• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Senate Rejects Drilling

While I think it sucks that it ended up a bipartisan thing (just like everything else in American politics (yeah, let's not worry about right or wrong, let's just vote lemming)), I am SOOOOOOOOOOOO HAPPPPPPYYYYYY that this went down. Not that I want reliance on foreign oil, but I want to see motivation to move away from fossil fuels...start spending money on research instead of tossing it down a known black hole.

And, of course, I always like to see Bush take it in the a$$. 😎
 
Weclome to yesterday
rolleye.gif
 
Ya know, I don't really keep up with that stuff so don't have an opinion, but I thought this was funny, from The Onion (asking people what they thought):



Daniel Mendoza
Systems Analyst
"It'd be nice if we lived in some magical fantasy world where we could get energy from the sun and the wind, but we need to deal with reality."
 
My theory on this is that it's all part of the CIA's Master Plan: Buy up all the oil that's in the Mideast, and once that's gone, then start drilling for oil in your own territory. That way, once the Arabs have pissed away their oil money on yachts, fancy gold-leafed turbans, and Institutes for Islamic Studies, they'll be marginalized for all time. Heh.
 
Now that I can finally post a reply!!!


I agree that we need to explore different sources of fuel. But let's get real. If someone discovers one tomorrow, it'll take decades to get everyone converted. All that time we are playing these stupid games in the mideast. What we really should do is invade all of it and just take it over. Then it will be ours (U.S.) and we won't have to upset the tree huggers by drilling in the "pretty" Alaska that 99.9% of those idiots will never see.
 


<< tree huggers by drilling in the "pretty" Alaska that 99.9% of those idiots will never see. >>




Just for clarification, it isn't about 'us' ever seeing anything. It's about the fact that once destroyed, nature doesn't return very well. What we do affects ALL humans for the rest of time. To think we have that right is absurd.
 


<< Now that I can finally post a reply!!!


I agree that we need to explore different sources of fuel. But let's get real. If someone discovers one tomorrow, it'll take decades to get everyone converted. All that time we are playing these stupid games in the mideast. What we really should do is invade all of it and just take it over. Then it will be ours (U.S.) and we won't have to upset the tree huggers by drilling in the "pretty" Alaska that 99.9% of those idiots will never see. >>



Have you seen it?
 
they rejected cafe standards too.. so bah! and say no to drilling😛 cafe standards would have been nice though.. i think the house klled that one because they were afraid our lame ass american car companys would get raped by the japanese if the fuel standards got raised. how pathetic eh? and now they go back to the anwar.. its pathetic.
 
How is Alaska any better than anywhere else we have gone and "ruined" by bulding towns. At least drilling nowadays will be more ecologically sound. We can do exploratory drilling without ruining the land. It's only a few acres anyway.
 


<< So just because we've ruined most of the planet we might as well go ahead and ruin the rest? >>



Yes. With a nuke to the middle east for starters.
It's not going to ruin the rest. It's a few acres.
 
I'm glad they didn't let this pass. Alaska is home to a lot of wildlife, polar bears, seals, etc. You might not see these animals here cept in zoo's, but at least they still live up there, if we just drilled a hole everywhere for oil we wouldn't be here much longer. and also that comment about the energy from the sun and the wind, i hope that was a joke, what do you think wind mills are for? and solar panels.....

<----Enviromentalist
 
This whole issue is just a diversion. There's not enough oil in Alaska(outside of what's already being exploited) to have any significant impact on US reliance of foreign oil. It's those who adamantly promote the idea of this project who are living in the dreamworld, for once that oil flows, no one will notice an affect. Hell, by the time oil companies would be able to pump anything, the world price of oil could fall below the break even point for that project.

If you really want to reduce foreign oil dependency, you'll use less oil. End of discussion.
 
yay!

hell, while we're at it, lets explore for oil in 8'balls backyard 🙂 he won't mind just as all those little critters in Alasks won't mind 😉
 
It'll take 5+ years before oil production hits full capacity from all the exploration, drilling, etc that has to be done. By that time, the added capacity would be outstripped by the growth in national demand for oil that it wouldn't make a difference anyways. Even though I've never seen the Artic Wildlife Refugee, it gives me some intrisic value knowing that it's there. 🙂
 
What I dont understand is how people think this will solve every oil problem the US has.

According to what I know the oil there would last less than 2 years. The oil there is just about 2% of the US total oil consuption. That it would take 7 years to get the oil there on the market.

Also, read this posted by a member on the fark forum
"It would take ten years to get ANWR online. And even then there are laws that have been passed in Alaska that make it so that oil drilled in Alaska doesn't have to be sold to America. Heck, they could sell it to France if they wanted to. And the congresspeople from Alaska have already said that they wouldn't reverse such a law."
any more info?
 
I see a lot of brainwashed people that believe drilling means destruction of the ANWR. It doesn't.


"if we just drilled a hole everywhere for oil we wouldn't be here much longer. "

Please defend that statement.

What I dont understand is how people think this will solve every oil problem the US has.

Who said it would? It would be a source of American oil under our control. That wouldn't hurt. Even if we start implementing a change to other sources of energy today it will take years to switch over. Maybe you like being dependent on other countries, I don?t. ANWR would not completely remove the dependency of course but it could provide an important buffer.


Will the first person who can guarantee that we will not need that oil in the 7 to 10 years it will take to develop the fields please explain why and then prove it.
 


<< This whole issue is just a diversion. There's not enough oil in Alaska(outside of what's already being exploited) to have any significant impact on US reliance of foreign oil. It's those who adamantly promote the idea of this project who are living in the dreamworld, for once that oil flows, no one will notice an affect. Hell, by the time oil companies would be able to pump anything, the world price of oil could fall below the break even point for that project. If you really want to reduce foreign oil dependency, you'll use less oil. End of discussion. >>







YAY
An example of someone who gets it. And as been posted elsewhere, it will take more time than it will be worth. We need to get SERIOUS about other energy sources. Oil is to the US as heroin is to junkies. We rely on it too much, an the answer is just to get more.
 
Save the environment! Save the environment!

But only ours. We don't care about where we get our oil and how it's destroying the environment as long as it's foreign.
rolleye.gif
 
We should have had and implemented the knowledge by now to move beyond this very limited resource.

Coulda and shoulda, but we haven't, the oil is still needed. Let me know what this new energy source is and how long it will take to convert over to it. Meanwhile lets get some more oil flowing in the seven years it will take.
 
For etech

I personally have no problem with limited drilling in Alaska. Of course limited drilling in my opinion will turn out to be like a temporary tax. You know what that means. Notwithstanding, my real issue is that much more resources will be spent developing these fields than has ever been spent on lessening our dependence on oil. That is the problem with "free market" economies. If it doesnt pay in the next fiscal quarter, it isnt going to happen. Accountants determine the future. FYI I tend to be conservative by nature, but everything has it's faults, and our way of life has its disadvantages too. As long as we can find the next needle, we wont have to worry about cleaning up.

You asked for proof that we wont need oil in 7 to 10 years. Of course we will, even if we came up instant free energy, because it is a necessary raw material. A better question is should we be burning our plastics, chemicals, etc. as we have been in the next 10 years when we could have used that time and resource to better purposes.

Why dont you find out how much it will cost to bring this site on line, and compare it to how much has been spent in alternative energy. Want to bet which has the higher dollar amount?

Edit: Just saw you last post etech. I recommend looking at wave generated power. It is already developed and making money. Yep turning a profit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top