Reid Loses—You Win! »
Posted By Happy31 1 year, 2 months ago in Political NewsIn the midst of the worst financial crisis in living memory, Harry Reid, Majority Leader of the US Senate, quietly tried to derail the push for energy independence, one of the few things what will actually help our economy, by slipping a prohibition against shale oil exploration into another bill. Reid tried, he failed and we name names.
Read Full Story at americasbestcompanies.com »
1336 Views Share Story 23 Comments Report
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 43 (view all)
-
64%
Wolfie20071 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA
Reply
In layman’s terms, Reid tried to extend the ban on shale oil exploration and development in the Rockies at a time when our economic future is hanging in the balance. Apparently, to Harry Reid, economic prosperity equals massive amounts of money going overseas and obscene energy prices for private citizens. If this underhanded attempt to destroy any hope of energy independence does anything, it shows that the Senate Majority Leader’s strings are pulled by radical environmentalists who aren’t concerned with such bread and butter issues as high gas prices when there are as of yet undiscovered weeds and the occasional frog to protect. More than that, this action shows that Reid has no interest in the needs of the citizens he supposedly serves.-
64%
HateKoolAid1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Do you cons even know what shale oil mining entails?? Didn't think so. You morons just parrot whatever your gurus tell you to repeat. Shale oil extraction is very cost prohibitive. That is one reason Shell has already decided to cancel one permit application. You have to literally cook the shale at a high enough temperature to 'melt' the oil out, that increases the threat of ground water contamination so they have to freeze the ground water underneath any mining operation. The latest cost estimates put the cost of shale oil at over $100 a barrel minimum. That's why you won't see any mass production of the stuff in your conservative lifetimes. So Reid didn't commit any 'crime' after all.
Reply -
0%
obiefrommuskogee1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"We will keep much more money at home, create jobs, lower energy prices and starve those regimes who use petrodollars to fund terrorist organizations."
Reply
These are all assumptions, most of them false. 1. Lower energy prices-- say goodbye to low energy prices> with the world's demand for oil what it is , supply will barely be able to keep up-- the more that gets produced the more China and other countries will demand. So dream on. 2. Starve those regimes?/ Like I said, the oil-producing countries do not need us, we need them. So no impacts there.
-
-
-
-
64%
Wolfie20071 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nobody seems interested in doing anything about Dingy. I'm pretty sure that if Tom Delay had done just one illegal land deal like Dingy and his son were involved with in Nevada he would be in Leavenworth today. You can take that to the bank.
Reply-
86%
sinophil491 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wolfie -
Reply
Partial list of Tom DeLay's misdeeds -
1) Charged w/ business fraud by DeLay's business partner in the Albo Pest Control and using Albo money in his own campaign, which is illegal
2) Pressured corporate and lobbying firms to hire ex-Republican lawmakers. Companies with Democrat hirees were denied access to Rep party members.
3) Received golfing trips, concert tickets, use of Abramoff's private skybox for fundraising parties.
4) Referred clients to Alexander Strategy Group, the lobbying company that DeLay's wife, Christine, worked for.
5) Pressured John Ashcroft to close a casino owned by the Alabama-Coushatta tribe, in favor of the Choctaw tribe, who had donated money to DeLay's campaign
6) Moscow energy giant, NAFTASIB, a major supplier to Russian military was lobbying Washington to continue funding to international funds, like the IMF. NAFTASIB heavily relied on international funding.
DeLay travelled to Russia on a trip funded by the National Center for Public Policy Research. The DOJ subsequently found that the NCPPC was a front used by Jack Abramoff to conceal money used to fund overseas trips to Republican lawmakers.
While in Moscow, NAFTASIB donated $1 million to the US Family Network, a non profit run by DeLay, his wife, and DeLay's chief of staff, Ed Buckham. They were using the US Family Network to enrich themselves.
7) The Northern Marianas Islands was used by China clothing manufacturers to run huge sweat shops. The govt there lobbied against establishing minimum wage and labor standards for the islands.
After several paid trips to the islands for DeLay and Dick Armey, they both voted against such legislation.
I'm too tired to write anymore. But this should give you a good look at the depth of DeLay's illegal activities and lobbying.
DeLay is awaiting trial. He may yet end up in Leavenworth.
Wolfie, there's nothing wrong in trying to find Republican icons that can be an inspiration to the entire country. Surely you can do better than DeLay. Even if he does not go to jail, he is such a slimy and arrogant character. Why are your criteria for Republican icons SO LOW?
-
-
LandsharkComment removed: Spammer
-
-
-
57%
sinophil491 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
McCain was told by leaders of both parties to stay away from Washington. It ended up he caused more interference than help.
Reply
He asked Bush to call Obama to Washington as a means of forcing Obama to look like he was following McCain's lead. Just another publicity gimmick.
It turns out that the Republicans didn't listen to McCain anyway. They voted down the bailout bill.
-
-
78%
theaceofclubz1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm for domestic drilling, just not yet.
Reply
Everyone gets up in arms about oil prices because of how much it costs to fill the tanks of their cars. However, alternatives to gasoline automobiles are already coming online and by tapping into the last of our oil reserves now we do not create any incentive to get these alternatives into the market faster. In the mean time there are several industries that as of yet have had no alternatives to oil proposed for them. The air industry, long-haul trucking, shipping, rail, agricultural machinery, and the plastics industry do not have viable alternatives on the table yet. Bio-diesel is a possibility, but as of yet we can not guarantee that it will be able to keep up with demand from these vital sectors of our economy. By insisting that we drill out the last of our resources now we guarantee that we will run out of oil faster and increase the possibility that our children will be left high and dry. Again, let me reiterate, I do not oppose drilling due to any environmental factors. The energy beneath our feet is priceless. I just think that the instant gratification of prematurely giving the key of our last reserves to an industry that has already been seeing record profits falls short in comparison to the long term benefits of showing a little restraint. -
67%
sinophil491 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"We need to hasten our transition away from oil."
Reply
No truer statement has ever been uttered.
You cons believe that developing more oil at total disregard to the environment is the panacea to all our energy and economic woes.
IT IS NOT.
I freely admit that developing and producing more oil does in the short term offer some economic relief.
However, the consequences of relying primarily on oil is in the long run completely inimical to our interests.
The USA contains only about 3% of known oil reserves in the world. But we consume about 25% of all the oil produced.
So if we continue to use up our limited oil reserves, we will see the following -
1) We will use up our known oil reserves that much more quickly
2) Without the pressure of an imminent shortage, there will be less incentive to fund research and development of alternative energy sources.
3) There will be less motivation for people to conserve resources, recycle. In times of bounty, people tend to forget hard times and deny the possibility of future hard times.
4) There will be less incentive for the auto manufacturers to produce fuel efficient cars and people will be less inclined to buy these fuel efficient cars.
5) The more we use petroleum products in our industries, transportation, plastics, etc., the harder it will be to transition quickly to alternative sources when the shortage of oil becomes critical.
The more oil WE produce, the happier are the Muslim countries. They know we are increasing our reliance on oil even more. We will run out of oil far sooner than they will. When we run out of our own oil, we will be forced to go crawling back to these Muslim countries begging for more oil at whatever price they see fit to charge.
Oil is like an addictive drug. The more you use, the more we need it. The cure for drug addiction is to use less of the drug or cut it off.
Now, I am not necessarily against increased oil production as long as there is the recognition that is only a SHORT TERM RELIEF, as long as there is continuing effort to find alternate energy sources, research to find better and more efficient solar panels, better engines, etc., etc..
What I find stupid and objectionable are the negative comments and attitude I find on all these con post to the sentence at the beginning of my post.
People, we MUST transition away from oil sooner or later. Our oil WILL run out some day. We must never put ourselves in the future at the mercy of all the Muslim countries who hate us and will hold us hostage to oil.-
-
75%
jimdoze1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Are you for building nukes, Sino? No? I didn't think so.
Reply
Without them you will never achieve energy independence.
If you are sincere in not wanting the U.S. at the mercy of oil producers, it's about time you and yours pick your poison and get off the pie in the sky stuff.
-
-
67%
ind061 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Though oil shale can be burned like coal for fuel, it's exceptionally dirty. Estonia uses this process as its primary energy source and it's estimated that it causes over 90% of their air pollution.
Reply
Beyond that, oil shale does not easily produce high quality oil, but is instead high in sulfur and arsenic and serves best for making kerosene, jet fuel and diesel.
Currently, shale oil is commonly strip mined, principally from the Green River area in western Wyoming, Utah and Colorado. I've driven through this part of Wyoming and it's not a pretty sight, It's a generally desolate area to start, but the mining has turned it into mile upon mile of bare dirt dotted occasionally with some sort of large earth-moving machine. Spectacularly hideous in every sense.
Oil shale provides 40 liters of this low-grade oil per tonne, that's a metric tonne, not a U.S. ton, so it's actually a little more than a ton. It breaks down like this:
1 tonne = 2,204.6 lbs.
1 gallon = 1.89 liters
40 liters per tonne
21.16 gallons per tonne
42 gallons in a standard barrel of oil.
So, for every barrel of oil from shale you need to scrape or blast, and cart away two tonnes, or about 2 and a half tons of oil shale.
Not to mention one of the world's best fossil deposits is found in the middle of the Green River basin, these fossils are so detailed as to show even the soft parts of fossilized insects and no doubt, high quality fossils you have seen in museums and in pictures in text books have come from this invaluable fossil resource.
Oil shale strip mining uses a great deal of water, two to ten gallons per tonne of processed oil shale, which means for every barrel of oil you produce you're also making approximately four to twenty gallons of waste water, which means for every two to ten barrels of oil you produce you produce a barrel of waste water. Which means, if I may belabor the point, that if you want to pull all the oil out of the shale oil deposit in the Green River basin you are going to generate 79 to 395 billion barrels of waste water, which, is a lot of waste water by anyone's count and a lot of water period to be hauling into the middle of what is essentially a big herkin' desert. Estonia's oil shale-fired power industry accounts for 90% of the water used in that country.
There may come, almost certainly will come, a time when in-situ conversion will make this a viable commercial resource, that is, if you don't mind despoiling an area the size of a small state and poisoning the ground water of the Green River Basin which feeds into the Colorado River.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale-
100%
amazed1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
your gallons to liters measure is wrong. There is 1.06 quarts in a liter, so there are nearly 4 liters in one gallon (think of a 2 liter soda bottle -- just over 1/2 gallon).
Reply
As far as being mostly suitable for jet fuel, kerosene and diesel, that's okay. The jets need to fly and the trucks need to run. Have you noticed that diesel is more expensive than gasoline? What's up with that?
As to those who are saying "no" to all new oil production as well as "no" to no nuclear power plants in favor of "alternate energy sources", I agree that we need to develop them and should have been developing them all along. But they aren't developed yet. I am not willing to go back to the mid-nineteenth century while we wait for someone to come up with the next big thing.
-
-
-
Shankari25Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
Neutral
dcfixer1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm for domestic oil development, but first in the 80 million acres of available leases on the North slope and in the Gulf of Mexico. Too expensive, too cold, too rainy/windy? Poor oil companies. They just want to get it as cheap as they can to increase profits. Now it looks like they will get their way. OH, Boy! Surfing, sunbathing and pretty women while we drill. Seriously, lifting the ban won't make them drill. As long as prices stay high on the "free" market due to speculation/manipulation, and gasoline/diesel prices stay high no matter what, why should they? Big oil will drill when and where they want.
Reply
More News
Politics Daily
Obama's Speech on Afghanistan Troop Surge: 'I Do Not Make This Decision Lightly'
Obama's Afghanistan Troop Surge: A Primer
Obama Afghanistan Speech Excerpts: 30,000 Troop Surge, Exit Strategy
Medical Marijuana Close to Being Legalized in New Jersey
Obama Holiday Party Season Kicking Off: 50,000 Guests, 28 Events
Fox News Politics
House Republicans Blast Democrats, Obama Over Alleged ACORN Ties
Official Says Pentagon Official Told Salahis She Couldn't Get Them In
Obama Announces Plan to Dispatch 30,000 More Troops to Afghanistan
Senators Seek Added Abortion Restrictions With Amendment to Health Bill
Obama's Afghan Strategy Makes Nod to War Hawks and Political Advisers
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.