RX Reven' wrote: Question…how many folks on this board take the President at face value and believe he’s sincerely doing this because he feels the benefits outweigh drawbacks and there’s no ulterior motive?
How many people take believe that of ANY president (or politician for that matter)?
oldsaw wrote:Toyman01 wrote:Even die-hard libs get something right once in a while. That doesn't mean you should entrust a blind squirrel to fill your acorn basket. It would be nice to believe the feds and energy companies have a long-term interest in coming somewhere close to energy-independence, but neither seem capable of managing money or time in a way that inspires confidence.Capt Slow wrote: We really shouldn't be drilling, we need to finish using up the rest of the worlds oil. That way when WWIII rolls around we will have our own "private reserve"...Nail meet head. Maybe. There have been suggestions that this is exactly what is going on. Not necessarily the WWIII reference, but using everyone else's oil first and leaving the US as the only significant supply left. Probably a tin foil hat idea, but there is some merit to it. Iggy, I'm starting to worry about one of us. We are agreeing on way too much stuff.
what a kind way of completely disregarding my ideas...
Even if we were to open up drilling everywhere today, it would likely be 8-12 years before any of that saw the gas pump.
I can't help but think that this is some idea to somehow further weaken the oil industry by lowering the already somewhat sensitive oil price.
I would be happy if the auto manufacturers were given an incentive to produce MORE diesel and CNG cars versus gasoline. We don't need to drill more we need to use less. CNG fuel is abundant in North America, and diesels use less of the "important" part of the barrel of oil.
Jensenman wrote:
NO
John Brown wrote: The auto manufacturers {need to be} given an incentive to produce MORE diesel and CNG cars versus gasoline. We don't need to drill more we need to use less. CNG fuel is abundant in North America, and diesels use less of the "important" part of the barrel of oil.
/thread
It won't matter how much drilling is done if we don't increase refinery capacity. The reason diesel is more expensive than premium is that we have to import it meet demand because of lack of refinery capacity. As much as I am addicted to dino fuel, I agree we need to pursue other energy alternatives. Also, I would definitely not trust our duly elected representatives judgement, when they seem to be more concerned with partisan politics rather than actually doing what they were elected to do.
Don49 wrote: I would definitely not trust our duly elected representatives judgement, when they seem to be more concerned with their bank account balance rather than actually doing what they were elected to do.
fixdid
ignorant wrote:SVreX wrote: Dude! That's 3 times in 2 days that I have completely agreed with you!you and me are not so unlike each other.... I'm just younger and mouthier..It's not what I voted for either!
It would probably disturb you to realize how much I was like you when I was younger. Be afraid.
Strizzo wrote: Even if we were to open up drilling everywhere today, it would likely be 8-12 years before any of that saw the gas pump. ...
I lived in Texas for 18 years. It works like this: Empty field. Drill rig pulls in with a bunch of rather tough guys hauling beer cans and smut mags in dirty pickup trucks. Less than six months later (+/-), drill rig leaves and oil trucks start showing up to haul the oil off. How do you get 12 years out of that? Oh, that's right, you listened to the News Media repeating what the lieing politicians told them.
Now, the total lack of any new refineries for the last 30 years, that's a different issue. Remove the barriers to entry and watch them pop up all over, with very good paying jobs, paying taxes to finance your health care benefits and Nancy's face lifts.
SVreX wrote:ignorant wrote:It would probably disturb you to realize how much I was like you when I was younger. Be afraid.SVreX wrote: Dude! That's 3 times in 2 days that I have completely agreed with you!you and me are not so unlike each other.... I'm just younger and mouthier..
'A 20 year old who is not a liberal has no heart. A 40 year old who is not a conservative has no brain'.
As we grow older and the scales of idealism fall from our eyes, we begin to see that there is no black and white, only shades of gray.
By the way, the Dream Team is back!
Again hotlinked with pride. 
Dr. Hess wrote: Now, the total lack of any new refineries for the last 30 years, that's a different issue. Remove the barriers to entry and watch them pop up all over, with very good paying jobs, paying taxes to finance your health care benefits and Nancy's face lifts.
I remember when they closed the refinery in Alma (?), Mi. Gas prices shot up 40% the next day.
Oh the glory days.
A few places tried to get refineries built some years back, Arizona comes to mind, only to be blocked by the green people after billions had been spent. Our lack of refineries and their centralized locations are a HUGE issue.
Now, as to the oil drilling, we have about as much oil as the Middle East, but it's a little harder to get to. We were told by a Shell engineer that the reason you don't see more done here is first, the cost. It is much cheaper to buy it from somewhere else than drill for it here, so there is no cost incentive to do so. Second, the hoops you have to go through to get a license to drill basically send you to a country where that is not as difficult.
A couple of years ago we sold all of our patents to another company to produce our oil well products. The writing was on the wall then, and it has not improved now. It's only gotten worse. All this about drilling in the Gulf is a smoke screen. I'd be amazed if it ever happened. He wants to do a 2 or 3 year environment impact study. What do you want to bet in two or three years it comes back as a negative for drilling? He's said many times he does not want off shore drilling, why the sudden urge to do so. It's a political ploy to pull back in some independents.
As of now, there is no viable alternative to fossil fuels. You can't produce enough solar or wind to make up the difference. Nuclear is the best option at the moment, but once again, getting an operating permit is next to impossible for new builds.
This is an example of how we, as a country, are being controlled and destroyed. If you control the energy, you control the entire economy. We (as a country) have an economy with a built in growth rate. This growth comes lately from illegal aliens and to a lesser extent births from citizens, to keep it simple. You add 3% more people, you get a 3% bigger economy. OK? Everyone onboard with this (except ignorant, as the math is too much at this point)? Now, 3% bigger economy needs 3% more "stuff" and 3% more energy to keep it all moving. We can not magically become more energy efficient at the same rate we are growing. That means we need more energy. So, somehow, our politicians have decided that we will not get 3% more energy. This is enforced by allowing the "greens" to stop nuclear power production, for example, or new refineries, or drilling in our own proven oil reserves or digging up our own coal. What do you think happens when you have a system that continues to grow at 3% annually but stop the 3% extra energy needed each year? The system will deconstruct.
As I have said before: You wanna end CO2 based energy production? Put a mini nuclear reactor in every town. We have the technology. (Uh, look at a submarine for a real-world, current working example.) Give the electricity away free. People will figure out how to convert their car to electricity (or buy an electric car) rather than buy gas.
This isn't about energy, it's about control.
I agree with Dr. Hess, the real solution to the energy problem is:
Dr. Hess wrote: ....This isn't about energy, it's about control.
Birth control that is.
That's right, AC. That and close the borders. "Sorry, we're closed. Please try again in a few decades."
Oh, wanna cut our national energy needs 10%? Send the illegals back to where they are legal. Instant 10% energy savings.
I actually talked to my one friend, who is a liberal, but also will be graduating and taking a job at a oil company.
He told me that with all the hoopla about the environment, that drilling at sea and more local, the safer it is. Most issues with oil spills occur during transportation not the actual drilling, so logic says, the closer you do it to the refineries, the less chance of an accident there is.
He said the largest recorded spill on an oil rig at sea was 55 gallons, 1 barrel, and while not great, far less of a concern than say an Exxon-Valdez incident.
unimportant trivia for the day - the Exxon-Valdez is forever banned from Alaskas waterways
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125487998&ft=1&f=1001
3 Dead, 4 Hurt In Washington Refinery Blast by The Associated Press text sizeAAA April 2, 2010 An explosion and fire at a Washington state oil refinery shook homes and shot flames into the night sky early Friday, killing three people and critically injuring four others. The fire struck the Tesoro Corp. refinery in Anacortes, about 70 miles north of Seattle, at about 12:30 a.m., the company said in a statement. The blaze occurred at the naphtha unit while maintenance work was being performed and was extinguished in about 90 minutes, the company said. The naphtha unit is a step in refining crude oil into gasoline and other fuels. Four employees are hospitalized with major burns over the majority of the bodies. Susan Gregg-Hanson, a spokeswoman for Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, said they are two women, 29 and 36, and two men 34 and 41. Nearby residents, some five miles from the complex, called Washington TV stations after midnight with reports of an explosion, saying flames were being blown by high winds. "My house shook, big time," Lisa Wooding told KOMO-TV. "There were flames. First high, then low to the ground and broad." Tesoro human resources manager John McDarment told The Associated Press he didn't know exactly how the fire started. "This is a very sad time for our organization. Everyone in the Tesoro family appreciates the impact that this will have on the families involved, and we are responding quickly to ensure the safety for our employees, contractors and the neighboring community," said Bruce Smith, Tesoro's chairman, president and CEO. Tesoro said the Washington Department of Labor and Industries had been notified. Activity around the complex had calmed down considerably as dawn approached. Guards were turning reporters away from the gate and there was no apparent sign of the fire that had lit up the skies only hours earlier. San Antonio-based Tesoro Corp. is an independent refiner and marketer of petroleum products. The Anacortes refinery, located about 70 miles north of Seattle on Puget Sound, can refine about 120,000 barrels of crude daily, primarily into gasoline, jet fuel and diesel to markets in Washington and Oregon, according to the company.
People don't kill people, oil refineries kill people. Ban oil refineries FOREVAR!
/sarcasm
flountown wrote: He said the largest recorded spill on an oil rig at sea was 55 gallons, 1 barrel, and while not great, far less of a concern than say an Exxon-Valdez incident.
Maybe for that company, but I seem to remember a Gulf of Mexico incident off Texas in the 80's We were worried in NPR that it would affect the shrimping fleet in Tarpon Springs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I
Ixtoc I was an exploratory oil well in the Gulf of Mexico, about 600 miles (970 km) south of the U.S. state of Texas. On June 3, 1979, the well suffered a blowout and is recognized as the second largest oil spill in history. Mexico's government-owned oil company Pemex (Petróleos Mexicanos) was drilling a 2-mile (3.2 km) deep oil well, when the drilling rig lost drilling mud circulation. In modern rotary drilling, mud is circulated down the drill pipe and back up the casing to the surface. The goal is to equalize the pressure through the shaft and to monitor the returning mud for gas. Without the circulating mud, the drill ran into high pressure gas which blew out the oil (known as a blowout). The oil caught fire and the platform collapsed. In the next few months, experts were brought in to contain and cap the oil well. Approximately 10 thousand to 30 thousand barrels per day were discharged into the Gulf until it was finally capped on March 23, 1980. Prevailing currents carried the oil towards the Texas coastline. The US government had two months to prepare booms to protect major inlets. Mexico rejected US requests to be compensated for cleanup costs. The oil slick surrounded Rancho Nuevo, in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas, which is one of the few nesting sites for Kemp's Ridley sea turtles. Thousands of baby sea turtles were airlifted to a clean portion of the Gulf of Mexico to help save this rare species.
I can see how they rounded down from 454,000–480,000 tons of crude oil to 55 gallons, oil is really light in the water.
racerdave600 wrote: Now, as to the oil drilling, we have about as much oil as the Middle East, but it's a little harder to get to. We were told by a Shell engineer that the reason you don't see more done here is first, the cost. It is much cheaper to buy it from somewhere else than drill for it here, so there is no cost incentive to do so. Second, the hoops you have to go through to get a license to drill basically send you to a country where that is not as difficult.
The way I understand the problem, the majority of US oil reserves is locked in shale, and we don't really have the technology to pull it out of the ground. Thus the expense.
The most interesting method I've heard of involved setting off underground nukes. For some reason, people have a problem with that.
Yeah, Knurled. We don't have the technology. However, the Germans ran their war machine on it 70 years ago, and South Africa ran their country on it, 20 or so years ago when the rest of the world decided they were bad. Obviously, we will need to spend a trillion dollars for research and nuke the mountain to make it work here.
ignorant wrote:Jensenman wrote:ignorant wrote: this is not what I voted for... 1. no single payer health care 2. now this..Hotlinked with pride!http://www.icasualties.org/ There have been 4386 US deaths in Iraq to date... Ask their mothers if they miss him..
The newspapers and interviews BEFORE the war said there could be upwards of 5000-7000 casualties by the end of it. EVERYONE knew there would be, and EVERYONE was thankful that there are so many fewer dead soldiers in modern warfare than at any time in the past. I live not to far from a battlefield where 5 times as many soldiers lost their lives in ONE DAY'S FIGHTING.
So let's knock of the bleeding heart, OMG, PEOPLE DIED IN THE WAR crap.
/THREAD?
Chris_V wrote:ignorant wrote:The newspapers and interviews BEFORE the war said there could be upwards of 5000-7000 casualties by the end of it. EVERYONE knew there would be, and EVERYONE was thankful that there are so many fewer dead soldiers in modern warfare than at any time in the past. I live not to far from a battlefield where 5 times as many soldiers lost their lives in ONE DAY'S FIGHTING. So let's knock of the bleeding heart, OMG, PEOPLE DIED IN THE WAR crap.Jensenman wrote:ignorant wrote: this is not what I voted for... 1. no single payer health care 2. now this..Hotlinked with pride!
Yes Really.. They died in service to our country... To defend us from ?? What? What where they defending us from?
You'll need to log in to post.
