Sketch Soland Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 I'm just hoping that the Saudis stop drilling - because for far too long - they have been hurting the habitat of the Arabian sand flea. How their Senators and Representatives get re-elected without bending over for the Green vote, I will never understand... The ARABIAN SAND FLEA will be HEARD!
Chilly Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 So today our House of Representatives passes a bill to sue OPEC countries that are "limiting oil supply". WTF! I'm sure it has nothing to do with our weak dollar and the fact that we are consuming like crack fiends. Think about this- they have the oil, we are addicted to it (as are other countries) and so they are able to charge more. If Sam the crack fiend wants his drugs, but Habib and Bruce Lee are also becoming addicted and have more cash to spend, he can raise his prices. This election year posturing is too much. What our Congress needs to do is stop mortgaging our future by slowing spending. The blame everyone else first line of defense is getting old. We as a nation are being forced to lie in the sh------- bed that we made for ourselves. Yet, these assclown's aren't willing to discuss solutions, they just want to be able to blame and sue someone. Fuggin lawyers... When the !@#$ are we going to wake up? Wait, I thought you were supporting McCain.
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 So today our House of Representatives passes a bill to sue OPEC countries that are "limiting oil supply". WTF! I'm sure it has nothing to do with our weak dollar and the fact that we are consuming like crack fiends. Think about this- they have the oil, we are addicted to it (as are other countries) and so they are able to charge more. If Sam the crack fiend wants his drugs, but Habib and Bruce Lee are also becoming addicted and have more cash to spend, he can raise his prices. This election year posturing is too much. What our Congress needs to do is stop mortgaging our future by slowing spending. The blame everyone else first line of defense is getting old. We as a nation are being forced to lie in the sh------- bed that we made for ourselves. Yet, these assclown's aren't willing to discuss solutions, they just want to be able to blame and sue someone. Fuggin lawyers... When the !@#$ are we going to wake up? good points maybe if we get the heck out of Iraq and stop spending a few hundred billion a year on that money sinkhole, we can begin to get spending undercontrol
yall Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 Wait, I thought you were supporting McCain. Is supporting McCain mutually exclusive to wanting foreign oil independence or alternative energy sources? I'm guessing he has the same standard Republican ties to big oil, but even hardline right-wingers are starting to come around to the notion that we need to start doing business differently if we wish to survive.
Chilly Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 Is supporting McCain mutually exclusive to wanting foreign oil independence or alternative energy sources? I'm guessing he has the same standard Republican ties to big oil, but even hardline right-wingers are starting to come around to the notion that we need to start doing business differently if we wish to survive. I was referring to this line: "What our Congress needs to do is stop mortgaging our future by slowing spending. "
SD Jarhead Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 Wait, I thought you were supporting McCain. At this point, I will probably vote for McCain, but if he continues to push such 'great' ideas as the gas tax holiday, I may have a difficult time pulling the lever. I do believe that McCain will be able to reach across party lines much more so than Obama will to get things accomplished. He has a proven track record of doing so, hence his "Maverick" title. As I've opined here before, conservatives better wake up and smell the coffee about conservation. Just because someone believes in conservation doesn't mean they're a hippie. But GW got it right this past weekend when he said that the people here screaming the loudest about gas and energy prices are the ones who are standing in the way of allowing us to become less dependent on foreign sources for our crack, er, oil. Why the fug not open up ANWR? Why not start designing and building nuke power plants? It's not a total solution, but at least it's a start. While I believe in the freedom to drive a huge SUV if you want to, I can't stand the arrogant boasting from many on the right about it being our God-given right to do so. I was listening to an interview yesterday on the Michael Medved show of Fareed Zakhara (spelling?) and he brought up a good point about politics today and why our nation is so fukked up. He mentioned how back during the Reagan Presidency there was much more cooperation on key issues. Reagan and Tip O'Neal (again sp?) worked together on key issues like tax reform. We just don't see that today in the toxic political environment we have.
Chilly Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 At this point, I will probably vote for McCain, but if he continues to push such 'great' ideas as the gas tax holiday, I may have a difficult time pulling the lever. I do believe that McCain will be able to reach across party lines much more so than Obama will to get things accomplished. He has a proven track record of doing so, hence his "Maverick" title. As I've opined here before, conservatives better wake up and smell the coffee about conservation. Just because someone believes in conservation doesn't mean they're a hippie. But GW got it right this past weekend when he said that the people here screaming the loudest about gas and energy prices are the ones who are standing in the way of allowing us to become less dependent on foreign sources for our crack, er, oil. Why the fug not open up ANWR? Why not start designing and building nuke power plants? It's not a total solution, but at least it's a start. While I believe in the freedom to drive a huge SUV if you want to, I can't stand the arrogant boasting from many on the right about it being our God-given right to do so. I was listening to an interview yesterday on the Michael Medved show of Fareed Zakhara (spelling?) and he brought up a good point about politics today and why our nation is so fukked up. He mentioned how back during the Reagan Presidency there was much more cooperation on key issues. Reagan and Tip O'Neal (again sp?) worked together on key issues like tax reform. We just don't see that today in the toxic political environment we have. As far as ANWAR [sic], from everything I've read, it won't make any impact on prices whatsoever, and there is hardly enough oil there to sustain us for very long.
stuckincincy Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 (edited) As far as ANWAR [sic], from everything I've read, it won't make any impact on prices whatsoever, and there is hardly enough oil there to sustain us for very long. What do you base that on? BTW - this has begun - the Chinese are starting drilling operations for the Cubans in the Gulf of Mexico. Nice, eh? http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/09/news/econo..._cuba/index.htm Edited May 21, 2008 by stuckincincy
Chilly Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 what do you base that on? A study that I read in one of my classes (don't have a link - was in a packet).
SD Jarhead Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 As far as ANWAR [sic], from everything I've read, it won't make any impact on prices whatsoever, and there is hardly enough oil there to sustain us for very long. So we shouldn't do it at all? Should we just say the hell with it? I don't get that logic. The whole Carribou argument is pure BS from the enviro-nazis.
Chilly Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 So we shouldn't do it at all? Should we just say the hell with it? I don't get that logic. The whole Carribou argument is pure BS from the enviro-nazis. Basically, yes. If we aren't really going to get any benefits out of it, why do it?
SD Jarhead Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 Agreed, if there were suspected to be no benefits. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2002/fs045-02/
Chilly Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 Yes, I'm aware of their estimates that there would be a couple billion barrels of oil at a cheaper cost. Without the impact to overall costs, nor the ability to sustain us very far, whats the benefit?
SD Jarhead Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 I think the benefit is obvious, it's less than we would need to get from overseas sources. Additionally, it would take ~9 years to even see the first drop. My question to you is what is the cost? Surely we're never going to gain total energy independence from solar energy, so why even do it...right? That's how I read your response. Why are you so against tapping domestic resources? Aren't you someone who wants us out of Iraq and the Gulf? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Sketch Soland Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 I think the benefit is obvious, it's less than we would need to get from overseas sources. Additionally, it would take ~9 years to even see the first drop. My question to you is what is the cost? Surely we're never going to gain total energy independence from solar energy, so why even do it...right? That's how I read your response. Why are you so against tapping domestic resources? Aren't you someone who wants us out of Iraq and the Gulf? You can't have your cake and eat it too. It does not logically follow that IF someone wants us out of Iraq, THEN they MUST support the drilling you speak of. One can be a proponent of either option without necessitating the other. No matter how much oil is down there domestically, the strategic vector that will lead us to greater energy independence will not flow through domestic drilling. That is obvious. Domestic drilling is a band-aid for a severed limb.
Alaska Darin Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 Yes, I'm aware of their estimates that there would be a couple billion barrels of oil at a cheaper cost. Without the impact to overall costs, nor the ability to sustain us very far, whats the benefit? Jobs.
Chilly Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 It does not logically follow that IF someone wants us out of Iraq, THEN they MUST support the drilling you speak of. One can be a proponent of either option without necessitating the other. No matter how much oil is down there domestically, the strategic vector that will lead us to greater energy independence will not flow through domestic drilling. That is obvious. Domestic drilling is a band-aid for a severed limb. ^^ - Pretty much how I feel about it. I would think that there is going to be a ton of money involved in just getting the infrastructure up and running, and that much of this cost is going to be handled by the government. I know that there have been fights about budget proposals in previous years due to ANWR, and that it was included in there somewhere (though I'm not sure what the actual costs would add up to). With it not being a long-term solution, not really fixing much of anything, whats the point of spending the money? I also think both sides' positions on the environmental issues is likely way overstated (that it would completely kill the environment for the left, and that it wouldn't have any impact from some of the people that are supporting it). Jobs. It would definitely be a boost for Alaska. However, is that your reason for supporting the drilling? I thought you weren't a big fan of government spending money to create jobs.
SD Jarhead Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 It does not logically follow that IF someone wants us out of Iraq, THEN they MUST support the drilling you speak of. One can be a proponent of either option without necessitating the other. No matter how much oil is down there domestically, the strategic vector that will lead us to greater energy independence will not flow through domestic drilling. That is obvious. Domestic drilling is a band-aid for a severed limb. I agree with you that if you feel one way about Iraq then you must be against drilling in ANWR, but most people I'm familiar with who want us out of there do not support drilling because of party dogma . Using your analogy, then what is the answer for reattaching the limb? Certainly there isn't a single solution, I've never suggested that. But tell me why so many are not in favor of at least developing that area. Because of the Caribou? Give me a fuggin break! Many have picked up the Democratic talking point and have no idea why.
Sketch Soland Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 I agree with you that they are not mutually exclusive, but most people I'm familiar with who want us out of there do not support drilling in ANWR because of idealogical dogma . Using your analogy, then what is the answer for reattaching the limb? Certainly there isn't a single solution, I've never suggested that. But tell me why so many are not in favor of at least developing that area. Because of the Caribou? Give me a fuggin break! Many have picked up the Democratic talking point and have no idea why. Why many are not in favor, it seems, is because the cost of getting the oil out will not be worth the amount that seems to be available. Couple this questionable cost/benefit economic analysis with "environmental concerns" (whatever those are, specifically, I'm not sure) and you have a recipe for political DOA. As to the answer for reattaching the limb: there, of course, is not one magic cure-all answer. But the strategic thrust of developing energy independence must be in developing new energy sources that could eventually replace oil. Of course, even if one is developed overnight, that's not going to change things on the short term. But the reality is is that we are up sh-- creek without a paddle in the short term when it comes to oil prices. Nothing much is going to change that, other than an unexpected and sudden drastic reduction in demand.
Recommended Posts