United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Obama's Big Lie -- We’re drilling in deepwater because we’re running out of places to drill
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.co ... logging-the-obama-bp-beatdown/
Published: Jun 16, 2010
Author: gatewaypundit
Post Date: 2010-06-16 10:36:49 by no gnu taxes
Keywords: None
Views: 14443
Comments: 78
Two vacations, a half dozen parties, and several rounds of golf later, Barack Obama finally addresses the nation on the BP oil spill. Lie #1: We’re drilling in deepwater because we’re running out of places to drill. Not True. For decades, Democrats have blocked efforts to responsibly develop this nation’s energy resources, transforming vast areas of opportunity into “The No Zone.” Over the past 30 years: Democrats have blocked the development of new sources of petroleum. Democrats have blocked drilling in ANWR. Democrats have blocked drilling off the coast of Florida. Democrats have blocked drilling off of the east coast. Democrats have blocked drilling off of the west coast. Democrats have blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast. Democrats have blocked building oil refineries. Democrats have blocked clean nuclear energy production. Democrats have blocked clean coal production. But, they’re funding projects in Brazil. The Wall Street Journal reported: The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil’s Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil’s planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan. This radical president is shameless. He’s pushing for more regulations and his cap-&-tax energy policy that will cause energy costs to necessarily skyrocket. Now he’s quoting 
Reverend Wright a fisherman’s prayer.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 60.
#2. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
And the industry has been shutting down existing refineries. "In the mid-1990s too much refining capacity, not too little, concerned the nation's major oil companies. At that time, the oil and gas industry faced what they termed "excess refining capacity," a circumstance they viewed as a financial liability that drove down overall profit margins. The industry reduced the total amount of potential supply by closing down more than 50 refineries in the past decade. Since 1995 alone, 24 refinery closings have taken nearly 830,000 barrels of oil per day." www.safehaven.com/article...soline-bubble-manipulated Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, fought the closure of a refinery in Bakersfield. I am writing today to express my concern over Shell´s plans for the Bakersfield refinery. Based on our telephone conversation, it was clear to me that Shell would prefer to sell the refinery to closing it. I understand that there are several willing buyers out there for the Bakersfield refinery. Yet, I have heard that Shell has not made a good faith effort to sell the refinery. Specifically, I have heard that Shell has not created a "data room" with access to potential buyers, which indicates to some buyers that Shell intends to close the facility and not offer it for sale. Further, I have been told that Shell has never offered the assets for sale, has not prepared a prospectus or offering document, and has not engaged an investment banker to negotiate a sale.
Democrats Attack Bill to Boost Refineries http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8D3903O1&show_article=1
Did you read the article? There was a lot more in the proposed bill than just building refineries, reducing air quality standards for one.
And what do you think is the excuse these moonbats ALWAYS use for blocking refineries? They are pandering to loons. Air quality standards are a joke and are becoming even more so.
For a so called self described expert in the field you would think maybe reciting an example might show a little more professionalism. You evidently never visited Santa Ana in the sixties, the joke then was one needed a quide dog.
You evidently never visited Santa Ana in the sixties, the joke then was one needed a quide dog. Well, this ain't the 60s is it. For example, for the longest time the ozone standard was 120 ppb for a one hour average. Now, if you an 85 yr old with emphysema, that ozone level might be problematic, but for 99.9% of the population it's not going to create any issues. It's true that places such as the LA basin could have levels much higher than that which could be more damaging and some air quality controls were warranted. However while that area might have had levels as much as 300 ppb, it still doesn't compare to areas such as Mexico City with levels of 800 ppb. But back to that 120. By the mid 90s, there were only a few areas left that couldn't comply with that standard. In short, air quality in the US was good. However, EPA couldn't have that. After all, attainament areas are subject to much less stringent Rules, and there is Federal Government job security at issue here. So the standards were changed -- to an 80 ppb for an 8 hr average. This sent areas which had previously been in attainment to non-attainment. But areas now are becoming in attainment with that, too. So EPA is changing that to 70 ppb, with 65 ppb proposed. Do you see a pattern here? There is no reason to lower these standards further. People are being conned into believeing their air is bad when it is not.
I sure you would have enjoyed seeing the air you breathed. Yet somehow air quality improved, must have been by some more of your magic hocus pocus.
I didn't say it didn't improve; in fact, I said just the opposite. We are at the point where air quality is actually good just about everywhere in the US. You think at this point, they would be scaling back on the demands of industry and simply go into maintenance mode. The opposite is happening; they are putting their foot down harder and people are being scared with these bogus "bad air" arguments which simply aren't true anymmore. Yes, the air quality standards are a joke.
As long as we have corporations willing to dump their crap into the waterways and air I guess we will always need these regs which in turn gives bureaucrats lots of power. Hopefully the regs can just be tweaked as needed, but no one gives up power voluntarily.
FWIW, the EPA will say they had to make the changes because they were sued. Which is laughable, because the EPA is hardly at odds with the goofballs bringing forth these suits.
They were sued because during the last adminstration they were told to stand down.
The career bureaucrats at EPA most definitely did not like Bush because he didn't by into to all the bullshit. I guarantee you the organization as a whole is firmly in bed with those kooks.
So these kooks are the reason that we have clean air and it's why we no longer need clean air? You taking logic lessons from Boofer?
At one time, there were real concerns. That's not true anymore. We don't need a 65 ppb national ozone standard.
Fortunately, most everyone disagrees with you.
most everyone has no clue what an "ozone concentration of 65 ppb" even means. Most everyone I know who works in the enviromental field know it's a joke. But then again, I don't associate with the loons.
You seem to know bureaucrats and not scientists. I also sense that you know some science but not on a level that would reveal an advanced degree. That said, I'll confess that I did not know about it. I've googled and have been reading some. The recommendation to go to 65 by 2020 seemed to have a very wide consensus of agreement within the scientific community. Canada is already there...
Here's somebody who gets it: A notable pattern is becoming apparent: EPA moves the goalposts every time most of the nation meets the then-present ozone standard. The evidence shows this is not a health issue at all, but rather EPA's strategy to maintain its substantial regulatory power over the American public. A review of the historical context of ozone regulation confirms this agenda. http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/22367/New_EPA_Rules_Punish_Areas_for_Ozone_Improvement.html some science but not on a level that would reveal an advanced degree. I'm not sure what somebody with an "advanced degree in science" is supposed to know, but I am a registered professional chemical engineer.
Registered with what? Your local parole board? I believe the word you are looking for is LICENSED.
Either term is acceptable, goof.
As you continue to show your ignorance in your chosen field. Why are you unemployed?
Attachment A-Scope of Work requires the Resident Engineer to be a Registered Professional Civil Engineer in the State of California. http://www.sdcwa.org/opps/client_find_project_faq.phtml?proj_name=Construction+Management+As-Needed+Support+Services&proj_id=392 Arizona Registered Professional Engineer, Certification No. 29022 http://www.californiacustomdocks.com/ JOHN O’DOHERTY, P.E., California Registered Professional Engineer – C46044 http://www.pettit-ea.com/key_personal.html ****************** How many dozen more examples do you need to convince yourself you are an idiot?
I'm convinced you can cut and paste well and impersonate an engineer that will pass muster with the stupids.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22registered+chemical+engineer%22&fr=ush-mail&ygmabtsrchbtn=Web+Search
#61. To: no gnu taxes (#60)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestDemocrats have blocked building oil refineries.
#3. To: lucysmom (#2)
#4. To: no gnu taxes (#3)
Democrats Attack Bill to Boost Refineries
#5. To: lucysmom (#4)
There was a lot more in the proposed bill than just building refineries, reducing air quality standards for one.
#6. To: no gnu taxes (#5)
Air quality standards are a joke and are becoming even more so.
#8. To: mininggold (#6)
For a so called self described expert in the field you would think maybe reciting an example might show a little more professionalism.
#12. To: no gnu taxes (#8)
Well, this ain't the 60s is it.
#17. To: mininggold (#12)
I sure you would have enjoyed seeing the air you breathed. Yet somehow air quality improved, must have been by some more of your magic hocus pocus.
#20. To: no gnu taxes (#17)
didn't say it didn't improve; in fact, I said just the opposite. We are at the point where air quality is actually good just about everywhere in the US. You think at this point, they would be scaling back on the demands of industry and simply go into maintenance mode. The opposite is happening; they are putting their foot down harder and people are being scared with these bogus "bad air" arguments which simply aren't true anymmore.
#23. To: mininggold (#20)
#30. To: no gnu taxes (#23)
FWIW, the EPA will say they had to make the changes because they were sued.
#33. To: war (#30)
#36. To: no gnu taxes (#33)
#38. To: war (#36)
#39. To: no gnu taxes (#38)
#41. To: war (#39)
most everyone disagrees with you.
#42. To: no gnu taxes (#41)
(Edited)
Most everyone I know who works in the enviromental field know it's a joke.
#45. To: war (#42)
#47. To: no gnu taxes (#45)
I'm not sure what somebody with an "advanced degree in science" is supposed to know, but I am a registered professional chemical engineer.
#51. To: mininggold (#47)
#52. To: no gnu taxes (#51)
Either term is acceptable, goof.
#56. To: mininggold (#52)
#59. To: no gnu taxes (#56)
(Edited)
How many dozen more examples do you need to convince yourself you are an idiot?
#60. To: mininggold (#59)
search for "registered chemical engineer"
Replies to Comment # 60. I'm convinced you can cut and paste well and impersonate an engineer that will pass muster with the stupids.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 60.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]