[Patriot1259]

Charles Lingerfelt has writen an Op/Ed in today's The Cypress Times exposing a 2 Trillion barrel oil reserve in the U.S., the lies about Cap and Trade, and the reasons we need to drill here, drill now.

[Jagman]

The continue “gentrification” of America’s natural resources.

[ripley]

“Americans are being scammed!”

Yup. But they sure like it. (Especially when evil energy company profits are going to be re-distributed.)

IMHO

[ripley]

“The U.S.A. is sitting on 2 trillion barrels of oil!”

So what! Oil is dirty, oil companies are evil, there is too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the polar bears need to be protected!

/S/

IMHO

[broken_arrow1]

WOW! Somebody gets it!

[wbones8765]

We need to drill our own reserves. We do not have to be dependent on foreign oil. We could drill our own, but a very small percentage of the population will not allow it. Who is the domestic terrorist?

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

“Americans are being scammed!”

It's far worse than that. We're being taken over.

[rodguy911]

The rats hide behind you can drill on the leases they have already given us,but the real truth is Zero has mounted an all out attack on free market capitalism and coal,nuclear and oil are key. He must keep as much true energy off the market as possible making us even more dependent on big govt. which has always been the plan.

[dangus]

2 Trillion; 2 Billion. What’s a 1000-fold inaccuracy when reporting news.

The Bakken oil field is a big story, and worthy of serious discussion, which is precisely why this kind of misinformation is poisonous; it makes those who cite it come off as idiots.

[RKV]

Suggest you compare this article to Snopes.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/bakken.asp

I’m all for drilling here and drilling now. That said, we need to encourage all sorts of energy production and let the market work things out.

[lilylangtree]

This is where Sarah Palin as Governor of Alaska could have opened areas to drilling.

[nathanbedford]

I am confused. I hope someone can answer these basic questions for me so I can call my Senator and tell him how I want him to vote on Cap and Trade.

Cap And Trade legislation does not even purport to eliminate the consumption of oil in America, why do the proponents of the legislative seek to prohibit or at least severely curtail the production of oil in America? Why do they seek to severely curtail the refining of petroleum in America? If we are going to continue to consume oil but we are not going to be able to produce it, does that mean we must import it? If we must imported, does that means we must export dollars? Same questions for coal?

Accepting as gospel the promises made by the proponents of the legislation including the chimerical notion that pouring billions of dollars into windmills and solar panels will somehow make them economically competitive with oil (and coal) and further that this can be so economically attractive that we can transition away from oil, how long will it take? How much oil will we have to import during this transition period? Why must the oil be imported? Why don't we expand domestic production during this transition period? If the proponents of the legislation are wrong, would it not be better to have producing fields to compensate for the failure of the transition to windmills and solar? If the transition succeeds, would it not be economically advantageous to have surplus oil to export?

Let us assume that we all run around in battery operated cars charged by windmills and solar panels, what will the Chinese be driving? Will the Chinese observe the protocols of the Kyoto treaty? Is it not obvious that the Chinese will not do so for they have already rejected it? Are not the Chinese building a coal burning power plant at the rate of about one week? So even though America eliminates the consumption of oil, is there any reason to believe that the Third World will do so? Have not the Chinese and the Indians already made it plain that they will not do so? What contribution does it make in solving the alleged problem of climate change if only America and Western Europe are reducing CO2 emissions? Is not Western Europe reneging on its pledges to reduce CO2 emissions to Kyoto standards?

Assuming that the provisions which were originally in the bill to put tariffs on goods imported from countries which do not operate on windmills and solar panels becomes part of the legislation, what is to prevent the world from cascading into the deepest recession in history caused by a replay of the calamitous Smoot-Hawley tariffs which plunged the world into the Great Depression?

If our legislation does not contain provisions for imposing tariffs, what will we do about global warming if the majority of the people on this earth do not comply and decline to live on windmills and solar panels? Will the provisions of the Cap and Trade law avail anything? Will we have paid massive taxes for nothing?

If the idea is to eliminate CO2 emissions, why are the proponents of the bill opposed to nuclear power?

Will the taxes imposed by Cap and Trade on the consumption of energy be offset by the creation of jobs in green industry, that is, will enough people be put to work making windmills and solar panels to compensate for the massive loss of growth and jobs caused by the energy tax? How do we know? If the calculations, or assumptions, of the proponents of the bill are wrong and the effect of Cap and Trade is to eliminate millions of jobs without replacing green jobs, and the country afford such a mistake at these difficult economic times?

Will the government not have to impose arbitrary quotas on CO2 emissions? Will the government not have to monitor those emissions for virtually every business in America? Will not virtually every business and perhaps every family in America be required to file annual compliance statements, much like federal income tax returns? Will these statements have to be audited? Will this process generate a massive set of regulations and experts to interpret those regulations, prosecute and defend violators, and negotiate the regulators? Will this not generate huge expenses for private industry and for the government? Is it likely that such a complicated system will generate corruption?

When the president said during the campaign that he would bankrupt the coal industry, is Cap and Trade the way he intends to do it?

Is the science of global climate change well enough established to risk increasing taxes, increasing dependence on foreign oil, job losses, worsening economic situation, potential trade wars, energy shortages, widespread corruption, and loss of individual liberties?

[GregoTX]

C’Mon Patriot1259... you know its only ethical if the middle east countries (and China) drill for oil, and a threat to the planet if we do it. Everybody knows that.

[Quix]

INDEED.

[papasmurf]

Wrong argument, wrong time. (not to mention the inaccuracies in it)

The facts are:
We are running out of oil. (Not out of oil, but running out)
Oil is bad for the environment and humans.
Oil is controlled by our enemies.
Oil is a wealth transferring mechanism.
Oil controls US, we do not control oil.
And, oil is so 70’s.

We need a Manhattan Project style effort to domestically create and produce a clean, efficient, economical, readily reproducible, easily distributable, synthetic fuel.

Until then, we should be powering our automobiles and trucks, and, to the extent possible, our homes and industry, using Natural Gas as a “bridge” fuel.

[mysterio]

While I’m all for drilling, I’m not for exaggeration. How much of the two trillion is recoverable, and at what price?

[devolve]

[denydenydeny]

We just had the coolest June in decades.

The “immediacy” and “dire urgency” of the “crisis” continue to escape me.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !