http://news.yahoo.com/brazil-stiffs-obama-oil-deal-exposing-presidents-incompetence-181200200.html
Again, ideology, gets in the way of energy policies that would aid recovery and growth.
President Barack Obama has suffered the second embarrassment over oil imports within the space of a week. Brazil, whose offshore deposits of oil were sought by the Obama administration, has signed contracts with China for the product.
According to the Washington Times, Brazilian offshore crude may number about 38 billion barrels. Obama went to Brazil last month to put in a bid for the oil, offering loans and other support to develop the oil in an "environmentally responsible matter," The Hill reported at the time. Republicans criticized that initiative, pointing out Obama has placed roadblocks in the way of domestic development of oil and gas reserves.
Brazil's decision comes on the heels of Obama's refusal to permit the building of the Keystone XL pipeline to bring oil from Canada's tar sands in Alberta to Texas oil refineries, according to the Los Angeles Times. The decision was criticized by Republicans as well as union officials who point out that 20,000 jobs the pipeline would bring would therefore not be created.
Obama's policy in regard to oil and gas has been a study in incompetence driven by an ideological mania against hydrocarbon fuel in favor of more politically correct forms of energy production. This has not only led to what amounts to a campaign against oil and gas production in the U.S., but embarrassing scandals such as Solyndra, brought on by unwise federal loan guarantees to dubious green energy companies.
This is occurring at a time when Iran is threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz through which much of the world's oil passes from Persian Gulf fields. The very threat has led to a spike in the price of oil and of gasoline.
Unfortunately, Obama shows no sign of learning from his mistakes. A responsible president would move quickly to exploit more accessible sources of oil, lifting restrictions on domestic production and quickly signing off on the pipeline deal with Canada, an American ally. Obama, however, is doing neither of these things.
A new energy crisis this summer, brought on by turmoil in the Middle East, is not outside the realm of possibility. The bad news is Americans will suffer, just as they did in 1973 and 1979. The good news is Americans are likely to make their ire known at the polls in the fall. But it months of turmoil and agony lay ahead until then.
Baloney. Oil crisis? I fear more a 1983 set up....Too much gas has created a huge imbalance as drilling is rampant.
Isn't the frack going to save us?
Why are you so upset about the Keystone? You mad about the loss of temp jobs to construct it? Or is it the transportation fees that we will miss as dirty Canadian oil when refined will be shipped over seas?
Since when did Yahoo become editorial? Who is Mark Whittington other than another Texas writer who dislikes Obama?
Please, do not fabricate the prudent foreign policy of the Obama administration.
I was curious if you think this is fact or opinion.
Like he would care.
Heard an NPR interview with a Canadian booster/supporter of the pipeline, which mostly benefits them. Asked him a question as to why Canada doesn't just build their own refinery and ship from up there. After stuttering/stammering a bit, he admitted, "We don't like to do that sort of thing up here". Yeah right.
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 24, 2012, 09:41:03 AM
Since when did Yahoo become editorial? Who is Mark Whittington other than another Texas writer who dislikes Obama?
It's the "Yahoo Contributor Network", you could sign up and write all you want about how you heard that Newt has this strange clown fetish.....
Quote from: swake on January 24, 2012, 09:52:37 AM
It's the "Yahoo Contributor Network", you could sign up and write all you want about how you heard that Newt has this strange clown fetish.....
Well, that's true...(http://www.urantiansojourn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Calista-Gingrich.jpg)
Quote from: Townsend on January 24, 2012, 09:54:06 AM
Well, that's true...(http://www.urantiansojourn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Calista-Gingrich.jpg)
"what did the five fingers say to the face?"
Quote from: Townsend on January 24, 2012, 09:54:06 AM
Well, that's true...(http://www.urantiansojourn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Calista-Gingrich.jpg)
She scares the crap out of me
(http://siyanor.com/photo/Jack-Nicholson-joker2372.jpg)
Quote from: swake on January 24, 2012, 10:07:15 AM
She scares the crap out of me
Almost makes clowns look sedate, doesn't she?
Quote from: Conan71 on January 24, 2012, 10:09:36 AM
Almost makes clowns look sedate, doesn't she?
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7011/6755486375_ea5f81c2df.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on January 24, 2012, 10:27:15 AM
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7011/6755486375_ea5f81c2df.jpg)
QUICK! SOMEONE GET A FLAT RATE BOX! STAT!
Quote from: Gaspar on January 24, 2012, 10:27:15 AM
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7011/6755486375_ea5f81c2df.jpg)
She's had more plastic surgery than this guy:
(http://www.dreamprophesy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Operation-Dreams.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on January 24, 2012, 09:17:30 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/brazil-stiffs-obama-oil-deal-exposing-presidents-incompetence-181200200.html
Again, ideology, gets in the way of energy policies that would aid recovery and growth.
President Barack Obama has suffered the second embarrassment over oil imports within the space of a week. Brazil, whose offshore deposits of oil were sought by the Obama administration, has signed contracts with China for the product.
According to the Washington Times, Brazilian offshore crude may number about 38 billion barrels. Obama went to Brazil last month to put in a bid for the oil, offering loans and other support to develop the oil in an "environmentally responsible matter," The Hill reported at the time. Republicans criticized that initiative, pointing out Obama has placed roadblocks in the way of domestic development of oil and gas reserves.
Brazil's decision comes on the heels of Obama's refusal to permit the building of the Keystone XL pipeline to bring oil from Canada's tar sands in Alberta to Texas oil refineries, according to the Los Angeles Times. The decision was criticized by Republicans as well as union officials who point out that 20,000 jobs the pipeline would bring would therefore not be created.
Obama's policy in regard to oil and gas has been a study in incompetence driven by an ideological mania against hydrocarbon fuel in favor of more politically correct forms of energy production. This has not only led to what amounts to a campaign against oil and gas production in the U.S., but embarrassing scandals such as Solyndra, brought on by unwise federal loan guarantees to dubious green energy companies.
This is occurring at a time when Iran is threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz through which much of the world's oil passes from Persian Gulf fields. The very threat has led to a spike in the price of oil and of gasoline.
Unfortunately, Obama shows no sign of learning from his mistakes. A responsible president would move quickly to exploit more accessible sources of oil, lifting restrictions on domestic production and quickly signing off on the pipeline deal with Canada, an American ally. Obama, however, is doing neither of these things.
A new energy crisis this summer, brought on by turmoil in the Middle East, is not outside the realm of possibility. The bad news is Americans will suffer, just as they did in 1973 and 1979. The good news is Americans are likely to make their ire known at the polls in the fall. But it months of turmoil and agony lay ahead until then.
It's never a waste to bid on business. Even if you lose, at least you showed up. I'm a little surprised you wouldn't support a President who's making a bid to nail down oil and gas leases in countries that WOULDN'T use the Hormuz strait for transport.
That said . . . what an awful "article." Mark Whittington, the author, is a hack of the lowest order. His "thesis," such as it is, has nothing to do with Brazil and everything to do with hammering on the ole' Keystone Pipeline, which the Republicans themselves helped kill with an arbitrary deadline. And which, again, has nothing to do with our own consumption, and everything about helping Canada get its oil to the Asian markets.
If he'd chosen to do any research or honest reporting on the Keystone XL whatsoever we all might know that, but instead he's just a garden variety rightie troll, spewing loosely connected Fox News memes and hoping his fury gets him through.
Sorry, but I give this a grade of YAHOOFAIL.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 24, 2012, 09:17:30 AM
Unfortunately, Obama shows no sign of learning from his mistakes. A responsible president would move quickly to exploit more accessible sources of oil, lifting restrictions on domestic production and quickly signing off on the pipeline deal with Canada, an American ally. Obama, however, is doing neither of these things.
Lots of slinging around of The Script related to exploiting more accessible sources of oil...while ignoring completely the fact that there is 75% of the resource already available that is being ignored by The Disciples of The Script.
How can one resolve the claims about restrictions on domestic production when 3/4 of the resource that IS available is being ignored?
The Script is more addictive than cherry Kool-Aid. And much more mind numbing than the red dye it contains.
Yes let the Chinese have the Canuck oil and buy it back from them.....Thats a great Idea Mr. President.....!
I keep hearing about how the oil in Canada will help make us energy independent. Did I miss something about Canada becoming part of the United States of America? Granted, they are a lot more friendly toward the USA than some of our other oil suppliers but they are (I believe) still their own country.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 24, 2012, 10:15:26 PM
I keep hearing about how the oil in Canada will help make us energy independent. Did I miss something about Canada becoming part of the United States of America? Granted, they are a lot more friendly toward the USA than some of our other oil suppliers but they are (I believe) still their own country.
Reagan proposed working toward getting together with them to become part of the US, but I suspect they have better sense than that....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 25, 2012, 08:16:46 AM
Reagan proposed working toward getting together with them to become part of the US, but I suspect they have better sense than that....
Your utter lack of knowledge on politics, geography, and history borders on shocking at times. However I'm very impressed with your ability to spew all sorts of nonsense on a moment's notice. Kudos!
The North American Accord had nothing to do with Canada becoming part of the U.S.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2012, 08:48:08 AM
Your utter lack of knowledge on politics, geography, and history borders on shocking at times. However I'm very impressed with your ability to spew all sorts of nonsense on a moment's notice. Kudos!
The North American Accord had nothing to do with Canada becoming part of the U.S.
No, but every time Quebec comes close to succeeding there is talk that the Maritime provinces would be cut off from the rest of Canada and might want to become part of the US. If that were to happen it's possible that some western provinces might follow.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2012, 08:48:08 AM
Your utter lack of knowledge on politics, geography, and history borders on shocking at times. However I'm very impressed with your ability to spew all sorts of nonsense on a moment's notice. Kudos!
The North American Accord had nothing to do with Canada becoming part of the U.S.
A Clive Cussler novel suggested we had a treaty with Britain awarding us Canada for re-payment of all the loans during WWII. Eventually we were the United States of Canada.
They'd found an enormous oil field off the coast of New Foundland and they were able to "Raise the Titanic" in the novel as well. Good brain candy, horrible movie.
So Clive Cussler is where Heiron got his latest reach-around?
Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2012, 11:25:30 AM
So Clive Cussler is where Heiron got his latest reach-around?
The thread was started with a piece of fiction. I figured I'd mention another to keep it going.
I used to be a big Cussler fan but his books eventually got too brain-candy-ish for my liking.
Quote from: Townsend on January 25, 2012, 11:39:54 AM
The thread was started with a piece of fiction. I figured I'd mention another to keep it going.
I used to be a big Cussler fan but his books eventually got too brain-candy-ish for my liking.
Zing!
Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2012, 08:48:08 AM
Your utter lack of knowledge on politics, geography, and history borders on shocking at times. However I'm very impressed with your ability to spew all sorts of nonsense on a moment's notice. Kudos!
The North American Accord had nothing to do with Canada becoming part of the U.S.
Different thing - separate, not part of the accord. This was something Reagan mentioned a couple times, then it died. He included Mexico in the proposal, too. I think this must have been one of those 'trial balloons' that appear from time to time. Not all bad for an idea, but would probably be much bigger project than Germany re-uniting, so that would mean expensive. Would have been one logical extension of the NAFTA Plus integration process. Obviously not much support for it in this country - would get rid of the cheap labor supply for corporate America.