"Don't drill Democrat's

ChargerMike · Post by **ChargerMike** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:35 pm

"You can't drill your way out of this problem" Nancy Pelosi declared last week after House democrats refused to lift the ban on oil exploration on the outer continental shelf --at least 50 miles from American shores.

Of course the only way to get more oil and thus decrease the price is to in fact drill. Oil is obtained only by drilling. The casual indifference to reality displayed by the Speaker mirrors the Democrats' indifference to the economic pain being inflicted by their steadfast refusal to allow America to tap its own reserves.

The Don't Drill Democrats will have a lot to answer for at the polls in November if the GOP keeps the focus on the extremism of the majority on this issue. Perhaps the House GOP ought to offer this amendment: When and only if oil hits $200 a barrel then exploration on the outer continental shelf can begin.
Hugh Hewwit...

...$200. zops a barrel? = $5.50 a gallon, hey, I can afford it, but Im guessing when gas hits five fiddy per, most of you (especially Canucks) will be peddaling your fat a$$'s to work. Hey but what ever the cost we're not drilling, no sir, psst..the Saudi's are our bets buddies.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:54 pm

Meanwhile, China, Cuba, Mexico, etc.. etc.. the entire "FREE" world is drilling of our coast.

WAKEY WAKEY

ChargerMike · Post by **ChargerMike** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:03 pm

Tom In VA wrote:Meanwhile, China, Cuba, Mexico, etc.. etc.. the entire "FREE" world is drilling of our coast.

WAKEY WAKEY..

Exactamundo...we're talking to you, green peace, tree huggers,environmentalist, and last but not least..lib's

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:04 pm

PUSFAN hopes to God your ctrl key shatters, btw

ChargerMike · Post by **ChargerMike** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:17 pm

Cuda wrote:PUSFAN hopes to God your ctrl key shatters, btw

...fixed :wink:

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:39 pm

So....prices at the pumps are high because Greenpeace is frightening off oil companies from drilling....

Ooooo-kay....

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:47 pm

No no no, they've frightened off the CHILDREN and all the politicians that deeply care FOR THE CHILDREN have made it ILLEGAL for U.S. companies to elbow their way into a spot at the trough.

Canada's pig nose is firmly embedded in the ocean floor as well. I see you working, you don't WANT us to do the same Marty, all part of your evil plan.

You devilish anarchist you.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:42 pm

mwahaha

:twisted:

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:23 pm

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Jun 17, 2008 12:04 am

So you really believe that gas prices are high because hippies won't let you drill in Alaska.

Well, I guess everybody needs something to believe in.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:34 am

Martyred wrote:So you really believe that gas prices are high because hippies won't let you drill in Alaska.

No, it's because democRats won't let us drill in Alaska

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:30 pm

And you really believe that if we started drilling in Alaska...today...it would have any effect on gas prices in your lifetime?

You're even more of a gullible fool than I thought.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:56 pm

1. Yes, absolutely. The only way to reduce prices is to increase supply. The only way to increase supply is to drill.

2. What you're saying is that if the æffect on prices isn't immediate we should do... absolutely fucking nothing.

You're dumber than you think I think you are

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:54 pm

mvscal wrote:
Mikey wrote:And you really believe that if we started drilling in Alaska...today...it would have any effect on gas prices in your lifetime?
Of course it would, dumbshit.

Even if it did, it would be by less than what today is a normal daily fluctuation in price.
Dumbshit.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:02 pm

Maybe Mikey thinks we're all as old he is. And Obama - swoon says it will take at least 10 years to even produce oil.

But Obama - swoon, WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN ?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't suppose we could do whatever it fucking takes to get our own oil or oil off our shores WHILE we develop alternatives ?

Talk about "short-term political posturing". Gee Obama, ever thought maybe the production of fuel alternatives might require USE of OIL ? So wouldn't it be prudent to use our own then as well ?

Please, someone needs to explain this to me, I'm not getting it. Obama appeases the environmentalists - the ENVIRONMENT IS ALLEGEDLY GETTING DAMAGED ANYWAY BECAUSE OTHER COUNTRIES ARE DRILLING OFF OUR SHORES.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:17 pm

mvscal wrote:
Link?

According to the DOE, crude oil prices would probably drop by 75 cents a barrel.

http://www.adn.com/anwr/story/414808.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That would certainly make my day.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:19 pm

Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ ... ction.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

17 years to the largest impact in the mean case, and $0.75 per barrel in 2006 dollars.

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:20 pm

Oh---see how far the "Dems" have come from such great optimism like JFK's "a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step". I guess drilling for our own oil is not the kind of "change we can believe in" !
Fucking morons.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:22 pm

Tom In VA wrote:Maybe Mikey thinks we're all as old he is. And

I'm planning on killing Cuda next year.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:26 pm

Wolfman wrote:Oh---see how far the "Dems" have come from such great optimism like JFK's "a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step". I guess drilling for our own oil is not the kind of "change we can believe in" !
Fucking morons.

You really should stay out of discussions
on topics about which you are so obviously clueless.
It just reinforces the already strong impression
that you're a drooling senile imbecile.

Go have another beast light
and drown in your pool.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:27 pm

mvscal wrote:
Mikey wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Link?
According to the DOE, crude oil prices would probably drop by 75 cents a barrel.

http://www.adn.com/anwr/story/414808.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That would certainly make my day.
A report which considers only the impact of the crude from Alaska and not the effect on OPEC of America making a concerted effort to achieve energy independence.

You idiots can't see the forest for the trees.

Uh...maybe you should go read the report.
It's in the other link.

I'm really sorry to have to shatter your illusion that drilling in ANWR would make you summer vacation cheaper this year.
It just won't work that way.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:56 pm

mvscal wrote:
Mikey wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Link?
According to the DOE, crude oil prices would probably drop by 75 cents a barrel.

http://www.adn.com/anwr/story/414808.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That would certainly make my day.
A report which considers only the impact of the crude from Alaska and not the effect on OPEC of America making a concerted effort to achieve energy independence. You idiots can't see the forest for the trees.

MODEL OVERVIEW
A. IEM Design Objectives
The Oil Market Simulation (OMS) model has been EIA's primary tool for forecasting mid to long
term world oil prices. To enhance the capabilities of the forecasting system to address international
issues and their interaction with U.S. markets, an expansion of the OMS methodology is incorporated
into the NEMS International Energy Module (IEM). Components of the NEMS IEM accomplish the
following:

# Calculate the average world oil price and provide supply curves for five grades of crude oil
for import to the United States.

# Calculate the change in the world oil price in response to shifts in U.S. import demands.

# Provide crude oil and petroleum product supply curves with a representation of foreign
supply levels and associated costs for U.S. petroleum imports. Calculate shifts in import
supply curves as world oil market conditions vary.1

# Provide supply curves for U.S. imports of oxygenates (Methyl tertiary butyl ether [MTBE]
and methanol).

Three separate components of the IEM have been developed to carry out these functions. The World
Oil Market (WOM) component is an expanded version of OMS. Its role in IEM is to forecast
international crude oil market conditions, including price and supply availability, and the effects of U.S.
demand on the world market. The Petroleum Product Supply (PPS) component generates supply curves
for petroleum products imported into the United States. These supply curves reflect conditions in the
international market, including refinery capacity, transportation costs, and the effects of U.S. demand
on world markets. Finally, the Oxygenates Supply (OS) component produces supply curves for U.S.
imports of MTBE and methanol.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/modeldoc/m07195.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah, I guess they didn't consider any of that stuff.

Of course who's going to believe the most sophisticated economic / energy model available when you have mvscal's fertile imagination saying something different.

Even if the prediction is off by say...500%...that would equate to a $4.00 per barrel effect on price by 2025. Still less than the sometimes hourly fluctuation in world oil prices that we've been seeing the past several months.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:25 pm

mvscal wrote:
Mikey wrote:http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/modeldoc/m07195.pdf

Yeah, I guess they didn't consider any of that stuff.

April 4, 1994

Why are you wasting our time with 14 year old bullshit? I also couldn't help but notice that their forecast turned out to be wildly inaccurate. The only logical conclusion is that "the most sophisticated economic / energy model available" is utterly and completely worthless.

What the fuck is up with you libtards and your bullshit computer models? Haven't you figured it out by now? The only thing a computer model successfully predicts is programmer bias.

Nice spin there.

The model description was written in 1994. You think it hasn't been updated since then you stupid fuck.
It's used every year to produce the Annual Energy Outlook and other DOE products.

No matter how inaccurate it might be, it's fine tuned constantly and a lot more reliable than your regurgitations of Rovian bile.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:41 pm

Answer the question, Claire

Cuda wrote: What you're saying is that if the æffect on prices isn't immediate we should do... absolutely fucking nothing.

And...?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:47 pm

Cuda wrote:Answer the question, Claire

Cuda wrote: What you're saying is that if the æffect on prices isn't immediate we should do... absolutely fucking nothing.
And...?

Your magical fantasy solution of drilling in ANWR would be akin to doing nothing, Shirley.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:12 pm

ChargerMike wrote:Don't Drill Democrats

Point taken.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:21 pm

mvscal wrote:
There is nothing magical or fantastic about the oil in ANWAR. It's there and we can recover it. What's the hold up? What are we saving it for? Are you one of those weird old people who hides cash in coffee cans?

What possible reason is there to leave 800 billion dollars in the ground?

Personally I could give a shit if they drill in ANWR (ANWAR used to be President of Egypt you ingorant fuck) or not.
It doesn't hurt me or help me at all either way.

It does crack me up seeing you idiots getting a hard on over "all that oil", 'cause it's not gonna do you a bit of good either, even if they start producing it next year. Which they won't.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:26 pm

mvscal wrote:
Mikey wrote:And you really believe that if we started drilling in Alaska...today...it would have any effect on gas prices in your lifetime?
Of course it would, dumbshit.

You realize that governments don't drill for oil, private companies do, right?

Now, you tell me why a private concern would want to undermine their investors concerns about flooding the market with oil and lower the price.

I'll be waiting.

Oh, here's were you tell me that the government should either:

1. Drill the oil themselves...

...or...

2. Offer financial incentives to the oil companies...

...you cunning crypto-socialist, you. :wink:

ChargerMike · Post by **ChargerMike** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:39 pm

...Holy Shiite Goobs...the horror of those bitches...explaine Mikey how your party can put those skanks up front. How long does it take Shill to chip that face cake off?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:00 pm

ChargerMike wrote:...Holy Shiite Goobs...the horror of those bitches...explaine Mikey how your party can put those skanks up front. How long does it take Shill to chip that face cake off?

Hmmmm.... personally I never thought of politics as a fuckability contest.

If it was, would the Republitards be putting this guy up?

This guy always went over well as a sex symbol too:

I'm sure Mcconnell has a lot of women creaming their pants at the thought of sucking his face.

ChargerMike · Post by **ChargerMike** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:32 pm

Mikey said:

Dennis Hastert

...point taken

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:34 pm

Martyred wrote: Now, you tell me why a private concern would want to undermine their investors concerns about flooding the market with oil and lower the price.

Because as the price increases, demand drops, effectively lowering their profits.

So, even if ANWR were open to drilling, oil companies wouldn't rush in to get at that oil... is that what you're saying?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:36 pm

mvscal wrote:
Martyred wrote:You realize that governments don't drill for oil, private companies do, right?
You realise that governments tell private companies when and where they can drill for oil, right?

You realize that private companies lobby governments, right?

You realize that private companies aren't in the business of slashing prices when they've cornered the market, right?

BUSH: "Okay Exxon-Mobile, start drilling in Alaska, and get ready for slimmer paychecks."

OIL EXECS: "Yes sir, right away chief!"

God, you're an idiot.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:38 pm

War Wagon wrote:
Because as the price increases, demand drops, effectively lowering their profits.

Yeah, high prices at the pumps means that tomorrow, everyone will start riding bicycles and powering their SUV's on magical
pixie dust.

You're out of your mind. Every drop of gas you don't buy, China will, and oil companies will GLADLY sell it to them.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:41 pm

mvscal wrote:
Martyred wrote:Now, you tell me why a private concern would want to undermine their investors concerns about flooding the market with oil and lower the price.

I'll be waiting.
There are no such concerns. At 140 dollars a barrel, there is over a trillion dollars worth of oil in the ground in ANWR.

Being such a government douchebag, you don't understand that business does not like letting go of a single penny.

But a welfare queen such as yourself always sees other people's money as "free money".

You are a state-fucking hump. Go kiss a war memorial, you waste of freedom.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:06 am

Martyred wrote: Yeah, high prices at the pumps means that tomorrow, everyone will start riding bicycles and powering their SUV's on magical
pixie dust.

No, it means that tomorrow everyone either parks their SUV's and takes the bus to work, carpools, or trades them in for something more fuel efficient.

Fuel consumption is down dramatically the past few months and that trend is certain to continue, in case you haven't been paying attention.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:21 am

mvscal wrote: What part of eight billion barrels and one trillion dollars sitting in the ground are you struggling to comprehend?

The part where Exxon increases production because it's "the right thing to do"?

Offshore accounts out front should have told you that, or do you need everything explained.

If Exxon can push eight billion barrels for a trillion, fine.

If they can hold out for a trillion and one dollars, they will. You don't know shit about economics, you fraud.
You must be confusing the free market with your own pacifier-sucking, government-hugging life experience.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:24 am

War Wagon wrote: No, it means that tomorrow everyone either parks their SUV's and takes the bus to work, carpools, or trades them in for something more fuel efficient.

WHAT FUCKING REALITY DO YOU INHABIT!

The "economical", shrewd, financially prudent American...HA-HA! Yeah, my ass...

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:27 am

Obviously mv's hemorrhoids from prolonged sitting on $600 government toilet seats caused a toxicity in his system that
affected his synapses.

Enjoy your cheese, Sha-mv-eequa.

_Porter_ · Post by **_Porter_** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 1:25 am

Martyred wrote:
War Wagon wrote: No, it means that tomorrow everyone either parks their SUV's and takes the bus to work, carpools, or trades them in for something more fuel efficient.

WHAT FUCKING REALITY DO YOU INHABIT!

The "economical", shrewd, financially prudent American...HA-HA! Yeah, my ass...

Sorry, WW, but Marty's spot-on, on this point. Maybe taking mass transit or biking to work are decent alternatives in your neck of the woods, but the vast majority of Americans live in bedroom communities and suburbs and commute long distances to work. Bicycles? Out. Mass transit? Out. They may purchase a smaller vehicle to commute in, but that's about it.

As for riding the bus, you're not serious, right? The bus is full of seniors that have just shit their depends, junkies on their way to donate plasma so they can buy another fix of black tar heroin, losers who have had their cars repo-ed or have had too many DUIs and twitching Tourette's freaks who can't drive because they can't stay in a lane. Yeah, sign me right the fuck up for that!