Clipmarks
n2soonersfollowshare
6-6-2008 7:42 PM
559 views
19 Comments   | Add a Comment
6-7-2008 1:44 AM
Rustee
Nice clip. It might not say it all, but it says a lot!
6-7-2008 1:55 AM
jmjoness
I think it has more to do with democrats thinking they can move away from oil, which would take too long, and not to mention it's extremely idealistic.
6-7-2008 2:05 AM
n2sooners
Ya, we almost certainly will move away from oil someday, that day just won't be tomorrow. Heck, unless there is a miracle it won't be for many decades. In the mean time, our policies are hurting our pocketbooks, our economy, and our security.
6-8-2008 10:05 PM
sillysam
McCain should run on this record, unfortunately he has staked out a bad position on ANWR.
6-8-2008 11:30 PM
jatfla
Gosh! a clip I can agree with! The Dems are coming to the table waaaaaay too late. This has been coming for decades. All of our elected ones rejected all options or they were just sorry, lazy, or disinterested. No nuclear, no solar, no coal, no drilling....NO everything...except ride our bicycles, city transit, walking, miniature cars.

There is no going back. The options/opportunities are there for those who have a vision and money. I'm open!!
6-9-2008 3:51 AM
righthand
Yep, I agree - bicycles, public transport, walking, smaller cars - just like normal people.
6-9-2008 3:41 PM
jklugman
Rising gas prices can't be laid at the rejection of ANWR exploration:

Brendan Nyhan said:

However, it's unlikely that ANWR will... "[take] the pressure off the price of gasoline." The reason is that it would take years to develop and the amount of oil it would produce represents only a small fraction of domestic oil consumption -- a quantity that is unlikely to have a significant impact on prices in the global oil market.[1]
6-9-2008 4:14 PM
n2sooners
Really? Because Harry Reid said that if we could just get the Saudi's to release another million barrels a day then the price of oil would drop by $25 per barrel. Ironically, a million barrels a day is on the conservative side of what we could expect to pull in from ANWAR. And exactly how long ago was it that the Clinton administration vetoed development of ANWAR? How long have the democrats stood in the way of drilling in ANWAR?

And ANWAR is just part of it. There is also both coasts. There is such a large reserve of oil off the tip of Florida that has been deemed off limits that the Chinese are willing to use angle drilling methods in cooperation with the Cubans to extract oil under Ameri...
6-9-2008 5:45 PM
jklugman
Ironically, a million barrels a day is on the conservative side of what we could expect to pull in from ANWAR.
Not according to my sources. The Congressional Research Service estimates that at its peak production time (which would be after 15-20 years of development, and that's assuming a fast rate of development) the ANWR would produce 750,000 barrels per day. And that's at its peak. See the CRS's briefing for the 109th Congress, page 5, second full paragraph.

Because Harry Reid said that if we could just get the Saudi's to release another million barrels a day the...
6-9-2008 7:25 PM
sillysam
ANWR would replace the oil we use each day from Saudi Arabia. The majority of our imports come from Canada. I am not as worried about sending them our money as, at least at this point, they don't seem to be exporting alot of Islamic fundamentalism to the US.

Klugman, just because it won't solve all our energy needs doesn't mean we shouldn't use it as a part of our future energy plans.
6-9-2008 7:49 PM
n2sooners
Some problems with your source.

First, they are using a ten year old study. Not that there is any other study they can use, but it isn't exactly up to date.

Second, they are using a low end from that estimate. To calculate their 750,000 barrels per day, they say there is only 5 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil. From the charts in that study, there is between 2 billion and 9.3 billion barrels of oil or an expected value of 5.2 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil with an oil price of $24 a barrel. At $35 a barrel the number jumps to 4.3 - 11.8 billion barrels with a mean of 7.7 billion barrels. And the chart in the report only goes up to $40 a barrel, we are at abo...
6-9-2008 9:24 PM
jmjoness
Yep, I agree - bicycles, public transport, walking, smaller cars - just like normal people.

Just thought I'd point this out. Obviously people don't need to be driving a friggin' hummer, but not everyone lives in a big city where bicycles, public transport, walking, or even car pooling are options.
6-9-2008 9:25 PM
jmjoness
And most importantly we aren't just talking about ANWAR. We are talking about ANWAR, oil shale, east coast, west coast, southern Florida coast, and the list goes on. Each one individually may not be hugely significant, but together they are.

Agreed. And if the Clinton Administration would have started this 2 decades ago instead of pandering to special interest groups we would already be seeing the results. Now the Chinese will be taking it right from under our own soil!!
6-9-2008 9:28 PM
jklugman
n2sooners, I understand your point that there may be more economically recoverable oil in ANWR than indicated in my sources. You may be right. But the irony is, ANWR may be a great source of oil, but only after oil prices are sky high. So I am not sure that is a great argument for starting development on ANWR ten years ago. (at the very least, policy-makers 10 years ago could not develop ANWR banking on the price of oil sky-rocketing).

Plus, it is still not clear how much gas prices would be reduced if we did more oil exploration, given predictions that OPEC would cut its own production.
6-9-2008 10:07 PM
willhelm
Plus, it is still not clear how much gas prices would be reduced if we
did more oil exploration, given predictions that OPEC would cut its own
production.
Historically, when confronted wiht competition OPEC has slashed prices, even to the point of making some domestic ventures unprofitable. They did this during Carter and Reagan.

Rising gas prices can't be laid at the rejection of ANWR exploration:
The point is that ANWR exploration is not the cause of rising gas prices. The point is that ANWR symbolizes the 800 pound gorilla in the room of our own inaction and inadequacy in regard to energy.
6-10-2008 1:46 PM
righthand
Anyone remember now when a relatively short time ago, Chavez offered a guaranteed supply of heavy @ 50$ a barrel and he was told to FUC@ OFF by your glorious far-seeing leaders. 50$, can you believe it. 50$. LoL. I must go back and find that. 50$. What is it now?

6-10-2008 10:59 PM
sillysam
Darn right we told him to f$$$ off. We shouldn't send him another friggin' dime. He is a dictator is all but name. He offered Alaskan native villages near my town cheap oil (they are currently paying $8 a gallon) they told him to f$$$ off. Now they seem to understand what Chavez is all about why can't you?
Login to Comment.  Not a member yet? Sign up
Embed This Clip In Your Site...

New from the makers of Clipmarks:  Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!

OK