Kay Bailey - On Target!

[DeepGreen]

What part of this do liberal Democrats not understand?

How America can achieve true energy independence

We have the resources if Congress gets out of the way

By U.S. SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

Houston Chronicle

June 12, 2008

President Reagan said, 'There are no easy answers, but there are simple ones.' This principle applies to America's energy woes. Since January 2007, the price of a gallon of gasoline has soared from $2.33 to a record $4.04. Over the next two decades, global demand for oil is expected to rise by 50 percent. Further price escalation is inevitable.

When confronted by these facts, the energy solution is simple. We need more energy! We should be increasing our production of oil, natural gas, clean coal and nuclear power — and those resources should come from America, instead of foreign dictatorships.

One of the best-kept secrets in politics today is that America is one of the world's richest energy nations and is capable of achieving energy independence.

Our most valuable untapped resource is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, which is estimated to contain 10.4 billion barrels of oil. This remote frozen tundra could be drilled with minimal impact on surrounding life. ANWR is the size of South Carolina and the area drilled would be roughly the size of Dallas/Love Field Airport.

In 1995, the Republican Congress passed legislation to open ANWR for energy production. But President Clinton vetoed our bill. If he had signed it, America would now be producing an additional 1 million barrels a day, almost enough oil to replace all of our daily imports from Saudi Arabia.

Beyond ANWR, federal law prevents oil and gas production in the deep waters off the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts. These areas, along with a section of the Gulf of Mexico, could contain as much as 115 billion barrels of oil — greater than Venezuela's current reserves — and 565 trillion cubic feet of natural gas — greater than the combined reserves of Iraq, China, Yemen, Oman, Nigeria and Venezuela.

Federal laws also prevent us from exploiting one trillion barrels of shale oil in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah — an amazing amount that is three times what Saudi Arabia has in reserve.

In May, I joined 18 other Senate Republicans to introduce the American Energy Production Act of 2008. Our bill would remove unnecessary government barriers to domestic energy production and allow us to tap our vast resources with environmental safeguards. This should be bolstered with an energy portfolio that includes renewable and alternative sources such as solar, wind and nuclear power.

My Democratic colleagues have a starkly different approach to the energy crisis: It is one that creates no new energy. Their answer is to tax energy production.

In 1980, Congress passed a 'windfall profits tax' and the consequences were devastating. In the six years following that levy, domestic oil production dropped by 1.26 billion barrels and imports of foreign oil rose 13 percent. The disastrous tax was repealed in 1986. Rather than learn from that mistake, some in Congress would impose the same ineffective tax on the oil industry today.

Their proposal also seeks to blame 'price gouging' for soaring energy prices. The Federal Trade Commission has been vigilant in its investigation of pricing practices in the oil industry. It has consistently found no evidence of market or price manipulation, and instead points to global supply and demand as a leading factor in the price of gasoline.

In fact, as of January, the average tax on each gallon of gasoline was 47 cents, while the oil and gas industry has testified that it earns only four cents per dollar of gasoline sales.

The Democrats' plan would also repeal incentives for expanded refinery investment. By increasing taxes and reducing the incentives to refine oil into usable gasoline, we will end up with a smaller supply of domestic energy, which in turn fuels price increases, perpetuates our present crisis and keeps us at the mercy of OPEC. Energy companies would be hit with new taxes on foreign earnings, potentially exposing producers to double taxation and hindering their ability to compete for oil and natural gas reserves on the global market.

This year, we will spend about $500 billion to import oil. All of those dollars should stay here in America, instead of being sent to foreign regimes that may be hostile to our interests.

We need energy for Americans produced by Americans, and we need it now. Instead of searching for scapegoats, we should be searching for additional energy resources to be part of a bold, comprehensive plan for America's energy security in the 21st century.

Hutchison is the senior U.S. senator from Texas and is the chairwoman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee.

[emmitt01]

Gosh she is just so right.

Why even question being less oil dependant when we could just tap tons of it in the few untouched portions of our continent? I'm sure glad Kay Bailey is around.

[forevereagle]

Gosh she is just so right.

Why even question being less oil dependant when we could just tap tons of it in the few untouched portions of our continent? I'm sure glad Kay Bailey is around.

Why does this need to mean that we aren't seeking to become less oil dependent? It's not like we are going to be able to develop the technology, make it economically feasible for widespread use, and implement the infrastructure overnight. If we can drive down prices now, then we should do it. While all that is going on, we develop the aforementioned necessities to be less oil dependent. This isn't going to happen in the next 5 years, it will take decades to be less oil dependent.

[UNTflyer]

Why even question being less oil dependant when we could just tap tons of it in the few untouched portions of our continent? I'm sure glad Kay Bailey is around.

Well if you can come up with an alternative to fossil fuels that won't make transportation a perk for the rich and elite, I'm all ears.

Oil is what our country runs on. Ethanol? Not unless you want food bills around $900 a month. Hydrogen? It has negative net energy ratio... it's takes more energy to make hydrogen fuel than you get out of it. Electric? I like to be able to travel more than 100 miles without having to pull over and recharge for 6 hours.

We need oil, we need a lot, and we need it now. The politicians have already screwed us over with their horrible energy policy of the past 30 years. As it is, if they lifted the offshore drilling ban today it would take several years before the oil starts flowing. So, like the Saudi King said today... get used to it.

Funny thing is, the environmentalist policies of blocking new offshore oil rigs, drilling sites, etc. is one the primary causes of high oil prices, which will turn most Americans against the environmental movement.

Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.

[yyz28]

Well if you can come up with an alternative to fossil fuels that won't make transportation a perk for the rich and elite, I'm all ears.

Oil is what our country runs on. Ethanol? Not unless you want food bills around $900 a month. Hydrogen? It has negative net energy ratio... it's takes more energy to make hydrogen fuel than you get out of it. Electric? I like to be able to travel more than 100 miles without having to pull over and recharge for 6 hours.

We need oil, we need a lot, and we need it now. The politicians have already screwed us over with their horrible energy policy of the past 30 years. As it is, if they lifted the offshore drilling ban today it would take several years before the oil starts flowing. So, like the Saudi King said today... get used to it.

Funny thing is, the environmentalist policies of blocking new offshore oil rigs, drilling sites, etc. is one the primary causes of high oil prices, which will turn most Americans against the environmental movement.

Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.

Pretty much sums it up.

There are versions of ethonol (not corn) that may be a real play as they develop. Hydrogen may be a play as technology advances and we can make it in a more effiencent manner. Electric power is a real option but again, technology has to advance to where the battery longevity and cost gets battery powered vehicles that PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANT TO DRIVE on the roads. The footnote to electical power is the coal issue, and the fact that the same morons who won't let us get our own oil and use it are the same morons who keep electricity costs high by over-regulating the coal plants and refusing to allow any new nuclear power in this country.

We're technologically not there with any of these items yet. ...but we are getting closer, and alternatives will be found. We don't need government incentive - those who develop the future alternitives to fossil fuels will make so much money, there is no need for the government to be spending money on R&D in this area. Let the private sector work this out on their own...

Government needs to get the hell out of the way on energy, not get further into the middle of it. They've done a good enough job of screwing it up.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

--- What do we do when that field is used up...?? Many consider Anwar our reserve in case something happens to our Middle Eastern supplies. Production in that area (Alaska) is extremely expensive compared to Middle Eastern oil which is cheap to produce. It might bring down the price some but not as much as many would have you believe. Oil supplies off the Florida Coast make more sense and is in inter-national waters which means others can drill there if they chose too. We can not really control that area or keep others out.

--- For those of you want Anwar drilling now.... Can you imagine what the Middle Eastern guys would charge us when we no longer have any American sourses available..??

Think things though.. and don't just take the first easy answer.

[yyz28]

--- What do we do when that field is used up...?? Many consider Anwar our reserve in case something happens to our Middle Eastern supplies. Production in that area (Alaska) is extremely expensive compared to Middle Eastern oil which is cheap to produce. It might bring down the price some but not as much as many would have you believe. Oil supplies off the Florida Coast make more sense and is in inter-national waters which means others can drill there if they chose too. We can not really control that area or keep others out.

--- For those of you want Anwar drilling now.... Can you imagine what the Middle Eastern guys would charge us when we no longer have any American sourses available..??

Think things though.. and don't just take the first easy answer.

The problem with your point is that we have more reserves in this country than the reserves of the entire middle east that we can't tap. Everyone's going to run out of oil eventually, the question is what do we do for the next 50-100 years we have to get through before other alternitives become viable via our growing technology and while energy demands worldwide remain on the incline?

[UNTflyer]

Think things though.. and don't just take the first easy answer.

Offshore drilling and ANWR drilling are not the "easy answers". They are the only answers.

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

Offshore drilling and ANWR drilling are not the "easy answers". They are the only answers.

From yyz28:

There are versions of ethonol (not corn) that may be a real play as they develop. Hydrogen may be a play as technology advances and we can make it in a more effiencent manner. Electric power is a real option but again, technology has to advance to where the battery longevity and cost gets battery powered vehicles that PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANT TO DRIVE on the roads.

Just my 2 cents:

While I lean toward Screaming Eagle's view that drilling is a very shortsided solution, I think the only way the crisis is going to be addressed is through a compromise that will allow some drilling (conservatives would like this...as a liberal, I'd rather see offshore drilling than ANWR) but also set extra incentives to getting the alternative energy sources up to speed in a faster manner (liberals would like this). It wouldn't make anyone totally happy, but it would set into motion each of the short and long term solutions to the problem.

Now that that's decided, can we all just gather around the campfire, roast marshmallows, and sing kum-ba-yah?

[meangreenacct]

From yyz28:

Just my 2 cents:

While I lean toward Screaming Eagle's view that drilling is a very shortsided solution, I think the only way the crisis is going to be addressed is through a compromise that will allow some drilling (conservatives would like this...as a liberal, I'd rather see offshore drilling than ANWR) but also set extra incentives to getting the alternative energy sources up to speed in a faster manner (liberals would like this). It wouldn't make anyone totally happy, but it would set into motion each of the short and long term solutions to the problem.

Now that that's decided, can we all just gather around the campfire, roast marshmallows, and sing kum-ba-yah?

Unfortunately, I tend to agree. The only solution is a comprise. I'd really like to see us develop some of the shale in Colorado/Wyoming and other places.

[Censored by Laurie]

The biggest problem facing America is the American mentality of entitlment. We feel we have to drive...hell...some probably take it so far as to say Jesus intended for them to drive...and drive a really big truck...yea...Jesus wants you in a Hummer.

If these gas prices are becoming a burden on you...sorry...but its a finite resource and it may be about time to start making adjustments to your lifestyle...especially if you have children so they don't grow up with that same sort of sense of entitlement. How do other countries deal with expensive oil? They don't drive. They walk it, bike it, rollerblade it, skateboard it, bus it, train it, kayak it, parasail it, lightrail it, darkrail it...if they must consume some gas...they vespa (preferrably seafoam green) it. Ohh...yeah...sorry I forgot...we're America dammit...git yer guns up...love it or leave it

Drilling is a short term fix...nothing more. And it probably wouldn't even be that much of a fix. KBH was good enough to provide you some nice figures...two things: first, words like 'could' and 'estimated' scare me...nothing would be worse to me than to open up a beautiful place like ANWR to drill a dry well. But...I'll run on the assumption those numbers are spot on and all of this oil is there...is America simply going to hoard it and use it for its own good and give a big middle finger to the rest of the world...especially the rest of the world that has been providing America with oil for the past 100 years? I wonder how that will play.

As for me...I have driven to work twice in the past month.

[GreenMachine]

nothing would be worse to me than to open up a beautiful place like ANWR to drill a dry well.

Yeah, that will really piss me off the next time I take the family to vacation in the arctic and their are ugly oil derricks around.

[UNTflyer]

...nothing would be worse to me than to open up a beautiful place like ANWR to drill a dry well.

The area of ANWR that they want to drill is not beautiful. It is a desolate place. And we already know the oil is there.

This is ANWR... see that little red dot wayyyy to the north? That is where they want to drill... where almost nothing lives, but some estimates say it can produce up to 1,000,000 barrels a day for 43 years.

This is what the coastal plain looks like in the summer. Beautiful, huh?

And why do we drive? Because unlike Europe we don't live in in crappy apartments crammed into cities thousands of years old with roads barely big enough for the beloved Vespa. This is America, where we live in suburbs far away from city centers. Texas is bigger than France. And finally... we have oil! Trillions of barrels of oil. To say that drilling is a "short-term" solution ignores the very fact that this country sits on enough oil to fuel TWO Americas for the next 300 years.

Edited July 2, 2008 by UNTflyer

[SilverEagle]

Yes, this is not Europe. But through the years I've noticed that Americans love to travel over there.

Let's say that we drill off shore, and in ANWR, and hit it as big as we think we'll hit it. The oil flows, the price goes down, and can someone then tell me what the incentive will be to develop alternative fuels? How about cleaner sources of energy?

Yes we drive everywhere and move far away from the city. We are also one of the fattest nations in the world. We have a high average life expectancy, but that has to be because of better medicine. Considering how overweight we are, most of those years can't be what anyone would consider "quality" years. Want to know why Japanese vehicles have gotten bigger and bigger through the years? It's because our collective asses have gotten bigger and bigger, and we can't fit into a Japanese car that was built in the 70's or early 80's. Hell, look at an American built PU from the 50's. At the most, two adults of this era could fit into the cab.

The best and fastest way to bring down the price of fuel is to stop being fuel hogs.

[Mean Green 93-98]

The best and fastest way to bring down the price of fuel is to stop being fuel hogs.

The demand for oil worldwide will continue to increase regardless of what we do in America.

[UNTflyer]

Let's say that we drill off shore, and in ANWR, and hit it as big as we think we'll hit it. The oil flows, the price goes down, and can someone then tell me what the incentive will be to develop alternative fuels? How about cleaner sources of energy?

None. Why would we need alternative energy when we have an infrastructure and fuel that works and is cheap? Isn't that the point?

If you think alternative energy will be cheaper, I've got a stadium in Denton, TX to sell to you.

Clean energy? Despite popular myth, ethanol releases almost as much CO2 as petroleum-based fuels. Gasoline produces 7900 millimoles per VMT. Ethanol releases 7400. By comparison, burning natural gas releases 5640. Yup, natural gas burns cleaner than ethanol. Also, ethanol releases almost 3 times the amount of water vapor as gasoline. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas that is just as harmful as CO2 (if you believe the man-made global warming theory). Finally, we are already seeing the impact that ethanol production has on the world's food supply. People are rioting in 3rd world countries.

Ethanol cannot be transported in pipelines, so we will have to use a hell of a lot more trucks. So we have to burn fuel to transport fuel. Not such a good idea. Ethanol is less efficient, so you have to burn more to get the same miles out of your vehicle.

So... petroleum gas or ethanol? I'll take petroleum.

[FirefightnRick]

As for me...I have driven to work twice in the past month.

Well, I drive 9 times a month, but? For you living in the crowded Northeast probably gives you the luxury to walk or train it to work? Here we are still trying to get to that overpopulated state before we arrive to that point I suppose? I would love for mass transit to finally arrive here in Texas. I thought we were well on our way when Denton thought ahead and formed a commuter rail to Dallas. But it seems they are the only ones outside of Dallas and Fort Worth doing that. We could learn a lot from the European transit model but even rail transportation uses a vast amount of oil. The saddle tanks of a typical BNSF engine holds nearly 3,000 gallons of diesel needed to run the electric generators on those things. However, non of that solves the need for oil problem. As Cerebus stated in the previous thread dealing with this issue, oil is the base component for a vast amount of our products.

Rick

[SilverEagle]

None. Why would we need alternative energy when we have an infrastructure and fuel that works and is cheap? Isn't that the point?

If you think alternative energy will be cheaper, I've got a stadium in Denton, TX to sell to you.

Clean energy? Despite popular myth, ethanol releases almost as much CO2 as petroleum-based fuels. Gasoline produces 7900 millimoles per VMT. Ethanol releases 7400. By comparison, burning natural gas releases 5640. Yup, natural gas burns cleaner than ethanol. Also, ethanol releases almost 3 times the amount of water vapor as gasoline. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas that is just as harmful as CO2 (if you believe the man-made global warming theory). Finally, we are already seeing the impact that ethanol production has on the world's food supply. People are rioting in 3rd world countries.

Ethanol cannot be transported in pipelines, so we will have to use a hell of a lot more trucks. So we have to burn fuel to transport fuel. Not such a good idea. Ethanol is less efficient, so you have to burn more to get the same miles out of your vehicle.

So... petroleum gas or ethanol? I'll take petroleum.

I wasn't suggesting ethanol. In fact, I agree with you about using food products to produce ethanol. That's just stupid. IF we were going to continue producing ethanol (with all it's negative effects), it would make much more sense to use switch grass. It will grow on land unsuitable for regular crop production, plus it produces three times the ethanol as corn.

Fossil fuels keep pumping crap into the atmosphere, but until we are at a crisis, we won't look (and develop) any alternatives.....or look at ways to clean it up.

America has proven over the last 30 years that the more oil and gas we have available, the more we will use......and overuse. Meanwhile, our collective asses keep getting bigger and bigger.

Edited July 2, 2008 by SilverEagle

[Censored by Laurie]

UNTflyer said:

The area of ANWR that they want to drill is not beautiful. It is a desolate place. And we already know the oil is there.

This is ANWR... see that little red dot wayyyy to the north? That is where they want to drill... where almost nothing lives, but some estimates say it can produce up to 1,000,000 barrels a day for 43 years.

http://www.americansforamericanenergy.org/Portals/AAE/images/ANWR_map_large.jpg

This is what the coastal plain looks like in the summer. Beautiful, huh?

http://www.anwr.org/gallery/images/48-Coastal_Plain_summer.jpg

And why do we drive? Because unlike Europe we don't live in in crappy apartments crammed into cities thousands of years old with roads barely big enough for the beloved Vespa. This is America, where we live in suburbs far away from city centers. Texas is bigger than France. And finally... we have oil! Trillions of barrels of oil. To say that drilling is a "short-term" solution ignores the very fact that this country sits on enough oil to fuel TWO Americas for the next 300 years.

Hmmm...yeah I've seen that same picture reproduced over and over again on many pro-drilling sites...I've also seen alot of these:

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p216/ksigjph83/060526_anwr_hlg_4p_hlarge.jpg

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p216/ksigjph83/20060525_anwr.jpg

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p216/ksigjph83/chp_anwr.jpg

I've never been...and I'm assuming nor have you...so all either of us can do is pull photos off of sites with our own agendas. Maybe I'll go next summer. That top picture is the coastal plain.

Again...the "this is America" and we'll do things as impractically as we want to defense. No matter how much oil we have...it is still finite...so lets say we drill and strike it rich and oil goes down and we go right back to our over-consuming way of life...and theres oil for our kids and their new H4 that gets 6 miles to the gallon but looks kick ass with its platinum rims. And world demand increases because our oil has driven down the price from OPEC and everybody is happy and we forget that oil is finite and eventually we're right back to where we are now...but then there is no ANWR and there is no offshore oil and there is no shale...and we've said screw alternative (not ethenol...stop mentioning that...nobody but Iowa farmers and politicians trying to win Iowa farmers votes wants ethenol) fuel sources because we have oil. And eventually we're douchebaged.

You say there's oil for 600 years (in a very odd way)...so answer my other question...if we strike it rich in ANWR and offshore, do we keep all that oil for ourselves in the face of rapidly increasing oil demand or do we say to the world this is ours, we're using it for both Americas for 300 years...or just the one for 600...why don't you guys try this wind, solar, hydroelectric, nuclear or gerbal power that we no longer need?

This is a full fledged addiction we have...hell it was hard for me this morning to reach for my bike rather than my car keys.

Too soon...if this thing makes it to 5 pages, half of which are Flyer just reposting his petition over and over I will have no problem hijacking with you

FirefightnRick said:

Well, I drive 9 times a month, but? For you living in the crowded Northeast probably gives you the luxury to walk or train it to work? Here we are still trying to get to that overpopulated state before we arrive to that point I suppose? I would love for mass transit to finally arrive here in Texas. I thought we were well on our way when Denton thought ahead and formed a commuter rail to Dallas. But it seems they are the only ones outside of Dallas and Fort Worth doing that. We could learn a lot from the European transit model but even rail transportation uses a vast amount of oil. The saddle tanks of a typical BNSF engine holds nearly 3,000 gallons of diesel needed to run the electric generators on those things. However, non of that solves the need for oil problem. As Cerebus stated in the previous thread dealing with this issue, oil is the base component for a vast amount of our products.

Rick

True...I have about a 5 mile bike to the train station, a 15 minute train ride, and then a 2 mile run/walk to work...but if there is something that you ought to be clamering for it would be for increased public transportation...DART is a joke...and I realize that Texas is considerably bigger than the Northeast and Europe...however most people live within an hour of work...and I know plenty of people who live in New Haven and commute to NYC everyday...thats an hour and a half train ride. The fact that there are no train lines running from Plano, McKinney, Frisco, Carrolton ect to downtown Dallas just speaks to the sense of entitlment I mentioned previously.

I'm not saying we can just up and quit oil...just that we need to be considerably smarter in our use

[Censored by Laurie]

America has proven over the last 30 years that the more oil and gas we have available, the more we will use......and overuse. Meanwhile, our collective asses keep getting bigger and bigger.

Most practical post in the now 30 pages of oil discussion

[yyz28]

Hmmm...yeah I've seen that same picture reproduced over and over again on many pro-drilling sites...I've also seen alot of these:

I've never been...and I'm assuming nor have you...so all either of us can do is pull photos off of sites with our own agendas. Maybe I'll go next summer. That top picture is the coastal plain.

I've been to the region. ANWR is a HUGE place, and there are some nice areas. However the coastal plain is as advertised. ANWR is a very diverse area, but the zone they are wanting to drill in is not a spot anyone wants to visit, and there is little to no wildlife to inturrupt there. ...and Alaskan wildlife has proven they can adapt to what we're doing. You've seen the pictures of thousands of carribu grazing right next to the pipeline, right?

Again...the "this is America" and we'll do things as impractically as we want to defense. No matter how much oil we have...it is still finite...so lets say we drill and strike it rich and oil goes down and we go right back to our over-consuming way of life...and theres oil for our kids and their new H4 that gets 6 miles to the gallon but looks kick ass with its platinum rims. And world demand increases because our oil has driven down the price from OPEC and everybody is happy and we forget that oil is finite and eventually we're right back to where we are now...but then there is no ANWR and there is no offshore oil and there is no shale...and we've said screw alternative fuel sources because we have oil. And eventually we're fucked.

...and that's where your argument falls flat on its face. CAFE standards have mandated fleet averages in the 30+MPG range of the automakers, so the 6MPG Hummer is going to be the exception, not the rule. You also just assume that Exxon-Mobil, Shell Oil and the other major energy producers in this country just want to run all the oil they can through their pipelines and then when it runs out, they are going to just say "oh well, that was fun while it lasted, I guess we're just going to shrivel up and die now..." Do you actually think that they don't know where the limits on the supply are? Do you really think they won't be getting themselves in a place to keep going after the oil thing is over? You actually belive that people are going to say "screw alternitive energy?". No matter the price of oil, would you drive an electric car because of the environmental benefits if you could get one for about the same price as an internal combustion model? I bet you would. I bet there is a huge market out there for that, without the governemt making one up and without those of you who would want such a vehicle mandating them on those of us who don't.

My point is this. Alternitives to oil burning transportation have been in the works for a couple of decades and are now getting close to being ready for primetime. Do you really think people and companies who have put the effort into such endeavors are just going to say "f-it" if oil prices go back down? If you do, then you haven't been educated on the inventive nature of this country very well. If there is a market for something, and there is for electric and other types of transportation, the FREE MARKET, not the Government, will make it happen.

Your side of the argument loses credibiltiy when you blame america and lecture us on our "over-consuming way of life". It is an amazing fact of history - we adapt very well.

You say there's oil for 600 years (in a very odd way)...so answer my other question...if we strike it rich in ANWR and offshore, do we keep all that oil for ourselves in the face of rapidly increasing oil demand or do we say to the world this is ours, we're using it for both Americas for 300 years...or just the one for 600...why don't you guys try this wind, solar, hydroelectric, nuclear or gerbal power that we no longer need?

Well, the left has stopped us from using nuclear power in this country. Obviouslly, wind, solar and hydroelectric energy is and will continue to be used in this country. I don't get the point of the question. Are you asking if we keep it all here or put it on the global market? Obviously we put it on the global market. It is the only smart thing to do.

True...I have about a 5 mile bike to the train station, a 15 minute train ride, and then a 2 mile run/walk to work...but if there is something that you ought to be clamering for it would be for increased public transportation...

...yet for some reason I'm not. Spend my morning in my car listening to my radio, on my schedule - or go wait for the smelly train so I can sit across the isle from the homeless guy who jumpped the turnstyle and will become violent when the conductor tries to throw him off the train for not having a ticket. He'll flail around, bump into me, I'll spill my coffee on my paper, and will have waited on the platform 15 mintues for this luxury.

DART is a joke...and I realize that Texas is considerably bigger than the Northeast and Europe...however most people live within an hour of work...and I know plenty of people who live in New Haven and commute to NYC everyday...thats an hour and a half train ride. The fact that there are no train lines running from Plano, McKinney, Frisco, Carrolton ect to downtown Dallas just speaks to the sense of entitlment I mentioned previously.

Ugh. There is a train line that runs into Plano. It would run to McKinney if Allen would pull it's head out of it's ass... Line is being built to Carrolton. ...and what exactly does the lack of a government run and publically funded transportation system have to do with a sense of entitlement?

I find it ironic that people who support real entitlement programs like government run healthcare call people living their lives as they see fit as having a "sense of entitlement".

Edited July 2, 2008 by yyz28

[UNTflyer]

Yeah, the first picture is of the coastal plain, and it looks just as desolate. it is above the marsh creek anticline. There is nothing there to preserve. sir. Little marsh shrubs are not beautiful, and even so... it won't be destroyed because of drilling. Your other pictures are of mountain areas many miles from the proposed drilling site. just because the pictures come from pro-drilling sites doesn't make the truth any less true. If anything, it is the anti-capitalist, anti-oil environmentalist who are deceiving people when they show caribou and moose frolicking in lush green fields with beautiful mountains in the background when they talk about keeping the oil companies out of ANWR.

And, even if the site was in the middle of the most beautiful wildlife area... WHO CARES??? We are talking about 2,000 out 19.2 million square acres. The caribou can go elsewhere, just like they did when we built every other drilling site and pipeline in Alaska.

Hoarding oil is very un-freemarket. So, no we don't hoard the oil. There's plenty of it out there. Every few years there's another outcry of how we are running out of oil but proven reserves go up every year. We know the location of more oil now than we have at any time in history. The fact is, we have no idea how much oil is in the earth, especially as deep-water drilling technology gets better. But that doesn't keep the Chicken Littles from claiming the oil is drying up.

I said "this is America" to support the point that our communities are much different than Europe. But you seem to think this makes the American way is impractical. Last I checked, our unemployment is lower than Europe and our production is higher. We are the nation that produces and innovates more than any other nation on earth. So what's the problem with the way America works? Are you against Americans owning homes and living in the suburbs? Are you against individuality and the pursuit of your own personal happiness?

Hey, I ride my bike to the commuter bus and take that to Dallas. I do this not for the environment or for the benefit of my fellow man, I do it for selfish reasons. I get two more hours of work in each day, I don't road rage, and I save money by not filling up every 3 days. Yet my selfish motives benefit everyone.

There is a train from Plano to Dallas, it's been running for a couple years... and soon there will be one that runs from Denton down I-35 all the way to Dallas. Ridership on the trains is up, and an unexpected benefit is that crime on the light rail is down.

[UNTLifer]

Hmmm...yeah I've seen that same picture reproduced over and over again on many pro-drilling sites...I've also seen alot of these:

I've never been...and I'm assuming nor have you...so all either of us can do is pull photos off of sites with our own agendas. Maybe I'll go next summer. That top picture is the coastal plain.

Again...the "this is America" and we'll do things as impractically as we want to defense. No matter how much oil we have...it is still finite...so lets say we drill and strike it rich and oil goes down and we go right back to our over-consuming way of life...and theres oil for our kids and their new H4 that gets 6 miles to the gallon but looks kick ass with its platinum rims. And world demand increases because our oil has driven down the price from OPEC and everybody is happy and we forget that oil is finite and eventually we're right back to where we are now...but then there is no ANWR and there is no offshore oil and there is no shale...and we've said screw alternative (not ethenol...stop mentioning that...nobody but Iowa farmers and politicians trying to win Iowa farmers votes wants ethenol) fuel sources because we have oil. And eventually we're fucked.

You say there's oil for 600 years (in a very odd way)...so answer my other question...if we strike it rich in ANWR and offshore, do we keep all that oil for ourselves in the face of rapidly increasing oil demand or do we say to the world this is ours, we're using it for both Americas for 300 years...or just the one for 600...why don't you guys try this wind, solar, hydroelectric, nuclear or gerbal power that we no longer need?

This is a full fledged addiction we have...hell it was hard for me this morning to reach for my bike rather than my car keys.

Too soon...if this thing makes it to 5 pages, half of which are Flyer just reposting his petition over and over I will have no problem hijacking with you

True...I have about a 5 mile bike to the train station, a 15 minute train ride, and then a 2 mile run/walk to work...but if there is something that you ought to be clamering for it would be for increased public transportation...DART is a joke...and I realize that Texas is considerably bigger than the Northeast and Europe...however most people live within an hour of work...and I know plenty of people who live in New Haven and commute to NYC everyday...thats an hour and a half train ride. The fact that there are no train lines running from Plano, McKinney, Frisco, Carrolton ect to downtown Dallas just speaks to the sense of entitlment I mentioned previously.

I'm not saying we can just up and quit oil...just that we need to be considerably smarter in our use

Would you drill here?

or here?

or here?

These are all pictures from different areas of Texas, and Texas, like ANWAR, is a big place. Can you imagine how history would have been altered if we had never drilled here?

Which is also in Texas, the Permian Basin.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---The whole point is nothern Alaska an expensive place to drill, very hostile climate, and it would do little to help out the problem.. The claim we have have more reserves that the Middle East may be true some BUT we are talking oil the is extremely expensive is very difficult to produce and would not drop the cost of gasoline one cent... Anwar might drop it a few cents but only cents, The price of gasoline is all about the WORLD's demand for oil and has very little with us and what we can do.

---Her comments are more fairy tales than fact.... but I do hope she runs against Perry and gets him out of office.

---Look at that map again... do you have any clue how severe the environment is and the problems it causes and hard it is to even transport oil from there??

Edited July 2, 2008 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[yyz28]

---The whole point is nothern Alaska an expensive place to drill, very hostile climate, and it would do little to help out the problem.. The claim we have have more reserves that the Middle East may be true some BUT we are talking oil the is extremely expensive is very difficult to produce and would not drop the cost of gasoline one cent... Anwar might drop it a few cents but only cents, The price of gasoline is all about the WORLD's demand for oil and has very little with us and what we can do.

---Her comments are more fairy tales than fact.... but I do hope she runs against Perry and gets him out of office.

---Look at that map again... do you have any clue how severe the environment is and the problems it causes and hard it is to even transport oil from there??

The impact on the speculation side of the market is real. If the Federal government opened up ANWR, federal lands, lift restriction on shale production and told the states where they can stick it on the issue of the the coasts today, oil will close at 100 or so tomorrow. The speculators would run home to mama.

...and transportation and operation in that environment isn't the impossibility you make it out to be. We have a pipeline in place. I believe the thougth would be to simply extend it. The people who want to expore the area claim they can do so durring the summer months and then pump the rest of the year, making the environment a non-issue.