1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

The Audacity of Nope

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by trickblue, Aug 12, 2008.

  1. trickblue

    trickblue Old Testament... Zone Supporter

    29,081 Messages
    451 Likes Received

    The Audacity of Nope
    Obama's oil policy.
    August 12, 2008 9:00 AM
    By Deroy Murdock

    To plan a long and challenging journey, would you reject Mapquest and GPS and only consult an atlas from the 1970s? Unlikely. But to pinpoint America’s offshore oil deposits, Congressional Democrats, starting with Senator Barack Obama, love disco-era maps. Despite his conditional, latter-day support for limited offshore drilling, Obama is the sole sponsor of legislation that would block geological research to locate offshore oil.


    Federal officials currently employ estimates based primarily on two-dimensional maps that oil-industry surveyors produced in the 1970s and furnished to the Interior Department. Since 1981, Congressional appropriations amendments effectively have barred Interior from financing or permitting survey expeditions — particularly and precisely in the 85 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf where oil production and exploration are verboten.

    In 2005, Congress mandated new, quintennial inventories, then gave Interior six months and $0.00 to assess how much oil and natural gas undergird the 1.76 billion-acre Outer Continental Shelf — a laughably impossible task.

    “They couldn’t even board a research vessel,” explains a congressional staffer who studies these issues. Interior’s “paper inventory,” the aide adds, “examined Canadian and West African coastal data, imagined where those sediments pooled before the Continental Drift, then extrapolated to guesstimate what’s off our Atlantic coast today.”

    The resulting document states:Resource estimates are highly dependent on the current knowledge base, which has not been updated in 20 to 40 years for areas under congressional moratorium. . . . ” Translation: “We have no idea what’s really out there.”

    Obama’s “Oil SENSE Act” would repeal the 2005 Energy Policy Act’s authorization of these inventories. Introduced in January 2007, S.115 would leave decision makers with Carter Administration maps drawn with pre-PC technology. This is like engineering a Space Shuttle mission with slide rules.


    Obama’s bill would prohibit expanded use of 3-D seismic techniques that locate and measure underwater oil deposits — even though those tools are in wide use where offshore drilling is allowed, such as the western Gulf of Mexico. In October 1999, President Clinton’s Energy Department evaluated the environmental quality of 1970s’ 2-D equipment against last decade’s 3-D technology [a PDF of the report is available here]. With the latter, Energy concluded, “Overall impacts of exploration and production are reduced because fewer wells are required to develop the same amount of reserves.” In 1970, 17 percent of offshore wells struck oil. By 1997, that figure was 48 percent.

    Contemporary 4-D surveying adds the dimension of time. Satellites help find and quantifysubsea deposits, track their flows, and predict their next steps. Some 70 percent of 4-D wells hit oil.


    Obama’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Drill policy spurns these marvels and embraces outdated information gathered with obsolete instruments.
    This is the audacity of ignorance.


    Adults should not make decisions in willful obliviousness. Democrats like Obama prefer not to know what riches rest off America’s coasts — since, from their perspective, only bad things can arise politically from finding good things scientifically. They resemble kindergartners who cover their ears and hum loudly to muffle their parents’ unwelcome words.

    Meanwhile, Americans struggle to fuel planes, trains, and automobiles. Despite this national nightmare, Congressional Democrats fled on a five-week summer vacation, rather than vote on Republican amendments to extend offshore drilling. Democrats chose suntan oil over oil production.

    Instead of voting on Republican energy proposals, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., California) dispatched her colleagues to build sandcastles. Nevertheless, GOP representatives unofficially are pleading their case to tourists inside the House chamber.

    Moreover, ten Republican senators wrote President Bush on August 1 to request an executive order for an onshore seismic survey of the hydrocarbon resources beneath the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge’s 1.5 million acres.

    “The last seismic survey of the area is 25 years old (winter of 1983-84), and the United States government is operating with outdated information of America’s energy inventory,” the letter states. “This would be purely informational and environmentally non-intrusive,” it continues (emphasis in the original). “Modern seismic testing . . . is roughly equivalent to photography in terms of its environmental impact on land.”

    This letter was signed by Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn of Texas, and six other GOP senators, including ranking Republicans of four committees. According to Jim Guirard — president of Washington, D.C.’s TrueSpeak Institute and former chief of staff to the late Senator Russell Long (D., Louisiana) — who encouraged senators to send this letter, other senators were eager to sign on, but ran out of time to do so as Congress’ careened toward adjournment.

    Democrats in the Senate favor doubling gasoline prices rather than considering further fuel-supply development, as Human Events’ Jed Babbin has observed. Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell (R., Kentucky) asked to debate pro-energy legislation. Senator Ken Salazar (D., Colorado), representing majority Democrats, objected. And if gasoline reached $5.00-per-gallon? Salazar said no. $7.50? McConnell wondered. Salazar: Nyet. McConnell continued, “I would renew my request with the modification that the trigger be $10 a gallon at the pump.” Salazar replied: “I object.”

    Late last month, Senator Charles Schumer (D., New York) complained, “It’s Christmas in July” as he denounced oil-industry earnings, even though that sector’s 8.3 percent margin for 2007 lagged the chemical and electronics industries’ 12.7 and 14.5 percent respective returns. “Big Oil is plowing these profits into stock buybacks instead of increasing production,” Schumer huffed.

    Naturally, it’s hard for Big Oil to generate more petroleum when it cannot open new refineries, develop the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, broaden offshore production, nor even modernize its underwater maps. This is like screaming at Mom because dinner is late — while blocking the kitchen door.

    For all their supposed sophistication, Obama, Pelosi, Salazar, Schumer, and their caucus-mates are anti-intellectual eco-Luddites. Democratic bullheadedness deserves the republic’s scorn.

    Deroy Murdock is a New York-based columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution.

    © 2008 Scripps Howard News Service
  2. trickblue

    trickblue Old Testament... Zone Supporter

    29,081 Messages
    451 Likes Received
    Kinda disappointed there was nothing on this thread, so I'm bumping it...

    Many on this board love to tout science... until they actually have to read it...
  3. yeahyeah

    yeahyeah New Member

    502 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    "During the four year period between the assessments, about 2.3 Bbo and nearly 20 Tcfg were produced from the OCS, 96 percent from the GOM. This production came from the volumes of reserves and reserves appreciation reported in the 2001 assessment.
    Despite this significant volume of oil production, the estimate of oil reserves (including reserves appreciation) grew during this period, increasing by about 1.7 Bbo, meaning the industry was successful in replacing all the oil reserves produced in the GOM."



    They use this technology to find and help yield increasing supplies of new oil in the areas in which they can drill. Apparently it is working fantastic. Yet they have not used it in areas where there is a moratorium because of just that.
    But you have 70% of the shelf available for exploration. Why do you need the other 30? When you have this amazing technology yielding higher numbers in the already available areas.
    How much of that 70% has been explored? How much has been surveyed? How much has been drilled?
    Do you have finite numbers on that? This is a classic case of bird in the hand in my opinion.
    We want it because we cant have it..not because the other 30 is that fantastic...its just the not knowing if it is.
    its greed.
  4. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    42,064 Messages
    1,854 Likes Received
    Love how you cherry pick bits and pieces and ignore the rest.
  5. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed...part 2 Zone Supporter

    28,639 Messages
    1,593 Likes Received
    why do you intentionally want to exclude 30% of the entire picture? isn't the goal to get as much info as you need/can get before making a decision?

    you just like living in 30% ignorance and do you normally make decisions KNOWING you don't know, and are not even willing to look for, the whole story?

    it's not greed, it's knowledge. i can see why it scares you though.
  6. yeahyeah

    yeahyeah New Member

    502 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    1) Its called conservation and they have yet to exploit all of the resources of the 70.

    2) Why would you waste your time on reserved areas? Why dont you worry about the vast areas of unexplored which you can drill..areas that are continuing to yield ever increasing amounts for you yearly.

    It appears what we do have is adequate, producing,yielding more discoveries every year...why should we trouble ourselves about the sliver we cant have?
    Its called conservation...you take a small slice for the environment and dont worry about...its Supposed to be that way.
    If what you have is giving you gains and is continuing to give you more and more..dont you think its greedy?
    On nooooooooo....you couldnt surrender this point....you couldnt....noooooo...its not greedy :laugh2: please...go send a republican a love letter.
  7. masomenos

    masomenos Less is more

    5,971 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    And here's the actual bill.... http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-115

    The bill is not meant to prohibit 3D or 4D imaging. It's meant to repeal royalty and tax exemptions to the oil industry that will cause the government to lost out on between 7 and 9.5 Trillion dollars over the next 5 years. It does repeal the provision of the 2005 Energy Policy Act that calls for a new inventory to be taken, but as was mentioned in the posted article the current inventory assessment was unfunded, "laughably impossible" and based on a guesstimate.

    The verbiage in the clause that this article was based on says "use any available technology, except drilling, but including 3–D seismic technology to obtain accurate resource estimates". Now, by repealing the article that clause is in it does not mean that Obama's bill would prohibit the use of "any available technology". There was no bill prior to the 2005 Energy Policy Act that prohibited the use of 3D seismic technology (at least to my knowledge) and therefor there would be no change in the ability to use new technologies when searching for oil.
  8. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed...part 2 Zone Supporter

    28,639 Messages
    1,593 Likes Received
    but if you don't know what else is there across the board you simply can't draw up a conservation plan, can you? again, you willing to let 70% knowlege be enough for you. go work in wal mart IT. at 70% they put it into production.

    and it comes crashing down all the time.

    cause if i have x amount of oil where i know where it is and there's twice as much where we've not looked yet, i'm not maximizing my investment am i? no. i'm not. i'll answer that for you.

    so as long as YOU'RE comfortable, we have enough? since when did the standards of mankind fall upon you? and if it does i'm scared cause you dont' want to see the whole picture but make vast reaching decisions on inadequate information.

    please, generacize everything and giggle. that makes you a man i'll never be.


    no. it's not greedy. it's being able to make better and more informed decisions. if you had enough money in your pocket to buy a hot pocket or something, you satisfied even though money for a good steak dinner was lost in your closet? but don't go looking, you have enough.

    let's not get greedy. let's remain ignorant.

    now, go send an idiot instructions on how to increase their idiocy.

    ha ha ha.
  9. JBond

    JBond Well-Known Member

    6,727 Messages
    37 Likes Received
    Thanks trickblue. I'll be around more often as the election gets closer. Nice job.
  10. Ben_n_austin

    Ben_n_austin Benched

    2,898 Messages
    3 Likes Received
    Oh, but that's the double-edged sword that shreds the offshore drilling proposition to pieces. Yet people will tow that line strictly for political reason. The truth of the matter, according to some sources, is that we have 300 years worth of oil under our own soil. If we used 1/5th of that while developing alternative sources, we could make a successful transition to alternative sources. Though, for it to be successful, you have to specialize in a particular type. Personally, I think SUVs will go the way of the dodo bird so to speak, and the next generations including us (hopefully) will be riding on two wheels rather than driving on four.

    You're essentially saying we have enough, according to your own statements above this portion of your post.

    Why does it always seem to you like liberals hold their beliefs to get a laugh. Do you ever think they might believe that way?

    Amen. ;) :)

    I like that movie Mad Max. But I don't think we should make that our philosophy.

    Think alternative, alternative, alternative. This oil problem stumps the right wingers because they don't think about alternatives....for political reasons. Logically, it's a disjunctive syllogism that proposes there are no other options, which is false.

    So greedy or ignorant are my only options?

    We call this "enduring" idiocy. If you can endure an idiot, you can endure just about anything. And mental endurance is a valuable lesson.


Share This Page