Conservatives just don't get it!

[Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by FarangBa

Umm, isn't there sort of a "major war" going on there right now? How about over 5,000 killed last year? How many soldiers have been killed in Iraq since 2003? 4,330 +4 two days ago!

Obviously, I'm not talking about the Mexican government. I was making a statement that your assertions are about as absurd to me as the invasion theory. It is apparent that you are waaaaay more concerned about a tree than you are about our country being "literally" invaded by illegal aliens daily.

You can deport a person within a day or two, but it takes a bit longer for a tree or a sensitive environmental area to grow back, so yes to the bolded.

Originally Posted by FarangBa

Do you not see a correlation between "regulated & enforcement of immigration laws" and "better environmental impact"? In my opinion, if you were really that concerned about the environment, you would be FOR the proper enforcement of our immigration laws. I mean, do you have any idea the environmental impact that Mexico has on the ecosystem??

Tracing all the way back to the opening of GM/Ford plants there, the fires from 2000, and the overall poor atmospheric conditions over Mexico City itself? Yeah, I'd say I know a small bit about it, LOL.

Originally Posted by FarangBa

Let's be serious, I don't believe a fence alone will stop illegal immigration, but it will relieve some of the burden on the already stressed border agents (which will allow them to concentrate their forces in specific areas)!

Ease one sector to increase strain on another. The joys of being on the Cabinet or being the President. Be glad it isn't me or you know who would get the short end quick.

[FarangBa]

Originally Posted by Funkenstein

While it beats trying to dropkick Mother Earth into bleeding out some crude, we already hold access to a number of spots that aren't being used already. How is scouring for more (when it would take 4 - 5 years to eke it out) choice number one?

/scratches head

Send info & links about "fruitful" spots that are not already being used, please!

We can't drill offshore, we can't drill on any of the millions of acres set aside for conservation... so fill in the blanks.

[FarangBa]

Originally Posted by Funkenstein

You can deport a person within a day or two, but it takes a bit longer for a tree or a sensitive environmental area to grow back, so yes to the bolded.



Tracing all the way back to the opening of GM/Ford plants there, the fires from 2000, and the overall poor atmospheric conditions over Mexico City itself? Yeah, I'd say I know a small bit about it, LOL.



Ease one sector to increase strain on another. The joys of being on the Cabinet or being the President. Be glad it isn't me or you know who would get the short end quick.

1)As I said before, "Go around the dang tree".
2)Are you saying that the U.S. is responsible for the pollution created by Mexico?
3) Um, the fence is the "opposite" of easing one sector.

Are we talking about the same things?


~~And I missed this one earlier~~

Originally Posted by Funkenstein

The contested area is not known for being a conduit for illegals and is protected/patrolled in its own right already. Call me a hippie if you want, but "conservative" methods definitely would not hurt here as a pre-emptive effect as opposed to being an afterthought.

If we only built the fence on both sides of the contested area, wouldn't the contested area THEN become the conduit?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Funkenstein

McCain was touting it pretty heavily and Palin's comments kinda added to the belief that "the Party" wanted that as option numero uno. Forgive the assumption if I am incorrect.

The also wanted the ban on off-shore drilling lifted etc etc.. what they wanted was an end to prohibiting oil companies from exploiting new sources of oil and natural gas.

Originally Posted by Funkenstein

Now for the unused markets known to public (this was back during Bush reig, so it is a bit dated):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5111184

Now on to the production question:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4621#more

there's a good choice the leases on public land go unused because there's little oil and further if many people hold these leases where is the incentive to spend the exploration captial when you can wait for your neighbor to do so?

not sure what you were getting at w/the secon article? I think you're saying Off shore wouldn't fix the problem.... well... d'uh Brian. No single source will. That's why they were advocating lifting drilling bans... to cast a wider net. It is difficult to accept that adding milliouns of bbls per day wouldn't impact price negatively. Its absence would almost certainly impact price positively... or would the rules of supply and demand not apply because the issues are largely poilitical

[Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by FarangBa

If we only built the fence on both sides of the contested area, wouldn't the contested area THEN become the conduit?

So why build the fence to force the fact?

OR

Work in tangent with the folks already there to keep an eye on things. Remember that article I posted shows that the Conservancy is willing to work with the matter. It is the DOHS (Homeland Security) that is unwilling to budge.

Originally Posted by PETA

The also wanted the ban on off-shore drilling lifted etc etc.. what they wanted was an end to prohibiting oil companies from exploiting new sources of oil and natural gas.

there's a good choice the leases on public land go unused because there's little oil and further if many people hold these leases where is the incentive to spend the exploration captial when you can wait for your neighbor to do so?

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by PETA

Its absence would almost certainly impact price positively... or would the rules of supply and demand not apply because the issues are largely poilitical

Words words words!

QUICK EDIT: Shoo, Stymi! Grown ups are talking!

[Stymi]

all dis fancy talk gots me dizzy

[FarangBa]

Originally Posted by Funkenstein

QUICK EDIT: Shoo, Stymi! Grown ups are talking!

Seconded!

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Funkenstein

You can deport a person within a day or two,

lol - no you can't

if you can find them and get them to court you can get a deportation order... then they go on their way until the order is executed. And we're back to trying to find them.

[Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by PETA

lol - no you can't

if you can find them and get them to court you can get a deportation order... then they go on their way until the order is executed. And we're back to trying to find them.

Trees or people, Peta. Trees or people.

Make your call now or the terrorists win.

[FarangBa]

Morton said the leases, which companies can lock up for 10 years with annual rents of only $2 to $3 an acre, are an economic boon to some companies because they count as assets that can make debt refinancing easier while also attracting potential investors.

Only thing I can figure is.... The land leased is no good for production and more useful booked as asset. Lemme look further....
.......
......
From your 2004 article... Voila!

“A lot of these areas where existing leases are being held onto may have low potential for production, based on industry analysis now,”

Unfortunately, the oil drum site is not a place where I'd go to get too many hard facts and it seems that the "fact check" was narrowed to a simple statement... Offshore Drilling Alone will reduce our foreign dependence on oil by such and such %.

Since we were discussing "Drill Baby Drill" it should be taken to mean...

Drill anywhere, and everywhere, for every domestic resource, as quickly as possible to reduce our dependence on psychotic regimes ~UNTIL~ we come up with a more viable, sustainable and environmentally safe option. When our sovereignty is at stake, the environment can wait... at least until we can get away from the grip of these maniacs.

Is that a little more clear?

[FarangBa]

Originally Posted by Funkenstein

Trees or people, Peta. Trees or people.

Make your call now or the terrorists win.

People, screw the trees. Go plant 1000 other trees somewhere else

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Funkenstein

Trees or people, Peta. Trees or people.

Make your call now or the terrorists win.

I made my call several pages ago

And I love trees dammit!

Originally Posted by FarangBa

People, screw the trees. Go plant 1000 other trees somewhere else

there are more trees in the US now than there were in 1900

agressive reforrestation campaigns (think dust bowl shelter belts) and renewable pulpwood sources...

[Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by FarangBa

People, screw the trees. Go plant 1000 other trees somewhere else

I am done with you, sir. Good day!



Honestly, I know I won't change your mind nor you mine at the moment, so I agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by PETA

I made my call several pages ago

And I love trees dammit!

there are more trees in the US now than there were in 1900

agressive reforrestation campaigns (think dust bowl shelter belts) and renewable pulpwood sources...

Link on numbers of MATURE trees outnumbering people. Saplings can be planted, but don't count as MATURE trees offering full benefit and shade.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Funkenstein

I am done with you, sir. Good day!



Honestly, I know I won't change your mind nor you mine at the moment, so I agree to disagree.



Link on numbers of MATURE trees outnumbering people. Saplings can be planted, but don't count as MATURE trees offering full benefit and shade.

see comments about 1930s programs.. they expanded after that. In fact recently saw several shelter belts getting ripped out of fields because they were now over 70 years old... and these weren't oaks or giant maples... mostly crappy trees I dobn't even know the names of

further, the paper industry cannot use trees that died as saplings... well, they can but they're relatively worthless. If industry needs trees and they can't cut them they'll grow them. WI is a land of tree industry my friend. That's why MN sucks so much... you cross the river and no fucking hills and no goddamn trees... just flat..flat... flat. Ok - the BWCA has trees but that hardly counts.. its a fucking park. In WI we don't put trees in tree museums... nor do we charge people a dollar and a half to see 'em. oooh...wop wop.

Plus most people I know that own forrested land selectively cull trees periodically... like every 25 years or so. We do w/our farm. The trees are valuable. They are more valuable when used efficiently over a very long sustainable period rather than clear cutting.... we don't need that any more.

We've got shit tons of black walnut, variety of oak, maples, cedars etc... we don't give them up peacefully or cheaply. Our neighbors feel the same.

[progress]

Originally Posted by Funkenstein

McCain was touting it pretty heavily and Palin's comments kinda added to the belief that "the Party" wanted that as option numero uno. Forgive the assumption if I am incorrect.

Now for the unused markets known to public (this was back during Bush reig, so it is a bit dated):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5111184

Now on to the production question:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4621#more

Your production article needs to be thrown out the window simply from this statement:

"Oil prices are determined on the international market, and the addition of about 0.16 million barrels per day from the OCS in 2030 to total world oil production would have no significant impact on oil market fundamentals."

Oil prices are not determined on the international market. Oil prices are determined on the US market, and oil is traded around the world in US Dollars. The single biggest factor on the price of a barrel of oil is the value of the dollar against foreign currency.