LeviF Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 Probably a big truck for drilling test wells. They pick it up and drive it away. I'm glad Reuters is on top of things.
billfan63 Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 If you guys were gamblers what would you saw the odds that this is some environmental wackos monkeywrenching to sway public opinion against offshore drilling? I wouldn't be surprised. Yea, makes sense, its so easy to sneak up to and sabotage a deep water oil rig especially if you wear blue
DC Tom Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 I'm glad Reuters is on top of things. My bad...it's a barge with a drill on it, for inland waterway drilling. But they apparently still just tip it upright and drive it away.
Adam Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 The problem I have with that line of thought is that we don't actually need it - it's not like we're having shortages, or long lines at the pump, or nationwide rolling brown-outs. We want it, because we don't want to pay $3.00/gallon at the pump. And that's just a ridiculous reason for taking our last reserves of oil out of the ground. Keep them where they are, because as much as we may WANT them now, we may very well NEED them later.
Wacka Posted April 30, 2010 Posted April 30, 2010 It was on the way to the salvage yard (scrap heap).
Magox Posted May 1, 2010 Posted May 1, 2010 The evil bankers overcharge for it. Now let me tell you about my plan to by cheap oil and sell it below the market to people who can't afford it... Chavez has been doing this for years now, yup and their government finances look beautiful.
Magox Posted May 1, 2010 Posted May 1, 2010 Alright not THAT high lol...but it's like 87 here...and like 75 or so in Venezuela...83 in Kuwait....our oil is always more expensive...so what's the point?...why not just continue to buy what we are buying and work on real solutions instead of drilling all over the joint just to raise gas prices higher?...maybe I'm missing something...but just like any other American product, it becomes more expensive because the cost to do business here... Must be nice to be entitled to your own facts..
billfan63 Posted May 1, 2010 Posted May 1, 2010 Actually, the environmentally worst world-wide would have been Saddam's petro-eco-terrorism (really no other name for it) in Gulf War I, Act I; both torching the Kuwaiti wells and opening the pipeline from that pumping station into the gulf. I wouldn't classify a crazed dictators act of terrorism as a environmental disaster caused directly or indirectly by oil exploration
Celtic_soulja Posted May 1, 2010 Posted May 1, 2010 Must be nice to be entitled to your own facts.. Alright then Magox, please tell us what the prices are for oil in those nations? Of course our oil is cheaper than Venezuela. They use so much more technology to drill and they have much higher safety standards. I KNOW thier drillers get paid more than ours do. Ohhhhhhhh, that's right, overhead is meaningless in the case of crude. Stain on me.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 1, 2010 Posted May 1, 2010 Ween off is bull...we could create jobs, a cleaner environment, and put our nation back into the forefront of the energy game again...drilling offshore to ween ourselves off oil is stupid...we can just ween off using the same oil we're using for the same price without the environmental backlash...give me a break Some "moderate" you are.
Celtic_soulja Posted May 1, 2010 Posted May 1, 2010 Some "moderate" you are. How does being against oil for economic reasons make me...what am I liberal for that statement or conservative? Because I want to create jobs and money through technology? And it is bad to take money out of the middle east at this moment in time why? Oh, well at least we will be producing something worthwhile again. I'm sorry if I am too right wing for being so probusiness. And if I am too liberal for the statement my retort is: Is it a bad thing I want to create a cleaner environment? Using cleaner fuels? I don't see how these are bad things to do. Cap and Trade, now that's b*llshit
Magox Posted May 1, 2010 Posted May 1, 2010 How does being against oil for economic reasons make me...what am I liberal for that statement or conservative? Because I want to create jobs and money through technology? And it is bad to take money out of the middle east at this moment in time why? Oh, well at least we will be producing something worthwhile again. I'm sorry if I am too right wing for being so probusiness. And if I am too liberal for the statement my retort is: Is it a bad thing I want to create a cleaner environment? Using cleaner fuels? I don't see how these are bad things to do. Cap and Trade, now that's b*llshit Just for ***** and giggles, if you were the president of the U.S for the next 8 years, what would be your specific energy strategy? Would you ban all drilling immediately? What about existing wells? What requirements would you enforce and regulate on the automakers?
Celtic_soulja Posted May 1, 2010 Posted May 1, 2010 Just for ***** and giggles, if you were the president of the U.S for the next 8 years, what would be your specific energy strategy? Would you ban all drilling immediately? What about existing wells? What requirements would you enforce and regulate on the automakers? My personal opinion and what I would do as president are completely different. There is more responsibility that goes into being a president than being a poster or business guy. But I'll play along. No, I wouldn't ban drilling. I would give HUGE subsidies to GE and HUGE tax breaks or even credits to companies using our own clean technology for energy. I would give tax breaks to land developers that used clean energy technology. I would put drillers out of business the old fasion way, by subsidizing thier enemies. For the automakers, they can follow the market. That's good business. But when you get construction companies getting tax breaks for clean fuel, the demand for biodiesel would increase and the automakers, unless they are still so out of touch, should refocus. If we switch to ethenol fuel, the gas lines do not have to be completely changed over either. So cost of transition is not as large as people think. But until we can engineer it properly so that we can save money, it's not practical there yet. Biodiesel is practical and as I have said the modern diesel engines can already fire biodiesel. Again not hard to transition. Much more practical in production of biodiesel as well. Much of our energy consumption comes from the home anyhow and if we subsidized developers correctly we could change the future homes, as well as change over power plants by accepting and rejecting contracts from power companies. We could do plenty to change this nation rapidly enough to make a difference.
Magox Posted May 1, 2010 Posted May 1, 2010 No, I wouldn't ban drilling. I would give HUGE subsidies to GE and HUGE tax breaks or even credits to companies using our own clean technology for energy. I would give tax breaks to land developers that used clean energy technology. I would put drillers out of business the old fasion way, by subsidizing thier enemies They are already receiving huge subsidies. Just about any company that is moving forward with "green" technologies is getting some sort of tax break or subsidy. So that's already happening. If we switch to ethenol fuel, the gas lines do not have to be completely changed over either. So cost of transition is not as large as people think. But until we can engineer it properly so that we can save money, it's not practical there yet. Biodiesel is practical and as I have said the modern diesel engines can already fire biodiesel. Again not hard to transition. Much more practical in production of biodiesel as well. Ethanol in large quantities isn't just impractical but economically harmful for the world economy. Ethanol is largely made up of Corn here in the U.S, when corn demand goes up, so do it's prices, which in turn drags up the entire grains markets, which of course then drives the prices of beef and etc. With the decreased availability of these grains, it doesn't take much of a drought to make prices go through the roof. Sure the American consumer will be hurt with higher food prices, but not nearly as badly as emerging market economies such as China and India where an increase in food prices is much more harmful than it is here in the U.S, simply because food spending makes up a much higher % of their total overall income than it does here. In 2008, the increased demand of Corn, with the falling dollar combined with the 2007 Australian drought made prices go so high that there was rioting go on in many economies through out the world. And the last thing a young growing economy needs is civil disrest due to inflation. Inflation is a killer. So the idea of producing fuels from producst that are daily staples in our lives, in my view is a non starter. Much of our energy consumption comes from the home anyhow and if we subsidized developers correctly we could change the future homes, as well as change over power plants by accepting and rejecting contracts from power companies. We could do plenty to change this nation rapidly enough to make a difference. No one here dispustes the idea of a need to go looking for alternative energies, the question is how. Subsidizing and giving tax breaks to "green" companies is a good idea, and HAS already been implemented for a few years now. Rejecting power contracts? What does that mean?
Celtic_soulja Posted May 2, 2010 Posted May 2, 2010 They are already receiving huge subsidies. Just about any company that is moving forward with "green" technologies is getting some sort of tax break or subsidy. So that's already happening. Ethanol in large quantities isn't just impractical but economically harmful for the world economy. Ethanol is largely made up of Corn here in the U.S, when corn demand goes up, so do it's prices, which in turn drags up the entire grains markets, which of course then drives the prices of beef and etc. With the decreased availability of these grains, it doesn't take much of a drought to make prices go through the roof. Sure the American consumer will be hurt with higher food prices, but not nearly as badly as emerging market economies such as China and India where an increase in food prices is much more harmful than it is here in the U.S, simply because food spending makes up a much higher % of their total overall income than it does here. In 2008, the increased demand of Corn, with the falling dollar combined with the 2007 Australian drought made prices go so high that there was rioting go on in many economies through out the world. And the last thing a young growing economy needs is civil disrest due to inflation. Inflation is a killer. So the idea of producing fuels from producst that are daily staples in our lives, in my view is a non starter. No one here dispustes the idea of a need to go looking for alternative energies, the question is how. Subsidizing and giving tax breaks to "green" companies is a good idea, and HAS already been implemented for a few years now. Rejecting power contracts? What does that mean? Agreed about Ethanol being a bad economic idea. Biodiesel however can be made from orange peels and other biodegradable waste. I like that alot. Rejecting power contracts is that each power company of a given place has contracts. To any company without a viable changeover plan of action, you reject thier contract instead of letting them continue to run the way they are. This is more than likely outside of the realm of control of the president, but give states grants for taking the initiative the same way they did for the drinking laws and highway funds
Celtic_soulja Posted May 2, 2010 Posted May 2, 2010 Another thing I would definitely do is dump major funding into Nuclear research. As it stands now after usable power from Nuclear we leave more than 90% waste. There has to be major advances in Nuclear power. I believe that the ridiculous amounts of energy created can be more efficiently harnessed and put a MAJOR dent in how much power we have to get from coal mines and overseas. We just kinda gave up on Nuclear power because of the waste.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted May 2, 2010 Posted May 2, 2010 Environmentalists are wackos! There is obviously no such thing as an environment. Drill here! Spill Now!! Oh ya!! Come on, say it with me! USA! USA!! USA!!! USA!!!
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted May 2, 2010 Posted May 2, 2010 Just for ***** and giggles, if you were the president of the U.S for the next 8 years, what would be your specific energy strategy? Would you ban all drilling immediately? What about existing wells? What requirements would you enforce and regulate on the automakers? I'd start by slapping a $2.00 tax on every gallon of gasoline. That would be the best policy of all. Yes, excrement breaths like yourself would explode in anger, but you usually do when someone does the right thing
DC Tom Posted May 2, 2010 Posted May 2, 2010 If we switch to ethenol fuel, the gas lines do not have to be completely changed over either. So cost of transition is not as large as people think. But until we can engineer it properly so that we can save money, it's not practical there yet. Biodiesel is practical and as I have said the modern diesel engines can already fire biodiesel. Again not hard to transition. Much more practical in production of biodiesel as well. Uh...yeah we do. Ethanol is hydrophyllic, gasoline is not; the entire fuel distribution system would have to be rebuilt, just to dry it out. Even now, with ethanol in the "summer blend", there's serious seasonal disruption every spring when they have to take pipelines out of service and clean them. Plus, large-scale ethanol production carries with it a land-use cost that, if you scale up like you want, prohibits growing other things like...food. Same with biodiesel. And topsoil is not an unlimited resource - eventually, you lose the ability to grow your corn, or sugar beets, or whatever it is you're growing for biofuels. Really...learn something about a topic before posting on it. Another thing I would definitely do is dump major funding into Nuclear research. As it stands now after usable power from Nuclear we leave more than 90% waste. There has to be major advances in Nuclear power. I believe that the ridiculous amounts of energy created can be more efficiently harnessed and put a MAJOR dent in how much power we have to get from coal mines and overseas. We just kinda gave up on Nuclear power because of the waste. Are you suggesting that new laws of physics can be discovered that eliminate nuclear waste?
IDBillzFan Posted May 2, 2010 Posted May 2, 2010 I'd start by slapping a $2.00 tax on every gallon of gasoline. That would be the best policy of all. Yes, excrement breaths like yourself would explode in anger, but you usually do when someone does the right thing And precisely what would your $2/gallon tax accomplish that justifies it as the right thing?
Recommended Posts