Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Drill Drill Drill!


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#46    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,107 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 06 September 2008 - 11:33 PM

Caesar on Sep 6 2008, 06:24 PM, said:

I already discussed this, there are 4700 holes only because if they didn't make so many holes a month, they would loose the lease, they still have tons of rules and regulations that apply. now could you please stop trying to mislead people with this "Drilling is allowed in the millions of acres land already available." this isn't CNN
Fact-check


Your fact check just proves the point. We ARE drilling. In fact, many more than 4700 holes. 15,000 more in process. I didn't see anything about drilling to "not loose the lease". Drilling is expensive. Drilling with no hope of finding oil would seem to be not cost effective.  I'm not misleading people. You are. We ARE drilling. A lot. Certain areas are off limits. Deal with it.

(in fact, the company I work for owns subsidiaries that make parts of the drilling and pumping apparatus for US companies. They are doing well.)


Edited by ninjadude, 06 September 2008 - 11:35 PM.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#47    Caesar

Caesar

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,623 posts
  • Joined:07 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

  • Semper Fidelis

Posted 06 September 2008 - 11:57 PM

ninjadude on Sep 6 2008, 07:18 PM, said:

I don't see a single one of those say anything about stopping building new refineries.


Subtitle H: Refinery Revitalization - (Sec. 392) Authorizes the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, upon request, to enter into a refinery permitting cooperative agreement with the state under which each signatory identifies the steps, including timelines, it will take to streamline the consideration of federal and state environmental permits for a new refinery.
The Library of Congress

How the votes went



ninjadude on Sep 6 2008, 07:18 PM, said:

On the contrary it's very clear that the Republicans don't care about jobs or the economy. It was hardly mentioned during the convention. Nor do they have any plan for it beyond more of the same Bush nothingness.

Sure look at what Palin did in Alaska, anyways how can you make the econmy better by raising taxes. like Obama said alot on the economy, a community orginizer raising taxes, I'm sure many will see a change, a change many will not believe in.


ninjadude on Sep 6 2008, 07:18 PM, said:

Working to reduce Climate change will create jobs. Al Gore lives in a mansion that is three times bigger than the normal American house so it should use more energy! Duh. And Al Gore is not running for president. That was 8 years ago. He does NOT own a private jet. Where do you get this stuff?

I'm sorry his house uses 12 times the electricity of a normal Americans house a 4,000 sf house.


#48    Caesar

Caesar

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,623 posts
  • Joined:07 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

  • Semper Fidelis

Posted 07 September 2008 - 12:02 AM

ninjadude on Sep 6 2008, 07:33 PM, said:

Your fact check just proves the point. We ARE drilling. In fact, many more than 4700 holes. 15,000 more in process. I didn't see anything about drilling to "not loose the lease". Drilling is expensive. Drilling with no hope of finding oil would seem to be not cost effective.  I'm not misleading people. You are. We ARE drilling. A lot. Certain areas are off limits. Deal with it.

(in fact, the company I work for owns subsidiaries that make parts of the drilling and pumping apparatus for US companies. They are doing well.)

AND HOW MUCH OIL ARE WE GETTING FROM THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


#49    Startraveler

Startraveler

    Fleet Captain

  • Member
  • 4,537 posts
  • Joined:25 Jun 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New England

  • Knowledge Brings Fear.

Posted 07 September 2008 - 12:16 AM

Quote

Subtitle H: Refinery Revitalization - (Sec. 392) Authorizes the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, upon request, to enter into a refinery permitting cooperative agreement with the state under which each signatory identifies the steps, including timelines, it will take to streamline the consideration of federal and state environmental permits for a new refinery.
The Library of Congress

How the votes went


Hmm, did that bill offer any reasons to oppose it?

According to the CBO:
H.R. 6 contains numerous mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) that would affect both intergovernmental and private-sector entities. Based on our review of the bill, CBO expects that the mandates (new requirements, limits on existing rights, and preemptions) contained in the bill's titles on motor fuels (title XV), nuclear energy (title VI), electricity (title XII) and energy efficiency (title I) would have the greatest impact on State and local governments and private-sector entities.

CBO estimates that the cost of complying with intergovernmental mandates, in aggregate, could be significant and likely would exceed the threshold established in UMRA ($62 million in 2005, adjusted annually for inflation) at some point over the next five years because we expect that future damage awards for state and local governments under the bill's safe harbor provision (title XI) would likely be reduced. As explained below, that provision would shield the motor fuels industry from liability under certain conditions.

Section 1502 would shield manufacturers of motor fuels and other persons from liability for claims based on defective product relating to motor vehicle fuel containing methyl tertiary butyl ether or renewable fuel. That protection would be in effect as long as the fuel is in compliance with other applicable federal requirements. The provision would impose both an intergovernmental and private-sector mandate as it would limit existing rights to seek compensation under current law. (The provision would not affect other causes of action such as nuisance or negligence.)


I'd call that a big yes.

Quote

Sure look at what Palin did in Alaska, anyways how can you make the econmy better by raising taxes. like Obama said alot on the economy, a community orginizer raising taxes, I'm sure many will see a change, a change many will not believe in.


Sarah Palin raised regressive sales taxes by 25% as mayor yet still took the town from a balanced budget to nearly $20 million in debt.

Edited by Startraveler, 07 September 2008 - 12:17 AM.


#50    merril

merril

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • Joined:16 Feb 2008

Posted 07 September 2008 - 12:26 AM

A Sweeping, Innovative Plan to Address National Energy Dependency Crisis

T. Boone Video








#51    Incorrigible1

Incorrigible1

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,393 posts
  • Joined:04 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eastern Nebraska, USA

  • Champanya?

Posted 07 September 2008 - 12:33 AM

merril on Sep 6 2008, 07:26 PM, said:


Pickens' opens his television ads with the admonition "drill, drill, drill." I agree.

If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too. -- W. Somerset Maugham
Posted Image

#52    Caesar

Caesar

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,623 posts
  • Joined:07 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

  • Semper Fidelis

Posted 07 September 2008 - 01:03 AM

Startraveler on Sep 6 2008, 08:16 PM, said:

Hmm, did that bill offer any reasons to oppose it?

According to the CBO:
H.R. 6 contains numerous mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) that would affect both intergovernmental and private-sector entities. Based on our review of the bill, CBO expects that the mandates (new requirements, limits on existing rights, and preemptions) contained in the bill's titles on motor fuels (title XV), nuclear energy (title VI), electricity (title XII) and energy efficiency (title I) would have the greatest impact on State and local governments and private-sector entities.

CBO estimates that the cost of complying with intergovernmental mandates, in aggregate, could be significant and likely would exceed the threshold established in UMRA ($62 million in 2005, adjusted annually for inflation) at some point over the next five years because we expect that future damage awards for state and local governments under the bill's safe harbor provision (title XI) would likely be reduced. As explained below, that provision would shield the motor fuels industry from liability under certain conditions.

Section 1502 would shield manufacturers of motor fuels and other persons from liability for claims based on defective product relating to motor vehicle fuel containing methyl tertiary butyl ether or renewable fuel. That protection would be in effect as long as the fuel is in compliance with other applicable federal requirements. The provision would impose both an intergovernmental and private-sector mandate as it would limit existing rights to seek compensation under current law. (The provision would not affect other causes of action such as nuisance or negligence.)


I'd call that a big yes.

But Al Gore voted for it!





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users