ojai news at The Ojai Post :: blog, newspaper, events in Ojai, California

and MY kind of (Black) Green Petrochemical WAR Machine!

$$ $$$ $$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

and MY kind of (Black) Green Petrochemical WAR Machine!

$$ $$$ $$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Geez, MT, cut down on the sugar and caffeine. You're all over the place.

Tyler,
Are you for drilling now? Thats a step in the right direction !

I am directly addressing the current GOP political push for granting more drilling rights and blaming high gas prices on the environmentalists.

Meanwhile, you never answered my multiple requests for a source on your allegation that environmentalists created the term nuclear waste.

That the big gas companies (Chevron, BP, Exxon, etc.) are moving back into one of their old oil colonies – Iraq – just months after unprecedented soaring gas prices seems like a bit of a coinky-dinky to me. I know nothing of how the markets work, but I am beginning to wonder if somehow these companies (and Cheney-Bush) are tied to the alleged market manipulation that people (and Congress) suspect is going on. A way to sway public opinion that going back in is a must, and to deflect the “I told you so!” attacks by those who knew what the score was from the beginning - the real reason we went to war in the first place and why we had Sadam Hussein (the guy who nationalized these companies over thirty years ago) killed.

The source? That would be me! Since there is a great amount of valuble nuclear material still in the spent fuel rods it is a misnomer to call it waste. You can quote me on that. Calling it "waste" only creates the illusion that we have to take it somewhere and safegard it when in reality it can be reprocessed and burned up more completely. Carter and Clintion were both responsible for dismatling our reprocessing program essentially requiring us to store the spent fuel rods instead of reprocessing them. The environmentalists like to call the spent fuel rods "waste" where in reality they are not.

Are the following environmentalists? 15 seconds on Google and the first page of results says they all use the term.

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission - www.nrc.gov
U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board - www.nwtrb.gov
WA Dept of Ecology - www.ecy.wa.gov
Nevada State Agency - www.state.nv.us
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory - www-esd.lbl.gov

You said environmentalists created the term. Can you source it from anywhere other than your own nether regions?

No, just my nether regions, guess I'll have to buy you a beer. Ojai Spirits has 8 beers on tap, Let me see if I can reserve you a pint.

I'll definitely take you up on that, Brian, when I'm not working 16 hour days... :)

Tyler , You have a pint waiting for you over at Ojai Beverage Company ( used to be Regals), ask for Dustin, he's the bar tender ( good only for tonight and tomarrow, when Dustin is bar tending).

Also a correction , they have 12 beers on tap, I would personally recommend the Koning Pilsner !

Hey Brian - mighty kind of you, but I won't be able to make it down there this weekend. Can we donate the beer to a charity of our mutual choosing? Perhaps underprivileged kids? :)

Go, Rahall! I knew the oil companies were full of crap with their whining about not being allowed to drill anywhere anymore.

Stupid stunt by the democrats to try and take the heat off of themselves, the American people aren't that stupid.

I'm sorry, what was the stunt, and what was stupid about it?

(and by the way, your Best President Ever is at a 25% approval rating BECAUSE the American people aren't that stupid.)

The name Brian is Celtic, meaning High, noble, a king that was loved: not ignorant, unwilling to learn, out of date, closed minded and a lover of war to boot... Brian, beautiful Brian, what happened?

Good Lord Tyler, 25% approval rate? That high? Shocking! I thought they would have impeached him by now? Or a least sent him to finishing school? Amazing!

Ha ! At least he's got a high approval rating than Congress.

Congress is at an all time low of 18%.

And I'm going to drink your beer today Tyler !

This blog is OBSESSED with Brian.

#19 - your righteous myopic indignation shows that you "need to get a life"!. Brian represents thousands of people reading this blog who feel exactly the way he does. We are not talking to only "Brian", this is a discussion with all those people who feel and think just like Brian. We are listening to a part of America that we don't usually get to be in discussion with or so intellectually intimate.

does anyone know about the navy's tule elk reserve i recall being told once that one of the richest oil reserves in california sits someplace up there..

Thanks for that dvorah.

You're welcome Brian - and let's hope that somewhere along the line we fall in love with each other and actually hear what the other person is saying, if not always so eloquently or kindly. I will never understand what little screw is missing in your brilliant brain that doesn't get that Bush is an imbecile and McCain is seriously too old and physiologically incapable of being the President of the United States of America. The Republicans had so many other possibilities, and some of them lively educated, moral and age appropriate i.e. Huckabee (what a healthy beautiful face he has) and they chose a grey, pasty 72 year old man going for his last Hurrah. The only conclusion I've come up with is the usual "there are different strokes for different folks" and all we can do is try our best to express our "particular stroke".

Again Brian, I beseech you - just take another look at Bush. See past the charm of his wife (who by the way, I adore, believe it or not) and notice how he has killed not only many young people in America but the "Spirit of America", the loving, helpful, free, independent, fair, just, open-hearted America. I was one of those people that saw the Statue of Liberty when my parents and I reached it's shores from Germany - and WHAT A SIGHT - ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL AND WELCOMING. I love American and everything it stands for -and it is heartbreaking to see it diminished (not only in our eyes, but the rest of the worlds). Why? Because the leader of this beautiful country "appears to be such a bumbling idiot" that the entire world is laughing at him and us, as he just grins and says, "I regret nothing. I've done the right thing...the rest of the people can think and do as they please, but I AM THE COMMANDER AND CHIEF AND I DO AS I PLEASE!" That attitude is unconscionable in this day and age. This is not a time for isolation - this is a time when we need to be offering our hand in friendship and alliance. He took an oath to be The President "OF THE PEOPLE" not "AGAINST THE PEOPLE", and a 25% approval rate shows his continued stubborn disregard for America's wishes and principles.

I am in deep love with this country, and you. "Open up your heart and let the Sun of the American principles and brotherhood shine in. Let the Majority of the American people offer you some insight into the sham that this Presidency has become. WE the people are disillusioned with OUR leadership, and WE the people want to be proud of our President and America again.

BTW, the "stunt" is that the oil leases that the democrats want the oil companies to dill on are devoid of significant oil. That's why they were able to get the leases in the first place.

the oil leases that the democrats want the oil companies to dill (sic) on are devoid of significant oil.

Brian - please source your statement.

My source is the Report by the Congressional Committee on Natural Resources, which states, among other assertions:

* On the Outer Continental Shelf, 82% of federal natural gas and 79% of federal oil is located in areas that are currently open for leasing.

* Onshore, 62% of oil and 84% of natural gas resources are either fully accessible under standard lease stipulations designed to protect lands and wildlife, or will be accessible pending the completion of land-use planning or environmental reviews.

* Between 1999 and 2007, drilling permits for oil and gas development on public lands increased more than 361%.

* Since 2004, the Bureau of Land Management has issued 28,776 permits to drill on public land; in that same time, only 18,954 wells were actually drilled.

* Oil and gas companies have stockpiled nearly 10,000 extra permits to drill that they are not using to increase domestic production.

* The 68 million acres of leased, inactive federal land could produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day.

* That would nearly double total U.S. oil production, and increase natural gas production by 75%.

* 4.8 million barrels of oil equals more than six times the estimated peak production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Oh, o.k., dvorah, now I see -- you are addressing not just Brian but the THOUSANDS of Brian-think-alikes out there who are listening in.... each one of them just hungry to be shown the error of their ways by Dvorahji and her Divine Guidance.....

(funny thing, though.... I wonder why none of those Brian-think-alikes ever speaks up here or makes their presence known??... must be because people of that persuasion are all shy, retiring types, not inclined to express their opinions.... yes, that explains it.....)

Sorry Tyler,
YOUR source is invalid, the committee is made up of democrats none of whom have EVER been in the oil business. Can you site someone in the oil business who is more familiar with exploration, production and known reserves?

The document I quoted was prepared by the majority in the committee - you are correct, that would be Democrats. And no doubt, they have a position they are putting forward. However, the document is well-sourced from official Federal government agencies, much of it from May 2008 reports, including:

Bureau of Land Management Energy Information Administration U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of the Agriculture U.S. Department of the Energy Minerals Management Service

So again, if you are going to say the oil leases that the democrats want the oil companies to dill (sic) on are devoid of significant oil, then what is your source?

You can't just dismiss me for questioning your statement, even if you don't believe my source. The burden of proof is on you for making the statement in the first place.

I thought you were working, how do you have time for this?

Ok here you go...

President and Chief Executive Officer of the American Petroleum Institute

By RED CAVANEY
June 20, 2008;

A bill introduced in Congress this week would "compel" oil and natural gas companies to produce from federal lands they are leasing. If only it were that easy to find and produce oil. Imagine, an act of Congress that could do what geology could not.

These lawmakers ask why oil and gas companies want more access to federal lands to drill if they aren't using all of the 68 million acres they already have? Anyone with even the most basic understanding of how oil and natural gas are produced – and this should include many members of Congress – knows that claims of "idle" leases are a diversionary feint.

A company bids for and buys a lease because it believes there is a possibility that it may yield enough oil or natural gas to make the cost of the lease, and the costs of exploration and production, commercially viable. The U.S. government received $3.7 billion from company bids in a single lease sale in March 2008.

However, until the actual exploration is complete, a company does not know whether the lease will be productive. If, through exploration, it finds there is no oil or natural gas underneath a lease – or that there is not enough to justify the tremendous investment required to bring it to the surface – the company cuts its losses by moving on to more promising leases. Yet it continues to pay rent on the lease, atop a leasing bonus fee.

In addition, if the company does not develop the lease within a certain period of time, it must return it to the federal government, forfeiting all its costs. All during this active exploration and evaluation phase, however, the lease is listed as "nonproducing."

Obviously, companies want to start producing from active fields as soon as possible. However, there are a number of time-consuming steps to be taken before they can do so: Delineation wells must be drilled to size the field, government permits must be obtained, and complex production facilities must be engineered and installed. All this takes considerable time, and during that time, the lease is also listed as "nonproducing."

Because a lease is not producing, critics tag it as "idle" when, in reality, it is typically being actively explored and developed. Multiply these real-world circumstances by hundreds or thousands of leases, and you end up with the seemingly damning but inaccurate figures our critics cite.

Our companies have made tremendous strides in developing cutting-edge exploration technology. But they are not magicians. They cannot produce oil or natural gas where it does not exist. A significant percentage of federal leases simply may not contain oil and natural gas, especially in commercial quantities.

As I've often said, the first step in our business is called "exploration" for a reason. Exploration is time consuming, very costly and involves a great deal of risk. Importantly, you see neither a drop of usable oil nor a cubic foot of natural gas while it is going on. But it is absolutely essential, and there is nothing "idle" about it. Without the exploration that took place years ago, less domestic oil and natural gas would be available today to meet consumer demand.

In reality, a lease is simply a block on a map, with no guarantee that it contains any resources. If all of them did, one could simply pay for the lease, haul in equipment and start pumping oil. But that only happens in fiction.

And it happens in the minds of those who use the undeveloped-lease argument as a smokescreen to mask their intent to keep America's vast energy resources locked up underground, despite increasingly strong consumer demand for oil and natural gas. For exploration to take place, our companies need access to the areas – offshore and onshore – that we know have the potential to produce the oil and natural gas consumers will need, if ours is to remain a viable economy in an increasingly competitive global marketplace.

Today's short-term need was yesterday's long-term opportunity. If Congress had acted on that opportunity years ago, America would not be in the energy bind it finds itself in today. Working with industry, Congress now has the opportunity to help secure America's energy future. It should not miss the chance again.

I had read that in the Wall St. Journal. Nowhere does he counter the actual statistics, such as "On the Outer Continental Shelf, 82% of federal natural gas and 79% of federal oil is located in areas that are currently open for leasing."

Point being is that there are plenty of opportunities for the oil companies without opening up new territories including ANWR. Which is the primary point of the legislation.

And that sob story about costs? Please. Oil companies are the most profitable enterprises in global history, with nine-figure executive compensation packages.

If you are basing your argument on an editorial from the CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, that's fine. I just think that everyone reading needs to know that and take it in consideration as they read through the discussion.

When I asked for a source on your statement, that's what I was looking for. Instead you pushed back and questioned the validity of mine. Does that show a lack of confidence in your source as unbiased information on which to base an argument?

And regarding this: I thought you were working, how do you have time for this?

My allocated work time (which all too closely mirrors waking time) includes management of the Post and the other Ojai sites I maintain. Cheers.

I honestly think that you folks relish the idea of running our country into the ground. I think if this situation is allowed to continue we are going to see gas prices rise a lot more. Already blame can be laid directly on Al Gore for much of the starvation that is occurring in third world countries because of the ethanol hoax. And republicans are at fault as well for going along with it. The hardship that is occuring to the poor here at home and around the world is increasing day by day. The democrats are suppose to be for the common man and that is the person who is getting screwed the most now. Just a couple of months ago Congressman Schumer was demanding that Bush make the Saudi's increase oil production - why? if more oil won't solve the problem. The dems also demanded the release of oil from the strategic reserve, again why? Once trucking stops and / or the real cost of transportation starts to be past on to the consumer I think you are going to see people get really upset, and once they realize who is causing all this pain a lot of politicions are going to get thrown out of office. Barbara Boxer will be the first.

I honestly think that you folks relish the idea of running our country into the ground.

Well, we've been over this and if you believe it then we will never have a productive discussion. C'mon, what an a-hole thing to say.

Ditto, Brian, we all want great things for Ojai and our country. Pull your head out and be reasonable. Check yourself.