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

Ozzy

SirKristoff is a poopiehead
Staff member
Supporter
Moderator
I saw this at a gas station today.

265105016O837789042.jpg
 
Ha! You gotta love people/businesses who can poke fun at themselves/their wares. If you can't laugh at yourself you could be missing the joke of the year.

xvart.
 
Diesel is $4.85 now. $4.63 is the cheapest I've seen it. Crazy.
 
yeah our gas prices were just the same about as clints...just wait....
>_>
damn jooo air car, where art thou?
id rather ride on a bomb then be homeless because of a car...>_>
 
The oil companies and the media have been saying that the reason the prices keep going up is because of supply and demand.

Today I saw on the news that gas sales are down 25% over last Memorial day. If it's true that it's all supply and demand, then the prices should now drop because the demand is now down.

I think the gas companies planned this just to see what Americans are willing to pay.
 
I think the gas companies planned this just to see what Americans are willing to pay.
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.
 
Blasted state & Fed gov taxes.

Like leeches.................... :censor:
 
Blasted state & Fed gov taxes.

Like leeches.................... :censor:

actually if the feds and states lifted the taxes you would still be paying over $2 a gallon....taxes are a very small part of the cost
 
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.



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.
 
  • #10
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.

um..it really is as simple as that..
and there really is an entire political party to blame for not drilling..
its just a basic fact..

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 thing is..if we drilled in Alaska, it would be SO much more environmentally friendly than the current oil drilling in the middle east! which we have no control over when it comes to protecting the environment..

So which would you rather have, "environmentally responsible" (as much as possible anyway) drilling in alaska,
or burning and leaking and blown-up oil wells in the middle east?

From a "whole earth" perspective, it makes a lot more sense to let the US do the drilling, where the environmentalists can watch over it (which yes, I think is a good thing)
rather than totally uncontrolled and very messy and poluting drilling in the rest of the world...where our oil comes from currently.

Drilling in Alaska, and getting less oil from the Mid East as a result, would be BETTER for the environment, on a global scale, than NOT drilling in Alaska..

The oil has to come from somewhere...
IMO it should come from the place that is best equipped to protect the environmant while drilling and producing that oil..
that is NOT the Mid East..its us.

Environmantalists should FAVOR drilling in Alaska...because it would be better for the global environment as a whole..
The Mid-east is part of the world..the unchecked pollution that happens there effects the whole world..
you cant "Save Alaska" while the rest of the world goes to hell..
when it comes to protecting the environment, you have to think globally..

Scot
 
  • #11
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.

ahhhhhhhhh hate to tell yah but the Bakken isnt new and isnt limited to North Dakota....we have been pulling oil out of it since the 70's....heavily since 1998......still havent figured out why its making headlines the last few months cause its been widely known about for 30 years.....hell im sitting on top of the Bakken oil field right now as it extends well into eastern Montana and up into Canada aways......
 
  • #12
I'm ready to go drill in Alaska. Some people think that if we start drilling there, it's going to immediately start an environmental holocaust......FAIL!
First of all, the wildlife preserve it is under is extremely massive, and not that much of it would be effected (at least after digging a trench and laying a pipeline). Plus, if we lost some species (which will happen anywhere you drill), so what? 99.9% of anything to ever live is extinct....do we REALLY need a seal with 5 hairs on its cheek instead of 3? And that's if it even happened. New species specifically adapted to disturbances will rush in to fill the gaps, and life goes on. I'm into environmental responsibility and all, but there's a point where it just gets ridiculous. The whole "green" movement is more of a political agenda not convincingly backed by science than anything else. It's not true because it is actually true, it's just truth through repetition.

Oh, and the current political powers (mostly republican) are the ones to blame for not drilling in Alaska. Almost all of them (the most powerful at least) have SOME kind of oil ties, or get kickbacks, large campaign contributions, etc from oil interests. They sit there and blame the left for being "tree-huggers", some of whom are, but they're not the ones stopping it/absolutely flat out refusing to even consider it. Good ol' propaganda.
 
  • #13
I think its about time to bust out my motorcycle gear :cool:
 
  • #14
I'm ready to go drill in Alaska. Some people think that if we start drilling there, it's going to immediately start an environmental holocaust......FAIL!
First of all, the wildlife preserve it is under is extremely massive, and not that much of it would be effected (at least after digging a trench and laying a pipeline). Plus, if we lost some species (which will happen anywhere you drill), so what? 99.9% of anything to ever live is extinct....do we REALLY need a seal with 5 hairs on its cheek instead of 3? And that's if it even happened. New species specifically adapted to disturbances will rush in to fill the gaps, and life goes on. I'm into environmental responsibility and all, but there's a point where it just gets ridiculous. The whole "green" movement is more of a political agenda not convincingly backed by science than anything else. It's not true because it is actually true, it's just truth through repetition.

Oh, and the current political powers (mostly republican) are the ones to blame for not drilling in Alaska. Almost all of them (the most powerful at least) have SOME kind of oil ties, or get kickbacks, large campaign contributions, etc from oil interests. They sit there and blame the left for being "tree-huggers", some of whom are, but they're not the ones stopping it/absolutely flat out refusing to even consider it. Good ol' propaganda.

kinda like that one crazy guy that said the earth revolves around the sun, pfft... everybody knows that the whole universe revolve around earth... crazy guys with their crazy ideas. we should exile them. :jester:
 
  • #15
We need to reduce consumption, not find increasingly destructive ways to boost production.
 
  • #16
Oh, and the current political powers (mostly republican) are the ones to blame for not drilling in Alaska. Almost all of them (the most powerful at least) have SOME kind of oil ties, or get kickbacks, large campaign contributions, etc from oil interests. They sit there and blame the left for being "tree-huggers", some of whom are, but they're not the ones stopping it/absolutely flat out refusing to even consider it. Good ol' propaganda.

wow..that really IS good propaganda!
very nicely done..and its already working, because YOU believe its true!
fascinating..

I have never heard that one before..
(probably because its so recently made up)
but as we all know, everything is Bush's fault right!
might as well pin him for not drilling in Alaska too.. :-))

Scot
 
  • #17
Sometimes I think you're living in a parallel universe (or at least under a rock). I'm so conservative (fiscally) I don't think there's even a word for it, and usually tend to side with Republicans, but they're messing up, bad. It's no secret Republicans and oil interests go way back...unless you don't know anything about American history...then it might be a secret. Look up "teapot dome affair", and here:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/13/9118/3379
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/washington/22libya.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/11/senate_republic.php (some statements semi-questionable I suppose)
http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=12&a=343889
etc, etc, etc

So, if we end up debating, I challenge you to do so without using ad hominem (your fave!), strawman, argumentum ad ignorantium, or the other logical fallacies you unequivocally employ. I'm not trying to attack, but if we debate I'd like it to be worth my time this time around. Also if that happens, please actually provide some evidence of your claims for once, besides, "because I say so". Otherwise, let's just forget about it ;).
 
  • #18
If we want to increase our oil supply why dont we first off put the screws to the Saudi's as the US supplies them with inordinate amounts of weapons and they have the ability to pump more oil, but I am sure king Abdullah needs a new golden plated bathroom so they wont pump any more.

If we want to drill in Alaska thats fine but we need to take the approach that was used in Paupa New Guinea where if there is any noticeable impact on the wild flora and fauna the drilling stops immediately. The natives in the area still depend on the wild resources for their lives and they have found little to no impact from the drilling there proving it can be done without a disregard for the environment. If the oil companies will drill with that kind of care and that type of attitude then I am all for drilling in Alaska, but if they will not then I think it should stay what it is, a nature preserve.
 
  • #19
"If the oil companies will drill with that kind of care and that type of attitude ..."

Could you keep a straight face while typing that? Maybe I'm biased by the well-documented environmental outrages by hard rock mining corporations in PNG, but I have a hard time believing drilling stops immediately at the first sign of an impact on the environment. It would be impossible not to have an impact, because drilling and oil production is an inherently messy process.
 
  • #20
And, I seriously doubt an American company would stop what they are doing at anytime, despite whatever was said beforehand.

xvart.
 
Back
Top