Australia Found Oil that rivals/tops the Middle East Supply

[revelarts]

"Biggest Oil Discovery in 50 years"

Shouldn't this mean less dependance on the middle east. and therefore less MOCK concern for what happens there.
Bush adimitted a piblicaly that one reason we are there is oil. the Pipelines we protect in Afghanistan with US troops.

It's the biggest find in 50 years and the media is completely ignoring it... It is 6 times larger than the Bakken,
17 times the size of the Marcellus formation,
and 80 times larger than the Eagle Ford shale.

All told what was recently discovered outside a sleepy Australian town contains more black gold more than in all of in Iran, Iraq, Canada, or Venezuela.
With current estimates at 233 billion barrels its just 30 billion shy of the estimated reserves in all of Saudi Arabia.

According to one renowned international expert, this massive discovery could eventually dwarf the oil rich kingdom as the original estimates are revised.
An advisor to six of the top 10 oil producers and active consultant to 20 world governments, Dr. Kent Moors now believes the find, "may land at 300 or 400 billion barrels," making it one of "the greatest unconventional oil discoveries any of us will see in our lifetimes."
"It's represents a bona fide redrawing of the global energy map as we know it," Moors says, "and the mainstream media is completely ignoring it."


http://www.dailypaul.com/292798/new-huge-oil-find-in-australia-233-billion-barrels-6-times-larger-than-the-bakken

.........
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/9822955/Trillions-of-dollars-worth-of-oil-found-in-Australian-outback.html

The discovery in central Australia (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia) was reported by Linc Energy to the stock exchange and was based on two consultants reports, though it is not yet known how commercially viable it will be to access the oil.

The reports estimated the company’s 16 million acres of land in the Arckaringa Basin in South Australia contain between 133 billion and 233 billion barrels of shale oil trapped in the region’s rocks.

It is likely however that just 3.5 billion barrels, worth almost $359 billion (£227 billion) at today’s oil price, will be able to be recovered.

The find was likened to the Bakken and Eagle Ford shale oil projects in the US, which have resulted in massive outflows and have led to predictions that the US could overtake Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest oil producer as soon as this year.

Peter Bond, Linc Energy’s chief executive, said the find could transform the world’s oil industry but noted that it would cost about £200 million to enable production in the area.



Shale oil is more costly to extract than conventional crude oil and involves the controversial process of hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking.
This involves introducing cracks in rock formations by forcing through a mixture of water, sand at chemicals at high pressure.
“If you took the 233 billion, well, you’re talking Saudi Arabia numbers,” Mr Bond told ABC News.
“It is massive, it is just huge If the Arckaringa plays out the way we hope it will, and the way our independent reports have shown, it’s one of the key prospective territories in the world at the moment.
"If you stress test it right down and you only took the very sweetest spots in the absolute known areas and you do nothing else, it is about 3.5 billion [barrels] and that’s sort of worse-case scenario.”
Australia is currently believed to have reserves of about 3.9 billion barrels of crude oil - about 0.2 per cent of the world’s total - and produces about 180 million barrels a year.
The latest find, at the lowest estimate, would make Australia a net oil exporter; at the higher estimate, Australia would become one of the world’s biggest oil exporters.
Tom Koutsantonis, South Australia’s mining minister, said the reserves were deep and remote and it was too early to confirm whether they can be profitably tapped.
“All these things are luck and risk,” he said.
“What we’re seeing up there is a very, very big deposit If the reserves and the pressure was right over millions of years and the rocks have done the things they think they’ve done, they think they can extract vast reserves of oil out of South Australia which would have a value of about $AUS20 trillion. (£13 trillion)”
The consultants reports, based on drilling and geological and seismic surveys, did not indicate how easily the oil can be tapped or profitably produced.
John Young, a resources analyst at investment group Wilson HTM, said the reserves were “massive” but the actual volumes that may emerge remained uncertain.
“The numbers are going to be very large, but we really need to move from that [to] the quality of the resource - how good is it, how economic will it be, and that’s going to take a significant amount of exploration and appraisal work before the industry’s in a position to determine that,” he said.



times are a changin?

[Robert A Whit]

A partnership wanted a pipe to cross Afghanistan but there were too many problems so they bailed out before Bush became president. Bush had no reason to hope for a pipeline. But it was to carry natural gas anyway.

Next, He did not wage war over oi8l. Bush never claimed he had.

As to an oil find in Australia, it had to be expected.

Another point since we are on the topic. Small cars getting very good fuel economy pay less in gas taxes during the year. It has come to pass that some states noticed revenues declining and they want other ways to soak you. A small car gives less revenue for sales taxes. Less cash flows to any Government tapped into the sale of cars.

[revelarts]

A partnership wanted a pipe to cross Afghanistan but there were too many problems so they bailed out before Bush became president. Bush had no reason to hope for a pipeline. But it was to carry natural gas anyway.

Next, He did not wage war over oil. Bush never claimed he had.


I'm not going to argue with you over it. it would take to long.
so we'll just disagree. But I will just say, among the many things Bush said were the reasons for war(s) in the middle east. He did in fact, (at a press conference that i heard myself) say in reference to the war(s) "We need the oil".
spin that however you want.



As to an oil find in Australia, it had to be expected.
really?
wha?



Another point since we are on the topic. Small cars getting very good fuel economy pay less in gas taxes during the year. It has come to pass that some states noticed revenues declining and they want other ways to soak you. A small car gives less revenue for sales taxes. Less cash flows to any Government tapped into the sale of cars. that's a point to be considered.
Our Gov in VA proposed Chucking the gasoline tax altogether and raising the sales tax a bit. That would replace ALL of the loss in revenue caused by the ongoing fuel tax losses based on fuel economy and hybrid. And VA's new sale tax would still be lower than Maryland's.
5.8% compared to 6%.

[logroller]

Unconventional oil is not the saving grace of decreasing reserves and growing demand that the original poster may claim to be good news to the consumer.
Facts are fun: like the quote that out of 233 billion barrels found, 3.5 is recoverable. Or that the estimated value of that oil is 359 billion, but the extraction process costs between $70-95; and respective of the $106/ barrel price: the price to end users wouldn't likely be felt.



Another point since we are on the topic. Small cars getting very good fuel economy pay less in gas taxes during the year. It has come to pass that some states noticed revenues declining and they want other ways to soak you. A small car gives less revenue for sales taxes. Less cash flows to any Government tapped into the sale of cars.
Right. Because paying for the maintenance of the roads one uses is "getting soaked". There a liberal in you just dying to get out.

[revelarts]

Unconventional oil is not the saving grace of decreasing reserves and growing demand that the original poster may claim to be good news to the consumer.
Facts are fun: like the quote that out of 233 billion barrels found, 3.5 is recoverable. Or that the estimated value of that oil is 359 billion, but the extraction process costs between $70-95; and respective of the $106/ barrel price: the price to end users wouldn't likely be felt.


Recoverable ...so far... It's still early.

And are you saying that it doesn't MATTER that there's MORe Oil availble and it Not from a hostile politically difficult area?

come on.
On it's face it's good news Log.
Accept to people who think using oil in the long/short run is a bad idea.

[logroller]

Recoverable ...so far... It's still early.

And are you saying that it doesn't MATTER that there's MORe Oil availble and it Not from a hostile politically difficult area?

come on.
On it's face it's good news Log.
Accept to people who think using oil in the long/short run is a bad idea.
It's been estimated that the green river Formation in good ol USA has reserves in excess of a trillions of barrels. On its face doesn't put oil shale derived gas in the tank. That takes energy and water. Atleast we have the water necessary to extract it. Does Australia? But are you willing to risk polluting water? a lot of water, I might add-- between one and five barrels of water for every barrel of oil. And when you say that's what's recoverable, so far, early...I'll just cut you off there and tell that what makes oil recoverable is the economic viability of production-- we've known of massive reserves of oil shale since the 1949 green river formation discovery-- the largest in the world-- but since oil was cheaper elsewhere, it sits. In other words, what makes oil shale more recoverable is rising prices. It's not scientific advancement that make oil mor recoverable, its commodity prices. Watch and see what the price of water will do this century. But sure, Whoopee, oil shale.

[logroller]

It's been estimated that the green river Formation in good ol USA has reserves in excess of a trillions of barrels. On its face doesn't put oil shale derived gas in the tank. That takes energy and water. Atleast we have the water necessary to extract it. Does Australia? But are you willing to risk polluting water? a lot of water, I might add-- between one and five barrels of water for every barrel of oil. And when you say that's what's recoverable, so far, early...I'll just cut you off there and tell that what makes oil recoverable is the economic viability of production-- we've known of massive reserves of oil shale since the 1949 green river formation discovery-- the largest in the world-- but since oil was cheaper elsewhere, it sits. In other words, what makes oil shale more recoverable is rising prices. It's not scientific advancement that make oil mor recoverable, its commodity prices. Watch and see what the price of water will do this century. But sure, Whoopee, oil shale.
Correction:
According to Mittal's testimony before the House science subcommittee on energy and the environment, the U.S. Geological Survey "estimates that the Green River Formation contains about 3 trillion barrels of oil, and about half of this may be recoverable, depending on available technology and economic conditions."

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/051412-611380-green-river-equal-to-worlds-oil-reserves-.htm#ixzz2b473s9LR
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=656108#post656108)
A partnership wanted a pipe to cross Afghanistan but there were too many problems so they bailed out before Bush became president. Bush had no reason to hope for a pipeline. But it was to carry natural gas anyway.

Next, He did not wage war over oil. Bush never claimed he had.




I'm not going to argue with you over it. it would take to long.
so we'll just disagree. But I will just say, among the many things Bush said were the reasons for war(s) in the middle east. He did in fact, (at a press conference that i heard myself) say in reference to the war(s) "We need the oil".
spin that however you want.


Why not learn the facts about the oil company partnership and why they bailed out? why do you suppose Bush did not include that in his book? If by wars, you mean against Iran and Kuwait, of course.



http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=656108#post656108)
As to an oil find in Australia, it had to be expected.



really?
wha?


I recommend a book. You know me. A book a day is my motto. Read the Deep Hot Biosphere. But as large as Australia is, and oil was discovered a ways back, naturally they have more.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=656108#post656108)
Another point since we are on the topic. Small cars getting very good fuel economy pay less in gas taxes during the year. It has come to pass that some states noticed revenues declining and they want other ways to soak you. A small car gives less revenue for sales taxes. Less cash flows to any Government tapped into the sale of cars.




that's a point to be considered.
Our Gov in VA proposed Chucking the gasoline tax altogether and raising the sales tax a bit. That would replace ALL of the loss in revenue caused by the ongoing fuel tax losses based on fuel economy and hybrid. And VA's new sale tax would still be lower than Maryland's.
5.8% compared to 6%.

CA taxes us at well above that. We ought to cut sales taxes. I pay 9 percent and fuel taxes both state and Federal are much more. [/QUOTE]

[revelarts]

I remeber the Mid westrns oil too. I posted about it awhile back.

As far as the process and the cost.
yes that's and issue.
that's technological issue.
I thin people can solve those kind of issue.
it's the political issues that seem to be the worlds bigest problems.

The 1st thing that come to mind when you ask about water "does Australia have any?" is,
OK i guess salt water doesn't count then.
Hey I don't know,

but other than that I've read that

Shell Oil thinks it can produce oil from oil shale at $30 per barrel using an in situ process where the shale is cooked without first mining it onto the surface. (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_4051709,00.html)
They don't need subsidies; the process should be commercially feasible with world oil prices at $30 a barrel. The energy balance is favorable; under a conservative life-cycle analysis, it should yield 3.5 units of energy for every 1 unit used in production. The process recovers about 10 times as much oil as mining the rock and crushing and cooking it at the surface, and it's a more desirable grade. Reclamation is easier because the only thing that comes to the surface is the oil you want.
And we've hardly gotten to the really ingenious part yet. While the rock is cooking, at about 650 or 750 degrees Fahrenheit, how do you keep the hydrocarbons from contaminating ground water? Why, you build an ice wall around the whole thing. As O'Connor said, it's counterintuitive.

Shell is just now moving onto the next stage to decide by 2010 whether their process is commercially feasible. (http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/news/stories/2005/08/19/8_19_1A_oil_shale.html)
Shell has received approval from Rio Blanco County, state and federal officials to conduct a $50 million, two- to four-year study of a groundwater freezing process, said Jill Davis.
“We’re still looking to decide if we’ll move on to commercial production by the end of the decade,” she said. “It’s been promising, so we want to take it to the next level with an environmental test of our ‘freeze wall’ process.”
Refrigerants, such as ammonia dioxide, are circulated through underground pipes to freeze the groundwater and earth to keep groundwater out of an oil-shale formation.
“We’ve tested the process in a circular pattern and this will be a football field-shaped rectangle in an area more like where commercial production could happen,” she said.



http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.12/oilshale.html

ANd that some country's and companies already do extract with heat.
Is that instead of or with water.

https://www.enefit.com/en/history

Before World War II there were many companies operating different types of plants to produce shale oil. Some of them are still operational today. After the war the use of oil shale in Estonia increased constantly until 1980 when production reached a peak of 31 million tons, which represented 65% of the worldwide total. Currently, mining is limited to 20 million tons per year until 2015.
Between 1946 and 1951 two Kiviter-type retorts were built to produce shale oil. In the 1980s three more retorts of the same type were built.
The first Galoter-type retorts, the predecessor of Enefit technology, were built between 1953 and 1963 in Kiviõli, and following their trials the UTT-3000 plant was built in 1980, near the Eesti power plant, processing 3000 tons of oil shale per day. The new solid heat carrier technology Enefit280 was able to draw on more than 30 years of operating experience with the Galoter process when it was developed in 2009.
As the drive for energy and fuel independence increases, new methods become ever more necessary, and the Enefit technology offers one solution for countries that have large supplies of oil shale. In 2012, Eesti Energia will start up the new Enefit280 oil plant, almost 100 years after the first use of oil shale in Estonia. The development will continue; there are plans to build at least two more oil plants and to produce diesel fuel from shale oil in Estonia as of 2016. The new plant will also produce electricity.
There are currently two oil shale projects using Enefit280 technology under development in Jordan and the USA. These advancements show the growing interest in the production of oil shale based fuels.
https://www.enefit.com/en/history


frankly I don't know much about any processes.
Shell hasn't come out yet , as far as i know, and announced anything but in my opinion, it's just a tech problem waiting for a working solution. the heating process may be it, maybe.

but Yes WHOOPPEEE oil shale.

And Whooppe Solar and Whooppee Geothermal and whoppee energy from water, and thorium (http://TEDxYYC - Kirk Sorensen - Thorium - YouTube) nuclear (http://http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...-nuclear-power) and all the rest.

Dan Nocera: Personalized Energy (http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=KTtmU2lD97o)
http://energyfromthorium.com/

Anything to get us away from the blood split, treasure and political compromise in the middle east.

[logroller]

I remeber the Mid westrns oil too. I posted about it awhile back.

As far as the process and the cost.
yes that's and issue.
that's technological issue.
I thin people can solve those kind of issue.
it's the political issues that seem to be the worlds bigest problems.

The 1st thing that come to mind when you ask about water "does Australia have any?" is,
OK i guess salt water doesn't count then.
Hey I don't know,

but other than that I've read that

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.12/oilshale.html

ANd that some country's and companies already do extract with heat.
Is that instead of or with water.

https://www.enefit.com/en/history


frankly I don't know much about any processes.
Shell hasn't come out yet , as far as i know, and announced anything but in my opinion, it's just a tech problem waiting for a working solution. the heating process may be it, maybe.

but Yes WHOOPPEEE oil shale.

And Whooppe Solar and Whooppee Geothermal and whoppee energy from water, and thorium (http://TEDxYYC - Kirk Sorensen - Thorium - YouTube) nuclear (http://http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...-nuclear-power) and all the rest.

Dan Nocera: Personalized Energy (http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=KTtmU2lD97o)
http://energyfromthorium.com/

Anything to get us away from the blood split, treasure and political compromise in the middle east.

Anything...Even blood spilt, treasure and political compromise in the US? Beware what you wish for; you might just get it.

i do understand the processes fairly well, but one need not in order to understand that technical feasibility matters not if its not economically feasible-- That's the rub. they are distinctly different considerations and as much comfort may be found in believing that innovation will save the day, that innovation has a price attached to it: blood, treasure and compromise. Oil shale, fracking etc-- not new technology-- been doing it for years, improving it, building the infrastructure to support full-scale production--it's still more expensive than conventional production ever was...but times they are a changin.

Regardless of, or in deference to, the vastly superior quantity of us oil shale, this may quiet the doom and gloom "running out of oil" crowd; but I've never taken that to be anymore believable than the earth being like a petroleum based chocolate, having a hard carbon exterior with a soft oily center. The simple fact is oil is growing more and more costly to bring to market (i.e. well to pump). Technology won't change that anymore than Shell will bring oil shale to market at a $40 loss.

[logroller]

I remeber the Mid westrns oil too. I posted about it awhile back.






As far as the process and the cost.


yes that's and issue.


that's technological issue.


Not a technical issue. If you have two coffee shops next door to one another, all you have is your debit card and neither accept debit cards-- that's a technical issue. If you have $1 and the coffee at one shop is $2 and the other is $4-- that's an economic issue. If the two-dollar coffee shop accepts debit cards, but charges a $2 fee for the service; then you're in luck I guess...but paying $4 for a cup of coffee.


I thin people can solve those kind of issue.
Sure. The other guy gets a card machine.



it's the political issues that seem to be the worlds bigest problems.


Indeed. Coffee now costs $5, cash or credit, thanks to the political solution to people's outrage over fees.

[Noir]

Wow three and a half billion barrels! Thats enough to run the US for over half a year! We need only double that recoverable oil to 7 billion barrels, and there's the US sorted for a whole year (:

[revelarts]

Log,

offshore drilling was a "technical and economic problem" right?
made things more expensive , so did going to more remote areas, even Alaska had different technical and economic issues over Texas and NJ.

the airplane had technical issues. before it became a useful tool. The mainframe computer had technical issues and economic issue that made it unlikely that people would have one in their homes or pockets. "You can't make them small enough or cheap enough. Its impossible." Open heart surgery, nitrogen in agriculture, heck farming without the McCormick reaper, etc etc.

Shell says they think they can do it. Some others seem to think it can be done. You say you know better. OK, You've done the numbers. people should stop looking at oil shale, man will never fly, no problem.
I've often been too optimistic, but as a layman looking at this issue. I just don't see the word impossible written on oil shale. Or the many other alternatives.

[Gaffer]

I'm still remembering back to the days (started in the 70's) when there was a limited amount of oil and when it was gone we would be out of fossil fuel for good. We were going to run out in so many years. It's all hype and lies and snake oil selling.

A big oil find, largest in the world, but wait, it will cost too much to get it out. In the 70's we needed to stop drilling and use saud oil to keep ours in reserve, so they shut down all the fields in Texas and Oklahoma. A few here are old enough to remember those days.

Seems to me it's not up to us or any other country whether to go after the oil. It's up to Australia. If they want to become the biggest oil producer in the world, it's their business. And they will find a way.

[jimnyc]

I'm not going to argue with you over it. it would take to long.
so we'll just disagree. But I will just say, among the many things Bush said were the reasons for war(s) in the middle east. He did in fact, (at a press conference that i heard myself) say in reference to the war(s) "We need the oil".
spin that however you want.

Before any spin you think will be made, since it was a press conference you heard yourself, can you post it for us?

The only time I heard him speak about oil in reference to Iraq was the following:


If Zarqawi and bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks. They’d seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the United States and our coalition.

I also took the quote you gave "We need the oil" and also added "George Bush" and quite a few other variants and nothing comes back on Google or Yahoo search.

I'm not saying definitively you are wrong, as I simply never heard it, and can't find it. But to be honest, wouldn't be the first time a quote or statement of yours was more a bit of wishful thinking on your part. And again, it's not a long debate/argument, as I don't want that either, simply asking you to backup the quote is all.

[fj1200]

times are a changin?

Unlikely, the "times" are based on who is the low-cost producer and that's not "changin'."

[jimnyc]

Before any spin you think will be made, since it was a press conference you heard yourself, can you post it for us?

The only time I heard him speak about oil in reference to Iraq was the following:



I also took the quote you gave "We need the oil" and also added "George Bush" and quite a few other variants and nothing comes back on Google or Yahoo search.

I'm not saying definitively you are wrong, as I simply never heard it, and can't find it. But to be honest, wouldn't be the first time a quote or statement of yours was more a bit of wishful thinking on your part. And again, it's not a long debate/argument, as I don't want that either, simply asking you to backup the quote is all.

Rev? I saw you looking at this over an hour ago, then back online again a few minutes back. A press conference quote should be quite easy to find, no? :poke:

[logroller]

Log,


offshore drilling was a "technical and economic problem" right?
still is to some degree; why did the deep water horizon rig explode? Economic feasibility pushed the technical capabilities to their breaking point.



made things more expensive , so did going to more remote areas, even Alaska had different technical and economic issues over Texas and NJ.


the issue was driven by economics. We went to Alaska only after the cheap, easy to get at crude was used, domestically that it is. Curiously the influx of converntional sources like alaskas nirth slope led to a decrease in oil value and the subsequent abandonment of oil shale investment,but i digress. Now we're at the global peak of easy crude. So sources that were previously economic infeasible, become economically viable. Of course, technical advances have brought the cost down appreciably already, and may do so again, but it will still be a reflection of the market price (not the other way around, with the market reflecting the technical cost reduction), just as it has for half a century or more.



the airplane had technical issues. before it became a useful tool. a useful tool, of war. Hence the subsidies.
The airplane still has economic issues. How many bailouts thus far for the airlines? 3 atleast. They were shielded from liability. How much in subsidies for security alone to cover the cost of this useful tool?



The mainframe computer had technical issues and economic issue that made it unlikely that people would have one in their homes or pockets. "You can't make them small enough or cheap enough. Its impossible." Open heart surgery, nitrogen in agriculture, heck farming without the McCormick reaper, etc etc.
None of these are commodities. Oil is a commodity, its scarce. That doesn't mean we'll run out, anymore than we'll run out of heart surgeries. But such comparisons don't reflect the reality that oil is more expensive to bring to market. i get what you're saying- we can invent our way out of scarcity. How's alchemy coming along in its search for gold? Some technical challenges are insurmountable. I don't believe oil shale is, its been proven to work; but at great cost. The simple fact of the matter is unconventional oil won't come to market unless it can compete with oil derived from conventional technologies -- it's just that simple. Wanna know the easiest way to bring this about, which the industry learned the hard way in the 80's-- withhold conventional production, forcing price upwards, reap greater profits from which to invest in unconconventional production and, as a bonus, an incensed public demands the exploitation of federal land to ease what is an orchestrated price increase.



Shell says they think they can do it.
wired magazine thinks shell can do it. Go figure a technical magazine thinks technology will save the day. When I want to know the best new app for my mobile, ill give some credence to wired.

Some of the world's biggest energy companies are struggling to make money from massive bets on the shale boom in North America, where deposits of oil and gas are proving abundant but not always profitable.
http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB10001424127887323997004578642391718255534?mg=ren o64-wsj
so with oil in excess of $100/bbl, its not always profitable....but what was that about $30 oil being feasible?



Some others seem to think it can be done. You say you know better. OK, You've done the numbers, man will never fly, no problem.
I've often been too optimistic, but as a layman looking at this issue. I just don't see the word impossible written on oil shale. Or the many other alternatives.
Where did I say impossible? I said it's expensive. Ive already said that its not only possible-- but its been done for years. Not by numbers i have done; but rather those numbers already demonstrated by the oil industry wherein they over-extended themselves into shale oil/gas previously and many continue to do so.
Nor did I say man would never fly. I would say that without billions in subsidies domestic air travel wouldn't be anywhere near what it is. That if the airlines weren't shielded from the liabilities of 9/11, they'd of been sunk. I would say that technically advanced farm implements contributed greatly to the dust bowl. That what we learned in the 20's on flooded markets is the reason we now have subsidies on farm commodities, a political solution to an economic problem that would manifest itself further into the military industrial complex through nitrogen in agriculture from converted munitions factories that, combined with subsidies, gave the us a strategic advatage from which we could secure favorable access to foreign resources-- including oil-- but those actions would have consequences requiring military intervention. So unless you consider price manipulation through subsidy and collusion between industry and government to be technical advancement, its mostly economic, albeit wih a political tinge.

[revelarts]

still is to some degree; why did the deep water horizon rig explode? Economic feasibility pushed the technical capabilities to their breaking point.

the issue was driven by economics. We went to Alaska only after the cheap, easy to get at crude was used, domestically that it is. Curiously the influx of converntional sources like alaskas nirth slope led to a decrease in oil value and the subsequent abandonment of oil shale investment,but i digress. Now we're at the global peak of easy crude. So sources that were previously economic infeasible, become economically viable. Of course, technical advances have brought the cost down appreciably already, and may do so again, but it will still be a reflection of the market price (not the other way around, with the market reflecting the technical cost reduction), just as it has for half a century or more.

a useful tool, of war. Hence the subsidies.
The airplane still has economic issues. How many bailouts thus far for the airlines? 3 atleast. They were shielded from liability. How much in subsidies for security alone to cover the cost of this useful tool?

None of these are commodities. Oil is a commodity, its scarce. That doesn't mean we'll run out, anymore than we'll run out of heart surgeries. But such comparisons don't reflect the reality that oil is more expensive to bring to market. i get what you're saying- we can invent our way out of scarcity. How's alchemy coming along in its search for gold? Some technical challenges are insurmountable. I don't believe oil shale is, its been proven to work; but at great cost. The simple fact of the matter is unconventional oil won't come to market unless it can compete with oil derived from conventional technologies -- it's just that simple. Wanna know the easiest way to bring this about, which the industry learned the hard way in the 80's-- withhold conventional production, forcing price upwards, reap greater profits from which to invest in unconconventional production and, as a bonus, an incensed public demands the exploitation of federal land to ease what is an orchestrated price increase.

wired magazine thinks shell can do it. Go figure a technical magazine thinks technology will save the day. When I want to know the best new app for my mobile, ill give some credence to wired.
http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB10001424127887323997004578642391718255534?mg=ren o64-wsj
so with oil in excess of $100/bbl, its not always profitable....but what was that about $30 oil being feasible?

Where did I say impossible? I said it's expensive. Ive already said that its not only possible-- but its been done for years. Not by numbers i have done; but rather those numbers already demonstrated by the oil industry wherein they over-extended themselves into shale oil/gas previously and many continue to do so.
Nor did I say man would never fly. I would say that without billions in subsidies domestic air travel wouldn't be anywhere near what it is. That if the airlines weren't shielded from the liabilities of 9/11, they'd of been sunk. I would say that technically advanced farm implements contributed greatly to the dust bowl. That what we learned in the 20's on flooded markets is the reason we now have subsidies on farm commodities, a political solution to an economic problem that would manifest itself further into the military industrial complex through nitrogen in agriculture from converted munitions factories that, combined with subsidies, gave the us a strategic advatage from which we could secure favorable access to foreign resources-- including oil-- but those actions would have consequences requiring military intervention. So unless you consider price manipulation through subsidy and collusion between industry and government to be technical advancement, its mostly economic, albeit wih a political tinge.


That's a fine rebuttal there Log.
very depressing. thanks. lol

But btw i didn't mean the airline industry so much as the tech advancements in the planes themselves. But no doubt even those later advancements came with mil-indust-complex funds though.
But the oil industry, even while being wildly profitable, gets more than it's share of subsidies, gov't perks, tax breaks, and protections. However i don't think it gets the hard gov't technological assistants that drew out the many advancements of the airplane.


As far as Fracking goes here something of interest.


Chimera Energy develops fracking technique that uses no waterDry fracturing promises to open up shale fields without ground water contamination.....

.....For this reason, some fracking engineers prefer non-hydraulic methods. One of these, used recently in New York State, swaps the water for gelled propane. The idea being that the propane reverts to a gas at the end of the process and can be pumped out, leaving any additives behind in the well, much like boiling seawater and leaving behind the salt.

The Chimera process takes this a step further by eliminating any working liquid. Details of the process have not been made public yet due to patent concerns, but Chimera Energy uses what is called “dry fracturing” or “exothermic extraction.” First developed in China, this involves using hot gases rather than liquid to fracture the shale. This was originally intended for wells in arctic regions where water used in fracking freezes, but Chimera Energy has developed it for general use.
In dry fracturing, metal oxides, ultra-expansive evaporants and pumice are pumped into the well. The metal oxides react with one another to form an exothermic reaction. Extremely hot gases are generated that expand and crack the shale. Meanwhile, the pumice shoots in and reinforces the fractures, keeping them from closing and allowing the gas or oil to flow.
Chimera Energy claims that not only is the technique environmentally safe, but that it is compatible with any existing well in the world.
Source: Chimera Energy Corporation (http://www.chimeraenergyusa.com/investors.html)


http://www.gizmag.com/dry-extraction-fracking/23513/

[Robert A Whit]

Log,

offshore drilling was a "technical and economic problem" right?
made things more expensive , so did going to more remote areas, even Alaska had different technical and economic issues over Texas and NJ.

the airplane had technical issues. before it became a useful tool. The mainframe computer had technical issues and economic issue that made it unlikely that people would have one in their homes or pockets. "You can't make them small enough or cheap enough. Its impossible." Open heart surgery, nitrogen in agriculture, heck farming without the McCormick reaper, etc etc.

Shell says they think they can do it. Some others seem to think it can be done. You say you know better. OK, You've done the numbers. people should stop looking at oil shale, man will never fly, no problem.
I've often been too optimistic, but as a layman looking at this issue. I just don't see the word impossible written on oil shale. Or the many other alternatives.

Are you speaking of the Shell project in Colorado that was started when Clinton was president? I recall that project where the solution was to heat the strata to unlock the oil. I thought they proved that system works.

[jimnyc]

Rev, pretty please, will you share with me a link showing that GWB said we were in Iraq because "we need the oil"? I know you need not reply to anyone, but I am genuinely curious since my extensive searches on the quote have come up empty. I will forever be in your debt.

Thank you kindly, fine sir, and have a blessed day.

[Robert A Whit]

When Clinton was president, the price of crude was a huge problem for him. Even for Bush though at far lower prices than today, the high prices of crude were a problem. Check back on the fights in congress where one can see it was a major issue.

Then Obama. His crude prices are triple Bush's but it is never Obama's fault eh?

Who blocks the Keystone Pipe then?

By the way, I noticed today we have fallen about 8 cents per gallon for gasoline. I bet Obama wants credit for that though.

[fj1200]

^Though the POTUS may want to take credit/avoid blame the reality is that they have no control over the price of oil.

[Robert A Whit]

^Though the POTUS may want to take credit/avoid blame the reality is that they have no control over the price of oil.

You mean to tell me that were Obama to declare that the USA would step up eil production as if we were in the fight of our life prices would not fall?

Rejection of simple economics if you believe it would not.

[revelarts]

Are you speaking of the Shell project in Colorado that was started when Clinton was president? I recall that project where the solution was to heat the strata to unlock the oil. I thought they proved that system works.

I think your right,
i thinks it's the same project.

[jimnyc]

Being no link is forthcoming, I'll assume the quote attributed to GWB was false, as I suspected from the very moment I read it.

[fj1200]

You mean to tell me that were Obama to declare that the USA would step up eil production as if we were in the fight of our life prices would not fall?

Rejection of simple economics if you believe it would not.

If we were in a fight for our life prices would skyrocket but no, he has little power and can't mandate anything really. Only "simple" economics ignores the actions of others (suppliers for example), elasticity, etc.

[Gaffer]

^Though the POTUS may want to take credit/avoid blame the reality is that they have no control over the price of oil.

Ever heard of a little known govt agency called the EPA? And a few other agencies used by the DiC to enforce his will on the people and businesses of this country. Take away the bans and govt regulations controlling the oil industry and you will see more oil than you can handle. The demand is always there. It's the supply, controlled by the govt, that is the problem.

[logroller]

Are you speaking of the Shell project in Colorado that was started when Clinton was president? I recall that project where the solution was to heat the strata to unlock the oil. I thought they proved that system works.
It did work, but your timeline is all mixed up. The $5 billion colony shale oil project was canceled in 1982 due to low oil prices brought about by Alaskan crude flooding the market. Needless to say, the oil companies don't like getting stuck with $5 billion in losses anymore than thousands of job losses and small business bankruptcies poll well; and Reagan would pass the omnibus reconciliation act in 1986 that, among other things, canceled the synthetic liquid fuels program. Clinton had nothing to do with it that I'm aware.

[aboutime]

Based on the last dozen or so years. I wonder why nobody has picked-up on this story, and blamed Bush for not INVADING Australia long ago...for their Oil?

Ya know? Just like everybody who hated Bush insisted he invaded IRAQ, and AFGHANISTAN...and let's not forget LIBYA...for their OIL???

Where are all the BIG MOUTH Liberals now?

By the way. I enjoy repeating everything several times. Gotta keep up with the others here.

[revelarts]

Being no link is forthcoming, I'll assume the quote attributed to GWB was false, as I suspected from the very moment I read it.

I know what i saw and heard.
Believe what you want Jim.

[logroller]

Ever heard of a little known govt agency called the EPA? And a few other agencies used by the DiC to enforce his will on the people and businesses of this country. Take away the bans and govt regulations controlling the oil industry and you will see more oil than you can handle. The demand is always there. It's the supply, controlled by the govt, that is the problem.
Regulations certainly drive up the cost of production, but there's a saying in the oil industry, regulations are written in blood. Very few regulations weren't derived from a catastrophe or loss of life. You could take away all those regulations and the price still won't decrease appreciably because most regs don't affect how much oil can be extracted. Oil companies took a bath in 80's and aren't going to do so again-- thats why now, evn with oil over $100/ bbl, oil fields don't produce anywhere near 100% despite nearly a decade of extensive drilling. Why? B ause they're businesses and their goal is profit; they set production to maximize profit, not decrease gas prices. Oh sure, they're more than happy to expand there available reserves and opening public lands for exploration and production is certainly something they, the privately owned oil producers, want, but its not like the governmen has control over how much they actually produce (save strategic reserves). Strategic reserves, though, are just that, reserved for when the United States energy supply is dire, (which its not-- its at the highest level in decades) --not merely used as a price valve to stave off the inevitable economic response to increased demand faced with increasingly expensive production methods, ie oil shale, deep-water offshore etc. don't get me wrong, if you cut the red tape of safety and environmental regulation, ignoring the triple bottom line, that would decreases the economic costs-- but only at the expense of lives and livelihoods.

[jimnyc]

I know what i saw and heard.
Believe what you want Jim.

So you heard it, it was a press conference, but there's no trace of it at all to backup your quote?

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=656191#post656191)
Are you speaking of the Shell project in Colorado that was started when Clinton was president? I recall that project where the solution was to heat the strata to unlock the oil. I thought they proved that system works.


It did work, but your timeline is all mixed up. The $5 billion colony shale oil project was canceled in 1982 due to low oil prices brought about by Alaskan crude flooding the market. Needless to say, the oil companies don't like getting stuck with $5 billion in losses anymore than thousands of job losses and small business bankruptcies poll well; and Reagan would pass the omnibus reconciliation act in 1986 that, among other things, canceled the synthetic liquid fuels program. Clinton had nothing to do with it that I'm aware.

Could it be the project is not the one you are speaking of? It seems to me that I used to discuss that project when Clinton was still president. I agree that Clinton was not against such projects. I think Clinton would have approved ANWR in fact.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Gaffer http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=656211#post656211)

Ever heard of a little known govt agency called the EPA? And a few other agencies used by the DiC to enforce his will on the people and businesses of this country. Take away the bans and govt regulations controlling the oil industry and you will see more oil than you can handle. The demand is always there. It's the supply, controlled by the govt, that is the problem.


Regulations certainly drive up the cost of production, but there's a saying in the oil industry, regulations are written in blood. Very few regulations weren't derived from a catastrophe or loss of life. You could take away all those regulations and the price still won't decrease appreciably because most regs don't affect how much oil can be extracted. Oil companies took a bath in 80's and aren't going to do so again-- thats why now, evn with oil over $100/ bbl, oil fields don't produce anywhere near 100% despite nearly a decade of extensive drilling. Why? B ause they're businesses and their goal is profit; they set production to maximize profit, not decrease gas prices. Oh sure, they're more than happy to expand there available reserves and opening public lands for exploration and production is certainly something they, the privately owned oil producers, want, but its not like the governmen has control over how much they actually produce (save strategic reserves). Strategic reserves, though, are just that, reserved for when the United States energy supply is dire, (which its not-- its at the highest level in decades) --not merely used as a price valve to stave off the inevitable economic response to increased demand faced with increasingly expensive production methods, ie oil shale, deep-water offshore etc. don't get me wrong, if you cut the red tape of safety and environmental regulation, ignoring the triple bottom line, that would decreases the economic costs-- but only at the expense of lives and livelihoods.

I wish a lady called Phscd at AOL would come here. She knows a lot about oil having been married to an oil man for many years who works in management. I plan to shoot this to her to get her evaluation since she can consult her husband.

[logroller]

Could it be the project is not the one you are speaking of? It seems to me that I used to discuss that project when Clinton was still president. I agree that Clinton was not against such projects. I think Clinton would have approved ANWR in fact.

Link it then. As far I'm aware, the us oil shale program was dead until 2003.
Anwr-- Wtf does the arctic have to do with colorado's (nonexistant) oil shale development during the Clinton presidency?

[logroller]

I wish a lady called Phscd at AOL would come here. She knows a lot about oil having been married to an oil man for many years who works in management. I plan to shoot this to her to get her evaluation since she can consult her husband.
Come on. That's such a blatant appeal to authority I haven't the need to explain why. But by all means, invite her in...I'd love to hear what she says. If only we could meet in person, i'd have her husband buying me a drink by sunset.

[Robert A Whit]

Link it then. As far I'm aware, the us oil shale program was dead until 2003.
Anwr-- Wtf does the arctic have to do with colorado's (nonexistant) oil shale development during the Clinton presidency?

Sorry that I tried to chew gum and walk at the same time.

So to speak.
It has been many years since I discussed the Shell project in Colorado so naturally my dates can be off.

[aboutime]

Perhaps this link will solve the problem?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2013/01/24/business-australia-shale-oil.html

[Gaffer]

Regulations certainly drive up the cost of production, but there's a saying in the oil industry, regulations are written in blood. Very few regulations weren't derived from a catastrophe or loss of life. You could take away all those regulations and the price still won't decrease appreciably because most regs don't affect how much oil can be extracted. Oil companies took a bath in 80's and aren't going to do so again-- thats why now, evn with oil over $100/ bbl, oil fields don't produce anywhere near 100% despite nearly a decade of extensive drilling. Why? B ause they're businesses and their goal is profit; they set production to maximize profit, not decrease gas prices. Oh sure, they're more than happy to expand there available reserves and opening public lands for exploration and production is certainly something they, the privately owned oil producers, want, but its not like the governmen has control over how much they actually produce (save strategic reserves). Strategic reserves, though, are just that, reserved for when the United States energy supply is dire, (which its not-- its at the highest level in decades) --not merely used as a price valve to stave off the inevitable economic response to increased demand faced with increasingly expensive production methods, ie oil shale, deep-water offshore etc. don't get me wrong, if you cut the red tape of safety and environmental regulation, ignoring the triple bottom line, that would decreases the economic costs-- but only at the expense of lives and livelihoods.

It's not safety regulations I'm talking about. It's agencies like the EPA that need to be reduced and their power removed. They have nothing to do with safety. It would not only help the oil industry but most other industries as well. Including coal, lumber, farming, housing and manufacturing.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=656231#post656231)
I wish a lady called Phscd at AOL would come here. She knows a lot about oil having been married to an oil man for many years who works in management. I plan to shoot this to her to get her evaluation since she can consult her husband.


Come on. That's such a blatant appeal to authority I haven't the need to explain why. But by all means, invite her in...I'd love to hear what she says. If only we could meet in person, i'd have her husband buying me a drink by sunset.

When one can speak to an oil man to learn the facts, one ought do that. I sent her a note saying to her what Gaffer told you followed by what you said to Gaffer.

Cindy has been a long time e mail friend and has no unkind bones in her body.

I let Gaffers and your words speak for themselves and shall tell you what she tells me.

[fj1200]

Ever heard of a little known govt agency called the EPA? And a few other agencies used by the DiC to enforce his will on the people and businesses of this country. Take away the bans and govt regulations controlling the oil industry and you will see more oil than you can handle. The demand is always there. It's the supply, controlled by the govt, that is the problem.

He may be able to open up some fields but what the US can bring to market at a competitive price is more the issue. But more importantly that the POTUS has no impact on the prices of major commodities. To suggest that the POTUS is responsible for the run-up in oil suggests that the POTUS is responsible for the run-up in corn, wheat, copper, etc. Most of the major commodities for the past ten years.


It did work, but your timeline is all mixed up. The $5 billion colony shale oil project was canceled in 1982 due to low oil prices brought about by Alaskan crude flooding the market. Needless to say, the oil companies don't like getting stuck with $5 billion in losses anymore than thousands of job losses and small business bankruptcies poll well; and Reagan would pass the omnibus reconciliation act in 1986 that, among other things, canceled the synthetic liquid fuels program. Clinton had nothing to do with it that I'm aware.

The Alaska timing was more coincidence. Most major commodities were falling during the early 80's as the Fed was tackling inflation at the time.

[Gaffer]

He may be able to open up some fields but what the US can bring to market at a competitive price is more the issue. But more importantly that the POTUS has no impact on the prices of major commodities. To suggest that the POTUS is responsible for the run-up in oil suggests that the POTUS is responsible for the run-up in corn, wheat, copper, etc. Most of the major commodities for the past ten years.






DiC is the executive in charge. It's his administration that does the dirty work and they will follow whatever directive he gives them. So he does have an impact on prices. He stopped off shore drilling. That has had an impact. POTUS is responsible for the run up of all those things you listed because of the agencies regulating them, and because the gas prices are so high the stuff can't be grown, harvested, mined or delivered as it use to be.

It's much more than just opening some fields. It's about reducing the agencies and regulations strangling the economy.

[logroller]

It's not safety regulations I'm talking about. It's agencies like the EPA that need to be reduced and their power removed. They have nothing to do with safety. It would not only help the oil industry but most other industries as well. Including coal, lumber, farming, housing and manufacturing.
You don't think the environment is related to public safety... Ever heard of love canal? Do you know what a superfund site is?
Coal is mostly regulated by msha, and nobody fucks with msha, but How bout the coal seam fires that continue to burn for decades, resulting in the necessary evacuation of residents in the area--permanently due to noxious fumes, poisoned land and groundwater? Or acid rain?


Farming effects on ground and surface waters through their use of fertilizers and pesticides
Similarly, in the lumber industry, runoff poisoned streams, deadening natural fish hatcheries and the pristine wilderness that represent ecotourism dollars to simple folks who just want to enjoy nature's bounty.
Housing...don't get me started on that.


But it's not all boogey man/ doom and gloom things the EPA regulates though-- thankfully-- the EPA also is charged with enforcing the community right to know act, where businesses must disclose their worst case scenarios in case of catastrophe; caution/warning/danger labels on chemicals (msds); chemical inventories and hazardous waste storage, their quantities, storage lives and verification proper disposal...I could go on and on-- there's some good law there.


The caveat: Of course, there's some idiotic stuff too; like a business that can't put in a shop to expand their business because of an endangered butterfly on their property-- True story-- So don't think I don't understand your opinion, I do; but to say the EPA should be done away with is to ignore the very real risks that industry presents to the environment and us, the people who live, work and raise our children in it. For all the hoopla over Obama this or that, most all could be remedied over the course of a decade or less-- PPACA, the sequester, hell even terrorism as we know it could be eradicated. While it may be uncertain how, exactly, that may occur-- it could. But when a forest is removed, the land stripped of its resources and its ground and water poisoned with chemicals...its just gone. There's no remedy, political, economic or technical that can restore it-- That's the bottom line. I'm a fan of treading lightly upon things which cannot be replaced. That doesn't mean live in the Stone Age, just tread lightly if at all possible.

[logroller]

When one can speak to an oil man to learn the facts, one ought do that. I sent her a note saying to her what Gaffer told you followed by what you said to Gaffer.

Cindy has been a long time e mail friend and has no unkind bones in her body.

I let Gaffers and your words speak for themselves and shall tell you what she tells me.
I golf with "oil men" every month. I can discuss point source performance, fugitive emissions, boiler MACT/GACT and naaqs regs with abandon. Dont ask me about tossing a chain tong as, other than the inherent hazards, that's not my forte. My BBQ buddy works at a refinery and I know more about it than he does; but I'm always eager to learn more. And admittedly, gaffers got me teetering-- so tell me something I don't know-- I'm willing.

[red states rule]

Bottom line is, tanks to Obama's various energy plans: inflate your tires, get a tune-up, and hundreds of billions of wasted taxpayer dollars in "green" energy programs we have seen gas prices double in his watch. Oil production on Federal owned land has plummeted, The ban on drilling in the Gulf is still effective. Now Obama has launched his war on coal

Have no fear. Things will only get worse

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn_c11119220130803120100.jpg

[logroller]

Bottom line is, tanks to Obama's various energy plans: inflate your tires, get a tune-up, and hundreds of billions of wasted taxpayer dollars in "green" energy programs we have seen gas prices double in his watch. Oil production on Federal owned land has plummeted, The ban on drilling in the Gulf is still effective. Now Obama has launched his war on coal

Have no fear. Things will only get worse

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn_c11119220130803120100.jpg
I've pointed out the misinformation before, that obama somehow is responsible for a "doubling of the gas price", but you continue to spread these lies. Here's a graph, inflation adjusted:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2j-k_uzyHuM/T2DB0c-C4hI/AAAAAAAAHDs/Rvl5zhQ-yCY/s1600/jindalobamagas.jpg
the red is gwb, blue:Obama
notice that under bush, with none of obama's energy policies in effect, the price was still higher. But way to keep it real rsr; keeping the hope alive that Obama may enjoy a crash in the economy as bush did: yielding a drop in gas prices despite years of still-lower prices than under bush's watch.

[red states rule]

I've pointed out the misinformation before, that obama somehow is responsible for a "doubling of the gas price", but you continue to spread these lies. Here's a graph, inflation adjusted:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2j-k_uzyHuM/T2DB0c-C4hI/AAAAAAAAHDs/Rvl5zhQ-yCY/s1600/jindalobamagas.jpg
the red is gwb, blue:Obama
notice that under bush, with none of obama's energy policies in effect, the price was still higher. But way to keep it real rsr; keeping the hope alive that Obama may enjoy a crash in the economy as bush did: yielding a drop in gas prices despite years of still-lower prices than under bush's watch.

I knew being an Obama lap dog you would leap to his defense. The bottom line in Liberal Roller, when Obama took office the cost of a gallon of gas was abourt $1.80/gal

NOW it is more then double that

Those are the facts. Get over it. Your boy's energy "policy" is destroying the middle class and driving the cost of everything higher

Next up FU and his lame ass excuses for the Hope and the Change Kid

[logroller]

I knew being an Obama lap dog you would leap to his defense. The bottom line in Liberal Roller, when Obama took office the cost of a gallon of gas was abourt $1.80/gal

NOW it is more then double that

Those are the facts. Get over it. Your boy's energy "policy" is destroying the middle class and driving the cost of everything higher

Next up FU and his lame ass excuses for the Hope and the Change Kid
You're spreading misinformation. Cherry-picking facts to suit your agenda on par with msnbc. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that you and maddow troll the same gay bars propaganda conferences.

[red states rule]

You are not much of an opponent LR. Go lick yiour wounds and get back me with your apology (after kissing Obama's ass a few times)





http://www.marketwatch.com/story/average-retail-gasoline-prices-at-184-a-gallon
Market Pulse (http://www.debatepolicy.com/Search?mp=91&rs=true) Archives (http://www.debatepolicy.com/Search?mp=91&rs=true)
Jan. 20, 2009, 7:38 a.m. EST
Average retail gasoline prices at $1.84 a gallon

[logroller]

You are not much of an opponent LR. Go lick yiour wounds and get back me with your apology (after kissing Obama's ass a few times)
Its not even a debate. you just ignore everything that refutes your position...like the worst recession in 80 years. As far as apolgizing: I'm sorry you're a republican. Go register as a democrat. Maybe then the GOP will stand a chance; because your dumbass is political detriment.

[Jeff]

I've pointed out the misinformation before, that obama somehow is responsible for a "doubling of the gas price", but you continue to spread these lies. Here's a graph, inflation adjusted:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2j-k_uzyHuM/T2DB0c-C4hI/AAAAAAAAHDs/Rvl5zhQ-yCY/s1600/jindalobamagas.jpg
the red is gwb, blue:Obama
notice that under bush, with none of obama's energy policies in effect, the price was still higher. But way to keep it real rsr; keeping the hope alive that Obama may enjoy a crash in the economy as bush did: yielding a drop in gas prices despite years of still-lower prices than under bush's watch.

I am just jumping in here without reading the entire thread but man them charts dont do a dam thing when it now takes the same amount of money to fill my bike as it use to to fill my pick up, I am a simple king of guy ( as if ya needed me to tell ya ) but I couldn't care less about charts or any of that hidden B.S. when gas hit a buck eighty back under GW yall called for his head on a platter or hanging forma tree is actually more like it, but now that we are more than double we see charts to show why it is ok , as I said I am a simple man but give me a break

[jimnyc]

What an interesting search! (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=george+bush+press+conference+we+need+the+oil)

[fj1200]

DiC is the executive in charge. It's his administration that does the dirty work and they will follow whatever directive he gives them. So he does have an impact on prices. He stopped off shore drilling. That has had an impact. POTUS is responsible for the run up of all those things you listed because of the agencies regulating them, and because the gas prices are so high the stuff can't be grown, harvested, mined or delivered as it use to be.

It's much more than just opening some fields. It's about reducing the agencies and regulations strangling the economy.

I suppose that was the same argument that would be used against any POTUS when prices are higher than someone feels is necessary but yes, reducing regulations would lower the cost of production and open up some fields that were previously not economically feasible. Deep-water drilling was stopped but is online and growing (http://money.msn.com/investing/deepwater-drilling-reborn-in-the-gulf) and overall US production has increased but still the price of oil remains around $100. It would be nice if we could open the magic tap and have prices fall back down but the reality is our production would have a minimal impact on global prices. If you want to complain about high commodity prices then you should be knocking down Ben Bernanke's door IMO.


"DiC"? Dictator in Chief?

[fj1200]

Next up FU and his lame ass excuses for the Hope and the Change Kid

It's a shame you're not interested in an actual debate on the subject because all you have is hackneyed, tortured logic that is only useful to score cheap political points. But that is typical for the scared little girl that you are.

[Gaffer]

I suppose that was the same argument that would be used against any POTUS when prices are higher than someone feels is necessary but yes, reducing regulations would lower the cost of production and open up some fields that were previously not economically feasible. Deep-water drilling was stopped but is online and growing (http://money.msn.com/investing/deepwater-drilling-reborn-in-the-gulf) and overall US production has increased but still the price of oil remains around $100. It would be nice if we could open the magic tap and have prices fall back down but the reality is our production would have a minimal impact on global prices. If you want to complain about high commodity prices then you should be knocking down Ben Bernanke's door IMO.


"DiC"? Dictator in Chief?

DiC: Dictator in Chief is correct.

Since all agencies answer to the POTUS you are correct that the argument could be used against any POTUS when prices are up. The POTUS does have the ability to reign in his agencies and reduce prices. The DiC has no such intentions. He's pouring billions into green energy which is redistributed to his minions, creating millionaires out of liberal idiots who never worked a day in their lives.

[Robert A Whit]

You don't think the environment is related to public safety... Ever heard of love canal? Do you know what a superfund site is?
Coal is mostly regulated by msha, and nobody fucks with msha, but How bout the coal seam fires that continue to burn for decades, resulting in the necessary evacuation of residents in the area--permanently due to noxious fumes, poisoned land and groundwater? Or acid rain?


Farming effects on ground and surface waters through their use of fertilizers and pesticides
Similarly, in the lumber industry, runoff poisoned streams, deadening natural fish hatcheries and the pristine wilderness that represent ecotourism dollars to simple folks who just want to enjoy nature's bounty.
Housing...don't get me started on that.


But it's not all boogey man/ doom and gloom things the EPA regulates though-- thankfully-- the EPA also is charged with enforcing the community right to know act, where businesses must disclose their worst case scenarios in case of catastrophe; caution/warning/danger labels on chemicals (msds); chemical inventories and hazardous waste storage, their quantities, storage lives and verification proper disposal...I could go on and on-- there's some good law there.


The caveat: Of course, there's some idiotic stuff too; like a business that can't put in a shop to expand their business because of an endangered butterfly on their property-- True story-- So don't think I don't understand your opinion, I do; but to say the EPA should be done away with is to ignore the very real risks that industry presents to the environment and us, the people who live, work and raise our children in it. For all the hoopla over Obama this or that, most all could be remedied over the course of a decade or less-- PPACA, the sequester, hell even terrorism as we know it could be eradicated. While it may be uncertain how, exactly, that may occur-- it could. But when a forest is removed, the land stripped of its resources and its ground and water poisoned with chemicals...its just gone. There's no remedy, political, economic or technical that can restore it-- That's the bottom line. I'm a fan of treading lightly upon things which cannot be replaced. That doesn't mean live in the Stone Age, just tread lightly if at all possible.

A scalpel is a wonderful tool too. The EPA however does not use the scalpel, they use a sledge hammer.

I can check this out but I don't believe any humans were harmed by the Love Canal unless you count moving to another home as harm. (Seems this is discussed in my book ... Freakonomics. Could be wrong and I will check)

Have you seen areas destroyed by the EPA and operations like the Sierra Club? They do a lot more than claim damage, they create an environment that puts people out of work and unable to survive in their former home. Sort of a lumber version of the love canal or superfunds.

[fj1200]

DiC: Dictator in Chief is correct.

Since all agencies answer to the POTUS you are correct that the argument could be used against any POTUS when prices are up. The POTUS does have the ability to reign in his agencies and reduce prices. The DiC has no such intentions. He's pouring billions into green energy which is redistributed to his minions, creating millionaires out of liberal idiots who never worked a day in their lives.

I would have expected this spelling then: DiCk :poke:

I will agree with you on most of what he could do and the idiots but he can't reduce prices; he could reduce costs. As discussed in a previous thread on this issue there is zero correlation between US oil production and prices.

[PostmodernProphet]

I just knew if we waited long enough we would figure out why God created Australia......

[Robert A Whit]

I would have expected this spelling then: DiCk :poke:

I will agree with you on most of what he could do and the idiots but he can't reduce prices; he could reduce costs. As discussed in a previous thread on this issue there is zero correlation between US oil production and prices.

They said that about Natural gas too not long ago, just before prices fell by many dollars with the new production. Not long ago, we used to discuss importing natural gas. Now we discuss exporting it.

While Obama has one way to force down prices, he refuses to use it. Open up to the max our oil fields that he has say so over.

[red states rule]

Its not even a debate. you just ignore everything that refutes your position...like the worst recession in 80 years. As far as apolgizing: I'm sorry you're a republican. Go register as a democrat. Maybe then the GOP will stand a chance; because your dumbass is political detriment.

Why would I want to join your (and FU's) party? I once applied for membership in the local Dem party, but I was rejected.

I passed the mental test

Besides with you and FU as loyal liberals you both show how appropriate the symbol of the Dem party is a jackass

BTW it is very telling that you use gay slurs and FU uses women slurs as rebuttals when unable to overcome facts, You must hate gays and FU hates women. Of course that is a resume enhancement in the Dem party

[red states rule]

I am just jumping in here without reading the entire thread but man them charts dont do a dam thing when it now takes the same amount of money to fill my bike as it use to to fill my pick up, I am a simple king of guy ( as if ya needed me to tell ya ) but I couldn't care less about charts or any of that hidden B.S. when gas hit a buck eighty back under GW yall called for his head on a platter or hanging forma tree is actually more like it, but now that we are more than double we see charts to show why it is ok , as I said I am a simple man but give me a break

How true Jeff. Dems ran on lowering gas prices in 2006

They seem to have forgotten about that "promise" however

Of course the higher the price for a gallon of gas the more defensive libs like FU and LR become. It was fine to blame Bush when gas hit $3/gal. But it NOT Obama's fault when gas is $3.50 gal today




April 24, 2006
Democrats Eager to Exploit Anger Over Gas Prices
WASHINGTON, April 20 — Democrats running for Congress are moving quickly to use the most recent surge in oil and gasoline prices to bash Republicans over energy policy, and more broadly, the direction of the country.

With oil prices hitting a high this week and prices at the pump topping $3 a gallon in many places, Amy Klobuchar, a Democratic Senate candidate in Minnesota, is making the issue the centerpiece of her campaign. Ms. Klobuchar says it "is one of the first things people bring up" at her campaign stops.

To varying degrees, Democrats around the country are following a similar script that touches on economic anxiety and populist resentment against oil companies.

"It's a metaphor for an economy that keeps biting people despite overall good numbers," said Senator
<ALT-CODE idsrc="nyt-per" value="Schumer, Charles E" />Charles E. Schumer</PERSON> of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Mr. Schumer said Democratic candidates in 10 of the 34 Senate races this year had scheduled campaign events this week focusing on gasoline prices.
</P>Officials at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which advises House candidates, said they sent a memorandum to candidates on Thursday offering guidance on using the issue to their advantage. The memorandum includes a "sample statement" that recommends telling voters, "Americans are tired of giving billion-dollar tax subsidies to energy companies and foreign countries while paying record prices at the pump."

Increasing gasoline prices have put Republicans on the defensive at a time when they are counting on the economy to help offset the myriad other problems they face, starting with the Iraq war.

Republicans say they have spent years advocating policies that would reduce the reliance on imported oil, largely by promoting more domestic energy production, and they point to the energy bill that President Bush signed last August as a step in that direction. They said that the law encouraged conservation and greater use of ethanol in gasoline and that it would have done more for domestic oil supplies if Democrats had not fought so hard against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Mr. Bush tried to get ahead of the issue in January in his State of the Union address, saying that the nation is addicted to oil and urging steps to reduce reliance on energy imports.

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/featured_articles/20060424monday.html

[aboutime]

You're spreading misinformation. Cherry-picking facts to suit your agenda on par with msnbc. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that you and maddow troll the same gay bars propaganda conferences.


LOGROLLER. Sounds like You, and FJ meet at bars like that all the time. Expecting other members to emulate, and copy the two of you is what most would expect from you.
And you call yourself part of admin here?

[red states rule]

LOGROLLER. Sounds like You, and FJ meet at bars like that all the time. Expecting other members to emulate, and copy the two of you is what most would expect from you.
And you call yourself part of admin here?

LR has written a book on his mod technique


http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQmnm7F2Emn3qGo0Nq4caKr6oNcNLzLW 0vI_nTTTEeD69yKQyfe

[Voted4Reagan]

The Green River Shales are over TEN TIMES the size of the Australian fields... and we have them!

http://oilshalegas.com/greenriveroilshale.html


The Green River Formation contains the largest oil shale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale) deposits in the world. It has been estimated that the oil shale reserves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_reserves) could be equal up to 3 trillion barrels (480 billion cubic metres) of shale oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil), up to half of which may be recoverable by shale oil extraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction) technologies ("cooking" kerogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerogen)).[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation#cite_note-11)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation#cite_note-dyni-12)[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation#cite_note-aeo2006-13)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation#cite_note-andrews-14)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation#cite_note-unconventional-15) However, the above quoted estimate of 'recoverable' oil is in doubt, and challenged, by many renowned geologists because the technology for converting rock into an oil from the Green River shale deposit has not been developed, and it has never been profitably implemented at any significant scale.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation#cite_note-16) While taking account the Green River oil shale the U.S. might indeed have greater oil resources than Saudi Arabia, U.S. conventional oil reserves (per the BP Statistical Review of World Energy) are only about 1/10th those of Saudi Arabia.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation#cite_note-17)

Green River oil shale is lacustrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacustrine_plain) type which organic matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_matter) originates from the Eocene age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene_age) blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria).[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation#cite_note-dyni-12)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation

[red states rule]

The Green River Shales are over TEN TIMES the size of the Australian fields... and we have them!

http://oilshalegas.com/greenriveroilshale.html


The Green River Formation contains the largest oil shale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale) deposits in the world. It has been estimated that the oil shale reserves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_reserves) could be equal up to 3 trillion barrels (480 billion cubic metres) of shale oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil), up to half of which may be recoverable by shale oil extraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction) technologies ("cooking" kerogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerogen)).[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation#cite_note-11)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation#cite_note-dyni-12)[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation#cite_note-aeo2006-13)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation#cite_note-andrews-14)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation#cite_note-unconventional-15) However, the above quoted estimate of 'recoverable' oil is in doubt, and challenged, by many renowned geologists because the technology for converting rock into an oil from the Green River shale deposit has not been developed, and it has never been profitably implemented at any significant scale.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation#cite_note-16) While taking account the Green River oil shale the U.S. might indeed have greater oil resources than Saudi Arabia, U.S. conventional oil reserves (per the BP Statistical Review of World Energy) are only about 1/10th those of Saudi Arabia.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation#cite_note-17)

Green River oil shale is lacustrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacustrine_plain) type which organic matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_matter) originates from the Eocene age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene_age) blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria).[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation#cite_note-dyni-12)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation

Sorry, that is not part of Obama's energy plan

http://i41.tinypic.com/acvfj4.jpg

[fj1200]

They said that about Natural gas too not long ago, just before prices fell by many dollars with the new production. Not long ago, we used to discuss importing natural gas. Now we discuss exporting it.

While Obama has one way to force down prices, he refuses to use it. Open up to the max our oil fields that he has say so over.

That's true. Up until '08 the price graph for NG (http://www.mongabay.com/commodities/prices/chart-ngus.php) was similar to oil and other commodities. But since then it has been markedly lower; I'll admit to wondering about that discrepancy. I suspect that new technologies lowered the cost to produce and the spike in oil prices made in feasible to go after. Although I can't find data about the costs to produce I'm guessing that foreign countries don't have the cost advantages that they have in oil especially considering the transportation costs. Those are factors that I don't think exist in oil and if they do even BO doesn't have the power that you think he does. The mere action of opening up fields doesn't mean that it makes sense to go after.

[red states rule]

http://floppingaces.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/obama-energy-policy.jpg

[logroller]

I am just jumping in here without reading the entire thread but man them charts dont do a dam thing when it now takes the same amount of money to fill my bike as it use to to fill my pick up, I am a simple king of guy ( as if ya needed me to tell ya ) but I couldn't care less about charts or any of that hidden B.S. when gas hit a buck eighty back under GW yall called for his head on a platter or hanging forma tree is actually more like it, but now that we are more than double we see charts to show why it is ok , as I said I am a simple man but give me a break
Just a little food for thought; when some says they're simple, it implies they're happily ignorant.


I didn't call for bush's head. I believe y'all simple men seem to have what my ol pappy called selective memory...or the worlds biggest gas tank on a bike. Gas was a shitload higher than $1.80 under bush. I remember when a hundred dollars no longer filled my truck (30 gallons) and gas stations then extended the preauthorized amount for credit transactions....at least as far back as 2006. The price under bush peaked in 2008 at well over $4. Sure gas was low when Obama took office--we were in the midst of one of the greatest financial collapses in history-- So too was gas cheap after 9/11...so if your simple self sees the current prices as obama's fault, then I suppose the financial collapse and 9/11 were bush's way of keeping the price of gas down-- Simple.

[fj1200]

BTW it is very telling that you use gay slurs and FU uses women slurs as rebuttals when unable to overcome facts, You must hate gays and FU hates women. Of course that is a resume enhancement in the Dem party

I don't use "women slurs," I use truth against ignorant little troglodytes such as yourself who can't debate their way out of a paper bag. It is interesting that you say that you ignore me but you take note of what I post and refuse to counter with actual facts of your own; makes my comments about you pretty accurate though doesn't it?

[red states rule]

Just a little food for thought; when some says they're simple, it implies they're happily ignorant.


.


More of LR's liberal tolerance

[jimnyc]

LOGROLLER. Sounds like You, and FJ meet at bars like that all the time. Expecting other members to emulate, and copy the two of you is what most would expect from you.
And you call yourself part of admin here?


LR has written a book on his mod technique


http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQmnm7F2Emn3qGo0Nq4caKr6oNcNLzLW 0vI_nTTTEeD69yKQyfe

Can we please leave moderator stuff out of these discussions, as per the rules. I don't see where LR is doing anything inappropriate with his position, and even if he did, I would expect you guys to contact me, not violate the rules and push it in an open thread.

[aboutime]

Can we please leave moderator stuff out of these discussions, as per the rules. I don't see where LR is doing anything inappropriate with his position, and even if he did, I would expect you guys to contact me, not violate the rules and push it in an open thread.


DID JUST THAT jimnyc. Lotta good that did.

[jimnyc]

DID JUST THAT jimnyc. Lotta good that did.

Good, then it's over, lets move on.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Just a little food for thought; when some says they're simple, it implies they're happily ignorant.


I didn't call for bush's head. I believe y'all simple men seem to have what my ol pappy called selective memory...or the worlds biggest gas tank on a bike. Gas was a shitload higher than $1.80 under bush. I remember when a hundred dollars no longer filled my truck (30 gallons) and gas stations then extended the preauthorized amount for credit transactions....at least as far back as 2006. The price under bush peaked in 2008 at well over $4. Sure gas was low when Obama took office--we were in the midst of one of the greatest financial collapses in history-- So too was gas cheap after 9/11...so if your simple self sees the current prices as obama's fault, then I suppose the financial collapse and 9/11 were bush's way of keeping the price of gas down-- Simple. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This puts it a little more clearly.. A good read and a bit more truth about Obama.. -Tyr
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/022112-601827-obama-shifting-talk-on-high-gas-prices.htm
Obama's Double Talk on Sky-High Gas Prices .. --------------------------------------

Posted 02/21/2012 06:37 PM ET




<fb:like class="fb_edge_widget_with_comment fb_iframe_widget" width="90" show_faces="false" layout="button_count" href="http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/022112-601827-obama-shifting-talk-on-high-gas-prices.htm" fb-xfbml-state="rendered" ref="top" send="false"></fb:like>
Energy: When gas prices hit $4 a gallon in 2008, candidate Barack Obama said it was due to previous failed energy policies. Now that prices are heading still higher, President Obama calls it progress.


Already, pump prices are higher than they've been in previous years, suggesting they will top $4 soon and possibly reach an unprecedented $5 this summer.
President Obama is starting to notice the political implications. So he sent Robert Gibbs — now a top campaign adviser — out to tell the public not to worry.
"Just on Friday, the Department of the Interior issued permits that will expand our exploration in the Arctic," Gibbs said Sunday. "Our domestic oil production is at an eight-year high, and our use of foreign oil is at a 16-year low. So we're making progress."
"Progress" isn't exactly how Obama described the country's energy picture in 2008, when gas prices were closing in on $4 a gallon. Then, it was a clear sign of "Washington's failure to lead on energy," which was "turning the middle-class squeeze into a devastating vise-grip for millions of Americans."
"For the well-off in this country," Obama said in May 2008, "high gas prices are mostly an annoyance, but to most Americans they're a huge problem, bordering on a crisis."
In August that year, he declared rising energy costs to be "one of the most dangerous and urgent threats this nation has ever faced" and that gas prices "are wiping out paychecks and straining businesses."
While Gibbs is right that domestic production has climbed in the past three years, Obama's policies had nothing whatsoever to do with it.


Oil coming from offshore wells was in the pipeline, so to speak, during the Clinton and Bush years, when those permits were issued. And the oil pouring out of North Dakota is the result of drilling on private lands.
Obama, in fact, has made it clear for years that he has no real interest in boosting domestic production.
When President Bush announced plans in 2008 to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling, Obama dismissed it, saying "it would merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for 30 years."
"Offshore drilling," he said, "would not lower gas prices today, it would not lower gas prices next year and it would not lower gas prices five years from now."
In a big energy speech he gave in August 2008, Obama argued that "if we opened up and drilled on every single square inch of our land and our shores, we would still find only 3% of the world's oil reserves."
And while in office, Obama's done everything he can to limit production — slow-walking offshore permits, killing the Keystone XL pipeline, making it even harder to get oil out of federal lands.
Instead of aggressively expanding oil production, he offered a set of ridiculous alternatives — hugely wasteful "green" energy subsidies, a call for a million electric cars by 2014 and costly fuel economy mandates that won't make a dent in consumption for decades.
With gas prices up 93% since Obama took office, we're seeing just how well this approach works.

[fj1200]

Interesting:

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2013.03.01/consumption.png

To me anyway.

[tailfins]

Can we please leave moderator stuff out of these discussions, as per the rules. I don't see where LR is doing anything inappropriate with his position, and even if he did, I would expect you guys to contact me, not violate the rules and push it in an open thread.

How about we let this one slide for the humor value? That book cover image is a pdf: Pretty Darn Funny.

[red states rule]

Dems and Obama in their own words on how they will lower gas prices and were "outraged" that gas was costing $3/gal



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKdScVerrBU

[fj1200]

They said that about Natural gas too not long ago, just before prices fell by many dollars with the new production. Not long ago, we used to discuss importing natural gas. Now we discuss exporting it.

While Obama has one way to force down prices, he refuses to use it. Open up to the max our oil fields that he has say so over.

It appears we have restrictions on the export of said.

Energy Manipulation (http://www.creators.com/conservative/walter-williams/energy-manipulation.html)
Why is it that natural gas sells in the U.S. for $3.94 per 1,000 cubic feet and in Europe and Japan for $11.60 and $17, respectively? Part of the answer is our huge supply. With high-tech methods of extraction and with discovery of vast gas-rich shale deposits, estimated reserves are about 2.4 quadrillion cubic feet. That translates into more than a 100-year supply of natural gas at current usage rates. What partially explains the high European and Japanese prices is the fact that global natural gas markets are not integrated. Washington has stringent export restrictions on natural gas.

[red states rule]

http://superstore.wnd.com/core/media/media.nl?id=1693&c=811217&h=68f98398baf29aef27f7