Breaking News(!): Lou Dobbs Says Something Stupid

Email Print posted by ihavenobias 07/14/2008 08:03:29 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
Lou Dobbs was talking about how at least McCain and Bush are doing something about our crazy gas prices by calling for more off-shore drilling, unlike Obama and the Democrats in Congress who are fighting against the will of the people and not providing the relief from high prices that everyone wants and demands.

Oh Lou, you damn fool...it will NOT provide relief. At best, from what I recall, we might hope to have "relief" in the form of gas that's 1-10 cents cheaper per gallon 7-10 years from now, give or take.

Lou pretends to be the populist that cuts through the BS and doesn't stand behind any particular party. If you believe that, great. But someone needs to explain how the basically symbolic gesture of off-shore drilling is going to have any significant, tangible impact (aka, "relief").

Instead Lou keeps harping on the "at least they're doing something about it" point. According to Lou's logic, the next time there's a big fire in California we should be happy if McCain visits and tries to put it out by blowing on it.

I mean hey, at least he'd be doing something. And that sentiment does seem to be shared by many Americans who apparently think Nike Politics is a substitute for relevant action.

PS---in case you missed it, CNN Is Terrible, And Here Is The Proof. To be fair though, Lou did get one thing right.
< Bush blames Dems for high oil prices | Charles Schumer--Big Idiot or the Biggest? >
 Display:
Breaking News(!): Lou Dobbs Says Something Stupid | 58 comments (58 topical, 0 hidden)
No News Here (none / 0)
Lou Dobbs constantly says stupid shit. And to think that I used to like his xenophobic ass. Contsantly hating on latinos while Asian Indians, Pakistanis and others flood this country and actually DO take good American jobs with the boatload of H1B visas that the Bush administration gives out. Who knows what sleeper terrorists are coming in with these poeple? He is spouting the rightwing talking points just like most of the rest of the MSM. CNN sucks and is just as bad as Fox. Thank God for the web and real news instead of that censored drivel.

by mijoh on 07/14/2008 08:15:49 PM EST

Dobbs (none / 0)
I give Dobbs credit in so far as the fact that he talks about some good populist issues and rants (correctly) against Corporate America, waste and fraud.

Unfortunately his desired solutions to these issues are sometimes incredibly questionable and yes, he seems to make the undocumented worker issue far more personal than it should be instead of focusing mostly on employers (he does but his percentages are off).

by ihavenobias on 07/15/2008 06:27:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What exactly is Obama gonna do??? (none / 0)
Lou wasn't being stupid - he is pointing out the obvious - Obama and the Dems ( who are in control of congress NOW) aren't doing shit about the gas prices, and by a lot of means (namely their environmentalist "save the planet" Bullshit) are the CAUSE of the high prices. DRILL NOW!!! McCain might not be doing anything effective, but at least he is addressing the issue even if its just superficial... Obama aint doing shit and won't do shit - Talk just aint gonna cut it... :)

by bobo1 on 07/14/2008 08:31:48 PM EST

In other words (none / 0)
You also prefer Nike Politics (Just Do It!) over relevant action.

And how did I know you love Lou Dobbs? Come to think of it, he's probably your favorite show host (after Cenk), honestly.

by ihavenobias on 07/14/2008 08:35:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I like Lou Dobbs... (none / 0)
Because he doesn't toe the party lines - He says things straight and he talks about relevant issues to our lives. He doesn't whine about BS like global warming and "Loving one another" - He speaks to economic and social issues that effect people like me - I would consider myself a Dobbsian Independent, because even if its total BS - even if old Lou is lying through that weave of his, he still doesn't put up with stupid shit...Agree or disagree, he puts it all out there for public consumption... He hates Obama because he correctly sees him for the phony he is - He despises McCain as a flip flopper and a liar who doesn't give a shit about REAL people... You guys hate Lou Dobbs because he represents what both Liberals and Conservatives despise most - The TRUTH!!! Not everything is butterflies and roses, guys... Welcome to the real world! :)

by bobo1 on 07/14/2008 08:47:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
All you're gonna be is disappointed (none / 0)

Bobo, have you ever heard this proverb?

"When something seems to good to be true, it's probably Lou Dobbs." 

by OneHitKill on 07/14/2008 09:45:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Id rather follow him down the path to Hell.. (none / 0)
Than your man "Hussein"... I won't feel as bad when I realize my guy isn't the Messiah than you guys will - Have you heard this proverb? "Pride cometh before the fall" Thanks...

by bobo1 on 07/15/2008 12:02:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
your guy? (none / 0)
I thought you weren't voting?

by desertpear on 07/15/2008 12:45:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
If Lou Dobbs ran... (none / 0)
I'd vote for him over these other clowns any day of the week! That's a promise! :)

by bobo1 on 07/15/2008 01:11:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I seem to remember another promise you made. (none / 0)

(cue fading flashback sequence with twinkly music) 

Oh memories...  Remember way back when you didn't just blow Ken all the time? 

Yeah... me neither.

by Spencer on 07/15/2008 05:13:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ha! (none / 0)
Nice touch with the twinkly music.

by ihavenobias on 07/15/2008 06:29:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The sucking sound you just heard was you (none / 0)

The only pledge you ever made that mattered to me was the one where you said you weren't going to vote.  Not voting would be the single greatest thing you've ever done for this country.

Show us just how patriotic you can be, Blow-Blow.  On election night, stay home and have a Molly Ringwald marathon or something.

by OneHitKill on 07/15/2008 01:14:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Scroll Up (none / 0)
I refer you to my response to the first comment on this thread.

It's fair and balanced (for real).

by ihavenobias on 07/15/2008 06:28:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Poor Poor Deluded Bobo.... (none / 0)

Earth to bobo, earth to Bobo...pull your head out of your ass. For someone who says they dislike Bush you took the Lou Dobbs/George Bush line hook line and drill bit...Any oil recovered is YEARS down the road, if at all. This isn't me saying this, these are oil "experts" from WSJ article on same

Touted US Offshore Oil Drilling Expansion Hinges on High Prices

"Energy producers are likely to need years more of high oil prices in order to develop any new reserves opened up by the lifting of offshore drilling restrictions...the industry is also certain to need high prices to pay for finding and extracting oil and gas hidden in the newly accessible seabed. Few rigs and even fewer people are sitting idle, waiting for an oil rush in virgin territory. Producers will either need to pull equipment and personnel from other projects or pay through the nose. Either solution is likely to delay production of some of those 18 billion barrels; other newly opened areas could remain untouched for lack of rigs or money."

Meanwhile, U.S. oil companies continue to hold back on building refineries despite the increases seen in 2005 in prices for gasoline, heating oil and jet fuel. While regulatory issues are one barrier, oil companies generally see better returns on investment in oil exploration rather than refinery capacity "

 You of all people should know that giving a drunk just a little more booze never solves the problem.

Oil is dead...enviroment or no enviroment we need to move on and transition to new energy sources. Now is the time.

"But if we just caught more whales the price of whale oil would come down...arr!" 19the Century Whaling Captain

 We all know how that worked out.

by MRFred on 07/15/2008 06:51:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Then whats the sound alternative? (none / 0)
OK, I'll go as far to agree and say oil is "dying" - so whats the alternative and more importantly, who is going to provide it?

You Liberal environmentalists have been screaming for years "Alternative Energy" blah blah blah... Where is it? What is it?

Wind - at $10000 a pop for a turbine that produces a milifraction of electricity that coal or oil does? Whose got the money to pay for that - Government? Yeah, they've got lots of money to spare for that!

Solar - See wind above... And theres also those damn pesky things we call darkness and clouds...

Hydroelectric - Can we say alterning landscapes and totally wrecking the environment? And plus you have to be around a lot of running water (something else you guys scream we're short of...)

Ethanol and Biofuels - Hey, isnt that what oil starts off as? Bio-fuel? Still pollutes, still has the same carbon chains and it jacks the Hell out of world food prices... Go ahead and pay $8 for a gallon of milk because all the corn is being used for gas instead of food for the cows...

Fred, the fact is that even if we had the absolute technology to produce electricity and drive our cars without oil right now, it would still take us 50-100 years to wean ourselves off of it... So why aren't we drilling and using the oil we have now while developing these new resources? if the oil is there, why arent we using it?

Is it the governments role to be in the "green" business? Where are the upstarts? Why dont we have all of these alternatives yet?

Why haven't we gone more Nuclear yet? Even the French pussies have Nuclear power!!!! Most of Europe is powered Nuclear...

Its not that I want oil companies to win, Fred. Its not that I have investment in oil. Its a question of "Whose gonna do it, and whats gonna make them do it?" Congress with their 2% approval rating isnt gonna force any industry to change. Bitching and screaming "Save the Planet" isnt gonna do it either...

$10 a gallon gas might do it, but is that how Democrats want to force this problem down our throats? I guarentee that the Republicans if anything will make sure we know exactly who allowed the gas to become this high - THE DEMOCRATS IN CHARGE...

So whats the fix? Inform deluded bobo, cause I'd really like to know!

:)

by bobo1 on 07/15/2008 09:32:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
And that is exactly the problem... (none / 0)
there is no one solution...there are several.

 

You Liberal environmentalists...

Whose a liberal environmentalist ? I'm a realist. Sure we will need oil to transition to new sources. However,the longer we prolong the oil boom bust cycle..eventually, and in the not to distant future it will be a permanent bust.

More carbon isn't going to solve a problem generated by too much carbon. Drilling for more oil isn't going to solve a problem generated by decreasing supplies and increasing demand because we are running out of oil.

 Most of Europe is powered Nuclear...

Not really...if you want to use Europe as an example...

After years of playing second fiddle to mainstream power sources, Europe's renewable energy sector is now going from strength to strength. Lucrative government subsidies, an EU-wide goal to reduce CO2 emissions 20% by 2020, and growing public support for the fight against climate change have turned this new industry into a force to be reckoned with. 

It's no wonder then the EU will install over 40% of the world's wind farms over the next eight years. as 13 of the 20 largest wind power markets are located in Europe. "Wind is becoming a tried and tested technology for many EU countries," says Catalina Robledo, European wind energy analyst at EER. 

Being a old Nuc Power type I have no problem with nuclear...but my experience is that safety was and is the priority in the Navy, not profit.

Not so with commercial. Rethugs would start the deregulation crap like they did with electricity market and we all know how that worked out: see Enron and the California energy crisis, the Enron loophole and the resultant oil speculation, see 140+ Oil, Mortgage market see Mortgage crisis. Savings and Loans...and on and on and on.

A "meltdown" in nuclear is a bit more permanent than a meltdown in a mortgage market. If the Navy ran the reactors....no problem.


 You will  notice that the US has more nuc plants and produces more MW than any country on earth.( Second column is plant under construction)

France population 61,875,822  per capita generation 978.11

US population 301,139,947 per capita generation 2991.68

So we  use a shit load more electricity per capita than they do...

US: 13,351.067 kWh per capita

France 7,899.736 kWh per capita

Also only 1.9% of our electric generation comes from oil....smaller cars...less petro based packaging all that stuff we could go along way to reducing oil usage.


 

Sources: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-906, "Power Plant Report;" and Form EIA-920 "Combined Heat and Power Plant Report."

Ethanol...Rethugs from the heartland are all over that...money in their pockets. Biofuels have a place...but Ive never advocated corn based ethanol...cellulistic ethanol is more viable...but the research goes on. Its more of a local solution in the US.

Solar...you live in Arizona and you worry about clouds? Your in Solar Central...

 

So there are a wide range of solutions...there is no magic bullet. That's not what out Rethugnican friend say, its all oil all the time. Rethugs being the anal retentive types just cant give up the old habits. Drill Drill Drill is just a feel good meaningless gesture...plus one that makes them money while not solving the problem.


 

by MRFred on 07/15/2008 12:03:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
One Question... (none / 0)
First of all, thank you for your very thourough response addressing my questions - even if we disagree on 99 percent on politics, I find you very informative and passionate about what you believe and I respect that. I agree with you completely on solar here in AZ. Every damn business and house should have panels here in the Valley... The reason we don't lends to the 1 question I have of you concerning "alternative" energy - WHO IS GONNA PAY FOR ALL OF THIS??? The government - yeah right! The oil companies - Why should they and lose their profits? Individual citizens? - OK that's gonna happen!!! Are we to nationalize energy/gas resources? That won't pass even the most Democratic congress! So where does the money come from? You have explained "What" when it comes to alternative energies. Now explain "How". I'm sure you're up to the task... :)

by bobo1 on 07/15/2008 03:21:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Taxes my friend, taxes (none / 0)
Pool your money together (reduces the individual burden tremendously which is the whole point), get some federal funds to assist and give tax breaks to individuals and businesses who take advantage and go green with solar, etc.

PS---Reagan and Grover Norquist did a lot of damaging things to this country but one of the worst was convincing people that investing and flushing money down the toilet money are the same thing. They're not.

Example:

Billions and Trillions spent on a pointless war that may have made us less safe=Wasted Money

Billions and Trillions spent on infrastructure and alternative energy=Investment (that gives returns for decades if not centuries)



by ihavenobias on 07/15/2008 03:37:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
And there's the rub... (none / 0)
Bias, when you say "taxes", you almost say it gleefully - let me ask you a few questions to rub that "tax and spend" smirk off your face... First, when YOU say raise taxes, I'm going to assume you are talking about corporate and not middle income taxes. With that assumption, don't you realize when you raise corporate taxes you are really raising costs to the consumers (customers) of those corporations? Corporations are not going to allow their profit margins to shrink if their taxes are raised! Therefore, they always pass along the expense to the consumer, so hence your CORPORATE tax rate increase really is a killer cost HIKE to the consumer (middle and lower income people) - How does that help us? Secondly, you say we are spending trillions of dollars we don't have on the war (which is absolutely correct). What makes you think that we can shift that spending to alternative energy/Infrastructure when WE STILL DON'T HAVE that money to begin with? So you're saying that massive deficit spending is OK if they have "good intentions" with the money? Where is the logic in that? And thirdly, assuming that we do redistribute those trillions in war funds to infrastructure/alternate energy resources here at home - doesn't that just mean we give what you liberals like to call "corporate welfare" (subsidies) to multi-national energy corporations? Aren't they the ones in control of developing these "green" technologies? This sounds a lot like robbing Peter to pay Paul - and it seems to me that Liberals rationalize this thinking because their "intentions" are more noble or of better quality than the Conservatives. Sounds and looks to me that its the same old game with the same old results its just the Liberals friends and partners benefitting from our tax dollars rather than the Conservatives - How is that CHANGE in any way? I appreciate your answer to these questions! :)

by bobo1 on 07/15/2008 06:26:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Many answers... (none / 0)

Your paying for it ( oil) now....so to answer your question...we will. We pay for everything directly or indirectly, at least we can have a say in it.

We are paying, or I should say, will be paying for Gramm, Greenspan, Bush and Berneke's Mortgage speculation and I dont recall anyone asked me about that...

And no one said oil companies will lose their profits. We just don't need to give away the farm...like the Rethugs propose, holding the lower gasoline price carrot in front of our faces. 

Thats what they want...why should we sign over our offshore reserves to the big oil companies for a few campaign contributions.

No, if we are going to open up offshore reserves, it should be for domestic consumption only...not dumped into the big oil pool to be sold to speculators and China.

Regardless of how the Rethugs spin it, oil companies are now global companies...they do not have the interests of America,  you or I in mind. The oil will go to the highest bidder, if that hurts the US , oh well.

As we speak the oil companies are pushing a pipeline from Canada to the US West coast so they can sell oil from the Alberta oil sand fields..currently our largest single source of imported oil...to China.

Just a few ideas....

  • Conservation measures first...
  • Retool the power grid higher efficiency transmission lines
  • Higher CAFE Standards for vehicles.
  • Expand wind farms in the wind corridor.
  • End corn ethanol subsidies
  • Standardize nuclear plant design and operator training
  • Reform tax code to allow full deduction ( depreciation ) of solar panels for home use
among other things...

by MRFred on 07/15/2008 04:10:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Also keep in mind (none / 0)
The true cost of gasoline is actually far higher than $4 a gallon. 

Yes, that's partly because the price per gallon doesn't reflect the subsidies we give to oil companies but that's not even what I'm referring to.

I'm referring to the billions of dollars we spend each year just to protect our oil interests.  Add to that the health problems created by burning fossil fuels (increased rates of asthma, bronchitis and even cancer) and the true cost of a gallon of gas is easily double what we think we pay at the pump or more.

As usual the oil companies externalize costs that end up being paid by Joe Taxpayer.

So the oil we think is so cheap is not nearly as cheap as we think it is. Alternative energy production will be more expensive in the short/medium term yes, but the price gap is not as large as it appears to be.

by ihavenobias on 07/15/2008 04:52:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
MRFred Credibility Watch. (none / 0)
MRFred: “And no one said oil companies will lose their profits.”
Here's a recent exchange between Maxine Waters (D, CA) and the CEO of Shell Oil.
Maurice Hinchey (D, NY) says we should nationalize the refineries.

MRFred: “Why should we sign over our offshore reserves to the big oil companies for a few campaign contributions.”
Government contracts can be written to give one of every four barrels produced to the government, or payment in kind.

MRFred: “No, if we are going to open up offshore reserves, it should be for domestic consumption only...not dumped into the big oil pool to be sold to speculators and China. “
If the U.S. is paying a very high price for oil, why would a producer ship oil produced off the Mississippi Gulf Coast all the way to China, when they could sell it to the Chevron refinery in Pascagoula?

by KenTX on 07/16/2008 03:51:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
KenTX Bullshit Alert (none / 0)
To watch credibility, one must have creditability and in Kens case that is a dubious proposition at best:
MRFred: “And no one said oil companies will lose their profits.”
Here's a recent exchange between Maxine Waters (D, CA) and the CEO of Shell Oil. Maurice Hinchey (D, NY) says we should nationalize the refineries.

What I sad was

And no one said oil companies will lose their profits.We just don't need to give away the farm...like the Rethugs propose, holding the lower gasoline price carrot in front of our faces. 

As far as Maxine Waters goes,  good for her..thats one opinion, highly unlikely, as you well know , much like another extremist position, I'm sure you will recognize it

 

It’s time to quit your lying and bullshitting you old fool. This is about getting Democrats the hell out of the way and allowing oil companies to drill, EVERYWHERE!! Shut the fuck up about your environmentally sensitive icebergs and your pristine rockies and your endangered brine shrimp. Kne TX

Of course I'm sure all Americans want oil wells everywhere.

MRFred: “Why should we sign over our offshore reserves to the big oil companies for a few campaign contributions.”
Government contracts can be written to give one of every four barrels produced to the government, or payment in kind.

 Thats true..they can be written...but in a Republican world they wont be...another set of sweet deals. The Republicans simply don't collect the money or conveniently forget about it...

The Interior Department’s program to collect billions of dollars annually from oil and gas companies that drill on federal lands is troubled by mismanagement, ethical lapses and fears of retaliation against whistle-blowers, the department’s chief independent investigator has concluded.

Prepared by the Interior Department’s inspector general, Earl E. Devaney, the report said that investigators found a “profound failure” in the agency’s technology for monitoring oil and gas payments.

It suggested that the agency was too cozy with oil companies and that internal critics had good reason to fear punishment.

“It demonstrates a Band-Aid approach to holding together one of the federal government’s largest revenue-producing operations,” Mr. Devaney concluded.

 

Now to distort a thought one must take every thing out of context their entire passage explains the opinion better than Kens distortion:

 

And no one said oil companies will lose their profits.We just don't need to give away the farm...like the Rethugs propose, holding the lower gasoline price carrot in front of our faces.

Thats what they want...why should we sign over our offshore reserves to the big oil companies for a few campaign contributions.

No, if we are going to open up offshore reserves, it should be for domestic consumption only...not dumped into the big oil pool to be sold to speculators and China.

Now, for some Ken credibility checks

If the U.S. is paying a very high price for oil, why would a producer ship oil produced off the Mississippi Gulf Coast all the way to China, when they could sell it to the Chevron refinery in Pascagoula?

Easy, So they can get an even higher price from China. Much like the big oil companies are doing now, attempting push trough a pipeline to the west coast of the US from Alberta  so they can ship oil sand products to China bypassing the US, who is the customer of choice , for now. Also, these are global corporations, not Americana companies...they have no loyalty or interest in solving our energy problem. Just profits.

 

 

by MRFred on 07/16/2008 07:41:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
KenTX, (none / 0)


SUCK MY DICK!

ha ha

by BENS MISSING GOATEE on 07/16/2008 01:04:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I've always joked (none / 0)
That the southwest should be covered by One Giant Solar-Panel.

That chart made me think that's not such a joke after all.

;)

by ihavenobias on 07/15/2008 06:25:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Covering us in a big solar panel (none / 0)

It was about a buck-oh-four in Austin today.  The AC in my car went out.

Putting a giant anything between me and the sun sounds pretty good.

by ProfRich on 07/15/2008 11:25:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ok, deal (none / 0)
A giant solar panel over the southwest and a giant magnifying glass over the Midwest for me.

You stay cool and harness sun power and we get hot to fight the disgustingly cold winters.

What do you say?

PS---104? Don't remind me, we might move there remember.

by ihavenobias on 07/15/2008 11:39:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Remember the magic trick! (none / 0)
When it gets hot, stay inside!

by ProfRich on 07/15/2008 11:58:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You should charge for that advice (none / 0)
At least $10 or something.

by ihavenobias on 07/15/2008 11:59:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Compare and Contrast (none / 0)
Here is the energy plan of a bright young engineer who is pursuing a doctorate in energy sustainability.

In the interest of comparison, here is the energy plan of a socialist.

Let’s “drill down” into the socialist plan for a few more details.

“More carbon isn't going to solve a problem generated by too much carbon.”
Until we install nuclear reactors in every vehicle, we need more carbon to burn in internal combustion engines, so that we can propel vehicles down the road. The problem isn’t too much carbon, the problem is not enough carbon.

“You will notice that the US has more nuclear plants and produces more MW than any country on earth.”
No shit, Sherlock. And between Japan, France, and the U.S. we have managed to maintain an outstanding safety record. Fortunately, most nuclear plants are situated in remote locations, where they should be.
nukes

“cellulosic ethanol is more viable”
Spoken like a guy who has never calculated an energy balance equation, and who doesn’t understand the concept of an energy sink. Ethanol process will always suck up more money and more energy than it will ever produce, no matter what is bubbling in the mash.

“It's no wonder then the EU will install over 40% of the world's wind farms over the next eight years.”
I attended this show a few weeks ago, primarily to sell some metal components to turbine manufacturers. While I was there, I did some research, because I wanted to know if I could install a wind turbine on my land, and cost effectively generate enough KW to power the appliances in my house. This would be handy if I want to become totally self-sufficient, so I can live free and independent from a future socialist takeover.

What I learned is that the cost of installation and maintenance of a practical wind turbine is enormous. It’s impossible to recover the initial outlay and maintenance. This is the reason you don’t see millions of windmills, dotting the landscape of the fruited plane.

“That's not what our Rethugnican friend say, its all oil all the time.”
Nope. What I say is it’s all uranium (for electricity) and all coal (for transportation) all of the time.

by KenTX on 07/16/2008 04:29:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh I missed this gem of misinfomation... (none / 0)

Oh so now I'm a socialist... its amazing how a simple discussion on energy turns into a "socialist energy plan"

Distortion #1 More carbon isn't going to solve a problem generated by too much carbon.”
Until we install nuclear reactors in every vehicle, we need more carbon to burn in internal combustion engines, so that we can propel vehicles down the road. The problem isn’t too much carbon, the problem is not enough carbon.

Of course Mr Ewing doesn't care about global warming on South Fork. Carbon is precisely the problem. Of course his specialty is to cherry pick quotes to misrepresent a post. What I said was this:

Sure we will need oil to transition to new sources( of energy). However,the longer we prolong the oil boom bust cycle..eventually, and in the not to distant future it will be a permanent bust.

More carbon isn't going to solve a problem generated by too much carbon. Drilling for more oil isn't going to solve a problem generated by decreasing supplies and increasing demand because we are running out of oil.

Here our self proclaimed master of the oil patch shows his ignorance about nuclear energy...

 Distortion #2“You will notice that the US has more nuclear plants and produces more MW than any country on earth.”
No shit, Sherlock. And between Japan, France, and the U.S. we have managed to maintain an outstanding safety record. Fortunately, most nuclear plants are situated in remote locations, where they should be.

Thats patently untrue. If the safety record is so good why is it fortunate they are in remote areas..which many aren't by the way. By and large the safety record in the US nuclear industry is good...hardly "outstanding". Just a sampling:

Niantic Bay, Waterford (nearest major city: New Haven, CT; 3 miles WSW of New London, CT) # miles...why that is remote! Just some of the safety issue at this " remote" plant:

  • 1999-2000:  Repeated shutdowns dues to failures of the reactor control-rod drive system, including control rods that came loose and dropped into the reactor.  The plant operator blamed failed insulation and damaged electrical leads. (Source: OC Register)
  • Sept. 1999: Two NU subsidiaries pled guilty to 25 violations of environmental and nuclear laws and agree to pay $10 million in "fines and contributions". The charges concerned nuclear training and environmental issues at Millstone Station and environmental issues at their Devon Station in the mid-'90s. (Source: DNC Inc.'s  web site.)
  • 1997: Millstone 1,2 &3: 0% Capacity factors. (Source: ORNL 1999 NPP Analysis, Appendix E-3)
  • 1996: Labor Day Weekend: unknowingly displaced water from reactor vessel with nitrogen. “A close call!
  • Aug5<sup>th</sup>,1993: Leak causes shutdown at Millstone; 
  • Aug,16<sup>th</sup>,1991: Eight control rods show delays in emergency shutdown insertion time at Millstone; 
  • Apr 3<sup>rd</sup>,1988: Leakage at Millstone

Buchanan ( Indian Point), Westchester County (nearest major city: White Plains, NY. New York City, the greatest city in the world, Pop 8250567 is just 24  miles S of Indian Point.) Just a second or two as the neutron flies...

  • Built on an active earthquake fault.  Ran for 12 years on a “provisional” license.  Site failed 5 of 6 1979 NRC rules, however this previous license grandfathered in the next two plants at the site
  • Dec. 03, 2001: - A majority of Unit 2 control room operators (4 out of 7 crews; 10 individual operators) were unable to properly solve simulated emergencies that, had they been real, would have resulted in reactor damage or the release of radiation into the atmosphere.  (Source: TheJournalNews.com )

  • Feb., 2000:  Steam generator tube ruptures at Unit 2, contaminating 19,000 gallons of cooling water and releasing radioactive steam into the atmosphere. (Source: OC Register) Plant stays closed for 1 year. (Source: NY Times, Dec. 8<sup>th</sup>, 2001.)

    Nov. 1993: Two original safety valves at IP3 found to be insufficiently rated; in the rush to replace them before an upcoming NRC inspection, engineers install them backwards, blocking both cooling systems and disabling backup generators.

  • Scriba (nearest major city: Syracuse, NY; 6 miles NE of Oswego, NY)

  • Late 1990s:  Cracking in the reactor's internals has made NM1 "the worst case of cracking in the nuclear industry" (Union of Concerned Scientists).  Most attention has focused on the core shroud, but other cracked pieces (emergency condensers, main drain line, control rod stub tubes) suggest the problem is pervasive.

    1979 - 1996: Systemic mismanagement at NM1 result in ~200 cited violations or nearly 1/month. 

  • 1987 ­ 1989: NRC shuts NM1 for over 2 years after NiMo revealed they had covered up huge waste-handling problems at NM1.  For years, the waste building was flooded with 40,000 gallons of primary coolant water; three months prior to that announcement, NM1 dumped 50,000 gallons of coolant directly from the reactor into Lake Ontario. 

Hutchinson Island (12 miles S.E. of Ft. Pierce SMSA 381,033; nearest major city: West Palm Beach, SMSA 357,000 )
Cowans Ford Dam, Huntersville (17 miles N of Charlotte, NC (nearest major city)Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC had a population of 2191604)
Daisy (10 miles NE of Chattanooga, TN Pop 155,554(nearest major city))


What I said was this:

You will  notice that the US has more nuc plants and produces more MW than any country on earth.( Second column is plant under construction)

France population 61,875,822  per capita generation 978.11

US population 301,139,947 per capita generation 2991.68

 And heres the point of the whole paragraph:

So we  use a shit load more electricity per capita than they do...

US: 13,351.067 kWh per capita

France 7,899.736 kWh per capita

Also only 1.9% of our electric generation comes from oil....smaller cars...less petro based packaging all that stuff we could go along way to reducing oil usage.

Duh...Sherlock

 

Distortion # 3 Spoken like a guy who has never calculated an energy balance equation, and who doesn’t understand the concept of an energy sink. Ethanol process will always suck up more money and more energy than it will ever produce, no matter what is bubbling in the mash.

I understand perfectly the concept of an energy sink...responding to your posts is a good example. Like I said in the original post,corn based ethanol yield is very close to the energy put in( not a very good solution). However your quote is spoken like a guy who has already made up his mind...and does no research. 

Cellulosic ethanol is made from the byproducts of harvested grains, cane, wood...things we have already invested energy in to get the main product. Cellulosic ethanol is made from the waste.That's why cellulosic ethanol yields 80 percent more energy than is required to grow and convert it.

But to answer your question I have calculated plenty of "energy balance equations"...running naval engineering plants.

We captured data continiuusly to determine the efficiency of the plant. And analogous to cellulosic ethanol process, naval vessels capture waste heat from the main driver either steam, nuclear or gas turbine and use it for distilling water, driving aux pumps...things like that...it makes the plant more efficent. So bite me.

by MRFred on 07/21/2008 07:32:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well, to be fair (none / 0)
Whaling actually worked out quite well for that captain...can't remember his name though. Captain Arab or something??*








*Yeah, I know

by ihavenobias on 07/15/2008 06:30:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
bobo1, (none / 0)


SUCK MY DICK!

ha ha

by BENS MISSING GOATEE on 07/16/2008 12:55:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmm (none / 0)

You'd think we could bottle up all the hot air off these wingnuts and use it to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  I like that Ahnold said No Way to offshore drilling in California. 

Unfortunately, the will of the people seems to be "drill now," no matter their party politics.  They cling to their guns, religion, and cheap oil. 

by desertpear on 07/14/2008 08:43:26 PM EST

Dobbs is dead wrong on Obama. (none / 0)

I used to like Dobbs too, because, unlike Cenk, he had the guts to take on Corporate America and corporate crime. Cenk is more in tune with the multi-culti left, not the populist economic left like David Sirota and Senators Byron Dorgan and Jim Webb. Dobbs has the guts to have Sirota, Nader, and Bernie Sanders on his show to stand up to Corporate America.

 If you like both the multi-cultis and the populists, then Dennis Kucinich is your man, he's BOTH.

 Anyway, Dobbs is one of the very few in popular big media who dares take on Wall Street. I love that. But you are right, his senseless bashing at poor Mexican illegals is just plain wrong. Like American workers, they are the victims of NAFTA and CAFTA too, its not their fault. Forget the stupid fences, go after the real criminals, the agri-businesses and hotel-restaurant chains that exploit these people. REPEAL NAFTA and other exploitive deals so average Mexican people can make an ok living in Mexico and are not FORCED to immigrate. Sure, some people want to, but the vast majority leave Mexico only because they have to - I mean, who wants to leave their friends and family and homeland behind?

But most importantly, Dobbs is DEAD WRONG on Obama's stance on the energy crisis. Obama has REPEATEDLY CALLED for the ONE THING which will bring real relief to the American people - PROPER REGULATION of the COMMODITIES MARKETS and HEDGE FUNDS which will STOP the RAMPANT SPECUALTION!

Obama is absolutely RIGHT on this - its SPECULATION by the big banks and hedge funds that are driving the price up astromonically, probably more than 60% of the current price! THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF OIL! Many of these futures contracts are OTC (over the table) or controlled by the hedge funds, hence, NOT regulated!! 

These speculators are ROBBING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BLIND and Obama is at least trying to stand up to them, and Obama has said this many times at many rallies, including one just a few days ago in Georgia.

SO GET A CLUE DOBBS! DRILLING IS A PHONY JOKE,  ten cents less ten years from now! AND OBAMA HAS STOOD UP, and not in the fake way you are over drilling, but in a real way by daring to take on the fat cats. Give Obama credit here.

With REAL REGULATION on oil futures, the price of gas could drop all the way down to $2.50-2.75 in a couple months. Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, etc, etc,

 .............THESE BASTARDS ARE JUST ROBBING US BLIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!

 

 

 

 

by Tarheel88 on 07/14/2008 08:46:38 PM EST

Poor Mexican Illegals!!!! (none / 0)
First of all, a message from sunny Arizona - FUCK YOU AND YOUR "POOR MEXICAN ILLEGALS!!!" Now, that being said, I agree with you whole heartedly about punishing the businesses that draw illegal workers - but don't think for one fucking minute that the Illegal population here in the Southwest are "poor mistreated souls". They live like fucking kings on our government cheese, dropping their babies here so they will be citizens, taking jobs that supress wages for everyone else. I wish lou Dobbs would go further in his "attacks" on illegals, because right now no one is doing ANYTHING to stop this invasion! I agree with Dobbs 1000 percent on this issue. :)

by bobo1 on 07/14/2008 08:56:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
spin (none / 0)
Come on Bias, you're smarter than that, you don't actually believe that Bush, the oil companies, Cheney, Graham, Lou Dobbs or any of them actually believe it will do anything, do you? This is about one thing and one thing only, getting McCain elected. The week of the actual election there will probably be some way they can claim credit for lowering the price at the pump by a dime or two and try and steal the election (I mean not that they won't try and steal it the old fashioned way by losing ballot boxes and stuffing other ones and "hacking" Diebold, wink wink.)

The point is anyone who already understands the relationship between oil and gas and hedge markets and peak oil or whatever particular theory you adhere to understands it or has their own theory on it or whatever. I'm sure Dobbs understands it just like McCain understands social security. They are playing the fool. Don't be played for the fool. You can be played for the fool in two ways, one would be to actually believe what they are saying but another is to believe they are that naive. Who knows maybe you're playing me for the fool right now because you know that he knows but I don't know that you know that he knows and oh you know what I mean. Norton, I know that you know that I know, that you wanna fuck me up the ass. Ohhhh Ralphy boy.

Anyway, you know the old saw, never underestimate the stupidity of the American people. I'm sure some people will buy this. Who knows maybe you are right, maybe he believes it himself though I doubt it. But exactly what the McCain's and Bush's and Dobbs of the world want right now is for you or our ilk to get irate over this. Then they'll call in their so-called experts, who are just as full of shit as they are but that is besides the point. They've already distracted you and changed the argument. Not that much different than tobaco lobbysts. This is how they take control and create the agenda, they've got you arguing against their points but it is their point, that is exactly the point. Their point, their agenda.

It is like when you are arguing with a bully in grade school, or little miss popular, sometimes the best way is to ignore it/them and not argue. I think one reason Barack is so successful is that he does this so well, he is above it without being condescending. Of course he's gotten dragged into a few fights and I'm sure there will be more (a lot more) in the next two months but he seems to use two tactics very well (can't wait until there are a plethora of books on his tactics). One is defuse, he doesn't walk away, he stands up for himself but he defuses the situation, he responds then walks away and answers in his own time on his terms. The second is that when he does respond, he finds a way to spin the argument, finds some small crack in the logic with which to come back at them.

For instance, with the current bank run, he wants to know why we aren't focusing on the story from the perspective of the individual home owner. Then he politely asked to see more of that coverage. See even his words, the story from the perspective, change the game.

Of course these are the same fools that refused to raise CAFE standards, kept an exception/loop hole for SUV's (a 100,000 tax break) for small business owners and farmers (that was intended for farmers with trucks but was used by yuppies with escalades), refused to acknowledge a recession. But come on, these are the guys invested in oil and gas, and the talking heads are invested in these politicians in one form or another. I just don't buy that Dobbs doesn't really get it. The real question though is how do you frame the argument without trying to convince him of what he probably already knows, or his kind knows, without resorting to name calling. And I'm not sure it is about trying to sway those fools who actually fall for his argument, because perhaps they are ignorant of the facts but more likely they are just plain foolish. I don't know, but I hope Barack has an answer.

(And I'm not talking about ANWR or Off Shore drilling or gas at 4 bucks, cause we all know that has one answer and one answer only, get that fool out the White House pronto, by any means.)

by tiggerporn on 07/14/2008 08:49:48 PM EST

Who knows (none / 0)
I can't pretend to know what Dobbs really thinks. But look, I wasn't necessarily saying that I think that he thinks the plan is great.

My point was that Lou was playing up the fact that the Republicans had a plan period, which apparently makes it a good one because (in Lou's mind) the Dems don't. 

That's where the BS is, that he's buying into these Nike Politics.

by ihavenobias on 07/15/2008 06:24:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Drilling Facts (none / 0)
 81%  of estimated oil and gas resources on federal lands both onshore and underlying federal waters offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf are available for
development or will be accessible pending the completion of land-use planning or environmental reviews.  The amount of oil and gas in these reserves is equal to 107
billion barrels of oil and 658 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
 
• The amount of oil which could be produced from these reserves is 10 times the
amount that could be produced from opening up ANWR.
 
• The amount of oil which could be produced from these areas represents over 14
years of current U.S. oil consumption (7.5 billion barrels per year).
 
• The amount of gas which could be produced from these areas represents over
30 years of current U.S. gas consumption (21.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas
per year).
 
• The production of these energy resources would provide the country with
additional time to develop alternatives to oil and gas and reduce our
dependency on energy imports.
 
68
 million acres of federal lands both onshore and underlying federal waters
offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf are currently being held by oil and gas
companies with no production occurring on these leases.
 
• That 68 million acres of leased but stockpiled federal oil and gas lands could
produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of
natural gas each day.
 
• That would nearly double total U.S. oil production and increase natural gas
production by 75%.
 
• It would cut U.S. oil imports by one-third.
 
• And it would be more than six times the estimated peak production from ANWR

by army193 on 07/14/2008 09:32:42 PM EST

I'm not always a source stickler (none / 0)
Sometimes I rattle of a few stats here and there sans sources from memory.

But that's a long list of very specific information, so I'm hoping you have a link or two in support of it?

by ihavenobias on 07/14/2008 10:00:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Web site (none / 0)
http://resourcescommittee.h ouse.gov/images/Documents/d rilling_facts.pdf

by army193 on 07/15/2008 08:52:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Time, you want time?!? (none / 0)
Ask and you shall...

what was I just saying about the so-called experts who are just as full of shit. They are always next at the party. Really they are there all along, just waiting for the right moment to pounce. But that makes them sound athletic and noble and savvy and sharp like cats. Really they are more like those black slimy small bugs you find in dank places under rocks who cower together for fear of being exposed. But hey, who said anything about name calling, right?

Why do we deserve to use 1/4th of the world's oil? Why is it our God given right to drive SUVs? Why don't we cut consumption in half? You seem very willing to want to solve the problem, how do you feel about CAFE standards and reduced consumption. Time to find alternatives, buddy, where have you been? We have the alternatives, that is the problem. No one wants to use them because we want to drive Hummers and SUVs and spend all the money on oil exploration.

Either we are at or past peak production, in which case there is nothing we can do about the price of gas, drilling or no. Or it is due to speculation, in which case drilling won't do any good, we need regulation. Drilling offshore is not the answer. How long will it take for it to effect the level of imports, 10 to 15 years. So, we're supposed to wait? 15 years? We could have had the problem solved already if GM made cars which get 50 mpg instead of hummers (which get what, 8 mpg).

Solar, wind, biofuels, the answers are all already there. Time to develop alternatives? You mean time to come up with some more lies while you and your buddies go off roading and take trips to the bank to unload the bundles of cash from your oil stocks.

by tiggerporn on 07/14/2008 10:38:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not true (none / 0)
those numbers are based on old surveys and estimates...the actual amount offshore oil is just a guess...what is for certain is that any oil is years from reaching the gas pump if at all.

by MRFred on 07/15/2008 07:03:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
no competition (none / 0)
"What is for certain is that any oil is years from reaching the gas pump if at all."

What is for certain is that any alternative energy is decades and decades from reaching the gas pump if at all, and it will come in the form of another imbecilic boondoggle like biofuels.

What the hell do you know about bringing in a well you dumbass goober?


“Pioneer Natural Resources Company has brought a near-shore oil production unit on line. Pioneer spokesman Tadd Owens says the first barrel from the Oooguruk facility was sold yesterday. The unit lies northwest of the Kuparuk river, inside the barrier islands of the Beaufort sea. Owens says Pioneer is the first independent to bring new operations on line and they did it quickly — from exploration to production took only 5 years. He says the plan is for 40 wells to be on line within 3 years.”

Did you get that?

  1. Offshore
  2. Starting at ground zero with seismic exploration.
  3. Production in five years.
  4. When you know where the oil is, and the target is offshore, the time lag is three years.
ANWR has nothing to do with offshore. They already have the seismic data. They already know where the oil is. They can lay pipeline to Prudhoe Bay in parallel with the drilling.

I say two years from drilling to Prudhoe Bay.

They built the entire Alaska Highway in months.

by KenTX on 07/15/2008 08:28:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Your right, give up..... (none / 0)

"This is one crisis we cant drill our way out of" T Boone Pickens

 The United States has just 3 percent of the world's oil and gas reserves, but it consumes 25 percent of the world's supply.

___________________________ _____

 What the hell do you know about bringing in a well you dumbass goober?

 Apparently, more than you do JR.

"The president is going in the right direction here. But I would have gone even further and lifted the moratorium with a presidential order. But you also have to remember that the lag time between exploration and first production is still in the range of 8 to 10 years." David O'Reilly, the Chairman and CEO of Chevron

But wouldn't opening up additional areas off U.S. shores increase available crude supplies and, thus, help reduce or stabilize the prices Americans are paying at the pump?

 "access to the Pacific, Atlantic and eastern gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production, or prices, before 2030." U.S. Energy Information Administration

The more remote or technologically challenging plays require multi-year investments and have been subject to numerous delays and cost overruns. The cycle time from discovery to commercial production for large complex deepwater projects now averages in the area of eight years.  Moody’s Investors Service

 

 By the way...when  you quote something...you may want to read the rest of the article

full stable of 40 wells are drilled over the next three years, the field is expected to peak at up to 20,000 barrels per day in 2010, Pioneer said.

Ohhh , impressive! 20,000- barrels a day by 2010...for 40 wells....wow....thats about 4 minutes worth of daily supply for the US.

And your "royalties" and how they are going to balance the budget? , (the Republican gave big oil over 10 Billion dollars worth of deffer ed, forgotten or forgiven payments since Bush took office.)

The state also helped advance the new field by reducing the percentage share of oil it will take as a royalty.The state has made a similar concession to Eni, which has said it will develop another offshore oil field called Nikaitchuq.

Yep, even at 140 a barrel, oilmen are still looking for government handouts...

 The majors have repurchased almost $200 billion of shares since 2004, including almost $90 billion by ExxonMobil and $43 billion by BP. Large share repurchases are supportable without a negative credit impact because they can be managed flexibly and are tied to the evolving outlook for energy prices, alternative capital projects, and acquisition opportunities.

 So the majors can rebuy shares but no pay royalties or cant afford new exploration with out government help?

They built the entire Alaska Highway in months.

 Glad you finally recognize the genius of FDR. Just think, if we built the Alaskan higway in two years just think of what we could do with T Boone Picken energy proposal just for starters...

No matter:

May's total petroleum imports fell 11.7 percent from a year ago, the lowest May level since 2002.

Crude oil imports alone, at 9.5 million barrels per day, were also the lowest for May over that period, falling more than 8 percent from last May.

Gasoline imports fell nearly 25 percent from last May's all-time record.

Crude oil production in the U.S., though continuing to show year-to-year declines, jumped from April to May to a six-month high, though it lags year over year by about 1 percent.

In other words, beware of claims that America must increase domestic drilling and production in order to reduce its reliance on imported petroleum, oil and gas products.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that domestic refineries are using less of their capacities.

 

By the way, are your the chairman of a major oil company? No

Are you a self made oil billionaire? No

 I dunno, I tend to believe the U.S. Energy Information Administration, CEO of Chevron and proven experts before I believe a JR Ewing wanna be.


 

by MRFred on 07/15/2008 09:27:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
June 2008 (none / 0)
http://resourcescommittee.h ouse.gov/images/Documents/d rilling_facts.pdf

by army193 on 07/15/2008 08:54:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Defeating liberals is so damn easy! (none / 0)
I challenge anyone of you guys to take me on. In fact, you’re invited to team up, and all of you can try to take me on at the same time.

Americans currently pay well over $400 billion per year for imported oil. The money is going to bad guys you don’t like, such as Hugo Chavez and the House of Saud.

By drilling for American oil, we can help balance the trade deficit and the budget deficit, while creating hundreds of thousands of high-paying petroleum industry related jobs.

Drilling jobs.
Refinery jobs.
Pipeline jobs.
Offshore platform jobs.
Oil field truck driving jobs.
Roustabout jobs.
Oil field service jobs.

More jobs for more Americans creates more tax revenue. More drilling on federal lands generates more oil royalties for the U.S. Treasury.

Here are Barack Obama’s poll numbers from three weeks ago, before he started attacking oil drilling.

Here are Barack Obama’s poll numbers today, after he started attacking oil drilling.

Wow! That is one hell of a drop! Let’s keep talking about the subject of Barack Obama being against oil drilling. Then we can talk about Barack Obama being against guns. Then we can talk about Barack Obama planning to immediately initiate redeployment from Iraq.  Then we can talk about Barack Obama’s drug use in his younger days. Then we can talk about Barack Obama’s lack of military service. Then we can talk about Barack Obama’s statements against white people.

It’s going to be a long, hot summer, and there won’t be much else to talk about. So let’s discuss Barack Obama all day, all of the time. It worked in 2004.

By the way, Barack will not be allowed to flip flop on this issue. McCain was against drilling when gas was $1.20. Obama is against drilling at $4.30.

by KenTX on 07/14/2008 10:50:30 PM EST

Texas Two Step (none / 0)
More tax revenue? From big oil? Really? Hmm. The way KenTX describes it you think these patriotic Americans would be lining up to help? No? Exxon Mobil made more money last year than any company ever, yet they still complain on the hill about giving their fair share to Uncle Sam. You might even go so far as to say they were whining. Just a bunch of whiners. Making 35 billion. And yet finding ways, ever more ingenious to cheat on paying their taxes. But hey, that's what Republicans like KenTX are best at, cheating at poker, on their wives and on their taxes. And we all know it ain't cheatin' if ya don't get caught.

Please Ken, big oil cares about as much about tax revenue trickling down to the welfare state as you and Grover Norquist. If that is going to work so well in the future, why isn't it doing it now? What happened to the billions in oil revenue that were magically going to pay for the war in Iraq? If this trickle down voodoo works so well and Bush's tax plan has stimulated anything beyond your overactive Viagra induced imagination, then why are we heading into recession with record levels of debt and why isn't the public supporting Bush.

Bush has the lowest level of any sitting president in, well, the history of presidents. He's number one at being last. And he's the poster child for oil, drilling, supply side tax cuts for billionaires voodoo economics increased tax revenue trickling down to the little guy bullshit.

Just keep on hummin' your one note tune and dancin' to your Texas two step buddy. Moving right along.

by tiggerporn on 07/14/2008 11:45:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
We have a challenger! (none / 0)
“More tax revenue? From big oil? Really?”

That’s right. You want to know how it works? It’s called a royalty split. I split the royalty on the oil produced on my land with my neighbors, because “I drink their milkshake”.

Congress can vote to allow drilling in ANWR, and stipulate in the legislation that one out of every four barrels produced is owned by the U.S. Treasury. Same with the Rockies. Same with the offshore tracts. Billions of barrels of American oil means hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue for the Treasury.

Billions of barrels of American oil means hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs for American workers.

That might be true, but the approval rating for Congressional Democrats is now only one fourth of the approval rating for the president.

by KenTX on 07/15/2008 12:08:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
distract and blame (none / 0)
More tax revenue from big oil? Really? I'm questioning why they won't continue to weasel their way out of it like they are doing right now. I heard the same kinds of statements before we went to war with Iraq. I didn't doubt then that there was oil in Iraq. I just saw past the greed. Once the companies get past the regulation, what is to stop good old fashioned American greed from kicking in? Only a sucker would pay for something they can pass on to the tax payer, right? KBR, Halliburton they've made billions. There hasn't been any oil tax revenue paying for the war. It was all just lies. Bush, Enron, Big Oil have lost my trust. So when you come to me now talking about hundreds of billions of dollars my eyes don't light up with dollar signs, they remember the same lies you told before.

Didn't Exxon, Conoco Phillips, BP and Chevron just testify before congress and defend their 35 billion dollar profits (Exxon) and explain why they were sick and tired of paying their taxes? So why should I believe they want to pay anymore?

But really this is just a political issue, they really don't want to drill, they don't want to waste more money on exploration, they are happy with the status quo. God forbid we really did have a real supply problem and it wan't all manufactured with smoke and mirrors to manipulate the price. I will say I'm not sure how much control they have over that manipulation, but that they certainly aren't going to complain about it as long as the gravy train is still running.

You said it yourself, this is just to bring down Barack's numbers, nothing more. But that does make me question something else. The trad republican playbook from The Prince states that you should distract and blame your opponent when you have something to hide. So it makes me wonder what McCain has to hide right now, since I haven't seen anything suspicious with him in the news lately.

by tiggerporn on 07/15/2008 12:45:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes (none / 0)
And let's not ignore Ken's most laughable and glaring problem:

Investing in the various potential green industries will provide just as many if not more jobs than will any increase in domestic drilling.

Not to mention the fact that the green industries are the future while the oil industry (and domestic drilling specifically) has an expiration date. And that's not even getting into global warming and other pollution.

by ihavenobias on 07/15/2008 12:56:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
proof that engineering degrees are important (none / 0)
"Investing in the various potential green industries will provide just as many if not more jobs than will any increase in domestic drilling."

"Green energy jobs" (I feel ridiculous even typing those words) have the potential to create 300 million new American jobs.

by KenTX on 07/15/2008 01:22:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
See, I accomplished something (none / 0)
I made you feel ridiculous.   I didn't think that was possible?!

by ihavenobias on 07/15/2008 06:21:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Great comment (none / 0)
...

by ihavenobias on 07/15/2008 06:22:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Lie Lies and More Lies (none / 0)

and I have crushed you on this subject more time than I can count.

Yeah...we should listen to Rethugs, we see how all the  deregulation you guys pushed turned out. By the way Bush and your fellow thieves controlled Congress for six years....you could have done this at any time...but by driving prices up the Rethug oilmen got richer....

Face it, OIL is dead...a dying industry in the US. No amount of drilling, right wing bluster and lies is going to save it. Its not 1950 anymore. No more "wildcatter" myths and romantic crap about the good old days. It's done..finished.

If there was more easily recoverable oil to be had in the US they would be drilling it...and you know it. Your too dishonest to admit it.

The environmental sensitive lands are a small small amount of the total land area of the US that contains possible oil deposits.

But as your references have repeatedly said " all the easily recoverable oil in the US  has been exploited" and the drilling costs are cheaper over seas, before and after environmental regulation in the US...thats why since the 60's big oil is all over foreign fields...they don't have to pay the workers US wages for those jobs you keep spinning up.

You can blame it on environmentalists, you can blame it on Democrats, you can blame it on Jesus if you like. The reality is your own industry fucked itself and long term, you, by jumping on cheap imported oil and ignoring domestic production. Once that trend was started....the profits rolled.

So in a way..your industry has been outsourced...free traded...to low cost countries. Welcome to the rest of Americas plight pal....

Drilling ANWAR and off of Florida will do very little to lower the price of oil or gasoline. Like your reference said...oil is a global commodity, imported foreign oil or domestically produced oil...you pay global prices.

The oil companies know that...and so do you but your lying about it.

At these prices they ( big oil) are hot to exploit the ANWAR resources. Even with higher US labor costs they can pocket more profit.Until the price drops a little, then the layoffs roll, the exploration slows until the next spike.

The oil produced in ANWAR will be dumped into the same commodity market as the rest of the world production with the 7 sisters pocketing the profit

For us gasoline will still be 4.00+ a gallon. Talk about a scam. .

So your so called agument isn't exactly compelling nor is you response...more braggadocio...no facts. Old tired bluster..no new ideas, nothing.

Rather than importing a half a trillion dollars worth of crude and finished products every year, we should be putting that money into the American economy

Funny, thats exactly what that "fraud" T Boone Pickens said. If there was money to be made by drilling domestically, oil companies would be drilling like motherfuckers regardless of the low hanging fruit being in restricted lands. The fact is it's not easy money.

That being said year-over-year oil exploration in the US is only up 30.3 percent since last year with prices over the same period up over 98%. Sounds like they are finding some places to drill. Seems that 140$ a barrel oil would be plenty of incentive to be drilling a lot more. But as the WSJ said

Touted US Offshore Oil Drilling Expansion Hinges on High Prices

"Energy producers are likely to need years more of high oil prices in order to develop any new reserves opened up by the lifting of offshore drilling restrictions...the industry is also certain to need high prices to pay for finding and extracting oil and gas hidden in the newly accessible seabed. Few rigs and even fewer people are sitting idle, waiting for an oil rush in virgin territory. Producers will either need to pull equipment and personnel from other projects or pay through the nose. Either solution is likely to delay production of some of those 18 billion barrels; other newly opened areas could remain untouched for lack of rigs or money."

By the same token they don't want to build  refineries...even without environmental rules margins are too low for their tastes.

"Meanwhile, U.S. oil companies continue to hold back on building refineries despite the increases seen in 2005 in prices for gasoline, heating oil and jet fuel. While regulatory issues are one barrier, oil companies generally see better returns on investment in oil exploration rather than refinery capacity "

So please spare us the " benefit of all Americans" crap.  All you care about is the benefit of Ken.

You have said that repeatedly. To do that you need to maintain Republican control of the government. That way you can pump your oil you claim you have, make fun of those less fortunate that yourself and rationalize a lifestyle that destroys the very foundation of our society and our environment for your personal benefit.

We Recycle!

by MRFred on 07/15/2008 07:14:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
As usual (none / 0)
You created another excellent post Fred.

by ihavenobias on 07/15/2008 06:20:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Truth About America's Energy: Big Oil Stockpil (none / 0)
http://resourcescommittee.h ouse.gov/images/stories/Doc uments/truth_about_americas _energy.pdf

by army193 on 07/15/2008 09:00:32 AM EST

All of the links you posted (none / 0)
are broken:

<h1>Not Found</h1>The requested URL was not found on this server.

by ihavenobias on 07/15/2008 10:48:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Breaking News(!): Lou Dobbs Says Something Stupid | 58 comments (58 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: