The Brownies Get Drilled and Go Berzerk! Look at this Exchange...
Posted by: Aaron Park | 08/08/2008 9:01 PM
Blogger's note - Charlie Brown's chief e-team member decided to share his innremost thoughts with Red County readers after treating himself to Tom McClintock's first spot of the general election cycle. Rather than respond on the thread - I have created a new post with Bob's words and my replies. My words are italicized... Bob's are in regular type.
Well, which misrepresentation or falsehood shall we start with?
1) America has 1 trillion bbls of recoverable oil
Baloney. McClintock uses the trick of calling unproven reserves "recoverable". This is an accounting sleight of hand that allows him to ignore the Department of Energy's official number for the proven U.S. oil reserves of 21 billion bbls and claim that the country is awash in available oil. He is of course including shale oil in his number. Oil industry experts all agree that shale oil production is not commercially feasible unless oil prices climb much, much higher than even the current $147 peak.
"Bob" - like most liberals you have a defeatist view and have forgotten that American ingenuity can overcome. Even if the absurd numbers you throw out are true - technology will overcome. Remember how oil rigs can now drill sideways, or how coal power is now cleaner than natural gas?
The Department of Energy's numbers were created under Bill Richardson - a former candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination.
I also notice how you did not refute the 1 Trillion Barrels of oil number - you just deflected with your opinion and that of others. You usually call me a liar when I do that.
McClintock is distorting information to score cheap political points. He is counting on voters to not be smart enough to know this instead of telling them the truth.
You are counting on a defeatest, America can't do it attitude to respond. Damn it anyway, we are winning the war in Iraq - even your friends in the media are admitting it now. It has to be tough when the flow of bad news turns on you guys.
2) Democrats caused the current energy crisis
Malarkey. Republicans led the government from 2000 through 2006. During that period virtually no steps were taken to increase conservation or develop alternative energy sources. Instead oil companies were rewarded with tax incentives that maintained our reliance on foreign oil.
No Oil refineries built since the 1980's. Endangered Species Act in the 1970's. Federal Lands expanded three-fold and closed under Clinton. Thousands of Sierra Club (and other eco group) Lawsuits preventing forest management, energy exploration, energy expansion, nuclear power, and infastructure creation. Notice - you focus on only one half of the solution to the problem in your malarky.
As Tom McClintock knows if all domestic PROVEN oil reserves were exploited totay the total increase in the world's supply would be between one and two percent. This is not enough to make any difference in the price of oil in the world market, particularly since the cost of producing oil in ANWR and offshore is much higher per bbl than in the oil fields of the Middle East.
Bob - you are a product of the public education system. How is it that reserves triple those of Saudi Arabia will only add 1-2% to the world's supply? Is it the same logic as global warming that has temps this summer 10-15 degrees below normal?
3) McClintock can save the day
Bulls**t. McClintock doesn't have an energy policy that will serve this country in the long run. He wants us to tap our remaining small proven reserves and pump until we have an energy crisis of absolutely monumental proportions as projected long-term demand conttinues to exceed the finite long-term supply available.
Bob - Bulls**t. You are obviously a man with a serious hearing disorder. If the healthcare system was socialized they way you and Charlie want it to be, you would never be able to get a hearing aid to listen to McClintock's full energy plan. As it is, you can pick the provider of your choice and obtain assistance for your hearing problem. You know what they say about assumption? But you ain't makin an ass out of me because, this time, however... I have listened to both Colonel Klink and Tom McClintock - game, set and match to McClintock.
Further, McClintock will have no power in congress if elected. None at all. As a junior member of the minority party he will not be able to get legislation approved from his basement office. So all of the lofty promises he makes in this ad are just baloney to fool people into voting for him.
Bob - Charlie Brown can't finish a sentence, and he will be a back bencher as well. Remember McDonkey from CA-11? Have you seen his name on a bill as author? Nope, just on a bunch of Earmarks (9+ Million worth btw...)
The voters of the fourth district are smarter than old Tom thinks. He thinks we are a bunch of gun toters who just want to round up illegal aliens and put them in cattle cars bound for Mexico. He thinks we're a bunch of yahoos who don't have the first idea about why gas costs $4.00 or more.
Charlie Brown for Congress - Open the Borders, Grab our Guns... do you have any more information on the Brown agenda? Your comment has been informative.
McClintock will say or do anything to get elected because, well...Tom needs a job.
Sorry Charlie!
Well, which misrepresentation or falsehood shall we start with?
1) America has 1 trillion bbls of recoverable oil
Baloney. McClintock uses the trick of calling unproven reserves "recoverable". This is an accounting sleight of hand that allows him to ignore the Department of Energy's official number for the proven U.S. oil reserves of 21 billion bbls and claim that the country is awash in available oil. He is of course including shale oil in his number. Oil industry experts all agree that shale oil production is not commercially feasible unless oil prices climb much, much higher than even the current $147 peak.
"Bob" - like most liberals you have a defeatist view and have forgotten that American ingenuity can overcome. Even if the absurd numbers you throw out are true - technology will overcome. Remember how oil rigs can now drill sideways, or how coal power is now cleaner than natural gas?
The Department of Energy's numbers were created under Bill Richardson - a former candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination.
I also notice how you did not refute the 1 Trillion Barrels of oil number - you just deflected with your opinion and that of others. You usually call me a liar when I do that.
McClintock is distorting information to score cheap political points. He is counting on voters to not be smart enough to know this instead of telling them the truth.
You are counting on a defeatest, America can't do it attitude to respond. Damn it anyway, we are winning the war in Iraq - even your friends in the media are admitting it now. It has to be tough when the flow of bad news turns on you guys.
2) Democrats caused the current energy crisis
Malarkey. Republicans led the government from 2000 through 2006. During that period virtually no steps were taken to increase conservation or develop alternative energy sources. Instead oil companies were rewarded with tax incentives that maintained our reliance on foreign oil.
No Oil refineries built since the 1980's. Endangered Species Act in the 1970's. Federal Lands expanded three-fold and closed under Clinton. Thousands of Sierra Club (and other eco group) Lawsuits preventing forest management, energy exploration, energy expansion, nuclear power, and infastructure creation. Notice - you focus on only one half of the solution to the problem in your malarky.
As Tom McClintock knows if all domestic PROVEN oil reserves were exploited totay the total increase in the world's supply would be between one and two percent. This is not enough to make any difference in the price of oil in the world market, particularly since the cost of producing oil in ANWR and offshore is much higher per bbl than in the oil fields of the Middle East.
Bob - you are a product of the public education system. How is it that reserves triple those of Saudi Arabia will only add 1-2% to the world's supply? Is it the same logic as global warming that has temps this summer 10-15 degrees below normal?
3) McClintock can save the day
Bulls**t. McClintock doesn't have an energy policy that will serve this country in the long run. He wants us to tap our remaining small proven reserves and pump until we have an energy crisis of absolutely monumental proportions as projected long-term demand conttinues to exceed the finite long-term supply available.
Bob - Bulls**t. You are obviously a man with a serious hearing disorder. If the healthcare system was socialized they way you and Charlie want it to be, you would never be able to get a hearing aid to listen to McClintock's full energy plan. As it is, you can pick the provider of your choice and obtain assistance for your hearing problem. You know what they say about assumption? But you ain't makin an ass out of me because, this time, however... I have listened to both Colonel Klink and Tom McClintock - game, set and match to McClintock.
Further, McClintock will have no power in congress if elected. None at all. As a junior member of the minority party he will not be able to get legislation approved from his basement office. So all of the lofty promises he makes in this ad are just baloney to fool people into voting for him.
Bob - Charlie Brown can't finish a sentence, and he will be a back bencher as well. Remember McDonkey from CA-11? Have you seen his name on a bill as author? Nope, just on a bunch of Earmarks (9+ Million worth btw...)
The voters of the fourth district are smarter than old Tom thinks. He thinks we are a bunch of gun toters who just want to round up illegal aliens and put them in cattle cars bound for Mexico. He thinks we're a bunch of yahoos who don't have the first idea about why gas costs $4.00 or more.
Charlie Brown for Congress - Open the Borders, Grab our Guns... do you have any more information on the Brown agenda? Your comment has been informative.
McClintock will say or do anything to get elected because, well...Tom needs a job.
Sorry Charlie!
CATEGORY:
4th Congressional District Race
Women's right to vote didn't exist until they fought for it. Blacks rights for equality didn't happen until...
I am flattered.
I am just a CD4 voter interested in politics who is sick and tired of what has been happening to my former party yet the vaunted "Placer County" conservative political activist, Aaron Park (who doesn't live in Placer County or CD4, apparently), believes me to be some kind of Democratic super secret agent.
The fact is his talking points are so weak any amateur with a PC and half a brain like myself can quickly punch holes as big as the proposed Auburn Dam in them.
For instance, the very Rand report Aaron cites contains a very long passage on the issues with developing shale oil. These get no mention in Tom's ad or Aaron's many, many, many posts on this subject, though.
He will be quick to pounce on the environmental issues listed by saying that if the eco-whackos would just get out of the way the oil is there for the taking. But read through everything Rand says. If you are a careful reader you will note that there are some very significant non environmental issues facing oil shale development. Anybody with half a brain (Tom + Aaron together, maybe?) could figure out that it will take 10-15 years before shale oil yields much oil. Yet Tom's radio ad--with the strains of vaguely patriotic music in the background--would have you believe a simple act of Congress--opposed by Democrats--is all that stands in the way of one trillion barrels of oil and immediate reduction in gas prices.
The price of oil has fallen 25% in just a few weeks. Yet shale oil development, as the excerpt below notes, is extraordinarily capital intensive. In fact the report notes that the major reason shale oil has not been exploited is due to the economic issues facing companies who would have to pay for the development of the production capacity. Tom's assertion that it's the "liberals in Congress" who stand in the way is patently false.
Tom's ad and Aaron's posts are the kind of misinformation that is slowing down real political progress on an issue of importance to all Americans. Sure, develop shale oil resources, but don't gloss over the fact that the critical issues the Rand report notes need to be addressed.
A vote for Tom is a vote for someone who is divorced from reality. We have had enough of that since January 20, 2001, thank you very much.
Bob
.
.
.
Rand Corporation - 2005:
Critical Policy Issues for Oil Shale Development
The potential emergence of an oil shale industry in the western United States raises a number of critical policy issues.
Land Use and Ecological Impacts. Of all the environmental impacts of oil shale development, the most serious appears to be the extent to which land will be disturbed. Regardless of the technical approach to oil shale development, a portion of the land over the Green River Formation will need to be withdrawn from current uses, and there could be permanent topographic changes and impacts on flora and fauna. For surface retorting, extensive and permanent changes to surface topography will result from mining and spent shale disposal. In-situ retorting appears to be much
less disruptive, but surface-based drilling and support operations will cause at least a decade-long displacement of all other land uses and of preexisting flora and fauna at each development site.
Air Quality. Oil shale operations will result in emissions that could impact regional air quality. Studies in the 1970s and 1980s suggested that air emissions from an industry producing a few hundred thousand barrels per day could probably be controlled to meet then existing regulations. No studies have been reported since, and no studies have considered output on the order of several million barrels per day. Meanwhile, so much has changed in terms of environmental regulations, mining and process technologies, and pollution control technologies that the earlier analyses are no longer relevant.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The production of petroleum products derived from oil shale will entail significantly higher emissions of carbon dioxide, compared with conventional crude oil production. If these emissions are to be controlled, oil shale production costs will increase.
Water Quality. All high-grade western oil shale resources lie in the Colorado River drainage basin. For mining and surface retorting, the major water quality issue is the leaching of salts and toxics from spent shale. A number of approaches are available for preventing surface water contamination from waste piles, but it is not clear whether these methods represent a permanent solution that will be effective after the Summary xiii site is closed and abandoned. For in-situ retorting, inadequate information is available on the fate, once extraction operations cease, of salts and other minerals that are commingled with oil shale.
Socioeconomic Impacts. Large-scale oil shale development will stimulate a significant increase in the populations of northwestern Colorado and Uintah County in Utah. Even a relatively small development effort, such as might occur during the construction of a few initial commercial plants will result in a large population influx. Rapid population growth will likely stretch the financial ability of local communities to provide necessary public services and amenities.
Leasing. The richest and most abundant deposits of oil shale are found on federal lands managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior. As such, the course of oil shale development and its environmental impacts will be shaped by federal decisions regarding how much, when, and which specific lands will be offered for lease. At present, the Department of the Interior does not have available a strategic approach for leasing oil shale–bearing federal lands. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 has liberalized the lease ownership provisions of the Minerals Leasing Act of 1920, thereby removing a major deterrent to private-sector investment in oil shale development. If mining and surface retorting turn out to be the preferred approach to oil shale development, the current lease size provisions of the Act will constrain resource recovery and increase per-barrel mining costs and land disturbance.
Production Costs. Oil shale has not been exploited in the United States because the energy industry, after some halting efforts, decided that developing oil shale was economically unviable. Over the past two decades, very little research and development
effort has been directed at reducing the costs of surface retorting. For thermally conductive in-situ retorting, costs might be competitive with crude oil priced at less than $30 per barrel, but the technical viability of in-situ retorting will not be fully
established for at least six years.
Market Risks. As with many commodities, crude oil prices are highly volatile. To hedge against the possibility of downward price movements, investments in projects with high capital costs, such as oil shale development, tend to be deferred until a sufficient safety cushion builds up between anticipated production costs and what the market is willing to pay. An added degree of uncertainty is associated with the potential response of OPEC nations to various market and technical developments.
Water Consumption. About three barrels of water are needed per barrel of shale oil produced. Water availability analyses for oil shale development were conducted in the early 1980s. These analyses indicated that the earliest constraining factors would
be limitations in local water supply systems, such as reservoirs, pipelines, and groundwater development. A bigger issue is the impact of a strategic-scale oil shale industry on the greater Colorado River Basin. Demands for water are expected to continue to
grow for the foreseeable future, making the earlier analyses regarding oil shale development outdated.
What's really amusing is the title of Aaron's post. He has mixed up which campaign has gone berserk.
McClintock had nothing much to say about energy until Charlie Brown published a detailed proposal for dealing with the energy crisis. The McClintock campaign then went berzerk trying to figure out how to respond since they had been caught flat-footed.
Tom has said that immigration is the number one issue facing CD4 voters. He hasn't given energy much thought. It seems likely that he or anyone on his campaign staff didn't even read the full Rand report. They just saw a sound bite opportunity and released a breathless ad: "One trillion barrels of recoverable oil. Three times the reserves of Saudi Arabia!"
Sound too good to be true?
It is.
Bob - read my latest post. Shell has developed technology to extract shale oil for about 50% less - all you can do is offer reasons why it won't work.
Other than that Bob, please go sell your America Can't message to the voters. It will be a winner!
By the way, all that wonderful oil will be sold on the global market for which our share will be minute. That is to say, in the low, single digit % range. In order to make even a small dent in our energy independence, you'll need about 800,000 times as much oil as it is suggested there is. Do you think Shell will hold back some oil to sell just to the U.S. at a lower than market price?
"America can't" - This is one of many sounds made by Republicans, so devoid of original thought, they must fall back on the script of slogans, each one so wholly generalized, they can be attached to any package of smears as often as one believes the audience can digest them. You can hear these slogans uttered without the rest of the sentence, walking by a tv with the news on, and it's all you need to hear. You know that at least one person on that tv is making illogical non-arguments or, assertions of such a generalized nature they can't be substantiated. Instead, they'll return to the emotional slogans again and again, each time a reaffirmation of the horrible truth. Then they usually appear to be very proud of themselves.
These slogans are usually supported by other word pairings being tossed around among the kind. It really is pathetic but, repeated with such dedication, at every possible opportunity, eventually, some journalist will refer to "the perception that candidate X wants hold America back". It can work.
Well, I've got to quit. Sometimes I come across the ignorance that frustrates me so bad I just have to point it out. Hey, you're being an empty blowhard. I often wonder if people who pretend to have something substantial to say only to communicate an opinion,(candidate X is an extremely anti-American guy who wants to actively subvert our values and prosperity and is probably a communist(at least, may have an illigitiment child who is a communist)) that isn't even their own, if their intention is total disregard for reality or have they really drunk the kool-aid. Is it possible to delude oneself to the point that reality is simply conformed to the perceived necessity?
Anyway, have a nice day!
Hey Danny
You are someone I definitely want to stay around for awhile. We need some sanity here.
I like the cut of your jib...
Lee
Agree 100%. Welcome, Danny!
Readers: Please note that Danny is commenting from the same computer as a known Ose supporter from before the primary.
Bob - better go get about 10-15 of your friends to make it a fair fight. Hurry up we are running out of election cycle.
And, again "Danny Smith" demonstrates a complete ignorance of the commodities markets. This is a standard Democrat attack pattern to prey upon an under-informed America. I happen to deal in financial services and I know better.
Come get some more and bring your friends with you.