obama the begger

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393048/obama-the-begger/60#post_3494589
Media matters LOL! Their stated goal is to take out Fox. Like I said, the BLM is the government agency that issues the permits and leases. Why look any further than their statistics.
Let's try this again. 2010 oil production isn't because anything 0bama did. Those wells were permitted before 0bama took office. If they were offshore they were drilled before 0bama took office. He has no influence over them one way or another. What he did do, and again look at the government records from the government website I linked, is declined issuing permits. Coming into office 0bama blocked planned sales off both the east and west coasts. Those are productive areas the oil companies want to drill in.
Here's more on oil production. Federal offshore production peaked in 2010 and has declined since then. http://refinerynews.com/us-oil-production-up-but-on-whose-lands/
Look at the statement from whitehouse.gov that refutes your claims. Offshore drilling declined after 2010 because of the BP Deepwater Horizon debacle. It took them almost a year to clean that mess up. No one was going to get any new permits in that region until the oil industry corporations could insure and validate that another disaster like that wouldn't happen again.

 

[darthtang aw]

Look at the statement from whitehouse.gov that refutes your claims.  Offshore drilling declined after 2010 because of the BP Deepwater Horizon debacle.  It took them almost a year to clean that mess up.  No one was going to get any new permits in that region until the oil industry corporations could insure and validate that another disaster like that wouldn't happen again.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/05/15/no-virginia-there-is-no-sanity-clause-in-obama-drilling-permit-policy/

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393048/obama-the-begger/80#post_3494594
Look at the statement from whitehouse.gov that refutes your claims. Offshore drilling declined after 2010 because of the BP Deepwater Horizon debacle. It took them almost a year to clean that mess up. No one was going to get any new permits in that region until the oil industry corporations could insure and validate that another disaster like that wouldn't happen again.
You mean 0bama's illegal ban?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03/u-s-administration-in-contempt-over-gulf-drill-ban-judge-rules.html
Why hasn't permitting reached the previous level? The demand is much higher because of the illegal ban so there should have been a spike but 0bama is only approving about 1/3 of the permits when the norm was about 3/4ths.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393048/obama-the-begger/80#post_3494609
You mean 0bama's illegal ban?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03/u-s-administration-in-contempt-over-gulf-drill-ban-judge-rules.html
Why hasn't permitting reached the previous level? The demand is much higher because of the illegal ban so there should have been a spike but 0bama is only approving about 1/3 of the permits when the norm was about 3/4ths.
Your article is a year and a half old (February, 2011). They were still dealing with the BP clean up, and Lousiana was crying because it was putting a dent in their income. Try something a little more recent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/business/deepwater-oil-drilling-accelerates-as-bp-disaster-fades.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
After a yearlong drilling moratorium, BP and other oil companies are intensifying their exploration and production in the gulf, which will soon surpass the levels attained before the accident. Drilling in the area is about to be expanded in Mexican and Cuban waters, beyond most American controls, even though any accident would almost inevitably affect the United States shoreline. Oil companies are also moving into new areas off the coast of East Africa and the eastern Mediterranean.
The Energy Department recently projected that gulf oil production would expand from its 2011 level of 1.3 million barrels a day, still nearly a quarter of total domestic production, to two million barrels a day by 2020.
Last December, the Obama administration held its first offshore auction since the BP spill, granting leases for more than 20 million acres of federal waters — bigger than West Virginia. The leases are worth $330 million to the federal government and have the potential to produce 400 million barrels of oil.
BP successfully bid for 11 of the 191 available drilling blocks. Environmentalists challenged the auction of exploration rights, so far unsuccessfully, which precedes applications and approvals for actual drilling permits.
By the Obama administration’s accounting, 61 drilling permits for wells in more than 500 feet of water were granted in the 12 months ending Feb. 27, only six fewer than were permitted in the same period in 2009 and 2010 before the BP explosion.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393048/obama-the-begger/80#post_3494595
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/05/15/no-virginia-there-is-no-sanity-clause-in-obama-drilling-permit-policy/
Here'a an article directly off the EIA site. No specific date, but it discusses some conference in 2009.
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
INteresting little tidbit about a moratorium being put into place in 2007 by "The President and Congress" that wasn't supposed to get lifted until 2012. Hmmm, which President was in office that year?
The OCS is estimated to contain substantial resources of crude oil and natural gas; however, some areas of the OCS are subject to drilling restrictions. With energy prices rising over the past several years, there has been increased interest in the development of more domestic oil and natural gas supply, including OCS resources. In the past, Federal efforts to encourage exploration and development activities in the deep waters of the OCS have been limited primarily to regulations that would reduce royalty payments by lease holders. More recently, the States of Alaska and Virginia have asked the Federal Government to consider leasing in areas off their coastlines that are off limits as a result of actions by the President or Congress. In response, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the U.S. Department of the ******** has included in its proposed 5-year leasing plan for 2007-2012 sales of one lease in the Mid-Atlantic area off the coastline of Virginia and two leases in the North Aleutian Basin area of Alaska. Development in both areas still would require lifting of the current ban on drilling.
For AEO2007, an OCS access case was prepared to examine the potential impacts of the lifting of Federal restrictions on access to the OCS in the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Currently, except for a relatively small tract in the eastern Gulf, resources in those areas are legally off limits to exploration and development. Mean estimates from the MMS indicate that technically recoverable resources currently off limits in the lower 48 OCS total 18 billion barrels of crude oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (Table 10).
Although existing moratoria on leasing in the OCS will expire in 2012, the AEO2007 reference case assumes that they will be reinstated, as they have in the past. Current restrictions are therefore assumed to prevail for the remainder of the projection period, with no exploration or development allowed in areas currently unavailable to leasing. The OCS access case assumes that the current moratoria will not be reinstated, and that exploration and development of resources in those areas will begin in 2012.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393048/obama-the-begger/80#post_3494643
Here'a an article directly off the EIA site. No specific date, but it discusses some conference in 2009.
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
INteresting little tidbit about a moratorium being put into place in 2007 by "The President and Congress" that wasn't supposed to get lifted until 2012. Hmmm, which President was in office that year?
The OCS is estimated to contain substantial resources of crude oil and natural gas; however, some areas of the OCS are subject to drilling restrictions. With energy prices rising over the past several years, there has been increased interest in the development of more domestic oil and natural gas supply, including OCS resources. In the past, Federal efforts to encourage exploration and development activities in the deep waters of the OCS have been limited primarily to regulations that would reduce royalty payments by lease holders. More recently, the States of Alaska and Virginia have asked the Federal Government to consider leasing in areas off their coastlines that are off limits as a result of actions by the President or Congress. In response, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the U.S. Department of the ******** has included in its proposed 5-year leasing plan for 2007-2012 sales of one lease in the Mid-Atlantic area off the coastline of Virginia and two leases in the North Aleutian Basin area of Alaska. Development in both areas still would require lifting of the current ban on drilling.
For AEO2007, an OCS access case was prepared to examine the potential impacts of the lifting of Federal restrictions on access to the OCS in the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Currently, except for a relatively small tract in the eastern Gulf, resources in those areas are legally off limits to exploration and development. Mean estimates from the MMS indicate that technically recoverable resources currently off limits in the lower 48 OCS total 18 billion barrels of crude oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (Table 10).
Although existing moratoria on leasing in the OCS will expire in 2012, the AEO2007 reference case assumes that they will be reinstated, as they have in the past. Current restrictions are therefore assumed to prevail for the remainder of the projection period, with no exploration or development allowed in areas currently unavailable to leasing. The OCS access case assumes that the current moratoria will not be reinstated, and that exploration and development of resources in those areas will begin in 2012.
Notice the BOLD statement. The Moratorium was in place before 2007, and as your article points out renewed in the past. That wasn't new and the permits issues pre 0bama were done with those same restrictions in place. But nice try...

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393048/obama-the-begger/80#post_3494642
Your article is a year and a half old (February, 2011). They were still dealing with the BP clean up, and Lousiana was crying because it was putting a dent in their income. Try something a little more recent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/business/deepwater-oil-drilling-accelerates-as-bp-disaster-fades.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
After a yearlong drilling moratorium, BP and other oil companies are intensifying their exploration and production in the gulf, which will soon surpass the levels attained before the accident. Drilling in the area is about to be expanded in Mexican and Cuban waters, beyond most American controls, even though any accident would almost inevitably affect the United States shoreline. Oil companies are also moving into new areas off the coast of East Africa and the eastern Mediterranean.
The Energy Department recently projected that gulf oil production would expand from its 2011 level of 1.3 million barrels a day, still nearly a quarter of total domestic production, to two million barrels a day by 2020.
Last December, the Obama administration held its first offshore auction since the BP spill, granting leases for more than 20 million acres of federal waters — bigger than West Virginia. The leases are worth $330 million to the federal government and have the potential to produce 400 million barrels of oil.
BP successfully bid for 11 of the 191 available drilling blocks. Environmentalists challenged the auction of exploration rights, so far unsuccessfully, which precedes applications and approvals for actual drilling permits.
By the Obama administration’s accounting, 61 drilling permits for wells in more than 500 feet of water were granted in the 12 months ending Feb. 27, only six fewer than were permitted in the same period in 2009 and 2010 before the BP explosion.
Point being 0bama restricted drilling even to the point he was found to be in contempt of court. With the ban in place it created a vacuum and thus higher demand for new leases. Once he lifted his illegal ban there should have been a huge spike in permitting. But what's happened since then? Pre ban about 75% of permits were approved on an average of 60 days. Post ban it's about 34% of permits approved and it's taking 0ver 120 days. Again look at the BLM link on permits. Permitting dropped off significantly even before the spill. With the ban in place it dropped even further. 2008 6617 permits 2009 4487, 2010, with about 6 month of ban 4090, 2011 4244. Even post ban for 2011 there were only 64% as many permits issued as in 2008

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393048/obama-the-begger/80#post_3494654
Notice the BOLD statement. The Moratorium was in place before 2007, and as your article points out renewed in the past. That wasn't new and the permits issues pre 0bama were done with those same restrictions in place. But nice try...
What are you talking about? The Bold statement says that they could be reinstated in 2012. That's now. The article was written in 2009. So where you're getting this is Obama's fault is beyond me. But nice try....

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393048/obama-the-begger/80#post_3494655
Point being 0bama restricted drilling even to the point he was found to be in contempt of court. With the ban in place it created a vacuum and thus higher demand for new leases. Once he lifted his illegal ban there should have been a huge spike in permitting. But what's happened since then? Pre ban about 75% of permits were approved on an average of 60 days. Post ban it's about 34% of permits approved and it's taking 0ver 120 days. Again look at the BLM link on permits. Permitting dropped off significantly even before the spill. With the ban in place it dropped even further. 2008 6617 permits 2009 4487, 2010, with about 6 month of ban 4090, 2011 4244. Even post ban for 2011 there were only 64% as many permits issued as in 2008
Can you not read? Who cares what the BMI links say. You'll spin this any way you can to diss Obama. Fact of the matter is, Gulf leases have opened up and there's been SIX less than what were granted in 2009 and 2010. How many oil companies are actively looking for drilling sites anyways? You don't know, and they aren't saying. In a downed economy, it may be cost prohibitie to start new drilling right now. Why do you care anyways. By you and Darth's logic, Middle East oil is all that matters, and it's supposedly some "national security" issue. Again, Fox News talking points. Why? Because this other political forum I peruse with the elderly NeoCons, they whine about Middle East oil being a "national security issue". These nuts live and breathe Fox. Coincidence?

 

[darthtang aw]

Can you not read?  Who cares what the BMI links say.  You'll spin this any way you can to diss Obama.  Fact of the matter is, Gulf leases have opened up and there's been SIX less than what were granted in 2009 and 2010.  How many oil companies are actively looking for drilling sites anyways?  You don't know, and they aren't saying.  In a downed economy, it may be cost prohibitie to start new drilling right now.  Why do you care anyways.  By you and Darth's logic, Middle East oil is all that matters, and it's supposedly some "national security" issue.  Again, Fox News talking points.  Why? Because this other political forum I peruse with the elderly NeoCons, they whine about Middle East oil being a "national security issue".  These nuts live and breathe Fox.  Coincidence?
i do not watch fox. Haven't for 4 years. The National security issue is my belief....and mine alone. I have not read or seen any "news" station state we need to be there for the oil.
And I never said it is all that matters. Do NOT put words in my mouth. Truth of the matter is the issues and problems are so complex because now we live in a world economy. That is the whole issue. You can have your cheap goods and so on and live with the current problems and our country continuing to "meddle" in other country's business or have and by expensive goods (which you wont like since you don't even support your local businesses and by china products off the internet) and ignore everyone. Which do you want.
The problem is your own actions and lifestyle are in direct contrast to what you are griping about.
I will agree with on one thing..McCain would not be any better...which is why i didn't vote for either of those two idiots. You moan and complain..claim romney is no better. Obama is only slightly better...yadda yadda yadda...and youwont vote third party because it is a wasted.
The single largest problem with this country is not the politicians. It is the Voters. You do not vote for the candidate you feel is best. You vote for the candidate from one of two parties you think will win. While I Gripe and complain about Obama, I have not cast my Vote for Romney by a long shot. I didn't vote for McCain last election....so stating he wouldn't be better is a no brainer and not a "point" up on me. I didn't vote for him either.
Just once, I want to see the voters vote for someone that they agree most with. Not so they can be on a winning side. As that is all they do now. You will not say one bad thing against Obama....because he was your guy and got your vote....so to speak bad about him or anything he does as questionable implies you may have voted wrong...and you cant do that. And based off your posts and belief system, i find it hard to believe you ever voted for bush....
The only advantage to Romney of Obama is atleast Romneyhas a history of success, running a state, business, etc....Obama had a history.............of........."present". You voted for a guy with no substantial history and could give a great campaign speech. Has he followed through with half his promises? He had two years of complete control of congress...and he couldn't get half his promises could he? Congress couldn't even filibuster...other wise heathcare would not have passed.

 

[darthtang aw]

Can you not read?  Who cares what the BMI links say.  You'll spin this any way you can to diss Obama.  Fact of the matter is, Gulf leases have opened up and there's been SIX less than what were granted in 2009 and 2010.  How many oil companies are actively looking for drilling sites anyways?  You don't know, and they aren't saying.  In a downed economy, it may be cost prohibitie to start new drilling right now.  Why do you care anyways.  By you and Darth's logic, Middle East oil is all that matters, and it's supposedly some "national security" issue.  Again, Fox News talking points.  Why? Because this other political forum I peruse with the elderly NeoCons, they whine about Middle East oil being a "national security issue".  These nuts live and breathe Fox.  Coincidence?
Oh, and you do realize leases and drilling permits are two different things correct? A lease opens the land up for exploration and research as well as evaluation. The drilling permit then has to be issued.
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/02/16/president-obama-can-give-the-economy-a-new-lease-on-life-with-more-permits/
This was as of February...

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393048/obama-the-begger/80#post_3494703
What are you talking about? The Bold statement says that they could be reinstated in 2012. That's now. The article was written in 2009. So where you're getting this is Obama's fault is beyond me. But nice try....
the AEO2007 reference case assumes that they will be reinstated, as they have in the past.
From your link. Anyone with reading comprehension beyond the second grade would understand it. The 2007 case assumes the moratorium will again be reinstated in 2012 when it's due to expire. If it was in place in 2007 then it was in place in 2008 and both years had a whole lot more permits issued than under 0bama so what's your point?

 

[lilclowns]

I feel like Obama is just trying to get votes. Please don't get me wrong, I have no problem with him, but he is not a good president. At the beginning of his term he said that by the end of his term he would have the deficit cut in half. However, isn't it like doubled or tripled now? Also, now he's saying he needs four more years, but no, it's too late.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393048/obama-the-begger/80#post_3494704
Can you not read? Who cares what the BMI links say. You'll spin this any way you can to diss Obama. Fact of the matter is, Gulf leases have opened up and there's been SIX less than what were granted in 2009 and 2010. How many oil companies are actively looking for drilling sites anyways? You don't know, and they aren't saying. In a downed economy, it may be cost prohibitie to start new drilling right now. Why do you care anyways. By you and Darth's logic, Middle East oil is all that matters, and it's supposedly some "national security" issue. Again, Fox News talking points. Why? Because this other political forum I peruse with the elderly NeoCons, they whine about Middle East oil being a "national security issue". These nuts live and breathe Fox. Coincidence?
In 2008 6,617 drilling permits were issued. In 2009 4,487 were issued. Reference my BLM link posted upthread. What is so hard to understand? According to you 0bama has actually approved even fewer permits since then, even if only by six LOL! Do you get it yet? obama approved 32% fewer permits in 2009 than were approved in 2008. This was before the oil spill and drilling ban in 2010. The demand is still there. In fact oil is at a higher price than it was in 2008 and 9. Why would demand be less? In the 0bameconomy labor is cheaper because of prolonged unemployment. This is the perfect time to do as much exploration as possible even if they complete the wells and waited for prices to increase before starting production.
As far as demand
http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2012/09/planned_gulf_lease_sale_to_ope.html
"In June, the first oil and gas lease sale in the same area since the Deepwater Horizon exploded there two years ago, attracted more than $1.7 billion in high bids from energy companies. It put about 39 million acres -- or 7,434 tracts -- up for bid, from as close as three miles to as far as 230 miles off the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.
Some of the money will make its way back to Louisiana, where it is now constitutionally required to go to coastal protection and restoration projects.
Last December, ConocoPhillips emerged as the biggest winner among energy companies trying to ramp up domestic deepwater exploration and production, placing high bids on more than a third of the available tracts off the coast of Texas in the first oil and natural gas lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico since the 2010 BP oil spill.
The lease sale attracted $337.7 million from 20 companies that submitted winning bids for 191 federally owned oil and natural gas drilling tracts across more than 21 million acres in the western Gulf."
http://gcaptain.com/return-gulf-companies-scramble/
"Some 21 million acres of federal waters–an area roughly the size of South Carolina–stretching hundreds of miles off the Texas coast were up for bid. The auction attracted $337.6 million in winning bids for 191 available blocks that could eventually lead to more than 400 million of barrels of oil production.
Twenty companies placed 241 bids for the right to explore for oil and gas, including a $103.2 million winning bid on a deep-water block by ConocoPhillips Co. that elicited gasps from the more than 200 attendees. Conoco made the most winning bids with 75, while Exxon Mobil Corp. placed 50 winning bids."
241 bids for 191 leases. The companies are paying for the leases but 0bama is dragging his feet on permit approval.
Oh, and oil is priced on a world market. More production anywhere will influence the price so yes, the middle east is an issue.
Perhaps you should stop swallowing the DNC talking points you parrot.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393048/obama-the-begger/80#post_3494713
i do not watch fox. Haven't for 4 years. The National security issue is my belief....and mine alone. I have not read or seen any "news" station state we need to be there for the oil.
And I never said it is all that matters. Do NOT put words in my mouth. Truth of the matter is the issues and problems are so complex because now we live in a world economy. That is the whole issue. You can have your cheap goods and so on and live with the current problems and our country continuing to "meddle" in other country's business or have and by expensive goods (which you wont like since you don't even support your local businesses and by china products off the internet) and ignore everyone. Which do you want.
The problem is your own actions and lifestyle are in direct contrast to what you are griping about.
I will agree with on one thing..McCain would not be any better...which is why i didn't vote for either of those two idiots. You moan and complain..claim romney is no better. Obama is only slightly better...yadda yadda yadda...and youwont vote third party because it is a wasted.
The single largest problem with this country is not the politicians. It is the Voters. You do not vote for the candidate you feel is best. You vote for the candidate from one of two parties you think will win. While I Gripe and complain about Obama, I have not cast my Vote for Romney by a long shot. I didn't vote for McCain last election....so stating he wouldn't be better is a no brainer and not a "point" up on me. I didn't vote for him either.
Just once, I want to see the voters vote for someone that they agree most with. Not so they can be on a winning side. As that is all they do now. You will not say one bad thing against Obama....because he was your guy and got your vote....so to speak bad about him or anything he does as questionable implies you may have voted wrong...and you cant do that. And based off your posts and belief system, i find it hard to believe you ever voted for bush....
The only advantage to Romney of Obama is atleast Romneyhas a history of success, running a state, business, etc....Obama had a history.............of........."present". You voted for a guy with no substantial history and could give a great campaign speech. Has he followed through with half his promises? He had two years of complete control of congress...and he couldn't get half his promises could he? Congress couldn't even filibuster...other wise heathcare would not have passed.
I hate to burst your bubble. In 2008 I voted for Ron Paul. The only reason I support Obama's policies is because I have a vial despise for what the Republican Party represents, especially the Conservative ideologies that want to dictate what I may or may not believe in. I don't believe in a party that puts social issues over economic or issues that actually affect the OVERALL citizenship of this country. You don't agree with abortion, gay marriages, Atheism, Agnosticism, or someone that just doesn't espouse family values, that's your perogative. But DON'T make that your core values when running for a political office. We have over 260 million people living in this country, and not every one of them believe in this rhetoric. So don't force it down my throat and give me this "If you don't believe in our cause, you have no business living here" attitude.
We've had a history of President's who were "nobody". This country was in chaos because of Bush's policies, and the American people didn't want to have another "clone" running the country. Obama is a smooth talker, and he did come across as "The People's President". He literally convinced the majority of voter's he could bring "Hope and Change" to this country. I honestly didn't buy the entire package, and there were several of his platform initiatives I didn't agree with. That's why I voted for Ron Paul. In all honesty, it didn't matter who I voted for. It won't matter who I vote for this year as long as we continue with the outdated and inane Electoral Voting process we use to select that position. Texas hasn't voted for anyone but the Republican candidate since Nixon, and I guarantee you they'll be casting their Electoral votes for Romney this November. My vote means NOTHING when it comes to selecting who I think would be a good President. The entire selection of who runs this country comes down to FOUR or FIVE states. Less than 5% of the voting population gets to determine who wins or loses. So you can "yadda, yadda, yadda" all you want, and complain about who belives in what. But what it boils down to is we have an imperfect system in regards to how we select our President. And unless you or someone else could find a way to repeal the Amendment that allows this type of selection, the chances that you will ever see a President whose an Independent/Libertarian/Tea Party in your lifetime, your kid's lifetime, or even their kid's lifetime is about the same odds of winning the lottery.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393048/obama-the-begger/80#post_3494738
In 2008 6,617 drilling permits were issued. In 2009 4,487 were issued. Reference my BLM link posted upthread. What is so hard to understand? According to you 0bama has actually approved even fewer permits since then, even if only by six LOL! Do you get it yet? obama approved 32% fewer permits in 2009 than were approved in 2008. This was before the oil spill and drilling ban in 2010. The demand is still there. In fact oil is at a higher price than it was in 2008 and 9. Why would demand be less? In the 0bameconomy labor is cheaper because of prolonged unemployment. This is the perfect time to do as much exploration as possible even if they complete the wells and waited for prices to increase before starting production.
As far as demand
http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2012/09/planned_gulf_lease_sale_to_ope.html
"In June, the first oil and gas lease sale in the same area since the Deepwater Horizon exploded there two years ago, attracted more than $1.7 billion in high bids from energy companies. It put about 39 million acres -- or 7,434 tracts -- up for bid, from as close as three miles to as far as 230 miles off the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.
Some of the money will make its way back to Louisiana, where it is now constitutionally required to go to coastal protection and restoration projects.
Last December, ConocoPhillips emerged as the biggest winner among energy companies trying to ramp up domestic deepwater exploration and production, placing high bids on more than a third of the available tracts off the coast of Texas in the first oil and natural gas lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico since the 2010 BP oil spill.
The lease sale attracted $337.7 million from 20 companies that submitted winning bids for 191 federally owned oil and natural gas drilling tracts across more than 21 million acres in the western Gulf."
http://gcaptain.com/return-gulf-companies-scramble/
"Some 21 million acres of federal waters–an area roughly the size of South Carolina–stretching hundreds of miles off the Texas coast were up for bid. The auction attracted $337.6 million in winning bids for 191 available blocks that could eventually lead to more than 400 million of barrels of oil production.
Twenty companies placed 241 bids for the right to explore for oil and gas, including a $103.2 million winning bid on a deep-water block by ConocoPhillips Co. that elicited gasps from the more than 200 attendees. Conoco made the most winning bids with 75, while Exxon Mobil Corp. placed 50 winning bids."
241 bids for 191 leases. The companies are paying for the leases but 0bama is dragging his feet on permit approval.
Oh, and oil is priced on a world market. More production anywhere will influence the price so yes, the middle east is an issue.
Perhaps you should stop swallowing the DNC talking points you parrot.
WHO CARES!
You can spit out all the numbers you want. It doesn't matter. You can drill all the oil you want, but unless we as a nation curb our consumption, you can suck every drop of oil in every inch of this country, and it's surrounding waters, and you'd only have enough to last for maybe another 60 - 70 years. The "oil lovers" claim there is 1.4 trillion barrels of oil underneath US soil and off our shores. The problem is, this value is an estimate of POTENTIAL recoverable barrels. If we could in fact recover every single ounce of this theoretical oil, it would last approximately 147 years at our current consumption rate of 26 million barrels/day. However, the more realistic number of actual RECOVERABLE oil when you factor in the cost to suck it out of the ground (cost more to get it than you could sell it for at what would be considered a reasonable cost) is around 400 - 600 billion barrels. At current consumption, that amount would only last the years I previously stated. Even if it were a low estimate, the US consumes at least 3% more oil (if not more) every year. In the next 30 years, you're probably looking at a consumption rate of 35 - 40 million barrels/day. As that number goes up, the number of available barrels under the ground goes down. Even if it were 100 years, how much do you think a gallon of gas will cost then? $15.00? $25.00?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393048/obama-the-begger/80#post_3494741
WHO CARES!
You can spit out all the numbers you want. It doesn't matter. You can drill all the oil you want, but unless we as a nation curb our consumption, you can suck every drop of oil in every inch of this country, and it's surrounding waters, and you'd only have enough to last for maybe another 60 - 70 years. The "oil lovers" claim there is 1.4 trillion barrels of oil underneath US soil and off our shores. The problem is, this value is an estimate of POTENTIAL recoverable barrels. If we could in fact recover every single ounce of this theoretical oil, it would last approximately 147 years at our current consumption rate of 26 million barrels/day. However, the more realistic number of actual RECOVERABLE oil when you factor in the cost to suck it out of the ground (cost more to get it than you could sell it for at what would be considered a reasonable cost) is around 400 - 600 billion barrels. At current consumption, that amount would only last the years I previously stated. Even if it were a low estimate, the US consumes at least 3% more oil (if not more) every year. In the next 30 years, you're probably looking at a consumption rate of 35 - 40 million barrels/day. As that number goes up, the number of available barrels under the ground goes down. Even if it were 100 years, how much do you think a gallon of gas will cost then? $15.00? $25.00?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
Obviously you do. You've spent 2 pages trying to sell the administrations BS claim about increasing oil drilling on federal lands. Why is it you always seem to change your argument once you are proven to be completely full of it?
It is a matter of national security that we become as close to self sufficient as possible regarding our energy. It isn't only about price. As big a hit as 6.00 a gallon gas would be on our economy not being able to get a sufficient amount would be far worse. We are nearly to the point where we wouldn't need middle east oil but if things blow up there we will find ourselves competing with Europe for our American sources of imports. Nobody really knows how much recoverable oil we have because as technology advances the target keeps moving. The advent of horizontal drilling was a major game changer.
You can't just snap your fingers and decrease use overnight. We are looking at Replacing the wife's car next year. At this point the leading contender is a VW Passat Turbo Diesel. Mid sized sedan that gets 40MPG. We were considering a Ford Escape EcoBoost. Better than 30 MPG and no Hybrid BS but we've decided the government has given the UAW enough of our money and we wont be buying a domestic brand name, just making sure the vehicle is built in the USA. US oil use has declined, mostly because of the crappy economy but there are a lot better options out there now for high mileage cars than there was even a few years ago. Demand will continue to drop as higher mileage standards are phased in over the next decade.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393048/obama-the-begger/80#post_3494739
I hate to burst your bubble. In 2008 I voted for Ron Paul. The only reason I support Obama's policies is because I have a vial despise for what the Republican Party represents, especially the Conservative ideologies that want to dictate what I may or may not believe in. I don't believe in a party that puts social issues over economic or issues that actually affect the OVERALL citizenship of this country. You don't agree with abortion, gay marriages, Atheism, Agnosticism, or someone that just doesn't espouse family values, that's your perogative. But DON'T make that your core values when running for a political office. We have over 260 million people living in this country, and not every one of them believe in this rhetoric. So don't force it down my throat and give me this "If you don't believe in our cause, you have no business living here" attitude.
We've had a history of President's who were "nobody". This country was in chaos because of Bush's policies, and the American people didn't want to have another "clone" running the country. Obama is a smooth talker, and he did come across as "The People's President". He literally convinced the majority of voter's he could bring "Hope and Change" to this country. I honestly didn't buy the entire package, and there were several of his platform initiatives I didn't agree with. That's why I voted for Ron Paul. In all honesty, it didn't matter who I voted for. It won't matter who I vote for this year as long as we continue with the outdated and inane Electoral Voting process we use to select that position. Texas hasn't voted for anyone but the Republican candidate since Nixon, and I guarantee you they'll be casting their Electoral votes for Romney this November. My vote means NOTHING when it comes to selecting who I think would be a good President. The entire selection of who runs this country comes down to FOUR or FIVE states. Less than 5% of the voting population gets to determine who wins or loses. So you can "yadda, yadda, yadda" all you want, and complain about who belives in what. But what it boils down to is we have an imperfect system in regards to how we select our President. And unless you or someone else could find a way to repeal the Amendment that allows this type of selection, the chances that you will ever see a President whose an Independent/Libertarian/Tea Party in your lifetime, your kid's lifetime, or even their kid's lifetime is about the same odds of winning the lottery.
Good God you finally posted something I can agree with LOL!
However it should be pointed out that the Democrats push their social agenda just as hard as the Republicans.

 

[darthtang aw]

I hate to burst your bubble.  In 2008 I voted for Ron Paul.  The only reason I support Obama's policies is because I have a vial despise for what the Republican Party represents, especially the Conservative ideologies that want to dictate what I may or may not believe in.  I don't believe in a party that puts social issues over economic or issues that actually affect the OVERALL citizenship of this country.  You don't agree with abortion, gay marriages, Atheism, Agnosticism, or someone that just doesn't espouse family values, that's your perogative.  But DON'T make that your core values when running for a political office.  We have over 260 million people living in this country, and not every one of them believe in this rhetoric.  So don't force it down my throat and give me this "If you don't believe in our cause, you have no business living here" attitude.
We've had a history of President's who were "nobody".  This country was in chaos because of Bush's policies, and the American people didn't want to have another "clone" running the country.  Obama is a smooth talker, and he did come across as "The People's President".  He literally convinced the majority of voter's he could bring "Hope and Change" to this country.  I honestly didn't buy the entire package, and there were several of his platform initiatives I didn't agree with.  That's why I voted for Ron Paul.  In all honesty, it didn't matter who I voted for.  It won't matter who I vote for this year as long as we continue with the outdated and inane Electoral Voting process we use to select that position.  Texas hasn't voted for anyone but the Republican candidate since Nixon, and I guarantee you they'll be casting their Electoral votes for Romney this November.  My vote means NOTHING when it comes to selecting who I think would be a good President.  The entire selection of who runs this country comes down to FOUR or FIVE states.  Less than 5% of the voting population gets to determine who wins or loses.  So you can "yadda, yadda, yadda" all you want, and complain about who belives in what.  But what it boils down to is we have an imperfect system in regards to how we select our President.  And unless you or someone else could find a way to repeal the Amendment that allows this type of selection, the chances that you will ever see a President whose an Independent/Libertarian/Tea Party in your lifetime, your kid's lifetime, or even their kid's lifetime is about the same odds of winning the lottery.
I know you are going to say you don't care what I think, but this needs said.
I find it hard to believe you voted for Ron Paul at all.I find it hard to believe you even know what his 2008 platform was. Because if you had, the exact things you defend president Obama on,such as Healthcare, energy policy, and so on are completely counter to what Ron Paul believes in and stands for.Ron Paul would not have bailed out the auto industry and he would NOT have passed the stimulus bill. Both Bills he voted against. In fact I distinctly remember you bringing up and ridiculing Ron Paul's "ties" to the Klu Klux Klan and being a racist during the 2008 election discussions. THE ONLY STANCE RON PAUL AND OBAMA SHARE are their positions on the wars....which Obama did decrease one but escalated another...Neither of which Ron Paul supported.
So either you voted for a guy you have no clue what he stands for, or you are lying. I suppose there is a third option and you don't really support anything Obama has done and just defend these decisions for the hell of it....but I highly doubt that.
They also used to say it was impossible to elect anyone from outside the Whig and Democrat Party....Then came along a guy named Lincoln.................

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393048/obama-the-begger/80#post_3494745
Obviously you do. You've spent 2 pages trying to sell the administrations BS claim about increasing oil drilling on federal lands. Why is it you always seem to change your argument once you are proven to be completely full of it?
It is a matter of national security that we become as close to self sufficient as possible regarding our energy. It isn't only about price. As big a hit as 6.00 a gallon gas would be on our economy not being able to get a sufficient amount would be far worse. We are nearly to the point where we wouldn't need middle east oil but if things blow up there we will find ourselves competing with Europe for our American sources of imports. Nobody really knows how much recoverable oil we have because as technology advances the target keeps moving. The advent of horizontal drilling was a major game changer.
You can't just snap your fingers and decrease use overnight. We are looking at Replacing the wife's car next year. At this point the leading contender is a VW Passat Turbo Diesel. Mid sized sedan that gets 40MPG. We were considering a Ford Escape EcoBoost. Better than 30 MPG and no Hybrid BS but we've decided the government has given the UAW enough of our money and we wont be buying a domestic brand name, just making sure the vehicle is built in the USA. US oil use has declined, mostly because of the crappy economy but there are a lot better options out there now for high mileage cars than there was even a few years ago. Demand will continue to drop as higher mileage standards are phased in over the next decade.
"No Hybrid BS"? I drive a Hyundai Sonata Hybrid, and I average 38MPG city/highway driving. A co-worker just bought a new Chevy Volt. The guy's become obsessed with what's known as "hyper miling". The average distance you're supposed to get on one charge is around 39 miles. Right now, he's averaging 50. It's about a 20 mile commute each way for his trek to work, and he says that he's had it for 3 weeks now and has only used 3 gallons of gas, and he's averaging 150MPG. He bought one of the upper-end models at a price of around $42,000, but he's getting a $7,500 direct credit on his tax return next year, so the cost comes down to $34,500. He also saves an average of $70/week in gas from his previous car. His ROI on this car as oppossed to buying even a Hybrid like mine is about 3 years (I paid $27,000 for my Sonata).
The only reason I posted what I did is because of your outlandish claims that Obama is somehow purposely trying to keep oil companies from drilling oil to formulate this evil plan to force everyone to go solar and wind. The fact is, there are more than enough leases available, but the oil diggers just don't want to spend the money right now to drill for it. Yet another Fox News "it's a national security issue" bleater. Like I said, that's the same phrase I hear from anyone who tries to justify why we need to drill for more oil in the US. I showed you statistics. If we got aggressive and started pumping oil out like crazy, and continue our current demand trends, that oil will be gone in 60 - 70 years. What then? Talk about "national security issuees." Senor Chavez would becaome our dearest friend. Hey maybe we can just invade and take over Canada, they have plenty. No, it is all about price. You're going to give some discount to power companies and large manufacturers to power their plants, or will they ghave to pay the same $8.00/gallon? The cost of goods will skyrocket, industries will come to a halt, unemployment rates will hit 40% (try going 15 miles one way on a bicycle to get to work), and chaos and anarchy will ensue. The Conservative/Republican base is already slamming the Feds about their new proposal of forcing auto manufacturers to have every vehicle run at least 52MPG by 2030 ( or somewhere around there). Now you say we're supposed to start thinking efficiency?