Pretty much as I expected Clyde. Now try to follow along. It's NOT the price of the oil that Obama is controlling. The the usage of oil is what he is controlling with his disastrous policies.. For example: Ridiculous EPA standards are forced on a company that uses an oil product in it's manufacturing.. It cost the company millions to meet the standards. These costs are passed on to the consumer.. Now play fair and answer my questions. Tell me how his policies have not had an impact on the consumer and which of his energy policies have been successful?

Pretty much as I expected Clyde. Now try to follow along. It's NOT the price of the oil that Obama is controlling. The the usage of oil is what he is controlling with his disastrous policies.. For example: Ridiculous EPA standards are forced on a company that uses an oil product in it's manufacturing..

 

Such as?

Such as WHAT? I answered your question more than once. And your best response is to talk in circles, avoid my questions and only use part of my answer in your quote? Hilarious,but expected from far left liberals.

Such as WHAT? I answered your question more than once. And your best response is to talk in circles, avoid my questions and only use part of my answer in your quote? Hilarious,but expected from far left liberals.

Such as what policies? You keep saying the Presidents policies but haven't named one specific policy. Try giving specific examples of what your talking about. Not general statements.

Interestingly, the first Obama campaign ad was recently aired (the first one I've seen, anyway), and it claims that the President has reduced US dependency on foreign oil.

 

I guess this could be true if they are indicating he's doing so by reducing the amount of foreign oil that's coming in. :lol:

In all seriousness though the government has done good things to raise the standards for cars in regards to their gas mileage which is a big help but still feel more should be done to try to work with foreign oil producers to try to reduce the cost when possible.

Such as WHAT? I answered your question more than once. And your best response is to talk in circles, avoid my questions and only use part of my answer in your quote? Hilarious,but expected from far left liberals.

 

Such as what policies? You keep saying the Presidents policies but haven't named one specific policy. Try giving specific examples of what your talking about. Not general statements.

 

Seemed pretty obvious.

 

Cammando, you claimed that the POTUS, through the policies of the EPA, has negatively impacted business. I asked a simple question so that I can respond intelligently. If you made the claim there must be specific policies. I asked which ones you were citing.

Edited January 23, 201214 yr by mcpapa

Seemed pretty obvious.

 

Cammando, you claimed that the POTUS, through the policies of the EPA, has negatively impacted business. I asked a simple question so that I can respond intelligently. If you made the claim there must be specific policies. I asked which ones you were citing.

Lets start with his policy that gave the EPA unprecedented powers to expand the Clean Air Act to regulate anything that relates to the use of fossil fuels. I'll give more examples after you respond to my questions....

Lets start with his policy that gave the EPA unprecedented powers to expand the Clean Air Act to regulate anything that relates to the use of fossil fuels. I'll give more examples after you respond to my questions....

 

Now we're getting somewhere. However, there are years worth of EPA regs so let me speculate as to which ones you might be referring to so as to foster good discussion.

 

Are you talking about acts like MACT which regulate toxins at boilers or the Clean Air Transport Rule which regulates the release of toxins "downwind" which are both considered to come with very high expense?

 

Or are you talking about the recent EPA ruling that requires coal-burning plants to regulate greenhouse gases if they qualify as pollutants?

Obama hasn't been president for years so let's stick to the most recent ones. And since your questions where concerning oil, I'll go with that. New EPA moratoriums on off-shore drilling, fracking, and shale oil are costing us billions of barrels of recoverable oil under the guise of the Clean Water Act. Even though all water samples meet the standards set and re-set, Obama wants them raised again. The EPA, in its single-minded crusade to "fight" global warming, is trying to regulate greenhouse gases by proxy. The effect on the oil and gas industry could, all by itself, be enough to further delay the already overdue economic recovery by sending the economy sideways, if not south. There are an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil waiting to be tapped in the Arctic Ocean, off the coast of Alaska. But after spending five years and nearly $4 billion, Shell Oil Company has been forced to abandon its efforts to drill for oil in the region. The EPA's reason: 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. Simply ridiculous.

Now before we go farther. I'm ready for some answers to my questions or do you even have any? Again, which Obama energy policies have been successful? I'll give you a hint... ZERO.

Obama hasn't been president for years so let's stick to the most recent ones. And since your questions where concerning oil, I'll go with that. New EPA moratoriums on off-shore drilling, fracking, and shale oil are costing us billions of barrels of recoverable oil under the guise of the Clean Water Act. Even though all water samples meet the standards set and re-set, Obama wants them raised again. The EPA, in its single-minded crusade to "fight" global warming, is trying to regulate greenhouse gases by proxy. The effect on the oil and gas industry could, all by itself, be enough to further delay the already overdue economic recovery by sending the economy sideways, if not south. There are an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil waiting to be tapped in the Arctic Ocean, off the coast of Alaska. But after spending five years and nearly $4 billion, Shell Oil Company has been forced to abandon its efforts to drill for oil in the region. The EPA's reason: 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. Simply ridiculous.

Now before we go farther. I'm ready for some answers to my questions or do you even have any? Again, which Obama energy policies have been successful? I'll give you a hint... ZERO.

 

It's like herding cats.

 

Aren't the two I listed regarding fossil fuels like you mentioned previously? You're cool with the two I listed?

Obama hasn't been president for years so let's stick to the most recent ones. And since your questions where concerning oil, I'll go with that. New EPA moratoriums on off-shore drilling, fracking, and shale oil are costing us billions of barrels of recoverable oil under the guise of the Clean Water Act. Even though all water samples meet the standards set and re-set, Obama wants them raised again. The EPA, in its single-minded crusade to "fight" global warming, is trying to regulate greenhouse gases by proxy. The effect on the oil and gas industry could, all by itself, be enough to further delay the already overdue economic recovery by sending the economy sideways, if not south. There are an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil waiting to be tapped in the Arctic Ocean, off the coast of Alaska. But after spending five years and nearly $4 billion, Shell Oil Company has been forced to abandon its efforts to drill for oil in the region. The EPA's reason: 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. Simply ridiculous.

Now before we go farther. I'm ready for some answers to my questions or do you even have any? Again, which Obama energy policies have been successful? I'll give you a hint... ZERO.

 

You've thrown a few things out here so let's break them down.

 

Off-shore drilling ban: Let's assume the bans were lifted tomorrow. How soon do you think we would see any oil from them?

The EPA, in its single-minded crusade to "fight" global warming, is trying to regulate greenhouse gases by proxy. The effect on the oil and gas industry could, all by itself, be enough to further delay the already overdue economic recovery by sending the economy sideways, if not south. .

 

By the way, if you're going to cite a passage word-for-word supply the link. Makes it easier to get the full context.

 

http://www.forbes.com/2011/07/11/oil-drilling-economy_2.html

By the way, if you're going to cite a passage word-for-word supply the link. Makes it easier to get the full context.

 

http://www.forbes.com/2011/07/11/oil-drilling-economy_2.html

 

:lol:

There are an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil waiting to be tapped in the Arctic Ocean, off the coast of Alaska. But after spending five years and nearly $4 billion, Shell Oil Company has been forced to abandon its efforts to drill for oil in the region. T.

 

Link to the above:

 

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/04/25/epa-blocks-oil-drilling-in-alaska/

 

Here's the problem with the point above.

 

According to this:

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-offshore-drilling-make-us-independent&page=2

 

there are about 86B barrels of oil AVAILABLE TODAY for drilling. Why are we worried about 27B when there are 86B available to be drilled? It's too costly. You can only recover a fraction of available oil.

 

But let's assume we can tap some of it.

 

By 2030 it's estimated we could get 200k barrels per day. That represents less than 1% of total world consumption. That's going to solve our issues?

 

Remember, today we use about 20M barrels PER DAY. Estimates are that number goes to 20M to 23M per day by 2030. If it's 23M per day that's 8.4B per day just in the US. In other words, the fraction of the 86B or the 27B you cite that are actually recoverable will not last very long.

One more thing: When the economy really starts humming (whenever that might be) oil prices are going to skyrocket.