Obama: Drill, Brazil, Drill!

[Henry Hawk]

It defies logic....


http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/566719/201103211908/Obama-Drill-Brazil-Drill.htm

Obama: Drill, Brazil, Drill!  Posted 03/21/2011 07:08 PM ET

   Energy Policy: While leaving U.S. oil and jobs in the ground, our itinerant president tells a South American neighbor that we'll help it develop its offshore resources so we can one day import its oil. WHAT?!?

With Japan staggered by a natural disaster and a nuclear crisis, cruise missiles launched against Libya in our third Middle East conflict and a majority of U.S. senators complaining about a lack of leadership on the budget, President Obama decided it would be a good time to schmooze with Brazilians.

His "What, me worry?" presidency has given both Americans and our allies plenty to worry about. But in the process of making nice with Brazil, Obama made a mind-boggling announcement that should make even his most loyal supporter cringe:
We will help Brazil develop its offshore oil so we can one day import it.

We have noted this double standard before, particularly when — at a time when the president was railing against tax incentives for U.S. oil companies — we supported the U.S. Export-Import Bank's plan to lend $2 billion to Brazil's state-run Petrobras with the promise of more to follow.

Now, with a seven-year offshore drilling ban in effect off of both coasts, on Alaska's continental shelf and in much of the Gulf of Mexico — and a de facto moratorium covering the rest — Obama tells the Brazilians:
"We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely. And when you're ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers."

Obama wants to develop Brazilian offshore oil to help the Brazilian economy create jobs for Brazilian workers while Americans are left unemployed in the face of skyrocketing energy prices by an administration that despises fossil fuels as a threat to the environment and wants to increase our dependency on foreign oil.

Obama said he chose Brazil to kick off his first-ever visit to South America in recognition of that country's ascendancy. He has also highlighted one of the reasons for America's decline — an energy policy that through the creation of an artificial shortage of fossil fuels makes prices "necessarily skyrocket" to foster his green energy agenda.

In an op-ed in USA Today explaining his trip, Obama opined: "Brazil holds recently discovered oil reserves that could be far larger than ours. And as we seek to increase secure-energy supplies, we look forward to developing a strategic energy partnership."

Yet in his alleged quest for "secure-energy supplies," he refuses to develop oil and natural gas resources in U.S. waters. His administration has locked up areas in the West where oil shale reserves are estimated to be triple Saudi Arabia's reserves of crude. His administration is even stalling on plans to build a pipeline to deliver oil from Canada's tar sands to the U.S. market.

That project would build a 1,661-mile pipeline from the tar sands of Alberta to U.S. refineries near Houston. It would create 13,000 "shovel-ready" jobs and provide 500,000 more barrels of oil per day from an ally.

Yet it's now being held up by the State Department because it crosses an international border, on the grounds that it needs further environmental review. Shipping oil by tanker from Brazil is safer and more secure?

If Brazil had copied our current energy policy, it wouldn't have discovered in December 2007 the Tupi field, estimated to contain 5 billion to 8 billon barrels of crude, or its Carioca offshore oilfield that may hold up to 33 billion barrels.

Haroldo Lima, head of Brazil's National Oil Agency, estimates that Carioca might hold as much as five times the reserves of Tupi. Somehow the Brazilians aren't too worried about oil spoiling the pristine beaches of nearby Sao Paulo or Rio de Janeiro in the tourist season.

We suggest that President Obama return home and start worrying about an unapologetic American renaissance in which we focus more on American energy and American jobs and less on mythical environmental hazards and foreign accolades.

[The Troll]

  Another swipe at Obama, but you know that the Republican congressmen will break their butts to do it with him.  Right?  Them Republicans sure do love oil and the smell of it.  As one oil driller said, what you think smells bad is the smell of money. 

[Anne]

So you want to send 2 BILLION plus dollars to Brazil so we can pay more money to import their oil. Why not spend it here developing our own power sources?

[Henry Hawk]

  Another swipe at Obama, but you know that the Republican congressmen will break their butts to do it with him.  Right?  Them Republicans sure do love oil and the smell of it.  As one oil driller said, what you think smells bad is the smell of money. 

Are you dodging a bullet or just ignoring the fact this POTUS is all about spending $2 Billion dollars so ANOTHER country can "Drill Baby Drill"?

I thought HE was going to make us energy independent.....He was going to balance our budget.....HE is nothing more than another lying POS.  Except he is a Democrat lying POS, and that must make it okay.

[The Troll]

So you want to send 2 BILLION plus dollars to Brazil so we can pay more money to import their oil. Why not spend it here developing our own power sources?

  Anne, where do I say, anywhere in my post, that I supported it.  Some how anything the oil companies want, the oil companies get.

  I will believe Washington is against importation of oil is when the Republican Party comes out publicly and denounce it in the halls of Congress and on television.

  And Henry, you know that Obama can't not give Brazil $2 billion without the OK of the Congress and your Republican Party controls half of it.   

  But good old Henry is trying to say it's all Obama's fault and he knows better.  He surly know how much George W. loved oil.  He went to war for it and we are still there. 

[Anne]

So if the democrats still controlled both houses it wouldn't happen, President Obama was made to do it by the republicans?

[Henry Hawk]

   He went to war for it and we are still there. 

AND WHY ARE WE STILL THERE?.....................I THOUGHT YOU GUY WAS BRINGING US HOME......HELL, NOW HE HAS GOT US INVOLVED WITH LIBYA, WITHOUTH CONGRESS APPROVAL...

Troll, the point is that Obama is willing to give $2 Billion...and allow drilling in deep waters, just 165 miles off of our coast ...

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2011/03/18/Petrobras-gets-permit-for-US-deep-waters/UPI-87891300453143/

just because he is a democrat, THAT makes ALL okay for you, doesn't it?

He is bad, bad, bad......

[The Troll]

AND WHY ARE WE STILL THERE?.....................I THOUGHT YOU GUY WAS BRINGING US HOME......HELL, NOW HE HAS GOT US INVOLVED WITH LIBYA, WITHOUTH CONGRESS APPROVAL...

Troll, the point is that Obama is willing to give $2 Billion...and allow drilling in deep waters, just 165 miles off of our coast ...

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2011/03/18/Petrobras-gets-permit-for-US-deep-waters/UPI-87891300453143/

just because he is a democrat, THAT makes ALL okay for you, doesn't it?

He is bad, bad, bad......

  Oh I'm damn tired of arguing you Republicans.  You sure have a case of memory loss.  All the crap you people have put this country though.

   A depression, two wars and you guys don't want to stop a genocide by one crazy bastard and you both claim to be Christians.  If Jesus Christ came back and he claimed he was a Democrat, both of you would start to build a cross to crucify him.     There is no one so blind as someone who will not see.  Pretty well cover you two.   

[Nighthawk]

  Oh I'm damn tired of arguing you Republicans.  You sure have a case of memory loss.  All the crap you people have put this country though.

   A depression, two wars and you guys don't want to stop a genocide by one crazy bastard and you both claim to be Christians.  If Jesus Christ came back and he claimed he was a Democrat, both of you would start to build a cross to crucify him.     There is no one so blind as someone who will not see.  Pretty well cover you two.   

So.... invading Afghanistan and Iraq was wrong but Libya is OK??

[Henry Hawk]

That is ALWAYS his response to a civil question that sheds any negative to any democrat.

ALL democrats are good nighthawk, have you not yet figured that out?
ALL republicans are BAD!!

Troll, would you like to try again to answer the question, without blaiming BUSH or REPUBLICANS...

the question is......"So.... invading Afghanistan and Iraq was wrong but Libya is OK??"

yes or no?

[The Troll]

So.... invading Afghanistan and Iraq was wrong but Libya is OK??

  That an easy on Henry. 

  I would go along with the war in Afghanistan for two to three years.  This war has gone on for over six  years.  World II only lasted four years.

  Iraq was a fools war,  oil war, a war to prove that George W. was more of a man than this daddy.  NOT!  Another war that has lasted over six  years.

  I am for the Libya Freedom Fighters.  I am for killing Gadhafi a murder of first magnitude.  Being against the Libyan Freedom Fighters would be like saying that when France came to the aid of the American Freedom Fighters was wrong.  Save them and kill an dictator.


                                                              

[Palehorse]

Holy Jumping Jackasses! You guys spin more than a friggin top!

Not all that long ago you (the conservative media) complained about the fact that additional permits had been issued to "a certain oil company" to drill in the Gulf; the same area in which THE spill happened. And used it as a switch with which to beat the POTUS.

But wait a minute. . . How could that have happened "with a seven-year offshore drilling ban in effect off of both coasts, on Alaska's continental shelf and in much of the Gulf of Mexico — and a de facto moratorium covering the rest "?

And I suppose the POTUS was "lying" when he stated publicly, just a few weeks ago, that "domestic US drilling and oil production are up, and continue to increase above historic levels?" (paraphrased)

And now, when the US upholds its global obligation(s) as it relates toward support of UN International initiatives you want to pound him some more? (Despite the fact he declined to commit ground forces to the initiative in recognition of the financial strains surrounding "current obligations").

And oh, by the way, republicans are the ones pushing the "drill baby drill" agenda; despite the FACT that the US owns only 2% of the ENTIRE worlds oil reserves, and that increasing production exponentially increases the nations progression toward that eternal "empty" mark on the oil gauge.

So, I guess it does not make sense to build partnerships with countries who own additional oil reserves does it. . . 

And, at the risk of awakening a sleeping dog, I will once again point out that this senseless, endless, and insidious sniping taking place toward the POTUS, only serves to accentuate that the true motivations behind such are highly suspect and globally atrocious.

[Nighthawk]

  That an easy on Henry. 

  I would go along with the war in Afghanistan for two to three years.  This war has gone on for over six  years.  World II only lasted four years.

  Iraq was a fools war,  oil war, a war to prove that George W. was more of a man than this daddy.  NOT!  Another war that has lasted over six  years.

  I am for the Libya Freedom Fighters.  I am for killing Gadhafi a murder of first magnitude.  Being against the Libyan Freedom Fighters would be like saying that when France came to the aid of the American Freedom Fighters was wrong.  Save them and kill an dictator.


                                                              

Afganistan: the only reason this war is lasting as long as it is is because of the ridiculous rules of engagement the dems and Obama have imposed.

Iraq: Saddam was torturing and murdering his own people too. If it was a "war for oil" then where is the damn oil??

Libya: He is about as bad as Saddam was but supposedly we are not there to oust him. Just 'protect civilians'

[Palehorse]

Afganistan: the only reason this war is lasting as long as it is is because of the ridiculous rules of engagement the dems and Obama have imposed.

No. . . BUSH started it to go after terrorists / terrorism, THEN he diverted troops to Iraq, which reversed all the initial progress achieved in Afghanistan and forced a restart once the Iraqi initiative began transitioning to Iraqi personnel. THAT's why we are still there.

Your commentary surrounding the ROE, I am wondering what you are basing that opinion on?

Iraq: Saddam was torturing and murdering his own people too. If it was a "war for oil" then where is the damn oil??

OMG, working on our 8th year since the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and this is still being used as a moral justification to cover for the fact there were NO WMD in Iraq; which was the "justification" used in initiating the action! 

Libya: He is about as bad as Saddam was but supposedly we are not there to oust him. Just 'protest civilians'

Define "we". If by "we" you mean the United States of America, then you are totally wrong.
This is a UN initiative and the US is a member of the UN. A permanent member. The US is committing resources as an obligation toward what the global community and majority of the UN Council views as criminal actions toward civilians that may constitute crimes against humanity. . .

Ironic that you want to morally justify US involvement in Iraq due to the very same actions of its former dictator, that the current dictator of Libya is guilty of undertaking; and yet the situation in Libya is wrong? Why?

[Nighthawk]

Please show me were I said what we are doing in Libya is wrong.