Why is Hoyer soooooo great?

[Cletus_Vandam]

If Hoyer is such a "for the people" type politician, then why did he vote against this?

"The House passed H.R. 6, to ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and reliable energy, by a recorded vote of 249 ayes to 183 noes, Roll No. 132."

More info at:

http://capwiz.com/y/issues/votes/?votenum=132&chamber=H&congress=1091

 

[Bruzilla]

Hoyer's sooooo great because he's been around long enough to hold a good bit of power and authority in the Congress. If he was another schmuck mid-level Congressmen he would have been gone a long time ago.

 

[rraley]

I believe that Rep. Hoyer's opposition to this bill, along with others, was based on the fact that the energy bill opens up the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to exploration for oil. Opponents of such exploration suggest that exploring in ANWR would harm environmentally sensitive areas and would not produce an immediate benefit to expanding American oil revenues. Furthermore they say that there is only enough oil under ANWR to supply America for three days.

 

[ylexot]

Hoyer's sooooo great because he's been around long enough to hold a good bit of power and authority in the Congress. If he was another schmuck mid-level Congressmen he would have been gone a long time ago.

I still don't understand that argument. If they are not going to vote the way I want, I'd much rather have a "powerless" Congressman. I really think the reason people vote for him is because they recognize his name, not that they actually know anything about him or what he stands for.

 

[rraley]

Well I think that Hoyer's so great because I agree with about 75% of his votes.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Well I think that Hoyer's so great because I agree with about 75% of his votes.

That is why most here disagree with your opinion.

 

[ylexot]

I believe that Rep. Hoyer's opposition to this bill, along with others, was based on the fact that the energy bill opens up the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to exploration for oil. Opponents of such exploration suggest that exploring in ANWR would harm environmentally sensitive areas and would not produce an immediate benefit to expanding American oil revenues.

Here's an interesting map showing the scale of the proposed drilling in ANWR. Kinda speaks for itself. And as for "immediate benefit". Is there such a thing? It's called an investment. Drill now so that if there is a major shortage, we're not rushing to drill in ANWR.

Furthermore they say that there is only enough oil under ANWR to supply America for three days.

I guess that all depends on who "they" are.
According to this site, the US Dept. of Interior and US Geological surveys say otherwise. Lets see...in 1996, 1.5 million barrels per day was ~25% of peak US domestic production. That would make 100% production 6 million barrels per day. At that rate, the lowest estimate for ANWR would last ~100 days and the high estimate would last ~1500 days. Who told you it would only last 3 days? Are they the same ones that smoke pot?

 

[Cletus_Vandam]

Well I think that Hoyer's so great because I agree with about 75% of his votes.

Oh well, being right 25% of time is better than Hoyer's record of being wrong 100% of the time....

 

[SamSpade]

http://www.anwr.org/docs/CloseupofareaIII.pdf At that rate, the lowest estimate for ANWR would last ~100 days and the high estimate would last ~1500 days. Who told you it would only last 3 days? Are they the same ones that smoke pot?

*THREE DAYS*? Talk about de-flation. The number I usually hear bandied about is 88 days. If we relied solely on this, and nothing else (which is kind of a stupid way of gauging it).

That's not to say that that number can't increase - Prudhoe Bay wasn't expected to turn out quite as well as it has.

BUT - all this quibbling over a postage stamp size area? What is this, about the size of Calvert Cliffs park, in a region the size of South Carolina? This is nothing.

I haven't seen any proof whatsoever that this drilling will have ANY downside at all. Caribou populations have actually *RISEN* in the Prudhoe Bay area (due to animals nesting near the warm pipelines), and that is far more invasive. The indigenous people there WANT this development. Why are people against it?

 

[Toxick]

*THREE DAYS*? Talk about de-flation. The number I usually hear bandied about is 88 days. If we relied solely on this, and nothing else (which is kind of a stupid way of gauging it).

88 days?

Then what's the big deal about? Seems to me that a mere 88 days is not even close to being worth the time, money, energy and trouble that is going into drilling this worthless landscape.

Why are people against it?

I wasn't against it until you said 88 days.

 

[rraley]

ylexot...I don't need proof from you (I support ANWR drilling)...I was just giving some background to people. I think that there are some legitimate concerns with ANWR exploration, but not enough for me.

 

[Ken King]

USGS estimates for technically recoverable undiscovered oil in the ANWR have a low estimate of 5.7 billion barrels, high estimate of 16 billion barrels, and a mean of 10.3 billion barrels (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/summary.html ). Thus with our consumption at around 19.7 million barrels a day ANWR could be our sole theoretical source for anywhere between 289 and 812 days with a mean projection of around 522 days.

 

[Spoiled]

Didnt he pretty much push for the base to come to st marys county? Jobs ++

 

[Ken King]

Didnt he pretty much push for the base to come to st marys county? Jobs ++

The base has been here since the 40s, so Hoyer had nothing to do with that. And it was more of NAVAIR's plan to bring other activities to the base during previous BRAC action, though since Hoyer was the representative he obviously felt the need to take credit for everything.

 

[willie]

If Hoyer is such a "for the people" type politician, then why did he vote against this?

"The House passed H.R. 6, to ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and reliable energy, by a recorded vote of 249 ayes to 183 noes, Roll No. 132."

More info at:

http://capwiz.com/y/issues/votes/?votenum=132&chamber=H&congress=1091

How the U.S. House from Maryland voted: voted
• Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-6) N
• Rep. Benjamin Cardin (D-3) N
• Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-7) N
• Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-1) N
• Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-5) N
• Rep. C.A. Ruppersberger (D-2) N
• Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Jr. (D-8) N
• Rep. Albert Wynn (D-4) Y

Maybe we need Albert Wynn to lead Maryland into the future.

 

[FromTexas]

88 days?

Then what's the big deal about? Seems to me that a mere 88 days is not even close to being worth the time, money, energy and trouble that is going into drilling this worthless landscape.




I wasn't against it until you said 88 days.

Even if it was just 88 days.. thats 88 days as the sole source for the United States. Now, take the total number of sources, etc.... What would be a more legitimate factor is how much more domestic oil we could depend on over foreign oil. That would be, at 100% efficiency, taking the daily output and subtracting that output from the amount we import (all other factors being equal). However, that is not a true case since some of that oil would be exported while we import other oil based on the dynamics of the market at different times of the year.

So, taking an average factor for exported oil and calculating against maybe an 80% efficiency (to account for maintenance, etc...) you could probably get a good figure for how much dependence could be reduced on foreign oil to the amount we depend on now.

Or, we could just say... it doesn't effect much of an area at all depsite what the environmental screamers want you to think. It is not a disaster. Go to Texas and look at the huge ranchlands with their great ecosystems and you will hardly notice the little 4-10 acre area confined to a minor portion that pumps all the oil out of the ground.

Once that is negated, they will scream to you about the vehicles and workers going there. 20-40 car/truck roundtrips traveling to a location every day is not going to have any real impact on an environment that already has almost no vehicle travel to it. Vehicle pollution and effects are exponential factors that are dramatic with vehicle use density... not by just existing.

 

[Vince]

USGS estimates for technically recoverable undiscovered oil in the ANWR have a low estimate of 5.7 billion barrels, high estimate of 16 billion barrels, and a mean of 10.3 billion barrels (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/summary.html ). Thus with our consumption at around 19.7 million barrels a day ANWR could be our sole theoretical source for anywhere between 289 and 812 days with a mean projection of around 522 days.

Didn't think the "three days" was quite right.

 

[Toxick]

Even if it was just 88 days.. thats 88 days as the sole source for the United States. Now, take the total number of sources, etc.... What would be a more legitimate factor is how much more domestic oil we could depend on over foreign oil.

If I were to plant a vegatable garden in my back yard, and then grow 88 days worth of food, I would not consider myself to be any less depenant on the grocery store. In a mere 3 months, I'll be right back in the produce section of Safeway.

 

[rraley]

Ultimately the best way for America to become energy dependent is to focus on the development of new technologies and fuel sources while increasing the fuel efficiency standards for cars sold in America. These things will have a longer lasting effect than any expanded drilling. But that expanded drilling will not hurt, and it won't harm the environment as terribly as environmentalists would like us to think.

So, three days, five days, 100 days, a year...it doesn't matter...it's gonna help.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Ultimately the best way for America to become energy dependent is to focus on the development of new technologies and fuel sources while increasing the fuel efficiency standards for cars sold in America. These things will have a longer lasting effect than any expanded drilling. But that expanded drilling will not hurt, and it won't harm the environment as terribly as environmentalists would like us to think.

So, three days, five days, 100 days, a year...it doesn't matter...it's gonna help.

We are already energy dependent. I know, a typo, but I had to zing you on it.

All the drilling in the world won't help until we start building refineries. Our refinery capacity is topped out. We could find a sea of oil and still not be any better off until we can make usable forms out of the crude.