Skip to main content

42 replies

Support the right to drill...

teyatesteyatesOld Faithful
There is a Republican led movement afoot in Congress to allow drilling offshore for the new oil and gas fields. If you want to see any relief in the future from the escalating prices at the pump, you need to support this measure, irregardless of which party is supporting it.

Call or write your senators and representatives now and get them on board this plan.

Hillary in 2016?  Why not?  We've already had one "girly man" serving in office for the past 7 years, we might as well give her chance as well!

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

LMMLMMOld Faithful
The dems are against it because it won't help now, but that is why we are in this mess. If both parties would look down the road 20-30 years, we would have new refineries up and running right now.If we don't plan for the future, there won't be one.
We have to drill our own resources if we ever want to be able to independent from the OPEC fools.
Howard RoarkHoward RoarkOld Faithful
I've signed the drillnow.com petition. Writing Ms. Norton, my DC rep, is barely worth the effort.

Congress needs to pass a bill auctioning off "shall build" permits for about three refineries. If they aren't built within in the specified time, the owner loses the permit and its auctioned again. That will keep anyone from stopping the cosntruction. Also, congress should state the refineries are to be exempt for all but EPA standards and authority. That will ensure their environmental standards are met, but exempt them refineries from legal action in any court during the construction phrase. Congress sets the venue of the courts.
B beternUOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
I've signed the drillnow.com petition. Writing Ms. Norton, my DC rep, is barely worth the effort.

Congress needs to pass a bill auctioning off "shall build" permits for about three refineries. If they aren't built within in the specified time, the owner loses the permit and its auctioned again. That will keep anyone from stopping the cosntruction. Also, congress should state the refineries are to be exempt for all but EPA standards and authority. That will ensure their environmental standards are met, but exempt them refineries from legal action in any court during the construction phrase. Congress sets the venue of the courts.


Then, one would suppose, it would be O.K. with you for a new refinery to be sited in the middle of the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, the wintering grounds for the whooping crane. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water, HR.
teyatesteyatesOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:

Then, one would suppose, it would be O.K. with you for a new refinery to be sited in the middle of the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, the wintering grounds for the whooping crane. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water, HR.


Absolutely, built it there. The whooping cranes will adapt, just as the moose and caribou have done around the Alaska Pipeline that was going to kill them off. Humans take precedence over whopping cranes, but there is no reason why a compromise cannot be met with both parties. The problem is that the Environmentalist are not willing to give one iota, while the rest of us have to come up with solutions to appease them.
Besides if whooping cranes tasted as good as chicken, they would already be endangered... Wink
Howard RoarkHoward RoarkOld Faithful
beternwhatever,

Either, you didn't fully read my posting, didn't understand it, or did and decided to post blathering, anyway.

Did you see the part about EPA standards? The EPA is quite strict on such. An environmental study would still be necessary and the plant would have to meet all required standards. However, eviros would not be allowed to use the court system for indeterminable delays. A similar bill was used for the Alaskan pipeline.

So which is it, inattentiveness to detail, ignorance, or demagoguery?

There are drugs for the first and education for the second! But, only pity for the third!
F FoshaBenHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
I've signed the drillnow.com petition. Writing Ms. Norton, my DC rep, is barely worth the effort.

Congress needs to pass a bill auctioning off "shall build" permits for about three refineries. If they aren't built within in the specified time, the owner loses the permit and its auctioned again. That will keep anyone from stopping the cosntruction. Also, congress should state the refineries are to be exempt for all but EPA standards and authority. That will ensure their environmental standards are met, but exempt them refineries from legal action in any court during the construction phrase. Congress sets the venue of the courts.


Then, one would suppose, it would be O.K. with you for a new refinery to be sited in the middle of the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, the wintering grounds for the whooping crane. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water, HR.


So what do we do? Do we continue to endure increasing energy costs just for the whooping crane? I think environmental conservation is just as important as the next guy, but we've got to do something. Its really getting out of hand. I think we've listened to the extreme environmentalists too much for too long. We have to face the fact that for the time being, we are married to oil for our survival. If we continue down the path we are on now, our economy will be such a waste that no one will be able to travel to work because of the price of gas. So which is more important? The economic stability of a nation on which much of the world depends for its livelihood, or the natural habitat of the endangered buck-toothed african gopher? When is it too much?

So the real question is...Will you be willing to sacrifice your personal comforts and access to basic necessities for the well-being of the whooping crane? I think that if it really came down to it, and there is no food at your grocery store because it costs too much to ship it to you, you're gonna want to fry that sucker up and eat him with beans and cornbread.
Sassy KimsSassy KimsOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
I've signed the drillnow.com petition. Writing Ms. Norton, my DC rep, is barely worth the effort.

Congress needs to pass a bill auctioning off "shall build" permits for about three refineries. If they aren't built within in the specified time, the owner loses the permit and its auctioned again. That will keep anyone from stopping the cosntruction. Also, congress should state the refineries are to be exempt for all but EPA standards and authority. That will ensure their environmental standards are met, but exempt them refineries from legal action in any court during the construction phrase. Congress sets the venue of the courts.


Then, one would suppose, it would be O.K. with you for a new refinery to be sited in the middle of the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, the wintering grounds for the whooping crane. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water, HR.


Absolutely O.K. The cranes will adapt. Get started building NOW.
B beternUOld Faithful
Ignorance is absolutely RAMPANT in this discussion. Those who assert that whooping cranes would adapt know absolutely nothing aout migratory activity of this species. They are nothing like caribou, which never have been endangered and which are distributed over thousands of square miles. To blithely suggest that they would adapt to the destruction of their very limited wintering habitat if it were converted to a refinery is asinine, scientifically indefensible and nothing short of anti-environmental knee-jerk blithering.

In all the discussion of offshore drilling, nothing on this string has touched upon the constant involvement of REPUBLICANS, including both Bush presidents and Republican Senator Mel Martinez, as well as formerRepublican Governor Jeb Bush, in impeding drilling off the Florida coast; Consider the information below and then get yourselves straight on just WHO is involved in all this:

"Florida's Annual Legislative Offshore Drilling Moratorium, Protection Renewed Each Year:

The Southwest coast of Florida, South of 26 degrees North Latitude, has long been protected by an annual "rider", or Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Moratorium, that must be renewed yearly or it will expire on October 1 of any given year.

The President's new White House budget, released in January of 2005, includes a proposal to continue this protection through fiscal year 2006 (until October 1, 2006) although the Interior Appropriations bill, on which this rider must pass, has not yet been initiated in the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations of the House Appropriations Committee. The same annual congressional OCS Moratorium that protects Florida's Southwest coastline also precludes new offshore oil and gas leasing along the U.S. West Coast and the entire Eastern Seaboard on a year-by-year basis.

Florida's Presidential Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Leasing Deferrals until 2012:

During 1990, a yearlong study by the National Research Council (NRC) of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences found that insufficient scientific data existed to enable offshore drilling to proceed within the annual congressional OCS Moratorium areas while ensuring that the environment would be protected. Having commissioned this scientific study by the NRC, former President George Bush, Sr., became known as the "Environmental President" in 1991 when he issued his Executive OCS Deferrals, declaring that the existing Moratorium waters, with the exception of Bristol Bay in Alaska, would not be offered for new offshore oil and gas leasing until at least 2002.

During 1998, at a "Year of the Ocean" ceremony in Monterey, California, then-President Bill Clinton extended the duration of these same Executive OCS Deferrals until 2012. The current President George Bush, for the past four years, has repeatedly restated his support for both the annual legislative OCS Moratorium, and for sustaining the Executive OCS Deferrals until 2012. Immediately prior to the U.S. Senate debate on opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling, Interior Secretary Gale Norton once again restated the continuing support of the Administration for the legislative OCS Moratorium and the Executive OCS Deferrals in her March 16, 2005 letter to Senator Mel Martinez of Florida, although this letter does not contain any new assurances of any additional protection for Florida's coastline beyond what had already existed beforehand.

The Jeb Bush/George Bush "Compromise" Agreement of 2002, Deferring Offshore Drilling off of the Florida Panhandle for Ten Years (until 2012):

During May of 2002, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and his brother President George Bush reached a highly-publicized $235 million OCS agreement that was to lead to the buyback of 9 of a total of 11 leased-but-undeveloped offshore natural gas tracts along the Florida Panhandle, as well as result in the buyback and cancellation of certain onshore oil and gas leases in Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida Panther NWR, and Ten Thousand Islands NWR. Existing petroleum industry offshore leases on two of the most highly prospective natural gas tracts on Destin Dome, off of Pensacola, Florida, were not actually "relinquished"- or bought back by the federal government - at this time, although the State of Florida was assured by the Interior Department that it would have near-veto authority over any subsequent federal decision to develop and drill on these OCS tracts, which in any event would not occur for at least ten years from the date of the agreement (until 2012).

No New Protections in Interior Secretary Gale Norton's March 16 Letter to Senator Mel Martinez:

Because of the existing 1991 Executive OCS Deferrals put in place by President Bush, Sr., and the subsequent 2002 Jeb Bush/George Bush "Compromise" Agreement, both already in force, no offshore lease tracts within 100-miles of the Florida coastline have been included in the current Department of Interior Five-Year OCS Leasing Program for the period from 2002 to 2007. And no offshore oil and gas lease tracts within 100 miles of the Florida coastline could be put into the new Department of Interior Five-Year OCS Leasing Program now being planned for the period from 2007 through 2012. The March 16, 2005 letter from Interior Secretary Gale Norton to Senator Mel Martinez simply restates this pre-existing fact, adding no new protection to any area, nor adding any additional years of protection to that which was already in place for Florida's coast.

Perhaps Senator Mel Martinez said it best: "Look, it's give an inch and take a mile with these folks….. at this point, nothing Floridians offer in exchange for permanent control over our own waters will ever be enough for the pro-drilling interests. They will always want more. That's why we need to stand firm in maintaining all current protections off Florida's coast."

Are all these Republicans a bunch of environmental obstructionist tree-huggers?

Here is he link to the full item: http://www.sierraclub.org/wildlands/coasts/ocs/florida.asp

As additional information, I do NOT oppose offshore drilling in Florida and California waters. The oil and gas industry has demonstrated their capability to drill responsibly in those kinds of waters.
B beternUOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by littlemeanmama:
The dems are against it because it won't help now, but that is why we are in this mess. If both parties would look down the road 20-30 years, we would have new refineries up and running right now.If we don't plan for the future, there won't be one.
We have to drill our own resources if we ever want to be able to independent from the OPEC fools.


See my post above about the extensive involvement of REPUBLICANS in impeding offshore drilling. Get off your knee-jerk branding of "dems." As to the OPEC "fools," well, those "fools" seem to have the upper hand right now. Are we being astutely manipulated and bled dry by "fools?"
S SeaweedPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
There are plenty of sites available! Has anyone looked at our coast line or the massive amount of land in the west for oil tar sand refineries. We have more oil tar sand than the Canadians and we aren't touching ours.


There is a lot of oil tar shale out west,( don't know about oil tar sands) , but so far the technology to extract it at a viable cost is prohibitive. In addition, the current technology to extract the oil from the oil tar sands of Canada takes a LOT of water. Not too bad up in Canada, but water is in very short supply in the American West.
teyatesteyatesOld Faithful
Autum,
Oh no you didn't...you absolutely cannot post any link utilizing FoxNews, it is a no-no with these guys. You must instead verify every tidbit with some form of Socialistic strainer which will sanitize it for their benefit.
What the whooping crane lover fails to state in his/her argument is that the morotorium for drilling has been in place since 1981. There has been pending lawsuits and legal battles over protecting species such as the whooping crane, which in all likelihood must be the dumbest bird around if it cannot adapt to a new breeding site, since all other species, including the endangered ones, have managed to do so, usually without help from the ICare4Critters entourage.
They had rather see this entire government go belly up, with people living in mud huts and eating out of clay bowls with their hands, than to see any form of technical progression on our part.
S SeaweedPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
Ignorance is absolutely RAMPANT in this discussion. Those who assert that whooping cranes would adapt know absolutely nothing aout migratory activity of this species. They are nothing like caribou, which never have been endangered and which are distributed over thousands of square miles. To blithely suggest that they would adapt to the destruction of their very limited wintering habitat if it were converted to a refinery is asinine, scientifically indefensible and nothing short of anti-environmental knee-jerk blithering.

In all the discussion of offshore drilling, nothing on this string has touched upon the constant involvement of REPUBLICANS, including both Bush presidents and Republican Senator Mel Martinez, as well as formerRepublican Governor Jeb Bush, in impeding drilling off the Florida coast; Consider the information below and then get yourselves straight on just WHO is involved in all this:

"Florida's Annual Legislative Offshore Drilling Moratorium, Protection Renewed Each Year:

The Southwest coast of Florida, South of 26 degrees North Latitude, has long been protected by an annual "rider", or Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Moratorium, that must be renewed yearly or it will expire on October 1 of any given year.

The President's new White House budget, released in January of 2005, includes a proposal to continue this protection through fiscal year 2006 (until October 1, 2006) although the Interior Appropriations bill, on which this rider must pass, has not yet been initiated in the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations of the House Appropriations Committee. The same annual congressional OCS Moratorium that protects Florida's Southwest coastline also precludes new offshore oil and gas leasing along the U.S. West Coast and the entire Eastern Seaboard on a year-by-year basis.

Florida's Presidential Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Leasing Deferrals until 2012:

During 1990, a yearlong study by the National Research Council (NRC) of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences found that insufficient scientific data existed to enable offshore drilling to proceed within the annual congressional OCS Moratorium areas while ensuring that the environment would be protected. Having commissioned this scientific study by the NRC, former President George Bush, Sr., became known as the "Environmental President" in 1991 when he issued his Executive OCS Deferrals, declaring that the existing Moratorium waters, with the exception of Bristol Bay in Alaska, would not be offered for new offshore oil and gas leasing until at least 2002.

During 1998, at a "Year of the Ocean" ceremony in Monterey, California, then-President Bill Clinton extended the duration of these same Executive OCS Deferrals until 2012. The current President George Bush, for the past four years, has repeatedly restated his support for both the annual legislative OCS Moratorium, and for sustaining the Executive OCS Deferrals until 2012. Immediately prior to the U.S. Senate debate on opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling, Interior Secretary Gale Norton once again restated the continuing support of the Administration for the legislative OCS Moratorium and the Executive OCS Deferrals in her March 16, 2005 letter to Senator Mel Martinez of Florida, although this letter does not contain any new assurances of any additional protection for Florida's coastline beyond what had already existed beforehand.

The Jeb Bush/George Bush "Compromise" Agreement of 2002, Deferring Offshore Drilling off of the Florida Panhandle for Ten Years (until 2012):

During May of 2002, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and his brother President George Bush reached a highly-publicized $235 million OCS agreement that was to lead to the buyback of 9 of a total of 11 leased-but-undeveloped offshore natural gas tracts along the Florida Panhandle, as well as result in the buyback and cancellation of certain onshore oil and gas leases in Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida Panther NWR, and Ten Thousand Islands NWR. Existing petroleum industry offshore leases on two of the most highly prospective natural gas tracts on Destin Dome, off of Pensacola, Florida, were not actually "relinquished"- or bought back by the federal government - at this time, although the State of Florida was assured by the Interior Department that it would have near-veto authority over any subsequent federal decision to develop and drill on these OCS tracts, which in any event would not occur for at least ten years from the date of the agreement (until 2012).

No New Protections in Interior Secretary Gale Norton's March 16 Letter to Senator Mel Martinez:

Because of the existing 1991 Executive OCS Deferrals put in place by President Bush, Sr., and the subsequent 2002 Jeb Bush/George Bush "Compromise" Agreement, both already in force, no offshore lease tracts within 100-miles of the Florida coastline have been included in the current Department of Interior Five-Year OCS Leasing Program for the period from 2002 to 2007. And no offshore oil and gas lease tracts within 100 miles of the Florida coastline could be put into the new Department of Interior Five-Year OCS Leasing Program now being planned for the period from 2007 through 2012. The March 16, 2005 letter from Interior Secretary Gale Norton to Senator Mel Martinez simply restates this pre-existing fact, adding no new protection to any area, nor adding any additional years of protection to that which was already in place for Florida's coast.

Perhaps Senator Mel Martinez said it best: "Look, it's give an inch and take a mile with these folks….. at this point, nothing Floridians offer in exchange for permanent control over our own waters will ever be enough for the pro-drilling interests. They will always want more. That's why we need to stand firm in maintaining all current protections off Florida's coast."

Are all these Republicans a bunch of environmental obstructionist tree-huggers?

Here is he link to the full item: http://www.sierraclub.org/wildlands/coasts/ocs/florida.asp

As additional information, I do NOT oppose offshore drilling in Florida and California waters. The oil and gas industry has demonstrated their capability to drill responsibly in those kinds of waters.


BeternU is correct. Especially Jeb Bush when he was governor was concerned about the effect on the major industry of Fla. Most beach goers don't really want to swim amongst drilling platforms. One reason , I would suspect, that the area around Ft Morgan, Al has not prospered like much of the rest of the Ala coastline.
At any rate, it is not necessarily Democrats wanting the prevention of drilling in pristine areas.
Some of you seem to have the idea that you can just drill a hole in the ground and oil comes out, and the reason we don't have more holes is the Democrats. That ain't the case. If you think it is, you are at best ignorant.
Another bit of ignorance that appears to be rampant in the general discussion. Do you think if by chance , a great oil field was discovered , say in the Freedom Hills and it produced a million barrels per day, that the cost of that oil would be cheaper than oil coming from Norway ? Lets just say YOU owned the land that oil came off of, and it was YOUR well. Would you sell it at $20 per barrel or would you want to sell it at world market rates ?

Back in the real world, the high cost of gas apparently had only a little affect on demand, so why in the world would the gas companies sell it for any less ?
Howard RoarkHoward RoarkOld Faithful
excelman,

Oil sands may represent as much as two-thirds of the world's total petroleum resource, with at least 1.7 trillion barrels (270×109 m3) in the Canadian Athabasca Oil Sands and perhaps 235 billion barrels (37×109 m3) of extra heavy crude in the Venezuelan Orinoco tar sands [6] Between them, the Canadian and Venezuelan deposits contain about 3.6 trillion barrels (570×109 m3) of oil in place, compared to 1.75 trillion barrels (280×109 m3) of conventional oil worldwide, most of it in Saudi Arabia and other Middle-Eastern countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_sands

In the United States, tar sands resources are primarily concentrated in Eastern Utah. Utah's tar sand resource consists of eight major deposits with a combined shallow oil resource of 32 billion barrels (5.1×109 m3) of oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_sands#USA

As to water shortage, water can be captured in the process, cleaned and recycled, indefinitely.
S SeaweedPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by gracies old man:
excels lame post excerpt:

"Most beach goers don't really want to swim amongst drilling platforms".

------------------------

Most of the rigs are so "offshore" they can't be seen by with binoculars much less the naked eye.

You obviously have not been to Ft Morgan , Al where the platforms are just off-shore. If you can swim worth a damm., you could swim to them.

Gotta get out in the world, there's more to see in the world than the Shoals, as beautiful as it is here.
S SeaweedPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
The Republicans requested a 50 to 200 mile limit. The Chinese are drilling less than 60 miles off Florida, right now.

And that is just wrong, but thankfully it will be on the market at some time. American oil companies will not make the profits on that oil, but maybe Cheney's gift of Iraqi oil will more than make up for it .
Oil is a world commodity. Dosn't really matter who drills for it (unless you have financial interest in oil companies), it will still come on the market one way or another.
NashBamaNashBamaOld Faithful
With a few exceptions, most oil rigs are several miles from the coast. The human eye can only see about a mile and a half from the coast due to the curvature of the Earth.

There are quite a few oil rigs are off the coast of Gulf Shores. The most you'll notice is a few distant grey spots during the day, a few tiny lights in the distance at night.

Democrats prevent us from drilling in ANWR, we can't build refineries, we can't drill off our own coast, and we complain about being dependant on foreign oil and prices going up. It's an easy fix.

Besides, if we're in Iraq for the oil, where is it? With gas close to $4 a gallon, all that oil would come in handy. One would assume the evil oil companies would have it flooding the market, reducing prices, increasing consumption, and taking the heat off of them.

So where is it?
LMMLMMOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by littlemeanmama:
The dems are against it because it won't help now, but that is why we are in this mess. If both parties would look down the road 20-30 years, we would have new refineries up and running right now.If we don't plan for the future, there won't be one.
We have to drill our own resources if we ever want to be able to independent from the OPEC fools.


See my post above about the extensive involvement of REPUBLICANS in impeding offshore drilling. Get off your knee-jerk branding of "dems." As to the OPEC "fools," well, those "fools" seem to have the upper hand right now. Are we being astutely manipulated and bled dry by "fools?"

If you read closely, I said the DEMS object now (to the bill), both parties (DEMS and REP)needed to fix the problem 20-30 years ago. The OPEC 'fools' are playing the whole world. The use of 'fool' was not to intend stupidity.
S SeaweedPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
With a few exceptions, most oil rigs are several miles from the coast. The human eye can only see about a mile and a half from the coast due to the curvature of the Earth.
The curvature of the earth is 8" every mile or 6' every 9 miles. Theortically , a person at the water's edge could see a 100" tall platform at 150 miles, although in reality, the distance makes the size so small, we could not detect it, but you could easily see a platform 20 or 30 miles off-shore. At Gulfport, you can see the trees on Ship Island 20 miles out.

There are quite a few oil rigs are off the coast of Gulf Shores. The most you'll notice is a few distant grey spots during the day, a few tiny lights in the distance at night.
Yep, they are waay out there, but I can see them. Awsomb site when they flare off some gas at night tho.

Democrats prevent us from drilling in ANWR, we can't build refineries, we can't drill off our own coast, and we complain about being dependant on foreign oil and prices going up. It's an easy fix.
Jeb Bush and his idiot brother are the ones who do not want to drill off the Florida coast, Democrats don't even need to object.
Besides, if we're in Iraq for the oil, where is it? With gas close to $4 a gallon, all that oil would come in handy. One would assume the evil oil companies would have it flooding the market, reducing prices, increasing consumption, and taking the heat off of them.
We are in Iraq in order to secure the oil fields for American oil companies. The country is not safe at this time for the oil companies to send in their employees. Why in hell do you think Bush dosn't want to get out ? Iraq is only pumping a little more than they were before the occupation, and at times probably not even that much. We should get out, let the Iraqi people actually decide who they want to have the contracts to sell all that oil, and let them pump it and sell it. Price would come down.

So where is it?

Still in the ground.
NashBamaNashBamaOld Faithful
quote:
Still in the ground.


Not true.

http://www.iraqdirectory.com/DisplayNews.aspx?id=3626

"Iraq produced 1.97 million bpd in March, up from 1.89 million bpd in February, a Reuters survey shows, but Shahristani said last December that 2006 production averaged 2.3 million bpd. "

BPD = Barrels per day. That's a lot of oil being pumped out. If they are pumping out millions of barrels per day, and the only reason why we're in Iraq is for the oil, then where is it all?
Howard RoarkHoward RoarkOld Faithful
"Iraqi and oil company officials are holding talks to boost production in key oil fields, with deals expected next month, Hassan Hafidh reports for Dow Jones Newswires. Shell, BP, ExxonMovil, Chevron, Total, BHP Billiton and Anadarko are in talks which will end May 9, with a final round in June. There are six fields, not five, being looked at for technical support contracts worth $3 billion total, aimed at increasing production by 100,000 barrels per day each in two years, Hafidh reports: Kirkuk (Shell), Rumaila (BP), West Qurna 1 (Chevron/Total), Zubair (Exxon), Missan (Shell/BHP) and Subba/Luhais (Anadarko-led consortium including Vitol and Dome)."
http://www.iraqoilreport.com/2008/05/02/

Its being sold on the world market like most oil.
S SeaweedPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Still in the ground.


Not true.

http://www.iraqdirectory.com/DisplayNews.aspx?id=3626

"Iraq produced 1.97 million bpd in March, up from 1.89 million bpd in February, a Reuters survey shows, but Shahristani said last December that 2006 production averaged 2.3 million bpd. "

BPD = Barrels per day. That's a lot of oil being pumped out. If they are pumping out millions of barrels per day, and the only reason why we're in Iraq is for the oil, then where is it all?


Yep, and if memory serves me right, Iraq was pumping 2.5 to 3 million bbl /day before we invaded. Saddam could have pumped more, but was limited by the restrictions placed upon him by the UN. Had he ever had the sanctions lifted, he could have and would have pumped a lot more.
Howard RoarkHoward RoarkOld Faithful
Theres a new refinery on the way, if the enviros don't kill it.

ELK POINT, S.D. (AP) - Voters in this mostly agricultural corner of the Midwest have approved a proposal to build the first new U.S. oil refinery in more than 30 years.

Union County residents voted 58 percent to 42 percent Tuesday to endorse the rezoning of almost 3,300 acres of pristine farm land north of Elk Point for the oil refinery.

Texas-based Hyperion Resources requested the rezoning for the $10 billion refinery, billed as a potential step toward national energy independence. The proposal has been a contentious issue in the southeast corner of South Dakota, with supporters citing economic development benefits and opponents voicing environmental and quality-of-life concerns.

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerartic...=20080604&id=8715418
NashBamaNashBamaOld Faithful
quote:
Yep, and if memory serves me right, Iraq was pumping 2.5 to 3 million bbl /day before we invaded. Saddam could have pumped more, but was limited by the restrictions placed upon him by the UN. Had he ever had the sanctions lifted, he could have and would have pumped a lot more.


They're back up to their pre-war production levels.

From the BBC.

Iraqi oil exceeds pre-war output

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7144774.stm

"The IEA said Iraqi crude production is now running at 2.3 million barrels per day, compared with 1.9 million barrels at the start of this year."

So we've determined that Iraq's oil is not still in the ground. We've also determined that they are exceeding pre war production levels.

Price of gas was much lower before we went into Iraq 5 years ago. Iraq's oil production has not only back to what it was before the war, but exceeding it. So if we are only there for the oil, where is it?
S SeaweedPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
.


They're back up to their pre-war production levels.

From the BBC.

Iraqi oil exceeds pre-war output

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7144774.stm

"The IEA said Iraqi crude production is now running at 2.3 million barrels per day, compared with 1.9 million barrels at the start of this year."

So we've determined that Iraq's oil is not still in the ground. We've also determined that they are exceeding pre war production levels.

Price of gas was much lower before we went into Iraq 5 years ago. Iraq's oil production has not only back to what it was before the war, but exceeding it. So if we are only there for the oil, where is it?


Like I said, it is still in the ground. The "war" in Iraq was about AMERICAN AND WESTERN OIL COMPANIES GETTING THE CONTRACTS FOR THE OIL IN IRAQ. Saddam had promised the contracts to oil companies from India, Russia and Europe , not the hated Americans. Those companies would have made the profits for that oil once the sanctions were lifted.
Cheney wanted the invasion in order to depose Saddam so that a new regime would award the contracts to American oil companies.
If you don't understand that, you cannot possibally understand why we invaded Iraq, you may still think it was for some 9/11 thing, or some other Bush lie . Bush ginned up the causes and in we went.
It was thought that it would be quick and easy, but the continuing violence has prohibited the exploitation of the vast Iraqi oil fields.
Like you pointed out, they are (finally) back up to pre-invasion levels.
The oil fields need to be exploited- the vast ammount of oil is still in the ground.
S SeaweedPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
I guess you never heard the old saying "don't beat a dead horse", right excelman? Aren't you tired of peddling the same old conspiracy theory about "war for oil" yet? It is really getting old.


It would appear that there are still people who think the invasion and occupation of Iraq was done for some reason other than for the oil.
It is my hope that that ignorance can be fixed, and that is why I repete this truth. If that ignorance cannot be fixed, then it is stupidity and unfortunately, that can't be fixed.
NashBamaNashBamaOld Faithful
quote:
Like I said, it is still in the ground. The "war" in Iraq was about AMERICAN AND WESTERN OIL COMPANIES GETTING THE CONTRACTS FOR THE OIL IN IRAQ. Saddam had promised the contracts to oil companies from India, Russia and Europe , not the hated Americans. Those companies would have made the profits for that oil once the sanctions were lifted.
Cheney wanted the invasion in order to depose Saddam so that a new regime would award the contracts to American oil companies.
If you don't understand that, you cannot possibly understand why we invaded Iraq, you may still think it was for some 9/11 thing, or some other Bush lie . Bush ginned up the causes and in we went.
It was thought that it would be quick and easy, but the continuing violence has prohibited the exploitation of the vast Iraqi oil fields.
Like you pointed out, they are (finally) back up to pre-invasion levels.
The oil fields need to be exploited- the vast amount of oil is still in the ground.


The Iraq war had nothing to do with 9-11, not sure how that got started but the two had nothing to do with each other. Saddam continued to violate the cease fire agreement from after he invaded Kuwait in the early 90's, so the cease fire ended.

Pumping over 2 million bpd of oil isn't really "still in the ground". That's a lot of oil being pumped.

Saddam has been out of power for years and dead for a year and a half. As I proved with the BBC article, Iraq's oil production is back to where it was before the war and on it's way to exceeding that.

So if Iraq was producing 2.5 bpd before the war when gas was around $2, and they are now producing 2.5 - 3 bpd with Saddam dead, why is gas $4 a gallon? If we removed Saddam for the oil contracts and production is increasing, then logically gas should be under $2 and dropping, not rising.

Oil companies could make a bigger profit by increasing consumption. The best way to do that is reduce price. The best way to reduce price is by increasing production. If we are only in Iraq for oil, as their production increases our price would decrease. The opposite is happening.

So where are those contracts you mentioned? When will they take effect? Why isn't the increased oil production in Iraq dropping prices if the only reason we're there is to control the oil?
Next

Add Reply

Post
affilated websites:
Times Daily | Decatur Daily | Courier Journal | The Hartselle Enquirer | Moulton Advertiser | The Redstone Rocket | The Madison Record | The Franklin County Times | Reach256 | TNValleyStuff.com TNValleyHomefinder.com | TNValleyWheels.com

Terms of Service | Private Policy | California Privacy Policy/Private Policy

Untitled Document

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×