Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IF you don't care about an affordable alternative why are you asking me to offer one?
Your right hand having trouble learning what the left hand is doing?
Because I'm not the one sitting here complaining about Bush, Saudi oil, or Exxon drilling on public land.. you are.. so I simply asked you for an alternative. If you want to complain about it, please have a solution in mind on how you can stop being "raped"
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Because I'm not the one sitting here complaining about Bush, Saudi oil, or Exxon drilling on public land.. you are.. so I simply asked you for an alternative. If you want to complain about it, please have a solution in mind on how you can stop being "raped"
So, YOU don't care about it but YOU ask, I think you're a very confused individual.
As usual, you have no understanding of what I wrote, I never claimed there was an affordable alternative. In reality, 'affordable' is so ambiguous as to be meaningless.
What I DID say was I oppose private use of public land UNLESS there is some benefit to the public, NOT that there should never be drilling on public land as YOU have FALSELY accused me of saying several times. YOU have a very bad habit of FALSE allegations, TRY to keep up.
Maybe the Saudis aren't increasing oil production significantly because they can't. Their major oil field, Ghawar, may have reached its peak and entered terminal decline. No one but the Saudis know for sure because they are not very open about oil reserve info. Other major exporters including Russia, Mexico, and Norway have already reached peak export volume and gone into decline.
Of course any new oil fields brought online not only have to make up for declines in existing fields, but have to exceed the decline for a NET increase in worldwide production to compensate for growing world demand.
YOU said I prefer relying on Arabs while YOU prefer relying on Americans.
If BOTH are screwing you just WHAT is the difference?
I dont see it as being screwed.. (and the fact that you do, says something about where your coming from). I see it as I pay $3.50 for a gallon of gas in exchange for the ability to drive 10 miles instead of walking, over 1/2 of that goes towards taxes.. so if anyone is screwing me, its no the oil companies, its the government..
So, YOU don't care about it but YOU ask, I think you're a very confused individual.
As usual, you have no understanding of what I wrote, I never claimed there was an affordable alternative. In reality, 'affordable' is so ambiguous as to be meaningless.
What I DID say was I oppose private use of public land UNLESS there is some benefit to the public, NOT that there should never be drilling on public land as YOU have FALSELY accused me of saying several times. YOU have a very bad habit of FALSE allegations, TRY to keep up.
Wrong.. See I'd allow the oil companies to drill in my own back yard if it meant increasing the supply of oil and profiting from it. You however dont want them drilling anywhere, and then want to sit here and cry about being "screwed"...
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Wrong.. See I'd allow the oil companies to drill in my own back yard if it meant increasing the supply of oil and profiting from it. You however dont want them drilling anywhere, and then want to sit here and cry about being "screwed"...
I'm shocked! You may actually be beginning to understand. Note what you wrote:IF IT MEANT PROFITING FROM IT.
If you weren't so busy posting abridged quotes and attributing statements to people that never nade them you might understand, that has to be the key words to allowing private ventures on public land:IF THE PUBLIC PROFITS
I'm shocked! You may actually be beginning to understand. Note what you wrote:IF IT MEANT PROFITING FROM IT.
If you weren't so busy posting abridged quotes and attributing statements to people that never nade them you might understand, that has to be the key words to allowing private ventures on public land:IF THE PUBLIC PROFITS
The public ALWAYS profits from it... learn how public leases work and then come back and post..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
