Obama's first failed appointment - Page 11

TheMercenary · 02-05-2009, 08:33 PM

Yea, well you could support ways to get us off the oil and gas teet of other countries or you could look in our own back yard to find a way to say "screw you" to those countries that depend on our dependence.

02-05-2009, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Yea, well you could support ways to get us off the oil and gas teet of other countries or you could look in our own back yard to find a way to say "screw you" to those countries that depend on our dependence.

Why do you think new oil and gas development leases, particularly around national parks, are necessary when nearly 70 million acres of federal land (on and off shore) have already been leased to oil companies and are open to drilling but sit idle?

Those 70 million acres already leased have the potential to produce millions barrels of oil and billions of cubic feet of natural gas per day. Wouldnt it make sense to explore those leases first?

I suspect the new leases were primarily to provide more tax write-offs for oil companies and oil investors.

The mantra of "drill baby drill" is not my idea of a sound or comprehensive energy policy. But hell, if you feel a need to drill, start with those 70 million acres already leased.

TheMercenary · 02-05-2009, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux

Why do you think new oil and gas development leases, particularly around national parks, are necessary when nearly 70 million acres of federal land (on and off shore) have already been leased to oil companies and are open to drilling but sit idle?

Cite.

Quote:

Those 70 million acres already leased have the potential to produce millions barrels of oil and billions of cubic feet of natural gas per day. Wouldnt it make sense to explore those leases first?

I would agree, citation needed please.

Quote:

I suspect the new leases were primarily to provide more tax write-offs for oil companies and oil investors.

I would tend to agree, but if you are going to accuse someone of wrong doing please provide evidence. Thanks.

Quote:

The mantra of "drill baby drill" is not my idea of a sound or comprehensive energy policy. But hell, if you feel a need to drill, start with those 70 million acres already leased.

I personally have no problem with it if it gets us off the teet of any country outside our borders. If I had my way we all be going solar, wind, and water to solve our energy dependence.

sugarpop · 02-06-2009, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Yea, well you could support ways to get us off the oil and gas teet of other countries or you could look in our own back yard to find a way to say "screw you" to those countries that depend on our dependence.

So we should mine and drill near our public lands and parks? yea, cause what I really want to see when I go to the Grand Canyon is fucking oil wells. Don't be such a tool Merc.

TheMercenary · 02-06-2009, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop

So we should mine and drill near our public lands and parks? yea, cause what I really want to see when I go to the Grand Canyon is fucking oil wells. Don't be such a tool Merc.

It is not about being a tool, it is about energy independence from other countries.

TGRR · 02-06-2009, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

It is not about being a tool, it is about energy independence from other countries.

Blarg. Drill & cap. Keep buying their shit. When they run out, uncap the wells, use the oil, and watch the Saudis try to eat sand.

If they're dumb enough to trade oil for fiat currency, screw 'em.

sugarpop · 02-07-2009, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

It is not about being a tool, it is about energy independence from other countries.

Then we should be developing alternatives, not doing the same old, same old. Besides ruining some of our most pristine/protected lands (that are for everyone to enjoy btw), it literally takes YEARS to open new drill sites/wells. We wouldn't be seeing any of that oil anytime soon.

If we simply must continue to use a combustion engine (which I would much rather go to electric cars, or cars run on compressed air), we should develop biofuel made from algae. We could develop it a LOT faster, it doesn't require a whole lot of space to do it, it could provide virtually all of our energy needs, and all kinds of different fuels can be made from it. It's clean. Producing it doesn't create all the pollution that comes from drilling. etc. etc. etc.

TheMercenary · 02-08-2009, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Then we should be developing alternatives, not doing the same old, same old. Besides ruining some of our most pristine/protected lands (that are for everyone to enjoy btw), it literally takes YEARS to open new drill sites/wells. We wouldn't be seeing any of that oil anytime soon.

If we simply must continue to use a combustion engine (which I would much rather go to electric cars, or cars run on compressed air), we should develop biofuel made from algae. We could develop it a LOT faster, it doesn't require a whole lot of space to do it, it could provide virtually all of our energy needs, and all kinds of different fuels can be made from it. It's clean. Producing it doesn't create all the pollution that comes from drilling. etc. etc. etc.

We have no choice but to do both. This country will still take 25 - 50 years to get off the use of fosil fuels, even it wanted to make a concerted effort to do so.

classicman · 02-05-2009, 08:43 PM

Or we could do both - one short term and the other long term. Seems like the intelligent solution.

TheMercenary · 02-05-2009, 08:52 PM

I think I understand the motivation of the act on 2 parts by Bush. On one hand he had to make it look like he was doing something desperate to move us towards energy independence after more than 6 years of pandering to the Oil/Gas companies and on the other hand he was throwing them a bone. Either way it could have been to our benefit. And to Obama's credit at least he sugar coated it by saying that it was only delayed for further environmental review. That approach prevents anyone from saying he is against energy independence, which I don't believe he is. I think it more about his staffers looking for various ways to stick a finger in the eye of Bush. Hey that sounds just like most people.

02-05-2009, 11:31 PM

Cite, cite, cite - the Merc Mantra!!!

Much if it can be explained in legislation the Democrats introduced last year to require existing leases to be explored or face losing them and/or before issuing new leases.

The current lease and potential production numbers are in there (68 million acres already leased and sitting idle.) I used ballpark figures.

Rahall to Big Oil: Use It or Lose It

In an effort to compel oil and gas companies to produce on the 68 million acres of federal lands, both onshore and offshore, that are leased but sitting idle, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall (D-WV) today introduced legislation that gives Big Oil one option - either "use it or lose it."

Damn right...Use it or Lose it! (and lose the tax writes offs that come just by holding those leases) and stay away from national parks while other options (existing leases) are available.

The Republicans in the House defeated the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act ...

To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from issuing new Federal oil and gas leases to holders of existing leases who do not diligently develop the lands subject to such existing leases or relinquish such leases, and for other purposes.

...last June, just in time to make "drill baby drill" a campaign slogan. (BTW, the manner in which the Republicans, the minority party, defeated it, was because of Pelosi's loose House rules at the time....something her Republican predecessor would not have allowed with their old rules. She learned her lesson and the new rules this year, while much stricter, are still no where close to the restrictive Republican rules from 01-07.)

I expect the bill, or something like it, will be introduced again later this year as part of a broader Obama energy package that will include some drilling (on existing leases) and a much greater focus on both alternatives AND reducing demand (conserve, baby, conserve!)

TheMercenary · 02-06-2009, 12:27 AM

Don't get all huffy. As I stated I would rather depend on us rather than "them" for energy resources. You make a number of claims. I just asked you to back them up.

02-06-2009, 12:32 AM

No huff and puff here.

Your responses are already very predictable to me in a matter of two days.

I'll let you know when I get bored or huffy.

TheMercenary · 02-06-2009, 12:35 AM

Ok. Go away when you are tired of defending the indefensable Demoncratic Congress. I will be here when you want to spar.

Respectfully, The Merc.

Happy Monkey · 02-09-2009, 11:10 AM

The vast majority of cars on the road will be "turned in" much sooner than 25-50 years, without any government intervention.

02-05-2009, 08:33 PM	#1
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	Yea, well you could support ways to get us off the oil and gas teet of other countries or you could look in our own back yard to find a way to say "screw you" to those countries that depend on our dependence. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

02-05-2009, 08:43 PM	#9
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	Or we could do both - one short term and the other long term. Seems like the intelligent solution. __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

02-05-2009, 08:52 PM	#10
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	I think I understand the motivation of the act on 2 parts by Bush. On one hand he had to make it look like he was doing something desperate to move us towards energy independence after more than 6 years of pandering to the Oil/Gas companies and on the other hand he was throwing them a bone. Either way it could have been to our benefit. And to Obama's credit at least he sugar coated it by saying that it was only delayed for further environmental review. That approach prevents anyone from saying he is against energy independence, which I don't believe he is. I think it more about his staffers looking for various ways to stick a finger in the eye of Bush. Hey that sounds just like most people. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

02-05-2009, 11:31 PM	#11
Redux Guest Posts: n/a	Cite, cite, cite - the Merc Mantra!!! Much if it can be explained in legislation the Democrats introduced last year to require existing leases to be explored or face losing them and/or before issuing new leases. The current lease and potential production numbers are in there (68 million acres already leased and sitting idle.) I used ballpark figures. Rahall to Big Oil: Use It or Lose It In an effort to compel oil and gas companies to produce on the 68 million acres of federal lands, both onshore and offshore, that are leased but sitting idle, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall (D-WV) today introduced legislation that gives Big Oil one option - either "use it or lose it." Damn right...Use it or Lose it! (and lose the tax writes offs that come just by holding those leases) and stay away from national parks while other options (existing leases) are available. The Republicans in the House defeated the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act ... To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from issuing new Federal oil and gas leases to holders of existing leases who do not diligently develop the lands subject to such existing leases or relinquish such leases, and for other purposes. ...last June, just in time to make "drill baby drill" a campaign slogan. (BTW, the manner in which the Republicans, the minority party, defeated it, was because of Pelosi's loose House rules at the time....something her Republican predecessor would not have allowed with their old rules. She learned her lesson and the new rules this year, while much stricter, are still no where close to the restrictive Republican rules from 01-07.) I expect the bill, or something like it, will be introduced again later this year as part of a broader Obama energy package that will include some drilling (on existing leases) and a much greater focus on both alternatives AND reducing demand (conserve, baby, conserve!) Last edited by Redux; 02-06-2009 at 12:15 AM.

02-06-2009, 12:27 AM	#12
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	Don't get all huffy. As I stated I would rather depend on us rather than "them" for energy resources. You make a number of claims. I just asked you to back them up. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

02-06-2009, 12:32 AM	#13
Redux Guest Posts: n/a	No huff and puff here. Your responses are already very predictable to me in a matter of two days. I'll let you know when I get bored or huffy.

02-06-2009, 12:35 AM	#14
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	Ok. Go away when you are tired of defending the indefensable Demoncratic Congress. I will be here when you want to spar. Respectfully, The Merc. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

02-09-2009, 11:10 AM	#15
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	The vast majority of cars on the road will be "turned in" much sooner than 25-50 years, without any government intervention. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)