Environmental issues with the Bush Admin.

[Ilvane]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/08/05/exploration_on_georges_bank_okd/

This is disturbing but not suprising to me. Of course oil drilling should be done in these beautiful and clean places..makes perfect sense? (insert sarcasm here)

Tucked into an energy bill..

What do you all think of this?

[Back]

Like Stewert said last night, Exxon needs to make $7B quarterly. Thats profit over three months!

This energy bill is full of all kinds of shennanigans like tax breaks to the richest energy companies.

This country has taken giant leaps backwards.

[Parkbandit]

"The energy bill, which President Bush is expected to sign next week, does not alter the drilling ban but lifts the prohibition on exploration, which was added during the 1990s."

Go cry elsewhere... and the Bush Administration hasn't even signed off on it yet. If you want to blame people, blame the Senate and House as they are the ones that approved it.

Unless Bush used his secret Jedi mind trick once again........

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Latrinsorm]

The energy bill, which President Bush is expected to sign next week, does not alter the drilling banIt's not like there's nothing in the bill you can take shots at, so why would you make up something that's clearly not true? :?:

[ElanthianSiren]

Actually, if you read the whole article, I believe that Ilvane's issue may be here (as the title of this thread is environmental issues):



If the exploration suggests that significant petroleum sits beneath the bank, political pressure could mount for the Bush administration or Congress to reverse the moratorium that has protected Georges and other pristine tracts like it for decades, said Richard Charter, cochairman of the National OCS Coalition, an association of environmental and fishing groups formed to prevent drilling on the outer continental shelf.

''It's more than a foot in the door -- it's the entire camel under the tent," Charter said of authorizing oil exploration. ''When you're trying to restore a damaged fishery, it's counterintuitive to introduce something that will further damage fisheries in a real way. The cost is likely to be the survivability of the ecosystem."

Aquatic ecosystems are some of the easiest to damage (wetlands being ranked first of these). I'm not sure if Salmon are a stock fish of this area, but they require extremely cold water to spawn. Using many of these tests can raise water temperature and drastically lower spawn rates or render the fish sterile (or in worst case, kill them).

If a man can fire up an entire country to go to war with no direct evidence of WMDs, I think he can manage to fire up a mostly-right-leaning congress to pass drilling in these areas. Just an opinion though.

-M

[Latrinsorm]

I did read the whole article, and I am in no way saying that this endeavor is going to have no effect on wildlife. However:
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
I believe that Ilvane's issue may be There is no need for speculation:
Originally posted by Ilvane
Of course oil drilling should be done in these beautiful and clean places..makes perfect sense? (insert sarcasm here)As for what Bush will or won't be able to do, I'd wait for him to actually sign this bill and promote the idea of drilling in this area before I marked his position down.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

As for what Bush will or won't be able to do, I'd wait for him to actually sign this bill and promote the idea of drilling in this area before I marked his position down. [/quote]

And once the bill is signed and the campaigning begins, by then it's often too late to voice an opposition to what it will do/has done. If you're against an idea, one of the best things about our government is the ability to say that you are and why.

Plenty of people have voiced their concerns about stem cell research, yet I don't see a mandate for government funding approved by the president. That freedom of speech thing works both ways.

-M

[GSTamral]

You know where your house is. That used to be pristine wildlife too at one point in time. Of course you should move out of your house, burn it down, and allow nature to make the place beautiful again. Do you drive a hybrid car? What are you doing to drive down the demand for oil? Hate to break it to you, but the prices of oil are related to supply, which is being restricted by a cartel. The demand for energy is continuing to increase. Due to the fact that some morons called environmentalists essentially killed nuclear power in this country 25 years ago, the U.S doesn't even have the expertise anymore in SCR systems required to build nuclear power. It will be anywhere from 10-12 years before we start getting some relief from nuclear power. As for big companies making money, boo hoo. If I'm putting up 7-10 billion dollars to put up 8000 megawatts worth of power plants, you're damn right I want to make some money on the investment. The profit margin for oil refineries has been increasing at a rate of 4-5% per year.

Break down the cost of a gallon of gas now vs 7 years ago when it was around 1.00 a gallon nationally.

1.00 = 18 cents for then oil (at the low of 8 dollars per barrel, assuming 64% extract of desirable hydrocarbon fuels (C8H18 or lower) + 12% extract after fluidized cat cracking of the remaining fuel, the rest sold at a loss as tar) + (50+, not sure of the exact number) cents in federal gas taxes created by liberal shitbombs and used by construction unions only in a surplus road fund that can only be spent on union labor (in most states) on roads (never mind that non unionized labor is more effective and cheaper, god forbid a union person caring about quality or the lives of other people) + 11 cents in refining costs per gallon + state taxes + transportation costs

Now
94 cents (as of January 2005, assuming a price of 50 dollars a barrel) + 65 cents in federal gas taxes + 16 cents per gallon in refining costs (which actually has paid for itself, considering we can now not only extract a higher average percentage of oil for use as gasoline and other fuels, but we can refine some fuels that previously could not be done, such as the heavier Mexican and Venezuelan crudes. Despite the price of oil increasing 6 fold plus, the price of the gasoline has only jumped by a factor of closer to 5) + state taxes + transportation costs.

Furthermore, there are additional refining costs for the summer fuel, which is why it is more expensive, which was done for the shithead environmentalist freaks, and which accomplishes nothing more than decreasing CO2 emission and giving us NO-X emissions instead, which are actually far deadlier…. But try telling an environmentalist that they are wrong.

Energy prices have shot up because of bad policy decisions and greedy unions. They are the ones who have forced us to destroy the environment.

[Ilvane]

When you destroy good fishing land and pristine banks, you take away a great deal..

I'm sorry if you feel oil is more important. When there is nothing left to destroy, maybe then you'll understand that these ecosystems are important.

Where do you think global warming is coming from? From the destruction of trees, and forest land..the chemicals that are being leaked into the air, all kinds of thing...

Melissa was right by the way..this is the part that bothers me..:If the exploration suggests that significant petroleum sits beneath the bank, political pressure could mount for the Bush administration or Congress to reverse the moratorium that has protected Georges and other pristine tracts like it for decades, said Richard Charter, cochairman of the National OCS Coalition, an association of environmental and fishing groups formed to prevent drilling on the outer continental shelf.

''It's more than a foot in the door -- it's the entire camel under the tent," Charter said of authorizing oil exploration. ''When you're trying to restore a damaged fishery, it's counterintuitive to introduce something that will further damage fisheries in a real way. The cost is likely to be the survivability of the ecosystem."

-A

[Back]

Originally posted by GSTamral
stuff...

It amazes me how intractely you can weave a rationalization to suit your own opinion. I’m going to clear it all up for your right now. Capitalism is the problem. Worship of the almighty dollar is the problem. A system that rewards the selfish is the problem.

[Ilvane]

When is it time to start to rely on other forms of energy so the consumption is lower? I mean, how many SUV's and Hummers do you really need in the world? How many people use these and are single people?

Lots..

If we were actually making efforts to conserve energy, the costs would go down eventually anyway..hybrid cars, cars that run on natural gas, all kinds of things have been created to help with that. You are failing to see that Bush is an oil man, and this will help him and others make a great deal of money if they find oil.


Angela

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by GSTamral
They are the ones who have forced us to destroy the environment.

Yeah! And politicians like Kerry who vote against bills to increase funding for hydroelectric research are to blame! Oh, wait... That was another lie of Tamral's. Despite his repeated promises to document that claim of his, he never did so. Ever.

Yet another post by the master of bullshit, going on about things he'd like to be true so he makes up 'facts' about it. Much like that article we still have never seen.

Raven

[Gan]

Perhaps if someone came up with a viable energy solution that would eliminate the US dependance on oil then we would not have this 'problem'... or any other oil related 'problem'.

You too can start the protest by shutting down the electricity to your house and not funding any activity that uses combustion engines or other oil related energy source.

[ElanthianSiren]

Or you can just say, I oppose drilling in this area. Paying the extra isn't a huge tax on me.

In fact, my car is a turbo beetle deisel. I rarely ever use it because I will walk 3 miles to the store and back with my purchases. Not only does this consume less gas, but it keeps you nice and fit.

-M

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Perhaps if someone came up with a viable energy solution that would eliminate the US dependance on oil then we would not have this 'problem'... or any other oil related 'problem'.

You too can start the protest by shutting down the electricity to your house and not funding any activity that uses combustion engines or other oil related energy source.

Thats a stupid comment about protesting the way things are and what you can do about it. You can do all kinds of things to lower your impact.

Turn your thermostat off or keep it a level its not maxed out heat/AC all the time. Use florescent bulbs. Buys fuel efficient cars. Recycle. Shower for less time. The list goes on and its easy to do all these things. Its so easy its stupid that people don’t do these things.

You know what the difference between an evironmentally aware person and a person who dosen’t give a fuck is? The person who dosen’t give a fuck is a stupid asshole.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
If you're against an idea, one of the best things about our government is the ability to say that you are and why.Of course you're allowed to say you don't like an idea. What you aren't allowed to say is "Bush likes this" when there's no evidence to support your claim, if you want to have any credibility whatsoever. Note how I *didn't* say that you were wrong for voicing your opinion. I took issue solely with your wholly invalid explanation of his views.
Originally posted by Ilvane
Melissa was right by the way..this is the part that bothers meStrange how that's not at all what your first post would indicate.

[Delirium]

You know what the difference between an evironmentally aware person and a person who dosen’t give a fuck is? The person who dosen’t give a fuck is a stupid asshole.

I agree somewhat. But id say most people give a fuck but have differing views on what is acceptable. I doubt anyone would not give a fuck if every lake in their state was toxic waste. The main problem i have with "eviromentally aware people" is they are as sanctimonious and judgemental as any catholic. There are more choices than extreme enviromentalist and extreme "dont give a fucks".

[Back]

Originally posted by Delirium

You know what the difference between an evironmentally aware person and a person who dosen’t give a fuck is? The person who dosen’t give a fuck is a stupid asshole.

I agree somewhat. But id say most people give a fuck but have differing views on what is acceptable. I doubt anyone would not give a fuck if every lake in their state was toxic waste. The main problem i have with "eviromentally aware people" is they are as sanctimonious and judgemental as any catholic. There are more choices than extreme enviromentalist and extreme "dont give a fucks".

Thats part of the point I was trying to make in response to Ganalon’s sanctimoniuos claim that if you are so concerned about energy and the environment, cut off the electricity to your house and not fund anyone that uses enregy for anything.

People are environmentally aware. Most common people like you and me, the people we know etc. Its pretty common knowledge. My saying environmentally aware applies to us. Some people however see the word evnvironmental applied to anything and immediately resort to the black and white arguments, which I find completely asinine.

But I still stand by my statement.

[GSTamral]

<<
It amazes me how intractely you can weave a rationalization to suit your own opinion. I’m going to clear it all up for your right now. Capitalism is the problem. Worship of the almighty dollar is the problem. A system that rewards the selfish is the problem.
>>

And it amazes me how you instantly relate capitalism with selfishness and greed.

To this day, even in this economy, if you are willing to work hard, get an education in a useful field, work at it, you can thrive.

I'd rather live in a system where the educated and hard workers get ahead than one in which nobody can get ahead because the system encourages laziness.

Without the dollar, there's no reason any child should aspire to get educated or do anything more than be a janitor, because they can have more fun as children, spend less time working and learning, and still have all the benefits of a doctor.

You talk of greed being evil. Without microsoft and their massive greed, we'd still be paying 300 dollars for a spreadsheet program, 700 dollars for a database system, 100 dollars for a documenting system, instead of 200 for the whole package.

One big company of 10000 people will always provide better service at a cheaper price to the end customer that 200 companies with 100 people each. Such is the basis of economies of scale. Better for the customer, because he/she gets more for less, and yes, the big company splits the middle and makes a good deal of money.

I don't believe there should be any room in society for people who want to mope around, do nothing, and just take advantage of the system. You seem to believe that the hard-working and successful people exist to serve others. A difference in philosophy that perhaps I will never fully understand.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by GSTamral
stuff...

It amazes me how intractely you can weave a rationalization to suit your own opinion. I’m going to clear it all up for your right now. Capitalism is the problem. Worship of the almighty dollar is the problem. A system that rewards the selfish is the problem.

You need to move to Cuba and tell me how great non-capitalism is doing there.

Show me a better economy in the entire world. That's right.. you can't. You can't show me a better way. You can THEORIZE a better way.. hell, the ideals of communism would be PERFECT in my opinion.. if there wasn't anything called human emotions.

Communism didn't work. Sorry to burst your little red bubble.

[Parkbandit]

When I read BHL posts.. I can only hear the little story of Chicken Little and Henny Penny.

"THE FUCKING SKY IS FALLING!"

I laugh. Alot.

[Delirium]

My saying environmentally aware applies to us. Some people however see the word evnvironmental applied to anything and immediately resort to the black and white arguments, which I find completely asinine.

Thats a good point. When i see the word enviromentalist i picture someone sitting in a tree with cut off jeans eating granola mix wondering when the world will end yelling at the people who dare drive vehicles or use a watt of electricity. When what you meant/said was just normal people who try to conserve as much as possible without going to the extremes.

On topic, would just looking to see how much oil is there really disturb everything so much? Im quite a bit ignorant on oil drilling and the like.

[Warriorbird]

There are a horde of fairly viable energy solutions. Politicians on both sides are just in the pockets of various energy companies.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by GSTamral
And it amazes me how you instantly relate capitalism with selfishness and greed.Um, the invisible hand? :?:
Originally posted by Parkbandit
I can only hear the little story of Chicken Little and Henny Penny.Henny Penny must have been edited out within the past 70 years, I don't remember her at all.

[Back]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by GSTamral
And it amazes me how you instantly relate capitalism with selfishness and greed.

Um, the invisible hand? :?:

Capitalism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Capitalism)

Invisible Hand (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Invisible%20Hand)

But we are off-topic. Back to topic this energy bill is about American short-sighted and desperate thirst for profits of an obsolete energy source. If you are a middle-class working person and back this bill you are bending over and liking it.

[Edited on 8-5-2005 by Backlash]

[Edited on 8-5-2005 by Backlash]

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Ganalon
Perhaps if someone came up with a viable energy solution that would eliminate the US dependance on oil then we would not have this 'problem'... or any other oil related 'problem'.

You too can start the protest by shutting down the electricity to your house and not funding any activity that uses combustion engines or other oil related energy source.

Thats a stupid comment about protesting the way things are and what you can do about it. You can do all kinds of things to lower your impact.

Turn your thermostat off or keep it a level its not maxed out heat/AC all the time. Use florescent bulbs. Buys fuel efficient cars. Recycle. Shower for less time. The list goes on and its easy to do all these things. Its so easy its stupid that people don’t do these things.

You know what the difference between an evironmentally aware person and a person who dosen’t give a fuck is? The person who dosen’t give a fuck is a stupid asshole.

Whats sad is that 99% of the people bitching dont do those very things. I cant wait to convert my whole house over to diode lighting, not only would it be cool as hell but it would be 10x more efficient than even flourescent lighting which kills the eyes. I'd even consider a hybrid car if I sure I wouldnt get my ass run flat over on the freeways here in Houston where slow traffic is going 70 mph. Public transportation in Houston is not an option if you live in the suburbs so thats out. And hoofing it 35 miles to the airport just isnt an option either since thats what my work commute is when I'm not working out of the house.

Yea, your definition of stupid assholes is almost right on, only with the minor edit of "The person who dosen’t give a fuck [and still protests/complains] is a stupid asshole.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
There are a horde of fairly viable energy solutions. Politicians on both sides are just in the pockets of various energy companies.

I whole heartedly agree with the above statement. Now I'm going to go faint in shock that WB and I agree on something.

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Whats sad is that 99% of the people bitching dont do those very things.

Bullshit. I agree with everything else in your post but you just made up that 99% figure. What could possibly motivate you to come to such a crazy conclusion?

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Ganalon
Whats sad is that 99% of the people bitching dont do those very things.

Bullshit. I agree with everything else in your post but you just made up that 99% figure. What could possibly motivate you to come to such a crazy conclusion?

I have but you as an example of outrageous claims and assnine assumptions on subjective non provable points such as that. You should recognize a play from your own playbook Backlash. :lol:

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Ganalon
Whats sad is that 99% of the people bitching dont do those very things.

Bullshit. I agree with everything else in your post but you just made up that 99% figure. What could possibly motivate you to come to such a crazy conclusion?

I have but you as an example of outrageous claims and assnine assumptions on subjective non provable points such as that. You should recognize a play from your own playbook Backlash. :lol:

Asinine. Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) is right at your fingertips, man. But obviously you prefer making up stories like 99%s and me making outrageous claims.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
If you're against an idea, one of the best things about our government is the ability to say that you are and why.Of course you're allowed to say you don't like an idea. What you aren't allowed to say is "Bush likes this" when there's no evidence to support your claim, if you want to have any credibility whatsoever. Note how I *didn't* say that you were wrong for voicing your opinion. I took issue solely with your wholly invalid explanation of his views.

Bush's past views toward drilling in places like ANWR and his record provide plenty of credibility, as well as statements he's made to those effects. People don't forget when someone has authorized activities that destroy the environment.

In Bush's 2000 presidential election campaign, he campaigned on, among other issues, allowing religious charities to compete on an equal basis for participation in federally funded programs, reducing taxes, promoting the use of education vouchers, supporting oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and restructuring of the armed forces. In foreign policy, he stated he was against using the U.S. armed forces in "nation building" attempts abroad.

ooops.

So I ask you, if this area is found to have oil after it's been abused by chemical tests, you think due to that track record and the way Drilling in ANWR was hounded for 5 years, he is going to advocate *not* drilling there? Exactly where are you trying to go with the idea that the government would sponser tests, find oil, then not partake of profits from that oil? Do you really believe that?

Plenty of circumstantial evidence to discern the forthcoming activity on the matter should tests show there to be oil in the region.


-M

[Edited on Sat, August th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
supporting oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife RefugeI didn't think I'd have to point this out, but the Arctic is not New England. You might as well make the claim that Bush invaded Iraq, he might invade Ireland too!
ooops.I didn't realize your grasp on history was so unbelieveably tenuous.
Exactly where are you trying to go with the idea that the government would sponser tests, find oil, then not partake of profits from that oil? Do you really believe that?Allow != sponsor. They specifically say in the article that the government isn't giving them any money for this. I'll spare you the tired "if you had read the whole article" line though.

[Back]

Oh come on... the provision in this so-called Energy Bill opens up not only the idea that we can drill all our natural reserves, beyond our stockpile, destroying the natural preserves in the process... but it demonstrates the inability of the Texan Oil Baron’s concrete reluctancy to see further than their own faces.

People before profits.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
supporting oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife RefugeI didn't think I'd have to point this out, but the Arctic is not New England. You might as well make the claim that Bush invaded Iraq, he might invade Ireland too!
ooops.I didn't realize your grasp on history was so unbelieveably tenuous.
Exactly where are you trying to go with the idea that the government would sponser tests, find oil, then not partake of profits from that oil? Do you really believe that?Allow != sponsor. They specifically say in the article that the government isn't giving them any money for this. I'll spare you the tired "if you had read the whole article" line though.

I prefer that ANWR is USA, as is New England, and both are presently under Bush's watch.

So Bush didn't run on those ideals? He never pushed the idea of allowing drilling in ANWR? -Never inserted it in an energy bill. I think my grasp on history is just fine, thanks.

Does sponsership really make a difference when you're talking about that kind of money? You're down to arguing semantics.

-M

[Messiah]

Semantics Are A Human Word Game. Invented To Avoid The Truth.

The Truth Is... If You Shit Where You Eat, Plain And Simple, You Die. And Good Riddance, Morons. The New Race Does Not Need Morons.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Ganalon
Whats sad is that 99% of the people bitching dont do those very things.

Bullshit. I agree with everything else in your post but you just made up that 99% figure. What could possibly motivate you to come to such a crazy conclusion?

I have but you as an example of outrageous claims and assnine assumptions on subjective non provable points such as that. You should recognize a play from your own playbook Backlash. :lol:

Asinine. Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) is right at your fingertips, man. But obviously you prefer making up stories like 99%s and me making outrageous claims.

OMG you so get points for catching me in a typo that might or might not have been intentional. Are you trying to win the PC again? Let me get you a medal... or a chest to pin it on. :rolleyes:

Yes, you have exagerated to make your points in the past, and yet you call me when I do the same. Hypocrite. :lol:

Its amazing how you can be so glib when others are serious and yet when dished back the same, it appears you cant take it. You really are a piece of work. I know, its probably an emotional moment for you and all but please, try to keep at least one eye open when you read the posts you're responding to.

[Edited on 8-6-2005 by Ganalon]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by GSTamral
stuff...

It amazes me how intractely you can weave a rationalization to suit your own opinion. I’m going to clear it all up for your right now. Capitalism is the problem. Worship of the almighty dollar is the problem. A system that rewards the selfish is the problem.

And man do I love it.
:puts on his "I'm a capitalist" pin:

So Um, Alll these millions of people who care so much about Alaskan wildlife... When are you going to visit ANWR? Id expect tens of millions to be going there every year since they care so much about the pristine beauty that would be ruined by a drilling site, which might I add you never hear of one destroying the enforcement like say a oil tanker. Why not protest them, they sure do a lot of damage.

[Kriztian]

I live in Alaska. I've not been to ANWR per se, but have visited Prudhoe Bay and its facilities countless times. I'm not an environmentalist whacko by any means. I drive a big 4x4 gas guzzling pickup. I hunt. I fish like crazy. I teach Alaska Studies and we visit and revisit the ANWR debate every semester.

Having said that, I am opposed to the exploration and almost certain drilling and development of ANWR for one principle reason: (there are others but I'll refrain from them at this point)

1. We need to accelerate the energy crisis that WILL come in this country by forcing R and D to come up with viable energy alternatives. Fossil fuels are unreliable, in short supply and fricking HARD to come by, especially up here. I was having a conversation with one of the Board Members of BP (British Petroleum) last year. He informed me that BP and Conoco/Phillips - the 2 leading oil companies up here right now - are not interested in ANWR at all because the cost of drilling (if there is oil) is very much cost prohibitive.

One thing folks have very little concept of is how laborious and complex the process is, especially with the content or grade of oil we have up here. In a nutshell, it stinks. It has to undergo the most expensive process in the world to even be viable.

Without writing a long, boring essay on the subject, I'll leave it at that. Sometimes radical measures are required simply to inspire innovation. And I believe we can do better than fossil fuels. The time is now.

[Gan]

I was thinking the same thing earlier tonight while pondering this debate over a margarita and some mexican food at my favorite Friday night hangout.

I wonder what would happen if we were all of a sudden run out of oil. Combustion engines as we know them today would become obsolete. The economy would tank in the short run until it corrected itself. And all of a sudden, the middle east would be a bunch of sand again. More importantly it would force the collective might of the scientific community to introduce viable substitutes at a far more rapid rate than they are now. The race to see who could capitalize first would be a huge indicator of a new world leader status.

Would it be Hydrogen?

Would it be Nuclear?

Will it be an Alcubierre drive?

Or should we all invest in horse flesh again?

[Warriorbird]

"So Um, Alll these millions of people who care so much about Alaskan wildlife... When are you going to visit ANWR? Id expect tens of millions to be going there every year since they care so much about the pristine beauty that would be ruined by a drilling site, which might I add you never hear of one destroying the enforcement like say a oil tanker. Why not protest them, they sure do a lot of damage. "

Mind you, not that I really agree with them in this matter in general, but wouldn't millions of people visiting ANWR cause it to be pretty polluted/disturbed habitat?

[Edited on 8-6-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Ganalon
Whats sad is that 99% of the people bitching dont do those very things.

Bullshit. I agree with everything else in your post but you just made up that 99% figure. What could possibly motivate you to come to such a crazy conclusion?

I have but you as an example of outrageous claims and assnine assumptions on subjective non provable points such as that. You should recognize a play from your own playbook Backlash. :lol:

Asinine. Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) is right at your fingertips, man. But obviously you prefer making up stories like 99%s and me making outrageous claims.

OMG you so get points for catching me in a typo that might or might not have been intentional. Are you trying to win the PC again? Let me get you a medal... or a chest to pin it on. :rolleyes:

Yes, you have exagerated to make your points in the past, and yet you call me when I do the same. Hypocrite. :lol:

Its amazing how you can be so glib when others are serious and yet when dished back the same, it appears you cant take it. You really are a piece of work. I know, its probably an emotional moment for you and all but please, try to keep at least one eye open when you read the posts you're responding to.

[Edited on 8-6-2005 by Ganalon]

I’m just sick of the crap that people try to pass off as the truth when all it really is is people rationalizing away their own inadequacies. If that isn’t you then pay no fucking mind.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
So Bush didn't run on those ideals? He never pushed the idea of allowing drilling in ANWR? -Never inserted it in an energy bill. I think my grasp on history is just fine, thanks.I was talking about how you failed to remember any event that could possibly change Bush's stance on the military between 2000 and the Iraq War.
Does sponsership really make a difference when you're talking about that kind of money?Generally companies weigh cost and benefit. If there was no cost, then they would logically engage in activities that had even a slim chance of producing benefit. If there is a large cost, they will only engage in activities that have a very good chance of producing benefit.

And if all the USA was equal, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. They already get oil off the coast of Texas.

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Ganalon
Whats sad is that 99% of the people bitching dont do those very things.

Bullshit. I agree with everything else in your post but you just made up that 99% figure. What could possibly motivate you to come to such a crazy conclusion?

I have but you as an example of outrageous claims and assnine assumptions on subjective non provable points such as that. You should recognize a play from your own playbook Backlash. :lol:

Asinine. Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) is right at your fingertips, man. But obviously you prefer making up stories like 99%s and me making outrageous claims.

OMG you so get points for catching me in a typo that might or might not have been intentional. Are you trying to win the PC again? Let me get you a medal... or a chest to pin it on. :rolleyes:

Yes, you have exagerated to make your points in the past, and yet you call me when I do the same. Hypocrite. :lol:

Its amazing how you can be so glib when others are serious and yet when dished back the same, it appears you cant take it. You really are a piece of work. I know, its probably an emotional moment for you and all but please, try to keep at least one eye open when you read the posts you're responding to.

[Edited on 8-6-2005 by Ganalon]

I’m just sick of the crap that people try to pass off as the truth when all it really is is people rationalizing away their own inadequacies. If that isn’t you then pay no fucking mind.
pot, kettle

[Terminator X]

I say... we use the wind.

Whooooshhhh! Whoooosshhhh! (Wind-noises.)

[Back]

Moon Power! (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/04/0426_042602_TVmoonenergy.html)


If beaming solar power to Earth by way of the moon sounds like lunacy, consider this: It could provide a clean, emission-free, and unlimited source of energy. And, according to David Criswell, a physicist and Space Age veteran, it could supply all needs of an energy-hungry world in the 21st century and beyond.

We need to think outside the box. I don’t see the US doing that. And T-Rex, Europe is already harnessing wind power.

[Edited on 8-6-2005 by Backlash]

Originally posted by Backlash
Moon Power! (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/04/0426_042602_TVmoonenergy.html)


If beaming solar power to Earth by way of the moon sounds like lunacy, consider this: It could provide a clean, emission-free, and unlimited source of energy. And, according to David Criswell, a physicist and Space Age veteran, it could supply all needs of an energy-hungry world in the 21st century and beyond.

We need to think outside the box. I don’t see the US doing that. And T-Rex, Europe is already harnessing wind power.

[Edited on 8-6-2005 by Backlash]

So is America.

[xtc]

Originally posted by GSTamral
You know where your house is. That used to be pristine wildlife too at one point in time. Of course you should move out of your house, burn it down, and allow nature to make the place beautiful again. Do you drive a hybrid car? What are you doing to drive down the demand for oil? Hate to break it to you, but the prices of oil are related to supply, which is being restricted by a cartel. The demand for energy is continuing to increase. Due to the fact that some morons called environmentalists essentially killed nuclear power in this country 25 years ago, the U.S doesn't even have the expertise anymore in SCR systems required to build nuclear power. It will be anywhere from 10-12 years before we start getting some relief from nuclear power. As for big companies making money, boo hoo. If I'm putting up 7-10 billion dollars to put up 8000 megawatts worth of power plants, you're damn right I want to make some money on the investment. The profit margin for oil refineries has been increasing at a rate of 4-5% per year.

Break down the cost of a gallon of gas now vs 7 years ago when it was around 1.00 a gallon nationally.

1.00 = 18 cents for then oil (at the low of 8 dollars per barrel, assuming 64% extract of desirable hydrocarbon fuels (C8H18 or lower) + 12% extract after fluidized cat cracking of the remaining fuel, the rest sold at a loss as tar) + (50+, not sure of the exact number) cents in federal gas taxes created by liberal shitbombs and used by construction unions only in a surplus road fund that can only be spent on union labor (in most states) on roads (never mind that non unionized labor is more effective and cheaper, god forbid a union person caring about quality or the lives of other people) + 11 cents in refining costs per gallon + state taxes + transportation costs

Now
94 cents (as of January 2005, assuming a price of 50 dollars a barrel) + 65 cents in federal gas taxes + 16 cents per gallon in refining costs (which actually has paid for itself, considering we can now not only extract a higher average percentage of oil for use as gasoline and other fuels, but we can refine some fuels that previously could not be done, such as the heavier Mexican and Venezuelan crudes. Despite the price of oil increasing 6 fold plus, the price of the gasoline has only jumped by a factor of closer to 5) + state taxes + transportation costs.

Furthermore, there are additional refining costs for the summer fuel, which is why it is more expensive, which was done for the shithead environmentalist freaks, and which accomplishes nothing more than decreasing CO2 emission and giving us NO-X emissions instead, which are actually far deadlier…. But try telling an environmentalist that they are wrong.

Energy prices have shot up because of bad policy decisions and greedy unions. They are the ones who have forced us to destroy the environment.


Energy prices have shot up because demand is increasing and supply is dwindling (a fact almost all energy analysts agree on, the only disagreement is when it will dry up). In the west we are the use most of the world’s energy and resources. Ideas like conservation and restraint are considered leftist and/or socialist. Perhaps we should try to buy energy efficient cars and appliances and practice energy conservation.


Yes in the west we have bulldozed hectares among hectares of pristine and unspoiled land containing wildlife to allow for our bourgeois lifestyle, our gluttony in the past is not a valid reason to continue our gluttony in the future.

Yes we have not developed nuclear energy in the west. There are/were concerns about storing used rods and how many years they would take to not longer be radioactive. Plus the effect on the environment. In Pickering a suburb of Toronto we have a nuclear power plant, Pickering has a higher than average rate of birth defects and cancer among other illnesses. Plus disasters like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl have caused people pause on this power source. However we don’t seem to have anything better currently.

As far the cartel OPEC is concerned they are constantly increasing the oil supply. As I am sure a well educated man like you knows our oil refineries are at their maximum capacity. Increasing supply won’t help things.

Taxes on US fuel are some of the lowest in the world. If the US doesn’t voluntarily reduce its consumption eventually we will adopt a punitive style of gasoline taxes to dissuade usage like the Europeans have.

I think your conclusion of why prices have shot up is completely off the mark. With India and China have growing Industrial economies their consumption has increased vastly. China alone is consuming 30% more this year than forecasted by analysts. America has done a piss poor job of conservation, every insecure Johnny and Jane Asshole has to drive an SUV to prove what a big person they are, and of course they cry they need it because they have kids. Quite a joke considering the size of the average family has decreased in the west and the amount of vehicles per household has increased. We use the world’s resources like pigs at a trough and wonder why they are dwindling and the price is increasing.

[Edited on 8-6-2005 by xtc]

[Gridlock]

Originally posted by Ilvane
When you destroy good fishing land and pristine banks, you take away a great deal..

I'm sorry if you feel oil is more important. When there is nothing left to destroy, maybe then you'll understand that these ecosystems are important.

Where do you think global warming is coming from? From the destruction of trees, and forest land..the chemicals that are being leaked into the air, all kinds of thing...

Melissa was right by the way..this is the part that bothers me..:If the exploration suggests that significant petroleum sits beneath the bank, political pressure could mount for the Bush administration or Congress to reverse the moratorium that has protected Georges and other pristine tracts like it for decades, said Richard Charter, cochairman of the National OCS Coalition, an association of environmental and fishing groups formed to prevent drilling on the outer continental shelf.

''It's more than a foot in the door -- it's the entire camel under the tent," Charter said of authorizing oil exploration. ''When you're trying to restore a damaged fishery, it's counterintuitive to introduce something that will further damage fisheries in a real way. The cost is likely to be the survivability of the ecosystem."

-A
Nothing left to destroy wont ever happen because there isnt oil over the entire world so everything couldnt be destoryed by drilling for oil.
Ive never seen evidence of global warming that couldnt be disputed.

I take it you dont drive a car and live in a tent and cook with fire wood. oh wait your on a computer where do your think the energy for that came from magic?

hypocrisy

[Gan]

Originally posted by Terminator X
I say... we use the wind.

Whooooshhhh! Whoooosshhhh! (Wind-noises.)

Yes! One of my favorite power alternatives.

Below is an interesting article in last month's Technology Review.

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/08/issue/forward_wind.asp

Global Wind Power
By TR Staff August 2005


A new study by researchers at Stanford University has estimated the global potential for wind power at 80 meters above the ground (the approximate height of today's wind turbines). The researchers used wind-speed measurements taken at 10 meters at 8,000 locations around the world to estimate wind speeds at 80 meters. They concluded that 13 percent of the sites had winds of 6.9 meters per second or faster--strong enough to make wind-based power generation cost-effective. If these locations represent a good sample of the world's land area, the researchers report, there is easily enough potential wind power to meet the world's electricity demands. In 2002, just .3 percent of the world's electricity supply came from wind power.

[Latrinsorm]

Only 5 countries in the world can power a flux capacitor with wind power in one year.

In related news, I should get more sleep.

The only reason oil refineries are at their maximum capacity is because the environmental nuts wont let us build any new ones.

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Terminator X
I say... we use the wind.

Whooooshhhh! Whoooosshhhh! (Wind-noises.)

Yes! One of my favorite power alternatives.

Below is an interesting article in last month's Technology Review.

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/08/issue/forward_wind.asp

Global Wind Power
By TR Staff August 2005


A new study by researchers at Stanford University has estimated the global potential for wind power at 80 meters above the ground (the approximate height of today's wind turbines). The researchers used wind-speed measurements taken at 10 meters at 8,000 locations around the world to estimate wind speeds at 80 meters. They concluded that 13 percent of the sites had winds of 6.9 meters per second or faster--strong enough to make wind-based power generation cost-effective. If these locations represent a good sample of the world's land area, the researchers report, there is easily enough potential wind power to meet the world's electricity demands. In 2002, just .3 percent of the world's electricity supply came from wind power.

But then people would complain about the windmills being an eyesore.
PUT AN END TO VISUAL POLUTION!!11

[Edited on 8-7-2005 by Dave]

[Warriorbird]

Building more refineries would indeed temporarily increase production. When oil is on the way to peaking that doesn't seem the best use of resources however. In the future, we will have to combine a variety of solutions. Oh yeah, and people will like wind power (much like nuclear) when they don't have any choice.

[Kriztian]

Originally posted by Dave
The only reason oil refineries are at their maximum capacity is because the environmental nuts wont let us build any new ones.

I'd really like to see you back up that assertion, Dave. Oil refineries are definitely not at their maximum capacity, let me assure you. What's more, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline is pumping less than 50% of what is did in it's heyday (around '83-'86).

If anything there are too many refineries. And lots of folks out of work who used to work at them. This is why, for a long while, most the ARCO employees up here were from Texas and Louisiana.

If there is some vast oil reserve(s) you know about somewhere we haven't tapped into, I've several oil colleagues who would like your number :lol:

Would that the problem were as easy as 'environmental nuts'.....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152922,00.html


"Environmentalists, neighborhoods and even the government are fighting to keep them out of Americans' backyards. A new oil refinery hasn't been built in the United States in 29 years."

"We're operating, particularly during the summer periods when we have peak consumption periods, we're operating, essentially at 100 percent of capacity. So there is no spare refining capacity," said Edward Murphy of the American Petroleum Institute.


"We've seen that the industry does not have any incentive, really, especially the big oil companies, to build any new refineries or expand their existing ones because they're making so much money," said Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen.

Story is from 8 april 2005

[Edited on 8-7-2005 by Dave]

[Back]

Originally posted by Dave
"We're operating, particularly during the summer periods when we have peak consumption periods, we're operating, essentially at 100 percent of capacity. So there is no spare refining capacity," said Edward Murphy of the American Petroleum Institute.

I was wondering what he was up to after his last movie flopped.

[Kriztian]

Hmm, very interesting article, thanks. This pretty much runs against the ebb and flow of the general story as it is depicted by the media outlets, especially up here.

I can certainly see how someone could walk away from this article thinking the refineries are chug chug chugging 24/7; the fact of the matter, however (and the article even admits this, slightly) is that they refine what they get, when they get it, and lately they've been getting a lot less (domestically, anyway) than they have in the past -- much less.

Probably the most accurate piece of the article is this:

"While business blames red tape for the shortage of new refineries, critics say oil companies prefer it that way so they can gouge customers."

Every time I talk to someone from the oil industry up here, they talk about this grand conspiracy theory fronted by libs that the oil companies are these evil people who are in backrooms cackling and counting their dollars due to price gouging. :lol: From everything I've witnessed, that is simply untrue.

I wish the author of the piece could give us some actual numbers - rather than a few quotes from folks who clearly have political agendas.

Alaska refines less than 1% of our own oil - which is why you see all those supertankers (like the Exxon Valdez, the one that ran aground in '89) going and coming from here. Where are they headed? Mostly Texas, Louisiana, and southern California...to the refineries that used to churn out much higher capacities than they do now (or so I've been led to understand, until your article). This is good for them from an economic opportunity standpoint but it hasn't been enough to help their states 'boom' like they did in their oil heydays.

Meh. I'll stick with this one for a while, and do some more research up here. Thanks again.

[Gridlock]

Originally posted by Kriztian

Originally posted by Dave
The only reason oil refineries are at their maximum capacity is because the environmental nuts wont let us build any new ones.

I'd really like to see you back up that assertion, Dave. Oil refineries are definitely not at their maximum capacity, let me assure you. What's more, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline is pumping less than 50% of what is did in it's heyday (around '83-'86).

If anything there are too many refineries. And lots of folks out of work who used to work at them. This is why, for a long while, most the ARCO employees up here were from Texas and Louisiana.

If there is some vast oil reserve(s) you know about somewhere we haven't tapped into, I've several oil colleagues who would like your number :lol:

Would that the problem were as easy as 'environmental nuts'.....
Hes right i live in west texas ghost town now that everyone left to go to other places for oil the wells here arent even close to dry.There just sitting there rusting and not being used.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Gridlock

Hes right i live in west texas ghost town now that everyone left to go to other places for oil the wells here arent even close to dry.There just sitting there rusting and not being used.

You can thank the Texas Railroad Comission for the regulation and monitoring of oil and gas well production in Texas. Basically I've been told that due to the precious commodity of what oil is, its a more strategic interest to utilize foreign crude until that source depletes itself before using our reserves. I've not found anything written that specifically identifies that theory though so its just heresay, but interesting none the less.

The article Dave mentioned earlier highlights one of the reasons why we're starting to see more and more refinery related incidents. It was specifically mentioned by a BP spokesperson regarding the BP plant refinery explosion that happened south of Houston earlier this summer. The processes have changed over the years, and some areas have been redesigned and overhauled during 'shutdowns' but the physical infrastructure is still 30+ years old. Add to that production capacities between 96 and 100% continuously for that period of time. Mechanical failure is bound to happen at some point.

[Edited on 8-7-2005 by Ganalon]

[Warriorbird]

"Texas Railroad Comission"

LBJ and Sr. helped empower it.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
"Texas Railroad Comission"

LBJ and Sr. helped empower it.

Actually, the oversight for energy/oil production for this grand state has been underneath that department/agency's domain for quite a while. It was started in 1890 with jurisdiction given over oil in 1919.

[Anebriated]

I work as a consultant for the Exxon/Mobil Corporation in California, Mass. Rhode Island, New York and Michigan. I deal with everyone from the people who are behind the desk at the stations to the station owners to the district managers and on occasion the administration. I have no articles to back my statements but I work in the industry.

The reason the refineries are currently at high capacity(not 100% across the country by any means, only certain areas) is that there are far less. As was pointed out there was more oil being pumped in the 80's than there is now. Since that time the number of refineries in use has dropped, hence why none have been built.

Also there are other forms of energy. They have been out for awhile but are rare. Hydrogen power for automobiles for instance is around but not released to the public due to the instability of the fuel cells. If they could ever find a way to stabalize this then there would be a way to reduce the dependancy of the American public on oil. The only downside is that there is so much money that comes from the oil industry that it would destroy the economy.

Just my .02

edit: for the record, I am against the drilling. I think that we need to try and save what we have not destroyed yet. While the lower gas prices would be nice I am fine using a smaller car. Maybe this will force more people to buy more fuel efficient cars and maybe the government will change the emission standards. Hell even put more effort into alternative power options. Bottom line is we are destroying everything around us but the majority of people dont care because it will never affect them or their children(as far as they know/think).

[Edited on 8-12-2005 by Elrodin]

[Warriorbird]

It didn't spiral until you know who helped you know who and they helped you know who however, Ganalon.

[Back]

Buy oil stocks if you didn’t have them in 2000.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
It didn't spiral until you know who helped you know who and they helped you know who however, Ganalon.


Riiiiight. Another conspiracy.

:banghead:

[Warriorbird]

I'd have called it good business by Texas oil. Nothing conspiratorial about that. Nothing illegal about it either... it's why we have those folks called lobbyists.


[Edited on 8-13-2005 by Warriorbird]