i read last week that the obama administration issued a 6 or 7 year ban on drilling in the gulf. nobody posted it here and it didnt make much news. don't worry though, cuba will soon be drilling with china's help off of their coast.
It's like he's on a mission to be a 1 term president. He is surpassing my expectations, which were quite low.
I guess what you are saying, Oilfield, is that being a great speaker (I mean a great reader of a teleprompter) does not automatically make one qualified to be President of the United States. I wish people had figured this out about 2 1/2 years ago.
Oil has such a stellar track record in operations, geopolitics, pollution- and it always seems to give our country so much leverage in the world- it's no wonder some folks want us to focus on it in place of other ideas that Europe and Asia are advancing. All of our problems would be solved if we just drilled a little more in the Gulf and opened up a wildlife refuge in Alaska to firms with integrity like BP and Shell. I mean, that alone would lessen the imports by at least 2%! If that's not energy independence- I just don't know what is. Yes, Oilfield, a stronger oil advocate like Oklahoman Inhofe is what we need. He'll help us feel better about energy for awhile so we can kick the can down the road and stop focusing on 21st century technologies. Reducing dependence on oil is for wussy countries like Germany, Japan and China!
How bout we keep drilling and using existing wells so we can keep prices as low as we can and keep jobs in this ****** economy while we simultaneously work to get other means of energy efficient and profitable? I mean is it impossible to have oil wells working while we perfect other means of energy? f**k this green energy **** gets old when there are no real green/alternative energy options on a mass scale.
McBrett, I hope you had a good bike ride today. Would it be okay if we kept some existing energy related jobs in this country while you are pursuing your agenda?
Is the guy from the most subsidized field in the US telling me I have an agenda for advocating a diversified approach? Why so sensitive about your oil sector, Oilfield- is it because it is related to most every major issue we have in America today? (Terrorism, health, transfers of wealth to other countries) You had a good run Oilfield. The 1900's were very very good to oil. It's 2010 however. Advocating 21st century technology in place of rotted carbon that primarily lays in countries that hate us doesn't exactly make me a pot smoking liberal- it just insults Conservatives when you say that.
If the "agenda" is to wean ourselves away from a finite source of energy, to work instead toward cleaner and renewable resources, and to stop transferring massive amounts of wealth to countries that despise us, then I'm on board.
gecko- I misspoke slightly- I meant to say much more subsidized, as in the petroleum industry receives multiples more of govt. subsidies than any clean energy sector does, or put together for that matter. Oil subsidies double that of Clean Energy As for the transfer of wealth, the terrorism ties, the finite resource aspect, the lack of leverage over our enemies, pollution, you guys go ahead and shove that under the carpet and call wanting to fix these problems an 'agenda.' Sure, I guess you could say when I clean my house every other week- that is an agenda too. Rex- actually the 2000's have been very bad for oil. That whole terrorism thing came to play in 2001 funded by Saudi fundementalists who sell us oil. Then there was the price shock of 2008 ($147/barrel.) Then there is that $500B/year we ship over to other countries for it of our wealth. Then there was that war we fought, paid about $1 trillion for plus another 4,000 lives for in an oil rich country that later gave their contracts to Chinese and EU firms primarily, then there's that other war we're still fighting that also funds the enemy via oil money, then there's those extremists madrassas being built around the world from the same sources, then there was that whole Gulf catastrophe of 2010 that closed fishing and tourism for the Gulf while destroying some natural habitat, then there's that whole Russia country bending over the Ukraine and Eastern Europe over gas and oil shipments, then there's that Iran and Venezuela dictator thing that has leverage to act out in large part because of oil revenues. Have you seen what Dubai looks like? Wow. Yeah, oil has been on a great run. You'll come back and defend oil by mocking clean energy, or by saying that oil is what we use- no ****. I know we use it, the point is if you think sitting on your *** and being proud of that fact is enough to help you sleep at night- that's sad. Some people here think we should be evolving using newer technology and developing it further.
At least two people on this thread, (including my dear, dear friend McBrett), have lauded Obama's de facto permanent ban on Gulf drilling as a opportunity to wean ourselves from foreign oil, (and its concomitant "transfer of wealth"). Sorry, but having less domestic oil means needing more foreign oil. I am sure you want to believe that if we have no more domestic oil then fairy dust and unicorn retailers will open next to every Starbuck's, but from a purely logical or realistic point of view, that's pretty far out there. Think about it. It isn't that difficult.
Rex, You need to separate facts about your industry, and yourself. These are not personal attacks. I'm sure you're a swell guy and all. None of the issues from the 2000's were you able to exactly refute- and if you did, there are 10 other issues. Then, IRC, brought out the fairy dust line we've heard multiple times. I don't think some of you guys get it- we subsidize oil 2x more than we do the future technologies. No one is saying we can or would magically switch to pixy dust tomorrow. We're saying that some of you, especially those in the industry who are clearly sensitive, are lying to yourselves about the project we have ahead of us to address the multiple issues oil is causing. Generally I find that when there is a problem and a lot of work to do- a concerted, immediate effort is best done as soon as possible- instead of kicking the can down the road with BS rationale of why we shouldn't. Germany, Japan and China are outspending us more than 10x on this project. I'm sure you guys have reasons to mock them for it too. We used to be the leader in new technologies- thanks to BS excuses- we aren't anymore.
it was the eco-green crowd that killed plans in the 70's to grow nuclear power. they sat in their apartments in the east village, smoked some good pot and discussed the issue after seeing that "scary" movie starring jane fonda and jack lemmon and decided it was too dangerous. we would probably be getting 50% of our power from nuclear fuel by now.
Ag- the link that compares oil subsidies to clean energy is in this thread, earlier post. Plus, it took me one minute on google to find it- try looking up a new comparison yourself if you like. Bronco- we agree, sorta. I'm sure you know the fallacy of expanding highways to reduce traffic- wherever you build or expand you just encourage more traffic etc. Well- this analogy applies to the example of the Alaskan pipeline- which is an analogy to subsidies. As I linked to before- oil is subsidized twice as much as new technologies are. Why? XOM sets record profits in American corporate history- do they need subsidies? Chevron, Haliburton, Schlumberger- all highly profitable, all have plenty of cash for biz dev. What you build/focus on/subsidize does set the tone. We are subsidizing oil, and subsidizing the 10 or so issues it causes. It's a big subsidy circus. If some jerk wants to toss out the comments like, well my car cant run on sunshine, or tell me they hate Prius- who the f cares. They are too dim to notice they are comparing a technology that is about 110 years old with 15 year old technology and giggling. The more we focus on newer technologies- the faster they will come and the less behind we will be Japan and Germany. I don't like the Prius either- I just want my SUV to get 40 mpg, and eventually I want it to run only on electrons. Before I die- inspite of the critics here on the board- I definitely will do this. Sadly- Toyota or BMW will probably have made it instead of Ford or GM, and it will be charged by Chinese clean energy technology they ripped from us and built cheaper. I hope I'm wrong about this last part.
The funds provided to renewable energy sources plunges further when one takes into account that of the 29 billion dollars, 16.8 billion went to subsidizing corn-based ethanol, an energy source that numerous studies have shown is not carbon neutral and has been blamed in part for deforestation in the tropics and the global food crisis. The remaining 12.2 billion went to wind, solar, non-corn based biofuels and biomass, hydropower, and geothermal energy production. __________________________________________________ further proof that the government is stupid and more money down the toilet. everyone with a college degree should have known that subsidizing corn ethanol was not only a waste of money but would raise costs on everything. this subsidy argument is a bunch of skewed bs. first of all, you cant compare amounts of subsidies between industries because the energy sector is 100 times as big as the green energy industry. im not quite sure of the types of subsidies received by green companies but i believe they receive cash subsidies and i know the corn ethanol groups did. oil and gas subsidies are primarily tax exemptions on certain aspects of production. nobody bailed out the oil and gas industry during its many ups and downs when everyone lost their jobs. if more capital investment went to green energy, more business and more companies would obviously raise the total on the amounts oif subsideis they receive. what is shocking to me is that energy only receives a little over double the amount of the green energy industry. this tells me how invested our government is in green energy.
