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.

 

"Drill Baby Drill" Noun+Verb=GOP EnergyPolicy(let's all chant)

page: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by feydrautha
 



What you are suggesting is to either nationalize the energy companies in the country or you are not aware of how private companies work. When you say WE will drill this oil ourselves, whom are you refering to? US owned private companies? A hypothetical US Government Oil Company? Suggesting to nationalize energy industry is a completely different argument than suggesting that US owned private companies do the drilling. If you are suggesting that US owned private companies do the drilling, you need to keep in mind that there is no incentive for a private company to sell oil below the market value to US consumers. Unless you are onboard with JSOBecky, he is suggesting that the US govt create a partnership with private companies. If you are suggesting that the US govt nationalize the energy industry, keep in mind you are advocating a socialist system. I'm not opposed to that idea either but know where you stand what the results of your suggestions are.




posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
To emphasize the point that domestic oil will be cheaper, look at other oil-exporting countries that have more oil than they can use. They have very low gas prices.

Transportation costs add significantly to the price of energy, and are paid by the end consumer.


Yes because they're either socialist or government subsidized, which YOU don't want.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by feydrautha
fact, again; american produced energy = less dependence on foreign energy, i've managed to maintain coherence, you're suggesting that some jobs will go to non americans, i say big deal. you suggest that some exxon stockholders are foreign, i say, big whoop, you stray from assertion i forwarded, because it cannot be refuted directly...

all you can do is diffuse the premise into something it isnt...

still no good reason for not drilling... just some sourpuss negativity that doesnt add up to very much at all


You want it straight up, here you go. Drill all you want. But when it makes NO difference at all in what you pay for gasoline, don't cry about it.

American produced does not equal American consumed. How is that for you? Straight forward enough?

I thought maybe helping some to understand WHY it won't make difference would help, some could see where I was going with it, you couldn't. Let me repeat again. AMERICAN PRODUCED DOES NOT EQUAL AMERICAN CONSUMED. If it can be sold on the world market to someone else that will pay more for it, you will lose out.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   
The OP seems very ignorant of how much oil we have in America.Heres a statement from sen. Hatch of Utah. [We have as much oil in oil shale in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado as the rest of the world's oil combined. Liberals and environmentalists can talk all they want about wind, solar and geothermal - all of which I'm for - but last time I checked, planes, trains, trucks, ships and cars don't run on electricity. 98% of transportation fuel right now is oil. Ethanol is the only real alternative, and we're seeing that ethanol has major limitations.

It's pathetic. Environmentalists are very happy having us dependent on foreign oil. They're unhappy with us developing our own. What they forget to say is that shipping fuel all the way from the middle east has a big greenhouse gas footprint too.]

money.cnn.com...



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by jsobecky
To emphasize the point that domestic oil will be cheaper, look at other oil-exporting countries that have more oil than they can use. They have very low gas prices.

Transportation costs add significantly to the price of energy, and are paid by the end consumer.


Yes because they're either socialist or government subsidized, which YOU don't want.


In Canada( which some Americans may consider socialist) I pay more for gas than the US.

Gas Buddy

The kicker is, we supply the US with more oil than Saudi Arabia. Makes alot of sense,eh? So, who runs our countries again...thought I elected someone to look after my interests.

~edit for typos~



[edit on 4-9-2008 by Connector]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 


I agree, if you look at the last page, you will find my post describing the many and not only variables that go into what one pays at the pump.

"drill baby drill" is not included.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   
"Drill Baby Drill",yes,America let both parties drill you up the @$$ they have been doing it for years now with no end in sight,man...



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Oh while we chanted "drill baby drill" this happened:



Amid bluster over energy, Senate cuts a deal
GOP gets some drilling, nuclear, Democrats get wind, solar incentives

The proposal contains some items on the Republican wish list, such as opening areas of the Outer Continental Shelf to drilling and boosting nuclear power. The Democrats get incentives for wind, solar, and other renewables along with energy efficiency measures — and pay for much of the projected $84 billion cost by eliminating tax breaks on the oil and gas industry
msnbc


If that doesn't take the cake. Politicians managed to achieve what we couldn't on this thread.


Just in time too. I'm ready for some football!





[edit on 9/4/2008 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

As it stands today, the US has no cohesive energy plan. This is a huge failure of our gov't officials and politicians. It is a matter of national security. I have offered some suggestions to begin creating a policy. It does not answer all the questions, true, but then I am not an energy expert. I am merely applying common sense to a problem.

We need a detailed, achievable plan to reach energy independence. Brazil did it; so can we. That should be a top priority of the next administration.


Hear..hear



Originally posted by jsobecky
To emphasize the point that domestic oil will be cheaper, look at other oil-exporting countries that have more oil than they can use. They have very low gas prices.

Transportation costs add significantly to the price of energy, and are paid by the end consumer.


Now this is a very bad example, because the problem in the U.S. if you compare it against countries like Kuwait, Iran, and other ME countries, and the likes of China and other that dont produce but sell it to their citizens cheaper is:

1.That they have VAST amount of oil resources and very low demand at home. Dont forget that we are the largest oil cunsumer in the world.

2. Countries like China, Venezuela and the likes subsidize the price of oil for their citizens unlike us that we get TAX for it.

3. Most of this regimes have NATIONALIZED oil, something that to happen in the U.S. would be in the result of a revolution or something.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by dobsonion2
The OP seems very ignorant of how much oil we have in America.Heres a statement from sen. Hatch of Utah. [We have as much oil in oil shale in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado as the rest of the world's oil combined. Liberals and environmentalists can talk all they want about wind, solar and geothermal - all of which I'm for - but last time I checked, planes, trains, trucks, ships and cars don't run on electricity. 98% of transportation fuel right now is oil. Ethanol is the only real alternative, and we're seeing that ethanol has major limitations.

It's pathetic. Environmentalists are very happy having us dependent on foreign oil. They're unhappy with us developing our own. What they forget to say is that shipping fuel all the way from the middle east has a big greenhouse gas footprint too.]


You do realize that oil shale is completely useless right now right? There is no feasible way to get it out of the ground at a reasonable cost. That plus it taking the equivalent of nearly 10 barrels of oil to get one back. Maybe in a few years when technology advances it will be useful, but until then there is point thinking about it.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Rook / Bunch did you see my post above with the breaking news?

What do you think of this deal?







[edit on 9/4/2008 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


I actually think it is a pretty good deal. Seem like everybody gets a little bit of what they want. As my Dad used to say a little bit of something is better than alot of nothing.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Rook1545
 


And no one has to turn socialist or hate america, imagine that?



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Rook1545
 


And that my friend is the bussiness aspect of the oil bussiness.

I divide the oil issue in business, economics and politcal.

The bussiness aspect of the oil issue the companies trying to maximize their profits. To that end they spend a significant amount of money in lobbyist to make sure that their interest are secured.

The economic aspect it used to be only about supply and demand, now we have to add to that speculation and investment funds that put their money in oil to use it as a hedge against inflation and a weak dollar.

The political aspect is..... well what we are doing here. Politics is not going to change neither the economic side or bussiness side of the equation when we talk about oil, because the U.S. government can not control supply and demand worldwide, they can do something about speculation and the strenght of the dollar and they have tied their hands in Congress to take corrective action.

People need to understand that Oil companies already have leases on very large portion of land but is not cost effective for them to drill on them, it hurts their bottomline, it hurts their BUSSINESS. Instead they want to drill in the more accesible places ANWAR and the outer continental shelf because is CHEAPER, is good for the BUSSINESS. They going to drill in ANWAR and take that very same oil to the international market, sell it to the HIGHEST BIDDER in order to maximize their PROFIT because thats what BUSSINESSES are supposed to do. NO PROBLEM WITH THAT, I myself own stock of different energy companies and of course I like to receive higher dividends and higher return on my investment.

The OIL ISSUE needs to be separated from the ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ISSUE people confuse the too all the time but they are not the same.

-Lower prices would come and go regardless if we drill or not, we CAN'T control prices, BUSSINESSES and ECONOMICS do.

I will be the first one to say that the Obama plan has its flaws, no nuclear plants, COMMON!! Thats one of the very fist thing we should be doing right now. But along with nuclear we got to bring wind, solar,biofuel's and clean coal technology to the forefront. We have the technology right now to stir us to energy independEnce, politicians just need to fight the OIL ESTABLISHMENT thats for years had held not only the U.S. but the entire world on its grip.

The technology that we have right now would make nuclear power very safe. If the government stops subsidizing oil companies they can direct that money towards improving solar efficiency and clean coal technology and wind is already there all we need to do is put the turbines in places that wont bother communities. Lower the tariffs for countries that produce biofuels and start production here in a way that dont alter at least by much food prices. A good source for Biofuel could be GE crops.

And that should cover it all our transportation (land, air, sea), industrial and urban needs. And it is doable without putting one single drill on the ground. This obviously is going to be a gigantic task but believe or not the biggest hurdle is to get out of the grip of OIL COMPANIES.

I would envision a plan consisting of phases, by 2010 Phase I should be completed, by 2015 Phase II ans so on and so forth, learning something new in each phase that would accelarate the process and refine our methods and by the time the project is accomplished we would be truly ENERGY INDEPENDENT.

[edit on 4-9-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 4-9-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 4-9-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 4-9-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 4-9-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


One of the upsides to small amounts at a time is that they buy themselves time to get new refineries up and running. Hopefully this can lead to more bridge building between both sides.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Rook1545
 


You know you would think someone would tell them on the convention floor about this.

They're all giddy walking around with hard hats saying "drill now".

That's so funny, they've got vests too to look like roughnecks.

They're all ready to go and the deal has been reached.

What timing!




posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Rook / Bunch did you see my post above with the breaking news?

What do you think of this deal?

[edit on 9/4/2008 by schrodingers dog]


You see what we do here on ATS, we start debating ideas, Congress see them, implement them and they take the credit..


Now to the serious stuff, I can live with this deal, although there is no clear direction to where we are headed because this is not an energy plan.

I can live with some drilling to see, JUST TO SEE, if it is as many people here think that it would lower prices and would take us to energy independence, the result of it are yet to be seen. If the drilling gives no significant impact then that ultimately open the door for a more serious and practical approach towards energy independence.

Good job to the Senators involved and hopefully it gets approved.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Its economics 101. Supply and demand. Increase supply and prices will drop.

I also do not believe that drilling alone will solve our energy problems.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mhc_70
 


Oh man you almost made me loose my dinner with that one.

You might want to read a little of the thread before you jump in feet first.

I admire your enthusiasm though!

Supply and demand.


I don't mean to laugh, you just caught me so off guard, I'm sorry.

[edit on 9/4/2008 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mhc_70
Its economics 101. Supply and demand. Increase supply and prices will drop.


It used to be like that, but now with the speculation and the waek dollar it creates to many variables or at least it did for a while given that the oil bubble has burst and prices are getting back to "normal" (whatever normal is where you live)

But what the bubble showed is that prices can be manipulated, the other thing to remember is OPEC, they have already said that $100 for the barrel is the lowest they would allowed. Hopefully demand destruction takes care of that and make them eat their words and threats.

Serioulsy I can't wait until this country is energy independent, I myself would go to the Kingdom and flip the bird to the King.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join