Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: shootfighter1 on August 06, 2008, 04:20:08 PM
-
We need a multi-pronged approach to energy but drilling our own oil reserves is a wise part of the plan. Lifting the congressional ban on off shore drilling will immediately lower oil prices and production will increase in the next 2-5 yrs according to most oil experts (not the political BS some spew). This is not a republican or democratic issue, its an American issue and we need to decrease the price of oil for families, small businesses, corporations, the airline industry, the shipping industry, and all truckers. It affects us all.
This must be done in conjunction with increasing nuclear power, investigating clean coal, incentives for new renewable clean alternative fuels, increasing emission standards for all vehicles, and possibly expanding wind, solar and electric capabilities.
Sign the petition to drill...make congress listen:
http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=54ec6e43-75a8-445b-aa7b-346a1e096659
-
We need a multi-pronged approach to energy but drilling our own oil reserves is a wise part of the plan. Lifting the congressional ban on off shore drilling will immediately lower oil prices and production will increase in the next 2-5 yrs according to most oil experts (not the political BS some spew). This is not a republican or democratic issue, its an American issue and we need to decrease the price of oil for families, small businesses, corporations, the airline industry, the shipping industry, and all truckers. It affects us all.
This must be done in conjunction with increasing nuclear power, investigating clean coal, incentives for new renewable clean alternative fuels, increasing emission standards for all vehicles, and possibly expanding wind, solar and electric capabilities.
Sign the petition to drill...make congress listen:
http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=54ec6e43-75a8-445b-aa7b-346a1e096659
Sucker issue:
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/drillingtf.asp?gclid=CJj06Jyg8pQCFRYcagodFQQPrg (http://www.nrdc.org/energy/drillingtf.asp?gclid=CJj06Jyg8pQCFRYcagodFQQPrg)
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/20/new_offshore_drilling_not_a_quick_fix_analysts_say/ (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/20/new_offshore_drilling_not_a_quick_fix_analysts_say/)
I agree off shore drilling is needed.
But to think it will have a immediate impact on prices is stupid.
Aside form that there are 68 million acres available to drill for oil.
-
I was person number 1,409,855. :)
-
But to think it will have a immediate impact on prices is stupid.
Just Bush lifting the executive ban on offshore drilling drove the costs of a barrell of crude oil down $19 in two weeks. I think your wrong.
-
Just Bush lifting the executive ban on offshore drilling drove the costs of a barrell of crude oil down $19 in two weeks. I think your wrong.
So you think that what did it? Do you believe in the moon conspiracy too?
-
show me exactly how I will start saving money and guarantee it in writing
and I'll give it serious consideration
-
No harm in signing it.
Just know the whole off drilling thing is for suckers during this election year.....
-
No harm in signing it.
Just know the whole off drilling thing is for suckers during this election year.....
fuck that
I need a better reason than the dubious claim of "no harm"
-
fuck that
I need a better reason than the dubious claim of "no harm"
What's the harm then? :)
-
What's the harm then? :)
like you've pointed out repeatedly....it's a sucker issue
At this point I don't support it so I see no reason to sign (as if it would make a difference either way)
-
We need a multi-pronged approach to energy but drilling our own oil reserves is a wise part of the plan. Lifting the congressional ban on off shore drilling will immediately lower oil prices and production will increase in the next 2-5 yrs according to most oil experts (not the political BS some spew). This is not a republican or democratic issue, its an American issue and we need to decrease the price of oil for families, small businesses, corporations, the airline industry, the shipping industry, and all truckers. It affects us all.
This must be done in conjunction with increasing nuclear power, investigating clean coal, incentives for new renewable clean alternative fuels, increasing emission standards for all vehicles, and possibly expanding wind, solar and electric capabilities.
Sign the petition to drill...make congress listen:
http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=54ec6e43-75a8-445b-aa7b-346a1e096659
That is such BS.
Even the governments own Dept of Energy says at best offshore drilling may knock a nickle off a gallon of gas,
...in the year 2018.
This is just as ozmo says... an issue only for suckers. ...suckers duped by the dirty politics of the Republicans.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26030877#25402110
it is my opinion that there are some people who don't give a crap about the country and where it must go,
...their only goal ...to get elected, ...and if they have to obsfucate issues they will, just to score political points.
-
Bullshit. It is not a sucker issue. The price of oil will drop more when we start off shore drilling based on market reaction. That is a small immediate effect.
There is great debate as to how long it will take to tap into our oil reserves but I heard multiple experts saying it is very likely within 5 yrs. The gov hasn't been exactly great at predicting things.
-
Until America starts taking care of their own energy future. Speculators, Cartels, and National oil programs will drive up the price of oil because America has no control. The bigger sucker issue is the profits from oil companies. American oil companies cannot control the price of oil, but blaming them and taking their profits is politically expedient. New refineries have been halted at a state level.
The democrats want to limit Canadian oil even though it isn't controlled by a national oil program. This is one of the biggest reasons that oil prices have been driven up.
The single biggest issue isn't about drilling, but where America gets its energy from. The democrats are comfortable relying in the middle east , even though OPEC control their oil. The republicans want a comprehensive oil program that includes a large portion of oil developed by American owned companies in America. Every American should want energy independence and, find absolutely crazy that most don't or aren't aware of the outcome.
The other portion of the debate is not about drilling but exploiting the oil shale. Oil shale is the big one, America has more oil in oil shale then Saudi Arabia has, America can control their own energy policy. Otherwise the America is powerless control its own energy future. America would be wise to spend money in investing in extracting oil out of oil shale.
-
The democrats in congress are largely responsible in the last 2 years of limiting the exploitation of oil resources in the US.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1754.cfm
Omnibus Prohibits Oil Shale Development
by Nicolas Loris
WebMemo #1754
Adopted by the House of Representatives on December 17, the omnibus appropriations bill prohibits funding for oil shale commercial regulations. Without these regulations, commercial production of oil shale is impossible.
production of oil shale is impossible.
The oil shale industry experienced several hiccups in the 1970s, and innovation has a long way to go before the resource becomes viable, but its potential is enormous. The United States is estimated to have more than 2 trillion barrels worth of oil shale resources. Spending bills should not include policy riders that stand in the way of U.S. energy independence.
A Promising Resource
Dr. Daniel Fine of MIT reported that 750 billion barrels worth of oil shale have been discovered in Colorado alone.[1] That amount is enough to potentially power the U.S. economy for many decades. Furthermore, if full-scale production begins within five years, the U.S. could completely end its dependence on OPEC by 2020.[2]
The oil shale provision reads as follows:
None of the funds made available by this Act shall be used to prepare or publish final regulations regarding a commercial leasing program for oil shale resources on public lands pursuant to section 369(d) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58) or to conduct an oil shale lease sale pursuant to subsection 369(e) of such Act.[3]
Without these regulations in place, these lands will not be able to be leased and/or developed for exploration of oil shale production. The technology to collect and refine oil shale is developing at a rapid pace, and private companies are willing to invest in it. Shell Oil commenced a research and development project on oil shale 30 years ago and continues to invest a considerable portion of its own revenue into commercializing the shale.
An estimated 1.2 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil is available in the Green River Formation, an area which expands through most of Colorado and parts of Utah and Wyoming.[4] The recoverable oil refined from oil shale would provide another resource for fuel production. According to the U.S. Department of Interior and Bureau of Land Management, a moderate estimate of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.[5]
The investment in technology and R&D is making the process cheaper and safer for the environment. In effect, methods of harvesting oil shale force excess carbon back into the ground. Dr. Fine estimates that oil shale production could by economical to produce when oil is selling at $25 per barrel.[6]
Conclusion
The omnibus provisions would undoubtedly slow progress being made in the oil shale industry, effectively putting another viable, domestic source of energy "off limits." As such, the oil shale prohibition would severely reduce the potential for oil shale to decrease U.S. dependence on imported oil. If Congress passes the omnibus in its current form, the oil shale provision is one more reason for President Bush to exercise his veto authority.
Nick Loris is a Research Assistant in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
-
It doesn't matter how much oil exists, ...whether it be Saudi oil, canadian oil or oil shale.
Extracting more oil does nothing to affect production of more gas, let alone cheaper gas.
That factor is dependent upon refining, ....and as it stands refining is at capacity.
If you cannot refine more oil, ...producing more oil does nothing to reduce prices.
Bush knew exactly what he was doing by lifting the executive ban knowing a congressional ban remained in place. He simply scored a political point and dumped the blame on a democratic congress. it's political brinksmanship and nothing more.
-
Excellent info joker! I though shale oil was expensive to extract, thus the reason we haven't done it yet...however, now that Oil is well over $100/gallon, it is certainly feasable. The above writer states its feasable at an even lower price per gallon.
I think some on the far left just want to get rid of oil entirely and are ok with rising oil prices because it forces alternative energies, which they believe are more friendly to the environment. Thats why they are dismissing drilling, shale and other logical oil based solutions. no other reason makes sense because these things will absolutely bring down the price of oil. There's no reason we can't have a multi-pronged approach to energy.
-
I believe there has been gov restrictions on refineries as well jag, which could be lifted. The oil companies already stated they want more refineries and the ability to drill more.
-
The democrats in congress are largely responsible in the last 2 years of limiting the exploitation of oil resources in the US.
They've only been in power 18 months.
Bush ran the place (with a repub congress) for the other 60 months.
I'm wondering why he was unable to accomplish anything during those 60 months?
-
I think more "Blame the democrats mentality" has been SUCKED into this issue.
-
I think more "Blame the democrats mentality" has been SUCKED into this issue.
they haven't done anything to change it.
But, you can't bitch at them. Because repubs had congress AND the white house, and didn't change shit either.
They had 1/2 the firepower that repubs had for 6 years, and repubs are blaming them?
Again, folks, attack with something of substance. Throwing this stuff at Obama makes YOU look like shit. Throw something legit at him.
-
Yeah, we've went from drilling oil, where are resident "energy and economic PHD" shootfighter tells us how these markets work and how prices will go down contradicting real experts in the subject to shale in colorado and how the democrats are stopping this to further their own agendas.
If we can get the shale without earning profit at margin and without tearing apart the environment I'm ALL for it.
Anyone take a gander at this years budget deficit lately?
SUCKERS!
-
Bullshit. It is not a sucker issue. The price of oil will drop more when we start off shore drilling based on market reaction. That is a small immediate effect.
There is great debate as to how long it will take to tap into our oil reserves but I heard multiple experts saying it is very likely within 5 yrs. The gov hasn't been exactly great at predicting things.
Right, also going into the reserves only decreases oil by 5 cents, I guess that is the sucker solution....long term until it runs out
-
Right, also going into the reserves only decreases oil by 5 cents, I guess that is the sucker solution....long term until it runs out
Going into the reserves is stupid too. thats a SUCKER solution, right up there with suspending the road repair tax.....
-
The president has been trying to change this for 4 years. I have posted numerous articles showing this. So stop blaming the Whitehouse.
The democrats enshrined , no Canadian oil sands, no oil shale, into law in 2007 about when oil started a 40 dollar rally.
The democrats are directly responsible for a lot of the oil pricing increase because they took control of American energy away from the American people in 2007 and gave it to the middle east.
Until America takes back their energy, like Bush has been trying to do, then you live with consequences.
By the way oil shale exploitation is much like oils sands exploitation. The cost are vary similar and you are already getting about 1 million barrels a day from of oil sands oil in the US right now. Which the deomcrats want to stop. Which will only raise oil prices more.
I personally GWB was right and the congress and senate have been wrong since day 1.
-
The president has been trying to change this for 4 years. I have posted numerous articles showing this. So stop blaming the Whitehouse.
The democrats enshrined , no Canadian oil sands, no oil shale, into law in 2007 about when oil started a 40 dollar rally.
The democrats are directly responsible for a lot of the oil pricing increase because they took control of American energy away from the American people in 2007 and gave it to the middle east.
Until America takes back their energy, like Bush has been trying to do, then you live with consequences.
By the way oil shale exploitation is much like oils sands exploitation. The cost are vary similar and you are already getting about 1 million barrels a day from of oil sands oil in the US right now. Which the deomcrats want to stop. Which will only raise oil prices more.
I personally GWB was right and the congress and senate have been wrong since day 1.
The repubs had full control of the presidency, congress and the senate for 2 and half of the 4 years you claim BUSH was trying to change this. Can you show where they stopped any of this outside there stance on the off shore drilling?
AND, I'm curious as to why you say the dems:
The democrats are directly responsible for a lot of the oil pricing increase because they took control of American energy away from the American people in 2007 and gave it to the middle east.
Can you please explain this further and perhaps provide links?
-
joker,
why didn't the repub-controlled congress work with bush to git er dun?
-
BTW oil sands is still at margin i think.
-
Going into the reserves is stupid too. thats a SUCKER solution, right up there with suspending the road repair tax.....
That is dumb, why do these people come up with these types of solutions.
It's like they have a flat tire, and instead of getting it repaired they us Fix a Flat, and just keep driving on it, hoping it stays inflated.
joker,
why didn't the repub-controlled congress work with bush to git er dun?
Still had major opposition from the Democrats and public.
-
That is dumb, why do these people come up with these types of solutions.
It's like they have a flat tire, and instead of getting it repaired they us Fix a Flat, and just keep driving on it, hoping it stays inflated.
.
Agreed. but as a candidate, you must have a solution or your campaign is toast.
Still had major opposition from the Democrats and public
That's never stopped anyone. So major opposition by people or the democrats is moot.
-
Agreed. but as a candidate, you must have a solution or your campaign is toast.
That is why the dems had a meeting, and since election time is near for them to keep their seats Pelosi ok'd that they can vote on offshore drilling, 70% approval for offshore drilling, lets them take a bite at the bait, and still not have it pass.
Point is, that is playing politics with people's lives :-\
-
The democrats are directly responsible for a lot of the oil pricing increase because they took control of American energy away from the American people in 2007 and gave it to the middle east.
In my estimation it was the Republicans who took away American energy independence 30 yrs ago under Reagan.
The problem has simply been compounding ever since.
Until America takes back their energy, like Bush has been trying to do, then you live with consequences.
...except Bush has not been trying to do this. bush has instead been cozying up to OPEC.
By the way oil shale exploitation is much like oils sands exploitation. The cost are vary similar and you are already getting about 1 million barrels a day from of oil sands oil in the US right now. Which the deomcrats want to stop. Which will only raise oil prices more.
I personally GWB was right and the congress and senate have been wrong since day 1.
Oil sands exploitation will do the exact opposite. It will ENSURE energy prices remain at all time highs.
Joker, I know that being from Western Canada, oil sands exploitation means an extremely booming economy for you and all Canadians, and I freely admit, it means increased profits for my business as well, ...but let's be honest about it. Current energy prices are hurting the majority of north Americans and plunging the US into a depression. Continued high energy prices isn't going to help them or the situation only compound it.
Energy independence means inexpensive, clean renewables, ...and oil isn't it. The future lies in wind & solar power.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it" --Upton Sinclair
-
Still had major opposition from the Democrats and public.
So? That didn't matter at all. There was major opposition from the Democrats and the public for just about every back asswards initiative put forth, ...but that didn't stop the Republican congress from rubber stamping everything
-
So? That didn't matter at all. There was major opposition from the Democrats and the public for just about every back asswards initiative put forth, ...but that didn't stop the Republican congress from rubber stamping everything
They had some help with Democratic votes...
Upton Sinclair, ::) I guess your socialist realism is really starting to shine through
-
We cannot solve our energy crisis with wind and solar alone...at least not anytime remotely soon with our technology. I honestly think we need to look at all options and not close doors as Obama and some of the democrats want to do.
The republican majority congress is also at fault for not acting on these issues quicker. Its not a tote the party line issue...its an American issue (and a world issue).
I'm all for alternative fuels and better emissions...however, there needs to be more done. Nuclear is available, efficient and is right in front of our face, thats a no brainer. I feel that shale, drilling for more oil and clean coal need to be persued as well. Why limit ourselves at all, consider and explore all options.
-
We cannot solve our energy crisis with wind and solar alone...at least not anytime remotely soon with our technology. I honestly think we need to look at all options and not close doors as Obama and some of the democrats want to do.
Where does Obama say he wants to close the doors?
The republican majority congress is also at fault for not acting on these issues quicker. Its not a tote the party line issue...its an American issue (and a world issue).
I'm all for alternative fuels and better emissions...however, there needs to be more done. Nuclear is available, efficient and is right in front of our face, thats a no brainer. I feel that shale, drilling for more oil and clean coal need to be persued as well. Why limit ourselves at all, consider and explore all options.
The very nature of capitalism ensures all options will be explored.
Not a lot of substance in what you wrote here shootfighter. More idealistic regurgitation than anything else.
-
OzmO, you must be only listening to MSMBC's experts. There are plenty of experts who believe that there will be market reaction to the commencement of US offshore drilling. You don't need a PhD to see how thats a likely possibility...although I am a doctor...
None of us know everything about energy, I hear ya, but it is a very political debate full of spin. I have heard enough experts to convince me that offshore drilling should be part of our comprehensive energy plan. More drilling and more refineries will also create American jobs and keep some of the profits here, instead of overseas. Same thing with building more nuclear power plants, solar & wind farms.
-
They had some help with Democratic votes...
Upton Sinclair, ::) I guess your socialist realism is really starting to shine through
Sorry i don't follow you here.
How does a bill or decision get stopped with a majority vote in congress other than a veto?
-
Obama's stance is clear on offshore drilling - closed door
Also clear on Drilling in Alaska - closed door
He is very resistant to nuclear and it is not a part of his energy program- closed door.
There's substance for you related to Obama.
It is fact that congress has prevented domestic drilling for many yrs.
-
OzmO, you must be only listening to MSMBC's experts. There are plenty of experts who believe that there will be market reaction to the commencement of US offshore drilling. You don't need a PhD to see how thats a likely possibility...although I am a doctor...
None of us know everything about energy, I hear ya, but it is a very political debate full of spin. I have heard enough experts to convince me that offshore drilling should be part of our comprehensive energy plan. More drilling and more refineries will also create American jobs and keep some of the profits here, instead of overseas. Same thing with building more nuclear power plants, solar & wind farms.
I agree, I agree, I agree.
however, I don't listen to MSNBC.
Again: Show me where Obama said he wants to close the doors.....
-
Interesting. People are calling this a sucker issue for suckers yet they went totally ape-shit when McCain laughed at the fact that Obama says checking tire pressure would shave 1% of costs off. Yes, checking tire pressure is a valid approach but drilling for oil is retarded. Brilliant! ::)
-
Obama's stance is clear on offshore drilling - closed door
Also clear on Drilling in Alaska - closed door
He is very resistant to nuclear and it is not a part of his energy program- closed door.
There's substance for you related to Obama.
It is fact that congress has prevented domestic drilling for many yrs.
Show it. He's for it in the 68 million which IS being developed.
Domestic drill for many years? They haven't been in power for 6 of the recent 8 years. ::)
Domestic drilling is happening today! All over Texas. My boss and his friend have invested heavily into in the last 2 years. So that's straight bull crap.
-
Interesting. People are calling this a sucker issue for suckers yet they went totally ape-shit when McCain laughed at the fact that Obama says checking tire pressure would shave 1% of costs off. Yes, checking tire pressure is a valid approach but drilling for oil is retarded. Brilliant! ::)
Who went ape shit?
Or did they cite the meaning of ENGLISH words and phrases such as: "one way to conserve" ::)
BTW how much is 1% of the total cost of consumer gas expenditures? How much is 2%, 3%, 4%?
-
Who went ape shit?
Or did they cite the meaning of ENGLISH words and phrases such as: "one way to conserve" ::)
BTW how much is 1% of the total cost of consumer gas expenditures? How much is 2%, 3%, 4%?
I'm not saying the 1% isn't a bad thing. But it's funny how you castrated McCain for making a mockery of it and here you are trying to knock down a potentially lucrative and rewarding plan.
It makes no sense. You're applauding a guy for telling us to check our tire gauges (in reality, who the fuck is going to do that?) and then abhorring a guy for wanting to drill domestically and in new sites.
-
Oilsands is very profitable. The actual cost is around 70$ a barrel for production.
Keep in mind Saudi oil is $5. a barrel.
Local representatives have a large sway in American politics. Senators and congressmen in Florida and California have a hard getting elected when they talk about oil. The whitehouse can't control that.
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2008/05/13/top-five-actions-your-federal-government-can-take-to-lower-energy-prices/
Top Five Actions Your Federal Government Can Take to Lower Energy Prices
Congress Must Face the Law of Supply and Demand. Oil, gasoline, fuel oil, and heating oil and diesel fuel commodities traded in the world market and, therefore, their prices reflect the fundamentals economic principals of supply and demand. While much has been done to reduce demand for energy (CAFE, energy efficiency requirements in buildings, etc.) and US energy intensity has declined significantly, Congress has failed to increase domestic supplies of petroleum resources in Alaska and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), and has refused to provide authority to the Department of Interior to issue leases for the development of unconventional sources such as shale oil. In fact, it has restricted access to known supplies of domestic petroleum resources.
The Top Five Steps Your Federal Government Can Take to Increase Supplies and Lower Prices:
1. Lift the Presidential and Congressional moratoria on deepwater outer-continental shelf (OCS) energy exploration and production. The US is the only developed country in the world that restricts access to its offshore resources. Currently, 97% of America’s 2 billion acres of OCS are not being used for their energy potential. The U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) estimates that the outer continental shelf contains nearly 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. (The U.S. consumes roughly 7.5 billion barrels of oil and 23 trillion cubic feet of natural gas annually) The MMS estimates are conservative due to the fact that “true knowledge of the actual volume of oil and natural gas resources can only come through the drilling of wells,” and in many places in the US, exploratory wells have not been allowed to be drilled. Simply put, the government does not know exactly how much energy lies beneath the OCS because it has been illegal to look.According to MMS, it has been more than twenty years since any exploration activity has been conducted on the Alaska and Atlantic OCS, and “no meaningful” exploration offshore Central and Northern California, offshore Oregon and Washington and the South Florida Basin, has been conducted since the 1960’s.
2. Repeal the Congressional prohibition precluding the production of oil shale leases on taxpayer-owned federal lands.As part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress directed the U.S. Secretary of Interior to develop a program to enable the production of America’s oil shale resources - the largest oil supply in the world – for American consumers.The United States has 2 trillion barrels of oil shale. This is more than 7 the amount of crude oil reserves found in Saudi Arabia, and is enough to meet current U.S. demand for over 250 years. According to the U.S Department of Energy (DOE):
“Once developed, U.S. oil shale resources will be similar in extent and energy potential to Alberta’s tar sand reserves. When oil shale and tar sands are considered together, the United States and Canada will be able to claim the largest oil reserves in the world.”However, in 2007, Congress adopted a rider that prohibited the Department of Interior from completing the task it was assigned in 2005. Consequently, the United States is still without a program to bring this massive resource to market for American consumers.
3. Open the “1002 Area” of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil and natural gas development. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter and the Congress set aside 1.5 million of ANWR’s 19 million acres for potential oil development, subject to Congressional approval. This area is often called the “1002 Area” because it was set aside in Section 1002 of the law. It is located on Alaska’s Northern Coastal Plain. According to U.S. government estimates, the mean estimate of the oil beneath ANWR’s northern coastal plain is 10.4 billion barrels, or, nearly half of the total proven reserves of the entire United States. At peak production, ANWR could produce approximately 1 million barrels of oil per day, which is roughly equal to the amount the entire state of Texas produces each day, and about as much as we currently import from Nigeria. Moreover, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently estimated that ANWR energy production would generate about $180 billion in federal tax and royalty revenue.If approved by Congress, ANWR would be the single largest producing oil field in America and the entire Northern Hemisphere.
4. Appoint the U.S. Commission on North American Energy Freedom as mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Sections 1421-1424). As part of the federal government’s national energy policy, Congress established the 16-member Commission on North American Energy Security, and directed the President to appoint representatives from the United States. The President has failed to do so. North America’s energy resource base is enormous. It includes the world’s largest oil shale deposits, the world’s largest coal deposits, and the world’s largest oil sands reserves. Combined, these resources are sufficient to power North America for centuries, giving us plenty of time to transition to new energy sources as they become affordable. Meanwhile, all of North America would benefit from more indigenous energy production. A coordinated effort between the United States, Canada and Mexico – as envisioned by the law – would facilitate the development of a comprehensive North American energy policy that seeks to achieve energy self-sufficiency by 2025 within the three contiguous North American nation areas of Canada, Mexico, and the United States.
5. Repeal Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 which prohibits federal contracting for “nonconventional” sources of petroleum. Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 prohibited U.S. federal agencies from contracting to procure non-conventional or alternative fuels that may emit higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions than ‘conventional petroleum sources.’ Investment in non-conventional fuels will play a critical role in reducing America’s dependence on foreign sources of energy. Advanced fuel technologies, including coal-to-liquids, natural gas-to-liquids, fuel from oil shale, an fuel from Canadian tar sands are specifically targeted by Section 526. Strategically, Section 526 was especially unwise, given America’s massive coal and oil shale resources, and the fact that Canada is America’s largest supplier of imported oil. Arbitrarily preventing the U.S. Government from procuring advanced non-conventional fuels could have negative impacts on the military, and therefore, our security. In the event of a national emergency, the U.S. military could be forced to obtain a greater percentage of petroleum from unstable regions of the world.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5bd920d2-802a-23ad-4c9e-42e22ddc8680&Issue_id=
Democrats' Attempt to Shut Down Energy Debate Fails
Inhofe Says It's Time For the Senate To Get to Work On Lowering Gas Prices
Get the Facts on Energy and Gas Prices
WASHINGTON, DC - Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, today voted against a motion to proceed to final passage of S. 3268, the Energy Speculation Bill saying that he will work with his Republican colleagues to ensure the Senate works to provide real and meaningful solutions to rising energy costs. Senate Democratic leadership had attempted to block all Senators from offering any amendments to the bill.
"Today's vote shows that Republicans are willing to stand up and fight to ensure the Senate stays focused on providing solutions to rising energy prices," Senator Inhofe said. "When Democrats allow the Senate to reopen for business on the issue of bringing down energy costs, I am ready to put forward amendments to encourage the development of natural gas vehicles, prolong the feasibility and production from our marginal oil and gas wells, address the market distorting subsidization of fuels in other countries, and repeal federal prohibitions on importing fuels from the Canadian oil sands.
"Republicans in the Senate are serious about providing solutions to rising energy costs. I will continue to stand with my Republican colleagues to ensure the Senate holds a fair and open debate on the need to increase energy supplies. I believe a large majority of Senators will vote in favor of amendments to open responsible access to America's plentiful energy resources. Democratic leadership knows this as well. That's why they're blocking a full and open debate."
Background Information:
Amendments on S. 3268
The Drive America on Natural Gas Act - This amendment (S. Amdt. 5177) encourages auto manufacturers to produce bi-fuel vehicles, streamlines EPA's emissions certifications, and establishes a natural gas vehicle research program. It promotes the use of a proven alternative fuel and sends a market signal to manufacturers to consider compressed natural gas as a cost competitive alternative. Natural gas is domestic, plentiful, affordable, and clean. The promise of natural gas as a mainstream transportation fuel is achievable today -- not 15 or 20 years from now.
The Marginal Well Production Preservation and Enhancement Act - This amendment (S. Amdt. 5178) streamlines and clarifies government regulations, prolongs economic feasibility, and enhances production volumes from the nation's 719,000 marginal wells. In 2006, marginal wells produced more than 335 million barrels of oil. That's equivalent to more than 61 percent of the oil we currently import from Saudi Arabia. In my own state of Oklahoma, it is the small independents, basically mom-and-pop operations, producing the majority of oil and natural gas, with 85 percent of Oklahoma's oil coming from marginal wells. These statistics testify to the importance of America's marginal well production. With gasoline prices at record highs, Congress must ensure that government policies don't discourage and instead prolong and enhance production from these low volume wells.
The Foreign Removal and Elimination of Energy Subsidies Act - This amendment (S. Amdt. 5176) addresses the global market distorting subsidization of fuels in other countries. While the current national average of gasoline is $4.02 here at home, in China it's just $2.84 per gallon, in Indonesia it's $2.44, in Mexico it's $2.65, and in Venezuela it's just 20 cents per gallon. While demand for gasoline has dropped more than 3 percent in the U.S., worldwide demand continues to increase despite record high prices for oil. This increased demand is largely due to the market distorting policies of foreign government. My legislation implements an aggressive U.S. foreign policy to investigate and engage foreign governments subsidize the price of their fuels.
Repeal of Section 526 - This amendment (S. Amdt. 5175), offered with Senator Domenici, repeals Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Less than three years ago, in Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Congress found that "United States oil shale, tar sands, and other unconventional fuels are strategically important domestic resources that should be developed to reduce the growing dependence of the United States on politically and economically unstable sources of foreign oil imports." The Canadian oil sands contain 179.2 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act prohibits federal agencies from procuring an alternative or synthetic fuel, including a fuel produced from nonconventional petroleum sources, for any mobility-related use, other than for research or testing, unless the contract specifies that the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and combustion of the fuel supplied under the contract must, on an ongoing basis, be less than or equal to such emissions from the equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources. We need to repeal this section, allow imports from Canada, and not prohibit U.S. military fueling options. Section 526 also seeks to bar the U.S. Department of Defense from using coal to liquids and natural gas to liquids fuels. Currently, the U.S. Air Force has certified B-52's, B-1's, and C-17's on these types of alternative fuels. In fact, B-52 aircraft at Tinker Air Force Base have been tested with natural gas to liquids fuels developed by Tulsa based Syntroleum Corporation.
Cosponsored
Senator Coleman (S. Amdt. 5137): opening offshore production and encouraging use of hybrid automobiles which are both part of the Republican Gas Price Reduction Act of 2008.
Senator Craig amendment (S. Amdt. 5153): increases our domestic oil and natural gas production by opening up the Eastern Gulf of Mexico to within 50 miles off Florida's coast. Conservative estimates done by MMS in 2000 indicate that between 1.57 and 2.78 billion barrels of oil exist in this area. In 2008, average U.S. production is projected to average 5.1 million barrels of oil a day and average U.S. consumption is projected to be 20 million barrels of oil a day. We have a long history of successfully drilling for natural gas and oil in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. Increasing domestic production would stabilize retail gasoline prices. Today, 7 countries (Vietnam, India, Spain, Norway, Malaysia, Canada and China) are leasing and exploring for oil 45 miles off the coast of Florida in Cuban waters.
Related:
Democrats Turn Out the Lights - July 23, 2008 Excerpt: "As American families continue to suffer from high gas prices, Democrats once again denied Senators the ability to debate and offer amendments addressing our crucial energy need, which proves they are not serious about addressing gasoline prices," Senator Inhofe said. "As the most important issue facing Congress, Democrats are dictating a closed process in an effort to deny votes on real solutions. We need to have votes on off-shore drilling; Rocky Mountain oil shales; promoting domestic natural gas as a transportation fuel; repealing section 526 of 2007's energy bill - which would preserve America's ability to import fuels from Canadian oil sands. America demands more from Congress." Read More...
Inhofe Welcomes Senate Debate on Bringing Down Gas Prices - July 22, 2008 Excerpt: Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, today voted in favor of the motion to proceed to S. 3268, the Energy Speculation Bill, with the understanding that Senators will be allowed to offer and debate amendments to the bill. Through his leadership position on the EPW Committee, Senator Inhofe has been working with his colleagues to find ways to bring down rising energy costs. Last week, Senator Inhofe introduced the "Drive America on Natural Gas Act" as well as a comprehensive energy proposal, the "American Affordable Fuels Act," to address insufficient refining capacity, increase energy supply, and promote the use of future transportation fuels. Read More...
-
Obama's stance is clear on offshore drilling - closed door
Also clear on Drilling in Alaska - closed door
He is very resistant to nuclear and it is not a part of his energy program- closed door.
There's substance for you related to Obama.
It is fact that congress has prevented domestic drilling for many yrs.
Drilling in Alaska is not a closed door issue. Obama does want to provide more energy from Alaska,
...however drilling in ANWR is ridiculous. There's plenty of natural gas.
-
Oilsands is very profitable. The actual cost is around 70$ a barrel for production.
Keep in mind Saudi oil is $5. a barrel.
Oilsands is only profitable at current fuel prices.
Oil companies will not give up the profit margins they currently enjoy on Saudi oil.
-
I make my money outside of the oil industry.
I personally think that US energy independence is one of the most important issues facing the world.
When America starts controlling their own energy. Europe will have to start dealing with the mess it made with colonization. Its not North Americas fight.
-
I'm not saying the 1% isn't a bad thing. But it's funny how you castrated McCain for making a mockery of it and here you are trying to knock down a potentially lucrative and rewarding plan.
It makes no sense. You're applauding a guy for telling us to check our tire gauges (in reality, who the fuck is going to do that?) and then abhorring a guy for wanting to drill domestically and in new sites.
I'm doing neither.
I'm only saying that the article BB posted is blatant crap and that the off shore drilling issue is a political ploy.
-
Oilsands is very profitable. The actual cost is around 70$ a barrel for production.
Keep in mind Saudi oil is $5. a barrel.
Thanks Joker, I'll read the whole thing a little later today. but what you wrote here initially:
That's the lowest possible profit margin for a company to sell this type of oil. In a capitalistic system oil companies are NOT motivated when drilling for oil nets much more profit.
So it's like this oil sands thing isn't an issue here in regards to lowering prices. So it seems to me.
-
Thanks Joker, I'll read the whole thing a little later today. but what you wrote here initially:
That's the lowest possible profit margin for a company to sell this type of oil. In a capitalistic system oil companies are NOT motivated when drilling for oil nets much more profit.
So it's like this oil sands thing isn't an issue here in regards to lowering prices. So it seems to me.
What high oil prices do is allow smaller players to start in the market. This how the oilsands started development. Encana and Nexan are two oil companies in Canada became world players because of high oil prices.
The other thing with US Oil Shale or Canadian Oil Sands is that they are not controlled by nationalized oil companies. Exxon, Chevron and Shell are highly invested in Canada and the US for this reason.
Most of these companies were screwed over by nationalized oil in Venezuela and the middle east, so they like to make their investments in the US Canada and England.
-
Joker, thanks for your insight. I understand the basics very well but lack some of the detailed knowledge...same with most others here on the topic
-
we shuld just invade more countries with oil.
it worked with afghanistan and iraq.
who else has oil over there? it'd be great if Iran had oil, with all the people who would like to invade them already.
Does anyone know if Iran has oil? If so, we should just take theirs so we don't run out.
-
That strategy didn't work so well in Iraq.....
-
I wouldn't support off shore drilling unless they guaranteed gas prices would be significantly lower. I think what they likely will do is start off shore drilling, maybe lower the price a few cents, and just make a few more billion for the oil companies.
-
Either the oil companies make more money by exploiting oil in Canada and the US or the sheiks do in the Middle East.
Start with off shore drilling the move into oil shale or do nothing and help fund the theocracies in Saudi Arabia and Iran.
The choice is yours. Thats how democracy works.
-
What high oil prices do is allow smaller players to start in the market. This how the oilsands started development. Encana and Nexan are two oil companies in Canada became world players because of high oil prices.
The other thing with US Oil Shale or Canadian Oil Sands is that they are not controlled by nationalized oil companies. Exxon, Chevron and Shell are highly invested in Canada and the US for this reason.
Most of these companies were screwed over by nationalized oil in Venezuela and the middle east, so they like to make their investments in the US Canada and England.
I'm certainly no expert. However...
High oil prices do allow small players into the market, but it seems to me that would work against it's self in that as they more oil produced through low margin methods it becomes less attractive to increase when far higher margins are available. In other words, it's not going to do much and if it did, it would against itself because as oil goes down that method gets even less profit.
What is the percentage of oil produce currently with shale or oil sand versus land based drilling?
Right now, what would some one want to invest in? Drilling or shale and oilsands?
To me, it's all about money in drilling. these oil companies are probably just protecting their market share by investing in shale and oilsand but will they ever produce it to the point that it makes a difference? why should they when the profit margin on drilled oil is so high? In the meantime maybe they have most of the leases and permits on shale and oilsand but aren't motivated to used them.
Besides this is about off shore drilling last i checked.