What is Captain Compromise up to now? 15 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Phoenix_22 VIP Member

46 and 2, are just ahead of me

255,785 XP

23rd September 2004

0 Uploads

24,266 Posts

0 Threads

#1 8 years ago

Associated PressObama to back Atlantic, Gulf drilling President’s move aimed at reducing reliance on foreign oil

By Philip Elliott

WASHINGTON - In a reversal of a long-standing ban on most offshore drilling, President Barack Obama is allowing oil drilling off Virginia's shorelines and considering it for a large chunk of the Atlantic seaboard. At the same time, he's rejecting some new drilling sites that had been planned in Alaska.

...

Obama was set to announce the new drilling policy Wednesday at Andrews air base in Maryland. White House officials pitched the changes as ways to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil and create jobs — both politically popular ideas — but the president's decisions also could help secure support for a climate change bill languishing in Congress.

The president, joined by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, also was set to announce that proposed leases in Alaska's Bristol Bay would be canceled. The Interior Department also planned to reverse last year's decision to open up parts of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. Instead, scientists would study the sites to see if they're suitable to future leases.

Obama's blueprint would allow Interior to go ahead with oil and gas leases on tracts 50 miles off the coast of Virginia. Those leases had been approved for development but were held up by a court challenge and a departmental review.

...

Obama is allowing an expansion in Alaska's Cook Inlet to go forward. The plan also would leave in place the moratorium on drilling off the West Coast.

Full article here: Obama calls for new Atlantic, Gulf oil drilling - Oil & energy- msnbc.com

After steamrolling the health care bill through Congress earlier this month, Obama has moved on to another area: energy. While it is certainly nice to see Obama willing to look at energy as a serious issue, I get the feeling that this decision is nothing more than a ploy to gain support for the cap and trade legislation.

My question is, why does he think that Republicans are going to support any bill he proposes after what happened with health care? More importantly, why does he think that opening the coast of Virginia for oil exploration is going to do anything to affect our gasoline prices/supply/whatever?

It's no argument that we do import an unproportional amount of oil compared to what we export, but that's mainly due to our way of life. We live in the suburbs or rural areas and commute to the cities, our efforts at conserving energy are way behind any other industrialized nation (save China and India), and all of the energy-reducing building methods are passed over for the cheaper alternatives.

But where do we get most of our oil from? Iraq? Iran? Nope, it's Canada, followed by Mexico and Saudi Arabia.

Furthermore, the amount of oil expected to come from exploring and extracting off the Virginia coast: 56 million barrels of oil, enough oil to power this country on it's own, for a few hours, since we consume about 20.7 billion barrels per day.

To sum up my point, allowing oil exploration and importation off of Virginia's coast is a very small drop in a huge-ass ocean. If Obama thinks that opening drilling off of Virginia, or Alaska, or California, or Florida, or all of them, and thinks that will solve gas prices going higher and somehow rid us of foreign oil imports, he's dreaming. Until we start implementing any and all alternatives to petroleum, conserving, and changing the way we live (go back to the cities), our energy problem isn't going to be solved and to me, this seems like nothing more than pandering for cap and trade votes.




Quetron

USA

50 XP

28th August 2006

0 Uploads

1,155 Posts

0 Threads

#2 8 years ago

I think it's a good thing, but this administration has lost all credability with me and all he is doing is grooming the repubs to pass another crap bill behind closed doors.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,013 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#3 8 years ago

That's at best a temporary solution, but after the healthcare-debacle Obama probably doesn't want to risk having more of his idaes shot down. So rather than investing in alternative energies or better mass transportation systems he gives more money to the oil industry. Probably a case of "the people get the government they deserve" ;)

Strange that Obama didn't combine his stimulus pacakge with a package to deal with the energy problem. The industrialist lobby has either a lot of influence in Washington or Obama is rather short-sighted.




Andron Taps Forum Mod

Faktrl is Best Pony

261,593 XP

10th September 2007

4 Uploads

21,746 Posts

1,754 Threads

#4 8 years ago

I thought he was against off-shore drilling.


"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.



Pethegreat VIP Member

Lord of the Peach

70 XP

19th April 2004

0 Uploads

20,892 Posts

0 Threads

#5 8 years ago
Furthermore, the amount of oil expected to come from exploring and extracting off the Virginia coast: 56 million barrels of oil, enough oil to power this country on it's own, for a few hours, since we consume about 20.7 billion barrels per day.

Actually it is more like 4 billion barrels of oil according to the article.

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the U.S. Atlantic coast waters may hold 37 trillion cubic feet of gas and nearly 4 billion barrels of oil, while the Pacific Coast has 10.5 billion barrels of oil and 18 trillion cubic feet of gas.

I can see getting at the most 500,000 barrels a day once it it fully developed, which would be a 21 year supply if it is 4 billion barrels. The oil won't reach the US for several years because it takes time to find the best spots to put the wells and install them. It would put a dent in how much the US imports, but not as big as people think. The US imported 11.5 million barrels a day back in February(source: PickensPlan: Monthly Oil Imports). The oil taken out from the new areas at a rate of 500k barrels per day would make a %4.3 reduction in total imports.

The better solution would be to take advantage of the massive coal reserves the US has to make gasoline/diesel/ect. The Fischer–Tropsch process to convert coal into hydrocarbons has been around since the 1930's. The Germans used it in WWII to make %10 of their fuel, and South Africa uses it to produce the majority of its diesel fuel. The only issues are that oil needs to stay above a certain price(I have heard my professor who did work on F-T with the DoE that it would need to stay above $40/barrel), and that the process nor its products are carbon neutral.

It is easier to dig coal out of the ground than to drill for oil, and the infrastructure for transporting coal already exists. It would still take several years to design the plants for F-T since there are no commercial plants in the US, but you could produce far more than 500,000 barrels of oil a day in fuel. It would work as a good solution for the next 10-15 years until we can figure out electric/fuel cell cars or manage to produce biofuels in sufficient quantities.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#6 8 years ago

Makes sense to not go to Alaska, IIRC Alaska has little oil

Quetron;5283775I think it's a good thing, but this administration has lost all credability with me and all he is doing is grooming the repubs to pass another crap bill behind closed doors.

The healthcare bill wasn't behind closed doors, the Republicans read it themselves. Problem is that Republicans reject everything Democrat just because its Democrat, I mean look at the healthcare bill, they used adjectives to scare people to go against like "Socialist" or "taxpayer burden". I bet your not as angry against Bush, even when he got into two wars, passed the Patriot Act (Its not like thats fascist or anything) paid banks without thinking it through etc.




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#7 8 years ago

Even to start drilling today, the oil wouldnt enter the US system for awhile. I guess hes using local drilling as an interm solution to reduce dependency on foreign oil until we can start other "alternative" options.




Quetron

USA

50 XP

28th August 2006

0 Uploads

1,155 Posts

0 Threads

#8 8 years ago
Warforger;5283996Makes sense to not go to Alaska, IIRC Alaska has little oil The healthcare bill wasn't behind closed doors, the Republicans read it themselves. Problem is that Republicans reject everything Democrat just because its Democrat, I mean look at the healthcare bill, they used adjectives to scare people to go against like "Socialist" or "taxpayer burden". I bet your not as angry against Bush, even when he got into two wars, passed the Patriot Act (Its not like thats fascist or anything) paid banks without thinking it through etc.

Ok makin me log on to respond. I will answer this post like this. Now I get to sit around the house and never find a job, cuz why should I, the goverment will take care of all of that and order someplace to hire me.




Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#9 8 years ago

So, I understand that exaggeration is common in most forms of debate, but to suggest that Democrats are A-OK with running a government with a bunch of shiftless workers is pretty damn wrong. Keep in mind that it was Clinton --not Reagan, Bush I, or Bush II-- who changed welfare so that you must work (or have worked recently) to receive it. At the federal level, you must have worked within two years to be eligible through TANF. Some states are more generous than the federal government, however. There is also a limit as to how many years you are allowed to use welfare (in total, the federal government will give welfare for 5 years during one's lifetime), it's not like you're going to find welfare queens who get to live all of their lives off the government's back.




Buddy Jesus

Who's your buddy

50 XP

6th September 2004

0 Uploads

757 Posts

0 Threads

#10 8 years ago
Warforger;5283996Makes sense to not go to Alaska, IIRC Alaska has little oil

yep, I mean 10.6 billion barrels of oil isn't alot...:rolleyes:

The healthcare bill wasn't behind closed doors, the Republicans read it themselves.

Many of the debates did go on behind closed doors. The process was not nearly as "transparent" as OBama had led the americna people to believe. Additionally just because someone reads the bill doesn't mean that it wasn't created behind closed doors.

Problem is that Republicans reject everything Democrat just because its Democrat, I mean look at the healthcare bill, they used adjectives to scare people to go against like "Socialist" or "taxpayer burden"

Sounds an awful lot like what happened to alot of republican policy after the Dems took Congress in 2006...it's nothing new, same shit just the rolls have been reversed. I bet your not as angry against Bush,

even when he got into two wars,

Yes, because he needleely attacked two countries just for shits and giggles. 9/11 obviously didn't have anything to do with that.

passed the Patriot Act (Its not like thats fascist or anything)

OMGZ, OHHH NOEEZZZZZ DE PATRIOTS ACT!!!11! big mean menz in black siuts arezz gona pwn my ass cauze i talk about drugz on the telphonee!!11. The patriot act was one of the best ways in the state of emergency we were in that allowed us to meet the demands of the new and dangerous situation we found ourselves in. calm down the government isn't comming to get you.

paid banks without thinking it through etc

. Again, it takes two to make a bill law. If I recall the dems put alot of pressure on bush to do what he did.




  • 1
  • 2