It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senators Introduce Bill to Increase Domestic Oil and Natural Gas Production; Coal-Derived Fuel Manda

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Senators Introduce Bill to Increase Domestic Oil and Natural Gas Production; Coal-Derived Fuel Mandate


www.greencarcongress.com

US Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, introduced the American Energy Production Act of 2008 (S.2958) to increase domestic production of oil and natural gas and to fund the development of oil shale and coal-to-liquids technology. Eighteen other senators co-sponsored. Included in the bill is language for a coal-derived fuels mandate.

The bill would open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) as well as the Atlantic and Pacific regions of the Outer Continental Shelf for exploration and production; and lift the one-year moratorium on developing oil shale in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 7 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Isnt it true there is more oil than Saudi Arabia in the Gulf of Mexico, California , and Alaska? This would be the smartest move for the US. I'm sure OPEC (the arabs) would most likely drop the dollar in retaliation. This will be interesting, very interesting...

www.greencarcongress.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   
In the spirit of 'spreading the word' I'm hoping that jackinthebox and mybigunit won't mind;

You might want to check out

Revelations of Big Oil Chaplain Lindsey Williams

While some find his speaking hard to take in large doses, the information is priceless!



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
So now they start . . .

About friggin time.

Maybe the oil companies needed the extra cash to start?



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Great news! Maybe streamline the permitting process for nuclear powwer plants too?



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   
There will be nothing done . . . as is the usual.

The politicos make statements we want to hear, but the things we want are allowed to die a quite death.

Is anyone surprised?

JBusiness as usual....



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   
I asked an in law who is in the industry about how long it might be before oil shale goes into production. He said about four to five years. So it is still a long ways off if you are looking for prices to go down any.



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Senator Pete, has long been a champion for big oil. Pushing for bigger tax breaks and subsidies, even when the Oil co's are showing record profits on the back of Joe Citizen.

He's trying to make it seem like he is interested in getting lower gas prices; bend over, and take it like a man America, big oil isn't thru greasing up their rigs.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Indeed, Whaaa!

I'm scratching my head over this one. Unlike the 1970's oil crisis, there is no "shortage" at the pump. So, if more oil is drilled, where will companies store it and refine it? If this "new" oil would be to offset "foreign" oil, I doubt our price would go down, as the oil companies would need that price to establish drilling in these areas and keep their profits up.

If this "new" oil goes on the market, is "fungible" as oil/commodity business says it is, the only thing it could do is not make prices go up as fast, maybe, as, again, why would oil companies lower the price if they can drill oil at this price?

The only thing that makes sense to me is if we quit dancing on this slippery oil slick, by greatly reducing our demand for it, by the US becoming "green" and becoming a world leader in green technology. Does not the sun shine on
the US, does not the wind blow, do not the waves crash and tide flow?

Why let China or India lead in green technology? Why doesn't the US want to lead in green technology?



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by desert
Why let China or India lead in green technology? Why doesn't the US want to lead in green technology?


Because the "right" people won't make enough money off it, and truly green, reliable, renewable energy is decentralized, cutting the strings Big Energy uses to make us all dance. Money and power. That's what it always comes down to, and until the People take out those with money and power, it will always be this way.

As for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico there's issues with environmental contamination, and the fact that nobody who lives on the Gulf wants to look out the living room window of their multi-million-dollar mansion and see a bunch of oil rigs on the horizon or tarry crap on their private stretch of beach.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Master_Wii
 



the idea seems patriotic & worthwhile.... but only at First Glance.

what this bill does is further subsidize the multinational oil corps
so they risk little of their own money into developing this domestic energy
and the resulting profits.
Already the USA along with Canada & Mexico accounts for upwards of
70% of the regular energy needs in the USA.

If the lawmakers are actually serious about extracting new energy resources, then only allow new ventures or 3rd tier energy producers with efficient & productive processes to ramp up the domestic offshore oil & gas fields...or to convert the shale oil/tar sands into a useful product...

keep the mega oil giants out of the pool of these new subsidies ,
or else let the mega oil corps 'Pay' for the right to bid on production contracts.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by desert
reply to post by whaaa
 


Indeed, Whaaa!

I'm scratching my head over this one. Unlike the 1970's oil crisis, there is no "shortage" at the pump. So, if more oil is drilled, where will companies store it and refine it? If this "new" oil would be to offset "foreign" oil, I doubt our price would go down, as the oil companies would need that price to establish drilling in these areas and keep their profits up.

If this "new" oil goes on the market, is "fungible" as oil/commodity business says it is, the only thing it could do is not make prices go up as fast, maybe, as, again, why would oil companies lower the price if they can drill oil at this price?

The only thing that makes sense to me is if we quit dancing on this slippery oil slick, by greatly reducing our demand for it, by the US becoming "green" and becoming a world leader in green technology. Does not the sun shine on
the US, does not the wind blow, do not the waves crash and tide flow?

Why let China or India lead in green technology? Why doesn't the US want to lead in green technology?


Two things, one you touched upon: No matter how much oil we produce, we still have a very small number of refineries. We need more refineries if we are to increase domestic production.

Secondly, the arbitrary price of oil-whether domestic or imported, is just that: arbitrary. If OPEC says $150/bbl then that's the price BP or ExxonMobil will use. They don't want to lose money. Americans want their oil and your car doesn't know the difference between Saudi or Alaskan oil.

Lastly, it is these oil companies that are the ones doing the "green" research. It's better for them to pay some meticulous, slow researcher thousands of dollars every year to "show" some sort of progression, than it is for a few independent researchers to develop something amazing in two weeks.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by desert
 


It's all about the economy.We could convert almost all gasoline vehicles currently on the roads in the U S to run on H2O in the vapor form. This would be a great boon to the american public,but would devastate the economy.This country operates everything around big oil and major carriers.Not to mention the tax shortfall when people quit paying gas tax.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
In the spirit of 'spreading the word' I'm hoping that jackinthebox and mybigunit won't mind;

You might want to check out

Revelations of Big Oil Chaplain Lindsey Williams

While some find his speaking hard to take in large doses, the information is priceless!



Good post you beat me to it....the fact is this will not pass so dont get your hopes up. It makes no sense right now for cheap oil according to the powers that be. So just buck up and get ready to continue to get hosed because this bill will not pass and we will continue to have to pay high and get ready higher prices. Dorry


I urge you guys to watch the video to understand



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   
It looks like it may be a good idea on the surface, haven't had the time to really check it out yet though. One of my concerns however is being that they are talking about doing this in a wildlife refuge, What are the reprocussions going to be. Will there be damage to the refuge and the wildlife within, will there be damage to the enviroment as a result?



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddyroo45
reply to post by desert
 


It's all about the economy.We could convert almost all gasoline vehicles currently on the roads in the U S to run on H2O in the vapor form.


How, or by what means and technology would all the cars in the U.S. be converted to run on water?



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Don't worry. The Senate Democrats will block it. Same old, same old...but at least they care about your gas prices!

Not that the Republicans are any better, though granted, they've been trying to do this for a while. This is just an election year ploy to pin the Dems to the wall, and it'll probably work.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Can't remember where I read it, but a couple days back a writer commented that ANWR was pretty much of a mosquito ridden swamp.
And . . . enviro's know and don't care since their main interest is in holding the oil companies back.

We do need to consider environments and it seems the advantages to wildlife in the area could be improved by drilling there.


All that aside, is ANWR the pristine wilderness it's reputed to be or an area not worth a whole heckuva lot other than as a bargaining chip of sorts?



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join