Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 176

• 0%

  jimdoze1 month, 1 week ago

  "White House press secretary Dana Perino says Bush is acting now in hopes of spurring Congress to act. So far, lawmakers have shown no interest in doing so."

  Let's see how congressional constituencies react, over the summer recess, to the "it won't help us for ten years anyway" talking point.

  Reply

  32 Replies

  • 0%

    mark-stevens1 month, 1 week ago

    BP is already drilling off the coast. A British company is drilling our oil, but it is getting drilled! The oil companies want all the leases, not just 75% so they can control the price even better.

    Anyone thinks the price of gas is going down because of this, is probably why Bush was elected... twice!

    As long as the U.S uses oil, we are going to be in a cage and tormented by our captors.

    Reply

    23 Replies

    • 0%

      Blackacereturn1 month, 1 week ago

      This entire thing is a setup, and the public like the lemmings they are; is buying into it hook,line and sinker. They, (the oil companies and the government...one in the same with this administration) has been playing us. They need us to crack so that they can start drilling, and once they do we can't stop them for 5 years. Stupid, stupid people. They got us going and coming. the price of oil will drop for a few months and then it will be right back where it was and they would have gotten their drilling rights in hand. God maybe we are as stupid as the others say!

      Reply

      22 Replies

      • 0%

        antibrainwasher1 month, 1 week ago

        Exactly right Black. Amazing how the same group of Exon brownshirts, all either working for or heavily invested in big oil, or just the loyalist idiots incapable of thinking for themselves, just jump on the band wagon, no matter what the issue.

        The issue is about Exon and the other oil companies money. Its not about the supply of oil. Its about the oil companies right to making billions of dollars a quarter.

        Exon rewarded their CEO with a 350 MILLION dollar bonus in 2006. A insignificant fraction of their revenues for the quarter, and less than 1/6 the fine paid for the Exon Valdez disaster.

        And I see no concern in any of the posts above or below about the fact we must REDUCE our fossil fuel burning, because our current levels will probably destroy life as we know it, if not completely. The ice caps will be gone, and Exon and its brown shirts are still denying anything is wrong.

        Vote republican, to enrich Exon, and kill the planet.

        Reply

        7 Replies

        • 0%

          antibrainwasher1 month, 1 week ago

          Anyone proposing drilling for more and more oil to produce cheap gas prices, and not explaining how this would increase CO2 concentration, is insane.

          Reply

          6 Replies

          • 0%

            aniokly1 month, 1 week ago

            Most people in America say increasing our oil supply is more important then curbing Environmental problems. The funs over. We are not buying your Hoax any longer. You have had 40 years to find alternative energy, and there is none. We can do both, we can Drill now Domestically, and you can prretend to look for alternatives, but you can no longer leave us at the mercy of the Arab Sheiks.

            Reply

            4 Replies

            • 0%

              quackpot1 month, 1 week ago

              All so that the likes of ani can drive their SUV. Yes, ani, you ar the one that has spouted off over and over about your God-given-right to drive a gas-guzzling SUV at the expense of our children's resources.

              Ani, who demands an SUV and has NO concern about the welfare or our children is the one who is out of touch with reality.

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                ecotourusa1 month, 1 week ago

                well said quackpot. as a nation, we need to conserve. pres. bush even says that. (imagine this longtime Texas oil man saying that) It's time to grow up and save what's left for our children.

                here's an article about commercial solar power plants proposed by our state's major power company: FPL.

                check it out here:

                http://donoevil.propeller.com/story/2008/07/15/...

                Reply
            • 0%

              Blackacereturn1 month, 1 week ago

              Ok aniokly, how are we going to do that if our refineries are operating at capacity? No amount of drilling will make a difference is we can't refine the oil now will it? It will take years before we can construct new refineries so this is all a sham for the fools that refuses to take the time to think. It's fools gold!

              Reply
            • 0%

              mesodude1 month, 1 week ago

              "Most people in America say increasing our oil supply is more important then curbing Environmental problems."

              --A clear sign of the tiny mind of a con sputtering and sparking to form a coherent argument or thought. It seems wingjobs have forgotten that the main reason some Republicans (like Bush's dad and brother Jeb, for instance) opposed offshore drilling was only tangentially related to concerns about the environment. Floridians, for example, have worried about what views of drilling rigs would do to Florida real estate, tourism and other commerce. Those who opposed offshore drilling in the past are only chirping now because it's an election year (and they're being bribed with economic incentives). Drilling is also being proposed off the coast of Virginia (watch VA turn solid blue this fall). When the next Exxon Valdez hits the east coast waterways...the GOP will be officially DEAD.

              Reply
          • 0%

            tanglang1 month, 1 week ago

            "and not explaining how this would increase CO2 concentration, is insane"

            You want some cheese to go with that whine?

            Reply
      • 0%

        mesodude1 month, 1 week ago

        "This entire thing is a setup, and the public like the lemmings they are; is buying into it hook,line and sinker."

        --I'd be careful not to underestimate the American public this year based on the constant whining of a shrill minority. Notice that most of the wailing and moaning is from cons who live in the back woods where they must rely on their huge gas guzzling pickup trucks. C-SPAN devoted the first segment of its call-in program today to discussion of Bush's desperate political stunt (he's hoping to save one or two GOP butts this fall, I guess) and well over 90% of callers believe this is exactly that--a desperate political stunt which will backfire and ultimately send more Republicans packing. Bush is thoroughly disgusting and a total embarrassment. Why he does not simply stay in TX and ride his bike with Lance for the last few months of his disastrous presidency is beyond me.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          Blackacereturn1 month, 1 week ago

          My we in the above post is the editorial we, I am speaking of the GOPers on here with their "this is fantastic news." There is nothing fantastic about this. Global warming is real. 10 years ago a scientific team set their camp up on the ocean which has been frozen for 100 of years, today they have to leave because the ice they never thought would melt is melting at such an alarming rate that they would be in the ocean in a matter of years or sooner. In Westchester where I live, I have fished for years, in the last few years the catch has gotten smaller and smaller, this year it's non existent. We(humans will regret this if we let the fools run the world any longer). Money is good but it should never trump nature and human lives. We are sick and unless we cure ourselves soon we will all be a victims of this illness. Greed is only good when it's tempered with a little commonsense!

          Reply
      • 0%

        skeptic2711 month, 1 week ago

        Bush apparently doesn't know or believe the statistics from his own administration.

        According to the Energy Information Administration's official energy statistics from the U.S. government our refineries have a total capacity of 17,593,847 barrels per day. They are currently operating at 17,225,797 or about 98%. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_cap1_...

        You can drill all you want but if the refinery capacity isn't increased it won't increase our supply.

        Reply

        11 Replies

        • 0%

          Tangent0011 month, 1 week ago

          Yep, and there are far fewer refineries that can handle the heavy sour crude from ANWR. Guess who CAN handle that kind of oil? China!

          I wouldn't be a bit surprised if after opening ANWR, much of that crude ends up across the Pacific because of 'lack of refining capacity in the US' (wink, wink).

          Reply
        • 0%

          NoSpinDave1 month, 1 week ago

          "You can drill all you want but if the refinery capacity isn't increased it won't increase our supply."

          I actually agree with this. Now, if the Dem's would stop blocking the building of new refineries we would not have a problem...would we?

          Face it, on this issue the Dem's are on the WRONG side. You people love to throw out Bush's approval rating (all the while always ignoring the Dem congress though) as evidence the majority of Americans want a change. Well, according to every poll taken the American public WANTS MORE DRILLING and REFINERY CAPACITY!!

          Reply

          9 Replies

          • 0%

            disraeli1 month, 1 week ago

            Dave, Dave, Dave

            Have the Democrats been alone in Washington for the past 30 years, the last time a new refinery was built in the US. Have the Democrats been in the Whitehouse for that entire time? Have the Democrats been in control of congress since the mid 70's?

            If not then how is the dearth of refinery capacity solely the responsibility of the Democrats?

            Surely the various Republican Presidents and Republican controlled Congresses should bear some responsibility if, as you claim, the lack of refining capacity is purely a political issue.

            You say some of the silliest things.

            Reply

            3 Replies

            • 0%

              disraeli1 month, 1 week ago

              Dave,

              Thanks for the neg.

              So if I may presume to summarize your position on this matter and, as near as I can tell, on all matters.

              If it is good and bright and shiny it is because the Republicans did it. If there are any Democrats involved it is purely incidental and of no consequence.

              If is bad and a problem it is because the Democrats did it or didn't do it as the case may be. If there are any Republicans in proximity to such decisions they were rendered powerless by the almighty powers of the Democrats.

              If neither Democrats or Republicans were involved directly then depending on the matter at hand, good by definition is Republican and bad, also by definition, is Democrat.

              Does that about sum it up?

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • 0%

                NoSpinDave1 month, 1 week ago

                Disraeli..

                Sorry, only had time to Neg you last time I checked in. Considering it seems you have little or no knowledge of how our political system works let me explain something.....

                The minority party, while not always being able to get things passed THEY want, can VERY effectively BLOCK or SHELVE almost ANYTHING they don't want. This is obviously not always true, but unless the controlling party has an overwhelming majority of seats in both the House and the Senate, the minority still is able to keep things from getting done. We have seen BOTH parties use this method of governing...i.e., gridlock...for the last 30 years.

                I think this pretty much explains why REPUBLICANS could not always get everything they wanted to do done.

                I suggest you pick up a high school civics book next time before you shoot your mouth off.

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  disraeli1 month, 1 week ago

                  This administration and previous Republican administrations have passed numerous pieces of legislation with little or no support from the Democrats. I suggest that has more to do with the Republican's really wanting to pass those particular bills, whereas they didn't care a whole lot about building a refinery or opening up the ANWR or offshore drilling until a few months before an election.

                  You know as well as I do that the parties horse trade in order to pass legislation when they really want to have passed. The more contentious the legislation the better the horses are.

                  Reply
          • 0%

            Tangent0011 month, 1 week ago

            "I actually agree with this. Now, if the Dem's would stop blocking the building of new refineries we would not have a problem...would we?"

            Actually, the oil companies have only requested one refinery building permit in the past decade or so and it was approved. To date, no ground has been broken.

            Actually, in 2004, Saudi Arabia offered to help build two new refineries in the US. Big Oil declined.

            Actually, in the mid-90s, Big Oil deliberately shut down refineries in order to artificially choke supply and raise profits.

            Don't talk to me about 'the Dems won't let oil companies build refineries'. US oil companies have posted record profits for the past several quarters. They LIKE the situation as it is.

            Reply
          • 0%

            Blackacereturn1 month, 1 week ago

            NoSpin - I have to say I agree with you on this to a point...if true that the DEMS are blocking the building of refineries then we are wrong on this. However, I find it hard to believe since we had almost 5 years of republican control of both houses and a republican president with the rubber stamp in hand, and they didn't build any refineries, or start to do so when they could. Even, H.E. Abdalla Salem El-Badri said this is the problem not the supply of oil but refining of it.

            Reply

            2 Replies

            • 0%

              NoSpinDave1 month, 1 week ago

              see my above comment. You can leave the last part out for your personal consumption since you were not a smarta$$.

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                Blackacereturn1 month ago

                You are a bit ili!

                Reply
          • 0%

            mesodude1 month, 1 week ago

            "Face it, on this issue the Dem's are on the WRONG side."

            --But we use a quarter of the world's oil, our military uses 60% of our domestic supply, we import 60% for the balance of our domestic needs, and we aren't even in the top 10 countries in the world in terms of oil reserves. In 2020 there will be 15 million more Americans than there are today (forget about population growth in India and China). How realistic do you think it is to expect that we'll be able to produce enough oil (I guess we should assume there will be no more wars, hurricanes, terrorists acts or other phenomena beyond our control?) to insulate ourselves from future sticker shock? Did I mention we import 60% of our domestic needs? I don't see where cons are coming up with their rosy scenarios.

            Reply
  • 0%

    namecritic1 month, 1 week ago

    In the 70s there was an "oil shortgage". I was working on a boat that supplied diesel fuel to the oil rigs. Every night you could see the flares all over the gulf where they were buring off excess oil. Each rig was allowed to only drill a specific amount per day. Everything else was "flared".

    It's like the diamond market. The DeBeers family controls how many diamonds get into the marketplace each year, keeping the cost of diamonds high when in truth if all the diamonds that have been dug up were released into the marketplace, they would be worthless.

    There are oil wells in the Dakotas, in the Gulf of Mexico, in Texas, and elsewhere that are "capped off". They wouldn't even need to drill. They can start pumping that oil tomorrow.

    They want more leases while they do not even use what they have and Bush is giving it to them. He's either a coward for backing down to them or he is in business with them or both. You decide.

    Reply

    5 Replies

    • 0%

      Tangent0011 month, 1 week ago

      In the mid-90s, oil companies deliberately shut down refineries to choke supply in order to drive up profits. And we're supposed to trust these guys when they tell it's all 'market forces'? I don't think so.

      Reply

      4 Replies

      • 0%

        ecotourusa1 month, 1 week ago

        here's another solution: (next to cutting down on our ridiculous driving habits, turning up our thermostats, reducing our glutenous lifestyles, etc)

        check out what one of our power companies is doing here:

        http://donoevil.propeller.com/story/2008/07/15/...

        FPL is way in front of T.boone Pickens.

        If you want change...put your money where your mouth is!

        Reply

        3 Replies

        • 0%

          Tangent0011 month, 1 week ago

          Good for FPL! Xcel energy here in Colorado has the Windsource program whereby one can buy their power from the wind farm Xcel runs up north. I've been a part of the program since its inception. The power costs a bit more, but I feel a little greener.

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            ecotourusa1 month, 1 week ago

            Tangent1-

            very cool idea...do you a specific web site you could recommend? thanks!

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              ecotourusa1 month, 1 week ago

              (do you have...?)

              Reply
  • 0%

    namecritic1 month, 1 week ago

    In addition to that, it isn't an oil shortage this time. It's a ton of investors buying oil futures and propping up the price of oil as was done with real estate. These are the same investors that Bush gave tax breaks to and McCain wants to continue giving tax breaks to.

    These investors do not care if your home is foreclosed or you have to pay $200 to buy gas to get to work each day as long as they make a profit.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      GWHayduke1 month, 1 week ago

      But but but, grani says we need to drill to get more oil.

      That Americans are tired of the ME sheiks dictating the price of fuel....

      That we can become dependent if only the altruistic oil companies will comply with our DEMANDS for abundant CHEAP fuel for our 16mpg vehicles.

      Reply
• 0%

  AlphaGnosis1 month, 1 week ago

  This is fantastic news! This can't produce anything but good results. Besides long term, I'll even bet that when Congress moves their butt, it might even cause gas prices to drop a little now.

  Go President Bush! :D

  Reply

  77 Replies

  • 0%

    tchef1 month, 1 week ago

    He's been in office for 7 years and used to have a fully complicit congress, why did he wait so long if this has truly been the answere to our oil problems?

    Sorry double post. Propeller is acting funny again.

    Reply

    14 Replies

    • 0%

      pc251 month, 1 week ago

      we didn't have 4 dollar a gallon gas 7 years ago

      Reply

      7 Replies

      • 0%

        HannibalBarca1 month, 1 week ago

        So then why blame clint, that is all I have seen;, "if clint drilled 10 years ago", what a crock.

        Oil prices had risen nearly by 200-250% in 2005 so why not then, both Dem and Rep Congresses have a lot to answer for.

        Reply

        4 Replies

        • 0%

          buckncindykill1 month, 1 week ago

          Here's what's going on. Democrats understand that there is a strong likelihood that oil prices will drop, perhaps a lot if the United States announces that we're opening up ANWR, the Florida Gulf Coast, the outer continental shelf, the oil shale lands out west and other areas to oil exploration and recovery. OPEC countries would immediately put downward pressure on prices in hopes that they could derail or forestall the new American effort. Democrats also know that the voters in this country have this nasty tendency to blame or credit, the party controlling the White House for good and bad economic news. Democrats won't do anything that might allow the Republicans to look good ... even if you have to pay five bucks a gallon for gas.

          Reply

          3 Replies

          • 0%

            bigG1 month, 1 week ago

            Dream on Roscoe - this is clearly a political ploy and it won't bother OPEC one bit. Bush wants to give the oil companies another gift before he leaves office. You can bet it would be a sweetheart deal and it will not help our situation. Again - you want lower gasoline prices? Quit using so much. Park the Hummer, ya know?

            The link below(a DOE report dated May 2008) starts off saying production from ANWR is projected to start increasing domestic production in 2018(hence 10 years).

            Estimates for oil reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge offer a relatively small contribution to the world market. "The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices."

            http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf...

            Reply
          • 0%

            Blackacereturn1 month, 1 week ago

            You are blaming the DEMS for this. You are a piece of work.

            This stinks of GOP all over it. This is about drilling in the protected lands. Nothing more nothing less it's just that! Well that and unmitigated greed!

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              buckncindykill1 month, 1 week ago

              Forget lowering the price of gas. I could hardly care less if drilling in ANWR, the Florida Gulf Coast, the outer continental shelf, the oil shale lands out west and other areas to oil exploration and recovery drops the price one penny. At this point its about becoming independent. As we become more independent, start doling out subsidies for alternatives until we find long lasting sustainable, renewable forms of energy. But we can't solve our dependence, completely ignoring oil. We've got to do everything and anything we can to break the OPEC stranglehold. And to do that, in part, requires AMERICAN oil.

              Reply
      • 0%

        bill29361 month, 1 week ago

        Did not have $4 a gallon in Jan of 2007 when the Dems took over Congress either.

        Reply
      • 0%

        HOUSEMD1 month, 1 week ago

        dittos PC25

        Reply
    • 0%

      GLee1 month, 1 week ago

      Chef, In a way you are totally correct........ but also so wrong. Bush may have waited too long, but why the stall from Pelosi & Gang. We have to get started, right? or shall we just 'chat' about a fix and count on wind mills & solar panels to take care of everything?

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        tchef1 month, 1 week ago

        Even though I'm a Democrat, I'm no fan of Pelosi or Reid. They both are a couple of wienies. We had a chance to do something about all of this in the 70's when it happened the first time but instead we just lumbered along and did nothing. Let's not blow this chance.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          Tangent0011 month, 1 week ago

          "Let's not blow this chance."

          Agreed! A comprehensive, progressive energy policy is essential. More drilling is merely a stop-gap measure and should be recognized as such. If we're gonna drill in ANWR, nationalize it or at least make sure it stays in the American market!

          Invest in off-the-shelf deployment of solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric.

          Take oil and natural gas off the commodities speculation market. Fuel is a matter of national security.

          Reply
    • 0%

      Global_Warmer1 month, 1 week ago

      Because Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats are beholding to the environmental extremists, and they have blocked any attempt to even mention drilling.

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        ecotourusa1 month, 1 week ago

        drilling off the coast of any beach/tuorist state is dumb...think about it!

        besides, people are driving these because they have to. I'm happy the price of gas is high. it keeps people off the road for dumb, useless reasons. I am totally enjoying my driving experience these days...

        I hope the price climbs higher. It causes us to use our minds.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          tanglang1 month, 1 week ago

          "drilling off the coast of any beach/tuorist state is dumb...think about it!"

          Why? Would the possible sight of a rig turn you off of a beach? Guys would enjoy seeing that as much as they enjoy seeing tanker ships pass by. You can also look at the fact that they would create artificial reefs increasing sea life and making offshore fishing cheaper.

          Reply
  • 0%

    libsRfunny1 month, 1 week ago

    What is does is places the onus squarely on the shoulders of the do-nothing, Dem-led Congress for failing to support domestic drilling. One of their many undelivered campaign promises in 2006 was to lower the cost of gas and reduce foreign oil dependency. Here's a chance to do both at once, and they just keep dragging their feet and coming up with excuses not to do so. Now they have one less excuse.

    Reply

    6 Replies

    • 0%

      saintetienne1 month, 1 week ago

      "Here's a chance to do both at once, and they just keep dragging their feet and coming up with excuses not to do so."

      Congress is just DETERMINED to win that Nobel Putz prize. If they fail to act on this, their nine percent approval rating will change to a NONE percent approval rating.

      Reply
    • 0%

      mark-stevens1 month, 1 week ago

      If anyone is interested if the freddy mac and fanny may are bailed out the feds will print money to do it. The US dollar is worth less and gas will jump up in price.

      Allan Greenspan told the Republican led congress three years ago, stop the housing boom or we will go through a destruction of the US economy... yahoo!!

      Reply

      4 Replies

      • 0%

        nostalgia1 month, 1 week ago

        And Greenspan should know!

        He can spin all he likes, but many are not buying former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's attempts to distance himself from the housing crisis -- and to make sure the Fed's laissez-faire economic practices don't take any blame either.

        So he's forcefully and publicly defending himself and his staunch anti-regulatory views, even as fingers point to his tenure at the Fed as the source for the housing mess.

        reenspan can defend his legacy all the day long, but it won't change the fact that, on his watch, the Fed failed to rein in abusive and predatory practices by banks and lenders that have resulted in millions of people losing their homes. He can't do anything to stop a growing movement to put some brakes on the financial markets, and to reverse his efforts of the past three decades to push for less and less oversight.

        http://washingtonindependent.com/view/reversal-...

        Reply

        3 Replies

        • 0%

          bigG1 month, 1 week ago

          Yes nostalgia, sometimes regulating industry can be for the common good. Over-regulating can certainly be bad for the economy, but as we are seeing now, under-regulating can be worse.

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            Tangent0011 month, 1 week ago

            Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had huge lobbying engines that fought regulation of their industry at every turn. Now they're reaping what they've sown.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              nostalgia1 month, 1 week ago

              That's true - they have spent hue amounts on lobbying Congress to avoid regulation

              As I noted on another thread -

              Schumer is in this debacle up to his eyeballs:

              Even after Freddie Mac was shown to have manipulated earnings, Congress remained deadlocked over legislation to create a stronger regulator. Opposing one such bill in 2004, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) argued that a hostile regulator could use the proposed powers to choke the companies.

              When a federal regulator accused Fannie Mae of cooking its books to increase bonuses, lawmakers lined up to denounce the regulator. Rep. William L. Clay Jr. (D-Mo.) said a House panel had no business holding a hearing on the matter -- "unless this is truly a witch hunt." Fannie Mae was later found to have overstated profits by $6.3 billion.

              http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

              Reply
  • 0%

    disraeli1 month, 1 week ago

    A short sighted position.

    There are estimated to be between 28 and 30 billion barrels of oil offshore and in the ANWR. Sounds like a lot, but to put it into perspective it represents about 4 years US domestic consumption.

    It will take years to come on stream, so it won't have any appreciable or long lasting effect on short term oil prices. If developed and exploited it would be spread out over 30 to 50 years - which would represent anywhere from 1.5 to 2.8 million barrels per day. The annual increase in worldwide consumption is approximately 1.0 million barrels per day. So by the time these resources come on stream new demand will have outstripped to new supply.

    Obviously a long term plan is needed, not a short term one to sacrifice of the environment in exchange for transient political gain.

    Reply

    25 Replies

    • 0%

      bigurn1 month, 1 week ago

      Diz, you're extrapolating beyond the data. There was nothing in the article that suggested there was no long term plan.

      Any new drilling will take 5-10 years to get here, but will a welcome addition by then. It will take, generously, double that amount of time to winnow out a transportation energy solution that will replace the existing internal combustion infrastructure. In other words, we're stuck with oil for the time being.

      Any increase in supply should be met with a complementary reduction in demand. Simple things that some people are already doing will suffice. There is no need to go crazy; a small reduction in US demand can easily equal a developing nation annual supply.

      The combination of the two should reduce prices.

      Reply

      14 Replies

      • 0%

        bigurn1 month, 1 week ago

        The long term plan is difficult, because we have to have two different conversations: One about distribution energy and one about transportation energy.

        We have distribution energy solved for 1000 years. We have all the coal we ever need. If that's not palatable, then you'll be glad to know that we're slowly working on nuclear power. We're in a catchup situation vs other industrialized nations.

        Transportation energy is more difficult. Solar and wind energy are not easily mobile, and they have poor efficiencies today. Nuclear is possible, but is not likely to give most people a lot of confidence. We need to continue to develop a transportation solution, and we are two decades away from deciding on a winner.

        Reply
      • 0%

        disraeli1 month, 1 week ago

        I see no evidence of any long term plan with regard to an overall energy strategy. That is not only this administration's fault but it's predecessor's as well.

        You are quite correct that we are stuck with oil for the time being, not just for transport fuel but also for all the petrochemical products, from plastics to fertilizers.

        My basic point is that offshore/ANWR drilling is not the panacea that some seem to think it is.

        Any long term plan would need to include components from both sides of the supply/demand equation. Measures to reduce consumption (improved efficiencies, increased reliance on public transit etc) and measures to increase supply - which even medium term must include alternative sources starting with the easiest and most readily available (oil shales, coal liquification processes, nuclear) but also with a concerted effort towards solar, wind, wave and bio energy generation schemes (possibly using hydrogen as the transportable form)

        Reply

        12 Replies

        • 0%

          GLee1 month, 1 week ago

          disraeli,

          I'm sure America is going to 'cut' their use of energy. Get in the real world! Obama's main strategy is a mess. America cutting it's use of oil along with windmills and solar panels. GEEEZZZZZZ.......

          Reply

          9 Replies

          • 0%

            disraeli1 month, 1 week ago

            Gee Lee,

            That's a rather head in the sand approach.

            I said nothing (at least not deliberately) for or against Obama's main strategy, I'm not even sure what it is. So I fail to see what bearing that has on anything I said.

            As to your blindness (or perhaps it's a world weary skepticism) regarding a combination of conservation and a search for alternate forms of energy there are some irrefutable facts.

            Oil is a limited resource. They are not making any more. US domestic production has been dropping since the early 70's and is now approximately half of what it was a its peak. Worldwide consumption is increasing.

            While there is considerable debate over the status of proven (eg. recoverable) reserves one fact is absolute. There is a limit, petroleum will run out at some point. That is the real world. Your "real world" is marked by a casual disregard for that which is inevitable, if not for you then for your children or grandchildren

            Reply

            3 Replies

            • 0%

              libsRfunny1 month, 1 week ago

              "Oil is a limited resource. They are not making any more. US domestic production has been dropping since the early 70's and is now approximately half of what it was a its peak. Worldwide consumption is increasing."

              And yet, you say increasing domestic oil production would do no good. Quite a contradiction there.

              You also conveniently failed to acknowledge extracting oil from shale, which is highly profitable but, once again, being opposed by Democrats. The Great Lakes also has oil, but, Democrats oppose slant drilling.

              Oil also can be recycled, but you obviously are not aware of that.

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • 0%

                disraeli1 month, 1 week ago

                Libs,

                If you bother to read the posts I thought I was fairly clear.

                My issue with offshore/ANWR drilling has more to do with the very limited long term impact these items would have on the supply situation, both US domestic and worldwide. It is not the golden goose that some seem to think it is - it is a band aid and a small one at that.

                With regard to oil shales, in my post above I referred to it as one of the sources of energy that I think ought to be explored and exploited. That is a question of researching and perfecting viable technologies, both economically and environmentally viable.

                As to your statement "Oil also can be recycled". Well Libs if you have a method for recycling oil after it has been burned as diesel, gasoline or similar I'd say you are onto something. Perhaps you should head down to the patent office.

                Reply
              • 0%

                GWHayduke1 month, 1 week ago

                -"And yet, you say increasing domestic oil production would do no good. Quite a contradiction there."-

                Three weeks ago OPEC announced that they increase production by 200,000 bbls a DAY.

                What happened?

                The next day oil increased to a then high of $139 a bbl.

                Yes, quite a contradiction.

                Reply
          • 0%

            mark-stevens1 month, 1 week ago

            Anyone paying attention, other than listening to FOX news.

            T Boone Pickens is telling everyone it's over as far as oil goes. He has invested 10 billion in an electric company for one and a half million homes... all runs on wind!

            T. Boone Pickens "we can't drill our way out of this mess"

            Reply

            3 Replies

            • 0%

              tanglang1 month, 1 week ago

              T. Boone Pickens "we can't drill our way out of this mess...

              ...So buy into the products and companies that I have invested in.

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                ecotourusa1 month, 1 week ago

                does t. boone have a stock offering...I couldn't find one.

                Reply
            • 0%

              nostalgia1 month, 1 week ago

              Are you listening to interviews with Pickens or just the ads?

              He has said in interview after interview that we have to drill to bring more oil online while alternatives are being developed

              Reply
          • 0%

            quackpot1 month, 1 week ago

            Don't underestimate America's ability to decrease energy use, GLee.

            The huge down turn in SUV sales demonstrates that you are WRONG about American Citizens' ability to cut energy use.

            The increase in well insulated homes and energy efficient lighting and appliances demonstrates that you are WRONG about American Citizens' ability to cut energy use.

            The increase in urban-living, which decreases commutes demonstrates that you are WRONG about American Citizens' ability to cut energy use.

            The increase in alternative energy development and use demonstrates that you are WRONG about American Citizens' ability to cut energy use.

            The commitment of cities such as New York to cut energy use by 30% demonstrates that you are WRONG about American Citizens' ability to cut energy use.

            Reply
        • 0%

          bigurn1 month, 1 week ago

          Diz, I agree. ANWR and associated drilling is no panacea. Neither is solar/wind/biofuel. Our national strategy should include an overall plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and a gradual lessening of the need for foreign oil.

          I've not seen any movement in Congress about this, now or in the past. The Executive Branch really doesn't have a lot of control of this; they don't enact laws.

          What's more, I see obstruction on the part of some Congressional leaders, and obstruction on the part of local officials where solar/wind/hydro makes sense.

          Our long-term plan should incentivize toward our strategic direction; I'm not interested in seeing us getting taxed there, either directly or indirectly through corporate taxes. Our long-term plan should include a reduction in Federal funding for areas where wind/solar/hydro is blocked on Federal land.

          Remember, our energy problem is a transportation energy problem. We have 1000 years of fuel for distribution energy.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            disraeli1 month, 1 week ago

            I see transportation energy as primarily a cost problem.

            The US has domestic recoverable reserves of coal of approximately 275 billion tons - roughly equivalent to 1 trillion barrels of oil. US coal reserves are enough to last approximately 250 years at current rates of consumption.

            The issue, as you point out, is one of converting coal to a fuel more amenable for use in transportation. Processes are available (Fischer-Tropisch for one)to liquify coal, these processes have been used in Germany during the world wars and South Africa.

            It's a question of cost and environmental issues. Problems to be sure, but likely problems that can be solved or at least mitigated with a concerted research effort.

            Reply
    • 0%

      pc251 month, 1 week ago

      not as short sighted as your answer....

      Reply

      8 Replies

      • 0%

        disraeli1 month, 1 week ago

        And not nearly as expansive as your dismissal. Any comment on the substance of it - or you just don't like the facts of the matter.

        Reply

        7 Replies

        • 0%

          pc251 month, 1 week ago

          no one is denying that there is a start up time to off shore drilling but to keep engaging in a game of BOHICA (BEND OVER HERE IT COMES AGAIN) with the Saudis is ludicrous

          http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/0...

          the NBC Nightly News ran a soundbite from energy analyst Daniel Yergin who predicted allowing offshore drilling "would send a psychological message to the world oil market which would affect prices before any of that new oil actually started to arrive."

          On ABC, Betsy Stark cited the same estimate of how the offshore oil represents "about two and a half years worth of U.S. consumption at current rates" and paraphrased the opinion of the experts she consulted: "Just the expectation of increasing domestic production at a time of tight supplies could drive down prices."

          Reply

          6 Replies

          • 0%

            pc251 month, 1 week ago

            http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2008/06/30/o...

            Yet companies are not allowed to explore where the biggest prospects for oil and gas may exist â;; especially on the Outer Continental Shelf. Seven of the top 20 U.S. oil fields are now located in analogous deepwater areas (greater than 1,000 feet) in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2006, Chevron discovered what is likely to be the largest American oil find since Prudhoe, drilled in 7,000 feet of water and more than 20,000 feet under the sea floor. The Wilcox formation may have an upper end of 15 billion barrels of recoverable oil and should begin producing by 2014

            Reply

            4 Replies

            • 0%

              pc251 month, 1 week ago

              Likewise, in April, the U.S. Geological Survey revised its estimate for the Bakken Shale, underneath the badlands of North Dakota and Montana. The new assessment â;; as much as 4.3 billion barrels of oil â;; is a 25-fold increase over what the Survey believed in 1995. Such breakthroughs confirm that very large reserves exist, if only Congress would let business get at them.

              Reply

              3 Replies

              • 0%

                disraeli1 month, 1 week ago

                So between the Wilcox formation and the Bakken Shale there is 19 billion barrels of recoverable oil. That puts those two "fields" in the same general ballpark as the offshore/ANWR resource. One salient difference of course is that both Wilcox and Bakken are (or could be) actively exploited for their reserves. I don't believe that Congress is standing in the way of development of either Wilcox or Bakken.

                How much effect and impact on the world price of oil, or the local pump price for gas, have these two well publicized fields had? Obviously not much and this is demonstrated every day.

                Using that as an empirical test how much faith can one put in Betsy Stark's paraphrase that "Just the expectation of increasing domestic production at a time of tight supplies could drive down prices." No much, methinks, not much.

                Reply

                2 Replies

                • 0%

                  pc251 month, 1 week ago

                  then apparently the most effective means of controlling costs is to to dip into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as Pelosi wants to........A TACIT ADMISSION BY HER AND THE DEMS THAT INCREASED SUPPLIES WILL BRING DOWN COSTS.........know we know what her common sense approach to controlling the rising costs of energy was 2 years ago...........you people are on the wrong side of this

                  Reply

                  1 Reply

                  • 0%

                    disraeli1 month, 1 week ago

                    Dipping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is even more shortsighted energy policy, completely ludicrous as a serious proposal. Even if drained dry there is only 35 days worth of US demand there, 50 days if it is used to replace imported oil.

                    While it may be painful on a personal level, $4 a gallon gasoline is in no way, shape or form the type of national emergency for which the reserve was created.

                    I don't know if there is any unilateral made in the USA policy or legislation that would effect a dramatic or quick impact on world oil prices. I expect if there was a quick fix smarter minds than mine would have proffered as a solution.

                    As much as long term plans and strategies are an anathema to politicians, that it what is required with regard to energy policy. Not gas tax holidays, not sound bite policies, but rather vision, forethought and leadership qualities even more lacking in DC than oil.

                    By the way who is the "you people" that you want to lump me in with.

                    Reply
          • 0%

            Sabretooth1 month, 1 week ago

            "no one is denying that there is a start up time to off shore drilling but to keep engaging in a game of BOHICA (BEND OVER HERE IT COMES AGAIN) with the Saudis is ludicrous"

            Maybe you could just invade them to change their repressive regime and give them democracy. While you are there you could pay for your time with their oil.

            Reply
    • 0%

      JoseMadre1 month, 1 week ago

      I see it as more of a bridge position to the future enegry sources.

      Reply
  • 0%

    bigurn1 month, 1 week ago

    Nice post, kiddo. Nice to see you back.

    Reply

    3 Replies

    • 0%

      AlphaGnosis1 month, 1 week ago

      Thanks, babe! I'll prolly be back on fully on Wednesday. I have poll worker duties tomorrow all day.