RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Gas Prices Grow More Under Obama Than Carter - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Gas Prices Grow More Under Obama Than Carter Rate Topic: -----

#81 User is online   Italian Biker 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 3,539
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 03 May 2012 - 03:33 PM

View PostMADGestic, on 24 April 2012 - 11:09 PM, said:



[ Why were they drilling so deep? Well duh because like a little old lady with a fistful of quarters on a bus trip to a casino, they're looking to strike it rich no matter the odds. They've hit on a couple of winners but keep chasing that jackpot.




That is an outright lie. The enviro wacko's lobbied for laws that forced them into deeper waters, and they probably knew that if there was a problem it would be more difficult to deal with so they could push their agenda even farther by saying "we told you so".
0

#82 User is online   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 22,505
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 03 May 2012 - 03:36 PM

View Postpict, on 03 May 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

Everything you said is correct. Rigs are built on land in different pieces, then floated out and assembled. And the deeper you're forced to drill then there are more chances of something going wrong.



Funny, how is that I just a Joe Six Pack(or keg in my case) knows all these things?

I mean after all aren't conservative types supposedly less informed and much dumber about everything?

Or could it be that I am a nuts, bolts, wires, type of person with experience in that type of thing.

Also add that it delays containment in the event of a disaster.
As was shown a few years ago further out at sea didn't do sh$t to lessen the spill. The longer it takes to get containment resources into place the worse it will be.
The farther out a platform is the longer it takes to get all resources in place.

Sticking them out farther from shore may make some people feel safer but in reality it makes things worse.


Oki
0

#83 User is offline   satellite66 

  • No more RHINOs!!!
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 5,219
  • Joined: 27-November 03

Posted 03 May 2012 - 03:42 PM

Curious, do you think it's safety that pushes them out or just they don't want them seen from shore? Like Kennedys wind farm objection?
0

#84 User is offline   The-Stig 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 15,481
  • Joined: 28-December 03

Posted 03 May 2012 - 05:24 PM

View Postpict, on 03 May 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

Nah, I realize a greenie won't learn, they aren't interested in facts, they're only interested in promoting an ineffiecient 'feel good' technology.

But I enjoy publicly showing them their idiocy.

you have more patience than me. I am going back to designing a pig launcher for platform Elly
0

#85 User is offline   Howsithangin 

  • I'm dethpicable
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 25,499
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 03 May 2012 - 06:15 PM

View PostItalian Biker, on 03 May 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

That is an outright lie. The enviro wacko's lobbied for laws that forced them into deeper waters, and they probably knew that if there was a problem it would be more difficult to deal with so they could push their agenda even farther by saying "we told you so".

I've tried explaining that to MADG (your hands are soaking in it) twice, to no avail.
0

#86 User is offline   pict 

  • If you expect a PC response, forget it!
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 49,998
  • Joined: 08-January 04

Posted 03 May 2012 - 06:59 PM

View PostHowsithangin, on 03 May 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

I've tried explaining that to MADG (your hands are soaking in it) twice, to no avail.
What else do you expect?

You're explaining facts to a guy who thinks drinking piss won't make you more dehydrated, a guy who thinks global warming is a fact and a guy who does know all about dick rings.

There's more hot air coming out his long-winded gob than there is water vapor in the atmosphere.

This post has been edited by pict: 03 May 2012 - 07:01 PM

0

#87 User is offline   pict 

  • If you expect a PC response, forget it!
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 49,998
  • Joined: 08-January 04

Posted 03 May 2012 - 07:32 PM

View Postoki, on 03 May 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

Funny, how is that I just a Joe Six Pack(or keg in my case) knows all these things?

I mean after all aren't conservative types supposedly less informed and much dumber about everything?

Or could it be that I am a nuts, bolts, wires, type of person with experience in that type of thing.

Also add that it delays containment in the event of a disaster.
As was shown a few years ago further out at sea didn't do sh$t to lessen the spill. The longer it takes to get containment resources into place the worse it will be.
The farther out a platform is the longer it takes to get all resources in place.

Sticking them out farther from shore may make some people feel safer but in reality it makes things worse.


Oki

Yup. When an operator receives a permit to drill in deep water, there is in fact a contractual obligation between the oil company and the Federal government. The operator assumes all the risk in extracting the oil, all the production costs and transportation etc.

It's the Federal government's responsibility to enact containment should a disaster or a spill occurs. What should be done immediately (as signed into law by Clinton) is the deployment of fire booms. You burn the oil off at the surface thereby stopping it from going ashore, you do this continually until the blow-out is sealed.

When asked why this wasn't being done while the oil was spewing out and heading towards shore in the gulf. An Obama toadie replied, 'that's the last thing to do' citing environmental issues. Obama and his EPA wanted the spill to reach the shore as an excuse for his illegal drilling ban.

It's the Chicago way and damn whatever happens.
0

#88 User is offline   pict 

  • If you expect a PC response, forget it!
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 49,998
  • Joined: 08-January 04

Posted 03 May 2012 - 07:39 PM

Fire boom:

http://media.al.com/live/photo/fireboomjpg-3a635d0e642dd5a0_large.jpg

Quote

If U.S. officials had followed up on a 1994 response plan for a major Gulf oil spill, it is possible that the spill could have been kept under control and far from land.

The problem: The federal government did not have a single fire boom on hand.

The "In-Situ Burn" plan produced by federal agencies in 1994 calls for responding to a major oil spill in the Gulf with the immediate use of fire booms.

But in order to conduct a successful test burn eight days after the Deepwater Horizon well began releasing massive amounts of oil into the Gulf, officials had to purchase one from a company in Illinois.

When federal officials called, Elastec/American Marine, shipped the only boom it had in stock, Jeff Bohleber, chief financial officer for Elastec, said today.

At federal officials' behest, the company began calling customers in other countries and asking if the U.S. government could borrow their fire booms for a few days, he said.

A single fire boom being towed by two boats can burn up to 1,800 barrels of oil an hour, Bohleber said. That translates to 75,000 gallons an hour, raising the possibility that the spill could have been contained at the accident scene 100 miles from shore.


Link
0

#89 User is offline   pict 

  • If you expect a PC response, forget it!
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 49,998
  • Joined: 08-January 04

Posted 03 May 2012 - 08:51 PM

View Postsatellite66, on 03 May 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

Curious, do you think it's safety that pushes them out or just they don't want them seen from shore? Like Kennedys wind farm objection?
It's nothing to do with safety or aesthetics. It's all about the enviro-nuts hatred of natural energy resources and promoting a non-viable greenie agenda.

The safest place to operate is drilling on land, the second safest place is in shallow water and the most dangerous is deep water. And with each increased level of safety factors, comes a great increase in cost in extracting the oil.

This administration is the most anti-energy and corrupt government I've ever seen. They pander to the enviro-wackos, that's what it's all about.

This post has been edited by pict: 03 May 2012 - 08:57 PM

0

#90 User is online   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 22,505
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 04 May 2012 - 11:26 AM

View Postpict, on 03 May 2012 - 07:32 PM, said:

Yup. When an operator receives a permit to drill in deep water, there is in fact a contractual obligation between the oil company and the Federal government. The operator assumes all the risk in extracting the oil, all the production costs and transportation etc.

It's the Federal government's responsibility to enact containment should a disaster or a spill occurs. What should be done immediately (as signed into law by Clinton) is the deployment of fire booms. You burn the oil off at the surface thereby stopping it from going ashore, you do this continually until the blow-out is sealed.

When asked why this wasn't being done while the oil was spewing out and heading towards shore in the gulf. An Obama toadie replied, 'that's the last thing to do' citing environmental issues. Obama and his EPA wanted the spill to reach the shore as an excuse for his illegal drilling ban.

It's the Chicago way and damn whatever happens.



Pretty much what I thought.

Granted you have some air pollution, but it is far less an issue than the oil coming ashore.

I remember reading that was standard procedure and law. And, thought I remember reading that N.O.A.A. was ready to rock but where literally blocked by the Obama administration.
They where ready to put the booms in place pretty far out.
Even with my limited knowledge on the subject I knew that fire booms where standard procedure.

You won't get every last drop because of wind tides and dispersion, but you will get the vast majority.
In this case the oil coming ashore and contaminating the ecosystem would have been much much smaller if not miniscule.

Oki
0

#91 User is offline   pict 

  • If you expect a PC response, forget it!
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 49,998
  • Joined: 08-January 04

Posted 04 May 2012 - 11:46 AM

View Postoki, on 04 May 2012 - 11:26 AM, said:

Pretty much what I thought.

Granted you have some air pollution, but it is far less an issue than the oil coming ashore.

I remember reading that was standard procedure and law. And, thought I remember reading that N.O.A.A. was ready to rock but where literally blocked by the Obama administration.
They where ready to put the booms in place pretty far out.
Even with my limited knowledge on the subject I knew that fire booms where standard procedure.

You won't get every last drop because of wind tides and dispersion, but you will get the vast majority.
In this case the oil coming ashore and contaminating the ecosystem would have been much much smaller if not miniscule.

Oki
I always laugh at their 'air pollution' concerns with regards to burning off gas and oil. I'll start listening to them when they figure out a way to stop volcanoes erupting.

If you remember as well, when the rig first blew all Obama did was send a bunch of his croney politicians down there, that's all. What should have been done was despatch engineers down there and do as they say.

But Obama didn't want that, heck he didn't even go down there for weeks. At the time he was busy lambasting Arizona regarding their actions on illegals. The Feds didn't even have fire booms at the ready, what does that tell you?

The oil could and would have been contained at the site.

This post has been edited by pict: 04 May 2012 - 11:49 AM

0

#92 User is online   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 22,505
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 04 May 2012 - 03:02 PM

View Postpict, on 04 May 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

I always laugh at their 'air pollution' concerns with regards to burning off gas and oil. I'll start listening to them when they figure out a way to stop volcanoes erupting.

If you remember as well, when the rig first blew all Obama did was send a bunch of his croney politicians down there, that's all. What should have been done was despatch engineers down there and do as they say.

But Obama didn't want that, heck he didn't even go down there for weeks. At the time he was busy lambasting Arizona regarding their actions on illegals. The Feds didn't even have fire booms at the ready, what does that tell you?

The oil could and would have been contained at the site.



Or Forrest fires, methane releases from a whole host of sources....

Funny, I had to deal with a pretty wicked outage and we sent techs to the location in trouble and let the engineers handle it.
Not customer sales reps or H.R. people.
When sh$t breaks you send the correct people in to first fix the issue, then you determine the cause, then you do your damdest to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Also would like to add that this rig received safety awards. Did I mention that a certain someone in Washington did get lots of cash from B.P.?

Oki
0

#93 User is offline   pict 

  • If you expect a PC response, forget it!
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 49,998
  • Joined: 08-January 04

Posted 04 May 2012 - 03:14 PM

View Postoki, on 04 May 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

Or Forrest fires, methane releases from a whole host of sources....

Funny, I had to deal with a pretty wicked outage and we sent techs to the location in trouble and let the engineers handle it.
Not customer sales reps or H.R. people.
When sh$t breaks you send the correct people in to first fix the issue, then you determine the cause, then you do your damdest to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Also would like to add that this rig received safety awards. Did I mention that a certain someone in Washington did get lots of cash from B.P.?

Oki
As I recall there were two prime failures which caused this rig to blow. The main one was a defect in manufacture in the valve at the well-head. The secondary failure was insufficient concrete strength around the well-head itself. When the valve failed the pressure blew off the concrete and allowed gas to go up the lines unchecked, all it needed after that was a spark.

So there's two things required to be done here, more stringent quality control and testing of the well-head valve system at the manufacturer, and more stringent field tests on concrete quality prior to placement. The concrete strength in cases like this is determined at the mixing and batching plant, but concrete can denigrate for various reasons while on route.

Those are easy fixes, and as usual it's never one thing which causes a calamity.

This post has been edited by pict: 04 May 2012 - 03:26 PM

0

#94 User is offline   MADGestic 

  • Trey Dae d’lea
  • View blog
  • View gallery
  • Group: Diamond Community Supporter
  • Posts: 13,693
  • Joined: 01-December 03

Posted 04 May 2012 - 09:45 PM

View PostHowsithangin, on 03 May 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

I've tried explaining that to MADG (your hands are soaking in it) twice, to no avail.


I'm terribly sorry; as you can see there are rather high levels of obfuscation, ad hominem, and cross-posting in this thread; I must have missed your explanation.



You first addressed me here with a non-informative response to my open-ended question regarding alleged presidential influence on the retail price of gasoline.



Next was here where you interjected into my exchange with another poster who had claimed:



Quote

… we sit on more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia…


I responded:

Quote

Please provide citations for "more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia"… that is highly counterintuitive especially since Middle Eastern reserves are still relatively sweet and easy to access.


Due to the high distraction level in this thread I don't remember if that poster ever provided reference; but you picked up on my comment (perhaps not appreciating the context in which I posted) and said:



Quote

Are you honestly equating quantity of oil reserves to their ease of access? :blink:


I didn't understand your apparently rhetorical question, and since you added a disclaimer ("away on a laptop"), and I was not inferring such anyway, I didn't think much of it and moved on. So let me flesh this out a bit.



In re crude oil production, the quantity (I.E.: reserves or the amount of oil-stuff still in the ground), the quality (I.E.: "sweet" and other descriptors), and the difficulty of access (I.E: "easy" and other indicators of costs of production) are I think all distinct aspects fossil fuel production. The other poster seemed to think that "more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia" was some sort of argument about production costs (regarding the topic) when in fact it is not.



Even if the statement is true it neither addresses the quality of the alleged reserves nor the ease of access. It was suggested that quantity equals profitability and/or lower market prices at the gas station when neither of those inferences is necessarily true. That's why I asked for citations and provided a quick example of why the supposed argument was… eh… not so much.



Sitting on large reserves of high quality crude that are relatively easy to access is pretty sweet (the Middle East). Sitting on reserves of lesser quality crude and/or that are not so easy to access (US, Venezuela, former soviet bloc, Asia, etc) and/or are not so large (everyone else) is simply not as profitable. You have to work harder to get it and it requires more processing when you do.



So no, I did not intent to "[equate] quantity of oil reserves to their ease of access"; in fact I was responding to such an oversimplified and inaccurate argument when you piped in. As I hope you now see, I understand these as distinct variables, which nonetheless must be collectively considered inter alia when discussing the local retail market of the finished product: Gasoline for our modes of personal transportation.





Clearly this is a complex subject that challenges the intellectual comfort zones of some. The imagery of massive rigs being dragged about willy-nilly "because Obama made them do it" is so much easier to swallow, especially when it satisfies one's confirmation bias; reality is discomforting and too hard to understand, don'ja know. OH! Look over there! FIRE!



:coolshades:
0

#95 User is offline   pict 

  • If you expect a PC response, forget it!
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 49,998
  • Joined: 08-January 04

Posted 05 May 2012 - 05:07 AM

Quote

name='MADGestic' timestamp='1336185941' post='684938411'


I'm terribly sorry; as you can see there are rather high levels of obfuscation, ad hominem, and cross-posting in this thread; I must have missed your explanation.



You first addressed me here with a non-informative response to my open-ended question regarding alleged presidential influence on the retail price of gasoline.



Next was here where you interjected into my exchange with another poster who had claimed:





I responded:
Yeah I know you did, with a typical leftie response. I don't need to provide anything to you because I don't give a crap whether you believe me or not. In fact you've been shot down on this thread and here you are still with your long winded harping.

The fact you admit about the abundance of gas without acknowledging it's relationship to oil reserves, which I explained, speaks volumes.

But then, you know all about hot air and gas.



Quote

Due to the high distraction level in this thread I don't remember if that poster ever provided reference; but you picked up on my comment (perhaps not appreciating the context in which I posted) and said:





I didn't understand your apparently rhetorical question, and since you added a disclaimer ("away on a laptop"), and I was not inferring such anyway, I didn't think much of it and moved on. So let me flesh this out a bit.



In re crude oil production, the quantity (I.E.: reserves or the amount of oil-stuff still in the ground), the quality (I.E.: "sweet" and other descriptors), and the difficulty of access (I.E: "easy" and other indicators of costs of production) are I think all distinct aspects fossil fuel production. The other poster seemed to think that "more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia" was some sort of argument about production costs (regarding the topic) when in fact it is not.



Even if the statement is true it neither addresses the quality of the alleged reserves nor the ease of access. It was suggested that quantity equals profitability and/or lower market prices at the gas station when neither of those inferences is necessarily true. That's why I asked for citations and provided a quick example of why the supposed argument was… eh… not so much.



Sitting on large reserves of high quality crude that are relatively easy to access is pretty sweet (the Middle East). Sitting on reserves of lesser quality crude and/or that are not so easy to access (US, Venezuela, former soviet bloc, Asia, etc) and/or are not so large (everyone else) is simply not as profitable. You have to work harder to get it and it requires more processing when you do.



So no, I did not intent to "[equate] quantity of oil reserves to their ease of access"; in fact I was responding to such an oversimplified and inaccurate argument when you piped in. As I hope you now see, I understand these as distinct variables, which nonetheless must be collectively considered inter alia when discussing the local retail market of the finished product: Gasoline for our modes of personal transportation.





Clearly this is a complex subject that challenges the intellectual comfort zones of some. The imagery of massive rigs being dragged about willy-nilly "because Obama made them do it" is so much easier to swallow, especially when it satisfies one's confirmation bias; reality is discomforting and too hard to understand, don'ja know. OH! Look over there! FIRE!
Actually it's a simple subject. And this bolded comment again proves you ignore facts and are a liar, as well as a pro-Obama greenie.

I suggest you actually read up on how a production platform operates and what it actually does. I ain't showing you again, because I''ve already stated how they operate on here. And you're demonstrating you behave like a typical leftie with his fingers in his lug-holes yelling LA LA LA LA LA.

Stick with instructing on the perils and proper use of dick rings, at least you're talking from knowledge and experience.

Because as far as the oil industry goes, you're just a shrill for Obama.

This post has been edited by pict: 05 May 2012 - 08:48 AM

0

#96 User is offline   satellite66 

  • No more RHINOs!!!
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 5,219
  • Joined: 27-November 03

Posted 05 May 2012 - 06:20 AM

All this just to avoid admitting that Obama is clueless and less able than Bush. :biglaugh:
Or that liberals are hypocrites and liars.
0

#97 User is offline   pict 

  • If you expect a PC response, forget it!
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 49,998
  • Joined: 08-January 04

Posted 05 May 2012 - 08:56 AM

View Postsatellite66, on 05 May 2012 - 06:20 AM, said:

All this just to avoid admitting that Obama is clueless and less able than Bush. :biglaugh:
Or that liberals are hypocrites and liars.
That's right.

And of course Madge, the engineering and oil industry genius with his inevitable long-winded garbage, won't ever admit what Obama's agenda is, because he supports him 100%. He believes in all the global warming tosh and look at what he ignores on this very thread:

Everything from how rigs are movable and are moved, fire booms, how production platforms tap multiple wells at the same time and leases versus permits etc. He even admits the over-abundance of natural gas, while ignoring what produces all that natural gas 95% of the time.

Facts mean nothing to Obama butt-sniffers, but at least it shows up the moronic mentality of Obama's dog-washers.

This post has been edited by pict: 05 May 2012 - 09:26 AM

0

#98 User is offline   pict 

  • If you expect a PC response, forget it!
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 49,998
  • Joined: 08-January 04

Posted 05 May 2012 - 03:29 PM

This is info on laborers working on rigs authored in Alberta, an oil province. The same rules apply to rigs located anywhere in the world, the permanent rigs are massive floating factories aided by other rigs.

But today, even some of the massive production rigs are moveable:

Quote

Drilling rig workers are responsible for their own transportation to the work site and are expected to move with the rig to new locations. Rigs frequently move throughout western Canada. Drilling rig workers typically work 12 hour shifts over a two week period while staying in camps or nearby towns. They get a week off between two week shift rotation
The head honcho in command of an oil platform, has much the same responsibilities and status as a ship's Captain. And if they're banned from drilling in an area because of an illegal govenment sanctioned moratorium, they'll move to a place where they can drill.

Link

This post has been edited by pict: 05 May 2012 - 03:36 PM

0

#99 User is offline   MADGestic 

  • Trey Dae d’lea
  • View blog
  • View gallery
  • Group: Diamond Community Supporter
  • Posts: 13,693
  • Joined: 01-December 03

Posted 07 May 2012 - 09:15 PM

View Postpict, on 05 May 2012 - 05:07 AM, said:

(snip ad hominem and other nonsense)… The fact you admit about the abundance of gas without acknowledging it's relationship to oil reserves, which I explained, speaks volumes. […]


What has this got to do with the topic; which is about something being "all Obama's fault"? Why are you alluding my comments in other threads wherein I repeatedly acknowledge (with ample citation) that market prices for coal and natural are gas "in a race to the bottom" when that has nothing to do with this topic? Why can't you provide evidence of the supposed huge exodus of rigs that you apparently insist is occurring… (which is supposedly "all Obama's fault")… and instead attack me personally even when my comments address another poster?



How many rigs are in the Gulf of Mexico? Operating, sidelined, in motion, abandoned, sunk or destroyed… how many? I believe they number in the thousands. How many has President Obama supposedly shooed away? About FIVE according to the references you have provided in support of your argument. Now unless I missed something, a couple of rigs in transit out of hundreds or thousands is hardly an exodus.



I do know that these things are not like cruise ships that can just pull up anchor and sail away willy-nilly… (like to Cancun or Key West for exotic cocktails and party hats)… they are not self-propelled and it is a huge and expensive undertaking to move them. If oil producers are so profitable that they can afford to spend untold millions of dollars just moving rigs around then… what's the problem?
0

#100 User is offline   rocketraccoon 

  • Marxists make my fur fly
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 5,359
  • Joined: 11-March 08

Posted 07 May 2012 - 09:55 PM

At least something grew under obama. We all know that tree couldn't.
0

Share this topic:


  • 6 Pages +
  • « First
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users