Post by: MechAg94 on June 08, 2008, 08:40:57 AM
Some good information about what we are not doing in domestic oil production.
Quote
By H. STERLING BURNETT
Originally Published in: Houston Chronicle
Shock and awe - we are living it! We stand, mouth agape, staring at the pump at $4 gallons and fast-emptying pocketbooks. Even worse, with crude oil already costing more than $120 a barrel, many predict that this wave has yet to crest.
And while we wait for the price to peak, spending shrinks and the economic outlook worsens. Our energy policies have failed us, and now, we pay the price, literally.
In response, politicians are calling for windfall profits taxes and temporary gas tax holidays. Once again, we're forced to stomach politically motivated, short-term nonanswers instead of long-term solutions.
Here's a thought: Rather than vilifying the oil industry for our sticker shock, let's take a hard look at the actions of our federal government.
For years, we've approached domestic drilling in a politically correct manner, placing caribou on a pedestal while ignoring American consumers and national security. Politicians made a choice to outsource and import, instead of expand and drill. As a result, we fill the coffers of foreign nations instead of boosting American gross domestic product.
In a recent press conference, President Bush suggested drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He might be on to something. Despite the hysterical claims made by environmental lobbyists, oil and the environment can mix. Caribou and other wildlife have expanded and flourished in and around Prudhoe Bay, apparently unaffected by the relatively primitive oil and gas development in the area. And technology in the oil industry has improved mightily in the years since the Arctic slope was first tapped.
Indeed, two leading environmental groups, the Audubon Society and the Nature Conservancy, have allowed oil and gas production on several of their most important and unique nature preserves.
Unfortunately, the Congress also has banned energy exploration in 85 percent of our coastal waters. As a result, while Cuba, in partnership with China, drills closer to the U.S. coastline than we do, the United States goes hat in hand to Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Canada, Nigeria, Mexico and even Iran. Our lawmakers' decision to block domestic access harms both the public and the environment.
Since 1991, oil tankers have spilled three times more oil than offshore platforms. Furthermore, when tankers leak, they tend to do so near shore, resulting in more severe environmental damage. Thus, because platforms are less prone to spills than tankers, increasing the amount of oil produced off America's coast could be environmentally beneficial.
It is estimated that beneath America's coast lies enough oil to fuel 60 million cars in the United States for 60 years - and enough natural gas to heat 60 million homes for 160 years.
Our nation and the world will need significant amounts of oil and natural gas well into the future. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the United States alone will need 19 percent more energy in 2030. Globally, that number jumps to 55 percent.
While renewables and alternatives are a part of tomorrow's energy mix, they cannot represent the entire answer. In the year 2030, those "fuels of the future" will only comprise 9 percent of consumer demand. More than 60 percent of demand will continue to be fulfilled by oil and natural gas. We must take those numbers to heart and remove barriers to domestic drilling.
In China, more than a billion people are beginning to taste unparalleled economic success. Each year, increasing numbers of Chinese demand cars, air conditioning, televisions, refrigerators, personal computers and other electronics. Each of these benefits of progress will require more, not less, energy. And the same story echoes around the globe as economies liberalize and material progress becomes more widespread and the race for energy gets fiercer!
While pundits speculate that America will stay ahead of the curve, thousands of unemployed American workers tell a different story - we are already falling behind the eight ball, and political roadblocks to domestic energy development are partly to blame.
Here's a shocking fact: The world's largest private oil producer, Exxon, ranks just 16th in the world. Government-controlled oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Russia, Mexico and Libya contain more fuel than America's largest oil producer owns.
Yet, if allowed access to American oil reserves in Alaska and off the coast, American oil companies could increase the country's reserves an estimated fivefold, taking the United States from 11th place to fourth among the countries with proven reserves.
The United States is losing the energy race, not because we are being beaten, but because we don't allow domestic companies to compete. For our nation's security, for our consumers' well-being and for our workers' continued economic progress, it's time for Congress to let American companies get in the game. Let the drilling begin.
Burnett is a Senior Fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute based in Dallas. Of the $8.47 million in contributions received last year by the NCPA, $75,000 came from energy related companies.
Originally Published in: Houston Chronicle
Shock and awe - we are living it! We stand, mouth agape, staring at the pump at $4 gallons and fast-emptying pocketbooks. Even worse, with crude oil already costing more than $120 a barrel, many predict that this wave has yet to crest.
And while we wait for the price to peak, spending shrinks and the economic outlook worsens. Our energy policies have failed us, and now, we pay the price, literally.
In response, politicians are calling for windfall profits taxes and temporary gas tax holidays. Once again, we're forced to stomach politically motivated, short-term nonanswers instead of long-term solutions.
Here's a thought: Rather than vilifying the oil industry for our sticker shock, let's take a hard look at the actions of our federal government.
For years, we've approached domestic drilling in a politically correct manner, placing caribou on a pedestal while ignoring American consumers and national security. Politicians made a choice to outsource and import, instead of expand and drill. As a result, we fill the coffers of foreign nations instead of boosting American gross domestic product.
In a recent press conference, President Bush suggested drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He might be on to something. Despite the hysterical claims made by environmental lobbyists, oil and the environment can mix. Caribou and other wildlife have expanded and flourished in and around Prudhoe Bay, apparently unaffected by the relatively primitive oil and gas development in the area. And technology in the oil industry has improved mightily in the years since the Arctic slope was first tapped.
Indeed, two leading environmental groups, the Audubon Society and the Nature Conservancy, have allowed oil and gas production on several of their most important and unique nature preserves.
Unfortunately, the Congress also has banned energy exploration in 85 percent of our coastal waters. As a result, while Cuba, in partnership with China, drills closer to the U.S. coastline than we do, the United States goes hat in hand to Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Canada, Nigeria, Mexico and even Iran. Our lawmakers' decision to block domestic access harms both the public and the environment.
Since 1991, oil tankers have spilled three times more oil than offshore platforms. Furthermore, when tankers leak, they tend to do so near shore, resulting in more severe environmental damage. Thus, because platforms are less prone to spills than tankers, increasing the amount of oil produced off America's coast could be environmentally beneficial.
It is estimated that beneath America's coast lies enough oil to fuel 60 million cars in the United States for 60 years - and enough natural gas to heat 60 million homes for 160 years.
Our nation and the world will need significant amounts of oil and natural gas well into the future. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the United States alone will need 19 percent more energy in 2030. Globally, that number jumps to 55 percent.
While renewables and alternatives are a part of tomorrow's energy mix, they cannot represent the entire answer. In the year 2030, those "fuels of the future" will only comprise 9 percent of consumer demand. More than 60 percent of demand will continue to be fulfilled by oil and natural gas. We must take those numbers to heart and remove barriers to domestic drilling.
In China, more than a billion people are beginning to taste unparalleled economic success. Each year, increasing numbers of Chinese demand cars, air conditioning, televisions, refrigerators, personal computers and other electronics. Each of these benefits of progress will require more, not less, energy. And the same story echoes around the globe as economies liberalize and material progress becomes more widespread and the race for energy gets fiercer!
While pundits speculate that America will stay ahead of the curve, thousands of unemployed American workers tell a different story - we are already falling behind the eight ball, and political roadblocks to domestic energy development are partly to blame.
Here's a shocking fact: The world's largest private oil producer, Exxon, ranks just 16th in the world. Government-controlled oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Russia, Mexico and Libya contain more fuel than America's largest oil producer owns.
Yet, if allowed access to American oil reserves in Alaska and off the coast, American oil companies could increase the country's reserves an estimated fivefold, taking the United States from 11th place to fourth among the countries with proven reserves.
The United States is losing the energy race, not because we are being beaten, but because we don't allow domestic companies to compete. For our nation's security, for our consumers' well-being and for our workers' continued economic progress, it's time for Congress to let American companies get in the game. Let the drilling begin.
Burnett is a Senior Fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute based in Dallas. Of the $8.47 million in contributions received last year by the NCPA, $75,000 came from energy related companies.
Post by: MechAg94 on June 08, 2008, 08:53:14 AM
I caught that link from this Walter Williams column.
Quote
Environmentalists come to their senses when non-drilling philosophy costs them something. It's two-faced hypocrisy. At times I've suggested that the best way to get oil exploration in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve is to give the land to environmentalists. You can bet they wouldn't sit on billions of dollars of oil and gas.
Post by: Tallpine on June 08, 2008, 10:30:13 AM
Or at least they were supposed to be ....
Post by: Standing Wolf on June 08, 2008, 10:32:39 AM
Post by: LAK on June 08, 2008, 10:36:27 AM
---------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.com
Post by: Tallpine on June 08, 2008, 10:41:15 AM
Post by: Parker Dean on June 08, 2008, 12:33:17 PM
At the same time there IS drilling going on in established fields. I'm constantly getting stuck behind rigs and their 20 vehicle support column moving at 45mph on two lane roads (grrrrrr). I also noticed that about every pump I can see from the roads has been refurbished and is pumping. It wasn't like that in the late Nineties. You also can't swing a cat without hitting a crude-gathering truck now.
Post by: HankB on June 08, 2008, 02:53:36 PM
I have a sneaking suspicion that we wouldn't even have to actually do any drilling. Just make it clear that we definitely are going to and I'll bet the bottom drops out of the market.
Yep. The cost of oil is going up because speculators are bidding it up, on the bet that with a Democrat congress there will be NO drilling in ANWR, NO new U.S. drilling in the Gulf or off either coast, NO development of shale fields, NO new nuke plants, NO coal gasification . . . NO . . . . NO . . . NO to 'most everything that might help reduce the US's dependence on foreign energy. 
Post by: Gewehr98 on June 08, 2008, 04:35:43 PM
Drill like there ain't no friggin' tomorrow.
The SUVs (now called FSPs around these parts, for Fuel Sucking Pigs) need every drop, and right now...
Post by: Manedwolf on June 08, 2008, 04:38:34 PM
Post by: RocketMan on June 08, 2008, 04:41:11 PM
The enviros are getting spun up to stop it in court. Any bets on whether they succeed?
Post by: Manedwolf on June 08, 2008, 04:42:42 PM
The first new refinery in over thirty years was just approved in South Dakota. The folks in the county voted last week to allow its construction.
The enviros are getting spun up to stop it in court. Any bets on whether they succeed?
The enviros are getting spun up to stop it in court. Any bets on whether they succeed?
They don't need to stop it. They just need to file greenie and Soros-funded lawsuit after lawsuit until the mounting legal costs cause the oil companies to give up because they're sick of paying legal bills.
(Just watch, they'll find some obscure owl that might or might not exist, and use it as a basis.)
Post by: 41magsnub on June 08, 2008, 04:48:39 PM
The first new refinery in over thirty years was just approved in South Dakota. The folks in the county voted last week to allow its construction.
The enviros are getting spun up to stop it in court. Any bets on whether they succeed?
The enviros are getting spun up to stop it in court. Any bets on whether they succeed?
They don't need to stop it. They just need to file greenie and Soros-funded lawsuit after lawsuit until the mounting legal costs cause the oil companies to give up because they're sick of paying legal bills.
(Just watch, they'll find some obscure owl that might or might not exist, and use it as a basis.)
It's ND.. it will be some obscure species of field mouse or grass.
Post by: grampster on June 08, 2008, 04:49:19 PM
The first new refinery in over thirty years was just approved in South Dakota. The folks in the county voted last week to allow its construction.
The enviros are getting spun up to stop it in court. Any bets on whether they succeed?
The enviros are getting spun up to stop it in court. Any bets on whether they succeed?
They don't need to stop it. They just need to file greenie and Soros-funded lawsuit after lawsuit until the mounting legal costs cause the oil companies to give up because they're sick of paying legal bills.
(Just watch, they'll find some obscure owl that might or might not exist, and use it as a basis.)
And at some point Americans are going to tell the green weenies and their statist judges to bite off and go ahead and do what needs to be done.
Post by: RocketMan on June 08, 2008, 05:07:08 PM
It's ND.. it will be some obscure species of field mouse or grass.
Interesting...Google turned up a story that said SD. Stupid reporters.
Agreement on the field mouse or grass. Or insect, or flower, or bacteria...
Post by: mek42 on June 08, 2008, 05:11:23 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on June 08, 2008, 05:40:10 PM
I realize there is a refinery problem, but we have to start somewhere. Get the drilling/exploration/crude production going. When all the refineries are running at max output and we still have high prices, then we can talk about more plants. It was in the news that most refineries were running at reduced rates the last few months for fear of overtaking the reduced demand.
My company is an industrial gas company that has a lot of refinery customers. Trust me, there is a whole lot of expansion and new unit construction going on all up and down the West Coast and Gulf Coast. I am not sure how much is for more output and how much is for environmental regulations, but there is a lot of activity.
Post by: Ben on June 08, 2008, 05:41:40 PM
Quote
Why not ask the environmentalist lobbying groups to subsidize gasoline
That makes perfect sense, since the countries doing that are either commie or socialist, and the enviro-nazis here are either commies or socialist. Why aren't our domestically grown watermelons jumping on this bandwagon???
Post by: Manedwolf on June 08, 2008, 05:43:20 PM
Quote
Why not ask the environmentalist lobbying groups to subsidize gasoline
That makes perfect sense, since the countries doing that are either commie or socialist, and the enviro-nazis here are either commies or socialist. Why aren't our domestically grown watermelons jumping on this bandwagon???
Liberals don't spend their own money, they spend other peoples', of course.
Look at the relative donations of various leftists vs. others. Unless it's to AHRT, they don't donate much at all.
Post by: grampster on June 08, 2008, 06:24:19 PM
Post by: HankB on June 09, 2008, 03:31:49 AM
The SUVs (now called FSPs around these parts, for Fuel Sucking Pigs)...
Didn't realize you were from San Francisco. 
Post by: Firethorn on June 09, 2008, 04:29:01 AM
It's ND.. it will be some obscure species of field mouse or grass.
I also heard that it was to be placed on an Indian reservation, which kind of short circuits many of the ways the greenies might be able to sue.
Of course, this isn't stopping them: New Refinery Threatens Native Lands
Gotta love how the cleanest refinery yet proposed is threatening... Not to mention the creation of non-casino jobs and such.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 09, 2008, 05:10:54 AM
Post by: charby on June 09, 2008, 05:15:53 AM
This plant is figuring once it is operational it will have 2000+ people on the workforce making $20 or more per hour. This will be such an influx to the area, it will be like the 50-70's again with incomes that people can live on. Those 2000+ jobs will spur job growth in all areas.
I got into a pissing match with a greenie about the refinery and I basically asked them, so what options do you have for incomes for the area. They didn't have an answer and I also told them to get rid of their vehicles so I can have their gas rations when gas starts getting rationed.
It is going to be a boom time for the Sioux City area.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 09, 2008, 07:04:02 AM
Quote
My attorney's ultra liberal wife asked me the other day if I didn't think that I should give up my social security benefit because I had made a good living and have a pension and investments.
Social Security benefits? Why you selfish, unproductive old geezer. Maybe you could explain why the rest of us should bust our humps to support your sorry old ass. All you old people do is clog up everything everywhere you go. You're slow, always in the way, and generally a PITA.
Post by: Scout26 on June 09, 2008, 07:09:32 AM
Of course the record high oil prices are entirely the fault of green/socialist/statist activists, and are not driven by anything like underegulated capitalist market speculation, right?
Google "Supply/Demand Curve". So yes, by .gov artifically limiting supply, the cost goes up. Duh.....
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 09, 2008, 07:21:09 AM
Quote
Google "Supply/Demand Curve". So yes, by .gov the oil industry artificially limiting supply, the cost, along with their record profits, goes up. Duh.....
There. Fixed it for you.
Post by: Scout26 on June 09, 2008, 11:30:05 AM
Quote
Google "Supply/Demand Curve". So yes, by .gov the oil industry artificially limiting supply, the cost, along with their record profits, goes up. Duh.....
There. Fixed it for you.
Ahhhh yes, It's the oil industry that won't let us drill in ANWR or off our coasts. Sorry, my bad....
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 09, 2008, 11:59:03 AM
See how it works?
Post by: Manedwolf on June 09, 2008, 12:01:29 PM
A word from the oil industry can get whatever environmental law that stands in their way repealed.
Well, that's absolutely incorrect. The greenies file lawsuit after lawsuit until the oil companies can't even make a profit, and give up.
Post by: Scout26 on June 10, 2008, 07:08:56 AM
If Big Oil wanted to drill ANWAR, it would be drilled by now. Every so often, their toadies own both houses of Congress and the Whitehouse at the same time. A word from the oil industry can get whatever environmental law that stands in their way repealed. But that hasn't happened because it wouldn't add to their bottom line. More expense and work for no more profit then they 'earn' with $4 gas. Certainly a disservice to their shareholders.
See how it works?
See how it works?
Wow, you really need to loosen up the tinfoil......
Post by: Gewehr98 on June 10, 2008, 08:52:36 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on June 10, 2008, 09:03:17 AM
Not surprisingly, the tar sand camps and isolated towns like one called "Fort Mac" (Fort McMurray) now have lots of alcohol, gambling, and hookers...history repeats itself.
Post by: Firethorn on June 10, 2008, 09:35:12 AM
Of course, their three-month/two year math discounts other sources of oil in the U.S., but it's still a relative drop in the bucket. 10 years to drill and pump, for a small drink of oil to feed a thirsty nation.
Sure, it might take a decade, but a year here, two years there, repeated in a dozen different locations and suddenly we're good for the next 50.
Also, most of those studies were for oil that was economically recoverable at half the price per barrel than what we have today. More and more measures are becoming profitable at today's prices.
Not to mention that we're actually conserving.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 10, 2008, 09:44:05 AM
WHERE DO YOU WANT THIS? UNLOAD WHERE?
Post by: charby on June 10, 2008, 10:29:13 AM
One question I wonder is that if the bubble bursts, and the speculators cannot sell their futures contracts before they expire and they have to take delivery...what is an office-only operation going to do? If you know how commodities markets work and all...
WHERE DO YOU WANT THIS? UNLOAD WHERE?
WHERE DO YOU WANT THIS? UNLOAD WHERE?
I think its going to be more like this if every ship in the photo is a tanker.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 10, 2008, 10:35:09 AM
The tar sand areas of Canada are apparently a new gold rush. Little towns springing up, six figure salaries for the people qualified to operate the massive scoop equipment. Or, for contracted, $60 to $90 an hour.
Not surprisingly, the tar sand camps and isolated towns like one called "Fort Mac" (Fort McMurray) now have lots of alcohol, gambling, and hookers...history repeats itself.
Hey, that sounds like loads of fun! What skills does one need? Not surprisingly, the tar sand camps and isolated towns like one called "Fort Mac" (Fort McMurray) now have lots of alcohol, gambling, and hookers...history repeats itself.
(Because I know you guys: Skills to run the equipment. Not for being a hooker
)
Post by: Manedwolf on June 10, 2008, 10:37:00 AM
The tar sand areas of Canada are apparently a new gold rush. Little towns springing up, six figure salaries for the people qualified to operate the massive scoop equipment. Or, for contracted, $60 to $90 an hour.
Not surprisingly, the tar sand camps and isolated towns like one called "Fort Mac" (Fort McMurray) now have lots of alcohol, gambling, and hookers...history repeats itself.
Hey, that sounds like loads of fun! What skills does one need? Not surprisingly, the tar sand camps and isolated towns like one called "Fort Mac" (Fort McMurray) now have lots of alcohol, gambling, and hookers...history repeats itself.
(Because I know you guys: Skills to run the equipment. Not for being a hooker
)I'm not sure, but everything involved is big. They use the kind of heavy equipment that could pick up, say, a town. Which means you can't screw up, or people get squished. Google for more about the area, lots of people are apparently chasing their fortunes there.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 10, 2008, 10:43:41 AM
The tar sand areas of Canada are apparently a new gold rush. Little towns springing up, six figure salaries for the people qualified to operate the massive scoop equipment. Or, for contracted, $60 to $90 an hour.
Not surprisingly, the tar sand camps and isolated towns like one called "Fort Mac" (Fort McMurray) now have lots of alcohol, gambling, and hookers...history repeats itself.
Hey, that sounds like loads of fun! What skills does one need? Not surprisingly, the tar sand camps and isolated towns like one called "Fort Mac" (Fort McMurray) now have lots of alcohol, gambling, and hookers...history repeats itself.
(Because I know you guys: Skills to run the equipment. Not for being a hooker
)I'm not sure, but everything involved is big. They use the kind of heavy equipment that could pick up, say, a town. Which means you can't screw up, or people get squished. Google for more about the area, lots of people are apparently chasing their fortunes there.
Post by: De Selby on June 10, 2008, 11:54:22 AM
A word from the oil industry can get whatever environmental law that stands in their way repealed.
Well, that's absolutely incorrect. The greenies file lawsuit after lawsuit until the oil companies can't even make a profit, and give up.
Where are these lawsuits? I've never heard of such a thing.Usually those lawsuits that are filed are based on either a massive spill, or a government regulation that the oil industries have more than enough lobbying power to change.
"greenie lawsuits" bankrupting oil companies or even slowing them down? I'd like to see some evidence of this ever having happened.
Post by: anygunanywhere on June 10, 2008, 02:25:59 PM
During the Katrina and Rita hurricanes, thousands of wells and hundreds of platforms were severely damaged and not one single incident of spilled oil was ever reported.
If California and Florida or any other state does not allow drilling or refining they should not receive any gas, period.
Anygunanywhere
Post by: Gewehr98 on June 10, 2008, 03:22:31 PM
Don't say it doesn't happen, because it does.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on June 10, 2008, 03:30:25 PM
The tar sand areas of Canada are apparently a new gold rush. Little towns springing up, six figure salaries for the people qualified to operate the massive scoop equipment. Or, for contracted, $60 to $90 an hour.
Not surprisingly, the tar sand camps and isolated towns like one called "Fort Mac" (Fort McMurray) now have lots of alcohol, gambling, and hookers...history repeats itself.
Hey, that sounds like loads of fun! What skills does one need? Not surprisingly, the tar sand camps and isolated towns like one called "Fort Mac" (Fort McMurray) now have lots of alcohol, gambling, and hookers...history repeats itself.
(Because I know you guys: Skills to run the equipment. Not for being a hooker
)I'm not sure, but everything involved is big. They use the kind of heavy equipment that could pick up, say, a town. Which means you can't screw up, or people get squished. Google for more about the area, lots of people are apparently chasing their fortunes there.
Post by: De Selby on June 10, 2008, 03:34:29 PM
There's a big lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club right now, against the coal-fired electrical plants here in Wisconsin.
Don't say it doesn't happen, because it does.
Don't say it doesn't happen, because it does.
It certainly happens sometimes-but not to the extent that we're talking bankrupting the oil companies, unless you're talking about lawsuits over major spills of oil. It's difficult to file an "environmental" lawsuit even when there is an oil spill and be successful.
Post by: doc2rn on June 10, 2008, 04:19:08 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on June 10, 2008, 07:15:19 PM
I bet they make speculating illegal, and then go after people who manipulated the price to where it is now.
Very bad idea. You need speculators in the futures market to provide liquidity. It wouldn't be much of a market without buyers and sellers.There will be an oil futures market, and it will have speculators. Count on it. Now, as for whether that market remains here in the US or moves to Dubai, that's for our blockheaded Democrat congrescritters to decide.
And nobody "manipulated" the price to where it is today. Lots of people think they can make a buck, so they're buying. (A good many of them are going to find out that they were wrong, but that's another subject.) Buying and selling isn't manipulation. Trading is simply something free people sometimes choose to do with their money.
Post by: RocketMan on June 10, 2008, 07:40:00 PM
There's a big lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club right now, against the coal-fired electrical plants here in Wisconsin.
Don't say it doesn't happen, because it does.
Don't say it doesn't happen, because it does.
It certainly happens sometimes-but not to the extent that we're talking bankrupting the oil companies, unless you're talking about lawsuits over major spills of oil. It's difficult to file an "environmental" lawsuit even when there is an oil spill and be successful.
You're not paying attention. Those lawsuits are filed frequently. Do a little looking, Google being your friend and all.
And no one said anything about them bankrupting oil companies.
Post by: De Selby on June 10, 2008, 08:49:53 PM
There's a big lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club right now, against the coal-fired electrical plants here in Wisconsin.
Don't say it doesn't happen, because it does.
Don't say it doesn't happen, because it does.
It certainly happens sometimes-but not to the extent that we're talking bankrupting the oil companies, unless you're talking about lawsuits over major spills of oil. It's difficult to file an "environmental" lawsuit even when there is an oil spill and be successful.
You're not paying attention. Those lawsuits are filed frequently. Do a little looking, Google being your friend and all.
And no one said anything about them bankrupting oil companies.
I was responding to this from Manedwolf:
Quote
Well, that's absolutely incorrect. The greenies file lawsuit after lawsuit until the oil companies can't even make a profit, and give up.
The only lawsuits that actually have serious cash at stake are the ones involving damages due to spills. I guess if we prohibited anyone from suing oil companies for damages due to spills they would save money, but would they pass that on to the consumer?
Google isn't terribly good at yielding trends in the judiciary, I'm afraid.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 10, 2008, 09:49:21 PM
Quote
Representative Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) says he plans to introduce legislation to target speculation through swaps, foreign exchanges, and over-the-counter trades. Last month, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), and others unveiled the Consumer-First Energy Act, which would mandate higher cash collateral for energy futures trading and ban traders of U.S. crude oil from routing their transactions through offshore markets. And Representative John Larson (D-Conn.) is expected to propose legislation that would go a step further, effectively banning over-the-counter energy futures trading by those who don't take physical delivery of the commodity.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2008/db20080610_657041.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_news+%2B+analysis
Oh, good god, these idiots are going to cause the commodities exchange to move to Dubai and things to be traded in Euros, and will shove US crude off the global market table. Someone make them take economics 101 before they kill the economy completely.
Post by: LAK on June 11, 2008, 01:49:12 AM
Quote
I bet they make speculating illegal, and then go after people who manipulated the price to where it is now.
Who? Congress? They should - and highly unlikely.It is arguable which industry - legal or illegal - occupies the number one position in accumilated profit (and hence private wealth) over the last one hundred years. However, it is safe to say that oil is in the top tier because of the sheer volume since it's beginning. With that kind of buying power it is not likely that the benefactors (over and under the table) are going to attack mother goose laying the golden eggs.
-------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Ben on June 11, 2008, 04:32:44 AM
Quote
The only lawsuits that actually have serious cash at stake are the ones involving damages due to spills.
The VAST majority of damages dough oil companies and shipping companies pay out after a spill go to various Federal and State natural resource funds. I guarantee the gov will not stop collecting these funds from the Responsible Party after a spill, so no help to consumers by eliminating lawsuits. The oil companies pay to keep an entire branch (OSPR, Office of Spill Prevention and Response) of the CA State govt employed, and they are the best funded branch with the most toys. You'll not be seeing that end anytime soon.
Post by: RocketMan on June 11, 2008, 05:04:18 AM
I was responding to this from Manedwolf:
The only lawsuits that actually have serious cash at stake are the ones involving damages due to spills. I guess if we prohibited anyone from suing oil companies for damages due to spills they would save money, but would they pass that on to the consumer?
Google isn't terribly good at yielding trends in the judiciary, I'm afraid.
Quote
Well, that's absolutely incorrect. The greenies file lawsuit after lawsuit until the oil companies can't even make a profit, and give up.
The only lawsuits that actually have serious cash at stake are the ones involving damages due to spills. I guess if we prohibited anyone from suing oil companies for damages due to spills they would save money, but would they pass that on to the consumer?
Google isn't terribly good at yielding trends in the judiciary, I'm afraid.
Again, lawsuits bankrupting oil companies was not mentioned.
Post by: Scout26 on June 11, 2008, 06:18:28 AM
I was responding to this from Manedwolf:
The only lawsuits that actually have serious cash at stake are the ones involving damages due to spills. I guess if we prohibited anyone from suing oil companies for damages due to spills they would save money, but would they pass that on to the consumer?
Google isn't terribly good at yielding trends in the judiciary, I'm afraid.
Quote
Well, that's absolutely incorrect. The greenies file lawsuit after lawsuit until the oil companies can't even make a profit, and give up.
The only lawsuits that actually have serious cash at stake are the ones involving damages due to spills. I guess if we prohibited anyone from suing oil companies for damages due to spills they would save money, but would they pass that on to the consumer?
Google isn't terribly good at yielding trends in the judiciary, I'm afraid.
Again, lawsuits bankrupting oil companies was not mentioned.
It's not just lawsuits. It's getting every .gov agency involved and demanding hearing after report after study after hearing after report after study after hearing after report. Death by a thousand cuts.
see http://www.refineryreform.org/ for how it's done.
Post by: Firethorn on June 11, 2008, 06:27:59 AM
Again, lawsuits bankrupting oil companies was not mentioned.
Bingo. The biggest goal of greenie lawsuits is not to get money. It's not even to cost the oil companies significant amounts of legal fees. It's to cause delays. Delay, delay, delay. Protest about this or that semi-endangered animal. If the oil company proposes building more habitat in a 2 for 1 swap, go for a 10 to 1.
Time = money. Make it painful enough the company will either go away to somewhere more profitable or just give up because that particular path isn't economically exploitable.
Kinda like how many nuclear plants ended up costing billions more - the greenies could shut down construction with a simple letter, sometimes for weeks. Meanwhile construction crews sat idle, the opening of the plant and the subsequent selling of power delayed, etc...
Scout26 has it.
Post by: roo_ster on June 11, 2008, 11:52:30 AM
As I was munching on a burger at Culver's yesterday, CNN was reporting that the reserves in the ANWR would provide between three months to two year's worth of crude at our current consumption rate of 7 billion barrels/year. The ANWR estimates range from somewhere between 1.9 billion to possibly as much as 16 billion barrels. Of course, their three-month/two year math discounts other sources of oil in the U.S., but it's still a relative drop in the bucket. 10 years to drill and pump, for a small drink of oil to feed a thirsty nation. Interesting, and almost in the Chinese meaning of the word.
And if we had started the work on ANWR back when it was proposed, over ten years ago, that oil would be flowing as we pound on our keyboards...
Besides, drilling in ANWR is less about the oil under ANWR than it is about attitude. As long as the green weenies rule the roost and keep it from happening, every other agent in the energy industry (from producers, to refiners, to speculators) know that we are not yet serious about any new production or exploiting known resources, such as the tar sands, oil shale, or the oil in the Gulf of Mexico (that Cuba will have no problem drilling for).
Post by: De Selby on June 11, 2008, 12:28:51 PM
Quote
The only lawsuits that actually have serious cash at stake are the ones involving damages due to spills.
The VAST majority of damages dough oil companies and shipping companies pay out after a spill go to various Federal and State natural resource funds. I guarantee the gov will not stop collecting these funds from the Responsible Party after a spill, so no help to consumers by eliminating lawsuits. The oil companies pay to keep an entire branch (OSPR, Office of Spill Prevention and Response) of the CA State govt employed, and they are the best funded branch with the most toys. You'll not be seeing that end anytime soon.
Agreed-which makes the rumors about lawsuits shutting down oil companies even more puzzling.
Rocketman,
We must be reading that differently. I understand "can't make a profit" to mean "oil companies spend more than they make", which would mean insolvency...
Post by: Scout26 on June 11, 2008, 12:35:50 PM
All those enviro-weenie tactics are designed to delay and drive up the cost of exploration and production.
Just who ultimately pays for it ?? .......at the pump.......