Why? :confused:
we don't. look at all the oil fields in texas.
what about alaska and the off shore areas of the US?..........we COULD be potentialy independent from Saudi Oil.......
For how long?
Quote from: PIYA on May 15, 2008, 01:41:46 PM
For how long?
My opinion would be for as long as it takes to develop alternate energy......which I believe we are getting closer to...
just pointing out that your question is flawed.
that said, i would have to see the numbers before i made an opinion. how much oil are we talking about? how long would that last? how much damage to the environment to get the oil? and how much of a return on investment?
Quote from: awol on May 15, 2008, 02:54:03 PM
just pointing out that your question is flawed.
that said, i would have to see the numbers before i made an opinion. how much oil are we talking about? how long would that last? how much damage to the environment to get the oil? and how much of a return on investment?
Exactly the place I was going to go as well. :yes:
Well?
Quote from: awol on May 15, 2008, 02:54:03 PM
just pointing out that your question is flawed.
that said, i would have to see the numbers before i made an opinion. how much oil are we talking about? how long would that last? how much damage to the environment to get the oil? and how much of a return on investment?
how bout 16 billion barrels or oil from anwr, enough to keep us from buying one drop of Saudi Oil for 30-years....and serious steps has been introduced to keep the enviroment safe and friendly....................that not counting on the oil we have off of our coast and the possible findings in Montana that could be about 500 billion barrels...
my point is....and I know you want MORE proof and there should be more proof.....but if this is as they say..........would it NOT make sence, democrat or repbulican......that we do this?
and it is NOT a flawed question.................democrats have voted against anwr...for years....they have envoked regulation after regulation....some may be good and some may not....that is where we need to re-evaluate those regulations
but the question was why do the democrats oppose drilling of oil here in North America?...no flaws...just a question.
environmental concerns aside Henry, Id say YES it does make sense.
MY fear, however, is that we'd all hear "30 more years of oil!" and alternate energy would be pushed to the wayside again, and then the next generation would face an even greater challenge.
Something needs to happen to satisfy our current needs while still maintaining a healthy sense of urgency to find something better.
Wouldnt you agree?
Quote from: Gryphon on May 15, 2008, 04:48:27 PM
environmental concerns aside Henry, Id say YES it does make sense.
MY fear, however, is that we'd all hear "30 more years of oil!" and alternate energy would be pushed to the wayside again, and then the next generation would face an even greater challenge.
Something needs to happen to satisfy our current needs while still maintaining a healthy sense of urgency to find something better.
Wouldnt you agree?
I do agree actually................that is my fear too.....but, I do NOT like paying out the butt for a gallon of gas.....maybe this has been a real 'wake-up' call for us............and we need to do both.........and do it right now.
and I'm ALL for being extremely enviromenatly conscience.......I think, that has been concluded by all...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 15, 2008, 03:36:49 PM
and it is NOT a flawed question.................democrats have voted against anwr...for years....
but the question was why do the democrats oppose drilling of oil here in North America?...no flaws...just a question.
yep, flaws. if they found more oil under texas, or in utah or some such, i doubt the dems would be against whatever means to get it.
you point out "anwr". "anwr" is NOT "north america", your question assumes a position that is not held.
are you still beating your wife?
Quote from: awol on May 15, 2008, 05:43:44 PM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 15, 2008, 03:36:49 PM
and it is NOT a flawed question.................democrats have voted against anwr...for years....
but the question was why do the democrats oppose drilling of oil here in North America?...no flaws...just a question.
yep, flaws. if they found more oil under texas, or in utah or some such, i doubt the dems would be against whatever means to get it.
you point out "anwr". "anwr" is NOT "north america", your question assumes a position that is not held.
are you still beating your wife?
Okay, ...my bad...I made a "flaw" in my question.........I admit a mistake....WOW! (you should be a lawyer...)
Now........with the flaw, fixed...........what is the REAL reason democrats vote AGAINST drilling in ANWR?
and NO, I have NEVER beat my wife...never..............Have you got your nose fixed yet?
ok, now that you have fixed your question, show that democrats oppose drilling in anwr.
Quote from: awol on May 16, 2008, 08:43:45 AM
ok, now that you have fixed your question, show that democrats oppose drilling in anwr.
Without further ado here is a review of the Democratic lineup on ANWR:
Sen. Joe Biden ( Delaware ) Senator Biden has been a staunch foe of ANWR. He has consistently voted, during his 34 years in office, against exploration in the 10-02 Area. Despite this he states his number one concern as president would be to solve the energy crisis. Other than being a strong supporter of bio-fuels and advocate to mandate a minimum 40 mpg flex-fuel cars, Biden does not state exactly how he would tackle his number one priority of energy, nor has he ever during his many years voting against the ANWR issue. Biden often combines his Foreign Relations chairmanship with the environment issue claiming that ignoring climate change will result in situations that could be touchstones for "new wars". He has also voted against decreasing taxes on oil and gas exploration. Biden has never visited ANWR, but has visited Prudhoe Bay and traveled in Alaska with the National Guard. For more information on Sen. Biden's energy views visit: http://www.joebiden.com/assets/pdfs/energy_plan.pdf
Delaware is ranked 19 th in energy consumption per person yet produces no oil, gas, or coal. 100% of Delaware 's electrical supply comes from petroleum, gas or coal fired power plants. Despite some offshore and onshore windmills operating the EIA records 0% of Delaware 's electricity is produced by any renewable resource. Delaware sports one refinery and a natural gas pipeline. Delaware requires use of mixed bio-fuels for cars. For information on Delaware energy go to: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=DE
Senator Hillary Clinton ( New York ) – Although not a native New Yorker, Ms. Clinton has taken on the toughness of one on the ANWR issue. "The answer to our energy challenge does not lie under the plains of the Arctic Refuge, but in the minds that are ingenious in America ." Clinton goes on, "I continue to oppose drilling in the Arctic Refuge because it would damage a pristine wilderness but do almost nothing to decrease our oil dependence or reduce energy costs. Instead, we need to pursue a sustainable energy policy that cuts our oil dependence by developing new fuels and more efficient vehicles, like the 'plug-in' hybrids that promise dramatic increases in fuel economy." Senator Clinton has rallied with the likes of Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Maria Cantwell on directly blocking ANWR legislation. Senator Clinton is vociferously against exploration for oil and gas pretty much nationwide. Instead falling back to the familiar cry for renewable resources, higher CAFE standards and bio-fuels. If we were to rank the presidential candidates on ANWR Clinton would be close to the bottom of the pile. The League of Conservation Voters gives Clinton an outstanding score of 90 on the green-o-meter, making her one of Alaska 's biggest resource development foes. Senator Clinton proposes a Strategic Energy Fund stating, " by taking money away from the oil companies, by giving them the choice to invest in renewable energy or pay into the fund. We would take away their tax subsidies as well, and we would use this fund to create a clean-energy industry and millions of jobs in America ." On other energy alternatives, Clinton is big on wind, solar, and bio-fuels, but negative on coal and nuclear. It is interesting to know Clinton has traveled to and worked in Alaska although temporarily, and considers it a wonderful accomplishment in her life. For more on Clinton and energy see: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/
New York produces roughly 300,000 barrels of oil per year and 19 million cf of natural gas a year. This is a mere drop in the national bucket yet New York is a big producer of refined petroleum products and is the largest supplier in the Northeast (and the largest supply hub in America ). The Empire State is almost entirely reliant on imports of oil and gas to do so. New York , along with its NE neighbors, is heavily dependent on fuel oil for heating homes and is a subscriber of the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve, a smaller version of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. NY is one of the largest hydroelectric producers in the eastern US, but produces almost no solar or wind power. New York uses four nuclear reactors which supply most of its electricity. New Yorkers have one of the lowest energy consumption per capita levels (due to high number of apartment dwellers and high use of mass transit), and yet the state is one of the largest consumers of energy due to its refining and manufacturing industry. Boutique fuels are mandated in the Big Apple and other urban centers.
For more info on New York 's energy use see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=NY
Congressman Dennis Kucinich ( Ohio ) – The representative from Ohio is considered a "trailblazer" for the environmental movement. Often cited as the only true green in a field of green wannabies, Kucinich has championed being anti-ANWR, anti-nuclear, anti-coal and anti-timber as national sports. Kucinich has promoted legislation in the House declaring all ANWR a "wilderness" zone. Kucinich states as president he expects Americans to " ratchet down their resource consumption and participate in a national conservation program". He proposes a "Works Green Administration" that would be modeled after the FDR Works Progress Administration and puts millions of Americans to work retrofitting homes with solar panels and windmills. Locking up ANWR and Alaska would be the least of America 's worries as Kucinich wants US coal, timber, and nuclear industries completely shut down. An environmentalist could not ever ask for more. For more on Kucinich read : http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/a-sustainable-future/
Ohio's industry consumes 4% of the nations energy (ranked 4 th ) yet produces only .5% of our oil, .4% of our natural gas, and 2.2% of our coal. Ohio has a high national average use of gasoline and petroleum fuels resulting in no boutique fuel mandate. Similarly Ohio 's industry is highly dependent on oil, natural gas, and electricity for base products and energy. Almost all of Ohio 's electricity is generated with coal. Only ½ of 1% of Ohio 's electricity is generated with hydro or renewable energy sources despite that the Lake Erie locations is one of the most prime spots in the nation for wind power. Ohio produces, yet also imports, a large amount of electricity primarily for it heavy industrial use. It is highly venerable to black outs. Low volume stripper wells and small gas wells produce Ohio 's minor national hydrocarbon contribution. Two nuclear plants produce a small amount of the state's electricity. 17 ethanol stations and 20 alternative fuel stations supply 5000 bio-fuel vehicles state wide. For more on Ohio energy see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=OH
Senator Barack Obama ( Illinois ) – Often cited as one of the top presidential contenders. Barack Obama has an abysmal record on ANWR voting on the Cantwell Amendment in 2005 to lock it up. He has been opposed to exploration and has rallied with Sen. Clinton in that regard numerous times. Barack states, "I strongly reject drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because it would irreversibly damage a protected national wildlife refuge without creating sufficient oil supplies to meaningfully affect the global market price or have a discernable impact on U.S. energy security." In his two and a half years in the Senate he has been part of the introduction of over 100 pieces of "green" legislation from promoting ethanol use to increased car mileage. However despite this many in the left see Obama as a moderate as he is caught frequently citing the need for bipartisan support and dialogue on energy issues as the way forward. His support of corn derived ethanol and liquid coal do not win him support in the Green camp either, which when coupled with ANWR proves a weakness. Illinois is, after all, one of the top ethanol states in the nation. Obama has yet to visit ANWR or the Alaskan Arctic. By 2020 Obama hopes 20% of all US energy will come from renewable resources. For more information on Obama's energy platform visit: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
Illinois is a key ethanol state, the key nuclear state, number three in coal, and a transport hub for petroleum and natural gas. Four large refineries make Illinois a huge consumer of oil (3.4%) and natural gas (4.4% of national consumption). In the past Illinois produced much oil but now is a minor producer (.4% nationally). Today Illinois imports oil from Canada and the Gulf of Mexico . Some urban areas require boutique fuels for use. Just over 1% of the nations renewable energy is produced in Illinois . Half of all Illinois ' electricity comes from nuclear power for which Illinois is number one in the nation. Seven Illinois ethanol plants producing over a quarter of the nations capacity, power over 3% of the nations green fuel cars. For more on Illinois energy see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=IL
John Edwards ( North Carolina ) The former senator of North Carolina has a strong anti-ANWR stance. "As a senator, I consistently cosponsored legislation to designate the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge s a wilderness area to put it permanently off-limits to development. As president, I will pass it." Edwards indeed: voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill (Mar 2003) ; voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds (Apr 2002); voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
With Edwards as President ANWR wouldn't stand a chance.
Being one of the first out of the gate on the Democratic side, Edwards has made environmental protection a key issue for all his followers declaring early on an 80% reduction in green house gas by 2050, and ban on coal fired plants until carbon sequestration can be bettered. Similarly Edwards believes nuclear power has too many risks that need solving before he is willing to consider it. Edwards believes much of our energy needs can be met by solar and wind power. Edwards is also keen to increase the scope of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) which would have dire consequences for North Slope development should Alaska's polar bear population be marked so. For more on John Edwards and energy see: http://johnedwards.com/issues/energy/
North Carolina produces no oil, no natural gas, no coal, no ethanol. It consumes 2.4% of the nation's petroleum, 1.1% of the nation's natural gas, and 2.9% of the nation's coal. 3.9% of the nation's ethanol is used in a gasohol blend in North Carolina which fuels 10,000+ alternative fuel vehicles from 15 ethanol stations and 40 alternative fuel stations. There are three nuclear power stations in use in North Carolina . Hydroelectric and other renewable energies account for less than 3.3% of its energy generation.
For more on North Carolina energy see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=NC
Mike Gravel (Alaska/Virginia) To see former Senator Mike Gravel still stumping the block is a credit to his political stamina. With a long Alaskan political history he is probably the most intimately familiar candidate to Alaskans. Gravel served as a state senator to the Northland as well as representing the state in the nation's capital for nearly 20 years in the 60s and 70s. In the Senate he sat on the Environment and Public Works Committee throughout his tenure. He is proud of his Alaskan service in particular his introducing legislation enabling the Trans-Alaska Pipeline to be built. Later in his career though Gravel changed and rallied against key Alaskan land bills that may very have been the cause of his ousting. Gravel left the state in the early 80s having alienated " almost every constituency in Alaska ". Gravel, now retired to Virginia , is dead set against ANWR. Of all the candidates, he should be the most for it and most aware of how important it is to his formerly adopted home state. Sadly perhaps, beltway blues has gotten to him and he comes across as unenthusiastic on the issue as many of his colleagues. Gravel believes industry and deforestation are the cause of global warming and proposes a strict carbon tax, and hopes a high cost of gasoline will force the nation to embrace green fuels. Gravel would like to see higher CAFE standards and electrify (maglev) the nations entire rail etwork. He would like to see a US led global green energy program initiated to reduce greenhouse gases. He is very pro renewable energy resources yet is not sold on ethanol from corn instead proposes liquid hydrogen technologies.
For more on Gravel see: http://www.gravel2008.us/issues.php
Virginia produces a miniscule amount of oil (7000 bpy), but a substantial amount of natural gas for its own consumption. Virginia supplies coal to much of the Northeast and produces natural gas from coalbed methane. It imports all its petroleum and refined products. Areas near Washington DC and other urban centers require boutique fuels. Virginia produces no bio-fuels. There are two nuclear power stations in the state producing 1/3 rd of its power. Four fifths of VA's homes use electricity primarily to heat their homes. Virginia produces a small amount of electricity from hydro and other renewable energy sources. For more information on Virginia energy see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=VA
Senator Chris Dodd ( Connecticut ) Senator Dodd is dead set against ANWR. He outright voted in favor of locking up 10-02 Area with "wilderness" designation on numerous occasions. A supporter of Barbara Boxer and Cantwell amendments to anti-ANWR legislation. Arctic Power has met with Senator Dodd's staff and presented its case on ANWR yet to no avail. To his credit Senator Dodd has an ambitious and detailed green energy plan (much more so than any other of his colleagues) which has been praised by the likes of Senator John Kerry and Al Gore. Dodd wants to reduce US emissions by 80% by 2050, and e nhance national security by eliminating our dependence on Middle East oil by 2015. Dodd is for a corporate carbon tax with proceeds used for clean energy research. He is big on ethanol and wants all coal to be clean coal. He wants an increase in required car mileage, and mandate all government vehicles be flex-fuel or bio-fuel. Dodd also wants mandates on greater home energy efficiency. The Senator will award tax breaks for adaptors of clean energy technologies all around. For more information on Senator Dodd and energy see: http://chrisdodd.com/issues/energy_independence
Connecticut is highly reliant on oil for heating its homes. Nearly a third of Connecticut's electricity is derived from oil or natural gas, the rest comes from nuclear power and coal. The rest comes from nuclear power and coal. Hydroelectric and other renewables account for less than 3% of its energy production. Unlike most states individuals are the prime consumers of energy in Connecticut , not industry. Connecticut receives oil products from the Northeast heating oil reserve and is highly venerable to oil shortages. Boutique fuels are required statewide.
For more information on Connecticut energy see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=CT
Governor Bill Richardson ( New Mexico ) A self proclaimed "energy president" Richardson outdoes John Edwards by asking for a 90% cut in greenhouse gases by 2050 and an oil demand reduction of 50% by 2020. Richardson is dead set against ANWR as well as any oil or gas exploration nationwide. On ANWR Richardson remarks, " this area is an ecological treasure. Let's keep it that way. And let's not stoke our oil addiction, and eliminate options for future generations, by drilling and digging everything we can find. I have vocally, strongly, and thoroughly opposed opening ANWR". Indeed Richardson has garnered numerous national green awards for locking up New Mexico land and preventing natural resource use there. Similarly he has strongly supported endangered species legislation which has not endeared him highly with his western states colleagues. On nuclear and coal Richardson is only in favor if high emissions/safety standards can be imposed and is against any federal subsidies for development or production. He has blocked two coal plants in his state recently.
For more on Richardson and energy see: http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/energy
New Mexico is a leading producer of crude oil (3% of US) and natural gas (9% of US) with the largest proved gas field in America. One third of New Mexico gas is from coalbed methane. Despite this the state has a low energy demand due to its small and rural population. Boutique ethanol mixed fuels are required in urban centers. Two thirds of the state's houses use natural gas for heating. 90% of New Mexico 's electricity comes from coal. Despite a vast amount of sun, all New Mexico renewable energies in total make up just 2.5% of the state's electricity generation and this is mostly from hydro power. There are no nuclear power plants in the state. One ethanol plant supplies four ethanol and 5 alternative fuel stations around the state. For more on New Mexico and energy see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=NM
Just curious...are a majority of the Republicans for this drilling?
wow. you got 8.
here's 8 republicans who voted against drilling in anwr.
Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine; Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island; Gordon Smith of Oregon; Mike DeWine of Ohio; Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois; John McCain of Arizona, and Norm Coleman of Minnesota.
:eek:
:yes:
Quote from: awol on May 16, 2008, 09:54:26 AM
wow. you got 8.
here's 8 republicans who voted against drilling in anwr.
Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine; Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island; Gordon Smith of Oregon; Mike DeWine of Ohio; Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois; John McCain of Arizona, and Norm Coleman of Minnesota.
You find more republicans and I will find many more democrats if you want..........
be as snide as you want.....but, the VAST majority of democrats are the ones who time and time again vote agains anwr, or drilling of any oil here in the states, against nuclear plants, against new oil refineries.............
those EIGHT are NOT true reps of the repub party ... including McCain.... they have sold out against their party on other issues as welll......
"those EIGHT are NOT true reps of the repub party ... including McCain.... they have sold out against their party on other issues as welll......"
why is it that people who dont blindly tow a party line are not "true"?
If all a politician has to do is tow the line, we could just train a few hundred monkies to go to Washington and do the job for Congress...
Quote from: Gryphon on May 16, 2008, 10:23:16 AM
"those EIGHT are NOT true reps of the repub party ... including McCain.... they have sold out against their party on other issues as welll......"
why is it that people who dont blindly tow a party line are not "true"?
If all a politician has to do is tow the line, we could just train a few hundred monkies to go to Washington and do the job for Congress...
I just made a factual statement............I agree with you........but, those are the facts.
the monkey thing....aint a bad idea though... :yes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 16, 2008, 10:21:35 AM
Quote from: awol on May 16, 2008, 09:54:26 AM
wow. you got 8.
here's 8 republicans who voted against drilling in anwr.
Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine; Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island; Gordon Smith of Oregon; Mike DeWine of Ohio; Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois; John McCain of Arizona, and Norm Coleman of Minnesota.
You find more republicans and I will find many more democrats if you want..........
be as snide as you want.....but, the VAST majority of democrats are the ones who time and time again vote agains anwr, or drilling of any oil here in the states, against nuclear plants, against new oil refineries.............
those EIGHT are NOT true reps of the repub party ... including McCain.... they have sold out against their party on other issues as welll......
Henry, do you know this to be true or are you just blowing smoke? Can you give us an instance where EACH of the republicans listed above have sold out?
Quote from: Bo D on May 16, 2008, 10:39:18 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 16, 2008, 10:21:35 AM
Quote from: awol on May 16, 2008, 09:54:26 AM
wow. you got 8.
here's 8 republicans who voted against drilling in anwr.
Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine; Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island; Gordon Smith of Oregon; Mike DeWine of Ohio; Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois; John McCain of Arizona, and Norm Coleman of Minnesota.
You find more republicans and I will find many more democrats if you want..........
be as snide as you want.....but, the VAST majority of democrats are the ones who time and time again vote agains anwr, or drilling of any oil here in the states, against nuclear plants, against new oil refineries.............
those EIGHT are NOT true reps of the repub party ... including McCain.... they have sold out against their party on other issues as welll......
Henry, do you know this to be true or are you just blowing smoke? Can you give us an instance where EACH of the republicans listed above have sold out?
no link provided.....but, these guys, particulary Snow, Chaffee and MCCAIN..impraticular....HAVE went against "the republican" trend on issues or they have NOT been a solid vote to count on.....
so, as far as you are concerned I am blowing smoke... ;D ...but, I know what i know on these guys........and, Im not saying they are bad people...cause like Gyrphon stated......towing the party line is not always a good thing............ :yes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 16, 2008, 10:21:35 AM
those EIGHT are NOT true reps of the repub party ... including McCain.... they have sold out against their party on other issues as welll......
if you are going to define party affiliation based on a survey of the one question you pose, then any label is pointless.
why are so many martians against anwr? (you know they are martians because they are against anwr)
Quote from: PIYA on May 16, 2008, 09:11:51 AM
Just curious...are a majority of the Republicans for this drilling?
yep.
Quote from: awol on May 16, 2008, 01:27:22 PM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 16, 2008, 10:21:35 AM
those EIGHT are NOT true reps of the repub party ... including McCain.... they have sold out against their party on other issues as welll......
if you are going to define party affiliation based on a survey of the one question you pose, then any label is pointless.
why are so many martians against anwr? (you know they are martians because they are against anwr)
quit getting so philisophical with my question.........ya know the jest I'm getting at..........democrats, in general have opposed any american drilling, nuke plants, and refineries....the very things that the repubs have been wanting done for years now........and we would not be in the mess that we are in now with 4 dollar a gallon gas.
now that's just silly.
Quote from: awol on May 16, 2008, 04:50:18 PM
now that's just silly.
i don't think it is.............just imagine IF, we would have began drilling in anwr 7 years ago.........like Bush wanted to do..........what if we had built more nuke power plants a few years ago, when the dems would not allow it...............
our dependence on foriegn oil would NOT be as severe.....
not silly at all...
and if al gore had been elected (oh, wait. he was. if he'd been APPOINTED. that's it. but that's for another thread)....
there wouldn't have been a successful attack on 9-11.
we wouldn't be at war.
and there wouldn't be an economic downturn.
and if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
you can't say that anwr drilling would have made any difference whatsoever for certain.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 16, 2008, 02:17:06 PM
.and we would not be in the mess that we are in now with 4 dollar a gallon gas.
Doesn't matter how manner barrels we pull from anywhere. The oil companies will still find an excuse to charge us 4 bucks a gallon for the gasoline refined from it.
got nothin' hank?
well awol...try dealing with common sense.......go ahead........try it... :yes:
IF we have the capablities of produce OUR OWN oil (which we do) or just say we DID drill in anwr 7 years ago.......and we DID have the oil as predicted..............we would NOT be dependent upon the Arabs....therefore...it would be a fairly SAFE prediction to assume, that the supply and demand theory would still apply...........hence, a barrel of oil would most likely NOT be $125(give or take)..
saying that oil companies would STILL find an excuse to charge $4 a gallon of gas would be a crap shoot...who knows?
and I'm also thinkin if your aunt DOES have balls......it would be SAFE to say that she he WOULD be you uncle...despite what they may try to tell you......... :yes:
that oil is for AFTER we use up all the rest of the world's supply. sheesh, henry, get with the program already.
Quote from: bevis on May 19, 2008, 12:57:34 PM
that oil is for AFTER we use up all the rest of the world's supply. sheesh, henry, get with the program already.
that may be...bevis......... ;D could be the best explanation we have had.... ;)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 19, 2008, 12:53:48 PM
saying that oil companies would STILL find an excuse to charge $4 a gallon of gas would be a crap shoot...who knows?
Oil is a finite resource. Name one finite resource where the cost has decreased as the supply dwindled.
Quote from: C91 on May 19, 2008, 01:00:37 PM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 19, 2008, 12:53:48 PM
saying that oil companies would STILL find an excuse to charge $4 a gallon of gas would be a crap shoot...who knows?
Oil is a finite resource. Name one finite resource where the cost has decreased as the supply dwindled.
no are correct...........BUT....the price stayed nearly the same for several years (at least the inflation on gas was extremely minimal)...
it was not until the last 10-years where it started taking off.............
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 19, 2008, 01:04:02 PM
it was not until the last 10-years where it started taking off.............
Subtract 7 years from that and you're correct. Anyway, Candidate Bush told us back in 2000 that he could just use the political capital his administration would gain with the Saudis and Kuwaitis to tell them to open the spigots if the prices got too high for Americans.
That worked out well for us, didn't it?
i think if you account for inflation and new taxes, gas actually costs the same now as it did c. 1979.
it's estimated that we have used 1 trillion barrels of oil so far, and that there is somewhere between 2 and 5 trillion barrels left. obviously, the rate of consumption is considerably greater than years ago and will most likely continue to grow. so oil is definitely a finite resource in a pretty short term sense. so we figure it out or we don't. i expect that we will figure something out. it will probably involve a LOT of death and turmoil and upheaval and what not. but isn't that our way?
Quote from: bevis on May 19, 2008, 01:15:19 PM
it will probably involve a LOT of death and turmoil and upheaval and what not. but isn't that our way?
And all the while, a peaceful solution gathers dust in some laboratory...unfunded.
peaceful solution? millions of people (and many, many nations) around the world depend on the use of petroleum and petroleum based products to make a living. you're just going to disenfranchise those millions, and you propose that will be a "peaceful solution"? like the industrial revolution was peaceful? i suppose you are probably right.
Quote from: C91 on May 19, 2008, 01:18:02 PM
Quote from: bevis on May 19, 2008, 01:15:19 PM
it will probably involve a LOT of death and turmoil and upheaval and what not. but isn't that our way?
And all the while, a peaceful solution gathers dust in some laboratory...unfunded.
why do you assume the Gov HAS to fund everything (i reading between the lines here, excuse me if I'm misinterprting)...
why cant private amerians fund the solution to fix tomorrows problems?....oh, cause we just want to tax the crap out of ALL the capital gains they might incurr...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 19, 2008, 01:30:42 PM
why do you assume the Gov HAS to fund everything (i reading between the lines here, excuse me if I'm misinterprting)...
why cant private amerians fund the solution to fix tomorrows problems?....oh, cause we just want to tax the crap out of ALL the capital gains they might incurr...
Okay, fine. Then the government should stop funding big oil through tax subsidies. Those companies make enough goddamn money.
Quote from: C91 on May 19, 2008, 01:59:05 PM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 19, 2008, 01:30:42 PM
why do you assume the Gov HAS to fund everything (i reading between the lines here, excuse me if I'm misinterprting)...
why cant private amerians fund the solution to fix tomorrows problems?....oh, cause we just want to tax the crap out of ALL the capital gains they might incurr...
Okay, fine. Then the government should stop funding big oil through tax subsidies. Those companies make enough goddamn money.
so the Gov should decide HOW MUCH MONEY is good enough for a company?
I agree the GOV SHOULD quit ALL subsidies....it is NOT the Govs job to intervene.......
wow, has this taken a turn all of a sudden.
hank, i'd love to discuss this with you - one logical step at a time...
is there oil drilling going on in alaska?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 19, 2008, 02:49:31 PM
so the Gov should decide HOW MUCH MONEY is good enough for a company?
In a perfect world, the market should decide. But seeing how the oil industry has us by the short and curlies I'm all for classifying it as a regulated industry like utilities, cable providers, and insurance.
Quote from: C91 on May 19, 2008, 03:22:15 PM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 19, 2008, 02:49:31 PM
so the Gov should decide HOW MUCH MONEY is good enough for a company?
In a perfect world, the market should decide. But seeing how the oil industry has us by the short and curlies I'm all for classifying it as a regulated industry like utilities, cable providers, and insurance.
I'm CLOSE to agreeing with you, but, I STILL think, gov intervention would make things WORSE...(if THAT is possible)
Quote from: C91 on May 19, 2008, 03:22:15 PM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 19, 2008, 02:49:31 PM
so the Gov should decide HOW MUCH MONEY is good enough for a company?
In a perfect world, the market should decide. But seeing how the oil industry has us by the short and curlies I'm all for classifying it as a regulated industry like utilities, cable providers, and insurance.
Energy is far too important and necessary to be left in the hands of a multi-national oligpoly which is why, for several years now, I've advocated nationalization of all the energy industry.
Here you go, Henry.
The Department of Energy says drilling in ANWR won't do a damn thing about gas prices (http://theunknownzone.us/smf/index.php?topic=8894.0). And even if we did drill there, we couldn't take delivery on the first barrel from it for at least 10 years.
So, what's the better solution? Drill up the refuge for no benefit to consumers or use that money to encourage development of renewable energy sources?
Quote from: C91 on May 23, 2008, 01:19:44 PM
Here you go, Henry.
The Department of Energy says drilling in ANWR won't do a damn thing about gas prices (http://theunknownzone.us/smf/index.php?topic=8894.0). And even if we did drill there, we couldn't take delivery on the first barrel from it for at least 10 years.
So, what's the better solution? Drill up the refuge for no benefit to consumers or use that money to encourage development of renewable energy sources?
well that is up for argument because there are those who believe differently about the oil that it there...
U.S. Department of Interior......After several years of surface geological investigations, aeromagnetic surveys, and two winter seismic surveys (in 1983-84 and 1984-85), the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), in its April, 1987 report on the oil and gas potential of the Coastal Plain, estimated that there are billions of barrels of oil to be discovered in the area. DOI estimates that "in-place resources" range from 4.8 billion to 29.4 billion barrels of oil. Recoverable oil estimates ranges from 600 million barrels at the low end to 9.2 billion barrels at the high end. They also reported identifying 26 separate oil and gas prospects in the Coastal Plain that could each contain "super giant" fields (500 million barrels or more).
U.S. Geological Survey..... The most recent petroleum assessment prepared by the USGS in 1998 (OFR 98-34), increased the estimate for technically recoverable mean crude oil resources.
"estimates"...."could hold up to"
these are selling terms. you've been sold.
here's another for ya -- "results may vary"
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 25, 2008, 07:54:53 AM
Quote from: C91 on May 23, 2008, 01:19:44 PM
Here you go, Henry.
The Department of Energy says drilling in ANWR won't do a damn thing about gas prices (http://theunknownzone.us/smf/index.php?topic=8894.0). And even if we did drill there, we couldn't take delivery on the first barrel from it for at least 10 years.
So, what's the better solution? Drill up the refuge for no benefit to consumers or use that money to encourage development of renewable energy sources?
well that is up for argument because there are those who believe differently about the oil that it there...
U.S. Department of Interior......After several years of surface geological investigations, aeromagnetic surveys, and two winter seismic surveys (in 1983-84 and 1984-85), the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), in its April, 1987 report on the oil and gas potential of the Coastal Plain, estimated that there are billions of barrels of oil to be discovered in the area. DOI estimates that "in-place resources" range from 4.8 billion to 29.4 billion barrels of oil. Recoverable oil estimates ranges from 600 million barrels at the low end to 9.2 billion barrels at the high end. They also reported identifying 26 separate oil and gas prospects in the Coastal Plain that could each contain "super giant" fields (500 million barrels or more).
U.S. Geological Survey..... The most recent petroleum assessment prepared by the USGS in 1998 (OFR 98-34), increased the estimate for technically recoverable mean crude oil resources.
And I'm sure the Department of Energy took those surveys in account when they issued their report last week which tells us that drilling in those places will have no measurable impact on the price of crude oil and gasoline.
Let me turn your question around. How much of North America are the Republicans willing to destroy in an effort to put a Band-Aid on a gushing wound?
"destroy" is another term that has been used........to SCARE those against the idea.... :yes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 26, 2008, 08:39:15 AM
"destroy" is another term that has been used........to SCARE those against the idea.... :yes:
Nice dodge. Now answer the question.
Quote from: C91 on May 26, 2008, 12:54:15 PM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 26, 2008, 08:39:15 AM
"destroy" is another term that has been used........to SCARE those against the idea.... :yes:
Nice dodge. Now answer the question.
not dodging nothing..........destroy is a harsh word for what they actually do............and you know it...
how much price of gas are democrats willing to pay before we start using our own resources?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 26, 2008, 09:52:53 PM
Quote from: C91 on May 26, 2008, 12:54:15 PM
not dodging nothing..........destroy is a harsh word for what they actually do............and you know it...
Your Honor, will you please instruct the witness to answer the question? I'll rephrase.
"How much of North America are Republicans willing to destroy in order to put a Band-Aid on a gushing wound? And is Henry willing to let us start the drilling in his backyard?"
Quote from: C91 on May 27, 2008, 11:55:04 AM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 26, 2008, 09:52:53 PM
Quote from: C91 on May 26, 2008, 12:54:15 PM
not dodging nothing..........destroy is a harsh word for what they actually do............and you know it...
Your Honor, will you please instruct the witness to answer the question? I'll rephrase.
"How much of North America are Republicans willing to destroy in order to put a Band-Aid on a gushing wound? And is Henry willing to let us start the drilling in his backyard?"
we don't need "much" to be effective.............they NOW have capabilities to drill in one spot........then go directionaly.............and maybe you need to define....."destroy"...............and IF my backyard HAD oil................YES, I would be willing to $tart drilling...... :yes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 26, 2008, 09:52:53 PM
how much price of gas are democrats willing to pay before we start using our own resources?
Sit back Henry. Since you're obviously unable to answer my question, I'll show you how it's done.
Personally, my limit is $2.50 a gallon. But "using our own resources" doesn't mean drilling for more fossil fuels. Because what happens when those fossil fuels run out?
"Our resources" extend far beyond the short-sighted solutions the Republicans present on behalf of their masters at Big Oil, Inc. Our resources include using excess crops to produce ethanol. Our resources include using our innovation to produce and distribute hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles. Our resources include harnessing the energy from the sun and wind to provide electricity to power plug-in hybrid vehicles. I believe those resources also include development and construction of new nuclear power plants to replace coal burning facilities currently online.
But the GOP seems to be repelled to using any resources beyond drilling for fossil fuels. Remember when Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the White House in an effort to provide more efficient energy consumption? Why did Ronald Reagan have them removed? Today, we know that solar energy is one of the gateways to weening ourselves off of fossil fuels. Think about the example that was set by having those panels removed. I'm sure Reagan impressed his backers at Big Oil and Big Electricity, but he didn't help the cause of energy independence.
Drilling for oil in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico is a short sighted fix. Where do we go when ANWR is empty and the Gulf Beaches decimated and we still are running cars on 19th Century technology?
Quote from: C91 on May 27, 2008, 01:12:54 PM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 26, 2008, 09:52:53 PM
how much price of gas are democrats willing to pay before we start using our own resources?
Sit back Henry. Since you're obviously unable to answer my question, I'll show you how it's done.
Personally, my limit is $2.50 a gallon. But "using our own resources" doesn't mean drilling for more fossil fuels. Because what happens when those fossil fuels run out?
"Our resources" extend far beyond the short-sighted solutions the Republicans present on behalf of their masters at Big Oil, Inc. Our resources include using excess crops to produce ethanol. Our resources include using our innovation to produce and distribute hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles. Our resources include harnessing the energy from the sun and wind to provide electricity to power plug-in hybrid vehicles. I believe those resources also include development and construction of new nuclear power plants to replace coal burning facilities currently online.
But the GOP seems to be repelled to using any resources beyond drilling for fossil fuels. Remember when Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the White House in an effort to provide more efficient energy consumption? Why did Ronald Reagan have them removed? Today, we know that solar energy is one of the gateways to weening ourselves off of fossil fuels. Think about the example that was set by having those panels removed. I'm sure Reagan impressed his backers at Big Oil and Big Electricity, but he didn't help the cause of energy independence.
Drilling for oil in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico is a short sighted fix. Where do we go when ANWR is empty and the Gulf Beaches decimated and we still are running cars on 19th Century technology?
Not quite ready to sit back yet C... ;).......and what part of my ANSWER did you NOT understand?... :confused:..................I never said, nor are any repbulicans saying, that this would be a long term fix............but it could/would help us become less dependent on middle eastern resources..................and why not allow the explorations of oil in our "backyards" and IF it is found..............why not utilize it .... UNTIL..........we find a better resource of NON-fossil fuel?
I HAVE answered your question for the third time now..............it is NOT really difficult to grasp this concept....I think Liberals have been trained to not think of anything that might be related to 'Big Business' as a possible solution..............but reality IS..........Big Business IS the solution, like it or not.........THAT is the way the game is played these days....................and the bottom line IS...........profits..............(unfortunatly).....and if we cannot make oil profitable for "big busines".........then we WILL continue to pay through the nose for a gallon of gas.........and the same goes for alternative fuels...........if it is NOT profitable.............it will NEVER, EVER, EVER happen.............period.
your honor.......
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 26, 2008, 08:39:15 AM
"destroy" is another term that has been used........to SCARE those against the idea.... :yes:
are you talking about the war on "terror" here?
Quote from: Gryphon on May 27, 2008, 05:22:21 PM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 26, 2008, 08:39:15 AM
"destroy" is another term that has been used........to SCARE those against the idea.... :yes:
are you talking about the war on "terror" here?
not even a remotely funny comparison................have you forgotten the twin tower being destroyed and the thousands of people killed........in the name of terror?.............that was NOT a scare tactic NOR was bombing SH..........
telling people that caribou is going to die and big business man will destroy the enivroment IS and nothing more than a scare tactic... :yes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 27, 2008, 09:53:10 PM
telling people that caribou is going to die and big business man will destroy the enivroment IS and nothing more than a scare tactic... :yes:
Actually, it's a fact. "Big Business Man" has been destroying the environment for years.
I'm no tree hugger, but you can't dispute that, Henry.
Quote from: C91 on May 27, 2008, 10:41:19 PM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 27, 2008, 09:53:10 PM
telling people that caribou is going to die and big business man will destroy the enivroment IS and nothing more than a scare tactic... :yes:
Actually, it's a fact. "Big Business Man" has been destroying the environment for years.
I'm no tree hugger, but you can't dispute that, Henry.
I think there IS a fine line that has to toted...........yeah, both sides has been extremists.............we have got to find a middle road on this issue......
I want to say.........I am 100% for being as enviromental friendly as possible..............and I believe there ARE ways for 'big business' to do it's thing AND be good stewards of this earth.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 27, 2008, 01:26:57 PM
...........if it is NOT profitable.............it will NEVER, EVER, EVER happen.............period.
yup. pretty much the crux of the matter here. trouble is, people are screaming at the top of thier lungs for the next technology - be it hydrogen, electric, some combination, or something not even thought of yet. big oil is crying it's death knell and squeezing the most out of the last bump they can. ironic, because by boosting the prices they are basically paging dr. kevorkian.
it's gonna happen, and when it does the one trick pony - big oil - is gonna be out of business.
Quote from: awol on May 28, 2008, 12:47:06 PM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 27, 2008, 01:26:57 PM
...........if it is NOT profitable.............it will NEVER, EVER, EVER happen.............period.
yup. pretty much the crux of the matter here. trouble is, people are screaming at the top of thier lungs for the next technology - be it hydrogen, electric, some combination, or something not even thought of yet. big oil is crying it's death knell and squeezing the most out of the last bump they can. ironic, because by boosting the prices they are basically paging dr. kevorkian.
it's gonna happen, and when it does the one trick pony - big oil - is gonna be out of business.
one would think, that it would behove Exxon, to diversify, and become leaders in tomorrow's technology...............become Exxon "hydrogen" or whatever, they can become...........put it's billion $$ profits into the NEXT form of energy.............
and I think, that the bottom is going to fall out on the Oil market ...sooner rather than later..........I, think it will fall just as the housing market did......and the dot.com market did.........
too heavily invested in "bubblin' crude".
Quote from: awol on May 28, 2008, 12:57:31 PM
too heavily invested in "bubblin' crude".
you may be right..........but, these guys know $$......and they know how to keep it.........
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 28, 2008, 01:30:24 PM
Quote from: awol on May 28, 2008, 12:57:31 PM
too heavily invested in "bubblin' crude".
you may be right..........but, these guys know $$......and they know how to keep it.........
sure do
and one way is to convince us all that global warming is a hoax!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 28, 2008, 01:30:24 PM
Quote from: awol on May 28, 2008, 12:57:31 PM
too heavily invested in "bubblin' crude".
you may be right..........but, these guys know $$......and they know how to keep it.........
exactly. and if you could fill yer suburban up with water what would that do to their empire?
Quote from: awol on May 28, 2008, 02:54:23 PM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 28, 2008, 01:30:24 PM
Quote from: awol on May 28, 2008, 12:57:31 PM
too heavily invested in "bubblin' crude".
you may be right..........but, these guys know $$......and they know how to keep it.........
exactly. and if you could fill yer suburban up with water what would that do to their empire?
that is why it would behove them to figure out the vehicle that would consum water.........
Wasn't that done?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 28, 2008, 03:00:57 PM
Quote from: awol on May 28, 2008, 02:54:23 PM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 28, 2008, 01:30:24 PM
Quote from: awol on May 28, 2008, 12:57:31 PM
too heavily invested in "bubblin' crude".
you may be right..........but, these guys know $$......and they know how to keep it.........
exactly. and if you could fill yer suburban up with water what would that do to their empire?
that is why it would behove them to figure out the vehicle that would consum water.........
no, that is why it would behove them to stop anyone from figuring out the vehicle that would "consum" water.
Quote from: awol on May 28, 2008, 06:47:27 PM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 28, 2008, 03:00:57 PM
Quote from: awol on May 28, 2008, 02:54:23 PM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 28, 2008, 01:30:24 PM
Quote from: awol on May 28, 2008, 12:57:31 PM
too heavily invested in "bubblin' crude".
you may be right..........but, these guys know $$......and they know how to keep it.........
exactly. and if you could fill yer suburban up with water what would that do to their empire?
that is why it would behove them to figure out the vehicle that would consum water.........
no, that is why it would behove them to stop anyone from figuring out the vehicle that would "consum" water.
I think they HAVE been doing that in the past..............but their time is running out..............and they NEED to diversify........
like the sheiks in Saudi Arabi diversifying from oil to tourism..........it's all about keeping the $$$ coming in.........
(http://guide.theemiratesnetwork.com/living/dubai/images/the_palm/palm_jumeirah.jpg)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 28, 2008, 08:46:47 PM
Quote from: awol on May 28, 2008, 06:47:27 PM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 28, 2008, 03:00:57 PM
Quote from: awol on May 28, 2008, 02:54:23 PM
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 28, 2008, 01:30:24 PM
Quote from: awol on May 28, 2008, 12:57:31 PM
too heavily invested in "bubblin' crude".
you may be right..........but, these guys know $$......and they know how to keep it.........
exactly. and if you could fill yer suburban up with water what would that do to their empire?
that is why it would behove them to figure out the vehicle that would consum water.........
no, that is why it would behove them to stop anyone from figuring out the vehicle that would "consum" water.
I think they HAVE been doing that in the past..............but their time is running out..............and they NEED to diversify........
never happen. that takes imagination and effort. remember, these are republicans we are talking about.
Quote from: bevis on May 19, 2008, 12:57:34 PM
that oil is for AFTER we use up all the rest of the world's supply. sheesh, henry, get with the program already.
Move to the head of the class. Maybe we should call you Mr. bevis.