What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Gas Station Pic

  • Thread starter Ozzy
  • Start date
  • #41
Didn't one of them admit that?

I just poked around in some things the other day. Alaska has enough oil to supply the US at the projected increased rate of growth for 200 years. Supply is kept extremely artificially low.

Oil supply, or gas supply? The difference is orders of magnitude.
~Joe
 
  • #42
Sorry, but you're horribly and completely mistaken. It has never been proven that there was "no Al Qaeda in Iraq". The thought that that is a fact is an oft repeated fallacy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d7fHvHXeiQ

Also, no one ever proved that {insert noun here} wasn't a pedophile.
I'm all for debate man, but that almost fails to qualify as an argument.
~Joe

PS - Fun noun phrases to use above:
Pat Sajak!
The tennis coach!
Grandpa Smurf!
Elvis!
Jesus!
 
  • #43
PS - Fun noun phrases to use above:
Pat Sajak!
The tennis coach!
Grandpa Smurf!
Elvis!
Jesus!

I was thinking Michael Jackson myself.
 
  • #44
I was thinking Michael Jackson myself.
The fun part is finding the answer that's most true to you.
But I'm lost; what does this have to do with the topic? Last I heard, neither al-Zarqawi or Saddam Hussein or anyone else from the Middle East has ever been accused of forcing even a single American to a buy big car to drive to and from a big house full of big appliances too far from everything. Much of the pain at the pump is self-inflicted.
Wrong, Bruce. Saddam sent me a personal email explaining the benefits of driving a Hummer. I'll never forgive him for deceiving me and now he's dead; so I guess he got the last laugh.

xvart.
Ding! You guys win at internet.
~Joe
 
  • #45
Deciding whether or not to extract oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will not be decided on an environmental basis. The amount of oil contained in it is fairly small (only 9 months worth, I think), and the amount of infrastructure needed to extract and transport said oil would cost far more than the amount of revenue the oil would generate.

Come on, this is America we are talking about. Do you honestly think "tree huggers" would have that much influence?

Also, an oil-price related economic collapse would not be confined to the USA. What do you think the rest of the world's infrastructure runs on, pixie dust? Europe imports a large amount of its energy and although china, india, and the USA contain large amounts of coal, it is nowhere near the amount needed to replace the petroleum currently used.
 
  • #46
Successful societies will be those that maximize the economic productivity, food and water they get for each unit of energy. Not those that squeeze the last drop of oil out of their lands and waters.

With US workers living in bigger houses and driving further in big vehicles, a lot of energy gets used before the day's economic productivity even begins. Our food supply requires a lot of energy-intensive fertilizer & transportation, while we've depleted or contaminated so much water that lots of places are considering energy-intensive desalination or long distance transport for their future water. We need to change our direction.

We can either start changing our ways now or we can wait until after we've caused even more destruction chasing cheap energy. The only advantage to waiting is that we'll get all the benefits and someone else (our descendents) will pay the costs.
 
  • #47
Didn't one of them admit that?

I just poked around in some things the other day. Alaska has enough oil to supply the US at the projected increased rate of growth for 200 years. Supply is kept extremely artificially low.

I have heard 80 years at the current rate of growth, but that was a while ago. They may have found more. Either way, it is a long time for us to finish curing our addiction of oil. They claim a 10% profit margin. Damn if they are selling that much then DANG!
 
  • #48
Bruce, your post makes more sense than any other one in this thread.
 
  • #49
That has been a big subject for a while on radio around here. It is a bunch of blaming an entire political party for not drilling. The term "tree hugger" is tossed around a bit about not drilling in Alaska and harming the wildlife. It gets annoying after a little bit. It isn't just as simple as that.

I'm torn. If it can be done responsibly and on a small scale so as not to decimate the Alaskan wilderness, then ok. I just seriously doubt that it can be done that way. I can't help but feel that as soon as one hole is dug and that door is opened a little, greed will pour into the area and it'll look like a man-made industrial hell. We here on TF should understand the idea of what happens when greed moves into pristine natural areas.

I'm more interested in this new discovery under North Dakota. Tons of oil without the threat of shipwrecks in the ocean, less distance to travel since it is already in the lower 48-sounds ideal to me.

The company's can drill safely and responsibly without hurting the wildlife. Put them on a short leash. The problem is if we increase supply we still do not increase output because we have not built a refinery since the 70's. They can have all the oil they would care to have, but if they can only refine so much we still have a problem. That is where they should have gotten off their buts and fixed ten years ago. Since Katrina and other hurricanes decimated the refineries fuel has been going up. We need refining capacity as well as supply.
 
  • #50
I heard on the news today that the refineries are not producing at full capacity because Americans are buying less gas and the demand is down. Does anybody else see this as criminal or is it just me?
 
  • #51
The public has shown that they will pay 4.00 a gallon so if the increase production to full capacity it might drop to 3.50 or even lower which would make the share holders unhappy because they wouldn't get to reap the benefits of screwing over the average guy. This is unregulated capitalism at its best.
 
  • #52
But isn't that price fixing which is illegal?
 
  • #53
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05292008/business/montana_governor_is_sitting_on_an_oil_mi_113005.htm

I've referenced this machine (http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bown/2007/innovator_2.html) a few times on the forum, but not in this topic. Definitely a solution for the rock or whatever that oil companies say they "can't get the oil out of". Ugh oil industry is so scammy.

Also, will someone please explain to me what speculators have to do with anything? Who gives a damn if they think the price will rise? I mean honestly, I could think the price of pork bellies will rise, and no one will raise their prices based on it. How does oil rising to $135 automatically mean it's going to go to $200 a barrel, because a small group of people on Wall Street think so?
 
  • #54
WOW that very interesting. While I don't don't think that's a solution to our current fuel crisis, I think it would but a partial solution for our landfill problem, with the byproduct being energy that can be a part of the solution. The only solution for the energy crisis is to find ways to use fuels other than fossil fuels.

Still a great idea though.
 
  • #55
I agree with Ozzy; that might be effective for waste management or remediation, which is what the listed sales are all about, but it falls short of being a significant energy source.
 
Back
Top