Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

One tiny example how and why Obama wants you to pay $5+ for a gallon of gas.

Energy in America: EPA Rules Force Shell to Abandon Oil Drilling Plans

"Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a ruling by the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits. The move has angered some in Congress and triggered a flurry of legislation aimed at stripping the EPA of its oil drilling oversight.

Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion. Shell Vice President Pete Slaiby says obtaining similar air permits for a drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico would take about 45 days. He’s especially frustrated over the appeal board’s suggestion that the Arctic drill would somehow be hazardous for the people who live in the area. “We think the issues were really not major,” Slaiby said, “and clearly not impactful for the communities we work in.”

The closest village to where Shell proposed to drill is Kaktovik, Alaska. It is one of the most remote places in the United States. According to the latest census, the population is 245 and nearly all of the residents are Alaska natives. The village, which is 1 square mile, sits right along the shores of the Beaufort Sea, 70 miles away from the proposed off-shore drill site.

The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling."

I wonder who's gonna end up paying for that $4 Billion pissed down the drain.

Watch your back Jimmah, it seems Barack wants your title very badly.

This is old news. Decision was made back in January. Shell should find a way to drill with less nitrogen dioxide emissions. Maybe some of those billions they spent would have been more useful to ensure compliance with EPA standards.

He can keep a promise

Skjellyfetti wrote:This is old news. Decision was made back in January. Shell should find a way to drill with less nitrogen dioxide emissions. Maybe some of those billions they spent would have been more useful to ensure compliance with EPA standards.

Skjellyfetti wrote:This is old news. Decision was made back in January. Shell should find a way to drill with less nitrogen dioxide emissions. Maybe some of those billions they spent would have been more useful to ensure compliance with EPA standards.

Learn to read.
The article said, "The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling."

The dead giveaway that this was strictly a political decision is (according to the EPA) the project would have increased air pollution levels "close" to violating these bogus "air quality standards". Close to those limits is still under the limits. They basically made up an arbitrary reason to kill this project.

Baldy wrote:One tiny example how and why Obama wants you to pay $5+ for a gallon of gas.

The man is trying to invest into alternative energies, raise MPG standards, and ween the country off oil, but he wants you to pay $5+ at the tank? That doesn't make sense. Face it, if you want lower oil prices, then we have to start using less of the garbage. In 2008, Shell's CEO said that a barrel of oil needs to be $35-$65 for the company to be successful, and yet we sit here at $112.00 at the time I type this. If you wanna think Obama is the one wanting you to pay $5+ a gallon, go ahead. The truth is that something is wrong with the oil companies, OPEC, etc. It doesn't really take a genius to see that something isn't right with big oil, and it doesn't take a genius to see that our energy policies are so fucked up that we're literally sucking big oil's cock.

∞∞∞ wrote:

Baldy wrote:One tiny example how and why Obama wants you to pay $5+ for a gallon of gas.

The man is trying to invest into alternative energies, raise MPG standards, and ween the country off oil, but he wants you to pay $5+ at the tank? That doesn't make sense.

"Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe."
--Steven Chu
Secretary of Energy, appointed by Barack Obama

And we all know Obama claimed that energy prices would "necessarily skyrocket" under his energy plan.
You claim it doesn't make sense that he wants us to be paying $5 dollars for a gallon of gasoline? According to him and the people he appoints to offices unimportant positions like Energy Secretary, that is EXACTLY what he wants.

Face it, if you want lower oil prices, then we have to start using less of the garbage. In 2008, Shell's CEO said that a barrel of oil needs to be $35-$65 for the company to be successful, and yet we sit here at $112.00 at the time I type this. If you wanna think Obama is the one wanting you to pay $5+ a gallon, go ahead. The truth is that something is wrong with the oil companies, OPEC, etc. It doesn't really take a genius to see that something isn't right with big oil, and it doesn't take a genius to see that our energy policies are so fucked up that we're literally sucking big oil's cock.

The United States has the largest energy reserves in the world. It doesn't take a genius to see if we would even moderately exploit the massive reserves of crude oil, natural gas, shale oil, coal, etc., the price of energy across the board would "necessarily" decrease.

As fucked up as the oil companies are, they aren't the ones saying that the price of gas in the US should be on par with the price of gas in Europe.

I guess this is one way to get US citizens to buy a Government Motors Chevy Volt and get that share price back up.

One of the main reasons that alternative energy sources have not developed further than they have is that they are not economically viable vis-a-vis existing fossil fuel sources.

There are two main ways to solve this, one is to make alternative energy sources more cost efficient through research, development, and mass production. This requires capital expenditures upfront with an uncertain return, so that private sources are reluctant to invest.

Historically this is where the Federal Government has stepped in to fund research, such as for Oak Ridge, the CDC, etc., creating jobs and new technologies that advance the standard of living by creating demand for high powered R&D jobs in the US and not abroad and give us first shot at advanced production of new technologies producing even more jobs and leading to a better economy and a better standard of living as we enjoy the benefits from the new & better products.

The other way is by imposing policies that cause the cost of fossil fuel sources to increase creating a crisis situation which makes alternative energy sources more attractive and attract private research funds. This has the effect of lowering the standard of living by costing the country jobs, exporting capital resources to countries that don't give a rip about the environmental impact of producing of traditional fossil fuels, and have a greater negative impact on the global environment, because of the increased pollution from unregulated production in these countries and the transport of the fuel by traditional cargo vessels powered by fossil fuels.

Maybe this is a cynical ploy to use up the rest of the world's energy sources while they are relatively cheap and hoard ours until they become more expensive, but I don't think so.

Energy production in the US of traditional sources by private industry through responsible regulation and government funding of improvements to new energy standards would seem to be the answer, not creation of an unnecessary energy crisis through unreasonable regulation.

Given our reserves and many traditional alternatives including oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear, there is no reason that oil should not be fluctuating between $60-85/barrel, particularly with the threat of opening the strategic reserves to quell speculation, if we pursue more environmentally responsible regulation than the rest of the world without being so restrictive as to unnecessarily limit production unless your goal is to reduce the standard of American living by unnecessarily exporting our capital resources and creating an artificial economic crisis so that the Central (not federal) government can step in and take over and create a new economic order.

The EPA should be eliminated. There is no real Constitutional basis for it. It's another one of those things associated with the outrage of the Judiciary holding that something that "affects" interstate commerce falls under the jurisdiction of Congress due to the Commerce clause.

The agency should not even exist unless it were to exist in a strictly advisory capacity.

What a breath of fresh air this thread is!!

Alternative energy is going to be far more expensive. If it were a viable alternative it would be in use now. Fact is we are all paying extra through taxes and higher energy bills for those wind towers that have huge maintenance expenses and solar panels that are extremely expensive and have reducing returns over time.

Maintaining policies that keep mainstream energy expensive to make alternative energy competitive is the tip-off. That policy means much higher energy costs through alternative energy while suppressing conventual sources.

Keep your eye on cold fusion, or low temp fusion, its real and it is under development. Unlike wind and solar it will lower energy costs below the conventual levels.

JohnStOnge wrote:The EPA should be eliminated. There is no real Constitutional basis for it. It's another one of those things associated with the outrage of the Judiciary holding that something that "affects" interstate commerce falls under the jurisdiction of Congress due to the Commerce clause.

The agency should not even exist unless it were to exist in a strictly advisory capacity.

Nationalize oil.

LeadBolt wrote:One of the main reasons that alternative energy sources have not developed further than they have is that they are not economically viable vis-a-vis existing fossil fuel sources.

We don't know this.... we can only guess at the true cost of oil. The Oil Market Failure … or, ways in which we subsidize oil through externalities:

1) Defending the supply lines
2) Foreign war
3) Maintaining the strategic petroleum reserve
4) Oil-based transportation subsidies
5) Environmental cleanup of brownfield sites
6) Air pollution
7) Climate change

JBB wrote:What a breath of fresh air this thread is!!

Alternative energy is going to be far more expensive. If it were a viable alternative it would be in use now. Fact is we are all paying extra through taxes and higher energy bills for those wind towers that have huge maintenance expenses and solar panels that are extremely expensive and have reducing returns over time.

Maintaining policies that keep mainstream energy expensive to make alternative energy competitive is the tip-off. That policy means much higher energy costs through alternative energy while suppressing conventual sources.

Keep your eye on cold fusion, or low temp fusion, its real and it is under development. Unlike wind and solar it will lower energy costs below the conventual levels.

And JBB's thought process is exactly why the US is stagnant, watching the world pass it by. We've simply stopped caring about advancing ourselves as a nation, being the front-runner of new technologies (and by new technologies, I don't mean gizmos like phones and apps). Instead of thinking, "alternative energy is going to be far more expensive," we should be thinking, "how can we make alternative energy cheaper?" Instead of saying that NASA is a waste of money and giving up on it, we should be telling our kids that they'll be watching a man walking on Mars. Let's face it, innovation is going to have to be the driving force if we wanna get our country out of this slump...not taxes, not abortion, not wars, not gay marriage, not Obama's birth certificate. The easy way out is to say something isn't viable and leave it at that. The real innovators will make it viable, profitable, and a pathway to even better stuff. Unfortunately, I think we're too deeply divided to see what we really need to gain our mojo back.

∞∞∞ wrote:And JBB's thought process is exactly why the US is stagnant, watching the world pass it by. We've simply stopped caring about advancing ourselves as a nation, being the front-runner of new technologies (and by new technologies, I don't mean gizmos like phones and apps). Instead of thinking, "alternative energy is going to be far more expensive," we should be thinking, "how can we make alternative energy cheaper?" Instead of saying that NASA is a waste of money and giving up on it, we should be telling our kids that they'll be watching a man walking on Mars. Let's face it, innovation is going to have to be the driving force if we wanna get our country out of this slump...not taxes, not abortion, not wars, not gay marriage, not Obama's birth certificate. The easy way out is to say something isn't viable and leave it at that. The real innovators will make it viable, profitable, and a pathway to even better stuff. Unfortunately, I think we're too deeply divided to see what we really need to gain our mojo back.

China has a plan to invest 2.5% of GDP in science and technology by 2020. By that time I expect the U.S. will be making widgets for the Chinese.

Biobengal and ooo have ripped the tits off this one.

biobengal wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:And JBB's thought process is exactly why the US is stagnant, watching the world pass it by. We've simply stopped caring about advancing ourselves as a nation, being the front-runner of new technologies (and by new technologies, I don't mean gizmos like phones and apps). Instead of thinking, "alternative energy is going to be far more expensive," we should be thinking, "how can we make alternative energy cheaper?" Instead of saying that NASA is a waste of money and giving up on it, we should be telling our kids that they'll be watching a man walking on Mars. Let's face it, innovation is going to have to be the driving force if we wanna get our country out of this slump...not taxes, not abortion, not wars, not gay marriage, not Obama's birth certificate. The easy way out is to say something isn't viable and leave it at that. The real innovators will make it viable, profitable, and a pathway to even better stuff. Unfortunately, I think we're too deeply divided to see what we really need to gain our mojo back.

China has a plan to invest 2.5% of GDP in science and technology by 2020. By that time I expect the U.S. will be making widgets for the Chinese.

At least we'll be making stuff. That's a good thing.

biobengal wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:And JBB's thought process is exactly why the US is stagnant, watching the world pass it by. We've simply stopped caring about advancing ourselves as a nation, being the front-runner of new technologies (and by new technologies, I don't mean gizmos like phones and apps). Instead of thinking, "alternative energy is going to be far more expensive," we should be thinking, "how can we make alternative energy cheaper?" Instead of saying that NASA is a waste of money and giving up on it, we should be telling our kids that they'll be watching a man walking on Mars. Let's face it, innovation is going to have to be the driving force if we wanna get our country out of this slump...not taxes, not abortion, not wars, not gay marriage, not Obama's birth certificate. The easy way out is to say something isn't viable and leave it at that. The real innovators will make it viable, profitable, and a pathway to even better stuff. Unfortunately, I think we're too deeply divided to see what we really need to gain our mojo back.

China has a plan to invest 2.5% of GDP in science and technology by 2020. By that time I expect the U.S. will be making widgets for the Chinese.

Maybe we can provide the equipment for their massive high-speed rail project. Oops, Germany, with their industry-destroying labor unions will probably be doing that.

Grizalltheway wrote:

biobengal wrote:
China has a plan to invest 2.5% of GDP in science and technology by 2020. By that time I expect the U.S. will be making widgets for the Chinese.

Maybe we can provide the equipment for their massive high-speed rail project. Oops, Germany, with their industry-destroying labor unions will probably be doing that.

Baldy wrote:One tiny example how and why Obama wants you to pay $5+ for a gallon of gas.

Energy in America: EPA Rules Force Shell to Abandon Oil Drilling Plans

"Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a ruling by the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits. The move has angered some in Congress and triggered a flurry of legislation aimed at stripping the EPA of its oil drilling oversight.

Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion. Shell Vice President Pete Slaiby says obtaining similar air permits for a drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico would take about 45 days. He’s especially frustrated over the appeal board’s suggestion that the Arctic drill would somehow be hazardous for the people who live in the area. “We think the issues were really not major,” Slaiby said, “and clearly not impactful for the communities we work in.”

The closest village to where Shell proposed to drill is Kaktovik, Alaska. It is one of the most remote places in the United States. According to the latest census, the population is 245 and nearly all of the residents are Alaska natives. The village, which is 1 square mile, sits right along the shores of the Beaufort Sea, 70 miles away from the proposed off-shore drill site.

The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling."

I wonder who's gonna end up paying for that $4 Billion pissed down the drain.

Watch your back Jimmah, it seems Barack wants your title very badly.

Another example of Obama driving up the cost of gas:
"HOUSTON—One year after the BP PLC oil spill, Gulf of Mexico energy output is beginning to show the impact of the Obama administration's 10-month freeze on deep-water drilling.

Offshore oil production, most of which comes from the Gulf, is expected to average 1.55 million barrels a day this year, down 13% from 2010, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Following the April 20, 2010, blast on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig operated by BP and the subsequent oil spill, the Obama administration stopped awarding permits for deep-water drilling until late February.

The drilling suspension, along with a new, slower permitting process, will result in the loss this year of about 375,000 barrels of oil a day, according to energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie. That is roughly equivalent to one-third of the production in Libya that remains shut down because of political turmoil there.

The setback for the Gulf's oil and natural-gas fortunes underscores the importance of what are known as development wells in maintaining production. Such wells are drilled in already discovered deep-water reservoirs to extract more oil and natural gas or stem output declines.

"None of those wells have been brought on-line; that's why we're seeing the big drop-off," said Matt Snyder, an analyst with Wood Mackenzie........"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... sNewsThird" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The thing is higher fuel prices mean not only higher prices to fill your car, but higher air line tickets, more for food, more for the clothes you buy more for most manufactured goods (high shipping costs for ships and tractor trailers). A PARTIAL list of petroleum based products that are affected by higher oil prices:
Solvents
Diesel fuel
Motor Oil
Bearing Grease
Ink
Floor Wax
Ballpoint Pens
Football Cleats
Upholstery
Sweaters
Boats
Insecticides
Bicycle Tires
Sports Car Bodies
Nail Polish
Fishing lures
Dresses
Tires
Golf Bags
Perfumes
Cassettes
Dishwasher parts
Tool Boxes
Shoe Polish
Motorcycle Helmet
Caulking
Petroleum Jelly
Transparent Tape
CD Player
Faucet Washers
Antiseptics
Clothesline
Curtains
Food Preservatives
Basketballs
Soap
Vitamin Capsules
Antihistamines
Purses
Shoes
Dashboards
Cortisone
Deodorant
Footballs
Putty
Dyes
Panty Hose
Refrigerant
Percolators
Life Jackets
Rubbing Alcohol
Linings
Skis
TV Cabinets
Shag Rugs
Electrician's Tape
Tool Racks
Car Battery Cases
Epoxy
Paint
Mops
Slacks
Insect Repellent
Oil Filters
Umbrellas
Yarn
Fertilizers
Hair Coloring
Roofing
Toilet Seats
Fishing Rods
Lipstick
Denture Adhesive
Linoleum
Ice Cube Trays
Synthetic Rubber
Speakers
Plastic Wood
Electric Blankets
Glycerin
Tennis Rackets
Rubber Cement
Fishing Boots
Dice
Nylon Rope
Candles
Trash Bags
House Paint
Water Pipes
Hand Lotion
Roller Skates
Surf Boards
Shampoo
Wheels
Paint Rollers
Shower Curtains
Guitar Strings
Luggage
Aspirin
Safety Glasses
Antifreeze
Football Helmets
Awnings
Eyeglasses
Clothes
Toothbrushes
Ice Chests
Footballs
Combs
CD's & DVD's
Paint Brushes
Detergents
Vaporizers
Balloons
Sun Glasses
Tents
Heart Valves
Crayons
Parachutes
Telephones
Enamel
Pillows
Dishes
Cameras
Anesthetics
Artificial Turf
Artificial limbs
Bandages
Dentures
Model Cars
Folding Doors
Hair Curlers
Cold cream
Movie film
Soft Contact lenses
Drinking Cups
Fan Belts
Car Enamel
Shaving Cream
Ammonia
Refrigerators
Golf Balls
Toothpaste
Gasoline
http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%2 ... roleum.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know consistency is a tough thing to ask for.... but, when the price of oil drops... will you blame Obama?