• 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 Gives Billions for Offshore Drilling But Not Here

rhinefire

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
10,282
Reaction score
2,965
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Feel free to read the attached link about our glorious traitor Bla-bla and hisso-o-o-o concern about the environment that he is loaning $2,000,000,000 to (South) America for offshore drilling. Oh, those horrible big oil companies (only here in the states of course) and their total hatred for the environment. Lying dirty scum but at least he is lying to the left as well.

Hot Air Blog Archive Good news: Obama backs off-shore drilling! Update: A Soros connection?
 
Just a quick point--where exactly would you like to drill here in the U.S., or offshore near the U.S.?

The idea that there's much oil to find here is not well supported by the geological evidence. There are small patches off the east coast, but it's not clear that it won't cost more to develop them than will be recovered from them. We have explored the North American continent, with a few exceptions in the far north. We know what's here.

South America underwent the same intensive exploration over the last decade, and near the end of that period, the large brazillian offshore field was found. It's got enough oil to be worth drilling, and if we fund it, we'll be able to get the oil.

Seems like simple enough logic to me. Send the development dollars to where there is actually oil, be the first to do so, so that we get the oil.
 
Seems like simple enough logic to me. Send the development dollars to where there is actually oil, be the first to do so, so that we get the oil.

Why should our government send our tax dollars to a company that had an 18 billion dollar profit last year that has large agreements to sell their product to China? They should pay for their own research.

The possible Soros connection is a different matter. While it does come across as fishy without proof its only coincident. If I had to take a guess I would say there is a reasonable possibility that Soros may have had some influence in the deal. I doubt there are any politians that dont have shady back deals going on.
 
This action stands alone as irrefutable proof that BO's intent is not to bolster the American economy .. but to drive a stake in it!
 
Just a quick point--where exactly would you like to drill here in the U.S., or offshore near the U.S.?

The idea that there's much oil to find here is not well supported by the geological evidence. There are small patches off the east coast, but it's not clear that it won't cost more to develop them than will be recovered from them. We have explored the North American continent, with a few exceptions in the far north. We know what's here.

South America underwent the same intensive exploration over the last decade, and near the end of that period, the large brazillian offshore field was found. It's got enough oil to be worth drilling, and if we fund it, we'll be able to get the oil.

Seems like simple enough logic to me. Send the development dollars to where there is actually oil, be the first to do so, so that we get the oil.

If there was no oil, why do the oil companies want to drill?

Seems to me that the only people who push the, "we're all outta oil", mantra are the folks that are opposed to harvesting it. The oil companies aren't going to spend billions of dollars going after something that doesn't exist.

Why not fund drilling here and put Americans to work?
 
Just a quick point--where exactly would you like to drill here in the U.S., or offshore near the U.S.?.


Will if the Dear Leader had NOT signed a moratorium on exploration in the dark of night on his 4th day in office (driving the FIRST stake in our economy in the process).. here's a list:

Offshore N.C.
Offshore Atlantic Fl.
Florida straits
Anwar Provence
Offshore GOM

just for for starters!

BTW which liberal scien-politico did you get THAT tidbit of misinformation?
 
Baralis said:
Why should our government send our tax dollars to a company that had an 18 billion dollar profit last year that has large agreements to sell their product to China? They should pay for their own research.

The possible Soros connection is a different matter. While it does come across as fishy without proof its only coincident. If I had to take a guess I would say there is a reasonable possibility that Soros may have had some influence in the deal. I doubt there are any politians that dont have shady back deals going on.

I've no doubt that Obama has his share of shady back-room deals. However, the article posted goes too far IMO--the brazillian field (which still goes by a couple of names) is the largest find in this hemisphere in quite a while. We're making overtures towards Brazil for the same reason we make overtures towards any country--they have something we want. It's the couteous thing to do to offer them something in return. If they don't reciprocate, we can respond appropriately to that.

Brazil does have trade agreements with China. Given that China buys our debt, our doing something that benefits China's economy benefits our own.

All of this said, we are playing a losing game, and this discussion is a moot point. We could have sent them 18 trillion dollars. Wouldn't matter.
 
apdst said:
If there was no oil, why do the oil companies want to drill?

They'd like to explore. No one has said anything about drilling that I've heard. As you will read in the link I post below, oil companies spent a whopping two hundred thousand dollars per quarter in 2007 lobbying congress for the right to explore those areas. Call it 1 million dollars per year.

Now look at their profits, and tell me that's not a pittance.

apdst said:
Seems to me that the only people who push the, "we're all outta oil", mantra are the folks that are opposed to harvesting it. The oil companies aren't going to spend billions of dollars going after something that doesn't exist.

Well, meet the first one who doesn't. Here's my position in a nutshell:

1) It's far too late on climate change and pollution. We passed the line where we are utterly doomed in 2005--actually probably sometime in the 1970s.

So as far as environmental issues go, we're already fooked, so it doesn't really matter whether we drill more or not. In the meantime, a little more oil can help us be more comfortable.

2) However, it's estimated that there could be up to 18 bbls along the east coast. Those estimates are based on the 2k survey by the U.S. Geological survey, which suffered from major methodological flaws. I'll be happy to discuss those in depth with you if you like; in the meantime, it's worth noting that since then, they have been dreadfully wrong on every projection they've made. They've become an untrustworthy source as far as most people are concerned.

There probably is some oil there, especially off the Carolina coasts and the coast of Florida. The geology is right for it. But that's really all we know; we don't even have adequate seismic surveys. Even assuming that we could recover 18 bbls, that amounts to a 900 day supply for the U.S. at our current rates of consumption. We would face some serious technical challenges in recovery that would slow the rate of flow down signficantly. That 18 bbls--if it's there--isn't likely to be all in one place. We'll need more rigs, and then they'll have to be deployed. Etc. Etc.

The real kicker comes when you realize that even if we start today, it will be about 20 years before we start to harvest the first barrels of oil. At current and projected decline rates, the pooch will already have been screwed by then. At the projected decline rates, if we start now, we'll be recovering oil from the east coast in 2029. In that same year, we'll be producing roughly 15 mbpd worldwide. We're producing about 82 mbpd right now. The maximal flow rate for the east coast is going to be something less than a million barrels per day, so it's hardly going to do anybody any good.

I would suggest you read these articles:

There May Be Oil Offshore, But…

Why Exxon Won't Produce More
 
CoservaBill said:
Will if the Dear Leader had NOT signed a moratorium on exploration in the dark of night on his 4th day in office (driving the FIRST stake in our economy in the process).. here's a list:

Offshore N.C.
Offshore Atlantic Fl.
Florida straits
Anwar Provence
Offshore GOM

just for for starters!

See my post to apdst, above.

ConservaBill said:
BTW which liberal scien-politico did you get THAT tidbit of misinformation?

I did not get it from any...whatever that is you wrote. I base my information on spending several years listening to geologists, oil economists, physicists, geostatisticians, oil investment bankers, and other such people--the best and brightest in their fields--debate the oil and energy situation. I chose to believe those people who:

1) Made the most successful predictions (note: no one made 100% accurate predictions, but the actual events favored those with pessimistic views much more than optimistic).

2) Based their arguments on correct and comprehensive information, and employed valid reasoning from that information.

I'm not a liberal in any sense that most people--you or most others on these boards--would likely understand. Our so-called "liberal" politicians are a bunch of scumbags, just as are our so-called "conservative" politicians.
 
They'd like to explore. No one has said anything about drilling that I've heard. As you will read in the link I post below, oil companies spent a whopping two hundred thousand dollars per quarter in 2007 lobbying congress for the right to explore those areas. Call it 1 million dollars per year.

Now look at their profits, and tell me that's not a pittance.



Well, meet the first one who doesn't. Here's my position in a nutshell:

1) It's far too late on climate change and pollution. We passed the line where we are utterly doomed in 2005--actually probably sometime in the 1970s.

So as far as environmental issues go, we're already fooked, so it doesn't really matter whether we drill more or not. In the meantime, a little more oil can help us be more comfortable.

2) However, it's estimated that there could be up to 18 bbls along the east coast. Those estimates are based on the 2k survey by the U.S. Geological survey, which suffered from major methodological flaws. I'll be happy to discuss those in depth with you if you like; in the meantime, it's worth noting that since then, they have been dreadfully wrong on every projection they've made. They've become an untrustworthy source as far as most people are concerned.

There probably is some oil there, especially off the Carolina coasts and the coast of Florida. The geology is right for it. But that's really all we know; we don't even have adequate seismic surveys. Even assuming that we could recover 18 bbls, that amounts to a 900 day supply for the U.S. at our current rates of consumption. We would face some serious technical challenges in recovery that would slow the rate of flow down signficantly. That 18 bbls--if it's there--isn't likely to be all in one place. We'll need more rigs, and then they'll have to be deployed. Etc. Etc.

The real kicker comes when you realize that even if we start today, it will be about 20 years before we start to harvest the first barrels of oil. At current and projected decline rates, the pooch will already have been screwed by then. At the projected decline rates, if we start now, we'll be recovering oil from the east coast in 2029. In that same year, we'll be producing roughly 15 mbpd worldwide. We're producing about 82 mbpd right now. The maximal flow rate for the east coast is going to be something less than a million barrels per day, so it's hardly going to do anybody any good.

I would suggest you read these articles:

There May Be Oil Offshore, But…

Why Exxon Won't Produce More

New oil pools are maturing all the time. It's erroneous that there's no more oil. That oil companies aren't going on exploration jobs just for the hell of it. They've got a pretty good idea of what's there, they just have to pin point it. The seismo has already been done.

The Haynesville Shale is a prime example of how there are resources out there just waiting to be tapped. It's the largest gas field in the US and has the potential to become the largest producing gas field in the world.

5827.jpg


RIGZONE - Map and Image Library

The, "we're all out of oil", argument doesn't work anymore. Besides, what do you care if the oil companies waste all their money?
 
Feel free to read the attached link about our glorious traitor Bla-bla and hisso-o-o-o concern about the environment that he is loaning $2,000,000,000 to (South) America for offshore drilling. Oh, those horrible big oil companies (only here in the states of course) and their total hatred for the environment. Lying dirty scum but at least he is lying to the left as well.

Hot Air Blog Archive Good news: Obama backs off-shore drilling! Update: A Soros connection?

Um, dude, sorry to break it to you but the Import Export Bank makes loans to foreign countries. That's what it does. It's their job. It has nothing to do with Obama. God, the amount of **** the right babbles without knowledge is amazing.
 
Um, dude, sorry to break it to you but the Import Export Bank makes loans to foreign countries. That's what it does. It's their job. It has nothing to do with Obama. God, the amount of **** the right babbles without knowledge is amazing.

The Export-Import bank is the official credit agency of the US government. It was established by executive order and belongs to the Executive branch, so it has everything to do with PBO.
 
The real kicker comes when you realize that even if we start today, it will be about 20 years before we start to harvest the first barrels of oil. [/url]

Well 20 years huh... ..the article states how much oil will be produced then, not it will take that long.

It takes about 4-6 months to secure rights and permits another couple too sink a bit and once oil is hit and caped, it can immediately enter the system,, I've heard 1 year, 5 years, and 15.. so now they're up to 20years ??...Total BS! ...come on.... use a little logical thinking the math just doesn't work..

BESIDES CNG is ONE of the keys to greener power and BO doesn't want exploration for it either.. as long as America is weak, then BO and the Progressives are strong... that is why it was imperative that he kill any additional/potential energy sources ASAP... it was one of the first things he did!

It's ALL about maintaining the crisis and grabbing power, just like Healthcare, Bailouts and Government Motors.. Progressives just can't seem to keep the dirty, stinkin' hands to themselves!
 
Why not fund drilling here and put Americans to work?

Because we shouldn't screw up our shores if we don't have to. If we can keep the dirty across the oceans where it belongs then we should take advantage of it.
 
Because we shouldn't screw up our shores if we don't have to. If we can keep the dirty across the oceans where it belongs then we should take advantage of it.


Just to add,

The grade of oil is also important. Low grade crude is much more expensive to refine than higher grades. If the crude is of a high enough grade it is actually cheaper to import it rather than refine our own. This why the Middle east is so important. Not only do they have a lot of oil. It is also high grade.

Also by using oil provided from outside countries we conserve our own oil fields.
 
Because we shouldn't screw up our shores if we don't have to. If we can keep the dirty across the oceans where it belongs then we should take advantage of it.

But, we won't screw up our shores. Most of the crude oil pollution comes from natural seepage, 60% in fact. If we drilled those pools, it would relieve the gradient pressure and stop the seepage, thereby reducing the pollution.

The oil and gas industry is the most environmentally concious industry that America has. No other industry is as clean as the oilfield.
 
Gulfshores

Orange-Beach-Vacation-Rentals-Sunswept-Condominiums-642644.jpg


Matagorda Island

passcavallo-12-1105.jpg


Holly Beach...before Rita, obviously

holly_beach_before11.jpg


Johnson Bayou

3555679074_b71a3d8ff8.jpg


Galveston

giww-galveston.jpg


Those photos cover the area between Port O'Conner, Texas and Gulfshores, Alabma. I don't see any screwed up shore. There's more harm going to be done to the environemt, globally, by foreign drillers and super tankers.
 
But, we won't screw up our shores. Most of the crude oil pollution comes from natural seepage, 60% in fact. If we drilled those pools, it would relieve the gradient pressure and stop the seepage, thereby reducing the pollution.

The oil and gas industry is the most environmentally concious industry that America has. No other industry is as clean as the oilfield.

So why use it up? Use there's. When the rest of the world is looking for oil, we can just come home and use our own and kill anyone that comes near it.
 
So why use it up? Use there's. When the rest of the world is looking for oil, we can just come home and use our own and kill anyone that comes near it.

We got folks that need to go to work...today. That's a more than valid reason to go looking for it and harvest it.
 
We got folks that need to go to work...today. That's a more than valid reason to go looking for it and harvest it.

That won't do anything. Start hammering and chastising our corporations for hiring a billion Indians to talk you through our electronic issues or telemarketing dreams and the government would be providing the needed jobs.
 
That won't do anything. Start hammering and chastising our corporations for hiring a billion Indians to talk you through our electronic issues or telemarketing dreams and the government would be providing the needed jobs.

How's that going to restore all those oilfield and mining jobs? You got 18 y/o's making entry level salaries of 40 g's a year, working six months out of the year. Those guys aren't interested in some 15 grand a year telemarketing job.

There aren't many industries in this country where a kid can walk into a 40K+ a year job, right out of high school.
 
How's that going to restore all those oilfield and mining jobs? You got 18 y/o's making entry level salaries of 40 g's a year, working six months out of the year. Those guys aren't interested in some 15 grand a year telemarketing job.


Then they go jobless. The reason we have so much exported job positions is that some Americans think they are too good to work the jobs that are available and favor whining about what doesn't exist while in the unemployment line. We aren't the French. 18 y/o's have had it better than they should. Weren't they just in High School? 40Gs a year is rediculous.

Corporations may be guilty of exporting for cheaper labor, but some Americans also share in the blame.
 
Then they go jobless. The reason we have so much exported job positions is that some Americans think they are too good to work the jobs that are available and favor whining about what doesn't exist while in the unemployment line. We aren't the French. 18 y/o's have had it better than they should. Weren't they just in High School? 40Gs a year is rediculous.

Corporations may be guilty of exporting for cheaper labor, but some Americans also share in the blame.

Go jobless? Well hell, that's the answer!
 
Go jobless? Well hell, that's the answer!

Well, as harsh as it is, it is the answer. If the job isn't there, then find a new job. People who have spent years and years developing actual careers do it all the time. And 18 year olds should be flipping burgers and handing me Whoppers anyway.

Or hell....enlist.
 
Back
Top Bottom