Oil supply...
- Thread starter Larry Gude
- Start date
Lenny
Lovin' being Texican
When the dude talks about uncertainty, he's describing the problem the tree huggers and moose bangers have created for the U.S. by prohibiting reasonable harvesting of our own oil and development of refining capacity to replace aged and obsolete facilities. Thank a Democrat for supporting this stupidity!
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
And these comments alone shot oil prices up?
What DOESN'T causes oil prices to rise anymore?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
What...
...wasn't really spelled out is that it doesn't make good business sense, long term, to invest in production expansion if the flaky US is going to mandate reductions. Our own
over oil is going to help keep prices high whereas historically, a period of high prices has seen production catch up in a year or two.
...wasn't really spelled out is that it doesn't make good business sense, long term, to invest in production expansion if the flaky US is going to mandate reductions. Our own
over oil is going to help keep prices high whereas historically, a period of high prices has seen production catch up in a year or two.
drmatsci
New Member
You know, if CA doesn't want drilling off their shores, then they should have that right to say 'no'. Deal with it. Its not a sin to say 'no' to big companies. On the other hand, if you want a well on your land, go for it.
I love the current big oil adds where they describe their policy and talk about how they have invested in other technology, including advanced battery technology. Which is simply an admission, as many have said, oil companies did / do indeed buy up competing technologies, such as advanced batteries. Think about it - if you owned a technology company, wouldn't you try to buy out competeing technology? Of course you would, its part of buisness. I just find it funny to hear their spin on it. Like they are now our saviors for investing in alternative technology!
Save us, big oil, save us!
Just like tabacco companies want us to stop smoking!!
I love the current big oil adds where they describe their policy and talk about how they have invested in other technology, including advanced battery technology. Which is simply an admission, as many have said, oil companies did / do indeed buy up competing technologies, such as advanced batteries. Think about it - if you owned a technology company, wouldn't you try to buy out competeing technology? Of course you would, its part of buisness. I just find it funny to hear their spin on it. Like they are now our saviors for investing in alternative technology!
Save us, big oil, save us!
Just like tabacco companies want us to stop smoking!!
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Interesting...
...point of view. You realize that Alaska has, for over a decade, been tying to get pumping in ANWR?
...point of view. You realize that Alaska has, for over a decade, been tying to get pumping in ANWR?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
WHy is...
...that odd? I'd be furious if someone lowered a settlement I was expecting.
...that odd? I'd be furious if someone lowered a settlement I was expecting.
drmatsci
New Member
Settlement based on the fact that most alaskan's make their living off tourism and fishing and that a huge portion of the fishing industry suffered because of said event. I really doubt the population of alaska wants that to happen again. So is it the population that really wants drilling? The natives? Or the big oil companies that give large sums of money to the politicians?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Well...
...you can go look it up for yourself how they feel about it. They WANT drilling. Also, the Valdez accident, bad as it was, is truly a rare event.
...you can go look it up for yourself how they feel about it. They WANT drilling. Also, the Valdez accident, bad as it was, is truly a rare event.
Lenny
Lovin' being Texican
itsbob
I bowl overhand
Yanno, the Alaskans that get PAID instead of paying taxes.. all from oil revenue.. Oh yeah, they want more drilling. They want to supplement that $1200 - 2000 a year they GET from the state, while us lowlanders PAY our state more than what the Alaskans get from there's.
drmatsci
New Member
Yes, but my example was CA, and they don't want it. So my point stands, if people don't want it don't force it. If you are right, and Alaskan's really want it, than so be it. Although I don't think the next administration will allow it.
Still, its no reason not to embrace alternative technologies. Fully electric cars, whether battery, electrical energy storage devices or mechanical energy storage devices, make a lot of sense. Each area of the country would produce electricity in the way easiest and cleanest for them (hydro, solar, nuclear, wind, gas, etc) and pollution is much easier to control at a single source. Plus, electric vehciles wouldn't require a whole new infrastructure. Every gas station already has power to it. Hydrogen is just another way to store electrical energy, and really adds an extra step and a huge infrastructure.
Oil as a source of fuel for passenger cars will go the way of the dinasour, eventually, but as Big Oil has a lot of power over our government its going to take a long time. Bringing this back to the story, while high oil/gas prices suck because of food prices and hurting the economy, I think it will help in the long run. The higher the prices go, the more people are willing to turn to alternatives. Big Oil will eventually put themselves out of buisness. And democrates or republicans who truely believe in alternative energy would indeed want to keep prices high, supply tight or not. It does make sense if you want to move poeple to alternatives.
Still, its no reason not to embrace alternative technologies. Fully electric cars, whether battery, electrical energy storage devices or mechanical energy storage devices, make a lot of sense. Each area of the country would produce electricity in the way easiest and cleanest for them (hydro, solar, nuclear, wind, gas, etc) and pollution is much easier to control at a single source. Plus, electric vehciles wouldn't require a whole new infrastructure. Every gas station already has power to it. Hydrogen is just another way to store electrical energy, and really adds an extra step and a huge infrastructure.
Oil as a source of fuel for passenger cars will go the way of the dinasour, eventually, but as Big Oil has a lot of power over our government its going to take a long time. Bringing this back to the story, while high oil/gas prices suck because of food prices and hurting the economy, I think it will help in the long run. The higher the prices go, the more people are willing to turn to alternatives. Big Oil will eventually put themselves out of buisness. And democrates or republicans who truely believe in alternative energy would indeed want to keep prices high, supply tight or not. It does make sense if you want to move poeple to alternatives.
Has anyone read The Non Energy Crisis by Lindsey Williams? I read about it on another forum and have read it. I had an uncle work on the pipeline and I remember some of the things talked about in the book mostly permit and delay tactics. I am trying to research more for my own validation.
blazinlow89
Big Poppa
Damn hippies
beerlover
New Member
I read it and also heard him on a radio show. Very interesting.... I wonder if what he said he witnessed was true. He said that the goal was to let the price of oil rise to $150 a barrel and then they would "discover" Gull Island all over again and start pumping it. He said that back in the 70's when he wrote the book, so I don't know if he's talking $150 in today's dollars or not.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Last edited:
D
Dixie
Guest
I'm curious about something and I'm probably in the wrong thread. What was our oil situation back when Bush first got in office (and I may be answering my own question)?
In another thread - it's all the Democrats fault that the price of gas is so high because the Democrats are blocking drilling. If drilling was so important why didn't Bush try to shove this through when the Republicans controlled Congress (not so terribly long ago)? I'm asking this here because y'all haven't taken this to the name calling stage yet - asking the same question in the other thread just to see if there's a different take.
In another thread - it's all the Democrats fault that the price of gas is so high because the Democrats are blocking drilling. If drilling was so important why didn't Bush try to shove this through when the Republicans controlled Congress (not so terribly long ago)? I'm asking this here because y'all haven't taken this to the name calling stage yet - asking the same question in the other thread just to see if there's a different take.