University.

Mr Obama said that presidents and politicians had for years promised energy independence through finding cleaner and more renewable sources.

Petrol prices in the US have shot up 50 cents a gallon this year, reaching a national average of $3.58 a gallon last week.

"We have to discover and produce cleaner, renewable sources of energy," Mr Obama said. "And we have to do it quickly."

After Mr Obama's speech, Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell accused the Obama administration of trying to "lock up" US energy.

He said plans like that which Mr Obama outlined to develop alternative energy in the future did little to relieve present high petrol prices.

"The guy who's trying to make ends meet wants to know what you're going to do for him today, not 24 years from now," he said, quoted by the Associated Press.

"We need to look elsewhere for our energy. The problem is that Democrats don't want us to use the energy we have. It's enough to make you wonder whether anybody in the White House has driven by a gas station lately."

As well as increasing the use of alternative energies such as biofuels and making vehicles more efficient, Mr Obama said the US must raise domestic oil production.

An Interior Department report published on Tuesday said that more than two-thirds of offshore exploration licences in the Gulf of Mexico have yet to be acted upon by oil companies.

The department said that the sites could potentially hold more than 11 billion barrels of oil and 50 trillion cubic feet (1.42 trillion cubic meters) of natural gas.

Mr Obama also embraced an expansion of nuclear power, but added that there would be a thorough review of power plants to ensure any lessons from the crisis in Japan were learned
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
Drill baby, drill! :rolleyes:

I really liked McConnell's comments:
"The guy who's trying to make ends meet wants to know what you're going to do for him today, not 24 years from now,"

Some people just can't wrap their head's around the idea that the President is capable of doing two things at the same time. Looking at short term relief at the pumps and looking to the future for alternatives to Middle Eastern oil.

"We need to look elsewhere for our energy. The problem is that Democrats don't want us to use the energy we have. It's enough to make you wonder whether anybody in the White House has driven by a gas station lately."

Where is all this "energy" here in the great United States of America that will impact the price at the pump now?

I wonder when the last time McConnell has driven by, or for that matter, pumped his own fuel?
 

xiggi

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Drill baby, drill! :rolleyes:



Where is all this "energy" here in the great United States of America that will impact the price at the pump now?

The same excuse that has be used for twenty years by some not to use more resources we have here. It will take ten years to bring that oil to market. If they would have started when this excuse was used 10 or twenty years ago you would be seeing a difference today.

If they started handing out permits today for more drilling for both oil and natural gas you would see an immediate drop at the pumps. Speculators drive the market and the more potential on the future market the lower the price.

Just to remind those who believe the political double speak, leases are not drilling permits.
 

jpalmer

Seasoned Expediter
When Obama says we need to be more energy independent he really means we need to import less oil and charge more for it here. He could give to sheep about the price of gas at the pump.

What else am i supposed to think when I hear him tell people to get a tune up when asked about high energy prices?

This country cannot grow with high energy prices. Obama and his advisers have said numerous times they are not interested in growing America. They want America on the decline. Again, This isn't some conspiracy. That comes straight out of the mouth of people like Bill Ayers, Cass Sunstein and George Soros. All of which are Obama advisers.

I'm not interested in being held hostage by high oil prices that are inflated by commodity trading perpetuated by free money from the fed.

I want to prosper and grow in business and personal life. If I gotta tear through a bunch of liberal hacks to do that...So be it!!
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
Let me preface this by saying, I could care less if they started drilling in ANWR or not, but, oil and natural gas drilling has a lot of consequences that go along with it. With that said, it's just not as simple as putting a drill in the ground and America is better off, which I am sure everyone knows.

Here is some good information on the subject. Yes, it is from MediaMatters, but I ask that you read it anyway. The sources they have are very important and credible. If someone can give "credible" sources saying we can reach energy independence by drilling here in the United States or the benefits of it, I personally would be interested in reading them. I highly recommend going directly to MediaMatters with the link provided for additional sources. I must warn you, this is very long, but if you care about this debate you need to read the entire article.

Link: Experts Reject Fox News' Claim That Drilling Can Solve Dependence On Foreign Oil | Media Matters for America

Experts Reject Fox News' Claim That Drilling Can Solve Dependence On Foreign Oil
March 31, 2011 1:12 pm ET

On Fox News, Eric Bolling advanced several energy myths that have been debunked by experts, including the claim that the U.S. could end its dependence on foreign oil by expanding domestic drilling.
Click link above for the video

Bolling Claims U.S. Can Reach Energy Independence Through Domestic Drilling
From the March 29 edition of Fox News' America Live:

ERIC BOLLING: The bottom line is there's plenty of oil. We just need to be able to get it, access it here. We've got more oil than Brazil. We've got more oil than Saudi Arabia. How about an energy policy that isn't blocking, hindering, and obstructing our own drilling companies?

[...]

BOLLING: We have hundreds of billions of barrels equivalent sitting right here in America, we just have to permit it.

MEGYN KELLY (host): If you can get the permit. Now, let me ask you this because, you know, the president in defending that thing with Brazil said, look, even if we started drilling everything -- he didn't say this, but defenders would argue - even if we started drilling in all those places tomorrow, it's going to take us a few years, right?

BOLLING: Absolutely.

KELLY: So Brazil, why not import from Brazil as opposed to one of these Middle Eastern countries that may not be our friend, you know, in full and Brazil we can rely on. So what's wrong with both tapping into Brazil oil and our own?

BOLLING: Because we need our own. We don't need Brazil, we don't need Saudi Arabia, we don't need Chavez in Venezuela. We need our own. [Fox News, America Live, 3/29/11]

Experts Reject Notion That U.S. Can Eliminate Oil Imports By Drilling

Tom O'Donnell: "It Is Impossible For The U.S. To Ever Again Achieve Energy Independence From Oil Imports By Producing More Oil At Home." Tom O'Donnell, professor of Graduate International Affairs at The New School and expert on the globalized energy sector responded to Bolling's claim by stating "It is not possible given the level of US proven reserves, for the US to become 'energy independent' (in terms of oil)." Further, O'Donnell explained:

Mr. Bolling asserts: "We have hundreds of billions of barrels equivalent sitting right here in America, we just have to permit it."

However, one should be careful with numbers. Speaking of the U.S. in terms of "100's" of billions of barrels of reserves is a gross overstatement of what we have available here in the U.S. yet to be pumped out of the ground.

Here are the actual numbers:

According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency at the DoE, the entire world, in 2009, had 1,354 billion barrels of proven reserves of oil.

Meanwhile, the U.S., including offshore and Alaska, has only 19.1 billion barrels. (In 2010, this number didn't change significantly.)

This means that the US has only 1.4% of all the world's proven oil reserves.

The numbers I cited include all the reserves Mr. Bolling would like to begin pumping in order to somehow make the U.S. independent of imports. However, Alaska's entire reserves are only 3.6 billon barrels, and the entire Gulf Coast offshore has 4.0 billion barrels. There simply are no "100's of billions of barrels" of untapped reserves in the U.S.

It is impossible for the U.S. to ever again achieve energy independence from oil imports by producing more oil at home. We, like all other industrialized countries today, must rely on a well functioning world oil market.

As for consumption, the world consumed on average 84.4 million barrels of oil per day in 2009, of which the US consumed 18.8. million barrels, or a remarkable 22% of all the world's oil.

There is simply no way that a country that consumes 22% of all the world's oil but has only 1.4% of the world's proven oil reserves can pump that much more extensively or more rapidly on those reserves to become independent of all imports. [Email to Media Matters, 3/30/11]

Chris Nelder: Could We Achieve "True 'Energy Independence'"? "Through Drilling Alone, The Answer Is 'Not Even Close.' " According to energy analyst Chris Nelder:

True "energy independence" would mean producing 18 to 20 mbpd, not the roughly 5.5 mbpd we are producing today. Could we do that?

Through drilling alone, the answer is "not even close." In total, I estimate that if all limits on drilling were removed, including the OCS and ANWR, we could only increase US oil production by a maximum of 2-3 mbpd. That new production would come online slowly, and the additional flow would be hardly noticeable as it compensated for the loss in conventional oil production due to sheer depletion. If it lowered prices at all, it would be by a few pennies per gallon, at best. [Energy & Capital, 4/29/09]

Amy Jaffe: Even If The U.S. Opened "All Areas For Drilling, We Would Still Have A Hard Time Eliminating 100 Percent Of All Need For Imports." In an email to Media Matters, Amy Jaffe, Rice University fellow in Energy Studies and director of the Energy Forum at the James A. Baker Institute responded to Bolling's claim that we wouldn't need to import oil if we expanded drilling in the U.S.:

No, chances are, were the US to open up all areas for drilling, we would still have a hard time eliminating 100 percent of all need for imports of 12 to 14 million b/d. We would have to be willing to drill a huge amount and all around the country and then we might be able to eliminate most of our imports. [Email to Media Matters, 3/30/11]
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
Part II

EIA: U.S. Will Still Import 41% Of Oil By 2030 Even If We Opened Vast New Areas To Drilling. U.S. Energy Information Administration has estimated that even if the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and the eastern Gulf of Mexico were all opened up to drilling, the U.S. would still be importing 41 percent of the oil we use in 2030. [EIA.doe.gov, March 2009]

Bolling Blames High Gas Prices On Lack Of Domestic Production

Bolling Cites Declining Domestic Production As Reason "Why Our Prices Are $3.59 At the Pump Now." From America Live:

KELLY: He came out a couple of weeks ago and offered remarks on this and went on the offensive, saying those kinds of criticisms don't match with reality, Eric. And what he said was that our oil production has reached the highest level ever in the Gulf of Mexico. The highest level ever, he says.

BOLLING: Wrong. Wrong. He's wrong. He either lied or he's been misinformed because Steven Chu, his energy czar, can't get his own act together and figure this out. Our domestic oil production is on the decline. Go to EIA.gov, it's the Department of Energy's website. It will tell you, onshore drilling, field drilling has gone from almost 10 million barrels a day to about 5 and a half million barrels a day. Offshore isn't spiking. Our domestic oil production is on the way down, while our demand for oil is on the way up. That's why our prices are $3.59 at the pump now. And when Obama took office, $1.83, 96% higher. [Fox News, America Live, 3/29/11]

Industry Experts Agree: Expanding Domestic Production Won't Solve High Gas Prices

Lou Crandall: "Gasoline Prices At The Pump Would Be Higher" Even If U.S. Had Increased Drilling Lou Crandall, chief economist of Wrightson ICAP LLC, an independent research firm that analyzes high-frequency economic data, told Media Matters via email:

Higher oil prices today are a global phenomenon, and the additional supply from increased drilling by the U.S. would not alter the global balance of supply and demand greatly. Gasoline prices at the pump would be higher either way. The only difference is that a somewhat larger share of the revenue would accrue to domestic interests (governmental and private) rather than to foreign suppliers. [Email to Media Matters, 3/14/11]

O'Donnell: "The Amount Of Extra Oil That The U.S. Would Produce" Would Have "Almost Insignificant" Effect On Prices. O'Donnell said blaming the high gas prices on the administration's drilling policy mistakes correlation for causation. O'Donnell further stated:

Even if you gave permission to drill, it might take generally about seven years for oil to get to market. So that has absolutely no effect on the price of oil today. None whatsoever. The amount of extra oil that the U.S. would produce, as far as affecting the world price of oil, is almost insignificant.

People who say producing more oil will bring price down for Americans are missing the fact that it's a world market. For instance, oil produced in North Slope may very well go to Japan. There's not a separate market -- It's a world market. [Phone conversation with Media Matters, 3/14/11]

AEI Scholar: "We Probably Couldn't Produce Enough To Affect The World Price Of Oil." According to a Greenwire article published by the New York Times:

If gas prices keep increasing, Republicans probably will make a push on increased fossil fuel production, said Ken Green, resident scholar with the American Enterprise Institute think tank.

[...]

But experts disagreed about how much impact additional drilling could have. Crude oil is a global commodity, Green said.

"The world price is the world price," Green said. "Even if we were producing 100 percent of our oil," he said, if prices increase because of a shortage in China or India, "our price would go up to the same thing.

"We probably couldn't produce enough to affect the world price of oil," Green added. "People don't understand that."

U.S. production could be negated by decisions that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries makes, said Philip Verleger Jr., energy economist, and David Mitchell EnCana, professor of management, at the University of Calgary's business school.

"Suppose the U.S. were to boost production 1 million barrels a day," Verleger said. "OPEC has the capacity to cut 1 million barrels."

The oil industry has been able to convince people there is a connection between U.S. drilling and prices, Verleger said. [Greenwire via NYTimes.com, 1/4/11]

PolitiFact: Experts Agree That Expanding Offshore Drilling "Would Have Little Effect At The Pump Any Time Soon." From PolitiFact's evaluation of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's (D-FL) statement that a "5 percent increase in domestic production would increase the world supply by less than 1 percent and do almost nothing to our dependence on foreign oil. This would also have virtually no effect on the price of gas at the pump.":

Background on drilling and gas prices

PolitiFact wrote:

The political momentum for offshore drilling has always risen and fallen along with gas prices. But while there are strong arguments that can be made in favor of offshore drilling, reducing the cost of gas "here and now" isn't one of them, according to oil experts and economists -- many of whom support the plan.

For starters, the lead time for oil exploration takes years. Even if offshore drilling areas opened up tomorrow, experts say it would take at least 10 years to realize any significant production. And even then, they say, the U.S. contribution to the overall global oil market would not be enough to make a significant dent in the price of gas.

"Drilling offshore to lower oil prices is like walking an extra 20 feet per day to lose weight," said David Sandalow, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and author of Freedom from Oil. "It's just not going to make much difference."

[...]

We ran Wasserman Schultz's claim by Jamie Webster, a senior consultant with PFC Energy, which tracks oil production and demand globally and whose clients are governments, including the United States., [sic] and oil and gas companies. We also heard from Daniel J. Weiss, who has written extensively about oil prices and policy and is a senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, which describes itself as a progressive think tank. Both Webster and Weiss agreed with Wasserman Schultz.

[...]

Let's review: Wasserman Schultz's math adds up -- Gulf drilling does indeed represent about 5 percent of current domestic production, and a 5 percent increase would barely register in terms of the world supply. And the experts we found for this Truth-O-Meter as well as ones cited in the past about McCain's claim agree that expanding drilling now would have little effect at the pump any time soon. We rate this claim True. [PolitiFact.com, 12/1/10, emphasis original]

DOE In 2009: Reinstating Offshore Drilling Ban Would Increase Prices By Merely 3 Cents Per Gallon. From the Department of Energy's 2009 Annual Energy Outlook:

The U.S. offshore is estimated to contain substantial resources of both crude oil and natural gas, but until recently some of the areas of the lower 48 OCS have been under leasing moratoria [56]. The Presidential ban on offshore drilling in portions of the lower 48 OCS was lifted in July 2008, and the Congressional ban was allowed to expire in September 2008, removing regulatory obstacles to development of the Atlantic and Pacific OCS [57, 58].

[...]

To examine the potential impacts of reinstating the moratoria, an OCS limited case was developed for AEO2009. It is based on the AEO2009 reference case but assumes that access to the Atlantic, Pacific, and Eastern/Central Gulf of Mexico OCS will be limited again by reinstatement of the moratoria as they existed before July 2008. In the OCS limited case, technically recoverable resources in the OCS total 75 billion barrels of oil and 380 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

The projections in the OCS limited case indicate that reinstatement of the moratoria would decrease domestic production of both oil and natural gas and increase their prices (Table 9). The impact on domestic crude oil production starts just before 2020 and increases through 2030. Cumulatively, domestic crude oil production from 2010 to 2030 is 4.2 percent lower in the OCS limited case than in the reference case. In 2030, lower 48 offshore crude oil production in the OCS limited case (2.2 million barrels per day) is 20.6 percent lower than in the reference case (2.7 million barrels per day), and total domestic crude oil production, at 6.8 million barrels per day, is 7.4 percent lower than in the reference case (Figure 13). In 2007, domestic crude oil production totaled 5.1 million barrels per day.

With limited access to the lower 48 OCS, U.S. dependence on imports increases, and there is a small increase in world oil prices. Oil import dependence in 2030 is 43.4 percent in the OCS limited case, as compared with 40.9 percent in the reference case, and the total annual cost of imported liquid fuels in 2030 is $403.4 billion, 7.1 percent higher than the projection of $376.6 billion in the reference case. The average price of imported low-sulfur crude oil in 2030 (in 2007 dollars) is $1.34 per barrel higher, and the average U.S. price of motor gasoline price is 3 cents per gallon higher, than in the reference case. [U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, accessed 3/7/11]
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
Part III

Bush Administration Energy Department: Additional Offshore Drilling "Would Not Have A Significant Impact" On Crude Oil Prices Before 2030. According to a 2007 report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration:

The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher--2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant. [U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, accessed 3/7/11]

EIA Analyst: Total Offshore Production Would Amount To "Less Than 1 Percent Of The Total Projected International Consumption" In 2030. From a September 2008 Scientific American article:

So are promises of U.S. oil independence real--or rhetoric? The issue is not whether the U.S. can significantly reduce its reliance on oil imports with domestic, offshore oil, say both [oil expert Robert] Kaufman and [energy researcher Ian] Nathan, but whether there is enough that is recoverable to significantly lower the price of a barrel of oil on the global market.

Even by 2030, offshore drilling would not have a significant impact on oil prices, according to [EIA analyst Phyllis] Martin, because oil prices are determined on the global market. "The amount of total production anticipated--around 200,000 barrels a day--would be less than 1 percent of the total projected international consumption."

And disruptions to the global supply affect the price of every barrel of oil the U.S. purchases, whether it be from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela or off the New Jersey coast. "Suppose the U.S. got all its oil domestically, and the price was $100 a barrel. Then the Saudi family was deposed," disrupting that country's oil exports, Kaufman says. "The Saudis produce about 10 million barrels a day of the world's 85 million, so clearly prices would go up, because now there is this big shortfall of oil."

"Do you think oil companies are going to sell [U.S. oil] to U.S. consumers for anything less than top price?," he asks. "The answer is no." [Scientific American, 9/12/08]

Newsweek: Oil Prices "Determined By Global Supply And Global Demand." From a March 31, 2010, Newsweek commentary by Ben Adler:

Oil, you see, is a fungible global commodity. The oil that one drills for in Texas powers a car the same way that oil from Kuwait does. So the price that Texans pay for oil is determined by global supply and global demand, not how much oil is drilled on the Gulf Coast.

In a market economy such as ours, opening an area for drilling does not mean that the U.S. government controls its destination. Shell and Chevron will be perfectly happy to sell their oil to China if Chinese drivers are willing to pay more than Americans. The U.S. could produce exactly as much gasoline as it consumes and it would still feel the effects of, say, a decision by Hugo Chávez or Vladimir Putin to stop selling any oil. If global supply drops precipitously, global prices will rise, and unless we plan on nationalizing the oil industry--a move I doubt either Democrats or Republicans will endorse--the fact that we are drilling for more oil near our shores won't protect us from the price shock. [Newsweek, 3/31/10]

Bolling Pushes "Bogus" Claim That Obama Is Responsible For Ex-Im Loan To Brazil

Bolling Claims Export-Import Loan To Brazil Shows Obama Favors Foreign Drillers. America Live:

BOLLING: Here's a very good example of the difference between the way the Obama administration treats our domestic drilling with foreign drillers. He's offered -- the import/export, the export-import bank, I'm sorry, has a $2 billion loan outstanding, available, already approved, waiting for Petrobras -- Brazil - to tap. That's our money we're going to loan them to drill. Meanwhile people, these oil companies are jumping through hoops trying to get a permit to drill here. Can you imagine if he gave us $2 billion to drill? Prices would start to come down. [Fox News, America Live, 3/29/11]

FactCheck.org: Claim That Obama Ordered Loan Is "Bogus." From a FactCheck.org article titled "Bogus Brazilian Oil Claims" which debunked the claim that President Obama loaned "$2 billion to Brazil's oil company to benefit China and George Soros":

This claim stems from a "preliminary committment" made back on April 14 by the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. The bank intends to loan up to $2 billion to finance exports to the Brazilian oil company Petróleo Brasileiro S.A., known as Petrobras, over the next several years.

The e-mail is false on two counts.

•The message falsely says the decision was due to an "executive order" by the president. No presidential order was required. Furthermore, none of President Obama's appointees had joined the Ex-Im board at the time of the vote, which was unanimous, and bipartisan. The Ex-Im Bank states: "In fact, at the time the Bank's Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush."
•The message falsely claims that "we have absolutely no gain" from the loan. In fact, the loan is being made specifically to finance purchase by Petrobras of U.S.-made oilfield equipment and services. The mission of the Ex-Im Bank is to encourage exports by making such loans.[FactCheck.org, 9/18/09]

Ex-Im Bank: "Bipartisan Board Unanimously Approved The Preliminary Commitment To Petrobras ... Before Any Obama Appointees Joined The Bank." According to a fact sheet issued by the Export-Import Bank of the United States:

Charge: The loan to Petrobras represents a reversal of the Obama Administration's policies on off-shore drilling.

Fact: The Bank's bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank. In fact, at the time the Bank's Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush. [U.S. Export-Import Bank, accessed 3/30/11]

Forbes Contributor: "The President Of The United States Does Not Decide Who Gets Export-Import Bank Loans." In a blog post on Forbes reporting on the renewed controversy regarding the Export-Import Bank loan to Petrobras, former Dow Jones reporter Kenneth Rapoza wrote:

When Obama went to Brazil the weekend of March 19-20, the "Obama loan" resurfaced in the online news narrative. Soros profited! It was borderline insider trading! Why are we funding offshore drillers in Brazil, but not in the US? It makes no sense.

With a nod to Jerry Seinfeld..."ladies and gentlemen, I implore you."

Obama had nothing to do with the loan, or non-loan, because no money has changed hands. The President of the United States does not decide who gets Export Import Bank loans. The president's role is to appoint board members who are confirmed by the Senate. The board members decide. [Forbes, 3/21/11]
 

purgoose10

Veteran Expediter
Talk about a subject that will get the attention of Truckers.
It's already proven that Numb Nut doesn't give a rat's behind about the gas prices we pay. As someone said who can wait 25 years down the road for better prices. It is also proven that drilling in ANWR can be added into the Alaskan pipe line in under two years. But what good will that do? All the refinery's in this country are running over 85%, and they won't build anymore because the environmentalists won't let them. So why pump oil if you can't make nothing out of it???? Also we send 4o% of Prudo Bay oil over to N. Korea and Japan and we import 8,000 barrels a day from China. Yes China. So why don't China send it to their friends in North Korea?? You can go on and on about the oil game, it's still nothing but Politics plain and simple. Washington bureaucrat's don't care about the American people and that Numb Nut president we got is leading them:eek:.
 

jpalmer

Seasoned Expediter
if we would have allowed onshore drilling 30 years ago we wouldn't be in this mess.

Media Matters is a 501(c)(3) Not for profit. They are restricted by the IRS from targeting organizations for political purposes. Therefore that makes them illegitimate. Because they've publicly stated that their main goal is to silence the Conservative microphones.

I don't care whether somebody likes what fox news says or not. Media Matters is breaking the law. Anybody who breaks the law for political gain has no legitimacy. I ask again. Why can't there be a debate instead of the constant efforts in silencing the opponent?
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
if we would have allowed onshore drilling 30 years ago we wouldn't be in this mess.

Media Matters is a 501(c)(3) Not for profit. They are restricted by the IRS from targeting organizations for political purposes. Therefore that makes them illegitimate. Because they've publicly stated that their main goal is to silence the Conservative microphones.

I don't care whether somebody likes what fox news says or not. Media Matters is breaking the law. Anybody who breaks the law for political gain has no legitimacy. I ask again. Why can't there be a debate instead of the constant efforts in silencing the opponent?

Nice "Strawman".
 

jpalmer

Seasoned Expediter
Nice "Strawman".

God Forbid somebody stand for integrity and the rule of law..

1, Eliminate rampant speculation by making them risk 100% of their money when trading commodities or take commodities off the market.

2, Drill for oil everywhere you can. Continue to research into other forms of energy. You can't choke off consumers and expect them to go out and buy 40 thousand dollar electric cars when you've sucked them dry through high oil prices. that isn't logical.

Cheap sustainable energy is the key to growth. Not expensive GREEN energy..
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Lesson Number One

Oil is a global commodity

If you can grasp that basic and important concept, then you don't need the department of Energy or the US government meddling in where they can only **** it all up and having the last six presidents tell us about some fictional energy policy they are trying to get to.

Regardless if there is a risk or not in the speculation (which there is a lot of risk), being a commodity it has its own force and movement regardless what we can, can't or won't do. There WILL NOT be a bit of difference if we have our own oil or use it from Libya or some terrorist group.

The problem right now isn't the oil markets but the world media, what happens in vegas gets transmitted over the globe in a matter of a few seconds while what happens in Tripoli takes a bit longer - four seconds - but the oil market reacts without knowing if the news is good or bad and that is the emotion of the markets many don't just get.

BUT the thing that most people miss is that the negitive impact to the environment WILL NOT happen if oil is drilled under our control. Say the Chinese are drilling in Africa, they have a negitive impact because they don't care.

The best thing for the country is two fold, one is to uniform blends of fuel across the country (and the elimination of the EPA) and the defunding of the DoE.
 

Moot

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
BUT the thing that most people miss is that the negitive impact to the environment WILL NOT happen if oil is drilled under our control. Say the Chinese are drilling in Africa, they have a negitive impact because they don't care.

Yeah, ever since those crazy commie chinks got a taste of capitalism they don't care about anything other than making a yen. What this country needs is red blooded, environmentally responsible, all-American companies like B.P., Shell and Citgo extracting our precious oil.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
What viable alternitives? Windmills? It takes a windfarm of 240,000 to equal ONE nuke plants output. Not to mention the potential of removing too much energy from the atmosphere and totally disrupting it. Electric cars? We have brown outs now due to the lack of generating capability. No range. Different kinds of pollution, in many respects WORSE than oil production. ACID. Take a tour of the oil fields around Oil City, PA. The area recovered quite well from the horrible mess the first oil production in the nation caused, EXCEPT, where acid destroyed everything. Those areas have not recovered. Battery cars have a LOT of acid to spill. Lithium mining is worse in pollution than coal mining. ****s destroy river systems and could adversely affect water supplies.

There is NO free energy. EVERY form of energy is a double edge sword. When the government gets involved in energy production, restricts the people's freedom to use energy, DICTATES what energy is used by whom and when, we no longer have freedom.

I wonder what Canada thinks of the idea of the U.S. cutting oil imports since MOST of the oil we buy from Canada. How will that affect their economy?

Obama is NOT interested in "Clean energy". He is only out to destroy our economy and control the people. He is EVIL!
 

jpalmer

Seasoned Expediter
Agrees!!!

We are not gonna see any improvements to our economy until we have a president and congress/senate that understands that.

I'm not against helping the environment. I am against taking away from personal liberty in the name of helping the environment. I'm not about to lay down and allow it to. Happen either.

p.s no way to quote a post on the iPod app?
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
We live in the United States, WE can do it all if we just put our minds to it. We CAN have clean air and drive Hummers. WE CAN have potholes for ducks to breed in AND private land. The government is in the way. People can LEARN what the environment is, how it works and LEARN to work WITH it rather than against it.

These problems will take YEARS to fix. They took YEARS to cause. When force is used, like the EPA, there is backlash and stalemates. When LEADERSHIP is used, solid ideas that outline the benefits to EVERYONE, THEN, good change can occur.
 

skyraider

Veteran Expediter
US Navy
Hallelujah brothers and sisters,, just send me 20 dollars each from all eol members and I'll send u my free booklet: How I took ur 20 dollars and went to Obama Heaven, aaamen. lol

PS; Harry and Nancy will be speaking tonite on Fox News to answer all ur questions on Fed X just for u all. How about that.
 
Top