93crawler

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

A few have stated that I only get my news from "liberal" sources and don't have much of an open mind, when it comes to politics--I really could care less what most of you think about me honestly. In any case, here's an article from the ultra-conservative Town Hall, about how Bush has been trying to blame the Democrats, with some success, for the high price of energy. What's funny to me is that this particular issue, is equally the fault of both parties really. The Democrats have charged that the areas on the continental shelf, and ANWR should be left alone, mainly for environmental reasons, because oil exploration is extremely dirty, and the area will never be what it once was. Also, in the area of oil refineries, and why they haven't built one in over twenty years, they're simply too ugly, dirty, etc--would you want one in your backyard?

But if I remember correctly, weren't the Republicans in charge of the whole country for a number of years? They had all three branches of the government in their control, so why didn't they do anything?

I personally think that while there is nothing in the short term that will replace our dependence on oil, we should move away from this dated and finite technology/resource. There should be substantial investment in alternative, renewable resources in the form of government subsidies, grants, tax breaks, etc. Also, the private sector should really start to get involved even more so than it already is. I think if GM would have continued to develop the electric car back in the late nineties, the EV-1, then we would be at least closer to viable battery technology today, maybe even have the technology already. Sadly, though, GM caved on pressure from the oil industry, and it's own company. Anyway, enough rambling right, here's the article.

President Bush on Saturday tried to pin the blame on Congress for soaring energy prices and said lawmakers need to lift long-standing restrictions on drilling for oil in pristine lands and offshore tracts believed to hold huge reserves of fuel.

"It's time for members of Congress to address the pain that high gas prices are causing our citizens," the president said. "Every extra dollar that American families spend because of high gas prices is one less dollar they can use to put food on the table or send a child to college. The American people deserve better."

With gasoline prices above $4 a gallon, Bush and his Republican allies think Americans are more willing to allow drilling offshore and in an Alaska wildlife refuge that environmentalists have fought successfully for decades to protect. Nearly half the people surveyed by the Pew Research Center in late June said they now consider energy exploration and drilling more important than conservation, compared with a little over a third who felt that way only five months ago. The sharpest shift in attitude came among political liberals.

Democrats say they are for drilling, but argue that oil companies aren't going after the oil where they already have leases. So why open new, protected areas? they ask. Democrats say there are 68 million acres of federal land and waters where oil and gas companies hold leases, but aren't producing oil.

"Americans are fed up every time they go to fill up and they're right to demand action. But instead of a serious response, President Bush and his allies simply repeat the same old line more drilling," Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said in the Democrats' radio address.

"Democrats support more drilling," he said. "In fact, what the president hasn't told you is that the oil companies are already sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands with the potential to nearly double U.S. oil production. That is why in the coming days congressional Democrats will vote on 'Use It or Lose It' legislation requiring the big oil companies to develop these resources or lose their leases to someone else who will."

"But we know that drilling by itself will not solve the problem of high gas prices," Van Hollen said. "We cannot drill our way to energy independence."

He cited Democrats' calls to tap the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve, because it is full and "America's rainy day is now." And he said the country must focus on new energy policies that focus on alternatives to oil.

Bush said that Democrats are at fault and that "Americans are increasingly frustrated with Congress' failure to take action.

"One of the factors driving up high gas prices is that many of our oil deposits here in the United States have been put off-limits for exploration and production. Past efforts to meet the demand for oil by expanding domestic resources have been repeatedly rejected by Democrats in Congress."

Bush repeated his call for Congress to lift the restrictions, including a ban on offshore drilling. A succession of presidents from George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton to the current president have sided against drilling in these waters as has Congress each year for 27 years, seeking to protect beaches and coastal states' tourism economies.

fmb

I was glad to see the note about 68 million acres of publicly owned land being available for exploration and production. I'd like to see this acreage explored before opening any additional public land for these companies to use. Also, I have to give the article writer credit for noting the long line of previous Presidents that did not want to open off shore areas for exploration.

I wish GM was able to develop the EV1 car, but the timing was not right for the product. With oil so cheap during the 1990's, it was crazy to spend dollars on a car that was very expensive (for its time). Also, with gasoline so cheap, the number of potential customers was small. Now, with gasoline and oil at all time highs, and with a larger number of potential customers, the doors are open for much greater investigation into completely electric and/or hybrid vehicles.

YaMon

For a real commentary on this subject, CLICK HERE

___________________________________________

joerockhead

The Problem with the Electric Car is that it requires Electricity to charge it. Where do we get the majority of our electricity? Nuke power is a very small portion of our power

Coal is the main power source, and there are all kinds of protests for the amount used, the negative effects burning coal has, as well as a limited supply of Coal as well.
There are also many power plants that use Oil.

Much of the 68 Million acres that are available for drilling have very small amounts of Oil accessible. Everyone wants to jump on that, but the percentage of oil available in those ares makes it a loss to drill there. Also, the grade of Oil in those areas requires much more cost to refine and produce a usable fuel to burn. This too adds to the cost, and provides very little change for the consumer, if any.

The two area's that the Democrats want to block, both have HUGE amounts of oil that will last years. Once again, in the gulf, Cuba and China are ALREADY drilling. But we are banned by our government.

Currently, there are new drilling going on in North West Colorado (Craig Area), North East Utah (Vernal) and South West Wyoming. they expect to have usable product in a couple of years, but it is not enough right now to offset the costs.

it is highly doubtful that the drilling in the two areas currently blocked will ever get approved, and we as a country DO have to come to the realization that Gas is eventually going to be gone. Alternatives DO need to be found.
It is just too bad our Government does nothing to help us in BOTH realms. Help reduce the cost of Gas and find alternatives. So, WE must suffer the high prices.

___________________________________________


Visit the worlds best website -
www.badass67.com - Black Sunshine

YaMon

___________________________________________

93crawler

Here's a comment from the same article, and we are basically in agreement on everything that he says. The following words are not mine, they are however, from a very educated professional within the oil industry.


I hold a degree in chemical engineering, and worked since 1974 in oil refining, petrochemicals, and basic chemicals on 4 continents.

I now advise energy companies as an attorney.

All this talk of increased drilling, and calls to build more refineries is far off the mark. First, Shell just announced this week a cancellation of a new refinery that was planned for Sarnia, Ontario (Canada). Their reasons include uncertainty in demand, and surging construction costs.

Second, Americans are using less gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel compared to a year ago. The EIA website publishes weekly statistics on petroleum demand each Wednesday. For the past several weeks, we have used less and less fuel.

Third, the automotive technology is here, now, to reduce gasoline and diesel consumption even further. Gas-guzzling vehicles are sitting idle at car dealerships, and auto makers are shutting down the plants that make them.

In sharp contrast, hybrids are zooming off the dealership lots. Also, there are after-market companies that convert front-wheel drive cars to hybrids. Yahoo just published an article giving the names and locations under their finance.yahoo.com site.

Why would any rational, profit-motivated oil company build a new refinery, or expand existing ones, when the demand for their products is decreasing?

Finally, cars that achieve exceptional gas mileage are imminent. see http://www.AFSTrinity.com for a Saturn SUV that gets 150 miles per gallon, using their Extreme Hybrid (TM) technology. They have a sedan that achieves 250 mpg. http://www.Aptera.com also have a wonderful vehicle that has similar performance.

I suggest that anyone remotely interested should look at the hyperlinked websites at the bottom of the comment, they are extremely interesting--and point towards viable, existing technology that could be implemented within a few years on a wide scale. If you want to look at the other comments, here's the full article with all of the comments http://www.townhall.com/news/us/200...s=true#comments

On a side note, why is it that whenever someone who has been a member for a while doesn't agree with the post, they try to derail it by saying the thread is now about trains?

YaMon

What are you talking about?

___________________________________________

Juan.©amaney

FYI, if you don't want threads to be derailed (haha pun I just noticed it) put up the topic in the serious forum, say your position on it, and quit making it about yourself. No one cares about all that other junk.

___________________________________________

93crawler

Pretty funny, I don't really appreciate the use of the word nigga, but the pic is pretty funny. Anyway, here's an article by one of the many Representatives from California about President Bush and his recent directive to open up everything for drilling--if there's oil in your ass, he'll drill it himself. The Rep is dead on about everything, and really dis spells everything you may have heard about how drilling will help right now, or even ever. Read on if you wish, I'm sure most of you will dismiss what she has to say.


President Bush's announcement today that he is lifting the Executive Ban placing a moratorium on new offshore drilling is disappointing, but really not that surprising. For the last 7½ years, he and Vice President Cheney have pushed an energy policy which focuses primarily on drilling everywhere. The result has been sky high energy costs for American consumers and record profits for big oil and gas.

As someone who lives in and represents Santa Barbara, CA and witnessed the horrible economic and environmental consequences of the huge 1969 oil spill, I know I have a certain bias against new offshore drilling. But even so, President Bush's call for more drilling as the solution to high gas prices hits a few dry holes.

First, a report last year threw cold water on the idea of new offshore drilling as the way to lower gas prices. It said that new offshore drilling "would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030" and that the impact on prices would be "insignificant." The source of this report is...the Bush administration's own Energy Information Administration!

Second, we simply can't drill our way to "energy independence" even if we wanted. The U.S. has less than 3% of world oil supplies, yet we make up nearly 25% of world demand. More drilling off our coasts (and in Alaska, for that matter) isn't going to change those numbers. No one should believe arguments that more drilling in these pristine areas means we will stop relying on oil from the Middle East, Venezuela or Russia. More drilling won't end our addiction to oil -- it just enables it.

Third, most people probably don't know that 80% of the oil and gas resources off our coasts are already available for leasing and drilling! While large swaths of our coasts are off limits to new drilling, the areas where most oil and gas are located are not. Listening to President Bush, Sen. McCain and others, you'd think we've been locking up all our resources -- the opposite is true.

Fourth, we are drilling more domestically than we have in years. Following on Vice President Cheney's ridiculous statement that conservation is merely a "personal virtue," the Bush administration's energy policy has basically been to drill for more oil and gas wherever they can and hope that the prices come down. It has leased public lands for drilling throughout the West, the Gulf Coast and elsewhere at a record pace over the last 7½ years.

Interestingly, right now the oil and gas industry is sitting on 68 million acres of public lands where it could be drilling but isn't. It has some 6,000 leases in the Gulf of Mexico (where the majority of oil and natural gas reserves are found) that are not being explored. According to Senator McCain and President Bush, the oil and gas industry wants to lower prices for American consumers but they can't because they're prevented from drilling. This couldn't be further from the truth.

So, we're drilling domestically more than ever, the oil industry already has access to most offshore resources, the industry is not drilling in millions of acres of public land that it has leased and, even if it did, it wouldn't release us from our reliance on foreign oil and it wouldn't lower prices. And more offshore drilling is the president's solution?

In contrast to these tired "drill only" proposals, Democrats have pushed a responsible, comprehensive energy policy to provide relief from these high prices and wean our economy off fossil fuels. In the short-term, we're calling on President Bush to immediately release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). Earlier this year it took an act of Congress to force the Bush administration to stop filling the SPR while oil is at record high prices. Now we are calling on him to release some of the SPR oil onto the market to help drive down prices. Similar actions have been taken several times, most recently by President Bush following Hurricane Katrina. Each time prices dropped significantly. Taking this simple step would probably reduce gasoline prices more in 10 days than President Bush's offshore drilling proposal would do in 10 years.
In addtion, oil and gas companies should "use or lose" access to the 68 million publicly held acres where they can currently drill but aren't. There's no reason that companies should be able to lock up oil and gas reserves on publicly held land when we've made a choice as a nation to begin extraction in those locations.

In the long term, we need to extend and increase tax incentives for alternative energy, like solar, wind and biomass, and require utilities to get an increasing share of their energy from renewable sources. This is being done in states like California and Texas already, but President Bush is fighting our effort to make this a nationwide mandate. We also have to become more energy efficient. The new Democratically controlled Congress already passed the first increase in fuel efficiency standards for cars in 32 years and took steps to make our appliances and buildings more energy efficient. But we have to do more. Much more.

Unfortunately, President Bush, Senator McCain and Congressional Republicans have responded to our serious energy challenges pushing political gimmicks like the gas tax holiday and new offshore drilling. These are the policies that got us into this mess in the first place and they aren't going to get us out of it.

Juan.©amaney

http://crazyniggas.ytmnd.com/

___________________________________________

YaMon

Trains trains trains!!!!!!!!

Time to run a train on Crawler's mom! How about some drilling in those badlands!?


If you don't like trains, how about planes:

___________________________________________

joerockhead

Damn, Crawler like to talk alot!!!

Where is the Proof that GW Jr. is not pushing bigger incentives for Re-Newable Energy?
And I thought that that was a CONGRESSIONAL issue, not the Freakin Prez!!!

Why has CONGRESS (Mostly Dumocrats) not created better incentives??

I AM willing to put Solar Panels on my house, but at $20k for 3 KW, and an incentive of $1K for tax breaks is not very good.

Maybe Obama will add $50 dollars to his already big ass Tax raise, err I mean cut, to help offset it.

And again, much of the areas that are Open for dilling do not have High Quality Oil.

And Again, Why Should China, Norway and South America Benefit from our Coasts and NOT the USA???

Last - There is MORE oil put into the Ocean from Natural Seepage, and from Personal Water Craft (2 Stroke Engines), then any spills in the last 20 years!!!!

Last, Nice Train Vid YaMON!

___________________________________________


Visit the worlds best website -
www.badass67.com - Black Sunshine

fmb

Well, I'll try to help 93 out some on this one. Yeah, even I am kinda pissed about the quantity of PUBLICLY (that includes me and you!) owned land available with many requests for more land. Yeah, some of it doesn't have huge quantities or high quality, but the product is there, if you're willing to get it.

The last time I was in the Carlsbad, NM area, I noticed small oil pumps and thingies everywhere. Each had an approximately 5,000 gallon tank next to it. I assume the oil was pumped there for storage and removed and transported by a tanker truck to a refinery. Point is, someone was drilling, someone was making money, and someone was providing a desired product. When you combine the large quantity of small rigs, you get a decent quantity of product.

Maybe this will move Congress to help with the speculators trading oil and are the REAL reason behind the increase....

BTW, I need someone to supply me some gasoline at a reasonable price. Today, I picked up an ancient 348 cubic inch V-8 with three 2 barrel carbs; I need a nice, older Impala to drop it in.....

joerockhead