And despite some rather adament statements to the contrary, there are many MANY areas in the United States with known oil reserves that have been off limits for exploration and drilling for some time and they were placed off limits by the federal government. Even those off shore areas that are off limits are within the boundaries claimed by the USA.
okie wrote:In regard to drilling, I believe the closer the rubber comes to the road, or the greater the price crunch, the more people will demand we drill for our own oil. I believe we will see increasing numbers of Democrat politicians actually change their position on this. The closer to reality that we become, and the further from idealism, the more it will become obvious that we will need to "drill our way out of this"
. We won't drill ourselves completely out of this, but if we don't drill, the economic situation will only worsen.
Hopefully, McCain will change his position on ANWR before Obama does. If he doesn't, the Republicans goose is cooked for sure.
Yes, we will need to drill our way out of our current energy price inflation. Drilling our way out will not only increase our market supply of oil. It will also reduce the current redistribution of the USA's wealth into the pockets of middle eastern potentates.
Okie, we are presented with two bad choices; (1) Obama; and, (2) McCain. McCain is far less bad than is Obama.
Many claim that at least McCain will
appoint law-interpreting Supreme Court judges to replace four
law-legislating ones when they retire. They forget that the president can only
nominate federal judges. The
appointment of a federal judge requires the approval of a majority of the Senate. That majority will not exist if the Democrats win a majority of the Senate in November.
OK! I'll vote for McCain as the least worse candidate. But I also will vote for a Republican Senate candidate and pray that McCain will nominate and all elected Republican Senate Candidates will vote for
law-interpreting Supreme Court judges to replace each of those four
law-legislating ones.
ican wrote :
Quote:The primary causes of the inflated price of oil
imo the oil price may be somewhat inflated . if the price were excessively high - let's say twice the currennt price - i doubt that people would continue to use gasoline and related products at the current rate .
part of the talk of "inflated" price is the result of being "poked in the eye" with the gasoline price at just about every corner .
i cannot think of any other item that i purchase and use on a daily basis that advertises its price that prominently .
since i always go along shopping for groceries , i have noticed that some prices are going up - and some down - just like gasoline does on occasion . it seems that the long-term trend of most grocery items and most services is UP !
however i cannot remember every single price from one week-to-another , and no other price is as prominently displayed as the gasoline price .
speaking of "inflated" prices ; butter used to be 99 cents/lb or less - perhaps 30 years ago . in most stores it now sells for around $4 - 5/lb .
do we eat less butter ? certainly not !
you'd be able to buy 5 loaves of "wonder bread" for 99 cents at the local factory - it was the day-old bread .
now we go to the local "artisan" bakery and gladly pay $ 4 for a loaf of wonderful sourdough or other "hand-made" bread - and the business of artisan bakeries is increasing and that of factory bakeries is declining a/t business reports .
we certainly find that more and more people buy their bread from real bakers at a higher price - sometimes can't get a parking spot at the bakery !
inflated price ???? (sure , i'd like the gas price to be lower , but ... ...)
hbg
We can't help but notice the price of gasoline, because there are so many gas stations with their prices in big numbers showing the current price for regular,mid-rage, and premium. If my gas meter tells me I'm close to 1/3d, I go fill it the next morning no matter what the price. I don't drive all that much; about 5,000 miles/year.
ican711nm wrote:parados wrote:ican711nm wrote:
3. The US ten-year old federal prohibitions against domestic oil drilling;
The US prohibited drilling anywhere in the US?
I call Bull ****.
...
The US
did not prohibit drilling anywhere in the US!
The US ten years ago prohibited oil drilling in ANWR and in several off-shore locations.
Your
shifty-context translation of what I wrote is at best foolish and at worst fraudulent. You wrote: "The US prohibited drilling
anywhere in the US?"
I wrote: The US ten-year old federal prohibition
s against domestic oil drilling.
I did not write: The US ten-year old federal prohibitions against domestic oil drilling
anywhere in the US. In the current context of our discussion here that ought to have been obvious to you. I'm betting that it was obvious to you.
You wrote..
"The US ten-year old federal prohibitions against domestic oil drilling"
Read your statement before you make yourself look like such a fool. "Domestic" does NOT mean only 10% of the US or only 10% of US federal lands. Domestic is ALL of the US.
The US did NOT have a prohibition on domestic drilling. As was shown to you tens of thousands of domestic oil and gas wells were drilled. Not leasing some US land is NOT the same thing as a "prohibition on domestic drilling". The oil companies have thousands of leases if not hundreds of thousands that they have not drilled on. There has been no "prohibition on domestic drilling'. They are free to drill anywhere they have a lease.
If domestic drilling was prohibited then how could there be domestic drilling? Your statement is false and remains false. There IS domestic drilling in the US. Since there is domestic drilling there can be no "prohibition" of domestic drilling. There may be regulation of where the drilling can take place by not leasing some lands but there is NOT a "prohibition." Learn how to use the English language for heavens sake.
Parados, if Ican 'looks like a fool' for posting supportable statements, supportable unless interpreted in a convoluted way by you anyway, what does this statement you posted say about you?
Quote:The US prohibited drilling anywhere in the US?
I call Bull ****
I can name several areas right here in New Mexico alone that are off limits to drilling. So would you like to amend your inference that the US did not prohibit drilling anywhere? Or perhaps you might like to explain that you meant 'anywhere' to be understood as 'everywhere' and request that we understand it in that light. And perhaps you would allow Ican (and the rest of us) to interpret his posts as he obviously intended them, and not as you interpret them so that you can make ad hominem posts.
this is what i read in parados' post :
Quote:They are free to drill anywhere they have a lease.
that's pretty clear to me ; not difficult to understand imo .
hbg
hamburger wrote:this is what i read in parados' post :
Quote:They are free to drill anywhere they have a lease.
that's pretty clear to me ; not difficult to understand imo .
hbg
That isn't what he said in the post I quoted that criticized Ican, however. Nor has Ican posted anything that would contradict that--Parados is clearly misrepresenting Ican's intent. My purpose was to show how he is misrepresenting Ican's intent just as his own post can be interpreted differently than he almost certainly intended it.
There are vast areas throughout the United States and its coastal waters with known oil and gas reserves where you cannot get a lease. And more such areas are being put off limits as time passes; few if any are being opened up. In 2006, President Bush signed a bill putting the Valle Vidal area in Northern New Mexico off limits to exploration and drilling despite vast natural gas reserves known to be there. The Valle Vidal is an absolutely special pristine area and of course you don't want that beauty spoiled, but you can't tell me that it is impossible to tap the resources without spoiling the beauty.
Also the water around the rigs in the Gulf of Mexico is clean and clear and teeming with life--the ocean critters use the rigs like reefs and seem to thrive there. It is ridiculous to allow Mexico and others to mine those waters while putting it off limits to ourselves.
My neighbor won't sell me his Prius. That does NOT mean there are prohibitions against my driving. Yet to listen to Fox and ican, that is what I could claim.
The US government won't lease 100% of its land. That does NOT mean there are pohibitions on drilling. It means some areas are not available to lease.
parados wrote:My neighbor won't sell me his Prius. That does NOT mean there are prohibitions against my driving. Yet to listen to Fox and ican, that is what I could claim.
The US government won't lease 100% of its land. That does NOT mean there are pohibitions on drilling. It means some areas are not available to lease.
Except that is how YOU would have interpreted it based on your posts today while neither Ican nor I have suggested any such thing.
Ican's poor phrasing is what caused the confusion. It's a deceptive way to phrase things.
T
K
O
Diest TKO wrote:Ican's poor phrasing is what caused the confusion. It's a deceptive way to phrase things.
T
K
O
You, the master of spelling, punctuation, and grammar, criticize Ican for how he phrases things? Surely you jest. Ican is in no way deceptive in how he phrases things but his posts do require reading comprehension and paying attention.
The way you guys drill each other.. we should strike oil soon.
anton bonnier wrote:The way you guys drill each other.. we should strike oil soon.
But it will no doubt be picketed by environmental wackos and declared illegal by the U.S. Congress.
Foxfyre wrote:Diest TKO wrote:Ican's poor phrasing is what caused the confusion. It's a deceptive way to phrase things.
T
K
O
You, the master of spelling, punctuation, and grammar, criticize Ican for how he phrases things? Surely you jest. Ican is in no way deceptive in how he phrases things but his posts do require reading comprehension and paying attention.
My spelling and typing may not be the best, but Ican's issue is that of content. I have every right to be critical of it. Attacking my spelling is only evidence of how hollow your ideas are. I'm not the only one who misspells or mistypes on this forum. I see plenty in your messages but I'm not about to play your game. It's only a cheep distraction method designed to avoid the content.
Ican's phrasing is wildly inaccurate. Cyclo put in pretty simple terms as to why.
Be glad you can't die from being stubborn alone. You be bones.
T
K
O
T
K
O
Diest TKO wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Diest TKO wrote:Ican's poor phrasing is what caused the confusion. It's a deceptive way to phrase things.
T
K
O
You, the master of spelling, punctuation, and grammar, criticize Ican for how he phrases things? Surely you jest. Ican is in no way deceptive in how he phrases things but his posts do require reading comprehension and paying attention.
My spelling and typing may not be the best, but Ican's issue is that of content. I have every right to be critical of it. Attacking my spelling is only evidence of how hollow your ideas are. I'm not the only one who misspells or mistypes on this forum. I see plenty in your messages but I'm not about to play your game. It's only a cheep distraction method designed to avoid the content.
Ican's phrasing is wildly inaccurate. Cyclo put in pretty simple terms as to why.
Be glad you can't die from being stubborn alone. You be bones.
T
K
O
T
K
O
I was only pointing out that it was the pot calling the kettle black Sweetie. I don't care if you misspell cat, dangle your participles, split your infinitives, mangle your syntax, and don't know a proper noun from a predicate, but I was amused that you are having a really terrible time disputing Ican's thesis with facts, so you criticize the way he expresses himself?
Tsk tsk.
Wrap your mind around this word: Content.
Pot and kettle nothing, precious. Cyclo pointed it out too.
T
K
O
It is the
CONTENT that you seem to be having trouble with Dahling. That was my point.
I was not the only one who was critical for how poor the phrasing was. It implied something far from the truth. We call that deceptive.
But I'm sure you're also prepared to tell me that we'll find WMDs in Iraq someday.
T
K
O
ican was perfectly understandable. He claimed there were prohibitions against drilling in U.S., which is true. Everyone should know, simply by seeing drilling rigs in various places, that not all drilling is prohibited, just that prohibitions against drilling in some areas do exist, obviously. In contrast, I couldn't figure out Parados, as he seemed to indicate there were no prohibitions against drilling in the U.S. I didn't even respond to the post, as it seemed incomprehensible that anyone would make that claim. After all, how do you argue with someone that claims the sun does not exist?
ican could have said there were prohibitions against activities in the U.S., that is equally understandable, as some activiities are prohibited, perhaps in some places, or during some times. Ican merely meant that some prohibitions do exist, and I noticed he used the word prohibition in the plural, which made it somewhat clearer. ican could have phrased it somewhat clearer, but the meaning was very obvious and true what he said. I would add however that prohibitions have existed much longer than 10 years, but the amount of land that is deemed permanently off limits has grown, through the declaration of wilderness, wildlife refuges, conservation areas, wilderness study areas, national parks and monuments, primitive areas, and so forth. Even lands deemed multiple use become battlegrounds for opposition groups to oppose oil and gas leasing, and are often tied up in courts, studies, local citizens reviews and meetings, the list goes on. Even lands that end up with leases, special requirements are often instituted where drilling is only allowed at certain times or seasons and restrictions on roads are enforced, wherein the cost of drilling and production is multiplied over what would otherwise happen, thus ultimately costing the consumer much more to bring the product to delivery.
I used to work in the business, and I remember some fairly ridiculous things, one I will mention is the BLM argued with a company for months over what color to paint a gas booster station building. Actually it wasn't much of an argument, the BLM could not figure out the color they wanted, and so the company had to wait for a decision to be made, which took forever, ostensibly to blend in with the environment, balanced with the seasons, so that it did not frighten certain kinds of wildlife or something, as I recall. All of this was a holdup of the work that needed to be done, but we all know the federal government makes some monumental decisions as they sit in their cubicles and mull over these things.
