New energy should come when the market says so

That's a nice sentiment, but reality has a way of getting in the way of idealism like that.

Even if we tapped every last oil reserve we have in this country, it would only last us a few years at the rate at which we use oil (20 million barrels a day as a country).

The market can't change the geological fact that most of the world's oil is not sitting under our soil, and in fact happens to be under the soil of those countries that run a cartel....which as you know distorts the idea of a market in the first place.

At its core, no matter if we were drilling every square inch of this country or not, there is not enough oil in this country to sustain our consumption for very long at the rate we use it. Without figuring out a way to get off oil, we are then going to be left to the pricing whims of a non-friendly cartel that could give 2 shits about whether or not oil is affordable for Americans as they would know we sucked dry every bit of oil resource under our own soil. That is called being up a creek without a paddle, and it is exactly a situation some people seem to be encouraging us to get into (if we aren't there already).

I'm going to revise my earlier post....this isn't even close to being adequate. At best it is weird, the text is available here:

http://www.newhavenregister.com/articles/2010/06/16/news/doc4c184f9627d4f201824265.txt

It is understandable how people on the right and the left found it insufficient.

I'm going to revise my earlier post....this isn't even close to being adequate.

Maybe on Day 7 last night's speech would have been adequate. Day 57, not so much.

bigmanbt;391479 wrote:Yes, BP should pay, after the oil stops gushing though. And this committee that Obama is establishing to dole out the money is just a way to circumvent the courts. In the real American way, the court system is the body of government that gets to decide financial punishments and divvy up the money. This escrow account gives more power to the executive branch and less and less power in the legislative and judicial. Slipping further and further to elected dictators in this country.

Big makes some very good points here.

I'd like to hear what Obama-supporters think about that point of view...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/06/obama-speech-react.html

Obama's speech: There's a pipe spewing a gazillion gobs of oil into the gulf, so let's build more windmills


Change we can believe in ............

IggyPride00;391521 wrote:Even if we tapped every last oil reserve we have in this country, it would only last us a few years at the rate at which we use oil (20 million barrels a day as a country).

Not necessarily the case at all. That would have been like saying 50 years ago there was only X amount of natural gas in the Gulf, and at the rate we are using it it will last about 50 years. Well guess what, here we are 50 years later and after having used all of that natural gas we now know there is more natural gas still in reserve in the Gulf than we have already used ............... by trillions of cubic of feet.

When you apply a static model to energy you are failing to account for exploration and technology advances that allow us to not only discover VASTLY MORE resources than we once recently thought existed nor the ability to extract such resources from places we once thought impossible.

We need to keep exploring, keep drilling, keep advancing technology and keep communist government out of the way that wants to put the means to production off limits to the citizens.

CenterBHSFan;391541 wrote:Big makes some very good points here.

I'd like to hear what Obama-supporters think about that point of view...

Not in the "Obama supporter" camp, but I agree in principle with the escrow account. There are alot of people on the Gulf, who through no fault of their own, are now left without the ability to make a living because of the oil spill. There needs to be an expedited system to get them some money, because litigating everything will take forever (which is often the tactic used to reduce claims by well funded companies) and by then it will be too late for those people.

IggyPride00;391559 wrote:Not in the "Obama supporter" camp, but I agree in principle with the escrow account. There are alot of people on the Gulf, who through no fault of their own, are now left without the ability to make a living because of the oil spill. There needs to be an expedited system to get them some money, because litigating everything will take forever (which is often the tactic used to reduce claims by well funded companies) and by then it will be too late for those people.

See page A13 of today's WSJ. Note that the focus is on helping the fishermen and small businesses affected by the inability to work. 19,000 claims have already been processed for over $53 million. It is not like they are standing still, but of course if the obama regime would rather the company expend valuable resources on defending itself in the wake of government sponsored lawyers and criminal charges while oil continues to gush, then that only means less resources for those who deservedly need reimbursed, and more delays.

I agree with Iggeypride....seemed like a speech was necessary earlier on IMO. I thought he spent too much time talking about cap and trade and I thought that was unfortunate...thought he should really just focus on the BP oil spill. I only caught at most the last half of the speech though.

But I also feel like some folks who say he should be doing more....I mean a lot of you guys are the same kind of people who believe the worst thing that could happen is BHO or someone from the MMS shows up and says "I'm from the government and I'm here to help"....and now you guys are using this as a time to complain about him never having been an executive; As far as I can tell, you should be happy he's never been an executive because just because he was one doesn't mean he wouldn't be a socialist executive. Personally I'd rather have him accept his incompetence and let the Oil Industry try to clean it up. Should the BHO administration have been more on BP? Maybe so, but those on the right certainly shouldn't believe that.

Could you imagine if in January Bammy Bo and creepy Henry Waxman stood on the hill and said that they needed to more closely inspect offshore drilling?

QuakerOats would've been on here saying "more anti-business, anti-economic growth, anti-country music, anti-capitalism policies amounting to......change we can believe in....................."

Bottom line; speech stunk, way too late, but as far as I'm concerned, all this whining by the right seems misplaced. I think people on the left have a better case for complaints about BHO considering many on their said would desire the feds to take over the job from private industry.

Also; seems to me that those on the right (not including libertarians who differ with conservatives on executive power) shouldn't mind this escrow account thing because if we're to follow John Yoo's interpretation of executive power under the Bush administration (I'm not being a bush blamer; just saying pointing to a prominent legal scholar who shaped the executive branch in a conservative administration) would allow for BHO to take far-reaching powers like this.

jhay78;391493 wrote:Doing what liberals do best.

Seriously, Obama focusing on future energy policy is tantamount to saying, "See, if only we had never become so dependent on oil, this disaster would've never happened." I don't want to hear/read the word "Progressive" when describing liberals/statists/socialists/Marxists EVER AGAIN.

what we needed was a true progressive who would have taken control over the situation from the getgo. Been on BPs tail right from the beginning with the threat of a govenment takeover. Would have motivated BP. And other petroleum giants would have begun to prepare real programs to prevent or truly control future spills.

Some of you are missing the point. Conservatives are upset because once again the federal government got in the way and fumbled the ball ----- instead of standing in the way of swift action proposed by the Louisiana governor and delaying permits etc...etc... the president should have told him that he trusted his judgement to do whatever was necessary to save his shores; and he should have swiftly accepted all the help of other nations who offered assistance in the form of equipment and manpower (instead of hiding behind the Jones Act), and he should have delegated more authority to those on the ground who can get something done, instead of throwing lawyers at the situation and filing criminal charges. He should have enlisted everyone into help BP help solve the problem, instead of baiting them, threatening them, and using the situation for advancing his political agenda. At a time like this he is to rally the people and focus solely on the resources to help solve the problem, and the methodology to implement solutions .... instead it is a power grab by the government. IT IS SICKENING as his everything he has done in the first 18 months. I don't know if we can survive 30 more months of his complete ineptitude.

bigmanbt;391479 wrote:Yes, BP should pay, after the oil stops gushing though. And this committee that Obama is establishing to dole out the money is just a way to circumvent the courts. In the real American way, the court system is the body of government that gets to decide financial punishments and divvy up the money. This escrow account gives more power to the executive branch and less and less power in the legislative and judicial. Slipping further and further to elected dictators in this country.

Why should the people harmed by this have to wait the months that it's going to take to stop the gushing?

This is going to end badly. Exxon still hasn't ponied up for the Valdez spill. How long do you think it's going to take BP to cough up the money for this one?

I Wear Pants;391659 wrote: This is going to end badly. Exxon still hasn't ponied up for the Valdez spill. How long do you think it's going to take BP to cough up the money for this one?

False.

Exxon has paid out $383 million, and obviously that would be in addition to funds already received two decades ago from insurance companies paying out claims for damages or business interruption etc...etc....

And, as already posted, BP has already paid out $53 million for over 19,000 claims thus far, and they have 700 agents operating 25 offices doing nothing but processing claims.

Not sure where you get your information ............... Rahm ??

$382 million isn't anything.

They should have paid for the whole thing. Which was in the billions of dollars.

And it took them until 2008 to finally have to pay that because they appealed every damned judgment so many times. If you think Exxon did right by the Valdez spill than either you own a lot of Exxon stock or you're blind to the world.

Kenneth Feinberg, Obama's current "Pay Czar" has been tapped to handle escrow fund distribution payments.

BP has also announced it is suspending dividend payments. They were going to make a rumored special $10 billion dollar dividend payment to shareholders before the government stepped in and heavily discouraged that idea.

isadore;391613 wrote:what we needed was a true progressive who would have taken control over the situation from the getgo. Been on BPs tail right from the beginning with the threat of a govenment takeover. Would have motivated BP. And other petroleum giants would have begun to prepare real programs to prevent or truly control future spills.

No way would I ever support the hostile (even if just a threat of one) takeover of any company by the government.
Especially in a situation such as this.

I'd have to be pretty darned imaginative to think of an extreme where I might support it. It's just not the governments place to do so.

CenterBHSFan;391873 wrote:No way would I ever support the hostile (even if just a threat of one) takeover of any company by the government.
Especially in a situation such as this.

I'd have to be pretty darned imaginative to think of an extreme where I might support it. It's just not the governments place to do so.

I understand, you are supportive of the BPs hostile takeover of the Gulf of Mexico.

isadore;391898 wrote:I understand, you are supportive of the BPs hostile takeover of the Gulf of Mexico.

haha Isa! You're not gonna get me on that one, we've been through this type of stuff before.

I'm on to you!

CenterBHSFan;391909 wrote:haha Isa! You're not gonna get me on that one, we've been through this type of stuff before.

I'm on to you!

gosh CB just being conversational. Curious about your preference for international conglomerates over sealife and fishermen, wetlands, and pelicans. you know why you feel so sorry for corporate polluters over little kids who want to build sand castles. huh

QuakerOats;391642 wrote:Some of you are missing the point. Conservatives are upset because once again the federal government got in the way and fumbled the ball

This is bullshit man and you know it. BP has been cutting costs at the expense of safety to an extreme since Lord Browne was in charge and they had that refinery explosion in Texas City. And, the bottom line is that if the feds came in and bossed them around and cost them profits....you would cry to high heaven. Maybe the government dropped the ball on BP....but you wouldn't have it any other way.

BoatShoes;391920 wrote:This is bullshit man and you know it. BP has been cutting costs at the expense of safety to an extreme since Lord Browne was in charge and they had that refinery explosion in Texas City. And, the bottom line is that if the feds came in and bossed them around and cost them profits....you would cry to high heaven. Maybe the government dropped the ball on BP....but you wouldn't have it any other way.

Suffice to say there's PLENTY of blame to go around...The Feds and BP.

I Wear Pants;391689 wrote:$382 million isn't anything.

They should have paid for the whole thing. Which was in the billions of dollars.

And it took them until 2008 to finally have to pay that because they appealed every damned judgment so many times. If you think Exxon did right by the Valdez spill than either you own a lot of Exxon stock or you're blind to the world.

Insurance would obviously have paid the bulk of it ... that is why you have insurance. The $5 billion in punitive damages awarded by a jury was reduced, legally, and was finally paid out.

Putting all the energy companies out of business because of exceedingly rare accidental occurences would do more harm than good. I know this country is becoming a people who specialize in laying blame and seeking revenge, but in the end that serves no good purpose. We can do better.

isadore;391898 wrote:I understand, you are supportive of the BPs hostile takeover of the Gulf of Mexico.

If you could be a little bigger drama queen...that would be......awesome. :rolleyes:

QuakerOats;391981 wrote:Putting all the energy companies out of business because of exceedingly rare accidental occurences would do more harm than good. I know this country is becoming a people who specialize in laying blame and seeking revenge, but in the end that serves no good purpose. We can do better.

Agreed. The thing that concerns me the most in this unfortunate national tragedy is not so much the immediate devastating effects of the spill but the politicizing and rampant legalizing that we are seeing and will see for years to come.

Just ONCE I would love to see the public and private sectors work together as a team in situations like this for the common good and then toss rocks at one another AFTER the mess is fixed.

fish82;392008 wrote:If you could be a little bigger drama queen...that would be......awesome. :rolleyes:

Thank you for your support , I will try to put more effort into it.