from her FB page

This is a message to extreme “environmentalists” who hypocritically protest domestic energy production offshore and onshore. There is nothing “clean and green” about your efforts. Look, here’s the deal: when you lock up our land, you outsource jobs and opportunity away from America and into foreign countries that are making us beholden to them. Some of these countries don’t like America. Some of these countries don’t care for planet earth like we do – as evidenced by our stricter environmental standards.

With your nonsensical efforts to lock up safer drilling areas, all you’re doing is outsourcing energy development, which makes us more controlled by foreign countries, less safe, and less prosperous on a dirtier planet. Your hypocrisy is showing. You’re not preventing environmental hazards; you’re outsourcing them and making drilling more dangerous.

Extreme deep water drilling is not the preferred choice to meet our country’s energy needs, but your protests and lawsuits and lies about onshore and shallow water drilling have locked up safer areas. It’s catching up with you. The tragic, unprecedented deep water Gulf oil spill proves it.

We need permission to drill in safer areas, including the uninhabited arctic land of ANWR. It takes just a tiny footprint – equivalent to the size of LA’s airport – to tap America’s rich and plentiful oil and gas up north. ANWR’s drilling footprint is like a postage stamp on a football field.

But it’s not just ANWR; it’s our Petroleum Reserve, too. As Governor Sean Parnell noted today in the Wall Street Journal:

    “Federal agencies are also now blocking oil development in the National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska.

    Although familiar with ANWR, most Americans are less likely to know about NPR-A and how vital it is to our energy security. Given recent developments, it’s time to elevate the position this area holds in our national discourse.

    NPR-A, a 23 million acre stretch of Alaska’s North Slope, was set aside by President Warren Harding in 1923 for the specific purpose of supplying our country and military with oil and gas. Since 1976 it has been administered by the Department of the Interior, and since 1980 it has been theoretically open for development. The most recent estimates indicate that it holds 12 billion barrels of oil and 73 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

    In addition to containing enormous hydrocarbons, NPR-A is very close to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, which means that there would be relatively little additional infrastructure needed to bring this new oil to our domestic market.

    But even here, progress has been stalled.”



Radical environmentalists: you are damaging the planet with your efforts to lock up safer drilling areas. There’s nothing clean and green about your misguided, nonsensical radicalism, and Americans are on to you as we question your true motives.

- Sarah Palin

Aside from the blame game (which always goes both ways), she does have a point...

yeah kinda but really who is at fault is oil companies greed. oil companies are not going to let us develop anything else other than oil to use as an energy. nether side wants to acknowledge this.

-johnny- wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2010 at 1:57pm:

yeah kinda but really who is at fault is oil companies greed. oil companies are not going to let us develop anything else other than oil to use as an energy. nether side wants to acknowledge this.

I don't buy that. While the 100 mpg Fish carb stories have been around longer than I have, with today's information technology there is no way to keep a lid on ideas and science.

Plus.....say if my bud johnny in OH came up with an alternative energy source, I think he'd have plenty of help with development and marketing. Too much money in it to keep it down.

-johnny- wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2010 at 1:57pm:

yeah kinda but really who is at fault is oil companies greed. oil companies are not going to let us develop anything else other than oil to use as an energy. nether side wants to acknowledge this.

Here is where we differ.  I say if the market is there, if alternatives (like solar panels, which is what I desperately want) were mass produced and the cost was lower, the free market would all but wipe out the need for oil. 

You can't change things from the top down, it has to be from the American people on up.  It's the only way it's going to work, and it's not going to work until we all stop acting like we're right and everyone else is wrong, and start working together.  No matter what anyone thinks, at the end of the day, we are all we have.  Neighbor helping neighbor...

-johnny- wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2010 at 1:57pm:

yeah kinda but really who is at fault is oil companies greed. oil companies are not going to let us develop anything else other than oil to use as an energy. nether side wants to acknowledge this.

The quest for profit creates jobs, dude. As it stands now, the Obama administration has shut down all drilling in the gulf deeper than 500 feet for six months because they claim that nobody knows what to do in case of an accident (these are the same people poised to run your health care). This means that almost 50% of the gulf production is gone for half a year. Do you know how many jobs that effects? And how many more people will file unemployment claims?

Maybe that's what they want - is it less dependence on oil or more dependence on government?

Choking business isn't the answer. BP is the LAST entity that wants to see oil spilling into the gulf. It means profits down the drain for them.

And what's with the "profit is bad" attitude? Should people not be allowed to get rich (which is what creates jobs)?

ETA: I stand corrected. The moratorium on drilling has of just a little while ago been extended to ALL drilling in the gulf. This is like banning driving until we find out why all the Ford Pintos are exploding.

Racer1_NC wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2010 at 2:23pm:

-johnny- wrote on Jun 3rd, 2010 at 1:57pm: yeah kinda but really who is at fault is oil companies greed. oil companies are not going to let us develop anything else other than oil to use as an energy. nether side wants to acknowledge this. I don't buy that. While the 100 mpg Fish carb stories have been around longer than I have, with today's information technology there is no way to keep a lid on ideas and science. Plus.....say if my bud johnny in OH came up with an alternative energy source, I think he'd have plenty of help with development and marketing. Too much money in it to keep it down.

oh i believe the technology is there. i know there are people that will and have run their lives through fire chasing an idea of alternative fuel source.  but what kinda fuel is readily available down on the corner? i know a guy a couple towns over that makes diesel fuel out of fryer oil from grease traps around town. whats stopping this guy getting his fuel approved and setting up a fueling station independent from big oil  companies?

the fish carb. that was great bill. i've never heard of a fish carb.
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE
why wasn't this idea developed? seems like a good idea. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

i'm not convinced that if a practical alternative to oil was developed it would become readily available if it hurts extreme profitability of oil companies. oil companies are making record profits. you don't that that kinda money insures a heavily stacked deck of cards in their favor. anyone is free to play right?

i know we will never be independent of oil but we should have more options readily available. we don't

Brew wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2010 at 3:19pm:

-johnny- wrote on Jun 3rd, 2010 at 1:57pm: yeah kinda but really who is at fault is oil companies greed. oil companies are not going to let us develop anything else other than oil to use as an energy. nether side wants to acknowledge this. The quest for profit creates jobs, dude. As it stands now, the Obama administration has shut down all drilling in the gulf deeper than 500 feet for six months because they claim that nobody knows what to do in case of an accident (these are the same people poised to run your health care). This means that almost 50% of the gulf production is gone for half a year. Do you know how many jobs that effects? And how many more people will file unemployment claims? Maybe that's what they want - is it less dependence on oil or more dependence on government? Choking business isn't the answer. BP is the LAST entity that wants to see oil spilling into the gulf. It means profits down the drain for them. And what's with the "profit is bad" attitude? Should people not be allowed to get rich (which is what creates jobs)? ETA: I stand corrected. The moratorium on drilling has of just a little while ago been extended to ALL drilling in the gulf. This is like banning driving until we find out why all the Ford Pintos are exploding.

see you can't take a stand against oil companies without pledging to a particular political party. jobs are great but wouldn't you rather be an engineer than an employee?

yeah profits are great but oil companies profits are costing us a shit load of money. i don't make any money off of oil

Quote:

i don't make any money off of oil

If you own stock (i.e., a 401K), you sure do.

And what are you talking about "pledging to a particular political party?" I'm pro-business, especially responsible business. An accident happened in the gulf, and now they have to figure out how to fix it. BP is doing that. What is the current administration doing? Threatening legal action while it's still going on. Real helpful.

I'm not pro any political party, my friend. I'm anti-buffoons-who-make-situations-worse while they blow smoke up my skirt.

i don't think evening out the playing field in the energy market is choking anybody. 

-johnny- wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2010 at 4:02pm:

i don't think evening out the playing field in the energy market is choking anybody.

But you didn't answer my question. What are you talking about "pledging to a particular political party?" I don't get it.

Brew wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2010 at 4:05pm:

-johnny- wrote on Jun 3rd, 2010 at 4:02pm: i don't think evening out the playing field in the energy market is choking anybody.  But you didn't answer my question. What are you talking about "pledging to a particular political party?" I don't get it.

brew  somehow you tied this into health care. this reflects your political position. 
do you really think obama or our gov't has any kind of authority over the oil companies?

-johnny- wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2010 at 4:22pm:

But you didn't answer my question. What are you talking about "pledging to a particular political party?" I don't get it. brew  somehow you tied this into health care. this reflects your political position.  do you really think obama or our gov't has any kind of authority over the oil companies?

On second thought, nevermind.

-johnny- wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2010 at 4:22pm:

Brew wrote on Jun 3rd, 2010 at 4:05pm: -johnny- wrote on Jun 3rd, 2010 at 4:02pm: i don't think evening out the playing field in the energy market is choking anybody.  But you didn't answer my question. What are you talking about "pledging to a particular political party?" I don't get it. brew  somehow you tied this into health care. this reflects your political position.  do you really think obama or our gov't has any kind of authority over the oil companies?

Sorry Johnny, but you don't have to be Democrat or Republican to not want government controlled healthcare.  You're too tied to a party yourself to realize that.

Melissa wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2010 at 4:35pm:

-johnny- wrote on Jun 3rd, 2010 at 4:22pm: Brew wrote on Jun 3rd, 2010 at 4:05pm: -johnny- wrote on Jun 3rd, 2010 at 4:02pm: i don't think evening out the playing field in the energy market is choking anybody.  But you didn't answer my question. What are you talking about "pledging to a particular political party?" I don't get it. brew  somehow you tied this into health care. this reflects your political position.  do you really think obama or our gov't has any kind of authority over the oil companies? Sorry Johnny, but you don't have to be Democrat or Republican to not want government controlled healthcare.  You're too tied to a party yourself to realize that.

what party would that be (scratching my head)

i point is this. we should have an alternative energy other than oil period. oil profits insure their monopoly in this market. we need options

-johnny- wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2010 at 4:39pm:

Melissa wrote on Jun 3rd, 2010 at 4:35pm: -johnny- wrote on Jun 3rd, 2010 at 4:22pm: Brew wrote on Jun 3rd, 2010 at 4:05pm: -johnny- wrote on Jun 3rd, 2010 at 4:02pm: i don't think evening out the playing field in the energy market is choking anybody.  But you didn't answer my question. What are you talking about "pledging to a particular political party?" I don't get it. brew  somehow you tied this into health care. this reflects your political position.  do you really think obama or our gov't has any kind of authority over the oil companies? Sorry Johnny, but you don't have to be Democrat or Republican to not want government controlled healthcare.  You're too tied to a party yourself to realize that. what party would that be (scratching my head)

Ok, my bad, I should have worded it differently, but when you keep bringing up your extreme dislike of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, it makes me wonder why you put so much stock in these people?

-johnny- wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2010 at 4:47pm:

i point is this. we should have an alternative energy other than oil period. oil profits insure their monopoly in this market. we need options

We DO.  Solar and wind for starts, but until compaines start mass producing, it'll just slowly lag along on the sidelines. :(

In all honesty, Sarah Palin does have a point. 

Yes, this country is dependent on oil and gas - tremendously so.  And, this country does need to invest heavily in alternative energy - solar, wind, and yup even nuclear energies.  But, the technology is not there yet.

The problem is that we have known this for decades, yet little has even begun.  It will take decades for any of these alternatives to be developed (other than nuclear and everyone is afraid of that) and up and running to feed this country with the energy and power that we are used to having.  Until solar and wind are truly developed at an affordable price, unless you are willing to give up much of your creature comforts, you are dependent on oil and gas.

For the time being, drilling for oil and gas is about all we've got and we have to continue to pursue it.

And, what, pray tell, is wrong with making a profit?  I'm in business for myself and by God, I want to make a profit from all of my hard work.  Why not big companies?  I don't begrudge anyone from making profits - even huge ones - as long as they are productive for the betterment of the USA, provide employment, follow the laws.

That is the American Dream, and that's what I'm working toward. 

Sandy

Alternatives are out there, but have not yet been successful in producing sufficient quantities of energy to be sustainable without government subsidies.  Energy from oil and natural gas is still the most economical means available.  You think oil companies are controlling matters, but they are by far making less per dollar spent than most industries.  The reason they are making the volume of profit they are is because of the volume of their investment. 

BTW, the government makes about 6 times more money from fuel than the oil companies do.  You drive a truck, you should know how much you are paying per gallon on fuel taxes.  If you don't you are not the kind of business man you need to be to stay in the transportation business.  The last time I checked on my investments the oil companies were making approximately $.09 per gallon profit on gasoline and diesel while the tax burden on that same gallon that I pay is $.54 or more.  Now, tell me, who is doing the gouging, and what are we getting for it?

Jerry

Quote:

Ok, my bad, I should have worded it differently, but when you keep bringing up your extreme dislike of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, it makes me wonder why you put so much stock in these people?

One can always depend on Sarah. She's a conservative cartoon inflated by media. Evangelicals used to say that Falwell had three main constituency groups: ABC, CBS and NBC. The same can be said about Beck and company.

I dunno Brew. We try letting markets have their way without oversight but whew! A little sanity please. When we let two oilmen run the White House, things got a little sticky.. literally.

We need brains rather than psychodrama from Sarah and company.

Charlie

Just a few problems with no oil.  We use the majority of oil for energy production, yes, but, we also use it to produce much, much more.

As to nuclear power.  I can see having a healthy respect for nuclear plants, but many European countries have been using nuclear energy for years and nobody is glowing in the dark yet.

Wind and solar are feasible alternatives, but the price has to come down, way down and you have to look at *where* the alternatives would fit best.  This isn't a *one size fits all* solution.

I don't give a rat's butt what Sarah says. She does make a good point, though. Plus, she's very easy on the eyes.

If brains were TNT, You could not find enought in Washington to blow your nose!!

Trouble is most seem to gravitate to one side or the other and would not consider a super idea if it were proposed by the other side.

This country is so split and entrenched down ideological lines. We make a stand and absolutely nothing that might make sense get done.

It's sad and if it were not so damn important I'd laugh.

I would think that everyone would like to reduce our dependence on hydrocarbons. Who would not agree that if you could power you house with solar panels that it would be beneficial all around.

Trouble is most everything in our modern world starts with oil. The strategic effort to go other ways will not commence until supplies are nearly exhausted and when only the Government can afford it.

I would love to go down to Port Fourchon and turn the valve off and see how long it would take to see these environmental types scream. Go ahead..ban drilling all across the United States. See what happens.

This country has become stupid.

Steve G

Callico wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2010 at 7:17pm:

BTW, the government makes about 6 times more money from fuel than the oil companies do.  You drive a truck, you should know how much you are paying per gallon on fuel taxes.  If you don't you are not the kind of business man you need to be to stay in the transportation business.  The last time I checked on my investments the oil companies were making approximately $.09 per gallon profit on gasoline and diesel while the tax burden on that same gallon that I pay is $.54 or more.  Now, tell me, who is doing the gouging, and what are we getting for it? Jerry

when fuel was approaching $5 a gallon per mile, the cost o f fuel was $.0.25 more than the cost of the labor (my paycheck). after a while there where loads on the boards that wouldn't even cover the cost of fuel.

now @ $0.54 a gallon  the gov't and oil companies thrive off of each other no?

Quote:

from her FB page Some of these countries don’t care for planet earth like we do -- as evidenced by our stricter environmental standards.

Tricky with the use of "environmental standards".  Apparently these are ok, yet she seems against the environmental restrictions that come with them.

If I were her, I wouldn't lean heavy on the words like:


Quote:

Your hypocrisy is showing.

or


Quote:

nonsensical radicalism

When questions arise about exploiters and the exploited, it is quickly counter-moved to the governors and the governed.  There are pretensions in both.

The high price of oil didn't create as many jobs as it lost -- see airlines, autos, and various other, as well as cost reductions in pay.







Charlie wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2010 at 7:40pm:

One can always depend on Sarah. She's a conservative cartoon inflated by media. Evangelicals used to say that Falwell had three main constituency groups: ABC, CBS and NBC. The same can be said about Beck and company. We try letting markets have their way without oversight but whew! A little sanity please. When we let two oilmen run the White House, things got a little sticky.. literally. We need brains rather than psychodrama from Sarah and company.

:)

Her ponit is that if the eco-nuts and Govt. would let us drill in places like ANWR (where a blow out could be fixed in a day), we wouldn't need extreme deep water drilling (where a blow out causes everyone to run around with a finger up their caboose, maybe if they used 2 fingers they could whistle).

Bob P wrote on Jun 4^th, 2010 at 7:51am:

Her ponit is that if the eco-nuts and Govt. would let us drill in places like ANWR (where a blow out could be fixed in a day), we wouldn't need extreme deep water drilling (where a blow out causes everyone to run around with a finger up their caboose, maybe if they used 2 fingers they could whistle).

I guess that finer point escapes some folks.

Drilling ANWR does not imply ceasing in the Gulf, where those planet caring "standards" seemed to have been loosely applied.

Slight interruption here:


Quote:

while they blow smoke up my skirt.

Brew, have you been borrowing Roys kilt again?


I'm done.  Carry on.   ;D

Kevin_M wrote on Jun 4^th, 2010 at 8:30am:

Drilling ANWR does not imply ceasing in the Gulf, where those planet caring "standards" seemed to have been loosely applied.

This is what I'd like to see changed.  That if allowed to drill in ANWR, they DO cease in the gulf.  But it's just a pipe dream. :-/

As oil companies line up to drill in the Arctic Ocean, which the faster diminishing sea ice is allowing, it would be best to get ANWR open for her home state before it begins.  International attitudes have turned colder toward the Arctic for petroleum, natural gas, and also trade routes and fisheries. 


with her combined bit of eco-subterfuge and homespun.

-johnny- wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2010 at 4:47pm:

we need options

There ARE options.  No one's keeping us in the dark about "options."  The problem is that "options" cost more.

Solar panels for your house, costly (and not to mention butt ugly).  Wind power; costly, and the environmental extremists worry about the bird loss in migration patterns and thus stall any movement forward on a large scale.  Geo-thermal heating and cooling: costly and not enough technicians to implement it at a reasonably economical scale.

Don't get me started on ethanol (living in the corn belt as I do).

These technologies don't develop because it's CHEAPER to depend on oil, foreign or domestic.

They "high road" costs more and there are not many who can afford to take it.

(modified for tense shifting)

It's easy for someone to say, "stop the drilling in the Gulf", when it's not your income that's being affected.  There are quite a few people in the Gulf states that are employed on off shore rigs (my nephew being one of them).

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

The problem occurs when oil companies may engage in activities that are *less than safe*.

Shawn McCarthy

Ottawa — From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published on Wednesday, Jun. 02, 2010 3:27PM EDT

Last updated on Thursday, Jun. 03, 2010 6:51PM EDT

.Newfoundland and Labrador is proceeding with the high-risk game of oil exploration in ultra-deep water, as regulators in the province express confidence in industry’s safety practices despite the ecological catastrophe of BP PLC’s Gulf of Mexico blowout.

Canada’s East Coast is now the only region in North America where oil companies can continue to drill deep-water exploration wells after President Barack Obama last week ordered the industry to suspend such operations in the Gulf of Mexico, pending a review of the BP disaster.

Max Ruelokke, chair of the Canada-Newfoundland Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, said Wednesday that it appears BP employed questionable drilling methods that would not be condoned in the Canadian offshore.

“We believe things were done in the Gulf that were not in compliance with regulations and probably not even good oil field practices,” Mr. Ruelokke

Deepwater drilling is not a new enterprise that has just popped up in the gulf.  How long has it been going on in the North Sea?  Off the coast of Europe?  Off the coast of Africa?  Maybe take a closer look at BP's safety practices.

stevegeebe wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2010 at 10:13pm:

Trouble is most seem to gravitate to one side or the other and would not consider a super idea if it were proposed by the other side. This country is so split and entrenched down ideological lines. We make a stand and absolutely nothing that might make sense get done.

There ya go. We've created a political culture in which compromise is out of the question.

The far out right is so far out there that the idea of being caught within screaming distance of someone not on the same page....even in their own party....is verboten. The left has its share of pulpit pounders too but they aren't as much fun.

What's good for the country isn't what matters, only what's good for the most extreme edge of the party.

Nothing gets done with this system until things get lousy enough.

The only good news from the oil spill is that when catastrophe strikes, even some hard-line conservatives, like Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana scream for the federal government to act, and act big.

Charlie

Charlie wrote on Jun 4^th, 2010 at 6:22pm:

stevegeebe wrote on Jun 3rd, 2010 at 10:13pm: Trouble is most seem to gravitate to one side or the other and would not consider a super idea if it were proposed by the other side. This country is so split and entrenched down ideological lines. We make a stand and absolutely nothing that might make sense get done. There ya go. We've created a political culture in which compromise is out of the question. The far out right is so far out there that the idea of being caught withing screaming distance of someone not on the same page....even in their own party....is verboten. The left has its share of pulpit pounders too but they aren't as much fun. What's good for the country isn't what matters, only what's good for the most extreme edge of the party. Nothing gets done with this system until things get lousy enough. Charlie

this is my point exactly. thank you charlie and kevin.

Charlie wrote on Jun 4^th, 2010 at 6:22pm:

Nothing gets done with this system until things get lousy enough.

I think it went something like this.


"You can always count on America to do the right thing, after it has exhausted all the other possibilities."            -- Churchill



:)

The Deepwater Horizon was registered under the flag of convenience of the Marshall Islands, a country of barely 65,000 people halfway between Hawaii and Papau New Guinea. That status means the Marshall Islands' shipping registry was responsible for ensuring compliance with quality standards for construction, equipment and operation on the rig."

I think America needs to fix that loop hole before you allow any more ofshore drilling.


Lefty

At this time there is billions of dollars in research going on to build better batteries, solar panels, tide machines, geothermal power, wind machines. Guess where?
The Middle East countries where we now get a lot of our oil. Why are they spending billions on the research?  Because they know the oil will not last forever. If they can develop efficient alternatives to oil they can own the patents and rights and make billions selling the technology to us.

Brew wrote on Jun 4^th, 2010 at 7:54am:

I guess that finer point escapes some folks.

That's because it is flat out wrong. The demand for oil is high and the supply is declining - there is a huge incentive and demand to drill here, drill there, on land, in waters both deep and shallow. The idea that if we had developed more of Alaska, we wouldn't need to have hundreds of wells in the Gulf of Mexico is not credible - even with all of Alaska, we would be importing massive amounts of oil from other countries. 99% of the oil that is easy pickins is already under development. Environmentalists didn't cause the oil geyer - poor safety procedures on the part of the drillers did.

monty wrote on Jun 9^th, 2010 at 5:51pm:

That's because it is flat out wrong. The demand for oil is high and the supply is declining - there is a huge incentive and demand to drill here, drill there, on land, in waters both deep and shallow. The idea that if we had developed more of Alaska, we wouldn't need to have hundreds of wells in the Gulf of Mexico is not credible - even with all of Alaska, we would be importing massive amounts of oil from other countries. 99% of the oil that is easy pickins is already under development. Environmentalists didn't cause the oil geyer - poor safety procedures on the part of the drillers did.

Whatever you have to tell yourself to get through the day, Monty.

It didn't escape any of the after-replies, Jon.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

That big oil hasn't been pounding on opening the Alaska fields at anywhere near its capacity, is a good indicator on how limited it must be.

Charlie

    The fact being that unless you walk every where you go (bicycle tires were made with oil), use no plastic, eat no food that was fertilized, cook with wood, etc, everyone one is as guilty as anyone else. Some of us wish for the country to become more self sufficient (unless you like shipping money out of the country). I would personally strive for us to be more energy self sufficient. Makes economical sense (jobs and $ loss out of the country, not to mention some of it goes to people that hate us).
    Did BP screw up?  Big time. Did the government departments that were in charge of keeping track of these people do their job? Don't make me laugh.Why check when you can surf porn instead.
    The bottom line is the government & certain people made it more difficult to harvest oil in our own country, while forgoing the legal duty to enforce the rules/laws that we already have on the books to supervise the drilling. Should everywhere have any oil well on it? Maybe not. But the fact remains, we will use oil and a lot of it. That is not going to change.
   The reality is there is no viable alternative in the present future (not realistically or financially). Wish in one hand and shit in the other and tell me which one fill up first.  Should we abandon the alternatives? No, but we should not rely on them until they are or can become a reality. To think otherwise, you are fooling yourself.
    We are all to blame for the mess that is our oil consumption. The only choice that you have is whether you look at it realistically, or if you believe that the government, in it's infinite wisdom, is somehow going to make this better without screwing us in the process.  At this time, I am going to go with the first option. We are going to have to drill some more. And more. The options are not there.

Thus ends the late night rant of the Mike

I pretty much agree Mike. Oil will always be here. I don't see us running around in nothing but electric cars any time soon, (not until it becomes much more profitable) nor biking through an imaginary green utopia to our solar powered A-Frames where we harvest organic vegetables from our green wars victory garden.

Relying on big oil to shoot themselves in their squishy feet by encouraging more efficent use of the black stuff isn't going to happen either.  "Drill baby drill" hasn't a lot support now, not even with big oil or even them dirty Reds. Drilling that deep is new stuff and they have to have a better fantasy safety idea than that accidents won't happen.

Charlie

70% of our oil consumption is for transportation.  Unless we switch to electric vehicles, nuclear, solar, wind, etc. don't help.

I don't think much of windmills. It's ugly too.

Charlie

Charlie wrote on Jun 20^th, 2010 at 2:04pm:

I don't think much of windmills. It's ugly too.

We must have grown used to the aesthetically designed gas station, reproducing its glowing stateliness by the multiple thousands, but appreciative of its utilitarian being when low on gas.  Cellular towers are like living in Paris.   ;)

Bob P wrote on Jun 20^th, 2010 at 8:18am:

70% of our oil consumption is for transportation.  Unless we switch to electric vehicles, nuclear, solar, wind, etc. don't help.

Just brought this back because of an article of how the switch is shaping up.   

Related articles below this one has other info, we got a new battery plant, and some pros and cons.


Last Updated: June 23. 2010 1:00AM

High costs of clean cars forcing auto partnerships

Christine Tierney / The Detroit News

Automakers are still digging out of the worst downturn in decades, and they're already coming up against another, perhaps greater, challenge: the start of the biggest transition in engine technology in nearly a century.

An added burden for automakers is that they can't concentrate on a single technology because it might fall by the wayside. "We can't say what the prevailing technology will be," said Carlos Ghosn, chief executive of Renault SA and its partner Nissan Motor Co.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE