RSS Feed
Not Even One Realistic Solution Between Them
How pathetic. President Bush in Saudi Arabia asking the Saudis to help solve our problems when it is common knowledge the Saudis are not our friends and in fact OPEC has us right where they want us. Our dependence on foreign oil is bankrupting the U.S. When there is no more money to fund the War on Terror the enemy will have achieved economically what they couldn’t do on the battlefield.
The fact is that until we do what we should have started 36 years ago after the 1972 Arab oil boycott we are dependent on foreign oil. This is painfully obvious; even beyond the point of obviousness but we still have obstructionists, idiots, and special interests blocking the path
The obstructionists include the DemokRat leadership and the RINOs who vote with them, plus the EcoCommunists who have hijacked Environmentalism and now use it as a weapon for control. The idiots includes morons everywhere who write the articles appearing in newspapers all over America about how the animals in ANWR would be so harmed by drilling there (they said the same thing about the Alaska pipeline and were wrong then too) yet these klowns are still listened to. These are the same babbling idiots that write articles about problems with nuclear waste and reactor safety who are reading straight from 1970s Jane Fonda China Syndrome talking points and don’t even understand how wrong and out of date they are. The special interests include the Sierra Klubs who obstruct nearly everything that makes sense and whip up hysteria to sucker in dues-paying members while they fill their pockets with settlements from obstructionist lawsuits. And last but not least, the Archer, Daniels, Midland company and other huge Agribusinesses that have bought and paid for Congress to push the Ethanol from Corn boondoggle down the throat of America.
Here’s a tally of how much oil is waiting to be tapped in America while we develop alternatives, oil that could make us independent or nearly independent:
ANWR estimates vary but the mean is 10.4 billion barrels
U.S. proven offshore reserves: 21.4 billion barrels. There is very likely vast amounts that have not even been explored.
North Dakota: The Bakken oil field is estimated to contain up to 200 billion barrels. New technology can tap this for the first time.
Oh, but developing these could take years the obstructionists say, which is what they said about ANWR (years ago when Klinton vetoed development there; if he hadn’t it would be online now).
We have the resources to be energy independent. With the huge amount of money generated to the Gov’t by leasing these areas for development, we could balance the budget and still have plenty of money left for a “Manhattan Project” to make us permanently energy-independent.
All that stand in the way are the Obstructionists, the Idiots, and the Special Interests.
While McCain voted against ANWR drilling, he can be worked on. Both of the DemokRat candidates are utterly clueless, hopelessly wrong, or both.
DemokRats = $5 gasoline.
27 Responses to “The Saudis Won’t Increase Oil Production. Obvious Question: Why Doesn’t the U.S. Increase Production?”
TrackBack URL
[…] tagged friendsOwn a Wordpress blog? Make monetization easier with the WP Affiliate Pro plugin. The Saudis Won’t Increase Oil Production. Obviou… saved by 5 others wuyaloveschaseypoo bookmarked on 05/18/08 | […]
[…] GigaOM wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt […]
Thanks for this Robert! There isn’t a reason in the world that we should be paying $5.00 for gasoline. Yes there are other viable technologies available, but in the mean time, we have millions of cars that will be dependent upon gasoline for many years to come. Our country has the resources to correct the situation, the problem is that we have politicians that aren’t feeling the burden that the voters are.
These politicians and their cronies are driving around in cars provided by the taxpayers and filled up on Gov’t credit cards. They never see a bill; they don’t give a damn.
Not even a single idea or proposal has emanated from the DemokRat candidates or leadership that will do anything except make this problem worse. Even understanding that Liberalism is a form of mental illness, I still marvel at their astounding lack of ability to even acknowledge the obvious.
I still hear callers to talk shows babble about wind power and solar power when the subject is oil for transportation fuel. Are they thinking they can put a windmill on top of their car? Solar panels on top of their car? When asked this they never have an answer.
Isn’t making the situation worse the point? It seems to me that there is a right way and the the Democratic way!
Great post Robert. I thought about this the moment I heard Bush was visiting the Saudi’s. I believe his heart is in the right place but it’s a big mistake. Much better to push the Congress into finally allowing so much of the legislation that is currently holding us back for our own oil production. And not just for oil either but for other alternative energy sources like nuclear and hydrogen.
Our politicians should be ashamed of themselves for keeping americans beholden to the middle east. It’s time we we try to change that.
Here’s a CRAZY IDEA…
Instead of increasing production…how about we REDUCE CONSUMPTION?
I know, I know…it’s f*cking nuts, but…
How about an even better idea SFL. Let’s do BOTH.
Then why dont we decrees the amount of food we send to them?
Drilling in ANWAR is another Repulican answer to getting a real energy policy. We have seven years of idiot in chief saying that Global Warming doesn’t exist instead of attempting to fix the problem.
Like SF said…FIX THE PROBLEM. Quit thinking ANWAR as its only a bandaid.
David
Hey David, seven years ago we wanted to drill, but the idiots on the left said it wasn’t viable because it would take 5 years to net results. We are more dependent than ever. What is the reality of every American driving a car powered by something other than gasoline? How long before all gasoline powered cars are off the roads? The reality is that it will take years for this country to rid itself of gasoline. How’s that ethanol working out for the food supply chain?
Here’s a policy for all three candidates:
1. 40% tax on gas. Put it into public transportation. Sorry folks, but time to buddy up.
2. Only buy oil from N America/S America.
3. Mandate better monitoring systems on our electrical infrastructure. Particularly something that doesn’t involve someone picking up the phone.
4. Blame this on Pres McKinley. Everyone wants to blame someone and he’s been dead awhile.
Quit making this a Liberal v Conservative issue. It doesn’t solve anything.
GBA!
David
David…here’s what wrong with your thesis.
1. 40% goes right back to the taxpayer. Buddy up? There are alot of cities out there withOUT public transportation. How are you going to help that?
2. Foolish. We should be drilling right here, allowing refineries to upgrade and pursue aggressive alternate solutions such as nuclear and windpower wherever possible.
3. A start.
4. You lose the argument when you say stupid things.
Here goes….
1. What do you mean, the 40 goes back to the tax payer? As for places that don’t have it…time to build it. Don’t want to get your hands dirty?
2. yes drill right here and yes, the alternatives. I’m one liberal who thinks that we should have worked Nuclear a lot more then what we are doing. NYC is doing a project to take the strong current from the East River and using it for electricity.
3. Whatever, it should have been started awhile ago.
4. OK, it was a joke. Lighten up!
David
I think conservative estimates that it will take at least two years from the go ahead to actual oil in the line from Anwar and I’m honestly not against it. It can be done without the damage to the environment that the conservationists suggest (they, not the Democrats were the ones against it). I just don’t think its the be all, end all. The idea to do it “while we are developing better technologies” is rediculous as it was first mentioned in the 70’s.
David
The Republicans were against drilling in Anwr? Here’s the vote on Boxer’s Amendment to prevent drilling in ANWR. The prevention of drilling is what the Republicans were against, not the drilling:
Question: On the Amendment (Boxer Amdt. No. 272. )
Vote Number: 59 Vote Date: March 19, 2003, 03:10 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 272 to S.Con.Res. 23
Statement of Purpose: To prevent consideration of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in a fast-track budget reconciliation bill.
Vote Counts:
YEAs 52 NAYs 48
Pam,
I said the conservationists were against the drilling, not the Republicans.
David
And it looks like the Democrats joined the conservationists.
16- Not everyone can afford to go out and buy new technology David. We had “regular” gasoline at the pumps for a good 10 years, and many of those that were driving them bought new junkers that ran on unleaded. There is no reason we can’t supply the gasoline to run the cars..again, how is that ethanol working out?
Actually, unleaded gas came out as a response to increasing environmental efficiency. Not such a bad thing as I can draw a deep breath.
As for affording “new technology” it would appear that you want to stay in the stone age because that excuse could be used forever. If we don’t start now, then when?
Brazil has had an ethanol program for years, but instead of using corn which is the basis for a lot of food, they use the stalks from sugar cane.
About when do you want to get serious about solving this thing instead of wanting to put regular gas into your car?
David
21- No David I don’t want to stay in the stone age and had you taken the time to read what I said, you wouldn’t have even made the comment. Those that can afford to buy the newer cars with the advanced technologies and alternative fuel sources, will. There is still a large portion of the population that won’t be able to buy a new car and depend on the used car market as their source for purchasing. As we saw “regular” go by the wayside we put a time limit on how long we kept it in the system, but we eventually purged it. This is what we will need to do with gasoline. Solving the problem shouldn’t have included a worldwide food shortage.
I think we agree more then we are letting on and i understand about what you are saying about the parallel of having both, I just didn’t get that from your post and the “junker” thing threw me.
Right now, we have no new car options except something so rediculously small its either unsafe or impractical. The only advances that I see being made are foreign companies, nothing from the US. The unleaded gas example that you correctly use didn’t happen on its own. Things that are painful for everyone don’t happen until the governement works to make it so. People vote with their pocketbook, but they can’t vote if they don’t have anything to buy.
As for ethanol causing a food shortage, you are correct. It wasn’t the most well thought up idea. But before you and I go bashing about who’s to blame, look at it as a start in the right direction. Its about the only thing that can work in our present cars which will be here long aftert this post.
If not now, when??
David
“The idea to do it “while we are developing better technologies” is rediculous as it was first mentioned in the 70’s.”
Huh? They said the SAME thing about the Alaska pipeline. They were wrong.
Fact is this nation uses 5 billion barrels of oil per year. While we transition to more efficient vehicles and other technologies, while we develop alternative such as Nuke power to charge up those future electric vehicles and produce Hydrogen, while we build more mass transit (and that will ONLY work in large cities) we need to have that energy NOW.
Drill baby, DRILL! I want to look out on the coastline and see oil rigs! I want to see happy animals in Alaska posing by the well jacks. DRILL, DRILL, DRILL!!!
And this isn’t just a Liberal vs Conservative thing—it is an obstructionist, idiot, and special interest vs common sense thing. Unfortunately the idiots and obstructionists tend to be on the Left.
#23 David as I recall, Unleaded gas came about to get rid of the lead, and that was a very, very good thing. Great for health, great for the environment, and once they improved the engines, good for them too.
<p>23- David, I think we do agree more so than disagree. That ethanol experiment should have remained just that, and experiment. Instead, we had the US Congress offering tax breaks and other incentives without listening to what was being said. They were told that there would be a food shortage and there is. Controlled experiments are a good thing, we should have tried that.</p>
<p>As we speak, worldwide car makers are scrambling to produce the viable alternative to gasoline powered automobiles. As you stated, they are small, and unless semi’s get alot smaller, they aren’t too safe. I did see that GM and Chrysler have hybrid SUV’s and Van’s in the 2009 lineup. BMW just put out an electric car and Honda says its FCX Clarity fuel-cell car is production-ready, but it requires a hydrogen infrastructure that does not exist.</p>
Pam - Onward and and upward. Or as Robert says, “Drill, Baby Drill!”
Seriously in response to Robert, there was a heavy amount of conservationist movement against the Alaskan Pipeline and it will go down as one of the most amazing engineering marvels with a strong environmental record to boot. The downside is that besides marginally more efficient cars, we haven’t come as far as we could have since the 70’s. People thought back then that solar was the way to go and very little was done on the mainstream side.
David