Congressional Approval Falls to Single Digits for First Time Ever

[ProfJohn]

About ANWR

The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively.

The key is not the total overall, but the amount it can add per day.

We are talking about 500,000 to 1.5 million barrels a day. That is a large amount when our total consumption is 20 million a day.
Open it up and 10 years from now 5% of oil may come from it. Doesn't help short term, but it does long term. And the oil problem is not going to go away so might as well do everything we can to help.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
On the other hand the vast majority of them don't like their President.

Yay! Only took 6 posts to bring up Bush!

I LOL'd. He's seriously a scapegoat for everything the dem's don't want to face up to.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
On the other hand the vast majority of them don't like their President.

Yay! Only took 6 posts to bring up Bush!

Yay... Cause he is worse... Bush friggen takes the cake.


What we need is a revolution. Who's with me?

We need to dump all these assholes including obama and clinton out with the trash pick up and hire everyone NEW ... It's so corrupted it's laughable.


I think we should dump everyone in politics every 10 years and FUCK NO they can't reapply for their old jobs nor can their brothers and sisters.

I also think we should clean house with the supreme court justice ... This Hired for life BS is total BS.

Oh well, welcome to America.

Even if that is true, deflecting from the issue doesn't solve it.

 

[Vic]

I'm happy with my Congressman and Senator though, so I don't see the issue. Well, maybe because I don't like YOUR congressperson and senator, but that's different, right?

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: brandonbull
It would take years to get this "new source" of oil flowing. What do we do until that happens? Stick our heads in the sand and hope that with the "threat" of new oil sources that the prices will magically go back down? High oil prices are here to stay unless we can get oil alternative sources developed. Spending money and time drilling for oil does nothing but "put a bandaid on a gunshot wound".

What do you propose doing if we don't explore and drill? Noone has said we shouldn't also push hard for alternatives. Doesn't it make more sense to do both? What if viable alternatives tale longer than expected to become mainstream? The extra oil might come in handy a few years down the road.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: brandonbull
It would take years to get this "new source" of oil flowing. What do we do until that happens? Stick our heads in the sand and hope that with the "threat" of new oil sources that the prices will magically go back down? High oil prices are here to stay unless we can get oil alternative sources developed. Spending money and time drilling for oil does nothing but "put a bandaid on a gunshot wound".

What do you propose doing if we don't explore and drill? Noone has said we shouldn't also push hard for alternatives. Doesn't it make more sense to do both? What if viable alternatives tale longer than expected to become mainstream? The extra oil might come in handy a few years down the road.

Well that's great, but we're NOT doing both. We talk about drilling all sorts of new places way more often than we talk about funding alternative energy development. Opening up new drilling is (rightly, IMHO) seen as cover for putting off doing something helpful for a little while longer. If new drilling as the cost of a great natural habitat was part of a plan to eventually make up energy independent and eventually reliant on only renewable energy, I'd say go for it. But it's not...

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: brandonbull
It would take years to get this "new source" of oil flowing. What do we do until that happens? Stick our heads in the sand and hope that with the "threat" of new oil sources that the prices will magically go back down? High oil prices are here to stay unless we can get oil alternative sources developed. Spending money and time drilling for oil does nothing but "put a bandaid on a gunshot wound".

What do you propose doing if we don't explore and drill? Noone has said we shouldn't also push hard for alternatives. Doesn't it make more sense to do both? What if viable alternatives tale longer than expected to become mainstream? The extra oil might come in handy a few years down the road.

Well that's great, but we're NOT doing both. We talk about drilling all sorts of new places way more often than we talk about funding alternative energy development. Opening up new drilling is (rightly, IMHO) seen as cover for putting off doing something helpful for a little while longer. If new drilling as the cost of a great natural habitat was part of a plan to eventually make up energy independent and eventually reliant on only renewable energy, I'd say go for it. But it's not...

True, we "talk" about drilling more. Developing alternatives, rightfully so, gets more action. I'm just saying that both should be high priority. We shouldn't fight against either. If new oil will take years to start flowing, I don't think alternatives will take a back seat. Unless, of course, the price of fuel were to drop in a major way and I don't see that happening.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm happy with my Congressman and Senator though, so I don't see the issue. Well, maybe because I don't like YOUR congressperson and senator, but that's different, right?

It is a party thing.

A huge majority of the house seats are now 'safe' therefore most people have no real choice and thus the same people get elected over and over.

BTW I think the most interesting races to watch in the fall will be Tom Delay and Mark Foley's old seats. Seats in 'safe' Republican areas that were won by Democrats due to problems with the incumbents. Will the Republicans retake those seats, as they should, or have they fallen so far that they lose them again.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: brandonbull
It would take years to get this "new source" of oil flowing. What do we do until that happens? Stick our heads in the sand and hope that with the "threat" of new oil sources that the prices will magically go back down? High oil prices are here to stay unless we can get oil alternative sources developed. Spending money and time drilling for oil does nothing but "put a bandaid on a gunshot wound".

What do you propose doing if we don't explore and drill? Noone has said we shouldn't also push hard for alternatives. Doesn't it make more sense to do both? What if viable alternatives tale longer than expected to become mainstream? The extra oil might come in handy a few years down the road.

Well that's great, but we're NOT doing both. We talk about drilling all sorts of new places way more often than we talk about funding alternative energy development. Opening up new drilling is (rightly, IMHO) seen as cover for putting off doing something helpful for a little while longer. If new drilling as the cost of a great natural habitat was part of a plan to eventually make up energy independent and eventually reliant on only renewable energy, I'd say go for it. But it's not...

True, we "talk" about drilling more. Developing alternatives, rightfully so, gets more action. I'm just saying that both should be high priority. We shouldn't fight against either. If new oil will take years to start flowing, I don't think alternatives will take a back seat. Unless, of course, the price of fuel were to drop in a major way and I don't see that happening.

I'm against drilling in Alaska simply because so much of our country's natural beauty has already been destroyed and destroying more of it for a 5 - 15 cent decrease at the pump isn't worth it at all.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
I'm against drilling in Alaska simply because so much of our country's natural beauty has already been destroyed and destroying more of it for a 5 - 15 cent decrease at the pump isn't worth it at all.

Take that spiel to the next 100 million Americans who cross our southern border to take a piece of that "natural beauty". Overpopulation is the determent to that, not the shoreline of ANWR.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
On the other hand the vast majority of them don't like their President.

Yay! Only took 6 posts to bring up Bush!

Yay... Cause he is worse... Bush friggen takes the cake.

LOL. Bush is NOT worse according to the polls. Please try to stay on topic.

 

[Jaskalas]

Like Walter Reed is to Universal Health Care, the obvious solution to a failed government is MORE of it. Keep that spending and taxation coming baby.

 

[quest55720]

That 9% has been earned this summers as millions suffer congress is doing nothing but playing politics. This congress could give a rats ass about the people of this country. If they really cared we would be auctioning off leases by now and taking that money and putting it towards alternatives. We need to do both alternative R&D and drilling but instead congress does nothing. It amazes me to see so many on the alternative only bandwagon. It is like they think some magical alternative will be invented this year that will priced were the public can afford it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
I'm against drilling in Alaska simply because so much of our country's natural beauty has already been destroyed and destroying more of it for a 5 - 15 cent decrease at the pump isn't worth it at all.

You're an idiot then.

ANWR contains 19 MILLION acres.

That makes it larger than TEN states.
In fact is it larger than Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire combined!!!!!

Population of ANWR = couple hundred perhaps.
Population of those 5 states = 14.8 million.

The idea that we are going to destroy an area that large by allowing some controlled drilling is asinine.

BTW there are 1114 wells working the Prudhoe Bay oil fields. That many on ANWR would mean one well per 17,099 acres. Think of it this way, a area the size of New York City would have 2 wells.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm happy with my Congressman and Senator though, so I don't see the issue. Well, maybe because I don't like YOUR congressperson and senator, but that's different, right?

It is a party thing.

A huge majority of the house seats are now 'safe' therefore most people have no real choice and thus the same people get elected over and over.

BTW I think the most interesting races to watch in the fall will be Tom Delay and Mark Foley's old seats. Seats in 'safe' Republican areas that were won by Democrats due to problems with the incumbents. Will the Republicans retake those seats, as they should, or have they fallen so far that they lose them again.

It is NOT a party thing. Up for re-election this year, my Congressman is a Democrat (Wu) and my Senator is a Republican (Smith), and I intend on voting for them both.

Thanks for your usual intellectual dishonesty though.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
On the other hand the vast majority of them don't like their President.

Yay! Only took 6 posts to bring up Bush!

:thumbsup:Good to see you can count. To bad your judgment isn't as good as your math.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
On the other hand the vast majority of them don't like their President.

Yay! Only took 6 posts to bring up Bush!

:thumbsup:Good to see you can count. To bad your judgment isn't as good as your math.

Too bad your just another blind liberal suffering from some of the worst BDS I've ever seen.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
On the other hand the vast majority of them don't like their President.

Yay! Only took 6 posts to bring up Bush!

:thumbsup:Good to see you can count. To bad your judgment isn't as good as your math.

Too bad your just another blind liberal suffering from some of the worst BDS I've ever seen.

So says Bushes in house Proctologist.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
On the other hand the vast majority of them don't like their President.

Yay! Only took 6 posts to bring up Bush!

:thumbsup:Good to see you can count. To bad your judgment isn't as good as your math.

Too bad your just another blind liberal suffering from some of the worst BDS I've ever seen.

So says Bushes in house Proctologist.

You need some new lines.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
On the other hand the vast majority of them don't like their President.

Yay! Only took 6 posts to bring up Bush!

:thumbsup:Good to see you can count. To bad your judgment isn't as good as your math.

Too bad your just another blind liberal suffering from some of the worst BDS I've ever seen.

So says Bushes in house Proctologist.

You need some new lines.

If the glove fits and in your case it does..

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
On the other hand the vast majority of them don't like their President.

Yay! Only took 6 posts to bring up Bush!

:thumbsup:Good to see you can count. To bad your judgment isn't as good as your math.

Too bad your just another blind liberal suffering from some of the worst BDS I've ever seen.

So says Bushes in house Proctologist.

You need some new lines.

If the glove fits and in your case it does..

Shows how little you know then and how blind you really are.

 

[Specop 007]

n/m

 

[yuppiejr]

Originally posted by: brandonbull
It would take years to get this "new source" of oil flowing. What do we do until that happens? Stick our heads in the sand and hope that with the "threat" of new oil sources that the prices will magically go back down? High oil prices are here to stay unless we can get oil alternative sources developed. Spending money and time drilling for oil does nothing but "put a bandaid on a gunshot wound".

Actually since the current price of oil is based in great part on speculation over future prices we would see a significant reduction in crude prices as soon as the domestic oil fields in question were opened to drilling.

I don't care how much idealism you want to smoke, the fact is there is still not a source of energy, other than perhaps nuclear, that is as efficient and environmentally safe as fossil fuels. When you look at the total energy cost and environmental impact of producing most or all currently available "alternative energies" they pretty much all end up doing more harm than good. Most of the hype around current alternative energy sources has more to do with fat cat energy "investors" soaking up government grants and subsidies for their own benefit rather than any real effort to find and fund VIABLE alternative energy sources. Starving this country of energy as some sort of warped incentive to find an alternative will only limit the capital available to research alternatives... penny wise and pound foolish.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: brandonbull
It would take years to get this "new source" of oil flowing. What do we do until that happens? Stick our heads in the sand and hope that with the "threat" of new oil sources that the prices will magically go back down? High oil prices are here to stay unless we can get oil alternative sources developed. Spending money and time drilling for oil does nothing but "put a bandaid on a gunshot wound".

Agree. We act as though we're the only ones with high gas prices. We aren't. In fact, ours are *still* among the lowest in the world ( LINK ). High gas prices are here to stay. Get used to it.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Corbett
LOL. Bush is NOT worse according to the polls. Please try to stay on topic.

Some people will not criticize the president no matter how bad a job he's doing. He has a name and a face and those loyal to him will always be loyal to him. Congress is made up of 'a bunch of idiots'. There's no need to point fingers at an individual to place blame. It's all 'their' fault. Much easier (IMO).