Its the Republicans the ones keeping the oil prices higher not the democrats (they re in bed with the oil companies)
Over the past decade, republicans have fought to limit U.S. access to alternative fuels and transportation systems that would have helped reduce oil prices while at the same time enforcing dependence on that dirty, dangerous and depleting fuel. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy -$899 million Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability -$49 million Nuclear Energy -$169 million At the same time, republicans supported large subsidies to oil companies. In May, republicans voted to kill a bill that would have ended $12 billion in oil subsidies to the largest U.S. oil companies. All when oil companies were more profitable than at any time in history. This year alone, oil companies raked in over $100 billion in profits on top of their subsidies, which republicans seem to think they need just to show how special they are for gouging the American public, wrecking the Gulf Coast, or funding proxy attacks on climate scientists.
By the early 2000s, republicans and their oil company backers played an interesting game. They spoke about the need for a shift to alternative fuels, while doubling down on oil, encouraging SUV and other large vehicle purchases. But now republicans are doing everything they can to kill alternative energy funding while attacking solutions to higher oil prices like electric vehicles produced by Chevy and more efficient vehicles of all kinds.
As early as last spring, republicans were fighting to cut alternative energy spending in Congress. When the FY 2011 budget was proposed, republicans attempted to make the following cuts:
But not only are republicans trying to enforce dependence on expensive oil while de-funding government support for renewable energy, they are also actively involved in a rhetorical attack against any long-term solutions to U.S. oil dependence. Recently, republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich derided the Chevy Volt, an electric vehicle that vastly reduces dependence on oil, saying "you cannot put a gun rack in a Volt." But Gingrich isn't the only republican rabid to attack this U.S. - made, hi-tech, solution to oil dependence. In fact, republican political adviser Bob Lutz recently asked republicans to stop attacking the Chevy Volt saying: "The Oscar for totally irresponsible journalism has to go to 'The O'Reilly Factor' on
Fox News, with as its key guest, Lou Dobbs. Amid much jocular yukking, the Volt was depicted as a typical federal failure..." But the Volt wasn't a failure at all. It was an amazing success - ranking highest in customer satisfaction out of any car sold in 2011. So it seems republicans are only alienating those Americans who love their Volts or those Americans who feel owning an electric vehicle is the highest form of patriotism and the best way to reduce oil dependence long-term.
Republican attacks on the Volt and their attempts to rake in more money for the already fattened oil companies comes across as little more than economically dangerous pandering to a very wealthy set of political backers, even if that pandering is counter to U.S. prosperity and security. But if you listen to the republican rhetoric, you won't get a look at that rather ugly reality. Instead, you'll listen to all sorts of magical nonsense about how we can drill our way to oil independence.
But studies from both the U.S. Energy Information Administration and from independent watch-dogs show that U.S. oil production will never meet the current demand of 18.87 million barrels per day. To do that, we would have to increase production by 8.3 million barrels per day while keeping all the republican-derided U.S. ethanol production intact. The most optimistic of these studies show increases from all sources of oil flows at 4 million barrels per day within 10 years. At the same time, declines in traditional wells results in a loss of 3 million barrels per day of U.S. production. The result? Only a 1 million barrel per day net increase, even in the most optimistic of cases. And this increased production would only result in what little oil remains in U.S. soil being depleted more rapidly. A replacement of half the U.S. vehicle fleet with electric vehicles over the next ten years, however, would reduce U.S. oil consumption by nearly 6 million barrels per day. Add that to a 1 million barrel increase in oil supply and another 1 million barrels per day from biofuels and you suddenly get that oil independence politicians have been harping about for so long, with 80% coming from things other than drilling.
But it's not likely that oil companies would be so profitable in such a scenario, hence the republican attacks on all alternatives. It ends up that dirty, dangerous, and depleting oil is something that is obscenely profitable for oil companies. And republicans are doing their best to keep you hooked.
Sources:
U.S. Energy Information Administration
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/01/31/bob-lutz-hey-right-wingers...
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/newt-gingrich-shocks-with-c...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/17/oil-subsidies-senate...
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/02/...
Top Opinion
-
Reichstolz 2012/04/16 16:25:40
+3Laughable, I find it humorous that republicans are always portrayed as greedy and environmentally unwise. Yet, you say that a greedy person would deliberately exclude something that could make a profit in the long run and be environmentally beneficial. Your hypocrisy is only engulfed by your idiocy.
Soros/Petrobras was out drilling with BP off the coast of TV in March 2009 using Transocean's Deepwater Horizon. It was a record breaking 35,050 ft. deep. before capping the 4-6 billion bbls of oil and trekking over to Louisiana.
It had to go there to replace Transocean's Marianas rig that began drilling that site, also in March 2009. Marianas was damaged by hurricane Ida and was towed off for repairs. Deepwater Horizon hooked up to the existing riser and blow-out preventer and continued the drill.
Was any inspection ordered by MSM on the equipment? Where were the emergency recovery vessels that were supposed to be in the Gulf, by law? Isn't it convenient that the well blew, the Coast Guard poured water and foam on it non-stop until it capsized and produced the huge oil leak?
What was 0bozo's motive for refusing help from foreign nation? What was his motive to prohibit residents of the area to do what they could to prevent the oil coming ashore?
What was 0bozo's motivation to shut down all deepwater drilling in the Gulf sending the rigs down to Brazil where Soros was investing heavily?
Perhaps you should take a deeper look into WHO is really in bed with big oil and why the market is being manipulated and by who.
watch this video and learn something
I've done more research into what really happened in the Gulf with the DH than you could ever hope to, including the pressure readings in the hours leading up to the blow-out.
Both Bobby Jindal, Haley Barbour and the resident fishermen were BEGGING to do whatever they could to prevent the oil from making it to shore. 0bozo thwarted every effort including offers from foreign nations. He even blew off Kevin Kostner who had been working on oil recovery and had equipment.
Where was Alvin to go down and see what was happening at the source of the leak?
It should have been on a chopper, headed to the Gulf 10 minutes after the DH was capsized.
The boom equipment, required by law, was nowhere in sight. What we did have was at other locations for repairs. Hmmm?? Kinda like what FDR did with the Pacific carrier groups to make sure they were nowhere near Pearl.
The DH was positioned 50 nautical miles from our shore, well within the 200 nautical mile EEZ. Look it up if you don't know what it means.and what responsibilities are attached.
All 0bozo did was play switch with his thumbs, and allow the incident to become the crisis he needed. What did America get? Thousands of lost jobs when the moratorium was put in place, and got to see him FINALLY make an appearance to drag his tar balls across the sand.
Do the research yourself. It's all there, just takes a lot more effort than regurgitating talking points.
while they sit in their thrones using joe the plummers like u to spread lies lies lies
the deep water horizon was put there under gw bush watch . and obama didnt benefit from the oil spill the republicans in the oil companies did by raising oil prices
SELL YOUR BS TO SOME IGNORANT IN THIS BOARD
CARE TO TALK ABOUT KATRINA ?
U.S. maritime and environmental laws required U.S. govt. equipment to be at the ready in the Gulf and anywhere around our coastline where offshore drilling is within the EEZ no matter who owns the rigs.
Governors cannot declare a state of emergency until the disaster actually comes ashore and causes damage. Do your homework.
Responsibility lies squarely on the Federal govt. while it's at sea.
My whole crew packed up and we were in Nawlens two days after Katrina hit.
What do you want to know? About how Blanco & Nagin ignored the warning Bush gave on his Nationally broadcast address when Katrina had just passed over Florida?
Secret Service wouldn't allow him to land because the place was already out of control with looting and the SS detail would have just added to the chaos.
Would you like to discuss WHY hundreds of school buses sat instead of showing up to help the stranded citizens as was promised?
Not for lack of able drivers but because the fuel storage had been pilfered and sold off and they couldn't drive them even if they wanted to.
1900 people would have easily been carried to safety.
We gathered as many as we could using the Yamaha Waverunners we br...
U.S. maritime and environmental laws required U.S. govt. equipment to be at the ready in the Gulf and anywhere around our coastline where offshore drilling is within the EEZ no matter who owns the rigs.
Governors cannot declare a state of emergency until the disaster actually comes ashore and causes damage. Do your homework.
Responsibility lies squarely on the Federal govt. while it's at sea.
My whole crew packed up and we were in Nawlens two days after Katrina hit.
What do you want to know? About how Blanco & Nagin ignored the warning Bush gave on his Nationally broadcast address when Katrina had just passed over Florida?
Secret Service wouldn't allow him to land because the place was already out of control with looting and the SS detail would have just added to the chaos.
Would you like to discuss WHY hundreds of school buses sat instead of showing up to help the stranded citizens as was promised?
Not for lack of able drivers but because the fuel storage had been pilfered and sold off and they couldn't drive them even if they wanted to.
1900 people would have easily been carried to safety.
We gathered as many as we could using the Yamaha Waverunners we brought down with us, but couldn't get to many.
Sure you want to go there?
a lot of people blaming bush on t v
On January 5, 2011,[417] the White House oil spill commission released a final report detailing faults by the companies that led to the spill.[418] The panel found that BP, Halliburton, and Transocean had attempted to work more cheaply and thus helped to trigger the explosion and ensuing leakage.[419] The report states: "Whether purposeful or not, many of the decisions that BP, Halliburton, and Transocean made that increased the risk of the Macondo blowout clearly saved those companies significant time (and money)."[419][420] BP released a statement in response to this, saying, "Even prior to the conclusion of the commission’s investigation, BP instituted significant changes designed to further strengthen safety and risk management."[421] Transocean, however, blamed BP for making the decisions before the actual explosion occurred and government officials for permitting those decisions.[422] Halliburton stated that it was acting only upon the orders of BP when it injected the cement into the wall of the well.[421][423] Halliburton also blamed the governmental officials and BP. It criticized BP for its failure to run a cement bond logtest.[422]
In the report, BP was accused of nine faults.[421][423] One was that it had not used a diagnostic tool to test the s...
On January 5, 2011,[417] the White House oil spill commission released a final report detailing faults by the companies that led to the spill.[418] The panel found that BP, Halliburton, and Transocean had attempted to work more cheaply and thus helped to trigger the explosion and ensuing leakage.[419] The report states: "Whether purposeful or not, many of the decisions that BP, Halliburton, and Transocean made that increased the risk of the Macondo blowout clearly saved those companies significant time (and money)."[419][420] BP released a statement in response to this, saying, "Even prior to the conclusion of the commission’s investigation, BP instituted significant changes designed to further strengthen safety and risk management."[421] Transocean, however, blamed BP for making the decisions before the actual explosion occurred and government officials for permitting those decisions.[422] Halliburton stated that it was acting only upon the orders of BP when it injected the cement into the wall of the well.[421][423] Halliburton also blamed the governmental officials and BP. It criticized BP for its failure to run a cement bond logtest.[422]
In the report, BP was accused of nine faults.[421][423] One was that it had not used a diagnostic tool to test the strength of the cement.[419] Another was ignoring a pressure test that had failed.[421] Still another was for not plugging the pipe with cement.[419]The study did not, however, place the blame on any one of these events. Rather, it concluded with the following statement blaming the management of Macondo:[421][423]
Better management of decision-making processes within BP and other companies, better communication within and between BP and its contractors and effective training of key engineering and rig personnel would have prevented the Macondo incident.
The panel also noted that the government regulators did not have sufficient knowledge or authority to notice these cost-cutting decisions.[420] The report advises Changing Business as Usual[424]
The record shows that without effective government oversight, the offshore oil and gas industry will not adequately reduce the risk of accidents, nor prepare effectively to respond in emergencies. However, government oversight, alone, cannot reduce those risks to the full extent possible. Government oversight (see Chapter 9) must be accompanied by the oil and gas industry's internal reinvention: sweeping reforms that accomplish no less than a fundamental transformation of its safety culture. Only through such a demonstrated transformation will industry—in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon disaster—truly earn the privilege of access to the nation's energy resources located on federal properties.
The leases and planned drill date occurred prior to 2009 but the hole wasn't ppunched until 0bozo was in office with his OWN choice of people working at MMS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
and hes gonna worry about an oil platform . if bush didnt screw up so much most of this things would have never happenned
Garret Graves is currently the Chair of the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana (CPRA). The CPRA was established after Hurricane Katrina as the state agency leading hurricane protection, flood control, ecosystem restoration and other community resiliency efforts. His efforts to restructure and streamline Louisiana's coastal programs and agencies resulted in increasing output by more than 500 percent. The authority currently oversees a $17 billion coastal resiliency and hurricane protection program.
BATON ROUGE – Should the son of an executive who does work for the state and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers be appointed to a position that oversees coastal affairs?
The administration of Gov. Bobby Jindal answered in the affirmative this week.
A legal opinion written by Jimmy Faircloth, the governor’s executive counsel, outlines how the arrangement can work without conflict, but interviews conducted with various players on Jindal’s team have done little to explain how the situation finally came into the sunshine.
The father of Garret Graves, Jindal’s senior coastal advisor, is the owner of an engineering firm that is among the top contract holders in Louisiana with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
By law, Garret Graves also serves as chairman of the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, whose primary partner is the corps.
To be more specific, Evans-Graves Engineers, which has offices in Baton Rouge and New Orleans, made $47 million last year from corps contracts alone, according to USAspending.gov, a fiscal accountability Web site supported by the federal government. The engineering firm also confirmed the tally.
While Garret Graves doesn’t actually sign any engineering or construction contracts in his current position, the state...
BATON ROUGE – Should the son of an executive who does work for the state and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers be appointed to a position that oversees coastal affairs?
The administration of Gov. Bobby Jindal answered in the affirmative this week.
A legal opinion written by Jimmy Faircloth, the governor’s executive counsel, outlines how the arrangement can work without conflict, but interviews conducted with various players on Jindal’s team have done little to explain how the situation finally came into the sunshine.
The father of Garret Graves, Jindal’s senior coastal advisor, is the owner of an engineering firm that is among the top contract holders in Louisiana with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
By law, Garret Graves also serves as chairman of the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, whose primary partner is the corps.
To be more specific, Evans-Graves Engineers, which has offices in Baton Rouge and New Orleans, made $47 million last year from corps contracts alone, according to USAspending.gov, a fiscal accountability Web site supported by the federal government. The engineering firm also confirmed the tally.
While Garret Graves doesn’t actually sign any engineering or construction contracts in his current position, the state coastal agency does have some collective signing authority, and it sets priorities for the state on corps-related projects.
Evans-Graves also does work for state agencies that include the Department of Transportation and Development. As director of the Governor’s Office of Coastal Affairs, Graves works daily with both the state Transportation and Natural Resources departments, which represents a large portion of his job.
The Courier asked Jindal’s press secretary, Melissa Sellers, Tuesday afternoon to inquire about the potential conflict, or at least the appearance of it, and to find out if Jindal, a Republican, who has grown increasingly media-shy since taking office last month, was even aware of the connection.
Graves’ appointment was officially announced Jan. 3, and he was interviewed by Jindal’s staff during the previous month. Despite the apparent time lapse, Jindal knew nothing of the potential conflict until this week, when The Courier made its initial inquiry, Sellers said. In a prepared statement, she likewise argued that Graves also knew nothing of his own father’s state contracts until recently.
Garret Graves’ father, John Graves, who presently serves as president of Evans-Graves Engineers, said he was under the impression that the bulk of Jindal’s administration was already aware of the potential conflict when Faircloth’s letter was released to the public and media Wednesday.
“I know it had been put to the staff more than a month ago,” John Graves said. “I
said from the beginning there was a potential conflict of interest, and apparently that fell on deaf ears.”
Does that mean the information never reached Jindal until this week? Was it possibly withheld from him? If so, who originally interviewed Graves?
Asked directly who did interview him, Graves declined to answer. So did Sellers – actually, she was repeatedly asked to disclose the information but staunchly refused and repeated the same answer each time: “A few folks on the transition team.”
No reason was given as to why the names of the interviewers could not be released.
make them listen to Barney ?
I see gun sales is at a all time high
that to the republican's fault?
what does this nonsense has to do with the republicans and the oil companies?