I Wear Pants wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote: Hey, we're getting off the main topic.

While I still think I'm right (haha) the fact is, that a large portion of this society, for numerous reasons, will never be happy with President Obama.

Even if this act is a good move.

Agree or disagree?

Agree with that.

Now see, Pants? We're getting somewhere now!

Here's another question for ya:

Out of that "large portion of society" that we're discussing, many of those had their feelings cemented by Obama's actions or inactions?

Agree or Disagree or Not sure?

Little bit more cloudy on that one because of Glenn Beck, etc.

But I'll bite. Agree.

Glenn Beck?

lol

CenterBHSFan wrote: Glenn Beck?

lol

I was talking about the people in that video that was posted where people are protesting but can't really say why.

It isn't most people that are angry, not even close. Which is why I said I agreed still.

IE: A very small amount of people are stupid enough to take media at face value (both sides).

So yes, I agree that those people have their opinions cemented because of inaction or action on Obama's part/under his watch.

I Wear Pants wrote:

tk421 wrote: Even if they do drill, it's not going to help us. When's the last time we built a new refinery? We don't have the capacity.

A new refinery wouldn't be fiscally responsible. By the time you'd get a ROI we'd definitely be past peak oil (some argue we are or are very close) and we'll definitely have a better medley of energy production options by then (wind and solar especially considering their rate of improvement as well as nuclear).

This a response to this post and your next post, which states that the Gov. doesn't own or operate refineries.

Shouldn't we let the private oil companies decide whether it is fiscally responsible (for them) to build a new refinery?

So why was this such a bad idea, according to the democrats, but now since Obama wants to do it, it is a good idea???

This is the kind of stuff that makes me hate politics.

People who are of voting age and don't vote don't get to bitch

Ghmothwdwhso wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

tk421 wrote: Even if they do drill, it's not going to help us. When's the last time we built a new refinery? We don't have the capacity.

A new refinery wouldn't be fiscally responsible. By the time you'd get a ROI we'd definitely be past peak oil (some argue we are or are very close) and we'll definitely have a better medley of energy production options by then (wind and solar especially considering their rate of improvement as well as nuclear).

This a response to this post and your next post, which states that the Gov. doesn't own or operate refineries.

Shouldn't we let the private oil companies decide whether it is fiscally responsible (for them) to build a new refinery?

Um, that's exactly what happens?

ManO'War wrote: So why was this such a bad idea, according to the democrats, but now since Obama wants to do it, it is a good idea???

This is the kind of stuff that makes me hate politics.

You'll never have ANY pro-Obama/anything democrat poster give you a straight-forward answer on this.

I Wear Pants wrote:

Ghmothwdwhso wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

tk421 wrote: Even if they do drill, it's not going to help us. When's the last time we built a new refinery? We don't have the capacity.

A new refinery wouldn't be fiscally responsible. By the time you'd get a ROI we'd definitely be past peak oil (some argue we are or are very close) and we'll definitely have a better medley of energy production options by then (wind and solar especially considering their rate of improvement as well as nuclear).

This a response to this post and your next post, which states that the Gov. doesn't own or operate refineries.

Shouldn't we let the private oil companies decide whether it is fiscally responsible (for them) to build a new refinery?

Um, that's exactly what happens?

Except with all the regulations on environmental standards, it takes like 10 years to open refineries, and the costs are enormous because of the environmental legislations.

This is all a ploy by Obama to try and get something related to climate change passed.

He knows that such an effort is DEAD ON ARRIVAL unless he can work out some sort of coalition of folks. To do that, he's going to have to give on some areas he didn't agree with before -- like offshore drilling.

He can stand there and say he's giving up this aspect in hopes of achieving some other goals, but the truth is that he also knows his buds in the whacked out environmentalist groups will file lawsuits and other paperwork that will delay any oil exploration from happening until long after he's out of politics.

I hope the conservatives and those Democrats who haven't fallen for the cap & trade baloney will not fall for this trap. We should be drilling more, offshore and elsewhere, anyway -- any movement on cap & trade should be done totally separate without any ties to that or other energy development.

Let it fail on its own (lack of) merits.

bigmanbt wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

Ghmothwdwhso wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

tk421 wrote: Even if they do drill, it's not going to help us. When's the last time we built a new refinery? We don't have the capacity.

A new refinery wouldn't be fiscally responsible. By the time you'd get a ROI we'd definitely be past peak oil (some argue we are or are very close) and we'll definitely have a better medley of energy production options by then (wind and solar especially considering their rate of improvement as well as nuclear).

This a response to this post and your next post, which states that the Gov. doesn't own or operate refineries.

Shouldn't we let the private oil companies decide whether it is fiscally responsible (for them) to build a new refinery?

Um, that's exactly what happens?

Except with all the regulations on environmental standards, it takes like 10 years to open refineries, and the costs are enormous because of the environmental legislations.

That's probably because people don't want a freakin' refinery in their neighborhood. Even with jobs being as scarce as they are I imagine there are few places that are even possible of putting a refinery in without torches and pitchforks being busted out by the locals.

I'll take a refinery in my community. Sign me up. I am sure the people in my small town will agree, that's a lot of tax revenue and job creation in an area where unemployment is at 12%.

Even if they do drill, it's not going to help us. When's the last time we built a new refinery? We don't have the capacity.

There is too much refining capacity, as the industry can keep up with present demand at only 82% refinery utilization rate right now. In fact, that is why there has been multiple refinery closures in the past year, with further capacity reductions planned.

The big red herring is that oil is some commodity that's price is determined by supply and demand.

Truth is oil is nothing more than an asset class right now and no amount of drilling is going to bring the price down.

In the past year the world has been awash in oil, there is massive spare capacity as far as the eye can see, unemployment is at 10%, demand is down.......and gasoline has managed to increase by 90 cents a gallon and the oil prices has more than doubled.

That should tell anyone who is skeptical all they need to know about how much supply/demand is impacting the oil price right now. It is irrelevant.

bigmanbt wrote: I'll take a refinery in my community. Sign me up. I am sure the people in my small town will agree, that's a lot of tax revenue and job creation in an area where unemployment is at 12%.

Also a bunch of horrible smells and smog and the destruction of all the nice trees and such. No thank you.

I Wear Pants wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: I'll take a refinery in my community. Sign me up. I am sure the people in my small town will agree, that's a lot of tax revenue and job creation in an area where unemployment is at 12%.

Also a bunch of horrible smells and smog and the destruction of all the nice trees and such. No thank you.

I'd rather have a job than trees. Sorry.

I Wear Pants wrote: Also a bunch of horrible smells and smog and the destruction of all the nice trees and such. No thank you.

[size=large]Here is one in the desert in Iraq. Hard to find trees in the desert but check out the tree flourishing right next to it.[/size]




[size=large]Or how about this one in the UK. Hell they know how to do it. They got farmland right next door. Check out the beef cow on the bottom left lounging in the lush green pasture.[/size]




[size=large]Or this one in Canada. Wow you can hardly make it out with all those trees around it.[/size]



[size=large]Look at all the lush green around the Chamette oil refinery in Lousianna. Yes that is a refinery in the backround.[/size]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/03/mitch-epstein-power-plants-photographs

tk421 wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: I'll take a refinery in my community. Sign me up. I am sure the people in my small town will agree, that's a lot of tax revenue and job creation in an area where unemployment is at 12%.

Also a bunch of horrible smells and smog and the destruction of all the nice trees and such. No thank you.

I'd rather have a job than trees. Sorry.

Don't worry you can have both.

Touche on the tree thing.

Though I still like to breath clean air. And it's not like a refinery in Ohio would be particularly convenient for anyone. They tend to build those things near ports.

I Wear Pants wrote: Touche on the tree thing.

Though I still like to breath clean air. And it's not like a refinery in Ohio would be particularly convenient for anyone. They tend to build those things near ports.

Bring it down the St. Lawrence Seaway baby. lol

Tonight on Stossel a member from the CATO Institute debunked the myth that even if we open Alaska up and all the offshore deposits, we'd still only produce 1 million barrels/day, and there are currently 88 million barrels/day produced right now. This would mean we'd only increase our share of the world's oil by a little more than 1%, and it really wouldn't provide energy independence like we hope it would. He did however say we should do it, because it would bring in $2 trillion dollars, they estimate of course. He was very informative, maybe I'll try and provide a link to it. It's rerun on Fox Business pretty much all weekend.

Bring a refinery to Steubenville...we will even change our nickname to the Oilers!

ManO'War wrote: Bring a refinery to Steubenville...we will even change our nickname to the Oilers!

Findlay has (or had) dibs on that one.

Sorry, guys!

Bellaire needs it worse than Steuby or Findlay!