duckmonkey wrote:T. Boone has already invested millions in wind farms and NG. Yet, he claims he's an "oil man".
So he wants us to back his plan, which just happens to be what he's invested his money in already. Also, if he's such an oil man as he claims, he would know how much oil we have domestically in ANWR, the Gulf coast, off FL and CA, in the Bakken region (Wyoming, Colorado, Dakotas) and he'd also be interested in developing shale. Sounds like he's an oil man who's had bad luck and run dry and is trying to keep his bank accounts full.
I'm sick of hearing this man on every commercial break on the radio and TV.
Wind is proven to be an unreliable source of energy, just as solar. It's been tried since the 80s and has never had success. He's right that we need off foreign oil, but we could supply our own for centuries if the environmentalists who boss Pelosi and crew around would open their eyes and shut their mouths. We can do it in an environmentally-friendly way and the caribou can still mate in the snow all they want. In the Bakken region ALONE, we have an estimated FOUR TIMES more oil there than the current largest oil field in the world, owned by the Saudis. ANWR would supply us for years also, as would the other countless oil supplies we have. It's sad, China and Cuba can drill off the coast of Florida, but WE CAN'T thanks to selfish tree-huggers and OK, I'll say it...Democrats.
I'd be willing to bet there are plenty more undiscovered sources of oil under our own soil as well, but we're not "allowed' to do exploration and even if we could, environmental restrictions have not allowed us to build a new refinery in nearly 30 years and the ones we do have are outdated and in need of repair. When a single storm can knock out 20-30% of our refining capacity and raise gas prices nationwide, there is a serious issue with our ability to refine.
Also, Nuclear energy is VERY efficient and clean. Many European nations, even France have begun producing energy by nuclear plants and supply up to 80% of their power that way without sending a dime outside of their borders. BUT, guess who's been holding us back from doing THAT too. The Jackasses.
There is no reason we should be handcuffed from becoming energy dependence. Politics and single-issue voters have taken over though. It need to be fixed ASAP.
duckmonkey wrote:T. Boone has already invested millions in wind farms and NG. Yet, he claims he's an "oil man".
So he wants us to back his plan, which just happens to be what he's invested his money in already. Also, if he's such an oil man as he claims, he would know how much oil we have domestically in ANWR, the Gulf coast, off FL and CA, in the Bakken region (Wyoming, Colorado, Dakotas) and he'd also be interested in developing shale. Sounds like he's an oil man who's had bad luck and run dry and is trying to keep his bank accounts full.
I'm sick of hearing this man on every commercial break on the radio and TV.
Wind is proven to be an unreliable source of energy, just as solar. It's been tried since the 80s and has never had success. He's right that we need off foreign oil, but we could supply our own for centuries if the environmentalists who boss Pelosi and crew around would open their eyes and shut their mouths. We can do it in an environmentally-friendly way and the caribou can still mate in the snow all they want. In the Bakken region ALONE, we have an estimated FOUR TIMES more oil there than the current largest oil field in the world, owned by the Saudis. ANWR would supply us for years also, as would the other countless oil supplies we have. It's sad, China and Cuba can drill off the coast of Florida, but WE CAN'T thanks to selfish tree-huggers and OK, I'll say it...Democrats.
I'd be willing to bet there are plenty more undiscovered sources of oil under our own soil as well, but we're not "allowed' to do exploration and even if we could, environmental restrictions have not allowed us to build a new refinery in nearly 30 years and the ones we do have are outdated and in need of repair. When a single storm can knock out 20-30% of our refining capacity and raise gas prices nationwide, there is a serious issue with our ability to refine.
Also, Nuclear energy is VERY efficient and clean. Many European nations, even France have begun producing energy by nuclear plants and supply up to 80% of their power that way without sending a dime outside of their borders. BUT, guess who's been holding us back from doing THAT too. The Jackasses.
There is no reason we should be handcuffed from becoming energy dependence. Politics and single-issue voters have taken over though. It need to be fixed ASAP.
Now, I'm a selfish tree-hugger myself, so I take offense to some of your slander. That said, with oil sources running out and oil shale just as expensive and energy-inefficient to extract as corn ethanol, I do believe we need to convert to nuclear power for the time being. It would take a very long time to get any kind of renewable infrastructure up and running, maybe not for another century, but the point is that it's possible. Until then, however, we need to turn to a source that is a) not running out, b) not chaining us to the Saudis and their oppressive fundamentalist Muslim government (among other oppressive oil-rich countries), and c) a huge step towards energy independence. That, for now, is nuclear power.
Yes, wind, geothermal, and solar power (among others, including hydrogen fuel cells) aren't technologically feasible on a large scale at this point in time, but said technology is improving rapidly. They've been experimenting since the 80s, but remember, this technology is only a few decades old. Remember computers from 1990? It was easy to not put faith in them when they were still clunky and ineffective. But now computers are millions of times more streamlined. The same process is going through with renewable energy sources, but you have to be patient to see some results. If you discount them just because they're impractical in their nascent form, you'll get burned a few decades into the future.
Drilling for oil in the US, though, is just delaying the inevitable, while continuing to pollute the air and kill the environment around refineries, etc. It's about the dumbest "solution" for the fuel crisis imaginable. Oil shale is almost as dumb because you're wasting energy to extract and refine something that's going to give you a tiny net gain while wasting money and time when you could be doing more useful things. Focus, damn it! The most likely solution to the fuel crisis is nuclear power, because it's the most likely to be embraced by both sides of the aisle. So why not throw all your energy behind it?
I don't believe nuclear power is the be-all, end-all energy source, but I do believe that it's a necessary evil that can bridge the gap to clean, energy efficient, fuel without creating too much damage environmentally or economically. The nuclear proponents need to stop pretending its a perfect source of energy, because it's not. But the opponents need to get their heads out their asses and accept that it's a lot better than any other feasible source of energy for now.
Oh yeah, and a little footnote about the Bakken oil source....
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) - The Bakken shale formation in North Dakota holds up to 167 billion barrels of oil but only about 1 percent of it can be recovered using current technology, a new study says.
StlSluggers wrote:side note: think this is why we're in Iraq?
he does mention the hoarding concept...
Oh yeah! I've felt the Iraq war was for oil all along.
Just curious:
Considering our dependency on oil and the looming drops in production, do you think that it's a 100% bad move if that's the only reason?
I think it's a 100% bad move since it doesn't reduce our dependency on oil at all. If the war went perfectly and the price of oil was cheap relative to what it is now, we would be even more dependent on oil today. That would be a very bad thing.
"Steal a little and they'll throw you in jail, steal a lot and they'll make you a king." - Bob Dylan
StlSluggers wrote:and he doesn't even mention that we would need oil to create any new energy infrastructure
side note: think this is why we're in Iraq?
he does mention the hoarding concept...
We're in Iraq so Exxon can record their record breaking profits each quarter?
I think not.
Even in a "perfect" scenario with things over there, the reward wasn't anything near the cost and risk involved, so no, we didn't go into Iraq due to oil.
EDIT: But that's a good read (Pickens/Boone). I learned some stuff, thanks!
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
The cost of the war was originally predicted to be $50-60 billion. Iraq currently exports about 1.5 million barrels of oil a day. Experts believe that's only half of their potential.
3.0 million barrels a day at $30 a barrel adds up to $32 billion a year. 3.0 million barrels a day at $90 a barrel adds up to $96 billion a year.
So, at the onset of the war, it made perfect sense that it was for oil.
But once reality set it, and it seemed the benefits weren't going to outweigh the costs, I think it became political.
"Steal a little and they'll throw you in jail, steal a lot and they'll make you a king." - Bob Dylan
bleach168 wrote:The cost of the war was originally predicted to be $50-60 billion. Iraq currently exports about 1.5 million barrels of oil a day. Experts believe that's only half of their potential.
3.0 million barrels a day at $30 a barrel adds up to $32 billion a year. 3.0 million barrels a day at $90 a barrel adds up to $96 billion a year.
So, at the onset of the war, it made perfect sense that it was for oil.
But once reality set it, and it seemed the benefits weren't going to outweigh the costs, I think it became political.
What were we going to do? Overthrow them and make them a new state?
This wasn't about oil.
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by StlSluggers » Tue Sep 16, 2008 4:43 pm 
That said, with oil sources running out and oil shale just as expensive and energy-inefficient to extract as corn ethanol, I do believe we need to convert to nuclear power for the time being. It would take a very long time to get any kind of renewable infrastructure up and running, maybe not for another century, but the point is that it's possible. Until then, however, we need to turn to a source that is a) not running out, b) not chaining us to the Saudis and their oppressive fundamentalist Muslim government (among other oppressive oil-rich countries), and c) a huge step towards energy independence. That, for now, is nuclear power.
