Nice clip. It might not say it all, but it says a lot! I think it has more to do with democrats thinking they can move away from oil, which would take too long, and not to mention it's extremely idealistic. Ya, we almost certainly will move away from oil someday, that day just won't be tomorrow. Heck, unless there is a miracle it won't be for many decades. In the mean time, our policies are hurting our pocketbooks, our economy, and our security. McCain should run on this record, unfortunately he has staked out a bad position on ANWR. Gosh! a clip I can agree with! The Dems are coming to the table waaaaaay too late. This has been coming for decades. All of our elected ones rejected all options or they were just sorry, lazy, or disinterested. No nuclear, no solar, no coal, no drilling....NO everything...except ride our bicycles, city transit, walking, miniature cars. There is no going back. The options/opportunities are there for those who have a vision and money. I'm open!! Yep, I agree - bicycles, public transport, walking, smaller cars - just like normal people. Rising gas prices can't be laid at the rejection of ANWR exploration: Brendan Nyhan said: Really? Because Harry Reid said that if we could just get the Saudi's to release another million barrels a day then the price of oil would drop by $25 per barrel. Ironically, a million barrels a day is on the conservative side of what we could expect to pull in from ANWAR. And exactly how long ago was it that the Clinton administration vetoed development of ANWAR? How long have the democrats stood in the way of drilling in ANWAR? And ANWAR is just part of it. There is also both coasts. There is such a large reserve of oil off the tip of Florida that has been deemed off limits that the Chinese are willing to use angle drilling methods in cooperation with the Cubans to extract oil under Ameri... Ironically, a million barrels a day is on the conservative side of what we could expect to pull in from ANWAR.Not according to my sources. The Congressional Research Service estimates that at its peak production time (which would be after 15-20 years of development, and that's assuming a fast rate of development) the ANWR would produce 750,000 barrels per day. And that's at its peak. See the CRS's briefing for the 109th Congress, page 5, second full paragraph. Because Harry Reid said that if we could just get the Saudi's to release another million barrels a day the... ANWR would replace the oil we use each day from Saudi Arabia. The majority of our imports come from Canada. I am not as worried about sending them our money as, at least at this point, they don't seem to be exporting alot of Islamic fundamentalism to the US. Klugman, just because it won't solve all our energy needs doesn't mean we shouldn't use it as a part of our future energy plans. Some problems with your source. First, they are using a ten year old study. Not that there is any other study they can use, but it isn't exactly up to date. Second, they are using a low end from that estimate. To calculate their 750,000 barrels per day, they say there is only 5 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil. From the charts in that study, there is between 2 billion and 9.3 billion barrels of oil or an expected value of 5.2 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil with an oil price of $24 a barrel. At $35 a barrel the number jumps to 4.3 - 11.8 billion barrels with a mean of 7.7 billion barrels. And the chart in the report only goes up to $40 a barrel, we are at abo... Yep, I agree - bicycles, public transport, walking, smaller cars - just like normal people. Just thought I'd point this out. Obviously people don't need to be driving a friggin' hummer, but not everyone lives in a big city where bicycles, public transport, walking, or even car pooling are options. And most importantly we aren't just talking about ANWAR. We are talking about ANWAR, oil shale, east coast, west coast, southern Florida coast, and the list goes on. Each one individually may not be hugely significant, but together they are. Agreed. And if the Clinton Administration would have started this 2 decades ago instead of pandering to special interest groups we would already be seeing the results. Now the Chinese will be taking it right from under our own soil!! n2sooners, I understand your point that there may be more economically recoverable oil in ANWR than indicated in my sources. You may be right. But the irony is, ANWR may be a great source of oil, but only after oil prices are sky high. So I am not sure that is a great argument for starting development on ANWR ten years ago. (at the very least, policy-makers 10 years ago could not develop ANWR banking on the price of oil sky-rocketing). Plus, it is still not clear how much gas prices would be reduced if we did more oil exploration, given predictions that OPEC would cut its own production. Plus, it is still not clear how much gas prices would be reduced if weHistorically, when confronted wiht competition OPEC has slashed prices, even to the point of making some domestic ventures unprofitable. They did this during Carter and Reagan. Rising gas prices can't be laid at the rejection of ANWR exploration:The point is that ANWR exploration is not the cause of rising gas prices. The point is that ANWR symbolizes the 800 pound gorilla in the room of our own inaction and inadequacy in regard to energy. Anyone remember now when a relatively short time ago, Chavez offered a guaranteed supply of heavy @ 50$ a barrel and he was told to FUC@ OFF by your glorious far-seeing leaders. 50$, can you believe it. 50$. LoL. I must go back and find that. 50$. What is it now? Darn right we told him to f$$$ off. We shouldn't send him another friggin' dime. He is a dictator is all but name. He offered Alaskan native villages near my town cheap oil (they are currently paying $8 a gallon) they told him to f$$$ off. Now they seem to understand what Chavez is all about why can't you? |
View the Top Clips from June 6, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||
|
|
|||
