PDA

View Full Version : Harold Hamm talks to Obama



okie52
1/18/2012, 01:20 PM
Harold Hamm and the 2012 Election


By Reihan Salam

October 3, 2011 6:36 P.M.

I’ll admit, I’m a little jealous that my take on President Obama’s approach to the shale gas shock hasn’t gotten as much play as Stephen Moore’s weekend interview with the energy entrepreneur Harold Hamm, but I console myself with the knowledge that Hamm is a pretty impressive figure. And Hamm also offers insight into how the president thinks about America’s energy future:


Mr. Hamm was invited to the White House for a “giving summit” with wealthy Americans who have pledged to donate at least half their wealth to charity. (He’s given tens of millions of dollars already to schools like Oklahoma State and for diabetes research.) “Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, they were all there,” he recalls.

When it was Mr. Hamm’s turn to talk briefly with President Obama, “I told him of the revolution in the oil and gas industry and how we have the capacity to produce enough oil to enable America to replace OPEC. I wanted to make sure he knew about this.”

The president’s reaction? “He turned to me and said, ‘Oil and gas will be important for the next few years. But we need to go on to green and alternative energy. [Energy] Secretary [Steven] Chu has assured me that within five years, we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon.’” Mr. Hamm holds his head in his hands and says, “Even if you believed that, why would you want to stop oil and gas development? It was pretty disappointing.”

This does seem somewhat strange. A marked increase in battery life might be a very good thing indeed. But what does that have to do with whether or not we should unlock vast supplies of natural gas and oil embedded in shale formations?

http://blogs.oilandgasinvestor.com/blog/2011/10/17/bakken-founder-harold-hamm-obama-%E2%80%98is-riding-the-wrong-horse-on-energy%E2%80%99/

Midtowner
1/18/2012, 01:26 PM
Meh.. it's hearsay from an industry insider with huge bias. I don't think the President is trying to "stop" oil and gas production. Imposing meaningful environmental restrictions aimed at the worst actors in the fracking and drilling industries though? I hope we're doing that.

REDREX
1/18/2012, 01:36 PM
Obama and his merrymen are clueless about the energy business

okie52
1/18/2012, 01:37 PM
Obama closed down the both coasts but, meh, he isn't trying to retard oil and gas production. Hearsay? Does Obama or any of his administration refute it? Has he ever done anything to encourage oil and gas exploration? Do Obama's actions like cap and trade and shutting down the coasts appear to you as an administration that wants to develop our resources?

Meaningful restrictions are fine as long as you understand what meaningful is rather than deliberate obstructions to oil and gas exploration.

ictsooner7
1/18/2012, 01:39 PM
Obama closed down the both coasts but, meh, he isn't trying to retard oil and gas production. Hearsay? Does Obama or any of his administration refute it? Has he ever done anything to encourage oil and gas exploration? Do Obama's actions like cap and trade and shutting down the coasts appear to you as an administration that wants to develop our resources?

Meaningful restrictions are fine as long as you understand what meaningful is rather than deliberate obstructions to oil and gas exploration.

He did close off the coasts but has opened the gulf up.

okie52
1/18/2012, 01:44 PM
Closing down both coasts is a flat out lie. Stop lying.

I already provided you the graphs and links showing it. I won't do it again for you since your memory is evidently incapable of retaining anything beyond a day.

On second thought maybe I shouldn't discriminate against someone like you with a limited capacity.

ictsooner7
1/18/2012, 01:48 PM
I already provided you the graphs and links showing it. I won't do it again for you since your memory is evidently incapable of retaining anything beyond a day.

You are right and I am wrong. According to this, only Viirgina wanted drilling along their coasts. So stop trying to blame The President for closing it off. Before the BP spill he was opening up a lot more to drilling.

U.S. to Open New Areas to Offshore Drilling
By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: November 8, 2011

The plan, which is subject to months of public hearings and possible revisions, expands the areas in the Gulf of Mexico that are now under development, including some near Florida that have been off limits. It will also make available broader parts of the Arctic Ocean off the North Slope of Alaska and in the Cook Inlet off the state’s southern shore.

But unlike an administration plan announced shortly before the lethal BP blowout and spill in April 2010, the government is withdrawing all of the Eastern Seaboard from leasing consideration.

The earlier proposal, later reversed, drew sharp protests from state and federal representatives along the East Coast, except for a handful of Virginia officials who were eager to see drilling rigs off the state’s coastline. Ken Salazar, the interior secretary, said the new plan incorporated the lessons learned from the BP explosion, which killed 11 workers and poured nearly five million barrels of crude into the gulf. Mr. Salazar said the proposal was a balance between resource development and environmental protection, while acknowledging that drilling beneath 5,000 feet of water in the gulf or in the unforgiving conditions in the Arctic would never be free of risk.

Oil industry officials quickly criticized the plan, which covers the years 2012-17, saying it limits oil exploration at a time when the economy is in desperate need of jobs.

But Mr. Salazar said that oil production in 2010 was at its highest level since 2003 and that natural gas production was at its highest peak in 30 years. He said his proposed offshore lease strategy made available more than 75 percent of undiscovered and technically recoverable oil and gas resources.

Still, anticipating industry criticism, he said at a noon briefing for reporters, “We don’t believe we should open up every single place and look under every single rock in order to produce oil and gas.”

Jack N. Gerard, the president of the American Petroleum Institute, said in an interview that this was a missed opportunity for the administration.

“They failed to open additional areas that would have led to job creation, revenue generation and economic recovery,” Mr. Gerard said. “What they’ve offered today is significantly less than what the president offered in 2010. The reality is we’re moving in the wrong direction.”

Environmental advocates responded vehemently to the new plan, which they said put sensitive coastlines, waters and fisheries at risk in Alaska and in the gulf.

“Last year’s disaster in the Gulf of Mexico was supposed to be a wake-up call about the dangers of offshore drilling,” said Miyoko Saka****a, oceans director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “But it looks like President Obama hit the snooze button and slept right through it.”

Several groups pointed out the difficulties of dealing with a potential spill in the Arctic, where the nearest Coast Guard facility is almost 1,000 miles away.

David J. Hayes, the deputy interior secretary, acknowledged that the infrastructure did not now exist to prevent or respond to a major spill in the Arctic. Mr. Hayes said a response could be compromised by inclement weather, a lack of deep harbors, a shortage of appropriate vessels and inadequate oil transportation resources.

The department was addressing those concerns, he said, and as a result had scheduled any possible lease sales in Alaska for the end of the five-year lease program.

Frances Beinecke, the president of Natural Resources Defense Council and a member of the panel Mr. Obama named to investigate the BP spill, said approving new drilling without adequate safety measures was a “reckless gamble.”

“The president’s oil spill commission put forth a game plan to improve the industry’s safety, but it has yet to be realized,” Ms. Beinecke said in a statement. “Congress has failed to pass a single law to better protect workers or the environment. Industry has not invested sufficiently in developing the technologies needed to prevent future disasters. And the government still needs additional resources and science in order to effectively police an industry that so desperately needs it.”

ictsooner7
1/18/2012, 01:53 PM
Here is the orginal proposal. Not quite the picture you're painting is it?


President Obama expands offshore drilling


Updated: 3/31/10 12:57 PM EDT

POLITICO 44

President Barack Obama launched an ambitious plan on Wednesday to lift a decades-long moratorium on offshore oil drilling along the East Coast from Delaware to Florida, in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.

“This is not a decision that I’ve made lightly,” he said in remarks at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. “But the bottom line is this: given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth and produce jobs and keep our businesses competitive, we are going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel, even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy.”

Obama’s decision is closely tied politically to the fate of the climate change bill jointly sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) And while it could win the president support from conservative Democrats and Republicans – Graham has said he would not support a bill that “doesn’t have offshore drilling in a meaningful way” – it is also likely to rile part of Obama’s Democratic base, particularly environmentalists.


In urging Congress to pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation, Obama attempted to bridge the political divide by tying offshore drilling to the nation’s security and stressing that it’s one piece of a larger energy plan.


“There will be those who strongly disagree with this decision, including those who say we should not open any new areas to drilling,” Obama acknowledged. “But what I want to emphasize is that this announcement is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies more on homegrown fuels and clean energy. And the only way this transition will succeed is if it strengthens our economy in the short term and long term.”


“To fail to recognize this reality,” he concluded, “would be a mistake.”


Obama is proposing the first new offshore oil and gas sales in the Atlantic in two decades. The decision modifies a 20-year-old ban that limited new drilling, confining most to the seas off the Gulf of Mexico. The government will continue lease sales in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico.


The president urged those on both sides of the energy debate to cede some ground. Addressing Republicans who believe his offshore drilling initiative doesn’t go far enough, Obama suggested they embrace his clean energy initiatives by pointing out that the United States has 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, yet is responsible for 20 percent of global consumption.


Obama said his energy plan will boost the economy by putting the United States in position to compete in global energy marketplace “so that we are no longer tethered to the whims of what happens somewhere in the Middle East.”

Pages

REDREX
1/18/2012, 02:02 PM
Barack is going to turndown the Keystone Pipeline--- a really stupid decision

OULenexaman
1/18/2012, 02:09 PM
yep....http://newsok.com/article/3641375

He's not doing anything to curtail O & G industry....nothing at all. This is his biggest boneheaded move to date. The man is nearly dickless.....he's even showing you in the picture.

ictsooner7
1/18/2012, 02:35 PM
yep....http://newsok.com/article/3641375

He's not doing anything to curtail O & G industry....nothing at all. This is his biggest boneheaded move to date. The man is nearly dickless.....he's even showing you in the picture.

Ask bin Lauden how dickless he is. Ask willard after november how dickless he is. the idiot before him was a dickless coward, supporting the war from over here while letting his fellow coward cronies lie about Kerry a real American war hero!

okie52
1/18/2012, 02:36 PM
President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium on New Drilling
•The Obama Administration has moved our country backwards in terms of offshore energy production. In 2008, in response to record-high gasoline prices, Congress and the President acted to end the decades-long bans on offshore drilling – opening new areas off the Atlantic Coast and the Pacific Coast.
•When President Obama took office, these offshore areas were open for energy production. Since that time, President Obama has systematically taken steps to effectively re-impose an offshore drilling ban.

In March 2010, he abandoned the 2010-2015 leasing plan and announced a delay to the scheduled lease sales in offshore Virginia and in the Gulf of Mexico.


In December 2010, the President announced an even more restrictive offshore drilling plan that placed the entire Pacific Coast, the entire Atlantic Coast, the Eastern Gulf of Mexico and much of Alaska off-limits to future energy production – as they were before the record gasoline prices in 2008.

•The President’s actions have placed some of the most promising shallow water resources in the world off-limits and pushed domestic oil development into a smaller fraction of the Gulf of Mexico and into deeper water. The lease sale off the coast of Virginia, originally scheduled to take place in 2011, was put on hold until after 2017.
•Failure to develop our offshore energy resources is costing American jobs, hurting our economy and denying American taxpayers revenue to help pay down the national debt. According to the American Energy Alliance, permanently lifting the offshore moratoria would result in 1.2 million U.S. jobs, $8 trillion in additional economic output (GDP), $2.2 trillion in total tax receipts, and $70 billion in additional wages each year.
•President Obama has taken our offshore energy policies back to the days of 2008 when gasoline prices were over $4 per gallon. He has imposed a drill nowhere new policy that has cost jobs, forfeited revenue and denied access to American energy that would lessen our dependence on foreign sources of energy. The following maps show how the Obama Administration has blocked access to our offshore energy resources.

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/okie54/opencoaststoObama.jpg


http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/okie54/Obamadrillingban-2012.jpg

• Under the plan announced by President Obama in April 2010, the majority of the areas open for drilling once the moratoria were lifted were once again closed. This included all of the Pacific Coast, the Northeastern Atlantic and Bristol Bay in Alaska.
• In total, the Obama OCS plan puts 13.14 billion barrels of oil and 41.49 trillion cubic feet of natural gas under lock and key.
• The Administration only considered development of the Mid-Atlantic, Southern Atlantic, Chukchi and Beaufort Sea following Draft Environmental Study work to be conducted over the next year.
• The Administration would allow drilling in a portion of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico if Congress lifted the ban that is in place until 2022.

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/okie54/Obamadrillingban-2017.jpg




http://naturalresources.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=231015


When Obama announced areas in offshore VA would be considered for leasing he effectively shut down both coasts except for that area. When W left office he announced 5 areas to be considered for leasing on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Obama delayed those as stated above. Now he has banned all offshore drilling on both coasts.

States have no say in offshore drilling/leasing as these are federal lands/waters just as the states don't control federal lands within their own state.

Obama has, true to form, has done his best to kill offshore drilling.

okie52
1/18/2012, 02:45 PM
He did close off the coasts but has opened the gulf up.

He was under court orders (twice) to start issuing permits in the gulf that he deliberately slow played.

OULenexaman
1/18/2012, 02:48 PM
Ask bin Lauden how dickless he is. Ask willard after november how dickless he is. the idiot before him was a dickless coward, supporting the war from over here while letting his fellow coward cronies lie about Kerry a real American war hero! good afternoon to you to.....dickless BHO lover. I know this from your memory displayed here in this thread.

okie52
1/18/2012, 02:49 PM
good afternoon to you to.....dickless BHO lover. I know this from your memory displayed here in this thread.

His memory is certainly convenient.

okie52
1/18/2012, 02:54 PM
Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act (H.R. 1231)
Status: Passed the House by a bipartisan vote of 243 to 179. Awaits consideration by the Senate.







WASHINGTON, D.C., March 29, 2011 - •
The Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act will lift the President’s ban on new offshore drilling by requiring the Administration to move forward on American energy production in areas containing the most oil and natural gas resources.


In 2008, in response to record-high gasoline prices, both Congress and the President acted to end the decades-long bans on offshore drilling – opening new areas off the Atlantic Coast and the Pacific Coast. Since President Obama took office, he has systematically taken steps to re-impose an offshore drilling moratorium. He first abandoned the (2010-2015) leasing plan that would have allowed for drilling in these newly opened areas. He postponed and cancelled previously scheduled lease sales. He later announced a restrictive drilling plan that placed the Pacific, the Atlantic and the Eastern Gulf off-limits to future energy production – the way it was before the record high gasoline prices of 2008.


Specifically, the Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act will:


Require that each five-year offshore leasing plan include lease sales in the areas containing the greatest known oil and natural gas reserves. For the 2012-2017 plan being written by the Obama Administration, the areas with the greatest known reserves are specifically defined as those estimated to contain 2.5 billion barrels of oil or 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. At least 50 percent of those areas must be made available for leasing in the 2012-2017 plan. Currently, the Obama Administration’s 2012-2017 draft plan includes no new leasing and drilling, only possible future lease sales in the Gulf. The requirements to lease in these most prospective offshore areas reverses the Administration’s effective moratorium on opening new areas.


A state’s Governor may request to opt-in to a five-year leasing plan and the Secretary of Interior will include a lease sale, or sales, of the state’s offshore area in the plan.


Require the Secretary to establish a production goal when writing a five-year plan. The goal will be the specific amount of oil and natural gas production that is estimated to result from leases made under the plan. Establishes the production goal for the 2012-2017 plan being written by the Obama Administration at 3 million barrels of oil per day and 10 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day by 2027. This 2012-2027 time encompasses the fifteen year period of the five-year plan and resulting ten-year leases made under that plan. By comparison to today’s levels, this increase in oil equates to a tripling of current American offshore production and would reduce foreign imports by nearly one-third.


H.R. 1229, 1230 and 1231 could create 250,000 jobs short-term and 1.2 million jobs long-term according to Dr. Joseph Mason, economist and professor at Louisiana State University.


H.R. 1231 will generate $800 million in revenue over 10 years according to the Congressional Budget Office

KantoSooner
1/18/2012, 03:36 PM
Nothing to do with drilling moratoria, but I worked with a company that was in the fuel cell and battery business a few years ago. From what their engineers tell me, hope on either technology becoming mainstream in vehicle use in the next five years is somewhat between smoking crack and belief in a fairy god mother.

okie52
1/18/2012, 03:51 PM
It is this lack of pragmatism on Obama's part that is disturbing. Maybe they will have a battery in 5 years that gets 130 miles per gallon. But at what cost? How long would it take for such a battery/car to be commercially viable? What life would be expected on such a battery? A lot of variables not stated by Obama yet he is willing to ignore or even harm the present opportunities in the "hopes" that some future technological advancements will meet our energy needs. It is really bankrupt of any logic.

Ton Loc
1/18/2012, 04:06 PM
It is this lack of pragmatism on Obama's part that is disturbing. Maybe they will have a battery in 5 years that gets 130 miles per gallon. But at what cost? How long would it take for such a battery/car to be commercially viable? What life would be expected on such a battery? A lot of variables not stated by Obama yet he is willing to ignore or even harm the present opportunities in the "hopes" that some future technological advancements will meet our energy needs. It is really bankrupt of any logic.

This is my biggest gripe with Obama. His energy plan sucks.

People wouldn't be so gung-ho on batteries if they really knew what was in those batteries, how we get what is in those batteries, how they're made, and what happens to them when they are depleted. The only time batteries could be considered green is when they're in use.

Let me know when my hydrogen car will be ready.

okie52
1/18/2012, 04:12 PM
I don't have a problem with the R & D on virtually all forms of energy/conservation but I do have a problem with risking our energy future on unknowns which is exactly what Obama is doing.

JohnnyMack
1/18/2012, 04:28 PM
Obama, doesn't want a pipeline to be cut across the US of A because it might upset the mating rituals of some bird indigenous to a Nebraska wetland or some **** like that, but he's more than happy to antagonize Iran, murder its nuclear scientists (allegedly) and provoke them towards attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz. Both things that will drive up oil prices. Good job buddy.

Midtowner
1/18/2012, 04:31 PM
Obama, doesn't want a pipeline to be cut across the US of A because it might upset the mating rituals of some bird indigenous to a Nebraska wetland or some **** like that, but he's more than happy to antagonize Iran, murder its nuclear scientists (allegedly) and provoke them towards attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz. Both things that will drive up oil prices. Good job buddy.

Definition of NON SEQUITUR

1
: an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2
: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said

JohnnyMack
1/18/2012, 04:39 PM
Definition of NON SEQUITUR

1
: an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2
: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said

Andrew Sullivan? Is that you?

**** Obama. **** the establishment.

ictsooner7
1/18/2012, 05:02 PM
good afternoon to you to.....dickless BHO lover. I know this from your memory displayed here in this thread.

Now on to personal attacks. Calling me dickless, are you 12? Do you think that lame @ss attempt at an insult even registers? You just showed how f’in dumb you really are. Go back to watching fox and lower your IQ even more. You are a typical yellow wingnut, calling someone dickless over the net, you're just another coward like the idiot. What memory display? I showed how he was going to open it before the BP spill and states don't want them on their coasts. What happened to states rights? HUH?

ictsooner7
1/18/2012, 05:12 PM
Obama, doesn't want a pipeline to be cut across the US of A because it might upset the mating rituals of some bird indigenous to a Nebraska wetland or some **** like that, but he's more than happy to antagonize Iran, murder its nuclear scientists (allegedly) and provoke them towards attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz. Both things that will drive up oil prices. Good job buddy.


Parallel universe, just make things up. Nebraska is worried about it because it is right over the huge underground water table that feeds their farm land and drinking water. Try to keep up and stop listening to fox “news”, rush and oil industry. If you want to argue about it, lets at least argue the real issues and not made up ones.


Keystone Pipeline Shouldn’t Risk Nebraska Water, Obama Says
By Jim Efstathiou Jr.
November 02, 2011 2:41 PM EDT

President Barack Obama said jobs created by TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s planned Keystone XL oil pipeline wouldn’t be worth the health and safety consequences if a spill contaminated water supplies.

Obama commented on the $7 billion project that would carry oil from Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast in an interview with an Omaha television station yesterday, as Nebraska’s state legislature opened a special session considering ways to force a rerouting of the pipeline away from the state’s largest aquifer.

“Folks in Nebraska like all across the country aren’t going to say to themselves, ‘We’ll take a few thousand jobs if it means our kids are potentially drinking water that would damage their health,’” Obama said in an interview from the White House with KETV. “We don’t want, for example, aquifers to be adversely affected. Folks in Nebraska obviously would be directly impacted.”

The 1,661-mile (2,673-kilometer) Keystone XL would deliver 700,000 barrels a day of crude to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. State leaders haven’t opposed the project’s route except in Nebraska

The State Department, which has jurisdiction over the pipeline because it crosses an international border, has said it expects to make its decision by the end of the year. Obama indicated yesterday that he will have the final say.

“We need to encourage domestic natural gas and oil production,” Obama said in the interview. “We need to make sure that we have energy security and that we aren’t just relying on Middle East sources. But there’s a way of doing that and making sure that the health and safety of the American people and folks in Nebraska are protected.”

Ogallala Aquifer

The pipeline would cross the Sandhills region of the Ogallala aquifer, which serves 1.5 million people. The area has a shallow water table and porous sand that make it susceptible to water contamination, according to John Gates, assistant professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln.

The state legislature’s session was called by Republican Governor Dave Heineman especially to consider legislation aimed at forcing Calgary-based TransCanada to move Keystone XL. State Senator Annette Dubas introduced a bill that would require state permits for pipelines, giving Nebraskans a voice in the approval process.

“This particular route is the most problematic, and if there are ways to change that it would be good,” Dubas said in an interview in Lincoln, the state capital.

Fatal Delays

Delays resulting from such efforts may kill the pipeline, TransCanada Chief Executive Officer Russ Girling said. Canadian oil producers, or “shippers,” and U.S. refiners may make other arrangements if TransCanada can’t begin delivering crude as scheduled,

“Those shippers will only wait so long, and then they will start looking for alternate markets,” Girling said on a conference call yesterday after TransCanada released third- quarter results. “Similarly, the refiners can only wait so long for Canadian crude oil to come into their marketplace.”

While celebrity activists such as actor Daryl Hannah have been arrested in Washington protesting Keystone XL as a contributor to global warming, Nebraskans just want to protect their drinking water, state Senator Greg Adams said.

Respect for Water

“We are a very practical people and though we are cognizant of those arguments, I don’t think that most Nebraskans are swayed a great deal by them,” Adams said in an interview yesterday. “What you will find in Nebraskans is a genuine respect for the Sandhills and a real respect for water.”

National environmental groups such as the League of Conservation Voters and the Natural Resources Defense Council agree that the project should be rerouted to protect the Sandhills. They also say any pipeline promoting the development of Alberta’s oil will worsen global warming and slow the transition to renewable fuels.

Sit-down protests outside the White House in August led to arrests of environmental figures from James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, to Hannah, who starred in the 1984 mermaid movie “Splash.” Protesters say they will return this weekend, encircling the White House in a demonstration on Nov. 6.

In Alberta, oil is separated from sand and clay with intense heat in a process that releases more greenhouse gases than pumping conventional crude. Representative Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, has said the pipeline will carry “the dirtiest source of transportation fuel” available.

‘Significant Opposition’

Even if Nebraska won a rerouting of the pipeline, “there will still be a significant opposition to expanded production of tar sands,” Anthony Swift, a policy analyst in Washington with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in an interview.

The State Department is “working towards a decision by the end of the year” on the pipeline, “but our foremost commitment is to make the best decision possible based on the best available data and analysis that we have,” spokeswoman Beth Gosselin said in an interview yesterday.

“The State Department is in charge of analyzing this because it’s a pipeline coming in from Canada,” Obama said yesterday. “They’ll be giving me a report over the next several months.”

Reflecting Obama’s Views

While the State Department is handling the review, the decision “will reflect the president’s views” as “this is the Obama administration,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said at a briefing today.

The State Department already found in an environmental assessment that the Keystone project poses “no significant impacts to most resources” along its route provided TransCanada complies with U.S. law and follows recommended safeguards.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which is readying comments on those findings, has said previously that the State Department needed to do more work on the impact of groundwater and air pollution, pipeline safety and effects on wetlands and migratory birds.

Responding to critics who say the pipeline would add to greenhouse-gas emissions, Kerri-Ann Jones, assistant secretary in the State Department’s Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, said in August that the oil sands would be developed “whether or not this pipeline or any other pipeline were put forward.”

ictsooner7
1/18/2012, 05:21 PM
Obama, doesn't want a pipeline to be cut across the US of A because it might upset the mating rituals of some bird indigenous to a Nebraska wetland or some **** like that, but he's more than happy to antagonize Iran, murder its nuclear scientists (allegedly) and provoke them towards attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz. Both things that will drive up oil prices. Good job buddy.

So you and yours are fighting to the death for a FOREIGN OWNED pipeline, shipping FOREIGN OWNED oil to who’s refinery in Houston? Threatening to raise taxes on all Americans for to do the koch brothers bidding.


Republicans Reason behind Pushing For the Keystone Pipeline

This isn’t about tax cuts or unemployment benefits or any agencies that would protect our country the equality of human life. In fact the Republicans aren’t pushing hard for this to even create one single job knowing it will create many jobs in the USA and fewer jobs in Canada. This isn’t their reasons for wanting so badly this pipeline.

Fact this pipeline needs more review since it will harm our environment, silly me knowing how congress isn’t interested in this planet at all. On January 22, 2008, ConocoPhillips acquired a 50% stake in the project.

However, on June 17, 2009, TransCanada agreed that they would buy out ConocoPhillips’ share in the project and revert to being the sole owner. It took them almost two year to acquire the permits to even consider this project beginning.

On July 6, 2010, House Energy and Commerce Committee urged the State Department to block Keystone XL this pipeline is a multi-billion dollar investment to expand our reliance on the dirtiest source of transportation fuel currently available.

On July 21, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency said the draft environmental impact study for Keystone XL was inadequate and needed to be revised, because of of safety issues ,greenhouse gas concerns oil spillage.

One concern is that the pipeline could pollute air and water supplies and harm migratory birds and other wildlife. It will cross the Sand hills in Nebraska, the large wetland ecosystem, and the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the largest reserves of fresh water in the world. The Ogallala Aquifer spans eight states, provides drinking water for two million people, and supports $20 billion in agriculture. Critics are concerned that a major leak could ruin drinking water and devastate the mid-western U.S. economy

Here is the real reason behind this pipeline for the Republicans it will create more wealth for people such as the Koch brothers, Halliburton big oil corporations. And we must not forget our speculators on Wall Street on how they will manipulate the price of crude oil / natural gas for their own special greed.

Republicans in congress is urging this bill to be pushed through since it’s sort of a pay back in favors that will come along down the line with deals that will bring them all a fortune in return. This could be as campaign funds but I’d say the stakes are much higher than just a few hundred thousand millions into a corrupt off shore bank accounts wire Trans actions.

Now if our President does for some horrible reason sign this bill it would be devastating to all who care of our planet this country? It would be a deal breaker with the EPA backing him in this next election also, I believe anyway.

Knowing that Wall Street has a big investment into this pipeline because of the money all will make plus all politicians receive funds from people dealing on Wall Street this could be the make or break in donations backing the politicians campaigns.

But President Obama will put a spin on this bill if forced to sign it claiming of all the jobs it will create and how this country needs to get men, women back to work, Plus how great it would be for our economics of this economy to take us out of a depression not this so called recession that our news media continues to call it.

So in reality there are pros and cons for this pipeline but we must weigh out the bad knowing that this deal truly isn’t about our economics or the people. This is just broker’s deal of how much money can the big oil companies make off of this pipeline.

The hedge fund managers will be having multiple orgasms, brokers will be celebrating as its Christmas every day, and it would be as a gift from God for the next decade champagne caviar will be flowing if this deal goes through for the Republicans and their high society friends on Wall Street.

Bottom line is that the people need to know this is just another political game that the politicians and wealth are playing with the American people not truly giving a rat’s *** about whether we live in poverty or have clean air or water for if they had their way all agencies would be deregulated. While they watch their off shore bank account grows through the hands of their mobster gangster lobbyist brokers.

Remember to listen to every word in between of all their trickery of how they will bamboozle you and to hoodwink all who believe the deceitful illusory, disingenuous, words when they sneak religion to disguise the lies they cry.

REDREX
1/18/2012, 05:22 PM
I guess we need to start to remove the thousands of miles of pipelines that are already in place crossing the Ogallala Aquifer--- Many of the lines have been in place for 50 plus years

soonerhubs
1/18/2012, 05:22 PM
I'm laughing when I see these Newbs appear to have the impression that JM is a mindless lemming of FoxNews. Heh!

JohnnyMack
1/18/2012, 05:29 PM
So you and yours are fighting to the death for a FOREIGN OWNED pipeline, shipping FOREIGN OWNED oil to who’s refinery in Houston? Threatening to raise taxes on all Americans for to do the koch brothers bidding.


I'm not a R or a D. Vote Ron Paul.

If you think there's a difference between a Democrat and a Republican you're a buffoon.

Yes, the Koch brothers are vile scum, but no more vile than the scum who got Obama elected in '08.

I will comment that the Republicans ****ed this whole thing up by forcing BHO's hand with this 60 day mandate. All he had to do was exactly what he did, throw it back in their face and say he needs more time to evaluate it. The Republicans cut their own legs off in this one. They should have let this thing hang out there like a pinata and bashed it about repeatedly during the election. But because they're idiots, they didn't. Yet another reason Obama will get reelected in November. <sigh>

JohnnyMack
1/18/2012, 05:30 PM
I'm laughing when I see these Newbs appear to have the impression that JM is a mindless lemming of FoxNews. Heh!

Lulz.

Midtowner
1/18/2012, 05:34 PM
I guess we need to start to remove the thousands of miles of pipelines that are already in place crossing the Ogallala Aquifer--- Many of the lines have been in place for 50 plus years

How many are in this particular area where the ground is very porous and the water table very shallow?

Did your talking points cover that?

REDREX
1/18/2012, 05:40 PM
How many are in this particular area where the ground is very porous and the water table very shallow?

Did your talking points cover that?---- I should have known you are also a pipeline expert ----Go look at a map of the aquifer and industry pipeline maps and you should be able to answer your own question. Please tell us about your knowledge in the area of pipeline transportation

ictsooner7
1/18/2012, 05:42 PM
I'm not a R or a D. Vote Ron Paul.

If you think there's a difference between a Democrat and a Republican you're a buffoon.

Yes, the Koch brothers are vile scum, but no more vile than the scum who got Obama elected in '08.

I will comment that the Republicans ****ed this whole thing up by forcing BHO's hand with this 60 day mandate. All he had to do was exactly what he did, throw it back in their face and say he needs more time to evaluate it. The Republicans cut their own legs off in this one. They should have let this thing hang out there like a pinata and bashed it about repeatedly during the election. But because they're idiots, they didn't. Yet another reason Obama will get reelected in November. <sigh>

RON PAUL IS A REPUBLICAN so your a R!

Voting paul just shows how ignorant and stupid you really are. Do you really think taking us back to the gold standard is the answer to our problems?

REDREX
1/18/2012, 05:45 PM
The next JM post will not be pretty

sappstuf
1/18/2012, 05:46 PM
Canada: Harper Looks to Asian Countries To Sell Natural Resources Bounty

Prime minister will travel to China next month to discuss oil, gas, minerals.

Canada is now looking to Asian countries to market its abundance of oil, natural gas and minerals as plans to build the proposed Keystone XL pipeline have stalled with the U.S. administration.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will travel to China next month to discuss selling Canada's bounty to the rapidly growing nation.

The preferred initial plan was to build the $7 billion Keystone pipeline to deliver Alberta's oilsands crude to refineries in Texas on the Gulf of Mexico.

Harper reasoned that the U.S. government would prefer to deal with a friendly neighbor to help meet its energy needs while creating thousands of jobs.

With widespread opposition by U.S. environmentalists, the Obama administration has delayed its decision on whether to approve the project proposed by energy giant TransCanada Pipelines.

The new plan would market to China and Asian countries through the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline that would transport Alberta's oil and natural gas to British Columbia for shipment by tankers.

Environmentalists' concerns about the Gateway project, proposed by Enbridge, are being reviewed at National Energy Board hearings under way in Kitimat, British Columbia.

http://www.theledger.com/article/20120114/NEWS/120119627/1410?Title=Canada-Harper-Looks-to-Asian-Countries-To-Sell-Natural-Resources-Bounty&tc=ar


It is an absolute no brainer that we should build this thing and buy oil from a good and trusted neighbor versus buying oil from the middle east. No amount of wishful thinking is going to replace our need for oil.

Of course, Canada has options and China will be more than happy to take the oil.

Obama's short sided and ignorant decision could harm our country for decades to come and strengthen a rival's.

All in a day's work for the "smartest man in the room".

JohnnyMack
1/18/2012, 05:48 PM
RON PAUL IS A REPUBLICAN so your a R!

Voting paul just shows how ignorant and stupid you really are. Do you really think taking us back to the gold standard is the answer to our problems? As for calling me dickless, are you 12? Do you think that lame @ss attempt at an insult even registers? You just showed how f’in dumb you really are. Go back to watching fox and lower your IQ even more.

When did I call u dickless? I don't remember doing that. I mean, maybe i did, but can u refresh that one for me?

And Fox News sucks. So does MSNBC. Try and keep up.

badger
1/18/2012, 06:19 PM
So by now I'm sure you all heard about the pipeline.

Linky (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=49&articleid=20120118_49_0_WSIGOh815295)

I am kind of disappointed, as much as I love the environment and clean drinking water and stuff, because I think this is an opportunity lost if we don't find a way to make it work.

Most amusing, though, was the way our delegation chose to express outrage:


Congratulations Mr. President, you just gave a victory to Iran."


President Obama’s decision shows his unwavering commitment to his global warming agenda which seeks to eliminate oil, gas, and coal, and raise energy and gas prices on every American.

Oh boy

ictsooner7
1/18/2012, 06:41 PM
When did I call u dickless? I don't remember doing that. I mean, maybe i did, but can u refresh that one for me?

And Fox News sucks. So does MSNBC. Try and keep up.

My mistake, OULenexaman did, not you.

ictsooner7
1/18/2012, 06:56 PM
It is an absolute no brainer that we should build this thing and buy oil from a good and trusted neighbor versus buying oil from the middle east. No amount of wishful thinking is going to replace our need for oil.

Of course, Canada has options and China will be more than happy to take the oil.

Obama's short sided and ignorant decision could harm our country for decades to come and strengthen a rival's.

All in a day's work for the "smartest man in the room".

Try to keep up here. NEBRASKA DOES NOT WANT IT GOING THROUGH THE OGALLALA AQUIFER. STOP GETTING YOUR TALKING POINTS AND NEWS FROM REPUBLICANS AND FOX.


Obama administration rejects current Keystone oil pipeline route; likely won’t make final call until after election

GOP leadership in the House says the move kills potential jobs


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-administration-rejects-current-keystone-oil-pipeline-route-won-t-final-call-election-article-1.1008124#ixzz1jrBgOzjl

The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it is scuttling current plans for the transcontintental Keyspan oil pipeline - likely pushing a final decision on the controversial project until after the November election.

The long-awaited verdict - which drew howls of protest from Republicans who believe Obama is tossing aside the jobs the pipeline project would create - was announced at a White House press conference Wednesday afternoon.

After months of debate, the administration will reject the current pipeline path, which would have stretched from Canada’s oil reserves to Texas’ refineries.

However, the administration will allow the TransCanada, the pipeline’s manufacturer, to resubmit a new route, according to reports.

That new path will skirt around the environmentally fragile Nebraska sandhills, appeasing some of the activists - and Cornhusker State politicians - who balked at the original plan.
The delay is seen as a politically-strategic move by the President, allowing him to hold off on having to make a final call on the 1,700-mile pipeline for many months.

Obama, who has not signaled his position on the pipeline, has been caught in the middle between two groups: environmentalists who oppose the project and pro-business groups - and the Republican-controlled House of representatives - who support it.

In November, the federal government nearly shut down after GOP Congressman insisted that legislation requiring Obama to make a decision on the pipeline be inserted into a payroll tax renewal bill.

The Democrats relented, and a deadline for Obama’s decision was set for February 21. His annoucement to reject the pipeline - even temporarily - enraged the GOP House leadership.

“President Obama is about to destroy tens of thousands of American jobs and sell American energy security to the Chinese,” said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Hill.
“The President won’t stand up to his political base even to create American jobs,” said Buck. “This is not the end of this fight.”

The Keystone project - which would cost $7 billion and potentially create thousands of jobs - has become a hot-button issue on the campaign trail, as the Republican White House hopefuls have pushed for its construction.

But the White House has steadfastly refused to be pressured into making a decision. Administration officials have consistently blasted the GOP’s attempts to shoehorn the pipeline legislation into other bills.

“There was an attempt to short-circuit the review process in a way that does not allow the kind of careful consideration of all the competing criteria here that needs to be done,” said White House spokesman Jay Carney Tuesday.

White House officials have suggested that a full review of the new route could take until 2013, though the pipeline’s proponents have claimed that it could be done much sooner.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-administration-rejects-current-keystone-oil-pipeline-route-won-t-final-call-election-article-1.1008124#ixzz1jrBXicwr

sappstuf
1/18/2012, 07:12 PM
]Try to keep up here. NEBRASKA DOES NOT WANT IT GOING THROUGH THE OGALLALA AQUIFER. STOP GETTING YOUR TALKING POINTS AND NEWS FROM REPUBLICANS AND FOX. [/B]


Obama administration rejects current Keystone oil pipeline route; likely won’t make final call until after election

GOP leadership in the House says the move kills potential jobs


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-administration-rejects-current-keystone-oil-pipeline-route-won-t-final-call-election-article-1.1008124#ixzz1jrBgOzjl

The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it is scuttling current plans for the transcontintental Keyspan oil pipeline - likely pushing a final decision on the controversial project until after the November election.

The long-awaited verdict - which drew howls of protest from Republicans who believe Obama is tossing aside the jobs the pipeline project would create - was announced at a White House press conference Wednesday afternoon.

After months of debate, the administration will reject the current pipeline path, which would have stretched from Canada’s oil reserves to Texas’ refineries.

However, the administration will allow the TransCanada, the pipeline’s manufacturer, to resubmit a new route, according to reports.

That new path will skirt around the environmentally fragile Nebraska sandhills, appeasing some of the activists - and Cornhusker State politicians - who balked at the original plan.
The delay is seen as a politically-strategic move by the President, allowing him to hold off on having to make a final call on the 1,700-mile pipeline for many months.

Obama, who has not signaled his position on the pipeline, has been caught in the middle between two groups: environmentalists who oppose the project and pro-business groups - and the Republican-controlled House of representatives - who support it.

In November, the federal government nearly shut down after GOP Congressman insisted that legislation requiring Obama to make a decision on the pipeline be inserted into a payroll tax renewal bill.

The Democrats relented, and a deadline for Obama’s decision was set for February 21. His annoucement to reject the pipeline - even temporarily - enraged the GOP House leadership.

“President Obama is about to destroy tens of thousands of American jobs and sell American energy security to the Chinese,” said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Hill.
“The President won’t stand up to his political base even to create American jobs,” said Buck. “This is not the end of this fight.”

The Keystone project - which would cost $7 billion and potentially create thousands of jobs - has become a hot-button issue on the campaign trail, as the Republican White House hopefuls have pushed for its construction.

But the White House has steadfastly refused to be pressured into making a decision. Administration officials have consistently blasted the GOP’s attempts to shoehorn the pipeline legislation into other bills.

“There was an attempt to short-circuit the review process in a way that does not allow the kind of careful consideration of all the competing criteria here that needs to be done,” said White House spokesman Jay Carney Tuesday.

White House officials have suggested that a full review of the new route could take until 2013, though the pipeline’s proponents have claimed that it could be done much sooner.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-administration-rejects-current-keystone-oil-pipeline-route-won-t-final-call-election-article-1.1008124#ixzz1jrBXicwr

Facts.


Nebraska governor Dave Heineman signed into law on Tuesday bills to reroute the Keystone XL pipeline away from the ecologically sensitive Sandhills region.

One bill puts into law a compromise agreed with Keystone pipeline builder TransCanada to move the route away from the Sandhills and the Ogallala aquifer. The second bill approves state funding for an environmental study for a new pipeline route not to exceed $2 million.

Nebraska forged ahead with pipeline legislation even after the State Department's decision to put off giving TransCanada a permit for the Keystone XL line until 2013.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/22/us-oil-pipeline-nebraska-idUSTRE7AL1M120111122

So Nebraska and Keystone had already agreed to move the pipeline. They have been working to save the pipeline while Obama has been working to kill it.

What did the Nebraska governor say earlier this week?


The Obama adminstration could have given conditional approval to the controversial Keystone XL pipeline project, according to Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman.

In an interview published Tuesday by the Governors Journal, prior to the administration’s rejection of the pipeline, Heineman said Obama could arrange it so that the last part of Keystone XL to be built would be the section that runs through Nebraska.

“I don’t understand why he just doesn’t say yes,” Heineman of Obama said in the interview. “Do you think it [the pipeline] is in the national interest of the United States of America? When you have an 8.5% unemployment rate in America, this is a no-brainer.”

Try harder.

soonerhubs
1/18/2012, 07:43 PM
I know it's name calling, but can I call him IchabodSooner? There's just an air of naivety that seems to fit.

ictsooner7
1/18/2012, 09:25 PM
The Obama adminstration could have given conditional approval to the controversial Keystone XL pipeline project, according to Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman.

In an interview published Tuesday by the Governors Journal, prior to the administration’s rejection of the pipeline, Heineman said Obama could arrange it so that the last part of Keystone XL to be built would be the section that runs through Nebraska.

“I don’t understand why he just doesn’t say yes,” Heineman of Obama said in the interview. “Do you think it [the pipeline] is in the national interest of the United States of America? When you have an 8.5% unemployment rate in America, this is a no-brainer.”

Facts.

So Nebraska and Keystone had already agreed to move the pipeline. They have been working to save the pipeline while Obama has been working to kill it.

What did the Nebraska governor say earlier this week?



Try harder.

YOU try harder, you really cherry pick the talking points don't you?

Typical of you idiots on the right. NEBRASKA scuttled the first pipeline route. THEN they rush to pick a new route, rush it through the statehouse to approve it, limit the environmental study funds, then have the ba!!s to claim Obama killed it. The republican govenor claims Obama can approve it without an EPA study, which is not done, so who's fault is it that it's not done? NEBRASKA! What a joke you people are. You left out a lot of the article, as usual. The republicans in NEBRASKA killed it.

The decision likely puts a final federal decision on the project off until after the 2012 elections. In his statement, the president made clear that his decision “does not preclude any subsequent permit application, or applications for subsequent projects.”

Nebraska governor suggests ‘conditional’ Keystone approval

January 18, 2012, 4:52 PM
.


The Obama adminstration could have given conditional approval to the controversial Keystone XL pipeline project, according to Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman.

In an interview published Tuesday by the Governors Journal, prior to the administration’s rejection of the pipeline, Heineman said Obama could arrange it so that the last part of Keystone XL to be built would be the section that runs through Nebraska.

Heineman, a Republican, last year rejected TransCanada Corp.’s TRP initial plans for the pipeline with the backing of the GOP-controlled legislature as it would have run through the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills area above the Ogallala aquifer. The Sand Hills area — grass-covered sand dunes in the northwestern part of the state — consumes roughly one-third of Nebraska’s land mass, and the aquifer is a key source of water for Nebraska and much of the Great Plains region. But Heineman and lawmakers say they aren’t opposed to the pipeline, only that it ran through the Sand Hills region. TransCanada was supposed to have come up with an alternative route in coming days and weeks.

One of the reasons the Obama administration’s State Department gave for rejecting the project was that Nebraska had yet to settle on where the pipeline would run. Officials from Nebraska’s Department of Environmental Quality said TransCanada has yet to submit a proposed rerouting.

“I don’t understand why he just doesn’t say yes,” Heineman of Obama said in the interview. “Do you think it [the pipeline] is in the national interest of the United States of America? When you have an 8.5% unemployment rate in America, this is a no-brainer.”

okie52
1/18/2012, 09:43 PM
I know it's name calling, but can I call him IchabodSooner? There's just an air of naivety that seems to fit.

In his mind Obama is the einstein of energy.

ictsooner7
1/18/2012, 09:48 PM
In his mind Obama is the einstein of energy.

and in you mind obama cause the debt and deficits, unemployment, the two wars and everything else, so whats the difference?

okie52
1/18/2012, 09:58 PM
and in you mind obama cause the debt and deficits, unemployment, the two wars and everything else, so whats the difference?

Show me where I said it. Just because you choose to blindly follow Obama without examining his policies doesn't mean everyone has to be so I'll informed. I don't fault Obama for a lot of the problems now in the US. I do fault him for energy and immigration where he has been an absolute failure.

ictsooner7
1/18/2012, 10:08 PM
Show me where I said it. Just because you choose to blindly follow Obama without examining his policies doesn't mean everyone has to be so I'll informed. I don't fault Obama for a lot of the problems now in the US. I do fault him for energy and immigration where he has been an absolute failure.

I am the one who has been examining his policies, I understand that your idea of examining them is to read right wing blogs and regurgitating the talking points, ignoring facts and data.

You wingnuts are the most ILL-INFORMED, btw thank you for making my point for me with your I'll informed LOL so ignorant, the only info you get is from right wing blogs and websites and fox.

ictsooner7
1/18/2012, 10:10 PM
Show me where I said it. Just because you choose to blindly follow Obama without examining his policies doesn't mean everyone has to be so I'll informed. I don't fault Obama for a lot of the problems now in the US. I do fault him for energy and immigration where he has been an absolute failure.

In his mind Obama is the einstein of energy. Show me where i said it! Or does that only work one way? HUH?

bigfatjerk
1/18/2012, 10:14 PM
and in you mind obama cause the debt and deficits, unemployment, the two wars and everything else, so whats the difference?Obama or GWB 2.0 whichever name you like hasn't caused these. He's just continued most of Bush's policies and put them on steroids. This thing has proven that if Bush were a democrat the media would have defended him and left would have adored him. If Obama were republican the media would hate him. He's been the Bush Presdency on steroids.

okie52
1/18/2012, 10:18 PM
Hahahaha.

You are the guy that gets knocked out in a fight and claims victory.

So you studied obama's energy policies but you didn't know he had shut down the coasts to exploration? Did you make good grades in school? Is that a right wing blog or is it a fact?
Something small like that was probably easy for you to miss.

Did you understand the obama's cap and trade program? Did you get the reason why Obama shut down yucca? do you know why Obama supports corn ethanol?

okie52
1/18/2012, 10:24 PM
In his mind Obama is the einstein of energy. Show me where i said it! Or does that only work one way? HUH?

You mean you don't agree with obama's energy policies? I thought your constant attempts at defending obama's energy policies indicated your support for them.

soonerhubs
1/18/2012, 10:34 PM
Nevermind. FalseDichotomySooner is much more appropriate.


"You are either an RRRRR or a DDDDDDD, and if you are an RRRRRRR, then you're DDDDDDDumb."


It's like RLMIC had another clone, only with opposing views. Albeit there's still the propensity for copying and pasting large nonsensical opinion pieces that are nothing more than tools of confirmation bias.

okie52
1/18/2012, 10:35 PM
I am the one who has been examining his policies, I understand that your idea of examining them is to read right wing blogs and regurgitating the talking points, ignoring facts and data.

You wingnuts are the most ILL-INFORMED, btw thank you for making my point for me with your I'll informed LOL so ignorant, the only info you get is from right wing blogs and websites and fox.

I put pretty pictures in this thread to help you understand Obama and energy. Did you understand it? Don't be afraid to review it until it sinks in (you being a student of policy).

sappstuf
1/18/2012, 10:49 PM
YOU try harder, you really cherry pick the talking points don't you?

Typical of you idiots on the right. NEBRASKA scuttled the first pipeline route. THEN they rush to pick a new route, rush it through the statehouse to approve it, limit the environmental study funds, then have the ba!!s to claim Obama killed it. The republican govenor claims Obama can approve it without an EPA study, which is not done, so who's fault is it that it's not done? NEBRASKA! What a joke you people are. You left out a lot of the article, as usual. The republicans in NEBRASKA killed it.

First of all the Department of State had authority because the pipeline crossed our national border. The Final Environmental Impact Statement was released in August of last year. That report has the original pipeline route, an alternate route through Nebraska and looked at a far western route that would bypass Nebraska completely. The report says minor changes in the route does not need an entire new study..

I will just let the 22 Dems who wrote a letter to Obama do the talking...


The Department of State's Final Environmental Impact Statement reaffirmed the findings of the two previous environmental impact statements, namely, that the Keystone XL Pipeline will have no significant impact on the environment.

Clearly those Dems have been bought off by Big Oil.

Concidentally, Obama's Jobs Council released their recommendations this week.


“[W]e should allow more access to oil, natural gas and coal opportunities on federal lands,” states the year-end report released Tuesday by the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

The report does not specifically mention the Keystone XL oil pipeline, but it endorses moving forward quickly with projects that “deliver electricity and fuel,” including pipelines.

Of course the "smartest man in the room" ignored those recommendations just like he did with his Debt Commission.

okie52
1/18/2012, 10:56 PM
Sapp. This guy is gaffer without 1/100 of the logic.

He does keep the board alive.

sappstuf
1/19/2012, 12:22 AM
Sapp. This guy is gaffer without 1/100 of the logic.

He does keep the board alive.

Or gaffer that went off the deep end. He certainly has the same knack of ignoring facts that completely destroy his argument.

I didn't even include my favorite part of the letter from 22 Dems.. Throwing Obama's own words back at him.



Finally, not only would the Keystone XL Pipeline bolster America's economy,but it also would help strengthen our country's energy and national security by importing stable, secure oil from our friendly neighbor Canada and allowing our nation to decrease imports of higher priced "conflict oil" from regions such as the Middle East and Venezuela, which are not friendly to the United States and do not share our values. We respectfully note that this benefit of the Keystone XL Pipeline fits squarely within the parameters of the energy security speech you gave on March 30, 2011, when you noted:

" ... we're still going to have to import some oil. It will remain an important part of our energy portfolio for quite some time, until we've gotten alternative energy
strategies fully inforce. And when it comes to the oil we import from other nations, obviously we've got to look at neighbors like Canada and Mexico that
are stable and steady and reliable sources."

Simply stated Mr. President, America needs the Keystone XL Pipeline. It is in our national interest to have a Presidential Permit issued for Keystone XL as soon as
possible. America truly cannot afford to say "no" to this privately funded, $20 billion, jobs-creating infrastructure project, which would bolster our economic, energy and national security. To that end, we respectfully urge you to ensure that the Presidential Permit is issued for Keystone XL.

Of course, he ignored them as well along with himself apparently.

ictsooner7
1/19/2012, 08:21 AM
Alternate parallel universe you people live in and I am talking about the all of the rightwingers on this board.



I have showed how NEBRASKA canceled the pipeline a year ago, but you continue to only blame Obama. I showed you that the states didn't want to have oil drilled off their coasts, but you only blame Obama. You say he is bush on steroids. Where was you're vile and contempt for bush and his policies? You blame Obama for continuing bush policies, who made a HUGE fight over letting bush tax cuts expire? REPUBLICANS, yet you only blame Obama. Under who's watch did the economy crash? BUSH, yet again you only blame Obama. Who bailed out the banks? BUSH, again only Obama is to blame. Under who did the job losses start? BUSH, again whose to blame? Obama. Who took a surplus and turned it into a $1.2 TRILLION deficit? BUSH, you do you blame it on? OBAMA. Obama has deported more illegals, yet you claim he has failed on immigration and you want a fence that doesn't work and costs billions of dollars. Bush had six years to do something, but did nothing because businesses like the cheap labor, again you blame OBAMA.



I have seen all of the rebuttals come from rightwing blog talking points, you don't look anything up or research it. People on here claim to be dems or independents, but they vote only republican. People like you all are the reason the country is so screwed up, you so f*cking dumb that you buy, he is going to take your guns and he's a muslim crap and think it is reality. I literally have dogs smarter than you people, they can learn when they are being taught. You claim victory in arguments when I have shown you are WRONG!

OULenexaman
1/19/2012, 08:38 AM
My mistake, OULenexaman did, not you. Excessive Pot smoking has affects on the short term memory....

okie52
1/20/2012, 01:24 AM
Alternate parallel universe you people live in and I am talking about the all of the rightwingers on this board.



I have showed how NEBRASKA canceled the pipeline a year ago, but you continue to only blame Obama. I showed you that the states didn't want to have oil drilled off their coasts, but you only blame Obama. You say he is bush on steroids. Where was you're vile and contempt for bush and his policies? You blame Obama for continuing bush policies, who made a HUGE fight over letting bush tax cuts expire? REPUBLICANS, yet you only blame Obama. Under who's watch did the economy crash? BUSH, yet again you only blame Obama. Who bailed out the banks? BUSH, again only Obama is to blame. Under who did the job losses start? BUSH, again whose to blame? Obama. Who took a surplus and turned it into a $1.2 TRILLION deficit? BUSH, you do you blame it on? OBAMA. Obama has deported more illegals, yet you claim he has failed on immigration and you want a fence that doesn't work and costs billions of dollars. Bush had six years to do something, but did nothing because businesses like the cheap labor, again you blame OBAMA.



I have seen all of the rebuttals come from rightwing blog talking points, you don't look anything up or research it. People on here claim to be dems or independents, but they vote only republican. People like you all are the reason the country is so screwed up, you so f*cking dumb that you buy, he is going to take your guns and he's a muslim crap and think it is reality. I literally have dogs smarter than you people, they can learn when they are being taught. You claim victory in arguments when I have shown you are WRONG!

Well, that's pretty good ichbenein. States didn't want oil drilled off their coasts and you showed it. Where? Did they take a vote on it? States have no say in drilling on federal waters. Did you not understand that? States have no say on drilling on federal lands inland either. Did Obama not inherit open coasts for drilling? And what has he done? Did the pictures not help you? Did Obama being twice ordered to issue permits in the gulf by the courts not give you the slightest doubt about his energy plans?

So please explain (as a student of obamas policies) why he shut yucca down when it had been approved by the 4 previous administrations, 13 consecutive congresses, the national academy of science and his own energy secretary?

Why did he fight a law punishing employers for hiring illegals that was signed by his own homeland security secretary Napolitano? (the SC ruled against Obama).

Why did he shut down oil and gas exploration off our coasts that was allowed by a democratic congress and a repub president?

Please explain the Obama energy plan that you embrace wholeheartedly. A man of your intellect should have no problem defining its short and long term strategies that may have escaped the lesser informed. Please feel free to add any insights you may have regarding renewables, coal, oil and gas, and nukes that may help us gain the comfort you find in obama's energy strategies.

yermom
1/20/2012, 01:57 AM
Obama vastly shut down the offshore drilling after they showed they had no idea what they were doing in the gulf in April of 2010

Turd_Ferguson
1/20/2012, 09:15 AM
Obama vastly shut down the offshore drilling after they showed they had no idea what they were doing in the gulf in April of 2010I wonder if they will shut down all 18 wheelers since one had a wreck yesterday on I-35...I mean, clearly the driver had no idea what he was doing.

okie52
1/20/2012, 10:09 AM
Obama vastly shut down the offshore drilling after they showed they had no idea what they were doing in the gulf in April of 2010

You mean those other thousands of wells in the gulf didn't count?

What offshore area in the world shut down because of the BP spill? Brazil, Argentina, Columbia, Venezuela, Southeast Asia? Cuba and Mexico in the Gulf of Mexico???? Any place??????

sappstuf
1/20/2012, 10:21 AM
You mean those other thousands of wells in the gulf didn't count?

What offshore area in the world shut down because of the BP spill? Brazil, Argentina, Columbia, Venezuela, Southeast Asia? Cuba and Mexico in the Gulf of Mexico???? Any place??????

Thousands of wells times about 50 years isn't it?

okie52
1/20/2012, 10:26 AM
Thousands of wells times about 50 years isn't it?

I think it is almost 60 years but I doubt facts really matter to these people.

cleller
1/20/2012, 10:31 AM
Obama has incredibly cheap natural gas staring at him in the face. We have a gigantic supply right here. Logic should dictate that this would be a good area to explore until the "alternative energies" are affordable. Without the government paying the tab, wind, solar, batteries etc are just not feasible.

When a clear choice presents itself and you ignore it, your priorities are out of whack.

REDREX
1/20/2012, 10:48 AM
Natural Gas is heading to $2.00 or less ---- And the Country has plenty of it

okie52
1/20/2012, 11:01 AM
Natural Gas is heading to $2.00 or less ---- And the Country has plenty of it

Well, we might have a batterycar in 5 years that gets 130 mpg so we really don't need oil and gas.

LiveLaughLove
1/20/2012, 11:08 AM
Obama has incredibly cheap natural gas staring at him in the face. We have a gigantic supply right here. Logic should dictate that this would be a good area to explore until the "alternative energies" are affordable. Without the government paying the tab, wind, solar, batteries etc are just not feasible.

When a clear choice presents itself and you ignore it, your priorities are out of whack.

Obama and Chu have stated they don't want cheap gas prices. It encourages pollution and slows the public demand for green alternatives. They want $4+ per gallon prices.

You know, closer to our heroes and role models, the enlightened socialist Europeans.

badger
1/20/2012, 11:22 AM
A crazy thought crossed my mind:

Obama might be determined to not let another BP oil spill-like disaster happen under his presidency.

Much like I think the 9/11 attack prompted George W. Bush to be more proactive about attacking Jihadist stronghold areas of the world rather than just be defensive, President Obama might be worried about BP-like disaster happening and seemingly allowing it to happen by not taking more time to think about this issue and its environmental impacts.

It would be foolish for Obama to not learn from the BP mistake, which I think we can all agree on. The pipeline plan must prove that it is safe, environmentally friendly and will not negatively impact the U.S. soil it crosses in order for Obama to feel less reluctant to go forward, IMHO.

okie52
1/20/2012, 11:25 AM
A crazy thought crossed my mind:

Obama might be determined to not let another BP oil spill-like disaster happen under his presidency.

Much like I think the 9/11 attack prompted George W. Bush to be more proactive about attacking Jihadist stronghold areas of the world rather than just be defensive, President Obama might be worried about BP-like disaster happening and seemingly allowing it to happen by not taking more time to think about this issue and its environmental impacts.

It would be foolish for Obama to not learn from the BP mistake, which I think we can all agree on. The pipeline plan must prove that it is safe, environmentally friendly and will not negatively impact the U.S. soil it crosses in order for Obama to feel less reluctant to go forward, IMHO.

As you can see by the charts I posted, Obama effectively had shut down about 95% of the coasts before the BP spill. The spill just gave him cover to shut all of it down. And, as we can see by the rest of the world's reaction to the spill, all offshore drilling has ceased around the world.

yermom
1/20/2012, 07:51 PM
I wonder if they will shut down all 18 wheelers since one had a wreck yesterday on I-35...I mean, clearly the driver had no idea what he was doing.

how long did it take for the truck to stop crashing and ****ing up everything around it? how many state economies were wrecked for months or longer from one 18 wheeler crash?

soonercruiser
1/20/2012, 09:26 PM
Meh.. it's hearsay from an industry insider with huge bias. I don't think the President is trying to "stop" oil and gas production. Imposing meaningful environmental restrictions aimed at the worst actors in the fracking and drilling industries though? I hope we're doing that.

I read an AP story that quoted Hamm, and the language was almost identical.
If Obama has his way, the country will not be running long enough to see any great battery breakthroughs.

soonercruiser
1/20/2012, 09:29 PM
Well, we might have a batterycar in 5 years that gets 130 mpg so we really don't need oil and gas.

I have tried, and never operated an adequate battery powered lawn mower!

Can batteries heat homes, create electricity for the grid, or power airplanes??
My battery powered model planes never power long enough for me to learn to land!

Chuck Bao
1/20/2012, 11:55 PM
Okie52, I think that you are looking at only a very slanted view espoused by the oil companies.

1. Just going by your own copied and pasted text, the ban was lifted on the offshore tracts in 2008, the last year of the 8-year Bush administration. Why was that? Why did it take 8 years for President Bush, who had interests in the oil industry before becoming a politician and many cronies who still do, to see these obvious potential benefits?

2. Lifting the ban is not the same as opening up tracts for development. These are federally-owned offshore tracts and the US government should maximize the potential revenue sharing through a very competitive bidding process.

3. Of course, oil companies want it all opened up immediately for development to avoid competitive bidding and to secure some of the better tracts. Yet, they aren’t saying it like that. Instead, it is President Obama giving in to the environmental nuts, impeding the resource development in this country and continuing America’s reliance on Middle East oil.

4. Other countries have a long-term development plan that opens up a new tract for bidding every few years. Now, I could understand if you are disappointed that the Obama administration hasn’t yet produced such a long-range plan.

5. I don’t know how far out offshore that states can claim jurisdiction. Someone in this thread said that it is all federally controlled areas and I accept that. Still, the individual states should have some input in the decision. Among the East Coast states, only Virginia wants offshore drilling? But the way the currents move up along the East Coast, there are many states that would be affected by a BP-size disaster. I’m not saying that a potential disaster should stop the development, but it is certainly something to consider and plan for. The US is at least lucky that we don’t have the potential for a rig blow-out by a developer (Thai) in one country (Indonesia) and wash up in another country (Australia). Yeah, that’s really messy.

yermom
1/21/2012, 12:46 AM
What's up with apostrophes lately?

StoopTroup
1/21/2012, 01:30 AM
Imagine if we could put this brain trust of experts on a message board on a committee. The Country would be saved and OU would win the MNC every year. :D

okie52
1/21/2012, 08:24 AM
Okie52, I think that you are looking at only a very slanted view espoused by the oil companies.

1. Just going by your own copied and pasted text, the ban was lifted on the offshore tracts in 2008, the last year of the 8-year Bush administration. Why was that? Why did it take 8 years for President Bush, who had interests in the oil industry before becoming a politician and many cronies who still do, to see these obvious potential benefits?

2. Lifting the ban is not the same as opening up tracts for development. These are federally-owned offshore tracts and the US government should maximize the potential revenue sharing through a very competitive bidding process.

3. Of course, oil companies want it all opened up immediately for development to avoid competitive bidding and to secure some of the better tracts. Yet, they aren’t saying it like that. Instead, it is President Obama giving in to the environmental nuts, impeding the resource development in this country and continuing America’s reliance on Middle East oil.

4. Other countries have a long-term development plan that opens up a new tract for bidding every few years. Now, I could understand if you are disappointed that the Obama administration hasn’t yet produced such a long-range plan.

5. I don’t know how far out offshore that states can claim jurisdiction. Someone in this thread said that it is all federally controlled areas and I accept that. Still, the individual states should have some input in the decision. Among the East Coast states, only Virginia wants offshore drilling? But the way the currents move up along the East Coast, there are many states that would be affected by a BP-size disaster. I’m not saying that a potential disaster should stop the development, but it is certainly something to consider and plan for. The US is at least lucky that we don’t have the potential for a rig blow-out by a developer (Thai) in one country (Indonesia) and wash up in another country (Australia). Yeah, that’s really messy.

Chuck,

There were 2 bans on offshore drilling prior to 2008. One was congressional and the other was executive. The congressional ban was allowed to expire in 2008 by a democrat controlled congress in an election year response to public outcry for offshore drilling. W's removal of the executive ban would have been meaningless without first having the removal of the congressional ban.

Another factor for the delay was until late 2005 oil was still under $60 a barrel (pre Katrina) and the impetus wasn't as strong for offshore drilling since many offshore wells have extraction costs in the $50 a barrel range.

W had already started movement on a number of offshore tracts in 2008 that were scheduled for lease sales in 2010-2015 which Obama shutdown. To my knowledge, all offshore tracts would be in a lease sale that would require competitive bidding so oil companies wouldn't be able to avoid that process. Now an oil company (s) would probably want to obtain new seismic on a tract since most data would be from seismic over 30 years old. New seismic techniques would be much more advanced today than 30 years ago but an oil company isn't going to spend a lot of money on seismic if they don't know if the tracts would be available for leasing.

As the article stated, new drilling and fracking techniques were just surfacing in 2005 so many new onshore and offshore prospects were just being developed.

States do not control federal lands, whether they are inland or offshore. There wasn't a vote taken by Virginia approving offshore drilling and the other states voted against it....there wasn't any vote at all.

Now Chuck, c'mon, look at the middle chart and see what Obama did. This was before the BP spill. He had basically removed 95% of the offshore tracts from any chance at development. His throwing out the minute amount of the "VA" tracts was just so he could placate people like you into believing he was actually doing something. You think we're not capable of drilling in the Atlantic and pacific at the same time? Long term planning is fine but obama's plan was absurd.

As you could see by the various tracts along the coasts, each of those tracts are huge and it could take many decades to develop even with immediate bidding on all of them yet obama only throws out some thin sliver off VA and he is okay? Each one of those blocks should have tracts available for bidding and then offer more tracts later in those blocks as development and interest warrants.

You do understand about the huge number of jobs that would be involved developing our offshore reserves, don't you? On top of that the government would be getting large tax revenues and royalties to fill our bankrupt treasury. over 1/2 of our trade deficit is from imported oil...think we might be better off not importing oil ?

We do have the potential for one country to blow out in the gulf and hit us. Both Mexico (which had a large blowout in the Gulf in 1979) and Cuba have gulf drilling rights. Mexico continues to drill in the gulf and it's coastlines for oil and gas. Cuba is just now getting into the fray and is seeking help from countries like China to develop it's offshore reserves.

Our stupidity isn't going to keep the world from exploring offshore for oil and gas but it will keep us tied to the ME. Imagine our foreign policy not being dictated by our need for their oil. And all that is keeping the US from that objective are misguided, harmful ideologues like Obama.

okie52
1/21/2012, 09:47 AM
how long did it take for the truck to stop crashing and ****ing up everything around it? how many state economies were wrecked for months or longer from one 18 wheeler crash?

Since over 50% of the total gulf economy comes from oil and gas, why don't you guess which hurt their economies the most? in case you're wondering, that would be more than tourism and fishing combined

sappstuf
1/21/2012, 10:13 AM
Chuck,

There were 2 bans on offshore drilling prior to 2008. One was congressional and the other was executive. The congressional ban was allowed to expire in 2008 by a democrat controlled congress in an election year response to public outcry for offshore drilling. W's removal of the executive ban would have been meaningless without first having the removal of the congressional ban.

Another factor for the delay was until late 2005 oil was still under $60 a barrel (pre Katrina) and the impetus wasn't as strong for offshore drilling since many offshore wells have extraction costs in the $50 a barrel range.

W had already started movement on a number of offshore tracts in 2008 that were scheduled for lease sales in 2010-2015 which Obama shutdown. To my knowledge, all offshore tracts would be in a lease sale that would require competitive bidding so oil companies wouldn't be able to avoid that process. Now an oil company (s) would probably want to obtain new seismic on a tract since most data would be from seismic over 30 years old. New seismic techniques would be much more advanced today than 30 years ago but an oil company isn't going to spend a lot of money on seismic if they don't know if the tracts would be available for leasing.

As the article stated, new drilling and fracking techniques were just surfacing in 2005 so many new onshore and offshore prospects were just being developed.

States do not control federal lands, whether they are inland or offshore. There wasn't a vote taken by Virginia approving offshore drilling and the other states voted against it....there wasn't any vote at all.

Now Chuck, c'mon, look at the middle chart and see what Obama did. This was before the BP spill. He had basically removed 95% of the offshore tracts from any chance at development. His throwing out the minute amount of the "VA" tracts was just so he could placate people like you into believing he was actually doing something. You think we're not capable of drilling in the Atlantic and pacific at the same time? Long term planning is fine but obama's plan was absurd.

As you could see by the various tracts along the coasts, each of those tracts are huge and it could take many decades to develop even with immediate bidding on all of them yet obama only throws out some thin sliver off VA and he is okay? Each one of those blocks should have tracts available for bidding and then offer more tracts later in those blocks as development and interest warrants.

You do understand about the huge number of jobs that would be involved developing our offshore reserves, don't you? On top of that the government would be getting large tax revenues and royalties to fill our bankrupt treasury. over 1/2 of our trade deficit is from imported oil...think we might be better off not importing oil ?

We do have the potential for one country to blow out in the gulf and hit us. Both Mexico (which had a large blowout in the Gulf in 1979) and Cuba have gulf drilling rights. Mexico continues to drill in the gulf and it's coastlines for oil and gas. Cuba is just now getting into the fray and is seeking help from countries like China to develop it's offshore reserves.

Our stupidity isn't going to keep the world from exploring offshore for oil and gas but it will keep us tied to the ME. Imagine our foreign policy not being dictated by our need for their oil. And all that is keeping the US from that objective are misguided, harmful ideologues like Obama.

That's a fact, Jack.

http://www.gabrielglewis.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/stripes155.jpeg.jpg

sappstuf
1/21/2012, 10:59 AM
I have showed how NEBRASKA canceled the pipeline a year ago, but you continue to only blame Obama.

So you are telling me that the pipeline has been cancelled for a year, but Obama just now got around to calling the Prime Minister of Canada this week to tell him it was rejected?

You make Obama sound even more incompetent than he actually is.

Sooner5030
1/21/2012, 11:16 AM
F Nebraska, F subsidized ethonal production!

They left the B12

Produced 1.7 billion barrels of ethanol last year alone.

Are probably too busy tripping over 20 years of accumulated subsidy cash

Are probably just mad that congress stripped alot of their subsidy cash for FY2012 & 13.

Seriously, they are corn syrup, GMO, 'rape the land for more corn' hypocrites. If the pipeline benefitted the corn industry they'd be for it......regardless of the aquifer claims.

/I just hate nebraska

edit: also....F iowa too. Corn + always holding the early primary.

AlboSooner
1/21/2012, 11:19 AM
This is absolutely true:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqY8FUDcATE



Bring on Natural Gas.

okie52
1/21/2012, 11:42 AM
F Nebraska, F subsidized ethonal production!

They left the B12

Produced 1.7 billion barrels of ethanol last year alone.

Are probably too busy tripping over 20 years of accumulated subsidy cash

Are probably just mad that congress stripped alot of their subsidy cash for FY2012 & 13.

Seriously, they are corn syrup, GMO, 'rape the land for more corn' hypocrites. If the pipeline benefitted the corn industry they'd be for it......regardless of the aquifer claims.

/I just hate nebraska

edit: also....F iowa too. Corn + always holding the early primary.

I believe that is 1.7 billion gallons.

Sooner5030
1/21/2012, 11:47 AM
I believe that is 1.7 billion gallons.

prolly right.....I got from here though: http://www.bennelson.senate.gov/press/nelson_in_the_news/sen-nelson-talks-up-importance-of-ethanol-subsidy.cfm

/i still hate gallon producing neb

okie52
1/21/2012, 11:57 AM
prolly right.....I got from here though: http://www.bennelson.senate.gov/press/nelson_in_the_news/sen-nelson-talks-up-importance-of-ethanol-subsidy.cfm

/i still hate gallon producing neb

Yep it says it but it is probably just a typo. The Nebraska ethanol site states it as gallons.
NE is the second largest ethanol producer. Iowa is number 1 with almost 4 billion gallons. You can see why speaking badly about ethanol will not get you far in the Iowa caucus.

Chuck Bao
1/22/2012, 04:14 AM
Okie52, I am not buying what you are selling. And, I’m glad that you or the oil companies are not setting our national energy policy.

It appears that you want it ALL opened up (based on your maps) for the oil companies to explore, develop and exploit. But seriously, competitive bidding is only relevant in regards to demand and supply.

For the record, I am not opposed to development of the offshore resources of the US. However, I am opposed to reckless opening up of large offshore tracts/blocks without getting the maximum benefit (through a competitive bidding process) for the US government (and subsequently taxpayers). Again, we go back to how much is opened for bidding and the timing. Pardon me for wanting all Americans to benefit from these resources instead of the oil companies and their shareholders.

You mention that other countries are opening up large offshore oil exploration and development tracts. Most of them, to my knowledge, are doing it through long-term plans. I know Thailand’s plan very well because I used to be an energy analyst and I have spent hours interviewing the top energy bureaucrats and experts in Thailand. Their goal is to be proper stewards of the nation’s resources and, by opening up the tracts slowly, they get 4-5 majors bidding against each other. By the way, Thailand has to import about 80% of its energy requirements.

I also want to end the US’s dependence on Middle East oil and lower fuel prices. But, it is a bit disingenuous and counter-productive to turn these two very popular notions into the oil companies’ dream lobby. They aren’t getting that elsewhere in the world, so why would we give them that here?

Indeed, I am cheering for the oil companies to develop our resources, particularly here in Oklahoma. I love the oil companies, but I don’t trust them.

okie52
1/22/2012, 09:11 AM
Chuck,

Unfortunately for the US, an energy mentality even worse than yours is setting our energy policy.

All tracts would receive competitive bids. They have been doing that in the gulf for 60 years. The US receives royalties from the production, lease bonuses from the bid sale, increased tax revenues, thousands of jobs for Americans, decreased dependence on foreign oil and a reduction in our trade deficit. And yet you aren't buying it.

You could give all of the coasts to oil companies and they would still be pragmatic in their approach to developing it. You seem to believe oil companies would recklessly develop these areas when each well/platform can cost a billion dollars. There is a lot of planning that goes into each well. You may not trust them but they are business men and aren't going to throw billions away just because the government says they can.

And I don't think you understand what I mean by opening it up. Each of those blocks off of our coasts is huge. Try to comprehend how many thousands of square mile are involved in each block. Allowing a lease tract to be offered in each block is hardly reckless rather is about the only way to logically develop our oil and gas reserves...and even then it will take many decades to develop. By your method oil and gas will last us for centuries because we will never develop our reserves. Long term planning will be involved but it will usually be based on discoveries or seismic data found within one of those huge lease blocks, not by some arbitrary policy that denies access to our reserves.

To help you envision this process, try to imagine each of those lease blocks offsetting our coasts as being the size of the state of Oklahoma... Most will be bigger than Ok but we'll go with OK for convenience. Now in each block the goverment offers a lease tract the size of Logan county to be open for competitive bids. Now it will take years just to develop that one lease tract and there would be 76 more to go in just that one lease block. I don't think this really pushes the envelope even for the government on multi-tasking. I applaud you for wanting the best for the American people but I condemn the ignorance of your approach.

Thailand is many times smaller than the US so when you speak of slow development there they are barely bigger than 1 lease block off the Us coast. Did you tell them not to drill off of their coasts? Surely you are for allowing the US to develop its offshore oil at the same pace as Thailand which proportionately would mean leasing in every block off of our coasts.

The prospects/geology will determine the value of the lease sale. This notion that opening a tiny portion of our coasts for exploration in hopes it will drive the values of the lease is naive. Oil companies prospect worldwide for oil and gas and won't be confined to some little morsel the US throws them.

And, while bonus money is nice, it is small potatoes to the revenues derived from production, which by your methods are deliberately retarded and by obamas methods are nonexistent. The jobs, tax revenues, royalties, energy independence, trade deficit, foreign policy are all part of the big picture that would be greatly improved by reducing our oil imports yet you cling to some misguided notion that we can only develop a small portion of our reserves at any given time. Well, in one way you are actually right because it does take many years to develop a field...even under the best of circumstances. Of course under your and obama's way it could take an eternity.

Chuck Bao
1/23/2012, 04:19 AM
Okay, thanks Okie52. With a very quick google search, I did find the following:

http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/sectors/explore/oilandnaturalgas.cfm


Within federal land boundaries, federal statute requires that the party producing oil and gas pay the U.S. Department of the Interior royalties based on the value of the oil and gas actually produced. For onshore federal leases, the Minerals Lands Leasing Act prescribes the base share of royalty rate at 1/8 the value of production; for offshore leases, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act sets the base royalty rate at 1/6 the value of production.

So, it really isn't competitive bidding but more along the lines of mandated revenue sharing acts and tradition of revenue sharing afforded to private mineral rights owners.

With that being said, I do dispute your jobs creation and percentage of the economy for the gulf coast states.

I also believe that the individual states should have a say in development of offshore fields. Ahem,where are the states rights advocates when you really need them? Dang!

I do not trust the oil companies to do the right thing. It would be retarded to think that they are motivated to have anyone's interest besides their own.

But yeah, I am cheering them on to develop the natural gas industry in Oklahoma and building the pipelines to sell it. For very selfish reasons I want them to develop onshore resources, even if we have to experience a few earthquakes. ;)

okie52
1/23/2012, 11:33 AM
Okay, thanks Okie52. With a very quick google search, I did find the following:

http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/sectors/explore/oilandnaturalgas.cfm



So, it really isn't competitive bidding but more along the lines of mandated revenue sharing acts and tradition of revenue sharing afforded to private mineral rights owners.

With that being said, I do dispute your jobs creation and percentage of the economy for the gulf coast states.

I also believe that the individual states should have a say in development of offshore fields. Ahem,where are the states rights advocates when you really need them? Dang!

I do not trust the oil companies to do the right thing. It would be retarded to think that they are motivated to have anyone's interest besides their own.

But yeah, I am cheering them on to develop the natural gas industry in Oklahoma and building the pipelines to sell it. For very selfish reasons I want them to develop onshore resources, even if we have to experience a few earthquakes. ;)

Chuck,

There is a competitive lease sale on most governmental lease tracts. There is the lease bonus which is the money that a succesful oil company bidder will pay directly to the government for the leasing rights on a particular lease tract, usually right upfront, regardless of whether a well is ever drilled on the property. Other considerations for the government when awarding the leasing rights to a tract would include the lease royalty, which as you noted above, is the amount of oil/gas the government is paid for its share of production. This usually can be anywhere from 1/8 to 1/4 of all the oil and gas that is produced from a well(s) on the lease property. The lease term (how long the leasing rights last) is another consideration for the government when awarding lease rights. Most leases are probably a minimum of 10 years in offshore leases due to the complexity of drilling operations. And, should a well be established on the leasehold, the lease will usually continue in force as long as the well continues to produce. There are many other considerations that may determine who is awarded the leasing rights but these are usually the primary ones.

As to your doubts about the economics regarding oil and gas in the gulf coast:




Oil and gas interests generate $124 billion or 53% of the total money, according to Jim Cato, a former economics professor at the University of Florida and one of the authors on the study.



http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/30/news/economy/gulf_economy/index.htm

The jobs were mentioned in the charts early in this thread but to give you an idea (off the top of my head) of the variety of jobs involved: Geologists, Geophysicists, Land oversight, Petroleum engineers, Mechanical engineers, Production engineers, Lawyers, transport ships, drilling crews, steel manufacturing, drill pipe manufacturing, welders, shipping, drilling companies, well service companies, mud companies, pipeline companies, refineries, scuba divers, draftsmen, safety engineers, security services, insurance companies, banking, trucking companies, seismic crews, etc... These are all relatively high paying jobs and the tax revenues would be here in the US...not some foreign country.

To my knowledge, all offshore waters/lands are federally owned therefore the states have no say. The same is usually true on inland federal lands within a given state. Its really not a states rights issue since they don't own the property. The same is true for state owned lands within that state...the feds really have no say other than perhaps some regulatory requirement by the EPA. The states have their rights on lands they own, just not on what the feds own.

And most of the wells drilled offshore will be invisible to the coastlines so the states will not be burdened by their scenery being compromised.

I don't expect anyone to "trust" the oil companies any more than any other big business, envrionmentalist groups or unions. Their goal is the bottom line and not always the publics best interests. But there is a mutuality of interest that would dictate both the oil companies and the government would both benefit by such a partnership. The profits an oil company could receive and the tax revenues, royalty revenues, bonus money, thousands of high paying jobs, decreased dependence on foreign oil, decreased trade deficit, decreased national debt, and a foreign policy not dictated by the ME for the US government.

Yet we have a president that has said no to all of that and, as you can see by his comments to hamm, will continue to do so.

Ton Loc
1/23/2012, 12:26 PM
I dont agree with okie52 much, but I'm with him on this.

Jobs are what I'm all about right now and you don't have to look outside of Oklahoma to see how energy companies help out a community/city/state.

Also, I'd show Chuck some documents from my company that would support the argument of the competitiveness, but I don't think they'd like that. You could go to the next AAPL meeting and listen to the landmen complain/brag about their business.

okie52
1/23/2012, 12:47 PM
I dont agree with okie52 much, but I'm with him on this.

Jobs are what I'm all about right now and you don't have to look outside of Oklahoma to see how energy companies help out a community/city/state.

Also, I'd show Chuck some documents from my company that would support the argument of the competitiveness, but I don't think they'd like that. You could go to the next AAPL meeting and listen to the landmen complain/brag about their business.

I haven't been to an AAPL meeting in a long time. Really don't make many OCAPL meetings. Even if I do it is just for cocktails and then out the door.

Yeah, whether it is state, federal, BIA or private the market is very competitive.

Thank God oil prices are high because NG is in the ****ter. Just amazing that, other than Aubrey, the government has done nothing to take advantage of the low NG prices by moving transportation towards that energy source. It would solve a lot of problems.

Bourbon St Sooner
1/24/2012, 01:11 PM
In addition to Okie's comment, in the GOM, leases expire if the company does not spud a well within 10 years of acquiring the lease. I work for one of the largest players in the GOM and we only drill a handful of exploration wells a year. There are just not enough resources in terms of seismic vessels, drilling rigs, geologists and engineers. Thus, even if you opened up everything for sale at one time, not everything would get bid on.

As far as plans, the BOEMRE does have 5 and 10 year lease plans which they publish on their web site.

ictsooner7
1/24/2012, 09:54 PM
Oil production highest it's been since 2004!


Drill, baby, drill fails: Oil prices soar in spite of sharp increase in U.S. production under Obama

By Joe Romm on Mar 9, 2011 at 11:46 am

Yet Haley Barbour, right wing try to blame Obama for high prices, still push policies that EIA says will have no impact on price

US oil production last year rose to its highest level in almost a decade….

As a result, analysts believe the US was the largest contributor to the increase in global oil supplies last year over 2009, and is on track to increase domestic production by 25 per cent by the second half of the decade.

Domestic oil production is soaring, but so are global prices. It should be obvious that yet more drilling can’t have any significant impact on oil prices — particularly since the U.S. Energy Information Administration has been making that precise point for years now (see EIA: Full offshore drilling will not lower gasoline prices at all in 2020 and only 3 cents in 2030!).

The only thing that can protect Americans from the inevitably increasing oil shocks of Peak Oil is an aggressive strategy to reduce the country’s oil intensity (oil/GDP), including a steady increase the fuel efficiency of our vehicles — policies that conservatives have fought for decades.

But that doesn’t stop those same conservatives — including former Big Oil lobbyist Haley Barbour — from trying to blame Obama for high oil prices. ThinkProgress has a rundown of all the absurd attacks:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/U.S.-oil-production.gif


Political opportunists in the Republican Party have already sought to blame this inherently unstable situation on President Obama. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) — a possible 2012 presidential candidate and former oil industry lobbyist — has suggested that not only are increased prices Obama’s fault, but that he desired and created them. “His administration’s policies have been designed to drive up the cost of energy in the name of reducing pollution, in the name of making very expensive alternative fuels more economically competitive,” Barbour told the U.S Chamber of Commerce last week. “Their policy is to drive up energy prices.” Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), chair of the House Tea Party Caucus and also a potential 2012 presidential candidate, said of high gas prices, “This is exactly what the ambition of the Obama administration is, because they want to move people toward green energy.” In a post on Redstate.com titled “Blame the Democrats for High Gas Prices,” CNN political commentator Erick Erickson argued that “Democrats have been politicizing and blocking expanded oil drilling for quite some time.” Similarly, Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) blamed Democrats’ unwillingness to open up more domestic drilling sites for the spike. “We seem to have our hands behind our back,” Johnson said. “And this lack of permitting — this lack of going after resources that we have right here in America — is indicative of a failed energy policy.

That is all pure BS, the exact opposite of the truth. As the Financial Times reported:


The revival of US production has been made possible by a rush of small and mid-sized companies into onshore regions such as the Bakken shale in North Dakota, the Permian Basin in west Texas and the Eagle Ford shale in south Texas.

North Dakota’s production has doubled since 2008, reaching 355,000 b/d in November. Extraction of oil reserves in these regions was thought to be uneconomic, but has been made commercially viable by the transfer of techniques successfully used to extract shale gas; in particular, long horizontal wells and “fracking”, pumping water under high pressure to crack the rock and enable the oil to flow.

Dave Hager, vice-president for exploration and production at Devon Energy, one of the companies pioneering the development of the new onshore fields, said new technology had transformed production economics at its mixed gas and oilfields in north Texas.

Like it or not, Obama actually campaigned on opening up oil production in the Bakken shale, so he is delivering on a campaign promise there.

Of course, more domestic production simply can’t have any significant impact on global prices, as the US Energy Information Administration has made clear many times (see here).




The EIA’s 2009 report, “Impact of Limitations on Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Federal Outer Continental Shelf” analyzed the difference between full offshore drilling (Reference Case) and restriction to offshore drilling (OCS limited case). In 2020, there is no impact on gasoline prices (right hand column). In 2030, US gasoline prices would be three cents a gallon lower. Woohoo!

I have previously written about the trivial impact of opening the OCS further to drilling “” The oil companies already have access to some 30 billion barrels of offshore oil they have barely begun to develop (see “The cruel offshore-drilling hoax“).

If you are concerned about the impact of high oil prices from Middle East instability, the only viable long-term strategy is one aimed at ending our addiction to this climate-destroying fossil fuel. Even the once-staid and conservative International Energy Agency understands that (see World’s top energy economist warns peak oil threatens recovery, urges immediate action: “We have to leave oil before oil leaves us”). And Obama has taken aggressive action in this area, raising new car fuel efficiency standard to 35.5 mpg by 2016, the biggest step the U.S. government has ever proposed to cut oil use.

So why are Barbour and the conservatives shilling for Big Oil? TP explains:


There is a notable theme here — aside from crass political point scoring, these attacks are calibrated to protect oil as a primary energy source at the expense of cheaper green alternatives, while pushing for even more oil drilling here in the United States. These opportunistic attacks come as the oil industry prepares to pump unprecedented sums of money into the political process. Since the midterm elections, the oil industry has “been very aggressive right out of the gate because of the huge opportunity with the election of their allies,” as Daniel J. Weiss, the director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, told the Houston Chronicle yesterday. Oil and gas companies spent $146.3 million on lobbying last year, and that number is poised to rise as the presidential election approaches. For example, the American Petroleum Institute will start donating money to political campaigns this year.

… the big five oil companies — BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell — made $893 billion in profits from 2001 to 2010.

It’s a ‘virtuous’ cycle. Big Oil gets politicians elected who push for more drilling and try to block strategies that could actually reduce our oil addiction. Oil profits keep going up — and that means more money for Big Oil to invest in those politicians.

REDREX
1/24/2012, 10:38 PM
Oil production is up because the price is $100 per barrel

ictsooner7
1/24/2012, 10:45 PM
Oil production is up because the price is $100 per barrel

Check up to 2004, price of oil going up, US production going down all under republican control. Try again..............



http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif

REDREX
1/24/2012, 10:56 PM
Check up to 2004, price of oil going up, US production going down all under republican control. Try again..............



http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif---You are clueless---Obama has nothing to do with increasing production----Price and the Bakken production are driving production increases

okie52
1/24/2012, 11:10 PM
This guy is actually actually correct about oil prices in the US not being very affected by drilling in the US. Oil is a global commodity and demand will continue to grow with China, India, and developing 3rd world countries increasing their consumption. And any repub that uses prices as a campaign tactic either doesn't understand or is being dishonest. Now US production may have some slight effect but probably nothing substantial.

The benefit that would be derived from offshore and onshore drilling is energy independence or reducing our dependence on foreign oil, reducing our trade deficit by over 1/2, creating thousands of high paying jobs, royalties, tax revenues and lease bonus money for our depleted treasury, and the opportunity for our foreign policy to not be dictated by the ME. The author seemed to miss those points.

He also missed the fact that Obama and green energy need high oil prices for green energy to even have a chance at being competitive. For wind energy to be viable it needed NG to be at $9 an MCF. Well, unlike oil, NG is a regional commodity and is going for about $2.50 an MCF right now. Oil companies have certainly created a glut of ng and the prices show it (along with a mild winter and depressed economy).

And TP reports (haha, now this is funny) that oil is being kept as our primary energy source at the expense of cheaper green alternatives. Where and what are they? Are they keeping them a secret? Wind, solar, ethanol? Surely some other country has seen through this hoax and is already employing green energy at a significant savings.

The author stated we needed to wean ourself off of oil. Is this a new idea that was somehow unspoken for the last 40 years? And our alternative sources of energy would be?????

Obama has the chance to convert a large part of our transportation to ng......which is significantly cleaner than coal, oil, or ethanol. He has tried to punish ng in the past with his cap and trade and he has certainly done nothing to advance ng as a fuel source.

And obama's campaign promise regarding the Bakken field was to help remove the federal red tape involved in this field. Did Hamm sound like he thought Obama did that?

REDREX
1/24/2012, 11:14 PM
Okie----I know a lot of people that would like to be getting $2.50 for Natural Gas at the wellhead

okie52
1/24/2012, 11:19 PM
Okie----I know a lot of people that would like to be getting $2.50 for Natural Gas at the wellhead

Yeah, I'm going by a couple of weeks ago. New England and the Midwest need to have some really cold weather soon.