If the market thought Bush's comments meant anything, then I agree they could affect the price of oil. I doubt anyone interpreted his remarks that way. There has been a lot of sabre rattling and not much action on changing the oil dynamic. I read Bush's comments to be more of the same, so I don't think it had anything to do with oil prices dropping.
Cycloptichorn wrote:I suppose pointing out that oil had already fallen more than 5 dollars a barrel by the time Bush gave his speech on the 15th at 3:30 pm ET, and actually recovered some afterwards, will mean nothing to you, as it doesn't fit your pre-packaged narrative.
The price of oil did not fall on hopes of increased domestic drilling. It fell a little due to other factors. Now, some Republicans are trying to take credit for this, and use it as proof that we should start drilling immediately, and that it will lower prices immediately if we do, even though it will take years for the supply to actually increase. There is no evidence that this position is true; it is a political position, not a fact-based one.
Cycloptichorn
His position was made public a day earlier.
Back to the herd for you!
woiyo wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:I suppose pointing out that oil had already fallen more than 5 dollars a barrel by the time Bush gave his speech on the 15th at 3:30 pm ET, and actually recovered some afterwards, will mean nothing to you, as it doesn't fit your pre-packaged narrative.
The price of oil did not fall on hopes of increased domestic drilling. It fell a little due to other factors. Now, some Republicans are trying to take credit for this, and use it as proof that we should start drilling immediately, and that it will lower prices immediately if we do, even though it will take years for the supply to actually increase. There is no evidence that this position is true; it is a political position, not a fact-based one.
Cycloptichorn
His position was made public a day earlier.
Back to the herd for you!
Ah, mmm hmm.
It's always another excuse, as to why your narrative
must be right, isn't it?
Cycloptichorn
Just the facts sheep.
You want to ignore the facts as your shepard tells you to.
woiyo wrote:Just the facts sheep.
You want to ignore the facts as your shepard tells you to.
Which 'facts' again? What you have presented are
assertions, not facts. There's a big difference.
Cycloptichorn
Replace all electric plants that burn fossil fuels with nuclear power plants.
real life wrote:Replace all electric plants that burn fossil fuels with nuclear power plants.
Agreed. Augment with wind, solar, geothermal, tidal.
Cycloptichorn
Whatever you do, follow Al Gore like the sheeple you are... and stop using all my damn oil, TYVM.
To make this one as simple as possible, there are two basic shots at a meaningful contribution from renewable sources, and that would be the super capacitor idea (EESTOR and Zen Motors), and the idea of oil from algae, and the Zen car would still need new sources of electricity which demoKKKrats fight tooth and nail going into the future.
http://media.cleantech.com/2644/zenn-gearing-up-for-eestor-powered-car
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=115134
One other renewable energy possibility which you'll never see in the mainstream media is the idea of processing demokkkrats into oil:
Apparently if you can stand the smell, it's possible...
The numbers for the oil from algae idea are staggering. You'd be talking about 20,000 gallons per acre per year vs 18 gallons per acre per year for ethanol from corn, to a normal max of a bout 600 for palm oil. Moreover, the ideal place for farming algae as in the image is a desert, no farmland involved at all.
It sure sounds like a winner.
I dont believe that anyone is actually against the idea of alternative energy sources, its the HOW we get to that point that we disagree on.
I am 100% in favor of building as many nuclear power plants as is possible to build.
I grew up within spitting distance of one in SoCal and there was NEVER any type of safety issue with it.
I am also in favor of wind farms where practical, and in solar power.
I dont know anyone that is opposed to any of them, except for the NIMBY crowd.
BUT, until all of those sources of energy do become practical and available, we will still need oil.
We can conserve as much as we want, but that wont be a long term solution.
I liken it to a bathtub analogy.
Fill your bathtub up with water, and use only that water for your household needs (cooking, bathing, drinking, etc.).
You can conserve as much as you want, but you will still eventually run out of water, unless you add more water to the bathtub.
So, while we conserve oil and look for alternative energy sources, we still need to add more to the bathtub, and the best way to do that is to drill for more.
Even if it is only a short term fix, at least we wont run out before other energy sources come on line.
Why is that so hard for some people to understand?
mysteryman wrote:
So, while we conserve oil and look for alternative energy sources, we still need to add more to the bathtub, and the best way to do that is to drill for more.
Even if it is only a short term fix, at least we wont run out before other energy sources come on line.
Why is that so hard for some people to understand?
It's proably more like you not understanding them than them not understanding you. They want to reduce the planet's human population to medieval levels for the sake of Gaia. Try this:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=27329
or
http://theautonomist.com/home/?/ind_ind/article/evil_incarnate/
Gungasnake
You and I just might be posterboys for population control.
gungasnake wrote:mysteryman wrote:
So, while we conserve oil and look for alternative energy sources, we still need to add more to the bathtub, and the best way to do that is to drill for more.
Even if it is only a short term fix, at least we wont run out before other energy sources come on line.
Why is that so hard for some people to understand?
It's proably more like you not understanding them than them not understanding you. They want to reduce the planet's human population to medieval levels for the sake of Gaia. Try this:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=27329
or
http://theautonomist.com/home/?/ind_ind/article/evil_incarnate/
Your first link is, in my view, patently ridiculous.
Let me research some of the quotes in your second link and I will get back to you.
mysteryman wrote:I dont believe that anyone is actually against the idea of alternative energy sources, its the HOW we get to that point that we disagree on.
I am 100% in favor of building as many nuclear power plants as is possible to build.
I grew up within spitting distance of one in SoCal and there was NEVER any type of safety issue with it.
I am also in favor of wind farms where practical, and in solar power.
I dont know anyone that is opposed to any of them, except for the NIMBY crowd.
BUT, until all of those sources of energy do become practical and available, we will still need oil.
We can conserve as much as we want, but that wont be a long term solution.
I liken it to a bathtub analogy.
Fill your bathtub up with water, and use only that water for your household needs (cooking, bathing, drinking, etc.).
You can conserve as much as you want, but you will still eventually run out of water, unless you add more water to the bathtub.
So, while we conserve oil and look for alternative energy sources, we still need to add more to the bathtub, and the best way to do that is to drill for more.
Even if it is only a short term fix, at least we wont run out before other energy sources come on line.
Why is that so hard for some people to understand?
But, we are constantly adding more oil to the supply as it is; pumping and drilling have not stopped, or reduced, by any means. What you are talking about is increasing the overall level of the amount of oil available simultaneously; and I'm not sure that's a smart thing to do at this time, given that the other technologies we are working on seemed poised to reduce the amount we need.
Why build infrastructure when the demand is going to drop?
Cycloptichorn
Every additional mile per gallon requirement imposed on our autos would be equivalent to a relatively large oil find.
It seems to me that the government could reasonably demand that autos made in 2011 get at least 32 miles per gallon. That would probably give us oil independence.
Advocate wrote:It seems to me that the government could reasonably demand that autos made in 2011 get at least 32 miles per gallon. That would probably give us oil independence.
Wouldn't even come close... The DOT made this proposal (32 mpg) back in April and the estimated annual savings was ~55 billion gallons. That's not "nothing" but we import more that 150 billion gallons of oil/year as of last year and it increases every year.
It would be something but it would easily fall short of independence from foreign oil.
We only import 11 million barrels daily, which is far, far, less than you say.
