WOULD YOU LIKE TO PAY FOR THIRD WORLD TRASHCANS AND OPEC..or domestic fuel production

Do you want stable,low fuel costs,or continue to pay for OPEC?


  • Total voters
    5
  • Poll closed .

Ed Spacer

Rookie
Jan 16, 2012
3,986
213
0
georgia
Would you like to continue to be raped by higher fuel costs of globalization by continuing to be victimized by the crude oil price set by OPEC and its board of directors to support the economies of third world trashcans and terrorist nations...

Or...

With having in our territory,900 years of oil reserve..
we could-
*set our own fuel price,set,and maintain its stability by-

1.drilling and exploiting all.our own oil reserve here. 900 years worth.
2.refine the oil here.
3.CONSUME THE OIL AND GAS HERE.

without OPEC and globalization,we can easily set the fuel price at $1.50 a gallon,abd maintain it,by keeping our resources within oyr nation,to be consumed by our nation.

Under my proposal,with this sole domestic fuel production and consumption...
we can create a stable price,with the resources available.
Once supply and demand is met with price stabilization,we can,upon majority voice of the united states citizens,decide at that point to export the excess without compromise to the stable price,and supply and demand,and under this proposal...
every US CITIZEN will receive royalty for the export sales.

This is a WIN,WIN,WIN.
with ending energy globalization,and eliminating OPEC...

Lower fuel costs boost the economies of the citizen and business.
more money to put back into the economy.
lower transportation costs equal lower cost product.
money,money,money savings for all.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #3
Obviously,you dont understand the meaning of the term.
we are being enslaved to OPEC,and are paying the socialist energy price for supporting third world garbage pails on other continents,and terror supporting nations.
 
Last edited:
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
Taking ourselces out of the glibal energy market,preserving our own resourcces,and ending entitlement redistributions are the biggest keys to economic jumpstart.
 
Obviously,you dont understand the meaning of the term.
we are being enslaved to OPEC,and are paying the socialist energy price for supporting third world garbage pails on other continents,and terror supporting nations.

You sound just like Jimmy Carter in 1979.

If only we had heeded his advice.

Now we have to listen to people whine and moan about gas prices........
 
OPEC does not wield control over crude prices. They may have back in the day, but not now.

And if we had low gasoline prices in this country, that would mean low world crude prices which would mean less drilling.

The main reason we have had such a resurgence in domestic drilling is because of the high prices.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #8
Mr.H,it does in the conglomerate way.
our set us trade pruce on crude is directly based on OPEC and global production.
Cease globalization,and OPEC membership and dependence only on domestic resources
which rhere are hundreds of years of
then we create jobs,can set a low stable price
lower transportation,goods costs,etc,etc,etc.
 
Last edited:
Uncle Ferd says there's a Big Oil/gov't./OPEC conspiracy to keep us dependent on foreign oil `cause it puts money in politicians' pockets...
:eek:
GAO: Recoverable Oil in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming 'About Equal to Entire World’s Proven Oil Reserves'
May 11, 2012 - The Green River Formation, a largely vacant area of mostly federal land that covers the territory where Colorado, Utah and Wyoming come together, contains about as much recoverable oil as all the rest the world’s proven reserves combined, an auditor from the Government Accountability Office told Congress on Thursday.
The GAO testimony stressed that the federal government was in “a unique position to influence the development of oil shale” because the Green River deposits were mostly beneath federal land. It also noted that developing the oil would pose “socioeconomic challenges,” which included bringing “a sizable influx of workers who along with their families put additional stress on local infrastructure” and “making planning for growth difficult for local governments.” “The Green River Formation--an assemblage of over 1,000 feet of sedimentary rocks that lie beneath parts of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming--contains the world's largest deposits of oil shale,”Anu K. Mittal, the GAO’s director of natural resources and environment said in written testimony submitted to the House Science Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.

“USGS estimates that the Green River Formation contains about 3 trillion barrels of oil, and about half of this may be recoverable, depending on available technology and economic conditions,” Mittal testified. “The Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, estimates that 30 to 60 percent of the oil shale in the Green River Formation can be recovered,” Mittal told the subcommittee. “At the midpoint of this estimate, almost half of the 3 trillion barrels of oil would be recoverable. This is an amount about equal to the entire world's proven oil reserves.”

In her oral statement before the subcommittee, Mittal said that developing the shale oil would create wealth and jobs for the country, but also challenges for government. “Being able to tap this vast amount of oil locked within this formation will go a long way to help to meet our future demands for oil. The U.S. Geological Survey, as you noted, estimates that the formation contains about 3 trillion barrels of oil of which half may be recoverable,” she said. “As you can imagine having the technology to develop this vast energy resource will lead to a number of important socioeconomic benefits including the creation of jobs, increases in wealth and increases in tax and royalty payments for federal and state governments,” she said.

“While large-scale oil-shale development offers socioeconomic opportunities it also poses certain socioeconomic challenges that also should not be overlooked,” she testified. “Oil shale development like other extractive industries can bring a sizable influx of workers who along with their families put additional stressed on local infrastructure. Development from expansion of extractive industries has historically followed a boom-and-bust cycle making planning for growth difficult for local governments.” In her written testimony, Mittal noted that three-fourths of the Green River shale oil is under federal land. “The federal government is in a unique position to influence the development of oil shale because nearly three-quarters of the oil shale within the Green River Formation lies beneath federal lands managed by the Department of the Interior’s (Interior) Bureau of Land Management (BLM),” she testified.

Source
 
Obviously,you dont understand the meaning of the term.
we are being enslaved to OPEC,and are paying the socialist energy price for supporting third world garbage pails on other continents,and terror supporting nations.

Oh brother. Another freikin' idiot. No, we do not have huge reserves of oil within the US. The 'oil shale' produces carogen, not oil. You spend huge amounts of energy and water getting the carogen out of the rock, then you still have to refine it to get to the oil stage.

And, since gasoline and diesel are now our number one export, I fail to see how you are going to lower the price by producing more. We already have an excess, and the price is driven by the world price. Our own corperations will sell the fuel overseas at a better price rather than sell it here for less.

Yes, the nation does have a huge excess of potential energy. Wind, solar, and geothermal would easily power this nation without the use of fossil fuels.
 
Hey nutbar
We have 900 years worth of oil reserves.

Once again you don't understand. Oil Shale is not oil. Currently every major oil company is testing ways to produce it into gas economically. So far, none have succeeded. This is where you are getting your 900 years number from. Oil Shale is only economical if the national price of gas stays over $4 at the pump. If it goes under, they lose money. They are not willing to invest billions until they are assured that it will stay over that mark.
Proven reserves, the stuff we can actually get to now, stand at 8 years supply in the US. A far cry from this supposed 900 years supply.
 
We need a poll to find out if anybody's really fooled by leading polls! :cuckoo:


Yup, I think they're called "push polls" - worded in a very slanted way to push you in one direction.

Here's another: Would you rather (a) have Kim Kardashian wash your feet while wearing a naughty maid's outfit or (b) have Michael Moore sit on your face immediately after he has taken a five mile hike at the equator? Choose (a) and you're called a big Kardashian fan whether you give a crap about her or not.

Silly stuff. And no, no one is fooled.

.
 
Most of our imports are from Canada and Mexico. I'd prefer we work more on technology and conservation, to reduce our reliance on oil period.
 
We need a poll to find out if anybody's really fooled by leading polls! :cuckoo:


Yup, I think they're called "push polls" - worded in a very slanted way to push you in one direction.

Here's another: Would you rather (a) have Kim Kardashian wash your feet while wearing a naughty maid's outfit or (b) have Michael Moore sit on your face immediately after he has taken a five mile hike at the equator? Choose (a) and you're called a big Kardashian fan whether you give a crap about her or not.

Silly stuff. And no, no one is fooled.

.

What? No (c) have Kim Kardashian sit on your face after taking a five mile hike at the equator option?
 
We need a poll to find out if anybody's really fooled by leading polls! :cuckoo:


Yup, I think they're called "push polls" - worded in a very slanted way to push you in one direction.

Here's another: Would you rather (a) have Kim Kardashian wash your feet while wearing a naughty maid's outfit or (b) have Michael Moore sit on your face immediately after he has taken a five mile hike at the equator? Choose (a) and you're called a big Kardashian fan whether you give a crap about her or not.

Silly stuff. And no, no one is fooled.

.

What? No (c) have Kim Kardashian sit on your face after taking a five mile hike at the equator option?


:lol:

Okay, that's a good point.


.
 

Forum List

Back
Top