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.

 

White House: Bush to lift offshore drilling ban

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed
 


I'm not your son. I'm a lady thank you very much.


It's not just a small tiny place like this. It the whole coast where you can look out and see the drills. It covers 2 states that I know for a fact.

It could cover more states. But I haven't checked. I'm sure it does if there is wells there.




posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 12:38 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Its not miles away. You could look at these drills from standing on land.

Also the tides bring in what they are doing out there.

And I'm done talking to a very, very, very rude person like yourself whose done nothing but cuss me and call me names.

I have said what I have said. I have showed pictures for anyone who wants to know. That's all I'm doing.

If you don't care the so be it. Were done talking.


I will say this meet me back here a few years after the drilling starts in Florida.

I will show you how their water turnned and you can go about calling names and calling me a lier and making excuses up again.

Till then I'm done talking to you.


Sisskin notes that tourists visit the Pensacola, Fla., beaches for white sands and emerald waters. Tourism not only fuels the economy here; it's the economic engine for the state. "It's what people come here for," Sisskin says. "We're not willing to sacrifice our economy for what is potentially a very small amount of oil or gas in comparison to the world supply and will do very little if anything to lower prices." .....

Alabama Coast

Sandy Johnston, executive director of the Pensacola Beach Chamber of Commerce, says that drilling in the Gulf would be her worst nightmare.

"We have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Nothing," Johnston says. "Drilling is not going to change the price of gas today, next week, next month or next year. It's just going to destroy a beautiful location." ......

www.npr.org...




Wonder why these people are so worried? Guess not because it will ruin their coast. Oh no according to you. It will remain blue and beautiful.

Not in reality it won't and everyone except you knows this.

[edit on 16-7-2008 by Shar]



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 12:52 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Shar
 


Shar

Thanks for the pics of Florida. They bring back sweet memories of my days in Miami.


However...

Ironically, some of the pollution in the Gulf is due to Floridians:


Dozens of polluted Superfund sites still dot the Gulf rim, 23 years after the cleanup program began. Ocean dumping still occurs, with Florida officials spraying into the Gulf millions of gallons of a toxic cocktail from a failed phosphate plant near Tampa.

www.flmnh.ufl.edu...

[edit on 16-7-2008 by jsobecky]



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 06:08 AM
link   
The pollution in the Gulf of Mexico is horrible. But it is caused by sources both natural and manmade. Being the recipient of the Mississippi River and all the agricultural runoff and silt it brings down is one factor. Manmade pollution from chemical plants, etc., is another.

Louisiana is the home of many Superfund sites. We can't do much about Ole Miss, but we can and should stop the factory runoff.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 



Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by DocMoreau
I wonder if he is aware of the the 'psychological effects' that fighting a war built on lies would have on the minds and hearts (not to mention the economy) of the American people.

Of course he is. Regardless of common belief here, the man is not a reptilian that has a forked tongue darting out of his mouth as he rubs his hands in glee over a rising body count.

I doubt he rubs in hands in glee over the rising piles of bodies, but he certainly isn't too sad about his political benefactors getting filthy rich because of them either. Forked tongue or not, most of his 'sadness' comes across to me, among others, as crocodile tears. Reptilian or not.


Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by DocMoreau
I find it more than ironic, that the oil speculation we are forced to deal with is caused in no small part by the mission in Iraq.

Wow! That was profound!
War has an effect on prices!

Yup! Especially illegal wars founded on lies it seems. War has an effect on prices....

What I meant by 'mission' in Iraq was the staying there without a real mission. I guess that didn't come through. Too bad they had to deny they were actually there in an oil grab, and had to pander around with lies like 'WMDs' and 'Al-Qaida in Iraq'. That's what I was saying.


Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by DocMoreau
That instead of ending that conflict (because it is still more screwed up now that it was before we went there), the only solution is to open up our natural resources to the multinational oil conglomerates.

No. We could continue with the failed Democrat policies of the past. We could become "green" overnight, and wear floral bouquets and dance underneath our solar panels, in our Victory Gardens.


Failed Democratic policies of the past? We can't leave Iraq because a Republican led Congress okayed a Republican President to execute failed battle stragedy after stragedy, in a war based on lies. The Offshore Ban that is getting so much press was signed by a Republican President (Father to the current one in fact!). Out of the 35 years since the Oil Shortage in 1973 (and the lack of oil refineries being built since), 23 years out of 35 a Republican has held the office of President of the United States. It must be the 'failed Democrat policies of the past'.... but not the recent past, right?


Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by DocMoreau
I would be 100% behind new offshore drilling/drilling in protected areas if the United States first required the Oil Companies to double current refining capabilities.


You can blame the Greenies and the Democrats for that one. They are the ones who have played the NIMBY game for the past 30 years.

Bush wanted to open refineries on closed military bases years ago. Thank the Dems for squashing that.


2 years ago Bush proposed what you described.
www.defenselink.mil...

It is amazing that the Republicans stopping fighting the good fight on this bill, and instead took up the charge of FISA and the retroactive immunity for telecoms. After the a bill passed in the House to speed up the permitting process, it appears no Republican Senator was willing to take up the task, and work in a Bi-Partisan manner to really get this through. I believe that the Dems didn't like the original wording and the way that Big Oil would get subsidies to build without having to invest their own profits in infrastructure. Perhaps I am a bit mistaken, it has been 'years'...


Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by DocMoreau
But until new refineries are built in the United States, opening up our protected oil to drilling will only give our oil away. If we can't refine it, someone can...


Someone else can and already does. We *do* import refined oil products, you know.
But both projects can be started simultaneously and worked on concurrently.

Concurrently is fine, but why open up new territory until we fully pump out what is already leased, and not being pumped? Until we can refine it ourselves, all we are doing is burning fuel to move fuel. Which is also part of the problem. It seems asinine to pump crude in the US, ship it to some other country to refine, and then ship it back as usable fuel. Seems like a waste of resources.


Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by DocMoreau
Personally, I think the timing of the need to open more territory for drilling has more to do with the deficit that the United States is operating under in order to continue the Iraq war.


Maybe, maybe not, but stopping nearly a TRILLION dollars a year from leaving the country sure won't hurt. It will, however have an added benefit of squeezing terrorist financing.

You are preaching to the choir in regard to throwing our wealth away, and sending it abroad. However, I find it strange that you decided to mention 'squeezing terrorist financing'. I find that assertion to be a bit unfounded, unless you are talking about the amount of money that would trickle down from Saudi Oil Sheiks and through the Seven Sisters of oil. Unless of course you are implying that the Oil Companies are the terrorists.

en.wikipedia.org...


Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by DocMoreau
PS...
Two strange things to note:

Anwar

Anwar (Arabic: انوار ) is an old Arabic name meaning "Luminous".


Uhh...it's spelled ANWR. It's an acronym for Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.


Uhh... Yeah, I know its spelled ANWR, did you miss the link that was directly above it?*
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge=ANWR. My 'strange thing to note' was that the word anwar (Which is how Bush refers to ANWR on counless occations) means luminous, or 'Illuminated'. Maybe you don't pay attention to language and symbols the way I do, but it is a weird coincidence for those do... I thought that maybe the other members might get a kick out of the 'Illuminati-Big Oil-Reptilian' coincidence... Oh well...
DocMoreau

*Since you missed it last time, and decided to talk down to me.
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Because the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is believed to contain a large supply of crude oil, the issue of drilling for oil in the area has been a debated topic since World War II. The controversy has been a political football for every U.S. President since Jimmy Carter.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by DocMoreau
 



Originally posted by DocMoreau
I doubt he rubs in hands in glee over the rising piles of bodies, but he certainly isn't too sad about his political benefactors getting filthy rich because of them either. Forked tongue or not, most of his 'sadness' comes across to me, among others, as crocodile tears. Reptilian or not.

Riiiight.
You don't know the man at all.


Originally posted by DocMoreau
Yup! Especially illegal wars founded on lies it seems. War has an effect on prices....

What I meant by 'mission' in Iraq was the staying there without a real mission. I guess that didn't come through. Too bad they had to deny they were actually there in an oil grab, and had to pander around with lies like 'WMDs' and 'Al-Qaida in Iraq'. That's what I was saying.


I didn't even bother addressing "the Mission" since that's been going on for years and is as invalid as those who believe "Pull it" meant set off the explosives in WTC7.

And, "oil grab"? That's hilariuos!
That's why the price at the pump is over $4, right?

You guys crack me up!



Originally posted by DocMoreau

Failed Democratic policies of the past? We can't leave Iraq because a Republican led Congress okayed a Republican President to execute failed battle stragedy after stragedy, in a war based on lies. The Offshore Ban that is getting so much press was signed by a Republican President (Father to the current one in fact!). Out of the 35 years since the Oil Shortage in 1973 (and the lack of oil refineries being built since), 23 years out of 35 a Republican has held the office of President of the United States. It must be the 'failed Democrat policies of the past'.... but not the recent past, right?

If I had the time or inclination, I'd give you a lesson on American Government, and the two party system. Don't worry...you'll get that when you reach high school.
j/k




Originally posted by DocMoreau


2 years ago Bush proposed what you described.
www.defenselink.mil...

Year=1
YearS= more than 1


Originally posted by DocMoreau
It is amazing that the Republicans stopping fighting the good fight on this bill, and instead took up the charge of FISA and the retroactive immunity for telecoms. After the a bill passed in the House to speed up the permitting process, it appears no Republican Senator was willing to take up the task, and work in a Bi-Partisan manner to really get this through. I believe that the Dems didn't like the original wording and the way that Big Oil would get subsidies to build without having to invest their own profits in infrastructure. Perhaps I am a bit mistaken, it has been 'years'...


So, they've been doing other things too.

So what's the Dem excuse for sitting on their hands for the past 8 years?

Nothing but whining sour grapes, is all the Dems have done.



Originally posted by DocMoreau

Concurrently is fine, but why open up new territory until we fully pump out what is already leased, and not being pumped? Until we can refine it ourselves, all we are doing is burning fuel to move fuel. Which is also part of the problem. It seems asinine to pump crude in the US, ship it to some other country to refine, and then ship it back as usable fuel. Seems like a waste of resources.

Neither building a refinery nor drilling a well in unhospitable territory happens in a week. That's why both need to be started NOW.


Originally posted by DocMoreau
Personally, I think the timing of the need to open more territory for drilling has more to do with the deficit that the United States is operating under in order to continue the Iraq war.



Maybe, maybe not, but stopping nearly a TRILLION dollars a year from leaving the country sure won't hurt. It will, however have an added benefit of squeezing terrorist financing.



You are preaching to the choir in regard to throwing our wealth away, and sending it abroad. However, I find it strange that you decided to mention 'squeezing terrorist financing'. I find that assertion to be a bit unfounded, unless you are talking about the amount of money that would trickle down from Saudi Oil Sheiks and through the Seven Sisters of oil. Unless of course you are implying that the Oil Companies are the terrorists.

Don't be naive. Where do you think terrorist financing comes from? Bake sales? :shk:



Originally posted by DocMoreau


Uhh... Yeah, I know its spelled ANWR, did you miss the link that was directly above it?*
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge=ANWR. My 'strange thing to note' was that the word anwar (Which is how Bush refers to ANWR on counless occations) means luminous, or 'Illuminated'. Maybe you don't pay attention to language and symbols the way I do, but it is a weird coincidence for those do... I thought that maybe the other members might get a kick out of the 'Illuminati-Big Oil-Reptilian' coincidence... Oh well...

I am highly verbal and literate. But I'm not a fool; I don't link every random accumulation of letters, numbers, or symbols to a plot to control the world.


And the fact that Bush pronounces it "anwar" means zip. So does everybody else.


Originally posted by DocMoreau

*Since you missed it last time, and decided to talk down to me.
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Because the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is believed to contain a large supply of crude oil, the issue of drilling for oil in the area has been a debated topic since World War II. The controversy has been a political football for every U.S. President since Jimmy Carter.


And this means...what, exactly?

People have been talking about climate change for over 50 years, too. Things evolve from armchair topics to real world concerns over time. That's the thing about life, you know.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


I think you and I could go on and on, tit for tat, back and forth like that for a while, and looking at our posts, I don't want to derail your thread. I could call you a jingo, you could call me a high school civic dropout, whatever. Et cetera, et cetera.

There is obviously a difference of opinions here, but I hope that doesn't need to outweigh what we agree on.

1. More Domestic Crude needs to be pumped in the United States.

2. Way more Domestic Oil Refining needs to occur, and the existing refineries need to be updated.

3. Much like or own debate here, the debate over ANWR and other potential sources of Domestic crude, has over-shadowed the harsh realities of our societies daily needs. The endless squabble continually pushes the opening of these frontiers another 7-10 years away from the present time, and present need. With both sides unwilling to concede aspects their respective positions, nothing will get done.


Hopefully you and I can agree on those points, and perhaps be an small example to our representatives in government. Honestly, pointing fingers as to who got us here is useless, and only further instigates speculation.

From my plank, at the very least, is it too much to ask, if ANWR and the Off-Shore locations in questions were opened up tomorrow, would the process be completely transparent? Would all Oil Companies have equal potential to bid, and if so, how (if at all) does multi-nationalism of the corporation play into the decision process?

Even though you mocked my previous assertion that the war in Iraq has more to do with oil under the sands than to do with WMDs/Al Qaida, I beg to differ. 6 hours ago, the AP posted a story about an investigation into 'behind the scenes meddling' (their words, not mine) of the State Department's involvement in Iraqi Oil Deals.

Dems call for State to investigate Iraq oil deals
The last two paragraphs:

"The United States government has stayed absolutely out of the matter of the awarding of Iraqi oil contracts," Rice said in June. "It's a private sector matter."

But according to a recent investigation by the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee, the administration's policy was not expressed to at least one U.S. company. And in some cases, State Department and other administration officials even encouraged an exploration deal between Texas-based Hunt Oil Co. and Iraq's Kurdish government, according to e-mails released by the panel.



And I know, I know... 'The Dems'.... The evil Dems... but don't let partisanism overshadow here.
Something fishy is there, it is just the 'theater' of the 'Dems' that are looking into it. It might be nothing. I guess what I am saying is that a part of "The Mission" (you love that, don't you) 5 years ago must have envisioned Iraqi oil coming online before now, right? If there was no insurgency, the oil would be pumping now. So what happens when it does flow? The price drops? How does that actually affect the potential reserves, and still, where will it get refined? Are there oil refineries anywhere in the world that are sitting idle? Or are you proposing that the 'NIMBY' mentality is going to push the refineries to other countries, and that the US will pump here, ship out, and then get shipped in gas?

Does anyone who is calling out 'DRILL NOW!' actually have a plan for the oil they want to pump?

DocMoreau



[edit on 16/7/2008 by DocMoreau]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
So....

Now that Bush has lifted the oil ban and oil has fallen $16/barrel in FOUR DAYS, the LARGEST fall of oil in history, do the leftists on this site finally realize that this is almost entirely a supply-and-demand issue caused by government red tape?

Will you FINALLY admit that we're in this mess because the Democrats are pandering to the environmentalist lobby in order to make Americans angry and depressed for election day in hopes that the ignorant, uneducated majority blames Bush and the Republicans for a Democrat-caused problem?

Will you FINALLY realize that Congress's approval rating - 9% - the lowest in history and over three times lower than GWB's - is a sign that the American public is starting to get educated on the subject, and the more educated you get, the more you realize nearly ALL problems in this nation are caused by big government and red tape?

Will you FINALLY realize that maybe, just maybe, we should get off the partisan bandwagon and admit that it's the liberal Democrats causing the problem? Can we just ONCE put our partisanship behind us and do what's best for the nation, even if it hurts our ultimately evil political party?


Do you FINALLY realize that drilling now WILL NOT take 10 years to lower prices because if supply is increased, speculators will bid the price down just as quickly as they ran it up?

Do you FINALLY understand a little about how the economy works?

This is why I'm a registered Independent. I absolutely love being able to educate myself without worrying about supporting my party. I can see so much more clearly. I recommend you ALL drop your party affiliations. Education is your best friend, not partisan loyalty!

[edit on 19-7-2008 by ChocoTaco369]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join