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.
I just found out that we/the government spends 4 x's more a year on terror sponsored oil then we do the war in Iraq. Many people complain about the exorbitant cost of the war, yet these same people don't want us to drill on our home turf, thus continuing our dependence on terror sponsored oil. I don't get it.
Ugh. Read some of the posts. It's a matter of us not having enough crude oil, it being better in the long run to get off of oil and find a better solution, and not destroying our other natural resources out of short sightedness.
Drilling domestically IS NOT GOING TO DESTROY ANY NATURAL RESOURCES -
That is nothing more that the tree huggers battle cry!!!
It will in some sensitive locations, like ANWR (read the links I've posted on the caribou). Find less sensitive (and non-pristine wilderness) areas environmentally and I won't have a problem with it. Location, location, location...
It will in some sensitive locations, like ANWR (read the links I've posted on the caribou). Find less sensitive (and non-pristine wilderness) areas environmentally and I won't have a problem with it. Location, location, location...
We can either increase our supply of oil drilling at the areas mentioned or not. I don't want to be dependent on the Middle East oil, do you?
Of course Arctichomesteader wants the US utterly dependent on foreign sources. He is of the same ilk that dances in the streets every time an American is killed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
The "11 year" supply increase is a ridiculous claim; there is a huge amount of oil off both coasts.
Of course it is ludicris, but that doesn't keep these leaf-lickers from spewing the same lies every decade. In 1968 they claimed we reached peak oil and only had a 20 year supply left. In 1977and again in 1989 they made the exact same claim. How many times are they going to cry "wolf" before they realize nobody is paying any attention to their lies?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
Give me a break... we both know that in less than 25 years, alternate fuel will be much more common, if not in widespread, use.
Arctichomestead is correct in that the same mantra was used during the 1970s. However, he lied about why it failed. Solar power on a typical home would cost an additional $25,000 in 1978 dollars (in some cases more than the home was worth). Electric cars (and yes they had some prototypes then) could not meet the expectations of the typical consumer, they could barely reach speeds of 25mph and cost well over $100,000. The incident at Three Mile Island, and the cracked reactor at Diablo Canyon scared a lot of people away from nuclear power. And natural gas powered vehicles were only a pipedream at the time. In short, there were no viable alternative fuel sources during the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, or even up til today. The very best all electric vehicle today has a maximum range of 40 miles, fully charged, and you must replace the $3,000 battery every year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
The U.S.'s "meddling" has helped liberate more countries than any other country on Earth. Furthermore, hundreds of thousands of Americans have given their lives to do so.
Ugh. Read some of the posts. It's a matter of us not having enough crude oil, it being better in the long run to get off of oil and find a better solution, and not destroying our other natural resources out of short sightedness.
I understand that but whatever the %, isn't it better to be less dependent on terror sponsored oil? In other words, say AWAR gives us only 5%, well that's 5% less going into terror sponsoring nations coffers.
Once again, those are proven reserves; what about unproven/estimated/yet undiscovered reserves. We may never know if those reserves are never tapped as you seem to want.
Quote:
Same was said in the 1970's and it didn't happen because once the oil flowed easily again people didn't care. As I've said, people are often short sighted. We had over 30 years to find some solutions and we didn't. Didn't put the money or effort into researching things on a large scale. It was left up to small companies and individuals to struggle with a tiny crowd of alternative energy supporters to work on it. Absolutely stupid and foolish is all that describes it.
Climate change is the correct term. You need to differentiate between the science and the BS spewed by politicians and such (Gore's version of things is not sound, for example).
It is the "correct" term now. One year ago, it was "global warming," 30 years ago, it was "global cooling!"
Quote:
In this case it doesn't. As I said, go to the references/citations and study things a while. The Hirsch report is something you should read as well.
And you should read how large the unproven and yet (estimated) undiscovered reserves are.
In some cases yes (notably world war two), in others, no. I'm glad we fought in WWII, not so glad about some of the stuff the CIA and military has done in South America and Africa and the Middle East over the years. Not all of it is very nice.
Just say the U.S., in general, is a good country which cares about the people of other countries and we can both agree on that.
Quote:
Your argument is not based on logic. Just because someone else does something doesn't make it right. I'm not happy China is drilling after we haven't. Still, it doesn't make me scream to drill, it makes me scream to stop China if we can, but currently we can't because of the mess free trade (with China stealing our manufacturing) and wars we can't afford (Iraq for example, resulting in China owning a lot of our debt) has gotten us into with China. We're China's little slave now
You haven't really answered the question... just avoided answering it by going on and on about China.
I shall ask again: Since China is drilling 50 miles off the coast of Florida, would it be wise for the U.S. to do so, too, or let only China obtain the oil which is out there?
Of course Arctichomesteader wants the US utterly dependent on foreign sources. He is of the same ilk that dances in the streets every time an American is killed.
Not at all. Quite the opposite in fact. I want us entirely off oil because we don't have enough to last long on our own, and I don't like us being enslaved by other countries. And I resent being compared to people who dance in the streets over Americans' deaths.
Quote:
Of course it is ludicris, but that doesn't keep these leaf-lickers from spewing the same lies every decade. In 1968 they claimed we reached peak oil and only had a 20 year supply left. In 1977and again in 1989 they made the exact same claim. How many times are they going to cry "wolf" before they realize nobody is paying any attention to their lies?
I posted links earlier in this thread to charts of U.S. reserves, production, and consumption. Our oil has peaked but I see you didn't bother looking at any of the info. presented.
Quote:
Arctichomestead is correct in that the same mantra was used during the 1970s. However, he lied about why it failed. Solar power on a typical home would cost an additional $25,000 in 1978 dollars (in some cases more than the home was worth). Electric cars (and yes they had some prototypes then) could not meet the expectations of the typical consumer, they could barely reach speeds of 25mph and cost well over $100,000. The incident at Three Mile Island, and the cracked reactor at Diablo Canyon scared a lot of people away from nuclear power. And natural gas powered vehicles were only a pipedream at the time. In short, there were no viable alternative fuel sources during the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, or even up til today. The very best all electric vehicle today has a maximum range of 40 miles, fully charged, and you must replace the $3,000 battery every year.
Not at all accurate. Electric vehicles are quite capable of highway speeds, the batteries last on average 3 years or more, and there are vehicles with a greater range than 40 miles. The big problem in the 70's and 80's was that research just wasn't done. If more research had been done technology would have improved, but obviously when there isn't much interest or research (or monetary incentive), technology doesn't move forward well...
Once again, those are proven reserves; what about unproven/estimated/yet undiscovered reserves. We may never know if those reserves are never tapped as you seem to want.
Just where are all of these unexplored areas may I ask? Read through the information I've linked to and you'll have your answers but not answers you'd like.
At current consumption rates there isn't even a year and a half of oil in ANWR, and by all estimates would only drop the price of a barrel of oil about 75 cents. The answer to our energy problems won't be found in ANWR. It couldn't even contribute in any significant way.
Quote:
It is the "correct" term now. One year ago, it was "global warming," 30 years ago, it was "global cooling!"
Depends on whether you've been reading what's written by actual scientists or the hype the media creates. Climate change is the correct term because there are cool and warm periods. Some of them more extreme than others.
Quote:
And you should read how large the unproven and yet (estimated) undiscovered reserves are.
Not large enough.
Quote:
You haven't really answered the question... just avoided answering it by going on and on about China.
I shall ask again: Since China is drilling 50 miles off the coast of Florida, would it be wise for the U.S. to do so, too, or let only China obtain the oil which is out there?
I answered it but you didn't like my answer is all.
I understand that but whatever the %, isn't it better to be less dependent on terror sponsored oil? In other words, say AWAR gives us only 5%, well that's 5% less going into terror sponsoring nations coffers.
Actually it only makes us in bigger trouble once we use up all of our reserves and have nothing to fall back on here at home.
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.
