« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obama Vs American People: The New Oil Moratorium

Barack Obama once again, and on the very same issue, finds himself fighting against the interest of the American people.

(Via Hot Air) According to a resent Rasmussen poll, 60% of likely voters support offshore drilling. But wait, there’s more!

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 54% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the new seven-year ban will increase gas prices, while just 11% think it will make gas prices go down. Twenty-five percent (25%) expect the ban to have no impact on prices at the pump.

This leads me to a reader, who emails me a very good question:

I know [you have] commented recently in favor of offshore drilling, so when I caught this short item about the Obama Administration not allowing scoping off the Atlantic coast (hence no development for at least 7 years), I thought I’d bring it to your attention.

Basically, given that the Administration is gradually supposed to be lifting the ban on the rest of [West] Gulf drilling, is there any logical reason why they’re not lifting the ban on Atlantic drilling?

But the administration isn’t shutting down domestic offshore drilling; on the contrary, it lifted its post-spill moratorium on drilling in the western and central gulf, where oil companies have been operating for decades, earlier than scheduled. Administration officials have said that they are increasingly confident that risks are low enough to allow drilling to proceed, and regulation will be only more stringent.

The answer is simple, money. And politics. Money and politics. A more direct answer to your question is that there is no logic there. If drilling for oil is bad, it should be bad everywhere and be made permanent.

Obama can’t stop completely the drilling in the West Gulf, if he wants to be re-elected in 2012. See, you can’t cost anyone any money unless they are already making it. Obama can brush off critism that not drilling is costing some states money that are not already drilling, because it is speculative. On the other hand, there has been a measurable, and very negitive, impact on his total ban in the West Gulf. He is hoping to mitigate, or lessen, that damage and critism by 2012.

It’s a game. A game Obama plays… poorly. See, me and you, we see through Obama. We know what he is up to and can call him out. We are also armed by the will of the American people, who want more drilling here in USA. Petroleum (crude oil) chemical reagents are also used to make plastics, pharmaceuticals, and the semi-solid asphalt you drive on everyday. As you can see, petroleum is much more useful than just gas and oil. We understand that if petroleum can be drilled (and refined) here at a lesser cost, then these products will cost less.

Liberals like to say we must become energy independent. However they say the only way is to go green. I think the best long term goal is the Hydrogen Fuel Cell in cars, with Fusion Power Plants (using lithium* as fuel) producing the energy to make the Hydrogen**. However one is cost prohibited and the other is at least 75 years in the future. Wind and Solar energy is also extremely cost prohibited. Becoming energy independent must mean, at least in the short term, drilling offshore. We must produce our own petroleum and stop buying from jerks like Hugo Chavez.

[Cross-Posted On Practical State.com]

BigGator5.net
@biggator5

*At our current reseves, we can operate a reactor for a little over 3,000 years. If we need more, we can mine lithium from the sea at little or no cost or environmental impact.

**This is just my opinion. I know this sounds a little complex and there are different ways to go about it, but this is my favorite.

Get Alerts