Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2006 > August > 02 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USDrill, drill, drill.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
It’s not energy independence, but it’s a start. The U.S. Senate voted Tuesday to open 8.3 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas exploration, an area projected to yield 1.2 billion barrels of oil and 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas — or enough to heat 6 million homes for 15 years.
For Texas, Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana, it would be a windfall. Under the Senate bill, they’d collect 37.5 percent of royalties. Now they get about 2. The bulk of the royalties, which are expected to amount to $1.2 billion per year within a decade, would go to Louisiana. Voters there will consider a constitutional amendment that would dedicate all new offshore revenues to rebuilding wetlands and to hurricane protection. Florida beaches would be protected with a no-drill zone extending 125 to 300 miles from shore.
The U.S. House had earlier passed a version that allows drilling that is no closer than 50 miles from the shore of all coastal states. State legislatures could extend that to 100 miles. Some in the Senate oppose the House bill as a threat to New England, California and the Pacific Northwest. It’s not certain a bill will pass this year.
Meanwhile, another bill introduced last week in the House, co-authored by a California Democrat and a Republican, and co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston, (R-Georgia), would open 2,000 acres of the nearly 20-million acre Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to exploration. The royalties and lease payments, estimated at $39 billion over 30 years, would be put into a trust fund, which could only be used to fund clean-energy alternatives, like biomass, solar, hydrogen fuel cells, coal-to-liquid and other alternatives. ANWR, incidentally, is believed to have 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Even without the trust fund, I’d open the 2,000 acres of ANWR in a flash. And yes, promising areas offshore, too. Clean energy, other than nuclear, is modestly promising — though I’d be strongly disinclined to create a trust fund that turns alternative energy into a 30-year spending boondoggle.
Clearly, though, some measure of energy independence is a necessity in mounting the war on terrorism.
Comments
By jbmlaw
August 2, 2006 08:22 AM | Link to this
Interesting that the cures for our energy problems all start with eliminating prior foolish legislatively-imposed restrictions. It’s about time the purported-conservatives in Congress start to undo the damage inflicted by 50 years of short-sighted expansive-government economic policies.
By Van
August 2, 2006 08:25 AM | Link to this
About time we did something about dependence on foreign oil. While it is a drop in the bucket, it is a start.
Between less dependence and bio-fuels, we may be starting a new trend in our energy choices.
While we will never be able to stop using oil products, this is a good start. Now let’s start drilling off Florida, a protected state, and beat the Chinese and Cubans from tapping into the oil there.
By The Moderate Voice
August 2, 2006 08:28 AM | Link to this
This is a good start to the problem. We also need to research as many alternate fuel source as possible too. We need solar energy, wind energy, and whatever else we can find. Hopefully this is the start of something great.
By Mid-South Philosopher
August 2, 2006 08:31 AM | Link to this
Good morning, Jim,
I confess that I, like too many Americans, am guilty of wasting energy. There are countless ways that we all can “conserve” and that should certainly be the center piece of an energy policy. The movement to open new areas for oil and gas exploration is an absolute necessity for energy independence. At the same time, given the massive profits being made in the oil industry (and the owners and operators of the local convenience stores are NOT reaping all that much), the argument that the oil “corporatists” cannot afford to put environmental protection standards in place (both in the field and at the refineries) DOES NOT hold water. Let the oil “corporatists” explore and produce, but let them be held accountable. Perhaps we can have a “No Petroleum Mess Left Behind” and apply some appropriate accountability standards to the oil industry. Get the job done. No excuses!
By the sweet by and by
August 2, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this
Propers to Jbmlaw for funniest use of a hyphenated word. It’s a thing of beauty, I’m not worthy. I’m not worthy.
By Haley
August 2, 2006 08:47 AM | Link to this
Finally. A responsible move spurred on by the situation in the Middle East perhaps? Politicians never do anything unless the situation demands it. It’s that status quo thing. It’s comfortable.
But what’s up with resistance in New England, California & the Pacific Northwest?
Nevermind. It’s the status quo of the mind(L)ess.
By the sweet by and by
August 2, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this
What criteria is there for labeling the act of “Wasting Energy”?
1) If you turn on a light just to see where the pillow is.
2) If you turn on a light during open heart surgery at noon.
3) If you speed away from traffic lights and screech to halt when you reach the next cars blocking your way.
4) If you feel entitled to the braking distance in front of you, and consider any incursion into this Bumper Zone will automatically bring road rage, fully righteous, and finger erect.
5) That road rage we all feel? That’s what god uses to motivate you to kill for him. It’s the god flaw, and we as humans have to define it, admit it, and correct ourselves. It’s the only way to share this planet. Otherwise, we’re finished.
That proves Jesus wrote the “our father”. I always wondered why it included the phrase, “Lead us not into temptation”. That implies that god could lead us into temptation because Jesus prayed for him not to.
Jesus was saying that you have to evolve further than just the visceral response to destroy ourselves for god. See, gods not supposed to be leading us into temptation, thus we have to make the choice ourselves not to destroy ourselves for god. A course correction is required captain.
6) Nuke Iran. (Forget I said anything, I was being silly)
By The Way
August 2, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this
The Hezbollah Crises was buried on AJC’s page four yesterday, and page three today. This news got swallowed up faster than a morning-after pill 48 hours after a TailHook Convention.
I guess page 3 is the New front page.
By deegee
August 2, 2006 08:58 AM | Link to this
Four states collecting 37.5% of 1.2 billion per year with the bulk of it going to Louisiana???? Are you kidding me? That will buy alot of casinos and beachfront development for some well connected folks in that part of the country. Didn’t we taxpayers send millions to Louisiana for levee protection. Where did that go? And you think they are going to spend their windfall on wetlands? Give me a break. We have more money than brains, that’s why we continue to import natural gas and oil while Japan and Europe are developing nuclear sources of energy. We have the luxury.
By Jim Wooten
August 2, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this
Shhh. Don’t talk too loud here. A lot of the liberals are sleeping in and, with luck, we might get the energy crisis solved before they roll over.
jbmlaw, sit tight. When my band of real conservatives takes over, you’re our AG.
And morning to you, Philosopher. Loved your modernization of the Barry Goldwater quote yesterday. I’m catching some flak from my right on making you Secretary of Education in the Real Conservative administration, but I’m not giving up on you. At the least, you’ll be official historian.
Van, you’re liasion to Congress. Moderate, your job in the administration is to speak at Cabinet meetings for Middle America. Sweet, you’re going to have to show me a little more before I can say whether you’re in or out.
We’re interviewing today for Energy Secretary.
By Mid-South Philosopher
August 2, 2006 09:02 AM | Link to this
With apologies to the late Justice Stewart Potter for appropriating his famous pronouncement on pornography for a similar purpose in this case, “I can’t define energy waste, but I know it when I see it.”
By Think Tank Timmy
August 2, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this
Oh, pick me. Pick me for energy secretary. that’s better than sec. of state and defense put together now. The energy secretary gets access to all that Saudi Soft(bubbling crude) Money Contributions. I love Texas tea. I love swimming pools and movie stars too.
By Publisher's Clearing Louse
August 2, 2006 09:16 AM | Link to this
Okay, Jim is apparently writing a book. with you all as his characters. This is called lateral development, if you consider yourself an artist.
Never promote a promoter… and you can be sure that Mel Gibson uses a Jewish Lawyer and a Jewish Agent, okay? He’s a devil, but he’s not stupid.
By Mid-South Philosopher
August 2, 2006 09:16 AM | Link to this
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Jim, but I would have to decline any elected or appointed office. I have much more fun being a persistent “gadfly!”
“National historian,” however, might be a different story. In that area, I have some expertise…having live through most of it!
By Jim Wooten
August 2, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this
Think Tank Timmy, I’m getting some bad vibes about your sincerity.
Deegee, Louisiana gets about half of the royalties because the most productive fields are off its shores. The House bill is more generous. There is some opposition. Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) thinks the state cut is too big a hit. After 2055, he projects the four states to get some $12.5 billion a year. Bingaman argues that oil taken from federal waters belongs to the nation. As to Louisiana, taxpayers will foot the bill anyway, so whether it’s a direct appropriation or an indirect one, via royalties, the wetlands will be restored and the hurricane-proofing of bad development habits will continue.
By Blog Crawl
August 2, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this
How far did mel push into Israel today? Report at 11.
Blog Crawl: Forged Green Card fools Hillary into hiring Latino (w/great au-pair) disquised as a maid. She’s for Bill, so she’s a MinuteMaid.
By Blog Crawl
August 2, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this
Cartoon Idea:
Jackie Mason as Israel’s Prime Minister saying, “Why should I stop firing at a person who isn’t there? He doesn’t think I’m here. I dont think he’s there….So where am I? He’s not here. I’m not here. What kind of a person who would say that I dont know where he is? If He dont know where I am, I’m supposed to know where he is? ”
By getalife
August 2, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this
Jim,
On this one, I have to agree with you, purely for selfish reasons. This is a good thing for Louisiana and most people here have no problem with more drilling.
Here, there is a new industry startup that is very good for the country. New sugarcane mills with ethanol refinery capabilities. They are selling old sugarcane refineries to big investment groups that are rebuilding new refineries with the ethanol refinery attached. This is a great idea and an excellent investment opportunity.
By time for the truth
August 2, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this
Rather dry topic today but an important one. Its incredible that the eco wackos have prevented the building of any new refineries for a couple of decades and stopped drilling in so many places. Yet the population in the last couple of decades has risen by millions, including all the illegals here. Liberals use SUV’s/trucks like everyone else, yet they’ve virtually refused to address this issue for years now, including the eight wasted years of the previous sex obsessed regime. Bush hasn’t really done that much about it either - but in fairness he has been continually thwarted by the liberal senate.
Finally the liberal senate gets something partially right, although its a pretty tame bill.
@ Getalife.
Just wanted to say that I hope you are getting over your illness mate and that you make as full a recovery as possible. Obviously this horrible cyber niceness cant be expected to last too long. But all the best for the future and dont forget to vote GOP in Novemeber :)
Susan
Your rambling cut and paste laundry list yesterday about Jews ignored one essential thing, there was no attempt to put any of it in context.
The Jews living in the Palestine Mandate in the 1920’s and 30’s not only had to literally fight the Arabs but also quite often the supposedly neutral British who were about as even handed as the Viet Cong were in Vietnam. There was a Jewish unit that fought with the Allies against the nazis, most arabs either sided with the nazis or remained neutral.
Read the actual history of the place before you make yourself look foolish like that again. The Israelis essentially either react to terrorism against them, or after much provocation take pre-emptive action. And on the fairly rare occasions they hit the wrong target they usually apologise loudly and profusely for innocent civilian deaths. How many times have arabs EVER done that with dead Jews/Israelis??!!
Battleground by Samuel Katz is the best place to start, a fairly short paperback book.
By Blog Crawl
August 2, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this
Deegee is right. Ralph Reed is lining up Indians in Lousiana as we blog. I’m joining him, cause I want in. Whose with me? lets do it!!!!!
By Rod
August 2, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this
Typical B.S. article. Jim can’t tie his shows without blaming the liberals. Yeah, he thinks if there were no liberals this world would be a perfect utopia - energy just flowing around.
When you blame one group for all the problems, it just shows how narrow-minded and ignorant you truly are.
By spend wisely
August 2, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this
With proper management of resources, the US could develop alternative fuels within a 10 - 20 years that would fuel most of our current consumer-use oil consumption (i.e. fuel for cars, trucks) however, those alternate fuel are not sufficient for uses like aviation fuel, so we will need a reliable source of petroleum (preferably a domestic source).
ANWR is possible source and using off shore resouces is pretty well a must. It is vital, however, that the US oil developers continue to use part of the available resources and technology to protect the natural preserve from which we obtain that domesetic petro resource.
It’s about responsible development and use.
By Dusty
August 2, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this
Here,here Jim…not a single woman being interviewed for Energy Secretary when conservation is the mainstay?
Women are the experts on “conserving”. Have you not had “leftovers” for dinner? Have you not shopped with coupons? Do you miss big sales? Are you making mulch with your grass clippings? Are you putting your AJCs in the recycle bin where they are best suited? Do you like the Goodwill Store even better than WalMart? Do you buy gasoline for your Cavalier at QT?
Men are saying “What’s for dinner?” while women are diligently saving this world’s commodities.
If you think this doesn’t tie in with the current subject, you are wrong. Now excuse me while I go turn off all the lights my darling gentlemen left brightly beaming this morning. SAVE that energy. A woman would do it.
By getalife
August 2, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this
Rod,
Where do you see the word liberal in that article?
By StillbornDittos
August 2, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this
Yesterday’s Wooten blog brought 497 comments. All but 12 of them were written by just two trolls: TFTT, and UGOTTABKIDDING.
I am urging the AJC to establish an independent committee of Jargon StreetSweepers, and order them to type-set these neo-nudniks back to MySpace.Com (who just called: they want their crusty sock back).
I am starting a new blog: I need word helpers. Ugotta can be my Sec. of Onomatopoeia, and TTFT can be the alliteration: “PPPPFFFFFFTHZZ”!!!!!
ew
By Scooter
August 2, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this
Believe me, I am all for alternative energy sources but we need to think of the cause effect. I have not looked into in depth, but say we develop fuel cells and are mixing hydrogen and oxygen to produce water, what is all this water going to do? Raise sea levels perhaps? Say we go to cellulose derived ethanol what will that do to the prices of other commodities that use the same cellulose?
We live in a static system of natural resources and we are approaching the point where every bit is being used for one thing or another. Every thing is going to have a consequence associated with it and people need to think about it independently, beyond what the feel good, promise the sky politicians tell us.
Getalife, gongrats on going back to Nevada.
By getalife
August 2, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this
time for the truth,
Thanks, I have recovered and it is good as it will get. Life goes on.
I will be voting for the best candidate I think is good for our country. Checking roll call votes, it looks like I will not be voting for any incumbants.
By Harold
August 2, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this
Let’s solve our addiction problem by acquiring more of what we’re addicted to. Great idea!!!!!! What a bunch of f-tards.
Instead of drilling for oil, how about drilling for public transit in all major cities and taxing parking spaces to the point that only the top 1% can afford them?
By Harold
August 2, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this
We could “discover” thousands of barrels of oil a day by making Whitlock Avenue in Marietta HOV ONLY from 6-9 AM and 4-7 PM weekdays.
All it requires is some paint and signs and then it saves oil barrels and generates revenue when violators get tickets.
By Jim Wooten
August 2, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this
Clever, Dusty. But I’ve got some leadership issues with you. I had designated you as the responsible adult present at that weekend discussion and when I got back in town, whoa, the blog was a wreck. It looked about like the national energy policy that Congress created. We’re going for coherence and meaningful solutions, not the windmill stuff, in the Real Conservative administration.
By Dusty'sCool
August 2, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this
Dusty: Okay, we know how your husband left the light switch: UP.
What about the bathroom bowl’s seat, up or down?
Dusty be conserving! What about water? Does Dusty have a 1.6 gallon flusher? Does Dusty buy the Charmin’s quadruple roll? Is the words, “Two Scoops” on any of her cereal boxes? Is she aware of the importance of fiber in the diet?
See, Dusty, I need more than a toy commode. I need miles of pipes, teams of plumbers working around the clock at the Teamster level in New Jersey, huge underground caverns….and a good flashflood once in a while!
If I conserve, I get dysentery.
By Van
August 2, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this
Harold,
Wake up, if we could convert that quickly we would. the fact is this will take years, the infrastucture for oil distribution is too vast to scrape overnight. Anyway we will never be in a place to entirely scrape a resource like oil.
By getalife
August 2, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this
Scooter,
Thanks, there have been scientific studies on the effects of sugarcane refineries refining sugar and ethanol. The model is from Brazil and I do not understand it, but looked at some scientific blogs and they said it looked good for the enviroment.
I live here in sugarcane country and everywhere you look, it is being grown. The demand for sugar is high but the farmers will get a better price from the crops with the new refineries that will process sugar and ethanol. They are happy with the deal.
In the midwest, they are doing the same with corn. During the refinery process, nothing is wasted. The last byproduct is feed for animals.
By The Moderate Voice
August 2, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this
Jim, I would be honored to serve in the real conservative administration. We could get a lot done. If politicians weren’t so worried about pleasing special interests it would make Washington a lot better. Yet another reason for meaningful campaign finance reform.
By Dusty
August 2, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this
AH, man from La Mancha, are you saying that women are windmill stuff and puff? Dr. Rice and I take offense at that.
As to the lost weekend blog, that is what you get for retreating for the weekend and leaving us alone with all the liberal loonies. Have you no sympathy?
Serious?? I am dead serious. In fact, I am going to pay my property taxes today and that certainly takes all the fun out of life. Paint me SERIOUS.
By deegee
August 2, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
Van for liason to Congress! He speaks their language.
By rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda
August 2, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this
Jim, maybe you can make Dusty your Secretary of Mobile Home and Strip Mall Development (Housing and Urban Development is a name rednecks don’t like) - she could work to have a Walmart and an empty Walmart on every hill and molehill in our great country.
By Mid-South Philosopher
August 2, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this
I have a question for any of you that are proficient in the area of electricity. I have a decorative desk clock that has been running on the same battery (about the size of a quarter) for four years. Where are we on battery technology for the extended powering of automobiles?
By getalife
August 2, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this
Jim,
Dusty is the problem. She said we make her sick with our freedom of speech. Do you really want a person who does not like others opinions unless they are like her own, to be in charge of freedom of speech on a blog?
By Harold
August 2, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this
Harold says you dont get out of credit card debt by getting more credit cards.
By Van
August 2, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
I do have a concern about all the Ethanol plants being built.
Archer Daniels Midland Co., is the largest producer of Ethanol in the US and Bunge Ltd., has just announced its third US plant in Iowa.
for example, Bunge Ltd. said its new plant will produce 110 million gallons of Ethanol a year using 39 million bushels of corn a year.
How will all this refining of corn into ethanol effect the food supply? Do we produce that much surplus a year?
By Harold
August 2, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this
Harold says if our stupid local governments didn’t ban greywater systems we would all have 500 gallon tanks of water filled for free last night from our gutters that we could water our yards with during the dry weeks. Instead they force us to water our lawns with treated water from their treatment plants while simultaneously restricting our use and charging us sewer fees for water going into our yards.
By Harold
August 2, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
Harold says if you grown your own stupid corn in your own stupid back yard you don’t need to worry about how ethanol might “affect the food supply.” What an inane concern.
By James
August 2, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
Effect the food supply!! So funny! More concerned about the price of conola oil and tostitos than the impact of burning fossil fuels. Idiot! Ahahahahaa
By Political Mongrel
August 2, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
Let’s not forget that “energy independence” was the driving force behind the Alaska Pipeline. How much Alaskan oil is shipped to the US? None. It all goes to other countries, particularly in the Pacific basin. Will we be fooled again? Probably.
By getalife
August 2, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
Van,
That is a legitimate concern and if you google “corn surplus” it seems to be increasing.
By rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda
August 2, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this
Actually, I’d prefer Mr. Wooten and his Cretin Cabinet to the present cabal. A government of loud-mouthed nonsensical ignorant idiots is somewhat preferable to a government of violent criminals.
By Larry
August 2, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this
Dusty: “QT” gasoline no. They would not hire my son unless he cut his hair (sex discrimination in any form is not okay, he told them to shove off) and their gasoline stops up fuel injectors.
By Harold
August 2, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this
Good point mongrel. It is BP, that’s BRITISH petroleum, who wants to drill in ANWR.
In case anybody didnt realize it, Britain is just as foreign as Saudi Arabia and Iran: It is not USA.
That is no cure.
By Larry
August 2, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this
Redneck: as opposed to a cabinet of limp-wristed london pencil-neck geeks?
By rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda
August 2, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
Larry, sorry to hear about the discrimination towards your son - being gay in the south is a tough road to hoe, I’ve heard. I’m sure you know all about it. The apple, alas, does not usually fall far from the tree…
By getalife
August 2, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
In the global market, there are other countries growing corn.
Global warming may cause droughts and other nature related problems so there is always a risk to the supply.
By spend wisely
August 2, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
Van — the idea behind bio-fuels is that they are re-newable. There is a huge corn surplus and the capcity to grow even more (we pay farmers not to grow corn and other crops).
The primary issue blocking the development of bio-fuels is protectionist lobbying by the oil companies. Remove the government blocks to this development and watch it fly.
By clarkslawga
August 2, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this
I’m Back. I know that no one cares, nor should they, but….I’m back. And coincidentally enough TFTT is still faking it.
I thought with my few days away TFTT would feel free to try and snow her fellow imbeciles with more fake Brit speak, but BEHOLD….. nothing. None yesterday or today. Odd how that happens. No one to call your pathetic b******t and you revert to your true nature: ignorant trailer trash from Valdosta truly desperately to build legitimacy with a feeble character based on a tissue of Brit-speak that anyone who watched BBCTV can learn. But let someone point out that you are a fake and the fake Brit-speak comes flowing out like the River Thames. (Just so you know TFTT, that is a river that flows through Southern England. I’m not sure they have access to such info way down in South Georgia trailer parks.)
Sad. Really sad.
Face it fake. You mean nothing and your abuse and childishness renders your delusions of opinions irrelevant to anyone who doesn’t think just like Hannity…oops I meant you.
So keep it up fake. No one is listening but me and I enjoy watching your desperate attempts to matter to someone, anyone, somewhere, anywhere. (Attention must be paid.)
I know TFTT is going to be sad to hear this but I’ve just started a new project that will prevent me from continually pointing out to all the stream of abject crap that is this false Brit, but such is life. I’ll pop in occasionally though, to remind all how feeble minded, pathetic, sad, woeful, and just plain stupid this whole false ID of yours really is.
Fake.
By Political Mongrel
August 2, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this
There are other plants that produce more and better vegetable oils than corn and don’t take the amount of fertilizer and irrigation that corn does. Corn isn’t the only answer.
Also, don’t forget that about half of the oil that’s used goes into production of plastics. There’s more of a problem there than fuels.
By clarkslawga
August 2, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
Larry,
I’d just shut down today if I were you. There is no way to recover from the smackdown Rednecks just laid on you.
Great stuff.
By getalife
August 2, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
spend wisely,
True but private investment groups are jumping in with billions of capital.
I think big oil will jump in eventually with the demand of oil lessens. Lord knows, the profits they are making now would startup many new renewable fuel refineries.
By rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda
August 2, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
Clarks, Larry and his son are plotting their revenge right now - they are slathering each other’s body with Crisco and other “annointing oils” in their little wrasslin’ trunks, shaving each other’s chests and legs, practicing their (chicken) choke holds etc. getting ready to tag team me…
By clarkslawga
August 2, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this
Rednecks,
Hit ‘em with a chair. It’s a language they might just understand. Just make sure you hit em in the right place.
By Larry
August 2, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
Clarkslawga: redneck lays no smackdown. he just described in full detail the activities he and his limp-wristed sleeve-hanky-picking london family (“apple…tree”) are obviously very familiar with. My son is even tougher than me and would be happy to substitute for me in any brawl. C’mon down! Do I hear CHICKENS from across the pond? Cluck Cluck Cluck! Sorry, Jim, I’ll give up on this anal orifice for today. Have a good day, sir!
By rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda
August 2, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this
I prefer a battle of wits with Larry. He’s essentially unarmed.
By clarkslawga
August 2, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
Larry,
I just call ‘em like I see ‘em and the comment as to WHY QT didn’t hire them was pretty damn funny.
And why does everything come down to you or someone in your family brawling with someone else? Thats weird.
By spend wisely
August 2, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
Perhaps, but we are not re-inventing the wheel. Removing the governmental blocks would need to include allowing the import of bio-fuels from S America (there is currently a 100% tarriff on imported bio-fuels). Our auto industry already builds cars with duel use, which can burn both petro and bio-fuels. Getting big oil out of the way would speed the process up and greatly reduce our dependence on foreign oil (although there would be a period where we were importing bio-fuels, I think it would be a brief time — just long enough to develop the bio-fuel refineries needed here.)
By rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda
August 2, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this
Larry - why so uptight about my hanky? I could be like you and wipe my snot on my sleeves, I guess.
By Producer
August 2, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this
The news that we will begin drilling offshore is fantastic! To hell with the enviromental radicals.
We’ve needed to do this for 35 years. We need to be drilling off of both coasts from San Diego to Seattle and from Miami to Maine! Throw in ANWAR and we are on our way to energy independence. This is a national security issue. Imagine if we didn’t need all of the Mid-East oil and that from Chavez. We wouldn’t need to be so involved in the Middle East and have these Islamic fascist animals beheading Americans!
Alternative fuels? Hell yes! Accelerate research into that like there’s no tomorrow. But as of today, we are an oil burning economy and we have to recognize that.
Nuclear? Absolutely! Techology has gotten better in the last number of years since the Three Mile Island scare. Clean burning and the nuclear waste could be stored thousands of feet below the mountains in Nevada.
Let’s allow ourselves to no longer be held hostage to tinhorn dictators and religious nutjobs!
By ByteMan
August 2, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this
So, Jim, why isn’t nuclear more promising? If you check out the new plants being built around Europe, you’ll find that the newer plants are MUCH safer and produce less nuclear waste. When was the last time you heard about a meltdown in Europe or a problem disposing nuclear rods?
I think our biggest problem isn’t drilling for new oil, it’s using what we have more efficiently. Why are solar panels so expensive? It can’t be that complicated to create them. Why do we tolerate millions of cars, trucks, SUVs on the road that get less than 30 mpg in the city? The technology has been there for years to produce more energy-efficient automobiles, including lighter alloys for non-critical body parts, more efficient engines (the combustion engine is soooo not efficient), etc.
Drilling is fine, but our population is growing too fast to drill our way out of the future problem and it’ll take 10+ years to get ANWR oil to market (and even then, the most likely market is East Asia, since that’s closer than parts of the west coast).
And where’s the “call to arms” from our supposed leaders in government and industry to conserve? If everyone used one gallon of gas less per week when we drive, how much would we lower the price of gas?
Remember when we got to telecommute during the Olympics? Wonder how much energy was saved that week?
By clarkslawga
August 2, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this
StillbornDittos,
TFTT has no life and therefore has plenty of time to lob insults, call every one to her left a liberal and generally spout all of the cool new stuff she learnt on Hannity the day before. All the while trying desperately to convince the feeble minded that she is an erudite Brit here to show all of us ignorant Yanks the error of our ways. Problem is she is the fakest Brit since Mike Myers and her knowledge fountain is as deep as what she can remember from Hannity. I suspect that her “mate” Billy Bob won’t let her speak in the trailer unless spoken to so she has no other outlet than to vent her frustrations in this forum.
Your best bet is to ignore the post when you see TFTT as the by line. Unless of course you like your extreme right wing nonsense served up with a side of fake Brit speak.
Fake.
By Van
August 2, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this
Larry,
Odd, I use QT all the time and I have never had any problems with my injectors, either in my truck or sedan. I think the problem is the driver and how well they take care of their autos. Better maintained cars get better gas mileage and help the environment.
By Jim's a Dummy
August 2, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this
Jim,
I wonder where we’d be if big energy had listened to Jimmy Carter’s warnings about all this way back when?
Big energy has not invested in the future because there has not been and still is not an incentive to do so. Current efforts are PR gimmicks. They’re only thinking about their bottm line, which is written (large) every quarter. Same with the US Auto industry, which laughed at Honda and it’s little Civic. No wonder GM and Ford are getting their butts kicked. What’s today’s story?
They’re so worried about making money right now that they have no capacity or desire to plan for the future.
Drill, drill, drill is a reactionary response to an existing problem created by the very parties who stand to gain the most from not progressing an inch beyond the status quo. Why should they change? They’re making billions off us.
If we do what we’ve always done they’ll get what they’ve always gotten.
By Jim Wooten
August 2, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
ByteMan, you misread me on nuclear. I’m there. I agree with the sentiments on nuclear expressed by Producer just before your post.
By getalife
August 2, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this
Jim,
It is very interesting to see a good discussion when you do not bash liberals in your opinion piece. This is how Americans can come together to fix today’s problems. I hope you learn from this and leave the hate rhetoric to the cottage industry Ann, Rush, Fox News,etc… created.
By time for the truth
August 2, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
Rednecks … simply calling someone and members of their immediate family a poof does NOT constitute a verbal smackdown. In your case it simply evinces angry and bitter projection of your own unresolved issues onto others.
Happily in your case this is probably legally excusable under the provisions of the litle known/used protection of Inbred Genetic Mutants Act which senate liberals quietly passed just in case Pat Buchanan ever became president and came after them.
Larry … the only London rednecks has ever personally infested in the one up in Kentucky!
By Susan
August 2, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
“By Mid-South Philosopher
August 2, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this
I have a question for any of you that are proficient in the area of electricity. I have a decorative desk clock that has been running on the same battery (about the size of a quarter) for four years. Where are we on battery technology for the extended powering of automobiles?”
[Answer] (http://www.google.com/movies/reviews?id=be9b09cba7e56374&fq=%22who+killed+the+electric+car%22&sa=X&oi=showtimes&ct=reviews&cd=1)
By time for the truth
August 2, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this
I see anal loser ga is still hilariously obsessed with its English betters. Any chance of you jumping under that MARTA bus taking to Grady for your continued court ordered psychiatric observation.
By concerned citizen
August 2, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this
Shhhh, Jim Wooten’s taking an afternoon nap. Us “liberals” were working this morning. I support the drilling measures. But we still should be making better progress in diversifying our energy portfolio. Remember it’s not just international conflict that can interrupt oil flow. I recall Mother Nature taking quite a large bite out of our energy apple last year. We should be researching, developing and perfecting alternative fuels so that when the world’s oil supply starts its downslope (and it will someday soon) and the rest of the developing world starts to clamour for alternatives the U.S. will be positioned to become the largest exporter of alternative fuels and technolgy. You see, where conservatives see foreign policy, energy policy, economy and environmental issues as all separate, I see them as interconnected, all having solutions that stem from the same area, energy alternatives and independence. Alternative fuels hold the key to less U.S. involvement in conflict, cleaner environment and a booming economy from the new industries and infrastructure.
By Mid-South Philosopher
August 2, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
Susan,
Thanks for the link. Why does the answer NOT surprise me?
By Political Foreskin
August 2, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this
Okay, Jim Wooten ditto’d Producer’s comment, so that makes Producer the new Rush, and that means we can get our Thinking Right from his website. Congratulations, Producer. Hell, they wouldn’t let you blog here if you weren’t a chump.
Sign, Stinging the internet in Seattle.
By clarkslawga
August 2, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
TFTT,
Great recovery. Using Poof like that when us ignorant Americans would just say something like gay or homosexual.
Man are you ever believable. Strange how it only came out after you were once again exposed and called out.
As for jumping under the bus, sure, why not. Makes about as much sense as everything else you write here. And just about as creative as Anal Loser. (But then again your last idea was to pretend to be English on a ajc blog, so I can see creativity is not your strong point.)
One question though: Do you get it yet?
I don’t think so.
Sad, pathetic and…
Fake.
By SamX
August 2, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
Hurry! There are still a few spots left in Jim’s cabinet. All conservatives are encouraged to apply.
Sec of Christianity and Patriotism, Must be able to memorize all 10 commandments. Non-convicted felons incouraged to apply.
Sec of Pork, Must be a proven bridge builder.
Sec of Slogans and Banners, The first Mission you Accomplish will be the Fair Tax marketing campaign.
Assistant Sec of Torture, Must be able to work well with your boss, Sec. Ann Coulter.
Sec of War, Must be able to coordinate pending name change from Department of Defense.
Sec of Censorship, Must be able to whine “liberal media” in 3 languages.
All applications must be submitted to the Dept. of Domestic Spying by Friday.
By clarkslawga
August 2, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this
Oh, and as the arbiter of all things smackdown let me assure you all: Rednecks comment regarding the seuxality of Larry’s son was not only a smackdown, but quite possible the best one on the blog for quite some time. I have no problem with Larry at all but a smack is a smack and this was a smack.
By harold
August 2, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this
How about drilling for brains in the white house?
If the White House (not just this lusy president but all of them) stopped alienating the oil producing nations and stopped demonizing their leaders maybe we could get along with them like all the other nations on earth seem to be able to do, eh?
It is a problem of leadership here. The WHite House thinks USA is teh wAlMart of oil - so big we can demand what the suppliers do instead of being a good customer.
Well, fark the USA!
By SpinDittos
August 2, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
Concerned Citizen is right: it IS okay to use onomatopoeia (handled delicately) on one post in 50. Then I challenge anyone to rewrite his comment in 25 words or less, and translate it correctly. I can know that none of you can. Spin dittos. Spin.
By jbmlaw
August 2, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
Dear Concerned, I think you are wrong about the “booming economy” that you expect to arise from alternate fuels research. My guess is that this counterculture paradise can only be achieved through crippling taxes imposed on our most efficient energy delivery system (aka, the evil big oil). The economic inhibition of those taxes will dwarf the booming economy of alternate fuels.
My own baseless energy pipe dream arises from nuclear fusion. That unlimited source of electricity would allow us an endless source of hydrogen fuel, which can be burned like natural gas or stored (for brief periods) like gasoline. Of course, that slight issue with hydrogen’s explosive nature would make the 75-85-285 raceway a lot more interesting.
By SpinDittos
August 2, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
Clarkslawga is a troll alias posting to himself. How proven? His smack was worse than his byte…….ew.
By getalife
August 2, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
Yes, mother nature wiped out oil rigs, pipelines and the sugar cane crop here in southern Louisiana. Katrina and Rita did some major damage. This years crop is huge and abundant. We are hoping hurricane Chris does not make an appearence here.
By SpinDittos
August 2, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
Good Stuff Samx!
Slam dunk.
You set them up.
You hit them out of the park.
Funread.
Bravo.
hats off gentlemen, a writer!
By clarkslawga
August 2, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
SpinDittos,
I’ll be a troll, I don’t mind. But even as a troll I have no idea what you are talking about.
Smacks should not need to be explained so you get an F.
(Cute little rhyme at the end though.)
By time for the truth
August 2, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
anal loser … the fact that your obsession can so easily be “fed” by one post is testament to the worthlessness of todays psychiatric dugs. I suggest you sue your trick cyclist for deformation of character and imposing great public humiliation on you. Try Johnny Cochrane first!!
As to todays topic, I feel it would be well worth immediately burying you in Nevada with some low grade nuclear waste for a few hundred years, or better still interring you as a new kind of rather toxic ‘invertebrate compost’ which would, perhaps in a few million years, produce a cup or two of unrefined oil!!
By Producer
August 2, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
Hey Foreskin,
Why the attack on me? If they let me submit my opinions because I’m a “chump” what does that make you? You just submitted yours! LOL
By James
August 2, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this
President: Iraqi forces to take over by year’s end
Anybody believe that?
By clarkslawga
August 2, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this
My obsession knows no bounds. I am so obsessed with you that I lie awake at night thinking of things to type to you. I exist for nothing else.
Actually, you are wasting your time trying to insult me here. Remember that you don’t matter to me. Your opinion means nothing at all. You don’t have the requisite intelligence to get to me. I am your superior in all ways and no mere words from you will change that fact. You are a mere mortal…I am eternal. (OK that’s a little much, but you get the point…or do you?)
I enjoy watching you wiggle and cling deperately at the tatters of your false image. I suppose I should feel sorry for you and part of me does. You have my pity because you are pitiful.
And you still don’t get it.
Fake.
By SpinDittos
August 2, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this
Getalife sounds like he was voted “Most Likely To Be Unliked” at his prom.
Funny stuff, and I think he’s a writer, but not a journalist, and needs to understand the difference. The internet evened the playing field, without educating even one of us. We are pure group-think where everyone has an equal chance to comment. Dont infer that your sheer quantity of comments engender a topic, au contraire, mon frere, (with the great au pairs), you think way too much of your fellow Viennese. They cant understand three doomsday scenario, yet you give them dozens. Try myspace.com man, oh yes, they called: They want their think tank back.
Stinging the internet in Seattle.
By getalife
August 2, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
Um Dusty,
Now may be a good time to start your job.
By Dusty
August 2, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this
Well, while these gentlemen fight like the Hatfields and the McCoy’s, I am intrigued by Rednecks suggestion that I should be Sec. of Mobile Home and Strip Mall Development. In the spirit of Energy Conservation I will present my “plank”.
An empty Walmart on every corner with an oil well out back, a nuclear plant out front and an ethanol plant in the parking lot. Let’s put all the obnoxious stuff together. Greenpeace can protest at one location and the rest of us can move ten miles away. No infill housing will be allowed in between except for cigaret smokers.
I promise to never move any government trailers in Louisiana but am not responsible for the next hurricane. So, don’t worry, Getalife. You are safe.
Does anybody have better suggestions than that? I think not. How about some original thought here? Change booze factories into wine ethanol and banish AA? More housing at the landfill where methane gas can be used for perfumed energy?
By clarkslawga
August 2, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
SpinDittos,
No offense, but what the hell are you talking about.
By Joe L.
August 2, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this
I’m amazed how ignorant many people are on how the oil industry works. It doesn’t matter if the U.S. produces 2-3% more oil or Venezuela does. It all goes into a global market where it’s purchased by anyone and everyone. So we would be no more or less dependent on foreign oil if we produce more, it’s just that the global market would get a little bigger.
And if China and India’s growth outstrips the small amount we will extract (and it will) we will still be facing a dwindling supply of a limited resource.
This is just another chance to line the pockets of the powerful oil industry. It won’t make a lick of difference to any average American and if you think it will, well that Kool Aid must be tasty.
By James
August 2, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this
Joe L. gets a big “high five” from me. Very true.
By Patriotic Foreskin
August 2, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this
Producer, I really hate it when I get out neo-conned. I’m getting too old. My eyesight is failing. (George Washington to the mutiny post Yorktown), we cant have a blog if you continue to threaten everyone you reply to. It was a joke from the Sting. The movie from Paul Newman and Robert Redford. The card game where they hooked the fallguy. “They wouldn’t have let you in here if you hadn’t been a chump.” It was just a joke, and you didn’t see that. That’s what I mean about the way you comment on Jim Wooten’s column. You are seeing the wrong spin, and you become a loose cannon. Recede. To have waded into that one…
You got me good, though. Hard to get happy after that one. Next.
By Patriotic Foreskin
August 2, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this
No Joe L.
Your assumption is that there is a finite source of fossil fuel derivatives and that we’ve discovered all of it. Conclusion in premise. Abort.
By spend wisely
August 2, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
Joe — you are correct. There would be no real benefit from drilling in US controlled areas, other than perhaps as an incentive to reduce our dependence on oil. There must be political will to invest in the alternative fuels to facilitate that change over. Most citizens won’t muster the will to change until we do everything they think we must and have it fail.
No dependance on oil requires the development of alternatives this requires the will to change the status quo.
By rarringt
August 2, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this
Clark,
It’s just an example of what happens when someone confuses clever, pithy commentary with concrete and persuasive consideration.
It’s typical of those who grew up on MTV to try and boil down everything into a 7-second sound byte, and happens far too often on this blog (by people of all ideological persuasions).
Back to the matter at hand. Wow, one of those rare days where most everyone seems to be at least in the same book (if not the same page).
We live in a world that has an increasing demand for a product in ever shorter supply. I agree we should drill smartly, but also agree that nuclear and biomass technology needs to be funded (largely through the royalties received from drilling).
It’s time to take the long view, and recognize the world we live in today is paradise compared to the world our children and grandchildren will inherit should we not make tough decisions to wean ourselves off oil dependence (both foreign and domestic).
By getalife
August 2, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this
Whew, I feel better now.
Dusty is on the job.
Impeach.
By Beavis
August 2, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
Heh… Hey Jim! Dusty has something you can drill. heh heh heh
By Curious Observer
August 2, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this
Oil for everybody, including sunbathers (it’ll save a fortune on sun-tan lotion)! Portable electric chairs for people guilty of Lack of Personal Responsibility! Elimination of all government, except for the people who will guard my right to shaft everybody in the name of Free Enterprise! I have seen the truth, after being exposed to it by Time for Fantasy and his conservative buddies. Bring on Wooten’s cabinet, but first give me a chance to stock up on guns and ammos and to renovate my cave. Then nuke everybody back to the Stone Age! At long last, I have cast off the shackles of liberalism and its cowardly, mincing advocates! It’ll take a while to get used to avoiding bathing, but soon I expect to be a full-fledged redneck. NASCAR. Bowling alleys. White socks. Long-necks. And lynchings—don’t forget lynchings.
By Hey Jim
August 2, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this
There’s a real stroke over on the Luckovich blog, he’s a masher, can’t say one word without getting belligerent, foul mouthed, tells bald faced lies about other bloggers, stalks women on the internet, a real loser, goes by the handle of N-GA. The question is he claims to be a close acquaintance of yours, he’s over there telling everyone he’s a “millionaire” and a “war hero.”
Do you know this Wanker?
By getalife
August 2, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this
Oops I forgot.
Impeach Dusty on the grounds of stupidity.
By getalife
August 2, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this
Why Andy?
Are you going to take him up on his bet?
I would, if I served.
By Markus
August 2, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this
I’d like to see oil shale researched in the Rockies and elsewhere. If we had started on that 26 years ago after Carter’s energy/OPEC mess, no telling where we’d be today. Shell Oil Co. has been researching it, and it appears that theoretically they could produce a billion barrels per square mile.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/newscolumnists/article/0,1299,DRMN86_4051709,00.html
Yeah that’s right liberal ladies, those big evil greedy oil companies are actually SPENDING their money on R&D! What a concept, huh? That’s why oil companies can drill today off the coast of Louisiana without spills. But don’t tell that to the overemotionalized estrogen-filled enviroweenie liberals out there who post shots of ANWAR with propoganda like it being green and full of life’s creatures. These clueless idiots would probably protest shale harvesting to save the “rock midget amoeba beetle.”
The wack job enviroweenie left doesn’t even want us to build nuclear power plants. HARK! What’s that I hear? These nuts that love France so much and want to emulate it don’t want to touch France’s nuclear power program? Nope. Talk about a bunch of policy cherry-picking.. it reminds me of liberals quoting certain parts of the bible to advance their causes while ignoring others.
So, what’s the left’s answer to the energy issue? Drive sardine cans on wheels; live like the Japanese in 10’ x 10’ apartments (and that’s the LUXURY edition); stick a windmill in your backyard (unless you are Ted “Drunk Oldsmobile U-boat commander wannabe” Kennedy off the coast of Taxachussetts); go solar. Well liberal ladies, we’ve been working on that technology for over 30 years now. How come we’re still not far from where we started there vs. where our computer technology has gone?
Well, liberalism and envirowackoism go hand in hand: both are based on a foundation of emotionalism and regressive thinking.
By rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda
August 2, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this
TFTT, in my battles of wit with you halfwits, I think what Hitler must have thought when he invaded Poland… “not much here, no resistance, practically empty…”
Cheerio, my “learned” English friend - shouldn’t you now be off to headmaster some teenage boys? Perhaps you and Larry can show them some new moves.
By Jim Wooten
August 2, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this
Just curious, for those here who don’t consider themselves conservatives, what is your price for agreeing to ANWR exploration as it’s been proposed?
And, Hey Jim, I visited Mike’s blog, as you suggested. My head spins.
By getalife
August 2, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this
Brilliant Markus, except for this and the name calling.
By time for the truth
August 2, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this
anal loser/rednecks
Clearly this deranged multi id nutcase is pathologically obsessed with homosexuality and everything English. Prince Charles must have turned him down by e-mail yet again!!
Watching it witlessly actually defend its own posts with different ids is almost as comical as watching the red nosed hypocrite Kennedy squirm at the Alito hearings.
By getalife
August 2, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this
Jim,
His name is “Andy” and another blogger named “N-GA” has challenged Andy in a bet.
Andy is trying to cry his way out of the bet and it he is the one spewing “pinko” this and “pinko kook” that. Markus like rhetoric.
By jbmlaw
August 2, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this
Dear Getalife @ 12:22, I’m not sure I get your point. Are you saying that the 2005 MSNBC article was typical lefist disinformation, and observing that the “horrific” spill turned out to have no meaningful effect on the environment?
By Larry
August 2, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this
clarkslawga: somehow neither my son nor I feel too terribly injured from the “smackdown”. So far all this malodorous redneck pencil-neck geek has done is prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that Darwin was right!
By Markus
August 2, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this
Hey gotalobotomy:
If Katrina hadn’t hit there, you’d have a point.
One more thing gotalobotomy. This is a CONSERVATIVE forum. We’ll call you linguini-spined libs whatever we want to as long as it’s clean. After all, it’s not like you liberals don’t call us names. Awe, what’s the matter snookums? Wittle feewings got hurt? Need an ittie bittie kweenex there?
Liberals like you can dish it out but can’t take it. Hypocrites.
By jbmlaw
August 2, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
By the way, I once dined in a hole-in-the-wall at Port Sulphur and enjoyed the greatest gumbo ever served, and cheap besides. Interesting place.
By pogo_lives!
August 2, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this
OK, fine; drill! Drill and don’t let the crude leave the US, don’t put it into the mainstream market for the Chinese to buy. But now, where are you going to refine it? All the refineries are operating at near full capacity and the NIMBYs won’t let the oil companies build anymore, just like a few years ago when the NIMBYs in Queens NY filed suit against Con-Ed when they got the permits to build four new power plants.
By clarkslawga
August 2, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this
Ah yes. Bring out the multi-id thing once again to distract from the tattered image you still sling to so desperately. It didn’t work before and it won’t work now.
And it just shows that not only do you not get it, you have no clue.
I assure you I am me, no one else. One guy, one ID. The fact that others find you as ignorant, uninformed and as fake as I do is evidence that others are catching on to your crap. (And before you call me Susan I should point out that I am Jewish.)
Nice try though. Keep trying to throw the smoke screen. But the truth is the truth and you wouldn’t know the truth if it jumped you behind the Quickie Mart.
Time for you to tell the truth.
Fake.
By Markus
August 2, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this
One more thing gotalobotomy:
Since you claimed to retired, why don’t you take up checkers or start riding your bike on the Silver Comet Trail or something instead of wasting the rest of your life battling Conservatives on a Conservative blog? What a waste of what little mind you had as a liberal.
By time for the truth
August 2, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this
anal loser bites hard - again!!
By Wildkit62
August 2, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this
Good news, but it still prevents drilling off Florida, the East Coast & the West Coast. Also, watch for any action on HR5254, the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act. If passed this will speed the premitting of new refineries. THAT is our main problem NOW.
By getalife
August 2, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
No silly, I was referring to Markus assertion of:
That’s why oil companies can drill today off the coast of Louisiana without spills.
Here, lets try with a different source
By getalife
August 2, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this
I sumbit Markus to replace Dusty in charge of freedom of speech on this blog.
He would tie in better with the Bush adminitration although he is dumber than Dusty (imagine that).
By clarkslawga
August 2, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this
TFTT,
You wish I’d bite you.
By time for the truth
August 2, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this
Just be grateful that we dont have UK style taxes here in the US. 80% of the petrol price is tax … and that’s all national tax, there is no local petrol tax or sales tax in the UK. Petrol’s now virtually 5 UK pounds a gallon which is closing in on $10 a gallon. There are far fewer petrol stations locally though, which makes it less competitive and the imperial gallon is 20% bigger than the US gallon, so its not quite like for like.
By RW-(the original)
August 2, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this
Mr. Wooten,
We aren’t so bad over at luckovich’s blog. Frankly it seems you have more children to babysit over here.
Dusty,
Thanks for stopping by the cesspool (Jim you aren’t supposed to be reading this far) that ml’s has become. We miss you and we especially miss you at my place!
By jbmlaw
August 2, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this
Now Getalife, that second article is about a refinery or something on land that overflowed water and oil (doesn’t specify how much of each) during a rainstorm. What does that have to do with oil spills from drilling? No specificity about damages, the article just says Citgo “could” be fined for a land spill back in June. Was there any damage to wildlife or anything else? I think I am still missing the point.
By clarkslawga
August 2, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
TFTT,
Kudos. You used petrol 4 times in your last post.
Glas to see you back at the Brit-speak thing. I was starting to miss it.
Odd how it comes up now.
Fake.
By getalife
August 2, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
RW,
I would have to agree with this statement:
We aren’t so bad over at luckovich’s blog. Frankly it seems you have more children to babysit over here.
Dusty has been appointed by Jim as blog monitor. You know how much she loves my patriotic rhetoric.
By Ugotta B. Kidding
August 2, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this
Jim, I think we need to be Canada’s bestest friend and #1 customer for that 175 Billion barrells of oil, that’s relatively shallow, in the oil sands of Alberta, Canada. Down deeper it’s estimated that as much as 2 Trillion barrells of oil are there. Who the hell needs Middle Eastern oil with that kind of oil bonanza? And it’s here close to home. Also, why did it take China getting oil rights from Cuba for our Congress to finally GET OFF THEIR ASSES and try to open up drilling in the Gulf of Mexico? Drilling in the Gulf and Alaska are waaaaaaaaaay the Hell overdue.
By rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda
August 2, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this
Hey Jim - did you get my postcards yet? I was surprised to see TFTT and Ugotta over there…
You’re welcome!
By getalife
August 2, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
You must be a lawyer demading those pesky details.
My point was there have been oil spills in Louisiana. One was very large and very recent.
I will not post anymore links on this subject. Try google news “oil spills in Louisiana”. Blanco has formed a response program for oil spills.
By Dusty
August 2, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this
Now, now Getalife,
Did it rain today and you couldn’t fish off the levee? All those red worms wasted? Put you in a bad mood?
Hey, I wouldn’t stop you from posting for anything. Miss all that good meandering and name calling? No sir. Now, stay sweet and if you go fishing tomorrow, be sure and wear your water wings.
By time for the truth
August 2, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
anal loser - assuming you’re not actually lying about being jewish - its clear that when they circumcised you they threw the WRONG PIECE AWAY!!
By getalife
August 2, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this
Ugotta B. Kidding,
Whoa man. Dusty is the new blog monitor so be careful.
Do you remember W holding hands with the Saudi prince. It is a love affair Canada may break up but I doubt it.
By concerned citizen
August 2, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this
HERE IS A QUESTION FOR EVERYONE ON HERE.
IS OIL A LIMITED RESOURCE?
Okay, so if you come to the obvious conclusion that the answer is in fact “yes” as I do, then the only issue is when this date will come. And in truth it’s not when the day that all oil has been consumed that is of consequence. It’s actually the day that oil production peaks that is most important. The reason is that once oil production peaks, then simply supply and demand economics take over. Simply put, more demand than supply equals prices thru the roof (and you think $3 a gallon is too high, wait til peak oil) and those who need it, might be willing to do things to obtain it that today seem hard to imagine. So my point is, why don’t we get a head start on insulating the United States of America from this inevitable problem? Why is it we would kill for our children or grandchildren on an individual basis, but we p-i-s-s on them on a collective basis? I mean we basically say that NO OIL is a problem for the future (i.e. our children), to deal with even though we know it is coming. Ask yourself this, if you knew your child was going to face peril in the future, wouldn’t you go to great lengths to stop it? We can prevent that for our children and grandchildren’s sakes, and also use it to help our economy, environment and foreign policy.
By Ugotta B. Kidding
August 2, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this
Hey getalife: Too bad she doesn’t have a reponse program for HURRICANES!!!
By clarkslawga
August 2, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this
TFTT,
If I was going to lie about something, it would most certainly not be about being a Jew. After all, I am one of the chosen people. That makes me special.
As for which piece got tossed, are you coming on to me? If so please wait a few more minutes for my lunch to go down.
By getalife
August 2, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
Markus wants your job but your logic and intellect may win you the job. It is very close.
Dumb and dumber, if you will.
By The Moderate Voice
August 2, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this
What is funny to me is that the left in Congress rails against drilling anywhere, but then you have people like Ted Kennedy who is doing everything he can to prevent windmills from being put off the coast of Mass. This is one issue we need to forget politics and actually find answers. And for multiple reasons, dependence on foreign oil for one and to conserve as much as possible for future generations.
By Political Foreskin
August 2, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
Is Mr. Wooten asking if we could stop the oil companies from drilling offshore where they want? Then, No.
Is Mr. Wooten asking if we would stop it if we could, then,yes.
Although we are drowning in oil, oil is not the priority. War is. I think it’s great science will one day solve all our energy needs.
I think a little oil on the shrimp tastes good, dont you?
I wonder where the spearpoints of Israeli armor will stop for the night? I heard reports last night of 60 miles.
By getalife
August 2, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this
Ugotta B. Kidding,
Yes, hurricane Chris is brewing and they are not ready. Local parish government are better prepared.
I see anything coming close, we are headed to Dallas, Texas.
By Nick
August 2, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this
Just a few things …
Oil is the problem, not the solution. Has anyone considered how long it’s going to take for these new pipelines to start actually delivering on their promises of producing “xx barrels per day” when they are finally able to reach maximum output levels? Try 15 - 20 years. And that’s if we start working immediately.
American consumption of oil is at roughly 20 million barrels a day. The next highest? China at 6 million.
The 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil are indeed correct. But there’s a big difference between what is economically recoverable and technically recoverable. Even with oil prices as high as they are today, cut that 10.4 billion figure in half. And considering we use 6.6 billion barrels per year, well … here’s to getting one year’s worth of oil in 15 years.
The proposed “no-drill zone” around Florida only came to fruition after Florida Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat, fought for it. The House version of the same bill has no such inclusion and is drastically more invasive.
By time for the truth
August 2, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this
you’re a fake jew!! … you’re just an arab gentile pretending to be a jew!!
time to really choke on those stale matzos!!
By Dusty
August 2, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this
Now, now Getalife,
I forgot to tell you that I called Fema and they promised to fix the leak in your trailer. Now smile and the world smiles with you, sweet thing.
By DD
August 2, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this
Greed, Greed, Greed
By clarkslawga
August 2, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
TFTT,
Don’t take this personally, but strangly enough I am starting to kind of like you. I still think you’re a fake and I’m still going to call you out and bust your…well whatever there is to bust, but that last bit was funny.
Maybe you’re starting to get it.
That’s it. No more being nice.
Fake
By time for the truth
August 2, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this
you must be the still living at home with mommy woody allen kind of jew … without his money and his alleged cinematic talent
watch out for the acrid smell of bitter almonds in that next bowl of home made chicken soup
By mark
August 2, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this
Let’s just drill everywhere. To heck with the environment. And when we use up our oil, let’s nuke the Middle East so we can control all of their oil, too. Alternative fuels and conservation are for sissys.
By clarkslawga
August 2, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this
You figured it all out.
I am Woody Allen.
Soon Yee says hi.
By sct
August 2, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this
“Moderate” voice, you forgot to mention Mass Republican Gov. Mitt Romney. He also is lobbying hard to halt the windmills.
Republican Jeb Bush is against Florida drilling.
Republican Governor Arnie is also against further drilling off the Calif. coast.
By RW-(the original)
August 2, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
getalife,
Here you go!. When you get to Dallas will you stop and visit your Mayor?
By time for the truth
August 2, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
MARK!!
That was by far the BEST post of the day!!
Obviously we gotta watch we dont nuke Israel by mistake, but everywhere is fair game.
Especially liked the “Alternative fuels and conservation are for sissys” bit. … absolute magic!!
Jim - I think you’ve found your Energy Secretary
By mark
August 2, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
Of course we can’t drill off the coast of Florida, California, Oregon or Massachussets… too many rich people (of both political parties) live there. Don’t want to spoil their views.
By sane reader
August 2, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this
You people are all idiots. Rather than taking this “energy crisis” as an opportunity to reassess yourselves and our country’s crumbling strategy of basing its future growth on oil, you have played into the hands of the big oil companies that you hate.
1) What if we had “done this a long tiome ago” as many of you exclaim that we “should have”? Now we would not even have the option of tapping these reserves to solve this “crisis.”
2) Do you actually think big oil is going to lower gas prices and shrink their record profits because of this? If so, it will be temporary, and we’ll be right back where we started in a year. For all we know this “crisis” was concocted just so the U.S. would open up the protected areas.
3) What if this isn’t a “crisis”? What if this is the end of the days of limitless supplies of oil? I don’t think it’s cause to celebrate when we decide to go all-in to lower gas prices a few cents (if that) rather than holding something back for when the oil supply is truly depleted and gas is $10/gallon.
Fine. To appease the morons that think it will actually help, open up the areas that China could tap into in the Gulf. However, the better strategy would be to keep ANWAR in our back pocket for when the sh!t really hits the fan—-we’re going to need some deisel saved for all of our tanks when the overt oil wars start.
By jbmlaw
August 2, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this
Dear Sane Reader, there is an excellent way to accomplish your goal - the price mechanism. Allowing free markets to work always achieves the optimal result. It is only when we have superior minds out-thinking the markets that we get into trouble, e.g., legislation tying the hands of the capital sources.
I perceive you are reluctant to allow free markets to work, but I think those prejudices are misplaced.
By jbmlaw
August 2, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
And I do think there is a nuclear option to cure attempts to control the markets.
By DickB
August 2, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this
I was unaware we owned the ocean 125-300 miles off the coast of any part of our coastline. If Cuba, the Bahamas etc decide to drill 50 or 60 miles off our coast do we have the legal right to tell them no?
By getalife
August 2, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this
RW,
Yep, looks like a trip to Dallas
I will get him to blog here or ml’s and if you think “Mark” is bad, wait until you read his radical bs. You have been warned.
By jbmlaw
August 2, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this
Sane Reader rails at the complaints and “I told you so”s of “what if we had done this a long time ago,” but the fact is, it is the Luddite left that has blocked all rational energy development since 1971.
The left blocked nuclear power with direct restriction (The China Syndrome movie was their source-authority.) The left blocked expanded use of coal via environmental restrictions. The left blocked construction of new oil refineries via environmental restrictions. The left thinks hydro-electric is ok, but only because we have already dammed every damable river. Even the hard-core leftists don’t suggest wind or tides or solar or moonbeams will ever contribute anything meaningful in the way of energy.
If they would just get out of the way, the energy companies want to make money and would gladly deliver the goods; most of us would gladly pay.
The left believes in deprivation as the primary cure for the so-called energy crisis.
By Scooter
August 2, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
Me thinks hydro-electric good! Conserves drinking water and produces energy.
By Van
August 2, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this
DickB
Each coastal state has sovereign rights over a 12-mile territorial sea and sovereign rights over natural resources and certain economic activities within a 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
Coastal states also have sovereign rights regarding exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf (200 miles from shore and in some cases farther). Provision is made for delimitation of the territorial sea, EEZ, and continental shelf of archipelagic states and for access to the sea for landlocked nations. A large number of countries, including the United States, have proclaimed their sovereignty over the EEZ and the marine and mineral resources within it.
From the Third Law of the Sea Treaty, the US did not sign, but agreed to the majority of the terms.
Since Cuba is within the 200 mile limit, there is a conflict. If we split the differnce between Florida and Cuba, then Cuba could slant drill under our territorial limits.
By Jim Wooten
August 2, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
My Secretary of Energy search is not going well. Mark was promising, but then he started worrying about windmills obstructing the views of the rich.
I can’t say “liberals” today, but if I could, I would like to know what it would take for them to agree to drilling in ANWR. We are trying to find middle ground here.
By Jim Wooten
August 2, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
And thanks, Van, for handling that EEZ question. You see now why you were put in charge of Congressional relations in the Real Conservatives administration.
By Brian Curtis
August 2, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this
Wooten: What would it take for us to agree to drilling for oil in ANWR? Well, for starters, how about if it made the slightest bit of sense whatsoever.
We’re not going to “drill” our way to energy independence, no matter what Dick Cheney’s buddies try to tell us. The estimated amounts of oil in ANWR are trivial, and would take years to materialize anyway… we’d do a lot better simply mandating higher fuel-efficiency standards and funding alternate-energy R&D.
But that’s not what the oil companies want to hear, so now they wave the Drilling for National Security banner. (Neat rhetorical trick for neocon: Any pet program or project can be justified by claiming it will help in the War on Terror.)
By Nick
August 2, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this
I can’t come up with any grounds for drilling in ANWR. The proposed reasons for drilling are that doing so will decrease our reliance on foreign oil and, as a bonus, create thousands of jobs. The jobs part I won’t refute, although I think the CEO of some oil company stands to gain a little more than those workers.
My problem is that drilling in ANWR is short-sighted thinking. With our current consumption rate (still growing at .5%), we’ll get about two years worth (tops) of oil out of it. Again, there’s a difference between technically recoverable oil and economically recoverable oil.
And we’ll see this oil in, what, 15 years? If that? And then we’re back to square one? Great.
Oil is a nonrenewable resource. It’s going to run out eventually. Drilling in ANWR means we’ll live under the guise for another decade that this oil thing will turn out okay. But by the time we see the oil coming down the pipelines, it’ll be too little and too late. Our money should be spent elsewhere.
See there, I didn’t even use the environment argument …
By Van
August 2, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this
Brian Curtis,
Between increased bio-fuels, like ethanol, and additional drilling and we can achieve energy independence over a period of years.
To ignore one part or the other is foolish. It must be a multi-prong attack. Better vehicles, better use of petro-products can all help.
By Aquagirl
August 2, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
Okay Jim, I’m a sorta liberal. I’d support drilling in ANWAR if we were seriously attempting to 1) develop other energy sources, and 2) address the fact that even President Bush admitted “we’re addicted to oil”.
Drilling in ANWAR is largely symbolic for both conservatives and liberals. For the conservatives….ANWAR wouldn’t produce enough oil to make a significant difference. We’d still be dependant on other nations, who have a lot more oil that’s easily accessed. For liberals…there are other places that need environmental protection more, and nobody is willing to consider that we could drill there without the earth flying off of it’s axis from stampeding reindeer or whatever.
This will bring brickbats, but I believe jbmlaw’s 2:31 post, deprivation is the primary cure for the energy crisis. By all means, let the free market set the price. If it did (and this means the oil companies have to go it alone, without government help) then you wouldn’t see a bunch of SUV’s, people would be driving “sardine cans.” And living in much smaller houses.
By spend wisely
August 2, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
Jim — that you even considered anyone who would use nuclear weapons to control markets as a person with a viable or intelligent opinion simply makes me ill.
“By Jim Wooten
August 2, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
My Secretary of Energy search is not going well. Mark [who advocated nuclear weapons be used in the Middle East] was promising, but then he started worrying about windmills obstructing the views of the rich.”
I had thought this would be an intelligent discussion of the issue, as that is your reputation, Jim. I see I was misinformed.
By jbmlaw
August 2, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
Spend Wisely, we all know Southern females who swoon at the slightest distress. Thanks for the warning, we’ll try to be considerate of your sensibilities when we turn the desert to glass.
By Sane Reader
August 2, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw
Who said I was a liberal? I think the American public, left and right, has had the wool pulled over their eyes by big oil (possibly with the help of Cheney and other Bush administration officials). Exhibit A: all of the people in this thread celebrating the tapping of our backup oil supplies like they’re handing out free BJs.
Say what you will about the propriety of it all—-drilling or not drilling—-but the fact is that it won’t make a dent in $3 oil prices because, when someone (big oil) has you by the balls and knows it, you can give them what ever you want but they won’t let go until they get it all.
I think the better strategy would be to reduce dependence on oil in general because I think it will run out faster than our elected kabal is letting on. However, even if we did reduce oil dependence as much as possible before the world runs out, some things will always have to run on oil, and I would much rather have ANWAR in my back pocket then than to burn it all up now so that I can save $.03/gallon for a few months (until the next speech in Iran causes a scare that runs the price up again).
By time for the truth
August 2, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
@ comment unwisely
obviously you are both humourless and quite obtuse. It was simply banter love … I naturally assume you are female given such a visceral reaction to a few harmless quips. You seem intensely serious too and doubtless eat way too many lentils and japanese seaweed!
However the sentiments expressed by Mark seemed eminently sound- if a little wimpily expressed.
By Bill Clinton
August 2, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
Somebody say something about BJs?
By Jim Wooten
August 2, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this
Don’t get too ill, spend wisely. On most days, including this one, the conversation has at least two threads, one serious, one not.
Mark is out of Secretary of Energy consideration. You nixed him.
Meanwhile, Curtis and Nick, thanks for speaking truthfully on ANWR and to Acquagirl for the commendable effort to find the middle ground.
By The Stopper
August 2, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this
all of the people in this thread celebrating the tapping of our backup oil supplies like they’re handing out free BJs.
Well, in a sense they’re right—the proposed exploration initiatives pretty much suck, at least in terms of the stated (and rather silly) goal of “energy independence.”
some things will always have to run on oil, and I would much rather have ANWAR (sic) in my back pocket then than to burn it all up now so that I can save $.03/gallon for a few months (until the next speech in Iran causes a scare that runs the price up again).
Is there some kind of contagious learning disability that prevents Americans from understanding this?
Yeah, heaven forbid we should put off mucking up another pristeen wilderness another ten years or so—they might have developed a less nasty extraction method by then. or better pipeline/distribution methods. can’t have that.
By jbmlaw
August 2, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this
Dear Sane Reader, your hostility to the price mechanism tells a discerning reader all you wish to conceal.
Dear Stopper, we appreciate that you also are smarter than the free economy, but we’ll pass on your program also. I think I would not use “pristeen” to describe the ANWR wilderness; “God forsaken” comes to mind, however.
By The Terminator
August 2, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
You had a lapse in memory jbmlaw — liberals would NEVER use the word God.
By Bill Clinton
August 2, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this
I use the word God occasionally, as in Oh God Monica!
By The Stopper
August 2, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this
I think I would not use “pristeen” to describe the ANWR wilderness
Well, I’d hope not, since I misspelled it.
but it certainly is pristine. if you view the gallery of photos linked here (check the photo caption, upper right):
http://outside.away.com/outside/features/200302/200302anwrsplash.html
You might reconsider that “godforsaken” depiction.
It looks more like some of God’s finest work, actually.
By getalife
August 2, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this
OMG, is used all the time.
I am having problems finding conservative blogs discussing the Iraq war.
Jim,
How about an opinion on the Iraq war?
By time for the truth
August 2, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this
@ Bill Clinton …
psssst!! got any spare pardon money or unaudited library slush funds to spend on HiTllary’s much needed plastic surgery/liposuction for next years primaries?
By Sane Reader
August 2, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw:
[Y]our hostility to the price mechanism tells a discerning reader all you wish to conceal.
What? That I have at least a rudimentary understanding of macro-economics and, as a result, cannot be fooled by the typical arguments used to keep the plebeians in line?
By Ugotta B. Kidding
August 2, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this
What I’d like to know is how the looney left got so much power that they can not only stop oil drilling in all these areas but they also stop construction projects because of some damn rat or snake. They stopped a dam project because of a “snail darter”. How could we all possibly survive without the snail darter? Farms in California have been taken from the owners because of some damn rat. Here in the South we’re up to our A*******E$ in fire ants because DDT was taken off the market. Death from malaria is rampant in some African countries because of the DDT idiocy that has since been debunked. But these NUTS support all this lunacy in the name of LOVE. Love for Mother Earth! AND they still use their silly arguments to stop oil drilling in the pristine wildernesses. Why the “silent majority” keeps putting up with this silly garbage is totally beyond me.
By Bill Clinton
August 2, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
Uh it depends on what the meaning of Psssst IS.
By rarringt
August 2, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
Canada’s not the long term answer, for a few reasons:
The “shallow” oil is in the form of shale, which takes considerably more energy to process than sweet crude. On balance the energy yield is almost 1:1, making the overall benefits minimal.
The “deep” oil is really deep. Really really deep. We don’t have the technology yet to get at it and make it commercially viable.
Even if recapture costs were minimal, there’s a third problem. The Chinese have already acquired a substantial portion of the drilling rights. They’ve been setting up shop out there for about half a decade. While laws of economics might kick in and a portion of it will find its way to global markets, suffice to say they’re primarily interested in attending to their own economic development. I don’t blame them, as we’re having the same conversation on this very blog. They just seem to be interested in taking the longer view.
Here’s the problem, at the end of the day. Those who advocate regulatory controls as well as free market purists agree on the same thing, just from different directions: that the american consumer is greedy, lazy and sloppy when it comes to efficient energy conservation. This is in large part because energy is freely available and still relatively cheap.
Regulatory provision supporters want to discipline consumers on the books. Free marketeers would rather do it at the cash register. Both sides seek to establish and maintain control over the consumer.
Which I agree with. Only about 10% of the population moves the majority of any society forward or backward. Waiting for the innate goodness of people to kick in makes no since, because most folks are “good” only when it suits their own selfish purposes. Turns out St. Thomas Aquinas was right after all.
By time for the truth
August 2, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this
Kidding
With selfish eco insensitive types like YOU the poor wittle Oregon barn owl or whatever the hell it was might be no more in some forested areas and thousands of folks would have logging industry dependent jobs … what’s next … save the bloody whales??!!
Its the eco wackos who pushed this bollocks through many years ago … and smug leftist appointed for life judges just love upholding ludicrous decisions based on various eco wacko laws that actually are more far reaching than the federal sexual harassment laws that Clinton successfully completed ignored!
By time for the truth
August 2, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
JUST ONE WEEK LEFT FOR McKINNEY
Lets hope Johnson hammers her this time next week!!
By getalife
August 2, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
ANWR is an eyesore
Lets trash it.
By rarringt
August 2, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this
Ugotta,
As a member of the “loony left,” I’ll try to respond.
Most of us have little problem with the careful and considered development/exploitation of ANWR. We take issue with those who think that “drillin’” will solve our problems. They won’t. Oil from ANWR won’t be available for another decade at best, assuming we start today. Even then, It’ll account for less than 2% of our current usage, much less future projections.
For those of you about to argue that “ever lil’ bit heyulps,” I agree. That’s why there should be so much emphasis on nuclear and biomass (which will take about a year to develop). That is the path to a sane energy future.
What to do today? Drop the anti-trade tariff on Brazilian ethanol. Improve CAFE standards. Provide tax credits based on mileage of vehicles (versus technology used). Push for greatly increased expansion of mass transit (especially in spread-out areas like atlanta). Provide incentives for companies to encourage telecommuting and other distance-friendly forms of work (where applicable). Increase tax credits for installation and implementation of alternative energy or hyper-efficient appliances (solar heating, tankless water heaters, dual fuel furnaces, etc.)
It’s a start towards changing our energy usage and more important, our attitude towards it. After all, ever’ lil’ bit heyulps….
By Aquagirl
August 2, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this
Well, Ugotta, some of that “silent majority” found their love when Bald Eagles ended up on the endangered species list. I guess those mattered a little more to them than the damn rats and snakes. Not that the Bald Eagle is any more important ecologically, that we know of. It’s just pretty embarrassing to kill off your national symbol.
By rarringt
August 2, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this
I said:
“That’s why there should be so much emphasis on nuclear and biomass (which will take about a year to develop).”
I meant to say “about a decade as well.”
By Ugotta B. Kidding
August 2, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this
Hey Aquagirl: Yeah, we wanted to save the Eagles ‘cause they’ll eat those “damn rats and snakes”. Duh-huh!
By Ugotta B. Kidding
August 2, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this
Time for the Truth: Are you starting to feel some of the “Looooooooove?” rarringt: I don’t have the answer either (believe it or not). But I DO KNOW that doing nothing is not solving the problem. It’s only added to it.
By Aquagirl
August 2, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this
Drilling more won’t solve the main problem, it’ll just make some people feel better.
How is it that conservatives have such a liberal “it makes me feel good!” approach to the energy problem? When liberals do that, we get all sorts of %$#! on this blog. But it’s okay for the “drill everywhere and kill the snail darters while your’re at it” bunch to turn off their frontal lobes?
By Aquagirl
August 2, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this
I think the eagles eat snail darters also. Which is appropriate, since the snail darters were imported by commie pinkos just to destroy the U. S. economy.
By Markus
August 2, 2006 05:30 PM | Link to this
Hey gotalobotomy:
*By getalife
August 2, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
No silly, I was referring to Markus assertion of:
That’s why oil companies can drill today off the coast of Louisiana without spills.*
I see even with your second link you can’t show where oil rigs have been SPILLING oil IN the gulf while drilling AS I STATED. Yeah a typical liberal got cornered with that pesky little thing called FACT again.
Oh, and I like your BS photos of ANWAR with lovely mountains and green meadows. Here’s a REAL pic of the refuge… somebody is LYING, loser lib:
http://www.nationalreview.com/images/picANWR134.jpg
By Ugotta B. Kidding
August 2, 2006 05:38 PM | Link to this
Jim, if you want MORE proof that we don’t need a liberal running the energy dep’t., read Aquagirl’s posts. I’ll call her GOOSE (squawk & s! squawk & s!). Gueese probably eat snail darters too!
By rarringt
August 2, 2006 05:46 PM | Link to this
Markus,
ANWR is almost 2 million acres in size, and there’s no reference point in the pic. Both pics could be (and likely are) correct. It’s like taking a picture of the landfill, and declaring it representative of ATL in general (no silly jokes, Rednecks).
That said, and to answer Jim’s question, drilling in light of the relatively low yield would make sense only in conjuction with other alternative energy initiatives.
By getalife
August 2, 2006 05:47 PM | Link to this
Markus,
The NRO is not a credible source unless you are a wingnut moonbat which I can tell from your mindset you most certainly are.
Oil rigs do not spill much oil, it is the oil tankers with drunk captains silly. Remember this?
I am for drilling, more money for me. Drill, drill, drill indeed.
By time for the truth
August 2, 2006 05:49 PM | Link to this
talking of geese and things - I’m off now to Alec Baldwin’s house for a slap up dinner … starting with his famous home made goose liver pate - tonite’s repast also includes baked factory farmed Florida manatee, sauted endangered blue whale in a spicy cocaine and Kentucky bourbon sauce and an Italian veal surprise.
By Brian
August 2, 2006 05:49 PM | Link to this
testing one
By Ugotta B. Kidding
August 2, 2006 05:51 PM | Link to this
Yum Yummmmmm! Damn you’ve done flung a cravin’ on me!
By time for the truth
August 2, 2006 05:55 PM | Link to this
Ms Basinger is due to jump out of tonite’s rather risque opium laced death by chocolate cake - with a tasty little restraining order for Alec.
sorry Jim
I’ll get my coat …
By Brian
August 2, 2006 05:58 PM | Link to this
I found some more ANWR pics:
http://www.anwr.org/gallery/images/48-CoastalPlainsummer.jpg
http://www.anwr.org/gallery/images/47-CoastalPlainspring2.jpg
To getalife: all you have done is show land accidents and boat accidents. I believe the original issue was drilling from oil rig platforms, correct?
By Bill Clinton
August 2, 2006 05:59 PM | Link to this
Ha Ha Want to see my pictures?
By time for the truth
August 2, 2006 06:00 PM | Link to this
I heard that the Beverly Hillbillies found oil on Rednecks land and that’s why he’s so bitter - he didn’t get nuthin’ for his black gold!!
By Buffalo Bill
August 2, 2006 06:04 PM | Link to this
Any oil independence or conservation plan has a decade or more timeline. We dont have the luxury of 10 years B4 Iran has the bomb.
The present fighting seems to indicate that Iran will not hesitate a second once they get a workable delivery sytem in place.
By getalife
August 2, 2006 06:14 PM | Link to this
Brian,
I refer you to my 5:47 post.
Here is more pics from ANWR