New Republican coordinated plan to blame Democrats for high oil prices - Page 2

Originally Posted by SDW2001

See trumptman's comments. By the way, your contention that domestic drilling will not help the situation we are in is utterly laughable.

Probable energy reserves: Estimated quantities of energy sources that, on the basis of geologic evidence that supports projections from proved reserves (see definition below), can reasonably be expected to exist and be recoverable under existing economic and operating conditions. Site information is insufficient to establish with confidence the location, quality, and grades of the energy source. Note: This term is equivalent to "Indicated Reserves" as defined in the resource/reserve classification contained in the U.S. Geological Survey Circular 831, 1980. Measured and indicated reserves, when combined, constitute demonstrated reserves.

Proved energy reserves: Estimated quantities of energy sources that analysis of geologic and engineering data demonstrates with reasonable certainty are recoverable under existing economic and operating conditions. The location, quantity, and grade of the energy source are usually considered to be well established in such reserves. Note: This term is equivalent to "Measured Reserves" as defined in the resource/reserve classification contained in the U.S. Geological Survey Circular 831, 1980. Measured and indicated reserves, when combined, constitute demonstrated reserves.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

The Democrats have consistently opposed energy exploration in the name of environmentalism. They have opposed nuclear power, coal power, etc. They have supported "alternative fuels" like ethanol, helping to quadruple the price of corn, raise the price of milk, eggs, etc. They have gone after the "evil oil companies," who make less on a gallon of gas than the government does. They want to impose a windfall profits tax, which will do NOTHING to reduce gas prices...it will make them go higher. They have blocked construction of new refineries in the United States for 30 years.

Most Republicans favor adding supply to the market. Most favor building more refineries, turning to nuclear power, coal power, drilling ANWR and off the coasts, etc.

These are facts, and you cannot change them. Democrats are responsible for our current situation.

Edit: Speaking of exploiting the issue for political purposes, what are the Democrats doing? Back when gas was $2.80 a gallon, Pelosi said that the prices were the result of the Republican Congress. She had a "commonsense plan" to lower gas prices. What happened? Let me guess...Republican obstructionism? No. The answer is Democrats are beholden to the environmental lobby, who opposes adding supply that is readily available. Now that it's election time though, it's the Republican's fault...even though Democrats have been running Congress for 2 years. The whole thing is laughable. Democrats created this situation almost entirely on their own. Now they are the ones shifting the blame...not just to the GOP, but to the oil companies as well. Their "commonsense" plan includes passing a ridiculous windfall profits tax, ending subsidies, etc. What they don't understand is that corporations don't pay taxes. People pay taxes. Those costs will be passed on the the customer. Do you really think that oil companies are going to lower gas prices to avoid a windfall profits tax? Of course not.

Originally Posted by trumptman

I never said you did. I said I was responding to such a claim. It was made by FormerLurker. That is why I said to keep up.

The thread isn't about increasing oil production now. It is about how Republicans are trying to exploit the oil issue. One of the reasons cited as proof of this is the fact that efforts begun now won't yield immediate results. The reality though is that never beginning anything regardless of timeframe always has the result that doing nothing will have. Addressing a problem now or with a solution that gives results five years from now is still better than nothing.

I suspect that drilling offshore will bring about much quicker results, but honestly just being open to exploring for energy on our own shores again would probably scare any speculators out of oil prices. Most reports have said that there isn't a true justification for the current prices and they are the result of needing a guarantee when there is so little margin of error in in the current supply. You don't alter the supply today but guaranteeing there will be more supply in the future will likely cause some to look else where for gains.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Excellent points. This is about oil exploration...which we're not even allowed to do. It's not about the proven reserves which Frank so dishonestly opines about.

The US uses about 15m bpd. Of that, about 10m bpd is imported. Imagine that resulting price decrease if we could provide another 1m barrels per day (or a 10% net reduction in imports).

Oh, and Frank: Why assume that we'll pull 5mbpd out of ANWR? That's half of Saudi Arabia's total production! Assuming that there is only 12bb of oil in ANWR (and that's a big if....if you're aware of how often we underestimate the reserves in our oil fields), we could pump say, 1mbpd. We could get at least another 1mbpd from new discoveries in the GoM and other offshore sites. That alone would reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 20%....for about 50 years. That should be enough to eliminate the use of gasoline altogether, hmm?

Originally Posted by franksargent

Proof? Links? Evidence? Anything? Other than your beliefs and your wishing and your words.

I'm using EIA and USGS and MMS data for oil reserves, provable or otherwise.

McCain himself mentioned the EIA's 21 billion barrels of provable oil reserves, the EIA does an annual report on provable oil reserves, and it captures the then current price of crude oil in it's provable estimates.

If we were to rely 100% on domestic production, that 21 billion barrels would be gone in about THREE years. Their last report (2006) was published in November 2007, and in the 2006-7 time frame a barrel of oil was going for about $60-70/barrel, or roughly half of today's price per barrel.

Note also that in the 2000-3 timeframe a barrel of oil was going for $20-30/barrel. Note also that each year that a barrel of oil has gone up in price proven oil reserves in the U.S. have continued to drop.

[CENTER]

[/CENTER]

In 1920, the United States Geological Survey officially estimated that the U.S. had just 6.7 billion barrels of oil left, including undiscovered oil fields. Eighty-two years later, the U.S. had produced 180 billion barrels of oil and still had 22 billion barrels of proven reserves. The USGS's 1920 estimate was off by a mere 2900%.

Originally Posted by franksargent

Am I the only one to notice that the price of a barrel of oil started to "skyrocket" after "we" invaded Iraq?

Oh, and in passing, this is one lifelong Democrat who has always supported nuclear power development here in the U.S. Always have, always will.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Jesus. No one is suggesting we rely on domestic oil production completely. And you're playing the same game with proven reserves. Do you honestly mean to suggest that we have only 21 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil?

By the way...please cite your actual source, which is Wikipedia.

Also, you're ignoring oil shale, from which we could recover enough oil to power the US for over a hundred years. You've done this because, according to Wiki, the reserves don't meet the definition of "provable" reserves.

And then there is this:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...cle3785978.ece

And...the USGS has consistently and massively underestimated oil reserves.



From here...not an unbiased source, but I believe the figures are accurate.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Jesus. No one is suggesting we rely on domestic oil production completely. And you're playing the same game with proven reserves. Do you honestly mean to suggest that we have only 21 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil?

By the way...please cite your actual source, which is Wikipedia.

Also, you're ignoring oil shale, from which we could recover enough oil to power the US for over a hundred years. You've done this because, according to Wiki, the reserves don't meet the definition of "provable" reserves.

And then there is this:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...cle3785978.ece

And...the USGS has consistently and massively underestimated oil reserves.



From here...not an unbiased source, but I believe the figures are accurate.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Boo hoo.

It's a simple fact that the reason that we are so dependent on Middle East oil is one thing: the Democratic Party. Their environmentalist wing has successfully prevented us from getting the oil we have right here, making us ever more at the mercy of people who WILL go get their oil when we cannot go get ours.

The possible use of U.S. military force to occupy foreign oil fields in exigency first surfaced as a serious issue in January 1975. This paper provides perspective, so that the Congress if need be could participate most meaningfully in deliberations to determine the desirability and feasibility of any such action.

Analysis indicates that sustained sanctions by all or most of OPEC's members would disrupt America's fundamental lifestyle and degrade U.S. security, although survival would never be at stake. By way of contrast, the vital interests of our major allies could quickly be compromised.

Any decision to ease agonies at home and (if need be) assist allies would be conditioned by political, economic, social, legal, and moral factors, but if nonmilitary facets were entirely favorable, successful operations would be assured only if this country could satisfy all aspects of a five-part mission:

• Seize required oil installations intact.
• Secure them for weeks, months, or years.
• Restore wrecked assets rapidly.
• Operate all installations without the owner's assistance.
• Guarantee safe overseas passage for supplies and petroleum products.

American abilities to cope with steps one through four would be suspect if sabotage were the only serious threat. U.S. parachute assault forces are too few to cover all objectives quickly. Amphibious forces are too slow. Skilled teams could wreak havoc before we arrived.

Presuming sufficient assets remained intact to serve U.S. interests, long-term security would remain a challenge. Two to four divisions plus substantial support would be tied down for a protracted period.

Shortages in specialized manpower and materials would make damaged facilities hard to repair or replace. Indeed, drafting U.S. civilian workers to supplant foreign counterparts might be mandatory.

Direct intervention by Soviet air/ground forces, a distinct possibility considering the strategic nuclear standoff, might make our mission impossible if we hit in the Middle East. Other areas would be mainly immune from such perils, but Soviet submarines would pose a serious problem if they struck in force--U.S. escort vessels are insufficient to msure safe passage for tankers and supply ships in any area, except the Caribbean.

In short, success would largeiy depend on two prerequisites:

• Slight damage to key installations.
• Soviet abstinence from armed intervention.

Since neither essential could be assured, military operations to rescue the United States (much less its key allies) from an airtight oil embargo would combine high costs with high risks. U.S. strategic reserves would be stripped. Prospects would be poor, and plights of far-reaching political, economic, social, psychological, and perhaps military consequence the penalty for failure.

Originally Posted by franksargent

Am I the only one to notice that the price of a barrel of oil started to "skyrocket" after "we" invaded Iraq?

Originally Posted by franksargent

As usual, you don't have a clue, and you never provide links to your "make believe" worldview.

Here is the EIA page I used to correct your previous error;

U.S. Weekly Product Supplied

06/06/2008: 20.243 million barrels per day

Wikipedia gets it's numbers from the EIA, I have vetted them myself via the EIA website, do you have a problem with that?

n00b!

As usual, the math is definitely over your head.

U.S. Crude Oil Production [LEFT]5,102,000 barrels/day[/LEFT]


U.S. Crude Oil Imports
[LEFT]10,118,000 barrels/day

And...the USGS has consistently and massively underestimated oil reserves.

The main objective of the National Assessment of Oil and Gas Project is to assess the potential for undiscovered oil and natural gas resources of the onshore United States.
.
.
.
The maps illustrate the mean values for undiscovered conventional, continuous, and coal-bed gas resources. The tables include the F95 and F5 values of the distributions of undiscovered resources in addition to the mean value.

The Minerals Management Service (MMS), a bureau in the U.S. Department of the Interior, is the Federal agency that manages the nation's natural gas, oil and other mineral resources on the outer continental shelf (OCS).

Originally Posted by SDW2001

First of all, I'd like to point out what a total as*h*le you've been to everyone around here. As we speak, you're insulting me and opining that ShawnJ has "no critical thinking skills." In this vein, I'd like to extend a giant middle finger in your direction

Originally Posted by SDW2001

First of all, I'd like to point out what a total as*h*le you've been to everyone around here. As we speak, you're insulting me and opining that ShawnJ has "no critical thinking skills." In this vein, I'd like to extend a giant middle finger in your direction for this comment:

As some may remember, you went through some rather complex calculations (needlessly so) in one of the GW threads. You did this to impress the board with your stunning intellect. I openly admitted that some of the math was over my head, but that I saw the general point you were making. You then turn around and exercise your option to be an utter [insert term of your choosing] by using that statement against me. in this thread. Well, that's fine. Some of us have no problem admitting our limitations, whatever they may be. And certain others? Well they like to think they are the smartest people in the room...and act like fucking assholes all the while. Not you in particular of course...just "certain others."

And by the way, this isn't about my "world view." It's about how much oil we have left. As usual, you focus on semantics. I say 15mbd and you say 20. Who fucking cares? We're dealing with approximate numbers here, Frank. Oh, and my data was from the fucking EIA.

I took the domestic production and imports and....gasp....added them.


[/I][/LEFT]


It was a quick and dirty estimate. So it's 20mbpd. It doesn't matter. The point is we could pump another few million barrels a day and reduce prices significantly. And we could do it without shale oil or new discoveries.

Your position, by contrast, is that it doesn't matter what we do. For all your links and stats and insults, that's your position.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Completely.

It is not within franks capacity to have a reasoned, non-asshole discussion about any topic... without retreating into personal insults of other posters, attempting to "impress us" with his "brilliance" and then demanding "facts" (!) when he is losing an opinion-based argument. Oh, and "Alex Jones," and "hiding behind a screen name" and "I'm smarter than all of you" is such a help. I really wish frank would have held to his word and kept me on his ignore list... it saved so much time having arguments with an his angst-ridden teenage mentality.

Pay heed SDW, my sig should be warning enough. Never fuck with a self-righteous and pompous Sith.

Originally Posted by franksargent

...Since it's subjective by definition to begin with...
You words speak volumes about you own ego. Or lack thereof.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Search me... that is exactly what I told you when you scream for "facts" to back up rhetorical "opinion." Remember all of your soapbox speeches about "just the facts" and all that silliness... Now you're telling me exactly what I told you, uh, "TYVM."

My ego is just fine... it does not need to act like an asshole to get a point across. What an insult... "your lack of ego".

Originally Posted by franksargent

... take the debate down several notches, at the onset. And in the middle. And towards the end.

Originally Posted by BRussell

But anyone who thinks it would reduce gas prices, let alone have any significant impact on our reliance on oil, is crazy.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Excellent points. This is about oil exploration...which we're not even allowed to do.

Oh, and Frank: Why assume that we'll pull 5mbpd out of ANWR?

We could get at least another 1mbpd from new discoveries in the GoM and other offshore sites. That alone would reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 20%....for about 50 years. That should be enough to eliminate the use of gasoline altogether, hmm?

Originally Posted by Jubelum

I don't think talking the issues "takes things down several notches" - I'd rather direct you to the fact that your personal insults and pseudo-"gotchas" do not contribute to any real exchange of ideas. Just ask around, frank... when you get in the middle of some argument, you help it descend full speed into "your not as smart as I am" or "XXXX is over your head" or whatever little juvenile little snark you have for the day.

"Hiding behind a screen name"
"Facts!"
"Alex Jones"

Occasionally, you contribute some good non-Wikipedia data that actually furthers the discussion. Unfortunately, you have not mastered the mature art of talking to issue and not at people personally. It's what you usually do when someone does not agree with your worldview.

Originally Posted by franksargent

... you appear to be a bitter person, for some odd reason, and your lack of maturity is more glaring than mine, because you see, mine is done with purpose, when most of a thread topic is inane and meaningless.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Brilliant... the "I'm being an immature, insulting, asshole on purpose" defense.

Grow up dude. You're more than old enough and supposedly degreed enough for it. Acting like a developmentally-stuck teenager and insulting people all the time is no mark of maturity... and it comes through in almost everything you post here.

Just for one day, frank, see if you can go 24 hours without making a personal attack on someone who disagrees with you. I have not seen it yet.

Originally Posted by vinea

We are allowed to do except for some areas near the shore. We explored the GoM and found a new field there.



EIA estimates is that ANWR peaks at around 750K bpd.



US production will continue to drop and there was already an assumption that new fields would be found to replace current fields that are depleted in the timeframe.

That should be enough to eliminate the use of gasoline altogether, hmm?

Why assume that we'll pull 5mbpd out of ANWR?

Originally Posted by Jubelum

You don't think that expanding supply would lower prices?

Originally Posted by Jubelum

In other news... House Democrats are now advocating NATIONALIZING the refineries. Way to go, Dems!

Direct from the Hugo Chavez playbook...

Originally Posted by Jubelum

In other news... House Democrats are now advocating NATIONALIZING the refineries. Way to go, Dems!

Direct from the Hugo Chavez playbook...

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Yep... because it is the kind of thing that makes sense in frankworld. You need to get some perspective in terms like "skyrocket"- it took a whole year after we liberated Iraq to increase the price ten dollars a barrel. We now do that same $10 in a week. Congrats on pushing the talking point, though... one cookie for you.

I can just as easily point out that oil has nearly tripled since the Democrats took control of congress... where oil had previously doubled from the Iraq invasion to 2006. DOE.

But hey... never mind all the rhetoric from democrat environmentalists advocating more expensive energy for ecological reasons.
Never mind that at all. There are a good number of Democrats that, despite their election year rhetoric, love these gas prices. Albert. Gore. Jr.

The fact of the matter is that this oil thing has everything to do with the falling dollar and the FED... not with supply or demand. This is what happens when a bunch of people "to help the poor" institute banking policies that "help the poor" by extending credit to people who otherwise should not get it. Oops... "unintended consequences" again. We're sorry. For some perspective, maybe we could get some feedback from the Countrywide Six...

Originally Posted by Jubelum

I don't think talking the issues "takes things down several notches" - I'd rather direct you to the fact that your personal insults and pseudo-"gotchas" do not contribute to any real exchange of ideas. Just ask around, frank... when you get in the middle of some argument, you help it descend full speed into "your not as smart as I am" or "XXXX is over your head" or whatever little juvenile little snark you have for the day.

"Hiding behind a screen name"
"Facts!"
"Alex Jones"

Occasionally, you contribute some good non-Wikipedia data that actually furthers the discussion. Unfortunately, you have not mastered the mature art of talking to issue and not at people personally. It's what you usually do when someone does not agree with your worldview.

Originally Posted by Bergermeister

Now McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080618/...nukKgjSD.s0NUE

Think he'd like one across the street from his mansion?

According to a press release from the Nashville-based think tank, in the past year Mr. Gores home, located in Nashvilles upscale Belle Meade area, consumed 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity in 2007, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.