Poll: Oregon and Washington citizens say DRILL
There are two new Rasmussen polls there and they confirm my gut and the rumors I have heard about other private polls out there. That is that the people in the NW are in favor of drilling off-shore! Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls for the president to tap into the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve, saying this would “expand available supplies and help reduce the record prices.” She then turns around and describes as “an absolute hoax” the idea that prices would drop as a result of building supplies through increased production. Likewise, congressional Democrats claim that oil “speculators” are artificially driving up prices by betting future oil supplies won’t meet demand. Yet those same policymakers presume those same “speculators” won’t respond to expected increases in production, selling futures contracts and pushing down barrel prices today. So which is it?
The Washington poll says: While 48% of voters think offshore drilling should be allowed, 41% disagree.
And that is just the beginning folks. The trend is definitely in the direction of drilling and come September I am thinking you are going to see Democrats either getting on board or they are going to start getting flat out loony to try to stop the tide.
Meanwhile the Oregon numbers are even better. Oregonians are in favor of drilling by a 12 point margin at 51 to 39.
UPDATE: Potential showdown over off-shore drilling is building
A great editorial over at NRO by Ed Frank tells how the Democrats are getting themselves all twisted in knots regarding their oil double speak:
Frank suggests that the Democrats may attempt to shut down the government in order to EXTEND THE CONGRESSIONAL BAN on off-shore drilling.
The Republicans should say "bring it on."
Posts
11 comments:
"Actually it’s 51 to 39, not 49."
Ooops, yes you are correct. I was in a hurry to get out the door.
I'll make that change.
Among the problems the Democrats have is that they don't understand how the oil futures markets (or other futures markets - or the stock market as a whole for that matter) works. They don't realize, for instance, that you can buy futures contracts that will pay you only if the price of oil goes down. "Speculators" (whatever that means) will be buying up November $100 crude contracts the minute there's a commitment by the U.S. to begin an aggressive oil exploration and drilling program. The pump price will drop like a rock.
Every time John McCain gets in front of a group of people he tells us that Nuclear Power is safe. Really!!? Safe!!?? Really!!? Didn't the Russian's kill a spy with a small amount of this "safe" technology.
Radiation found where ex-spy ate, UK officials say - CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/24/uk.spypoisoned/index.html
Would you call the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki "safe"?
JAMA -- Thyroid Disease 60 Years After Hiroshima and 20 Years
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/295/9/1060
Hiroshima and Nagasaki Health Effects
http://www.solarstorms.org/Hiroshima.html
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
If this technology is so "safe", then why are we afraid that it might get into the hands of Terrorists?
Nuclear Plants Subject to Terrorism, Earthquakes, States Warn
http://a4nr.org/library/security/11.16.2007-ens
--
America's most vulnerable terrorist targets today include the more than 100 nuclear reactors throughout the country. But, despite being repeatedly warned that terrorists have plans to attack nuclear power plants, the Bush Administration will continue to push for legislation that designates the Yucca Mountain Repository in Nevada as the nation's premier storage facility for over 77,000 tons worth of radioactive nuclear waste. Upon completion of this project, Nevada and its neighbor states will become the deadliest terrorist target on Earth.
Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste to a Repository
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/trans/trfact03.htm
--
The following is some information that some politicians and pundits either "DON'T KNOW" or "DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW":
--
Spent Fuel (Nuclear Waste) Facts
================================
- Low-level radioactive waste requires between 10 to 100 years of decay to be rendered safe.
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1530/Nuclear-Energy-TYPES-RADIOACTIVE-WASTE.html
- High-level radioactive waste remains dangerous for thousands of years.
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1530/Nuclear-Energy-TYPES-RADIOACTIVE-WASTE.html
- Radioactive plutonium isotopes remain dangerous for a period of at least 100,000 years.
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1531/Nuclear-Energy-RADIOACTIVE-WASTE-DISPOSAL.html
- Radiation from the Big Bang is still measurable today; 13.7 billion years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_from_Big_Bang_to_Heat_Death
- Cancers, birth defects, DNA mutations, and reproductive, immune and endocrine system disorders.
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/radrecycleupdate3-01.htm
- OCRWM: The Results - Dealing with the unknown over tens of thousands of years.
http://www.ymp.gov/ym_repository/people/unknown/index.shtml
--
Half-life of Spent Nuclear Fuel
===============================
U-236 = 14 billion years (Uranium)
U-238 = 4.46 billion years (Uranium)
Sr-90 = 28.90 years (Stronium)
Tc-99 = 213,000 years (Technetium)
Sn-126 = 230,000 years (Tin)
Pu-238 = 87.7 years (Plutonium)
Pu-239 = 24,110 years (Plutonium)
Pu-240 = 6,561 years (Plutonium)
Pu-241 = 14 years (Plutonium)
Pu-242 = 373,300 years (Plutonium)
Pu-244 = 80.8 million years (Plutonium)
Cl-36 = 301,000 years (Chlorine)
Cs-135 = 2.3 million years (Cesium)
Cs-137 = 30.2 years (Cesium)
Bi-208 = 400,000 years (Bismuth)
Bi-209 = 19 billion years (Bismuth)
Bi-210 = 5.01 days (Bismuth)
Bi-210m = 3 million years (Bismuth)
Bi-211 = 2.15 minutes (Bismuth)
Bi-212 = 60.5 minutes (Bismuth)
Bi-213 = 45 minutes (Bismuth)
Bi-214 = 20 minutes (Bismuth)
Nb-93m = 14 years (Niobium)
Nb-94 = 20,000 years (Niobium)
--
Despite several reasons to help Shoshone protect their territory:
- Paleo-Indian stewardship spanning thousands of years (honoring stewardship and perseverance)
- Territory held sacred by several Indian tribes (federal protection and religious freedom)
- Ancient Paleo-Indian rock art (federally protected and historically significant)
- Treaty of Ruby Valley 1863 (agreement does not allow nuclear waste disposal)
- Federal Protection (historic sites and religious artifacts)
- Yucca Mountain above an active earthquake fault line (the Bow Ridge earthquake fault line)
- Ancient volcanic region (how long will it remain dormant)
The agreed uses of the Treaty of Ruby Valley 1863 do not include a disposal site for highly radioactive waste, but despite this fact President Bush has designated Yucca Mountain, a site within the Ruby Valley lands, as the nation’s first nuclear waste repository.
--
Southern California Scientist's in the 1950s questioned the responsibility of using fossil fuels. In 1957, scientists began to talk about the lasting effects on the planet (Global Warming & Climate Change) and on human health (carciogenic effects & pollution) from burning fossil fuels.
We are currently seeing the effects of being controlled by this enormously powerful world-wide industry and lobby with little to no recourse built into the decision making process. We concolidate the power of the masses into the hands of a few extremely rich and extremely powerful people with little to no oversight whatsoever.
Is it any surprise that when we do this, an industry like the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership becomes poised to take the place of "Big Oil" and the Fossil Fuel Industry. We start off by placing all of our eggs in one basket. We tout the supposed benefits and deny the real costs. Then when the industry grows exponentially in power and influence and eventually gains the backing of Presidents, Dictators, and Governments around the world who use it as a political weapon. Then we find it difficult to change until are backs are against the wall.
We are now making the same mistakes with the 1940s Nuclear Energy Industry, that we once made with fossil fuels. We allow a world-wide dependency to be built on this industry so that it controls people and not the other way around. We are now going down the same road with Nuclear Energy by calling continuing to call it "safe" while, at the same time, brushing aside the truth. We are doing the same thing, but expecting different results.
--
The NEW "Big Oil" / "Fossil Fuel Industry" that is waiting securely in the wings.
DOE - Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
http://www.gnep.energy.gov/
--
Native American Pride &
Indigenous Peoples Pride
- Peaceful Protester
I am wondering if anyone else has pondered this thought.
Gas/Oil prices have had a very dramatic rise since 2006. I have been thinking about the time collation between Nancy Pelosi becoming Speaker of the House and her trip to the Middle East.
What really happened on that trip?
Since Nancy Pelosi controls the entire agenda in the house, that is, what bills are debated and voted on on the House floor. What bills are allowed out of committee and if that bill even gets heard in committee.
Since her election to Congress in the late 80�s Ms. Pelosi has made it quit clear she is against use of all natural resources.
What really happened on Ms. Pelosi�s trip to the Middle East????
Where there deals made with OPEC to raise the price of oil, because an Anti Natural Resources Speaker had now been elected to that powerful position?
Did OPEC understand that with the election of Nancy P to the Speakers office that they would have no �competition� from the USA when they started to raise the price of oil? Knowing she would not allow drilling�after all she and she alone controls every bill in the House of Reps.
What really happened on that trip to the Middle East?
Any thoughts?
Let's see if this clears it up:
* the war in Iraq has shown that the U.S. is vulnerable and Iran and Saudi Arabia have no fear about raising prices
* U.S. consumers show little motivation to reduce their driving, even with gas at over $4 per gallon
* If we ok drilling tomorrow, it will take at least two years to produce significant amounts of oil
Instead, we need to invest in energy independence, increase our nation's average miles per gallon and drive less.
Let's get back to being a nation of innovators and do-ers, not whiners.
anon 3:21,
That very well could be the case. Nacy Pelosi gauranteeing the Saudis that we will not be touching our own oil reserves.
Stranger things have happened with Democrats (Jimmy Carter is a pant load of strange) and it is not nearly as far fetched as some of the Bush/Cheney/Rove conspiracy theories out there.
--------
Brad,
You are correct, we do need to get back to being a nation of do-ers and not whiners.
That means DOING some drilling off-shore and some of the Rocky Mountain oil reserves.
That means DOING some looking into the portable nuclear power.
We are already innovating when it comes to newer vehicles. That part is being done and we are making huge gains every year.
In the mean time we need to reduce the price of oil and the price of food and everything else that relies on oil.
We have it within our power to do so. So let's do it.
How about a nuke plant that can fit on a railroad car?
It's here. Now.
Developed at OSU.
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2008/Jul08/nukes.html
Check out the facts on oil & gas.
Oil Is Mastery.
Let's do it. Go ahead and start offshore oil drilling, but only under the condition that any oil collected would be processed and refined for STATEWIDE consumption ONLY. If there's oil off OUR shoreline, then it belongs to US, no one else.
Nuke is as safe or safer than any other energy source.
There is no other solution to our high gasoline prices than more of all energy. Just start the diversification of our energy needs from foreign sources. We are exporting a huge portion of our GDP for nothing.
Nuclear power is not a silver bullet but it makes alot of sense in many places in the US. In fact if you support wind and solar power nuclear fits snuggly along these less than consistent power sources.
I'll point that out again:
NUKE POWER REINFORCES THE POTENTIAL OF WIND ANS SOLAR POWER.
Why? Becuase it allows a good grid-tie for less consistent power sources and therefore enables the effective integration of less than steady power generation. The only other grid tie is natural gas, or coal. Those already be problematic (either too scarce or too dirty).
We need more of all types of energy as long as its domesticly produced. More oil, coal, nuke, biomass, biofuel, and of course on-going efforts to reducing the per-capita consumption of electricity with more efficient technology.
Post a Comment