I have assumed you work in the oil industry. As such, I believe you have grossly oversimplified an extremely complicated situation vis-a-vis US energy policy. We have known since the early '70s with the Arab Oil Embargo that our national security (and our economic security) was in jeopardy because of our dependence upon oil. Even if we drilled everywhere there is oil in the US, we could not be energy independent. We as a nation had an opportunity to move away from fossil fuels long ago, but our politicians lacked the foresight (or balls) to do so. As the science of climate change has become more and more inescapable, we had yet another reminder that dependence upon fossil fuels was a lousy idea. Now we have $4 a gallon gas, and you'd think that would FINALLY get politicians off their duffs (and off their oil-bidness sponsorships) to take a multi-pronged approach to our energy future.
Oil, whether it's foreign or domestic in origin, isn't the answer. I realize that your industry doesn't see it that way, but guess what? Their selfish interests are NOT the public interest.
Opening up ANWR, US coastal areas not currently open to drilling (which, as you know or should know, is actually quite small) or starting foreign wars to protect the flow of oil won't address the fundamental longterm problem: oil can no longer be the primary fuel of our economy.
It amazes me that as a kayaker you take such a cavalier attitude toward the very environment that you clearly value, and that you recreate in. How do you balance that in your mind?
Quote:
Originally Posted by caspermike
i work for in the oil industry and know all about whats happening. we wouldn't need to oversees in the first place if we allowed ourselfs to drill in our contry but, ohh its an eye sore this, and wildlife that. we need oil and its driving our contry and every country. we just can't have oil and everybody walking down the street wheres the groceries coming into play. he's oversees going for the oil. is this a bad thing? no because you all are using it! stop being hypocrites.
I have assumed you work in the oil industry. As such, I believe you have grossly oversimplified an extremely complicated situation vis-a-vis US energy policy. We have known since the early '70s with the Arab Oil Embargo that our national security (and our economic security) was in jeopardy because of our dependence upon oil. Even if we drilled everywhere there is oil in the US, we could not be energy independent. We as a nation had an opportunity to move away from fossil fuels long ago, but our politicians lacked the foresight (or balls) to do so. As the science of climate change has become more and more inescapable, we had yet another reminder that dependence upon fossil fuels was a lousy idea. Now we have $4 a gallon gas, and you'd think that would FINALLY get politicians off their duffs (and off their oil-bidness sponsorships) to take a multi-pronged approach to our energy future.
Oil, whether it's foreign or domestic in origin, isn't the answer. I realize that your industry doesn't see it that way, but guess what? Their selfish interests are NOT the public interest.
Opening up ANWR, US coastal areas not currently open to drilling (which, as you know or should know, is actually quite small) or starting foreign wars to protect the flow of oil won't address the fundamental longterm problem: oil can no longer be the primary fuel of our economy.
It amazes me that as a kayaker you take such a cavalier attitude toward the very environment that you clearly value, and that you recreate in. How do you balance that in your mind?
as a boater who depends on gas to get him to place to place it is a big deal
I have assumed you work in the oil industry. As such, I believe you have grossly oversimplified an extremely complicated situation vis-a-vis US energy policy. We have known since the early '70s with the Arab Oil Embargo that our national security (and our economic security) was in jeopardy because of our dependence upon oil. Even if we drilled everywhere there is oil in the US, we could not be energy independent. We as a nation had an opportunity to move away from fossil fuels long ago, but our politicians lacked the foresight (or balls) to do so. As the science of climate change has become more and more inescapable, we had yet another reminder that dependence upon fossil fuels was a lousy idea. Now we have $4 a gallon gas, and you'd think that would FINALLY get politicians off their duffs (and off their oil-bidness sponsorships) to take a multi-pronged approach to our energy future.
Oil, whether it's foreign or domestic in origin, isn't the answer. I realize that your industry doesn't see it that way, but guess what? Their selfish interests are NOT the public interest.
Opening up ANWR, US coastal areas not currently open to drilling (which, as you know or should know, is actually quite small) or starting foreign wars to protect the flow of oil won't address the fundamental longterm problem: oil can no longer be the primary fuel of our economy.
While oil shale is found in many places worldwide, by far the largest deposits in the world are found in the United States in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.2 to 1.8 trillion barrels. Not all resources in place are recoverable; however, even a moderate estimate of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.
Shale oil takes roughly $70/barrel to produce, which wasn't profitable till recently (even then, it's marginally profitable). Be worried...
The problem with fossil fuels is this:
They are more efficient in terms of energy produced than any alternative technology except nuclear (which should be our interim technology while we try to make renewable energy more productive and cost effective).
__________________
Remember the dollar value to human life. Mine is priceless. Yours is negotiable. - unknown
Good call on nuclear power... half of the holes drilled in that region are being capped off. no way to get it to the pulic. also another to help the economy tremendously by doing something simple would be to only produce 2 types of gasoline instead of 3 of 4 different grades. they would be able to put more premium out if they droped midgrade and it would also be cheaper than unleaded. try and figure that one out if you can. the market is minipulated by us. we have many demands and the production cant keep up. more like americans at fault rather than any president! same with over half wanting to go to war than blame bush after they supported him. whats up with that. over 50 percent were game for it in the first place than the news can really make something out of it!
Oh boy, politics on the buzz... Prolly not a good idea but oh well, its election time.
Bush, the decider, worst president EVER. Please watch Bill Maher's "The Decider" for the most incredibly funny and concise rip apart of the entire Bush administration you will ever see. You will be in tears laughing and crying at the same time. Its truly some of best political/comedic work ever done.
Ya, as boaters we need gas/diesel to get places if we don't have time to ride or walk (I myself drive a lot), but only because big oil has left us with no other options - buying out or killing every inventor or good idea that would steal share from their greed machine and provide alternatives to a free market. (No offense Mike)
I for one hate that man for what he has done to our country, our military, our economy, and our foreign relations - but I love my country, support our troops (thus do not support the Iraq war) and don't blame anyone but ourselves (and voter fraud) for allowing him to take office.
If you're referring to the initial public support of the Iraq War, the American people did support it. 72% of Americans polled in March 2003 said that the decision to use force was the "right" decision. By February 2008, that was down to 38%. (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/770/iraq...ar-anniversary) Recall, if you will, that support was due in large part by the completely misleading and utterly dishonest propaganda campaign waged by the Bush administration. As their lies were revealed, and as American soldiers were killed and maimed for life in a war rooted in lies, support for the Iraq war plummeted. We as a people tend to support our leaders in time of war. Clearly in the case of Iraq, that trust was simply not warranted.
The real issue here regarding energy is a complete lack of honest leadership on the issue by our representatives. They have historically been far too willing to act on behalf of the oil industry and NOT on behalf of the American people. Bush isn't the only culpable politico.
Securing our energy future simply cannot be focused strictly on fossil fuels. That era is drawing to a close for a lot of reasons. It is not sustainable economically or environmentally. We must transition away from an economy that is completely tied to fossil fuels. It is time for both political parties to honestly address what is the single greatest threat to America's security: the transition away from fossil fuels. It's that simple and that complex.
This thread started with a laundry list of Bush's failings. I challenge you to dispute a single one of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caspermike
Good call on nuclear power... half of the holes drilled in that region are being capped off. no way to get it to the pulic. also another to help the economy tremendously by doing something simple would be to only produce 2 types of gasoline instead of 3 of 4 different grades. they would be able to put more premium out if they droped midgrade and it would also be cheaper than unleaded. try and figure that one out if you can. the market is minipulated by us. we have many demands and the production cant keep up. more like americans at fault rather than any president! same with over half wanting to go to war than blame bush after they supported him. whats up with that. over 50 percent were game for it in the first place than the news can really make something out of it!
i watchd that bill mahers with that old dude on tv last night funny as hell and he also said the one truth about all politics. they don't do it in the interest of us they do it for them!!!!!! they are all the same greedy politicians. he also talked about amsterdam and smoking weed 12 miles off the coast so its legal funny stuff to say the least. good show adrian
Funniest line- on Fidel Castro's offer of aid for Katrina- paraphrase-"what would Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh say if Clinton had still been president- this is terrible-we've been offered aid by a Mexican?"
That's hilarious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caspermike
i watchd that bill mahers with that old dude on tv last night funny as hell and he also said the one truth about all politics. they don't do it in the interest of us they do it for them!!!!!! they are all the same greedy politicians. he also talked about amsterdam and smoking weed 12 miles off the coast so its legal funny stuff to say the least. good show adrian
Linear Mode
