I just saw on the news today that Democrats voted down a bill that would increase oil production and build new refineries in the U.S. the week before last. To me this seems like a ploy to get Reps. out of their offices. This seems to be party politics at its worst. They interviewed on of the Reprisentatives from Tennennessee and he stated that that bill has been voted down 24 times in the last 8 years by democrats. Now who does it sound like is responsible for high gas prices.
launchpad4 Wrote:I just saw on the news today that Democrats voted down a bill that would increase oil production and build new refineries in the U.S. the week before last. To me this seems like a ploy to get Reps. out of their offices. This seems to be party politics at its worst. They interviewed on of the Reprisentatives from Tennennessee and he stated that that bill has been voted down 24 times in the last 8 years by democrats. Now who does it sound like is responsible for high gas prices.
Do you have any link to this information?
If it came from fox news I would be highly suspicious of it's accuracy.
I researched and looked for similar bills to what you had mentioned and all I could find is the GAS (Gasoline for Americas security) bill, the bill would ease permitting procedures and would offer incentives to companies that built new refineries. The bill wouldn't really lower gas prices, but would most likely just increase revenue for oil companies, something they don't need. This bill passed the house 212-210 in October of 2005.
This is just another bill from the Republicans doesn't take anything into account besides profit for their rich buddies. Screw the environment, and Americans wallet as long as they make a profit.
I don't know if this is what you're talking about, but if it is, then I don't blame the democrats for not allowing oil companies to make a larger profit at our expense.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-3893
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1017-06.htm
Coach_Owens87 Wrote:I researched and looked for similar bills to what you had mentioned and all I could find is the GAS (Gasoline for Americas security) bill, the bill would ease permitting procedures and would offer incentives to companies that built new refineries. The bill wouldn't really lower gas prices, but would most likely just increase revenue for oil companies, something they don't need. This bill passed the house 212-210 in October of 2005.
This is just another bill from the Republicans doesn't take anything into account besides profit for their rich buddies. Screw the environment, and Americans wallet as long as they make a profit.
I don't know if this is what you're talking about, but if it is, then I don't blame the democrats for not allowing oil companies to make a larger profit at our expense.
Here is everything you want to know about the bill in question:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.R.6:
From the Library of Congress I might add.
Lets just blame Bush for everything. Like 1 person can do all this.
RavenBoy Wrote:Lets just blame Bush for everything. Like 1 person can do all this.
Please show me where in this post I blamed bush for all of this? I mention rich oil buddies and everyone thinks automatically about bush. Does this mean you think he does help out his rich buddies?
I placed blame on the GOP for trying to pass this sloppy bill, I never once mentioned that it was ALL bush's fault.
Coach_Owens87 Wrote:I researched and looked for similar bills to what you had mentioned and all I could find is the GAS (Gasoline for Americas security) bill, the bill would ease permitting procedures and would offer incentives to companies that built new refineries. The bill wouldn't really lower gas prices, but would most likely just increase revenue for oil companies, something they don't need. This bill passed the house 212-210 in October of 2005.
This is just another bill from the Republicans doesn't take anything into account besides profit for their rich buddies. Screw the environment, and Americans wallet as long as they make a profit.
I don't know if this is what you're talking about, but if it is, then I don't blame the democrats for not allowing oil companies to make a larger profit at our expense.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-3893
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1017-06.htm
One of the main reasons that gas prices are as high as they are is that our refineries are maxed out in production. It is simple economics that most college educated people learn in Economy 100 or 200, that if you increase the supply of a product it offsets the demand and prices go down, also if something is in high demand and you lower the supply prices go up. So to say that it just offers incentives to build refineries and dismiss it as a ploy for big oil is ridiculous. However, I do believe that as a country we must develop ways to become less reliant on oil, in that we should try to develop renewable energy sources to replace fossil fuel energy sources.
We have 701 million barrels of oil on reserve and they will not release any of it.
And we have billions of barrels in Alaska that the Dems won't let us touch LOL
I know, I know, I am only half kidding.... environmental consciousness, WHOOPEE!
A way of life, like actions, has consequences. The world must wean itself from massive addiction to fossil fuels. The American highly individualistic "cowboy" attitude is often "i can do whatever i want anytime i want by gosh ain't nobody tellin' me i'm helpin' make that global warmin'." The belief that one is good so that one's actions are always good is the arrogance that kills the world. It seems we would rather suffer the consequences of our addictions than to make changes in our lifestyles. Of course, the human ego cannot allow this truth, so it says, "bunch of crazy scientists trying to take my Ford Explorer."
PHS95 Wrote:And we have billions of barrels in Alaska that the Dems won't let us touch LOL
I know, I know, I am only half kidding.... environmental consciousness, WHOOPEE!
lol, people like you really confuse me. It's not just the horrible, Satan worshiping, free market hating DEMS doing this, a lot of smart republicans are against this too.
Drilling in ANWR is not the answer to our oil problems, but just a way to make more profit for the oil companies.
The US energy department released a study in 2004, that showed if drilling in ANWR was allowed it would not lower our dependence on foreign oil, and would only lower oil prices by about 50 cents per barrel (Wow, what great savings!!!)
The drilling would lower our imported oil to 60% from 62%, not the huge drop that idiot bush keeps saying that it will be. According to this study, if drilling where to start in 2004 oil could be pumped out by 2013, and would reach peak production of 876,000 barrels per day by 2025. If we started drilling now it would take at least 10 years for the oil to reach the market, is a 50 cent drop on oil prices, and a 2% decrease on imports worth a 10 year wait? I think not. This is the time to look for renewable energy sources, thats the only way to drop our dependence on foreign oil.
Ever since Bush and his earth hating loverboy Cheney proposed this in 2002, experts have been telling us that it will not have an impact on our gas prices, or foreign oil prices.
I'm not even going to argue the horrid consequences this could have on the environment, since most republicans only care about self gain, and don't give a second thought to the consequences of their actions.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idU...=0&sp=true
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/
DevilsWin Wrote:They=George W Bush!
You are correct. He will not release any of it.
Coach_Owens87 Wrote:lol, people like you really confuse me. It's not just the horrible, Satan worshiping, free market hating DEMS doing this, a lot of smart republicans are against this too.
Drilling in ANWR is not the answer to our oil problems, but just a way to make more profit for the oil companies.
The US energy department released a study in 2004, that showed if drilling in ANWR was allowed it would not lower our dependence on foreign oil, and would only lower oil prices by about 50 cents per barrel (Wow, what great savings!!!)
The drilling would lower our imported oil to 60% from 62%, not the huge drop that idiot bush keeps saying that it will be. According to this study, if drilling where to start in 2004 oil could be pumped out by 2013, and would reach peak production of 876,000 barrels per day by 2025. If we started drilling now it would take at least 10 years for the oil to reach the market, is a 50 cent drop on oil prices, and a 2% decrease on imports worth a 10 year wait? I think not. This is the time to look for renewable energy sources, thats the only way to drop our dependence on foreign oil.
Ever since Bush and his earth hating loverboy Cheney proposed this in 2002, experts have been telling us that it will not have an impact on our gas prices, or foreign oil prices.
I'm not even going to argue the horrid consequences this could have on the environment, since most republicans only care about self gain, and don't give a second thought to the consequences of their actions.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idU...=0&sp=true
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/
You might had that while we wait 10 years for oil to pumped into production from ANWR who pays the cost of the construction of the pipe line? We do. Oil prices will rise because the oil company will be out money to build and drill oil wells.
Our current oil situation is not the fault of any single person or political party, and has been building up for over forty years. Oil production peaked in the US during the mid 70's, we then began looking elsewhere of more oil. Today our economy and our existence is based on oil. OPEC will keep up production to meet the world's demands no more no less, if they increase production prices will drop and IMO OPEC will not let prices drop very much. I think we need to look at this situation in two ways, what can we do for the short term to ease the prices and what can we do for the long term.
For the short term (1) I think we need to drill in Alaska, along the coastlines and anywhere else we can find oil, (2) We need to add CTL (Coal to Liquid). (3) Develop ways to improve full mileage.
For the long term (1) I think we need to continue to develop ethanol base fuel, we know corn is not the best way to go, but sugar cane is being used in Brazil with a lot of sucess etc. (2) Continue to develop ways to improve full mileage. (3) Continue to find ways to improve CTL. (3) Continue to search for new oil fields that could not be reached before.
Old School Wrote:Our current oil situation is not the fault of any single person or political party, and has been building up for over forty years. Oil production peaked in the US during the mid 70's, we then began looking elsewhere of more oil. Today our economy and our existence is based on oil. OPEC will keep up production to meet the world's demands no more no less, if they increase production prices will drop and IMO OPEC will not let prices drop very much. I think we need to look at this situation in two ways, what can we do for the short term to ease the prices and what can we do for the long term.
For the short term (1) I think we need to drill in Alaska, along the coastlines and anywhere else we can find oil, (2) We need to add CTL (Coal to Liquid). (3) Develop ways to improve full mileage.
For the long term (1) I think we need to continue to develop ethanol base fuel, we know corn is not the best way to go, but sugar cane is being used in Brazil with a lot of sucess etc. (2) Continue to develop ways to improve full mileage. (3) Continue to find ways to improve CTL. (3) Continue to search for new oil fields that could not be reached before.
Number 3 is the only plan that sounds reasonable. CTL is a joke and will not work, just like drilling in ANWR will not solve our oil problem
Coach_Owens87 Wrote:Number 3 is the only plan that sounds reasonable. CTL is a joke and will not work, just like drilling in ANWR will not solve our oil problem
For the US to meet tomorrow's fuel demand several sources will have to be used, not just one, to meet today's fuel demands we have to produce more oil, and take advantage of CTL, it has worked in other countries and can easily work in this country.
While we are using oil, CTL and some forms of ethanol today we can continue to develop or improve all sources of fuel to use tomorrow.
I'm kind of surpised that you don't like the idea of using ethanol fuels, I remember in previous discussions you thought that corn ethanol would be one option to replace oil.
Coach, since you like to condemn everyone else's ideas, why don't you give us a few of your suggestions. What would you suggest we do to ease the current oil situation?
DevilsWin Wrote:They=George W Bush!
With the refineries producing at maximum capacity, releasing more barrels of oil wouldn't do any good. This is why Bush has refused to release any.
Coach_Owens87 Wrote:Please show me where in this post I blamed bush for all of this? I mention rich oil buddies and everyone thinks automatically about bush. Does this mean you think he does help out his rich buddies?
I placed blame on the GOP for trying to pass this sloppy bill, I never once mentioned that it was ALL bush's fault.
I wasent meaning that you said that. Everyone in America blames everything on Bush. Gas, Milk, and that charge they didnt call in the UK and Georgia game.
Beef Wrote:With the refineries producing at maximum capacity, releasing more barrels of oil wouldn't do any good. This is why Bush has refused to release any.
Thanks for clearing that up BEEF!
Beef Wrote:With the refineries producing at maximum capacity, releasing more barrels of oil wouldn't do any good. This is why Bush has refused to release any.
Good point....building more refineries should have been on my short term list!
Old School Wrote:For the US to meet tomorrow's fuel demand several sources will have to be used, not just one, to meet today's fuel demands we have to produce more oil, and take advantage of CTL, it has worked in other countries and can easily work in this country.
While we are using oil, CTL and some forms of ethanol today we can continue to develop or improve all sources of fuel to use tomorrow.
I'm kind of surpised that you don't like the idea of using ethanol fuels, I remember in previous discussions you thought that corn ethanol would be one option to replace oil.
Coach, since you like to condemn everyone else's ideas, why don't you give us a few of your suggestions. What would you suggest we do to ease the current oil situation?
My stance on Corn ethanol would be better described as cautious. Ethanol fuel is a better option as far as carbon dioxide output when compared to oil, but I don't like the way most companies produce ethanol. Many large ehtanol producers are using coal instead of the cleaner option of natural gas. As of right now they're is a small proportion of the plants that use coal, but according to some experts say that nearly 100% of the new ethanol plants will use coal. This has turned me against ethanol becuase it means more MTR. If more plants would stick with natural gas, I really wouldnt have an issue with corn ethanol. Some experts say that 100% is way to high of percentage, and that most new plants will stick with natural gas despite the high prices. I guess we will see.
That's exactly right.