• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Said to Seek $54 Billion in Nuclear-Power Loans

:roll:
Pick any oil-reliant city; you'll largely find the same thing. Are you seriously disputing that oil causes air pollution? Really?

Almost ALL cities are "oil reliant".

Last time I checked, the planet is still alive.
 
When you want to discuss this seriously I'll be waiting...

I was being serious.

Unlike you, I've a background as a nuclear power plant operator.

AND, I think Mecca would be a most excellent place to dump our ****, even our glow in the dark ****.
 
Oil kills thousands of people every year? Care to site some examples? And btw the death toll is only a small part of the price paid at Chernobyl although I consider 4000 not something to write off as inconsequential. I don't consider the resettlement of 330,000 people and 600,000 severely exposed people not a big deal either. And don't forget the exclusion zone which I believe exists to this day.

Yes, Chernobyl, permanent evidence that socialist countries suck.

Who but a socialist country would run an antique unsafe reactor like that?

Nothing comparable has ever happened in any civilized nation.
 
You blame Obama for shutting down a facility that was never open?

Yes, he's a Democrat, isn't he?

They're the roadblock, he may as well, as the Party's leader, get all the credit for every screw up the Democrats make.

Isn't that a MUCH better plan than blaming Bush for every screwup the Democrats make?
 
Almost...the retail price will be $57K for the regular version, or $65K for a premium model with a 300+ mile range. I think people underestimate how quickly the prices drop for emerging technologies.

I can buy a used gas-hog SUV for less than $10,000, and the $47,000 price differential, plus the $4,700 tax differential, plus the insurance differential, will buy one HELL of a lot of gasoline, enough so I'm discarding the vehicle before I spend as much money as the cost of one of those battery operated toys you're touting.
 
It was two different sentences. We have been drilling our oil for over a century and all the rigs in the Gulf prove it. Understand?

Rigs mean platforms too.


Do Platforms have anything to do with the extraction of oil? Or are they as pointed out mostly transport, storage, and housing?


j-mac
 
So it would be a win/win then. Even if all vehicles could be electric I am for getting us of foreign oil. I would prefer Solar or hydro or even wind but at this point am willing to conceder Nuclear.

The word you're avoding is "drill".

Drilling here, in the US, will get the US off foreign oil.
 
Do Platforms have anything to do with the extraction of oil? Or are they as pointed out mostly transport, storage, and housing?


j-mac

An offshore platform, often referred to as an oil platform or an oil rig, is a large structure used to house workers and machinery needed to drill wells in the ocean bed, extract oil and/or natural gas, process the produced fluids, and ship or pipe them to shore. Depending on the circumstances, the platform may be fixed to the ocean floor, may consist of an artificial island, or may float.

Most offshore platforms are located on the continental shelf, though with advances in technology and increasing crude oil prices, drilling and production in deeper waters has become both feasible and economically viable. A typical platform may have around thirty wellheads located on the platform and directional drilling allows reservoirs to be accessed at both different depths and at remote positions up to 5 miles (8 kilometers) from the platform.

Remote subsea wells may also be connected to a platform by flow lines and by umbilical connections; these subsea solutions may consist of single wells or of a manifold centre for multiple wells.


You decide.
 
Last edited:
We should try. We have hundreds of billions of barrels of liquid reserves, and two thosand billion barrels in shale reserves.

Who is we?
US oil companies have cut back drilling and exploration due to reduced demand and lower prices.
How do we get them to drill more?


From 1999 to 2007, drilling permits issued for the development of public lands increased by more than 361 percent. Despite this increase, gasoline prices rose exponentially. At that rate, the United States, which uses about 25 percent of the world's energy, but has only an estimated 2 percent of energy reserves, will never drill its way to a solution.

Additionally, oil companies have refused to even file for permits to build refineries that could process crude oil, thus keeping supplies of gasoline and heating fuel low and prices — and their profits — high. Furthermore, companies already lease 91.5 million acres of on-land and offshore federal lands; yet only 23.7 million acres are actually used for production. One could be justified in concluding that the industry is simply speculating by stockpiling more federal lands.

There are ways to affect fuel prices. Although it would have slow and minimal effect on current prices, we could start by compelling oil companies to actually develop the already-leased acres or risk losing their permits or incurring an escalating charge for letting them lie unused. The money collected could be applied to lowering prices for consumers or for research and development of alternative sources of energy. Such a bill is being passed by the New Majority in Congress.
 
Last edited:
Who is we?

Oh, I forget.

Democrats live in the US but arent' Americans, so when an American such as myself says "we", the Democrat gets confused.

US oil companies have cut back drilling and exploration due to reduced demand and lower prices.
How do we get them to drill more?

There have been federal bans on exploration since the 1970's, and the legislation and regulation imposed on drilling makes it a risky venture indeed.

When I say "we", meaning the Americans, need to drill to stop transferring our wealth to terrorists and socialists, I mean, "we" need to get rid of the onerous burden of legal bull**** entrepreneurs face when trying to do something profitable.

Exxon sued the government to get a refund on a lease in California because the federal government, via the Air Force, and the state government, and the local municipal government put so many road blocks in the way of drilling that they couldn't even set up a drilling rig.
 
Oh, I forget.

Democrats live in the US but arent' Americans, so when an American such as myself says "we", the Democrat gets confused.



There have been federal bans on exploration since the 1970's, and the legislation and regulation imposed on drilling makes it a risky venture indeed.

When I say "we", meaning the Americans, need to drill to stop transferring our wealth to terrorists and socialists, I mean, "we" need to get rid of the onerous burden of legal bull**** entrepreneurs face when trying to do something profitable.

Exxon sued the government to get a refund on a lease in California because the federal government, via the Air Force, and the state government, and the local municipal government put so many road blocks in the way of drilling that they couldn't even set up a drilling rig.

We don't drill. The oil companies drill. Unless you own an oil company it will not be you that drills. The oil companies have cut back drilling since the recession started. They drill as much as they want to maximize their profits.
Only a fool believes the oil companies have run out of places to drill.
 
I was being serious.

Unlike you, I've a background as a nuclear power plant operator.

AND, I think Mecca would be a most excellent place to dump our ****, even our glow in the dark ****.

I don't care if you're Enrico Fermi. Your above statement is ignorant and makes no sense in a serious discussion on the subject.
 
An offshore platform, often referred to as an oil platform or an oil rig, is a large structure used to house workers and machinery needed to drill wells in the ocean bed, extract oil and/or natural gas, process the produced fluids, and ship or pipe them to shore. Depending on the circumstances, the platform may be fixed to the ocean floor, may consist of an artificial island, or may float.

Most offshore platforms are located on the continental shelf, though with advances in technology and increasing crude oil prices, drilling and production in deeper waters has become both feasible and economically viable. A typical platform may have around thirty wellheads located on the platform and directional drilling allows reservoirs to be accessed at both different depths and at remote positions up to 5 miles (8 kilometers) from the platform.

Remote subsea wells may also be connected to a platform by flow lines and by umbilical connections; these subsea solutions may consist of single wells or of a manifold centre for multiple wells.


You decide.


Ok, I notice alot of 'could be's' and "may have" in your explanation as caveat. Does that mean that you aren't really sure just how many active drilling sites there are in the Gulf?


j-mac
 
Sure we can. The question is do we have the will?


j-mac

How do we get the oil companies to drill more. Since demand has dropped they have cut back exploration and new drilling. Are you suggesting the government force US oil companies to drill more? You see it has nothing to do with "WE".
It is the oil companies that control production.
 
Ok, I notice alot of 'could be's' and "may have" in your explanation as caveat. Does that mean that you aren't really sure just how many active drilling sites there are in the Gulf?


j-mac

I know there are thousands of rigs in the gulf. It's not like we haven't been using our own resources for the last 100 years.
 
We don't drill. The oil companies drill.

You had help figuring that out, didn't you?

Unless you own an oil company it will not be you that drills.

It won't be the oil company drilling until the federal government stops getting in the way, either.

Duh.

Explain why any oil company should invest in exploration and exploitation of resources when socialist pig politicians will declare a "windfall (for them) profits tax" on any profits coming from that drilling?
 
Last edited:
You had help figuring that out, didn't you?



It won't be the oil company drilling until the federal government stops getting in the way, either.

Duh.

Explain why any oil company should invest in exploration and exploitation of resources when socialist pig politicians will declare a "windfall (for them) profits tax" on any profits coming from that drilling?


Yet even if Congress opens up the 574 million acres now off limits along the outer continental shelf, tight supplies of equipment and labor will severely constrain exploration in the next decade. Only a limited number of shipyards are capable of building the necessary $700 million drilling rig, and many of the rigs being built today are going to Brazil, West Africa, and Southeast Asia, where the oil business is also booming. Even then, it usually takes at least seven to 10 years for the oil to start flowing

It's you that doesn't seem to understand. You keep using the word "we".

It's Boom Time for Oil in the Gulf of Mexico, Despite a Ban on Drilling in Many Areas - US News and World Report
 
It was two different sentences. We have been drilling our oil for over a century and all the rigs in the Gulf prove it. Understand?

Rigs mean platforms too.

LOL....... try this.

You say:

Rape is a horrible crime. He's done it thousands of times.

Someone else comes back:

No he hasn't.

You say:

Sure he has, he’s been married for 25 years.

:roll:
 
How do we get the oil companies to drill more. Since demand has dropped they have cut back exploration and new drilling. Are you suggesting the government force US oil companies to drill more? You see it has nothing to do with "WE".
It is the oil companies that control production.


Are they free to explore and drill where ever they find the reserves? or does the Government tell them when and where they can drill?


I know there are thousands of rigs in the gulf. It's not like we haven't been using our own resources for the last 100 years.


I see, so you'd like to stick to the vaugness of your initial response, instead of answering a direct question....I understand.....:2wave:


Yet even if Congress opens up the 574 million acres now off limits along the outer continental shelf, tight supplies of equipment and labor will severely constrain exploration in the next decade. Only a limited number of shipyards are capable of building the necessary $700 million drilling rig, and many of the rigs being built today are going to Brazil, West Africa, and Southeast Asia, where the oil business is also booming. Even then, it usually takes at least seven to 10 years for the oil to start flowing


I see you like to stick to the leftist response to this question....Allow me.


WASHINGTON — Energy companies seeking to drill for oil and gas on public lands in the U.S. will face stiffer environmental scrutiny and new regulatory hurdles under changes announced Wednesday by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.
The new policies limit the federal government's practice of fast-tracking some drilling proposals by exempting them from detailed environmental studies.
The changes also direct the Bureau of Land Management, which oversees more than 260 million acres of federal land, to conduct on-site assessments and seek expanded public input on proposed oil and gas leases.

Interior chief adds hurdles for drilling on public lands | Business | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle


WASHINGTON - A group of 69 lawmakers, including Reps. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, and a number of Texas Republicans on Monday urged a White House ocean task force to avoid creating any new obstacles to offshore oil and gas drilling.
The House members said they were concerned that President Barack Obama's Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force was focusing too "heavily on environmental stewardship" of the marine waters and was giving short shrift to "other national priorities," including coastal energy development.
Obama created the group in June to make recommendations for protecting "the health of ocean, coastal and Great Lakes" resources. In an interim report in September, the group suggested creating a new National Ocean Council that would guide decisions about drilling, recreation and fishing in the Great Lakes and coastal waters.
The group is set to issue a final report by December.
In a letter to Nancy Sutley, chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality and the head of the ocean policy group, the lawmakers said they were concerned the task force's work could hamper U.S. efforts "to safely develop its own offshore energy, including oil, natural gas and renewable energy." The letter also expressed concern that the task force's recommendations could undermine an existing Interior Department plan that governs offshore oil and natural gas leases until 2012.
"It is critical that the task force's proposals do not inhibit energy activity offshore in domestic waters," the lawmakers said. They urged the task force to ensure "that offshore areas surrounding the Gulf, Atlantic, Pacific and Alaskan coasts are open to responsible oil, natural gas and alternative energy development."


Lawmakers fear hurdles to drilling They want ocean task force to keep energy needs in mind OFFSHORE: A push on comments 10/27/2009 | Archives | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle


Obama talks a good game in his SOTU, then turn around and does stupid crap like this.


j-mac
 
You don't think it would be possible to come up with some other method to hear you coming? ****, they could design a recording of a harley engine that would be synced to the electric motor. Does that work?





And as the personal computer has shown, new technologies can get exponentially faster, lighter, more powerful, and cheaper over relatively short periods of time.

Does the computer you're typing on cost $100,000 and look like this?

1970-1970s-control_~o4050.jpg

I will stick to the harley engine.

My computer cost $1500 and is all in the moniter.
 
Back
Top Bottom