PDA

View Full Version : Peak Oil: Humanity's Greatest Test



Kamikaze
06-04-2004, 03:10 PM
If you don't know what it is, Google it and read up on the subject.

If you do know what it is, why in the hell isn't anyone screaming about it? Corporate media and politicians don't ever utter the words. Is it because the words contain an awful, dire truth? That our way of life will end unless we start to make changes in energy policy now? Both sides of the aisle have been very tight-lipped, probably because telling Americans what they don't want to hear will surely mean losing their re-election bids.

Personally, I think the motive to go to conquer Iraq for oil is more and more obvious. Not for reasons of greed mind you, but for reasons of survival. We need to keep this party going for as long as possible, so taking over other oil rich nations deny other nations access to that oil. Maybe Bush doesn't know about Peak Oil, but his handlers sure do.

As oil production peaks, I think we have two solutions to keep our economic growth sustained. First, we can create an entirely new economic sector devoted to find a solution to the looming crisis, and completely rework our infrastructure to work independently of oil. This would take a level of national commitment not seen since World War II, and one which I would gladly take part in because the other solution is... More wars for oil. If we aren't going to take the problem seriously, then the only way to keep oil cheap is to secure more of it for ourselves. This of course, will not go over well with the rest of the world. If anyone has other solutions I'd like to hear them. Seriously.

And if you still haven't read up on Peak Oil, please don't bother jumping into the debate. You need a framework to debate from, whether you agree with Peak Oil or not.

PhinPhan1227
06-04-2004, 03:23 PM
Have you seen any evidence that we are intending to say in Iraq long term? Further, wouldn't it have made more sense to invade Venzuela? Just as much turmoil, the people hate their current leader even more, no Muslim neighbors who want to kill us, and a MUCH shorter logistical route.

DolFan31
06-04-2004, 03:26 PM
We need to stop being so dependant on oil(obviously) but its so much more complicated than 'lets go look for more reliable resources" because its all political. Makes me sad.

PhinPhan1227
06-04-2004, 03:28 PM
We need to stop being so dependant on oil(obviously) but its so much more complicated than 'lets go look for more reliable resources" because its all political. Makes me sad.

I've seen some VERY good reports on ethanol fueled reactors.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/02/13/hydrogen.reactors.ap/

Talk about a boon for the American farmer.

DolFan31
06-04-2004, 03:33 PM
I've seen some VERY good reports on ethanol fueled reactors.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/02/13/hydrogen.reactors.ap/

Talk about a boon for the American farmer.

There are lots of solutions but the government is owned by big Oil and OPEC.

Kamikaze
06-04-2004, 03:35 PM
Have you seen any evidence that we are intending to say in Iraq long term? Further, wouldn't it have made more sense to invade Venzuela? Just as much turmoil, the people hate their current leader even more, no Muslim neighbors who want to kill us, and a MUCH shorter logistical route.

If we're going to attempt to stave off the affects expensive oil will have on our economy, then we have to maintain control of oil reserves, so we can set the prices ourselves. We'd have to move to conquer every country with sizeable oil reserves. Which is why I'm much more in favor of a Manhattan Project-like effort to get ourselves off of the teat of oil. We won't have to kill anyone, and so many new jobs will be created. It would be hilarious to see the world oil market crashing while America prospers off new energy technologies.

PhinPhan1227
06-04-2004, 04:15 PM
If we're going to attempt to stave off the affects expensive oil will have on our economy, then we have to maintain control of oil reserves, so we can set the prices ourselves. We'd have to move to conquer every country with sizeable oil reserves. Which is why I'm much more in favor of a Manhattan Project-like effort to get ourselves off of the teat of oil. We won't have to kill anyone, and so many new jobs will be created. It would be hilarious to see the world oil market crashing while America prospers off new energy technologies.

Well...again, I've seen that Bush has put a lot of government funding into hydrogen fuel cell research. Granted, in the short term it's a benefit to his friends in the oil industry because that's currently our only way to develop those fuel cells. But if the ethanol side can advance in step, we'll need those fuel cells to power our cars to take advantage of it. If you want a sweet vision...it's an ethanol based hydrogen power structure which not only makes us independant of oil interests, it makes the US farmer once again a cash cow rather than a cash drain.

BigFinFan
06-04-2004, 05:52 PM
There are lots of solutions but the government is owned by big Oil and OPEC.

I thought that I read in the "Should marijuana be legalized?" that the government is owned by the Drug Lords.

DolFan31
06-04-2004, 08:09 PM
I thought that I read in the "Should marijuana be legalized?" that the government is owned by the Drug Lords.

I never said that.. but I know thats true in Mexico.

DolFan31
06-04-2004, 08:13 PM
Well...again, I've seen that Bush has put a lot of government funding into hydrogen fuel cell research. Granted, in the short term it's a benefit to his friends in the oil industry because that's currently our only way to develop those fuel cells. But if the ethanol side can advance in step, we'll need those fuel cells to power our cars to take advantage of it. If you want a sweet vision...it's an ethanol based hydrogen power structure which not only makes us independant of oil interests, it makes the US farmer once again a cash cow rather than a cash drain.

Imagine how much more money the farmer could make by growing hemp, which isnt really marijuana, rather a cousin to the plant which can be used as a cash crop. It has less than 1% THC in it and it has a cannabloid(or whatever its called) that actually blocks the effects of THC. It makes cloth, rope, plastic(which is made mostly from oil), automobile parts, and many other things. Sorry its a bit off topic tho.

iceblizzard69
06-04-2004, 08:48 PM
One thing that could help us not be so dependent on oil are electric cars. There aren't that many now, but if everyone drove an electric car, think about how much less oil there would be. Of course, Mobil won't like it, but electric cars will help the wallets of Americans and the environment as well.

I'm not 100% sure of this, but it seems like car companies are working harder and harder on fuel efficiency. A good example is the new Ford Escape which is an SUV but still gets something like 35 miles to the gallon. More fuel efficient and electric cars will make us a lot less dependent on oil. I just got a 1996 Ford Explorer and if there is one thing I hate about it its that I have to fill it up all the time.

One really stupid thing Bush did was give tax breaks to people buying SUVs. I have no idea why a president would try to promote buying cars that use a lot of gas. I think he should give tax breaks to people who buy electric cars instead, but I'm sure that oil companies wouldn't be to happy about that.

DolFan31
06-04-2004, 09:08 PM
One thing that could help us not be so dependent on oil are electric cars. There aren't that many now, but if everyone drove an electric car, think about how much less oil there would be. Of course, Mobil won't like it, but electric cars will help the wallets of Americans and the environment as well.

I'm not 100% sure of this, but it seems like car companies are working harder and harder on fuel efficiency. A good example is the new Ford Escape which is an SUV but still gets something like 35 miles to the gallon. More fuel efficient and electric cars will make us a lot less dependent on oil. I just got a 1996 Ford Explorer and if there is one thing I hate about it its that I have to fill it up all the time.

One really stupid thing Bush did was give tax breaks to people buying SUVs. I have no idea why a president would try to promote buying cars that use a lot of gas. I think he should give tax breaks to people who buy electric cars instead, but I'm sure that oil companies wouldn't be to happy about that.

I got a 96 Explorer sport and I know how u feel man.

Bush is owned by the oil companies(Iraq, Afghanistan, tax breaks for SUVs, high gas prices..ect..)

PhinPhan1227
06-05-2004, 12:22 PM
What SUV tax break are you talking about? Seriously I never heard this. Heck, we own a Durango so if it's there I'll take advantage of it.



One thing that could help us not be so dependent on oil are electric cars. There aren't that many now, but if everyone drove an electric car, think about how much less oil there would be. Of course, Mobil won't like it, but electric cars will help the wallets of Americans and the environment as well.

I'm not 100% sure of this, but it seems like car companies are working harder and harder on fuel efficiency. A good example is the new Ford Escape which is an SUV but still gets something like 35 miles to the gallon. More fuel efficient and electric cars will make us a lot less dependent on oil. I just got a 1996 Ford Explorer and if there is one thing I hate about it its that I have to fill it up all the time.

One really stupid thing Bush did was give tax breaks to people buying SUVs. I have no idea why a president would try to promote buying cars that use a lot of gas. I think he should give tax breaks to people who buy electric cars instead, but I'm sure that oil companies wouldn't be to happy about that.

inFINSible
06-05-2004, 03:43 PM
Doesn't it take oil to generate electricity??

Realizing there are other ways to generate electricity, none are suitable enough to satisfy the demands of the millions of motorists trying to charge the batteries in their electric cars.

iceblizzard69
06-05-2004, 05:08 PM
What SUV tax break are you talking about? Seriously I never heard this. Heck, we own a Durango so if it's there I'll take advantage of it.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2003-01-20-suvs_x.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/Business/hybrid_suv_tax0301001.html

The second article says that the Bush administration wanted to continue the small hybrid tax break. The tax break for buying SUVs only applied to small business owners, but it is still stupid. Why should the government encorage anyone to buy an SUV? Giving tax breaks to small business owners or anyone for that matter who buy cars over 6,000 pounds is just dumb.

I would support making electric and hybrid cars fully tax deductible. The government should encourage people to buy cars that don't use a lot of gas, not the other away around.

Fin_Fanatic
06-06-2004, 01:10 PM
in theory all these ideas would be great. the only problem is money, something easily overlooked. how much would it cost to research these new technologies, then set up factories, then get rid of all the cars still running on gasoline? this has to be a slow process just for the last question, not everyone will trade in their gasoline powered car for a hybrid. also it was mentioned earlier about going to war for oil and then iraq was brought in..... this is a joke right? if we wanted their oil we would have already taken it.

themole
06-06-2004, 03:19 PM
I never said that.. but I know thats true in Mexico.

BUT.....You did say the government was owned by OPEC.

Kamikaze
06-06-2004, 04:12 PM
in theory all these ideas would be great. the only problem is money, something easily overlooked. how much would it cost to research these new technologies, then set up factories, then get rid of all the cars still running on gasoline? this has to be a slow process just for the last question, not everyone will trade in their gasoline powered car for a hybrid. also it was mentioned earlier about going to war for oil and then iraq was brought in..... this is a joke right? if we wanted their oil we would have already taken it.

It seems you fail to understand that we will have to implement these new ideas. Once the cheap oil runs out, it'll cost even more money to then implement the technologies out of pure neccessity. And that's the whole problem, the cheap oil is running out as we speak. This problem needs to be solved now, or at least we need to get moving on it.

FIN-IN-RI
06-06-2004, 04:17 PM
Two words. Wind Power.

Fin_Fanatic
06-07-2004, 12:21 AM
It seems you fail to understand that we will have to implement these new ideas. Once the cheap oil runs out, it'll cost even more money to then implement the technologies out of pure neccessity. And that's the whole problem, the cheap oil is running out as we speak. This problem needs to be solved now, or at least we need to get moving on it.
no i think you fail to understand that money is what makes the world go round. i know for a fact that there would be a HUGE uproar if the taxes are raised to fund these new programs. i'm not saying we shouldnt try these new things, but they will have to be developed slowly at best w/o funding. this wont help the problem now

PhinPhan1227
06-07-2004, 01:12 PM
Two words. Wind Power.


ROFL!! Talk to the wealthy liberals living on Martha's Vinyard about wind power. You've got a bunch of VOCAL environmentalists living on the island who are fighting tooth and nail to keep a wind farm from being built off shore. Rather than have even the smallest part of their view obstructed, they want the island to continue using the coal fired power plant it has been using for years. It's sad that they are willing to fight to have everyone ELSE bite the bullet for the environment, but they aren't willing to give up their ocean view to help out.

PhinPhan1227
06-07-2004, 01:15 PM
It seems you fail to understand that we will have to implement these new ideas. Once the cheap oil runs out, it'll cost even more money to then implement the technologies out of pure neccessity. And that's the whole problem, the cheap oil is running out as we speak. This problem needs to be solved now, or at least we need to get moving on it.

You can't solve the problem NOW. But research already being conducted DOES need to be stepped up. I'm tellin ya...ethanol powered hydrogen plants would be HUGE!!! They could be used to power/build fuel cells for our cars, and provide electricity directly for our homes and businesses. And best of all, good old American Corn is the raw material. Time to put Bubba the Farmer back on easy street. Heck, just with the money freed up from farm subsidies, you could turn around and help reduce the national debt... :D

DeDolfan
06-07-2004, 01:19 PM
If you don't know what it is, Google it and read up on the subject.

If you do know what it is, why in the hell isn't anyone screaming about it? Corporate media and politicians don't ever utter the words. Is it because the words contain an awful, dire truth? That our way of life will end unless we start to make changes in energy policy now? Both sides of the aisle have been very tight-lipped, probably because telling Americans what they don't want to hear will surely mean losing their re-election bids.

Personally, I think the motive to go to conquer Iraq for oil is more and more obvious. Not for reasons of greed mind you, but for reasons of survival. We need to keep this party going for as long as possible, so taking over other oil rich nations deny other nations access to that oil. Maybe Bush doesn't know about Peak Oil, but his handlers sure do.

As oil production peaks, I think we have two solutions to keep our economic growth sustained. First, we can create an entirely new economic sector devoted to find a solution to the looming crisis, and completely rework our infrastructure to work independently of oil. This would take a level of national commitment not seen since World War II, and one which I would gladly take part in because the other solution is... More wars for oil. If we aren't going to take the problem seriously, then the only way to keep oil cheap is to secure more of it for ourselves. This of course, will not go over well with the rest of the world. If anyone has other solutions I'd like to hear them. Seriously.

And if you still haven't read up on Peak Oil, please don't bother jumping into the debate. You need a framework to debate from, whether you agree with Peak Oil or not.

What I have never been able to figure out is that back in the 70s, the gov mandated several things like tax credits for properly insulating homes to reduce energy, car mfgs have a time table to produce vehicles that avg 35 mpg, developing solar/wind energy etc. and the like. All these things were designed to reduce our dependence on oil. I'm not a rocket scientist by any means, but it doesn't take a whole lot of smarts to figure out that some day, that big assss tank in the ground we call earth, is going to run dry of oil. When that happens, the ground will likel cave in due to pressure and a big void inside. Anyway, when the well runs dry, there will be no oil for sale at any price and then everyone will be scrambling to find alternative energy sources then, probably after it's too late.
But sometime in the 80s/early 90s, these mandates were relaxed for some reason. Car mfgs bitched cuz it was too "costly" to make these changes, solar power was expensive. Well, of course those things would be "more" expensive when we have the probable colusion of the oil companies with auto mfgs., politicians already holding alot of oil stocks, probably given as "consulting fees" or the like from the oil companies to begin with. Anyway, it's like any other commodity, had those mandates remained in place, then these alternate energy sources would no doubt be alot cheaper and more affordable to all, without the huge dependence on OPEC we see today.
But they are alot of cures. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, the gov won't let it come to pass tho.

PhinPhan1227
06-07-2004, 01:54 PM
What I have never been able to figure out is that back in the 70s, the gov mandated several things like tax credits for properly insulating homes to reduce energy, car mfgs have a time table to produce vehicles that avg 35 mpg, developing solar/wind energy etc. and the like. All these things were designed to reduce our dependence on oil. I'm not a rocket scientist by any means, but it doesn't take a whole lot of smarts to figure out that some day, that big assss tank in the ground we call earth, is going to run dry of oil. When that happens, the ground will likel cave in due to pressure and a big void inside. Anyway, when the well runs dry, there will be no oil for sale at any price and then everyone will be scrambling to find alternative energy sources then, probably after it's too late.
But sometime in the 80s/early 90s, these mandates were relaxed for some reason. Car mfgs bitched cuz it was too "costly" to make these changes, solar power was expensive. Well, of course those things would be "more" expensive when we have the probable colusion of the oil companies with auto mfgs., politicians already holding alot of oil stocks, probably given as "consulting fees" or the like from the oil companies to begin with. Anyway, it's like any other commodity, had those mandates remained in place, then these alternate energy sources would no doubt be alot cheaper and more affordable to all, without the huge dependence on OPEC we see today.
But they are alot of cures. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, the gov won't let it come to pass tho.


It's not QUITE that simple...lets look at the more popular alternatives.

#1-Hydroelectric-works GREAT if you live in the Niagara area...kind of tough if you live in the mid-west. Add to that the fact that building a dam results in the loss of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of acres of land...most often land that was being used by wildlife.

#2-Solar-Building solar cells takes more energy than the current technology churns out. There are also toxic chemicals involved in the process. Lastly, in order to be used on any large scale, solar "farms" need to be built which again, take up a LOT of space...most often currently occupied by wildlife.

#3-Wind-Unpredictable. Also, again,takes up MASSIVE amounts of space. Also a monsterous hazard to migrating birds. LAstly, probably the best wind solution are off shore wind farms, but many of those people who own beach front property don't want their view obstructed. Martin Sheen talks a good liberal story until someone messes with his Malibu view.

#4-Nuclear-Best option so far, but the environmental lobby has it shut down. Talk about not wanting your cake and not letting anyone else eat it either.

#5-Alternative fuels-Ethanol is making big strides....but as a hydrogen producer, not as a direct fuel. BIG potential for this technology since it also allows fuel cells to be made, unlike any other source other than fossil fuels.

#6-Fussion-big strides being made here as well. Japan or Europe likely to have the first working reactors.

#7-Geothermal-Again, great if you live in Yosimitee, or Iceland. Rough in Florida. Also tough on those national parks.

No easy solutions man...sometimes the technology just takes time.

DeDolfan
06-07-2004, 02:00 PM
It's not QUITE that simple...lets look at the more popular alternatives.

#1-Hydroelectric-works GREAT if you live in the Niagara area...kind of tough if you live in the mid-west. Add to that the fact that building a dam results in the loss of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of acres of land...most often land that was being used by wildlife.

#2-Solar-Building solar cells takes more energy than the current technology churns out. There are also toxic chemicals involved in the process. Lastly, in order to be used on any large scale, solar "farms" need to be built which again, take up a LOT of space...most often currently occupied by wildlife.

#3-Wind-Unpredictable. Also, again,takes up MASSIVE amounts of space. Also a monsterous hazard to migrating birds. LAstly, probably the best wind solution are off shore wind farms, but many of those people who own beach front property don't want their view obstructed. Martin Sheen talks a good liberal story until someone messes with his Malibu view.

#4-Nuclear-Best option so far, but the environmental lobby has it shut down. Talk about not wanting your cake and not letting anyone else eat it either.

#5-Alternative fuels-Ethanol is making big strides....but as a hydrogen producer, not as a direct fuel. BIG potential for this technology since it also allows fuel cells to be made, unlike any other source other than fossil fuels.

#6-Fussion-big strides being made here as well. Japan or Europe likely to have the first working reactors.

#7-Geothermal-Again, great if you live in Yosimitee, or Iceland. Rough in Florida. Also tough on those national parks.

No easy solutions man...sometimes the technology just takes time.

Oh, i know it's not simple at all and technology often does take time. I was speaking generally about alternative ways but what has concerned me is that why were we put on the alternative path by the gov only to disappear shortly there after?

PhinPhan1227
06-07-2004, 02:09 PM
Oh, i know it's not simple at all and technology often does take time. I was speaking generally about alternative ways but what has concerned me is that why were we put on the alternative path by the gov only to disappear shortly there after?

Where we though? Most of the emission, MPG, and refinery standards, are still in place. But the population has expanded so much that those measures fall short.

DeDolfan
06-07-2004, 03:06 PM
Where we though? Most of the emission, MPG, and refinery standards, are still in place. But the population has expanded so much that those measures fall short.

I don't know, Bush goes against the clean air stuff, we hear ppl complain about gas guzzling SUVs, Motiva is always being fined for pollution and other violations, their Delaware location anyway.
But I don't follow what you mean by the expanded population tho.

PhinPhan1227
06-07-2004, 04:37 PM
I don't know, Bush goes against the clean air stuff, we hear ppl complain about gas guzzling SUVs, Motiva is always being fined for pollution and other violations, their Delaware location anyway.
But I don't follow what you mean by the expanded population tho.

Population is the single biggest culprit in destroying the environment. My point about it's expansion is that even with the programs in place, some parts of the country have had a more rapid expansion of their population than was planned for. So if the regulations were designed to reduce polution in a population of X...they will probably see increased polution with a population of Y. As for Bush going against the clean air stuff...he took over during a recession. That clean air stuff is a BIG monetary burden for some companies. Ease the restrictions and you might not only save jobs, you might save the company. Then when things get better you can ease them back in.

DeDolfan
06-08-2004, 09:36 AM
Population is the single biggest culprit in destroying the environment. My point about it's expansion is that even with the programs in place, some parts of the country have had a more rapid expansion of their population than was planned for. So if the regulations were designed to reduce polution in a population of X...they will probably see increased polution with a population of Y. As for Bush going against the clean air stuff...he took over during a recession. That clean air stuff is a BIG monetary burden for some companies. Ease the restrictions and you might not only save jobs, you might save the company. Then when things get better you can ease them back in.

Oh, I see where you're going with it. Just like Cal suffers from so much smog even the the prevailing winds come from the west. you'd think it would keep it cleared out but with so many ppl..........................
I can understand why bush went where he did with the clean air stuff and it is a double edged sword dor him. You know, trying to ease the recession, ie. more jobs but on the other hand, if pollution becomes too bad then so many ppl die off making some of those jobs unecessary, i suppose. When it comes down to it, nature will take over. Too many ppl, some new disease pops off and kills off a bunch. The big difference in today and past centuries when the plagues struck is that technology allows us to get a quicker handle on things now. Appreciate the POV tho !!

Kamikaze
06-08-2004, 05:24 PM
no i think you fail to understand that money is what makes the world go round. i know for a fact that there would be a HUGE uproar if the taxes are raised to fund these new programs. i'm not saying we shouldnt try these new things, but they will have to be developed slowly at best w/o funding. this wont help the problem now

No, oil makes the world go round. And if we don't act soon, we won't have it at a cheap price. What do you want to do, get to work on this problem when oil is $40/barrel or $100/barrel or more? If taxes have to be raised to fund these new programs, tough **** America, we soon won't have a choice. Peak oil is a unique problem facing the world. To maintain our standard of living without much of an interruption we need to work at alternative energy now.

PhinPhan brings up the point of Ethanol fuels, which sounds promising. How long would it take to convert most of the nation's infrastructre and automobile fleet over to Ethanol/Hydrogen power? If this is indeed the solution to the problem, we need to push the government to pour billions into this. The sooner we can do it, the better off we all are.

PhinPhan1227
06-08-2004, 05:35 PM
No, oil makes the world go round. And if we don't act soon, we won't have it at a cheap price. What do you want to do, get to work on this problem when oil is $40/barrel or $100/barrel or more? If taxes have to be raised to fund these new programs, tough **** America, we soon won't have a choice. Peak oil is a unique problem facing the world. To maintain our standard of living without much of an interruption we need to work at alternative energy now.

PhinPhan brings up the point of Ethanol fuels, which sounds promising. How long would it take to convert most of the nation's infrastructre and automobile fleet over to Ethanol/Hydrogen power? If this is indeed the solution to the problem, we need to push the government to pour billions into this. The sooner we can do it, the better off we all are.


You don't have to convert it overnight...or even over a decade. Once fuel cells are viable you will see mass transit and fleet vehicles shifted over first. That's because they usually have their own feuling infrastructure anyway. That takes a huge chunk of fossil fuel usage right there. After that you have most new cars switched over. In that way we are weaned off gasoline. Ethanol is the best case scenario, but even before then we can use coal and natural gas to make the hydrogen fuel cells.

Section126
06-08-2004, 05:53 PM
If we drill in ANWAR...we would have an additional 1 million barrels a week....We also have Oil offshore of Florida....we have Oil here at home...if we ever feel the crunch...we will just drill here......nothing to see here....let's move on.

themole
06-08-2004, 10:34 PM
If we drill in ANWAR...we would have an additional 1 million barrels a week....We also have Oil offshore of Florida....we have Oil here at home...if we ever feel the crunch...we will just drill here......nothing to see here....let's move on.


126.... The Sig: That's what I have been preaching all along. :up:

ohall
06-08-2004, 10:56 PM
If we drill in ANWAR...we would have an additional 1 million barrels a week....We also have Oil offshore of Florida....we have Oil here at home...if we ever feel the crunch...we will just drill here......nothing to see here....let's move on.

Wouldn't it be an extra 1 million barrels a day from ANWAR 126?

However I have to say it really doesn't matter any more. Libya is now selling the USA oil for the 1st time in I think 30-years. I believe we started getting 750k barrels of oil a day since last week Friday from Libya. We'll get that extra oil one way or the other.

Oliver...

themole
06-08-2004, 11:27 PM
Wouldn't it be an extra 1 million barrels a day from ANWAR 126?

However I have to say it really doesn't matter any more. Libya is now selling the USA oil for the 1st time in I think 30-years. I believe we started getting 750k barrels of oil a day since last week Friday from Libya. We'll get that extra oil one way or the other.

Oliver...

That's right Ollie, and who do we have to thank for that? Two people..Ronald Reagan, for blowing Kadafi out of his tent and calming him down. And Dubya, for mama slapping Iraq. Walking softly and carring a big stick only works when you demonstrate that you are willing to use the stick! Ronnie and GW did not hesitate. Makes ya proud doesn't it.
:D

Fin_Fanatic
06-09-2004, 12:18 AM
damn right:woot:

Kamikaze
06-09-2004, 06:06 AM
ANWR is just a drop in the bucket. We'd run that reserve dry within months.

PhinPhan1227
06-09-2004, 10:24 AM
ANWR is just a drop in the bucket. We'd run that reserve dry within months.


While that's possible...how do you know? ANWAR has only had test drilling done correct? As such, nobody knows if it's a resource for the next decade, or only the next year.

ohall
06-09-2004, 12:11 PM
That's right Ollie, and who do we have to thank for that? Two people..Ronald Reagan, for blowing Kadafi out of his tent and calming him down. And Dubya, for mama slapping Iraq. Walking softly and carring a big stick only works when you demonstrate that you are willing to use the stick! Ronnie and GW did not hesitate. Makes ya proud doesn't it.
:D

Not trying to offend anyone, but why is it you never hear liberals talk about what took place in Libya recently? It's like Libya didn't turn over their LARGE WMD porgram because the US invaded Iraq. What's up with that?

Oliver...

BigFinFan
06-09-2004, 12:14 PM
President Reagan and President G. W. Bush have HUGE sacks!

ohall
06-09-2004, 12:14 PM
ANWR is just a drop in the bucket. We'd run that reserve dry within months.

Something just ain't right here with your math man. 2 million barrels a day would eat up 17 billion barrels of oil in months? 276 months?

Is 2 + 2 still 4?

My math tells me at that rate it would take roughly 23.5 years to use up all the ANWAR oil.

Oliver...

ohall
06-09-2004, 12:18 PM
President Reagan and President G. W. Bush have HUGE sacks!

Indeed it takes certain types of leaders to do what's right when the world tells them it is the wrong thing. Most ppl try and rewrite history and imply when Reagan went to war with Russia the way he did it had wide support by the population and the DEM's. Anyone who was old enough to reason when he was President understand just how incorrect that POV actually is. I watch MSNBC and CNN and laugh at the things some of these liberals are saying now that he's dead. Why didn't they say these wondeful things back in 1982 when Reagan was being called an idiot, stupid and a war monger?

I think Bush #43 has the same type of makeup. In time like Reagan his actions in Iraq will be widely respected around the world, because the peace it will bring to the world the next 10-15 years will make their POV moot.

Oliver...

BigFinFan
06-09-2004, 12:23 PM
Very True Oliver!

Section126
06-09-2004, 02:29 PM
I stand corrected....you are right.....it IS a million a day.

PhinPhan1227
06-09-2004, 02:51 PM
http://money.excite.com/ht/nw/bus/20040609/hle_bus-n2w307105.html

The Saudis are delivering on their promise to pump an additional million barrels a day as well...and it's reflected in the prices

finfan54
06-11-2004, 05:23 AM
There are lots of solutions but the government is owned by big Oil and OPEC.


could this not be said the other way around? that government owns big oil becuase they tell them what, how, and where they can produce it!? We are owned by Saudi Arabia, who supports terrorists, who may be changing their minds soon if they keep getting murdered as they walk down the street. Thos e who make the arguements about the Iraq war being about Oil is such a one sided, one size fits all, repetetive, BS answere.
There are weapons of mass destruction and they have been moved. the reason they arent saying anything, is becuase it would blow peoples cover in trying to find them. there is evidence that the liberal media is not telling you. Syria and Iran are the prime locations to look and we are looking as we speak. I tend to think syria more but what do i know? but the chemicals they found in Jordan is proof. proof that the media refuses to show becuase it means there guy cant get elected after spouting about it for six months. The reason we went into Iraq was terrorism and the fact that Saddam was a part of the 9/11 attacks and there is proof of it. Zarqawi was in Iraq alot of times getting speical medical treatment. THIS IS ABOUT TERRORISM AND LEADERS WHO WISH TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE. A liberal though, wouldnt understand that cus they think that is a great thing since overpopulation and climate change are what is really going to kill us! :roflmao:

finfan54
06-11-2004, 05:31 AM
You don't have to convert it overnight...or even over a decade. Once fuel cells are viable you will see mass transit and fleet vehicles shifted over first. That's because they usually have their own feuling infrastructure anyway. That takes a huge chunk of fossil fuel usage right there. After that you have most new cars switched over. In that way we are weaned off gasoline. Ethanol is the best case scenario, but even before then we can use coal and natural gas to make the hydrogen fuel cells.

the biggest start is the Hybrid IMO. Rush Limbaugh doesnt like Hybrids but i think he is being naive on this one. I think he thinks Hybrids are electric cars or something that you have to plug in. But i imagine ten years from now, most vehicles will be hybrids. FEDEX is talking about a fleet of Hybrid trucks in California now. The SUV by Ford (ESCAPE) is pretty cool and affordable compared to other SUV's. Trends take a long time and they have to stick. The thing in politics i find utterly outrageus is the DEms fought Bush on his energy policy that was to start looking at all these other fuels and fund them, which is supposedly what people like AL GORE want, but no! we cant have George Bush getting all the credit! we need our guy! and stop drilling for oil in the process! Let Saudi Arabia control it all! and terrorism too! :shakeno: