Pelosi [D] blocks offshore drilling vote GOP wants

Voted Worlds #1 Most Loonatic Fanbase

Moderator: Andrew

Postby cudaclan » Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:05 pm

Fact Finder wrote:Anyone remember this?


Note the date...

Bush Proposes Oil Refineries on Closed Military Bases
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service


WASHINGTON, April 27, 2005 – President Bush unveiled a plan today to encourage building oil refineries on military sites that have closed.
Speaking at a Small Business Administration conference here, the president recommended this and other initiatives to address the country's energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign energy sources.

Bush said expanding refinery capacity will help address the shortage that's partly blamed for skyrocketing gasoline prices. The last oil refinery built in the United States was completed in 1976, he said.

During a White House press briefing today, spokesman Scott McClellan said the federal agencies would work with states and local communities to transfer closed military sites and make them available to refiners.

McClellan said many closed military bases are already being redeveloped or used for new purposes to help create jobs. Building oil refineries on some of them will "address a pressing problem that we face, and it will also address an economic need in these communities," he said.

"So we want to work closely with those communities and we think that by doing so, we will help encourage people to look at the long-term benefit in investing in these sites and building refineries," McClellan said.

Bush's announcement today came about two weeks before Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld submits a list of installations recommended for closure or realignment to Congress and the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission.

By Sept. 8, the commission must send its recommended BRAC list to the president, who has until Sept. 23 to approve or disapprove the findings.








How could this be? :lol:


Fantastic suggestion, we can utilize contaminated toxic fields as fuel. Consider it as recycling renewable energy. Fusion driven vehicles with radioactive uranium and thorium. Military sites have been well documented as toxic “time-bombs”.
cudaclan
45 RPM
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 11:44 am
Location: lost in a trash can

Postby Calbear94 » Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:10 pm

cudaclan wrote:Taking a proactive approach of renewable energy (not amused). One-step backwards for humankind.

http://www.zcommunications.org/zmag/viewArticle/18064


...a typical tactic from fossil fuel energy producers...dangling dreams of economic prosperity in front of the political leaders of economically depressed regions.
A denial is the same thing as a non-response. Either way, nothing new is learned.
User avatar
Calbear94
45 RPM
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 10:19 am

Postby Calbear94 » Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:23 pm

Fact Finder wrote:Anyone remember this?


Note the date...

Bush Proposes Oil Refineries on Closed Military Bases
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service


WASHINGTON, April 27, 2005 – President Bush unveiled a plan today to encourage building oil refineries on military sites that have closed.
Speaking at a Small Business Administration conference here, the president recommended this and other initiatives to address the country's energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign energy sources.

Bush said expanding refinery capacity will help address the shortage that's partly blamed for skyrocketing gasoline prices. The last oil refinery built in the United States was completed in 1976, he said.

During a White House press briefing today, spokesman Scott McClellan said the federal agencies would work with states and local communities to transfer closed military sites and make them available to refiners.

McClellan said many closed military bases are already being redeveloped or used for new purposes to help create jobs. Building oil refineries on some of them will "address a pressing problem that we face, and it will also address an economic need in these communities," he said.

"So we want to work closely with those communities and we think that by doing so, we will help encourage people to look at the long-term benefit in investing in these sites and building refineries," McClellan said.

Bush's announcement today came about two weeks before Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld submits a list of installations recommended for closure or realignment to Congress and the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission.

By Sept. 8, the commission must send its recommended BRAC list to the president, who has until Sept. 23 to approve or disapprove the findings.



I'd like to see more of these bases go the route of old Fort Ord, which became California State University-Monterrey Bay, and the rest be sold off to the private sector for redevelopment.
A denial is the same thing as a non-response. Either way, nothing new is learned.
User avatar
Calbear94
45 RPM
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 10:19 am

Postby Calbear94 » Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:42 pm

Fact Finder wrote:
cudaclan wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:Anyone remember this?


Note the date...

Bush Proposes Oil Refineries on Closed Military Bases
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service


WASHINGTON, April 27, 2005 – President Bush unveiled a plan today to encourage building oil refineries on military sites that have closed.
Speaking at a Small Business Administration conference here, the president recommended this and other initiatives to address the country's energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign energy sources.

Bush said expanding refinery capacity will help address the shortage that's partly blamed for skyrocketing gasoline prices. The last oil refinery built in the United States was completed in 1976, he said.

During a White House press briefing today, spokesman Scott McClellan said the federal agencies would work with states and local communities to transfer closed military sites and make them available to refiners.

McClellan said many closed military bases are already being redeveloped or used for new purposes to help create jobs. Building oil refineries on some of them will "address a pressing problem that we face, and it will also address an economic need in these communities," he said.

"So we want to work closely with those communities and we think that by doing so, we will help encourage people to look at the long-term benefit in investing in these sites and building refineries," McClellan said.

Bush's announcement today came about two weeks before Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld submits a list of installations recommended for closure or realignment to Congress and the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission.

By Sept. 8, the commission must send its recommended BRAC list to the president, who has until Sept. 23 to approve or disapprove the findings.








How could this be? :lol:


Fantastic suggestion, we can utilize contaminated toxic fields as fuel. Consider it as recycling renewable energy. Fusion driven vehicles with radioactive uranium and thorium. Military sites have been well documented as toxic “time-bombs”.


Ok, so you would build a refinery where exactly?


Usually, the oil companies build them in economically-depressed, coastal-urban areas where the residents are not necessarily accustomed to big-time political battles.
A denial is the same thing as a non-response. Either way, nothing new is learned.
User avatar
Calbear94
45 RPM
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 10:19 am

Postby cudaclan » Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:46 pm

Fact Finder, I am not in favor of these refineries. Let me use an analogy to this madness. In keeping up with the “Joneses”, we strive to have the greenest lawn in the neighborhood. We have been misguided by advertisements and egos to do this. In so doing, we contaminate the ground water and consume fossil fuel to maintain this utopia. The benefits of “green is clean” does not apply here. Yes, grasses contribute to “filtering” the air. What if you could control weeds with a corn byproduct and vinegar? We have an alternative for that and pest control… However, Big Business has a tremendous amount of impact on product selection. I was misguided, but through research, alternative and inexpensive products yield similar results. We do not need these hydrocarbon belching plants.
cudaclan
45 RPM
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 11:44 am
Location: lost in a trash can

Postby Calbear94 » Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:48 pm

Fact Finder wrote:
cudaclan wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:Anyone remember this?


Note the date...

Bush Proposes Oil Refineries on Closed Military Bases
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service


WASHINGTON, April 27, 2005 – President Bush unveiled a plan today to encourage building oil refineries on military sites that have closed.
Speaking at a Small Business Administration conference here, the president recommended this and other initiatives to address the country's energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign energy sources.

Bush said expanding refinery capacity will help address the shortage that's partly blamed for skyrocketing gasoline prices. The last oil refinery built in the United States was completed in 1976, he said.

During a White House press briefing today, spokesman Scott McClellan said the federal agencies would work with states and local communities to transfer closed military sites and make them available to refiners.

McClellan said many closed military bases are already being redeveloped or used for new purposes to help create jobs. Building oil refineries on some of them will "address a pressing problem that we face, and it will also address an economic need in these communities," he said.

"So we want to work closely with those communities and we think that by doing so, we will help encourage people to look at the long-term benefit in investing in these sites and building refineries," McClellan said.

Bush's announcement today came about two weeks before Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld submits a list of installations recommended for closure or realignment to Congress and the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission.

By Sept. 8, the commission must send its recommended BRAC list to the president, who has until Sept. 23 to approve or disapprove the findings.

Ok, so you would build a refinery where exactly?


How about in your backyard? If you're lucky...within a few years you will only have developed respiratory problems.
A denial is the same thing as a non-response. Either way, nothing new is learned.
User avatar
Calbear94
45 RPM
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 10:19 am

Postby cudaclan » Sun Aug 03, 2008 1:01 pm

The ramification in ownership of these defunct military bases is the proverbial “White Elephant”. The military refuses to comply with the EPA and the taxpayers will absorb the burden.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews
cudaclan
45 RPM
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 11:44 am
Location: lost in a trash can

Postby cudaclan » Sun Aug 03, 2008 1:08 pm

Fact Finder wrote:
cudaclan wrote:The ramification in ownership of these defunct military bases is the proverbial “White Elephant”. The military refuses to comply with the EPA and the taxpayers will absorb the burden.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews



So you don't want new refineries. I get that. What about lowering gas prices?


Personally, this is not a financial issue; it is a conscience, moral and ethical belief.
cudaclan
45 RPM
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 11:44 am
Location: lost in a trash can

Postby AlienC » Sun Aug 03, 2008 1:45 pm

Fact Finder wrote:
Until and unless Big Oil spends some of their "hard earned" money on new refining capacity, SUPPLY will continue to exceed DEMAND and the price can continue to be artificially inflated at the chokepoint known as "refining capacity"
There is no shortage of petroleum as much as there is a lack of refining capacity.


The problem is as you say, inadequte supply. However the reason for this is that more and more gas is being imported. In 1982 America had 263 working refineries. In 2002 we were down to 159. The Greenies and the NIMBY types have put the oil companies in a vice where it was cost prohibitive to keep those refineries open and or to expand in America. Now, more and more refineries are bing built in the Middle East and the gas is then shipped. More than anything else this is the main reason for the price increase. We've chased these business's out of our neighborhoods and overseas.

Bullshit. While that looks good on paper, the fact of the matter is that if they (Big Oil ) really wanted to build a new refinery over here, they would. They've managed to build them elsewhere in the world. |They've made huge amounts of money, subsidzed in no small part by the tax breaks given when costs were really prohibitive, and yet they still claim "poverty". Oh boo fuckin hoo, I'm not buying it.
“Madness is to hold an erroneous perception and argue perfectly from it.” Voltaire
The Hegelian Dialectic is in play. What do YOU do to insure it's failure?
User avatar
AlienC
45 RPM
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2002 3:58 pm
Location: ...somewhere along 'The Path'....

Postby Rick » Sun Aug 03, 2008 2:07 pm

AlienC wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:
Until and unless Big Oil spends some of their "hard earned" money on new refining capacity, SUPPLY will continue to exceed DEMAND and the price can continue to be artificially inflated at the chokepoint known as "refining capacity"
There is no shortage of petroleum as much as there is a lack of refining capacity.


The problem is as you say, inadequte supply. However the reason for this is that more and more gas is being imported. In 1982 America had 263 working refineries. In 2002 we were down to 159. The Greenies and the NIMBY types have put the oil companies in a vice where it was cost prohibitive to keep those refineries open and or to expand in America. Now, more and more refineries are bing built in the Middle East and the gas is then shipped. More than anything else this is the main reason for the price increase. We've chased these business's out of our neighborhoods and overseas.

Bullshit. While that looks good on paper, the fact of the matter is that if they (Big Oil ) really wanted to build a new refinery over here, they would. They've managed to build them elsewhere in the world. |They've made huge amounts of money, subsidzed in no small part by the tax breaks given when costs were really prohibitive, and yet they still claim "poverty". Oh boo fuckin hoo, I'm not buying it.


What Allen said. I think there's no oil shortage. The powers that be are not in the oil business, as much as they are in the oil shortage business. They feed you information that makes you believe what they want you to believe. And they're winning on that front. Obviously. We're paying $4 a gallon for gas, and if you think the middle eastern people are responsible for that, then yeah, you're a typical American. We're as dumb as they want us to be.
I like to sit out on the front porch, where the birds can see me, eating a plate of scrambled eggs, just so they know what I'm capable of.
User avatar
Rick
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Texas

Postby RocknRoll » Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:09 am

Fact Finder wrote:
Until and unless Big Oil spends some of their "hard earned" money on new refining capacity, SUPPLY will continue to exceed DEMAND and the price can continue to be artificially inflated at the chokepoint known as "refining capacity"
There is no shortage of petroleum as much as there is a lack of refining capacity.


The problem is as you say, inadequte supply. However the reason for this is that more and more gas is being imported. In 1982 America had 263 working refineries. In 2002 we were down to 159. The Greenies and the NIMBY types have put the oil companies in a vice where it was cost prohibitive to keep those refineries open and or to expand in America. Now, more and more refineries are bing built in the Middle East and the gas is then shipped. More than anything else this is the main reason for the price increase. We've chased these business's out of our neighborhoods and overseas.


Many oil analysts are saying there is no shortage of crude in the world, also no shortage of gasoline. What there is a shortage of is the lower sulfur crude needed to make the Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel now required in the US and Europe. In order to make diesel, you have to make gasoline and visa-versa. Refineries now make less diesel and jet fuel due to these requirements even after spending billions of dollars to meet the enviromental regulations, while diesel demand is up particularly in Europe where most autos are diesel.

Most refineries in the US are spending mega-billions to upgrade refineries to increase capacity and/or use the cheaper oil sands from Canada, but are facing numerous challenges from state requlatory and enviromental groups.

One very well respected oil analyst, is actually predicting the possibility of $70 crude by September due to reduced demand and other factors, barring any geo-political events. We shall see, oil markets are definately on their way down right now.
RocknRoll
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1707
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:46 am

Postby RocknRoll » Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:34 am

cudaclan wrote:Fact Finder, I am not in favor of these refineries. Let me use an analogy to this madness. In keeping up with the “Joneses”, we strive to have the greenest lawn in the neighborhood. We have been misguided by advertisements and egos to do this. In so doing, we contaminate the ground water and consume fossil fuel to maintain this utopia. The benefits of “green is clean” does not apply here. Yes, grasses contribute to “filtering” the air. What if you could control weeds with a corn byproduct and vinegar? We have an alternative for that and pest control… However, Big Business has a tremendous amount of impact on product selection. I was misguided, but through research, alternative and inexpensive products yield similar results. We do not need these hydrocarbon belching plants.


And you think, plants that make alternative fuels are not "hydrocarbon belching plants"

Currently the transportation of alternative energy products is also a huge issue. It must go by truck/rail/barge and consumes even more energy.
RocknRoll
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1707
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:46 am

Postby AlienC » Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:41 am

Fact Finder wrote:
Until and unless Big Oil spends some of their "hard earned" money on new refining capacity, SUPPLY will continue to exceed DEMAND and the price can continue to be artificially inflated at the chokepoint known as "refining capacity"
There is no shortage of petroleum as much as there is a lack of refining capacity.


The problem is as you say, inadequte supply. However the reason for this is that more and more gas is being imported. In 1982 America had 263 working refineries. In 2002 we were down to 159. The Greenies and the NIMBY types have put the oil companies in a vice where it was cost prohibitive to keep those refineries open and or to expand in America. Now, more and more refineries are bing built in the Middle East and the gas is then shipped. More than anything else this is the main reason for the price increase. We've chased these business's out of our neighborhoods and overseas.

Oh, but the problem isn't simply inadequate supply, it's much deeper than that. It's almost traitorous in it's basis.
You say "Chased"... I say they RAN. They go where money is easily shielded from the Tax Man, our environmental laws don't apply, and in general act like a drunken uncle at a wedding no one wants to see pull his pants down..... again..
These laws we enacted to protect the planet and it's inhabitants were supposed to act as guidelines for the formerly "American" companies to use as they went abroad in search of "more". Instead, they disavowed their affiliation with this country, went "International" (Global) and as such are no longer obliged to pay their fair share of taxes as a jursitic persona existing outside of our system.
To quote the Neo-Con's hero...."You're either with us, or you're against us." I assume that meant everything, not just want they want tp pick from. :roll:
The USA used to inspire innovation and developement in technology. Since our education system has been gutted and those funds transferred to the corrections industry, the inspirational figures for our children are now Gladiators... oops, I mean ATHLETES..... and Criminals disguised as musicians. :oops: 8) :shock: :twisted:
Corporations have no loyalty to anything or anyone except Mammon and Lucre. Despite their existence as "people" in a legal sense, the absence of any soul within that construct makes that entity sociopathic in it's very being. They only serve their own interests. That ANY social benefit is derived is simply an afterthought or a ploy to extract more profit.
The CORPORATE PRIME DIRECTIVE is profit at any expense. oh AND....Laws are for people, We're not really "people" so they don't apply to us.
Corporations and their lobbyists have ruined our system of government. We only have one vote and our limited pocketbooks with which to influence our "elected" officials. Corporations , on the other hand, can deliver votes and unlimited amounts of money to these "public servants". They nullify our votes with their Professional Trade Association PAC's contributions. That is not right, and ought to be changed.
Their actions prove this, despite any press release or commercial to the contrary.

Even Adam Smith, the GODFATHER of Capitalism thought so....
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.
[/url]
“Madness is to hold an erroneous perception and argue perfectly from it.” Voltaire
The Hegelian Dialectic is in play. What do YOU do to insure it's failure?
User avatar
AlienC
45 RPM
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2002 3:58 pm
Location: ...somewhere along 'The Path'....

Postby cudaclan » Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:37 am

Fact Finder, I thought I made it clear that I am not in support of fossil fuels, at any co$t.

RocknRoll, delivery of energy does not necessarily require vehicle transport. The infrastructure presently exists. The “grid”, via power-lines, is the delivery system. Hydroelectric, solar, wind turbines generate power… Reddy Kilowatt has just turned green.

Still thinking inside the box?
cudaclan
45 RPM
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 11:44 am
Location: lost in a trash can

Postby squirt1 » Mon Aug 04, 2008 1:46 pm

I feel reading these many posts here that many never saw the 70's long lines and oil shortages. I believe those were phony to get the prices up. It was 33.9 and stayed at 1.00 and aove forever on !When we would get an 8,800 gallon transport we were told by the drivers that they were transporting REFINED oil to be capped off underground in the wells. This caused rationing and LONG, LONG lines. This is very DIFFERENT. THE world's demand has risen. Russia, China, India plus Europe all are fighting for supplies. A few months back Russia told us they placed their flag in the Artic. Bush told them it was international waters. The next war will be over oil !!!!!! There will be alternatives ahead. But right now either not enough profit can be made from it to buy their products or not ready at this time to market. I do see the car manufacturers downsizing. Ha ! That happened in the 70's too. That sent Japanese small cars ruling the market and VW. If you own an SUV,Lg pickup bite the bullet ! Conversationpc I WUV U. You save me so much typing !
squirt1
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:47 am

Postby ebake02 » Mon Aug 04, 2008 1:58 pm

High gas prices are a pain in the ass but we have to try to keep the planet healthy. I don't know why we're trying to dig something that's running dry instead of a new fuel that will last longer.
Penn Staters across the globe should feel no shame in saying "We are…Penn State." - Joe Paterno
ebake02
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3122
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 1:01 pm
Location: Northeast

Postby 7 Wishes » Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:21 pm

Fact Finder wrote:
Corporations have no loyalty to anything or anyone except Mammon and Lucre. Despite their existence as "people" in a legal sense, the absence of any soul within that construct makes that entity sociopathic in it's very being. They only serve their own interests. That ANY social benefit is derived is simply an afterthought or a ploy to extract more profit.


Wow! So down down really deep you feel this way about Journey and rock music too. After all, they are corporations too, right?

Take off your blinders and take a good look around.

It's sad that you can be so down on success. Give it a try sometime, you might like it.


Wow, that was a diversionary, tertiary, completely irrelevant response. Good job.
But around town, it was well known...when they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives
Would thrash them within inches of their lives!
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm

Postby Calbear94 » Tue Aug 05, 2008 3:49 am

squirt1 wrote:I feel reading these many posts here that many never saw the 70's long lines and oil shortages. I believe those were phony to get the prices up. It was 33.9 and stayed at 1.00 and aove forever on !When we would get an 8,800 gallon transport we were told by the drivers that they were transporting REFINED oil to be capped off underground in the wells. This caused rationing and LONG, LONG lines.


OPEC nations felt that if western (particularly U.S.) demand for oil was not checked that their reserves would quickly be depleted, leaving those countries with nothing to bring in revenue. OPEC realized that profits could be maintained while restricting supply and driving up the price. Forty years of competition between themselves had left OPEC nations beholden to western demand.

squirt1 wrote:THE world's demand has risen. Russia, China, India plus Europe all are fighting for supplies. A few months back Russia told us they placed their flag in the Artic. Bush told them it was international waters. The next war will be over oil !!!!!!


This is correct. This is also why we as American consumers should not expect gasoline prices to return to reasonable levels. The only relief we can expect would be temporary. There will still be that upward pressure from global demand. Just like in the 1970s, there really is no looking back.

squirt1 wrote:There will be alternatives ahead. But right now either not enough profit can be made from it to buy their products or not ready at this time to market.


Truth be known...these alternatives are already here. If these were emerging technologies, then I would agree. Solar home power, for example, has been under development for 30 years! Thin inexpensive photovoltaic film has been developed replacing heavier, expensive solar panels. Wind power...modern turbines and long propellers constructed of lightweight carbon produce enough electricity to justify the cost. Why doesn't the average American consumer realize just how ripe these technologies are? Because the oil, coal, and natural companies have not diversified themselves enough. Instead, they have used powerful political lobbies to impede progress.

At this time, the American people wants our government to get involved, to invest the public's money and resources to spur energy development and to smoothen the current crisis. The question is do we want to bank our future on non-renewable fossil fuels or on renewable energy sources? Right now, alternative energy just needs a little push from the government (just like domestic oil production does) to become more consumer friendly. Do we want to subsidize oil companies which are presently raking in record profits, or do we want to invest in alternative energy which may be more expensive, but will guarantee economic stability in the future and even have important political benefits in terms of foreign policy.

squirt1 wrote:I do see the car manufacturers downsizing. Ha ! That happened in the 70's too. That sent Japanese small cars ruling the market and VW. If you own an SUV,Lg pickup bite the bullet!


This is a great sign indeed. However, this should have begun occurring 5 years ago when, instead, Hummer-inspired, large square-ish vehicles made a comeback. The point is that with these two historical examples, we cannot count on the automobile manufacturers to lead the way towards real fuel-efficiency. For change to occur, it must come from consumer demand. I believe that enough demand is already here, and that with progressive leadership this country is ready to push forward at a gradual, yet deliberate, pace.
Last edited by Calbear94 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:54 am, edited 3 times in total.
A denial is the same thing as a non-response. Either way, nothing new is learned.
User avatar
Calbear94
45 RPM
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 10:19 am

Postby Arkansas » Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:03 am

Haven't read the whole thread, so excuse me if I make a duplicate point.

My take is that if we even announce that we plan to explore our own lands more, then the crude prices will drop simply on the speculation that we intend to buy less foreign oil. I believe that speculation on supply & demand is what controls the price. If we tell the world that we'll be using less, simply by implying we're going more domestic, then we can delay actual drilling, which will give us more time to figure out ecological impact. But in the mean time, prices will come down.

I guess with the Dem's blocking of this, the world now knows that they've got us a little longer. Shame on them.



later~
Arkansas
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 2565
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:23 am
Location: duh?

Postby Calbear94 » Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:17 am

Fact Finder wrote:
They only serve their own interests. That ANY social benefit is derived is simply an afterthought or a ploy to extract more profit


Just for the record....


50 Largest Corporate Foundations by Total Giving

The list below includes the 50 largest corporate foundations ranked by total giving. All figures are based on the most current audited financial data in the Foundation Center's database as of June 26, 2008.

Rank----------Name/(state) ------------Total Giving As of Fiscal Year------ End Date
1. Aventis Pharmaceuticals Health Care Foundation (NJ) $221,676,217 12/31/06
2. The Bank of America Charitable Foundation, Inc. (NC) 144,833,778 12/31/06
3. Wal-Mart Foundation (AR) 128,043,643 01/31/07
4. GE Foundation (CT) 88,252,767 12/31/06
5. The JPMorgan Chase Foundation (NY) 79,895,591 12/31/06
6. Citi Foundation (NY) 73,881,690 12/31/06
7. The Wachovia Foundation, Inc. (NC) 64,418,266 12/31/06
8. Wells Fargo Foundation (CA) 64,359,430 12/31/06
9. ExxonMobil Foundation (TX) 62,495,330 12/31/06
10. Verizon Foundation (NJ) 59,847,733 12/31/06
11. Johnson & Johnson Family of Companies Contribution Fund (NJ) 58,213,254 12/31/06
12. AT&T Foundation (TX) 57,295,273 12/31/06
13. The Merck Company Foundation (NJ) 43,343,391 12/31/06
14. BP Foundation, Inc. (IL) 43,178,430 12/31/06
15. Intel Foundation (OR) 41,483,072 12/31/06
16. The UPS Foundation (GA) 41,360,430 12/31/06
17. The HCA Foundation (TN) 38,307,189 12/31/06
18. The Coca-Cola Foundation, Inc. (GA) 36,029,520 12/31/07
19. The Pfizer Foundation, Inc. (NY) 34,699,537 12/31/06
20. MetLife Foundation (NY) 31,999,651 12/31/06
21. General Motors Foundation, Inc. (MI) 29,401,986 12/31/06
22. Caterpillar Foundation (IL) 28,903,210 12/31/06
23. The Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, Inc. (NY) 28,683,502 12/31/06
24. Eli Lilly and Company Foundation (IN) 25,842,960 12/31/06
25. The Procter & Gamble Fund (OH) 25,009,145 06/30/06
26. NCC Charitable Foundation (OH) 24,868,048 06/30/06
27. Alcoa Foundation (PA) 24,727,504 12/31/06
28. Citizens Charitable Foundation (MA) 24,513,719 12/31/06
29. The Prudential Foundation (NJ) 24,208,333 12/31/06
30. Blue Shield of California Foundation (CA) 23,632,053 12/31/06
31. U.S. Bancorp Foundation, Inc. (MN) 22,872,249 12/31/06
32. Abbott Fund (IL) 22,840,194 12/31/06
33. The PepsiCo Foundation, Inc. (NY) 22,789,562 12/31/06
34. The Medtronic Foundation (MN) 22,133,889 04/30/07
35. Fidelity Foundation (MA) 22,091,280 12/31/06
36. The Chrysler Foundation (MI) 21,245,642 12/31/06
37. 3M Foundation (MN) 20,961,996 12/31/06
38. Merrill Lynch & Co. Foundation, Inc. (NY) 20,694,328 12/31/06
39. The Capital Group Companies Charitable Foundation (CA) 20,600,732 06/30/06
40. Emerson Charitable Trust (MO) 20,451,519 09/30/06
41. General Mills Foundation (MN) 20,039,354 05/31/07
42. State Farm Companies Foundation (IL) 19,802,268 12/31/06
43. Freddie Mac Foundation (VA) 19,671,509 12/31/06
44. The Dow Chemical Company Foundation (MI) 19,431,058 12/31/06
45. Thrivent Financial for Lutherans Foundation (WI) 19,303,213 12/31/06
46. The Batchelor Foundation, Inc. (FL) 18,418,166 06/30/07
47. Duke Energy Foundation (NC) 17,592,757 12/31/06
48. American Express Foundation (NY) 17,582,872 12/31/06
49. The Allstate Foundation (IL) 17,564,554 12/31/06
50. Ford Motor Company Fund (MI) 17,558,374 12/31/06


Corporate foundations gave a record $3.6 billion in 2005.


How much revenue did these companies collectively generate in 2005? A trillion dollars, perhaps? If so, this would put their collective philanthropy at about 1/3 of one-percent.

Corporate philanthropy is nothing new. Looking back at the robber barons of the early 20th century, the precedent of "giving back" to the community was established. Capitalists such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller gave millions as a way to justify their mass accumulation of wealth and to establish a personal legacy within the public sphere. The problem is not that they became wealthy, but is the way in which they did it. They formed huge monopolies that manipulated prices, and wages, and incurred huge social costs in terms of dangerous working conditions and environmental polution (costs which were paid for by the public). Carnegie, for example, in the "Gospel of Wealth" claimed that he was justify in paying his workers less than a liveable wage meanwhile accumulating vast wealth for himself by claiming that ultra-wealthy individuals were more qualified to decide how this wealth would be re-distributed. He implied that if workers' wages were increased, that they would just spend it on alcohol and other vices. He, on the other hand, would donate the money to build libraries, concert halls, etc. Elitism aside, what he failed to realize is that monopolies impeded economic progress, and forced the government to regulate the market. Competition spurs innovation.

I believe that truly access the contribution of each of the corporations in the list above, one would have to consider their business practices and the public benefit derived therefrom. Certain industries (such as the pharmaceutical and energy industries) would likely suffer in this type of analysis.
A denial is the same thing as a non-response. Either way, nothing new is learned.
User avatar
Calbear94
45 RPM
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 10:19 am

Postby musicfan17 » Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:21 am

Calbear94 wrote:1. Total domestic reserves make up just a small fraction of the world supply.
2. The U.S. has the largest demand for fossil fuels in the world.
3. Global supply is finite, and is estimated to run out in 45-50 years.
4. Global demand is rising.
5. The ability to increase supply in the short-term is limited.
6. The ability to reduce demand in the short-term is completely within the control of the average American consumer. Thankfully, this is already taking place as the big three automobile manufacturers are now finding out (the demand for new trucks and large vehicles has fallen to about 1/3 of what it was).

Other nations have understood the importance of energy independence (some countries in Europe are already 50% energy independent, getting their electricity from alternative energy sources). Even China understands that its countinued global advantage depends on alternative energy)...it is in the process of building the "Three Gorges" hydroelectic power dam that when completed will be the largest of its kind in the world and will provide nearly all of its domestic electricity needs.

Obama is smart, and is a man of conviction and compassion. He understands that without a gradual, yet committed turn toward alternative energy the U.S. would merely be prolonging the inevitable and exacerbating the eventual economic and political consequences (ex. the war in Iraq has already cost $700 billion and 4,000 plus American lives). Imagine the lost benefits of using this $700 billion to smooth the transition to alternative energy?

Increasing domestic production would have little or no effect in the short term, or even arguably in the longterm (global demand will rise faster than increased domestic production can add to global supply). We should remember what happened with the oil embargo in the 1970s. Domestic production (esp. in TX, CA, and AL) increased dramatically, engorging the oil companies and some wildcat speculators and drillers. The U.S. economy still languished well into the 1980s, when in direct response to Japanese competition the big automakers finally embraced the idea of designing and manufacturing smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles. It was incredible that it took almost ten years for them to finally do so. In the meantime, the Japanese gained market share and put the U.S. into a balance of payments (trade imbalance) crisis with Japan that has racked the U.S. economy ever since (Japanese investors went on to gobble up cheap U.S. assets and continue to reap the profits that should have been going to American investors). The result was an enormous loss in treasure for the U.S. that cannot be easily, if ever, recovered fully.

Fast forward to circa 2000, when the average price per gallon in the U.S. was about $1.50. The price has tripled in the last 8 years during which Bush's Republican administration did little, if anything, to decrease the U.S. dependence on foreign oil. On the contrary, waging war in Iraq and creating a foreign policy that has increased instability has greaty added to the PERCEIVED value of oil. Gimmicky tax breaks and capricious interest rate cuts forestalled a necessary economic correction. How many Americans would not be in danger of losing their homes, had the government adequately regulated the mortgage industry? Absolutely nothing was done to discourage Americans from buying homes at double or triple the previous price. In short, the bubble was allowed to grow to unsafe levels and then burst leaving millions of Americans in dire circumstances. I doubt Bush has lost much sleep though...he got his re-election and he and his comrades raked in unprecedented oil-related profits.

The worst part? how gullible we (the American public) were, and arguably some of us still are. We had every reason to suspect something was wrong, but were too easily placated and self-satisfied to even give a damn about the underlying health of the economy and our energy future, let alone the education and present-and-future well-being of American families. It will take forward-thinking leadership to ensure a bright future for America, not reactionary responses and favoring the status quo.


One of the finest, most intelligent, well written posts I've ever seen here at MR Forums. Nicely done! Now...What the hell are you doing posting something intelligent in this forum!!! :P :wink:
It's All Good...
musicfan17
Ol' 78
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:06 pm
Location: NorCal

Postby Cate » Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:25 am

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/sb_69oil ... cles2.html
1969 Oil Spill
source: http://www.silcom.com/~sbwcn/spill.shtml (current as of 5/03)
On the afternoon of January 29, 1969, an environmental nightmare began in Santa Barbara, California. A Union Oil Co. platform stationed six miles off the coast of Summerland suffered a blowout. Oil workers had drilled a well down 3500 feet below the ocean floor. Riggers began to retrieve the pipe in order to replace a drill bit when the "mud" used to maintain pressure became dangerously low. A natural gas blowout occurred. An initial attempt to cap the hole was successful but led to a tremendous buildup of pressure. The expanding mass created five breaks in an east-west fault on the ocean floor, releasing oil and gas from deep beneath the earth.

For eleven days, oil workers struggled to cap the rupture. During that time, 200,000 gallons of crude oil bubbled to the surface and was spread into a 800 square mile slick by winds and swells. Incoming tides brought the thick tar to beaches from Rincon Point to Goleta, marring 35 miles of coastline. Beaches with off-shore kelp forests were spared the worst as kelp fronds kept most of the tar from coming ashore. The slick also moved south, tarring Anacapa Island's Frenchy's Cove and beaches on Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa and San Miguel Islands.

Ecological Impact

Animals that depended on the sea were hard hit. Incoming tides brought the corpses of dead seals and dolphins. Oil had clogged the blowholes of the dolphins, causing massive lung hemorrhages. Animals that ingested the oil were poisoned. In the months that followed, gray whales migrating to their calving and breeding grounds in Baja California avoided the channel —their main route south.

The oil took its toll on the seabird population. Shorebirds like plovers, godwits and willets which feed on sand creatures fled the area. But diving birds which must get their nourishment from the waters themselves became soaked with tar.

The Santa Barbara Zoo was among three emergency bird treatment centers established during the disaster. Volunteers were recruited to pluck oiled birds from local beaches. Grebes, cormorants and other seabirds were so sick, their feathers so soaked in oil that they were not difficult to catch. Birds were bathed in Polycomplex A-11, medicated, and placed under heat lamps to stave off pneumonia. The survival rate was less than 30 percent for birds that were treated. Many more died on the beaches where they had formerly sought their livelihoods. Those who had managed to avoid the oil were threatened by the detergents used to disperse the oil slick. The chemicals robbed feathers of the natural waterproofing used to keep seabirds afloat.

In all 3686 birds were estimated to have died because of contact with oil. Aerial surveys a year later found only 200 grebes in an area that had
previously drawn 4000 to 7000.

Cleanup Efforts

It took oil workers 11 1/2; days to control the leaking oil well. Workers pumped chemical mud down the 3500 foot shaft at a rate of 1500 barrels an hour. It was then topped by a cement plug. Residual amounts of gas continued to escape and another leak sprung up weeks later, releasing oil for months to follow.

Skimmers scooped up oil from the surface of the ocean. In the air, planes dumped detergents on the tar covered ocean in an attempt to break up the slick. On the beaches and harbors, straw was spread on oily patches of water and sand. The straw soaked up the black mess and was then raked up. Rocks were steamed cleaned, cooking marine life like limpets and mussels that attach themselves to coastal rocks.

What Went Wrong?

Union Oil's Platform A ruptured because of inadequate protective casing. The oil company had been given permission by the U.S. Geological Survey to cut corners and operate the platform with casings below federal and California standards. Investigators would later determine that more steel pipe sheating inside the drilling hole would have prevented the rupture.

Because the oil rig was beyond California's three-mile coastal zone, the rig did not have to comply with state standards. At the time, California drilling regulations were far more rigid those implied by the federal government.

Aftermath

In the spring following the oil spill, Earth Day was born nationwide. Many consider the publicity surrounding the oil spill a major impetus to the environmental movement.

Only days after the spill began, Get Oil Out (GOO) was founded in Santa Barbara. Founder Bud Bottoms urged the public to cut down on driving, burn oil company credit cards and boycott gas stations associated with offshore drilling companies. Volunteers helped the organization gather 100,000 signatures on a petition banning offshore oil drilling. While drilling was only halted temporarily, laws were passed to strengthen offshore drilling regulations. Union Oil suffered millions in losses from the clean-up efforts, payments to fishermen and local businesses, and lawsuit settlements. But maybe worse, the reputation of the oil industry was forever tarnished.

In Their Own Words . . .

Nature writer John McKinney:
"I had been impressed by the way energetic college students, shopkeepers, surfers, parents with their kids, all joined the beach clean-up. I saw a Montecito society matron transporting oily birds in her Mercedes." McKinney witnessed the event firsthand as a volunteer who rescued oiled birds. A chapter of his book A Walk Along Land's End describes his experience.

Fred L. Hartley, president of Union Oil Co.:
"I don't like to call it a disaster," because there has been no loss of human life.
"I am amazed at the publicity for the loss of a few birds."

Santa Barbara NewsPress Editor Thomas Storke:
"Never in my long lifetime have I ever seen such an aroused populace at the grassroots level. This oil pollution has done something I have never seen before in Santa Barbara – it has united citizens of all political persuasions in a truly nonpartisan cause."

U.S. President Richard Nixon:
"It is sad that it was necessary that Santa Barbara should be the example that had to bring it to the attention of the American people. What is involved is the use of our resources of the sea and of the land in a more effective way and with more concern for preserving the beauty and the natural resources that are so important to any kind of society that we want for the future. The Santa Barbara incident has frankly touched the conscience of the American people."



Many credit the 1969 oil spill with igniting the environmental movement. For eleven days, 200,000 gallons of crude oil spilled into the channel from a disabled oil rig. In the aftermath, 3600 birds were dead along with ten seals and dolphins and countless fish and marine invertebrates.

In 1994, 37 marine oil spills were reported in the county. In addition, natural oil seepages in the ocean ensnare many migratory birds. Last year, the network treated 47 oiled birds
Last edited by Cate on Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Cate
45 RPM
 
Posts: 386
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:07 pm

Postby Calbear94 » Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:31 am

Arkansas wrote:...My take is that if we even announce that we plan to explore our own lands more, then the crude prices will drop simply on the speculation that we intend to buy less foreign oil. I believe that speculation on supply & demand is what controls the price. If we tell the world that we'll be using less, simply by implying we're going more domestic, then we can delay actual drilling, which will give us more time to figure out ecological impact. But in the mean time, prices will come down...


You are absolutely correct about the relationship between speculation and prices. I would submit, however, that commodities investors are a bit too smart for this kind of rouse. In the above scenario, prices would drop only slightly initially, until the U.S. actually committed the resources towards drilling...a kind of a wait and see approach by investors, if you will. Because it takes a few years to actually develop "new" oil, there would be plenty of time for savvy investors to guage actual intent. As Obama suggested in his speech today, the strategic reserves (stored oil) could tapped immediately, which would have this kind of impact, without making any longterm committments towards new drilling.

Remember that in the 1970s, increasing domestic production did not really help solve the crisis. A significant reduction in demand, as consumers preferred more fuel-efficient vehicles, played a much bigger role.
A denial is the same thing as a non-response. Either way, nothing new is learned.
User avatar
Calbear94
45 RPM
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 10:19 am

Postby Calbear94 » Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:37 am

Cate wrote:http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/sb_69oilspill/69oilspill_articles2.html


What are your thoughts on this article?

I think it serves as a reminder of the difficulty of transporting oil once it has been drilled. New drilling means more pipelines and more tankers increasing the possibility of environmental disasters. If the true costs of these dangers were to be factored into the process, then there would be almost no reduction in eventual prices at the pump.
A denial is the same thing as a non-response. Either way, nothing new is learned.
User avatar
Calbear94
45 RPM
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 10:19 am

Postby RossValoryRocks » Tue Aug 05, 2008 5:03 am

Calbear94 wrote:
Cate wrote:http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/sb_69oilspill/69oilspill_articles2.html


What are your thoughts on this article?

I think it serves as a reminder of the difficulty of transporting oil once it has been drilled. New drilling means more pipelines and more tankers increasing the possibility of environmental disasters. If the true costs of these dangers were to be factored into the process, then there would be almost no reduction in eventual prices at the pump.


What are the true costs of not having power?

Like it or not, oil is where it is at power-wise right now. We absolutely need to get alternative sources of power, but everyone is a member of N.I.M.B.Y. and screams to high heaven when they want to build a new nuke plant or refinery or anything near them.

Second, that was in 1969 and techology has evolved considerably since then.

Drill now, and secure our energy supplies for the future while we work on renewable and alternative energy sources.

Otherwise it will be $12.00/gallon of gas (or more) and brownouts looming, which would cost millions of jobs and potentially many many lives.
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby RossValoryRocks » Tue Aug 05, 2008 5:09 am

Calbear94 wrote:
Arkansas wrote:.

Remember that in the 1970s, increasing domestic production did not really help solve the crisis. A significant reduction in demand, as consumers preferred more fuel-efficient vehicles, played a much bigger role.


They didn't increase domestice production in the 70's...domestic oil production peaked in 72 and has decreased since...in fact the first year we may acutally see a rise in domestic production in the last almost 40 years...

I would love to know where you are getting your facts from?
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby Calbear94 » Tue Aug 05, 2008 5:48 am

RossValoryRocks wrote:I would love to know where you are getting your facts from?


You keep saying this, but this strikes me as being very disingenuous. In actuality, you don't care to understand or even to acknowledge facts that don't support your beliefs.

RossValoryRocks wrote:What are the true costs of not having power?

Like it or not, oil is where it is at power-wise right now. We absolutely need to get alternative sources of power, but everyone is a member of N.I.M.B.Y. and screams to high heaven when they want to build a new nuke plant or refinery or anything near them.

Second, that was in 1969 and techology has evolved considerably since then.

Drill now, and secure our energy supplies for the future while we work on renewable and alternative energy sources.

Otherwise it will be $12.00/gallon of gas (or more) and brownouts looming, which would cost millions of jobs and potentially many many lives.


This is a scare tactic, plain and simple. Progressive thinkers regarding energy policy do NOT favor completely abandoning fossil fuels in the short-term. Admirably, you do recognize that "we absolutely need to get alternative sources of power." My question to you, then, is that if this is truly what we need (and I believe it is) and what we truly want (and I hope it is), then why should we now take significant steps backward? Drilling expansion is a huge step backward in that it is a longterm, rather than a shortterm, committment (for the reasons discussed by several posters above).

Short-term relief will be achieved through reduced demand (this is already occurring). A present, real commitment to alternative energy would also help achieve a further reduction in oil prices over the shortterm as investors and OPEC react.

I have always recommend a gradual, yet deliberate, push towards alternative energy. If at the present we are debating how precious financial resources should be used, then these should be used in a way that will reduce, not extend or increase, our dependence on oil. Because oil prices are high right now (but there is no drastic shortage), it is a great time to rally behind alternative energy. We musn't squander this opportunity to protect America's economic future and political-economic sovereignty. Time and time again in our nation's history, great decisions have been made in the midst of tough times. Our nation's strength comes from the determination and courage of our people, the ability to face adversity and to come out stronger than before. I, for one, am glad to have not only lived through this, but to have played an individual role in it. I have faith that we will do the right thing. However, I have no illusions that it will not be difficult, and progress will not be excrutiatingly slow at times.
A denial is the same thing as a non-response. Either way, nothing new is learned.
User avatar
Calbear94
45 RPM
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 10:19 am

Postby Calbear94 » Tue Aug 05, 2008 6:46 am

RossValoryRocks wrote:They didn't increase domestice production in the 70's...domestic oil production peaked in 72 and has decreased since...in fact the first year we may acutally see a rise in domestic production in the last almost 40 years...


As smart as you are, I cannot help but feel that you intend to mislead when you make statements like these...statements that fly in the face of well-accepted truths (such as your claim that LBJ was a white supremacist).

Let's look at a Department of Energy graphic showing domestic oil production from 1954 to 2006.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/ ... ction.html

Image

If you add up the total barrels produced in the 1970s, it would be significantly higher than the total produced in the 1960s. This graphic really tells the story of what occurred, unlike your 'drive-by' comment regarding the peak in 1970. Here, we can clearly what happened. Steady increases in domestic production during the 1960s, help drive world oil prices to all-time lows. Many of the leading foreign producers responded in the form of the OPEC oil embargo (1973). Exploration, drilling, and pipeline construction in Alaska in the mid-70s pushed domestic production back up to high levels that would be sustained for more than 10 years. Compare the 10 year period 1958-1968 to that of 1975-1985. This represents a substantial, renewed commitment to domestic oil production.
A denial is the same thing as a non-response. Either way, nothing new is learned.
User avatar
Calbear94
45 RPM
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 10:19 am

Postby RossValoryRocks » Tue Aug 05, 2008 6:52 am

Calbear94 wrote:
RossValoryRocks wrote:They didn't increase domestice production in the 70's...domestic oil production peaked in 72 and has decreased since...in fact the first year we may acutally see a rise in domestic production in the last almost 40 years...


As smart as you are, I cannot help but feel that you intend to mislead when you make statements like these...statements that fly in the face of well-accepted truths (such as your claim that LBJ was a white supremacist).

Let's look at a Department of Energy graphic showing domestic oil production from 1954 to 2006.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/ ... ction.html

Image

If you add up the total barrels produced in the 1970s, it would be significantly higher than the total produced in the 1960s. This graphic really tells the story of what occurred unlike your comment regarding the peak in 1970. Here, we can clearly what happened. Steady increases in domestic production during the 1960s, help drive world oil prices to all-time lows. Many of the leading foreign producers responded in the form of the OPEC oil embargo (1973). Exploration, drilling, and pipeline construction in Alaska in the mid-70s pushed domestic production back up to high levels that would be sustained for more than 10 years. Compare the 10 year period 1958-1968 to that of 1975-1985. This represents a substantial, renewed commitment to domestic oil production.


Did you even READ about Peak oil, ANYTHING AT ALL?? Doesn't look like it...your claim was we increased domestic oil production in the 70's, which is false...even by your graph...domestic oil production peaked in 1972...PERIOD. Hubbert figured it out, he postulated the Hubbert peak theory.

I never said LBJ was a white supremacist you fucking moron, I said he didn't want to sign the civil rights legislation of '64 and '65 which is completely accurate.
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby RossValoryRocks » Tue Aug 05, 2008 6:54 am

Calbear94 wrote:
RossValoryRocks wrote:I would love to know where you are getting your facts from?


You keep saying this, but this strikes me as being very disingenuous. In actuality, you don't care to understand or even to acknowledge facts that don't support your beliefs.

RossValoryRocks wrote:What are the true costs of not having power?

Like it or not, oil is where it is at power-wise right now. We absolutely need to get alternative sources of power, but everyone is a member of N.I.M.B.Y. and screams to high heaven when they want to build a new nuke plant or refinery or anything near them.

Second, that was in 1969 and techology has evolved considerably since then.

Drill now, and secure our energy supplies for the future while we work on renewable and alternative energy sources.

Otherwise it will be $12.00/gallon of gas (or more) and brownouts looming, which would cost millions of jobs and potentially many many lives.


This is a scare tactic, plain and simple. Progressive thinkers regarding energy policy do NOT favor completely abandoning fossil fuels in the short-term. Admirably, you do recognize that "we absolutely need to get alternative sources of power." My question to you, then, is that if this is truly what we need (and I believe it is) and what we truly want (and I hope it is), then why should we now take significant steps backward? Drilling expansion is a huge step backward in that it is a longterm, rather than a shortterm, committment (for the reasons discussed by several posters above).

Short-term relief will be achieved through reduced demand (this is already occurring). A present, real commitment to alternative energy would also help achieve a further reduction in oil prices over the shortterm as investors and OPEC react.

I have always recommend a gradual, yet deliberate, push towards alternative energy. If at the present we are debating how precious financial resources should be used, then these should be used in a way that will reduce, not extend or increase, our dependence on oil. Because oil prices are high right now (but there is no drastic shortage), it is a great time to rally behind alternative energy. We musn't squander this opportunity to protect America's economic future and political-economic sovereignty. Time and time again in our nation's history, great decisions have been made in the midst of tough times. Our nation's strength comes from the determination and courage of our people, the ability to face adversity and to come out stronger than before. I, for one, am glad to have not only lived through this, but to have played an individual role in it. I have faith that we will do the right thing. However, I have no illusions that it will not be difficult, and progress will not be excrutiatingly slow at times.


You quote very few sources, and you reasoning is right out of the latest Democratic talking points. You are nothing but a parrot of the liberal establishment and a moron.

I am no longer going to be "nice" to you libs who act like idiots. So from now on I call them as I see them!
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Journey

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 34 guests