KateCanada
Inactive
I think that's why John McCain hired this gal, get it going for the USA. She knows what's happening in Canada. Our country doesn't need anyone for resources.
ENER BUSH OK’S DRILLING ANWAR, PALIN WILL SPEED PROCESS AHEAD
I think that's why John McCain hired this gal, get it going for the USA. She knows what's happening in Canada. Our country doesn't need anyone for resources.
Emcomus
<~Knights of Malta
Great Post WARDOG!
Seems like you really know the facts about exploring for crude oil. Wish I could, and I just might, print up copies of your response and show it to all these hardcore Dem's in NY.
It's so annoying hearing them say their going to go vote their "party line", without knowing all the CURRENT facts. It seems like they are locked into the past, clinging onto old facts published by their party, and won't open their eyes to the truth.
The independants in our country need to wake up and realize what you have said! In NY, the Dem's are set in their old dog ways and we can only reach the new generation. By the time they moblize it will be too late.
Seems like you really know the facts about exploring for crude oil. Wish I could, and I just might, print up copies of your response and show it to all these hardcore Dem's in NY.
It's so annoying hearing them say their going to go vote their "party line", without knowing all the CURRENT facts. It seems like they are locked into the past, clinging onto old facts published by their party, and won't open their eyes to the truth.
The independants in our country need to wake up and realize what you have said! In NY, the Dem's are set in their old dog ways and we can only reach the new generation. By the time they moblize it will be too late.
Scott Mayland
Senior Member
The US is currently exporting 1.8 million barrels of oil a day.
Drill more so we can export more??
Drill more so we can export more??
Wardogs
Deceased
We are not Venezuela, we sell our oil on the world market.
Until we have the capacity to refine more product we do export oil. We import refined product.
Its called a free market
We have half as many refineries as we did in 1982, and they're not meeting demands. Regulations, practical challenges and economic factors all play a role.
Though oil refinery productivity in the United States has been improving, the number of operating refineries has been dropping steadily. In 1982, the earliest year for which the Energy Information Administration has data, there were 301 operable refineries in the U.S., and they produced about 17.9 million barrels of oil per day. Today there are only 149 refineries, but they're producing 17.4 million barrels – less than in 1982, but more than any year since then. The increase in efficiency is impressive, but it's not enough to meet demand: U.S. oil consumption is 20.7 million barrels per day. Refinery capacity isn't the only factor in the price of gasoline, and according to the EIA it's not the most important one either (that would be the cost of crude oil), but it's certainly a contributor.
Existing refineries have been running at or near full capacity since the mid-1990s, but are failing to meet daily consumption demands. Yet there hasn't been a new refinery built in the U.S. since 1976. Why? Several factors: Building a refinery is expensive, there are a lot of environmental restrictions on where and how they can be built and nobody wants to live near one. One company, Arizona Clean Fuels, has been trying to construct a refinery in the Southwest since 1998. Getting a permit to build took seven years, and the company twice changed the plant's proposed location because of environmental restrictions and land disputes. The refinery is projected to have a $3.7 billion total price tag. The EIA recorded per-barrel profits of $5.29 in 2006; at that rate, the 150,000-barrel-per-day refinery would need to operate for almost 13 years before its profits outweighed the cost of building it.
In short, the reason for not adding more refineries is straightforward: It's hard, and it's expensive. The reason that we have so few in the first place is more complicated. In the 1980s and 1990s, there was a surplus of refining capacity. Then, over the course of two decades, half of the plants shut down. In 2001, Oregon senator Ron Wyden presented to Congress a report arguing that these closings were calculated choices intended to increase oil company profits. Fewer refineries means less product in circulation, which means a lower supply-to-demand ratio and more profit. Wyden's report cites internal memos from the oil industry implying that this reduction was a deliberate attempt to curtail profit losses.
The economic pressures of oversupply could have led to plant closings even without a more calculated decision, of course. In 2005, the head of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association testified at a House hearing that the rate of return on investment in refining averaged just five and a half percent from 1993 to 2003.
Again, the regulatory nightmare of running and building refineries is a major factor. As you will see in one of the sources listed below, it takes an average of 7 years just to get a permit...
It's easy to say that it's all a big plot, but realistically, no company foregoes profits to feed an agenda. The more oil pumped and sold, the higher the profit. just common sense.
Fighting the regulatory nightmare, investing millions in studies, impact statements and legal fees, with no guarantee of success, is not an investment many companies want to make any more.
That structure has to change before anything else can go forward.
The liberal talking points of "7-10 years before any oil" is based mainly on overcoming regulatory and legal hurdles, not related to actual production.
Of course we always have the options of the Democrats...
Nationalize our oil companies...
Sue OPEC...
or my favorite, tire inflation and tuneups on cars that haven't needed them for a decade...
wardogs
Sources
Porter, Adam. "Global refinery shortage shifts power balance." BBC News. 2 Oct. 2005.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4296812.stm
Mouawad, Jad. "No New Refineries in 29 Years? There Might Well Be a Reason." The New York Times. 9 May 2005.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/09/business/09refinery.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Schoen, John W. "U.S. refiners stretch to meet demand." MSNBC. 22 Nov. 2004.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6019739/
Reynolds, Sarah. "East County oil refinery will move." Yuma Sun. 5 Feb. 2008.
http://www.arizonacleanfuels.com/news/2008/020508_YS.htm
Associated Press. "Arizona refinery permit took seven years, Senate told." 14 Jul. 2006.
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/business/19103.php
Wyden, Ron. "The Oil Industry, Gas Supply and Refinery Capacity: More Than Meets the Eye." 14 Jun. 2001.
http://wyden.senate.gov/issues/wyden_oil_report.pdf
109th United States Congress. "Petroleum Refineries: Will Record Profits Spur Investment in New Capacity?" House Subcommittee on Energy and Resources. 19 Oct. 2005.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house/pdf/109hrg/25101.pdf
wardogs
KateCanada
Inactive
Canada, little country (people wise only), pay no attention to us making money. 
Are we smarter? I think so. We are making big bucks in Canada because of our oil....20 + year old Canadians are making a fortune, labor workers.
Huge money for a Canadian if they want it. Got that going on in the USA? Our country is going for selling to the world and we are way ahead of you. We are a great country, you loved Sarah Palin, well you probably met 90% of Canadian women in that gal. Hurray USA! You are learning stuff.
Are we smarter? I think so. We are making big bucks in Canada because of our oil....20 + year old Canadians are making a fortune, labor workers. Huge money for a Canadian if they want it. Got that going on in the USA? Our country is going for selling to the world and we are way ahead of you. We are a great country, you loved Sarah Palin, well you probably met 90% of Canadian women in that gal. Hurray USA! You are learning stuff.
Last edited:
KateCanada
Inactive
Get your act together USA. Make Alaska help your country.
Like Canada's PM said, "Use it, or Lose it!".
Wake up!!!
The Russian's ARE Coming.
Rice: Russia Playing A "Dangerous Game"
(CBS/AP) With tanks busting through Georgia's meager defenses and artillery dug in around the country's main port, the Russians made clear they are going to take their own sweet time pulling out, reports CBS News' Chief National Security Correspondent David Martin.
Russian troops still control a number of Georgian cities and by nightfall U.S. intelligence had detected no significant withdrawals. Russia's military spokesman put it very plainly: Russian troops won't withdraw, just pull back from some of their forward positions.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday that Russia is playing a "very dangerous game" with the U.S. and its allies and warned that NATO would not allow Moscow to win in Georgia, destabilize Europe or draw a new Iron Curtain through the continent.
But with no sign of Russia withdrawing its troops from Georgia despite a pledge to do so and indications it has moved short-range ballistic missiles into the disputed area of South Ossetia, it was unclear how the alliance would make good on Rice's vow.
On her way to an emergency NATO foreign ministers meeting on the crisis, Rice said the alliance would punish Russia for its invasion of Georgia and deny its ambitions by rebuilding and fully backing Georgia and other Eastern European democracies.
"We are determined to deny them their strategic objective," Rice told reporters aboard her plane, adding that any attempt to re-create the Cold War by drawing a "new line" through Europe and intimidating former Soviet republics and ex-satellite states would fail.
"We are not going to allow Russia to draw a new line at those states that are not yet integrated into the trans-Atlantic structures," she said, referring to Georgia and Ukraine, which have not yet joined NATO or the European Union but would like to.
CBS News' Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Lara Logan was on the plane as Rice flew to the NATO meeting. The Secretary of State was uncompromising in her rhetoric, which was ratcheted up from her stern but vague words for the Kremlin last week, Logan reports.
"It didn't take the Russian forces long to get into Georgia," Rice said. "It should not take them long to get out."
Rice could not say what NATO would eventually decide to do to make its position clear but said the alliance would speak with one voice "to clearly indicate that we are not accepting a new line."
At the same time, she said that by flexing its military muscle in Georgia as well as elsewhere, including the resumption of Cold War-era strategic bomber patrols off the coast of Alaska, Russia was engaged in high-stakes brinksmanship that could backfire.
This "is a very dangerous game and perhaps one the Russians want to reconsider," Rice said of the flights that began again with frequency about six months ago. "This is not something that is just cost-free. Nobody needs Russian strategic aviation along America's coast."
At Tuesday's meeting, the NATO ministers will discuss support for a planned international monitoring mission in the region and a package of support to help Georgia rebuild infrastructure damaged in its devastating defeat at the hands of Russian armed forces.
They will also consider a range of upcoming activities planned with Russia - from military exercises to ministerial meetings - and decide case-by-case at the meeting Tuesday whether to go ahead or cancel each.
But how far NATO goes in curtailing relations with Moscow may depend on the situation on the ground as doubts remain about Russia's implementation of a EU-brokered peace plan. Russia had promised to start withdrawing forces from positions in Georgia on Monday, but has suggested troops could stay in South Ossetia, the breakaway region at the heart of the fighting.
Rice suggested that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who signed an EU-backed cease-fire brokered by the French, may be unable to exert power behind the scenes against his powerful predecessor, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, or the Russian military.
She said she thought the French would be seeking "an explanation from the Russians for why the Russian president either won't or can't keep his word."
"It didn't take that long for the Russian forces to get in and it really shouldn't take that long for them to get out," Rice said.
Russian troops and tanks have controlled a wide swath of Georgia for days. They also began a campaign to disable the Georgian military, destroying or carting away large caches of military equipment.
In Washington, military officials said they have seen no significant movement of Russian troops out of Georgia. They also said at least one Russian battalion with more than a dozen SS-21 missile launchers had moved into South Ossetia, within range of the Georgian capital.
That would allow Russia to pull out of Georgia proper as promised, but punish Tbilisi at any moment with the push of a button, as it will retain peacekeeping forces in South Ossetia.
In addition, Russia has prevented the immediate deployment of up to 100 extra unarmed European military monitors to observe the cease-fire, according to an official at the Vienna-based Organization for Security and Cooperation, which is trying to organize the team.
The arrival of those monitors would end a special security mandate given to the Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia that under the cease-fire allows them limited patrols on undisputed Georgian territory.
Meanwhile, Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's ambassador to NATO, warned that an anti-Russian propaganda campaign could jeopardize existing security cooperation.
"We hope that tomorrow's decisions by NATO will be balanced and that responsible forces in the West will give up the total cynicism that has been so evident (which) is pushing us back to the Cold War era," he told reporters Monday.
Washington has denied Rogozin's claims that it is out to wreck the NATO-Russia Council - a consultative panel set up in 2002 to improve relations between the former Cold War foes.
"We don't want to destroy the NATO-Russia Council, but Russia's actions have called into question the premise of the NATO-Russia relationship," U.S. Ambassador Kurt Volker said ahead of the NATO talks.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Like Canada's PM said, "Use it, or Lose it!".
Wake up!!!
The Russian's ARE Coming.
Rice: Russia Playing A "Dangerous Game"
(CBS/AP) With tanks busting through Georgia's meager defenses and artillery dug in around the country's main port, the Russians made clear they are going to take their own sweet time pulling out, reports CBS News' Chief National Security Correspondent David Martin.
Russian troops still control a number of Georgian cities and by nightfall U.S. intelligence had detected no significant withdrawals. Russia's military spokesman put it very plainly: Russian troops won't withdraw, just pull back from some of their forward positions.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday that Russia is playing a "very dangerous game" with the U.S. and its allies and warned that NATO would not allow Moscow to win in Georgia, destabilize Europe or draw a new Iron Curtain through the continent.
But with no sign of Russia withdrawing its troops from Georgia despite a pledge to do so and indications it has moved short-range ballistic missiles into the disputed area of South Ossetia, it was unclear how the alliance would make good on Rice's vow.
On her way to an emergency NATO foreign ministers meeting on the crisis, Rice said the alliance would punish Russia for its invasion of Georgia and deny its ambitions by rebuilding and fully backing Georgia and other Eastern European democracies.
"We are determined to deny them their strategic objective," Rice told reporters aboard her plane, adding that any attempt to re-create the Cold War by drawing a "new line" through Europe and intimidating former Soviet republics and ex-satellite states would fail.
"We are not going to allow Russia to draw a new line at those states that are not yet integrated into the trans-Atlantic structures," she said, referring to Georgia and Ukraine, which have not yet joined NATO or the European Union but would like to.
CBS News' Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Lara Logan was on the plane as Rice flew to the NATO meeting. The Secretary of State was uncompromising in her rhetoric, which was ratcheted up from her stern but vague words for the Kremlin last week, Logan reports.
"It didn't take the Russian forces long to get into Georgia," Rice said. "It should not take them long to get out."
Rice could not say what NATO would eventually decide to do to make its position clear but said the alliance would speak with one voice "to clearly indicate that we are not accepting a new line."
At the same time, she said that by flexing its military muscle in Georgia as well as elsewhere, including the resumption of Cold War-era strategic bomber patrols off the coast of Alaska, Russia was engaged in high-stakes brinksmanship that could backfire.
This "is a very dangerous game and perhaps one the Russians want to reconsider," Rice said of the flights that began again with frequency about six months ago. "This is not something that is just cost-free. Nobody needs Russian strategic aviation along America's coast."
At Tuesday's meeting, the NATO ministers will discuss support for a planned international monitoring mission in the region and a package of support to help Georgia rebuild infrastructure damaged in its devastating defeat at the hands of Russian armed forces.
They will also consider a range of upcoming activities planned with Russia - from military exercises to ministerial meetings - and decide case-by-case at the meeting Tuesday whether to go ahead or cancel each.
But how far NATO goes in curtailing relations with Moscow may depend on the situation on the ground as doubts remain about Russia's implementation of a EU-brokered peace plan. Russia had promised to start withdrawing forces from positions in Georgia on Monday, but has suggested troops could stay in South Ossetia, the breakaway region at the heart of the fighting.
Rice suggested that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who signed an EU-backed cease-fire brokered by the French, may be unable to exert power behind the scenes against his powerful predecessor, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, or the Russian military.
She said she thought the French would be seeking "an explanation from the Russians for why the Russian president either won't or can't keep his word."
"It didn't take that long for the Russian forces to get in and it really shouldn't take that long for them to get out," Rice said.
Russian troops and tanks have controlled a wide swath of Georgia for days. They also began a campaign to disable the Georgian military, destroying or carting away large caches of military equipment.
In Washington, military officials said they have seen no significant movement of Russian troops out of Georgia. They also said at least one Russian battalion with more than a dozen SS-21 missile launchers had moved into South Ossetia, within range of the Georgian capital.
That would allow Russia to pull out of Georgia proper as promised, but punish Tbilisi at any moment with the push of a button, as it will retain peacekeeping forces in South Ossetia.
In addition, Russia has prevented the immediate deployment of up to 100 extra unarmed European military monitors to observe the cease-fire, according to an official at the Vienna-based Organization for Security and Cooperation, which is trying to organize the team.
The arrival of those monitors would end a special security mandate given to the Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia that under the cease-fire allows them limited patrols on undisputed Georgian territory.
Meanwhile, Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's ambassador to NATO, warned that an anti-Russian propaganda campaign could jeopardize existing security cooperation.
"We hope that tomorrow's decisions by NATO will be balanced and that responsible forces in the West will give up the total cynicism that has been so evident (which) is pushing us back to the Cold War era," he told reporters Monday.
Washington has denied Rogozin's claims that it is out to wreck the NATO-Russia Council - a consultative panel set up in 2002 to improve relations between the former Cold War foes.
"We don't want to destroy the NATO-Russia Council, but Russia's actions have called into question the premise of the NATO-Russia relationship," U.S. Ambassador Kurt Volker said ahead of the NATO talks.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Emcomus
<~Knights of Malta
Couldn't say it better, and we should buy more from our friends then our enemys, whatever happen to NAFTA?
KateCanada
Inactive
Somebody tell me, would you want Obama or McCain taking on Putin? 
As a Canadian, I want McCain.
As a Canadian, I want McCain.
Emcomus
<~Knights of Malta
Somebody tell me, would you want Obama or McCain taking on Putin?
Wish you could vote in our elections Kate!
Rucus Sunday
Veteran Member
Once again, we see how liberals mistake truth for "personal attacks," while they equate personal attacks with "truth." Just remember that when you're dealing with liberals, you aren't dealing with rational human beings. You're dealing with brainwashed secular fundamentalists who see any disagreement with their religion as an attack upon their religion. Rather sad to watch, but devastating when given political authority. And they will settle for nothing less than political authority. Here, for instance, we're dealing with someone who has probably never tracked an animal for food, something many Alaskans have to do in order to survive, and yet she knows enough about "migratory patterns" to insist that the rest of us need to make the best of what we have (or don't) energy-wise, "Animals First" being one of the tenants of their religion.
Worrier King
Deceased
So who will eventually get this oil if they produce it and foreign markets will pay more, the Japanese? 
It's just capitalism folks.
It's just capitalism folks.
Emcomus
<~Knights of Malta
Not to mention that we are at the mercy of any country that want's to cut off our imported supply of curde oil. Look at Pakastan, we followed AQ leaders into their country, hunting down major war criminals, now they are trying to blockcade the US from receiving crude imports.
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?t=300145
Emcomus
<~Knights of Malta
I would think you are right, esp. if they lose the elections. That's why an energy crisis would have to be declared by the US Goverement, like Jimmy Carter did in the 1970's...once done, an EXECUTIVE ORDER for more oil refineries, distrubtion, and production of crude can be implemented.
Of COURSE, the Dem Majority will scoff saying that this was a faberication of the publicians to raise the price of oil...but in actuality, the price will fall about $1 a gallon at the pumps. More domestic supply, lower prices.
Emcomus
<~Knights of Malta
So who will eventually get this oil if they produce it and foreign markets will pay more, the Japanese?
It's just capitalism folks.
Actually our production would stay in America. Rumor has it that Mc Cain has announced that Sarah Palin would be incharge of this part of his administration.
As far as where the Japanese get their oil, will be a Japanese problem, I would assume they would have to buy it on the world market. From what I posted and to the best of my understanding...any oil we produce...WILL NOT BE PUT BACK INTO THE WORLD MARKET.
momof23goats
Deceased
good and about time too. we need this oil and we need the jobs. I hope they reopen the fields here in michigan.
Emcomus
<~Knights of Malta
First things first, they have to first win the election, that's still 8-9 weeks away.