** The Rocky Mountains contain three times the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.
So why is America NOT energy independent?
Because, over the past 30 years:
Democrats have blocked the development of new sources of petroleum.
Democrats have blocked drilling in ANWR.
Democrats have blocked drilling off the coast of Florida.
Democrats have blocked drilling off of the east coast.
Democrats have blocked drilling off of the west coast.
Democrats have blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast.
Democrats have blocked building oil refineries.
Democrats have blocked clean nuclear energy production.
Democrats have blocked clean coal production.
Democrats sold out to environmentalists.
Democrats set up "No Zones" where they will not allow drilling or development:
(Republican Senator Craig put together these maps)
As Americans pay more for gas than ever under this Congress--
Democrats continue to vote against drilling and oil exploration.
Instead, Democrats believe taxing and suing oil companies will somehow bring down gas prices.
And, democrats do this as Cuba and China drill off our shores.
Democrats like to attack evil American oil companies and block them from drilling off our coasts. It doesn't seem to bother them when China starts drilling for oil in these same areas 50 miles from Key West.
America may have enough reserves to be the #1 oil producer in the world...
But it isn't.
You can thank the Democrats.
Oil prices shot up $7 a barrel today to racing to an alltime high of $150 per barrel.
Red Planet provides the cartoon.
Previously:
Thanks to Democratic "No Zones", the US Is in Grave Danger
It's Official, Cuba Hires China to Drill Oil Off Florida Coast
Despite Oil Crisis, Democrats AGAIN Block US Firms from Drilling!
Democrats Crack Gas Jokes Then Vote Against US Oil Development
Union Protesters Get Lost, End Up at White House
Democrats Fail to Prevent Senate Oil Drilling Bill from Passing
Despite Global Oil Crisis, Dems Will Block Drilling & Exploration!
In First 100 Hours, Democrats Propose Ban on Oil Drilling
Democrats Force American Energy Companies to Flee
Americans Can No Longer Afford the Pelosi-Reid Gas Prices
Pelosi-Reid Congress Sets Another Record... In Gas Prices
House Dems Pass Massive Tax Hike on Oil Companies to Bring Down Price of Fuel
So Much For That Pelosi Plan to Cut Gas Prices
Dems Mock Bush-- Vow No New Drilling or Nuclear Plants!!
This Will Be The #1 Issue in the 2008 Elections-- And, It Goes to Republicans
Halleluiah! House Dems Solve Oil Crisis-- Will Sue OPEC
Radical Conservationists Use Junk Science to Block Oil Drilling
UPDATE: Power Line has more on how Democrats have historically opposed US energy development:
Congressman Roy Blunt put together these data to highlight the differences between House Republicans and House Democrats on energy policy:Those are shocking numbers!ANWR Exploration House Republicans: 91% Supported House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Coal-to-Liquid
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed
Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed
Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed
SUMMARY
91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.
86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.
More... Kim Zigfeld has more thoughts on the American energy plan.
UPDATE: Let Freedom Ring offers advice for Republicans.
Well now, we should start a quiet little campaign seeding the information that the Dems are responsible for high gas prices. This should be done in person as well as on the internet. You know, in conversation at Starbucks like "Yea, gas prices are killing me. Did you know that when Nancy Pelosi voted for the no-drill zones in North America that she sent gas prices skyrocketing? She's the reason we're paying 4 bucks a gallon!"
ReplyDeleteRidiculous, need to focus on alternative energy and conservation, though sure do go ahead w/Anwar, shale, etc., but etc., but that neither alone nor primarily will be the solution.
ReplyDeleteI wish there was a way to email this article. I think it would be helpful to be able to send it to people we know and WAKE THEM UP!
ReplyDeleteGreat as usual! Thanks!
Thanks a lot, Dummycrats!
ReplyDeleteReally labwrs? Did you click through to the link and from there to the original article? Did you find that persuasive, scientific? It's this kind of stuff that makes us of the right wing (yeah, that's right Joshua) look ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteYes indeed, the US has several times the amount of hydrocarbon resources (oil, gas, goal, shale, etc) than has Arab OPEC has in the form of oil.
ReplyDeleteSee the following PDF:
[PDF]
department of defense clean fuels initiative
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
OSD Clean Fuel Initiative. Dr. Theodore K. Barna. Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense. Advanced Systems and Concepts. Pentagon 3D833. 703-695-9873 ...
www.westgov.org/wieb/meetings/boardsprg2005/briefing/ppt/congressionalbrief.pdf
Try this link:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.westgov.org/wieb/meetings/boardsprg2005/briefing/ppt/congressionalbrief.pdf
Gotta love the sanctimonious crap that comes out of the moonbats.
ReplyDeleteThey rant on about things like "alternative energy" sources yet they NIMBY every single one that comes along. They also are some of the biggest and most hypocritical resource hogs around.
In 1994 a flood severed the pipelines that send heating oil and gasoline to New York and New England. In the space of a day the prices there shot up by 25% and stayed there for about 6 months. They have suffered from blackouts because they get most of their energy from Hydro Quebec and from plants a thousand miles away from them. Canada flooded a whole ecosystem and displaced thousands of members of the First Nations so New York City can have electricity.
This article illustrates the hypocrisy of California's energy policies California’s Potemkin Environmentalism. California also is sucking whole entire rivers dry to keep water in their pools and their lawns green. Want to hear the most "environmentalist" San Franciscan squeal? Ask them why they do not support the removal of the Hetch Hetchy dam. They would rather see a river valley and ecosystem as beautiful as Yosemite drowned then give up their drinking water.
You know, I can see a day when the US and Canada break apart. The "Red" states combined with the Prairie provinces and the territories (NWT, Nunavut and Yukon) of Canada will eventually get fed up with subsidizing the "bleu" states and Ontario/Quebec/BC and tell them all to go to hell. There is nothing those states/provinces produce that anyone really needs and in fact they produce alot of BS that no one needs.
anonymous, thanks for the link but right now my computer seems to be blocking it, I don't know why, I'll look into it. My problem with all these sensationalistic headlines is that they give a false impression, a false hope, and false unmerited criticisms by what they suggest by what they omit (note the acknowledged problems in the original article, for ex).
ReplyDeletenahanni,please note I said go ahead and drill Anwar, not so fast on the shale, case by case for environmental impact. (Oh, and for the record I had a hybrid even before the Prius rage, the Honda Insight (60mpg)--new lowcost Honda hybrid model due out in 2009 btw if you're interested).
When I read some months ago noticed suspiciously optimistic headlines (though not so over-the-top as this headline) about oil potential in the US I emailed a geophysicist I know and he confirmed my suspicions of misplaced optimism, though did note that having been to the ANWAR area there's no environmental reason not to drill there, but the potential was minimal, he went into the problems with shale oil, and so on. In other words, I bothered to ask someone who knew what he was talking about instead of just spout partisan rhetoric.
That said I hope for change in '08!
"Ridiculous, need to focus on alternative energy and conservation,"
ReplyDeleteAlternative energy has produced a grand total of ONE workable solution in the history of the world. Nuclear Energy. France safely produces enough energy with nuclear power plants to supply all of its domestic energy needs PLUS a surplus which they sell to neighboring nations. Guess who obstructs nuclear power in the USA at every turn? Guess who keeps us burning coal and natural gas, and oil to light and heat our homes? That's right, the nut cases who constantly harp about ALTERNATIVE ENERGY.
I'll tell you what the real alternatives are. Drill for oil everywhere, even if a moose or a bison or a fish sustains an injury in the process, harvest every drop of fossil fuel, and get the prices down, OR: you can have food riots in American cities, pandemonium as hospitals and cities lose lights and refrigeration. You can also have an economic crash that will make the Great Depression look like the boom of the 1990's. People will starve, people will die. Our civilization, our science, our technology will crumble to ruin, and small parts of Asia and Europe will be the only semblance of first-world civilization on the planet.
American and European Marxists (our so-called Democrats) the first group of people in history to insist that we MUST return to a world of shorter lifespans, less food security, more brutality, less comfort, freedom, opportunity, and progress. I wonder why they call themselves progressives? Must be irony.
In order for that shale to be profitable oil prices will have to remain high. It's simple economics, just like it's simple economics that opening more of the U.S. to oil drilling will increase supply and lower prices.
ReplyDeletewhat will it take to get Americans to get off their asses and fight back? The press won't cover this - they're in congress's back pocket. Where is Rush on this? Where is Drudge?
ReplyDeletepatm, well given today's $10 a barrel increase, worse yet to come and the types of reactions such as are displayed here (barring the very reasonable comment of sean hackbarth), it will take a heroic plan by some seemingly expert, strong leader type that the masses can embrace...
ReplyDeletesuch a plan, due out this summer, and so conveniently, by John McCain's friend, the former NATO commander, foreign policy "expert," present Middle East envoy, and Pres/CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute of 21st Century Energy: Gen. James L. Jones
amazing. just. amazing.
/
Nahanni - it is actually Quebec, the Maritime provinces, and the Yukon that are sucking Canada dry. B.C. after kicking the socialist NDP's to the curb have again made a comeback. I figure anything east of Manitoba in Canada should go it alone.
ReplyDeleteNow, if only John McCain can have an epiphany and campaign for energy independence, ie, drilling in ANWR, Gulf, oil shale, nuclear energy, etc. He would win in November. Otherwise he's just another wussy enviro, latte-sipping,Ponzi player...dragging us along with him.
ReplyDeleteWe have more to complain against the government than our founding fathers did.
Gee, it sure is great to know that most republicans supported sensible energy policies at some point or other. I notice they didn't seem to have supported them when they had a voting majority in both houses AND the presidency, back when it might have made a difference.
ReplyDeleteShould I assume that all those votes were of the symbolic sort that are cast when you know your issue has no chance of passage?
++
ReplyDeletecan't help but wonder what our energy situation would like today had we started on all, some, or any these projects 30, 20, or even 10 years ago.. because even if we started tomorrow, i'm sure it would take at least another ten years before we could HOPE to see a CHANGE.. *sigh*
HOW STUCK ON STUPID ARE WE??
==
Billll, ever hear of a filibuster! And of course, all geophysicst agree because it's settled science.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of ridiculous consider the following: "Ridiculous, need to focus on alternative energy and conservation"...
ReplyDeleteWow! What a parrot!
What do you mean by, 'alternative energy'?
Do some homework first, will you?
The U.S. Is Poised to Hit a New Oil Gusher
U.S. Solid and Liquid Fuels Resources
(Total endowment 9,033 billion bbls oil equivalent) (pie chart pg 13)
"In order for that shale to be profitable oil prices will have to remain high"...
Well Sean, maybe your ship has come in already and maybe quite sometime ago: Shell’s $30 per Barrel Oil Shale Process
++
ReplyDeleteHT : The Belmont Club
Business as usual
[excerpt re ANWR et al:
Rising in the Senate on May 13, Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat, explained: "I rise to discuss rising energy prices." The president was heading to Saudi Arabia to seek an increase in its oil production, and Schumer's gorge was rising. ...
Can a senator, with so many things on his mind, know so precisely how the price of gasoline would respond to that increase in the oil supply? Schumer does know that if you increase the supply of something, the price of it probably will fall. That is why he and 96 other senators recently voted to increase the supply of oil on the market by stopping the flow of oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which protects against major physical interruptions. Seventy-one of the 97 senators who voted to stop filling the reserve also oppose drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
One million barrels is what might today be flowing from ANWR if in 1995 President Bill Clinton had not vetoed legislation to permit drilling there. One million barrels produce 27 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel. Seventy-two of today's senators -- including Schumer, of course, and 38 other Democrats, including Barack Obama, and 33 Republicans, including John McCain -- have voted to keep ANWR's estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil off the market.]
[excerpt re Global Warming:
The debate in many ways was about setting the stage for a more serious climate change effort under the next president. While President Bush would have vetoed any cap-and-trade bill this year, both McCain and Obama back some form of mandatory emissions reduction, so this debate will gain serious traction again next year.
"We're getting ready for the next president of the United States, who we know ... will be hospitable to this bill," Boxer said.]
SCREWED 'R' US
==
So why didn't you drill all the years that you had a Republican congress and a Republican president? Found a way to blame the Democrats for that yet?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletejuandos, "do some homework" was precisely my point! Like I said, when I came across such sensationalistic and suspiciously optimistic headlines I contacted a geophysist. What I didn't mention is that he's married to a petroleum engineer, and to address anonymous 5:58's insinuating comment that "all geophysicist agree," the reason I trust my source is because I'm familiar w/his background, schooling and present occupation has been with the top of the top schools and institutes nationally and internationally, and is well-respected by peers as evidenced by his publications, lecturing demands, cutting edge research, and I know because he's my brother! Anyway, the explanation he gave me about the US sources was this:
ReplyDelete"...to be clear: the new estimate of "in place" oil in
the Bakken formation is around 4 bbl (billion barrels).
This is about 9 months worth of U.S. consumption, so
nothing like oil independence.
It will cost a great deal to get this oil out of the ground,
if it can be gotten out of the ground (these are unproven,
unconventional reserves), and it isn't very "good" oil (i.e. it is
"heavy, sour" crude, not "light, sweat" crude). Good for N.D.,
but none of us will feel any impact.
For reference, proven, conventional (i.e. it can be pumped out
of the ground as a liquid) reserves in the Middle
East are around 700 bbl. There is an additional estimated
(i.e. unproven) 400 bbl of conventional oil reserves in Iraq.
If you start throwing around numbers for unconventional
reserves, then there are trillions of barrels of heavy oil
in South America. This oil is hard to produce, but easier to
produce than tar sands; so, it is probably similar to about
1 bbl of the Bakken formation oil, the other 3 bbl being something
like a heavy oil in a shaley sand formation.
There's probably 500 bbl of tar sands in North America. The proven
tar sands in Canada alone are something like 200 bbl.
Bakken is a blip compared to these other reserves, and it
will in no way lead to US independence from foreign oil.
So, it makes no sense to talk about oil shales - which [...]
mentions in his blog and which no one knows how to produce,
since there is an abundance of better, cheaper hydrocarbon available.
And lets not forget about alternative energy. Solar, wind, tide, and
nuclear energy are all much more economical than the trillions of
barrels of oil shale [...]' blog refers to, and so, again, those
"reserves" are hardly worth talking about...
++
ReplyDeleteBakken Formation
excerpt:
[Oil production estimates
The greatest Bakken oil production comes from Elm Coulee Oil Field, Richland County, Montana, where production began in 2000 and is expected to ultimately total 270 million barrels. In 2007, production from Elm Coulee averaged 53,000 barrels per day — more than the entire state of Montana a few years earlier.
New interest developed in 2007 when EOG Resources out of Houston, Texas reported that a single well it had drilled into an oil-rich layer of shale below Parshall, North Dakota was anticipated to produce 700,000 barrels of oil. This, combined with other factors, including an oil-drilling tax break enacted by the state of North Dakota in 2007, shifted attention in the Bakken from Montana to the North Dakota side. The number of wells drilling the North Dakota Bakken jumped from 300 in 2006 to 457 in 2007. Those same sources show oil production in the North Dakota Bakken increasing 229%, from 2.2 million barrels in 2006 to 7.4 million barrels in 2007.]
==
Cindy you still need to do some homework...
ReplyDeleteBTW just curious but do your geophysist and petro engineer friends buy into the global warming hoax?
The reason I ask is due to what you posted: ""...to be clear: the new estimate of "in place" oil in the Bakken formation is around 4 bbl (billion barrels). This is about 9 months worth of U.S. consumption, so nothing like oil independence"...
See, unlike your friends I do know people who are putting their own money into betting that there is one heck of a lot more recoverable oil in the Williston basin than your friends or some of the tree huggers in the USGS want to claim that there is...
You remember that only phrase right, "follow the money"?
Juandos, you are a child. Your tone is that of a third grade brat. You throw out meaninless drivel you think proves a point while it shows your lack of meaningful knowledge. Write as a adult or go home.
ReplyDeleteRather a child anon @ 6:42 PM than a whining lying libtard who is completely clueless as you prove you are...
ReplyDeleteYou brainwashed idiots. Why are you defending Big Oil? They've conspired to kill every alternative energy project in this country. For starters watch: Who Killed the Electric car.
ReplyDelete800B Barrels under the Rockies? Read the original article:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5424033
This is oil trapped in rock. It can't be removed easily in large amounts.
The US uses 20.59 million barrels per DAY, that's 7.5 Billion b/year. Even your 800B, were it easily extractable, would last less than 80 years. Then what? Our grandchildren are back to square one?
Big Oil wants oil to be the answer. It isn't the answer that's good for America. We need government leadership that's been sorely lacking on the alternative energy front. Solar and wind are the future. Clean for the environment, free from military entanglements in the middle east.
Thank goodness McCain is going down in flames in November. Then you puppets of Big Oil can cry in your soup. What have they ever done for you anyway? Nothing. Robust alternative energy availability is in your interest. It is directly contrary to the financial interest of Big Oil. Think about it.
++
ReplyDeleteAnonymous @ 10:28 AM..
lol.. BIG OIL (Democrats btw) is backing the GLOBAL WARMING SCAM 110%.. lose money?? hah!! they are going to make a killing along with the Gore / Rockefeller constituents, er, clientele, er, hypocritical see no, hear no, speak no evil monkeys!!
==
Just looking for a blog that suggests that we release some of the oil we have stock piled as reserves. It's already been drilled and paid for by taxpayer dollars and is being held in reserve. Clinton used a bit of it when oil prices went up in the 90s so that oil prics went back down. Why hasn't the current administration done the same? Because they're oilmen. They WANT high oil prices. I hoped to find other people who agreed that we need to pressure this administration but I hooked into a bunch of RW loonies. And, people, if nuclear energy is so 'clean' then why is the waste (spent fuel rods) so eternally toxic that no one wants it anywhere near where they live? I am constantly amazed that all you 'family values' folks are so hateful about anyone who doesn't agree with you? Nancy Pelosi is the reason we are paying so much for gas? Are you freaking kidding? Talk about misinformation and denial. Once I post this, you will all no doubt attack me with great anger and vengence, but I won't be back on this blog ever so it will just be you guys trying to out-hate each other. How sad for you.
ReplyDelete