The Energy Non-Crisis

[intelsource]

This video needs to be seen by millions, it exposes the so-called energy crisis for what it is.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147&hl=en

 

[Cie]

Tried to watch, but is was very choppy. Will try later.

 

[bryanz]

I have seen this, John Perkins is a must see also.

 

[Wilson]

Very interesting.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Was interesting--a lot of this not new--and has been known however the actual #'s on oil there have varied -and the guy is selling a book--however if he is only 50% accurate on reserves there--still monumental.
I disagree with him on gov trying to keep it secret as many reports out on reserves there--the prob is one party prefers this frozen tundra preserved vs solving energy crisis--why you ask?

Hmm if no energy crisis how do they push their "green" agenda's through--with billions of $$ in anticipated revenue for their backers -and would continue to keep their adversaries - oil companies in control of energy.

Would think it might be good time for GOP to bring back vote on drilling there?

 

[StevieD]

Was interesting--a lot of this not new--and has been known however the actual #'s on oil there have varied -and the guy is selling a book--however if he is only 50% accurate on reserves there--still monumental.
I disagree with him on gov trying to keep it secret as many reports out on reserves there--the prob is one party prefers this frozen tundra preserved vs solving energy crisis--why you ask?

Hmm if no energy crisis how do they push their "green" agenda's through--with billions of $$ in anticipated revenue for their backers -and would continue to keep their adversaries - oil companies in control of energy.

Would think it might be good time for GOP to bring back vote on drilling there?

An even better time would have been the SIX years they controlled everything.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

An even better time would have been the SIX years they controlled everything.

That is very valid point Stevie--:thumb:

 

[smurphy]

There is definitely a reason ANWAR hasn't been exploited that goes beyond "parties". As Stevie just said, we had 6 years of complete GOP control + Alaska is a GOP state. There must be something going on that none of us or even that Williams guy understands. I get the feeling that it's very expensive crude to refine and there isn't very much (relatively speaking) that we can actually tap. ...Of course at $5 per gallon, the relative costs become more attractive.

 

[AR182]

There is definitely a reason ANWAR hasn't been exploited that goes beyond "parties". As Stevie just said, we had 6 years of complete GOP control + Alaska is a GOP state. There must be something going on that none of us or even Perkins understands. I get the feeling that it's very expensive crude to refine and there isn't very much (relatively speaking) that we can actually tap. ...Of course at $5 per gallon, the relative costs become more attractive.

somebody better come up with an idea...& quickly too...i paid $4.23 today for 89...

 

[smurphy]

somebody better come up with an idea...& quickly too...i paid $4.23 today for 89...

It's over $4.50 here for 87. Luckily, I barely have to drive. I would hate to live somewhere like PHX where there is basically no alternative.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

The point Stevie made about why Rebs didn't drill when they had control of congress and Pres--got me to wonder why also--

Did some checking on matter--

51-49 Senate Vote Backs Arctic Oil Drilling
Longtime Bush Goal for Alaskan Wildlife Refuge Closer to Reality

By Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 17, 2005; Page A01

A closely divided Senate yesterday voted in favor of opening Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, bringing a long-sought goal of the Bush administration within striking distance of being realized.

The action marks the first time the Senate has signaled its support for drilling in the ecologically sensitive area since President Bush took office. And while hurdles remain, drilling advocates said they are close to achieving their decades-long drive to tap billions of barrels of oil beneath the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain.

By 51 to 49, the Senate thwarted an attempt by most Democrats and some moderate Republicans to strip a provision on drilling in the refuge from the 2006 congressional budget resolution. By giving the drilling proposal the protection of the budget rules, GOP leaders have effectively prevented opponents from using a filibuster to block a final vote on the proposal.

Congress used a similar approach in approving the drilling as part of a budget bill in 1995 over the strong objection of environmentalists, but President Bill Clinton later vetoed the measure. This time, however, supporters are bolstered by a Republican president who has made the drilling a key piece of his energy policy, a GOP-controlled House that has repeatedly favored drilling, and a Senate whose Republican majority grew by four seats in last November's election.

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a leader in the fight to stop the drilling, said there will be "a lot more opportunities to make an effort to strike it." But he acknowledged that "the Republicans have the votes in the House and they have the votes in conference."

The Senate and House still must agree on a final version of next year's budget, and there are signs the two chambers strongly disagree on the size of proposed Medicaid cuts and other key spending issues.

Drilling proponents said tapping the refuge would lessen dependence on foreign oil, help bring down energy prices, provide jobs and ease the country's growing trade imbalance. They also argued that modern technology would limit the area needed to drill in the arctic. But opponents disagreed, saying that drilling would do little to reduce dependence on foreign oil and that there would be virtually no impact on prices, which are set as a result of activity on the world market. Using posters showing panoramic views of pristine wilderness, opponents also said that pipelines and drilling platforms would harm calving caribou, polar bears and millions of migratory birds in the Alaskan refuge.

Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said the prospects for opening the refuge are much stronger than in previous years. "The chances of this happening are excellent," he said. "There is a legislative path to getting this done. The path is passing a budget resolution that has [the provision] in both houses."

The key Senate vote was on an amendment championed by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) to drop the drilling approval from the budget resolution. Three Democrats -- Daniel K. Inouye and Daniel K. Akaka of Hawaii and Mary Landrieu (La.) -- joined 48 Republicans to defeat the amendment. Seven Republicans, 41 Democrats and one independent voted to eliminate the drilling provision.

Opponents had hoped to win over a few fence-straddling lawmakers at the last minute, but they failed. One of them, freshman Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), said he voted for drilling only after receiving assurances from the White House that no drilling would occur on Florida's Gulf Coast through at least 2012.

Oil prices reached record highs yesterday as global demand pushed production to its limits. During a news conference before the vote, Bush expressed concern about rising energy prices and again pressed for the opening of the refuge as part of a package of energy legislation the administration has been pushing.

"This project will keep our economy growing by creating jobs and ensuring that businesses can expand," Bush said in a statement after the vote.

If Congress approves the Alaskan drilling, oil industry officials said it probably would take seven to 10 more years before oil begins flowing from the ground. Oil production already occurs near the refuge on Alaska's North Slope.

Government models forecast that oil companies would be able to pump nearly 1 million barrels of crude oil a day from the refuge in 2025. With oil from the refuge, the United States would import about 65 percent of its oil in 2025, compared with about 68 percent without the additional domestic oil, according to data from the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration.

In some previous years, drilling in the refuge was defeated because proponents could not muster the 60 votes needed to cut off a filibuster. Under Senate rules, the budget resolution cannot be filibustered and a 51-vote majority is needed to approve it.

Once both chambers approve budget resolutions, they will go to a conference committee, where GOP leaders will attempt to iron out differences. Then the resolution returns to the House and Senate for final approval.

If the drilling provision remains in the budget, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the Senate and the House Resources Committee will have to approve measures laying out details for drilling in the refuge. Those measures would need majority support and would not be subject to filibuster.

On other fronts of the budget battle yesterday, the Senate rejected an effort to reinstate budget rules mandating that any tax cuts be offset by equivalent spending reductions or revenue increases. The "pay-as-you-go" rules, in effect through the 1990s, could have jeopardized Bush's call to make his first-term tax cuts permanent, but it would have also complicated efforts to secure approval of a budget resolution.

Staff writer Jonathan Weisman contributed to this report.

 

[gardenweasel]

There is definitely a reason ANWAR hasn't been exploited that goes beyond "parties". As Stevie just said, we had 6 years of complete GOP control + Alaska is a GOP state. There must be something going on that none of us or even that Williams guy understands. I get the feeling that it's very expensive crude to refine and there isn't very much (relatively speaking) that we can actually tap. ...Of course at $5 per gallon, the relative costs become more attractive.

c`mon smurph...the democrats have been blocking the drilling in anwar...not the republicans....i`ll find and post the latest vote tallies if you`d like...



Contacts: Steve Hansen (Republican Communications Director) (202) 225-7749 May 7, 2008

Despite Record High Gas Prices, Democrats Again Vote To Stop ANWR Oil Production; Democrats Vote To Keep 10.4 Billion Barrels Of American Oil Locked Up in Alaska's Arctic

Washington, D.C. - "Even though Americans are paying record-high gas prices throughout the country, Democrats today voted to once again stop the production of 10.4 billion barrels of oil in a small section of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

The Democratic anti-ANWR vote was to an amendment offered by U.S. Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) in the House Natural Resources Committee. Young's amendment lost by a 12-18 vote, with every Democrat in attendance voting against ANWR oil production - except for U.S. Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-TX), who continued his longstanding support for improving America's energy security.

Every Republican in attendance voted for the ANWR amendment"....

here's what the leaders of the congressional democrats told the american people two years ago to persuade voters to bring them to power..


? "Democrats have a common-sense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices." (Nancy Pelosi, now speaker of the House).

? "Democrats believe that we can do more for the American people who are struggling to deal with high gas prices." (Steny Hoyer, now House majority leader).

? "House Democrats have a plan to help curb rising gas prices." (Jim Clyburn, now House majority whip)....

i was wrong in a previous thread ...when pelosi was sworn in the average price of gas was $2.29 a gallon......it`s $4.00+ since these dems made their promises...lol


..if bill clinton hadn`t vetoed the anwar bill back in "95",we`d be benefitting from that oil as we speak...giving us a little extra time to explore alternatives....


this shouldn`t be a political issue...we need to cut down our reliance on foreign oil, through conservation, alternative fuels AND most importantly,by tapping domestic sources.....

we currently import more than 56 percent of its oil from foreign countries, such as the volatile middle east and venezuela.....

this can`t stand....open up that postage stamp sized area in anwar(2000 acres out of what,19 million?),drill off the coast and in the dakotas...

mine our enormous oil shale resrves and build refineries and consider nuclear power...

i say kill the governemnet subsidies to the oil companies,but also open up anwar,the gulf coast,bakken and the oil shale reserves....

don`t subsidize anybody...but don`t tie their hands behind their backs..

regardless of how the media runs interference for the dems,i promise you,this will come back to bite them on the ass...

i just hope the people wake up before it`s too late..

 

[The Sponge]

c`mon smurph...the democrats have been blocking the drilling in anwar...not the republicans....i`ll find and post the latest vote tallies if you`d like...



.

Bush's own team concluded:

DRILLING IN ANWAR WOULD LOWER THE PRICE OF GASOLINE ONE CENT PER GALLON - YES ... ONE CENT, NOT ONE DOLLAR - IN 20 YEARS !!

The "talking pt" by the Right of ANWAR is a joke !! With bafoons like Weasel falling for every one of them.

 

[Toledo Prophet]

Why will drilling in the Arctic solve anything, particularily the price we pay at the pump?

Consider private US oil companies--Halliburton is one, cant recall the other--have been drilling since 2000 in North Dakota and Montana....ever since a Saudi sized reserve was discovered there......yet where have the benefits been to us, as citizens of the country vis as vis energy policy and price of gas.

It has only gone up, yet the companies drilling in there rake the profits as they sell the product worldwide. Hey, we're capitalists, so thats how it goes, and that was all private land.

The arctic is a bit different, is it not, since it is public land. I am all for dilling up there, but I am not about to support a plan that lets private companies drill and just sell it off to whomever.

I say this knowing the DTB and Wease are going to faint.....but lets just throw it out there.....i say we drill there and Nationalize it.....literally make it ours, the U.S. public's oil.......but, if we just let a private company drill and sell, how in the world is that going to help our energy policy and ween ourselves of foreign oil......it wont.

The whole thing in Alaska is a ruse. The repub's had six years of lock down control. Why did they not do anything about it then? My gut tells me it is because A.) there is not really that much oil up there anyway and B.) they need to keep this as a wedge issue to bring back every election cycle so they can cream the pinko libs out there who they can claim are forestalling the issue.

Just my two cents. Take it for what its worth.

 

[ImFeklhr]

and consider nuclear power...

yes, so silly that we stopped making nuclear power plants. Everywhere else in the world still does.

 

[Cie]

yes, so silly that we stopped making nuclear power plants. Everywhere else in the world still does.

Its insane behavor that I do not understand. 30 years have passed since nuclear plant was built!!!!

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

1st Would anyone like to take a guess how much oil we get from opec nations.

2nd Getting millions of barrells from Alaska doesn't make much diff--but get getting 1/10 of that - at higher cost while depleting food supply does

3rd While some think would be excellent time for McCain to beat drum on Anwar drilling with gas high--unfortunately he can not use it against Obama--because he voted against it also:nooo:

Some interesting facts
We get about 17% of oil from middleeast
The leading producer of oil in the world in 2002 was--The United States.

Slipped to 3rd behind Russia and Saudi in 2005.

One of 21 largest oil fields in the world--is in Prudhoe Alsaka

source and good read--http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/NationalSecurity/bg1926.cfm

 

[SixFive]

nuclear power, good point. I saw a story about some dead diesel zone in I think California where the diesel smoke was so bad from the ships and trucks at the port that it settled in an area nearby and was blamed for quite a few smoke related maladies and deaths. Why aren't we using nuclear power?

 

[smurphy]

2nd Getting millions of barrells from Alaska doesn't make much diff--but get getting 1/10 of that - at higher cost while depleting food supply does

Corn ethanol is an intentional failure. Political boondoggle getting some rich while oil companies love alternatives that don't solve anything. Serves them well to just keep selling oil until it runs out - especially if they can get $5 per gallon for it. No incentive on the sellers end for any good alternative.

We've had a great solution with electric for a while now, but it continues to get crushed.