Posted June 13, 200817 yr This was passed along to me by a co-worker yesterday. I thought I'd let the gang here have some fun with it. Subject: Fwd: $4.00 a gallon. Who's to blame? Thanks to the enivironmentalist lobby and its influence on Democratic legislators in Congress, the U.S. Has, for decades, been prohibited from drilling for oil in places that we know contain billions of barrells of proven reserves. Check out this map: All of the "NO" zones are places where the U.S., thanks to the Democratic Party, is prohibited from drilling for oil. But wait it gets better. ***China, Cuba, Canada and others continue to drill off our shores where US companies are not allowed to drill because of Democratic policies! Yes, that's right . China and Cuba are actively exploring oil fields 50 miles from Key West, Florida while U.S. Companies are barred from working in this area because of U.S. Policy . So, instead of allowing the most environmentally responsible companies to operate there and increase our domestic supply, China, who has a dismal environmental record, is preparing to suck our close, lucrative oil reserves dry. Unbelievable. Investor's Business Daily <http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/080429/issues.html?.v=1> recently explained how irresponsible the Democrats have been on the energy crisis. They lay into what they consider to be the worst Congress ever <http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/07/18/worst-congress-ever/> for ... ~ Failing to allow drilling in ANWR. We have, as President Bush noted, estimated capacity of a million barrels of oil a day from this source alone -- enough for 27 million gallons of gas and diesel. But Congress won't touch it, fearful of the clout of the environmental lobby. As a result, you pay through the nose at the pump so your representative can raise campaign cash. ~ Refusing to build new refineries. The U.S. Hasn't built one since 1976, yet the EPA requires at least 15 unique 'boutique' fuel blends that can be sold in different areas around the nation. This means that U.S. Refinery capacity is stretched so tight that even the slightest problem at a refinery causes enormous supply problems and price spikes. Congress has done nothing about this. ~ Turning its back on nuclear power. It's safe and, with advances in nuclear reprocessing technology, waste problems have been minimized. Still, we have just 104 nuclear plants -- the same as a decade ago -- producing just 19% of our total energy. (Many European nations produce 40% or more of their power with nuclear.) Granted, nuclear power plants are expensive -- about $3 billion each. But they produce energy at $1.72/kilowatt-hour vs. $2.37 for coal and $6.35 for natural gas. ~ Raising taxes on energy producers. This is where a basic understanding of economics would help: Higher taxes and needless regulation lead to less production of a commodity. So by proposing 'windfall' and other taxes on energy companies plus tough new rules, Congress only makes our energy situation worse. These are just a few of Congress' sins of omission -- all while India, China, Eastern Europe and the Middle East are adding more than a million barrels of new demand each and every year. New Energy Department forecasts see world oil demand growing 40% by 2030, including a 28% increase in the U.S. Americans who are worried about the direction of their country, including runaway energy and food prices, should keep in mind the upcoming election isn't just about choosing a new president. We'll also pick a new Congress. If you agree with the need to let the American people know who's REALLY responsible for the sky-high gasoline prices we're seeing today, please forward this e-mail to everyone you know. If we elect a liberal Democrat as president in the Fall and keep the same Democrat-controlled Congress, nothing will change .. Except gasoline prices, which will keep going up.
June 13, 200817 yr Propaganda. I couldn't really care less if gas goes up to $100 per gallon. Just as long as we figure out a way to get around more efficiently and to ensure that we're all fed.
June 13, 200817 yr What a coincedence. I was called to a telephone town-hall meeting with Steve Chabot today, and he was talking a lot about gas prices and how it was the Democrats fault, and how Cuba is stealing our oil. One thing he said stuck with me though. He said that ANWAR has 16 billion barrels. Well then I google US usage, and it was 6.6 billion barrels A YEAR in year 2000. All this fighting is about 2.3 years worth of oil? He is deluding citizens into thinking we can drill our way to energy independence.
June 13, 200817 yr ^That's right, even if we were to say go on the variety of currently protected oil reserves, domestice production would still decline. Perhaps something could be set up where the site is prepared for drilling in an emergency, so that instead of a 1-2 year delay the oil could be pumped within weeks. With offshore drilling, this is often the case where they merely drill the well and then cap it for future use.
June 13, 200817 yr I did a little calculatin' on the ANWR reserves, and based on our current rate of daily consumption, they'd last us about 371 days. ANWR's bounty: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm Our rate of consumption: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption A little irony about those No Zones: the off-shore drilling moratorium was signed into law by some irresponsible democrat named George H.W. Bush.
June 13, 200817 yr That's some hateful stuff. This is why I hate the Republicans more. Both major parties represent a corpocracy, but the GOPers are mean-ass people. I'm also sick of the blame-game and the pathetic ignorance of oil markets. With these people in power, they're like children who've found their daddy's gun. We should all be afraid of them. BTW, any drilling done anywhere by anyone takes pressure off global oil supplies, and affects the global market price for oil. Now if it's the countries who export oil to us who withhold it from us, then America gets hurt economically. If they withhold exporting it to all and keep it for their future use, that hurts all nations. But that's certainly the exporters' right. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 13, 200817 yr I did a little calculatin' on the ANWR reserves, and based on our current rate of daily consumption, they'd last us about 371 days. Only if they sold all of it to "us." What if foreigners offered more? BTW, while there haven't been any new refineries built in years, many existing refineries have been expanded. Capacity has increased.
June 13, 200817 yr Propaganda. Propaganda or not, it's a sad state of affairs when the United States sends its President to Saudi Arabia, hat in hand, asking them to do what his own country will not... increase supply. Their response? <paraphrased>: "If you need oil so bad, why don't you pump it?" What a coincedence. I was called to a telephone town-hall meeting with Steve Chabot today, and he was talking a lot about gas prices and how it was the Democrats fault, and how Cuba is stealing our oil. One thing he said stuck with me though. He said that ANWAR has 16 billion barrels. Well then I google US usage, and it was 6.6 billion barrels A YEAR in year 2000. All this fighting is about 2.3 years worth of oil? He is deluding citizens into thinking we can drill our way to energy independence. It's tough to say how much there is really. Estimates of this nature are for how much obtainable oil is present, not total oil. As technology improves, the estimates grow, as was the case with the major recalculation of the North Dakota reserve a few months ago. I'm not defending Chabot's figures, because I'm not familiar with the specifics of his claims or the current estimates, but having estimates multiply over the course of a decade isn't unheard of, nor is it necessarily devious.
June 13, 200817 yr Wait a minute. Does this image mean what I think it means? IS CHINA DRINKING OUR MILKSHAKE? THEY DRINK IT UP! :drunk:
June 13, 200817 yr What a coincedence. I was called to a telephone town-hall meeting with Steve Chabot today, and he was talking a lot about gas prices and how it was the Democrats fault, and how Cuba is stealing our oil. One thing he said stuck with me though. He said that ANWAR has 16 billion barrels. Well then I google US usage, and it was 6.6 billion barrels A YEAR in year 2000. All this fighting is about 2.3 years worth of oil? He is deluding citizens into thinking we can drill our way to energy independence. While that article above is misleading, so is your post. Your logic seems to assume all other North American sources are closed up. ANWAR would be supplying a portion of our oil for many many years. That said, I am actively looking for answers to our oil dependency. We need answers beyond public transportation. I bought a Hybrid 3 years ago and have never regretted the extra cost, plus I feel like by suppoting this technology, it will be enahnced/expanded and perhaps we can work our way towards 100 MPG+ or non-oil based cars altogether...
June 13, 200817 yr Cheney's false comment on oil drilling attacked http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080613/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_oil_drilling WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney's office acknowledged on Thursday that he was mistaken when he asserted that China, at Cuba's behest, is drilling for oil in waters 60 miles from the Florida coast. In a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Cheney said on Wednesday that waters in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, long off limits to oil companies, should be opened to drilling because China is already there pumping oil. "Oil is being drilled right now 60 miles off the coast of Florida," the vice president said. "We're not doing it, the Chinese are, in cooperation with the Cuban government. Even the communists have figured out that a good answer to high prices is more supply ... Congressional Democrats pounced on the vice president's remarks and were backed up by independent energy experts, who called the assertion hyperbole at best and a falsehood at worst. Cheney's office said in a statement to The Associated Press that the vice president had erred. "It is our understanding that, although Cuba has leased out exploration blocks 60 miles off the coast of southern Florida, which is closer than American firms are allowed to operate in that area, no Chinese firm is drilling there," according to the statement. ----- There is no drilling off of Florida, because of Republican Governor "Jeb" Bush. Drilling is unpopular, Florida is a swing state for elections, and this drilling could have hurt the Republicans in any election. No way in heck that Democrats can be blamed for refineries or no-nukes, either. There is no popular support and the utilities backed away from nuclear decades ago.
June 13, 200817 yr Propaganda. Propaganda or not, it's a sad state of affairs when the United States sends its President to Saudi Arabia, hat in hand, asking them to do what his own country will not... increase supply. Their response? <paraphrased>: "If you need oil so bad, why don't you pump it?" They were pumping a lot more for us back before the Iraq invasion. I have no doubt that the Saudis are applying political pressure on the west with oil supply. All the more reason to launch an Apollo program for clean renewables and get off the oil.
June 13, 200817 yr ^ Oh sure. I totally agree, especially about the need to push for new sources of energy. I'd also argue that we need to heavily invest in technologies that use current sources much more effeciently, like light rail and high speed rail, to attack the other side of the problem by reducing demand. But if we're only talking about increasing oil supply, it's pretty silly for Country A to ask Country B to help them out by increasing production, when Country A has their own oil reserves and could theoretically do the same thing on their own.
June 13, 200817 yr While that article above is misleading, so is your post. Your logic seems to assume all other North American sources are closed up. ANWAR would be supplying a portion of our oil for many many years. It's not really misleading. When you open up new supply, what you are doing essentially is pushing off the date when we run out of oil completely. From the standpoint of looking at our a total supply of oil, it doesn't matter if ANWAR provides all of our oil for 1 year or 10% for 10 years.
June 13, 200817 yr Also, nobody's brought up the central problem with electric cars and hybrids -- that even if every single car coming off the line in 2009 was electric or a hybrid, it would take at least 10 years -- 2020 -- before there were a lot of electrics and hybrids on the used market. There's the central problem -- most people like me can't afford a new $30,000 car even if it doesn't use gas. Those in the $5-$10,000 used car price range have a LONG time to wait before used plug-in electric cars fall to that price.
June 13, 200817 yr ^ Well, there's always the hope of conversion kits. They're very expensive now, but if we could get the price of those down, that would help with the gas-only vehicles already on the market.
June 13, 200817 yr ^ Oh sure. I totally agree, especially about the need to push for new sources of energy. I'd also argue that we need to heavily invest in technologies that use current sources much more effeciently, like light rail and high speed rail, to attack the other side of the problem by reducing demand. But if we're only talking about increasing oil supply, it's pretty silly for Country A to ask Country B to help them out by increasing production, when Country A has their own oil reserves and could theoretically do the same thing on their own. The only way we'd come out ahead is if we could be pumping more than we're using. That's simply not possible at current rates (20 million barrels consumed a day, 7 million pumped). I'm not against pumping for oil; it'd be sweet to have it as bargaining chip. But as it stands now, we're violating the drug dealer's code: never do your own stuff. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_pro-energy-oil-production
June 14, 200817 yr ^Sure. I'm not arguing that it's a good strategy or that it would solve the problem; just that it's ridiculous to even ask Saudi Arabia to pump more if we're not going to do the same.
June 14, 200817 yr We have limitations to how much we can pump. Some imposed by the will of the people (a non-issue in the Saudi world) and most imposed by the will of nature (most of our most potential reserves are offshore). If we boosted production by 30% and cut our consumption by as much we'd still be coming up short, and that's assuming we could do either. I say we take a page out of the UAE's book and start developing for an oil-free world now.
June 14, 200817 yr ^Sure. I'm not arguing that it's a good strategy or that it would solve the problem; just that it's ridiculous to even ask Saudi Arabia to pump more if we're not going to do the same. That is not an analysis, that is a bumper sticker slogan. The governor of Florida, "Jeb" Bush, opposed drilling off of Florida's coast. Does that make him one of "the environmentalists who are to blame"? An "Obstructionist Democrat"? Petroleum policy has been run by the oil industry, automobile industry, highway construction industry and tire industry for over half a century. Environmentalists were mocked and driven to the periphery of the political discussion. The energy industry is probably the largest and certainly the most aggressive lobby group in Washington (or any capitol). Their influence led to destroying transit systems, their AAA-Ohio Motorists front group actually lobbies against pedestrian and bicycle spending. We are a decade behind Canada and even China in automobile efficiency standards. Here in "the state of the auto industry", transportation policy has been wholly based on motor vehicles. I could go on, but there are plenty of examples in the posts on this forum--none of them written by a Saudi Oligarch.
June 14, 200817 yr isn't the "no zone" our own usa territorial waters and past that cuban or open international waters? if so i'm sure the same thing is going with overfishing and dumping trash and gambling and whatever else too.
June 14, 200817 yr ^ was she from buffalo? 'cause buffalo gals go 'round the outside, 'round the outside...tee hee. come to think of it no zones are very likely what leads to bill clinton getting into trouble too. :laugh:
June 14, 200817 yr ^ was she from buffalo? 'cause buffalo gals go 'round the outside, 'round the outside...tee hee. Malcolm McLaren. Wow. He who crafted the Sex Pistols as a promo for his shop that sold "bondage trousers".
June 14, 200817 yr ^Sure. I'm not arguing that it's a good strategy or that it would solve the problem; just that it's ridiculous to even ask Saudi Arabia to pump more if we're not going to do the same. That is not an analysis, that is a bumper sticker slogan. The governor of Florida, "Jeb" Bush, opposed drilling off of Florida's coast. Does that make him one of "the environmentalists who are to blame"? An "Obstructionist Democrat"? Petroleum policy has been run by the oil industry, automobile industry, highway construction industry and tire industry for over half a century. Environmentalists were mocked and driven to the periphery of the political discussion. The energy industry is probably the largest and certainly the most aggressive lobby group in Washington (or any capitol). Their influence led to destroying transit systems, their AAA-Ohio Motorists front group actually lobbies against pedestrian and bicycle spending. We are a decade behind Canada and even China in automobile efficiency standards. Here in "the state of the auto industry", transportation policy has been wholly based on motor vehicles. I could go on, but there are plenty of examples in the posts on this forum--none of them written by a Saudi Oligarch. Seriously man, we don't even disagree on most of this. At no point did I reference Democrats or environmentalists, and when did Jeb Bush become our measuring stick for whether off shore drilling is appropriate/profitable/safe? I'm not a fan of the automobile-centric society we're stuck in, I want alternative energies developed, I'm a big supporter of mass transit, and I'd definitely classify myself as an environmentalist. In no way am I making a defense of the oil industry. Just pointing out that approaching the Saudis for this was a dumb move on the President's part, that's all.
June 14, 200817 yr Seriously man, we don't even disagree on most of this. At no point did I reference Democrats or environmentalists, and when did Jeb Bush become our measuring stick for whether off shore drilling is appropriate/profitable/safe? I'm not a fan of the automobile-centric society we're stuck in, I want alternative energies developed, I'm a big supporter of mass transit, and I'd definitely classify myself as an environmentalist. In no way am I making a defense of the oil industry. Just pointing out that approaching the Saudis for this was a dumb move on the President's part, that's all. Oh, sorry. I read your posts upthread and that was the point you were making. My apologies!
June 14, 200817 yr ^ No problem. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't coming across as an oil-industry schill.
June 14, 200817 yr There is plenty more room for agreement than disagreement. What is sad, though, is how this e-mail takes the stance that Democrats are environmentalists are to blame. I blame three parties: the Democrats, the Republicans and the American consumer, but then, I'm not a flak for big business. The singular thesis of the email is "keep drilling", which is an alarmingly similar sentiment to "keep digging."
June 14, 200817 yr Just came across this George F. Will column on high oil prices in which he holds complicit the legislators who uphold the ANWR and coastal drilling bans. But even there, he can't help but admit that all the untapped US oil sources will only keep us going another 10 years. Sigh. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/voters_get_oil_prices_they_des.html
June 14, 200817 yr During the 1960's, the number of cars on the road doubled in ten years. No amount of oil in the ground can keep up with exponential growth, no matter how much we drill.
June 15, 200816 yr Hell, I say go ahead and drill. That's the only way the drill-till-we-drop crowd is going to realize it's not the answer. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 15, 200816 yr ^No, there will always be the promise of a new technological breakthrough that will allow us to extract YET MORE OIL!
June 15, 200816 yr Hell, I say go ahead and drill. That's the only way the drill-till-we-drop crowd is going to realize it's not the answer. The problem with that is then they want to dig up all of Alberta and Montana to get shale or greasy sand. Then when those places are wasteland, they'll want to strip mine more of Appalachia for some remnants of coal conversion to diesel. It just never ends. But actually all these thing also cost much more than the oil bubbling out of the Middle East, thus the price will stay high. In response to the thread about begging the Saudis to pump more, but them refusing. Many analysts now believe that the Saudis are at maximum production. They now pump salt water into the ground to keep the fields producing, and since they are secretive, no one really knows their true reserves.
June 15, 200816 yr Hell, I say go ahead and drill. That's the only way the drill-till-we-drop crowd is going to realize it's not the answer. The problem with that is then they want to dig up all of Alberta and Montana to get shale or greasy sand. Then when those places are wasteland, they'll want to strip mine more of Appalachia for some remnants of coal conversion to diesel. It just never ends. Yeah, you know I heard there's a whole quart of oil under Central Park in Manhattan. I vote we start drilling there next. Seriously, WTF?
June 15, 200816 yr In response to the thread about begging the Saudis to pump more, but them refusing. Many analysts now believe that the Saudis are at maximum production. They now pump salt water into the ground to keep the fields producing, and since they are secretive, no one really knows their true reserves. We're having to resort to bouncing lasers from satellites off the Saudi desert to measure the subsidence of the surface from the oil no longer supporting it from below. Problem is, as you note, the Saudis are pumping seawater into their wells to keep flow pressure up at other wells from the same fields, so not all parts of the oil field are subsiding (or as much as they would be if not for the seawater injection). Here's the scary part: that from some wells the Saudis are getting more water out of those wells than they are oil. Hence, that leads me to reiterate a contemporary Saudi saying... "My grandfather rode a camel. My father rode in a Rolls Royce. I ride in a private jet. My son will ride a camel." "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 16, 200816 yr True, but a consumer can only choose from the range of products he's presented. Our leaders have been doing a poor job of presenting alternatives to car culture, and big oil/car/road have made it easy to feel good about doing nothing. Cowardice and greed are to blame there. Just as heartbreak makes everybody a poet, hopefully high gas prices turn more consumers into activists.
June 16, 200816 yr That's the failing in a lot of economic theory: the assumption that perfect information is available. Even when some really good information is available, it's still never perfect. More often, the information available to consumers is downright misleading and even hazardous to their health. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 16, 200816 yr And even if the information available is perfect, that doesn't mean perfect consumer knowledge or use of that information. Who could be an expert in EVERY field and product available anyways? This scenario happening (which is the crux of pure Capitalism) is about as realistic as expecting pure Communism to work.
June 17, 200816 yr McCain wants end to oil exploration ban By JONATHAN MARTIN | 6/16/08 8:53 PM EST Kicking off what will be a prolonged focus on what he called “America’s energy crisis,” John McCain Monday proposed ending the federal moratorium on oil exploration. “I think that this and perhaps providing additional incentives for states to permit exploration off their coasts would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis,” McCain said at a news conference in the Arlington, Va., office building that houses his campaign headquarters. McCain will lay out his proposal in an address in Houston Tuesday that will serve as the first in a series of speeches, briefings and other campaign events centered around the country’s need to lessen its dependence on foreign oil, an issue that will dominate the campaign’s message for the rest of the month... http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11127.html
June 17, 200816 yr We need to lessen our dependence on oil, period. This is what happens when people get so attached to a key media phrase--foreign oil. Dependency on foreign oil. How many times have you heard those three words used together. Same with "addicted to oil". We're not addicted to anything. Some people are just left with very many choices. Others made certain lifestyle changes that didn't seem too consequential at the time. Now it's time to admit that we made a mistake. None of us can say that we knew all along, and we've been going against the grain of oil dependency for years now. Now it's time to admit that we made a mistake. Oil consumption isn't just limited to energy either. We use plastics during every day of our lives, which is dully dependent on OIL! More products we buy are made from plastic than ever before. Cover sheets, shrink wrap, containers, packaging, electronics, other household items, construction materials. If anything, let's put it in context. If we are, indeed, addicted to oil, I think we should focus more on our daily lifestyles. Some of us can live without feeding oil-based fuel to an automobile. Can many of us live without plastic in our lives? Believe me, I try. I can't tell you it's very easy. It doesn't mean I'm an addict. It means I have limited choices.
June 17, 200816 yr I'm a big believer in the free market but I also believe that capitalisms greatest enemy is not communism but rather an uneducated consumer. I am constantly astounded by people's inability to grasp simple economic principles. Who is to blame? Not the President. Not Congress. Not big oil. Not OPEC. Not terrorists. It's the consumer. The day when the consumer realizes just how much power they could have if only the utilized it properly will be the day that capitalism comes as close to perfection as it ever will be. Agreed.
June 18, 200816 yr McCain wants end to oil exploration ban By JONATHAN MARTIN | 6/16/08 8:53 PM EST Kicking off what will be a prolonged focus on what he called “America’s energy crisis,” John McCain Monday proposed ending the federal moratorium on oil exploration. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11127.html So does Bush and he would be going against dear old Dad to do so. I think this will put Democrats in a bind. People want their cheap gas back Bush Will Seek to End Offshore Oil Drilling Ban By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG, Published: June 18, 2008 WASHINGTON — President Bush, reversing a longstanding position, will call on Congress on Wednesday to end a federal ban on offshore oil drilling, according to White House officials who say Mr. Bush now wants to work with states to determine where drilling should occur.The move underscores how $4-a-gallon gas has become a major issue in the 2008 presidential campaign, and it comes as a growing number of Republicans are lining up in opposition to the federal ban. Even before the disclosure of Mr. Bush’s decision, the drilling issue caused a heated back-and-forth on the campaign trail on Tuesday, as Mr. McCain sought to straddle the divide between environmentalists and the energy industry, while facing accusations from his Democratic opponent, Senator Barack Obama, that he had flip-flopped and capitulated to the oil industry. Reporting was contributed by Carl Hulse from Washington; Elisabeth Bumiller from Houston; Jeff Zeleny from Taylor, Mich.; Jad Mouawad from New York; and David M. Herszenhorn from Washington. To read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/washington/18drill.html?hp
June 18, 200816 yr Yet one more thing to add to all those YouTube videos that feature McCain's predictable record of flip-flopping on everything under the sun. Now's the time to have faith in Congress to do the right thing...
June 18, 200816 yr ^^^Assuming we lifted the ban today (ha!) we wouldn't see the first drop of this oil for another 7-10 years.
Create an account or sign in to comment