RE: 60 Million gallons of gas to be released

RE: 60 Million gallons of gas to be released (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Sanity -> RE: 60 Million gallons of gas to be released (7/2/2011 1:09:12 PM)
Hmmm The first article is from 2003, all the Dems voted against it, defeated it by demonizing Republicans (and George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as horrible awful oilmen) They got two Republicans to vote against affordable energy in that bill... And it takes 5 - 10 years to bring it online... Hang on a sec, doing the math here...

Sanity -> RE: 60 Million gallons of gas to be released (7/2/2011 1:19:13 PM)
Its a lie that Obama and the Dems have "only' been holding us back from recovering oil from ANWR, but many here already know that... http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3649494 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3588955 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3645317 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3667554 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3689185 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=2251065 ...as they were a party to the threads discussing that very subject in the not-so-distant past.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: 60 Million gallons of gas to be released (7/2/2011 1:20:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl One? http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/20/politics/20DRIL.html WASHINGTON, March 19 — The Senate narrowly voted against drilling for oil in the Alaskan wildlife refuge today, dealing a crippling blow to the central element of the Bush administration's energy plan. The vote, 52 to 48, came after the hardest-fought lobbying campaign yet in the Congressional session, setting environmental groups, who said oil production would destroy an unspoiled wilderness, against Alaskan business interests, who said the oil was necessary for jobs and energy independence. Until the final moments, neither side was certain of victory, and the decision came down to two Republicans — Senators Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Gordon H. Smith of Oregon — whose opposition to drilling was not final until the floor vote. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/26/washington/26energy.html By MICHAEL JANOFSKY Published: May 26, 2006 WASHINGTON, May 25 — With gasoline prices around $3 a gallon as the Memorial Day weekend approaches, the House again voted Thursday to approve drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It was at least the 12th time that the House had voted to allow energy exploration in a small piece of the preserve's 19 million acres along the northern coastal plain of Alaska. The final tally was 225 to 201, with 27 Democrats joining the majority and 30 Republicans voting against. You claim republicans want more drilling, and yet in the last article they are voting against it. Be honest, they want deep water drilling... and only that. Your selective quotes would do Michael Moore proud. 2003...a whopping 8 "Rs" voted against, but somehow they are the ones that defeated it. And who were in the 8? Chaffee, Snowe and Collins. 2006...uhhhh, it was passed. You do realize that different states have different interests, right?

Sanity -> RE: 60 Million gallons of gas to be released (7/2/2011 1:36:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery We aren't going to develop vast new sources in the U.S. just yet. Why would we? World oil is much cheaper. When oil prices in time climb, then extracting all that oil from harder to reach and through more expensive processes will be economical. We'll also have a larger share of the world marker (unless other untapped sources are then tapped as well). They why release oil from the strategic reserve? High energy costs are driving the trade imbalance up and driving the economy down. How long should we wait, how bad do things have to be before we access some of the proven vast carbon based fuel reserves that were sitting on

Musicmystery -> RE: 60 Million gallons of gas to be released (7/2/2011 1:39:32 PM)
Why indeed. It was a short term confidence booster. Nothing more. The real factor in the price decline is China's slowed growth. But, if the short term boost gets things moving, a quick and cheap solution.

Sanity -> RE: 60 Million gallons of gas to be released (7/2/2011 1:47:07 PM)
The Chinese are smart, theyre doing all they possibly can to secure their long and short term energy needs While we flounder around like a fish out of water

Musicmystery -> RE: 60 Million gallons of gas to be released (7/2/2011 1:54:11 PM)
Well, we keep pursuing short term goals. Imagine where we'd be with the programs we started in the 70s, had they not been cancelled in 1981....stuff we're just discussing now, as if it were new.

Sanity -> RE: 60 Million gallons of gas to be released (7/2/2011 1:59:28 PM)
Because those pipe dreams werent realistic, economically they were never feasible. Anything that is feasible is being used, from bicycles to geothermal to wind and solar, but there are certain things that carbon based fuels do better and we cant afford to mislead (heavy emphasis on mislead) ourselves into believing otherwise

Musicmystery -> RE: 60 Million gallons of gas to be released (7/2/2011 2:05:01 PM)
Nonsense. There are entire industries around them today. Hell, my new home design doesn't need oil at all. In fact, it barely needs heat at all. A small windmill easily produces an electricity surplus. In an era of rapidly rising rates, what's not to like? My entire yard is lit with solar lights that cost a couple dollars each. The only holdback is an entrenched petrochemicals industry. Also in the 70s, an entrenched auto industry did what it felt was feasible, going for short term cash in a high interest rate environment. So instead, Sweden, Germany, and Japan invested in building those unfeasible cars--and took over much of the market. Had the Big Three done this themselves, no one would have caught up with them, and Detroit would be selling cars to the world, instead of vice versa.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: 60 Million gallons of gas to be released (7/2/2011 2:07:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Nonsense. There are entire industries around them today. Hell, my new home design doesn't need oil at all. In fact, it barely needs heat at all. A small windmill easily produces an electricity surplus. In an era of rapidly rising rates, what's not to like? My entire yard is lit with solar lights that cost a couple dollars each. The only holdback is an entrenched petrochemicals industry. The "entrenched" petrochemicals industry has plenty of resources to invest in "green" technology, which is the only threat to their profits. They arent investing in windmills or solar. Know why? T Boone invested in windmills and lost one of his socks. Know why?

Musicmystery -> RE: 60 Million gallons of gas to be released (7/2/2011 2:12:28 PM)
I live near several commercial windmills, and know several people holding leases. Each windmill costs half a million--and pays for itself every six months. So they're investing in more of them. Know why? Home windmills aren't as common, but the dozen people I know who have them swear by them. These, I'll grant, are more of a long term investment. But as electricity rates climb...the time gets shorter. Petrochemicals are invested in large commercial farms. Guess why.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: 60 Million gallons of gas to be released (7/2/2011 2:30:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I live near several commercial windmills, and know several people holding leases. Each windmill costs half a million--and pays for itself every six months. So they're investing in more of them. Know why? Home windmills aren't as common, but the dozen people I know who have them swear by them. These, I'll grant, are more of a long term investment. But as electricity rates climb...the time gets shorter. Petrochemicals are invested in large commercial farms. Guess why. Yea they are invested in windmills for the tax breaks. Know why tax breaks are necessary? Frankly, I dont believe your six months even with the tax breaks.

Musicmystery -> RE: 60 Million gallons of gas to be released (7/2/2011 2:39:00 PM)
There's a new design I haven't seen yet...it's a giant upside down parabolic funnel. Solar heats the sides, both generating electricity and forcing hot air up to turn a turbine inside (i.e., no external propellers), generating additional electricity without the need for wind.

DomKen -> RE: 60 Million gallons of gas to be released (7/3/2011 8:06:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Your original point is indefensible as well, the mere act of drilling for oil does not "destroy the environment" Another data point, near to you no less, against your claim. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14005251

SternSkipper -> RE: 60 Million gallons of gas to be released (7/3/2011 9:00:12 PM)
quote: I think it was done to get some of the oil speculators out of the market - they are the ones who have been driving the price of oil up through the roof. Right on the money. It was a well planned economic hit on the speculators. Ray Learsy knows more about oil and it's pricing than anyone you'll find lurking on any board on the internet and he called a a success. This corner pointed out time and again that the SPR was a powerful tool unused and abused by the administration. That a release from the SPR, no matter its dimension, would send the oil speculators to the hills. And so it came to pass. Today the administration announced the release of 30 million bbls of oil, less than two days of U.S. consumption and the price immediately collapsed by near $5 a barrel. With U.S. consumption running near 20 million bbls/day that's a reduction of $100,000,000/day going from the pockets of American consumers into the sticky hands of oil interests.

Sanity -> RE: 60 Million gallons of gas to be released (7/3/2011 10:42:12 PM)
Are you arguing that the environment was "destroyed" there, forever? quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Your original point is indefensible as well, the mere act of drilling for oil does not "destroy the environment" Another data point, near to you no less, against your claim. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14005251

DomKen -> RE: 60 Million gallons of gas to be released (7/4/2011 9:17:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Are you arguing that the environment was "destroyed" there, forever? quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Your original point is indefensible as well, the mere act of drilling for oil does not "destroy the environment" Another data point, near to you no less, against your claim. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14005251 It may return to some semblance of what it should be, in several thousand years maybe, or it may be that it will never return to the original state.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: 60 Million gallons of gas to be released (7/4/2011 9:32:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper quote: I think it was done to get some of the oil speculators out of the market - they are the ones who have been driving the price of oil up through the roof. Right on the money. It was a well planned economic hit on the speculators. Ray Learsy knows more about oil and it's pricing than anyone you'll find lurking on any board on the internet and he called a a success. This corner pointed out time and again that the SPR was a powerful tool unused and abused by the administration. That a release from the SPR, no matter its dimension, would send the oil speculators to the hills. And so it came to pass. Today the administration announced the release of 30 million bbls of oil, less than two days of U.S. consumption and the price immediately collapsed by near $5 a barrel. With U.S. consumption running near 20 million bbls/day that's a reduction of $100,000,000/day going from the pockets of American consumers into the sticky hands of oil interests. Too bad it was the delivered price that dropped $5 because of supply. Futures contracts barely moved.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: 60 Million gallons of gas to be released (7/4/2011 9:33:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Are you arguing that the environment was "destroyed" there, forever? quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Your original point is indefensible as well, the mere act of drilling for oil does not "destroy the environment" Another data point, near to you no less, against your claim. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14005251 It may return to some semblance of what it should be, in several thousand years maybe, or it may be that it will never return to the original state. or several years. Guess what: you dont know.

Sanity -> RE: 60 Million gallons of gas to be released (7/4/2011 10:00:39 AM)
You dont understand that farming and ranching and property development, and airborne pollution from California and Washington State, and even places like Japan and China etc has affected the Yellowstone river "environment" previously? You dont realize that trappers and miners from days long past had some serious impact? By your standards (for lack of a better term) there is no "environment" remaining, for it has all been destroyed already. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen It may return to some semblance of what it should be, in several thousand years maybe, or it may be that it will never return to the original state.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875