27 May 08
8 edits
Here is a web site that explaining both China and India have plans to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/09/news/economy/oil_cuba/index.htm
Legislators in the US are fuming that Cuba is opening up its continental shelf for oil and gas exploration while most of the US continental shelf outside the Gulf of Mexico, which extends 200 miles from shore, has been off limits for drilling since the early 1980's due to environmental concerns. Adding insult to injury, the US firms were invited to bid on the Cuban contracts, but were barred by the US government due to the country's longstanding economic embargo of communist Cuba that have been in place since the 1960's.
Not only has the US government failed to anticipate the current energy crisis it is enduring today but it forbids addressing the current crisis as it is now occuring by such actions as not drilling off its shores for oil. As we speak the current US economy is held hostage and gradually deteriorating due to the crisis. Also trucking businesses and air line companies face almost certain bankruptcy as the US government does NOTHING other than holding on to its antiquated domestic and foriegn policies.
Edit: The last one out of the next Congressional chamber please turn off the lights......that is unless they go off on their own. 😛
Is it just me or is it a little ironic the US government will go half way around the world and spend trillions of dollars to overthrow a dictator just to secure oil flows but will not do so much as drill 50 miles off its own coast line to help the situation.
27 May 08
Originally posted by whodeyIt is indeed shocking that Cuba, India and China are causing damage to the environment by drilling for oil. Two wrongs don't make a right, so the US shouldn't respond by doing the same thing on its own continental shelf.
Here is a web site that explaining both China and India have plans to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/09/news/economy/oil_cuba/index.htm
Legislators in the US are fuming that Cuba is opening up its continental shelf for oil and gas exploration while most of the US continental shelf outside the Gulf of Mexico, which exte ...[text shortened]... flows but will not do so much as drill 50 miles off its own coast line to help the situation.
27 May 08
Originally posted by whodeyi don't think the US didn't anticipate the energy crisis. they did occupy Iraq didn't they?
Here is a web site that explaining both China and India have plans to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/09/news/economy/oil_cuba/index.htm
Legislators in the US are fuming that Cuba is opening up its continental shelf for oil and gas exploration while most of the US continental shelf outside the Gulf of Mexico, which exte ...[text shortened]... flows but will not do so much as drill 50 miles off its own coast line to help the situation.
27 May 08
Originally posted by karnachzSo does drilling for oil cause evironmental damage 100% of the time? Is not the real danger an oil spill? What are the chances statistically for an oil spill? Also, assessing the oil spills that have occured, to what degree have they "hurt" the environement?
It is indeed shocking that Cuba, India and China are causing damage to the environment by drilling for oil. Two wrongs don't make a right, so the US shouldn't respond by doing the same thing on its own continental shelf.
I think nature is not given enough credit for having shown the capacity to clean up after us.
27 May 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziSo you are saying that their anticipation resulted in the occupation of Iraq? If so, their actions did not adress the issue well enough meet demand. I suppose your arguement points the finger at them as being short sided to a large degree. Of course, this is not suprising to me in the least.
i don't think the US didn't anticipate the energy crisis. they did occupy Iraq didn't they?
27 May 08
Originally posted by whodeyThis is a failure of Congress. Instead of finding solutions to our dependency on foreign oil, the Democratic controlled Congress prefers to drag our oil company executives before Senate panels and berate them or threaten to nationalize U.S. reserves, as Calif. Congresswoman Maxine Waters did last week.
Here is a web site that explaining both China and India have plans to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/09/news/economy/oil_cuba/index.htm
Legislators in the US are fuming that Cuba is opening up its continental shelf for oil and gas exploration while most of the US continental shelf outside the Gulf of Mexico, which exte ...[text shortened]... flows but will not do so much as drill 50 miles off its own coast line to help the situation.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/22/video-maxine-waters-threatens-to-nationalize-americas-oil-industry/
27 May 08
3 edits
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterSo how does this football work again? If you're a Republican its a Democrat controlled congress at fault, and if you are a Democrat with a Republican President, then its because the CEO's power of veto makes your congressional power void. I thought Bush had control of congress earlier on during his presidency. Why wasn't everything sorted out then? To busy getting the fat passed around to his Haliburton cronies?
This is a failure of Congress. Instead of finding solutions to our dependency on foreign oil, the Democratic controlled Congress prefers
Didn't Clinton have a Republican congress? So why not complain of their inaction when you're giving Bill a kick up the behind?
27 May 08
Originally posted by karnachzsend the troops in, I say....bomb the bar-stewarts.. how dare India and China do this... heck... look guys...we cant let dark skinned people do this....
It is indeed shocking that Cuba, India and China are causing damage to the environment by drilling for oil. Two wrongs don't make a right, so the US shouldn't respond by doing the same thing on its own continental shelf.
send in the B52s....the GIs... special forces....
all sing....one..two..three..
LAND OF THE BRAVE.... AND.... THAAAAA HOME OF THE FREEEEEEEEEEE!
USA!
USA!
USA!
USA!
27 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by spurs73Calm down their son. After all, China and India are simply trying to meet their energy needs. I don't think anyone faults them for that. I know I don't. Its called, taking care of business.
send the troops in, I say....bomb the bar-stewarts.. how dare India and China do this... heck... look guys...we cant let dark skinned people do this....
send in the B52s....the GIs... special forces....
all sing....one..two..three..
LAND OF THE BRAVE.... AND.... THAAAAA HOME OF THE FREEEEEEEEEEE!
USA!
USA!
USA!
USA!
27 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87As it has been pointed out to me earlier, both Bush Sr. and Clinton opposed drilling off shore for whatever reason. Of course, the only reason I can come up with is that there are "environmental" concerns. Even though this appears to be the reason I am sure there are other reasons behind the scenes. At least I am hoping their are.
So how does this football work again? If you're a Republican its a Democrat controlled congress at fault, and if you are a Democrat with a Republican President, then its because the CEO's power of veto makes your congressional power void. I thought Bush had control of congress earlier on during his presidency. Why wasn't everything sorted out then? To busy ge ngress? So why not complain of their inaction when you're giving Bill a kick up the behind?
I don't wish to make this a right against left slug fest because it is apparent to me that both parties have taken this direction together. As I see it, the direction this country has taken and is currently taking in terms of its energy livelyhood is the wrong one. Either this is done out of ineptitude or it is being done for other unspoken reasons behind the scenes or a combination thereof.
27 May 08
Originally posted by whodeyFFS...the US doesn't need anymoe oil from the Gulf of Mexico or Alaska or anywhere else for that matter.
Here is a web site that explaining both China and India have plans to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/09/news/economy/oil_cuba/index.htm
Legislators in the US are fuming that Cuba is opening up its continental shelf for oil and gas exploration while most of the US continental shelf outside the Gulf of Mexico, which exte ...[text shortened]... flows but will not do so much as drill 50 miles off its own coast line to help the situation.
Here's an EASY way to solve your oil usage crisis.......
STOP BUYING GIGANTIC SUV'S AND PICK UP TRUCKS YOU IDIOTS!!!!!
27 May 08
2 edits
Originally posted by uzlessWould it make you happy to know that I have neither? Unfortunatly, however, that does not seem to be helping the situation currently.
FFS...the US doesn't need anymoe oil from the Gulf of Mexico or Alaska or anywhere else for that matter.
Here's an EASY way to solve your oil usage crisis.......
STOP BUYING GIGANTIC SUV'S AND PICK UP TRUCKS YOU IDIOTS!!!!!
Do you think that SUV's are the real problem here? I once heard that one international plane flight uses more fuel than someone driving for an entire lifetime. I don't know if that is true but if it is should we then ban air travel?
Specifically, what is your objection to drilling in Alaska or the Guld of Mexico? I never said it was "the solution", rather, it would merely help the situation. I suppose not drilling in those areas would do nothing to ease the energy crisis and by doing so would bring closer your utopia of "SUVless" society. Is that what you are after?
As for trucks not being around, I think we are well on our way to that realization. Soon the trucking industry will all go bust and the cost of produce and other items in stores will reflect this situation rather soon I should think.
27 May 08
Originally posted by whodeyIf Americans as a whole would just stop driving vehicles that get 15 miles to the gallon instead of 30+ miles to the gallon like the rest of the world does, then your consumption rates would decrease dramatically in a nation of 400 million people.
Would it make you happy to know that I have neither? Unfortunatly, however, that does not seem to be helping the situation currently.
Do you think that SUV's are the real problem here? I once heard that one international plane flight uses more fuel than someone driving for an entire lifetime. I don't know if that is true but if it is should we then ban ...[text shortened]... produce and other items in stores will reflect this situation rather soon I should think.
I won't even get in the fact that your price of gas is WAY WAY cheaper than most of the world. In Canada we're paying 5 bux/gallon. Europe is even more than that.
27 May 08
Originally posted by whodeyYes, for what possible reason would someone with a large amount of something that is almost certain to increase in value over time want to hold onto it?
As it has been pointed out to me earlier, both Bush Sr. and Clinton opposed drilling off shore for whatever reason. Of course, the only reason I can come up with is that there are "environmental" concerns. Even though this appears to be the reason I am sure there are other reasons behind the scenes. At least I am hoping their are.