Oil Vs. Alternative Energy

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
If you are going to force the oil drilled in America to be sold in America, you are essentially talking about nationalizing the oil industry. For to do so, you would cut profits and the Free Market, your Holy God, out of the equation for the oil manufacturers.

Again, quit making stuff up. I have never advocated oil we drill be used here. It makes no difference whether we use it or use the money we got from it to buy oil from somewhere else, unless in time of war, that could change. The free market is not my God, no more than my freedom to say what I want to or worship as I want to is my God. Cyclops, you are totally bankrupt in regard to what freedom is about. I am not rich, nor do I care to be rich, but I do wish to buy from whomever I wish to buy from, maybe you don't? And I don't care if other people are rich, maybe you are jealous, or would like your god, the government to have all the money to make me live like you do?

Quote:
There's no other choice; you can either do that, and keep oil which is drilled in America here in America (even though it will fetch a much higher price overseas), or you can add 2-3% to the world market, and accomplish nothing.

Then shut down all drilling on the planet, cyclops. Put up or shut up, one or the other.

Quote:
Do you have some solution for this problem, Okie?

Cycloptichorn

Yeah, I do have a solution, make the hypocrit tree huggers practice what they preach.

Idiocy; you danced around the problem.

If we don't force oil which is drilled here in America to be SOLD in America, we don't reduce prices here! We don't reduce dependence on foreign oil here! In other words, it doesn't solve ANY of our problems at all!

How do you reconcile your position that increasing domestic drilling will in any way solve our short-term problems, with your conception of the Free Market?

Your blathering about anything other then the answer to that question is useless. You continually hold up the Free Market as the solution to everything; now I would like you to detail exactly how these two concepts go together, the free market, and drilling helping America as you stated.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclops, you are so dense. Since we also sell food foreign, we should also quit planting crops here? Your talking points are bankrupt. Just as your Democrat party brothers and sisters and their talking points. Stupidity, and naivity in regard to economics.

Go live in a cave, shoot your own game, and pick your own berries, cyclops, and remember, make your own clothes too. And do not sell anything that you shoot, make, or do, after all, why do it, it doesn't benefit you?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cyclops, you are so dense. Since we also sell food foreign, we should also quit planting crops here? Your talking points are bankrupt. Just as your Democrat party brothers and sisters and their talking points. Stupidity, and naivity in regard to economics.

Go live in a cave, shoot your own game, and pick your own berries, cyclops, and remember, make your own clothes too. And do not sell anything that you shoot, make, or do, after all, why do it, it doesn't benefit you?

You didn't answer the question. How does drilling in America, but not forcing the oil to be sold in America and used here, lower prices significantly? Adding 1-2% to world supply will NOT significantly reduce the price of oil and you know it!

Please address the inconsistencies in your position, before attacking me in your next post.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
Cyclops, you are so dense. Since we also sell food foreign, we should also quit planting crops here? Your talking points are bankrupt. Just as your Democrat party brothers and sisters and their talking points. Stupidity, and naivity in regard to economics.

Go live in a cave, shoot your own game, and pick your own berries, cyclops, and remember, make your own clothes too. And do not sell anything that you shoot, make, or do, after all, why do it, it doesn't benefit you?

You didn't answer the question. How does drilling in America, but not forcing the oil to be sold in America and used here, lower prices significantly? Adding 1-2% to world supply will NOT significantly reduce the price of oil and you know it!

Please address the inconsistencies in your position, before attacking me in your next post.

Cycloptichorn

It will not lower the price "significantly," and I do not know what you classify as significant, but pennies will help us immensely, with little or no negative impact. Pennies add up to billions in terms of money being drained from the consumers pocketbooks, and from our balance of payments. We are talking about margins here in regard to relieving the pressure.

If you advocate crawling into a hole and isolating ourselves from the world market, it is not realistic. The realities of supply and demand do apply to our situation, there is just no escaping it, cyclops, and I am very very comfortable that my feet are firmly planted in reality and common sense on this issue.

If drilling is no good here, then it is no good anywhere, such is a universal principle, and I am calling your bluster, if you are serious, then call for no drilling anywhere new around the world. You are plainly wrong on this issue, period.

Also an update on another talking point tried by Democrats, which was their call to drill on existing leases. They said they have lots of leases they should drill first. I explained this several times to the dense and slow to learn amongst us, but one point I forgot, and it is a good one. An oil company guy called Rush's show the other day and pointed out that his company had been working on permits to drill existing leases for months or years, I don't remember the time but it was significant, but the permits and roadblocks were many and still in process. It was costing the company alot of money just to obtain permits on leases that the company was paying for, but could not access yet, which is another untold fiasco caused by tree huggers. So, one big reason the companies have not drilled many leases is because of the finger pointers themselves, the Democrats, the obstructionists.

All of this makes me highly irritated at the people that ARE the problem. So if you are not the solution to the problem, at least get out of the way for the people that want to help solve the problem. The Democrats not only cause the problems, but then blame the problems on the people that are trying to solve them. If only we had a decent press, the public would know more about all of this nonsense.

0 Replies

So, you admit that drilling will not significantly lower prices. Cutting 'pennies' off of the price of oil is useless, Okie. You're going to save people 30-50 bucks a year? Big whoop!

Quote:

If drilling is no good here, then it is no good anywhere, such is a universal principle, and I am calling your bluster, if you are serious, then call for no drilling anywhere new around the world. You are plainly wrong on this issue, period.

I have already done this in the past; I don't believe expanding the scope of drilling will do anything to relieve prices. I think that switching to alternative sources would be a much better use of money then just drilling for more.

Is drilling good for getting more oil? Yes. Can we drill our way out of high prices? No. Will we solve our energy crisis by drilling more? No. So why the push for increased drilling from the Republicans? Because it will make even more money for the oil companies, and that's pretty much the only reason. You've admitted that it will not lower prices. You've admitted that extra drilling in America won't lead to extra oil staying in America. What else is the point of drilling more, then?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

So, you admit that drilling will not significantly lower prices. Cutting 'pennies' off of the price of oil is useless, Okie. You're going to save people 30-50 bucks a year? Big whoop!

Quote:

If drilling is no good here, then it is no good anywhere, such is a universal principle, and I am calling your bluster, if you are serious, then call for no drilling anywhere new around the world. You are plainly wrong on this issue, period.

I have already done this in the past; I don't believe expanding the scope of drilling will do anything to relieve prices. I think that switching to alternative sources would be a much better use of money then just drilling for more.

Is drilling good for getting more oil? Yes. Can we drill our way out of high prices? No. Will we solve our energy crisis by drilling more? No. So why the push for increased drilling from the Republicans? Because it will make even more money for the oil companies, and that's pretty much the only reason. You've admitted that it will not lower prices. You've admitted that extra drilling in America won't lead to extra oil staying in America. What else is the point of drilling more, then?

Cycloptichorn

The price of gasoline has dropped quite a bit recently, in part because of increased talk of drilling offshore. Oil speculators take notice when politicans talk about policy. I have heard reports of gasoline down to less than $3.40 in another locale.

So no more drilling, according to cyclops. We might as well quit looking for more mineral deposits too, no more gold, silver, copper, moly, uranium, lead - zinc, etc. Also, quit mining limestone for cement, shut down the gravel pits too. Also, no more silica mining. I am also going to tell the farmers I talk to - to quit planting more crops and raping the land, after all, the topsoil is being washed into the Mississippi delta, there will be no topsoil left after a few more decades.

After all, it is only selfish greed that drives the farmers. They could be as pure as the wind driven snow if they were just like cyclops, not greedy at all. After all, cyclops does not worship the free market, he is so virtuous, he trusts his holy government to take care of all of us, and not one of those bureaucrats has an evil bone in their body.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
So, you admit that drilling will not significantly lower prices. Cutting 'pennies' off of the price of oil is useless, Okie. You're going to save people 30-50 bucks a year? Big whoop!

Quote:

If drilling is no good here, then it is no good anywhere, such is a universal principle, and I am calling your bluster, if you are serious, then call for no drilling anywhere new around the world. You are plainly wrong on this issue, period.

I have already done this in the past; I don't believe expanding the scope of drilling will do anything to relieve prices. I think that switching to alternative sources would be a much better use of money then just drilling for more.

Is drilling good for getting more oil? Yes. Can we drill our way out of high prices? No. Will we solve our energy crisis by drilling more? No. So why the push for increased drilling from the Republicans? Because it will make even more money for the oil companies, and that's pretty much the only reason. You've admitted that it will not lower prices. You've admitted that extra drilling in America won't lead to extra oil staying in America. What else is the point of drilling more, then?

Cycloptichorn

The price of gasoline has dropped quite a bit recently, in part because of increased talk of drilling offshore. Oil speculators take notice when politicans talk about policy. I have heard reports of gasoline down to less than $3.40 in another locale.

The rest of your post is junk and was subsequently junked.

You don't have any actual evidence that the drop in the price of oil has anything at all to do with possible future drilling. On the other hand, the fact that Americans drove 4% less in the Summer and have driven less each month for the last several months. Drops in demand invariably lead to drops in price; what you posit, on the other hand, is speculation and has nothing to back it up other then the fevered imaginations of Larry Kudlow.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie, I know you're big time into empty rhetoric, but could you still answer's Cyc's question here:

Quote:

You've admitted that it will not lower prices. You've admitted that extra drilling in America won't lead to extra oil staying in America. What else is the point of drilling more, then?

0 Replies

It is so interesting that Okie admits that the offshore drilling will gain us pennies. I wonder whether those pennies will be worth the bad aspects of living with oil platforms, such as the tar covering your body when you swim, or the tar covering the shoreline. Ask those who live on Dolphin Island about when the pilot light went out, spewing deadly gases in the area, and the platforms' bright lights at night, etc. Also, what about the damage to the environment when we dissolve another 20 B barrels of oil into the atmosphere.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie, I know you're big time into empty rhetoric, but could you still answer's Cyc's question here:

Quote:
You've admitted that it will not lower prices. You've admitted that extra drilling in America won't lead to extra oil staying in America. What else is the point of drilling more, then?

I did not say it would not lower prices. Read my posts, oe. It will not lower prices a great deal, but it will some, just as every other oil field production does. There is only maybe one oil field in the world, Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, that affects things singlehandedly.

One wheat field will not affect wheat prices, but one countywide group of wheatfields would. It would be stupid not to plant wheat in a whole county in Kansas. Perhaps oe, cyclops, and others here would not plant anything there. I suppose they prefer higher prices of bread, after all let the farmers in that county find something else to do, right?

Hey guys, while you are at it, why not be equal opportunity, shut down the oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Russia, Canada, Venezuela, in fact all countries. Just think of the environment you could save? Not one of those fields would affect the price that much by themselves.

And while you are at it, ban oil seeps, not only onshore but offshore. Leaking oil into the ocean should be a crime. Sue nature, sue God, sue somebody.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I did not say it would not lower prices.

Well, okay then. Let me ignore your empty bluster and rephrase the question:

There is no guarantee that oil prices will come down. A few cents per gallon seem to be the maximum as a direct result from domestic drilling. All other effects are not dependent on whether you increase domestic drilling or not, as seen by the current drop in oil prices.

There is equally no guarantee that all the oil from additional domestic drilling will stay in the country. In fact, the free market dictates that oil companies will sell their product to whoever is willing to pay the highest prices - not to show altruism and sell all of their oil domestically.

Given the above, what exactly is the single, most compelling argument for more domestic drilling, then?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
I did not say it would not lower prices.

Well, okay then. Let me ignore your empty bluster and rephrase the question:

Yes, oe, it would be nice if you would accurately paraphrase what I say here. Empty bluster, you just don't like me to illustrate your absurdity with the absurd.

Quote:

There is no guarantee that oil prices will come down. A few cents per gallon seem to be the maximum as a direct result from domestic drilling. All other effects are not dependent on whether you increase domestic drilling or not, as seen by the current drop in oil prices.

There is equally no guarantee that all the oil from additional domestic drilling will stay in the country. In fact, the free market dictates that oil companies will sell their product to whoever is willing to pay the highest prices - not to show altruism and sell all of their oil domestically.

Given the above, what exactly is the single, most compelling argument for more domestic drilling, then?

Common sense, as applied to our economic well being, as determined by supply and demand, jobs, import / export picture, national security, avoidance of arrogance and hypocrisy, etc. It seems to me that is a pretty good reason, especially given the empty and baseless reasons to oppose it.

Similarly, oe, is there any reason why you would think it wise to go to work or get a job?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Common sense, as applied to our economic well being, as determined by supply and demand, jobs, import / export picture, national security, avoidance of arrogance and hypocrisy, etc. It seems to me that is a pretty good reason, especially given the empty and baseless reasons to oppose it.

That's quite a grab bag you've got there. Let's maybe try a different approach.

In marketing, they say that you should be able to sell any product by just focusing on one key benefit. One feature where your product sticks out. One compelling argument why your product is better than any other product that's out there on the market.

You, okie, are trying to sell full out, unlimited domestic drilling.

So... what's your single most compelling argument?

0 Replies

I just gave it to you. And as far as I can tell, there is no single compelling argument not to drill, no more than there is any sensible argument against any sensible economic activity.

If it is not sensible to drill in Alaska for example, why is it more sensible to drill in Venezuela, or Canada, or Russia, or Saudi Arabia for example? The amount of land actually impacted as part of ANWR is so small as to be insignificant, yet the possible oil resources are huge when compared to other existing conventional oil resources in the U.S.

I have a hard time believing such simple concepts or such simple reasoning is not plainly a slam dunk. I do in fact believe that as the rubber becomes closer to meeting the road, as time progresses, and oil becomes in shorter supply, we will drill in ANWR, offshore, and other places, I think the handwriting is on the wall. I do hope the Democrats continue to cling to their policy on this issue because I think it is a losing policy.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I just gave it to you.

Really? That's the best argument in favour of unlimited domestic drilling?

See, I think all of the above mentioned points can also be made in favour of a massive commitment towards renewable energy.

Common sense would favour renewable energy instead of a source that will one day be depleted. Applied to our economic well being, renewable energy is far more desirable than than non-renewable energy. Determined by supply and demand, people would strongly favour renewable energy if. It would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. There would be hardly a way that renewable energy could be exported the way domestically produced oil could be exported. You wouldn't depend on import of renewable energy as it is renewable. There are no concerns about national security involved with renewable energy - it is safer than any other kind of energy, and doesn't depend on imports from volatile region of the globe. And being able to produce all the necessary energy domestically would obviously avoid arrogance and hypocrisy.

Okay, partly kidding.

What I meant was: give me one single feature that makes your product better than any other product. One single point. One argument.

If unlimited drilling is so compelling, that shouldn't be too difficult, right?

0 Replies

oe, we need both renewables and oil. Oil is not going away anytime soon, I think that fact is undeniable. You continue to make the false argument, as others do, that when we argue for more drilling, that we do not advocate other forms of energy. For the umpteenth time I repeat, it is not one or the other, it is a mixture of both to compete in the market and to compliment each other in the market economy.

This really boils down to basic logic. If it makes no sense to drill here, then why does it make sense to drill in other countries? Why does it make sense to pump more oil from existing oil fields?

You are arguing a losing position, it should be pretty plain to see. You are essentially using Democratic Party talking points, which are really baseless and illogical. If it is not logical to drill, the logical extension of that thinking becomes increasingly ridiculous, to the point of why do anything that benefits the economy? Why get up in the morning, oe, after all, you only end up going to bed in the evening so you could save yourself the effort.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

oe, we need both renewables and oil.

Uhm, yes. At the moment, we're still dependent on oil. However, renewables are the way to go. In my opinion. Maybe not the only way.... mroe nuclear power may be necessary in the short term.

---

But unless I missed something, that was not the argument you were making. You were arguing for a complete commitment towards unlimited domestic drilling. Not for a full out commitment towards domestic drilling and renewables.

So, unless you're changing your argument, I'd simply like to see one absolutely compelling reason for what you're demanding. And by that I don't mean a grab bag of things that are equally true for a full commitment towards nuclear power or renewable energy.

No. I mean the one reason that differentiates unlimited domestic drilling from all the rest, that makes it better than any other possible solution.

See, I would like to think that I can easily come up with at least one absolutely compelling reason for a full out commitment towards renewable energy. I'm simply asking for the same from you regarding your position.

0 Replies

oe, you continue to skew what my position is. Read my posts, please. You indeed missed something, you missed alot, like many of my posts. I have never endorsed drilling to the exclusion of other energy sources, and I fail to see where you reach that conclusion, and I suspect you have purposely skewed my argument because I have never argued that point, nor have I changed my argument.

My argument is that a full commitment to renewables to the exclusion of drilling for more oil is a very foolhardy and ill advised policy. I think the future will prove my position correct, and I think recent history is already beginning to prove it.

Another pertinent point that I have used is the fact that anytime you abandon one option, or meddle with the free market, artificially, you will suffer the law of unintended consequences. We do not need to suffer any more economic pain than necessary through the normal transition of energy mix, as dictated by economic conditions, so to limit our options is to shoot ourselves in the foot.

And if you argue that drilling for more oil will stall the transition, as cyclops has, then you are being inconsistent as cyclops has also argued that ANWR for example will have little or no impact on the price. So if it has little or no impact on price as the Democrats claim, what is your fear that the transition to renewables will be slowed? I think this proves that the Democrats talking points are not based in reality.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

My argument is that a full commitment to renewables to the exclusion of drilling for more oil is a very foolhardy and ill advised policy.

In that case, I may have missed something. If that's the argument you are making, then I assume you'd be happy with a full commitment to renewables that allows for additional domestic drilling - something like the Gang of 10 are proposing?

okie wrote:

Another pertinent point that I have used is the fact that anytime you abandon one option, or meddle with the free market, artificially, you will suffer the law of unintended consequences. We do not need to suffer any more economic pain than necessary through the normal transition of energy mix, as dictated by economic conditions, so to limit our options is to shoot ourselves in the foot.

Generally, I don't dispute that. However, we will certainly disagree about what consists "meddling with the free market" and what doesn't.

For example, I'd say that the price of oil was, for a long time, too low. And artificially so - propagated by government intervention. You'll likely argue that the price of oil was merely determined by the market, and is unrealistically high now, due to speculators and the fact that the government won't open up areas for more domestic drilling (and therefore the government meddling with the free market). I'll argue that opening up more areas for domestic drilling equals government intervention, artificially meddling with the free market in order to influence oil prices. You'll argue that, no, it's merely having the government step aside.

<shrugs>

0 Replies

The Dems are not against drilling, just drilling offshore. We feel the drilling should first be on the 67 M acres on which the companies have drilling rights. Then, we feel there should be tough mpg rules for new cars, more nuclear energy plants, and a massive effort to produce energy from the solar, wind, etc.

0 Replies

Oil Vs. Alternative Energy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know