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: 14463
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 # 68.
#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.
Actually, air quality today is the best its been in the past century, nationally.
Maybe we can actually clean up the air to the point we can get rid of the blue haze for which the Blue Ridge mountains were named. I don't think driving hybrids will do it, though. Maybe if we cut down all the trees...
Blue haze from water vapor is one thing; a brown haze so thick we can't see the mountains a couple of miles away is another.
The blue haze is from the reactions of natural VOCs from trees such as isoprene to form ozone and fine particulate matter.
Just proves that I should not rely on memory. That being said, the majority of the Blue Ridge Mountain haze is not natural, but man made. ...research conducted in the Blue Ridge mountains has shown that naturally-occurring aerosols are responsible for no more than 20% of the total light extinction due to haze (Ferman et al. 1981). www.spc.noaa.gov/publications/corfidi/haze.html and There has always been some pollution affecting the views in the Southern Appalachians. In fact the Blue Ridge Mountain’s name originated because of the bluish haze caused by hydrocarbons released by trees into the atmosphere. However, over the last 50 years the visibility in the Southern Appalachians has decreased 40% in the winter and 80% in the summer because of man-made pollutants. Most of the pollution is caused by power plants, industry and automobiles. These pollutants come from both within and outside the Southern Appalachians, often traveling hundreds of miles. As the winds bring the pollutants to the Blue Ridge the mountains trap and concentrate them. While the decreased views are noticeable, there are also other impacts that cannot be seen.
When were the Blue Ridge Mountains so named? You think SUVs and coal fired power plants were causing it then?
If 40-80% of the cause is man made, will chopping down the trees make it go away?
The point is that there is a certain amount of background pollution that will always be there.
And the point of your point is that adding more pollution ain't no problem? I could be wrong about this cause I ain't no scientist, however my guess is that where "pollution" is natural, organisms in that environment have evolved to deal with it, and even thrive. When man made "pollutants" are added in large amounts to the mix, the system goes into a tail spin.
#69. To: lucysmom (#68)
Further lowering of ozone standards is pointless, other than to give government bureaucrats job security.
You just cited why the argument against global warming is always framed against the fringe of the issue and not the common sense aspect of it that the vast majority of scientists subscribe to.
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.
#25. To: no gnu taxes (#17)
#28. To: Badeye (#25)
#49. To: no gnu taxes (#28)
Maybe we can actually clean up the air to the point we can get rid of the blue haze for which the Blue Ridge mountains were named. I don't think driving hybrids will do it, though. Maybe if we cut down all the trees...
#53. To: lucysmom (#49)
Blue haze from water vapor
#63. To: no gnu taxes (#53)
The blue haze is from the reactions of natural VOCs from trees such as isoprene to form ozone and fine particulate matter.
#65. To: lucysmom (#63)
#66. To: no gnu taxes (#65)
You think SUVs and coal fired power plants were causing it then?
#67. To: lucysmom (#66)
#68. To: no gnu taxes (#67)
Replies to Comment # 68.
#72. To: lucysmom (#68)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 68.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]