Obama, Democrats, Oil, Ruined Economy

[Opinion]

I have heard that if Obama wins and the Democrats control Congress they will reverse and stop oil drilling.

Between 50% to 70% of our trade deficit is oil related. We are sending the wealth of this nation overseas to many who don't like us!

Opec is moving to try to keep gas prices over $3 a gallon. The high oil and gas prices will continue to weaken our economy.

US energy independence means:
jobs here
taxes from energy companies going to our government
strategic security
potential less involvement in the Middle East
the wealth of this nation staying home

Should the US ignore our resources of minerals, timber, agriculture and fishing? Well, oil/shale oil/coal are among our largest resources that we are ignoring to our impoverishment.

How can Obama and the Democrats be thought to have a better understanding of the economy when they don't understand the consequences of the US sitting on large energy reserves while we send our wealth overseas.

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by Opinion

I have heard that if Obama wins and the Democrats control Congress they will reverse and stop oil drilling.

So do you take this that you heard to be fact?
Where does alternative energy fit in this, that you heard? zg

[shadroch]

I have heard that if the Republicans win, McSame will leave his wife( yet again) and shack up with Sarah Palin. Cindy McSame will run off with Todd
who'll be appointed the US Ambassador to Fiji.

[Unshake]

Originally Posted by Opinion

I have heard that if Obama wins and the Democrats control Congress they will reverse and stop oil drilling.

Between 50% to 70% of our trade deficit is oil related. We are sending the wealth of this nation overseas to many who don't like us!

Opec is moving to try to keep gas prices over $3 a gallon. The high oil and gas prices will continue to weaken our economy.

US energy independence means:
jobs here
taxes from energy companies going to our government
strategic security
potential less involvement in the Middle East
the wealth of this nation staying home

Should the US ignore our resources of minerals, timber, agriculture and fishing? Well, oil/shale oil/coal are among our largest resources that we are ignoring to our impoverishment.

How can Obama and the Democrats be thought to have a better understanding of the economy when they don't understand the consequences of the US sitting on large energy reserves while we send our wealth overseas.

I agree that too much is being sent overseas but 1/3 of our oil imports are from Canada, Mexico, and the United Kingdom. The fact of the matter is that there isn't an easy fix to the energy situation.

[Opinion]

Originally Posted by zengrifter

So do you take this that you heard to be fact?
Where does alternative energy fit in this, that you heard? zg

I am for doing everything to become energy independent!
With alternative energy it seems to always need a government subsidy. I am more free market. However, for strategic interests it may be time for the government to turn the southwest into a solar panel sea and texas into a wind farm

T Boone Pickens is also for drilling and alternatives.

The Democrats are historically anti drilling, why would anything be different when they are in charge?

[Opinion]

Originally Posted by Unshake

I agree that too much is being sent overseas but 1/3 of our oil imports are from Canada, Mexico, and the United Kingdom. The fact of the matter is that there isn't an easy fix to the energy situation.

Because something is not easy it should not be done? The costs in wealth to this nation and the strategic issues make action imperative.

Those who scream no blood for oil, had better let the US use our vast energy resources or blood will be on the sand!

You did not mention Venezuela, we also get oil from them while they threaten to cut us off, make arms deals with Russia, allow Russian naval ships to anchor; Monroe Doctrine anyone?, and visit with Iranian leaders and talk about the downfall of the USA.

[Unshake]

Originally Posted by Opinion

Because something is not easy it should not be done? The costs in wealth to this nation and the strategic issues make action imperative.

Those who scream no blood for oil, had better let the US use our vast energy resources or blood will be on the sand!

You did not mention Venezuela, we also get oil from them while they threaten to cut us off, make arms deals with Russia, allow Russian naval ships to anchor; Monroe Doctrine anyone?, and visit with Iranian leaders and talk about the downfall of the USA.

My argument wasn't that because something is not easy it should be done. It was that neither candidate will be able to fix the energy problem, because there is no long term solution.

Do you think providing billions in tax cuts to oil companies will help the situation?

[Opinion]

Originally Posted by Unshake

My argument wasn't that because something is not easy it should be done. It was that neither candidate will be able to fix the energy problem, because there is no long term solution.

Do you think providing billions in tax cuts to oil companies will help the situation?

Supposedly we can expand drilling with results in the Gulf in one year because a lot of facilities in the Gulf are already present.

With the way oil markets work as soon as there is real commitment on our part to drill prices will come down.

As we start to drill that will become a new strategic oil reserve. We tapped into our strategic reserve during the Summer price shock.

I am more free market, companies should stand or fall based on their products and services and not government handouts.

However, for strategic considerations it may be needed for the government to help companies provide more energy, whether that is green or proven technology.

If we do nothing is it more or less likely we will face more supply shocks and weakening of our economy while those of Russia, Iran and Venezuela get stronger due to high oil prices?

The greens might have done the country a service and not realized it by delaying the use of our resources. As time goes by our natural resources go up in value and if/when we do use them they will have more value. if the US becomes the last major holder of energy reserves we would have a major strategic advantage.

[Unshake]

Originally Posted by Opinion

Supposedly we can expand drilling with results in the Gulf in one year because a lot of facilities in the Gulf are already present.

With the way oil markets work as soon as there is real commitment on our part to drill prices will come down.

As we start to drill that will become a new strategic oil reserve. We tapped into our strategic reserve during the Summer price shock.

I am more free market, companies should stand or fall based on their products and services and not government handouts.

However, for strategic considerations it may be needed for the government to help companies provide more energy, whether that is green or proven technology.

If we do nothing is it more or less likely we will face more supply shocks and weakening of our economy while those of Russia, Iran and Venezuela get stronger due to high oil prices?

The greens might have done the country a service and not realized it by delaying the use of our resources. As time goes by our natural resources go up in value and if/when we do use them they will have more value. if the US becomes the last major holder of energy reserves we would have a major strategic advantage.

I remembered reading this a couple months ago... From TIME:

even if tomorrow we opened up every square mile of the outer continental shelf to offshore rigs, even if we drilled the entire state of Alaska and pulled new refineries out of thin air, the impact on gas prices would be minimal and delayed at best. A 2004 study by the government's Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that drilling in ANWR would trim the price of gas by 3.5 cents a gallon by 2027. (If oil prices continue to skyrocket, the savings would be greater, but not by much.) Opening up offshore areas to oil exploration — currently all coastal areas save a section of the Gulf of Mexico are off-limits, thanks to a congressional ban enacted in 1982 and supplemented by an executive order from the first President Bush — might cut the price of gas by 3 to 4 cents a gallon at most, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. And the relief at the pump, such as it is, wouldn't be immediate — it would take several years, at least, for the oil to begin to flow, which is time enough for increased demand from China, India and the rest of the world to outpace those relatively meager savings. "Right now the price of oil is set on the global market," says Kevin Lindemer, executive managing director of the energy markets group for the research firm Global Insight. President Bush's move "would not have an impact."

The reason is simple: the U.S. has an estimated 3% of global petroleum reserves but consumes 24% of the world's oil. Offshore territories and public lands like ANWR that don't allow drilling may contain up to 75 billion barrels of oil, according to the EIA. That may sound like a lot, but it's not enough to make a significant difference in a world where global oil demand is expected to rise 30% by 2030, to nearly 120 million barrels a day. At best, greatly expanding domestic drilling might eventually lower the proportion of oil the U.S. imports — currently about 60% of its total supply — but petroleum is a global commodity, and the world market would soak up any additional American production. "This is a drop in the bucket," says Gernot Wagner, an economist with the Environmental Defense Fund.


Oil is a GLOBAL market.

[GeorgeD]

Originally Posted by zengrifter

So do you take this that you heard to be fact?
Where does alternative energy fit in this, that you heard? zg

Heard it from his mechanic.
He changes oil on 5-6 cars a day so who knows more about oil?

The alternator energy is up under the hood -- it charges the battery.

Must we explain EVERYTHING to you Zen?
What're you smoking or dropping lately?