Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / June 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

(OT:) We can't drill in the Gulf, let's let the Nigerians

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
hachiroku - 08 May 2008 18:04 GMT
This is where touchy-feely Liberalism gets you:

Congress won't allow drilling in the Gulf of Mexico by US companies.
However, at a meeting of oil producing countries, Nigeria is inking a 100-
year lease to drill in the Gulf's oil reserves.

This makes sense, huh? A highly regulated US industry is banned from
exploring for oil with the best equipment in the world, but we're going
to allow one of the least technologically advance countries in the world
do it.

When the *HELL* are we going to vote these dimwit Democrats OUT OF OFFICE
so we can become competitive again?!
JoeSpareBedroom - 08 May 2008 19:10 GMT
> This is where touchy-feely Liberalism gets you:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> When the *HELL* are we going to vote these dimwit Democrats OUT OF OFFICE
> so we can become competitive again?!

How do you ***KNOW*** with absolute, ironclad certainty that this is the
work of democrats?  Furthermore, it seems to be a back room business deal
that somehow gets around the rules. Provide all your information on this
issue.
hachiroku - 08 May 2008 20:03 GMT
>> This is where touchy-feely Liberalism gets you:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> deal that somehow gets around the rules. Provide all your information on
> this issue.

Watch for yourself:

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/tv/
Glenn Beck, every day at 7p and 9p ET on Headline News

How do I know it was Democrats? Who the hell else tries to drag this
country into the Stone Age?
JoeSpareBedroom - 08 May 2008 20:17 GMT
>>> This is where touchy-feely Liberalism gets you:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> How do I know it was Democrats? Who the hell else tries to drag this
> country into the Stone Age?

There's nothing on that page related to your original message. You must've
heard about it on television. When you find an actual news story about it,
y'all come back and tell me about it.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 09 May 2008 00:16 GMT
>> Watch for yourself:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> heard about it on television. When you find an actual news story about it,
> y'all come back and tell me about it.

Once again proving you can't read, it's going to be on CNN in about 15
minutes.

If you put the bottle down NOW, you might even be able to comprehend it.

If you don't, you'll have to wait until 9 PM when it coms back on.
JoeSpareBedroom - 09 May 2008 00:42 GMT
>>> Watch for yourself:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> If you don't, you'll have to wait until 9 PM when it coms back on.

I don't have cable TV. Find a source to corroborate Beck's story.

And by the way, if a corporation manages to skirt the law as you've
described, then that's not the news story. The story should be who in our
government was paid off to allow it to happen.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 09 May 2008 02:10 GMT
>> Once again proving you can't read, it's going to be on CNN in about 15
>> minutes.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> described, then that's not the news story. The story should be who in our
> government was paid off to allow it to happen.

What I don't know is who they're signing the lease with.
They may not be drilling in US waters.

The thing is, they are drilling in the Gulf. Or, will be.

So, instead of doing the drilling ourselves, we're going to let someone
else do the drilling and then charge us a premium price for oil we could
get ourselves. You can thank the tree huggers and the Democrats for that.

An oil field isn't usually localized, they're usually very large. We could
probably tap the same oil field from within our own waters and use the oil
to offset the prices ramped up by the Chinese. But the dunderheads that
control policy right now won't allow that, cause it might foul up the
ecology of the area.

An oil spill 200 miles out isn't much different from an oil spill 160
miles out. But, let's just go ahead and let everyone else grab it so we
can buy it back at bloated prices, and get the warm fuzzies cause WE
didn't cause an oil spill, 'K?
JoeSpareBedroom - 09 May 2008 02:14 GMT
>>> Once again proving you can't read, it's going to be on CNN in about 15
>>> minutes.
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> can buy it back at bloated prices, and get the warm fuzzies cause WE
> didn't cause an oil spill, 'K?

We need to wait until tomorrow when some reputable news sources pick up the
story. As it stands right now, you are missing about 99% of the information
needed to discuss this issue.

You will now disagree. But, you need to explain the following:  If "Nigeria"
drills for oil, it's not "Nigeria" doing the drilling. It's one of several
companies which do the work. At least two of those companies are American.
So, the law must say that they can't drill in certain places if it's on
their own behalf, but they *can* drill in those places if it's on behalf of
a foreign government.

Is that what you're saying?
Hachiroku ハチロク - 09 May 2008 02:55 GMT
>> An oil spill 200 miles out isn't much different from an oil spill 160
>> miles out. But, let's just go ahead and let everyone else grab it so we
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> the story. As it stands right now, you are missing about 99% of the
> information needed to discuss this issue.

Not really.

Why aren't US companies drilling for oil in the Gulf? Let's
discuss that, eh?

Who cares if it's Nigeria, South Africa, China or Timbuktu?
In other words, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?!?!?!
Why aren't *WE* drilling for oil right in our own friggin back yard?!?!

Lay off the bottle so I don't have to hit you over the head next time!
Reasoned Insanity - 09 May 2008 14:58 GMT
>>> An oil spill 200 miles out isn't much different from an oil spill 160
>>> miles out. But, let's just go ahead and let everyone else grab it so we
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Lay off the bottle so I don't have to hit you over the head next time!

Personally, I don't care that it's Nigeria that supposedly wants to drill
for oil in our gulf. What pisses me off is that anyone is doing it besides
the US. Thanks dims, you keep us dependant on foreign oil so much I see that
you are no different than Bush. That's right. I'm outright accusing dims of
being in bed with big oil just as much as Bush's family is. They are no
different from one another.
JoeSpareBedroom - 09 May 2008 15:01 GMT
>>>> An oil spill 200 miles out isn't much different from an oil spill 160
>>>> miles out. But, let's just go ahead and let everyone else grab it so we
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> dims of being in bed with big oil just as much as Bush's family is. They
> are no different from one another.

All presidents as far back as Nixon have been too closely linked with the
oil biz, and more importantly, with the Arabs. But, Hach's point is
different. He's saying it bothers him that environmental regs keep Chevron
from drilling in certain places, but if Nigeria gains rights to drill in
those places, it will be Chevron doing it for them. So, that's why I said
there's information missing here. His theory makes no sense. But, he might
be right. We'll find out if & when he comes up with more information.
hachiroku ハチロク - 09 May 2008 16:55 GMT
>>>>> An oil spill 200 miles out isn't much different from an oil spill
>>>>> 160 miles out. But, let's just go ahead and let everyone else grab
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> But, he might be right. We'll find out if & when he comes up with more
> information.

Like I said, Joe, it doesn't matter who's doing the drilling (as far as
the company actually doing the drilling) the output is going to go to
someone who will gladly sell it back to us at top dollar.

Let's say there's 4B BBL under the Gulf. If Gulf were drilling in the
Gulf, they could offer the oil to US customers at $65 a BBL and still
make a tidy sum from it. Since you now have the second biggest oil
consumer (maybe the biggest, but not for much longer) paying half the
price, the world oil market will come back in line. Especially if you
start putting the oil on the market for less than $120 BBL. Let's say you
sell it domestically for $65 BBL, and to foreign interests at $75 BBL.
THis will cause everyone in the oil industry to rethink and adjust
accordingly.

Ah, but the Democrqats don't like that! A duck might get oily. Yeah, a
tragedy, for sure. but in the grand scheme of things, they'll make more
ducks.
JoeSpareBedroom - 09 May 2008 17:25 GMT
>>>>>> An oil spill 200 miles out isn't much different from an oil spill
>>>>>> 160 miles out. But, let's just go ahead and let everyone else grab
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
> tragedy, for sure. but in the grand scheme of things, they'll make more
> ducks.

This is the last time I'm going to tell you:  You do not have enough
information about this Nigerian deal you invented. You're using this lack of
information to invent a convoluted story involving environmental rules.
You're doing this because you *needed* to concoct something.

As of two hours ago, there's still nothing on Beck's web page about this.
Nothing on any major news sites, nothing recent via google.

Show me some reliable information about your story, or be quiet.
hachiroku ハチロク - 09 May 2008 17:39 GMT
>> Like I said, Joe, it doesn't matter who's doing the drilling (as far as
>> the company actually doing the drilling) the output is going to go to
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> This is the last time I'm going to tell you:  You do not have enough
> information about this Nigerian deal you invented.

Boy, are you thick. WHO CARES WHO is getting the output?! I don't care if
it's your Auntie Grizelda! The fact is, *WE'RE* not getting it!

Is it really that hard a concept to grasp?

The deal with Nigeria hasn't been inked yet, but there are plenty of
references to Venezuela and China drilling in the Gulf. They're drilling
in reserves shared between the US and Mexico.

The Truth is out there.
JoeSpareBedroom - 09 May 2008 17:49 GMT
>>> Like I said, Joe, it doesn't matter who's doing the drilling (as far as
>>> the company actually doing the drilling) the output is going to go to
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
> The Truth is out there.

Now I understand what's happening here. Beck had no solid sources. He
expressed opinion (or outrage), and you are turning it into "facts".

Besides Venezuela & China drilling in our reserves, who else drills there?
Hachiroku ハチロク - 09 May 2008 19:40 GMT
>> Boy, are you thick. WHO CARES WHO is getting the output?! I don't care
>> if it's your Auntie Grizelda! The fact is, *WE'RE* not getting it!
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Besides Venezuela & China drilling in our reserves, who else drills
> there?

Wow. Are you sure your name isn't Dense?

Beck said that there are talks going on about having Nigeria drill in the
Gulf for oil. It's not yet a done deal.

*I* said there are plenty of people drilling in the Gulf for oil. Out of
them, we're about the least. This is because of the blockades put up by
Congress.

See, Joe, the real point of this post was the blockades put up for
Domestic oil exploration by Congress, and if we don't get the oil, others
will. Following along so far?

Now, if you care to discuss this, be my guest. If you're just going to
keep up the subterfuge, I suggest you just STFU.
JoeSpareBedroom - 09 May 2008 19:54 GMT
>>> Boy, are you thick. WHO CARES WHO is getting the output?! I don't care
>>> if it's your Auntie Grizelda! The fact is, *WE'RE* not getting it!
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> them, we're about the least. This is because of the blockades put up by
> Congress.

Here's where you need to provide legislative details, not generalizations.
Give me either the formal names of the legislation, or the the bill numbers.
I know your generalizations are coming from TV and/or radio, but we need
details. Reality, in other words.

> See, Joe, the real point of this post was the blockades put up for
> Domestic oil exploration by Congress, and if we don't get the oil, others
> will. Following along so far?
>
> Now, if you care to discuss this, be my guest. If you're just going to
> keep up the subterfuge, I suggest you just STFU.

The republicans, led by a boy from the oil biz, had 4 years in which to
overturn the environmental regs you're bitching about. I wonder why they
didn't do that. It would've been easy for them.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 09 May 2008 21:46 GMT
>> *I* said there are plenty of people drilling in the Gulf for oil. Out
>> of them, we're about the least. This is because of the blockades put up
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> the the bill numbers. I know your generalizations are coming from TV
> and/or radio, but we need details. Reality, in other words.

You're kidding, right?

>> See, Joe, the real point of this post was the blockades put up for
>> Domestic oil exploration by Congress, and if we don't get the oil,
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> overturn the environmental regs you're bitching about. I wonder why they
> didn't do that. It would've been easy for them.

The laws were passed in 2006. Let's see, who was controlling Congress in
2006...
JoeSpareBedroom - 09 May 2008 21:47 GMT
>>> *I* said there are plenty of people drilling in the Gulf for oil. Out
>>> of them, we're about the least. This is because of the blockades put up
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> The laws were passed in 2006. Let's see, who was controlling Congress in
> 2006...

No, I'm not kidding. You just said the laws were passed in 2006, so you *DO*
have a bit of detail about the laws. But, you can't name them. Who told you
"2006"?

More information.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 10 May 2008 03:39 GMT
>> The laws were passed in 2006. Let's see, who was controlling Congress in
>> 2006...
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> More information.

Let me guess, you don't have a computer, either.

It's fairly easy to find. Go have a look.
JoeSpareBedroom - 10 May 2008 09:30 GMT
>>> The laws were passed in 2006. Let's see, who was controlling Congress in
>>> 2006...
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> It's fairly easy to find. Go have a look.

You invented a fairy tale based on what you heard from a TV pundit.

You hate it when I ask the question "Who told you to say that?". But this
thread is a perfect example of how foolish it is to repeat what you've been
told without having complete information to defend what you say.

You are embarrassed, and you should be.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 10 May 2008 15:19 GMT
>>>> The laws were passed in 2006. Let's see, who was controlling Congress
>>>> in 2006...
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> You are embarrassed, and you should be.

HAHAHAHAHA! Why am I embarrassed? I did some research and found there are
PLENTY of people other than us drilling in the Gulf.

And I also remember from my daus of reading the WSJ every day the bullshit
the Democrats put in place to stop US companies from drilling in the Gulf.

There are some, but they were Gradfathered in and can't plant any new rigs.

But if you keep thinking you know more than me, go right ahead. I don't
mind.

Please don't respond unless you want to discuss what's going on in the
Gulf. As usual, since you know nothing about the topic, but chose to
respond anyway, you go after me and my sources instead of finding some of
you own, and get totally off-topic.

Use Google. It really works.
JoeSpareBedroom - 10 May 2008 15:54 GMT
>>>>> The laws were passed in 2006. Let's see, who was controlling Congress
>>>>> in 2006...
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>
> Use Google. It really works.

Without the names and/or numbers of the laws, everything you have said, and
everything you plan on saying next is vapor. Useless. A vain attempt to
cover your a.s.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 11 May 2008 03:12 GMT
>> Please don't respond unless you want to discuss what's going on in the
>> Gulf. As usual, since you know nothing about the topic, but chose to
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> and everything you plan on saying next is vapor. Useless. A vain attempt
> to cover your a.s.

As usual, you have nothing to add. You don't even bother to try to prove
what I'm saying is wrong. Bye.
JoeSpareBedroom - 11 May 2008 13:02 GMT
>>> Please don't respond unless you want to discuss what's going on in the
>>> Gulf. As usual, since you know nothing about the topic, but chose to
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> As usual, you have nothing to add. You don't even bother to try to prove
> what I'm saying is wrong. Bye.

You're right. I have nothing to say about this because I don't have the
information needed to comment in detail.

But neither do you. And I never would've made such a comment without first
looking up the legislation I was referring to so other people could see it.

Remember that next time you wake up in the morning and think "It's a great
day to say something stupid."
Mike hunt - 11 May 2008 17:28 GMT
Apparently you do that every day    LOL

"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:lfBVj.87239

> Remember that next time you wake up in the morning
> and  think "It's a great day to say something stupid."
JoeSpareBedroom - 11 May 2008 17:29 GMT
Go back to sleep, Uncle Jemima.

> Apparently you do that every day    LOL
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> Remember that next time you wake up in the morning
>> and  think "It's a great day to say something stupid."
manny@london.com - 11 May 2008 22:44 GMT
> Remember that next time you wake up in the morning
> and  think "It's a great day to say something stupid."

> > Apparently you do that every day    LOL

> Go back to sleep, Uncle Jemima.

Joe, you don't exactly help your cause when you write things like
that.
JoeSpareBedroom - 11 May 2008 22:48 GMT
>> Remember that next time you wake up in the morning
>> and  think "It's a great day to say something stupid."
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Joe, you don't exactly help your cause when you write things like
> that.

Haven't you seen Hunt's video?
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/play.shtml?mea=2584
hachiroku ハチロク - 11 May 2008 18:21 GMT
>> As usual, you have nothing to add. You don't even bother to try to
>> prove what I'm saying is wrong. Bye.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Remember that next time you wake up in the morning and think "It's a
> great day to say something stupid."

Then I'll post something you would.
edspyhill01@yahoo.com - 09 May 2008 19:40 GMT
> >> Like I said, Joe, it doesn't matter who's doing the drilling (as far as
> >> the company actually doing the drilling) the output is going to go to
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

How did YOU find out?  Who told YOU?  Where did YOU read this?
Hachiroku ハチロク - 09 May 2008 21:47 GMT
>> Boy, are you thick. WHO CARES WHO is getting the output?! I don't care
>> if it's your Auntie Grizelda! The fact is, *WE'RE* not getting it!
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> How did YOU find out?  Who told YOU?  Where did YOU read this?

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/tv/
JoeSpareBedroom - 09 May 2008 21:54 GMT
>>> Boy, are you thick. WHO CARES WHO is getting the output?! I don't care
>>> if it's your Auntie Grizelda! The fact is, *WE'RE* not getting it!
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> http://www.glennbeck.com/content/tv/

As of this morning, there was NOTHING on his site about the story you're
telling. Stop posting that link. Show me at least one reputable source for
the story.
Nza - 12 May 2008 00:53 GMT
> "hachiroku ????" <Tru...@ae86.GTS> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 63 lines]
>
> Show me some reliable information about your story, or be quiet.

See, this is the type of fricking bone-headed liberal-minded welfare-
receiving communism-wanting thinking that has put America into the
fricking TOILET!    "Oh, you can't prove it with a citation, even
though it's obvious every time I spend one fricking cent, so I'm going
to fight you tooth and nail so I can feel good being the devil's
advocate."

f.ck THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE!
JoeSpareBedroom - 12 May 2008 02:20 GMT
>> "hachiroku ????" <Tru...@ae86.GTS> wrote in message
>>
[quoted text clipped - 83 lines]
>
> f.ck THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE!

Hey Einstein:  You should've read the whole thread. As it turns out, he was
100% wrong.

1) He referred to legislation that HURT our ability to go looking for more
oil in the Gulf. As it turns out, the legislation in question ALLOWS more
exploration. Here's it's official title:
S.3711 Title: A bill to enhance the energy independence and security of the
United States by providing for exploration, development, and production
activities for mineral resources in the Gulf of Mexico, and for other
purposes.

2) He claimed Democrats were behind an effort to prevent increased oil
exploration in the Gulf. In fact, the opposite it true. Most Senate
Democrats voted for the bill. The House version was even *more* suppportive
than the Senate version.

So, shut the f.ck up, moron.
Nza - 12 May 2008 02:50 GMT
> >> "hachiroku ????" <Tru...@ae86.GTS> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 101 lines]
>
> So, shut the f.ck up, moron.

Hey a.shole, f.ck you
JoeSpareBedroom - 12 May 2008 02:53 GMT
>> >> "hachiroku ????" <Tru...@ae86.GTS> wrote in message
>>
[quoted text clipped - 134 lines]
>
> Hey a.shole, f.ck you

That's exactly the response I'd expect from a child. A real man would say
"Sorry, I didn't realize that he'd posted lies. My mistake."
Nza - 12 May 2008 02:54 GMT
> >> "Nza" <the...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 141 lines]
> That's exactly the response I'd expect from a child. A real man would say
> "Sorry, I didn't realize that he'd posted lies. My mistake."

No it's more like:   i choose not to believe the tripe that you
believe.

Thank you, cock.
JoeSpareBedroom - 12 May 2008 02:58 GMT
>> >> "Nza" <the...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
[quoted text clipped - 172 lines]
>
> Thank you, cock.

Is this a lie?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN3711:
manny@london.com - 12 May 2008 20:39 GMT
> > Show me some reliable information about your story, or be quiet.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> to fight you tooth and nail so I can feel good being the devil's
> advocate."

Would it be better to rely more on gut feelings and hunches rather
than facts, especially after several beers?
SMS - 24 Jun 2008 07:30 GMT
> All presidents as far back as Nixon have been too closely linked with the
> oil biz, and more importantly, with the Arabs. But, Hach's point is
> different. He's saying it bothers him that environmental regs keep Chevron
> from drilling in certain places, but if Nigeria gains rights to drill in
> those places, it will be Chevron doing it for them.

Of course the real story is that a) it isn't the same places, and b) it
isn't the Nigerians.

> So, that's why I said
> there's information missing here. His theory makes no sense.

LOL, since when has _anything_ he's said made any sense.

Actually, one thing that _is_ happening is that China is drilling for
oil in the Gulf, in Cuba's territorial waters.

The real issue with the oil in the Gulf is that the supply pales with
what we import from Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Nigeria, and
Venezuela. You'd get a few hundred thousand barrels a day, but the U.S.
uses about 20 million barrels per day, about 5 million of which is
produced domestically. Deep water drilling and production is
tremendously expensive, so no doubt the oil companies would demand
government subsidies on the construction of platforms, and in operating
costs.

Drilling off of Florida and California, and in the ANWR are great
talking points for the neo-cons, but the reality is that simply
increasing production in the current Alaska oil fields would be much
more efficient, but the U.S. oil companies don't want to pump at full
capacity, just like Saudi Arabia doesn't want to pump at full capacity.

We're not going to drill our way to lower oil prices. The only thing
that will have a significant impact is to reduce consumption, and the
Republicans are determined to prevent and conservation and consumption
reduction measures. Basically the whole oil mess is due to failed
Republican policies. The sooner we vote these bozos out of office, the
sooner we'll get a real national energy policy.
JoeSpareBedroom - 24 Jun 2008 14:21 GMT
>> All presidents as far back as Nixon have been too closely linked with the
>> oil biz, and more importantly, with the Arabs. But, Hach's point is
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Actually, one thing that _is_ happening is that China is drilling for oil
> in the Gulf, in Cuba's territorial waters.

Of course, China paid money in return for the privilege of drilling there.
Hach makes it sound like they just came along and dropped equipment into the
water. That's what Hush Bimbo the radio slob told Hach to believe.
Mike hunt - 24 Jun 2008 15:49 GMT
You certainly are entitled to your own opinion, no matter how convoluted it
may be.    ;)

>>> All presidents as far back as Nixon have been too closely linked with
>>> the oil biz, and more importantly, with the Arabs. But, Hach's point is
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> Hach makes it sound like they just came along and dropped equipment into
> the water. That's what Hush Bimbo the radio slob told Hach to believe.
JoeSpareBedroom - 24 Jun 2008 15:56 GMT
That China paid for drilling rights? That's not an opinion. It's a fact,
readily available from many news sources aimed at non-drunk adults. Try
reading real news sources, Uncle Jemima.

> You certainly are entitled to your own opinion, no matter how convoluted
> it may be.    ;)
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>> equipment into the water. That's what Hush Bimbo the radio slob told Hach
>> to believe.
B. Peg - 24 Jun 2008 14:28 GMT
>> All presidents as far back as Nixon have been too closely linked with the
>> oil biz, and more importantly, with the Arabs. But, Hach's point is
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> Republican policies. The sooner we vote these bozos out of office, the
> sooner we'll get a real national energy policy.

Check on these:
1. Cheney admitted he was wrong about the Chinese drilling off the coast of
Florida.
2. Exxon has had tens of thousands of acres of land in lease for decades in
Alaska but has never drilled on it.  Alaska tried to give the lease to
others who would drill, but was sued by Exxon.
3. Shell has purchased refineries and subsequently tried to close them down
as "Too costly to upgrade." One was the Tosco Oil refinery in Bakersfield,
CA. After some governmental intervention, it remains open to the dismay of
Shell.
4. Shell also has the most expensive gasoline sold around the world.
5. EPA states in 15 years, only one permit was filed to build a refinery in
the U.S.  Not one other has been submitted.

Dunno, but it sure seems like oil companies are trying their hardest to
restrict supply.

Problem with reduced consumption is the barrel of oil is also used for items
such as plastics.  Also won't be easy to reduce if the car companies still
want to produce mega-guzzlers including countries such as Germany, England,
and Italy who make some of the highest fuel consumption vehicles in the
world - and still do!

B~
Mike hunt - 24 Jun 2008 15:50 GMT
You certainly are entitled to your own opinion, no matter how convoluted it
may be.    ;)

>>> All presidents as far back as Nixon have been too closely linked with
>>> the oil biz, and more importantly, with the Arabs. But, Hach's point is
[quoted text clipped - 58 lines]
>
> B~
SMS - 24 Jun 2008 16:02 GMT
> You certainly are entitled to your own opinion, no matter how convoluted it
> may be.    ;)

Yeah, that's telling him/us. Surely you can come up with a more coherent
response than that. After all, you were able to double daily U.S. oil
consumption with a single post, so you should be able to make up other
facts as well.
JoeSpareBedroom - 24 Jun 2008 16:09 GMT
>> You certainly are entitled to your own opinion, no matter how convoluted
>> it may be.    ;)
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> consumption with a single post, so you should be able to make up other
> facts as well.

Actually no, he cannot come up with a more coherent response. It's 11:06 AM
Eastern time. Watch Hunt's responses as the day progresses. Smirnoff
Syndrome should kick in soon, if he's having a typical day.
SMS - 24 Jun 2008 16:00 GMT
<snip>

> Check on these:
> 1. Cheney admitted he was wrong about the Chinese drilling off the coast of
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Dunno, but it sure seems like oil companies are trying their hardest to
> restrict supply.

That's exactly what's happening. One that you missed was that after the
BP/Arco merger, the new company shut down one of their fields in Alaska
because they had too much capacity.

The oil companies have a responsibility to their stockholders to
maximize profits, and one way of doing this is to restrict supply to
drive up prices. Nothing really wrong with this, except when the
neo-cons then try to use the artificially reduced supply as an excuse
for drilling in places that should be last resorts for drilling because
they will produce low quantities of oil at very high costs.

Reducing refinery capacity by closing refineries, while at the same time
complaining about how they can't build new refineries, is another tactic
that a lot of the dittoheads are falling for.

> Problem with reduced consumption is the barrel of oil is also used for items
> such as plastics.

That's one reason why we shouldn't be burning all the oil for transport.
 We need more nuclear power plants and more plug-in hybrids. GM claims
that 78% of Americans could commute in the new Chevy Volt without having
to ever use the gasoline engine.
Mike hunt - 24 Jun 2008 16:09 GMT
I wonder where most Americans will plug in those electric cars.   ;)

> <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> 78% of Americans could commute in the new Chevy Volt without having to
> ever use the gasoline engine.
SMS - 24 Jun 2008 16:56 GMT
> I wonder where most Americans will plug in those electric cars.   ;)

Actually the question is where the electricity to charge the batteries
will come from, not where they will plug them in. Fortunately that's a
much easier and environmentally sound solution than drilling in wildlife
refuges. We have to get over our irrational fear of nuclear power in the
U.S., and follow the rest of the world into the 21st, let alone the 20th
century. We need to electrify the railways, switch to plug-in hybrids,
and stop wasting so much oil in plastic soda and water bottles.
Mike hunt - 24 Jun 2008 21:15 GMT
Actually where to plug in ones car, even if the power is available, IS a
problem.   Most cars are parked on the street or in a parking lot over night
not in a garage   LOL

>> I wonder where most Americans will plug in those electric cars.   ;)
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> century. We need to electrify the railways, switch to plug-in hybrids, and
> stop wasting so much oil in plastic soda and water bottles.
JoeSpareBedroom - 24 Jun 2008 21:38 GMT
LOL People who aren't drunk all day can figure out how to install electrical
outlets indoors or out LOL LOL We just had a jazz festival here LOL and city
engineers installed LOL electricity at 3 different outdoor LOL facilities
for the bands. LOL No problem.

> Actually where to plug in ones car, even if the power is available, IS a
> problem.   Most cars are parked on the street or in a parking lot over
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>> century. We need to electrify the railways, switch to plug-in hybrids,
>> and stop wasting so much oil in plastic soda and water bottles.
Mike hunt - 25 Jun 2008 04:05 GMT
Are you really that slow minded or are you just talking stupid again?   Of
course water proof outlets could be installed along the streets, and in
every parking spot on all of the lots, like parking meters, where one would
pay a fee but the environuts do not want to build the high voltage electric
transmission lines, currently planed to be built in the US to supply the
electricity we need now.  What make you think they would not be against
digging up whole cities all over the country to install a low voltage
distribution grid needed to recharge al the cars?    LOL

> LOL People who aren't drunk all day can figure out how to install
> electrical outlets indoors or out LOL LOL We just had a jazz festival here
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>>> century. We need to electrify the railways, switch to plug-in hybrids,
>>> and stop wasting so much oil in plastic soda and water bottles.
dbu - 25 Jun 2008 11:46 GMT
> Are you really that slow minded or are you just talking stupid again?   Of
> course water proof outlets could be installed along the streets, and in
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> digging up whole cities all over the country to install a low voltage
> distribution grid needed to recharge al the cars?    LOL

We need to invent a method of transferring power though the air such as
Tesla experimented with:

"A "world system" for "the transmission of electrical energy without
wires" that depends upon the electrical conductivity was proposed in
which transmission in various natural mediums with current that passes
between the two point are used to power devices. In a practical wireless
energy transmission system using this principle, a high-power
ultraviolet beam might be used to form a vertical ionized channel in the
air directly above the transmitter-receiver stations. The same concept
is used in virtual lightning rods, the electrolaser electroshock
weapon,[51] and has been proposed for disabling vehicles.[52][53]

Tesla demonstrated "the transmission of electrical energy without wires"
that depends upon electrical conductivity as early as 1891. The Tesla
effect (named in honor of Tesla) is the archaic term for an application
of this type of electrical conduction (that is, the movement of energy
through space and matter; not just the production of voltage across a
conductor)."

The environuts would never stand for such a system.  The dimmies being
always beholden to their deep pockets would legislate to make it
impossible to ever construct.
--
Scott  in  Florida - 25 Jun 2008 12:03 GMT
Nailed the fool, again.....

He is sooooooooooooo easy.....

>Are you really that slow minded or are you just talking stupid again?   Of
>course water proof outlets could be installed along the streets, and in
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>>>> and stop wasting so much oil in plastic soda and water bottles.
>
Signature


Scott in Florida

JoeSpareBedroom - 25 Jun 2008 12:06 GMT
LOL what makes me think that is that I don't pour vodka on my cereal in the
morning like you, Uncle Jemima. LOL

> Are you really that slow minded or are you just talking stupid again?   Of
> course water proof outlets could be installed along the streets, and in
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>>>> plug-in hybrids, and stop wasting so much oil in plastic soda and water
>>>> bottles.
M. MacDonald - 24 Jun 2008 17:11 GMT
> "B. Peg" ...
>  Also won't be easy to reduce if the car companies still want to produce
> mega-guzzlers including countries such as Germany, England, and Italy who
> make some of the highest fuel consumption vehicles in the world - and
> still do!

Yeah, but I'd still like to own a VW Bugatti Voyetra even though it does go
through 26 gallons of fuel in 12 minutes wide open - just three minutes
short of smoking the tires off the car as a safety precaution.

Just don't happen to have a spare million bucks around - much less the cash
for fuel.  Maybe Algore can give me a few mil out of his carbon-tax swindle,
er investment, account?

Mack
Hachiroku - 25 Jun 2008 06:08 GMT
>>> All presidents as far back as Nixon have been too closely linked with the
>>> oil biz, and more importantly, with the Arabs. But, Hach's point is
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> 1. Cheney admitted he was wrong about the Chinese drilling off the coast of
> Florida.

Really? That's interesting. It's well documented the leases are already in
place. Try Google.

> 2. Exxon has had tens of thousands of acres of land in lease for decades in
> Alaska but has never drilled on it.  Alaska tried to give the lease to
> others who would drill, but was sued by Exxon.

Who would drill if envirok00ks would stop suing them every time they see
an Exxon truck.

> 3. Shell has purchased refineries and subsequently tried to close them down
> as "Too costly to upgrade." One was the Tosco Oil refinery in Bakersfield,
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> B~
JoeSpareBedroom - 25 Jun 2008 12:09 GMT
>>>> All presidents as far back as Nixon have been too closely linked with
>>>> the
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
> Really? That's interesting. It's well documented the leases are already in
> place. Try Google.

Just guessing, but what Peg **seems** to have meant was that perhaps Cheney
made a stupid comment about the drilling and then retracted it after
learning the facts. Maybe Cheney also got his information from Glen Beck,
like you.
Hachiroku - 26 Jun 2008 04:19 GMT
>>> Check on these:
>>> 1. Cheney admitted he was wrong about the Chinese drilling off the coast
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> learning the facts. Maybe Cheney also got his information from Glen Beck,
> like you.

Then he's pretty well informed, isn't he.
JoeSpareBedroom - 26 Jun 2008 13:04 GMT
>>>> Check on these:
>>>> 1. Cheney admitted he was wrong about the Chinese drilling off the
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Then he's pretty well informed, isn't he.

Apparently not. I know you'd love to forget your debacle involving oil
drilling a few weeks ago, all based on misinformation from Beck.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 27 Jun 2008 18:45 GMT
>>> Just guessing, but what Peg **seems** to have meant was that perhaps
>>> Cheney
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Apparently not. I know you'd love to forget your debacle involving oil
> drilling a few weeks ago, all based on misinformation from Beck.

We'll see....

I think the set back was the Nigerians fighting amonst themselves shortly
after Beck made this statement.
Hachiroku - 26 Jun 2008 04:19 GMT
>>> Check on these:
>>> 1. Cheney admitted he was wrong about the Chinese drilling off the coast
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> learning the facts. Maybe Cheney also got his information from Glen Beck,
> like you.

Oh, BTW, your post (on my newsreader) is to the extreme right of the
header screen, and it scrunches your nym so much it looks more like
JoeSpittle.

I'd say that fits...
Mike hunt - 24 Jun 2008 15:48 GMT
You certainly are entitled to your own opinion, no matter how convoluted it
may be.    ;)

>> All presidents as far back as Nixon have been too closely linked with the
>> oil biz, and more importantly, with the Arabs. But, Hach's point is
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> Republican policies. The sooner we vote these bozos out of office, the
> sooner we'll get a real national energy policy.
Hachiroku - 25 Jun 2008 06:04 GMT
>> All presidents as far back as Nixon have been too closely linked with the
>> oil biz, and more importantly, with the Arabs. But, Hach's point is
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Of course the real story is that a) it isn't the same places, and b) it
> isn't the Nigerians.

I just posted what I heard. Not responsible if sources are wrong.

>  > So, that's why I said
>> there's information missing here. His theory makes no sense.
>
> LOL, since when has _anything_ he's said made any sense.

Coming from you, that's a laugh...
hachiroku ハチロク - 09 May 2008 16:49 GMT
>>> We need to wait until tomorrow when some reputable news sources pick
>>> up the story. As it stands right now, you are missing about 99% of the
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> outright accusing dims of being in bed with big oil just as much as
> Bush's family is. They are no different from one another.

No doubt about it. They say they're helping the Greenies, but it's all
just more of the same.

I think it's a backhanded method of punishing the oil companies, but it's
the American oil consumer that's taking the punishment.

But, let's keep electing the Pelosis and the Reids and the Clintons. Does
us a world of good.

Actually, it does more of a world of good for the foreign oil producers.
edspyhill01@yahoo.com - 09 May 2008 19:38 GMT
> >>> We need to wait until tomorrow when some reputable news sources pick
> >>> up the story. As it stands right now, you are missing about 99% of the
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
.
.
> But, let's keep electing the Pelosis and the Reids and the Clintons. Does
> us a world of good.

I am actively working to get MORE Democrats in office across the
nation.  If the US Oil Companies would invest a few bucks back into
improving safety and delivery we would trust them.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 09 May 2008 21:44 GMT
>> But, let's keep electing the Pelosis and the Reids and the Clintons.
>> Does us a world of good.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> If the US Oil Companies would invest a few bucks back into improving
> safety and delivery we would trust them.

So you trust Chinese and Nigerians to do a better job of Conservation?
Nza - 12 May 2008 02:53 GMT
> >>> We need to wait until tomorrow when some reputable news sources pick
> >>> up the story. As it stands right now, you are missing about 99% of the
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> Actually, it does more of a world of good for the foreign oil producers.

Let's just bend over and let them take everything.   It is what the
framers of the constitution and the dec. of independence wanted,
right?   that's what all the devil's advocates want.   Let's go ahead
and believe it.   Freedom is overrated.   Let's argue against it,
Corolla!
Hachiroku ハチロク - 12 May 2008 04:40 GMT
>> Actually, it does more of a world of good for the foreign oil producers.
>
> Let's just bend over and let them take everything.   It is what the
> framers of the constitution and the dec. of independence wanted, right?  
> that's what all the devil's advocates want.   Let's go ahead and believe
> it.   Freedom is overrated.   Let's argue against it, Corolla!

At least someone understands the point of the original post without 100
replies of explanation!! Yee Haaa!

Of course, you're not a Liberal. Some of them need extra help...
Learning Richard - 11 May 2008 13:48 GMT
> Glenn Beck

Man, you seem so smart, then you go and quote this stupid right wing
nut megalojunkie.

What would you do if Exxon polluted Cape Cod with a catastrophic oil
spill?

> How do I know it was Democrats?

Yeah that's the question.

> Who the hell else tries to drag this
> country into the Stone Age?

Conservatism \Con*serv"a*tism\, n. [For conservatism.]
  The disposition and tendency to preserve what is established;
  opposition to change; the habit of mind; or conduct, of a
  conservative.

Well, certainly most Americans who consider themselves "Conservative"
are also Republicans.

See the above definition, especially the reference to "opposition to
change"... which political party has all of the dinosaurs who want to
keep doing business the old fashioned way?

I don't trust Exxon to be responsible _enough_ to go digging under the
earth (somewhere off the coast of Africa in this case, I presume) for
more oil safely.

Are you telling me that you do trust Exxon or Gulf or Shell or BP or
any other oil company be safe?   Does your recovering a.shole friend
Glenn Beck trust the nice Big Oil companies?
JoeSpareBedroom - 11 May 2008 14:08 GMT
>> Glenn Beck
>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> any other oil company be safe?   Does your recovering a.shole friend
> Glenn Beck trust the nice Big Oil companies?

Maybe we can finally put this to bed. As usual, Hach didn't do his research.
I got impatient and did it for him.

Senate bill S.3711 passed on August 1, 2006. The vote was 71 yea, 25 nay, 4
not voting. Contrary to Hach the idiot's theory, plenty of Democrats voted
*for* the bill. These left-wing unfair unbalanced untrustworthy sources have
all the information:

http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congres
s=109&session=2&vote=00219#position

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN3711:

The biggest limitation is drilling near the coast of Florida. Guess who
insisted on that limitation *originally*. See below.
Bill Details
Specifically prohibited: drilling within 100-125 miles of the coastline of
the State of Florida. Half of the lease revenue goes into the federal
general fund; half is disbursed to Gulf states and states eligible for Land
and Water Conservation Fund monies.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, royalties are estimated at
$1.55 billion over the first 10 years. From 1982 - 2001, the US collected
$110.4 billion from onshore and offshore leases.

The Senate bill differs dramatically from the House version, which is more
liberal. The House would open all shores to oil drilling unless a state
objects.

Back Story
Area 181, about 1.5 million acres of this plan, was first proposed for
drilling in 1997. In 2001, the Bush Administration backed off a plan that
would come within 10 miles of the Florida coast, in part because brother Jeb
(Governor of Florida) objected. From a 2001 press release:

 "We have listened and worked carefully with officials and affected
citizens around the 181 lease area. The outcome is a balanced and common
sense proposal," said [Interior] Secretary [Gale] Norton. "Our modified 181
area has been adjusted from 5.9 million acres to 1.5 million. The adjusted
area is at least 100 miles from any portion of the Florida coast. For
example, it's northern border is more than 100 miles from Pensacola, Florida
and the eastern edge is 285 miles from the shores of Tampa Bay.
From 1954 - 1990, the federal government leased 63,512,799 acres in four
regions -- Alaska, the Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Pacific. The
first production was in the Gulf of Mexico. In 1990, 25% were producing oil
and gas.

From 1982 - 2000, the Department of Interior has managed ocean leases that
generated more than 10.9 billion barrels of domestic oil and 133 trillion
cubic feet of gas; 97% came from the Gulf of Mexico. The oil data is at the
most optimistic end of estimates from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Perspective
The area contains a quarter of the lowest estimate of reserves in the
controversial Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. So this new area will
provide no more than one percent of our current daily consumption.
Mike hunt - 11 May 2008 17:38 GMT
Sound pretty good to me, considering the current daily consumption in the US
is 40 million barrels a DAY!

I remember when the Dims and the environuts were saying the same crap while
fighting the idea to drill the North Slope the  LOL

> The area contains a quarter of the lowest estimate of reserves in the
> controversial Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. So this new area will
> provide no more than one percent of our current daily consumption.
SMS - 24 Jun 2008 15:53 GMT
> Sound pretty good to me, considering the current daily consumption in the US
> is 40 million barrels a DAY!

Slightly under 20 million barrels actually.
Hachiroku - 25 Jun 2008 06:05 GMT
>> Sound pretty good to me, considering the current daily consumption in the US
>> is 40 million barrels a DAY!
>
> Slightly under 20 million barrels actually.

Almost all imported.
SMS - 25 Jun 2008 10:42 GMT
>>> Sound pretty good to me, considering the current daily consumption in the US
>>> is 40 million barrels a DAY!
>> Slightly under 20 million barrels actually.
>
> Almost all imported.

Wrong again. About 5 million barrels of that are domestic. In fact the
largest single source is domestic. It's not just Alaska, the south east
actually produces more than Alaska at this time, even though if the oil
companies would drill on all the land they've already leased, Alaska
would surpass the rest of the country in production.

It's important to understand that the push for oil drilling in ANWR and
for deep water off-shore drilling, is purely political. The amount of
oil under the unused 68 million acres far exceeds any oil available
offshore, and it's easier and cheaper to get to. The Republicans want to
use the current run-up in oil futures to make sweeping policy changes in
land management, which will be to the detriment of all of us.
Scott  in  Florida - 25 Jun 2008 12:05 GMT
>>>> Sound pretty good to me, considering the current daily consumption in the US
>>>> is 40 million barrels a DAY!
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>use the current run-up in oil futures to make sweeping policy changes in
>land management, which will be to the detriment of all of us.

Oh?

Why?

Signature


Scott in Florida

SMS - 25 Jun 2008 15:04 GMT
Scott in Florida wrote:

>>>>> Sound pretty good to me, considering the current daily consumption in the US
>>>>> is 40 million barrels a DAY!
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Why?

Why do they want the policy changes? To benefit their constituency. Do
you really need a rehash of the environmental damage that W has wrought?
Mike hunt - 25 Jun 2008 18:45 GMT
We certainly do not want to start anymore hurricanes like Bush did

> Why do they want the policy changes? To benefit their constituency. Do you
> really need a rehash of the environmental damage that W has wrought?
Hachiroku - 26 Jun 2008 04:19 GMT
> The Republicans want to
>>> use the current run-up in oil futures to make sweeping policy changes in
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Why do they want the policy changes?

No, why is that a detriment to us all?

Drilling in Alaska where no one lives does what to whom?
Hachiroku - 26 Jun 2008 04:14 GMT
>>> Slightly under 20 million barrels actually.
>>
>> Almost all imported.
>
> Wrong again. About 5 million barrels of that are domestic

Let's see. Five million barrels are domestic. Out of ~20 million.
I said almost all imported. Domestic accounts for 25%.

So, where does the other 75% come from?
SMS - 26 Jun 2008 04:22 GMT
>>>> Slightly under 20 million barrels actually.
>>> Almost all imported.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> So, where does the other 75% come from?

75% doesn't equal "nearly all." 90% would qualify as "nearly all." More
of the 20 million barrels comes from the U.S. than from any other country.
Hachiroku - 26 Jun 2008 05:36 GMT
>>>>> Slightly under 20 million barrels actually.
>>>> Almost all imported.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> 75% doesn't equal "nearly all." 90% would qualify as "nearly all." More
> of the 20 million barrels comes from the U.S. than from any other country.

Um, you're kidding, right? Is this Gorithmatic or something?

And, 5 million comes from the US. So, 3 million come from S.A., 500,000
come from Iraq, 250,000 come from Abu Dabi, and 12 million comes from
Canada.

I guess Canada doesn't count as a foreign country? Don't let them hear
that.

Now, one more time: Most of the oil gets *imported*. Did I say from any
particular country? No, I said *imported*.

Whew! Remedial education over Usenet!
SMS - 26 Jun 2008 06:26 GMT
>>>>>> Slightly under 20 million barrels actually.
>>>>> Almost all imported.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Um, you're kidding, right?

I don't believe that you're as dumb as your posts make you out to be.
Surely you don't believe that 75% is "almost all." It's a majority, but
it's nowhere near "almost all."
Hachiroku ハチロク - 27 Jun 2008 18:45 GMT
>> Um, you're kidding, right?
>
> I don't believe that you're as dumb as your posts make you out to be.
> Surely you don't believe that 75% is "almost all." It's a majority, but
> it's nowhere near "almost all."

When we're dealing with countries that really don't like us, 75% is
probably too much...
Hachiroku ハチロク - 12 May 2008 03:08 GMT
> From 1982 - 2000, the Department of Interior has managed ocean leases that
> generated more than 10.9 billion barrels of domestic oil and 133 trillion
> cubic feet of gas; 97% came from the Gulf of Mexico. The oil data is at
> the most optimistic end of estimates from the Arctic National Wildlife
> Refuge.

Wow. You actually came up with something except obfuscation for once.

So why are they leasing the areas to foriegners?
JoeSpareBedroom - 12 May 2008 03:18 GMT
>> From 1982 - 2000, the Department of Interior has managed ocean leases
>> that
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> So why are they leasing the areas to foriegners?

Because it's legal.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 12 May 2008 04:36 GMT
>>> From 1982 - 2000, the Department of Interior has managed ocean leases
>>> that
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Because it's legal.

That helps us a lot.
JoeSpareBedroom - 12 May 2008 04:58 GMT
>>>> From 1982 - 2000, the Department of Interior has managed ocean leases
>>>> that
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> That helps us a lot.

Better question:  How are we able to decide who drills in international
waters?
Mike hunt - 11 May 2008 17:30 GMT
Learning Little Richard, where do you thing we would be WITHOUT those big
oil companies?     LOL

>> Glenn Beck
>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> any other oil company be safe?   Does your recovering a.shole friend
> Glenn Beck trust the nice Big Oil companies?
Hachiroku ハチロク - 12 May 2008 03:04 GMT
>> Glenn Beck
>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> other oil company be safe?   Does your recovering a.shole friend Glenn
> Beck trust the nice Big Oil companies?

I believe he does. I sure think they're better able to handle any 'erros'
than Nigerians or Chinese.

They also have to live here and pay for any pollution. Thing the Nigerians
or the Chinese would stick around?
Nza - 12 May 2008 03:20 GMT
> >> Glenn Beck
>
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> They also have to live here and pay for any pollution. Thing the Nigerians
> or the Chinese would stick around?

The Chinese are already responsible for most of the "air pollution" on
the West Coast anyway..

What would be different?   Let's let the Chinese do us over!    Hell,
Carter already gave them control of both ends of the Panama Canal....
just because he's a fuckwad...

How do you say "I will serve if you spare my pathetic life" in
Chinese?
I think a lot of people will need to learn how to say that.

Personally, I will go out "clinging to my guns and my religion."

Go ahead, I dare anyone to take my guns.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 12 May 2008 04:38 GMT
>> I believe he does. I sure think they're better able to handle any
>> 'erros' than Nigerians or Chinese.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Go ahead, I dare anyone to take my guns.

Not me, I'm a coward!

Not only that, but we send money to them by the barrel. In November the
BBC reported the Chinese Government had a surplus of $1.3T. And that they
were spednding it on building up the military. YEAH! I want to send them
MORE MONEY!!!
richard-foreskin@null.net - 24 Jun 2008 21:35 GMT
> http://www.glennbeck.com/content/tv/
> Glenn Beck, every day at 7p and 9p ET on Headline News

Why do you crackpots keep citing such minor personalities?
Hachiroku - 25 Jun 2008 06:05 GMT
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:35:01 -0700, richard-foreskin wrote:

>> http://www.glennbeck.com/content/tv/
>> Glenn Beck, every day at 7p and 9p ET on Headline News
>
> Why do you crackpots keep citing such minor personalities?

ecause they're 10 times smarter than Al Franken?
JoeSpareBedroom - 25 Jun 2008 12:09 GMT
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:35:01 -0700, richard-foreskin wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> ecause they're 10 times smarter than Al Franken?

And yet, they're wrong.
Mike hunt - 25 Jun 2008 18:48 GMT
Beck is still on the air, where is Frankin?

"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:5Ip8k.17616
>>>> http://www.glennbeck.com/content/tv/
>>>> Glenn Beck, every day at 7p and 9p ET on Headline News
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> And yet, they're wrong.
dbu - 25 Jun 2008 20:55 GMT
> Beck is still on the air, where is Frankin?

Frankin is trying to payoff his back taxes and running for senator.  
He's trailing by 10 percent in the polls.  

> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:5Ip8k.17616
> >>>> http://www.glennbeck.com/content/tv/
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> >
> > And yet, they're wrong.

--
edspyhill01@yahoo.com - 25 Jun 2008 06:00 GMT
> >> This is where touchy-feely Liberalism gets you:
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Glenn Beck!? Oy!

Why aren't the oil companies drilling on the on 71 million acres
public land and coastal acres they already have leases for?  And why
do US oil companies export 1.2 million barrels a day of oil and gas?
Because they want to manufacture a "shortage".
SMS - 25 Jun 2008 10:15 GMT
>> - Show quoted text -
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> do US oil companies export 1.2 million barrels a day of oil and gas?
> Because they want to manufacture a "shortage".

It was rather amusing to see this brought up as a campaign issue with
McCain being very careful not to imply that ANWR and deep water
off-shore drilling would have any real benefit in terms of oil prices or
supply. McCain stated that “exploiting those reserves would have
psychological impact that I think is beneficial.”

Obama had a great comeback to that, stating, "“ ‘Psychological impact’?”
Mr. Obama said. “In case you’re wondering, that’s Washington-speak for
‘It polls well.’ ”

Obama pointed out that the oil companies currently lease 68 million
acres that they aren't drilling on.

Obama also made fun of McCain's idea to give a prize to someone that
comes up with a better battery for electric cars.

McCain seems to be running a very poor campaign, but who knows, the
pandering and obfuscation does work on many voters. Why on earth did he
go to Canada and proclaim the virtures of NAFTA when several of the key
swing states have had their employment base devastated by that treaty.
Scott  in  Florida - 25 Jun 2008 12:07 GMT
>Obama pointed out

Obama has never had an original idea.

He is the classic empty suit....

Signature


Scott in Florida

dbu - 25 Jun 2008 20:56 GMT
> >Obama pointed out
>
> Obama has never had an original idea.
>
> He is the classic empty suit....

Obama is a figurehead for the moveon.org and the dnc thugs.  They pull
his strings.
--
edspyhill01@yahoo.com - 25 Jun 2008 21:22 GMT
> >Obama pointed out
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>  Scott in Florida

Way to go - avoid facing your stupid republican party talking points.
Obama and empty suit?  McCain and empty head.  Hey, what's up with
Lindsay Graham attached to McCain?  I thought Graham was going to
start crying on Meet the Press Sunday.

It's over.  I think we all need to have a big frigging Mardi Gras
party the night of Jan 20, 2009.  Dance in the street as we show you
rightwingnuts the plank.
Mike hunt - 25 Jun 2008 22:58 GMT
Apparently all of the communist and socialist in this NG are Obama
supporters

On Jun 25, 7:07 am, Scott  in  Florida <Mov...@outa.here> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 02:15:17 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Scott in Florida

Way to go - avoid facing your stupid republican party talking points.
Obama and empty suit?  McCain and empty head.  Hey, what's up with
Lindsay Graham attached to McCain?  I thought Graham was going to
start crying on Meet the Press Sunday.

It's over.  I think we all need to have a big frigging Mardi Gras
party the night of Jan 20, 2009.  Dance in the street as we show you
rightwingnuts the plank.
Scott  in  Florida - 26 Jun 2008 13:26 GMT
>Obama and empty suit?

Yes Obama is and empty suit, too.

He is 20 times worse than GWB at speaking without his speech writers.

Empty suit.

Dumb sh.t.

Signature


Scott in Florida

SMS - 25 Jun 2008 10:51 GMT
> Why aren't the oil companies drilling on the on 71 million acres
> public land and coastal acres they already have leases for?  And why
> do US oil companies export 1.2 million barrels a day of oil and gas?
> Because they want to manufacture a "shortage".

Actually, the reason they export oil is because there is a market for it.

What I read a while back is that they're exporting Alaskan crude, which
there is too much of (which is also why they're not pumping at full
capacity and why they're not expanding their drilling on land they
already lease but don't use). The Alaskan crude is too difficult to get
to the east coast of the U.S. because the super tankers would have to
take such a long route around the tip of South America (super-tankers
can't fit through the Panama Canal), and it's more difficult to refine
the Alaskan crude than the imported Saudi oil.

Panama is considering expanding the canal to accommodate super tankers,
but this will be monumentally expensive.
edspyhill01@yahoo.com - 25 Jun 2008 21:18 GMT
> edspyhil...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Why aren't the oil companies drilling on the on 71 million acres
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Panama is considering expanding the canal to accommodate super tankers,
> but this will be monumentally expensive.

The tankers can always take the northwest passage when the Arctic ice
cap melts.
SMS - 25 Jun 2008 21:25 GMT
> The tankers can always take the northwest passage when the Arctic ice
> cap melts.

LOL, maybe that's why the neocons feign denial of global warming.
Hachiroku - 26 Jun 2008 04:14 GMT
>> The tankers can always take the northwest passage when the Arctic ice
>> cap melts.
>
> LOL, maybe that's why the neocons feign denial of global warming.

What do you mean, 'feign'?

Take a couple Geology courses, and buy *LOTS* of winter clothing...

(And, why is it Liberals swallow the kool-aid with gusto?)
Mike hunt - 25 Jun 2008 22:32 GMT
No mater what the "we can't drill our way out" dims want us to believe the
reason Alaskan crude is "exported" is there are not enough refineries on the
west coast. Chalk up another problem to the environuts.   Remember these are
the same kooks that said there in not enough oil in the North Slope" to make
drilling worth while, thirty years ago and the caribou will all die is we
drill up there.   The fact is they have found even more oil once they
started to drill and the Caribou herds have grown because the follow the
pipe line that warm the air a above the tundra.  Don't fall for their lies
once again.

Some reason some of the areas where they can drill but are not is, the
strata is tougher and the water is much deeper from, what I've read.

Experts say in area of the gulf were we can NOT drill that are next to were
we can, could be produce bullions of barrels of crude in a year or less
using slant drilling techniques

On Jun 25, 5:51 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> edspyhil...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Why aren't the oil companies drilling on the on 71 million acres
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Panama is considering expanding the canal to accommodate super tankers,
> but this will be monumentally expensive.

The tankers can always take the northwest passage when the Arctic ice
cap melts.
edspyhill01@yahoo.com - 08 May 2008 21:22 GMT
> This is where touchy-feely Liberalism gets you:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> When the *HELL* are we going to vote these dimwit Democrats OUT OF OFFICE
> so we can become competitive again?!

You mean we can stop North and South American companies from drilling
oil in the Gulf but we can't stop Nigeria?  Sounds like a sweetheart
deal between Bush, Cheny, and Nigeria.
JoeSpareBedroom - 08 May 2008 21:29 GMT
On May 8, 1:04 pm, hachiroku <Tru...@ae86.GTS> wrote:
> This is where touchy-feely Liberalism gets you:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> When the *HELL* are we going to vote these dimwit Democrats OUT OF OFFICE
> so we can become competitive again?!

You mean we can stop North and South American companies from drilling
oil in the Gulf but we can't stop Nigeria?  Sounds like a sweetheart
deal between Bush, Cheny, and Nigeria.

=========================

I don't suppose the deal could've involved golf course negotiations
involving any of the biggest corporate players in Nigeria, like Mobil,
Chevron and Shell.
edspyhill01@yahoo.com - 08 May 2008 21:48 GMT
> <edspyhil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> involving any of the biggest corporate players in Nigeria, like Mobil,
> Chevron and Shell.

Of COURSE not!
Mike hunt - 08 May 2008 22:52 GMT
Still talking stupid again   LOL

> On May 8, 1:04 pm, hachiroku <Tru...@ae86.GTS> wrote:
>> This is where touchy-feely Liberalism gets you:
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> involving any of the biggest corporate players in Nigeria, like Mobil,
> Chevron and Shell.
JoeSpareBedroom - 08 May 2008 23:35 GMT
You drunken old twat. Nigeria's government does nothing but collect
kickbacks from the oil business. Their government would be barely involved
with negotiating drilling arrangements in the Gulf. That would be done by
the companies who'll actually do the work. Those companies know how much
they need to kick back to the Nigerians.

> Still talking stupid again   LOL
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>> involving any of the biggest corporate players in Nigeria, like Mobil,
>> Chevron and Shell.
Don't Taze Me, Bro! - 09 May 2008 22:21 GMT
> This is where touchy-feely Liberalism gets you:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> When the *HELL* are we going to vote these dimwit Democrats OUT OF OFFICE
> so we can become competitive again?!

It's cheaper... no tax to pump it through nigeria...
JoeSpareBedroom - 09 May 2008 22:24 GMT
>> This is where touchy-feely Liberalism gets you:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> It's cheaper... no tax to pump it through nigeria...

.....which should point Hach right back to my comment about agreements made
on golf courses.
hachiroku ハチロク - 11 May 2008 18:23 GMT
>>> This is where touchy-feely Liberalism gets you:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> .....which should point Hach right back to my comment about agreements
> made on golf courses.

Yeah, but by whom?
JoeSpareBedroom - 11 May 2008 18:30 GMT
>>>> This is where touchy-feely Liberalism gets you:
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Yeah, but by whom?

As of this moment, that's an unimportant detail.

What's important is that your fairy tale from your original post has been
blown to pieces. The legislation you described does NOT make it harder for
American companies to drill in the Gulf - it makes it easier. The bill
passed, and most Democrats voted ***FOR*** the bill.

You need to check what you hear from idiots like Beck, lest you also appear
to be an idiot.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.