Boy, big oil really got you bamboozled.

Show me how

I'll have Ms. Anne Korin call you.

Is there a problem with you articulating your own views? Do you have any views of your own?

If you recall I commented on what you posted of her work.

Wait a minute, you never answered this question. Why?

I have tried to explain to you again and again how big oil is taken us for a ride, but you either refuse to accept the truth, don’t believe me, or don’t understand. Therefore, I thought, maybe, Ms. Anne Korin could do it, if not her, maybe Mr. Pickens.

My friend the same can be said of you. No matter what proof I provide you ignore it and continue to spout talking points. Not once can I remember you refuting what I posted, instead you dig up another persons words without any context and call that an answer. You may have connected the dots in your mind but you have yet to put them on the screen for me to see.

I and the good doctor have shown you how drilling for oil will bring down the price. You reject that with no evidence to back it up. You simply refused to address what was written and I know you think you are witty with your retorts but they fall short of making a point or addressing the topic. Mr. Pickens is one of those not in my back yard people. He refuses to put up wind turbines on his land. So much for him. Oh, yeah he also says you can’t drill your way out of this crisis but he still drills and pumps oil. Why is that? Once again I will tell you that wind power is not the answer by its self. And once again I will ask you what alternative fuel source is there that we can use to stop using oil? will you answer that question? Because without an alternative fuel all this crap about getting off of oil is a waste of time. You can’t get rid of the thing that runs our economy and not replace it. Without the replacement we will still have to use oil.
Here is a hint, you will know you found the fuel alternative when the price of a barrel of oil drops to about five cents. The price of oil will always drop to remain competitive so when there is competition the price will drop.

Why must it be either/or? We have enough inventiveness to do all.

I don't think anyone is saying that it has to be either/or, Palidin77, the good doc and myself are merely stating that until an alternative fuel is viable we need to drill for oil so that we can bridge the gap. If we were to say tomorrow that all gas stations had to shut down because we were switching over to hydrogen fuel cell cars only people in Southern Califonia could get around, and only within a couple hundred miles of home (assuming they had a hydrogen car). If we were to all of the sudden stop running the fossil fuel power plants most of the US would be in an indefinite blackout. I know I am all for alternative energies, I want them as soon as possible the problem is that they just aren't ready yet. So while they are being researched and developed we need to increase our domestic supply of oil.

The big question is, why is it ok for every country to drill off our shores but the US?

Yeah, what he said.



Because like all liberal ideas, America has to set the example and others will follow and we can save the planet. Just like during the cold war when the liberals said we should get rid of our nuclear arms to prove to the Soviet Union that we really were not a threat. These are the same people that foolishly believe that poverty causes terrorism, and since America is a rich nation we must be the cause of terrorism so we deserve what we get.

Fairly big flaw in this argument. You're essentially saying that increasing the supply won't decrease prices because you'll have an increase in demand (in the future). However, even if you do have such an increase in demand, prices will still be lower as a result of the increase in supply than if you had no such increase. That is, prices may rise, but they won't be as high if you had no such drilling at all.


It's simple supply and demand; If demand is held constant, and supply is increased, then the price will fall. Equally, if you have two situations, in one demand increases by 50% and supply by 10%, and the other where demand increases by 50% and supply is unchanged, the first one will have lower prices than the second.

Now the actual difference in prices might be small (depending no the amount of oil being talked about), but it will still have an affect.

If you continually stress the immediate need of oil exploration, it inevitably will and deliberately upstage the alternatives.

What alternatives???? You keep on saying that we need to switch to alternative yet you don't ever offer up what alternatives are ready to step up to the plate. As of today there simply aren't any that can step up and replace oil. Maybe there will be in 10-40 years, but they just aren't there yet so we need to exploit the oil that we have on our shores to bide our time until the alternative energies are ready. Obviously we need to switch to alternatives as soon as we can, but doing so too soon will do much more harm than good.

We have been searching for alternative fuels since WWII, Germany and they untied states both invented a synthetic gasoline but it is too expensive to put on the market then and now. We have been improving solar power since the 70’s, I wrote on using sea currents as a generation source in 1975 they are doing it today but it can’t hope to replace petro generation. Wind power is also way short of doing anything useful. What alternative fuels are there? None! The oil companies screamed we need nuclear power plants back in the 70’s, to free up oil to keep it cheap and affordable. Our politicians at the time ignored this and their predictions came true. The oil companies did not build or own any nuclear power plants they make no money from them. They looked at what was happening and said this was what was best for the nation.

You both show a lack of confidence in American ingenuity. The alternatives, just as new oil, is potential. All we need is the national will to go for it.

So you admit that there are no viable alternatives at the moment. At least we have gotten you to admit that. And the new oil is NOT potential, we know it's there it's just a matter of building the drilling rigs to extract it, and then the transportation system to carry the oil from the rig to the refineries. Both of these things can be done with known technology.

Alternative energies however are NOT a known technology and therefore would take more time to get to a point where they are economically viable. I have the utmost confidence in American ingenuity and the idea that we will one day no longer need oil, however as of today that day is not here yet so we need to free ourselves from foreign oil to bide our time until the alternative energies are ready.

"Why don't we do a hybrid of both..." It's pathetic when Paris Hilton (in a spoof no less) becomes the voice of reason.        

You think she came up with the joke? I think you give her way too much credit. It doesn't change the fact that it's still rather pathetic though.

The difference between new oil and alternative fuels is we know where the new oil is, we don’t have an alternative fuel. The nation will go for an alternative as soon as they come up with one.



It has nothing to do with confidence in American ingenuity it has to do with a replacement for a fuel that we are currently using. You can’t scrap the old fuel without a replacement. Where is the replacement?

You're kidding, right? Bio, thermal, oceanic, wind, liquid coal, nuclear. Your problem is not wanting to give up the combustion engine.

Nope.

If gearing up oil exploration is pissing in the ocean, then these 'alternatives' are spitting into the ocean... upwind.

Bio - shown to have a larger carbon footprint (hate to use the term but speaking 'their' language as a courtesy) at greater cost per unit of energy produced, with the lovely side effect of raising taxes on the poor & middle class through higher food costs.

Thermal - can't even supply all of Iceland's power needs.

Oceanic - figure out a way to store & distribute oceanic energy, the Nobel will be yours.

Nuclear - no problem, go right ahead & request a permit.

The only two 'alternatives' that stand a chance of making a dent in our oil consumption any time soon are wind and coal. The technology to harness & store wind energy on an individual home basis is getting close to being cost effective. We already have the technology to scrub coal such that it burns with nearly zero emissions, but the EPA won't hear of it.

The nubbin of the problem is that any 'alternatives' have to become inexpensive and widely available and achieving that is no simple thing. If the government subsidizes alternatives without the actual cost per unit of energy going down, we've just spun our wheels. Things that reduce our energy consumption will certainly help, but a way to power our transportation system has to be maintained and for the foreseeable future, that way is oil.

No, I am quite serious. Please show me a Jet engine that can run on Bio, thermal, oceanic, wind, liquid coal, or nuclear fuel. Please provide for me the bio fuel that we have in supply to replace oil. Nuclear power is great but you can’t drive a nuclear powered car yet, electric cars are not affordable to the general public. Sure you have some pieces in place to start to begin to commence to get ready to maybe do something, but none of them are ready to replace the oil we consume today. They are still working out the bugs on all of them except Nuclear. Bio fuel has now been shown to pollute more that gas as far as CO2 goes. Once we find one that works we have to build a supply and infrastructure to support it then we will be ready to use this new wonder fuel. Today we produce enough bio-fuel to run a few thousand cars a year. How many millions of cars are on the road today?

Good one, I like that.  

Wait a second, we haven't been drilling because it would take "10 years" before we see any benefit, right?

It has taken much longer than 50 years to develop an alternative to oil, and we STILL have seen no effective alternative solution. Since that's WAY longer than 10 years, we shouldn't be wasting money on alternative fuel development, right?

The sad truth is we have 90% of the tech we need to convert to a nuclear/electric vehicle based economy RIGHT NOW. All that is needed is more cost-effective batteries with a massive capacity and better transmission lines to handle the heavy post-rush-hour loads (both things we could see in the next 10 years). Of all the alternative possibilities, an electric system would have the least difficulty in up-front startup costs.

Only if people stop with their NIMBY selfishness will it happen. Finally, we don't need nearly as many planes as we are currently flying, and last time I was there, the whole act of getting a flight is miserable. All we need are basic international routes across the ocean, and that would require MUCH less fuel than the hundreds of commuter lines we're currently running.

I have a nuclear plant practically in my back yard, and it isn't so bad! So why the hell can't the two parties unite behind a nuclear future? It baffles the mind.




What a logical load of Bullshit the eco-extremists in control of the Democratic party right now are feeding us...I hope Pelosi loses her seat soon.