PDA

View Full Version : Drill Baby Drill?????



Raymond Little
08-19-2009, 10:54 PM
Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal broke a story regarding Americans funding off-shore drillingÖin Brazil. According to the paper, the United States is loaning Brazilís state-owned oil company, Petrobras, $2 billion in the form of either a direct loan or loan guarantees. Even more bizarre, we obviously donít have $2 billion sitting around; we are taking out a loan to make a loan, something similar to speculators and day-traders who put their house at risk to borrow to play the stock market.
The implications here are staggering. First, there is the environmental implications. Arenít we arguing over cap-and-trade because we are supposed to be part of a worldwide environment? How, then, does supporting the drilling of oil fit into that mantra? Doesnít that make the Obama Administration rather hypocritical, to say that itís awful for Americans to benefit from destructive drilling, but itís okay for those in Brazil?
Second, one of the greatest fears about cap-and-trade is that American jobs will be outsourced and American companies will move outside of the United States. Although this loan is not a direct result of cap-and-trade, by using American dollars to create foreign jobs when America is already struggling under such high levels of unemployment seems to be a signal that such worries are not a priority to Obama. Sarah Palin contends that such money could be used to drill inside the United States, thus reducing our dependence on foreign oil while creating many American jobs. But even if we never drill domestically, every amount of money that we spend is money that comes from the taxpayers pockets, which means Americans will pay higher taxes for Brazil to grow economically. If the Obama administration feels the need to frivol away my money, I would rather that money at least stay in America. I never thought a 35 hours American job would look so good. Washington has proven yet again just how little it values regular people in America.

Raymond Little
08-19-2009, 10:57 PM
Soros Hedge Fund Bought Petrobras Stake Worth $811 Million By Jeb Blount and Miles Weiss

Aug. 15 (Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aFHPjfeUvtl8)) -- Billionaire investor George Soros bought an $811 million stake in Petroleo Brasileiro SA in the second quarter, making the Brazilian state-controlled oil company his investment fund's largest holding. As of June 30, the stake in Petrobras, as the Rio de Janeiro-based oil producer is known, made up 22 percent of the $3.68 billion of stocks and American depositary receipts held by Soros Fund Management LLC, according to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

OK Lefties, please explain how this is a conspiricy by Bush/Cheney to enrich the coffers of Haliburton and all of their Cronies.:rolleyes:

Chicago Hope and Change

TXduckdog
08-20-2009, 07:55 AM
Just more lunacy from the loons.

Bayou Magic
08-20-2009, 07:57 AM
Don't worry, R. You'll get a response. It just takes a little time for the liberal spin to wind up.

fp

Gerry Clinchy
08-20-2009, 09:56 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/business/energy-environment/19climate.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

Interesting that the only story on oil that came through my email feed of NY Times was this one ... bludgeoning the US oil companies for fighting cap & trade requirements.

I think this discrepancy illustrates the inconsistency of our Federal govt. It's okay for other countries to operate without our controls, even if we lend them the $ to do it?

Another article regarded how in trying to "fix" the issue of property appraisals (that may have played a role in the real estate boom), the regulations put in place for appraisers are doing as much harm as good. And, for the record, the cost to the consumer for the appraisals for a mortgage have increased ... by about 1/3 or more. Wonder who's getting the extra bucks? I'm led to believe it is the "company" that the banks must use to order their appraisals. This company then takes a cut of the appraisal fee. So, if the appraiser is to get the same fee he got before, the fee has to be higher to pay for the extra middle-man in the process. There are some who might view these additional costs as a "tax" to pay for the new rule. And it definitely is levied on individuals of all income levels, whether they're buying a $100,000 or a $1,000,000 house.

Franco
08-20-2009, 10:09 AM
Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal broke a story regarding Americans funding off-shore drilling…in Brazil. According to the paper, the United States is loaning Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, $2 billion in the form of either a direct loan or loan guarantees. Even more bizarre, we obviously don’t have $2 billion sitting around; we are taking out a loan to make a loan, something similar to speculators and day-traders who put their house at risk to borrow to play the stock market.
The implications here are staggering. First, there is the environmental implications. Aren’t we arguing over cap-and-trade because we are supposed to be part of a worldwide environment? How, then, does supporting the drilling of oil fit into that mantra? Doesn’t that make the Obama Administration rather hypocritical, to say that it’s awful for Americans to benefit from destructive drilling, but it’s okay for those in Brazil?
Second, one of the greatest fears about cap-and-trade is that American jobs will be outsourced and American companies will move outside of the United States. Although this loan is not a direct result of cap-and-trade, by using American dollars to create foreign jobs when America is already struggling under such high levels of unemployment seems to be a signal that such worries are not a priority to Obama. Sarah Palin contends that such money could be used to drill inside the United States, thus reducing our dependence on foreign oil while creating many American jobs. But even if we never drill domestically, every amount of money that we spend is money that comes from the taxpayers pockets, which means Americans will pay higher taxes for Brazil to grow economically. If the Obama administration feels the need to frivol away my money, I would rather that money at least stay in America. I never thought a 35 hours American job would look so good. Washington has proven yet again just how little it values regular people in America.

First, how else is Oboma going to payoff Soros for getting him elected?

Second, if Cap and Trade is passed, all the major oil companes will move to other countries. Exxon/Mobile is already planning on moving most of thier corporate offices to Dubai and construction offices to Mexico if Cap and Trade is passed. Most of the big Oil Field support businesses will move out of the USA as well as this country becomes more hostile towards energy companies.

Nor_Cal_Angler
08-21-2009, 01:33 AM
What the hell does this oil company need our money for anyways...

they are the 7th most profitable corportation in the world...

18 billion in profits in 2008....

could you imagine what the nation would say if Bush were to lend this kind of money out to a foreign country durring a major recession...wait we know what was said......


go figure...all's quiet on the liberal, scandal, doubble talking front....

we have AMERICAN corporations BEGGING and PLEADING to use THEIR OWN money to drill here and they cant.....

we have AMERICAN corportations BEGGING and PLEADING to be allowed to retrofit their refinery's to make the crack process more cost effective to lower prices...and they want to use THEIR OWN MONEY and they cant...

NCA

dnf777
08-21-2009, 10:48 AM
could you imagine what the nation would say if Bush were to lend this kind of money out to a foreign country durring a major recession...wait we know what was said......


go figure...all's quiet on the liberal, scandal, doubble talking front....

NCA

My independent view of your comments are that they would be comical, if not having such real consequences.

Mr. Bush spent billions bombing Iraq, then spent trillions stabilizing and rebuilding, all while giving corporate welfare to the big oil companies, who pay less in effective tax rates than You and I!

Where was the outrage?

K G
08-21-2009, 11:31 AM
So....so much for that "change" platform, huh.....:rolleyes:

Bidniz as usual regards, :cool:

kg

code3retrievers
08-21-2009, 01:32 PM
My
Mr. Bush spent billions bombing Iraq, then spent trillions stabilizing and rebuilding, all while giving corporate welfare to the big oil companies, who pay less in effective tax rates than You and I!




I did not realize your tax rate was between 35% and 49%. Exxon had record profits but paid a record 49% in taxes on those profits. That is 49% going to your government and others around the world. They not only have to pay a corperate rate of 35% but must pay other taxes as well (drilling taxes / equipment and such)

Ultimately those taxes are passed on to the consumer (thats you) so if you would like them to pay more, that is no problem, as long as you don't whine to loudly when fuel is back in the $4.00 range.

By the way the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world (35%)which is why a lot of these big companies are moving their operations out of our country to countries with rates of 30% or less.

Nor_Cal_Angler
08-21-2009, 01:34 PM
My independent view of your comments are that they would be comical, if not having such real consequences.

Mr. Bush spent billions bombing Iraq, then spent trillions stabilizing and rebuilding, all while giving corporate welfare to the big oil companies, who pay less in effective tax rates than You and I!

Where was the outrage?

DNF...I love you man!!!!!!

You have again proven my point....I think your independent view is what allows you to see it.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

where WAS the outrage??? you ask: YOU ARE THE OUTRAGE!!!!!! your repeating the banter, MR Bush ( I think we still offer the respect of "President" even though they are not in office anymore, ie.President Clinton) spent billlions bombing....ya-da-ya-da

That is what you said right...see above for a refersher (kiinda like CE's..lol)

The protion you quoted of my post was INTENDED to make you think, here it is again

"could you imagine what the nation would say if Bush were to lend this kind of money out to a foreign country durring a major recession...wait we know what was said"

See you thought about it and came up with...."hey what was it I and MILLIONS of people were upset with....ohhhh yea, let me post it up for NCA to see, and then finish it off with "where was the outrage" ohhhh yea, wait, no this isnt gonna come out right.............duhhhhhoooo I did it again."

My point is WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE (funny huh, it's just my round about way of making you see the point)...this is a SCANDLE through and through and they are slipping it buy the american people...

yea you could say its on the rather small side of things at only 2 billion dollars, but it's that big toe in the cold water stuff I am worried about. To me this is just a Teaser.

NCA

dnf777
08-21-2009, 04:07 PM
DNF...I love you man!!!!!!

You have again proven my point....I think your independent view is what allows you to see it.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

where WAS the outrage??? you ask: YOU ARE THE OUTRAGE!!!!!! your repeating the banter, MR Bush ( I think we still offer the respect of "President" even though they are not in office anymore, ie.President Clinton) spent billlions bombing....ya-da-ya-da

That is what you said right...see above for a refersher (kiinda like CE's..lol)

The protion you quoted of my post was INTENDED to make you think, here it is again

"could you imagine what the nation would say if Bush were to lend this kind of money out to a foreign country durring a major recession...wait we know what was said"

See you thought about it and came up with...."hey what was it I and MILLIONS of people were upset with....ohhhh yea, let me post it up for NCA to see, and then finish it off with "where was the outrage" ohhhh yea, wait, no this isnt gonna come out right.............duhhhhhoooo I did it again."

My point is WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE (funny huh, it's just my round about way of making you see the point)...this is a SCANDLE through and through and they are slipping it buy the american people...

yea you could say its on the rather small side of things at only 2 billion dollars, but it's that big toe in the cold water stuff I am worried about. To me this is just a Teaser.

NCA

Glad I could help you prove your point. Whatever it is?! I'm sorry, but I couldn't follow your ecstatic victory speech there. I hope you have an extra pair of underwear nearby, after that. :razz:

BTW, check your etiquette at the keyboard....it is perfectly acceptable to refer to the POTUS as "Mr. so and so" or "President so and so". I always refer to Mr. Bush (sometimes just Bush, informally) But let me ask you, if you're so into proper respect for the President, do you mind when people use terms like "osama" or "obongo"?? Again, (get a clean pair of underwear ready just in case I sprung another one of your clever traps) where is your outrage? Seems pretty one-sided (ie partisan) to me!

Nor_Cal_Angler
08-21-2009, 09:11 PM
Glad I could help you prove your point. Whatever it is?! I'm sorry, but I couldn't follow your ecstatic victory speech there. I hope you have an extra pair of underwear nearby, after that. :razz:

BTW, check your etiquette at the keyboard....it is perfectly acceptable to refer to the POTUS as "Mr. so and so" or "President so and so". I always refer to Mr. Bush (sometimes just Bush, informally) But let me ask you, if you're so into proper respect for the President, do you mind when people use terms like "osama" or "obongo"?? Again, (get a clean pair of underwear ready just in case I sprung another one of your clever traps) where is your outrage? Seems pretty one-sided (ie partisan) to me!

I am speaking on my outrage, hence the reason for my post to this topic. I am Pissed that our President (Mr. Obama) is giving 2 billion dollars to a forigen country's state run oil corp. that by the way doesn't need my tax money because they already are the 7th most profitable corp. in the world. (as reported by there earnings statements of 2008, 18 billion in profit). All so they can drill for oil, when this nation will not see any of the oil and lets throw mogas (jet fuel) on the fire, they have already contracted with CHINA to send 58,000,000 barrels of their oil to them. Now lets drop NAPALM on the fire and tell the real kicker...MR OBAMA doent want our own corp's putting there OWN money up (not tax payers money)to explore and drill here on our own waters. But China can set oil rigs/drilling platforms as close as 7 miles off our california coast. Lets Cap and Trade our energy companies and American citizens so we can send that tax money else where to benifit some other company and country.

GET REAL.

NCA

M&K's Retrievers
08-21-2009, 11:19 PM
Did Not Finish 777 will be gone. When he has no responce, he's gone...

Bruce MacPherson
08-22-2009, 01:44 AM
I'm sure there is a perfectly logical reason for this and I suppose we will find out what it is as soon as the main stream press makes it up.

dnf777
08-22-2009, 04:41 AM
Did Not Finish 777 will be gone. When he has no responce, he's gone...

Name calling? Real mature M&K. I thought the survey showed nobody under 18 on this forum? If I , or anyone else doesn't reply in what you feel is a reasonable time, perhaps its because I'm out with my boys, or training the dog, and not worried about satisfying your notion of a prompt reply. Besides, I find it a waste of time to respond to emotional outbursts.

I have no argument with NCA. If what he is saying about funding foreign oil is true, I'm pissed too. I just like to see consistency in the outrage, that way I know its real, and not just partisan hatred.

I'll pm you about the name calling, as it doesn't belong on this list.

Gerry Clinchy
08-22-2009, 05:58 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/science/earth/22degrees.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th

Now this is confusing ... we loan $2 billion to a state-owned oil company to drill oil that they will sell back to us.

Then we want to set up a cap & trade system that raises the cost to U.S. citizens for all kinds of energy usage. You might say that this energy is the fuel to fight the recession.

Meanwhile, Brazil strips 700 acres of rain forest in five months, and seem to have no power to control the laws they have in effect in that regard. A Brazilian farmer turns down $150,000/year to do nothing (i.e. to not strip 12,500 acres of rain forest to plant soybeans).

For those who feel strongly about global warming, this should be a bit of an outrage.

So the U.N. wants to pay more to people not to farm this land, but the wise farmer has already said that the money would only be attractive if the land preserved were too difficult to farm anyhow.

I can't document who came up with this idea of trading carbon emissions to begin with, but whoever it was has a screw loose ... don't care whether it was a D or an R. Since they do it in Europe, maybe it was someone from over there.

If the U.N. is going to spend $ (a lot of it U.S. money), I'd rather see them provide vaccines for children in third world countries than throw it away on something like this.

subroc
08-22-2009, 07:09 AM
My independent view...

Really?

All evidence to the contrary.

many like to feature themselves as independent or centrist or middle of the road, when in reality the positions they stake out are clearly right or left.

Raymond Little
08-22-2009, 08:02 AM
OK, boys and girls lets follow the money here. Georgie Soros buys a 22% stake in Petrobras right before the USA and His "Boy" Obama send them 2 "Billion" for exploration??:rolleyes:
Still no fake outrage from the "LEFTISTS" on this board?;)

Roger Perry
08-22-2009, 09:44 AM
Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal broke a story regarding Americans funding off-shore drillingÖin Brazil. According to the paper, the United States is loaning Brazilís state-owned oil company, Petrobras, $2 billion in the form of either a direct loan or loan guarantees. .


Did anyone consider that if we bought oil from Brazil our dependence on Venezuela's oil will be reduced and just maybe Hugo Chavez would be drummed out as the "President" of Venezuela?

code3retrievers
08-22-2009, 12:06 PM
Did anyone consider that if we bought oil from Brazil our dependence on Venezuela's oil will be reduced and just maybe Hugo Chavez would be drummed out as the "President" of Venezuela?

"Brilliant" How about a better plan. Let us become energy independent which would include our own drilling.

At least we could regulate the environmental impact instead of shifting it to other parts of the world. Just like a liberal we want it, but not in my back yard.

Roger Perry
08-22-2009, 12:25 PM
"Brilliant" How about a better plan. Let us become energy independent which would include our own drilling.

At least we could regulate the environmental impact instead of shifting it to other parts of the world. Just like a liberal we want it, but not in my back yard.

Right now the U.S. is the biggest importer of Venezuelan oil. We would have to sink billions of $ into searching for and drilling for oil. Venezuela is already pumping oil.

code3retrievers
08-22-2009, 12:42 PM
Roger,

Your point is? You are saying do it right now in Brazil. Why not do it here. We know, for the most part, where and how much oil we have we just have to let them drill.

Drill here now instead of shifting the to burdens and profits to other countries.

Why do you care if we get our oil from Chavez, I thought all liberals were fans of Chavez?
Most of your heroes seem to be in love with the man and Obama is using his play book.

Raymond Little
08-22-2009, 12:49 PM
Did anyone consider that if we bought oil from Brazil our dependence on Venezuela's oil will be reduced and just maybe Hugo Chavez would be drummed out as the "President" of Venezuela?
There's the "Spin" I have been waiting for from the Leftist.:rolleyes:
"It depends what the definition of is, is".
"I was for the war before I was against the war"

You people just crack me up most days;-), please go to China, N Korea, Iran,
and work on Hope and Change. Give me a call and let me know how your doin in a month or two.


If You Don't Like It Here Regards

Roger Perry
08-22-2009, 01:09 PM
Roger,

Your point is? You are saying do it right now in Brazil. Why not do it here. We know, for the most part, where and how much oil we have we just have to let them drill.


U.S. HAS MASSIVE OIL RESERVES

There is an estimated 2 trillion barrels of oil buried beneath parts of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Geologists, petroleum companies and the federal government have known about these massive deposits for nearly a century. The trouble has always been: how do you get at it?

It is believed that the shale deposits in the Green River region of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming are holding the equivalent of approximately 1.5 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil. Called �oil shale� or �shale oil,� according to scientists and petroleum companies, much of it cannot be recovered with current technology due to the costly processing involved and the depth of the deposits buried beneath the Rocky Mountains.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/u_s__has_massive_oil.html

Martin
08-22-2009, 01:33 PM
"Brilliant" How about a better plan. Let us become energy independent which would include our own drilling.

At least we could regulate the environmental impact instead of shifting it to other parts of the world. Just like a liberal we want it, but not in my back yard.

DRILL HERE DRILL NOW! SCREW THE REST OF THE WORLD. LET'S TAKE CARE OURSELVES FIRST!

I thought obama was for keeping jobs here and not sending them elswhere.

DRILL HERE DRILL NOW!

SINCERELY,
Martin

badbullgator
08-22-2009, 03:10 PM
Right now the U.S. is the biggest importer of Venezuelan oil. We would have to sink billions of $ into searching for and drilling for oil. Venezuela is already pumping oil.


So instead you are good with sinking BILLIONS into another country that will then sell us oil rather than our own?

Nor_Cal_Angler
08-22-2009, 04:01 PM
U.S. HAS MASSIVE OIL RESERVES

There is an estimated 2 trillion barrels of oil buried beneath parts of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Geologists, petroleum companies and the federal government have known about these massive deposits for nearly a century. The trouble has always been: how do you get at it?

It is believed that the shale deposits in the Green River region of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming are holding the equivalent of approximately 1.5 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil. Called �oil shale� or �shale oil,� according to scientists and petroleum companies, much of it cannot be recovered with current technology due to the costly processing involved and the depth of the deposits buried beneath the Rocky Mountains.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/u_s__has_massive_oil.html




From your cited reference:

"Shell has reportedly been studying ways to extract oil shale on land in Colorado since the 1990s. The company said it hopes to have a full-blown operation by 2010.
Two others reportedly still in the running include Chevron and the Texas-based EGL Resources. Industry experts are optimistic that, with help from the government, new techniques can be developed to economically extract oil from the shale deposits and process it with relative ease."

(Issue #20, May 15, 2006)

HERE IS THE PROBLEM.

Government WILL NOT HELP...they would rather send the money else where....my arguement is and will be that these companies (I KNOW CHEVRON FOR SURE) is waiting for government to simply allow them to do it, they dont need the money they just need the OK.

THEY CANT GET IT....

NCA

code3retrievers
08-22-2009, 07:46 PM
U.S. HAS MASSIVE OIL RESERVES

There is an estimated 2 trillion barrels of oil buried beneath parts of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Geologists, petroleum companies and the federal government have known about these massive deposits for nearly a century. The trouble has always been: how do you get at it?

It is believed that the shale deposits in the Green River region of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming are holding the equivalent of approximately 1.5 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil. Called �oil shale� or �shale oil,� according to scientists and petroleum companies, much of it cannot be recovered with current technology due to the costly processing involved and the depth of the deposits buried beneath the Rocky Mountains.

[SIZE=2]http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/u_s__has_massive_oil.html


/SIZE]

Again what is your point? Does the US not have coast line as well as Alaska to drill in? Oh wait, the left does not want to see oil rigs from their summer homes. Just like the left does not want clean wind farms near their property either. The Dems need to come up with solutions not more government take over. Oil will soon be their next target for government take over. Oil extraction technology is progressing every year and we could soon be able to extract shale type of oil.