Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 3/16/2005 10:46:25 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2005 10:47:01 AM EST by russr]
Ohhh... Noesssss!
=)






These caribou are obviously suicidal.



The bears obviously hate the pipeline.






Or they think it's a special bear walkway?



This owl is just crazy I think.



The locals scream to get these jobs away from us!
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:49:17 AM EST
Those pipelines are nice and warm.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 10:50:24 AM EST
DRILL ANWR!!!
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 11:09:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2005 11:11:56 AM EST by PeteCO]

Originally Posted By 20iner:
DRILL ANWR!!!





Including ANWR is the dumbest republican move I've seen yet.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 11:14:31 AM EST
Wasn't the pipe supplied by Japan?

vmax84
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 11:16:42 AM EST
Drill away and lay some pipe!
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 11:17:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By PeteCO:

Originally Posted By 20iner:
DRILL ANWR!!!





Including ANWR is the dumbest republican move I've seen yet.



Why?
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 11:19:52 AM EST
Nothign wrong withthe oil industry, once I am all healed up I am goign out on the rigs up North.... good honest work
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 11:20:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By 20iner:
DRILL ANWR!!!



+1
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 11:21:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By TacticalPenguin:
Nothign wrong withthe oil industry, once I am all healed up I am goign out on the rigs up North.... good honest work




and good honest money. very, very, very, very good money.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 11:23:39 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2005 11:28:23 AM EST by PeteCO]

Originally Posted By 20iner:

Originally Posted By PeteCO:

Originally Posted By 20iner:
DRILL ANWR!!!





Including ANWR is the dumbest republican move I've seen yet.



Why?



Well, there really isn't that much oil there to begin with.

With that in mind, drilling there is only going to piss off environmentalists, some of which are republican constituents, and it will energize the enemies of the repubs. As usual, the repub party is trying to be everything to everyone, while pissing off their core supporters and enraging their opponents. It's just poor politics, and will accelerate the pendulum swinging the other way (left).

The environmentalists have decided to make ANWR a line-in-the-sand type issue, yet the repubs are going after this resource anyway which will only make them look completely and totally anti-environment. What's worse is that they are probably only doing it to be spiteful. I am aware that the impact on the environment is very low, but the left see's this differently.

Why fuck with such a hot issue, over so little oil?

Most importantly, we should conserve our domestic oil resources for when the REAL oil crunch hits. I assure you that $2.50 per gallon gasoline is not it. But as usual, our government is only concerned with short term appeasement rather than a real solution, which is the same BS that has created, and perpetuated, this social security problem we have.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 11:24:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By PeteCO:

Originally Posted By 20iner:
DRILL ANWR!!!





Including ANWR is the dumbest republican move I've seen yet.



No smart... now that comment is dumb.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 11:25:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By PeteCO:

Originally Posted By 20iner:
DRILL ANWR!!!





Including ANWR is the dumbest republican move I've seen yet.



No smart... now that comment is dumb.


Read my post above.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 11:26:46 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2005 11:27:49 AM EST by deej86]
I don't know, but those red x's are pretty nice.
ETA-now I see the pics., The bears walking the pipe are hillarious.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 11:27:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By PeteCO:

Originally Posted By 20iner:

Originally Posted By PeteCO:

Originally Posted By 20iner:
DRILL ANWR!!!





Including ANWR is the dumbest republican move I've seen yet.



Why?



Well, there really isn't that much oil there to begin with.

With that in mind, drilling there is only going to piss off environmentalists, some of which are republican constituents, and it will energize the enemies of the repubs. As usual, the repub party is trying to be everything to everyone, whil pissing off their core supporters and enraging their opponents. It's just poor politics, and will accelrate the pendulum swinging the other way (left).

The environmentalists have decided to make ANWR a line-in-the-sand type issue, yet the repubs are going after this resource anyway which will only make them look completely and totally anti-environment. What's worse is that they are probably only doing it to be spiteful.

Why fuck with such a hot issue, over so little oil?

Most importantly, we should conserve our domestic oil resources for when the REAL oil crunch hits. I assure you that $2.50 per gallon gasoline is not it. But as usual, our government is only concerned with short term appeasement rather than a real solution, which is the same BS that has created, and perpetuated this social security problem we have.



Had my attention a little, till you brought up SS.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 11:27:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By PeteCO:

Originally Posted By 20iner:

Originally Posted By PeteCO:

Originally Posted By 20iner:
DRILL ANWR!!!





Including ANWR is the dumbest republican move I've seen yet.



Why?



Well, there really isn't that much oil there to begin with.

With that in mind, drilling there is only going to piss off environmentalists, some of which are republican constituents, and it will energize the enemies of the repubs. As usual, the repub party is trying to be everything to everyone, whil pissing off their core supporters and enraging their opponents. It's just poor politics, and will accelrate the pendulum swinging the other way (left).

The environmentalists have decided to make ANWR a line-in-the-sand type issue, yet the repubs are going after this resource anyway which will only make them look completely and totally anti-environment. What's worse is that they are probably only doing it to be spiteful.

Why fuck with such a hot issue, over so little oil?

Most importantly, we should conserve our domestic oil resources for when the REAL oil crunch hits. I assure you that $2.50 per gallon gasoline is not it. But as usual, our government is only concerned with short term appeasement rather than a real solution, which is the same BS that has created, and perpetuated this social security problem we have.




I think it's not the environmentalists persay, it's the fact that people like you think that we should avoid an issue because of the deal they make of it, even when they're completely wrong.

It's like not using your AR/MG/any evil rifle for home defense becuase you think a jury would convict you based on that fact, even when you're completely right.

Don't submit to their will.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 11:30:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By PeteCO:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By PeteCO:

Originally Posted By 20iner:
DRILL ANWR!!!





Including ANWR is the dumbest republican move I've seen yet.



No smart... now that comment is dumb.


Read my post above.



You are clearly wrong and have no understanding of the issue. Every point you make is incorrect.

There is no oil shortage never has been there is a lack of will to exploit the resource.

The American people support this, the people of Alaska support this, the local people support this. The only people opposed are OPEC and a small group of extremist and their toadies.

You are simply spouting simple minded leftist propaganda.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 11:32:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By 20iner:

Originally Posted By PeteCO:

Originally Posted By 20iner:

Originally Posted By PeteCO:

Originally Posted By 20iner:
DRILL ANWR!!!





Including ANWR is the dumbest republican move I've seen yet.



Why?



Well, there really isn't that much oil there to begin with.

With that in mind, drilling there is only going to piss off environmentalists, some of which are republican constituents, and it will energize the enemies of the repubs. As usual, the repub party is trying to be everything to everyone, whil pissing off their core supporters and enraging their opponents. It's just poor politics, and will accelrate the pendulum swinging the other way (left).

The environmentalists have decided to make ANWR a line-in-the-sand type issue, yet the repubs are going after this resource anyway which will only make them look completely and totally anti-environment. What's worse is that they are probably only doing it to be spiteful.

Why fuck with such a hot issue, over so little oil?

Most importantly, we should conserve our domestic oil resources for when the REAL oil crunch hits. I assure you that $2.50 per gallon gasoline is not it. But as usual, our government is only concerned with short term appeasement rather than a real solution, which is the same BS that has created, and perpetuated this social security problem we have.




I think it's not the environmentalists persay, it's the fact that people like you think that we should avoid an issue because of the deal they make of it, even when they're completely wrong.

It's like not using your AR/MG/any evil rifle for home defense becuase you think a jury would convict you based on that fact, even when you're completely right.

Don't submit to their will.



I'm not succumbing to their will. Again, it's dumb POLITICS. POLITICS don't make sense, but again, the PERCEPTION is that the republicans are being assholes. On a logical level it makes little sense either, as we need to conserve our resources until the big crunch hits. But, soccer moms are bitching about two dollar gas, so let's vote yes on this

There are many issues out there worth fighting a battle with the left over. This is not one of them. Since Bush has been talking about "political capital", I'll say that this was not his best purchase. He spent too much "political capital" for too little gain in oil.

We'd be MUCH, MUCH better off drilling off the coasts than in ANWR.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 11:36:00 AM EST
My $.02
there probably isn't enough oil there to justify the hassle with the people that oppose it.

why the hell drill in a wildlife REFUGE????

why not spend the money on fibding ALTERNATIVES??? instead of beating the dead horse of oil and internal combustion???
That technology is almost 100 years old..dirty and nasty. Is that the best we can do??
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 11:39:08 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2005 11:45:09 AM EST by PeteCO]

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By PeteCO:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By PeteCO:

Originally Posted By 20iner:
DRILL ANWR!!!





Including ANWR is the dumbest republican move I've seen yet.



No smart... now that comment is dumb.


Read my post above.



You are clearly wrong and have no understanding of the issue. Every point you make is incorrect.

There is no oil shortage never has been there is a lack of will to exploit the resource.

The American people support this, the people of Alaska support this, the local people support this. The only people opposed are OPEC and a small group of extremist and their toadies.

You are simply spouting simple minded leftist propaganda.



Dude, learn some reading comprehension, would ya? It's not about the oil, it's about the POLITICS involved. This was a piss poor battle to wage over something that gains us very little. Your invective over "sprouting simple minded leftist propganda" illustrates your lack of understanding of this topic.

As I said, we'd be much better off drilling offshore.

As far as this comment: "There is no oil shortage never has been there is a lack of will to exploit the resource." you could not be more wrong. There is drilling and exploration going on every day, especially in Russia and in the Gulf. The Saudi's biggest oil field, Ghawar, is in big trouble. They have resorted to using methods that are generally considered unhealthy for the field in order to pull oil out of it. It is in decline.

Oil is a finite resource. Presuming the adibiotic theory of oil production is correct, there is still some constant level at which oil can be extracted and we will not be able to exceed this rate once the big fields are sucked dry.

And once again, ANWR isn't a whole lot of oil to begin with.

The substantial tax credit Bush signed this year for bio-based fuels was a step in the right direction. This was not. Instead of looking into other energy sources, we spend time in gov't squabbling about things like ANWR.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 11:42:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By Only_Hits_Count:
My $.02
there probably isn't enough oil there to justify the hassle with the people that oppose it.

why the hell drill in a wildlife REFUGE????

why not spend the money on fibding ALTERNATIVES??? instead of beating the dead horse of oil and internal combustion???
That technology is almost 100 years old..dirty and nasty. Is that the best we can do??



BUNK

We are talking about drilling on 2000 acres out of 17 MILLION acres that compose ANWAR. OR approximately 0.0117% of the total acreage of ANWAR.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 11:48:36 AM EST
might as well face it- we all should be looking for alternates and at least attempting to use less- if for no other reason than to avoid sending or $ to the arabs.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 11:48:46 AM EST
If we caved in to the leftist toadies at environMENTAL.com, we wouldn't have any dams, any coal mines, any nuclear plants, any oil refineries, or any drilling sites.

That's why we don't placate them with ANWR. If we let them stop us from drilling in ANWR, they will try the same thing with drilling in any other location of the US. If we adhered to them, we'd have an Third World African economy and standard of living.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 11:49:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
BUNK

We are talking about drilling on 2000 acres out of 17 MILLION acres that compose ANWAR. OR approximately 0.0117% of the total acreage of ANWAR.


Actually, I heard it was more like "hundreds" of acres, not two thousand.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 11:49:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By PeteCO:
Dude, learn some reading comprehension, would ya? It's not about the oil, it's about the POLITICS involved. This was a piss poor battle to wage over something that gains us very little. Your invective over "sprouting simple minded leftist propganda" illustrates your lack of understanding of this topic.

As I said, we'd be much better off drilling offshore.

As far as this comment: "There is no oil shortage never has been there is a lack of will to exploit the resource." you could not be more wrong. There is drilling and exploration going on every day, especially in Russia and in the Gulf. The Saudi's biggest oil field, Ghawar, is in big trouble. They have resorted to using methods that are generally considered unhealthy for the field in order to pull oil out of it. It is in decline.

Oil is a finite resource. Presuming the adibiotic theory of oil production is correct, there is still some constant level at which oil can be extracted and we will not be able to exceed this rate once the big fields are sucked dry.

And once again, ANWR isn't a whole lot of oil to begin with.



DUDE learn some political comprehension….

The American people support this, the people of Alaska support this, the local people support this.

Only extremist and OPEC oppose it.

You simply full of beans this is a political plus for Republicans.

And despite the bunk there is no shortage of oil… never has been. Know oil reserves are at their highest level in history. I suspect if this were 1975 you would have been one of the numbskulls guaranteeing all oil would be exhausted before 2000. It was a lie then and it is a lie now.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 11:50:47 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2005 11:51:05 AM EST by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
BUNK

We are talking about drilling on 2000 acres out of 17 MILLION acres that compose ANWAR. OR approximately 0.0117% of the total acreage of ANWAR.


Actually, I heard it was more like "hundreds" of acres, not two thousand.



2000 is the max allowed but the likely end number will likely be far less that 2000.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 11:54:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
If we caved in to the leftist toadies at environMENTAL.com, we wouldn't have any dams, any coal mines, any nuclear plants, any oil refineries, or any drilling sites.

That's why we don't placate them with ANWR. If we let them stop us from drilling in ANWR, they will try the same thing with drilling in any other location of the US. If we adhered to them, we'd have an Third World African economy and standard of living.



Holy living dogshit, I never said that we should suck their dicks and do whatever they say. I said that this was a piss poor thing to battle over. And it was. Why not spend that "political capital™ " for drilling offshore in the Atlantic and Pacific?

The lefties have their problems, for sure, and we are all aware of them (so I won't go into them). But too many on the right have this mythical belief that oil is infinite, it will last forever, blah blah blah.

Why in the hell would you NOT explore alternative energy resources? Nothing but good can come from reducing U.S. dependence on petroleum. Many on the left ascribe this to some evil right wing conspiracy that the evil oil companies control.

I ascribe it to idiocy. As we have seen with the gun debate, politicians are as unable to develop a grasp of any technical subject matter as my dog.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 11:57:54 AM EST
The Dems over on DU are just LOSING it. It's almost llike November 3rd all over again. I'm going to get some popcorn and go back in
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 12:00:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By PeteCO:
Dude, learn some reading comprehension, would ya? It's not about the oil, it's about the POLITICS involved. This was a piss poor battle to wage over something that gains us very little. Your invective over "sprouting simple minded leftist propganda" illustrates your lack of understanding of this topic.

As I said, we'd be much better off drilling offshore.

As far as this comment: "There is no oil shortage never has been there is a lack of will to exploit the resource." you could not be more wrong. There is drilling and exploration going on every day, especially in Russia and in the Gulf. The Saudi's biggest oil field, Ghawar, is in big trouble. They have resorted to using methods that are generally considered unhealthy for the field in order to pull oil out of it. It is in decline.

Oil is a finite resource. Presuming the adibiotic theory of oil production is correct, there is still some constant level at which oil can be extracted and we will not be able to exceed this rate once the big fields are sucked dry.

And once again, ANWR isn't a whole lot of oil to begin with.



DUDE learn some political comprehension….

The American people support this, the people of Alaska support this, the local people support this.

Only extremist and OPEC oppose it.

You simply full of beans this is a political plus for Republicans.

And despite the bunk there is no shortage of oil… never has been. Know oil reserves are at their highest level in history. I suspect if this were 1975 you would have been one of the numbskulls guaranteeing all oil would be exhausted before 2000. It was a lie then and it is a lie now.



Bullshit. Figures on "proved" reserves change like my underwear. Have you bothered to look at what the Saudi's have come up with for reserves? That figure changes with the price of oil.

If the rising cost of gasoline is only due to demand, why not simply drill all over the place (not just in ANWR)? Fuck, I want 60 cent a gallon gasoline, you would think that in a capitalist society someone would jump in with cheap gas and cause prices to drop, eh?

You have no grasp of this subject other that to say "Bunk" and "there is no shortage of oil" over and over again. Who's the one sprouting propaganda?
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 12:00:50 PM EST
TEN Billion barrels of oil "isn't that much" - ???

Estimated oil reserves


Drill it.

Now.

CMOS

Link Posted: 3/16/2005 12:02:00 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2005 12:05:45 PM EST by PeteCO]

Originally Posted By CMOS:
TEN Billion barrels of oil "isn't that much" - ???

Estimated oil reserves


Drill it.

Now.

CMOS


That is correct.

I can't even believe I am saying this, but I actually agree with Skerry on this:
"Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., argued that more oil would be saved if Congress enacted an energy policy focusing on conservation, more efficient cars and trucks and increased reliance on renewable fuels and expanded oil development in the deep-water Gulf where there are significant reserves."

Although I disagree with him on this:
""The fact is (drilling in ANWR) is going to be destructive," said Kerry"
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 12:04:21 PM EST
Only about 15% of oil is used for fuel! If all cars went away we still need the oil to make half the crap we use. Finding alternative fuels is a great idea but won't solve the problem.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 12:05:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By PeteCO:

Originally Posted By CMOS:
TEN Billion barrels of oil "isn't that much" - ???

Estimated oil reserves


Drill it.

Now.

CMOS


That is correct.
About 6 weeks of US consumption IIRC.



YES, if that was all we consumed for 6 weeks, but the fact is, get enough so that you can push the marginal cost down, and save BILLIONS of dollars.

It's a fucking ignorant environmantalists idiotic argument.

goddamn commie

txl
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 12:07:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2005 12:11:53 PM EST by PeteCO]
Gee, now I'm a commie.

Nothing but invective and bullshit guys. How about some actual facts?

Google all you want to. You see, I am a republican, business owner, non-commie capitalist, who works in this field. I understand that the enviros, while quite wacky at times (read some my other posts) are not 100% full of shit.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 12:09:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By sp1shooter:
Only about 15% of oil is used for fuel! If all cars went away we still need the oil to make half the crap we use. Finding alternative fuels is a great idea but won't solve the problem.



Alternative fuels that are out there are often in the form of high-hydrocrabon content oils. We could make more than fuels with them.

BTW, a 15% reduction in our usage would be enough to tell the middle east to piss up a rope, without affecting prices.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 12:09:48 PM EST
When drilling in ANWR screws up the whole place, what excuse will be used to justify the claims that only 2000 acres will be affected?

Link Posted: 3/16/2005 12:12:03 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2005 12:14:05 PM EST by nightstalker]

Originally Posted By PeteCO:
Why in the hell would you NOT explore alternative energy resources? Nothing but good can come from reducing U.S. dependence on petroleum. Many on the left ascribe this to some evil right wing conspiracy that the evil oil companies control.

I ascribe it to idiocy. As we have seen with the gun debate, politicians are as unable to develop a grasp of any technical subject matter as my dog.



The same people that oppose ANWR drilling oppose nuclear, coal and hydroelectric. Some even oppose wind power (do it for the birds). Did I leave out the ugly pipelines for natural gas. Hell will freeze over before some people (the ones you're worried about) can accept anything except their beloved solar or "fuel cells".

Now if government started to subsidize the best nuclear technology I'd MAYBE say let ANWR go, but so far you're not offering any REAL WORLD ALTERNATIVES, just appeasing the lunatics. Wind, solar and fuel cells aren't gonna cut it.

ETA drilling in the oceans is not really more palatable to the enviowackos than ANWR.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 12:15:37 PM EST

Originally Posted By CMOS:
TEN Billion barrels of oil "isn't that much" - ???

Estimated oil reserves


Drill it.

Now.

CMOS




from the article..
The oil industry has sought for more than two decades to get access to what is believed to be billions of barrels of oil...

The Alaska refuge could supply as much as 1 million barrels day at peak production, drilling supporters said. But they acknowledge that even if ANWR's oil is tapped, it would have no impact on soaring oil prices and tight supplies. The first lease sales would not be issued until 2007, followed by development seven to 10 years later, Interior Secretary Gale Norton said.


still sounds iffy at best... better ways to spend the money / political capital.

Link Posted: 3/16/2005 12:19:23 PM EST
Fellas, you need to understand something here. All this blabber about making vehicles more fuel efficient so we can cut down on emissions and use less energy (oil) in the process IS HORSESHIT.

We all know this. If somebody has a vehicle that gets 25mpg now and you give them a new vehicle that gets 50mpg, THAT PERSON IS GOING TO DRIVE TWICE AS MUCH.

YOU would. I would. WE ALL would. Conservation is a nice ideal, but it's also just an excuse to USE MORE.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 12:26:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2005 12:30:49 PM EST by PeteCO]

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Fellas, you need to understand something here. All this blabber about making vehicles more fuel efficient so we can cut down on emissions and use less energy (oil) in the process IS HORSESHIT.

We all know this. If somebody has a vehicle that gets 25mpg now and you give them a new vehicle that gets 50mpg, THAT PERSON IS GOING TO DRIVE TWICE AS MUCH.

YOU would. I would. WE ALL would. Conservation is a nice ideal, but it's also just an excuse to USE MORE.



I think that's true to some extent, but mostly an over-estimation. In the not-too distant past, I was single and making enough money where I honestly did not care how much I spent on gas. I drove a 1997 Tahoe at the time, which got about 11mpg (about 3 less than average, due to my driving habits). My driving habits were no different then, than they are now.

I have a 2002 Tahoe and a 2005 Pontiac G6. I average 23mpg with the Pontiac, and 15mpg with the Tahoe. Not a huge difference, I'll admit. I don't remember what my wife's car gets. The Tahoe gets driven more because it is a FFV, and I put 85% ethanol in it.

My wife drives to and from work, and goes shopping on weekends. Whether she drives a Suburban with a 454 getting 8mpg or a 50mpg VW Jetta makes no difference to her. All she knows is that about every week and a half, she fills up.

I do wonder how high gas would have to get for people to take the bus instead of drive to work, etc?

Blue Sun sells virgin biodiesel 100 for about $2.65 IIRC
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 12:30:32 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2005 12:31:16 PM EST by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Fellas, you need to understand something here. All this blabber about making vehicles more fuel efficient so we can cut down on emissions and use less energy (oil) in the process IS HORSESHIT.

We all know this. If somebody has a vehicle that gets 25mpg now and you give them a new vehicle that gets 50mpg, THAT PERSON IS GOING TO DRIVE TWICE AS MUCH.

YOU would. I would. WE ALL would. Conservation is a nice ideal, but it's also just an excuse to USE MORE.



Largely true. But making a more efficient car does result in less pollution per mile.

But there is also the myths of alternative fuel…

Take the hydrogen fuel cell for instance. While a hydrogen fuel cell car will not produce much in the way of pollutants, making the hydrogen to burn in that fuel cell will. It takes huge amounts of energy to make hydrogen and it is very likely that making hydrogen to burn in fuel cell cars will expend more energy and make more pollution that burning oil to begin with. But the simple fact is most of the hydrogen made will be made by burning oil.

Unless of course the environmental nuts want to built a lot of Nuke plants… which ain’t going to happen.

We are going to need oil for a very long time… Good thing the supply is there and plentiful if we have the will to use it. Less than 5% of the earths surface has ever been explored for oil and if we need there is at least a 400 year supply of oil in know coal reserves.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 12:30:59 PM EST
Why would the oil industry want to drill in ANWR so much if there "wasnt that much oil there"?

They are in business to make money, most of us are, so I do not buy this lack of oil in ANWR crap.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 12:32:19 PM EST
If the price of diesel was $.99 like it was five years ago, I'd be driving twice as much as I am now.

If my truck, which gets 15mpg around town (20-22mpg hwy) was replaced by an identical truck that got 30mpg around town, I can tell you without hesitation that I'd be driving twice as much. Add in the extra wear and tear of more miles driven (and more wear on our roads), and I'm confident in telling you that fuel economy isn't going to do jack shit for the environment in the long run.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 12:32:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2005 12:37:50 PM EST by PeteCO]
Agreed. The "Hydrogen Economy" relies on a fountainhead source of energy. Think of hydrogen as a battery. It stores energy made elsewhere, and then you put it in your hydrogenmobile, and burn it. There is an efficiency hit, since the 2nd law of thermodynamics exists. I'd think that nuclear would be the best source for this hydrogen economy.

Actual hydrocarbon biofuels are a much better solution, in the nearer term. I run biodiesel in our truck, and E85 (85% ethanol) in my Tahoe. Both result in much less pollution than petroleum fuels. Plus, my exhaust smells weird.....
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 12:32:59 PM EST
I agree w/ PeteCO when he says we should start drilling in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico for more oil. That being said, when it comes to ANWR...


ALL YOUR OILS ARE BELONGS TO US!!!
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 12:35:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Largely true. But making a more efficient car does result in less pollution per mile.


But in the real world, if people are driving twice as much, the net result is exactly the same.

That's what we are looking for, right? A net improvement? Economy won't achieve that. It can't. People will take advantage of the better economy and drive MORE.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 12:35:47 PM EST
Man,

I just went over to DU for the first time in my life. OMG Those folks are the most alarmist, extremist, the sky is falling, bunch of miserable people I have ever seen! Un frickin believable. I don't know how they get through the day without stroking out. They are ape shit over the ANWR thing. And they are still singing the praises of Skerry. Jeesh, he lost, move on!

It would be entertaining if it weren't scary that they can 1) have children, 2) drive, 3) vote.
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 12:40:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2005 12:42:00 PM EST by Win_88]

Originally Posted By PeteCO:
Agreed. The "Hydrogen Economy" relies on a fountainhead source of energy. Think of hydrogen as a battery. It stores energy made elsewhere, and then you put it in your hydrogenmobile, and burn it. There is an efficiency hit, since the 2nd law of thermodynamics exists. I'd think that nuclear would be the best source for this hydrogen economy.

Actual hydrocarbon biofuels are a much better solution. I run biodiesel in our truck, and E85 (85% ethanol) in my Tahoe.



OK.. Who can afford all these new enviroment friendly vehicles?
Cost of new cars, and truckes are getting out of hand. Now people want to shove these cars down our throats..

DRILL ANWR!!!
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 12:41:20 PM EST
Another problem with alternative fuel sources is that the govt will come along and find a way to tax the shit out of it making it undesirable. Just look at the proposed "by the mile" tax in California (I think) to combat the increasing "problem" of these hybrid cars not paying their gas tax.

I agree with PeteCo that there are too many people who believe there is an unlimited supply of oil buried under the planet's crust. But at the same time the enviro-whackos that are screaming the well's about to run dry are running around from protest to protest in their Expeditions and Land Rovers. My point being that they don't even believe their own drivel, but want to feel good about themselves that they've "made a difference".

In my uninformed opinion, the problem isn't whether there is enough oil. There should be plenty for a while and we should continue to explore alternative sources. The problem is where the oil comes from and getting dicked at the pump because they have too much control over the prices and production. We need to look towards becoming more domestically dependent and not worry about spotted owls or itchy-algae. I believe that if you can find a barrel of oil buried under a caribou stick a pipe in it and suck it out. If not, one day we really will be going to war for oil.

LL
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 12:47:21 PM EST
PeteCO Exactly want area of the industry are you in? And how do you know how much or how little oil is there?

Arowneragain How well it screw up the whole place?

Have any of you been there, or been to Prudhoe Bay?
As I type this I am sitting in my office at Prudhoe, West ops. Been working up here for years. Most people have absolutely no clue the positive impact this place has on the US economy, or the wildlife around here. It pisses me off when people from CA, TN, MI or any where else tell Alaskans how we should run our state. I will admit big oil Companies are not perfect, but neither are environmentalists. If it wasn’t for oil companies sponsoring many of the environmental impact studies that constantly go on up here, biologist would have little clue as to what is happening in the Arctic, as far as Polar Bears, Migartory Birds, Caribou, or the ice packs, oil development caused or not. BTW we saw a Polar Bear Monday evening. They are awesome!!
Link Posted: 3/16/2005 12:48:23 PM EST
<Rant/on>
You want to see oil/gas prices go down? Here is a three point plan and it is simple.
1>Drill ANWR and for oil in any other location you can find it in the continental US, Territories and Territorial Waters. Make it easlier for companies to construct the refineries needed to convert the crude oil to the products, (this is a big botle neck now) this country needs to maintain and expand our economy.
2>Build nuclear power plants. Lots of fossil fuels are burned to generate electricity and there hasn't been a new Nuke plant licensed int he US since the early 1980s.
3>Develop clean burning coal technology and build coal fired power plants.

These simple policies will reduce americas reliance on foreign oil resulting in lower demand/lower prices.

Just my 2 cents
<rant/off>
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top