PDA

View Full Version : The Good Ol' Fashioned Oil Thread



LegalSmash
08-19-2008, 12:31 PM
Here, we can post articles about oil, argue about oil, and drink it, if we so desire... Mmmm, Oil

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080819/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices

I saw this earlier today. Any thoughts?

I think oil will stabalize after the elections, right now, between speculation and what i consider to be chicanery by purchasers, prices are all over the place. As things calm down after January 2009, regardless of who is elected, I think prices will start to even off again. People in the US are allegedly driving less for pleasure and more fuel efficient cars are being purchased. Demand drops, supply will seem less scarce, and prices should fall a bit. Not to 2000 levels, probably, but a bit.

Thoughts?

I imagine its pointless, but I'd really appreciate educated opinions rather than "ZOGM Allah!!! Booush iz taking all the oil for the illuminati!!!" (Puts on aluminum foil hat).

Red
08-19-2008, 12:46 PM
We need more of it, period.

At the same time you can go research and develop whatever other source of energy you want, but don't handicap our country to try and force change by restricting our access to it.

That goes for both sides of the aisle which have been kow towing to environmentalists.

LegalSmash
08-19-2008, 12:57 PM
I think that increasing the supply for the moment, but at the same time, seeking alternative sources or better use of what remains/is available is the best route right now.

Until a credible, sustainable alternative exists, which we could transition to, there is no sense in trying to transition to something that is just as wasteful, inefficient, and costly as oil (Im looking at cornoil here).

Repeat
08-19-2008, 01:00 PM
Oh, Oil. Silly, silly oil.

Here's my solution to the 'oil crisis' --


We've taken over Iraq. Liberals are going to keep saying that it was a war for oil. Lets make it one! Get that shit over here ASAP! Suck it up, ship it out, and make it snappy.

To the victor goes the spoils? I think so.

Red
08-19-2008, 01:09 PM
I also think that there's a lot more undiscovered oil left for us to use.

People have been saying "we're going to run out of oil" since we began drilling for oil and yet we keep finding vast reserves.

Brazil keeps finding oil, they recently found a gigantor reserves with tens of billions of barrels, we have oil we haven't even tapped, god knows how much more there is out there.

I don't believe we need to slow down oil consumption at all. Oil runs infrastructure, trying to restrain it's consumption hurts everyone, just look at the recent inflation thanks to higher oil prices, thanks to the restricted supply.

But I certainly agree that it is a vital to look into improving other supplies. More efficient nuclear power (our best alternative), solar, wind etc etc.

But no matter how you slice it we will always need oil. Farming/mining/industrial equipment/vehicles can't fun off electricity, they require more power than can bet gotten from a battery.

LegalSmash
08-19-2008, 01:17 PM
I also think that there's a lot more undiscovered oil left for us to use.

People have been saying "we're going to run out of oil" since we began drilling for oil and yet we keep finding vast reserves.

Brazil keeps finding oil, they recently found a gigantor reserves with tens of billions of barrels, we have oil we haven't even tapped, god knows how much more there is out there.

I don't believe we need to slow down oil consumption at all. Oil runs infrastructure, trying to restrain it's consumption hurts everyone, just look at the recent inflation thanks to higher oil prices, thanks to the restricted supply.

But I certainly agree that it is a vital to look into improving other supplies. More efficient nuclear power (our best alternative), solar, wind etc etc.

But no matter how you slice it we will always need oil. Farming/mining/industrial equipment/vehicles can't fun off electricity, they require more power than can bet gotten from a battery.

I agree to an extent, there probably is more oil under our areas, but we still need to cease dependence on foreign oil, especially crazy suicide bombing and socialist oil.

Red
08-19-2008, 01:22 PM
Brazilians don't blow us up, they just have good parties.

broncoty
08-19-2008, 01:47 PM
Brazilians don't blow us up, they just have good parties.

and waxes

LegalSmash
08-19-2008, 01:52 PM
we used to say Venezuelans were nice too, now they are ruled by a socialist pigfuck. I'm not saying the brazilians themselves are untrustworthy, shit, I'm sure Iran was real nice under the Shah... I'm saying that foreign countries, especially those full of poor, illiterate people, to which Berraco and Socialism sounds peachy, like a LARGE amount of Brazil's population, tend to help nutsacks like Khomeni, Chavez, and Castro into power.

To be as safe as possible from such unpleasant situations, we should try our utmost to be free of foreign owned, traded, or otherwise altered necessities.

No sense in letting the potential asshole have the stick to hit us with.

Italian Jew
08-19-2008, 02:07 PM
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/7923/olivelx9.gif


oh....OIL, not OYL

Red
08-19-2008, 02:09 PM
Well in the interest of self-reliance let us tap our own domestic supply so we don't have to worry about more latin countries going pinko.

Italian Jew
08-19-2008, 02:19 PM
If it shuts everybody up, then we can use what domestic product we have. It won't last too long, so research into better energies must be done at the same time. It will make both parties happy! :partydance:

imkrazie
08-19-2008, 03:11 PM
We're fucked whatever we do. Oil companies should stop throwing funds at exploration when there's clearly barely any oil fields worth drilling into that're being found.

Actually we're finding billions of barrels of oil in the ocean right now due to new technology being invented, we still have a really large percentage of the ocean to still explore.

If I remember correctly, there's a huge oil reserve (?) in the midwest that has up to a trillion barrels of oil in it but companies can't drill there because of legislation.


The only real reason to invest in alternative energy is for curbing our oil dependence because we likely won't run out of oil before countries blow each other up.

PotshotPolka
08-19-2008, 03:21 PM
I has made hydrogen.

Red
08-19-2008, 03:29 PM
Care to give some evidence of this, or even the names of the oilfields?

Brazil
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/14/world/main4013564.shtml

This one from the NYtimes, and they hate oil:

Arctic
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/business/24arctic.html

Argentina:

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.aspx?Feed=AP&Date=20080129&ID=8108467&Symbol=REP

US:
http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/topstocks/archive/2008/04/10/north-dakota-oil-discovery-called-biggest-in-u-s.aspx

Trillions of barrels in shale, tar, sands, of our own coasts etc. Once we get going on this technology to extract will get even better

Don't see what's lol-worthy about our sources. Things have already gotten bad enough to push us to refine it.

You should change your sig to "We're fucked"

http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/The_U.S._s_Untapped_Bounty_080630.html

There's a bunch

Repeat
08-19-2008, 03:40 PM
Care to give some evidence of this, or even the names of the oilfields?

Didn't you hear? They found a huge oil deposit in your very own UK. It was in Gordon Brown's hair! Hooray for more oil!

http://www.solarnavigator.net/embassies/embassies_images/gordon_brown_deputy_prime_minister.jpg

LegalSmash
08-19-2008, 03:58 PM
LOL.

Gordon Brown fails at public image.

that mans face is a prima facie case for facial reconstruction and braces.

Slavic
08-19-2008, 10:05 PM
A little bit from A; a little bit from B.

I've heard about the new oil fields being found with break throughs in drilling technology. I also read up on the Mid West oil fields. Apparently the oil out there is so damn pure, you can almost put it straight into your car.

Research into Hydrogen fuels and improved wind power will always be a benefit and provide a new market. It would also help ease us away from foreign fuel sources. But fuck corn based ethanol. Biggest scam of the decade.

LegalSmash
08-20-2008, 07:43 AM
Biofuels do nothing but ruin agriculture.

Agreed. Maybe while we are wasting corn we can make a combustion engine that runs off human shit, sweat, urine, and fat. We can take all the morbidly obese welfare queens here and abroad, their shitstain cock-spawn bastards, and the prisoners who accidentally dropped them on us and put THEM into an engine.. we can power our SUVs for EVAR.

I for one, want to drive a Tiger II tank... I'm over the SUV feel... I want no mistake about what my car represents... give me a 60 ton monster with an 88 mm Cannon on it.

Lol.

In all honesty however, I think that if these shale, sands, and tar area oil reserves are indeed reachable, we should attempt to determine at the minimum, the feasibility of doing such work. Legislation as currently available impedes not only the eventual use of these alleged fields, but also our ability to even discern whether the fields are useful or relevant to our interests.

With that in mind, it would also be beneficial for oil companies in general to be more careful as to whom they hire for their own work and for 3rd party activities like transporting oil, refining oil, and safety of the whole operation. We can scarcely afford another Exxon-Valdez here or abroad. In that sense, what was said earlier about "insurance" is partly true... the companies need better risk management. Where I think the insurance comment falls astray is that Insurance as a whole will always take shit for money.... and oil is, in and of itself, money to the insurance company.

For example:

If the company is paying 100M in premiums to insurance, and only has a fuck up 1 time every 25 years, this means that the oil company has paid out 2.5 Billion BEFORE the insurance has to cover ANYTHING. Additionally, because insurance covers only certain events: employee injury, wrongful death, insuring assets, fixtures, equipment, remedial measures, healthcare, etc., its unlikely that the insurance will take a substantial enough loss to make working with an oil company unprofitable for them.

Lastly, because most environmental legislation that seeks to punish colossal fuckups in the US, such as CERCLA, RCRA, its Superfund component, Clean Air and Clean Water Act seek to obtain fines and contributions from the company itself rather than allow for casualty insurance payment (Generally, although there are insurances that for exorbitantly high premiums will take the 500B dollar risk), the insurance is shielded from the really destructive liability factor in oil work.

Zael
08-20-2008, 01:22 PM
We just need to kill more innocent people in Iraq just to get some more oil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmsVtxuXhmw

Red
08-20-2008, 01:26 PM
We're already getting that oil idiot.

Did Tehsnipes invite you to troll here too?

LegalSmash
08-20-2008, 01:29 PM
We need to kill more innocent people in Iraq just to get some more oil.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zmsVtxuXhmw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zmsVtxuXhmw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

This Troll fails almost as badly as the Netherland's men's high bar olympian.

Also, please read the first post... intelligent debate. If I wanted to hear what you just said, I'd smoke crack at my undergrad next to the retards united for peace and justice and listen to their snivelling attempts at discourse.

Die in a fire.

Red
08-20-2008, 01:31 PM
Die in a fire.

I wouldn't want to waste any oil on him

PotshotPolka
08-20-2008, 01:45 PM
I wouldn't want to waste any oil on him

Burn him with biodiesel.

Red
08-20-2008, 01:54 PM
Burn him with biodiesel.

:rlol::rlol:

LegalSmash
08-20-2008, 02:07 PM
Nah, it will just drive the price of corn higher. Lets just have him trampled by cattle instead.

Zero001
08-20-2008, 02:17 PM
I'd like to drill what we have now, and increase research and development of alternative sources :thumbup1:

At the same time being a little bit more conservative with our usage doesn't hurt. Which means even though a brand new Hummer is practically being given away a $24000 I really shouldn't dive into a car that averages 14mpg as a daily driver.

What do the candidates have to say about it? Link (http://videos.caranddriver.com/services/link/bcpid627028702/bclid686997774/bctid1717914755)

tehsnipes
08-20-2008, 03:41 PM
we used to say Venezuelans were nice too, now they are ruled by a socialist pigfuck. I'm not saying the brazilians themselves are untrustworthy, shit, I'm sure Iran was real nice under the Shah... I'm saying that foreign countries, especially those full of poor, illiterate people, to which Berraco and Socialism sounds peachy, like a LARGE amount of Brazil's population, tend to help nutsacks like Khomeni, Chavez, and Castro into power.

To be as safe as possible from such unpleasant situations, we should try our utmost to be free of foreign owned, traded, or otherwise altered necessities.

No sense in letting the potential asshole have the stick to hit us with.

idiot Chavez is not socialist he's fascist. QUITE a big difference. Socialism is just as bad if taken to the extremes though. Some aspects of socialism should be incorporated into some sectors such as healthcare to better this country. EU has done the same thing and look how much better they are vs. US at this moment. We need to take strides to regain our international standing. I think its outright silly to blindly denounce socialism. I agree that socialism to the extreme has resulted in FAIL. Communists are not delightful. My home state in my country has been ruined by Marxists. I think its silly of the neo-cons to brand Obama as a socialist, empty suit, celebrity, muslim, black extremist. Its amusing and immature. Just look at policy instead of hurling slurs and choose your candidate. It doesn't matter who you choose as long as you choose by analyzing truths and policies rather than blatant lies from swiftboaters. McCain encountered that same shit in 2000 from his own party. He endured being called a Manchurian Candidate and claims that he has an illegitimate "black child". That child was in fact a Vietnamese (I believe) girl that he adopted. Say NO to Bullshit from the extreme left and extreme right. Lol me and Italian Jew are trolls for stating our views?? Get real.

Lulz at this pic
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/e/ee/Map.JPG

Repeat
08-20-2008, 03:52 PM
idiot Chavez is not socialist he's fascist. QUITE a big difference. Socialism is just as bad if taken to the extremes though. Some aspects of socialism should be incorporated into some sectors such as healthcare to better this country. EU has done the same thing and look how much better they are vs. US at this moment. We need to take strides to regain our international standing. I think its outright silly to blindly denounce socialism. I agree that socialism to the extreme has resulted in FAIL. Communists are not delightful. My home state in my country has been ruined by Marxists. I think its silly of the neo-cons to brand Obama as a socialist, empty suit, celebrity, muslim, black extremist. Its amusing and immature. Just look at policy instead of hurling slurs and choose your candidate. It doesn't matter who you choose as long as you choose by analyzing truths and policies rather than blatant lies from swiftboaters. McCain encountered that same shit in 2000 from his own party. He endured being called a Manchurian Candidate and claims that he has an illegitimate "black child". That child was in fact a Vietnamese (I believe) girl that he adopted. Say NO to Bullshit from the extreme left and extreme right. Lol me and Italian Jew are trolls for stating our views?? Get real.

Lulz at this pic
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/e/ee/Map.JPG

What the fuck are you smoking? I'm not even going to touch this because it's so full of rhetorical bullshit that it makes me sick.

Red
08-20-2008, 03:59 PM
EU has done the same thing and look how much better they are vs. US at this moment.

Just look at policy

Lol me and Italian Jew are trolls for stating our views?? Get real.



1. How much better are they doing? Last I checked their unemployment rate is and always has been higher than ours.

2. What policy is there to look at?

3. Italian isn't the troll, you are.

4. Holy fuck, use paragraphs.

LegalSmash
08-20-2008, 04:00 PM
idiot Chavez is not socialist he's fascist. QUITE a big difference. Socialism is just as bad if taken to the extremes though. Some aspects of socialism should be incorporated into some sectors such as healthcare to better this country. EU has done the same thing and look how much better they are vs. US at this moment. We need to take strides to regain our international standing. I think its outright silly to blindly denounce socialism. I agree that socialism to the extreme has resulted in FAIL. Communists are not delightful. My home state in my country has been ruined by Marxists. I think its silly of the neo-cons to brand Obama as a socialist, empty suit, celebrity, muslim, black extremist. Its amusing and immature. Just look at policy instead of hurling slurs and choose your candidate. It doesn't matter who you choose as long as you choose by analyzing truths and policies rather than blatant lies from swiftboaters. McCain encountered that same shit in 2000 from his own party. He endured being called a Manchurian Candidate and claims that he has an illegitimate "black child". That child was in fact a Vietnamese (I believe) girl that he adopted. Say NO to Bullshit from the extreme left and extreme right. Lol me and Italian Jew are trolls for stating our views?? Get real.

Lulz at this pic
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/e/ee/Map.JPG


Wow. You grow dumber and dumber by the minute.

In what world exactly is Chavez a facist? I think you've been huffing paint thinner

Chávez promotes a political doctrine of democratic socialism and Latin American integration.[1] He is also a critic of neoliberalism, globalization and United States foreign policy.

tehsnipes
08-20-2008, 04:04 PM
:001_unsure:. Still don't know what I'm doing to troll

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/f/f5/Terrorism.jpg

Zero001
08-20-2008, 04:06 PM
tehsnipes, PERSONAL FLAMES WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. It should be clear that you shouldn't go onto any forum and personally insult someone who is discussing a topic. If you can't come up with an argument without insulting the person don't bother posting at all.

Not a single piece of your post covered the topic of oil. So go troll somewhere else.



EU has done the same thing and look how much better they are vs. US at this moment. :001_rolleyes:



I think its outright silly to blindly denounce socialism. I agree that socialism to the extreme has resulted in FAIL. I dislike the thought of socialist government, but I'll take a step back and agree to some form of socialism. Health care is just the wrong item to choose. I'd bring up some good examples, but this is a thread about oil.


It doesn't matter who you choose as long as you choose by analyzing truths and policies rather than blatant lies from swiftboaters......Say NO to Bullshit from the extreme left and extreme right. Probably the only decent thing you said. I haven't been around, but it seems like your the type of person that thinks everything is extreme and just hates on the U.S.

Italian Jew
08-20-2008, 04:08 PM
But I use coherent thoughts and sentences.



And don't bring me into this. This your thing, not mine.



tehsnipes, PERSONAL FLAMES WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. It should be clear that you shouldn't go onto any forum and personally insult someone who is discussing a topic. If you can't come up with an argument without insulting the person don't bother posting at all.


Although this rule has been violated many times throughout the News and Politics section by everyone. Just keep it hush hush and we can continue on doing it.

LegalSmash
08-20-2008, 04:08 PM
:001_unsure:. Still don't know what I'm doing to troll

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/f/f5/Terrorism.jpg

You come in, you make random, pointless, rhetoric laden comments that don't dignify any more response than that which starts with "you dumb bastard, die in a fire", you don't bother to read the very first post that requests intelligent debate about oil rather than baby seal like hand clapping and barking, and proceed to bark like a baby seal and clap your hands.

You pointlessly bitch about people's avatars that are not only thought provoking, but true, and you engage in typical trollish behavior.

Whats not there that is not already evident troll?

LegalSmash
08-20-2008, 04:10 PM
But I use coherent thoughts and sentences.



And don't bring me into this. This your thing, not mine.

ROFL

I heart my nemesis.

Total Jew, All the time, Italian Jew. 2008.

PotshotPolka
08-20-2008, 04:11 PM
Whats not there that is not already evident troll?

A misanthropy/pedophilia complex, I hope.

Red
08-20-2008, 04:15 PM
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/2706/terrorismch0.jpg

Dracula
08-20-2008, 04:32 PM
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/2706/terrorismch0.jpg

:001_smile::001_smile::laugh::laugh:

Teh Snipes- And I thought i could be an ass :D

tehsnipes
08-20-2008, 05:00 PM
Can I be admin? I know you all love me

LitKey
08-20-2008, 05:31 PM
http://www.steam-gamers.net/forum/showthread.php?p=42744

This dude's ID is permbanned... lol. He also joined our servers under the name empty in an attempt to get around GlobalBans (which obviously failed). This guy is just trolling our forums after a permanent ban. Can someone do us the honors of cutting this bitch loose?

Dracula
08-20-2008, 05:33 PM
Ha ha:partydance:

Zero001
08-20-2008, 05:34 PM
I nominate to have everything after post #32 removed, and let the discussion continue on topic.

LegalSmash
08-20-2008, 05:47 PM
While I normally don't do this: I second litkey's motion. Lets Permban this bastard.

Slavic
08-20-2008, 05:58 PM
What the fuck are you smoking? I'm not even going to touch this because it's so full of rhetorical bullshit that it makes me sick.

Yeah, because i've never heard any rhetoric from anyone before in the Political Forum : D.

Back to the oil topic. Can't we all just get along and drive Segways??? We should make large enough Segways that can be used to transport cargo around the country. International bridges can be build so that our Segway boats can travel to other countries. Just close your eyes and imagine : )

LegalSmash
08-20-2008, 06:05 PM
Yeah, because i've never heard any rhetoric from anyone before in the Political Forum : D.

Back to the oil topic. Can't we all just get along and drive Segways??? We should make large enough Segways that can be used to transport cargo around the country. International bridges can be build so that our Segway boats can travel to other countries. Just close your eyes and imagine : )

segways run out of battery too fast.

Here is a great video about Segways

8wlWHtme7II

*Queen VenomousFate*
08-20-2008, 07:36 PM
I recently wrote an article in which I explained how we can get oil for 50 dollars a barrel and even less with some more time.

Summary

1. Replace all coal power plants with nuclear power plants (I know it is a lot harder then it sounds, but it can be done, and relatively quickly, it would be expensive, but I believe that would be made up for with cheapers gas prices from the plan below)

2. Place incentives for people to place solar panels on their roofs, most people could place enough panels on their roof to completely supply their own power, decreasing overall demand.

3. Now that we don't use coal for power, use the coal gasification process to turn our coal into oil/gasoline, with just the known coal reserves in the United States we can gasify approximatly 800 Billion barrels of oil. THAT IS A 200-300 YEAR SUPPLY (200 if demand increases, 300 if demand continues to decline/stay the same due to less driving and higher fuel standards)

4. Coal can be gasified for under 50 dollars a barrel if done on a mass scale, which means that to be competitive OPEC would have to lower oil prices below 50 Dollars (This has worked in the past, in the 80's the US began coal gasification experiments, and OPEC, afraid of losing our market dropped prices from 30 dollars a barrel to around 5 and therefore the US gave up the experiments since they were no longer competitive.)

5. From there we can use half gasified coal and half foreign oil to increase our own coal supply to last almost 500 years. As time goes on, the gasification process will surely become cheaper pushing down prices even more.

6. If OPEC threatens to raise prices we can threaten them back by saying we will abandon foreign oil and rely on our own supply which can last 100's of years. That will keep their prices down allowing us to continue to use a mix of foreign oil and gasified coal, which will ensure a longer term supply. As of now we have nothing to threaten our oil suppliers with, but if we have a massive domestic supply we have a barganing chip.

7. Gasified coal is much cleaner then regular gas when burned in cars and that might woo enviornmentalists. (Although the coal gasification process would about equal that out, but with the use of scrubbers and sequestration it would be nearly pollutant free)

8. Following this plan the US can have a reliable ad cheap source of oil for at least 300 more years, which I am quite positive will be enough time to develop alternitive fuels.

NOTE: I realize a lot of this is A LOT more complicated then I put it, but no one wants to read every detail, this is just a basic plan that I think would work.

Repeat
08-20-2008, 08:36 PM
Yeah, because i've never heard any rhetoric from anyone before in the Political Forum : D.

Back to the oil topic. Can't we all just get along and drive Segways??? We should make large enough Segways that can be used to transport cargo around the country. International bridges can be build so that our Segway boats can travel to other countries. Just close your eyes and imagine : )





At your segway idea @ what the fuck are YOU smoking!?! i want some.


Oh, and the difference between the rhetoric that takes place normally is that it is coherent and logical. It's not stupid shit.

tehsnipes
08-20-2008, 10:18 PM
http://www.steam-gamers.net/forum/showthread.php?p=42744

This dude's ID is permbanned... lol. He also joined our servers under the name empty in an attempt to get around GlobalBans (which obviously failed). This guy is just trolling our forums after a permanent ban. Can someone do us the honors of cutting this bitch loose?

Rofl im merely expressing my view, that perma ban was a mistake since you guys transitioned from sourcebans to a new system. It resulted in my 3 day ban going to a perma ban.


About the oil, yes we need to get rid of our reliance on foreign oil. Those fucks in Venezuela and Iran just pleasure and tightening the noose around our neck.



Oh, and the difference between the rhetoric that takes place normally is that it is coherent and logical. It's not stupid shit.

Of course my rhetoric is stupid shit while the Republican smears of Obama isn't. Labelling somehow as a celebrity and elitist doesn't make sense along with the other bullshit they're spouting. If you love Jesus, vote for Republicans
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/c/c8/Mccain_bush_hug.jpg

Red
08-20-2008, 11:30 PM
If you love Jesus, vote for Republicans


Or (as in my case being agnostic) if you just love this country

LegalSmash
08-21-2008, 06:29 AM
Rofl im merely expressing my view, that perma ban was a mistake since you guys transitioned from sourcebans to a new system. It resulted in my 3 day ban going to a perma ban.


About the oil, yes we need to get rid of our reliance on foreign oil. Those fucks in Venezuela and Iran just pleasure and tightening the noose around our neck.




Of course my rhetoric is stupid shit while the Republican smears of Obama isn't. Labelling somehow as a celebrity and elitist doesn't make sense along with the other bullshit they're spouting. If you love Jesus, vote for Republicans
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/c/c8/Mccain_bush_hug.jpg



okay, again, here is the funny thing, no one here is calling him a celebrity, its you that mentions the commercials that appear on television. I personally just call him hootie, nope-bama, and tax-failboy. You are relying on used up, pointless, recycled rhetoric. Read the threads that mention him.

As for the Jesus comment, for such an easily offended Mohommedan, you sure like to make religiously based slurs, hypocrite.

"I find his sig->>>

offensive because I am a muslim. Its funny how racial intolerance isn't tolerated but religious intolerance is okay. Is it really necessary to flame people for their race, religion, political affiliation, and sexual orientation?


Sigh....

WTF tampon?? So we should just kick out everyone who doesn't fit into your WASP profile?? Yes blame the liberals for everything... Islam is not forcing its hand in anything. In fact it is the US forcing its way into countries (ie. Iraq & Iran) with no justification. Please remind me the reason for going into Iraq?? "Religious obligations??" allow me to remind you that America is supposed to be a place for freedom of religion"


again, die in a fire.

I reiterate support this trolls PB

Zero001
08-21-2008, 06:53 AM
2. Place incentives for people to place solar panels on their roofs, most people could place enough panels on their roof to completely supply their own power, decreasing overall demand.
There is incentive. I live in one of those homes and the energy produced is really only enough to run the water heater. Cost is way down from using an electrical heater, but unless you have a massive yard to place solar panels in you're nowhere near powering an entire house.


An average nuclear power plant project would take about 15 years to go from citing to actual construction. The price of NPPs are also going through the roof. British government expenditure for them is in its billions and won't stop from increasing.


Nuclear energy isn't worth it. Hydrogen and PV are the main ones that people need to focus on.

Off the top of my head that number is closer to 7-10 years from NRC license application to going online. The money will come from private financing, so not that big of a deal.

Nuclear energy isn't worth it? :001_huh:
Just 1 benefit, but whats wrong with reducing 8&#37; of our oil consumption?

Nuclear energy isn't the perfect soultion, but it's the best thing we have right now over hydro,solar,oil, and coal.

With the exception of certain areas hydro is impractical, and even in those areas it only produces a fraction of the total energy output needed.

Solar is very impractical at it's current stage. The newest Solar panels only provide a small % of transfer efficiency. It would require a large amount of land and wiring to power even a small city and thats just not possible.

I'm not saying we shouldn't R&D those options, but like I said before nuclear is what we have now.

LegalSmash
08-21-2008, 06:57 AM
There is incentive. I live in one of those homes and the energy produced is really only enough to run the water heater. Cost is way down from using an electrical heater, but unless you have a massive yard to place solar panels in you're nowhere near powering an entire house.



Off the top of my head that number is closer to 7-10 years from NRC license application to going online. The money will come from private financing, so not that big of a deal.

Nuclear energy isn't worth it? :001_huh:
Just 1 benefit, but whats wrong with reducing 8% of our oil consumption?

Nuclear energy isn't the perfect soultion, but it's the best thing we have right now over hydro,solar,oil, and coal.

With the exception of certain areas hydro is impractical, and even in those areas it only produces a fraction of the total energy output needed.

Solar is very impractical at it's current stage. The newest Solar panels only provide a small % of transfer efficiency. It would require a large amount of land and wiring to power even a small city and thats just not possible.

I'm not saying we shouldn't R&D those options, but like I said before nuclear is what we have now.

i concur

LegalSmash
08-21-2008, 12:01 PM
Threat of terrorism, "disposal" of waste, maintenance costs, initial costs, cost for the nuclear material itself and the time it takes for a project to be finalised outweigh the potentiality (because reactors very rarely run at full production capacity) of making not even a significant dent in a developed country's energy consumption before peak oil and panic and recession (for early toppers) or alternatives are discovered, such as the proper investment in hydrogen.

Solar power is and will be the most important renewable. Buildings can have it, there can be projects in deserts and in hot climates, and they don't even have to be on land. Remember that there is more sea on the world than land.

The idea of finding more oil to burn soon or in the future is ridiculous.

I disagree, I really think that the initial cost, and the lack of efficiency in solar energy as well as the insecure nature of the power generation equipment makes nuclear a very attractive, and more feasible alternative to oil, rather than solar.

I think one day, solar MAY be possible, but right now, its REALLY a long way off.

Zero001
08-21-2008, 02:46 PM
Threat of terrorism, "disposal" of waste, maintenance costs, initial costs, cost for the nuclear material itself and the time it takes for a project to be finalised outweigh the potentiality (because reactors very rarely run at full production capacity) of making not even a significant dent in a developed country's energy consumption before peak oil and panic and recession (for early toppers) or alternatives are discovered, such as the proper investment in hydrogen.

There is always a threat of terrorism, but where do you draw the line? Hey! Lets stop the construction of tall buildings because they can be hit by a plane.

There are several ways to manage nuclear waste, and even then the amount is relatively small. Besides, it's not like solar energy doesn't produce waste.

As far as cost, I'm with legal on this one. Also, like I said before it will be privately financed. There are a number of companies that if given the chance would take the business opportunity. In return the consumers get low cost power.

Whether a significant dent is made or not, it would be a good safe guard. Let's assume we don't find anything new. Something we currently have and is going into mass production are electric vehicles. How will you meet electrical demands, if let's say 25&#37; of vehicles became electrical?

Again, I'm not saying we should ignore other options, but we should use what we have now. If it takes 10 years to finish a nuclear plant, let's start before it's 10 years too late.



Solar power is and will be the most important renewable. Buildings can have it, there can be projects in deserts and in hot climates, and they don't even have to be on land. Remember that there is more sea on the world than land. It's a double edged sword the way it is now. I don't mind putting them on buildings, but then you go on to suggest deserts and oceans. Since it's not in your backyard you seem to forget that there is a large amount of landscape or oceans that have to be taken up, just to power a city. For a country no bigger than half of Florida it might be OK to think that you can use Northern Africa, because you might actually get enough energy to power GB. But what happens when you try to power all of Florida? What happens when you try to power the entire U.S? Your talking about major changes in landscape and even the ocean. What happens to the people and wildlife that inhabit these areas?

Like I said "the newest Solar panels only provide a small % of transfer efficiency". If we can find a way to improve the 3-4% that we're currently getting to 45% then we can start talking about putting it into use. Until then it's a huge double edged sword that leaves environmentalist without options. Can't use nuclear because it creates waste, can't use solar because it uses land, can't use wind because it kills birds, can't use hydro because it kills fish. What's it going to be? Until other options are further developed nuclear is the best thing we have now.

Repeat
08-21-2008, 02:55 PM
There is always a threat of terrorism, but where do you draw the line? Hey! Lets stop the construction of tall buildings because they can be hit by a plane.

There are several ways to manage nuclear waste, and even then the amount is relatively small. Besides, it's not like solar energy doesn't produce waste.

As far as cost, I'm with legal on this one. Also, like I said before it will be privately financed. There are a number of companies that if given the chance would take the business opportunity. In return the consumers get low cost power.

Whether a significant dent is made or not, it would be a good safe guard. Let's assume we don't find anything new. Something we currently have and is going into mass production are electric vehicles. How will you meet electrical demands, if let's say 25% of vehicles became electrical?

Again, I'm not saying we should ignore other options, but we should use what we have now. If it takes 10 years to finish a nuclear plant, let's start before it's 10 years too late.

It's a double edged sword the way it is now. I don't mind putting them on buildings, but then you go on to suggest deserts and oceans. Since it's not in your backyard you seem to forget that there is a large amount of landscape or oceans that have to be taken up, just to power a city. For a country no bigger than half of Florida it might be OK to think that you can use Northern Africa, because you might actually get enough energy to power GB. But what happens when you try to power all of Florida? What happens when you try to power the entire U.S? Your talking about major changes in landscape and even the ocean. What happens to the people and wildlife that inhabit these areas?

Like I said "the newest Solar panels only provide a small % of transfer efficiency". If we can find a way to improve the 3-4% that we're currently getting to 45% then we can start talking about putting it into use. Until then it's a huge double edged sword that leaves environmentalist without options. Can't use nuclear because it creates waste, can't use solar because it uses land, can't use wind because it kills birds, can't use hydro because it kills fish. What's it going to be? Until other options are further developed nuclear is the best thing we have now.

QFT

In my opinion, WIND ENERGY FOR THE WIN(d)!!!

Zero001
08-21-2008, 03:50 PM
No, all I'm saying is one jet full of fuel is all it would take for a nuclear power plant to go Chernobyl or even worse.

Chernobyl is a terrible example of nuclear safety. It was constructed with a minimal amount of safety features. You seriously have to try in order to screw up that bad. Nuclear plants are well protected from internal and external dangers.

link (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/chernobyl.html)


No commercial reactor in the United States is designed anything like the RBMK reactor. Cohen summarizes several of the differences:

1. A reactor which is unstable against a loss of water could not be licensed in the United States.

2. A reactor which is unstable against a temperature increase could not be licensed here.

3. A large power reactor without a containment [structure] could not be licensed here.


Also, wind energy produces very little energy. For an entire farm of the turbines it produces about 5MW. It takes about 7 years just for a turbine to produce more energy than it took to create.

P.S. When I say "solar energy" I mean most of the renewables, seen as they all come from the Sun. (IE - wind, PV, etc. with the exception of tidal, which is the Moon).
I'm glad your aware of the downside to wind energy. I understand "solar energy", but what are you suggesting we do with it in it's current state, other than using buildings, desserts and oceans? (which is what I responded to)

I understand that we need a better solution to nuclear, but "solar energy" is still in it's early stages.

LegalSmash
08-21-2008, 03:54 PM
No, all I'm saying is one jet full of fuel is all it would take for a nuclear power plant to go Chernobyl or even worse.

Also, wind energy produces very little energy. For an entire farm of the turbines it produces about 5MW. It takes about 7 years just for a turbine to produce more energy than it took to create.

P.S. When I say "solar energy" I mean most of the renewables, seen as they all come from the Sun. (IE - wind, PV, etc. with the exception of tidal, which is the Moon).

My dad used to work at the Fl's southern plant, and the bastards are built to withstand air strikes, seriously.

A plane, two, three.... while it may damage, and even kill some personnel, is not going to cause a mega cloud of nuclear fallout.

Zero001
08-21-2008, 04:26 PM
Alright, then, Three Mile Island, if you're looking for something a little more close to home.

Anyway, all I'm saying is there has to be a margin for human error, and with something like a nuclear plant it's not just a "whoops I spilt coffee on the switchboard we'll have to replace it" error.

:thumbup1: I knew that was coming
Was it really that bad? It was the worst accident after Chernobyl. It killed no one and exposed 6 people to the equivalent of a chest x-ray.

LegalSmash
08-21-2008, 04:34 PM
:thumbup1: I knew that was coming
Was it really that bad? It was the worst accident after Chernobyl. It killed no one and exposed 6 people to the equivalent of a chest x-ray.

Lol.

Three mile and chernobyl are both over rated events. When you show me a mushroom cloud due to an oops, ill start to be reserved.

Most people want the power, safety, and security of nuke, but do not want it anywhere near them. Its like ghetto-projects: liberals like the idea, but don't like the location and results of them (not aiming this at havok, but just to point out something very US public sentiment/power/public policy related)to this end, really great ideas that can yield decent results, while requiring more than cursory monitoring are passed over.

Coal use is no less destructive environmentally, or less subject to price hikes than oil.

Red
08-21-2008, 04:39 PM
:thumbup1: I knew that was coming
Was it really that bad? It was the worst accident after Chernobyl. It killed no one and exposed 6 people to the equivalent of a chest x-ray.

I was about to say.

The only real fallout from 3mile island was the over hyped media fallout.

Repeat
08-21-2008, 04:45 PM
Still think we should suck all the oil out of Iraq and take it for ourselves...

Italian Jew
08-21-2008, 04:49 PM
For solar energy, we are developing better and more cost efficient ways at MPT. Right now, it is just too damn expensive to send a panel in orbit and align it with a receiver. There aren't any real problems with it and it allows for a lot more solar energy to be captured while transporting it to earth in an efficient way. A decade or two more of work can be done on using microwaves to transport the energy. This isn't a win all solution, but you can't be looking for one thing to solve our problem. It is just one part of a multi-part solution.

Nuclear is a good medium term solution, but as long as we can get enough technicians here to manage the plants. The problem with nuclear power is that it has gotten a bad rap. They are not that dangerous if you know what you are doing. I just only hope that if we decide to build more nuclear power plants, we don't manage to outsource many of the positions which would further add to the problems people see with nuclear power.

Having too many nuclear power plants for too long is a problem. Eventually, something will go wrong and an incident will occur, either through an attack of some kind or human error in a technician's fault. While one or few of these incidents will not spell a nuclear holocaust like many are led to believe, you can expect heavy public outrage at the incident. You will have mom's fearing for their children's lives, farmer's concerned about their crops, people worried about their environment, etc. Many of these complaints would not hold water in a scientific and intellectual community, but the U.S. isn't one. You easily have widespread panic and paranoia. We could either tell them to shut up and hope they listen (but once they all drink from the punch, there is no going back), or we could be lucky enough to find a better alternative(s) to shut them up for us.

I mean, you can have a whole nice life, then one day, a few middle easterns fly a plane into a building, and the next moment people start thinking every brown person is going to blow you up. A person may be smart, but people are stupid.

Jesstilence
08-21-2008, 04:52 PM
One of the main problems with alternative resources like wind and solar energy is that we need a better battery. If someone could could up with a type of battery much lighter and efficient it would be a big step forward.

Zero001
08-22-2008, 05:26 AM
I know, but the point is it had the potentiality to become worse. The fact is that it shouldn't have happened, not that no-one was killed.

That's understandable, but things have changed since then (even Wikipedia will tell you that). Consider it a learning experience.

The biggest problem right now is that we don't really have a different approach. Instead of whining a lot I rather get something done. The perfect system(s) don't currently exist, so why not put a nuclear plan into action? I know I would feel better knowing there was something there to fall back on rather than hoping something comes up.

If it makes anyone feel better the Germans discovered bacteria that can survive in nuclear waste. They'll be working on creating bacteria that will render radioactive waste non toxic. I'm pretty sure other countries will/have pick(ed) up on this and if it gets done it'll render nuclear waste sites less harmful than your average garbage dump. So if you want to hope on something, there's something you can hope on.

Zero001
09-02-2008, 10:02 PM
Anyone think the drop in oil prices has anything to do with the elections? It always seems prices drop around elections. I guess speculation isn't popular at the moment (even though speculators still make money when prices drop)

LegalSmash
09-02-2008, 10:14 PM
Anyone think the drop in oil prices has anything to do with the elections? It always seems prices drop around elections. I guess speculation isn't popular at the moment (even though speculators still make money when prices drop)

Well, I think that those that hold the shares currently are more likely to want less turmoil that would lead to a president more likely to have interests adverse to them. In that respect, they are likely to speculate less, or in alternate change their pricing schemes slightly to result in a depressed value on the price of the gas temporarily, taking the losses long enough to allow for a slight calm.

This may, however, prove ineffective if the worldwide market itself is in a highly volitile state. With Gustav, the real busy part of the hurricane season still to come, and that pinko-georgia thing going on, the volatility of the oil markets will be high and shakey, at best, imho.

tehsnipes
09-04-2008, 10:22 PM
I know, but the point is it had the potentiality to become worse. The fact is that it shouldn't have happened, not that no-one was killed.

I agree but those were isolated incidents. We should not take nuclear power off the table. We should invest in nuclear power as well as solar and wind energy. Solar panels today have an efficiency of about 40% I believe. Scientists have found a way to gain double that efficiency and still absorb energy at night.

Zero001
09-05-2008, 06:32 PM
I agree but those were isolated incidents. We should not take nuclear power off the table. We should invest in nuclear power as well as solar and wind energy. Solar panels today have an efficiency of about 40% I believe. Scientists have found a way to gain double that efficiency and still absorb energy at night.
They have achieved 40% in labs. We wish they were that efficient in the real world.

I forgot to respond to it the last time, but there is no potential to become worse. Nuclear plant + bomb does not equal a nuclear warhead. In order to achieve critical mass it takes a precise chemical process which cannot be reproduced in modern plants without someone actually screwing around with it. Unless you're Bond or Neo on a mission to pull this off I just don't see that happening.

GrayFox
09-05-2008, 09:18 PM
They have achieved 40% in labs. We wish they were that efficient in the real world.

I forgot to respond to it the last time, but there is no potential to become worse. Nuclear plant + bomb does not equal a nuclear warhead. In order to achieve critical mass it takes a precise chemical process which cannot be reproduced in modern plants without someone actually screwing around with it. Unless you're Bond or Neo on a mission to pull this off I just don't see that happening.

I heard somewhere that theres like 240,000 Nuclear bombs in the world, in places like underwater storage and desolate areas. Now, this if I remmeber correctly, this fact is from Metal Gear Solid 1, so I'm not fully behind it. Any truth to this?

LegalSmash
09-05-2008, 09:23 PM
I heard somewhere that theres like 240,000 Nuclear bombs in the world, in places like underwater storage and desolate areas. Now, this if I remmeber correctly, this fact is from Metal Gear Solid 1, so I'm not fully behind it. Any truth to this?

Objection your honor, hearsay.

GrayFox
09-05-2008, 09:31 PM
Objection your honor, hearsay.

Yea, I'm not really putting my whole weight behind it. About how many are there really?

PotshotPolka
09-05-2008, 09:58 PM
Yea, I'm not really putting my whole weight behind it. About how many are there really?


Ah... Something up my alley.


Roughly 28,000 warheads, ranging from "suitcase bombs" that only have several KT yields to the good ol' Peacemakers with 10 MT yields
1 KT=1000 metric tons of TNT
1 MT = 1,000,000
Largest nuclear weapon ever created Tsar Bomb: 50 MT
Blast radius: 10 milles completely vaporized by detonation.
This figure includes deactivated warheads, such as those removed due to the START I and START II talks.
Overall though right know I believe the numbers are (approximately) as follows (active):
USA: 8,000
Russian: 6,000
China: 500
UK: 200
France: 40
India: 30 (I know it's a few less, but who cares they can't deliver them with anything but Soviet era missiles)
Pakistan: 25

Israel: 0-200? No one knows, but many rumors of American warheads in Israel have been leaked over the decades to prevent further massive conflicts for fear of nuclear retaliation.

Zero001
09-09-2008, 05:36 PM
Oil closed at $103 today. The the dollar may be cheap, but it's stable and gaining.

tank40175
09-09-2008, 09:05 PM
Check out www.pickensplan.com, He has a really good and practical idea that will address this issue in short & long term. Someone may have already posted but I'm short on time, going to work.

LegalSmash
09-09-2008, 10:46 PM
This guy is pretty much trying to get write offs for his gas and turbine investments.

Italian Jew
09-09-2008, 10:56 PM
Well, he is a big Texas businessman with an interest in resources and energy. He just happens to want to make money off of helping people. While his efforts are good, he is still doing it so he can make a sizable profit off of his investments.

Repeat
09-10-2008, 05:45 AM
Well, he is a big Texas businessman with an interest in resources and energy. He just happens to want to make money off of helping people. While his efforts are good, he is still doing it so he can make a sizable profit off of his investments.

God Bless America.


Capitalism 101.

Zero001
09-11-2008, 10:44 AM
Saudi Arabia walks out on OPEC

Link (http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/topstocks/archive/2008/09/11/the-death-of-opec.aspx)

This is front page news, and I can't find any major confirmation. Anyone have anything on it?

Red
09-11-2008, 10:51 AM
Wow great find.

Good to see the Saudis doing something right, and also awesome to see Brazil finding yet more oil.

Italian Jew
09-11-2008, 11:03 AM
It is the good thing to do once you see the demand going down, right? Isn't that the basics of supply and demand? It will be interesting to see how this rolls out in the next few days.

Zero001
09-11-2008, 11:09 AM
It is the good thing to do once you see the demand going down, right? Isn't that the basics of supply and demand? It will be interesting to see how this rolls out in the next few days. Supply and demand rules don't really apply with oil. They can simply slow down production of oil and charge you the same or more which is what OPEC was planning on doing before the Saudi's walked out.


“We are oversupplying the market, and we are cutting that oversupply,” said Abdalla Salem el-Badri, the group’s secretary general. “We don’t want to see these prices decline dramatically.” Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/business/worldbusiness/11oil.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&ref=business&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1221148851-Cx6N7+QCWL3eamdNAmXC3w)
Oversupply my ass. OPEC was/is holding the world hostage. There is no such thing as oversupply when it comes to oil.

Slavic
09-11-2008, 11:42 AM
Supply and demand rules don't really apply with oil. They can simply slow down production of oil and charge you the same or more which is what OPEC was planning on doing before the Saudi's walked out.


Oversupply my ass. OPEC was/is holding the world hostage. There is no such thing as oversupply when it comes to oil.

Especially with how China and India are booming; oil is constantly going to be in high demand. It will continue as well when more countries pull themselves up from their pre-industrial years.

Also, did Saudi Arabia just walk out of the conference? Or did they leave the OPEC?

Italian Jew
09-11-2008, 11:47 AM
I think they just walked out and people are assuming they left OPEC. It may turn out to be that they did decide to leave, but that would have to be a statement by Saudi Arabia to make in the news.

Repeat
09-11-2008, 11:49 AM
FUCK OPEC

Italian Jew
09-11-2008, 11:52 AM
I think the way they have run things is that

OPEC FUCKS YOU

Slavic
09-11-2008, 12:19 PM
I think the way they have run things is that

OPEC FUCKS YOU

They fucked you, then after two weeks of sobbing you called them back for some more : D

Italian Jew
09-11-2008, 12:40 PM
I think the US is in an abusive relationship

Slavic
09-11-2008, 04:03 PM
Thats freakin crazy though that Saudi Arabia walked out. I wonder what is going to develop tomorrow about this. It just goes to show that maybe Saudi Arabia is trying to be a bit more friendly on the world scale.

Zero001
09-11-2008, 09:51 PM
Thats freakin crazy though that Saudi Arabia walked out. I wonder what is going to develop tomorrow about this. It just goes to show that maybe Saudi Arabia is trying to be a bit more friendly on the world scale.

I'm positive that is they completely cut ties from OPEC it would've made front page, so it looks like they just walked. That's still pretty important news. Them being friendly is just one of many possibilities. Others include:

- The continued production would benefit them more in the long run because a global economic collapse would also cause a collapse in the price of oil

- They want to sell what they've already drilled before they get more competition from Russia who is trying to join OPEC

- They got mad because production cuts only really affected SA and other countries like Venezuela and Iran continued production, but still benefited from the high prices

Whatever happened, I still think the U.S needs to start drilling their own. Whether it directly benefits us at the pump or not, the royalties that come off of our land use would pump good revenues into the economy.

GrayFox
09-12-2008, 06:15 AM
Whatever happened, I still think the U.S needs to start drilling their own. Whether it directly benefits us at the pump or not, the royalties that come off of our land use would pump good revenues into the economy.

But then if we drill now, and we run out of oil, we'll be completely dependent on foreign countries. How long until our oil runs out?

Lux
09-12-2008, 09:43 AM
I was just thinking of the takeover of Manchester City by the Abu Dhabi group and Noel Gallagher (of Oasis who is a City fan) said something like..

"Its funny how every time Manchester United fans buy a litre of petrol, it goes straight into the pockets of us" :rlol:

imkrazie
09-12-2008, 02:43 PM
But then if we drill now, and we run out of oil, we'll be completely dependent on foreign countries. How long until our oil runs out?


If I remember correctly, we have enough oil (that we know of so far) to power 160 million homes and 60 million cars for 60 years.

Italian Jew
09-12-2008, 04:07 PM
Most likely, yes, but that figure does not take into consideration how much time it would take to get that much oil. It's there, it just isn't going to be a snap of the fingers and we suddenly have 60 years worth of oil in our pockets.

Red
09-12-2008, 04:26 PM
Most likely, yes, but that figure does not take into consideration how much time it would take to get that much oil. It's there, it just isn't going to be a snap of the fingers and we suddenly have 60 years worth of oil in our pockets.

We wouldn't need 60 years worth right away. We'd need it over 60 years.

Hence the "60 years" worth.

Italian Jew
09-12-2008, 04:29 PM
you wouldn't get it in 60 years though, especially not enough to be dependent

Red
09-12-2008, 04:30 PM
you wouldn't get it in 60 years though

I don't think the intent is to use solely domestic oil for those 60 years. It would augment the global market supply as much as possible.

It's better than sitting on our asses saying "Oh it'll take to long to get, don't bother". That thinking just doesn't make sense.

In the meantime develop whatever other sources of practical energy we can.

Italian Jew
09-12-2008, 04:32 PM
Yes it is worthwhile to do it, but not devote so many resources into it.

Zero001
09-12-2008, 08:14 PM
What Red said. It's not about having the U.S be completely independent of foreign oil, it's about reducing the dependence on foreign oil. It would be dumb to be completely independent. Assuming we don't drill anything new, we'd be out of our current reserves by 2016 if we use only 100% domestic. As far as the snap of the finger thing, we can reduce foreign consumption today if we wanted to. We don't need that much resources, there's already a large amount that's just sitting there capped. If it makes you feel better, some of the revenue can be used to help fund alternatives. The same concept has been applied with tobacco companies for years. They have to put funds toward anti-tobacco programs and advertisements. It's a win win situation for everyone.

Italian Jew
09-12-2008, 09:26 PM
I know its about reducing the amount of foreign oil; I never said it wasn't. Its just the 60 years thing is not based on 60 straight years of any one thing. It is 60 years of having to still have a large portion of the oil we use come from foreign nations as well as what we produce. All I am saying is that those statistics and metaphors are misleading (not to mention they don't count levels of growth, waste, etc).

The oil companies should not be forced to aid in alternative fuels because they won't care about it if they can make the money off of oil right now. The companies that devote their time to the process will come up with the better product and won't pretend to help out and BS spend the money. The business would be thinking in the long run because as oil becomes less important as a source of energy, their new sources will become the money makers thus making more money for them in the future.

The best thing would be a competition among the companies to develop the new source of fuel, not a competition to see who can drill more oil before the time is up. The government should help out in the process and maybe have its own separate programs (or maybe a joint effort). Yes, there needs to be some drilling now, but not frenzied drilling wherever we think there is oil. More of our resources should be spent towards the future, not just in a few years. We could still produce more oil and help lessen the amount of foreign oil we have to import on a gradual scale while devoting a lot to future energies. This includes development of processes for mining and processing shale oil, which is our most abundant supply of oil (which we cannot harvest very well yet). That's where any real help is going to come from, and before we can get it, we need to focus on what we can get and make in the future, not the present.

Until then, don't go crazy over drilling what we can now. It must be pursued in moderation.

Zero001
09-12-2008, 09:58 PM
I know its about reducing the amount of foreign oil; I never said it wasn't.
I was addressing GrayFox, not you.


The oil companies should not be forced to aid in alternative fuels because they won't care about it if they can make the money off of oil right now. The companies that devote their time to the process will come up with the better product and won't pretend to help out and BS spend the money. The business would be thinking in the long run because as oil becomes less important as a source of energy, their new sources will become the money makers thus making more money for them in the future. That doesn't make sense to me. The companies aren't the ones that fund alternative programs, the government does that through taxes and royalties from land use.


The best thing would be a competition among the companies to develop the new source of fuel, not a competition to see who can drill more oil before the time is up. The government should help out in the process and maybe have its own separate programs (or maybe a joint effort). Yes, there needs to be some drilling now, but not frenzied drilling wherever we think there is oil. More of our resources should be spent towards the future, not just in a few years. We could still produce more oil and help lessen the amount of foreign oil we have to import on a gradual scale while devoting a lot to future energies. This includes development of processes for mining and processing shale oil, which is our most abundant supply of oil (which we cannot harvest very well yet). That's where any real help is going to come from, and before we can get it, we need to focus on what we can get and make in the future, not the present.

Until then, don't go crazy over drilling what we can now. It must be pursued in moderation.
Just how much oil do you think we want? My magic number is between 5-10% decrease in foreign oil, which wouldn't require a drilling frenzy. No one is trying to ignore the future and alternative energies, but something can be done to help now. Again, it's a win win situation. It's better than just waiting for something to happen.

Italian Jew
09-13-2008, 12:03 AM
I was addressing GrayFox, not you.

Oh

I figured it was me cuz there was no quote and GrayFox was waaaaaaaaaay back there. I was all upset that you didn't love me anymore...:001_unsure:




but alright:thumbup:

imkrazie
09-13-2008, 09:20 AM
Its just the 60 years thing is not based on 60 straight years of any one thing. All I am saying is that those statistics and metaphors are misleading (not to mention they don't count levels of growth, waste, etc).



Our government estimates that these resources could provide enough oil to fuel more than 60 million cars for 60 years and enough natural gas to heat 160 million households for 60 years.

It seems to me that they're saying that we have enough oil by ourselves to power 60 million cars for 60 years

Italian Jew
09-13-2008, 01:38 PM
But we have over several hundred million cars on the road per year, so wouldn't that mean less than 60 years if it is saying we have all that oil?

imkrazie
09-13-2008, 03:05 PM
But we have over several hundred million cars on the road per year, so wouldn't that mean less than 60 years if it is saying we have all that oil?

I would guess so, but I think the theme was 60 so they stuck to it, but I wonder if these estimates take into account raising mpg rates as you said "All I am saying is that those statistics and metaphors are misleading (not to mention they don't count levels of growth, waste, etc)."

PotshotPolka
09-14-2008, 05:30 PM
I would guess so, but I think the theme was 60 so they stuck to it, but I wonder if these estimates take into account raising mpg rates as you said "All I am saying is that those statistics and metaphors are misleading (not to mention they don't count levels of growth, waste, etc)."

Whose they?

Zero001
09-22-2008, 10:12 PM
:angry: Freakin Pelosi. Oil was coming down until that stupid bill was passed. Now oil is being hit by the end of the month squeeze due to all this bailout talk

Italian Jew
09-22-2008, 10:45 PM
Didn't Bush ask Congress to do that?

Zero001
09-22-2008, 10:49 PM
Didn't Bush ask Congress to do that?

The bailouts, not the energy bill that's really not an energy bill.

EDIT:
This is Pelosi's plan (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178414427154783.html)
This is the squeeze (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601012&sid=aa2880cO2dNU&refer=commodities)

The Republican response to the plan:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fp4i25WBYWo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fp4i25WBYWo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Repeat
09-22-2008, 11:00 PM
I've said it before and I say it again -- TAKE IRAQ'S OIL!

We next need to fight the Chinese. I want their General Tso's Chicken...sans bird flu of course!

Italian Jew
09-22-2008, 11:06 PM
The bailouts, not the energy bill that's really not an energy bill.


http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/20/news/economy/bailout_proposal/index.htm?cnn=yes

President Bush asked Congress on Saturday for the authority to spend as much as $700 billion to purchase troubled mortgage assets and contain the financial crisis.

Isn't that the bailout?


General Tso's Chicken is good, but is more American-Chinese than true Chinese. I don't think they even serve that in China, or at least not before some dude made it here in the US, so we don't have to kill them for some chicken. : )

Zero001
09-22-2008, 11:17 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/20/news/economy/bailout_proposal/index.htm?cnn=yes


Isn't that the bailout?


General Tso's Chicken is good, but is more American-Chinese than true Chinese. I don't think they even serve that in China, or at least not before some dude made it here in the US, so we don't have to kill them for some chicken. : )

Check out my edit.

After Pelosi's plan went public oil went from $91.xx to $95. It went up to $100 the next day and has continued up since. The bailout talk has stirred the market and no doubt has affected oil, but read up on the squeeze


Prices climbed today as traders who sold the October contract last week, when oil dipped close to $90, had to buy the futures back. In a squeeze a trader has gone short by selling contracts hoping the price will decline. In the last days before the contract expires the trader must buy back the same number of futures or be forced to deliver the underlying oil.

Repeat
09-22-2008, 11:30 PM
General Tso's Chicken is good, but is more American-Chinese than true Chinese. I don't think they even serve that in China, or at least not before some dude made it here in the US, so we don't have to kill them for some chicken. : )

You bite your tongue, young man. They HAVE to have the most delicious GTChicken over there...haha :)

Italian Jew
09-23-2008, 12:06 AM
OK, I see where you are going now. Everything was all merged up and it sounded like you were talking about the energy bill and bailout interchangeably. Now it all makes sense.




@ Repeat

OK, but if we go over there and we find no good General Tso's chicken, how do you think the public will react?