when conservatives rock out about oil

[JiggsCasey]

Gosh, that Mike Huckabee sure has a hot little variety show, don't he? ... And what a well-disciplined and unified studio audience!!!

This classic is a couple years old, but really needs a bump like no other. Such an important issue!!

"DRILL HERE!!!... DRILL NOOOOOWWWWW!"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkUVURTbiDo&feature=related]YouTube - Huckabee Show, Aaron Tippin Performs "Drill Here, Drill Now"[/ame]

... the lyrics, because you demand them:

Hello…..Is anybody out there listenin’ in Washington D.C.
This is the suffering voice of America crying out for relief
Now I don’t know what a gallon of gas costs up on capitol hill
But we sure know what it cost down here in reality-ville
And the damage already done has been a mighty heavy toll
And if we’re gonna fix it we gotta start right here at home

CHORUS:
Drill here, drill now
How ‘bout some oil from our own soil that belongs to us anyhow
No more debatin’ we’re tired of waitin’ everybody shout out loud
Drill here, drill now

Every time a foreign tanker pulls up to our shore
They got us over a barrel while they bleed us a little more
And think how much it costs just to bring it all that way
And how many American jobs that’d make if we were drillin’ in the USA
Oh and God forbid if our oily friends should decide to cut us off
We’d be standin’ around with our britches down now listen to me ya’ll

REPEAT CHORUS

Well the winds of change are blowin’
Yes and we recognize that need
But tractors, trucks, cars and planes can’t run on tomorrow’s dreams
So while we’re workin’ on the future we can’t ignore today
Cuz who knows how much time the alternative might take
Somethin’s gotta be done right now cuz friends it won’t be long
Before this great big country comes grinding to a halt

REPEAT CHORUS

Aaron Tippin/Thea Tippin/Philip Douglas/Dan Murph
Songs of Kicking Bird Music(BMI)/TCT Wind(BMI)/Songs of Windswept Pacific(BMI)/All rights obo Songs of Kicking Bird Music and TCT Wind adm. by Songs of Windswept Pacific/Thea Later Music(BMI)/LisaMane Music(SESAC)/Loud Hungry Lion Music(BMI)​

 

[Tank]

 

[JiggsCasey]

wow, that was a non-response if there ever was one...

 

[Avatar4321]

Not really giving people much to respond to.

You suggesting that we don't need oil?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Not really giving people much to respond to.

You suggesting that we don't need oil?

He's suggesting that he thinks Mike Huckabee is a dork and has a dorky show.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Not really giving people much to respond to.

You suggesting that we don't need oil?

He's suggesting that he thinks Mike Huckabee is a dork and has a dorky show.

This... No doubt.

But also, cons usually don't seem to have a clue about just how minuscule our off-shore reserves are, no matter how much data they are shown. All they think they know is that if we just keep drilling holes in the ground, God will put more oil down there.

Cons won't admit there's a serious (and widening) global supply problem. They just demand that we keep feeding the beast for a system based on a myth: "infinite" growth. Environmental factors be damned.

 

[Oddball]

Not really giving people much to respond to.

You suggesting that we don't need oil?

He's suggesting that he thinks Mike Huckabee is a dork and has a dorky show.

This... No doubt.

But also, cons usually don't seem to have a clue about just how minuscule our off-shore reserves are, no matter how much data they are shown. All they think they know is that if we just keep drilling holes in the ground, God will put more oil down there.

Cons won't admit there's a serious (and widening) global supply problem. They just demand that we keep feeding the beast for a system based on a myth: "infinite" growth. Environmental factors be damned.

The same thing was said about Prudhoe Bay and the Alaskan pipeline back in the '70s, and both are still churning out the goods today.

You nutty leftist anti growth and development types really need to get some new talking points.

 

[Nosmo King]

He's suggesting that he thinks Mike Huckabee is a dork and has a dorky show.

This... No doubt.

But also, cons usually don't seem to have a clue about just how minuscule our off-shore reserves are, no matter how much data they are shown. All they think they know is that if we just keep drilling holes in the ground, God will put more oil down there.

Cons won't admit there's a serious (and widening) global supply problem. They just demand that we keep feeding the beast for a system based on a myth: "infinite" growth. Environmental factors be damned.

The same thing was said about Prudhoe Bay and the Alaskan pipeline back in the '70s, and both are still churning out the goods today.

You nutty leftist anti growth and development types really need to get some new talking points.

It's not anti growth and development. It's sustainable growth and development. How much longer can we hitch our wagon to the star that was fossil fuels? Oil is 1) limited in its supply. No more oil is being made, it's only being burned. 2) difficult to get. Either by location (North Sea, a mile below the Gulf of Mexico) or by political conflict. 3) dirty. Oil does not enrich the environment when it is used for transportation. and 4) expensive. the price of oil is set by speculators and a foreign cartel. The consumer has very little to say in setting the price in the "Free" market.

And we use over 70% of the oil we use for transportation. We will still need oil for the other products that come from oil. But getting around by gasoline or diesel fuel is a near term use, but it can't be a long term solution.

 

[JiggsCasey]

The same thing was said about Prudhoe Bay and the Alaskan pipeline back in the '70s, and both are still churning out the goods today.

You nutty leftist anti growth and development types really need to get some new talking points.

Ah, Pastor Williams' fake panacea? Thank you for confirming my theory that cons look to clergymen for their oil drilling data.

Please show where anyone said such about Prudhoe Bay, and then I can link you to how much proven reserves are there. Keep in mind, we consume 21 million barrels of the stuff per day. Prudhoe Bay has provided a relative Dixie Cup worth of energy, and has always been an exaggerated claim.

Edit: Nevermind, you won't step up to the plate.... I'll do the work for you:

Prudhoe Bay Oil Field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Total capacity: 25 billion barrels (4.0×109 m3)
Produced: 11 billion barrels (1.7×109 m3)
Total recoverable: 13 billion barrels (2.1×109 m3)
Remaining recoverable: 2 billion barrels (320,000,000 m3)​

That's right... Not a big field, and all but exhausted.

You wanna talk about a big oil field? You gotta find one in excess of 50 billion barrels -- or, the kind we haven't found in over 30 years, when we used to find them every 3-5 years.

 

[Oddball]

Who said anything about a panacea?

I was alive and paying attention back in the '70s, when people like you were wringing your hands about Prudhoe Bay and the Alaskan pipeline...They said the exact thing about the supply of oil that (they said) would likely run out inside 20 years...Well here we are more than 30 years later and both are still productive.

On top of that, if there really was as little oil that closeted Luddites like you claim there to be on the outer continental shelf, what's the harm in letting those giant evil BigOil companies waste all their money drilling for a pittance in resources?

 

[Oddball]

It's not anti growth and development. It's sustainable growth and development. How much longer can we hitch our wagon to the star that was fossil fuels? Oil is 1) limited in its supply. No more oil is being made, it's only being burned. 2) difficult to get. Either by location (North Sea, a mile below the Gulf of Mexico) or by political conflict. 3) dirty. Oil does not enrich the environment when it is used for transportation. and 4) expensive. the price of oil is set by speculators and a foreign cartel. The consumer has very little to say in setting the price in the "Free" market.

And we use over 70% of the oil we use for transportation. We will still need oil for the other products that come from oil. But getting around by gasoline or diesel fuel is a near term use, but it can't be a long term solution.

Once again, the anti growth talking points haven't changed a bit....There's scads of oil on dry land (like Santa Barbara and ANWR, for example), but the environmentalist wackos won't let us go after it.

"Sustainable" by whose definition?

Platitudes and purposefully vague semantics aren't any kind of long term solution, either.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Who said anything about a panacea?

I was alive and paying attention back in the '70s, when people like you were wringing your hands about Prudhoe Bay and the Alaskan pipeline...They said the exact thing about the supply of oil that (they said) would likely run out inside 20 years...Well here we are more than 30 years later and both are still productive.

So, you ignore the data provided, and punt to unfalsifiable claims based on what you feel you "remember" from the 1970s. Has that worked for you here in the past? LOL...

On top of that, if there really was as little oil that closeted Luddites like you claim there to be on the outer continental shelf, what's the harm in letting those giant evil BigOil companies waste all their money drilling for a pittance in resources?

Exactly. And clearly, Team Obama threw up their hands and lifted those restrictions before the inevitable Deepwater disaster. What's your point?

I have no problem watching oil companies spend billions on countless dry holes. They're gonna lose money either way, just as long as they don't scrap basic safety protocol in their desperate attempts to fill quota, you know?

 

[Oddball]

I don't "feel" I remember anything....I remember it as a matter of my living through the time....The claims of "only twenty years" worth of oil supplies were being bandied about virtually every time the Alaskan pipeline and Prudhoe Bay came up, your silly Wiki links nonwithstanding.

The current spill wasn't any product of the current administration "throwing up their hands" about anything...If anything, they sat on their hands and dithered for weeks, disallowing local actions and turning away offers of help from abroad.

 

[JiggsCasey]

I don't "feel" I remember anything....I remember it as a matter of my living through the time....The claims of "only twenty years" worth of oil supplies were being bandied about virtually every time the Alaskan pipeline and Prudhoe Bay came up, your silly Wiki links nonwithstanding.

Like I said, unfalsifiable claims of old memory. They hold ZERO weight on debate forums. Show me a link where anyone said exactly that, and then we have a starting point. I mean, if it was "bandied about virtually every time," surely there some record of it somewhere.

It's ticklish, though, that to you, the proven data is "silly." Gosh, how many days worth of energy do you think Prudhoe Bay contains with 2 billion barrels up against 85 million in global consumption? Nothing significant. ... Further, it's near exhaustion. So where are the other "new" Prudhoe Bays then? Point to them. Big Oil would surely be interested in seeing your assessment. Perhaps another pastor can point you in the right direction where seismologists have all failed.

The current spill wasn't any product of the current administration "throwing up their hands" about anything...If anything, they sat on their hands and dithered for weeks, disallowing local actions and turning away offers of help from abroad.

What a convenient world of rationalization cons adhere to.

No one said the administration had anything to do with it. The fact is, the leak disaster was inevitable due to new, largely untested technologies at unprecedented depths amid DISABLED safety protocols. Get it yet?

 

[Oddball]

My memory of actual life experiences is a dam sight better than Wiki; a source that any whackjob can edit.

The Deepwater Horizon disaster happened, at least in part, because environmentalist bedwetters and their useful idiot lackeys in congress refuse to allow drilling in places that are far safer and have proven reserves, in shallow water and on dry land.

And I'm not a con, Malthus.

 

[Nosmo King]

It's not anti growth and development. It's sustainable growth and development. How much longer can we hitch our wagon to the star that was fossil fuels? Oil is 1) limited in its supply. No more oil is being made, it's only being burned. 2) difficult to get. Either by location (North Sea, a mile below the Gulf of Mexico) or by political conflict. 3) dirty. Oil does not enrich the environment when it is used for transportation. and 4) expensive. the price of oil is set by speculators and a foreign cartel. The consumer has very little to say in setting the price in the "Free" market.

And we use over 70% of the oil we use for transportation. We will still need oil for the other products that come from oil. But getting around by gasoline or diesel fuel is a near term use, but it can't be a long term solution.

Once again, the anti growth talking points haven't changed a bit....There's scads of oil on dry land (like Santa Barbara and ANWR, for example), but the environmentalist wackos won't let us go after it.

"Sustainable" by whose definition?

Platitudes and purposefully vague semantics aren't any kind of long term solution, either.

Scads of oil? Given own known reserves, and our appetite for oil, how long will "Drill here, drill now" sustain us?

Glad you didn't use platitudes and purposefully vague semantics to make your point!


scads.

 

[Oddball]

It's not anti growth and development. It's sustainable growth and development. How much longer can we hitch our wagon to the star that was fossil fuels? Oil is 1) limited in its supply. No more oil is being made, it's only being burned. 2) difficult to get. Either by location (North Sea, a mile below the Gulf of Mexico) or by political conflict. 3) dirty. Oil does not enrich the environment when it is used for transportation. and 4) expensive. the price of oil is set by speculators and a foreign cartel. The consumer has very little to say in setting the price in the "Free" market.

And we use over 70% of the oil we use for transportation. We will still need oil for the other products that come from oil. But getting around by gasoline or diesel fuel is a near term use, but it can't be a long term solution.

Once again, the anti growth talking points haven't changed a bit....There's scads of oil on dry land (like Santa Barbara and ANWR, for example), but the environmentalist wackos won't let us go after it.

"Sustainable" by whose definition?

Platitudes and purposefully vague semantics aren't any kind of long term solution, either.

Scads of oil? Given own known reserves, and our appetite for oil, how long will "Drill here, drill now" sustain us?

Glad you didn't use platitudes and purposefully vague semantics to make your point!


scads.

Begging the question doesn't prove anything either.

There's so much oil under the ground in the area around Santa Barbara that the pressure of the reserves is pushing it up through the ground, to the point that you could damn near strike a gusher by chunking a wedge shot over at the golf course.

In the meantime, China, Mexico, Venezuela and Russia are going to start drilling in the shallower waters between Florida and Cuba.

BTW...You still haven't defined what "sustainable" means, in no uncertain terms.

 

[JiggsCasey]

My memory of actual life experiences is a dam sight better than Wiki; a source that any whackjob can edit.

The Deepwater Horizon disaster happened, at least in part, because environmentalist bedwetters and their useful idiot lackeys in congress refuse to allow drilling in places that are far safer and have proven reserves, in shallow water and on dry land.

Really? Where then? Show us all the proven reserve totals. Where is the oil that is allegedly "closer to shore?" ... Perhaps you can "remember" some people talking about them from 30-40 years ago.

My assertion is that you don't know what you're talking about. Evidenced by your lame extrapolation of blaming environmentalists for DH.

Surely, you know more than the authors of this report:

Report says oil supplies in Fla. waters negligible
http://www.reefrelieffounders.com/d...t-says-oil-supplies-in-fla-waters-negligible/

By BILL KACZOR Associated Press Writer © 2010 The Associated Press
Feb. 26, 2010, 3:21PM

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Estimated reserves in Florida waters would provide the United States with less than a week’s worth of oil and have no discernible effect on prices at the pump or U.S. reliance on foreign oil, says a report released Friday as part of a state Senate review of whether a ban on offshore drilling should be lifted.

The report is the latest indication that the push to open Florida waters as near as three miles from the state’s beaches may be waning, at least for this year.

Another is that all 12 lobbyists for Florida Energy Associates, a group pushing for lifting the ban have withdrawn, according to the Legislature’s lobbyist registry.
​

Oops.

 

[Oddball]

Where's you link to the source of that piece?

ooops.

 

[JiggsCasey]

There's so much oil under the ground in the area around Santa Barbara that the pressure of the reserves is pushing it up through the ground, to the point that you could damn near strike a gusher by chunking a wedge shot over at the golf course.

And, as usual, whenever you encounter a "Drill Baby Drill" advocate's claims, you need only look a little closer to see it's complete bunk:

Ellwood Oil Field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Ellwood Oil Field (Santa Barbara) contained approximately 106 million barrels of oil, almost all of which has been removed, to the degree possible with the technology available until the early 1970s. The field now has been abandoned. The South Ellwood Offshore field, on the other hand, has been estimated by the U.S. Department of Energy to hold over one billion barrels of oil [3] and approximately 2.1 billion barrels by Venoco, Inc., most of which is in the undeveloped portion of the field.[4] In 1995, the Oil and Gas Journal reported 155 million barrels of proven reserves.[5]
​

2.1 billion barrels... Again, not significant, not worth the infrastructure, nor the environmental risk. .... What else you got? Hopefully something a little bigger.

I'll be back... I wanna enjoy that awesome song from the original post again.