New deepwater drilling permits: Zilch

[Barbbtx]

You might want to direct your outrage at BP instead of Obama. They created the mess.

BP created a mess, Obama made it much much worse.
Blaming it all on BP is like blaming our economy all on Bush......never mind, libs do that too.

 

[Deuce]

We don't know how much oil is still to be found.
That aside, we are working on new kinds of energy all the time. Who knows what our oil needs will be 20 yrs from now? I'm up there in yrs a bit and I remember as a kid , we were always about to run out of oil.
We need to start using all of our own resources while working on newer, greener (gawd, I'm starting to hate the word green), energy.
Drill here drill now!
If we vote in another frigging liberal in 2012, we'll deserve whatever we get.

Yes, those liberals just HATE green energy!

 

[Hatuey]

Well, perhaps not ........... but, you are aware of China cornering the mining of rare-earth metals ? Owning about 97% of it as we type ? And that the U.S. is loathe to develop its own rare-earth resources due to severe EPA restrictions.

Them's the facts. Funny how it all works, eh ?

The problem with your argument is that you fail to understand that nobody wants a lanthanite mine behind their house because of what it does to the land. China produced 97% of rare earth minerals and that's simply because China started outguessed the majority of the world on the importance of these metals as far back as the 70s. It's also poisoned the drinking water of millions and destroyed hundreds of villages in its drive to extract these minerals. The U.S. is in the position where it holds lanthanite mines but doesn't have any infrastructure in place to actually extract it and even if it did it would take up to 20 years for the minerals to make it to a product. Not to mention that well, nobody wants a lanthanite mine in their backyard because of the environmental consequences. You can talk about oil independence all you want but if somebody decides to stick a refinery on your front porch you'll be angry as hell and that goes for the majority of Americans regardless of where they stand on the political scale. Nancy Pelosi doesn't want a wind turbine ruining her view of San Fran anymore than Sarah Palin wants an oil refinery blocking her view of Russia.

 

[Wiseone]

I don't think I am. There are untapped, and undeveloped resources in the upper Mid West, as well as Alaska.

But its just speculation, nothing has been proven beyond what the CIA factbook has. Now I don't doubt that in all of America's holdings there is yet undiscovered, however you can't say that its a fact that the US has the largest reserves when all you are basing it on is speculation.

The same goes for your other argument, you are SPECULATING. You are assuming there will be new technologies in the future, you are assuming the rate of oil consumption stays similar, you are assuming and speculating about everything having to do with the future.

I've got the only argument which uses actual facts and numbers, and that argument says that given no increase in oil consumption the US can sustain itself for 26 years assuming no other reserves are found. However I doubt you'll argue that new reserves will suddenly take that number from 26 to infinity.

The US needs to start finding new energy sources and it needs to do it while maintaining a safe and reasonable level of oil production in our own borders. We cannot simply drill everything and drill it all immediately because than we'll be using our last reserves as fast as possible, if we don't find that solution in 26 years than we'll be back in the stone age. The goal should be to prolong our oil reserves as long as possible to give us the most time possible to find a replacement

 

[j-mac]

But its just speculation, nothing has been proven beyond what the CIA factbook has. Now I don't doubt that in all of America's holdings there is yet undiscovered, however you can't say that its a fact that the US has the largest reserves when all you are basing it on is speculation.

It is only speculation because forces prevent actual exploration to confirm, isn't that true?

The same goes for your other argument, you are SPECULATING. You are assuming there will be new technologies in the future, you are assuming the rate of oil consumption stays similar, you are assuming and speculating about everything having to do with the future.

No, this is the part that you and others ignore about my argument. I am for ALL OF THE ABOVE! Period. But I am realistic that we can NOT shut off the spigot of energy we use, and rely on now, for some untested, unproven pipe dream immediately. Develop every idea out there, and get it going. Meanwhile, reduce our dependance on foreign sources by increasing our own production, convert to Natural Gas what can be converted, and get going yesterday on nuclear power.

I've got the only argument which uses actual facts and numbers, and that argument says that given no increase in oil consumption the US can sustain itself for 26 years assuming no other reserves are found. However I doubt you'll argue that new reserves will suddenly take that number from 26 to infinity.

26 years is a static number without realistic factors like exploration, and development of other sources. In any case that is plenty of time.

The US needs to start finding new energy sources and it needs to do it while maintaining a safe and reasonable level of oil production in our own borders.

What's reasonable?

We cannot simply drill everything and drill it all immediately because than we'll be using our last reserves as fast as possible, if we don't find that solution in 26 years than we'll be back in the stone age. The goal should be to prolong our oil reserves as long as possible to give us the most time possible to find a replacement

If you have doubts that we can do it within 26 years, why in the world are you pushing for implementation of unproven technology now?

j-mac

 

[Wiseone]

I'm not pushing for the implementation of unproven technology. 26 years is the best number with the current data, making guesses about future demand or future supply is simply speculation. It does NOT matter whether or not the law or any other factor will allow you to confirm or deny your speculation it is still ONLY speculation.

Now we agree on the major point that the US needs to develop new forms of energy, however I don't think you understand the massive task that involves. The entire global economy is structured around energy and oil makes up a massive part of that, 26 years in my opinion is NOT a safe net to simply ASSUME and SPECULATE that new technologies will emerge in that time which will remove our need for oil.

What I'm saying is that those US reserves need to be used sparingly over time so as to give us the greatest amount of time possible to develop those new technologies. Thats the reasonable course of action.

 

[j-mac]

I'm not pushing for the implementation of unproven technology. 26 years is the best number with the current data, making guesses about future demand or future supply is simply speculation. It does NOT matter whether or not the law or any other factor will allow you to confirm or deny your speculation it is still ONLY speculation.

Now we agree on the major point that the US needs to develop new forms of energy, however I don't think you understand the massive task that involves. The entire global economy is structured around energy and oil makes up a massive part of that, 26 years in my opinion is NOT a safe net to simply ASSUME and SPECULATE that new technologies will emerge in that time which will remove our need for oil.

What I'm saying is that those US reserves need to be used sparingly over time so as to give us the greatest amount of time possible to develop those new technologies. Thats the reasonable course of action.

Would you agree that making us more reliant on foreign sources for our oil is a national security situation? And if so, why would you tie the hands of those wanting to develop our own sources?


j-mac

 

[USA_1]

BP created a mess, Obama made it much much worse.
Blaming it all on BP is like blaming our economy all on Bush......never mind, libs do that too.

How did Obama make it worse? BP is to blame for the spill and the consequences of that spill that followed.
You listen to too many right wingnuts.

 

[USA_1]

Would you agree that making us more reliant on foreign sources for our oil is a national security situation? And if so, why would you tie the hands of those wanting to develop our own sources?


j-mac

And why didn't the republicans address the issue during the 6 years they had total control?

They know we can not drill our way to energy independance.

 

[Jetboogieman]

BP created a mess, Obama made it much much worse.
Blaming it all on BP is like blaming our economy all on Bush......never mind, libs do that too.

Obama made it worse?

Jesus christ.

Funny though, I was in the pub one day and I was talking to two oil workers who work up in Alberta. And they reckon they'd never, ever, ever want to work with BP. They reckon BP is one of the worst companies for safety violations and they have been for a long time.

What the **** did Obama do to make it worse?

Oh thats right, he didn't, you just wanted to fill the partisan hack quota for this thread.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

The problem with your argument is that you fail to understand that nobody wants a lanthanite mine behind their house because of what it does to the land. China produced 97% of rare earth minerals and that's simply because China started outguessed the majority of the world on the importance of these metals as far back as the 70s. It's also poisoned the drinking water of millions and destroyed hundreds of villages in its drive to extract these minerals. The U.S. is in the position where it holds lanthanite mines but doesn't have any infrastructure in place to actually extract it and even if it did it would take up to 20 years for the minerals to make it to a product. Not to mention that well, nobody wants a lanthanite mine in their backyard because of the environmental consequences. You can talk about oil independence all you want but if somebody decides to stick a refinery on your front porch you'll be angry as hell and that goes for the majority of Americans regardless of where they stand on the political scale. Nancy Pelosi doesn't want a wind turbine ruining her view of San Fran anymore than Sarah Palin wants an oil refinery blocking her view of Russia.

With all due respect, we are able to mine the stuff, and it does not require going into folk's back-yards. Whether China wants to do it as haphazard as they have is up to them. The bottom line is that we are dependent on them for rare-earth metals, which are vital to just about all of our electronic manufacturing. And we are dependent on others for petroleum, as this thread topic illustrates. Why does anyone need attack the U.S. now as they can just turn off any number of spigots if ever they need to up the ante ?

This is part of our national security. And the liberal argument seems to be "why bother". :roll:

 

[Barbbtx]

Yes, those liberals just HATE green energy!

I used to be be an environmentalist. Now I'm just so sick of the Global Warming hoax, and gov. wanting to control everything in our lives, that I sometimes purposely throw recyclables in the garbage.:twisted:

 

[Jetboogieman]

I used to be be an environmentalist. Now I'm just so sick of the Global Warming hoax, and gov. wanting to control everything in our lives, that I sometimes purposely throw recyclables in the garbage.:twisted:

So you're not gonna tell me how Obama made it worse?

Aw. I'm sad now.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

I'm not pushing for the implementation of unproven technology. 26 years is the best number with the current data, making guesses about future demand or future supply is simply speculation. It does NOT matter whether or not the law or any other factor will allow you to confirm or deny your speculation it is still ONLY speculation.

Now we agree on the major point that the US needs to develop new forms of energy, however I don't think you understand the massive task that involves. The entire global economy is structured around energy and oil makes up a massive part of that, 26 years in my opinion is NOT a safe net to simply ASSUME and SPECULATE that new technologies will emerge in that time which will remove our need for oil.

What I'm saying is that those US reserves need to be used sparingly over time so as to give us the greatest amount of time possible to develop those new technologies. Thats the reasonable course of action.

Agreed. And IMMHO, nuclear (see France) and clean coal it will be, not windmills and solar, which are about as useless as it gets (see Spain). However, despite the talk, Obama has stifled nuclear and coal. Look at Yucca Mountain. Which, in wasting time doing essentially nothing, and applying the old adage of "you're either getting better, or you're getting worse", we are getting worse. It is all about him pandering to his left-fringe loonies.

And back to the point of the thread, we are drilling less now. Because of Obama.

 

[Hatuey]

With all due respect, we are able to mine the stuff,

Actually, even if we were it wouldn't mean much in the short run or in the long one. We simply don't produce enough electronics to make it viable and even if we did it would still take 15 years for us to start seeing some kind of profit.

DailyTech - China's Stranglehold on Rare Earth Metals Could Choke EV, Hybrids

The bottom line is that China outguessed the U.S. and the rest of the world, wisely recognizing the value of the resource in 1980s and early 90s and committing to the expensive up front investment to harvest them. Now 10 to 15 years later, it is reaping the rewards, while the U.S. is left wondering what to do.

China is well aware of its position and plans to fully exploit it now. Former Communist Party leader Deng Xiaoping remarked some time ago, "There is oil in the Middle East, there are rare-earths in China; we must take full advantage of this resource."

Bryce warns that the rush to EVs and hybrids may put the U.S. in a bind. He states, "In this headlong rush to go ‘green,’ we are essentially trading one type of import reliance for another. We are going to be more dependent on a single market, where there’s no transparency and one dominant market player who happens to own most of our debt already."

Troubled mine holds hope for U.S. rare earth industry « The Washington Independent

Despite Molycorp’s goals, experts suggest that it will take many years to develop a U.S. REE industry. Yaron Vorona, executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security’s Technology and Rare Earth Metals Center, cited an April 2010 Government Accountability Office report that says it could take 15 years to develop a U.S. rare earth industry.

Vorona says the U.S. has a lack of scientific knowledge about REEs because most scientists went to China to continue their work on the minerals decades ago. “If the mines that are being planned were all to come online tomorrow that would be fantastic, but there would be nobody to run them,” Vorona said, noting that China has 100,000 rare earth scientists.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

Actually, even if we were it wouldn't mean much in the short run or in the long one. We simply don't produce enough electronics to make it viable and even if we did it would still take 15 years for us to start seeing some kind of profit.

I think that misses the mark. We are reliant on other countries right now, hopefully mostly friendly, for products that require REE. Our high-tech military is certainly reliant on them. However, China now controls the choke-point with its monopoly. I hope that we are not yet ready to condemn our future to delivering pizza, and that we could become a bit of a manufacturing power again. We already saw China use their REE monopoly against Japan a few months back.

These resources, REE and petroleum, do have real national security concerns with regard to our economy. My argument for domestic oil was not price, as I do know better. It was economic security. I was one who waited in gas lines in 74.

 

[USA_1]

I used to be be an environmentalist. Now I'm just so sick of the Global Warming hoax, and gov. wanting to control everything in our lives, that I sometimes purposely throw recyclables in the garbage.:twisted:

That's a bunch of baloney.

 

[Dittohead not!]

That's a bunch of baloney.

And it's recycled baloney. We hear it over and over again.

 

[Barbbtx]

So you're not gonna tell me how Obama made it worse?

Aw. I'm sad now.

I thought it was obvious. He killed thousands of jobs.
That wasn't BP's fault.

 

[Deuce]

That's a bunch of baloney.

Actually, some studies show this to be common among conservatives. They'll be intentional wasteful or destructive just to spite liberals.

 

[apdst]

Amazing how Libbos come out, to defend Obama's lies, that killed tens of thousands of oilfield job and affected hundreds of thouands of more jobs.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Amazing how Libbos come out, to defend Obama's lies, that killed tens of thousands of oilfield job and affected hundreds of thouands of more jobs.

Maybe they believe in the myth of the oil spill. Non Libbos know that the spill was a hoax, just like climate change.

 

[j-mac]

Maybe they believe in the myth of the oil spill. Non Libbos know that the spill was a hoax, just like climate change.

that's what Obama and his cronies must believe. I haven't heard much about the mega spill in the Gulf, have you? Gheeze so much crude spilled, and was going to effect the eco system for hundreds of years, now all the sudden it disappeared? Must be nice to be a liberal, and live so disconnected from reality.


j-mac

 

[FederalRepublic]

...however you can't say that its a fact that the US has the largest reserves when all you are basing it on is speculation.

He did not say the US has the largest reserves.

...we sit above some of the largest reserves in the world...

 

[FederalRepublic]

So you're not gonna tell me how Obama made it worse?

Aw. I'm sad now.

He made it worse by willfully slowing the cleanup effort and, worse, by injecting political gamesmanship into an engineering problem.