quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:
quote:
Originally posted by Stuck-In-Traffic:
quote:
Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:
quote:
Originally posted by mad American:
And while we are talking about the current prices. Why the hell hasn't the present genius in the white house said that we should drill and refine our own oil? Because he is STUPID!
We do.
Not to our actual capacity, dumb ass.
What is our actual capacity, and why haven't new and better refineries been built by your precious oil companies?
Because less supply keeps prices up. We should work to scale back our demand, not increase our capacity.
It would appear that some of the very people who align themselves with the teabaggers wanting smaller government , are the same ones wanting the government to "force" oil companies into drilling or refining more.
The myth that there is some environmentalist stopping the "drilling" is just for idiots.
Very little drilling places are off the table at this point from the federal level.
The problem is that most of the cheap easy to get at oil is pretty much tapped out. Maybe still plenty in the ground, but you can only pump so much per day.
The oil left to get by drilling is mostly in deep water and is very expensive to get at, and to get out once tapped.
Cheap oil and cheap gasoline are a thing of the past.
There are some things left that the feds can do, like bring our "wars" to an end that would free up a lot of capacity that is being diverted to supply the "war" effort, but I am not sure there is much else that is in the hands of the federal government.
There is a lot of talk here about Alaska, and actually the truth is no one really knows how much oil there really is in the federally protected area, just a bunch of guessing. However, drilling is just the beginning, getting it out would be quite a challenge, and if you think for one minute that it would make any difference at the pump, you are just plain nuts.
Oil is sold on the world market. If it is less expensive to ship it to Asia, then , just like it was with the Alaska pipe line, that's where it will go.
Instead of whining, we should be attempting to get off of oil (gasoline) as soon as possible.
Problem is , that just dosen't fit the narrative of the oil companies and senators who get a lot of money from the oil companies. What they want is what is best for them, not what is best for our country.
Not, force the oil companies to drill, but force the government to end impediments to drilling.
No myth, and no idiots. Drilling off the near and far west coast is not allowed because of environmentalists working at the state level. Same for the eastern Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida.
Drilling off Cuba is proceeding, but not off the Florida coast. Because Ken Salazar continued to oppose drilling, despite a court order, Interior will have to pay millions to the reimburse the oil companies for their legal expenses. If a later administration finds Salazar acted illegally, he could be charged with reimbursing the government.
Drilling off the Alaskan coast isn't allowed, nor ANWR or the North Slope.
California stopped drilling within the state.
Now, as to Alaskan oil shipped to Japan, very little was ever shipped. None is now. About 7 percent of the oil from 1996 to 2000 was shipped to Asia.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/alaskaoil.aspThis is the fourth time I posted this fact, at least twice to you in previous guises.
I thought you were FOR states rights !
Perhaps the people of Alaska, Florida, California, and the Eastern Seaboard don't want their seafood industries put at risk- as a lover of seafood, I am with them on this. Just look at the havoc placed on the La Gulf Coast this last summer.
Our current government is doing the right thing supporting via tax breaks, the high-mileage car industry, and should continue those programs regardless of the big oil-backed Republicans. The current admin is also doing the right thing promoting high speed rail service. Rail is a much less energy intensive way to move people than airplanes or cars. Everybody in the world knows this and we are way behind .
For a solid future , we MUST invest in this type of infrastructure - teabaggers be dammed.
Just think where we may be on this issue if Reagan had continued and not dismantled Carter's start to energy independence.
More oil--- hell, we were once told that once the Alaska pipeline was completed, that would pretty much solve our foreign dependence on oil.
Yea, good job that did after we went back to gas-guzzling cars with the rise of the ego-promoting SUV truck.
First, the state of Alaska and its citizens are in favor of drilling, it’s the federal government that’s stopping it. The citizens of the other states weren’t asked. In those cases, especially California, its cabal of environmental lobbyists and left wingers.
The problem in the Gulf was an exception, not the rule. Drilling in the North Sea has existed for decades with little problem. Didn’t help that the industry and the government agency responsible for regulating them were in bed with each other (literally).
Except, for s short portion of the TGV line in France, same for the bullet train in Japan, and the northeastern portion of Amtrack, every passenger train is a money loser. IAW, taxpayer subsidized.
As for unintended consequences, from the Economist:
http://www.economist.com/node/16636101“America’s system of rail freight is the world’s best. High-speed passenger trains could ruin it.
But the problem with America’s plans for high-speed rail is not their modesty. It is that even this limited ambition risks messing up the successful freight railways. Their owners worry that the plans will demand expensive train-control technology that freight traffic could do without. They fear a reduction in the capacity available to freight. Most of all they fret that the spending of federal money on upgrading their tracks will lead the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the industry watchdog, to impose tough conditions on them and, in effect, to reintroduce regulation of their operations. Attempts at re-regulation have been made in Congress in recent years, in response to rising freight rates. “The freight railroads feel they are under attack,” says Don Phillips, a rail expert in Virginia.
America’s railways are the mirror image of Europe’s. Europe has an impressive and growing network of high-speed passenger links, many of them international, like the Thalys service between Paris and Brussels or the Eurostar connecting London to the French and Belgian capitals. These are successful—although once the (off-balance-sheet) costs of building the tracks are counted, they need subsidies of billions of dollars a
year. But, outside Germany and Switzerland, Europe’s freight rail services are a fragmented, lossmaking mess. Repeated attempts to remove the technical and bureaucratic hurdles at national frontiers have come to nothing.”
And, the National Review:
http://www.nationalreview.com/...e-lou-dolinar?page=1“Evidently, the administration thought it could build medium-to-high-speed rail on the cheap in most of the U.S. by making Amtrak trains run more frequently, increasing their speed to 110 miles per hour, and sponging off the freight system. Here’s the problem: The more passenger trains on a given rail corridor, the fewer freight trains, and the administration envisions massive numbers of new trains. Since passenger trains have to meet schedules, they take priority. The faster a passenger train travels, the more freight it displaces. According to The Economist, “One Amtrak passenger train at 110 MPH will remove the capacity to run six freight trains (which travel 50 MPH) in any corridor.” And in many areas, freight rail is already at capacity, and will require more investment to keep up with expected growth.”
