Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterTHE PORTER-TITUS RACE:
If she’s a flip-flopper on drilling, so is McCain
Porter attack puts him at odds with his party’s standard-bearer
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2008 | 2 a.m.
Sun Topics
Sun Archives
- The Titus-Porter energy debate continues (8-19-2008)
- Nevada political roundup: Porter, Titus debate (8-19-2008)
- Gloves are off in critical race (8-19-2008)
Beyond the Sun
Republican Rep. Jon Porter has taken to calling his Democratic challenger, Dina Titus, a “flip-flopper” on the issue of offshore oil drilling, which both candidates support.
He says she opposed it last year.
“I don’t think we can afford that type of leadership,” Porter said at a debate Monday night.
That criticism made for awkward tension Tuesday between Porter, a three-term incumbent seeking reelection in Nevada’s 3rd Congressional District, and his party’s presumptive presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain.
McCain had opposed offshore drilling until this summer when he said soaring gas prices demanded new approaches. Now he supports offshore drilling.
Asked by Sun columnist Jon Ralston during a taping of “Face to Face” whether the Titus criticism extends to McCain, Porter said yes. “I don’t agree with John McCain changing his position ... but I’m running against Dina Titus,” he said.
He then turned the conversation back to how Titus, as the state Senate minority leader, had the ability to change the language in a resolution that called on President Bush to lift the federal moratorium on offshore drilling. Instead, he said, “She gutted the bill … and voted no.”
In fact, Titus offered an amendment to the resolution, stripping offshore drilling language in favor of “incentives for the research, development and construction of renewable energy facilities.” The amendment failed and Titus voted against the resolution.
Titus, in remarks on the Senate floor said, “I believe … that it would be more appropriate for the Nevada Legislature to use its political power to appeal to Washington not to support the offshore drilling industry but rather to foster our own, homegrown renewable-energy resources.”
Spokesman Andrew Stoddard said Titus was “focusing on what’s going to help Nevada” at the time and that her support for offshore drilling with states’ consent has been consistent.
Both candidates are doing their best to show their independence from the national parties, with good reason: nonpartisan voters make up 15 percent of the district’s electorate and could decide the race. Neither candidate is attending their party’s national convention.
Porter faces the toughest challenge of his career. The political winds are against him. In 2006, he eked out a victory over challenger Tessa Hafen, an aide to Sen. Harry Reid, when voter registration was evenly split. Today Democrats outnumber Republicans by 25,400 voters.
On Tuesday, Porter put some distance between himself and Bush, saying he differs from the president on stem cell research, Yucca Mountain and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. He also criticized the administration for mistakes in war planning and for cutting funding to Nevada programs.
Porter also tried to deflect one of Titus’ key arguments – that he’s accepted $230,000 in campaign money from Big Oil while voting to award oil companies billions of dollars in tax breaks. He said the tax incentives were directed at building the first American refinery in three decades. He also noted that he has supported tax credits for renewable energy.
To be sure, Porter has supported much of Bush’s agenda. In 2006, he supported the president’s initiatives 93 percent of the time, according to an annual ranking by Congressional Quarterly. He won reelection that year by less than 4,000 votes and the following January signaled that he would cooperate more with the new Democratic majority in Congress. A midyear report in 2007 showed him voting with his own party 73 percent of the time, and it has since risen to 80 percent.
Asked by Ralston if he would invite Bush to campaign for him, Porter said, “No. Things are going well (on the campaign trail).”
Discussion: 45 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Live Main Event blog: Cada and Moon set to square off heads-up
- Freddie Roach talks tough; Manny Pacquiao backs it up
- Commercial development in Las Vegas grinding to a halt, analyst says
- Strip sign-lighting ceremony set for Monday
- County considers suing over travel Web site room taxes
- Ensign moves out of home on C Street
- Cada and Moon emerge as Main Event’s final two
- Metro identifies officers, sergeants in 2 fatal struggles
- Temperature to hit 80 today in Las Vegas
- UNLV wins hoops scrimmage at Long Beach State
Blogs
The Kats Report
Buchanan was one of the city's truly flamboyant characters
Sports: Upon Further Review
Fight snapshot: Reviewing "24/7 Pacquiao/Cotto," episode 3
The Kats Report
Life in the Limelight: Wayne Newton (2 Comments)
Politics: Ralston's Flash
An entire campaign in one mail piece for Harry Reid (4 Comments)
Miech Again
On the road to Long Beach, UNLV hoops style (13 Comments)
The Kats Report
Vocal strain prompts Wayne Brady to call off 'Making It Up' until 2010 (1 Comment)
The Greene Room
New Mexico soccer player goes MMA on BYU (16 Comments)
Calendar »
- 8 Sun
- 9 Mon
- 10 Tue
- 11 Wed
- 12 Thu
-
76 Trombones + 4 concert at Artemus Ham Hall
Artemus Ham Hall at UNLV | 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.
-
The Smothers Brothers at The Orleans Showroom
The Orleans Showroom
-
Abbacadabra at The Las Vegas Hilton
Las Vegas Hilton
-
Roy Clark at The South Point Showroom
South Point Showroom
-
Zowie Bowie's Vintage Vegas Show at Monte Carlo
Lance Burton Theater
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Dina Titus has politically done one thing that can not be forgiven by me. As an acting Political Science Professor, receiving a salary from UNLV she entered into politics . . . a direct violation of the Separation of Powers principle of our State Constitution. It does make a wit of difference to me if this practice has not been ruled on by the Nevada Supreme Court . . . as I believe that the Government of Nevada has succumbed to politics from the public sector and is badly damaged. One only need to read the opinion by Nevada Attorney General Brian Sandoval in June of 2004, to see how public employees have effectively feathered their nest at the expense of the private sector, in violation of our Nevada State Constitution. It boggles my mind that the issue has never made it to our Supreme Court for a ruling. Now, that is what I call power, the power of the public sector over the private sector.
http://www.nbj.com/issue/0604/6/1118
Thus for me, Dina Titus is not a viable candidate, as her personal political integrity is shredded by her own unethical behavior.
In other words, you are blaming her for doing what the law allowed her to do? When she also gives up her salary to go to the legislature and thereby suffers financially for her service? Are you this hard on public officials who actually do violate the law?
Ms. Taxus is just like Obama on this issue.
She was totally against. Now is for it a little with ton of conditions. Down deep everybody knows she hates it.
Ms. Taxus will do what Ms. Pelosi will tell her to do. If Ms. Taxus gets to DC then it will be like this: "Yes Master Pelosi. I really that committee assignment. You want me to shine your shoes. OK. You want me to raise taxes. Ok, I like do that anyway. You want me to vote against new drilling. OK. Am I jumping high enought, Master Pelosi?"
Michael Green wrote:
"In other words, you are blaming her for doing what the law allowed her to do? When she also gives up her salary to go to the legislature and thereby suffers financially for her service? Are you this hard on public officials who actually do violate the law?"
Mr. Green, I claim that the separation of powers clause of the Nevada State Constitution prohibits any person from serving in two branches of government at the same time. I claim Ms. Titus is violating the law, as she is serving in the Legislature and serving in the Executive branch as a UNLV professor. The Nevada State Constitution is clear on this issue.
What has happened is this issue has been side stepped by politicians who do not care to follow the Rule of Law and prefer the Rule of Man. In other words, they believe that the Constitution means what they want it to mean, as long as they can get away with it. My comments are meant to expose this current unconstitutional practice that is being done in the State of Nevada by our Public Employees.
There is a practical reason that our military are not allowed to engage in politics, just as for the good of the State, and its people, our Nevada State Constitution has a separation of powers clause.
I look forward to your comments, which might persuade me, as to why I may be wrong.
jfnance32, You suffer from Bush desease, where the party nit wits follow the party liars,stonewallers and criminals. Your description is just what America has had nearly eight years of. Bush: I will fire anyone involved with outting a CIA agent.Where were the rest of the loyal Amercian elected Republicans who took an oath to protect and defend America? The list is just to long to go on. Did Bush give up any of his salary or trust fund, will McCain leave Cindys money alone?
No matter what Titus claims in the election season. If she gets to Congress she will have to take her orders from Pelosi just like Reid does. Pelosi supplies the unions and the money for the race and has given her democrats with tough races "permission" to run on drilling if they need so to win. In the next Congress they will take orders. We need representation for Nevada, NOT San Fransisco. Contact Harry and tell him to cut the puppet strings and represent us.
email link
http://reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm...
Las Vegas
Lloyd D. George Building
333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 8016
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Phone: 702-388-5020 / Fax: 702-388-5030
Titus will be a starry-eyed plebe-ette foot-soldieress for the Grande Dame, San Fran Nan and Dina's assigned personal bodyguard, Shelley Berkley (who I actually LIKE a lot, but she's also a MSGT for the Queen Herself, lol, lol...). I do like Shelley, for sure!
Titus belongs to a party that stands in the way of America's TRUE independence in energy. DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW!!
Porter is in the Party that portrays "ALL of the Above" in energy strategy, as I always have. Porter represents standing in a darkened House long after the Queen decided speech should be squashed = Porter screaming what 70+/-% of Americans have discovered = WE NEED ENERGY SUPPLY AND NEEDED IT TEN YEARS AGO.
Of course, Bill Clinton could have helped in '95 or so - but hindsight IS SO 20/20!
Abandoning REAL energy independence for America; wrenching we all in every which way; stand the Democrat and their en-viral-MENTAL base.
Dina Titus won't stand a chance of political independence for ALL Nevadans in a "San Fran Nan" House. Shelley will assigned to chaperone this Her Rookieness, just because...
Porter is on the right side for we all.
Tying Dina Titus to the liberal corroders, the liberal deluders, the obstructionists, the under-miners of energy independence - to Pelosi, high gas prices as a political weapon and on and on and on = THAT's the ticket.
Titus is still just not enough. First, she LOSES to the most unpopular Governor in my time here == THEN = she runs uphill against a DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW patriotic uprising against THE party of energy blood-suckers.
The Queen needs some fresh reservists to throw into the breach, defying the will of the people.
I still do not regret hosting a Titus fundraising event in my home when she ran against Gibbons. My wife, my mother-in-law, and a dozen female friends won't let me regret it, lol..
I do not regret voting for her against Gibbons. She was very helpful and lead the charge politically against Jim Rhodes and the Blue Diamond Hill zoning fight several years ago. I was hip-deep in the local leadership of that effort.
She got what I felt I owed her for the Rhodes / BDH issue, my vote against Gibbons. I did the right thing then and voted for her.
I've paid my debt.
She's a vote FOR energy strangulation and economic weakness going forward. She will have no choice!
Name me one politician who hasn't flip-flopped at some point in their career. The problem is that people want to always 'take up' for one side or the other rather than see that BOTH sides nothing but a bunch of pathetic liars who will say or do whatever needs saying or doing in order to protect their own interests (translated: WALLETS). Only when we realize this and come together do we stand a chance of taking back our freedoms.
NVMakz's entire whining screed is predicated on the argument that more domestic drilling "= REAL energy independence for America."
That's the funniest thing I've read since Nance admitted he was lying. The United States proven reserves have around 20 billion barrels of oil. (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country...)
We imported 14 million barrels of crude a day in 2007. We consumed 20 million barrels per day. That means, even if we were somehow able to supernaturally tap every bit of crude we have, we would be "TRUE(ly)" independent for about 3 years.
In addition, if we were to tap every single resource we have, we would be wholly dependent on foreign oil when that tiny supply ran out. That's a genius national security policy if I've ever seen one, and would leave us worse off than we are today.
"TRUE" energy independence for the United States, in terms of oil or crude, is an outright (and easily debunked) fantasy.
The neocons stomp their feet about buying foreign oil, but abide a Republican president who has financed a war with borrowed funds from China, Saudi Arabia and Dubai, and promote a Republican candidate who just wants to add $5 trillion more debt to the tab!
How utterly hypocritical... spare us the faux outrage.
"NVMakz's entire whining screed......"
Look at the stumbling (pile of) "non-partisan" (LOL) "jackass".
HONK, HONK, HONK........
"ALL of the above" is my energy stance. VAST reserves of local developable resources which "the bs" would continue to deny and obstruct?
x
The United States proven reserves have around 20 billion barrels of oil. (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country......)
(In fact, such untapped reserves are estimated at about 2.3 trillion barrels, nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nations and sufficient to meet 300 years of demand -- at today's levels -- for auto, truck, aircraft, heating and industrial fuel, without importing a single barrel of oil.)
http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresourc...
Faced with the FACTS, you choose the debunked and out-of-date govt-wonk info. What's next, the debunked GAO "report" on Iraqi benchmarks, LOL!
x
"We imported 14 million barrels of crude a day in 2007. We consumed 20 million barrels per day........
2.3 TRILLION barrels of energy possibility trumps you here. THUD!!
x
"In addition, if we were to tap every single resource we have.....
You simply do not know what you're talking about, again. The liberal-corroder "national security policy" of choking and gagging America's energy over such lies as global warming, umm, I mean cooling - I mean climate change over the past 30 years has America here today. You've already had your butt handed to you consistently here on this, but still slam your own head into the toilet today. Are you off your meds?
x
"TRUE" energy independence for the United States, in terms of oil or crude, is an outright (and easily debunked) fantasy."
Your arguments haven't survived a try at it yet? Insanity, doing the same expecting a different result = "the bs"!
Well, THAT sure IS the uber-"non-partisan"(LOL) stance these days. Porter is doing something about it, while you and Titus would effort weakness and impotence.
xxxxxxx
The neocons stomp their feet .....
The lead-helmet uber-environMENTALIST stomp their feet about keeping America tied firmly to America's enemies and making them richer - while promoting a Racist, Socialist, Accomplishment-less political puppy who WILL continue the downward plunge they NEED America to travel.
ALL, for a few seats more.
I counted 16 points I made in my post above - that you ignored to stumble in here with the tired and debunked squak. You addressed NONE of them.
You ignored the totality of the subject article, way to go!
Good thing I just didn't delete most of your post as off-subject and irrelevant. You wouldn't have much of anything "left" for me to blow up.
Thanks!
Hate to veer off-topic, but didja all hear that John McCain today agreed that we need to bring back the draft?
Q: "If we don’t reenact the draft, I don’t think we’ll have anyone to chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell."
McCain: "Ma’am, let me say that I don’t disagree with anything you said."
Now there's some Mavericky straight talk we can believe in!
To all of my McCain-lovin' friends here: Do you support or oppose Sen. McCain's call for a renewed military draft?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRMFwXGBM...
Again, a failed argument. The Kiplinger editorial relies on fantasy oil, that no government scientist will quote as being "proven reserves."
Here's the dramatically simple truth that even people like you can understand, Makz. Shale oil is a failed experiment. We've been working to extract oil from shale in the United States since the 70's, and not a single barrel of shale-produced oil has found it's way onto the market.
That Kiplinger's article was debunked before, no surprise you'd go running back to it to try to cover.
The Shale Sham: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/environme...
"Despite all the attempts to develop a shale-oil industry in the U.S. over the past 100 years, the fact remains that no proven method exists for efficiently removing the oil from the rock," says Bob Loucks, a former shale-oil project manager. Efforts to jump-start western shale-oil production during the 1970s propelled the region through a boom-and-bust economy that ended when Congress abolished the $8 billion Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program in 1985."
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/e...
Even the oil companies don't want to work with shale, after 30 years of trying with no success:
"Questionable commercial readiness and high production costs pose serious problems that currently prevent oil shale development. Currently, no organization with the management, technical, and financial wherewithal to develop oil shale resources has announced its intent to build commercial-scale facilities."
And Bakken? Are you kidding me? Your article was debunked MONTHS AGO! U.S.G.S. found that there was 3-4.3 billion barrels "technically recoverable," NOT the 100 billion listed in your Kiplinger's editorial.
In other words, the Kiplinger's editorial is completely debunked.
So where is the rest of the crude coming from? What new fantasy technology will you suggest this time? LOL!
And no, I don't have to reply to your tired "libeeralz r bad!!!" nonsense. 16 points? That's some awfully math, buddy. When you present an actual argument about an issue, I'll jump in, but the rest of that is just your garden-variety neocon blathering, and is beneath a response.
The United States has trillions of dollars of oil and gas that we could used.
Instead, Obama, Reid and Pelosi want us to pay other countries trillions in cash instead of using the oil and gas that we have here.
Yeah, trillions of dollars in ANWR that John McCain won't drill for. And yet you think it's all Reid's fault?
LOL!
thebs,
Stop mocking poor nance. He's obviously figured out the elusive secret to extracting oil from shale, and will soon singlehandedly save our great nation from the energy crisis created solely by us nasty Democrats.
theBS said: "The United States proven reserves have around 20 billion barrels of oil. "
20 billion barrels of oil times $113 per barrel equals trillions of dollars of oil.
Instead, Reid, Pelosi and Obama want to shut that down and send trillions of cash to foreign countries.
There's Nance again, concerned about the welfare and profits of our oil industry and evil, scary foreign oil!
But absolutely unconcerned that his choice for the Presidency is against ANWR (aka, a huge part of his "trillions" claim) and for $5 trillion more added onto our national debt, financed by China, Saudi Arabia and Dubai.
Sorry AnonyGuy, when I see utter hypocrisy and double standards, I turn into Nelson...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX3UqY8KZ...
"ANWR (aka, a huge part of his "trillions" claim) "
You need to take a math class. 20 billion of barrels times $113 per barrel equals trillions of oil.
That's why your support for McCain baffles me, Nance. You're hypercritical of Reid, even though he's offered to make off-shore a part of the energy package, but not critical of McCain, who has been against drilling in ANWR for over a decade?
And yes, ANWR is, according to you, worth billions, which is simultaneously "a huge part of your trillions claim." Maybe you were unaware of that. In either case, my math rings true.
Why the double standard, Nance?
I do this very slowly and simple.
You said: 20 billion of oils
20 billion
times
$113 a barrel
equals
trillions of oil
I am glad that Reid,Pelosi, Obama are slowly coming around to the plain common sense that we should use the trillions of oil instead shipping trillions of cash to other countries.
They are kicking and screaming, but they realized that a majority of voters want it.
Wow....Reid, Pelosi, and Obama are starting to listen to conservatives.
There is hope in the world.
LOL, yes, 20 billion barrels is the total US reserve of crude according to the U.S.G.S, which INCLUDES the crude in ANWR.
Hence ANWR is "a huge PART of your claim."
Hence, if you remove ANWR from the 20 billion barrels like McCain wants to do, you remove a significant amount of oil company revenue you seem so concerned with.
Have you malfunctioned or something? This isn't rocket science! Keep arguing with yourself there, champ!
But no answer to your double standard of blaming it all on Reid/Pelosi/Obama/your liberal boogeyman of the day, rather than ALSO on McCain, your chosen presidential candidate?
Why does ExxonJohn hate the oil companies so much?!?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...
This liberal paper says: "The federal government estimates the nation's outer continental shelf might hold 85.9 billion barrels of crude"
"North American offshore "moratorium areas" are estimated to contain about 135 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and more than 30 billion barrels of crude oil"
http://www.straight.com/article/u-s-grou...
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/...
The U.S. Minerals Management Service, which runs the federal offshore leasing program, estimates that 18 billion barrels of oil are available from offshore areas that are off-limits
Your SFGate source, did you read it? Let's read it together...
"U.S. offshore oil fields could hold enough crude to supply all of the country's needs for more than 11 years."
Holy moly! 11 years! I should keep reading!
"Or they might not."
BAH! Nance, dude, read your articles. You got my hopes up, there.
Your second source? Hmmm. It keeps referring to "B.C's offshore oil and gas." Who's B.C.? Oh, right, British Colombia. Um, that's in Canada! Wrong country, Nance!
Your third source? "Estimate?" So it could be much, much, much less than, huh?
But let's go to the source. According to the EIA:
"The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. "
5.6 million barrels per day? When we consume 20 million a day? Awesome! We can institute a new rule which says only 1 out of every four drivers can drive everyday! And what do we do until 2017? No one drives?
And what are you gonna do about that pesky Republican governor of California who plans to veto drilling off the coast?
I guess your McCain double standard applies to him, too?
It is still trillions of dollars of oil and gas.
I guess you are agreeing with Obama, Reid and Pelosi that we should send trillions in cash to other countries instead of using the oil and gas that we have here.
It is so funny that you talk about "5.6 million barrels per day" being puny.
Obama's oil reserve release plan calls for releasing up to 500k barrels a day over a 90 day period and Obama says that will have a serious impact on prices.
But I understand on how you and Obama do math. 500k a day is more than 5.6 million a day and adding 500k a day to supply will have a serious impact on gas prices whereas adding 5.6 million to supply will have a tiny impact on prices.
10 years...people like you said....oh it will take 10 years to get the oil to market....we will not need it then.
I am sure 10 years from now when gas is $10 a gallon..peolpe like you will say....on it will take 10 years to get oil to market.
You think 10 years from now there will be no need for oil. I did not hear your pal, Obama say that.
Don't dodge the issue, Nance.
If you're against buying foreign oil, you should be against buying foreign oil. Instead, you think sending a couple billion here or there every year will make a difference?
You're putting the onus of drilling solely on the shoulders of your Democratic boogeymen and intentionally overlooking the members of your own party who collude with them?
It's a double standard that you obviously have no compunctions about. In fact, you seem to be oddly proud of your double standard.
The numbers speak for themselves. Those who think we will ever be totally independent in our quest for crude are truly living a pipe dream. So you brought a few badly researched articles in a failed claim to rebuke fact, but then you realized you couldn't defend your claim at all, so you veer off into your Democratic boogeyman talking points. Now you're trying to change the subject to the price of oil, which wasn't the subject to begin with, of course... it was a question of independence.
A question you obviously cannot answer. We lack the capacity, equipment, manpower and, most importantly, the crude reserves to be independent from foreign oil. You've failed to prove otherwise, and Makz's mythical shale has been debunked, so my points stand.
Who you talking about? I think you are getting me confused with NVMakz.
I never mention about being independent from foreign oil.
I just say if we have trillions of dollars of oil and gas here then why we should send to foreign countries trillions in cash.
And yes using our trillions of dollars in oil and gas will make us less dependent on foreign oil but it will not make us totally independent from foreign oil. Even Obama admits that we have to increase US oil production if we want to be independent from foreign oil. Thank God, he is starting to listen to the conservatives.
To help you understand what I am trying to say then read the below.
Choice:
a) Drill and extract that barrel of oil and get cash for that barrel of oil where it would generate American jobs and American tax dollars
b) Send cash to a foreign country for that barrel of oil to generate jobs in a foreign country and taxes in that foreign countries coffers.
If one repeats that choice 18 billion times for $113 a barrel then you get trillions in cash that either we ship overseas or keep here.
Right now, even Obama, Pelosi and Reid are considering offshore drilling. They have finally listened to conservatives.
You are the only one who now seems to be against new offshore drilling.
Perhaps you should talk to Obama and ask him why he is willing to allow new offshore drilling.
Your quotes:
"Instead, Reid, Pelosi and Obama want to shut that down and send trillions of cash to foreign countries."
And only a few hours later:
"Right now, even Obama, Pelosi and Reid are considering offshore drilling. They have finally listened to conservatives."
So, in other words, you admit you had no basis for that criticism? That's what I thought.
Yes, I'm aware I'm debunking your propaganda. Makz and I were arguing about whether, fundamentally, the United States could ever be, in his words "truely" independent. Then you jumped in with your cut/paste blathering talking points that you've now disowned.
Then you started to argue that 113 x 20 billion equals trillions, which no one was arguing about... except for you. You were very, very adamant that 113 x 20 billion equaled trillions. Congratulations, you've figured out multiplication! But, in turn, you couldn't comprehend that the resources of ANWR were contained within that 20 billion dollar statistic.
You overlook and evade and cower from the real point: you whine and stomp your feet that Dems don't see off-shore as the end-all and be-all of panaceas, but don't likewise criticize McCain, who, to this day at least, is against opening ANWR... one of the few places about which scientists are fairly confident.
That is, fundamentally, your double standard. You hold the Democrats to one, but gingerly overlook the same standard when thinking of McCain.
Again, you lose the argument based links from en-viral-MENTALISTS with hardened agendas of energy constriction and failure. It was easy to see through the shading and obfuscation.
BAKKEN:
(What you read above are USGS estimates for Bakken's crude oil reserves in the context of "technically recoverable" crude. Now read the North Dakota Geological Survey's estimates for Bakken as of 2006 when the context is openend to include all technologies. 200-billion bbls."
https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/Bakken/newpo...
"Technically recoverable" is a passe concept. It hurts your argument to use such a limited concept, thanks!
It ignores many technically available METHODS - not to mention the PROGRESS of technologies going forward. I know you love to try to kill technologies in the cradle; in keeping with the "non-partisan" (LOL) reactions that it's too hard, too much, too far away, too difficult and on and on.....
With "non-partisans" (LOL!) like you, America would not have ever achieved much at all. Technologies are being effected globally, which keeps VIABLE abilities as shale and sands moving forward.
xxx
"Shale oil is a failed experiment. We've been working to extract oil from shale in the United States since the 70's, and not a single barrel of shale-produced oil has found it's way onto the market."
Shale is being used around the world right now - and growing as technology shows PROGRESS. With current oil-barrel prices expected to remain ABOVE thresholds which make shale and sands financially viable - well, that just pegs your argument as quaint and small-minded.
Even the uber-liberal HuffPo disagrees with you, lol...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/j-thomas-a...
There is a lot of PROGRESS in this area by professionals. PROGRESS which combined with a patchwork of alternatives as yet BEHIND in development that can make America and North America reliant on ourselves and more friendly oil-entities == rather than keeping America tied to enemies and those who want us dead. THAT's your plan.
xxx
"And no, I don't have to reply to your tired "libeeralz r bad!!!" nonsense. 16 points? That's some awfully math, buddy. When you present an actual argument about an issue, I'll jump in, but the rest of that is just your garden-variety neocon blathering, and is beneath a response."
You ignored the opening letter (the subject) to jump in here. You ignored every single point (16) I made before to jump in behind me. You sound like "PatriciaLV"! Your arguments are stale as year-old bread and being, if not already have been, overtaken by actions of oil professionals and research globally going forward.
Thank you for illustrating once and forever what a hypocrite you really are!
AND, still, not a word about the opening letter and my comments from you. I'm shocked, shocked I say..............
"A question you obviously cannot answer. We lack the capacity, equipment, manpower and, most importantly, the crude reserves to be independent from foreign oil. You've failed to prove otherwise, and Makz's mythical shale has been debunked, so my points stand."
What a desperate attempt to claim victory. Grasping, clutching, gasping, Your focus is wrong and as long as you effort oil and gas gone while alternatives are MANY decades away in the volumes needed to supply America = you lose!
What HAS been blown away is your sad whine about the scarcity of oil and gas products available with development of technologies oil professionals already know.
We all know your gig is to kill advancement and progress. It is transparent as yours and liberal's desperation sets in.
Shale, sands and the ACTUAL billions of barrels of crude IN THE NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT, "non-partisans"(LOL) have been flipped over by public opinions and consistently high barrel prices - and are now overreaching to try to DENY we all what fuels our lives.
For WHAT? What do YOU have to replace oil in the volumes needed?? Shall we revisit YOUR PLANS to achieve greater levels of energy independence?
RUN, "the bs", RUN!
Shale, sands, actual crude and what oil pros are developing globally will assist our way of life more than vaporous and illusory developmentally infantile "alternatives" which are farther down the road than even the debunkable "10 years" libs.
How long do you want to be on the wrong side? THAT's one of the many questions you need to answer.
LOL! Technically recoverable is ALL that matters. Technically recoverable is what we can actually extract. Oil/shale that is underground and inaccessible has no bearing on what we can pump into our tanks. Progress does not equal results. Good luck filling your tank with HOPE! Instead, you seek to weaken us by stripping away foreign oil? What are we going to power our tanks with? Are we gonna dump shale rock into them? You utterly fail here.
Shale technology has never produced a commercially viable gallon of crude in the United States. That is a point that stands that you cannot refute. The shale that is in northern Colorado has NEVER produced a single commercially viable barrel of crude, even after attempts for 30 years. You offer no timeline, no evidence of when or where shale will begin producing within the United States. You fail, again.
Your argument is now predicated on shale by your own admission, a mythical technology that has NEVER been successfully implemented in the United States. We lack the capacity, equipment, manpower and, most importantly, the crude reserves to be independent from foreign oil. You have again failed to show how, when, and at what cost shale will ever be commercially viable in the United States. You pin your entire argument on an unproven and domestically unsuccessful technology. And now your argument is complete destroyed.
Even granting you a few billion more barrels (which are already taken into account in the U.S.G.S. survey, btw... the ACCESSIBLE Bakken reserves, that is), we would be independent for a mere four to five years, and that doesn't take into account any spike in demand. You make no plans for any future technology to accomodate that, and fail again to present any kind of a plan.
This is the neocon plan: whine and moan about removing foreign oil but abide Bush and McCain, who would have us borrow trillions from China and Dubai with their deficit-funded wars. Hypocrisy!
I'm not running from anything. I understand what you apparently cannot: we will not be independent from foreign oil from domestic drilling. Your pipe dream has gone up in flames, yet again, Makz... and yes, I quite easily claim victory here. Your talking points tanked yesterday, and you did nothing to refute my points.
But hey, your grand plan is to fill up our tanks with HOPE, so I guess your optimism leaves you blind to reality.
"LOL! Technically recoverable is ALL that matters....."
Placing a small-minded insult at the ends of your wrongnesses do not make up for the fact that you've been trounced. It's just loser-whining.
PROGRESS, that which you try to kill, proves you wrong. "technically" is your downfall == as the "technically" favors ME going forward. Loser!
xxxxxxx
"Shale technology has never produced a commercially viable gallon of crude in the United States. That is a point that stands that you cannot refute."
"Your argument is now predicated on shale by your own admission....."
Just repeating the same thing two paragraphs in a row illustrates your desperation and realization that you have been a hanger-on in this thread ever since you jumped in behind me - off-topic and STILL never addressing the subject matter of this thread. There is simply too much bloviating padding = probably obscuring the small-mindedness and quaintness of someone who has LOST!!
xxxxxxxxx
"You make no plans for any future technology to accomodate that, and fail again to present any kind of a plan."
Tell me, how DENSE are you? Progresses and advancements ARE and have been in process around the world. You've already lost on THE main, overall, point. I applaude the PROGRESS == while you bemoan it and represent the it's too hard, it's too difficult it's too blah, blah, blah.
Read your repudiation in HuffPo once again, lol;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/j-thomas-a...
Who wants to hang with such a pessimist and a naysayer - someone without HOPE? In ANY setting?
xxxx
"I'm not running from anything. I understand what you apparently cannot: we will not be independent from foreign oil from domestic drilling. Your pipe dream has gone up in flames, yet again."
Blah, blah,blah. A loser's verbiage. Just more padding to shield your bruises, IMO.
xxxxx
"Makz... and yes, I quite easily claim victory here. Your talking points tanked yesterday, and you did nothing to refute my points"
Still the same old padding? More of it?? As I wail away.......
Let's see:
2 paragraphs saying the SAME THING in a sad attempt to pad "the bs".
A snap at the end of most every paragraph as an insult?
Two more sentence snipes at the end to make no point, but reads like LOSS - again, to pad?
LOL!!
xxx
"But hey, your grand plan is to fill up our tanks with HOPE, so I guess your optimism leaves you blind to reality."
At least I have some HOPE that our energy situation will get better and EFFORT that intention. You have NO HOPE, so you adopt the NO HOPE side of it.
Your argument was destroyed several posts ago. You're negativity, NO HOPE stance is simply not "The American Way".
This is just you're being beaten like a rented mule since then. Masochist!
"But, in turn, you couldn't comprehend that the resources of ANWR were contained within that 20 billion dollar statistic."
I posted 3 news articles that state that there are at least 18 billions of barrels of oil in banned offshore drilling areas.
So just learn to read, dude.
Here they are again. Read....
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg......
This liberal paper says: "The federal government estimates the nation's outer continental shelf might hold 85.9 billion barrels of crude"
"North American offshore "moratorium areas" are estimated to contain about 135 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and more than 30 billion barrels of crude oil"
http://www.straight.com/article/u-s-grou......
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/......
The U.S. Minerals Management Service, which runs the federal offshore leasing program, estimates that 18 billion barrels of oil are available from offshore areas that are off-limits
Nance, I debunked all three of those articles days ago.
You posted three articles which claimed wildly SPECULATIVE numbers, not known reserves, which is what Makz and I are discussing.
Not to mention the fact that, if you accept the numbers from one of your articles, then the other two you provide aren't true. LOL!
But yeah, you bring nothing new to the table, just articles that were debunked yesterday. Carry on!
So your argument is: we have oil we can't recover! Yay! Technically recoverable reserves of the United States has been completely flat for the past decade. "Technically recoverable" favors you in NO WAY! LOL! Technically recoverable is what we can grab, now, to turn into gas. The rest of your "facts" rely on stuff we can't turn into gasoline, so it's worth NOTHING!
If shale is possible, why aren't we using it? Why aren't the oil companies producing oil RIGHT NOW? You know the answer, just as well as I, but you cower away from acknowledging the simple fact that shale in the U.S. has not produced ANY viable crude. You still fail to answer this, and this is what your entire argument of "TRUE independence" is based on. Thus, your argument has no foundation and crumbles with the slightest inquisition.
So what is shale worth? Nothing!
I love progress, but progress doesn't get me to work every morning! LOL!
So give me the following, Makz:
When will shale pay off?
What's the timeframe?
With what technology?
How expensive will the oil be?
How much oil can be produced per day?
How much oil will we consume per day?
Otherwise, you're banking on ZERO! Your argument is predicated on something that doesn't exist. It is completely up to you to prove your timeline, technology, costs, etc... which you convieniently cower behind with blind HOPE!
LOLOL!
Sans facts and specifics, your shale oil fantasy is exactly that, and your argument is absolutely crushed.
LOL, you absolutely abandoned the Bakken formation after I disproved that part of your article... I'll take the points.
Poor Makz, his dreams built on a fantasy, only has sand and rubble now. Poor guy!
theBS...I will call the U.S. Minerals Mangement Service and tell them to go home because theBS thinks their numbers are debunked.
What is your source for oil reserves number?
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/.........
The U.S. Minerals Management Service, which runs the federal offshore leasing program, estimates that 18 billion barrels of oil are available from offshore areas that are off-limits
I've already listed it here, don't be lazy.
Let's look at some of the facts behind shale, shall we? Bebunk it even further, if you will.
Shale isn't even the correct term, it's an industry term cooked (lol) up by marketers. The correct language is "organic marlstone." Marlstone contains trace amounts of kerogen, a precursor to crude. Over thousands of years, marlstone is heated and intense pressures are exerted, and the result is crude as we know it today.
The marlstone available in Northern Colorado and the surrounding areas, the key to the "Shale Oil Bonanza!" that Makz so lovingly has absolute faith in, is a relatively shallow marlstone, meaning it's in it's infancy of being converted to crude.
The industrial process of creating crude from marlstone involved keeping it heated to 700 degrees for three years. Sounds easy, right? We just have to bake it, right? No. Marlstone striates the earth, which means it exists in thin bands within the crust of the earth.
What Shell, and most other domestic oil companies who are desperately trying to do to make this pay off is try "in situ retorting." What they want to do is drill holes in the ground and lower giant heaters into the earth to heat the marlstone to 700 degrees for three years, then they MAY be able to pump out something resembling a crude-like product.
There are several giant barriers to this. First, when you heat marlstone, you end up leeching toxins everywhere. With in situ retorting, those toxins have a tendency to pool up and find groundwater with which to pollute. The oil companies lovingly refer to this toxic stew as "sour water."
Second, when you bake marlstone, it expands in volume... leaving you with a giant toxic pool of spent shale.. what the oil companies lovingly refer to as the "popcorn" effect. So cute!
Third, their genius plan to stop polluting groundwater? FREEZE THE GROUND AROUND THE RETORTING! Using "ice walls," they hope to stop toxic leechings from reaching groundwater.
So, let's put that together, they're going to simultaneously freeze AND bake land, creating piles of toxic earth, all in the hopes of being able to squeeze an extra barrel or two of oil.
No oil company in the United States has EVER sold a barrel of oil that is the product of this process.
The other process of retorting kerogen? Well, it involves digging up every bit of marlstone they can find and chucking it into a giant furnace... so if you think that sounds good, according to Shell, in situ is "more environmentally friendly."
Sounds like a grand plan, Makz.
What is your source for oil reserves number?
"So your argument is: we have oil we can't recover!"
" "Technically recoverable" favors you in NO WAY! LOL!"
"Technically recoverable is what we can grab, now, to turn into gas." "
As technologies improve and develop (HOPE!), the "technically recoverable" becomes more not less. HOPEfully!
xxxx
"If shale is possible, why aren't we using it? Why aren't the oil companies producing oil RIGHT NOW?"
I'll not explain this again. It is time for you to be an adult, not a beaten mule!
xxxxxxxxxx
"So what is shale worth?"
Trillions more than the infantile status of alternatives you hide YOUR PLAN from in order to attack what's possible. NO HOPE!
xxxxx
"So give me the following, Makz:
When will shale pay off?
What's the timeframe?
With what technology?
How expensive will the oil be?
How much oil can be produced per day?
How much oil will we consume per day?"
This SAD flail to try for more talking points is transparent and futile - marking your time here. There's no need to hide from a beaten mule, is there?
xxx
Otherwise, you're banking on ZERO!"
I have had you in the bank for quite a while! Not much "interest" is generated, though.
xxx
"Your argument is predicated on something that doesn't exist."
CLUNK, CLUNK goes the lead-helmet, LOL!!
xxx
It is completely up to you to prove your timeline, technology, costs, etc... which you convieniently cower behind with blind HOPE!
HOPE or NO HOPE! That's the choices we both have made. I have it, you reject it. Keep flailing and braying your masochism, lol...
xxx
"Sans facts and specifics, your shale oil fantasy is exactly that, and your argument is absolutely crushed."
Stock language for padding your beatings around here. It's in every butt-whipping argument I've kicked you into when you struggle and soldier on for relevence - to say ANYTHING. You're a carp, gasping for air on the pier, nothing more! You're a failure.
xxxx
LOL, you absolutely abandoned the Bakken formation after I disproved that part of your article... I'll take the points.
After starting off 0-18 in the thread (upgraded after reading my original post again), you're now like 0-48. NO HOPE-ers score like that.
xxx
"Poor Makz, his dreams built on a fantasy, only has sand and rubble now. Poor guy!"
BRAY, BRAY, BRRAAYYYYYYY.............
CRRAACCKKKK.......
I am sure I'll get your usual "he didn't answer ME, BRRAAYYYYYY..............", or the like.
Losers in the way you lost; having lost BIG diving into in a thread which you ignored the subject and previous posts in order to LOSE HOPELESSLY like this - do that to keep their loss alive.
Masochist!
The loss is yours, the decent into the slime is yours, the non-responsiveness to the SUBJECT is yours in order to hijack the thread is yours and this claiming losses as "debunk" is long past pathetic.
One of us HAS to be the adult, and we all know it's not going to be you!
Nance, if you're too lazy to scroll up, I can't help you, dude.
Makz, thanks for waiving the white flag.
No proof of shale tech.
No timeline for shale tech.
No consumption figures.
No prices.
No production figures.
You've shown your knowledge of shale tech is about as shallow as your understanding of socialism... as deep as a kiddie pool!
The rest of that is your age-old "liberrallzz r bad!" that has no bearing on the argument. The argument that you have dropped so many times, no rational observer could count this as a win.
You rely on an unproven technology for unproven production of an unproven product. That isn't hope, that's rank hebetudinous skullduggery.
LOL, I win.
I think it's time for you to disappear for a month again, licking your wounds. Thanks for playing!
Well, here you all are again. It's amazing how any story on this site that remotely deals with oil drilling brings the same people in with the same stances. But I have to say, you guys have taken this particular debate to a whole new, much more entertaining level.
I won't get into the back-and-forth with you people because I don't stand a chance... but I did want to pipe up and ask a relatively serious question.
Which is better... a politician who keeps the same stance on an issue regardless of the amount of updated information they get, or a politician who changes their stance on an issue when new information becomes available, even if they'll be labeled as a flip-flopper?
Harske, welcome back. :)
In my eyes, rigid ideology regardless of facts or changing evidence is a sign of absolute stupidity.
theBS....you link is to a graph. The data that is supporting the graph is this EIA report.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natur...
This is funny because your source is confirming my number.
The number that you are using is "proven reserves".
According the EIA, proven reserves estimates are based on how much oil is left is in existing oil production sites or abandon oil production sites.
Obviously neither ANWR nor banned offshore numbers are in your number because the areas never had actual oil production rigs on them.
Table G1. Mean Estimates of Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources by Deposit Type and Location
The G1 table lists all the technically recoverable oil for the USA.
It says there are 92.76 billion bars of oil in Federal offshore areas.
Also, this government publication does state how much of technically recoverable oil is in Federal offshore areas.
http://www.mms.gov/revaldiv/PDFs/2006Nat...
It is says it is 85 billion barrels of oil.
"That isn't hope, that's rank hebetudinous skullduggery.
I think it's time for you to disappear for a month again, licking your wounds. Thanks for playing!"
xxx
I expected the last formulaic gasp of "the bs" carp-on-the-pier like this = and you made it a reality for me, thanks!
After serving no one on this forum, then whining about not being served in an of-subject thread = this is a loss, again, for you, "the bs". Live with it!
Line up your straw-men - I torch them - then you seem to love the taste of your own carbon.
IMO, besides the torching which made you go into hiding three weeks ago, this IS my finest hour! I've never been more satisfied with the "rented mule" beaten to a pulp. Reading through "the bs's" rhetorical carnage is just a cool breeze.
The billions of barrels of crude and oil shale will be here long before the alternatives you've never did / will - and can't - quantify arrive.
Get not, give not. You lost before I began. In an off-subject thread you invaded.
The last sentence is a sad mental self-delusion.
I'll leave "last place" - as usual - for you?
Such a child you are!
Have a lollipop and a nappie-poo!
Guess big oil isn't interested in the offshore oil. 20 million acres in the western gulf coast were offered for lease yesterday at auction. "About 90 percent of the tracts the government auctioned off received no bids." Read the full article here http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gB6bi...
Blame the dems all you want, but America knows our energy problem didn't start 2 years ago. Hard to blame dems when we all know who controlled governement for 6 years and created a mountain of debt and problems.