Bush wins another one for his buddies in the oil Industry

A few points to make here.

1) There are national security concerns that trump free market principles when it comes to oil
2) Being dependent on politically unstable countries for oil such as Venezuela, Russia, the Middle East puts an uncertainty premium on the price of oil
3) I'm assuming that you are ignoring the Gulf of Mexico when you talk about limiting US production. The Gulf is on fire right now. Thunderhorse is 25% operated by ExxonMobil and could be one of the largest fields ever. Deep water drilling is going gangbusters.
4) The margins in Alaska are very different than continental US (which I'm assuming you are talking about). Prudhoe Bay has been an incredible success story, and the oil in ANWR is supposed to be sweet and low sulfur, making it superior to Prudhoe's reserves
5) You didn't mention natural gas, which is a huge part of the ANWR reserves. With gas prices over $7.00 per thousand cubic feet, as they are right now, many industries are suffering.
6) US jobs and a higher US tax base are two more reasons.

 

texx, this is just like virtually every post both you and your idiot brother make. You assume from scanning someone else's post that you know exactly what they said and just fill in the rest from your own mistaken assumptions.

As I said in my post, had you bothered to read it, I haven't actually studied the subject in detail in over two decades. I fully admitted up front that I could be wrong on the subject, but you act like I claimed to be the definitive expert on biomass and biodiesel.

Just as I said in my post.

I don't wake up hung over. First of all, I don't drink. Second of all, even when I drank heavily, I never had a hangover. I have never experienced one, even after an evening filled with Coors Light and Quervo 1800.

Do you have a link or substantiation of any kind or are you just going to leave this as a baseless claim like all of your (and your brother's) others?

I know anyone left of Rush Limbaugh qualifies as a "liberal" to you, but no matter how many times you trumpet your mistaken assumption, it simply isn't true.

What a maroon.

Since your brother is too chickensh!t to accept, I will extend my debate challenge to you. If you think your politics are SOOO right and mine are equally wrong, you should have no trouble handling me in such a debate. However, I suspect that this is where you will imitate your brother and slink away like a beaten dog.

 

I'm sure our siding with Israel didn't help our standing with OPEC, but I would have to think that OPEC would exhibit similar behavior if left to their own devices. It's classic profit maximizing collusion. Take OPEC away and the price of oil goes down probably to $10 a barrel. If I could collude to limit production to keep prices high, hell I'd do the same thing. It's a crooked cartel.

 

And yet the ONLY way we can get out from under the machinations of the "crooked cartel" is to dramatically REDUCE the amount of oil we consume in this country. These reductions could easily happen by increasing fuel economy standards, but your master and his cabal shot that plan down.

 

Andy, do a simple google search to find out all of the Bush incentives available for biodiesel. He has in fact done this, I'm not making it up. Please invest you own time to verify, as I am unwilling to spend my valuable time in doing so.

This is high comedy when you try to call me a "moron", but instead call me a "maroon". Look in the mirror pal, you might just find the word you were looking for. LOL

I will not waste my time with your contrived debate. I have nothing to prove. You are clearly on the defensive and have some kind of an inferiority complex in which you need to prove your manhood to the bbs through debate. I am quite secure with myself and do not have this need, and again, I am unwilling to invest my very valuable time in such an endeavor.

 

Very true indeed. If we don't find ways to save oil and actually lower the amount we use we will always be OPEC's plaything when it comes to oil. Fact is, and you mentioned it before texx, that OPEC controls more oil than any other person, entity, or country in the world. Consumption isn't going down anytime soon and we're taking a chance on a large amount of oil being in Alaska where we want to drill next so we're really not trying to find ways to limit the use of oil just trying to find ways to keep up with the demand which is ass backwards if you ask me.

 

Maybe he meant it in the Bugs Bunny sort of way.

 

So you will continue floating your unfounded claims. Typical.

Actually, if you ever read my posts, you will find that I quote Bugs Bunny's most common insult regularly. If I wanted to call you a moron (or idiot, or dumbass, or anything else), rest assured I would have done it intelligibly.

So, just like your brother, you will slink away. I thought so.

 

Still waiting for some substance from you in this debate, moon. So far you have only contributed a very frustrated, angry tone.

While we wait for you to meaningfully contribute to the thread, let's all have a laugh at the way you spell your favorite tequila. Quervo! Ha!

 

What exactly do you want from him? It seems he has put in a few things that are worthwhile.

 

I had the impression that refineries were closed intentionally to boost profits for oil companies. Giants like Exxon/Mobil own the entire distribution channel so to reduce inventories and cut costs they intentionally make the gas "on demand". There was a giant federal investigation looking into their practices for collusion, and while it didn't turn up any red flags, they did a lot of risky schemes (like having no inventories in stock when the refinery in Northern California blew up) that hurt the consumer while fattening their profit margins.

 

Trader_Jorge all of your points would make sense if the US were to nationalize those oil fields to keep or limit the natural gas off of the World market. In the meantime as FD Khan correctly notes the price of oil is largely affected by global supply and demand and the relative weakness of the US Dollar.

So are you advocating nationalization?

 

I think that alternate energy *is* the rage right now -- with lots of private and gov money looking to make it viable. I expect that 'big oil' is an active player in this field. I just don't see us switching any time soon.

I also think it's a good thing to find additional oil reserves -- especially on 'friendly' soil. Even if it doesn't mean a reduction in price at the pumps.

But I just have zero faith that George and Co will give appropriate consideration to the potential environmental impact of this particular exploration. THis has been one of his pet projects from the get go. He wanted it...and was determined to get it through -- regardless of the consequences. A 51-49 vote (with a loaded senate, no less) demonstrates that there's more to this than simply the anti-bush and radical tree huggers.

If this were about reducing energy dependence -- a much more effective strategy would focus on use. Average fleet MPG's were discussed, implemented, and relaxed. NOt good. If he's serious about reducing dependence, a relatively simple method would be to mandate fuel efficiency - just as safety features are mandated. But he won't do that. Because his policy is based on an 'oil man's' perspective. This is about opening up opportunities for exploration. About economics, and jobs. The rest is spin.

 

Just to put this in perspective, let me share with you a couple of pictures of the ANWR that I found on another board:

This is the area that will be drilled on:


And this is the incredibly small piece of the ANWR that will be affected: (look hard for the red speck that represents the miniscule 2,000 acres)


Now how ridiculous is the liberals' argument? VERY.

Can we go ahead and say GAME, SET, MATCH? Yes, I do believe we can. Thanks for playing, libs.

 

If the argument is so ridiculous why did it only pass by 51 votes? There are 55 GOP senators. Are four of them closet Libs?

If the argument is so ridiculous why was this measure defeated two years ago? (that was post 911 by the way -- we weren't particularly enamored by the Arabs at that time). What's changed? (other than stacking the senate with pro-oil senators)

If the argument is so ridiculous why was it packaged as part of the budget (thereby needing only a majority) rather than as energy legislation requiring 2/3 majority? You'd thing opening up a protected area would warrant a stronger mandate.

GAME? SET? MATCH? Well...it does seem to be no more than a game to George. Pretty sad, really.

 

What happens if they do not find oil here or even if they do it is a minimal amount. I have seen posts that say studies have shown this and studies have shown that but these studies are not conclusive are they? So, what happens if we find less than expected amounts or even worse no amounts of oil in this region?

 

That's the whole point. They are drilling to find out exactly what is there. What happens if nothing is there? Well, you've got a few holes poked in a desolate area of tundra. Big friggin deal.

 

Then we wil not realize that massive savings of PENNIES (or fractions thereof) per gallon on gas and all of the blathering will be for naught.

 

That's what I was thinking, not that there would just be some holes in the ground. I also think that it may cause oil prices to go up even further if it is found to be an empty or unfulfilling source.

 

It's disingenous to pretend like this measure passed for any other reason than to benefit those who are already in power.