Quantcast

Oilslick Willie to the rescue

snipe 2012/03/04 03:28:19
No one calls the "first black President" a racist and gets away with it, not even odumbo!


Do not think for a moment that former U.S. president Bill Clinton has forgotten the messy campaign four years ago that put Barack Obama in the White House and left his wife with a supporting role.

It would seem the most popular Democrat in the United States believes not only that revenge is best served cold, but that it is also best served subtly yet pointedly.

In using a speech earlier this week at an energy conference near Washington to state the Keystone XL pipeline could be quickly resurrected with a minor route change, Clinton left Obama looking like Mr. Lonely, his only friends being a bunch of well-heeled Hollywood eco-loons who are using him like a cheap extra.

He was making him look even more isolated.

When the speaker causing him grief is not only a former two-term Democratic president but also the husband of the most powerful person in the Obama administration, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, there is no such thing as unintended consequences.

Every word of his speech would have been plotted.

So when Clinton laid out a plan this week on how he could see Obama changing his mind and approving the controversial pipeline linking the oilsands to the refineries in Texas, it pushed Obama into a very uncomfortable corner.

All TransCanada had to do in its original application was to submit a plan that would take the pipeline around the delicate Sandhills aquifer in Nebraska, said Clinton, and the deal would have been done like dinner. Even Obama would have to agree, Clinton speculated.

At this point, Obama was no doubt squirming. He was being set up.


http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/02/oilslick-willie-to-the-r...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • ruthannhausman 2012/08/05 17:06:57
    ruthannhausman
    Although admittedly I immensely enjoyed the visualization of Obama squirming, I'm sorry but I don't true the Clintons any more than I do Obama. Far as I'm concerned they are all aligned closely to the same damaging ideology that ultimately ends up in the destruction of America as I have known it all my life. And that ticks me off royally.
  • Andrew 2012/03/10 01:08:34
    Andrew
    +1
    I like that name.
  • JuneGagnon 2012/03/07 02:14:28
    JuneGagnon
    +1
    If he feels he's being "set up", that's a whole lot better than being "shot down"! At this point, who cares how the impostor feels?
  • Quazimoto 2012/03/06 14:28:18
    Quazimoto
    A tale of desperation. Two pathological liars. Here is a small list of Willies accomplishments:

    Whitewater
    Cattlegate
    Nannygate
    Helicoptergate
    Travelgate
    Gennifer Flowersgate
    Filegate
    Vince Fostergate
    I wonder where those Whitewater billing records came fromgate
    Paula Jonesgate
    Federal Building campaign phone callgate
    Lincoln bedroomgate
    White House coffeegate
    Donations from convicted drug and weapons dealersgate
    Buddhist Templegate
    Web Hubbell hush moneygate
    Lippogate
    Chineseagate - Clinton was practically endorsed by red China
    Let's blame Kenneth Starrgate
    IRS Tax auditgate
    Zippergate/interngate - the Lewinsky affair itself
    Perjury and jobs for Lewinskygate - the aftermath
    Willeygate
    Web Hubbell prison phone callgate
    Selling Military Technology to the Chinese Commiesgate
    Illegal Funds for Advertisementsgate
    Coverup for our Russian Comrades as Wellgate
    Wag-the-Dog-gate
    Juanita Broaddrick gate
    PBS-gate
    Email-gate
    Vandalgate
    Lootergate
    Pardongate
  • Eddie 2012/03/06 05:30:10
    Eddie
    Hate him or love him, Bill gets thing moving.
  • Chef Bunyan 2012/03/05 17:28:13
    Chef Bunyan
    Something desidedly fishy here!
  • Cyber Chef Bu... 2012/03/05 22:35:34
    Cyber
    +1
    It's Hillary, libtards don't like to bathe too much.
  • Chef Bu... Cyber 2012/03/06 05:58:51
    Chef Bunyan
    Ahh!! Hey Hil, how 'bout douchin' for us!
  • Cyber Chef Bu... 2012/03/06 06:02:17
    Cyber
    +1
    Her douchebag is generally unavailable, spending all his time at the office in Harlem.
  • dispatcher 2012/03/05 17:20:51
    dispatcher
    +1
    If slick willie keeps this up he might cross over to the other side of the fence. All odumbo cares about is financing his muslim friends & their countries for his own future once out of office.
  • jmc07806-PWCM-JLA 2012/03/05 13:25:30
    jmc07806-PWCM-JLA
    He would do and say anything to get back into the news.
  • clarence.conner 2012/03/05 05:58:42
  • Prairie Wind 2012/03/05 04:17:09
    Prairie Wind
    +1
    I wonder if Willie is a member of Obama's racist group, African-Americans for Obama? He doesn't think enough of white americans to have his own group, but then, some know better.
  • Damocles 2012/03/05 00:35:36
    Damocles
    Anybody heard about the North Dakota Oil Boom? They can't find enough people to fill the jobs up there. They're paying $15.00 an hour to flip burgers, and other jobs paying up to $87.00 an hour. Yeah, we got a helluva oil shortage. There are more jobs available in North Dakota than the pipe line would have provided. Our Cons whiners need to keep up with the times. That's not their focus though, they're all getting mental strain working at dissing Obama.
  • Moneyman Damocles 2012/03/05 02:01:34
    Moneyman
    +1
    The part of the pipeline that they are going to build (the OK to TX portion) has been providing jobs for several years and will now provide even more.

    In case you aren't aware, not everyone in the U.S. lives in ND. People in other areas of the coutnry are also out of work. If the numbers you say are true, it should be a good thing for ND as that might cause some people to decide to move there for the opportunities. Why would you think that anyone, con or lib, would have an issue with jobs that pay as well as you claim?

    Clinton is not running for anything so he is free to tell the truth while others are too concerned about their next election to do what is right for the courntry or to tell the truth on certain issues.
  • Damocles Moneyman 2012/03/05 04:46:02 (edited)
    Damocles
    +1
    The jobs are not a claim, they are easily looked up, just type in North Dakota Oil Boom on google or the search engine of your choice. I'm sure people have moved to North Dakota for work, and I'm sure many people would move to states along the route of the pipeline at least temporarily, because the construction will be complete at some point, and the pipeline jobs would disappear. I read that the max number of jobs the pipeline would produce was approximately 2,000 jobs, if I remember correctly. Once it is built, the jobs will dwindle down to very few full time jobs.
    Obama told the Republicans that if they put a deadline on the start of the pipeline, he would not approve the permit. They knew that going in, but they did it anyway so they would have a talking point to focus on lost jobs, etc. It was all politics. Obama's objection was the route of the pipeline through the water aquafer in Nebraska. He told them that geologists needed more time to find an alternate route around the aquafer in Nebraska. Oil sand production is a strip proceedure. The end product is not as clean as drilled oil and even if it were, any kind of oil leak into a water aquafer is disasterous. Oil and water just do not mix, if you get my meaning. So Clinton was actually trying to smooth the waters, so to...
    The jobs are not a claim, they are easily looked up, just type in North Dakota Oil Boom on google or the search engine of your choice. I'm sure people have moved to North Dakota for work, and I'm sure many people would move to states along the route of the pipeline at least temporarily, because the construction will be complete at some point, and the pipeline jobs would disappear. I read that the max number of jobs the pipeline would produce was approximately 2,000 jobs, if I remember correctly. Once it is built, the jobs will dwindle down to very few full time jobs.
    Obama told the Republicans that if they put a deadline on the start of the pipeline, he would not approve the permit. They knew that going in, but they did it anyway so they would have a talking point to focus on lost jobs, etc. It was all politics. Obama's objection was the route of the pipeline through the water aquafer in Nebraska. He told them that geologists needed more time to find an alternate route around the aquafer in Nebraska. Oil sand production is a strip proceedure. The end product is not as clean as drilled oil and even if it were, any kind of oil leak into a water aquafer is disasterous. Oil and water just do not mix, if you get my meaning. So Clinton was actually trying to smooth the waters, so to speak. I don't think his intention was to pressure Obama. It will take time to plot an alternate route, get permits, etc. so not much can be done in a short time. Things done in a hurry usually end up in a mess. Build in a rush, and repent at leisure. I don't know about others, but if I were out of work with no promise of anything soon, I would move to wherever the jobs are. Food, shelter, clothing and security for the family should be the number one priority.
    (more)
  • Moneyman Damocles 2012/03/05 11:27:59
    Moneyman
    I don't recall the total number of direct jobs (that's the 2K you refer to) that the pipeline would have created but I think it might be somewhere close to the number you mentioned. You are correct that once the pipeline is completed, some jobs would end. One thing it seems you didn't take into account are the additional spin-off jobs that will be either created or filled due to the increased business and demands on local businesses. There is a ripple affect that takes place with such a project.

    As I've stated prior, in Southeast TX, several jobs have already been created in anticipation of the piptline being approved and built. This has been happening for 3+ years. These "preporation jobs", for lack of a better term, are not counted in those numbers but they are an example of some of the spin-off jobs created. I know of at least 3 hotels that were built recently with the increased jobs (and expectred future increased number of jobs) at the local plants being cited as one of the major factors in the decision to build and open them. The owner of 2 of them has another 2 under construction in this area right now. They are scheduled to be completed within 6-8 months. Construction as well as staff for each of the new hotels are also jobs that can be at least particially, if not mos...

    I don't recall the total number of direct jobs (that's the 2K you refer to) that the pipeline would have created but I think it might be somewhere close to the number you mentioned. You are correct that once the pipeline is completed, some jobs would end. One thing it seems you didn't take into account are the additional spin-off jobs that will be either created or filled due to the increased business and demands on local businesses. There is a ripple affect that takes place with such a project.

    As I've stated prior, in Southeast TX, several jobs have already been created in anticipation of the piptline being approved and built. This has been happening for 3+ years. These "preporation jobs", for lack of a better term, are not counted in those numbers but they are an example of some of the spin-off jobs created. I know of at least 3 hotels that were built recently with the increased jobs (and expectred future increased number of jobs) at the local plants being cited as one of the major factors in the decision to build and open them. The owner of 2 of them has another 2 under construction in this area right now. They are scheduled to be completed within 6-8 months. Construction as well as staff for each of the new hotels are also jobs that can be at least particially, if not mostly, attributed to the pipeline project.

    Obama had the request for nearly a year before the Repubs forced a deadline for an answer one way or another. Now that Obama finally gave his answer, the concerns can be addressed and a new proposal can be submitted. Until they had an answer from Obama, they could not submit a new proposal to him.
    (more)
  • Damocles Moneyman 2012/03/05 15:24:01
    Damocles
    +1
    Yeah, there's no question the pipeline will be a good thing during and after it's completion. The politics thing worked both ways, both parties played it for all it is worth in political spin.Both are playing one faction against another to gain some kind of political advantage. I guess they don't give people credit for the common sense enough to see what's going on. The electoral college was created because the founders did not trust the common people to have enough sense to elect good leaders. From the mess we've had the last eleven years, I think they should abolish the electoral college and give us commoners a shot at it. I don't think we could do any worse than what the present system has porduced so far.
  • Moneyman Damocles 2012/03/05 22:48:52
    Moneyman
    Probably right about that.

    One reason I think they don't give the public credit for having common sense is because history has proven that, more often than not, regardles of what they do, we keep sending the same people back to Washington and expecting different results. Who is afraid of a boss that tells them over and over, either do your job or you'll be fired only to find out that boss doesn't have the common sense to actually fire them when they don't do their job?

    If more people would vote for who they actually wanted instead of who the 2 major political parties and the media tell them to vote for we might actually have some changes for the better.
  • gldynmd BTO-t-BCRA-F 2012/03/04 23:55:30
    gldynmd BTO-t-BCRA-F
    He never fails to make me giggle!
  • Moneyman 2012/03/04 22:35:48
    Moneyman
    +2
    Obama was dragging his heels when it came to making the decision on the proposed pipeline. It was in his hands for nearly a year prior to the Repubs in Congress putting a deadline on his decision. Until he was forced to make a decision the process of addressing any concerns could not move forward. That's one problem with most politicians, they do not want to go on record as either in favor of or against something so that things can either move forward or, if possible, issues be addressed so that things that are good for the country can be moved forward. The vast majority of them (both parties) pander instead of doing their jobs and what is right for the country.

    Since Bill Clinton is not running for any office, he can afford to tell the truth and take a stand for what is right for the country without worrying about upsetting the environmentalists wing of the Dem Party.
  • Radlad 2012/03/04 21:51:32
    Radlad
    +2
    Had bubba approve drilling in Alaska when he was prez. What's going on in the middle east and katrina would have had little effect on gas prices........

    That's not defending obummer.
  • Chelsea 2012/03/04 20:27:55
  • Red_Horse Chelsea 2012/03/05 03:41:37 (edited)
  • Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/03/04 20:19:40
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +2
    Hillary is making her move. Her move to be the Dark Mare Candidate at the Democratic National Convention.
  • Bronar 2012/03/04 19:17:32
    Bronar
    +4
    Rats on a sinking ship?
  • Hawkeye 2012/03/04 19:13:00
    Hawkeye
    +7
    The oil prices are right where the Left has wanted them to be for the last 50 years.. Obama continues his Class Warfare and Anti Prosperity for America rhetoric with talks about the 4 Billion Dollar tax Breaks that Oil gets but fails to mention the 41% in taxes that those companies STILL pay to HIS Regime... He ALSO fails to mention the Billions spent on Alternative Energy options that continue to go bankrupt on a daily basis.. ONE example??Solydra executives get MILLIONS in Bonuses for driving their company out of business at taxpayers' expense.. Payback to the Taxpayer?? ZERO,, Zilch,, Zip,, Nada... No doubt a hefty portion of those Bonuses will find their way into Obama's Campaign Coffers..

    He has STATED his dedication towards putting the Coal and Oil industries out of business and demands that America put ALL her eggs in ONE basket while he sets fire to the basket..

    SO now.. He gets caught ONCE AGAIN being AGAINST what is GOOD for America and NOW wants to put on a different face.. No Doubt once the pipeline gets built and is underway HE'LL take CREDIT for something he tried as hard as he could to OPPOSE..

    he's done this time and time again as WE have seen..

    And his little Left Wing band of braindead lemmings will ALL be out there claiming that the whole pipeline thing was all HIS idea to begin with..
  • 2012 Obama Hawkeye 2012/03/04 20:09:00 (edited)
    2012 Obama
    +3
    Completely bogus!

    1- The US is now a net exporter of oil and more drilling in the last 4 years under Obama than under Bush

    2- canadian sand oil is a dirty product that costs more to refine and would raise gas prices

    3- There is already massive drilling in several states and those create US long lasting jobs that XL does not

    4- Obama has called for a shut down of oil subsidies and it is the GOP with their hand in big oils pockets

    5- Solyndra is the only major alternative energy company that failed and alternative energy is booming with hundreds of new projects reducing energy costs and producing thousands of new jobs

    6- the president does not set gas prices and gas hit $4.21 under Bush. The GOP and Israel is pushing for a war with Iran that is causing higher gas prices.

    YOU ARE A LIAR!
  • Radlad 2012 Obama 2012/03/04 22:08:50
    Radlad
    +7
    4 They are not subsidies. Those are the tax write offs all companies get for some of their overhead like equipment depreciation and so on.........

    5 There are others that are in trouble and most if not all have some kinda connection to this administration. We can get more conventional fuels on line faster than this "green" energy

    6 It's true the prez does not set gas prices. But his actions can cause the cost to go up. There hasn't been a new oil refinery built in the US for over 30 years. It's refinning we have a bottleneck........

    Still in the end it isn't about energy. It's about controlling the people. It's about the change you hope for. That change doesn't come about when people are happy. They have to be made uncomfortable, hungry, and angry. Which is exactly what obama's doing....
  • 2012 Obama Radlad 2012/03/04 22:13:53
    2012 Obama
    +2
    Where are you from ?

    The oil companies have been given subsidies from the beginning and they make billions in profits every year.

    Faster is not better for the economy or the environment and faster ends up costing more in the long run.

    There are two new refineries that have passed state approval in the works and we do not need refineries to handle the demand we now have.

    You want instant gratification like a child- people need to grow up and realize making major changes to a broken system takes time!
  • Damocles Radlad 2012/03/05 00:45:15
    Damocles
    +2
    Oil Commodities traders panic buying causes gas prices to jump overnight. Get oil out of the commodities market.
  • mich52 Damocles 2012/03/05 01:18:13
  • Moneyman 2012 Obama 2012/03/04 22:17:51 (edited)
    Moneyman
    +2
    1. You can thank Bush for that since it takes 4-5 years, according to most estimates, to start seeing results from allowing or increasing domestic drilling.

    2. I haven't researched this out (the cost) so I'm not going to say that you are correct or incorrect on this one. I can say that the expectation of the pipeline has created work in my area (Southeast TX) for at least the last 3 years. Had they not agreed to proceed with the OK to TX portion of the pipeline recently, a lot of jobs would have been lost.

    3. Obama has shut down a lot of areas for drilling that were opened under Bush. He also caused several businesses to go out of business along the Gulf Coast thanks to the lengthy moratorium on drilling. Not only did people in the oil industry loos jobs but also many business that depended on the workers to spend their money also went under and those employees lost their jobs.

    4. The subsidies for the oil industry as well as the "green" energy companies should stop. Both Dems and Repubs are against this, not jut one party. Obama can't even get his own party to go along with him when it comes to actually voting to stop the subsidies for the oil industry alone. They talk a good game but when it comes time to actually act, they don't.

    5. Wrong -- Not the "only" one that has fa...










    1. You can thank Bush for that since it takes 4-5 years, according to most estimates, to start seeing results from allowing or increasing domestic drilling.

    2. I haven't researched this out (the cost) so I'm not going to say that you are correct or incorrect on this one. I can say that the expectation of the pipeline has created work in my area (Southeast TX) for at least the last 3 years. Had they not agreed to proceed with the OK to TX portion of the pipeline recently, a lot of jobs would have been lost.

    3. Obama has shut down a lot of areas for drilling that were opened under Bush. He also caused several businesses to go out of business along the Gulf Coast thanks to the lengthy moratorium on drilling. Not only did people in the oil industry loos jobs but also many business that depended on the workers to spend their money also went under and those employees lost their jobs.

    4. The subsidies for the oil industry as well as the "green" energy companies should stop. Both Dems and Repubs are against this, not jut one party. Obama can't even get his own party to go along with him when it comes to actually voting to stop the subsidies for the oil industry alone. They talk a good game but when it comes time to actually act, they don't.

    5. Wrong -- Not the "only" one that has failed. In January 2012 CBS counted 11 other companies that are having trouble with 5 already declaring bankruptcy. http://tinyurl.com/7u92dcp

    6.

    And that was at the same time we were more involved in 2 wars in the Middle East than today.

    Doesn't look like her advice worked --


    cartoon high gas prices bush verses obama


    cartoon high gas prices bush verses obama
    (more)
  • 2012 Obama Moneyman 2012/03/04 22:32:37 (edited)
    2012 Obama
    +1
    No- Bush did not increase land drilling and the oil companies were sitting on thousands of private land leases long before Bush came along.

    Gas under Bush reached $4.21 a gallon. your picture is deceptive.

    The drilling in SD, ND and Montana is going crazy. Utah is going for NG and so is CO.

    Obama did not shut down any operating drilling rigs and he did suspend drilling in sensitive areas. Bush opened up drilling in national parks and places where they should not be drilling and would cause damage.

    The oil companies needed subsidies to get rolling and now they don't. Alternative needs subsidies to get rolling and then they should end. That is fair and reasonable.

    Solyndra is the only major alternative energy plant that has went bankrupt and there may be others in the future as the trash is weeded out but over all alternative energy is working to reduce energy costs all over the world and is necessary to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

    we could drill every inch of the US and would still produce less than 25% of US energy needs. That is just a fact!
  • Moneyman 2012 Obama 2012/03/04 23:13:42 (edited)
    Moneyman
    Gas today is around $6 in some areas. The graph is not deceptive it is fact. It is a graph of the "average price" of gas not the day to day price in every part of the country. Obama would look worse today if we used a graph and numbers that you seem to want to use.

    One of the largest NG fields was recently discovered in Beaumont, TX area last year or so as well as in northern LA in recent yrs. That's a good thing. It is a fact that the US has much more untapped NG and oil than the government is willing to allow to be drilled for. Some of the estimates say that the US could actually have oil fields that would rival several Middle Eastern countries, individually and combined. I would be interested in seeing your source that backs up your "less than 25%" claim.

    For 40 years our government (BOTH Dems and Repubs) have refused to do what should have been started years ago so that we would be in a better position today because there fall back answer is "it will take 3-5 years before that option would help". If some of those options were acted on with any conviction within the last 30 years we would be well past the "3-5 yrs" period that they said was the issue for not doing them.

    "Obama did not shut down any operating drilling rigs and he did suspend drilling in sensitive areas. " ...





    Gas today is around $6 in some areas. The graph is not deceptive it is fact. It is a graph of the "average price" of gas not the day to day price in every part of the country. Obama would look worse today if we used a graph and numbers that you seem to want to use.

    One of the largest NG fields was recently discovered in Beaumont, TX area last year or so as well as in northern LA in recent yrs. That's a good thing. It is a fact that the US has much more untapped NG and oil than the government is willing to allow to be drilled for. Some of the estimates say that the US could actually have oil fields that would rival several Middle Eastern countries, individually and combined. I would be interested in seeing your source that backs up your "less than 25%" claim.

    For 40 years our government (BOTH Dems and Repubs) have refused to do what should have been started years ago so that we would be in a better position today because there fall back answer is "it will take 3-5 years before that option would help". If some of those options were acted on with any conviction within the last 30 years we would be well past the "3-5 yrs" period that they said was the issue for not doing them.

    "Obama did not shut down any operating drilling rigs and he did suspend drilling in sensitive areas. " -- YES HE DID. He stopped ALL deep water drilling in the Gulf and took his time allowing the companies to get back to work. Personally, I would have been on his side had he said he wanted to suspend deep water drilling int he Gulf for 30 to 45 days (max) to give time for the rigs to be inspected and once each rig passed inspection they could go back to work. He didn't do that.

    Bush also opened up offshore areas for drilling that Obama shut down.

    Subsidies - not a matter of "being fair" it is a matter of is it something that, under the Constitution, the federal government should be doing in the first place. Also, just to be clear, there is a difference between a government subsidy and allowable tax deductions that are available to all businesses. They are not the same thing as most people believe.

    Had you actually checked out the link I provided you would have seen the list of at least four (4) other companies that have filed bankruptcy after receiving government (i.e. tax-payer) backed loans. One of them, Beacon, filed in Oct. 2011 so the fact that Solyndra is NOT the only one should not be "news" to anyone that is attempting to defend Obama and the administration on this issue.
    (more)
  • 2012 Obama Moneyman 2012/03/04 23:41:51
    2012 Obama
    +1
    NO your graph is only the first 26 months Bush was in office. Gas price hit $4.21 in the last months he was in office and was above $3 most of his last two years. YOU were being deceptive!

    Only oil companies estimate that kind of oil in the US and geologists say no way,

    Oil companies rely on profits and will only drill when gas prices are high. They have been sitting on thousand of oil leases they could have drilled on at any time.

    Obama put a moratorium on off shore drilling after the BP spill that caused over $7 billion in environmental damages and damages to local businesses. Obama has now opened off shore drilling Alaska and other areas to allow those sensitive areas to recover.

    Again- Solyndra is the only MAJOR alternative energy plant to file bankruptcy.

    Look- we need drilling in the US but more drilling will not lower prices when we already have a surplus and Saudi is going to increase production. we have lots of drilling going on in the US and the oil companies will stop drilling if prices drop so a medium to high price means more drilling and more jobs but too high a price kills the economy. It is a fine balancing act and all the people pushing more drilling do not understand that.

    you seem intelligent so you should understand that!

    We also MUST get off foreign oil to be sa...

    NO your graph is only the first 26 months Bush was in office. Gas price hit $4.21 in the last months he was in office and was above $3 most of his last two years. YOU were being deceptive!

    Only oil companies estimate that kind of oil in the US and geologists say no way,

    Oil companies rely on profits and will only drill when gas prices are high. They have been sitting on thousand of oil leases they could have drilled on at any time.

    Obama put a moratorium on off shore drilling after the BP spill that caused over $7 billion in environmental damages and damages to local businesses. Obama has now opened off shore drilling Alaska and other areas to allow those sensitive areas to recover.

    Again- Solyndra is the only MAJOR alternative energy plant to file bankruptcy.

    Look- we need drilling in the US but more drilling will not lower prices when we already have a surplus and Saudi is going to increase production. we have lots of drilling going on in the US and the oil companies will stop drilling if prices drop so a medium to high price means more drilling and more jobs but too high a price kills the economy. It is a fine balancing act and all the people pushing more drilling do not understand that.

    you seem intelligent so you should understand that!

    We also MUST get off foreign oil to be safe as a country and the US can not do that without alternative energy and all energy sources must be developed and pushing only for oil and subsidizing oil is not helping that to happen.

    Oil is NOT an inexhaustible resource and depleting it at a faster rate without alternative energy developed will destroy our country and the world!
    (more)
  • Moneyman 2012 Obama 2012/03/05 01:51:29
    Moneyman
    The graph clearly states that it is a comparison of the "FIRST 26 MONTHS IN OFFICE" for both of them. I don't know how much clearer that can be. The avg. price of a gallon of gas on January 20, 2009, the day Obama took office was ....(drum roll) ....$1.849 (there were some that showed a lower amount but I pulled out the high #). Here is a link so that you can be more accurate in the future. http://tinyurl.com/7ad7xch

    BTW, I have never said that gas prices were not high under Bush, I just don't like the fact that the left blamed President Bush while now, when the same thing is happening they attempt to defend President Obama with lies. And I voted for Obama in '08. I am voting to fire him this time around but I tell you that to inform you that I am not someone that will defend anyone just because they belong to one party or another. The President, regardless of who he is or what party he belongs to, cannot directly control the price of a gallon of gas in the U.S. He can, however, put in place policies that can either negatively or positively effect the price over time. Either way, he is responsible for his own actions and policies.

    "geologists say no way" - again, please cite your source so that we may be able to discuss it with facts. You may be right, but then again, you m...











    The graph clearly states that it is a comparison of the "FIRST 26 MONTHS IN OFFICE" for both of them. I don't know how much clearer that can be. The avg. price of a gallon of gas on January 20, 2009, the day Obama took office was ....(drum roll) ....$1.849 (there were some that showed a lower amount but I pulled out the high #). Here is a link so that you can be more accurate in the future. http://tinyurl.com/7ad7xch

    BTW, I have never said that gas prices were not high under Bush, I just don't like the fact that the left blamed President Bush while now, when the same thing is happening they attempt to defend President Obama with lies. And I voted for Obama in '08. I am voting to fire him this time around but I tell you that to inform you that I am not someone that will defend anyone just because they belong to one party or another. The President, regardless of who he is or what party he belongs to, cannot directly control the price of a gallon of gas in the U.S. He can, however, put in place policies that can either negatively or positively effect the price over time. Either way, he is responsible for his own actions and policies.

    "geologists say no way" - again, please cite your source so that we may be able to discuss it with facts. You may be right, but then again, you may be wrong.

    Obama kept the moratorium in place longer than he should have and ended up destroying many additional jobs and businesses that may have been able to survive had he lifted it in 30-45 days or less. In my own business, I have even felt the ripple effects of his decision to shut down drilling for as long as he did and my business is not tied to the oil industry in any way. I live in the Gulf Coast region of TX. Just because there is drilling now dose not change the facts of what he did and his decisions that caused more harm than was necessary.

    Give me a break -- You think a company that received $39 million in loan guarantees (Beacon) is not a "major" company? Either you do not understand business at all (which does not seem to be the case) or you are purposely distorting the truth.

    I can't recall the name of another one that received around $500 million in loan guarantees that recently filed for bankruptcy. The tax-payers are on the hook for all those that have failed because the government guaranteed the loans. Before it is all over, we will be paying billions (if not more) for loans that should our government should not have been guaranteeing. Facts are facts and no matter how much Obama and his supporters would like them to change, they are not going to.

    On the need for drilling inside the US, we are not that far apart and actually seem to agree on more than we disagree on. The process of starting to drill for a company is not a decision that can be made without a lot of planning. It takes time to get started and therefore, just because gas is high/low today a company will not decide to start or stop drilling based on today's price of gas alone. You are correct that it is a balancing act, just as in any business is. If the supply in the market greatly exceeds the demand then the price for the product will go down and eventually, if it goes down too far, some companies may go out of business or change in order to stay profitable and in business.

    Again, I agree with your point that we must reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Currently, the alternative energy industry has not shown to be profitable enough for large scale private funding. Several countries in Europe are currently in the process of changing their green energy policies because they have become too expensive and are helping destroying their economies.

    Our economy cannot afford to throw billions of dollars away on these companies in the hopes that one day they will become profitable and affordable for the average person to use. Private money should be used to develop the technology, if investors are willing to risk their money. If they do and it is successful, those same investors deserve the rewards for the risks they took. That's how the free market works. Not to mention that there is no Constitutional authority for the federal government to back loans for or to give money to private companies.
    (more)
  • mich52 Moneyman 2012/03/05 01:21:09
  • Moneyman mich52 2012/03/05 03:03:57
    Moneyman
    *** In an August 27th, 2011 article of the Wall Street Journal, It states that there are "1,069: The number of rigs drilling for oil in the U.S. this week."

    "The figure reflects a huge surge in U.S. oil drilling, up nearly 60% in the past year and the highest total since at least 1987," ***

    Is it possible that the year over year increase (2010/2011) could have anything to do with the fact that the deepwater moratorium was in place in August of 2010 (one year prior to the article) and was not lifted until October of 2010 with the first new permit being issued March 1, 2011? The rigs may have been there but if they were not operating they may not have been counted in the "drilling for oil" numbers for 2010. -- I don't know, I'm just asking because it seems to make sense that they would not be counted.


    The following is from a January 2012 report -
    Report: Employment, Government Revenue, and Energy Security Impacts of Current Federal Lands Policy in the Western U.S. The Report analyzes oil and natural gas leasing, permitting, and drilling trends on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the energy-producing western states of Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. The balance of the evidence suggests a systematic decline of energy productio...















    *** In an August 27th, 2011 article of the Wall Street Journal, It states that there are "1,069: The number of rigs drilling for oil in the U.S. this week."

    "The figure reflects a huge surge in U.S. oil drilling, up nearly 60% in the past year and the highest total since at least 1987," ***

    Is it possible that the year over year increase (2010/2011) could have anything to do with the fact that the deepwater moratorium was in place in August of 2010 (one year prior to the article) and was not lifted until October of 2010 with the first new permit being issued March 1, 2011? The rigs may have been there but if they were not operating they may not have been counted in the "drilling for oil" numbers for 2010. -- I don't know, I'm just asking because it seems to make sense that they would not be counted.


    The following is from a January 2012 report -
    Report: Employment, Government Revenue, and Energy Security Impacts of Current Federal Lands Policy in the Western U.S. The Report analyzes oil and natural gas leasing, permitting, and drilling trends on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the energy-producing western states of Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. The balance of the evidence suggests a systematic decline of energy production activities on the nation’s federal lands in the last two years.
    http://tinyurl.com/6vqgcy6

    "... according to BLM data, the number of new federal oil and gas leases issued by the BLM is down 44% from an average of 1,874 leases in 2007/2008 to 1,053 in 2009/2010; the number of new permits to drill issued by the BLM is down 39%, from an average of 6,444 permits to an average of 3,962; and the number of new wells drilled on federal land have declined, 39%, from an average of 4,890 wells to 2,973 (Table E-1)."

    (Table E-1 is on page 5 of the report, use the link above to view the entire report - my comments).

    Also from the report --
    "The BLM released new fiscal year 2011 oil and natural gas statistics on January 10, 2012. The trend in reduced leasing, permitting, and drilling on western lands appears to be continuing. Although the 2011 total of 1,461 federal leases issued for western states appears to be higher than the 2009/2010 average of 1,053, closer review of the BLM data shows that the majority of leases that the BLM characterizes as “issued” in 2011 were actually backlog leases that were sold in previous years but had been mired in challenges since. An estimated 860 of the 1,461 leases issued in
    2011 were not new leases at all; they are leases secured in previous years that were stranded, in most cases, pending resolution of legal challenges in court. In 2011, only 601 new leases were actually sold, which is an all-time low (since 1984) when backlogged leases are accounted for. New drilling permits and wells drilled issued in 2011 were 3,851 and 2,783 respectively, both below the 2009/2010 averages and significantly below the 2007/2008 averages."

    ---------------------
    The number of "backlogged" leases "issued" in 2011 that this report refers to (which does not include the total number either backlogged or issued overall) seems, to me, to be enough to question some of the administration's claims on this issue.

    If the BLM is not accurately reporting the numbers and the information, then when the administration uses the information they are presenting a picture that is not accurate. The problem for the administration is that even if it is an oversight on their part, they, just like any other administration, are still responsible for promoting the inaccurate information. Especially if the information being presented is more positive than in reality it is.

    Thank you Mich52. Your post made me dig a little deeper and over the next week or so I will find some time to do a little more research.
    (more)
  • mich52 Moneyman 2012/03/05 08:47:03 (edited)

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/28 08:33:39

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals