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.

 

Republicans concede: Lifting Moratorium = Pointless

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by marg6043
 


I'm glad you still love me.. You know it is returned...

Yet it is all right there for anyone to see....

It is not my opinion, it is presented factual data.

Semper


and infact, most of it is factual, except for the oil prices

2.90 in april of 2006 is not 1/3 the price of 4.11 in 2008




posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


Again...

The Graph and the Source are there for all to see.

Semper



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
I find it most amusing that most of you are arguing prices when I have already won the meat of the issue. Bush said "THIS WILL HAVE A PSYCOLOGICAL EFFECT" basically he is saying that SPECULATION is driving the prices. I cannot believe that some of you still associate with this shrub/bush, whatever he is.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
No matter what course we take, it will not reduce the price of gas at this moment. Let's face it. OPEC owns us and the Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and possibly administrations before that are to blame. Let's not forget every Congress during those administrations share the blame as well. Our government failed to make us oil independent. We citizens are to blame also because we consume a lot more than we need. So in reality, everybody is to blame. I feel we need to do a little bit of everything. More drilling, alternative energy, more electric cars, and anything else that will wean us off our oil dependence. Enough is enough. Let's fix it.

Now about all that acres of land that is not being tapped. Let's look at it this way. If you bought one acre out of a 100 acre that somebody was selling and discovered gold on that acre, What would you do? Buy the other 99 acres because they MIGHTalso contain gold or let somebody else buy the 99 acres and possibly strike it rich? I would buy the other 99 acres and hope that it does contain gold. You may call it greed but I call it reality. This is similar to what the oil companies do. They lease in blocks to keep the competitors out. That doesn't mean that their is oil on every acre they lease.

Now I agree that some of this drilling could lead to an environmental disaster, especially offshore. Nobody wants that. However, don't that risk already exist with the oil platforms we already have in the Gulf? What about Mexico? Couldn't a disaster on their platform create a disaster on our land also? There is also talk that Cuba may lease out their waters to foreign countries. If Cuba decides to do this, we face a risk. No matter if it is on land or off land, both options carry a risk to the environment.

Gas prices are high and we don't like it. And it's always easy to blame the administration in charge. Maybe they are responsible and maybe they aren't. There are too many contributing factors for me to come to that conclusion. I just want to point out the quote by the Honorable Senator Pelosi below. This is just to show that we can go tit for tat all day and end up in the same spot.



We have our differences but in the end we have to learn to give and take to get ahead. All I see from both parties is greed for their own parties. They each want a 100% and that is part of the reason America is in the dilemma it finds itself in. Politicians need to understand that we elected them to do what is right for America and not what is right for their parties. Congress should sit down, put all options on the table, give and take, and pass an energy bill that will make America self reliant.



“Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.”

This statement was issued more than two years ago. The Democrats have had complete control of Congress since January 2007.

Ms. Pelosi has been the Speaker of the House and the second most power elected official in the land since then.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


sweetness-light.com...



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
[edit on 7/15/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin


"The current moratorium, which President Bush's father imposed, applies to just 20 percent of the known oil and gas resources located in our Outer Continental Shelf.

While 80 percent of known oil and gas resources that are technologically recoverable in the Outer Continental Shelf are available for drilling right now, energy companies have chosen to not produce on those acres.

Instead, the energy companies are letting those leases, which they own, sit idly until the price of oil soars to $200 or $300 per barrel so that they can drill on them later and generate even larger profits down the road.



Forgive if someone else pointed this out.

The Democrats dirty little secret is that this available for drilling land they speak of is tied up in litigation. 90% of what is available for drilling is involved in lawsuits brought by environmental groups. The same groups who donate money to Democrats. I've yet to hear a single Democrat tell the truth about this.

I'm afraid the truth is that the Republicans and Democrats are in a co-conspiracy on this issue. Keep us confused with crap like this while the truth is neither side wants anyone to drill anything.

I worked as a Roughneck on a Wildcat Rig for True in the late 70's that hit a natural gas dome so big it could supply all our needs for centuries. You've never heard of it though and you never will. A small part of its capacity is being used in the immediate area, but its true potential is hidden. That field is also tied up in multiple lawsuits.

The Sierra Club starts charities under many names to hide their involvement. They make them look like local groups, but the money comes from them. They also heavily support Democratic Candidates. You do the math.

I'm also aware of a HUGE pool of oil that was discovered in the same general time frame. Only part of it has been admitted too and what drilling they have tried to do has been blocked by - you guessed it - law suits from environmental groups.

I wonder how many people are gullible enough to think the oil companies are sitting on land they could be drilling. Probably lots. Democrats and those who hate Bush will be real suckers for this propaganda and they know it. The last time they played this game under Reagan, half the oil related companies went belly up.

ANWR could be actively producing by the end of this winter. No caribou will be hurt and they know it. The environmental groups own the Democrats and many of the Republicans. Did you know that a few years ago, the Democrats flew 100 natives up here from the lower 48 to protest, because none of the real Native Alaskans were opposed? It made front page here and got no mention anywhere else. The video's of ANWR are also a hoax. They were shot 150 miles from the actual site which is a salt marsh full of nothing but mosquitoes. It's easy to hide the truth when it is thousands of miles away.

Now, out of state people are trying to eliminate mining here. Alaska will be destroyed financially if it does not stop. 95% of Alaska has never felt a human footprint, but they don't want you to know that. There is a group of lower 48 jerks who want us gone so they can come up here and do their little eco-tourist crap. These Sierra Club card carrying, enviro phonies do more damage with their mountain bikes than we ever dreamed of doing. You should see what they do to trails and watersheds. Phony creeps, the whole lot of them. You should see their cute little designer outdoor wear outfits. They are good bear bait though



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Allow me to simply this, you can refer to this post for article links that back up what im about to re-iterate

in 2001 - 1 year after GW took office, the price per gallon was $1.20 ntnl avg

in April of 2006 - 8 months before democrats took control of the hill - price per gallon average was $2.90

That is 141.6% increase in fuel costs.

In may of 2007 - $3.11 (thats 4 months after democrats took control) which is a 7.25% increase

and in July of 2008 its at $4.11 for ntnl average which is 32% increase. over may of 2007.



We have had it blamed on 9/11
we had it blamed on Katrina
we had it blamed on a republican moratorium

and now we're blaming the democrats because they haven't solved it in 1.5 years.


And you can't comment on this?

I'm not surprised.
One single bit. I am not surprised at all.


However, i do feel some of us (myself included) are getting a little too heated. So maybe we should die down the tone. Myself included


Now -
Would anyone care to offer opinions based on these facts, or should we all just go back to angry name calling?



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


Andrew,

It is not very becoming when you claim everything that is not in line with what you believe is doctored. While I find it unnecessary to defend myself, I will simply say I have never doctored anything I have ever presented here as the truth. I will stand by my reputation in that regard.

It is difficult at best to have an intellectual debate when you debate the debater and not the topic; especially when it is political and you accuse me of doctoring evidence...

I have shown you the truth, it is up to you to decide whether to believe the truth, or to ignore it.

The very premise of the topic is incorrect as it gives the impression something was said in the article that was not in fact said. That is also a very weak way to debate an issue.

If you believe a thing, regardless of the factual evidence, that is your right and I support you the right to do that.

Just don't expect me to believe hyperbole over fact.

Semper



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Could you please provide me a link to these litigations? I have an evening that I can spend reading them.

In addition, I am still waiting for Drones link to the fact that we know were all the oil is offshore; therefor we have no need to spend millions of dollars on exploration. Although, even if that were fact, we would still need millions to build the refineries.

Thank you in advance for the info Drone, I am waiting patiently.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


Andrew,

It is not very becoming when you claim everything that is not in line with what you believe is doctored. While I find it unnecessary to defend myself, I will simply say I have never doctored anything I have ever presented here as the truth. I will stand by my reputation in that regard.


I see. And coming into my post and calling me names supports what you have to say here?

I call your "graph" doctored because it goes directly against national averages for those times.

You completely ignored both of my posts which give references to national averages during key moments in the political timeline in the last 7 years.

And say that im intellectually incapable of carrying on a debate?

Ok.

Like you said


Thats you're opinion and i support it.

And no, the thread title is not misleading.
the people want answers now - and bush says "...uhh i say we lift the moratorium, gobble gobble"

then he follows it up with saying

Ya know, it wont produce a single barrel of oil tomorrow


And this is his only solution? That in 10 years we'll have cheaper gasoline for THAT period in time?

Mind you - in 10 years, gasoline will still be more expensive than it is today because of the natural rise in cost of all things over time.

So to say it'll be cheaper in 10 years is a lie

You can say it'll be cheaper in 10 years than it would've been had we not lifted the moratorium

But 10 years from now isnt today.

[edit on 7/15/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Cowgirlstraitup7
 


Look up the litigation that has prevented the building of refineries while you are at it.

It's all on that little "google" tab that you have. Cheers!



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


And that is the same thing they (the dems) were saying ten years ago, when they (the repubs) predicted this would happen.

No new refineries, and no new drilling, equals more dependance on foreign oil.

this is my thread on oil company profits. Ignored. (but thats ok)
www.abovetopsecret.com...


And this is my thread on how long, (with FACTS) it would take us to switch to alternative fuels, if we started tomorrow, with every vehicle in the world produced solely for the U.S., and all had the newest miracle technology. Enjoy, but I know you won't read them...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 15-7-2008 by jasonjnelson]

[edit on 15-7-2008 by jasonjnelson]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek


The fact is, doing nothing is going to make the price skyrocket. Why don't you guys admit that? All you're doing is making excuses as to why we should continue doing nothing.




and i completely agree with you, Dronetek.

Do it now, and reap whatever benefits later.

But that doesnt offer any help now. And people want help now. And this is the best Bush can offer? After 7 years, he can offer THIS?

In 10 years, there will be more than a 7% increase in the cost of living, so saving 7% on gas prices by drilling now may help off-set that - but its far far far from the answer to solve it today.

As i've said - lift the ban. Please do. I hope the democrats will stop their bull-*snip* games and just lift it. There is no reason not to


But someone needs to offer better solutions than this.
Its pure crap.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I guess Wiggin wants Bush to use his Presidential Magic Wand (TM) and magically make the prices fall!

Attempting to bring down prices inflated by speculation by opening up new speculative sources isn't doing enough! He should become an economic wizard! Yeah!


[edit on 15-7-2008 by alien]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


Expecting Bush to have done something in his 7 years in office is not expecting "magic"

Expecting congress to "change" things in 1.5 years, however, is.

If you don't care to discuss the grostesque rise in gasoline price between 2001 and 2008, in relation to bush and him being the cause, then i suppose you really have no reason to be here, mike.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


Nobody is blaming the Democrats. We just want to know what happened to their commonsense plan they had in 2006. Personally, I think there is enough blame to go around for eveyone. Blaming either side will not solve the problem. And we don't need a quick fix plan to lower prices now only to have them skyrocket again in the future. We need a long term plan to keep this from happening again. Once investors and OPEC see that we are serious about taking care of ourselves I feel that the oil market will calm down. Right now they know they got us bent over a barrel because we are so damn undecisive on what to do.



“Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.”

This statement was issued more than two years ago. The Democrats have had complete control of Congress since January 2007.

Ms. Pelosi has been the Speaker of the House and the second most power elected official in the land since then.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


source



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   
People, people we have been played like fools by our two parties, both have a lot to do with the oil crisis.

But for some reason having the house of Bush on power is much to blame with the situation of our economy and oil crisis also.

Please read the history of Both the Bushes ad the Saudis.

See how we became so Dependant on oil, foreign oil specially the Saudi oil.

Name calling, data posting showing mostly bias information do not take the fact that our own ruling elite houses are selling our nation one piece at a time.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   
The price of oil and Gasoline is dictated by a number of things: OPEC, refining capability, proven known reserves, consumption, alternative sources of energy are just a few. It stands to reason that if we open more areas for exploration, more known reserves will be found. This will increase the amount of oil which then factors in to things like oil futures and increased production. Till real alternative energy options become viable, we are dependent on oil. You can either use less or find and make more, both would be preferred. Even if we use less, overall the world will probably be consuming more. I don't see how taking a long range look at finding more oil is a bad thing. Sure the result isn't immediate in terms of production, however it can have an effect even before the first drop of oil flows from new discoveries.

If I had 100 gallons of gas in a contract 10 years from now and there were only 1000 gallons worldwide, how much would my 100 gallons of gas be worth should 2 years from now someone else discovers another 1000 gallons of gas, plus someone else finds a way (cellulose Bio fuel) to create another 1,000 gallons from other sources, giving a worldwide total of 3,000 when I was basing my whole premise on only 1,000? My contract would drop in relative value, all other things being equal.

Please tell me why exploring for more oil is somehow not the more prefered method? It's a pipe dream that somehow the whole world will be using less oil and until a real alternative fuel is found we are stuck with oil. It would be great if we had such an alternative to oil, but right now, we don't. I can't put water in my gas tank and make it run. Doing no more exploration basically guarantees the supply remains the same while demand increases and known reserves dwindle. It's a recipe for $12 a gallon gas. Now where did I hear that...............hmmmmm.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Cowgirlstraitup7
 


While I support Obama, I really do wish their was a third choice. Ron Paul for instance. "

God what a wierd and uninformed view. Why on earth would anyone who gives a cr*p about freedom support such a horrible leftist think-skinned hollow shill like Obama?

Obama is a socialist. Pro-tax-hiking pro-$800-billion more spending, Carteresque leftwing on foreign policy, and most liberal member of the Senate as rated by national Journal. Wrong on Iraq, wrong on energy, wrong on language, HORRIBLE on immigration. Flip-flopping madly right now to get elected.

Meanwhile, Ron Paul is a libertarian wearing the Republican label.

This is like saying 'Hey, I'd really like to vote for Thomas Jefferson,but I support Joe Stalin in this election." These two are POLAR OPPOSITES. Wierd, just wierd.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join