President Obama Finances Offshore Drilling... in Brazil - WSJ.com

MacGuyver4.2.0

Well-Known Member
Did you all SEE THIS? What's next?!

All over Google, and was mentioned on a few TV networks, but I still cannot beleive this shit! :cuss:

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html

Here it is right from the Google cached page as well:

Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling

Too bad it's not in U.S. waters.


You read that headline correctly. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is financing oil exploration off Brazil.
The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.
The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a "preliminary commitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas.
But look on the bright side. If President Obama has embraced offshore drilling in Brazil, why not in the old U.S.A.? The land of the sorta free and the home of the heavily indebted has enormous offshore oil deposits, and last year ahead of the November elections, with gasoline at $4 a gallon, Congress let a ban on offshore drilling expire.
The Bush Administration's five-year plan (2007-2012) to open the outer continental shelf to oil exploration included new lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. But in 2007 environmentalists went to court to block drilling in Alaska and in April a federal court ruled in their favor. In May, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said his department was unsure whether that ruling applied only to Alaska or all offshore drilling. So it asked an appeals court for clarification. Late last month the court said the earlier decision applied only to Alaska, opening the way for the sale of leases in the Gulf. Mr. Salazar now says the sales will go forward on August 19.
This is progress, however slow. But it still doesn't allow the U.S. to explore in Alaska or along the East and West Coasts, which could be our equivalent of the Tupi oil fields, which are set to make Brazil a leading oil exporter. Americans are right to wonder why Mr. Obama is underwriting in Brazil what he won't allow at home.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
I read about this being the policy a few months back... one can only roll the eyes and wonder how weed isn't legal nationally. Obama is obviously a HUGE stoner.

What I have always found amusing is that the enviro's are so against domestic drilling. It's a pure selfishness on their part and completely illogical. They don't mind other nation making a profit, or "supposedly" ruining their environments (for our direct benefit).

So statistically it is widely known that the greatest % of oil spills comes from .... drum roll..... OIL TANKERS. Oil tankers are required to IMPORT oil. If done domestically, the amount of tankers floating around our shores drop by a huge amount. Somehow this very simple premise is completely lost on the Enviro & Democrats.

Want a cleaner environment? Want more domestic (high paying) jobs? Want more of your own hard earned money to stay IN ur pocket for weed? Want to weaken the Saudi and Venezuela oil cartels?

Domestic drilling is the ONLY way to do all four in one stroke.... and yet.
 

jeffchr

Well-Known Member
obama suggested a compromise on the domestic drilling issue back in August of 2008 - you folks better get your facts straight - or do you just want to bitch about fallacies.

he also reinforced his compromising stance at the GOP "retreat" in Baltimore
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Yes, the compromise is to not do it.... but appearing to want to. It is now in the political pipeline of never never land.

You should pay more attention.

Follow the actions, not the words.
 

jeffchr

Well-Known Member
Yes, the compromise is to not do it.... but appearing to want to. It is now in the political pipeline of never never land.

You should pay more attention.

Follow the actions, not the words.
wtf? are you kidding me? it is his position on drilling.

this is why the rite (sic) is unable to participate in policy; only able to contribute to affirmative action if a republican is in office
 

CrackerJax

New Member
His position is a false one ... figure it out.

Of course you voted for him, so figuring isn't your strong suit ... is it now...
 

jeffchr

Well-Known Member
so you voted for McCain and Palin? oh, brilliant! both inept. obama's position is his official position. a president doesn't back away from a policy position easily. and don't give me those blanket insults because of the way i vote. you have no clue as to how i "figure". you are showing ignorance and lack of class. does that even matter to you? enjoy your contentful wallow, moron.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
No, I voted for no one at the top tier position, although I did vote. When faced with two losers... one much bigger than the other regardless, it is best to not vote for either one.

That would be logical... unknown territory for you, I know.
 

jeffchr

Well-Known Member
No, I voted for no one at the top tier position, although I did vote. When faced with two losers... one much bigger than the other regardless, it is best to not vote for either one.

That would be logical... unknown territory for you, I know.
wrong assumption again asshole
 

jeffchr

Well-Known Member
on another note, i've been listening to the Beatles, Live at the BBC and it is incredible. most of the songs are 50-60's material from the US. a good bit of Appalchian music. you and I would never agree on politics, so just thought I'd throw that out there. sorry for all the hate. i'd really rather chill a bit, but i am passionate about polictics for some reason. anyway, sorry.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Brazil eh? Wait til they start drilling holes all over Haiti, which is like The Saudi Arabia of the Caribbean..20 Billion barrels or so. Why do you think the US has 20,000 troops there? To Help people stack the dead like cords of wood? Hell the US military won't let care package planes land, their purpose there is certainly not 100% humanitarian, something else going on perhaps......

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17287
 

CrackerJax

New Member
yes, it's probably another conspiracy ... :roll:

But let's examine what Obama is actually DOING....

Very recently the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced that his agency would look into drilling for oil in the Atlantic soon. The key words in that sentence is "would look into".

Only after it runs the entire environmental gauntlet ... which means it isn't going to happen at all.

One problem.... NO ONE knows what's on the Atlantic shelf since there has been no study for 30 years thanks to enviro political muscle. He didn't mention that part....wonder why?

So, the mapping has to be done first.

Now we do have places mapped now, but that's not what they are even considering ... wonder why?

They will use the very same methodology of "process" that brought the moratorium in the first place ... wonder why?


Because THIS way they can SAY one thing... and DO another.


By the way the secretary also said that alternative energy will NOT be subjected to the same cumbersome rules as oil ... wonder why?


Now, you're a bit informed.


They SAY one thing.... they DO another. Don't be fooled so easily....
Pay attention.
 

beardo

Well-Known Member
cool hook up America head 2 toe we should be 1 on 1 with every place we can walk or swim to...if brazil and hati got oil i got food a ps2 a dvd player.....
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Yepper, let's float more oil tankers all over the world..... more tankers are the answer for the environment....
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Until the industrialized world has another cheap fuel source oil will remain the prize. Expect to see more and more military installations in the vicinity of large oil reserves.

When I was a kid, I fully expected by now we'd all be using flying cars.
I want my flying car damnit!
 

CrackerJax

New Member
So, in the end. what are we saving our oil for (domestic)? We have more oil than the Saudi reserves by a factor of three.

So.... why let it sit there?

Why import more oil, why not less?

Why have high wage jobs overseas and not here?

Why have more environmental exposure to oil spills with more tankers and not less?

Think Russia is going to keep the Arctic circle pristine? Better than us?

Think China is going to keep the Gulf of Mexico pristine? Better than us?

I fail to see the logic....... perhaps there isn't any?
 

MacGuyver4.2.0

Well-Known Member
So, in the end. what are we saving our oil for (domestic)? We have more oil than the Saudi reserves by a factor of three.

So.... why let it sit there?

Why import more oil, why not less?

Why have high wage jobs overseas and not here?

Why have more environmental exposure to oil spills with more tankers and not less?

Think Russia is going to keep the Arctic circle pristine? Better than us?

Think China is going to keep the Gulf of Mexico pristine? Better than us?

I fail to see the logic....... perhaps there isn't any?

F'ing China cannot even make simple childrens toys (or much else) without it being full of LEAD or other other heavy, dangerous metals! Does ANYONE with half a brain even think for a moment that they are going to be the good stewards of the oceans now? They will cause untold environmental impact. Please....
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
So, in the end. what are we saving our oil for (domestic)? We have more oil than the Saudi reserves by a factor of three.

So.... why let it sit there?

BECAUSE YOU ALREADY SAID YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH OIL IS IN THE ATLANTIC SHELF BECAUSE ENVIRONMENTALISTS HAVE NOT ALLOWED THE MAPPING TO OCCUR. SO YOU ARE EITHER UNSURE OF HOW MUCH OIL THERE IS THERE BECAUSE OF LACK OF STUDY, OR WE HAVE THE BIGGEST OIL RESERVES IN THE WORLD. MAKE YOUR CHOICE.

Why import more oil, why not less?

APPARANTELY IT IS A LOT CHEAPER TO IMPORT OIL FROM 3RD WORLD COUNTRIES THAT PAY THEIR WORKERS SHIT, PAY THE SHIPPING CREW SHIT, AND ARE WILLING TO SELL THEIR OIL FOR SHIT.

Why have high wage jobs overseas and not here?

IF YOU THINK OIL WORKERS IN SAUDI ARABIA AND OTHER SECTIONS OF THE MIDDLE EAST ARE EARNING AS MUCH AS THEY DO IN TEXAS YOU ARE DELUSIONAL. THE FUTURE OF HIGH-WAGE JOBS IS IN THE GREEN MOVEMENT WHICH YOU SO VEHEMENTLY OPOSE. OIL IS THE PAST, THE FUTURE WE HAVE TO GO AND GET.

HIGH WAGE JOBS OVERSEAS... HAHA......

Why have more environmental exposure to oil spills with more tankers and not less?
WHY NOT JUST WEEN THE US OFF IT'S OIL DEPENDANCY AND MOVE THE US IN THE DIRECTION OF CLEAN ENERGY, WHICH HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CREATE MUCH MORE ECONOMY THAN A FEW OIL DRILLING PLATFORMS EVER WILL.

Think Russia is going to keep the Arctic circle pristine? Better than us?
RUSSIA ALREADY HAS READILY BUILT AND MANAGEABLE PIPELINES INTO THE MOST OIL AND GAS RICH AREAS OF THE WORLD. THEY DON'T NEED SHIPS, OR ANYTHING, THEY JUST NEED A PUMP. THEY ARE STAYING THE FUCK AWAY FROM THAT FREEZING HELL HOLE CALLED THE ARTIC CIRCLE AND ARE ACTIVELY INVESTING IN UNITING ALL THE MAJOR PIPELINES IN EURASIA SO THE SUPPLY-DEMAND EQUATION WILL CAUSE THEIR PRICE TO DROP.

Think China is going to keep the Gulf of Mexico pristine? Better than us?

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

I fail to see the logic....... perhaps there isn't any?
 

Wavels

Well-Known Member
Seem to me that Obama and his sycophants have zero interest in drilling and developing a thriving offshore energy industry.
Action is all that matters... talk talk talk does not get anything done.
I am more than a little fed up with this twit in the White House.:joint:



Spectacularly pathetic:


Interior Department bureaucrats bury 2-1 public support for more off-shore drilling in comments on proposed rule.

"It's sad and pathetic that Secretary Salazar and his team knew way back in late October the breakdown of the comments but have yet to announce the results to the public three months later. It is now abundantly clear that all of President Obama and Secretary Salazar's talk about openness and transparency and wanting to know what the American people think about offshore development is a complete charade.

"It's also now increasingly clear that this administration's repeatedly expressed openness to offshore energy development is also a complete pretense. Instead, we have an administration that can only be understood as ideologically committed to stifling offshore energy development of oil and natural gas while they offer up platitudes and a p ose of openness. Holden Caulfield had a word for this behavior: 'phony'.
Excerpts from:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Interior-Department-bureaucrats-bury-2-1-public-support-for-more-off-shore-drilling-in-comments-on-proposed-rule-83707822.html
 
Top