DrillGate - Obama Dragging His Feet - Offshore Drilling!

Originally posted by Connector
Eurisko2012 is John Titor!!!! LOL

Wait.........I mean, he/she/they are just being used for the same effect.....controversy. Gotta keep those ratings up.

Hey where's FlyerFan lately? Oh yeah, once she figured out what was happening here at ATS, she stopped posting.

Really???????? Letting a thread like this even exist on a link from Sarah Palin's facebook account?

You're just jealous because this thread keeps going.
Why don't you make a thread of your own.
I'll stop by and act like a jerk. How does that sound?

[edit on 10-2-2010 by Eurisko2012]

reply to post by whatukno


Why wouldn't it create jobs?

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Because Oil companies aren't going to hire more people to do the same amount of work. When one area dries up, they will move to another area, that way they keep supply the same and controlled and keep prices up. They don't need to hire a bunch of new people if they can secure the supply.

All opening up offshore drilling will do is allow big oil to move in when they are done pumping from the sources they already have. They aren't going to cut their own throats by pumping a huge amount of oil into the market when they already are making massive huge profits.

reply to post by whatukno


What about the oil up near Canada?
They already know where the oil is.
We are going to get it sooner or later.
Lets go get it now.

reply to post by Eurisko2012

Hotels and motels
Restaurants
Art Galleries
Sporting Supply Stores
OH! Boat Charters! Go catch a marlin.

Oh, I didn't realize these things didn't exist on the Gulf coast. It sounds strangely like the tourist industry I mentioned a earlier... you know, the second largest income provider after the fishing industry? The one that doesn't want offshore drilling?

If you want to callously ignore an economic support system of people stretching from Texas to Florida (not to mention the Latin American countries that depend on the Gulf. What do they get out of this deal?), then I imagine the environmental factors in all of this aren't a big deal to you. Severe pollution, forever altering an animals habitat, pumping more chemicals into humans, it's all whatever, right?

Well, it's a good thing these decisions are not up to you. I highly doubt you actually believe all the things you espouse. Your seemingly single track mind indicates to me that you're really just interested in "stirring the pot", right? Or am I completely off base?

obama will not ever approve drilling off shore. It would make sence. Same with the idea of build nuke plants not ever gonna happen it's all just lip service. His fall back will be the EPA saying the area must be protected, ect.

reply to post by Eurisko2012

What about the oil up near Canada?
They already know where the oil is.
We are going to get it sooner or later.
Lets go get it now.

Sooner or later are the operative words.

It would be more fiscally sound for big oil to keep the oil in the ground that they have access to until the time they need to go get it. It's a game, a game played by one of the oldest members of the NWO.

So even though Obama actually wants to start opening up areas for offshore drilling despite what Palin's facebook lie has to say about it, opening up that oil for refining won't create jobs. Because the greed of these big oil companies is such that they would rather you pay 5 bucks a gallon for gas than to cut into their profits.

We do not need to drill for new oil.

We can make oil from trash, sewage. organic waste. hazardous waste.

This would be a great way to stimulate jobs and get rid of the dangerous landfills in the US.

The Germans invented the process in the 1920s and used it during WW2 to make high grade aircraft fuel for the war from coal.
But any organic material will work.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.dieselpowermag.com...
newenergyalternative.com...

The real problem is getting the plants built to turn all the trash in the US into oil instead of burying it or burning it.

Right now it cost $78 a barrel for oil.
But the Fischer-Tropsch process can make a barrel of clean oil (no sulfur and some other chemicals found in well oil)for about $60 a barrel + it cleans up the environment by eliminating landfills.
www.molecular-plant-biotechnology.info...
ezinearticles.com...

reply to post by Someone336


No . I'm just for drilling offshore so if a nuclear bomb goes off in
Saudi Arabia we can have other sources of oil already to go.
Does that make sense?
I don't like getting oil from the middle east.
That lunatic in Iran is a loose cannon.
BTW, did you hear the latest?
Tomorrow something will happen that will shock the west.

reply to post by ANNED


The Germans can do anything. How did they get so smart?
They had to do something. Hitler didn't make it to Baku.
-- Necessity is the mother of invention. --

[edit on 10-2-2010 by Eurisko2012]

Originally posted by Chance321
obama will not ever approve drilling off shore. It would make sence. Same with the idea of build nuke plants not ever gonna happen it's all just lip service. His fall back will be the EPA saying the area must be protected, ect.

I heard Obama won't really build high speed trains either.
The environmentalists will throw up so many roadblocks that
nothing will get built. That way the bankrupt states can
accidentally spend the money on other things. - State Pension Plans -

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by Someone336

 

Why are you trying to reason with this guy ,

He's a few Mcnuggets short of a happy meal.

How quickly some (on the left?) resort to personal insults when a couple of the only sound bites they know on an issue get challenged? We see this over and over on ATS.

How does someone reason with you, when your responses are only insults?

The oil companies are hardly saints with our best interests at heart. But I'd still rather pay American companies for American oil than send all that money to OPEC. That is until some of the new energy technologies can come on line

reply to post by centurion1211


Im still waiting for those sources that told you there is plenty of oil to cut our dependence right here in the great US of A!

The US consumes 20 of the 88 million barrels of oil produced in total around the world a day. 7 million of that is produced in the United states. The middle east brings out 56% of the worlds oil daily, and the total North american production of the fuel source is 16%. You are essentially arguing there is doubt the resources untapped that will be sustainable for us for years to come.

www.eia.doe.gov...

Its a very strong argument so I'd like to know what sources told you so. Dont tell me its hidden up there in Alaska. BP and shell have been operating in Alaska for some time now and are producing less and less over the last few decades:

Although Alaska's production declined from 2 million barrels per day (bbl/d) in 1988 to 864,000 bbl/d in 2005

tonto.eia.doe.gov...

California has already got the oil corporations riddling much of its coasts and inland parts:
tonto.eia.doe.gov...
I wont even start with Texas, thats been drill ridden for longer than the other states.

I suppose maybe your "sources" also told you about the Bakken formation out in the Dakota's and Montana? Its BS. While there are confirmed recoverable oil sources there, the amount is petty compared to the amount this country needs to consumer a day:
www.usgs.gov...

Theres estimated to be up to 4.3 billion barrels hidden there. To fill this nations current need and independence it will only last a year.

I do not deny there is probably untouched areas with hidden fossil fuels but this assumption we should just dump and drill everywhere to get every single drop to supposedly solve our energy crises is naive.

Taking aside the population growth and ever increasing energy needs, you are arguing we would be able to cut off our dependence long term if we just drill in more places. Your essentially arguing to more than double our production in states that have for much of its time been drilled for the last century. Of course the oil corporations would want every single drop before it all ends, so they'll paint a rosy picture to get your support.

I mean what sources gave you this idea again?

reply to post by Eurisko2012

I heard Obama won't really build high speed trains either.
The environmentalists will throw up so many roadblocks that
nothing will get built. That way the bankrupt states can
accidentally spend the money on other things. - State Pension Plans -

Environmental groups love the idea of public transportation. High speed trains are a environmental solution. There is no way they would block something that they want.

Besides the fact that high speed rail lines are set to go down the medians of existing highways.

Really man, unplug from the GOP propaganda machine and look for yourself. It's ok to think for yourself, it really is, I swear it's not painful.

First off Palin the next president ?....yeah that will happen.. Secondly, whatever Obama does...the right will always find a reason to b**ch and moan..so would the left if a Republican was a presiden, so basically everything said in the end does not matter...just another reason for whatever side to cry about the other's agenda. Why is anyone even replying to the OP..it is obvious he/she doesn't really care...seems to be just looking to get all your panties in a buinch... He/She cannot discuss anything intelligently...just comes back with replies meant to get you mad. You don't like this fools posts...ummm...try not to reply...he/she wins when you reply.

I mean come on..one of his/hers replies to another was .."your just jealous that this thread is going on...." if that is not the sign of a troll I don't know what is

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS

[edit on 11-2-2010 by kerazeesicko]

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
No . I'm just for drilling offshore so if a nuclear bomb goes off in
Saudi Arabia we can have other sources of oil already to go.
Does that make sense?
I don't like getting oil from the middle east.
That lunatic in Iran is a loose cannon.

Hey Sherlock, here is a little chart for you to study. According to the most recent data (Nov. '09) the US imported more oil from Non OPEC nations. ( So much for Saudi nuke fear.) We actually imported more from Nigeria than SA that month.

tonto.eia.doe.gov...

Got any facts? Regardless, it is debatable that the oil of which you speak could supplement our thirst for foreign oil. You seem to shun any reasonable alternatives like ANNED's suggestion.

Your obstancy is like a booger that won't flick.


[edit on 11-2-2010 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

I heard Obama won't really build high speed trains either.
The environmentalists will throw up so many roadblocks that
nothing will get built. That way the bankrupt states can
accidentally spend the money on other things. - State Pension Plans -

Environmental groups love the idea of public transportation. High speed trains are a environmental solution. There is no way they would block something that they want.

Besides the fact that high speed rail lines are set to go down the medians of existing highways.

Really man, unplug from the GOP propaganda machine and look for yourself. It's ok to think for yourself, it really is, I swear it's not painful.

Here you go.
Scroll down to the video. -High Speed Rail Debate Heats Up-
Keep an open mind while watching the video.
America 2050

Originally posted by whatudontkno
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

I heard Obama won't really build high speed trains either.
The environmentalists will throw up so many roadblocks that
nothing will get built. That way the bankrupt states can
accidentally spend the money on other things. - State Pension Plans -

Environmental groups love the idea of public transportation. High speed trains are a environmental solution. There is no way they would block something that they want.

Oh, the enviro-nazis will say they're for them all right.

Right up until they find some frog or salamander that lives near the right of way.

I've been chairman of a couple different city planning commissions, so I've seen it over and over. They show up at the meetings in tears and lament the coming "riparian holocaust". Wait! Do any of you libs here even know what "riparian" means?

Originally posted by kinda dubious

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
No . I'm just for drilling offshore so if a nuclear bomb goes off in
Saudi Arabia we can have other sources of oil already to go.
Does that make sense?
I don't like getting oil from the middle east.
That lunatic in Iran is a loose cannon.

Hey Sherlock, here is a little chart for you to study. According to the most recent data (Nov. '09) the US imported more oil from Non OPEC nations. ( So much for Saudi nuke fear.) We actually imported more from Nigeria than SA that month.

tonto.eia.doe.gov...

Got any facts? Regardless, it is debatable that the oil of which you speak could supplement our thirst for foreign oil. You seem to shun any reasonable alternatives like ANNED's suggestion.

Your obstancy is like a booger that won't flick.


[edit on 11-2-2010 by kinda dubious]

Hey, Watson.

Know what the word "tonto" means in spanish?

Tranlation: foolish.

Foolish, as is foolish to believe the BS on this website.

Originally posted by centurion1211
Wait! Do any of you libs here even know what "riparian" means?

I'll venture to guess it is a slimy lower life form.

One of your cousins perhaps?


[edit on 11-2-2010 by kinda kurious]