Electrophile Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 Wanna borrow some? We've still got plenty to go around and I'm sure you'd find them even more entertaining in person. We'd own a kick-ass flower shop in Calgary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suz Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 Says the labeler Oh, sorry! I mean, says Rick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 And, when you start to talk like a "Lady" I will add that back to your name. But untill then it is: ~*Elizabeth of the Pagette's*~. That isn't even my name, so why in the hell do you think that means anything to me? Oooh, you omitted a word from a blurb in my signature that isn't my screen name. I'ma so scared now. GTF over yourself, RICK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zepyep Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 Hi all, Yes, if the "Extremist" enviromentalist would loosen up we could solve our problems. There, I said it politically correct. Are all happy now?? Not really,if you are one of these so-called human beings that I have heard about,you better cool your jets,pronto,savvy? KB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hickory Man Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 It is such a shame how the inviro wacko's keep blocking us from using our own resources. We have to worry about the yellow tailed, spot backed, lizard more then our own people. Put a few of these critters in the zoo so we will have them for the wacko's to look at and start drilling. Thinking that drilling here, or anywhere else is the only reason people are uptight about continuing to depend on oil is extremely shortsighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangani Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 And..................somehow, I knew that you would get around to putting a label on me. Well it was pretty easy. These things tend to follow one another. Rabid gun supporter, then calling people who care about the enviroment 'wackos'. Usually the next steps that follow are being anti gay, anti abortion, anti atheists etc etc. If that ISN'T you then I apologize, but from my experience these people have a pattern. I see you didn't bother to protest that I am wrong so that speaks for itself. No big deal, I expected it from you and your type. You can go back and sit (or in your case lay under) your bench now and drink another beer, that seems to be what is most important in your life. Cheers. I will raise a bottle in your honour, sir.....*hick*. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangani Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 Wanna borrow some? We've still got plenty to go around and I'm sure you'd find them even more entertaining in person. Hehe only if they can tap dance as well Suz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit_ Posted July 13, 2008 Author Share Posted July 13, 2008 . McCain supporters who cheer his domestic oil production proposal are such dupes. -------------- *Will More Drilling Mean Cheaper Gas?* Time Magazine; Wednesday, Jun. 18, 2008 On Wednesday morning President George W. Bush urged Congress to overturn a 26-year ban on offshore oil drilling in the U.S. and open a part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to petroleum exploration. Flanked by the secretaries of Energy and the Interior, Bush also proposed streamlining the construction process for new oil refineries, and explained that these moves would "take pressure off gas prices over time by expanding the amount of American-made oil and gasoline." Coming a day after Republican presumptive presidential nominee John McCain made a similar appeal to enhance domestic oil exploration, Bush was sending an unsubtle election-year message to the American public: I care about the economic toll of $4-a-gallon gas, and Democrats in Congress, who have opposed such an expansion, don't. But there's a flaw in that logic: even if tomorrow we opened up every square mile of the outer continental shelf to offshore rigs, even if we drilled the entire state of Alaska and pulled new refineries out of thin air, the impact on gas prices would be minimal and delayed at best. A 2004 study by the government's Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that drilling in ANWR would trim the price of gas by 3.5 cents a gallon by 2027. (If oil prices continue to skyrocket, the savings would be greater, but not by much.) Opening up offshore areas to oil exploration — currently all coastal areas save a section of the Gulf of Mexico are off-limits, thanks to a congressional ban enacted in 1982 and supplemented by an executive order from the first President Bush — might cut the price of gas by 3 to 4 cents a gallon at most, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. And the relief at the pump, such as it is, wouldn't be immediate — it would take several years, at least, for the oil to begin to flow, which is time enough for increased demand from China, India and the rest of the world to outpace those relatively meager savings. "Right now the price of oil is set on the global market," says Kevin Lindemer, executive managing director of the energy markets group for the research firm Global Insight. President Bush's move "would not have an impact." [click article header to read full article] ----------------- Get a clue, righties. McCain's call to expand domestic oil production as a means of lowering gas prices is nothing but another example of the so-called "Straight Talk Express" having gone off the rails. -------------------- *More offshore drilling does little at the pump: EIA* Wed Jun 25, 2008 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Allowing oil drilling in U.S. offshore waters that are now closed to energy exploration would do little to lower gasoline prices paid by consumers, the government's top energy forecaster said on Wednesday. In response to record pump prices, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain and President George W. Bush this month called for Congress to end its moratorium on drilling off the East and West coasts and in Florida waters, leaving it up to each affected state to decide where to permit drilling. McCain and Bush said the additional oil supplies likely to be found in the closed areas would help reduce gasoline costs. However, Guy Caruso, who heads the federal Energy Information Administration, said consumers would see little savings at the pump. "It would be a relatively small effect, because it would take such a long time to bring those supplies on," Caruso said during a briefing at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on the EIA's new long-term international energy forecast. "It doesn't affect prices that much." Most energy experts say it would take five to 10 years to find oil in the closed areas and bring the crude to market. Caruso said the additional supplies would amount to only a couple of hundred thousand barrels of oil a day. "It does take a long time to develop these resources, and therefore the price impact is muted by that," he said. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is against opening more offshore areas to drilling for many of the reasons cited by Caruso. ------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 mangani, you are something else. We have a disscusion about the Second Amendment on another thread, and now I am Rabid. I clarify what I mean by Enviro Wacko........and yes, I do think that if you put an insect or animal before human life it is pretty wacko. But, we do need to look out for the enviroment in a reasonable way. And then, because you can't handle someone that you might dissagree with come all the usual attacks that people like "you" like to use. No, what "you" are doing is a trend: You dissagree with someone else's opinion. It upsets you so much that you personally attack them with all kinds of labels. Mangani, I'm sure that you are a very nice person, even though we do not agree on some issues. This is a forum, you do not know me personally, you just know that we dissagree on some things. People feel very strongly about certain issues. I admire anyone who has a passion for a cause. Whether I happen to agree or not. My life experience has taught me not to have a blanket opinion for the left or the right. A sensible solution is usually one that is most realistic and agreeable to the majority. The enviroment is one of those issues that complete agreement will be almost impossible. It will take a more middle of the road approach to get the ball rolling and some honesty on the part of government to deal with pollution and hazzardous materials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit_ Posted July 13, 2008 Author Share Posted July 13, 2008 Ok, hermit, what is Obama's plan to help with the price of gas at the pump?? I'm waiting to hear, or are you going to crawl back into your cave and hide? First of all,.. unlike McCain, Barack Obama's not offering any disingenuous "quick fix" plans for solving a problem for which he is well aware (as are many of us) that there are no quick fixes. Secondly,.. don't be so friggin intellectually lazy, muh-man, by relying on me to tell you what Obama's energy plan is. For crying out loud, show a little personal initiative and research it for yourself. [Ok ok,.. since I'm a nice guy (and because I realize you might be in a hurry to slither back under your rock), I'll save you some time by *providing a link for you.*] There ya go,.. get yourself informed. And finally,.. FYI, it's not a cave,.. it's a hut. Unless, that is,.. you're talking about my favorite watering hole.. Btw,.. tell me,.. do you support McCain's "gas tax holiday" McPandering plan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 Sorry folks, but the "drilling will do little to gas prices" claim is utter bullshit. Hermit, your quoted stories are quite myopic in nature - what they are totally disregarding is the reaction of OPEC - they would immediately increase production thus lowering the price down around $100 - $115 a barrel, get it back down hovering at $3 a gallon to create the illusion that drilling isn't necessary. So despite the fact no oil would be produced for a few years, we actually WOULD get immediate reduction in gas prices, and a lot more than 3 or 4 cents a gallon. OPEC doesn't want us to drill our own oil, and they know as soon as they reduced prices, the leftist movement in our country would pick up the cue to call for a halt to domestic drilling - "see, prices are going back down - we don't need to drill here!". And we're not trying to drill our way out of this problem, but we need to drill our own oil to deflect the gun barrel OPEC is pointing at us, as we pursue alternate energy sources, rather than the leftist claim that we want to drill INSTEAD OF looking for alternate energy sources. Oil would drop just on the announcement that our government had passed legislation authorizing domestic drilling of ANWR and offshore. This is simply another indication of Obama's lack of understanding of the large-scale economics involved with running the country. His inexperience is further exposed by his intended policies of initiating windfall profits taxes on the oil companies. NO corporations pay taxes, least of all the oil companies. Their end-users pay the taxes for them. As their expenses (taxes) increase, so their prices increase to absorb the higher costs. So all Obama's plan will do is cost us regular folks more at the pump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dzldoc Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 And finally,.. FYI, it's not a cave,.. it's a hut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit_ Posted July 13, 2008 Author Share Posted July 13, 2008 Sorry folks, but the "drilling will do little to gas prices" claim is utter bullshit. Hermit, your quoted stories are quite myopic in nature - [blah, blah, blah] Until you cite sources, TypeO, I take your predictions about OPEC as being nothing more than personal speculation and/or fantasy. And in that regard, I think the assessments and reports of the US federal government's Energy Information Administration [reports and assessments that are clearly non-partisan as (unlike many other govt agencies under the Bush regime) the EIA is not parroting the Bush-Cheney-Big Oil party line] carry a little more credibility than your personal predictions. With all due respect, bro,.. show me the expert opinions! [And btw, by "experts" I don't mean the likes of Bill Kristol, Robert Novak, Rush Limbaugh, and Charles Crackhammer. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangani Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 mangani, you are something else. Thank you. I try to be different. We have a disscusion about the Second Amendment on another thread, and now I am Rabid. Yes you are. You keep going on and on about gun rights. Not only did you bring up the Second Amendment but you also had the audacity to claim England should be the same. I call that gun obsessive...when you are trying to tell other people in other countries that their laws are wrong. I have never once said America should be like England with it's gun laws. I clarify what I mean by Enviro Wacko........and yes, I do think that if you put an insect or animal before human life it is pretty wacko. I personally don't know anybody who would do that and you are being silly. I very much doubt that anybody in this thread would do that. I do believe that some species of animal are worth saving to the detriment of humans though. This planet would be a lot poorer without the last remaining 400 or so Mountain Gorillas. It wouldn't be as poorer without 400 human Rwandans, and I have made that point before. If your attitude is that humans should always come before the planet in every single aspect then I'm afraid it's you who is the wacko here and this world will not last long with that kind of warped attitude. But, we do need to look out for the enviroment in a reasonable way. And then, because you can't handle someone that you might dissagree with come all the usual attacks that people like "you" like to use. No, what "you" are doing is a trend: You dissagree with someone else's opinion. It upsets you so much that you personally attack them with all kinds of labels. Calling you an extreme right wing loon is a real heavy attack isn't it? I didn't realise you were so sensitive. How is that any worse than your PREVIOUS label of 'enviro wacko' or your accusations about lying under benches drinking all day LOL? I don't see much difference myself. The only difference I can see is that you took offence to this 'label attack' whereas I didn't take any offence at all to your 'label attack' and just shrugged it off and laughed. I still see that you haven't denied you are extreme right wing so I'll take it you are. You would probably be very much at home on freerepublic.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit_ Posted July 13, 2008 Author Share Posted July 13, 2008 If expanding domestic drilling for oil in currently protected areas would help bring down the price of gas for American consumers, why is it that "of the 47.5 million acres of on-shore federal lands that are currently being leased by oil and gas companies, only about 13 million acres are actually in production" and "only 10.5 million of the 44 million leased acres [offshore] are currently producing oil or gas"? ------------- The Truth About America’s Energy: Big Oil Stockpiles Supplies and Pockets Profits [snip] "Combined, oil and gas companies hold leases to nearly 68 million acres of federal land and waters that they are not producing oil and gas. Oil and gas companies would not buy leases to this land without believing oil and gas can be produced there, yet these same companies are not producing oil or gas from these areas already under their control. If we extrapolate from today=s production rates on federal land and waters, we can estimate that the 68 million acres of leased but currently inactive federal land and waters could produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day. That would nearly double total U.S. oil production, and increase natural gas production by 75%. It would also cut U.S. oil imports by more than a third, and be more than six times the estimated peak production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge." "..according to the Minerals Management Service, of all the oil and gas believed to exist on the Outer Continental Shelf, 82% of the natural gas and 79% of the oil is located in areas that are currently open for leasing." *US House of Representatives, Committee on Natural Resources, June 2008* ---------------- That begs the question: why are the oil companies (via their republican lackeys in Congress and the White House) lobbying for the "expansion" of offshore drilling in currently protected areas rather than drilling in the millions of acres (on-shore and offshore) that they already have under lease? [The obvious answer is that the more acres that oil companies have under lease, the more they can manipulate the cost of gas and the more profit they can wring out of the American public, but I'm curious to see what answers you right wing "expand domestic drilling" dupes come up with. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit_ Posted July 13, 2008 Author Share Posted July 13, 2008 Because the extreme enviromentalist's, you know.........the ones that I call wacko's have there hands tied. Wrong, muh-man. The oil companies have the leases.. they can legally drill on the leased land and there's nothing environmentalists can do about it. Go ahead,.. have another go at it, bud! [i realize that your knee-jerk reaction is to blame environmentalists, but I'm afraid you'll have to come up with another reason why oil companies aren't drilling on the land they already have under lease. If, that is, you want to have a reality-based discussion of the issue rather than a discussion rooted in your own self-delusion. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cryingbluerain Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 Only a matter of time before BO switches his position on offshore drilling imo: Most Americans support more U.S. oil drilling: poll http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNew...844581020080618 Some 59.6 percent of Americans surveyed in the poll released on Wednesday said they would favor government efforts to boost domestic drilling and refinery construction to cool record prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 The Truth About America’s Energy: Big Oil Stockpiles Supplies and Pockets Profits Again, anytime the phrase BIG OIL is used, you're reading propaganda, or at the very least blatantly biased cherry-picked factoids. If we extrapolate from today=s production rates on federal land and waters, we can estimate that the 68 million acres of leased but currently inactive federal land and waters could produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day. The problem when you EXTRAPOLATE is you are assigning known facts to assumed properties. In this case, assuming that every square mile of unused leased land is as resource-rich as those currently developed. "Combined, oil and gas companies hold leases to nearly 68 million acres of federal land and waters that they are not producing oil and gas. Oil and gas companies would not buy leases to this land without believing oil and gas can be produced there, yet these same companies are not producing oil or gas from these areas already under their control. That's not true at all. They may not be allowed to lease a preferred area that has known resources, so they get all they can in the vicinity on the chance it will have resources. It's numbers. They lease anything even remotely promising, then actually develop the best spots. So this whole article fails based on biased assumptions. The cost of development is exponentially greater than acquiring the land. So trying to squeeze low-level resources from multiple sites would be horrendously more wasteful/non-profitable than developing known resource-rich areas such as ANWR. ANALOGY ALERT! Growing 5 plants of hydroponic zombie skull-fuck skunk is way more efficient and cost effective than growing 100 acres of Alabama dirtweed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit_ Posted July 13, 2008 Author Share Posted July 13, 2008 Wrong there...............kermit State and federal laws certainly do bar drilling in certain areas, but that doesn't mean "environmentalist whackos" are "tying the hands of" oil companies; it means state and federal laws are tying their hands.. in those areas. That still doesn't account for the sites that are leased by oil companies and that can be drilled on but.. for some reason.. aren't being driled on. What's your explanation for why those sites aren't being drilled on, Pee-man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zepyep Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 Hi all, What's your explanation for why those sites aren't being drilled on, Pee-man? You may,agree,that are no left-wing nut jobs?Is that correct ,Hermit?There is no Democrat in the pocket of -any- oil company,is there? KB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 But I do not know if you can, I'm not sure what letter of the alaphabet you are on at Sesame Street. I think it's funny that you accuse others of not being "adult" and being rude to people, and then you turn around and post something like that. BTW, I would consider insinuating someone is illiterate as "slander". You remember that word, don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit_ Posted July 14, 2008 Author Share Posted July 14, 2008 The problem when you EXTRAPOLATE is you are assigning known facts to assumed properties. That's not true at all. They may not be allowed to lease a preferred area that has known resources, so they get all they can in the vicinity on the chance it will have resources. It's numbers. They lease anything even remotely promising, then actually develop the best spots. So this whole article fails based on biased assumptions. 1. The source piece is not an "article", per se, it's a federal gov't report from the US House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources. [Mind you, I'm not suggesting that that guarantees it's not biased, of course. ] 2. Your "extrapolation and assumptions" and "its numbers" points are not without merit, but do not address the central question: "why aren't those sites already being explored and drilled if, as republicans and oil companies are asserting, more domestic drilling will help bring down the cost of gas at the pump?" 3. You've just undermined your OPEC scenario in which everything that you predicted would happen was based entirely on (biased) ASSUMPTIONS. I'm still waiting for any of you supporters of expanded domestic drilling to cite some facts and/or reports from experts that show how expanded domestic drilling will significantly bring down the price of gas at the pump.. in a timely manner. ------------------ Btw,.. "assumptions" aren't necessarily arbitrary, TypeO. Imho, the assumptions used by the US Govt Energy Information Agency seem rather thoughtful and reasonable. "Assumptions about exploration, development, and production of economical fields (drilling schedules, costs, platform selection, reserves-to-production ratios, etc.) in the OCS access case are based on data for fields in the western Gulf of Mexico that are of similar water depth and size. Exploration and development on the OCS in the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the eastern Gulf are assumed to proceed at rates similar to those seen in the early development of the Gulf region. In addition, it is assumed that local infrastructure issues and other potential non-Federal impediments will be resolved after Federal access restrictions have been lifted. With these assumptions, technically recoverable undiscovered resources in the lower 48 OCS increase to 59 billion barrels of oil and 288 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as compared with the reference case levels of 41 billion barrels and 210 trillion cubic feet. The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case. Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant." ** *source: EIA report: Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit_ Posted July 14, 2008 Author Share Posted July 14, 2008 Hi all, You may,agree,that are no left-wing nut jobs?Is that correct ,Hermit?There is no Democrat in the pocket of -any- oil company,is there? KB There are no left-wing nut jobs? There are no dems in the pockets of Big Oil? I've never made either claim, KB. But you may,agree,that are repubs deeeeep in the wells, erm, the pockets of Big Oil ,correct? FYI KB,.. it's called "crude oil", butt it isn't the kind of oil you use for lubing yer ramrod,.. you closet right-wing nutjob you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euro Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 The world has lost confidence in the US dollar asthe reserve currency(Thanks to the wreckless spending policies of Bush administration of borrowing and spending),Those rebate cheques sent to all the hard working people of USA were from funds borrowed by US treasury. The results the demand for "hard" assests has increased worldwide as investors and speculators seek safe havens. The USA needs to gets its pitiful financial house in order otherwise it may export its chaos worldwide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Action Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 I see nothing's changed around here. Hi Suz! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.