PDA

View Full Version : The Questions We Have For The Congress About Energy !



megimoo
06-09-2008, 01:04 PM
"Why are we not allowed drill offshore for US oil, but China is drilling where we cannot?"

"Why Don't You Have the courage to pave the way for refinery construction, oil exploration and drilling"

Why is the U.N. holding conferences about rising food prices, but not spiraling oil prices that in various ways account for them?
snip
One would have thought the President, who was on right side of these production issues, would give a national address calling for a bipartisan effort to produce energy to get us through these hard times, or Republican senators would now be reintroducing energy legislation almost daily.
snip
And why are Republicans, who voted in overwhelming numbers for off-shore drilling, ANWR, nuclear, shale, tar sands, liquid coal, etc—and were opposed by Democrats on grounds of wanting to enrich energy companies—not appealing to the country to develop domestic supplies on the basis of fairness .
snip
But given the current conservative ineptness, $5 a gallon gas will be blamed on the war, or lack of federal subsidies to solar, or the oil companies, and not the elite agenda of utopians who were not willing to do what was necessary for the collective good to help us transition through to new fuels.
snip
comment:
I have been researching ANWR lately and I’m convinced that drilling there will decrease our dependence on foreign oil long enough to enable energy companies to come up with alternative solutions.
We must promote federal spending in motivating companies to do this. The amount of area drilled in ANWR is 1/16 th of the entire wildlife reserve. The entire reserve is not open for drilling. The government needs to open section 1002 with environmental regulations that protect as much as possible, while still allowing oil companies to extract oil.
Not to mention the job creation that would definitely be beneficial to the people of Alaska.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGUwNWE1Yzk3ZDZlNGU2YTQ4ZTkyYzNiZTZjYTQ0OGQ=

LogansPapa
06-09-2008, 01:11 PM
One would have thought the President, who was on right side of these production issues, would give a national address calling for a bipartisan effort to produce energy to get us through these hard times, or Republican senators would now be reintroducing energy legislation almost daily.

In-as-much as he never really had too much luck with anything in the petroleum field, it might be better if he avoided these kind of exchanges.;)

As an oilman, Bush always worked hard, winning a reputation as a straight-shooter and a good boss who was witty, warm and immensely likable. Even the investors who lost money in his ventures remained admirers, and some of them are now raising money for his presidential campaign.

But the story of Bush's career in oil, which began following his graduation from Harvard Business School in the summer of 1975 and ended when he sold out to Harken and headed for Washington, is mostly about his failure to succeed, despite the sterling connections his lineage and Ivy League education brought him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush073099.htm

megimoo
06-09-2008, 03:33 PM
One would have thought the President, who was on right side of these production issues, would give a national address calling for a bipartisan effort to produce energy to get us through these hard times, or Republican senators would now be reintroducing energy legislation almost daily.

In-as-much as he never really had too much luck with anything in the petroleum field, it might be better if he avoided these kind of exchanges.;)

As an oilman, Bush always worked hard, winning a reputation as a straight-shooter and a good boss who was witty, warm and immensely likable. Even the investors who lost money in his ventures remained admirers, and some of them are now raising money for his presidential campaign.

But the story of Bush's career in oil, which began following his graduation from Harvard Business School in the summer of 1975 and ended when he sold out to Harken and headed for Washington, is mostly about his failure to succeed, despite the sterling connections his lineage and Ivy League education brought him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush073099.htmNot too bad for Failed business man .How are you doing in the wealth department,Trixie ?

Bushes' Assets May Top $20 Million.
President Bush and his wife, Laura, had assets valued between $7.2 million and $20.9 million last year, up from as much as $18.1 million a year earlier, annual disclosure forms released last night showed.

Bush, who says his economic policies have helped Americans increase their wealth, is still making up ground from the start of his first term in 2001, when he and his wife reported assets of as much as $24 million.

Most of the Bushes' wealth was in real estate and a diversified trust, which combined were worth as much as $10 million, the 18-page statement showed. Much of the rest of their holdings were U.S. Treasury notes and certificates of deposit.

The 1,583-acre Bush ranch near Crawford, Tex., was estimated to be worth between $1 million and $5 million, the same range given in last year's filing. Bush also disclosed a health savings account worth as much as $15,000 and a 401(k) retirement plan from his days as Texas governor valued at as much as $250,000.

Bush, 59, reported receiving gifts including a $400 pair of binoculars from Cheney and his wife, Lynne; an Apple Computer Inc. iPod music player and a book titled "The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language," written by Eugene H. Peterson, from U2 lead singer Bono; and a chain saw, with accessories, from Home Depot Inc. President Robert Nardelli.

Bush paid $187,768 in taxes on taxable income last year of $618,694, according to returns the White House released April 14. The president's salary last year was $400,000.

Bush made his fortune as part owner of the Texas Rangers major league baseball team. His initial investment of $530,000 in 1989 soared to almost $15 million when he sold his share of the team to venture capitalist Tom Hicks in 1998.

snip

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051501638_pf.html

LogansPapa
06-09-2008, 03:54 PM
[SIZE="2"]Not too bad for Failed business man .How are you doing in the wealth department,Trixie ?

Yes - we all know Daddy’s cronies have done quite well and they’ve sent their appreciation down the shoot to Crawford. In my own case - I’m able to enjoy a 64’ AC Cobra with 675 hp that gets 4-8mpg on $7.63 av-gas on the weekends. How does that compare with your lot, Bosco?:cool:

megimoo
06-09-2008, 04:20 PM
Yes - we all know Daddy’s cronies have done quite well and they’ve sent their appreciation down the shoot to Crawford. In my own case - I’m able to enjoy a 64’ AC Cobra with 675 hp that gets 4-8mpg on $7.63 av-gas on the weekends. How does that compare with your lot, Bosco?:cool:Are you that potbellied bald guy I see on the freeway all the time,the one with the big dice hanging from the mirror and those cool rhinestone sunglasses ?

LogansPapa
06-09-2008, 04:45 PM
Are you that potbellied bald guy I see on the freeway all the time,the one with the big dice hanging from the mirror and those cool rhinestone sunglasses ?

Well no (Buaaaahhhhhaaaa) :D, but you'll see my baby in the background at about 1.21/1.23 of this clip:

Donut Derelicts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iDcL5IUrXE

:cool:

Ranger Rick
06-09-2008, 10:37 PM
Well no (Buaaaahhhhhaaaa) :D, but you'll see my baby in the background at about 1.21/1.23 of this clip:

Donut Derelicts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iDcL5IUrXE

:cool:

So how offen do you get down to the Goodwill parking lot?

LogansPapa
06-10-2008, 10:04 AM
So how offen do you get down to the Goodwill parking lot?

Most every Saturday.:cool:

lacarnut
06-10-2008, 10:55 AM
Yes - we all know Daddy’s cronies have done quite well and they’ve sent their appreciation down the shoot to Crawford. In my own case - I’m able to enjoy a 64’ AC Cobra with 675 hp that gets 4-8mpg on $7.63 av-gas on the weekends. How does that compare with your lot, Bosco?:cool:

I would love to have that car but am going to let you in on a little secret. The kool-aid state you live in is considering imposing heavy fines/and or lic. fees on gas guzzlers. You might have to move out of CA with those thousands of dollars that will be imposed on your type of vehicle.

Elspeth
06-10-2008, 10:57 AM
I would love to have that car but am going to let you in on a little secret. The kool-aid state you live in is considering imposing heavy fines/and or lic. fees on gas guzzlers. You might have to move out of CA with those thousands of dollars that will be imposed on your type of vehicle.

I'm in California, too. What cars are affected?

LogansPapa
06-10-2008, 11:08 AM
I would love to have that car but am going to let you in on a little secret. The kool-aid state you live in is considering imposing heavy fines/and or lic. fees on gas guzzlers. You might have to move out of CA with those thousands of dollars that will be imposed on your type of vehicle.

As a member of the Association of California Car Clubs, I’m well aware of what the State has thought, thinks and will try to implement in the future. Unfortunately,' The Gropenator' has come up against SEMA - the folks we purchase many of our engines, components and custom articles from, and these manufacturers have sent him and the entire legislature scurrying for cover. This noise has come and gone before - many times and if you stop to think about the very disposable income it takes to purchase and upgrade our vehicles - we’re really not the folks you want to fuck with politically.

;)

Gluesniffer
06-10-2008, 11:45 AM
[SIZE="2"]

"Why Don't You Have the courage to pave the way for refinery construction, oil exploration and drilling"

The environment.


[SIZE="2"]
And why are Republicans, who voted in overwhelming numbers for off-shore drilling, ANWR, nuclear, shale, tar sands, liquid coal, etc—and were opposed by Democrats on grounds of wanting to enrich energy companies—not appealing to the country to develop domestic supplies on the basis of fairness .


That would be socialism.


[SIZE="2"]
But given the current conservative ineptness, $5 a gallon gas will be blamed on the war, or lack of federal subsidies to solar, or the oil companies, and not the elite agenda of utopians who were not willing to do what was necessary for the collective good to help us transition through to new fuels.


It's the market baby, get over it.

megimoo
06-10-2008, 11:51 AM
The environment.



That would be socialism.



It's the market baby, get over it.Another Huntington Beach liberal no doubt.How about you critters start behaving like you're part of America and not the Maoist Empire of the West ?BTW DU is thataway down yonder !

Gluesniffer
06-10-2008, 01:23 PM
Another Huntington Beach liberal no doubt.How about you critters start behaving like you're part of America and not the Maoist Empire of the West ?BTW DU is thataway down yonder !


I'm not the Maoist here. You're the one crying about gas prices rising due to supply and demand logic and advocating government intervention to distort the price signal.

LogansPapa
06-10-2008, 04:11 PM
My folk's reality:

URGENT LEGISLATIVE ALERT

Old Car Emissions Exemption No Longer Threatened in 8 California Counties :)

Congratulations! The California old car hobby convinced California Senate legislators to amend legislation (S.B. 1549) that sought repeal of the state’s current emissions test exemption for pre-1976 vehicles registered by new owners in the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. The District includes eight counties in California’s Central Valley. Under the original bill, after Jan. 1, 2009, new owners seeking to register a pre-1976 vehicle in these eight counties would have been subject to emissions tests for the life of the vehicle. Under the amendment, the repeal language was removed and the bill instead now requires the DMV to study the state’s special license plate programs and recommend improvements.

Thanks to all of you for contributing to this successful resolution!


http://www.semasan.com/main/main.aspx?id=62398

Constitutionally Speaking
06-10-2008, 07:18 PM
The environment.



That would be socialism.



It's the market baby, get over it.


The risks to the environment are blown WAYYYY out of proportion, and it is NOT socialism for the government to remove the prohibitions on drilling and refining.

The market would work fine. The issue is the Democrats have BLOCKED the drilling and refining of our own oil.


The problem of high gas prices can be laid at the feet of the Democrats. PERIOD.

megimoo
06-10-2008, 09:12 PM
I'm not the Maoist here. You're the one crying about gas prices rising due to supply and demand logic and advocating government intervention to distort the price signal.
It's not governed by supply and demand these days sniffy .The futures market drives the world price on most goods these days and oil futures are just another commodity market !

Gluesniffer
06-11-2008, 02:24 AM
It's not governed by supply and demand these days sniffy .The futures market drives the world price on most goods these days and oil futures are just another commodity market !

And the futures market has nothing to do with supply and demand? It's essentially demand that drives the price, the futures market is just a lengthening of the price process.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-11-2008, 07:32 AM
And the futures market has nothing to do with supply and demand? It's essentially demand that drives the price, the futures market is just a lengthening of the price process.


The Democrats in congress are artificially keeping the supply low. THAT is the problem.:rolleyes:

Gluesniffer
06-11-2008, 07:38 AM
The Democrats in congress are artificially keeping the supply low. THAT is the problem.:rolleyes:

The biggest problem is that transition countries are raising demand substantially and will continue doing so. This is a structural problem that cannot be fixed by drilling until the last drops have vanished. The consumer should feel it in his wallet, then the companies will feel it in their profits, and then innovation can take place. That's the way the price system works.
Although it doesn't work perfect either as long as externalities aren't included in the price, so the real conclusion here is that you are still being treated too generously.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-12-2008, 10:18 AM
The biggest problem is that transition countries are raising demand substantially and will continue doing so. This is a structural problem that cannot be fixed by drilling until the last drops have vanished. The consumer should feel it in his wallet, then the companies will feel it in their profits, and then innovation can take place. That's the way the price system works.
Although it doesn't work perfect either as long as externalities aren't included in the price, so the real conclusion here is that you are still being treated too generously.



Sorry Glue, but the fact of the matter is that the increase in demand CAN be offset by an increase in supply.
It is the RELATIVE level of supply vs demand that causes prices to rise and fall.

The laws of supply and demand do NOT say increased demand automatically increases price. It merely puts upward pressure on prices and given a flat supply THEN you would expect prices to increase. This is exactly what is happening. If however, supply was increasing faster than demand, we would expect prices to fall.

We are experiencing increased demand but are not being allowed to increase supply, which is why prices are rising today.

It is almost exclusively the Democrats fault that we are not allowed to increase supply by drilling for the trillions of barrels of oil that we have right here. It is almost entirely due to liberals that we cannot increase our refining capacity.


We are artificially restricting supply in a marketplace of rapidly increasing demand. The price of oil is simply responding to the interference in the markets that the Democrats have foisted on us.

Gluesniffer
06-12-2008, 11:39 AM
I do get that S&D mechanism. I'm just saying that even if you would drill up the oil there, that would just be a temporary solution. And a bad one. If America would finally learn that externalities have to be taken into the price (as ALL economists agree), then the price would probably be even higher than now even if you did start drilling in Alaska.

The problem is, I'm talking about the environment, so that makes me a French commie traitor.

lacarnut
06-12-2008, 01:26 PM
I do get that S&D mechanism. I'm just saying that even if you would drill up the oil there, that would just be a temporary solution. And a bad one. If America would finally learn that externalities have to be taken into the price (as ALL economists agree), then the price would probably be even higher than now even if you did start drilling in Alaska.

The problem is, I'm talking about the environment, so that makes me a French commie traitor.

Even the French government have enough intelligence to build and use all resources like nuke power to decrease their dependence on energy unlike you.

Around 30 years Prez Carter declared, we would be wean ourselves from dependence on foreign oil. The Democrats have blocked nukes, refineries and drilling. Tell me what is so special about the Env. in the offshore area on the east or west coast in comparison to the Gulf of Mexico. I have never had a tree humphing anti-drilling piece of shit liberal give me an answer to that question.

Come on asshole, you can do it

LogansPapa
06-12-2008, 01:39 PM
Jimmy could have been up against this………..

On the afternoon of January 29, 1969, an environmental nightmare began in Santa Barbara, California. A Union Oil Co. platform stationed six miles off the coast of Summerland suffered a blowout. Oil workers had drilled a well down 3500 feet below the ocean floor. Riggers began to retrieve the pipe in order to replace a drill bit when the "mud" used to maintain pressure became dangerously low. A natural gas blowout occurred. An initial attempt to cap the hole was successful but led to a tremendous buildup of pressure. The expanding mass created five breaks in an east-west fault on the ocean floor, releasing oil and gas from deep beneath the earth.

For eleven days, oil workers struggled to cap the rupture. During that time, 200,000 gallons of crude oil bubbled to the surface and was spread into a 800 square mile slick by winds and swells. Incoming tides brought the thick tar to beaches from Rincon Point to Goleta, marring 35 miles of coastline. Beaches with off-shore kelp forests were spared the worst as kelp fronds kept most of the tar from coming ashore. The slick also moved south, tarring Anacapa Island's Frenchy's Cove and beaches on Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa and San Miguel Islands.

Ecological Impact

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/sb_69oilspill/69oilspill_articles2.html

Gluesniffer
06-12-2008, 04:53 PM
Even the French government have enough intelligence to build and use all resources like nuke power to decrease their dependence on energy unlike you.

Around 30 years Prez Carter declared, we would be wean ourselves from dependence on foreign oil. The Democrats have blocked nukes, refineries and drilling. Tell me what is so special about the Env. in the offshore area on the east or west coast in comparison to the Gulf of Mexico. I have never had a tree humphing anti-drilling piece of shit liberal give me an answer to that question.

Come on asshole, you can do it

I'm not talking about the Alaskan environment, I'm talking about carbon dioxide. That's the externalities that should be included in the price of gasoline.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-12-2008, 06:48 PM
I do get that S&D mechanism. I'm just saying that even if you would drill up the oil there, that would just be a temporary solution. And a bad one. If America would finally learn that externalities have to be taken into the price (as ALL economists agree), then the price would probably be even higher than now even if you did start drilling in Alaska.

The problem is, I'm talking about the environment, so that makes me a French commie traitor.

160 YEARS of temporary. At LEAST. Time enough to develop alternative sources.


I AM an economist, and the fact of the matter is that if we had supply in excess of demand in a substantial amount, the price of oil would plummet.

Molon Labe
06-12-2008, 06:55 PM
Well no (Buaaaahhhhhaaaa) :D, but you'll see my baby in the background at about 1.21/1.23 of this clip:

Donut Derelicts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iDcL5IUrXE

:cool:

71' chevelle? It's nice.

megimoo
06-12-2008, 07:32 PM
I do get that S&D mechanism. I'm just saying that even if you would drill up the oil there, that would just be a temporary solution. And a bad one. If America would finally learn that externalities have to be taken into the price (as ALL economists agree), then the price would probably be even higher than now even if you did start drilling in Alaska.

The problem is, I'm talking about the environment, so that makes me a French commie traitor.
No not a communist but an nearsighted save the world type.It's a good thing our great explorers didn't think like you.'Oh Why Bother Going There They Will Just Pollute It in A Hundred or so Years.

Going to an logical extreme you should advocate the total abolition of man for the good of nature on earth !You have found your man,sort of "White Folks Greed Runs a World in need-Barak H Obama",Democrat Candidate .

Gluesniffer
06-13-2008, 01:46 AM
[SIZE="2"]No not a communist but an nearsighted save the world type.It's a good thing our great explorers didn't think like you.'Oh Why Bother Going There They Will Just Pollute It in A Hundred or so Years.



Are you saying that every risk should be ignored because of that? The poeple concerned about global warming are the constructive types in this case, at least they give a damn. The rest either doesn't or is brainwashed.

LogansPapa
06-13-2008, 01:15 PM
71' chevelle? It's nice.

Not quite. The one just before the Chevy. ;)

megimoo
06-13-2008, 01:30 PM
Jimmy could have been up against this………..

On the afternoon of January 29, 1969, an environmental nightmare began in Santa Barbara, California. A Union Oil Co. platform stationed six miles off the coast of Summerland suffered a blowout. Oil workers had drilled a well down 3500 feet below the ocean floor. Riggers began to retrieve the pipe in order to replace a drill bit when the "mud" used to maintain pressure became dangerously low. A natural gas blowout occurred. An initial attempt to cap the hole was successful but led to a tremendous buildup of pressure. The expanding mass created five breaks in an east-west fault on the ocean floor, releasing oil and gas from deep beneath the earth.

For eleven days, oil workers struggled to cap the rupture. During that time, 200,000 gallons of crude oil bubbled to the surface and was spread into a 800 square mile slick by winds and swells. Incoming tides brought the thick tar to beaches from Rincon Point to Goleta, marring 35 miles of coastline. Beaches with off-shore kelp forests were spared the worst as kelp fronds kept most of the tar from coming ashore. The slick also moved south, tarring Anacapa Island's Frenchy's Cove and beaches on Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa and San Miguel Islands.

Ecological Impact

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/sb_69oilspill/69oilspill_articles2.htmlJust imagine what it will be like when the 'BIG ONE' comes Guido ?

megimoo
06-13-2008, 01:40 PM
Are you saying that every risk should be ignored because of that? The poeple concerned about global warming are the constructive types in this case, at least they give a damn. The rest either doesn't or is brainwashed.There is nothing we can do about it .Man is a puny little worm when compared to natural forces.Global warming is a crock of shit and you tree humpers know it, just as the spotted owl was.You rush and have that Fool rep Markey force the polar bear on the endangered species list to prevent any ANWAR drilling.The sky is falling,OMG the sky !With your people making decisions
on energy we would still use whale oil in our lamps,oh no I forgot about your little friends at PETA !