Palin on CNBC: We have billions of barrels of oil still sitting underground

Palin on CNBC: Energy, Public Service and Role of VP

“More and more Americans are recognizing it is time to ramp up American supply of energy… More and more Americans are recognizing your sister state up in the artic in Alaska has these supplies. We have trillions of cubic feet of natural gas; we have billions of barrels of oil still sitting underground.”

Here we go! A corroboration of the whole Lyndsey Williams "huge oil reserves in Alaska" thing, from the Republican VP candidate herself! Check it out!!

Not sure where your going with this, but...

Gas prices are driven by supply and demand, increase supply and guess what happens?

reply to post by mhc_70


There is nowhere to go with this because she's right. We have enough oil, gas, and coal within our borders to feed our need. All we have to do is lift bans and give away land.

reply to post by mhc_70


Well, the point being that the US loves to beat up the Middle East and use up their oil, meanwhile they have huge reserves sitting there untouched in Alaska, and other states. (North Dakota?)

And here we have the Republic VP candidate basically admitting it on TV!!

You're right though - if the US were to increase their own oil supplies, they wouldn't be able to rape and gouge people at the pumps any more

Yes, we all know this.... Jeeze, besides raw oil and natural gas we have an estimated 200 year supply of "coal to oil" liquid fuel and another 300 year supply of "shale to oil". We just are not allowed to tap it because a segment of our society wants to get rich trading carbon credits!

Also Political corruption is involved. Many of our esteemed leaders have investments in foreign energy sources and DO NOT want us to develop our own. NOTE, THIS CORRUPTION COMES FROM BOTH PARTIES but the 2 extreme examples are as follows.

Pelosi has huge investments in Pickens wind farms and developing our fossil fuels would cut into that money.... so.. No Vote.

Other politicians have declared huge reserves of coal off limits as "Federal Protection" areas while being heavily invested in foreign energy companies. Until we pop our heads out of our as#e$ and force our PUBLIC SERVANTS to be public servants by law, this will continue.

[edit on 1-9-2008 by infolurker]

[edit on 1-9-2008 by infolurker]

Originally posted by infolurker
Yes, we all know this.... Jeeze, besides raw oil and natural gas we have an estimated 200 year supply of "coal to oil" liquid fuel and another 300 year supply of "shale to oil". We just are not allowed to tap it because a segment of our society wants to get rich trading carbon credits!

Sure, this is fairly common knowledge here at ATS, but when was the last time you saw a notable politician admitting to it on MSM TV?

This is some big news, wouldn't you say?

Originally posted by MrdDstrbr


Sure, this is fairly common knowledge here at ATS, but when was the last time you saw a notable politician admitting to it on MSM TV?

This is some big news, wouldn't you say?

Are you serious? The Republicans have been saying this for years and it's been falling on deaf ears. I guess the only big news about this is that the MSM and the Dems never want anybody to hear about this.

Remember Obama's sound bite? "We can't drill our way out of this problem?"

YES WE CAN!

Yes, How many times have you heard "It will take 10 years" blah blah blah.

That is like saying "Don't go to college, it wont make a difference for 4,6,10 years"

Check our history... during the last energy crisis, the US started to talk about alternative and domestic energy. We started a "coal to oil" facility and our Middle East friends did a "O Shyte" and oil dropped to under 10 bucks a barrel. Just the illusion of being serious about domestic energy drives the price down.

I for one believe that Algae Oil is the key to liquid fuel in the future and it will take another decade to get it rolling. In the interim, it is essential to our National Security to be energy independent.

Ah, you hit the nail on the head.. you won't hear this on most MSM outlets because they are all involved with this carbon scam. You will on CNN occasionally (Glen Beck for sure) and Fox News.

[edit on 1-9-2008 by infolurker]

Originally posted by MrdDstrbr

Originally posted by infolurker
Yes, we all know this.... Jeeze, besides raw oil and natural gas we have an estimated 200 year supply of "coal to oil" liquid fuel and another 300 year supply of "shale to oil". We just are not allowed to tap it because a segment of our society wants to get rich trading carbon credits!

Sure, this is fairly common knowledge here at ATS, but when was the last time you saw a notable politician admitting to it on MSM TV?

This is some big news, wouldn't you say?

Agreed.

If the main stream media doesn't ask the questions politician's don't have to say much.


Ya think the reason newspapers are not doing well financially speaking is that the average American is getting tired of their lies and self-serving interests?

Originally posted by MrdDstrbr
reply to post by mhc_70

 

Well, the point being that the US loves to beat up the Middle East and use up their oil, meanwhile they have huge reserves sitting there untouched in Alaska, and other states. (North Dakota?)

And here we have the Republic VP candidate basically admitting it on TV!!

You're right though - if the US were to increase their own oil supplies, they wouldn't be able to rape and gouge people at the pumps any more

I think if the US considers their prices high enough to bandy words like 'rape and gouge at the pumps' then you need to check out the price of fuel in the UK!


Keep your reserves until the SRHTF

do people actually believe drilling is the solution? people are correct when they say prices wont come down for a couple of years because the oil isnt just going to appear on the market tomorrow. besides all the oil companies have said they wont be building new refinaries so the capability of turning the oil into petrol will be limited.

seriously there is other technology out there that would take just as long as drilling to have an effect on the prices to develop which is not only better for the envoirnment but will work out cheaper in the long run.

seriously americans and their addiction to oil is scary. yes i drive a car that runs on petrol but id give anything to be able to have a clean, efficient car that runs off renewable sources unlike oil.

besides if you want to save on petrol costs buy more efficient cars that do more than 10mpg or a car that runs on lpg for now. drilling for more oil wont solve anything now and if we dont get off this oil addiction the problem will just resurface in 20-30 years time

reply to post by otto2294


It is not a matter of Americans being addicted to oil..its big oil being addicted to 40+ billion dollar profits. Plain and simple.

And the politicians are in line to collect a nice share of those 40+ billion dollar profits.

To them, chipping away just 1 dollar of those profits is a big no-no.

The problem will never go away until you rid them of their nasty little habit.

Cheers!!!

I work with Jatropha myself, you can expect several states full of the stuff in the south over the next 10 years and it's all for ready use in a great many farm vehicles, great thing about it is, it reclaims desert lands like here in AZ and makes them ready to grow food, so you plant it on dead land and after a couple fo runs you can grow food... doesn't take from food supplies like corn or soy and yields more oil

and that's just bio diesel, Probably no one has even heard of it lol...

We absolutely should be indpendent for our energry needs.

I'm not sure but I think you will find that a lot of that oil in Alaska is in the 'sand oil' form, or 'shale' and it is significantly more expensive to produce, also messy to. A lot of water is required and then you have to treat that water so it can go back into the water table.

Why screw up your own country when others are still willing to sell you their oil?

Much better idea would be to find ways to ditch oil all together, short sharp shock would be best - like a drug addict kicking the drugs. Necessity is the mother of invention.

Hi There,

I would say that the 'addiction to oil' is both ways, the investors take their continued profit, and the buyers at the pumps pay for that profit whilst feeding their part of the addiction. It's very much like a supply and (dependency) demand relationship of the drug pusher and user.

The only way out of this vicious circle is to change the dependency by changing the energy type of consumption. Opening up Alaska to consume the fossil fuels there is not the answer in the long term, but more of a short respite from the pressures - economically, environmentally, socially - that we are experiencing now world-wide.

We, as a species need to focus our technological efforts on developing cleaner and more efficient fuel sources, of which both the ingenuity and the technology has been around for many years, but suppressed. Water, for instance, can be used to power vehicles, and is probably the cleanest and cheapest form of power, but if we were to change to this form of energy consumption, the impact upon societies around the world would be extreme, it would compel us to rethink society and to rebuild and reshape it to accommodate the 'new' mindset.

Just as much as we are addicted to fossil fuel, we are also addicted to the pyramidial structure of political power, where those at the top of the pyramid derive the greater benefit, and profit from the belittled position of those underneath. That those at the top would want to maintain this status quo, goes without saying, but you cannot change the addiction that keeps them there, without changing the hold the suppliers have on the addicted.

Ultimately, it's about changing one's own mindset. It's about finding the reason within yourself to gain a conviction on the necessity for delivering oneself from one's own addiction. Whichever path one takes, or continues to tread, it is going to become a hard and rocky road. If we do not make the necessary changes, we as a civilisation will go the way of past civilisations into obscurity and extinction, of which there are many more roads than there are for our continuance.

Through mankind's addiction to fossil fuels, we have subconsciously adapted a mindset to the incremental approach of the devastating effects which are wrought from that addiction, environmental, economical, societal. We rationalize statistically what we can live with, what we can put up with: it is better to have a cold than to have the flu; it is better to have the flu than pneumonia; it is better to have pneumonia than cancer. At some point, the quality of life is so reduced that we even rationalize on euthanasia...that it is better to be dead than to live a life of famine and thirst, yet we condemn many to death for the sake of our addiction, through bogus wars derived from spurious reasons, but whose primary purpose to was snatch at the resources of another country, so that your government can feed your addiction, and make a profit along the way.

Opening up Alaska will not save you from what is inevitable; more impactful environmental destruction, resource wars, political and social unrest. If the supplier is not willing to change, then the addicted needs to deliver themselves from the addiction...how that is to be achieved is what the debate is all about, that is what needs discussing.

Best wishes

Now and Then:

Much better idea would be to find ways to ditch oil all together, short sharp shock would be best - like a drug addict kicking the drugs. Necessity is the mother of invention.

Quite agree. Minds thinking alike here.

[edit on 7/9/08 by elysiumfire]

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Hi There,

The only way out of this vicious circle is to change the dependency by changing the energy type of consumption. Opening up Alaska to consume the fossil fuels there is not the answer in the long term, but more of a short respite from the pressures - economically, environmentally, socially - that we are experiencing now world-wide.

We, as a species need to focus our technological efforts on developing cleaner and more efficient fuel sources, of which both the ingenuity and the technology has been around for many years, but suppressed. Water, for instance, can be used to power vehicles, and is probably the cleanest and cheapest form of power, but if we were to change to this form of energy consumption, the impact upon societies around the world would be extreme, it would compel us to rethink society and to rebuild and reshape it to accommodate the 'new' mindset.

Agree, but what do you suppose we do? Just allow the prices to go through the roof until we find a new source of abundant, clean energy? No, begin tapping into the resources we have along with investing into R&D of new a new clean and abundant energy source. There will always be a need for petroleum products, hopefully, soon, energy won't be one of them.

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Just as much as we are addicted to fossil fuel, we are also addicted to the pyramidial structure of political power, where those at the top of the pyramid derive the greater benefit, and profit from the belittled position of those underneath. That those at the top would want to maintain this status quo, goes without saying, but you cannot change the addiction that keeps them there, without changing the hold the suppliers have on the addicted.

Ultimately, it's about changing one's own mindset. It's about finding the reason within yourself to gain a conviction on the necessity for delivering oneself from one's own addiction. Whichever path one takes, or continues to tread, it is going to become a hard and rocky road. If we do not make the necessary changes, we as a civilisation will go the way of past civilisations into obscurity and extinction, of which there are many more roads than there are for our continuance.

Thats what I like about McCain. He has displayed the fortitude to stand up to other politicians and put his career on the line to do what he feels is right.

Palin is an everyday mother who has been in politics for a few years, but not really long enough to shape her opinions like the beauraucrats in Washington. She has also showed a willingness to stand up against corruption.

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Opening up Alaska will not save you from what is inevitable; more impactful environmental destruction, resource wars, political and social unrest. If the supplier is not willing to change, then the addicted needs to deliver themselves from the addiction...how that is to be achieved is what the debate is all about, that is what needs discussing.

Best wishes

No it won't, but it will lower prices, create jobs and remove one of 1 the 2 biggest restraints on the economy and allow us a minimun of 10 years to develop new technology and force the beauraucrats to stop lining there pockets with money from big oil..

In a simpleton's world they think they can 'drill their way out of this'. They can't. Not one credible source has come forward saying that domestic drilling will resolve this problem. But, as usual, it's the most simplistic answer on the surface so people gobble it up.

The fact is --- both Democrats and Republicans --- are beholden to their oil company masters. They are in their positions to protect thos companies' profits. We had a huge problem related to foreign oil in the 70's oil crisis --- gas lines, rationing, the whole enchilada. Did government do anything about it? Did they drill more? Build more refineries? Develop alternatives? Anything? Nope. 30+ years and they did sh*t --- as usual. 5 Republican and 2 1/2 Democratic Presidential terms and they did jack sh*t about the energy/oil issue after the biggest wake-up call in history.

Imagine what alternatives we could have developed in 30+ years. That is, if the players involved were truly interested in American energy security and independence as opposed to just profits. Sadly but non unexpectedly history has proven that profits win out every time. This whole drill and save the country argument is as vacuous now as it was when it started. It's propagandist BS.

Remember the whole Tamiflu stampede? Do you people seriously believe that Roche was unaware of its limited effectiveness? But they managed to 'push' the government to buy-up millions of (now virtually useless) doses.

The Oil Industry Motto:
"Corporate profits first, America whenever"