Re: OT: Mortgage industry bail-out

On Oct 15, 12:30�pm, Ed Jay <ed...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bob Wheatley scribed:





"Ed Jay" <ed...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:df5cf4he5h681jjbf8np9ibt4i8kdok0ed@xxxxxxxxxx
Bob Wheatley scribed:

<davk...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
Bob, I will engage you (with some trepidation:)) on this one point.

The Democratic talking point is not "no drilling". �Rather, it is that
"we cannot drill our way out of this problem".

Geesh! :>)
A difference with no difference is no difference.

You don't see the difference?

Your leaders (the left and Obama) claim that since "we can't drill our way
out of it".
They then use that argument to say no drilling.

I think they use that argument to say that drilling now won't solve the
current problem, so why spend the money drilling. Instead, spend the money
you'd spend drilling on R&D seeking a less expensive, renewable or
'never-ending' source of energy.

We currently have several alternative methods we already employ for
generating energy. These include nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, and
geothermal. Scientists who more fully understand the energy-fuel issues more
than I do know the drawbacks, pitfalls, benefits, disadvantages and
advantages of these technologies. Scientific breakthroughs take place all
the time. For example, an improved and very cost effective technique for
crafting high efficiency, inexpensive solar cells was recently announced.
Don't you think it makes more sense to spend the 'drilling money' pursuing
alternative sources, and let the oil companies drill land they already
control?

We even have a civilian partner, T. Boone Pickens, who will foot much of the
cost of the quest for the perfect energy source(s).

At the same time as we're seeking alternative sources of energy, the oil
companies can drill their hearts out in the 68 million acres they already
control, at taxpayer's expense. They have ample opportunity to recoup their
exploratory costs due to the various tax breaks the industry already
receives.

There is no difference. I'll be more than happy to post Pelosi and friends
comments if you'd like.

Don't do me any favors. I can't stand Pelosi any more than you do. I was
disappointed to not see Diane Feinstein's name on my sample ballot. I want
her out along with Pelosi.



http://energytomorrow.org/#TruthAboutOilGasoline
http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/

The links are to the API -- American Petroleum Institute. It exists as the
voice of the oil industry. Do you think that its opinion might be a tiny
bit
skewed, and therefore not a reasonable source of neutral information?

They represent the folks who are the most knowledgeable.

They may be the most knowledgeable, but their mission is to further the
interests of the oil companies. AIP's communications and information
dissemination are designed solely for the interests of the petroleum
industry.

And NO, I'll not trust Obama's web site for my information. Particularly
about oil.

You missed the irony. Sending us to the AIP site for unbiased information
about the oil industry is the same as sending someone to Obama's site for
unbiased views of Obama.



An added benefit to our economy and our safety is that we wouldn't be
exporting billions and billions of American dollars. They would stay here
with us.

If we only have 3% of the world's reserves, but consume 25%, how do you
figure that we'll have no need to continue exporting $billions for foreign
oil?

Meaningless talking point numbers. We have imported 62.8 percent of our oil
this year.
(down from last year and domestic exploration is 34 percent)

The only consumption numbers that make any sense to me are actual barrels
imported, barrels used, and how many barrels are conservatively estimated.. I
don't have those numbers, so I use the numbers both Obama and McCain have
embraced.



Furthermore, we actually don't know how much oil we have because a certain
moronic segment of our society won't allow us to look for it.

You mean a certain segment of lawmakers refuse to spend more taxpayer money
searching for oil company profits.

There are many examples of how the government's initial estimates
dramatically underestimated the amount of actual resources.

Yes. That's called conservative estimation. It's a principal that goes along
with 'don't count your chickens ''til the eggs hatch, 'cause you're liable
to end up hungry.' It is good to know that the original estimates were
conservative.

For example:

�a.. Alaska's Prudhoe Bay oilfield has produced more than 15 billion
barrels of oil and natural gas liquids, and is still producing. Government
agencies forecast the region would produce no more than 9 billion barrels,
total.
�b.. In the Bakken Formation of North Dakota and Montana, the U..S.
Geological Survey now says 3 billion to 4 billion barrels of undiscovered
oil are available - 25 times more than the original estimate made in 1995.
�c.. In 1987, the MMS estimated that there were 9 billion barrels of oil in
the Gulf of Mexico. By 2006, after major advances in seismic technology and
deepwater drilling techniques, the MMS resource estimate for that area had
ballooned to 45 billion barrels.

Not only do I welcome these new statistics, but they offer my argument more
support. We are already producing more than expected oil and gas in Alaska,
and we know there's a huge quantity of 'land-based' oil in N Dakota and
Montana. Why are we talking about drilling in ANWAR or the Gulf, when we can
immediately begin on land the oil companies already control?

What do you think about the 68 million acres of land the oil companies
already lease, but haven't started to drill on, versus 1.5 million acres
at ANWAR they want to grab? I have no problem with drilling in ANWAR, but
don't you think we should be exploiting what we've already given up to big oil?

Acres of land does NOT equate to barrels of oil. You should know that.

Of course I know that. Don't dodge the question. According to your own
numbers, there's more than adequate oil in N Dakota and Montana just waiting
to be sucked out of the ground. And, it doesn't have to be delivered from
Alaska by a new and very expensive pipeline or shipped by sea. So, why
shouldn't the oil companies start drilling on land the taxpayer's have
already given them, at greatly reduced cost, instead of drilling at ANWAR, a
much more expensive undertaking?

Not to mention it would eliminate a source of revenue for our
enemies. A real win/win.

Which oil producers are "our enemies?"

You're just being silly now, aren't ya'? :>)

No. I was trying to ascertain your view of who our enemies are.

But for the thinking impaired...

Why spoil an otherwise civil and informative discussion?

Every dollar we spend on foreign oil is a dollar that enriches the lives of
the citizens of that country.

Yes.

Many of whom hate us and our way of life.

Yes, but 'many' doesn't really quantify the population who hate us. What
percentage of Islamics do you think hate us?



I'd rather see those dollars stay here and enrich our own citizens.

Absolutely.

What do you think about Boone Pickens' concept?

I'm totally okay with drill, drill, drill, and use every other resource we
have available.

The issue I have with drill, drill, drill new wells is that I think the same
money could be put to better use in the energy arena.

Hell, if you vote for me the first thing I'll do is commission the building
of 35 new nuclear power plants.
If I can't get private business to do so, then this is an area I wouldn't
object to the government being involved in. Furthermore, every one of these
plants I would have built near coastal areas and would include not only
electrical generation, but also desalination, and hydrogen generation.
Do you think we could use the electricity, the fresh water, and the hydrogen
fuel?

Certainly, we could benefit in many ways with more nuclear plants. I'm not
convinced that more nuclear plants are the best long-term solution, so I'd
be reticent to spend the incredible amount of money to construct new plants.
I don't think we're going to solve forever the energy problem overnight with
a single fix, so we need interim steps. Whether nuclear energy is an
appropriate interim step, since it has a long-term environmental impact, is
beyond my ability to answer.



Do you think that the Republicans stirring up hatred helps the situation?

I don't think that's the case at all. Did the left stir up hatred for Bush?

I don't think anyone had to be stirred up about Bush. Certainly, no opposing
candidate stirred up hatred of the man. You're forgetting that Bush owned
the hate machine. I seem to recall that Bush's approval rating was very
high. There wasn't much hatred until he arrogantly started calling people
against his policies traitors.

I think both are so polarizing for their opponents that their policies
create the strong emotions.

Obama's policies seem to have polarized his backers with hope of a better
future. McCain's policies have polarized his backers with hatred and fear..

--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to reply by email)

Win the War Against Breast Cancer.
Knowing the facts could save your life.http://www.breastthermography.info- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ed Koch endorses Obama, tells Jewish audience Obama Supports Israel

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-fljjbskoch1002jjpsoct07,0,5827306.story

David Koppelman
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Thank An Enviromentalist / Democrat
    ... Dave Head wrote: ... drill where the oil is in our own country, ... networked with oil and gas wells. ... If some people weren't so damn uptight about drilling anywhere, ...
    (rec.autos.driving)
  • Re: OT: Mortgage industry bail-out
    ... The Democratic talking point is not "no drilling". ... Your leaders claim that since "we can't drill our way out of it". ... Particularly about oil. ... Alaska's Prudhoe Bay oilfield has produced more than 15 billion barrels of oil and natural gas liquids, ...
    (rec.arts.dance)
  • Re: WOT: McCain Political Ads
    ... The Green River oil shale formation could produce ... at least 800 billion barrels of oil alone, ... This is the "drilling" in Obama's quote. ... it that the oil companies have the right to drill on but haven't yet. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT: Mortgage industry bail-out
    ... The Democratic talking point is not "no drilling". ... "we cannot drill our way out of this problem". ... Buying foreign oil. ... acres do not equal barrels. ...
    (rec.arts.dance)
  • Re: To Drill or Not to Drill
    ... Not only can we drill safer -- we can drill deeper. ... Democrats have even blocked proposals to limit drilling to ... offshore and produce more oil than Kuwait -- and they are continuing ... Have you ever noticed that every time some Republican smartass sticks the ...
    (soc.retirement)
Loading