Re: Thank God for the US Congress!

On Wed, 14 May 2008 00:01:10 +0000, Skeptic wrote:

your post has so many flaws in logic it hurt to read.

but that's your opinion! I could say the same for your comments.


"Kevin O'Connell" <KevinO'Connell@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:c758c$482a213e$4115@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:59:29 +0000, Skeptic wrote:



that's for sure.

I'm glad you agree with me - it's the only highlight of your post.


I don't agree with you on much, anyone thinking we shouldn't have our own
supply of energy, so we can't be held hostage by some tin horn dictator
needs to think in terms of reality.


why not try living without any oil in your life, .......let me know how
far you get.

Why would I do that? Seems like a childish suggestion.

well, if the price continues to go up, or if these 3rd world dictators
decide to cut us off it won't seem so childish.


That will NOT be
gained by drilling in the US.

It's so much better that some 3rd world dictator controls our oil and
its price.

You have to play with the cards you've been dealt.

no, that's not necessary, we get our own oil and we don't have to play
that foolish game.


If these dictators
bother you so much, we should find real alternatives to oil.

why not drill for our own? there's plenty around.


It just won't and that's a fact that
can't be argued against.

say's who? you?

Just a fact of natural resources. North America is not rich in oil.

hell if it isn't!

there's plenty around, the environmetalists (aka democrats) put a
moratorium on drilling anywhere in NA.


Democratic victory leaves U.S. oil drilling industry scrambling
By Clifford Kraus
Thursday, November 9, 2006

HOUSTON: Just a few months ago House Republicans and representatives of
the energy industry were poised to rewrite a quarter century of U.S.
energy policy and open the seas off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to
oil and gas drilling that environmentalists had fervently resisted.

But the Democratic victory in the midterm elections on Tuesday has
changed the legislative landscape, obliterating the chances that anything
close to the drilling bill passed by the House of Representatives will be
enacted for years to come.

Now the proponents of drilling off U.S. beaches are reluctantly, but with
great urgency, jockeying to settle for a small patch of new offshore
drilling provided for in a competing - and more modest - Senate drilling
bill before the Democrats take control of the House.

The new Congress will take over in January, and would have to begin
legislating an offshore drilling bill from scratch.

Congressman John Peterson, a Pennsylvania Republican who is a leading
proponent for expanded offshore drilling, said, "I don't want to end up
having no progress. Something is better than nothing." He added, "With
Nancy Pelosi as Speaker it will be difficult to talk about producing in
the outer-continental shelf."

Robert Slaughter, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners
Association, said, "We are going to have to be pragmatic in what is
possible in this new environment."

The Senate bill opens for bidding 8.3 million acres of federal waters in
the Gulf of Mexico. Those waters, which are south of the Florida
panhandle and 235 miles, or 378 kilometers, west of Tampa, are thought to
hold 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 1.3 billion barrels of
crude oil.

Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips and many independents are expected
to make bids in the area known as Lease Area 181, which is attractive
because it is relatively shallow and close to pipelines and other
infrastructure built previously.

But the Senate bill was far too modest, many House and energy industry
leaders said before the election, because it would only produce the
equivalent of two months of domestic demand for oil as well as enough gas
to cool and heat six million homes for 15 years. The bill also would
prohibit drilling over a far greater area than the House version,
including 125 miles off most of Florida's west coast.

In contrast, the House bill passed in June would virtually eliminate a
federal moratorium on offshore drilling on most of the outer continental
shelf off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts that has been in place since
1982.

Industry officials said drilling off the two coasts would add enormous
amounts of oil and gas to the national inventory over many years. The
exact amount of oil and gas in those areas are not known because there
has been little surveying in recent years.

Brian Kennedy, deputy chief of staff for the House Committee on
Resources, conceded that there was now no chance of expanding offshore
drilling at anything close to what the House had hoped for. "The supply
side of the argument has been lost," he said.

Before all the ballots from the midterm elections were even counted,
lobbyists for big oil and manufacturing groups began pressing
congressional leaders and the White House to enact a bill passed by the
Senate in August and discard most if not all of a far more ambitious
House bill.

Industry officials said the lobbying campaign actually began several
weeks ago when it became clear that Democrats had a good chance of taking
the House.

Leaders of the oil and gas industries, as well as manufacturers and
chemical, forestry and paper businesses, are lobbying the White House and
Congressman John Boehner of Ohio, the outgoing Republican majority
leader, to convince House Republicans to either pass the Senate version
or tinker with it at a minimum.

Business leaders say they are arguing that as hard as it was to convince
the Senate to go along with any major expansion of offshore drilling, it
is now impossible to get anything better than the Senate bill.

"It's a matter of being pragmatic," said Dave Parker, president of the
American Gas Association, which represents utilities. "The Republicans
who had thought they would retain control basically now have one option
which is to accept the Senate passed version."

Parker added, "We will use every opportunity we can between now and when
the Congress adjourns to get the House to back the Senate bill to gain
access to this supply that will benefit American consumers."

Congressman Peterson said he still held out hope that the Senate bill
could be expanded a bit by giving one or two states the right to opt out
of the coastal drilling moratorium or allowing drilling as far as 100
miles off shore.


Its the democrats who are the reason we have $4 a gallon oil.



Democrats Oppose Drilling for Oil Off U.S. Coasts
Human Events | May 1, 2008 |

Posted on Fri 09 May 2008 03:57:57 AM HST by yoe

As Ann Coulter points out in the cover story of this week's HUMAN EVENTS,
the Democratic Party has long pursued a strategy designed to force up the
price of gasoline for American families.

Part of this strategy is to maintain a moratorium on oil drilling off the
East and West coasts of the United States, thus artificially limiting the
domestic supply.

Back in 1982, according to the Energy Information Agency, Congress
enacted a moratorium on oil and gas drilling off the coast of Northern
California. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush ordered the Department of
Interior not to allow any new drilling off virtually all the rest of the
East and West coasts until 2000. Some drilling was still allowed in the
Gulf of Mexico, but not off the coast of Florida. In 1998, President
Clinton ordered that President Bush's moratorium be continued until 2012.

Many Republicans in Congress want to lift this moratorium. House
Resources Chairman Richard Pombo (R.-Calif.) is pushing legislation that
would allow each state to decide individually if it wants drilling off
its shores. But congressional Democrats, led by liberal House Minority
Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.), are adamantly opposed to developing our
domestic oil supplies to counter escalating gasoline prices.

HUMAN EVENTS Assistant Editor Amanda Carpenter confronted members of
Congress on this issue.

I'm with HUMAN EVENTS and we've talked about lifting the moratorium on
offshore drilling on the East and West coasts. Is that something you
would support?

HOUSE RESOURCES CHAIRMAN RICHARD POMBO (R.-CALIF.): Yes, but what we are
moving is a bill that basically turns over to the states the ability to
decide whether they want development off their shore. If you do that, you
will end up with a number of states that will allow it.

What states do you think will go for that?

POMBO: Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia have already indicated that
they want to do that.

How much do you think that will help the oil supply?

POMBO: That will help dramatically. The immediate difference it makes is
on natural gas, which is a bigger problem than the oil prices, because
natural gas impacts the entire economy and that's where we would have the
most immediate impact and it would be huge.

When could we expect that?

POMBO: We're going to move a bill this year. Whether or not we can get it
through the Senate, I think, is the big question, but I believe the House
will pass a bill this year.

Is lifting the moratorium on oil drilling off the East and West coasts on
the table to increase the supply of oil?

HOUSE ENERGY CHAIRMAN JOE BARTON (R.-TEX.): Chairman Pombo of the
Resources Committee has jurisdiction on the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS), and what he's thinking about doing, what my understanding is, is
to give the states sort of an opt-in on a state-by-state basis. They can
decide to allow drilling in the federal OCS off their shores, and if they
did, states would get an increased royalty share.

Would you support lifting that?

BARTON: Oh sure, sure. We have up to a 100 billion barrels of oil and gas
in the OCS and in ANWR that are off-limits right now, and that would help
our supply a lot.

Doesn't the oil moratorium put in place by Bush Sr., extended by
President Clinton until 2012, that essentially prohibits drilling off the
East and West coasts hurt the [oil] supply? Would you support lifting
that moratorium?

SEN. MARIA CANTWELL (D.-WASH.): I'm not sure exactly what you're
referring to

CANTWELL AIDE: Offshore.

CANTWELL: Oh, offshore?

Yes.

CANTWELL: Listen, the United States has 3% of the world's oil reserves,
okay? And we have seen, if we think we are going to drill, why are the
gas prices in Washington State higher? Because those prices out of Alaska
end up getting set on the world market, okay? So, now we're going to get
3% or whatever the United States has? Do you think we're going to control
the world market by having that? No. So, my point is that you know, I'm
not saying that in every case the answer is no, but go and be aggressive
about the alternative fuel market so you have some competition to
gasoline prices. Because right now you don't have any competition, and we
have places like China and India and other places eating up demand. We
are just going to continue to get squeezed, so now is the time to be much
more aggressive about alternative fuels.

Would you support lifting the moratorium on offshore oil drilling on the
East and West coasts?

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R.-TEX.): Would I support it? Absolutely.

Would you support lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling on the East
and West coasts?

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D.-CALIR): No.

No? Now, I'm not trying to be cheeky, but doesn't that artificially
inflate the price if we can't drill because of legislation?

FEINSTEIN: No, not necessarily at all. The fact of the matter is
California is at refining capacity. They couldn't refine more if we had
it.

Even if we opened it up?

FEINSTEIN: No.

And opened more refineries?

FEINSTEIN: Well, that's not the issue here. The issue is should there be
drilling off the coast of California, and Califomians have spoken and
they don't want it. So the answer is no.

I've been looking at the oil moratorium on offshore drilling on the East
and West coasts. Would you support lifting that to increase the oil
supply?

SEN. JUDD GREGG (R.-N.H.): I think we should give the states the option.

I just talked with Mr. Pombo, and he said there's actually going to be a
bill in the House that will do that. Do you think that will have a chance
of passing the Senate?

GREGG: I don't know. There's certainly more interest in it now than there
has been in the past. There's also resistance to it. Obviously there's
the issue with Florida, but there's states like Virginia that have
expressed a desire to do it.

Would you support lifting [the moratorium on oil drilling off the East
and West coasts] to immediately impact gas prices and drive them down?

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D.-CALIF.): Absolutely not. What we have to do, what
our nation has to do, is make a decision to be energy independent. We
should be spending our energy dollars on the Middle West, not the Middle
East. Mr. [James] Clyburn [D.-S.C.] and Congresswoman [Rosa] DeLauro [D.-
Conn.] talked about alternative energy sources where we and our own
agriculture area would be able to have sources of oil that would reduce
our dependence on foreign oil. They're [Republicans are] thinking so
tiny, tiny, small. They have to think beyond that. They have got to think
of our national security, our economy, our environment, and they have got
to think about America's consumers. As long as they are only thinking big
oil, they will come up with these small solutions.

REP. JAMES CLYBURN (D.-S.C): Let me say something else about that. Let's
go back to the State of the Union. The President said in the State of the
Union Address that we must get rid of our addiction to oil. He didn't say
foreign oil, he said addiction to oil. So then why are we going to spend
time and resources drilling for more oil, be it ANWR or off the East or
West coast? Why aren't we developing alternatives to oil? And we can do
it within five years. I have spent the whole break working with colleges
and universities on what we need to do going forward, hydrogen fuel
cells, what we need to do with biofuels. I have coming into South
Carolina, this coming weekend. Gov. Schweiker of Montana who will be at
South Carolina State College spending a day there talking about
alternatives to oil. [Iowa] Gov. Vilsack will be coming, talking about
corn and soybeans. We know that rural farmers can be a part of making
this country energy independent, and that's where we ought to be spending
our resources. That's where we ought to be spending our money, not
finding other sources of oil. You don't get rid of the addiction by
changing the brand.


It will be gained when an alternative to oil comes about.

if there was any alternative someone would have found it by now.

If the earth were round someone would have sailed around it by now! So
the comment would have been a few hundred years ago. Just because
something hasn't been invented yet doesn't mean it won't ever exist.

so where's the invention?


That is what we need and will eventually get.

in the mean time we give all these 3rd world dictators money to buy
their oil which they use to buy weapons to kill us with. Great idea
genius!

Did they buy the airplanes they flew into the Towers? Get real.

better look again, almost all the oil producing countries are run by
dictators, they are buying weapons with the money.

Of the top 14 oil exporters, only one is a well-established liberal
democracy — Norway. Two others have recently made a transition to
democracy — Mexico and Nigeria. Iraq is trying to follow in their
footsteps. That's it. Every other major oil exporter is a dictatorship —
and the run-up in oil prices has been a tremendous boon to them.


So long as
oil is the major energy source, however, I say let the 3rd world
countries do most of the dirty work.

I bet you love illegal aliens also!

And the connection there is what, exactly?

you missed the sarcasm. think if you can!


Go back to online dating or whatever it is you kids do these days before
you grow your pubes.


totally useless comment. are you proud of yourself?



** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
.