0
   

Oil at $87 and rising - still no alternative energy

 
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 05:03 am
$123 now and still rising...still no alternative in sight.

There wont be either, because the cheap easy to produce stuff that gushes out of the ground has mostly gone.

According to the President of the United States, America is "addicted" to oil. I believe there has been an unwillingness to face the bleak reality until its too late. And now it is too late to avoid a painful transition to a low fossil-fuel economy. The longer its left, the worse it gets. The real danger is that at some point, people will just not accept reality and society breaks down.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 06:54 am
Truckers are abandoning big rigs on the freeways as they cannot afford to fill them up.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 09:43 am
Tell them to call Steve 41oo, and he will have an answer for them, maybe an electric truck?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 09:44 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
$123 now and still rising...still no alternative in sight.

There wont be either, because the cheap easy to produce stuff that gushes out of the ground has mostly gone.

According to the President of the United States, America is "addicted" to oil. I believe there has been an unwillingness to face the bleak reality until its too late. And now it is too late to avoid a painful transition to a low fossil-fuel economy. The longer its left, the worse it gets. The real danger is that at some point, people will just not accept reality and society breaks down.


I'm addicted to food too, Steve, but unless you have another better idea, I intend on continuing to eat.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 09:46 am
okie wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
$123 now and still rising...still no alternative in sight.

There wont be either, because the cheap easy to produce stuff that gushes out of the ground has mostly gone.

According to the President of the United States, America is "addicted" to oil. I believe there has been an unwillingness to face the bleak reality until its too late. And now it is too late to avoid a painful transition to a low fossil-fuel economy. The longer its left, the worse it gets. The real danger is that at some point, people will just not accept reality and society breaks down.


I'm addicted to food too, Steve, but unless you have another better idea, I intend on continuing to eat.


We can grow more food. Can't grow more oil.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 09:52 am
I thought you could, cyclops? Congress has been giving out tons of money to do just that.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 09:53 am
okie wrote:
I thought you could, cyclops? Congress has been giving out tons of money to do just that.


I was under the impression that this didn't work. After all, that's what you guys keep saying. So which is it?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 09:55 am
We can't grow oil, but we could certainly extract it from where it is currently located.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 09:57 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Well, there ya go. Cyc's true feeling about the poor and middle class Americans.


That I expect them to take measures to help themselves, instead of expecting the gov't or someone else to help them?

Isn't that the line that you Republicans push all the time?

Cycloptichorn

Talk about greed and selfishness! So you don't care unless it impacts you, or unless you can't afford it.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 09:58 am
I personally think oil IS a renewable resource. It just renews very slowly.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 10:01 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
I thought you could, cyclops? Congress has been giving out tons of money to do just that.


I was under the impression that this didn't work. After all, that's what you guys keep saying. So which is it?

Cycloptichorn

Thats my question, which is it? My solution is to go out and drill for oil, like we have always done, to delay the rise in prices. After all, why pay more now, and later we will have had more time to develop better alternatives, or refine the alternatives that are out there.

And my opinion is that ethanol was a bad idea, given current technology, and I said so at the beginning of it.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 10:13 am
I would like the idea that drilling for oil would lower the price of a barrel at the spot markets.

But do you really believe, okie, the companies would sell US-produced oil cheaper than any oil from the world market?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 10:13 am
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
I thought you could, cyclops? Congress has been giving out tons of money to do just that.


I was under the impression that this didn't work. After all, that's what you guys keep saying. So which is it?

Cycloptichorn

Thats my question, which is it? My solution is to go out and drill for oil, like we have always done, to delay the rise in prices. After all, why pay more now, and later we will have had more time to develop better alternatives, or refine the alternatives that are out there.

And my opinion is that ethanol was a bad idea, given current technology, and I said so at the beginning of it.


Drill for oil to delay the rise in prices?

NOT a great long-term plan. Not even a good short-term plan. The price of oil has gone up by 400% or so since the start of the Bush administration. How much will have to be drilled out of the ground in order to recoup those price gains?

Better to start transitioning to another option, now, not later.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 12:31 pm
Quote:
I personally think oil IS a renewable resource. It just renews very slowly.


jst stick around for a while and your wish may come true Laughing
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 12:48 pm
okie wrote :

Quote:
My solution is to go out and drill for oil, like we have always done, to delay the rise in prices.


if you want more drilling done you'll be facing an INCREASE in the price of oil - unfortunately the fairy godmother won't be paying for the drilling .

i recommend that you listen to MSNBC in the morning - they usually dish out the sorry news unvarnished Shocked
you may not like to hear those news , but they are there nevertheless .

just this morning "oil price" was number one of the news and discussion . the consensus was that the saudis aren't likely going to increase the production . an additional problem is that more and moreeof the oil coming on the market is no longer the "clean" kind but the "dirty" sulphurous kind . apparently many refineries are not even able to handle it at present .
the final words of the oil guys was : "americans better get used to much higher oil prices since the problem is not really in the supply but increased demand all around the world . "

it's the old story : highest bidder takes it ! (remember : it's really an auction rather than a simple sale )
sorry for the disappointing news .
hbg

that's how MSNBC sees it :

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Slideshows/_production/ss_080326_GasToons/080326_GasToons_TEASE.300w.jpg
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 01:04 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I would like the idea that drilling for oil would lower the price of a barrel at the spot markets.

But do you really believe, okie, the companies would sell US-produced oil cheaper than any oil from the world market?

No, and we would of course want to receive an honest market price for our oil, just as everyone else does in the world market. But an additional million barrels per day may lower the price over what it would be otherwise in the future, and it also sends a message as to our future potential of production, which also could have an effect upon the futures market. Producing our own oil would provide jobs, help the economy, and improve our balance of payments as compared to the way things will go without producing our own oil. Not producing our own oil is a self defeating and terrible policy in many different ways.

Bringing this up now, in light of the recent vote to stop the government from buying a measly 70,000 barrels per day to provide relief in the market place clearly demonstrates the stupidity of the liberals claim that a potential million barrels per day is not worth going to the trouble to produce.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 01:13 pm
okie wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I would like the idea that drilling for oil would lower the price of a barrel at the spot markets.

But do you really believe, okie, the companies would sell US-produced oil cheaper than any oil from the world market?

No, and we would of course want to receive an honest market price for our oil, just as everyone else does in the world market. But an additional million barrels per day may lower the price over what it would be otherwise in the future, and it also sends a message as to our future potential of production, which also could have an effect upon the futures market. Producing our own oil would provide jobs, help the economy, and improve our balance of payments as compared to the way things will go without producing our own oil. Not producing our own oil is a self defeating and terrible policy in many different ways.

Bringing this up now, in light of the recent vote to stop the government from buying a measly 70,000 barrels per day to provide relief in the market place clearly demonstrates the stupidity of the liberals claim that a potential million barrels per day is not worth going to the trouble to produce.


Just how much would the price of oil drop? A few bucks? Worthless savings.

What you posit is akin to the recent housing crisis. Your situation only works if the amount of oil being drilled CONSTANTLY increases and the supply never diminishes. This is not going to happen. It's just setting us up for a crash in the future.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 01:18 pm
Demand is down. Supplies are up.

Gonna be a bumpy ride back down for the speculators.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 01:20 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
I thought you could, cyclops? Congress has been giving out tons of money to do just that.


I was under the impression that this didn't work. After all, that's what you guys keep saying. So which is it?

Cycloptichorn

Thats my question, which is it? My solution is to go out and drill for oil, like we have always done, to delay the rise in prices. After all, why pay more now, and later we will have had more time to develop better alternatives, or refine the alternatives that are out there.

And my opinion is that ethanol was a bad idea, given current technology, and I said so at the beginning of it.


Drill for oil to delay the rise in prices?

NOT a great long-term plan. Not even a good short-term plan. The price of oil has gone up by 400% or so since the start of the Bush administration. How much will have to be drilled out of the ground in order to recoup those price gains?

Better to start transitioning to another option, now, not later.

Cycloptichorn

You need to think in more than one dimension. We don't drill for more oil at the expense of transitioning to other options. This is always the false argument used by Democrats, and it is totally false. We drill for oil, we build nuclear, we mine coal, we produce natural gas, we build wind turbines, develop solar, we build hybrid cars, fully electric cars, and we continue to research all the other ideas and technologies under development, but we don't scrap the primary and most efficient energy source intentionally now, which is oil. Basically, we allow the market to determine the most economical and efficient energy mix. Anytime you short circuit yourself in this regard, you are shooting yourself in the foot, and that is what we are doing now.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 01:22 pm
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
I thought you could, cyclops? Congress has been giving out tons of money to do just that.


I was under the impression that this didn't work. After all, that's what you guys keep saying. So which is it?

Cycloptichorn

Thats my question, which is it? My solution is to go out and drill for oil, like we have always done, to delay the rise in prices. After all, why pay more now, and later we will have had more time to develop better alternatives, or refine the alternatives that are out there.

And my opinion is that ethanol was a bad idea, given current technology, and I said so at the beginning of it.


Drill for oil to delay the rise in prices?

NOT a great long-term plan. Not even a good short-term plan. The price of oil has gone up by 400% or so since the start of the Bush administration. How much will have to be drilled out of the ground in order to recoup those price gains?

Better to start transitioning to another option, now, not later.

Cycloptichorn

You need to think in more than one dimension. We don't drill for more oil at the expense of transitioning to other options. This is always the false argument used by Democrats, and it is totally false. We drill for oil, we build nuclear, we mine coal, we produce natural gas, we build wind turbines, develop solar, we build hybrid cars, fully electric cars, and we continue to research all the other ideas and technologies under development, but we don't scrap the primary and most efficient energy source intentionally now, which is oil. Basically, we allow the market to determine the most economical and efficient energy mix. Anytime you short circuit yourself in this regard, you are shooting yourself in the foot, and that is what we are doing now.


Why is it then that the Republican party NEVER pushes for more renewables, or solar, or for better hybrid cars, or any of the things you list, Okie? Your leaders work to strip money for those things out of the same bills they try and inject money FOR more oil drilling into.

The dichotomy has been put in place by obstructionists and oil-friendly Congressmen and Senators from YOUR party, not ours.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/04/2021 at 10:39:00