• 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!

Oil industry worries Libya unrest could spread

zimmer

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
The first major protests to hit an OPEC country put the oil industry on edge Monday, sending crude prices jumping and raising speculation about the use of emergency oil reserves that have only been touched twice in two decades.

In addition to Libya, the industry is closely watching protests in Algeria, Bahrain and Iran, the second-largest crude exporter in the OPEC behind Saudi Arabia.

"The concerns in the market go beyond Libya," said Victor Shum, an energy analyst with Purvin & Gertz in Singapore. "It's unlikely we're going to see any meaningful disruption of oil from the Middle East or North Africa, but the spread of this unrest has raised anxieties."

My Way News - Oil industry worries Libya unrest could spread
Click to expand...

No meaningful disruption, except prices jump like a jack rabbit. And who is to say the remainder of the oil producers aren't going to have their moment?

Ugh... to our Democrat friends and their enviromaniac buddies that have held us hostage to foreign imports... can we begin to exploit our own plentiful energy sources to the fullest now?

.
 
zimmer said:
No meaningful disruption, except prices jump like a jack rabbit. And who is to say the remainder of the oil producers aren't going to have their moment?

Ugh... to our Democrat friends and their enviromaniac buddies that have held us hostage to foreign imports... can we begin to exploit our own plentiful energy sources to the fullest now?

.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not......the sweet and cozy life of the Arctic mouse and Tiger beetle is more important.
.
.
.
.
 
zimmer said:
No meaningful disruption, except prices jump like a jack rabbit. And who is to say the remainder of the oil producers aren't going to have their moment?

Ugh... to our Democrat friends and their enviromaniac buddies that have held us hostage to foreign imports... can we begin to exploit our own plentiful energy sources to the fullest now?
Click to expand...


If we could, we would have at some point during the last 40 years of consuming more than we could produce. Even the oil companies and the Republicans have said it is not the answer to our crisis. Remember, Bush talking about how we were addicted to oil. I got the feeling some folks are starting to jones about their future fixes

And, its not like we didn't see it coming decades ago:

"By January 1974, oil prices had risen from $3 to $11 per barrel. In response to the embargo, President Richard Nixon did lots of counterproductive things, including imposing oil price controls and lowering highway speed limits. Nixon also launched Project Independence, declaring, "Let this be our national goal: At the end of this decade, in the year 1980, the United States will not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need to provide our jobs, to heat our homes, and to keep our transportation moving." (Automobile aside: Even before the oil embargo, in 1970, Nixon proclaimed in an environmental message to Congress: "I am inaugurating a program to marshal both government and private research with the goal of producing an unconventionally powered virtually pollution free automobile within five years.")

President Gerald Ford moved the date for achieving American energy independence back to 1985. (Auto Aside: Ford signed the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which set federal standards for energy efficiency in new cars for the first time.)

President Jimmy Carter made energy policy the centerpiece of his administration. He notoriously declared on April 18, 1977, that achieving energy independence was the "moral equivalent of war." In August of that year, Carter signed the law creating the United States Department of Energy, intended to manage America's energy crisis."
Energy Independence: The Ever-Receding Mirage - Reason Magazine

We should have continued the transition to alternative energy programs begun by Carter. Reagan scrapped all those programs and took the solar panels down off the White house. So, its kind of late now to start whining about the bed we made for ourselves, don't you think?
 
Catawba said:
If we could, we would have at some point during the last 40 years of consuming more than we could produce. Even the oil companies and the Republicans have said it is not the answer to our crisis. Remember, Bush talking about how we were addicted to oil. I got the feeling some folks are starting to jones about their future fixes

And, its not like we didn't see it coming decades ago:

"By January 1974, oil prices had risen from $3 to $11 per barrel. In response to the embargo, President Richard Nixon did lots of counterproductive things, including imposing oil price controls and lowering highway speed limits. Nixon also launched Project Independence, declaring, "Let this be our national goal: At the end of this decade, in the year 1980, the United States will not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need to provide our jobs, to heat our homes, and to keep our transportation moving." (Automobile aside: Even before the oil embargo, in 1970, Nixon proclaimed in an environmental message to Congress: "I am inaugurating a program to marshal both government and private research with the goal of producing an unconventionally powered virtually pollution free automobile within five years.")

President Gerald Ford moved the date for achieving American energy independence back to 1985. (Auto Aside: Ford signed the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which set federal standards for energy efficiency in new cars for the first time.)

President Jimmy Carter made energy policy the centerpiece of his administration. He notoriously declared on April 18, 1977, that achieving energy independence was the "moral equivalent of war." In August of that year, Carter signed the law creating the United States Department of Energy, intended to manage America's energy crisis."
Energy Independence: The Ever-Receding Mirage - Reason Magazine

We should have continued the transition to alternative energy programs begun by Carter. Reagan scrapped all those programs and took the solar panels down off the White house. So, its kind of late now to start whining about the bed we made for ourselves, don't you think?
Click to expand...

That's like saying that we're addicted to food.

No matter how many times you post these talking points, they not going to suddenly become true.
 
apdst said:
That's like saying that we're addicted to food.

No matter how many times you post these talking points, they not going to suddenly become true.
Click to expand...


If you wish to keep your head in the sand and continue to be surprised each time the price of gas goes up, knock yourself out! :sun
 
Last edited:
Oil companies worried? Hardly.
The oil companies are jumping for joy. Record profits, here they come.
 
apdst said:
That's like saying that we're addicted to food.

No matter how many times you post these talking points, they not going to suddenly become true.
Click to expand...

But it is true, apdst! Jimmy Carter was the last U.S. President to put forth any meaningful U.S. energy policy. IMHO, had Reagan and Congress (at the time) supported his efforts more, we would be much closer to being energy independent. But lobbyist for big oil companies came onto the scene and all such efforts were squashed. Don't believe me? Look at what happened to the electric car in the mid-80's! Saturn/GM built one of the most fuel efficient cars America had ever seen. By all accounts, it was a very good product. But then came big oil lobbyist and the rest is unfortunate history.

This issue with light bulbs being so controversial...I say WTF are you people thinking!? It's old technology that reportedly is far less energy efficient than the new flourescent bulbs. More expensive, but last longer and uses less energy. Where's the problem? Is it the push by the fed on this issue that has so many up in arms or have studies shown incandescent bulbs to be less efficient than flourescent bulds and, as such, the government is pushing us to becoming more energy independent?

If light bulb companies are so concerned about not being able to compete, I say they should follow the market and retool their plants to produce the kinds of light bulbs and light fixtures consumers want (or what the federal government has mandated for the betterment of the nation where energy efficiency and self-sufficiency is concerned).

Again, I say, "WAKE UP, AMERICA!!!" I wouldn't want to live in a Communist country and I don't see this as leading to that in any way. However, I do believe that sometimes the citizens of this country needs a little "push" out of their comfort zone to see that there can be something better out their on the horizon if we stopped long enough to see what's happening around us outside our boarders. We might be strong in military might and economic foretitude, but we're starting to lag behind in technolog - technology, in some cases, we pioneered (i.e., nuclear)! That, to me, is sad.

So, when I see fuel prices creep higher and higher due to yet another uprising in the Middle-East in less than TWO-YEARS, and our President warned us then about being complacent concerning our consumption of fossil fuels, yes, I do take a step back and say, "Are you people crazy? Do you not see the foolishing behind sticking with the status quo?" Perhaps you will when you have to push your SUV a mile down the road to the nearest gas station only to see the sign on the pump that reads, "Out of Gas"....again.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
If we could, we would have at some point during the last 40 years of consuming more than we could produce. Even the oil companies and the Republicans have said it is not the answer to our crisis. Remember, Bush talking about how we were addicted to oil. I got the feeling some folks are starting to jones about their future fixes

And, its not like we didn't see it coming decades ago:

"By January 1974, oil prices had risen from $3 to $11 per barrel. In response to the embargo, President Richard Nixon did lots of counterproductive things, including imposing oil price controls and lowering highway speed limits. Nixon also launched Project Independence, declaring, "Let this be our national goal: At the end of this decade, in the year 1980, the United States will not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need to provide our jobs, to heat our homes, and to keep our transportation moving." (Automobile aside: Even before the oil embargo, in 1970, Nixon proclaimed in an environmental message to Congress: "I am inaugurating a program to marshal both government and private research with the goal of producing an unconventionally powered virtually pollution free automobile within five years.")

President Gerald Ford moved the date for achieving American energy independence back to 1985. (Auto Aside: Ford signed the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which set federal standards for energy efficiency in new cars for the first time.)

President Jimmy Carter made energy policy the centerpiece of his administration. He notoriously declared on April 18, 1977, that achieving energy independence was the "moral equivalent of war." In August of that year, Carter signed the law creating the United States Department of Energy, intended to manage America's energy crisis."
Energy Independence: The Ever-Receding Mirage - Reason Magazine

We should have continued the transition to alternative energy programs begun by Carter. Reagan scrapped all those programs and took the solar panels down off the White house. So, its kind of late now to start whining about the bed we made for ourselves, don't you think?
Click to expand...

You did notice I wrote "energy resources"... not oil only. Coal/shale, nuke, gas, and oil.

You know... things Dems oppose across the board. Things we have in abundance.

Now are you going to tell me Dems support these things? ROTFLOL...

PS. Transition to alternative energy will not fuel industry, and when the government inserts itself the Mehikana's tortilla prices skyrocketed... food prices rise.

As for whining... well, it's Dems that have had their foot on the brakes, and claimed it would take 10-years to get this energy online... that was 20-years ago. Way to go Dems!

.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
You did notice I wrote "energy resources"... not oil only. Coal/shale, nuke, gas, and oil.

You know... things Dems oppose across the board.

Now are you going to tell me Dems support thee things? ROTFLOL...

.
Click to expand...
\

Coal and gas, are all finite fossil fuels as well and do nothing to reduce the CO2 we are producing that is causing global warming. That would just be trading one problem for another much bigger problem. Shale is just to expensive to make oil from. The US can no longer afford to continue to think in short-term ways. That kind of short-term thinking since we passed peak oil in this country 40 years ago is what brought us to where we are today, having to fight wars to maintain our energy supplies. The longer we wait to make the transition to clean energy the harder we make it on ourselves. Nuclear has potential to be part of the solution. Obama just proposed more funding for nuclear energy than any other president in history - 8 billion dollars.

So, we either get off the pot and start being responsible for our own energy sources, or be prepared to continue to deteriorate our economy and environment.
 
Last edited:
"National energy policy," if one can even call the array of inconsistent and fragmented approaches pursued in the U.S. a "policy," is one defined by complacency. Calls to action ring through Washington and even modest measures are undertaken during crises. Yet, once the crises fade, policy rigor mortis sets in. There is an inherent bias against the pursuit of bold Apollo/Manhattan Project-style energy initiatives once energy prices fall back to comfortable levels. That a disproportionate share of the world's oil reserves are located in politically unstable regions and that there is a growing risk of resource nationalism has little bearing on policy considerations. Instead, relatively low prices are assumed to be natural condition (signaling no need for change/diversification of the nation's energy supply) and a situation that will persist indefinitely. Contradictory information is either filtered out or discarded. Crises are forgotten.

Even as the first global energy crises erupted in 1973 (there was a near crisis in 1967, but a proposed Arab oil embargo collapsed before it gained momentum), the reality is that the U.S. has not significantly broadened its energy supply. Worse, it has not done so, even as its domestic oil production has gently but persistently declined since that time, leaving it more vulnerable to sustained supply disruptions than it would otherwise be if it had the productive capacity to offset some of those disruptions. In effect, the U.S. has squandered some 40 years during which it could have meaningfully reduced its vulnerability that exists from the combination of a lack of alternatives, growing global competition for existing energy resources, and geopolitical factors that could undermine access to those resources.

Without doubt, were the price of oil to skyrocket, U.S. policy makers would argue that the U.S. is helpless, that the high prices (or even rationing) experienced by U.S. consumers is unavoidable, that nothing can be done. The great tragedy is that all of that would have been incorrect had U.S. policy makers learned from past crises and made energy diversification a priority. In other words, the crisis would not just be the result of external, uncontrollable factors. It would also be a direct consequence of deliberate policy choices and decisions.

At present, the Libya crisis has pushed the price of oil toward $100 a barrel. While that situation is very likely temporary, the reality is that even after the 2008 oil price spike, U.S. policy is not fundamentally different. That there is a different Administration that offered abundant campaign rhetoric on energy has not changed things. Fiscal allocations and policy changes have not matched the campaign rhetoric. Furthermore, there is no bold Apollo/Manhattan-sytle project being planned, much less underway in its early stages.

Instead, the nation creeps along a nearly stagnant incremental path that is actually leading to growing long-term energy shock risk exposure, as the sluggishness of its policy outcomes lags changes being brought about by growing world demand for existing sources of energy and increasing geopolitical risk in a number of major energy resource producers. "Think small" remains the de facto mantra of bipartisan energy policy. In the long-term, that's far from a wise policy choice, as the nation's capacity to deal with energy shocks becomes a matter of variables beyond its control i.e., how large the shock is and how long it lasts.
 
donsutherland1 said:
"National energy policy," if one can even call the array of inconsistent and fragmented approaches pursued in the U.S. a "policy," is one defined by complacency. Calls to action ring through Washington and even modest measures are undertaken during crises. Yet, once the crises fade, policy rigor mortis sets in. There is an inherent bias against the pursuit of bold Apollo/Manhattan Project-style energy initiatives once energy prices fall back to comfortable levels. That a disproportionate share of the world's oil reserves are located in politically unstable regions and that there is a growing risk of resource nationalism has little bearing on policy considerations. Instead, relatively low prices are assumed to be natural condition (signaling no need for change/diversification of the nation's energy supply) and a situation that will persist indefinitely. Contradictory information is either filtered out or discarded. Crises are forgotten.

Even as the first global energy crises erupted in 1973 (there was a near crisis in 1967, but a proposed Arab oil embargo collapsed before it gained momentum), the reality is that the U.S. has not significantly broadened its energy supply. Worse, it has not done so, even as its domestic oil production has gently but persistently declined since that time, leaving it more vulnerable to sustained supply disruptions than it would otherwise be if it had the productive capacity to offset some of those disruptions. In effect, the U.S. has squandered some 40 years during which it could have meaningfully reduced its vulnerability that exists from the combination of a lack of alternatives, growing global competition for existing energy resources, and geopolitical factors that could undermine access to those resources.

Without doubt, were the price of oil to skyrocket, U.S. policy makers would argue that the U.S. is helpless, that the high prices (or even rationing) experienced by U.S. consumers is unavoidable, that nothing can be done. The great tragedy is that all of that would have been incorrect had U.S. policy makers learned from past crises and made energy diversification a priority. In other words, the crisis would not just be the result of external, uncontrollable factors. It would also be a direct consequence of deliberate policy choices and decisions.

At present, the Libya crisis has pushed the price of oil toward $100 a barrel. While that situation is very likely temporary, the reality is that even after the 2008 oil price spike, U.S. policy is not fundamentally different. That there is a different Administration that offered abundant campaign rhetoric on energy has not changed things. Fiscal allocations and policy changes have not matched the campaign rhetoric. Furthermore, there is no bold Apollo/Manhattan-sytle project being planned, much less underway in its early stages.

Instead, the nation creeps along a nearly stagnant incremental path that is actually leading to growing long-term energy shock risk exposure, as the sluggishness of its policy outcomes lags changes being brought about by growing world demand for existing sources of energy and increasing geopolitical risk in a number of major energy resource producers. "Think small" remains the de facto mantra of bipartisan energy policy. In the long-term, that's far from a wise policy choice, as the nation's capacity to deal with energy shocks becomes a matter of variables beyond its control i.e., how large the shock is and how long it lasts.
Click to expand...

Since coal is the biggest fuel used in electricity production, why hasn't the left embraced nuclear power? They slam coal for causing CO2 problems, while simultaneously slamming nuclear power. They want it both ways. They also think wind farms is the way to solve all our needs, I saw a ton of wind farms in Germany last December. There is not getting around the fact that the footprint of wind farms compared to nuke plants is huge.

So what's our final energy policy......NOTHING, because we're slamming every alternative there is.
 
Last edited:
American,

I strongly expanded support nuclear power. Nuclear power is safe (modern plants can be designed to minimize the risks associated with older plants), clean, relatively inexpensive, and an area in which the U.S. can develop a competitive advantage given its base of scientists/engineers. IMO, an increased nuclear power generating capacity makes sense as part of a larger energy supply portfolio.
 
"Washington - US President Barack Obama on Tuesday announced 8 billion dollars worth of loan guarantees to build the country's first new nuclear reactors in three decades. The loan will go towards two new nuclear reactors to be built at an existing power plant in Burke, Georgia, and is part of an effort by the Obama administration to ramp up nuclear power generation as a clean alternative to more polluting fossil fuels.

It also represents an effort to court conservative lawmakers who are key to the administration's broader goals to reduce carbon emissions blamed for global warming. Some environmentalists by contrast remain wary of nuclear waste generated by the plants.

"Nuclear energy remains our largest source of fuel that produces no carbon emissions," Obama said in Maryland, speaking to a labour union representing electricity workers.
"To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It's that simple, Obama said."

Nuclear push: Obama gives 8-billion-dollar loan guarantee - Summary | Earth Times News
 
Catawba said:
\

Coal and gas, are all finite fossil fuels as well and do nothing to reduce the CO2 we are producing that is causing global warming. That would just be trading one problem for another much bigger problem. Shale is just to expensive to make oil from. The US can no longer afford to continue to think in short-term ways. That kind of short-term thinking since we passed peak oil in this country 40 years ago is what brought us to where we are today, having to fight wars to maintain our energy supplies. The longer we wait to make the transition to clean energy the harder we make it on ourselves. Nuclear has potential to be part of the solution. Obama just proposed more funding for nuclear energy than any other president in history - 8 billion dollars.

So, we either get off the pot and start being responsible for our own energy sources, or be prepared to continue to deteriorate our economy and environment.
Click to expand...

Global warming is BS and to this point we have no viable solutions other than those listed. Nuke is clean, but you folks cry about the byproduct.

Let's make a deal... you Libs can use all the renewables, the remainder of us will use what is proven. And when you plug in your car... what drives the electricity? Wind? Solar? LOL... Perhaps hydro, but most likely something you dislike.

As one African economist stated... solar (and wind and all the other greenie stuff) can provide enough to keep a fridge running, but it's nothing you can run industry on.

Our environment is just fine by the way.

.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
Global warming is BS and to this point we have no viable solutions other than those listed. Nuke is clean, but you folks cry about the byproduct.

Let's make a deal... you Libs can use all the renewables, the remainder of us will use what is proven. And when you plug in your car... what drives the electricity? Wind? Solar? LOL... Perhaps hydro, but most likely something you dislike.

Our environment is just fine by the way.

.
Click to expand...

Are you going to be crying when gas is 5 bucks a gallon in the next few weeks?
 
donsutherland1 said:
American,

I strongly expanded support nuclear power. Nuclear power is safe (modern plants can be designed to minimize the risks associated with older plants), clean, relatively inexpensive, and an area in which the U.S. can develop a competitive advantage given its base of scientists/engineers. IMO, an increased nuclear power generating capacity makes sense as part of a larger energy supply portfolio.
Click to expand...

Most lefties support Nukes. They are just concerned that there is no good plan worked out to handle the waste.

The coal, oil and natural gas industries have been the biggest opponent to nuclear power.
 
zimmer said:
Global warming is BS and to this point we have no viable solutions other than those listed. Nuke is clean, but you folks cry about the byproduct.
Click to expand...

Obama has provided more funding for nuclear than any president in history. And pardon us for taking the world scientific consensus on GW rather than your opinion.

Let's make a deal... you Libs can use all the renewables, the remainder of us will use what is proven. And when you plug in your car... what drives the electricity? Wind? Solar? LOL... Perhaps hydro, but most likely something you dislike.

As one African economist stated... solar (and wind and all the other greenie stuff) can provide enough to keep a fridge running, but it's nothing you can run industry on
Click to expand...

LOL!

Our environment is just fine by the way.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion!
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
If you wish to keep your head in the sand and continue to be surprised each time the price of gas goes up, knock yourself out! :sun
Click to expand...

No, I'm not at all surprised that halts on domestic production will cause gas prices to go up.
 
Catawba said:
Obama has provided more funding for nuclear than any president in history. And pardon us for taking the world scientific consensus on GW rather than your opinion.



LOL!



Thanks for your opinion!
Click to expand...

Pardon us for not falling for the faked evidence.
 
apdst said:
No, I'm not at all surprised that halts on domestic production will cause gas prices to go up.
Click to expand...

That's not why it's going up?

The GOP had total control of the government for six years and did nothing to increase production. Do you know why?
Supply and Demand. The Oil industry makes more money when supplies are tight. They made mountains of money off the Bush administration. When will you people ever learn? They will make even more off this new crisis.
 
Last edited:
USA_1 said:
That's not why it's going up?

The GOP had total control of the government for six years and did nothing to increase production. Do you know why?
Supply and Demand. The Oil industry makes more money when supplies are tight. They made mountains of money off the Bush administration. When will you people ever learn? They will make even more off this new crisis.
Click to expand...

Production hasn't gone down since Obama imposed his drilling moratorium?

I made alotta money when Bush was in office, too.

Personally, I hope the ME cuts us off, completely; then I'll start making tons of money.
 
apdst said:
Production hasn't gone down since Obama imposed his drilling moratorium?

I made alotta money when Bush was in office, too.

Personally, I hope the ME cuts us off, completely; then I'll start making tons of money.
Click to expand...

Typical republican and the phoney patriotism....... Screw the country, as long as I get mine.

Production hasn't gone down since Obama took office. New deepwater well drilling has slowed down.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec3_3.pdf

March 02, 2010
US Oil Production Climbing Back up the Peak
Share
US Oil production is climbing back up after a long 40 year decline
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
BECAUSE OF THE DRILLING MORATORIUM!!!!
Click to expand...
The BP spill may have slowed it down too after they saw how many billions of dollars deepwater drilling can cost a company.

New deepwater drilling slowed down but US oil production rose during Obamas two years. Oil companies just directed their resources to other other oil fields. Safer ones.

I can not believe there is anyone dumb enough not to support a deepwater moratorium after the BP spill. I guess only those that don't care about this country would want them to go on full speed ahead.
 
USA_1 said:
The BP spill may have slowed it down too after they saw how many billions of dollars deepwater drilling can cost a company.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's it. That must be the reason most of those rigs left the GOM to go drill deepwater wells in other countries.

New deepwater drilling slowed down but US oil production rose during Obamas two years. Oil companies just directed their resources to other other oil fields. Safer ones.
Click to expand...

LMAO!!!!!!!!!! Where do get that from?

I can not believe there is anyone dumb enough not to support a deepwater moratorium after the BP spill. I guess only those that don't care about this country would want them to go on full speed ahead.
Click to expand...

No dumber than causing gas prices to head toward double digits and not try to do a damn thing about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom