Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
'Stupid' and Oil Prices
Topic Started: Feb 25 2012, 12:38 AM (1,531 Views)
Stoney
No Avatar
Sr. Member
[ * ]
Mountainrivers
Feb 26 2012, 10:49 PM
"the fact that Obama has said that his intent is to make energy prices (fossil fuels) very high"

Maybe I missed it but I thought he said, not that he intended to make energy prices high, but that the result of cap and trade would be that prices would rise because those costs would be passed on to consumers. His intent, I think, is to force companies to stop polluting the environment. That's a difference, imo, from intending only to raise energy prices.
I was talking about, and the thread talks about the result of his actions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Stoney
Feb 26 2012, 10:53 PM
Mountainrivers
Feb 26 2012, 10:49 PM
"the fact that Obama has said that his intent is to make energy prices (fossil fuels) very high"

Maybe I missed it but I thought he said, not that he intended to make energy prices high, but that the result of cap and trade would be that prices would rise because those costs would be passed on to consumers. His intent, I think, is to force companies to stop polluting the environment. That's a difference, imo, from intending only to raise energy prices.
I was talking about, and the thread talks about the result of his actions.
The result of his actions, as I understand it, is that companies will have to stop polluting the environment or pay the price for not doing it. Why is that wrong?
My other question was, is there a difference between when a lease is approved and when a drilling permit is issued?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stoney
No Avatar
Sr. Member
[ * ]
Mountainrivers
Feb 26 2012, 10:56 PM
Stoney
Feb 26 2012, 10:53 PM
Mountainrivers
Feb 26 2012, 10:49 PM
"the fact that Obama has said that his intent is to make energy prices (fossil fuels) very high"

Maybe I missed it but I thought he said, not that he intended to make energy prices high, but that the result of cap and trade would be that prices would rise because those costs would be passed on to consumers. His intent, I think, is to force companies to stop polluting the environment. That's a difference, imo, from intending only to raise energy prices.
I was talking about, and the thread talks about the result of his actions.
The result of his actions, as I understand it, is that companies will have to stop polluting the environment or pay the price for not doing it. Why is that wrong?
My other question was, is there a difference between when a lease is approved and when a drilling permit is issued?
But his policies and goals were to increase the price of oil. We're not talking about pollution.

"My other question was, is there a difference between when a lease is approved and when a drilling permit is issued?"

i still don't know the answer to that and don't have enough interest to look it up for you. it makes no difference in the intent of Obama to see fossil fuel costs to skyrocket.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Stoney
Feb 26 2012, 11:01 PM
Mountainrivers
Feb 26 2012, 10:56 PM
Stoney
Feb 26 2012, 10:53 PM
Mountainrivers
Feb 26 2012, 10:49 PM
"the fact that Obama has said that his intent is to make energy prices (fossil fuels) very high"

Maybe I missed it but I thought he said, not that he intended to make energy prices high, but that the result of cap and trade would be that prices would rise because those costs would be passed on to consumers. His intent, I think, is to force companies to stop polluting the environment. That's a difference, imo, from intending only to raise energy prices.
I was talking about, and the thread talks about the result of his actions.
The result of his actions, as I understand it, is that companies will have to stop polluting the environment or pay the price for not doing it. Why is that wrong?
My other question was, is there a difference between when a lease is approved and when a drilling permit is issued?
But his policies and goals were to increase the price of oil. We're not talking about pollution.

"My other question was, is there a difference between when a lease is approved and when a drilling permit is issued?"

i still don't know the answer to that and don't have enough interest to look it up for you. it makes no difference in the intent of Obama to see fossil fuel costs to skyrocket.

My second question was an effort to answer your assertion that drilling was mostly attributed to policies of the Bush administration. In the article I posted, the drilling permits were issued in 2010 and 2011, which would have no relationship to Bush policies unless the leases were granted during his term. And Bush didn't have to deal with the Gulf oil spill. Obama used caution to hopefully, avoid a re-occurence. That slowed granting of new permits.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Stoney
Feb 26 2012, 11:01 PM
Mountainrivers
Feb 26 2012, 10:56 PM
Stoney
Feb 26 2012, 10:53 PM
Mountainrivers
Feb 26 2012, 10:49 PM
"the fact that Obama has said that his intent is to make energy prices (fossil fuels) very high"

Maybe I missed it but I thought he said, not that he intended to make energy prices high, but that the result of cap and trade would be that prices would rise because those costs would be passed on to consumers. His intent, I think, is to force companies to stop polluting the environment. That's a difference, imo, from intending only to raise energy prices.
I was talking about, and the thread talks about the result of his actions.
The result of his actions, as I understand it, is that companies will have to stop polluting the environment or pay the price for not doing it. Why is that wrong?
My other question was, is there a difference between when a lease is approved and when a drilling permit is issued?
But his policies and goals were to increase the price of oil. We're not talking about pollution.

"My other question was, is there a difference between when a lease is approved and when a drilling permit is issued?"

i still don't know the answer to that and don't have enough interest to look it up for you. it makes no difference in the intent of Obama to see fossil fuel costs to skyrocket.

What were his policies and goals that are different from cap and trade and caution in granting new permits?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stoney
No Avatar
Sr. Member
[ * ]
I can keep repeating, but if you don't want to see it i can't make you. I'm reminded of the CRA thread.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Stoney
Feb 26 2012, 11:11 PM
I can keep repeating, but if you don't want to see it i can't make you. I'm reminded of the CRA thread.
Yeah, you never did understand that. And apparently you don't understand this.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Stoney
Feb 25 2012, 09:18 PM
I agree that cutting prices in half is a bit optimistic. But if we consume 20% of the oil let's produce 20% of the oil. Alternative energy is not meeting our needs, at least yet with nothing promising near term. let's become as independent as we can.
I think quadrupling our oil production would be a difficult goal to meet. Of course alternative doesn't meet our needs currently and may never completely. But, every bit of alternative energy reduces that 20% of the worlds oil that we consume, resulting in less energy dependance on our part. Right now alternative energy can't compete with oil without subsidies. But, fossil fuel is going to go nowhere but up in price, and we need to have a system in place to cushion that price rise.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
campingken
No Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
If you are going to dream than dream BIG!! Let's produce 100% of the world's oil...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stoney
No Avatar
Sr. Member
[ * ]
If we're going to dream let's dream about about allowing the markets to establish as much energy independence as they can using the sources they feel efficient and available. You might be surprised at what they find.

"But, every bit of alternative energy reduces that 20% of the worlds oil that we consume,..."

As does every bit of fossil fuels.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis