President Obama calls for more domestic oil drilling

[harvey007]

Run time: 04:02 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCpqhT_8zj0   Posted on YouTube: May 14, 2011 By YouTube Member: UpTakeVideo Views on YouTube: 308   Posted on DU: May 15, 2011 By DU Member: harvey007 Views on DU: 2989

 

[notesdev]

1. We have a problem here

Leasing is going to be a problem after what happened to Shell. They paid the U.S. government $2.2 billion for a lease on the north shore of Alaska and then were not permitted to drill there by the EPA - that money was outright stolen from them.

[RoccoR5955]

3. My heart bleeds

Crocodile tears for Shell! Screw them. Call it back taxes that they didn't pay.

[notesdev]

5. That's all well and good

but you get to do that exactly once before people wise up to the game and refuse to play.

Which then becomes a big problem if you actually want oil. Domestic drilling has its drawbacks, but nowhere near the drawbacks of the global military empire we must maintain in order to keep foreign oil flowing to our shores.

[DRex]

4. Boohoo. They stole it from somebody else.

[TheEuclideanOne]

11. Really? Who stole it?

The EPA? So, if somebody pays me for the rights to set your house on fire and you say no, are you stealing that priviledge from the arsenist? After all, they did pay me for the thrill of setting your house on fire. That would be wrong of you, correct?

[notesdev]

12. The feds stole it

They sold a lease to drill oil for a massive amount of money, then turned around and said you can't drill here.

That's a rip-off any way you slice it. If the EPA has a veto over permits necessary to drill, then it should issue its findings before the lease is offered, not after it is paid for. At the very least that money should be returned if the lease is de facto, post-facto revoked.

Otherwise, these leases are only valuable to someone who knows ahead of time that they are 100% guaranteed to get all necessary permits - in other words, only to those who are certain that they have corrupted and captured the regulatory process.

[TheEuclideanOne]

14. While I do agree with you on all of your points, isn't that the norm in building anything?

When buildings are getting all of the permits to build a tall building, then buy a property and are not approved for a certain permit, they don't get a refund. Seems to me like that is just par for the course. It was a gamble for them and they lost. Oopsie. Do I feel sorry for them? No, I will start feeling sorry for any companies like these when they stop feeling as though they have a god given right to my money. I would love to sell my products at any price I like and raise the prices whenever my sales go down just because I deserve to have all of the money I want.

[RoccoR5955]

2. Why does he say

that drilling here in the US will lower the price of gas? Surely he knows that once the oil is pumped out of the ground, it goes up for sale on the world market. Some of the companies drilling don't even pay taxes here in the US. Even if the oil comes to the US, and is processed into fuel here, for use here, doesn't he know that we know, that the price of fuel is governed by what the few commodity traders, who trade in crude think it should be?

This is stupid. Why don't I hear anything about conservation? Why is it all about using more, more, more? The planet only has finite resources, we cannot go this "more, more, more" route much longer, or there will be no resources left for future generations.

[Grinchie]

7. Obama continues to look like a kneejerk sock puppet

I have not seen any innovative alternative energy funding come out of this adminsitratioin in the past, interminable 3 years, and I doubt I ever will as long as Obama spouts off about gasoline..

Hate to break it to you Obama, but Diesel in my neck of the woods is 4.99 9/10's, and I use a machine that gulps 2.5 gallons per hour in order to be able to grow the food you serve to your bankster fraunds. Maybe if they stopped printing money like there is no tomorrow.. Hey, maybe thats it.

I never fell for supposed claim that Obama was a "Teleprompter President", but it is very clear that he is as ill educated and vacuuous as Dubya when it come to doing research that matters. No matter, he's a perfect American sock puppet, just like the rest of the people, told what to think, and told what to believe in.

I said it once before that Obama seems to be a nice guy, but after talking with him for a few minutes he would ultimately reveal a narrow minded politician.

Obama and Vilsack are preparing several contiguous counties for the onslaught of GMO biomass crops and proclaim progress.. What about the people that have to live there?

All hail ObaMonsanto, Change we can no longer hope for.

I'm sure the speaking engagement stipends will be quite enough after your first term comes to an end.

[Hugh Everett]

6. Now Obama wants to “drill baby, drill!”

Why? Because he can do the math.

Two days ago the House voted in favor of rapid expansion of offshore drilling. Meanwhile, there are a dozen Democrat senators from energy-producing states such as Alaska, Colorado, Louisiana, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Arkansas, West Virginia, Pennsylvania.

Drilling for US Oil and fracking for US Natural Gas makes us more energy independent, but more importantly, it creates millions of American jobs. I'm not just talking about roughneck (drillers) jobs. I'm talking about the entire exploration, production, refining, distribution chain. Energy production in America is a huge business.

[RoccoR5955]

9. What good does fracking and drilling do

If after you frack the for the darn gas, you can't drink your water, or after there is a major accident people can't eat fish from the Gulf?
What good will it do to exploit the only planet that we have, for its finite resources, when we should conserve it for the future?
What good will it do when these resources are shipped overseas, and put on the world market?
Why are we not looking more at CONSERVATION, and looking at more and more CONSUMPTION? There is not an unlimited supply of oil/gas!
And I don't care how many jobs it creates, if it pollutes our only planet, and/or prevents people from having clean, potable water, it's not justified.

[Hugh Everett]

16. Analyzing your assertion.

"There is not an unlimited supply of oil/gas!"

If "Peak Oil" is true, then we should be entering a period of sustained high prices in oil and natural gas that provide consumers with incentive to use alternative energy.

But so far there have only been a handful of Chevy Volts sold in the U.S.

And the price of natural gas is far below historic oil/gas BTU spread. The reason is that new fracking technology has made natural gas plentiful and cheap and abundant for another couple hundred years. Exxon is looking at compressed natural gas pumps in their service stations.

Now that's a viable alternative energy source.

[RoccoR5955]

17. What good does fracking do if it destroys your water supply?

You cannot be sustained on natural gas. Live on Earth needs water, and fracking destroys water resources, which is why the same energy companies that are fracking, are buying up scarce water resources.

[Hugh Everett]

18. Pleased to share information about oil and gas.

“after there is a major accident people can't eat fish from the Gulf?”

You might be surprised to learn that the U.S. government has only paid out $3.8 billion from the $20 billion BP clean-up fund. The reason? It’s not because the BP Paymaster Czar hasn’t been overgenerous in paying claims. The fact is that the government is having problems finding legitimately damaged parties.

And a year after the spill, scientists are having trouble finding residual oil. The reason? Oil floats on water, breaks down in the ocean, and evaporates into the atmosphere. It’s gone. Mother Nature is an oil-eating beast.

“What good does fracking do if it destroys your water supply?”

This is the last desperate gasp of the alternative energy religious fanatics. A well will not pollute ground water when the formation is fractured two miles below the surface. While it is certainly possible for chemical tanks, trucks, and holding ponds on the surface to pollute ground water, nobody (knowledgeable) is worried about chemicals leaching through two miles of packed rock. This is why fracking recovery is being employed extensively while environmentalists are helpless to stop it. The science is against you.

[RoccoR5955]

19. The science is so with me. Don't accept corporate propaganda!

"This is the last desperate gasp of the alternative energy religious fanatics. A well will not pollute ground water when the formation is fractured two miles below the surface. While it is certainly possible for chemical tanks, trucks, and holding ponds on the surface to pollute ground water, nobody (knowledgeable) is worried about chemicals leaching through two miles of packed rock. This is why fracking recovery is being employed extensively while environmentalists are helpless to stop it. The science is against you."

Where did you get this propaganda, from the Koch brothers or Pickens?

The only people who are not concerned are people who are not familiar with the geology of specific areas. Many areas have deep, unmapped faults within formations, especially in the uplands areas of NY and PA. When formations are fractured in any given area, it could upset one of these myriad of unmapped faults, and cause gas to infiltrate all the way up to the ground water. The drilling and gas companies do not want people to know this. When they are asked, they say that these are rare, but as a resident of NY all my life, who has studied its geology for several decades, I tell them that they are just plain wrong. I am not sure of other areas, but I am sure about NY, the neighboring areas, and related areas.


Oh, and the 7000 feet that they drill MAX is NOT two miles.

[Hugh Everett]

21. learn to love fracking

As a chemical engineer who grew up in the oil patch, I have a slightly different perspective. My Dad was a mud engineer, and I know what’s going down that hole.

I own land with wells operating on it, and I wouldn’t want my well water contaminated. But I know enough about the science not to worry about it.

If you’re familiar with the subject, you already know that fracking is being employed across the country. There was a movie out recently called “Gasland”, where they tried to claim that methane was occurring in water wells due to fracking.

Methane is very common in water wells, and its referred to as “marsh gas”. It forms when vegetation decays under water. It's harmless and naturally ocurring. This kind of methane is “biogenic” in origin, and it consists of CH4 only, with no longer chained carbons.

“Thermogenic” methane is what you extract at 7000 feet upon fracking. It contains a mixture of CH4, C2H6, C3H8, C4H10. (methane, butane, propane)
Now whenever a land owner tries to claim that fracking at 7000 feet caused methane in his well water, all you have to do is run a quick analytical to see if there is any propane in the sample. The overwhelming majority of the time, the answer is no.

Drilling companies are now taking water samples of all wells in the area prior to operations. This is to prevent future lawsuits. The landowner, the state, and the driller all agree to the water chemistry in the wells before drilling begins. Then if anyone complains afterwards, all you have to do is compare analytical data from before and after fracking.

The water analytical tests are very quick, easy, inexpensive. You can determine definitively in a day whether fracking is polluting the ground water. It’s not like “global warming” where you have to wait 200 years to prove that solar activity is responsible rather than anthropogenic CO2. This means that fracking can’t be politicized. Science instantly proves the truth in every question on every well.

There’s far too much money on the table for the state, the landowner, and the driller for anyone to be swayed by phony environmental concerns. And since these three entities are the ones with real skin in the game, nobody else matters.

Environmentalists are screeching about fracking because they realize its “ballgame”. They're screaming about “chemicals being injected into the earth!” Yeah, injected at 7000 feet where the oil and noxious chemicals are already present. Cheap natural gas derived from fracking North American formations will provide abundant energy for generations to come.

[RoccoR5955]

23. You're still buying the industry propaganda.

You people never ever address what I stated in my post about unmapped faults that could result in the release of gas/fracking fluids.
Why do you ignore it?

Also a funny thing is that those wells that were contaminated in the movie Gasland, were not contaminated until drilling happened. How do you explain that?

[Hugh Everett]

24. why ask why?

“Why do you ignore it?”

Because the proof is in the pudding. Arguing about theory and conjecture is a complete waste of time when all that is required is analyzing well water chemistry before and after drilling.

“Also a funny thing is that those wells that were contaminated in the movie Gasland, were not contaminated until drilling happened. How do you explain that?”

As I've explained, it's easy to tell if the origin of the methane is biogenic or thermogenic. You don't have to guess. Just look for propane or butane.

If thermogenic methane is in the well water, the driller might owe the landowner a little money to fix the problem. That’s a very minor (and completely harmless) problem with a cheap, simple remedy.

If fracking chemicals are in the well water, that could be a more expensive problem to fix, but the problem will be solved between the landowner, and the driller who leased drilling rights from the landowner. Driller and Landowner are business partners. They have a contract that says: “Leave it like you found it.” The State of Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, New Mexico, Colorado, etc strictly enforce environmental protection laws when it comes to drilling. Not to mention EPA regulations. Sloppy operators don’t stay in business for long.

The reason you never hear about expensive remediation projects in fracking is because it's a rare occurance. Like I said, fracking is going on two miles below the surface where the earth is already full of nasty oil and chemicals that are much worse than fracking fluids.

If a driller contaminates groundwater with fracking fluids, he did it from a spill or leak above ground. This can definitely occur with any kind of drilling.

Not only are your concerns ridiculously unwarranted, there’s not a damn thing you can do about it. There’s too much money at stake for the oil companies, the landowners, the oil industry employees, the businesses that service the oil industry, and the State of Texas. We’re all in this thing together. All residents of TX, OK, LA, NM, AR, WY, ND, SD, CO, MS, MT, AL, KS, WV, PA, MI are inviting environmentalists to kiss our collective asses. We want the jobs. We want the tax revenue. We want the monthly royalty checks.

Remember what Lousiana said the day after the BP well was capped? "GET BACK TO DRILLING IN THE GULF!" They wanted BP to pay for the screw up, and they wanted BP to start drilling again, immediately. That's the way we roll.

We’ve been drilling for more than a century and pouring chemicals down the hole to stimulate production. Now that we developed fracking, we’re just getting started. Energy production in America is Big Business! So sayeth Barack H. Obama.

[RoccoR5955]

25. So that's it... You want environmentalists to kiss your ass, huh?

So you are stating that you are more concerned with your money, jobs, and using more natural resources NOW, rather than saving resources for the future?

You people just don't care about how much you pollute the planet, do you? You just want the money, money, money.

Well I have news for you. You and your friends can kiss every environmentalists' ass when your kids or grandkids can't breathe, can't drink the water, and can't farm the land, because YOU and your's want the money.

Anyone else who is reading this will know that this is what it boils down to. Environmentalists want to save resources for tomorrow, and clean up the planet for future generations. People who are working for oil/gas companies don't give a damn about the environment. They want to use the resources NOW, and don't care about the cost to future generations. They want their money now.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RoccoR5955]

28. That right, business not only runs the country,

As a matter of fact they own the Congress and Senate. Yep, it's not a government of, for, and by WE THE PEOPLE, but them, the corporations! To hell with the people. To hell with the future generations. We have to make profits NOW. We have to say to hell with research for cleaner technologies that pollute less, and save more energy for the future. We must consume, consume, consume, all in the name of the Almighty Dollar.


No, environmentalists do not want us living in the Stone Age. What we demand is a more forethought for the only planet that we inhabit, Earth. If we do not care for the planet, we will see another mass extinction... Humans. We want to see the REAL cost of energy. Cheap may be fine and well, but if we had more public transportation in the US, we would pollute less and have more energy for the future. For example, how many kids suffer from asthma, because of cheap energy?

We could provide cheaper transportation if we had more public transportation too. We give oil and gas companies write offs so that they can provide cheap energy. Now, not only are areas of the county very polluted, but the country is going broke, while these corporations make record profits. These tax breaks could be used to research cleaner technologies, so that we might be able to not have to drive cars, but use public transportation to get to most destinations. There was a pretty good public transportation in Los Angeles, for instance, until right after WWII, when GM bought it. They tore it down, so that people would HAVE to buy cars. Had it been there, and allowed to thrive, the public transportation system in L.A. might have just become more advanced. Perhaps if we didn't give the tax money to the oil companies, we would have it to research this, and implement it. It would be cleaner, more efficient, and save more for future generations.

You really don't get it, do you? Where are you, your kids, or your grandkids gonna live when this planet is too polluted to live on? You can't breathe natural gas. You can't drink cheap oil. You can't eat coal. I suppose you might be able to eat money, but you would have to add nutrients to it.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RoccoR5955]

30. Wrong again!

Corporations do not create jobs. That's the myth. What really created jobs is demand for goods and/or services. You folks always get this wrong. You also believe that corporations should pay no taxes, and should not be responsible for their fair share in things that are provided to all of us by government, like roads, defense, and the like. That's not a reward, that's freeloading on the backs of the less fortunate.

So you believe that the government should allow you to drive as fast as you want, or use your cell phone in your car, regardless to the effect it may have on the safety of others? Nice.

I love it when you and your buddies tell me that I should move to some other place. I will not. I think that we can do better, and will fight to do better. Freedom does not mean that you can harm others. Why not then just make murder legal? Why not make it legal for companies to put whatever they want in your food, without testing its safety? Would that make everyone happy?

Any don't tell me that conservatives don't like big government, when they want to take away a woman's reproductive rights, for instance. That's another conservative lie.


You must be one of those folks who is being paid to post your conservative lies here. So what do they pay, and do they pay by the word, or by the post?
I know that you will lie, and say that they don't. It's part of your modus operandi. I am just seeing if there is any honesty in what you say.

[RickFromMN]

13. I can't speak to the other states, but North Dakota is hardly a Democratic bastion

Democrat Senator Conrad is set to retire in 2012.
In my mind, he is a Blue Dog, in a very, very Red State.

Democrat Senator Dorgan was replaced by Republican John Hoeven.

Democrat House member Pomeroy was replaced by Republican Rick Berg.

For a while, I had this idea to those who oppose Federal Gas taxes or want them reduced.
Why can't Congress prevent states from taxing oil taken from the ground?
Why can't Congress prevent states from having their own gas tax at the pump?
Wouldn't cutting state gas taxes and cutting oil taxes of oil rich states lower the price of gas?
We can say it's in the National Interest. It will lower the cost of energy.

We can use the same arguments used to advocate cutting the Federal Gas tax to cut state gas taxes.
The arguments to cut the Federal Gas tax can be used to cut taxes on oil taken from the ground.

Congress may not have the direct tools to tell states what to tax.
Does Congress have any indirect tools?
Can Congress cut Federal money to states in proportion to the state's oil and gas revenue?

I believe States, and people, when they get money become more Conservative.
They want to hang onto what they have. They stop caring about the less fortunate.
Hit them in the pocketbook. Oil rich states don't need help. They don't need Federal money.

Please understand. If I were King for a Day, I'd raise gas taxes and cut oil subsidies.
I believe we need to find alternatives to our dependence on gas and oil.
My view seems to be a losing argument; why not use the opponent's arguments against them.

[Hugh Everett]

15. Look for little clues.

"My view seems to be a losing argument."

At least you're able to recognize that fact. You're asking Congress to punish the states for producing energy, creating jobs, creating tax revenue, creating wealth, and making the country more energy-independent.

Never mind that the House is now under Republican Rule, and the Senate has a dozen Democrats from energy-producing states. The concept of punishing some states for economic achievement and rewarding other states for union-induced economic inefficiency is what has created the stark contrast between the Sun Belt and the Rust Belt.

What the Obama Administration just did to Boeing and South Carolina will only hasten the rush of American Manufacturing to right-to-work states.

[RickFromMN]

20. It won't be right to work states. It will be outsourcing.

You misunderstand. I believe we need to develop alternative energy.

I believe we need to remove oil subsidies.

One can't argue we should keep oil subsidies,
and at the same time argue we shouldn't fund alternative energy.

I believe, if the Federal government shouldn't tax oil, neither should the states.

Without unions, where would we be? Should we go back to working 60 hours a week?

Before one says that won't happen, I'm in an exempt industry.
Employers didn't "ask" us to work longer than 40 hours,
but they expected us to do an amount of work that can't be done in 40 hours.
My friends and I easily worked 60 to 80 hours a week with no overtime.
When I changed jobs and started working at a start-up, we worked 100+ hours a week.
We got "comp time." There was never a good time to use "comp time" so we would eventually lose it.

The Rust Belt happened, I believe, because manufacturing went overseas.
Car manufacturing went overseas. Jobs went overseas.

One can't argue the Sun Belt can compete with overseas labor any better than the Rust Belt.
Perhaps, through protectionist threats, we can force manufacturers to build in the United States.

I propose the Federal tax on oil should be identical to the state tax on oil for a given state.
If a state doesn't want the Federal government taxing oil,
then all the state would need do is not tax oil taken from within the state.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JJW]

8. Drill Obama, drill!

In 2000, Saudis said they would throttle their valves to control supply and maintain a fair market price of $ 24 per barrel. One can not expect Obama or Holder to find a single crook on Wall Street or any war criminals.

[RoccoR5955]

10. He should be advocating for CONSERVATION, not CONSUMPTION

The more that we consume, the less there will be for the future. The Earth only has finite resources.

[DeSwiss]

22. ....

"....create jobs building solar panels and wind turbines and the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow. Jobs that will help us end our dependence on foreign oil and may save the planet in the process. Rebuilding our crumbling roads and schools and bridges...." "....so we can have a new electricity grid and bring renewable energy to population centers here in Indiana and across America. Build an American infrastructure for the 21st century." - Barack Obama, 2008

- Yeah, right.......