Oil Slick Stuff

Sort by newest Sort by date
Mapper said:
Spare me
Click to expand...
Nope, sorry...

Mapper said:
You don't ween yourself from drugs by deciding to buy from your neighbor in addition to the guy down the street. This is the behavior of an out-of-control addict.
Click to expand...
Your assumption here is that we shouldn't be using oil.

So, what can we replace it with? That is a serious question, and additionally, with all the greenie things you are going to say, WHEN (aka what decade) would they be viable to replace oil?
 
RealMoneyIssues said:
Nope, sorry...


Your assumption here is that we shouldn't be using oil.

So, what can we replace it with? That is a serious question, and additionally, with all the greenie things you are going to say, WHEN (aka what decade) would they be viable to replace oil?
Click to expand...

Ummm...the 70s, early 80s, 90s, Naughties. All would have been nice because the pressure keeps building.

I would love to answer that question but anytime we start making some progress on a more viable solution the single issue, short-sighted folk make a massive push to keep oil cheap and knock the legs out from any effort to quit/reduce reliance.

BTW that "old swamp" is a National Park. A move to allow drilling in one "old swamp" is really an attempt to set a precedent to be used elsewhere. You've gotta ask yourself what your priorities are. I like clean America. If I want out of control extraction w/out regard to open spaces, wildlife, ecology and a relatively clean environment...there are plenty of countries I can find it.

So despite the fact that I don't like waste I'm all for appropriate regulations and restraint and believe in National Parks, Endangered Species Act and Clean Air/Clean Water Act. The last 3, of course, being republican contributions to America that I am proud of.

I don't disagree that consumption requires materials. And seeing that the economy, as it sits, generally relies on consumption...the deck is stacked against us. For this, and many other reasons, the tar sands development WILL ABSOLUTELY continue to be controversial, as will extraction in a NP. I don't think we are wise to invest our limited capital in guaranteed controversies.
 
Last edited:
Mapper said:
Ummm...the 70s, early 80s, 90s, Naughties. All would have been nice because the pressure keeps building.
Click to expand...
So you think that green technology will be viable in 2070, 2080, 2090, or maybe by 2100? ;)
Maybe, depends on how soon the greenies manage to collapse the oil industry in this country (it will be fine in the rest of the world)...

Mapper said:
I would love to answer that question but anytime we start making some progress on a more viable solution the single issue, short-sighted folk make a massive push to keep oil cheap and knock the legs out from any effort to quit/reduce reliance.
Click to expand...
If it was viable and profitable, then this wouldn't happen. Unfortunately, these green technologies tend to be neither...

Mapper said:
BTW that "old swamp" is a National Park. A move to allow drilling in one "old swamp" is really an attempt to set a precedent to be used elsewhere. You've gotta ask yourself what your priorities are. I like clean America. If I want out of control extraction w/out regard to open spaces, wildlife, ecology and a relatively clean environment...there are plenty of countries I can find it.
So despite the fact that I don't like waste I'm all for appropriate regulations and restraint and believe in National Parks, Endangered Species Act and Clean Air/Clean Water Act. The last 3, of course, being republican contributions to America that I am proud of.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with "appropriate" regulations, but I think we disagree on what is appropriate. I am not saying we should destroy our country until it is barren (think China 100 years from now), but I don't see the greenies giving any more ground than oilies :)

Mapper said:
I don't disagree that consumption requires materials. And seeing that the economy, as it sits, generally relies on consumption...the deck is stacked against us. For this, and many other reasons, the tar sands development WILL ABSOLUTELY continue to be controversial, as will extraction in a NP. I don't think we are wise to invest our limited capital in guaranteed controversies.
Click to expand...
Then maybe we should find energy production is ways we already have (nuclear) or in less-controversial areas (off coast, east-west-gulf-alaska). My main focus is eliminating our dependence on foreign oil. When we are energy independant, our country will be secure/independant and an economic boom will occur.

Side note:
When government is the only entity willing to put money into green technologies (and they usually fail or have huge cost over-runs) then how can that be viable? There are tons of examples of government funded green technologies that have completely failed or have not lived up to their expectations...
Businesses exist to make money, and so far, very few green technologies exist that meet this expection without money from the government.
And yes, oil subsidies make me sick too...


Mapper said:
BTW the "spare me" was in reference largely to pots making comments about kettles
Click to expand...
Gotcha... I really try not to be political, but rather a matter of economics and success in our energy policy... I fail a lot of the time.

PS: Sorry nnuut
 
RealMoneyIssues said:
So you think that green technology will be viable in 2070, 2080, 2090, or maybe by 2100? ;)
Maybe, depends on how soon the greenies manage to collapse the oil industry in this country (it will be fine in the rest of the world)...
Click to expand...
Paradigm shifts happen, it's inevitable. The US caught did a good job catching the industrial revolution wave...can we catch the next? Complacency and status quo is the easy approach. How many times does taking easy approach keep you at the head of the pack
RealMoneyIssues said:
If it was viable and profitable, then this wouldn't happen. Unfortunately, these green technologies tend to be neither...
When government is the only entity willing to put money into green technologies (and they usually fail or have huge cost over-runs) then how can that be viable?
And yes, oil subsidies make me sick too...
Click to expand...
I believe it was the Rs who recently stated that cutting oil subsidies "collapse the economy" despite continued record profits. Gov't spending on "clean-tech" R&D is mere drop in the bucket. I'm not foolish, I own plenty of XOM.
RealMoneyIssues said:
I don't disagree with "appropriate" regulations, but I think we disagree on what is appropriate. I am not saying we should destroy our country until it is barren (think China 100 years from now), but I don't see the greenies giving any more ground than oilies :)
Click to expand...
This is why Bachmann promising $2 and gas proposing to permit extractive industries in a National Park is a waste of time more akin to a shot across the bow rather than compromise. Tar sands is another enormous can of worms, despite that fact we are apparently keeping the option open. So who's giving ground?
RealMoneyIssues said:
Then maybe we should find energy production is ways we already have (nuclear) or in less-controversial areas (off coast, east-west-gulf-alaska). My main focus is eliminating our dependence on foreign oil. When we are energy independant, our country will be secure/independant and an economic boom will occur.

Gotcha... I really try not to be political, but rather a matter of economics and success in our energy policy...
Click to expand...
We all know the price of oil has tremendous impact on our economy...which is why this thread exists

RealMoneyIssues said:
PS: Sorry nnuut
Click to expand...
Ditto
 
Politics are deeply involved in Energy and the subject is appropriate for this thread. We all want to conserve and protect nature but there are times where it is way over done and is harmful to our country and the American people. All I ask of our Representatives is NOT TO BE STUPID, there is way too much of that going and the cause is politics. Common sense is where it's at, it seems that we have lost that somehow.
How about the Okefenokee?
GomerPyle.jpg
oilrig3.gif​
 
oil-sands-overhead.jpg
See that environmental destruction?

that's just the beginning. Doing tar sands will greatly harm the environment up in Canada, and
those getting the oil (big oil, Kock Brothers) won't pay for the repair of what they destroy.

OIl sands only continues the problem of ....giving all our money to other countries, while at the same time destroying the environment.

Yes, we subsidize big oil.

We should be taxing the heck out of big oil, and using the proceeds to develop alternatives.

See http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/op...s-ed-tar-sands-letter-20110829,0,216177.story

I'm not for giving Koch Industries the right to privately put this massive oil pipeline across America, that will only facilitate the continued destruction of America.

If we are going to rely on tar-sands oil, then fine- let's do it this way- let's approve the pipeline, on the tarde off that we tax each barrel of oil which flows through it an additional $10 a barrel. And use that money strictly to develop infrastructure for alternative fuels. CNG stations funded by the tar sands tax. E85 pumps funded by the oil sands tax. Electrical hookups for charging cars funded by the tar sands tax. And then either open up Yucca Mountain to dispose of nuclear waste, or approve some other long-term storage solution. We need to find the long term solution for nuclear.


But at the present, we're just short sighted to "drill baby drill", and "flood tar sands with hot water, flood tar sands", as the only answers. It only postpones the enevitable- and continues to pump our energy money out of the country.

It's a national security problem as well.
 
By the way, if we had to pay the price for gas and Oil that they pay in Europe it would all be over except the shouting and crying. That can happen tomorrow if the dollar loses the Reserve Currency Status. :eek:
 
No one else wants to be the reserve currency. Not much choice - there are only so many Swiss Francs out there (and their currency is going nuts). Anyone want Euros? Yen? The good thing is China is beginning to allow purchases of the Yuan, much to my surprise - but that's not the same as making the Yuan a reserve currency. The Yuan doesn't have a long enough track record for that to happen. Should we price currencies in SDRs? Only economists care about SDRs. And Middle Eastern countries may be rich, but I don't want to base my currency on any of the choices there.

Petroleum products in Europe are highly taxed. Plus, they are beholden to Russia for Natural Gas - not where you want to be.
 
nnuut said:
Politics are deeply involved in Energy and the subject is appropriate for this thread. We all want to conserve and protect nature but there are times where it is way over done and is harmful to our country and the American people. All I ask of our Representatives is NOT TO BE STUPID, there is way too much of that going and the cause is politics. Common sense is where it's at, it seems that we have lost that somehow.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, to an extent. As a "greenie" I also don't want our representatives to be stupid. Furthermore I don't think the regulations are the culprit. Regulations were a response. The only reason we have regulations to begin with is the extractive industries have a history of cavalier rape n' pillage type attitudes toward our natural resources. I'd say that attitude is stupid; a.ka. penny wise, pound foolish.

The government cheaply leases a LOT of land to mineral extraction (is that land "locked up"?) and these private companies keep making record profits. Despite massive profits, as soon as a company is found to be operating w/out regard to regulation (stupid or not), these companies regularly protect themselves from liability via liquidation; e.g Massey Energy sale to Alpha Natural Resources. Were the regulations Massey ignored in Upper Big Branch stupid? The explosion suggests not.
Most of these companies fight regulation tooth and nail spending a boatload of money which costs everyday Americans who simply want a safe/clean society a boatload of money. Mineral Management Service anyone??? These corporate actions , despite their words via massive PR campaigns, indicate their attitudes toward American land and people has not changed. As such, us "greenies" continue to promote regulation. You only need to reinforce something that is ineffective.
 
A good discussion of the tar sands issue, and the protests happening in DC over it, are here in this link:

http://www.tarsandsaction.org/

So far, more than 500 people have been arrested in protests in DC, and the protests against the pipeline and tar sands are growing.


has representatives of both sides talking about the oil sands issue.
 
Mapper said:


Spare me










:rolleyes:
How about single issue short-sighted Americans and Canadians win big. You might think people on investment forum would realize the benefits of preserving capital. It's not about politics, it's about viewing the totality of an issue rather than microcosm.

You don't ween yourself from drugs by deciding to buy from your neighbor in addition to the guy down the street. This is the behavior of an out-of-control addict.
Click to expand...

Go hug a tree!
 
....in return for access to resources in the Gulf of Mexico
Click to expand...


Think about that one for a bit.

So we're going to give away known access to proven reserves in the Gulf of Mexico to be exported to Russia,.... in exchange for an agreement to allow Exxon Mobile to go on a risky venture with a notorius Russian oil company, 75% owned by the Russian government, to try drilling in the Artic Ocean, with the promise that MAYBE Exxon Mobile might get something out of the deal. Rosneft (the Russian company) doesn't have the technology to drill in the artic deepwater, so it will get the technology from Exxon Mobil.

A giveaway of American technology and resources.


Sad. Really sad.





 
James48843 said:
Think about that one for a bit.

So we're going to give away known access to proven reserves in the Gulf of Mexico to be exported to Russia,.... in exchange for an agreement to allow Exxon Mobile to go on a risky venture with a notorius Russian oil company, 75% owned by the Russian government, to try drilling in the Artic Ocean, with the promise that MAYBE Exxon Mobile might get something out of the deal. Rosneft (the Russian company) doesn't have the technology to drill in the artic deepwater, so it will get the technology from Exxon Mobil.

A giveaway of American technology and resources.


Sad. Really sad.[/B]
Click to expand...
The sad part is that they cannot drill here, so they are going to drill somewhere else...

This is business, not personal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top