View Full Version : As Oil Nears 140$ lets celebrate thes tidbits of information.
85Sooner
6/10/2008, 12:49 PM
well take this into account as you evaluate the
candidates for your local offices,and congressional seats etc....
Without naming names You can figure out who needs to be held responsible.
* For 31 years the congress of the united states has prevented the building of any new oil refineries. Dems controlled for 19 yrs: repubs controlled for 12 years :8 of those with a Dem President.
* From 1992-2000 US oil production declined 19% or 1,349,000 barrels per day while imports increased 45% or 3,574,000 barrels per day.
* In 1995, oil was 19$ a barrell. The President at that time vetoed legislation passed by the house and senate to begin drilling in ANWAR. This would be producing 1,000,000 barrels a day if it would have been implemented. About the same as we import from Saudi Arabia every day.
*One party has defeated everybill that would allow the US to drill within one hundred miles of our shores. China is currently drilling within 5o miles of the US shoreline.
FYI: if you standing on the shore on a clear day you can only see about 12 miles.
*Congress imposed a windfall profits tax on the Oil industry in 1980. US oil ouput dropped 8% while we increased imports 16%.
*The AEPA of 2008 (American Energy Protection Act of 2008 Would have allowed exploration and drilling in ANWAR and off shore whch currently contain 24 Billion Barrels of Oil . That is Billion with a B folks. Enough to supply the US independently for 5 years with no additional supplements. Two of the main Current Presidential candidates voted against this bill.
* Senate Bill 2958 Would have removed commercial leasing restrictions in colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. That would open up drilling to access 2 Trillion barrels of oil. Thats Trillion with a T! One party voted unanimously to deny this drilling.
* One bill that would allow the governors of coastal states to have the power to allow exploration off their own states coast was defeated.
* Since 1985 Oil Consumption has increase 30% and Production of Domestic oil has fallen over 40%.
* According to the Dept of the interior, there are over 19 Billion barrels of oil under US owned public lands that are off limits to drilling.
r5TPsooner
6/10/2008, 01:00 PM
Both parties are to blame IMHO. They both suck and they will never change until the American people get fed up with their greed and thirst for power and do something about it.
Fraggle145
6/10/2008, 01:15 PM
The 100 miles offshore thing isnt just about aesthetics...
soonerscuba
6/10/2008, 01:22 PM
You can tear the National Parks out of my cold, dead hands.
mdklatt
6/10/2008, 01:24 PM
* For 31 years the congress of the united states has prevented the building of any new oil refineries. Dems controlled for 19 yrs: repubs controlled for 12 years :8 of those with a Dem President.
What about 2001-2006?
* In 1995, oil was 19$ a barrell. The President at that time vetoed legislation passed by the house and senate to begin drilling in ANWAR. This would be producing 1,000,000 barrels a day if it would have been implemented.
For how long?
*One party has defeated everybill that would allow the US to drill within one hundred miles of our shores. China is currently drilling within 5o miles of the US shoreline.
WTF are you talking about??? There are hundreds if not thousands of oil platforms within sight of the Gulf Coast.
*The AEPA of 2008 (American Energy Protection Act of 2008 Would have allowed exploration and drilling in ANWAR and off shore whch currently contain 24 Billion Barrels of Oil . That is Billion with a B folks. Enough to supply the US independently for 5 years with no additional supplements.
Then what?
Not to name names, but which party has continually acted to stall any and all attempts to reduce our oil consumption and pursue alternative energy sources?
mdklatt
6/10/2008, 01:32 PM
The 100 miles offshore thing isnt just about aesthetics...
Are you talking about the environment? Pfft. Republicans can afford to move to a gated community on another planet when the time comes. :texan:
soonerinabilene
6/10/2008, 01:34 PM
*The AEPA of 2008 (American Energy Protection Act of 2008 Would have allowed exploration and drilling in ANWAR and off shore whch currently contain 24 Billion Barrels of Oil . That is Billion with a B folks. Enough to supply the US independently for 5 years with no additional supplements. Two of the main Current Presidential candidates voted against this bill.
* Senate Bill 2958 Would have removed commercial leasing restrictions in colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. That would open up drilling to access 2 Trillion barrels of oil. Thats Trillion with a T! One party voted unanimously to deny this drilling.
* According to the Dept of the interior, there are over 19 Billion barrels of oil under US owned public lands that are off limits to drilling.
24 billion + 2 Trillion only equals 19 billion?
tommieharris91
6/10/2008, 01:42 PM
The 100 miles offshore thing isnt just about aesthetics...
But China doesn't care about our environments, so it should be cool if we drill there too. ;)
Sooner_Havok
6/10/2008, 02:06 PM
And remember, the oil companies have our best interests at heart:
WASHINGTON - If oil and natural gas prices stay as high as they've been in recent months, the government could lose as much as $53 billion over the next 25 years in energy royalties because of an adverse court ruling, according to congressional auditors.
The Government Accountability Office said in a report released Thursday that the soaring price of crude oil and natural gas also means the windfall that companies will enjoy from the court ruling also could increase by billions of dollars.
In October 2007, a federal court ruled in a claim originally filed by Kerr McGee Corp. that the government cannot require companies that are exempt from paying royalties on oil and gas taken from federal land and waters to pay them if market prices reach a certain level.
The Interior Department has urged that the case be appealed but has left the decision to the Justice Department.
The GAO report said if the court case stands up, government losses could range widely, depending on oil and gas prices and the amount of production in the outstanding leases. The leases were issued from 1996 through 2000, but many of them last for up to 25 years.
The GAO said the losses to the U.S. Treasury could range from a low of $21 billion to a high of $53 billion over the life of the leases.
The $21 billion figure assumes low production levels, oil prices averaging $70 a barrel and natural gas prices at $6.50 per thousand cubic feet. The high figure of $53 billion assumes high production, $100 a barrel oil and gas price of $8 per thousand cubic feet. If prices remain even higher, the losses will be higher.
Oil for July delivery closed Thursday at nearly $128 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Natural gas prices for July deliver settled at $12.519 per 1,000 cubic feet.
The case is based on a claim filed by Kerr-McGee, which was purchased by Anadarko Petroleum Corp., in 2006.
Anadarko had argued successfully that the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service had overstepped its authority when it imposed royalties on oil and gas taken from deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico under a royalty relief program enacted by Congress in 1995.
Congress at the time provided the royalty break for deepwater exploration to encourage energy development in those areas. The Interior Department contends it had the authority to lift that royalty relief once prices reached a certain level — prices that are far below what crude oil and natural gas is now costing.
Yahoo news (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080605/ap_on_go_co/oil_royalties)
SoonerInKCMO
6/10/2008, 02:17 PM
* Senate Bill 2958 Would have removed commercial leasing restrictions in colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. That would open up drilling to access 2 Trillion barrels of oil. Thats Trillion with a T! One party voted unanimously to deny this drilling.
Seriously? There's a field or localized collection of fields in the U.S. that's 30 times as big as Ghawar and we're not tapping it? I find that somewhat hard to believe.
OUHOMER
6/10/2008, 02:18 PM
This should all be called the Bend Over Rule. With the oil company's and the government pulling the power play we get bent over by both.
Fraggle145
6/10/2008, 02:18 PM
this thread seems like it came from an email forward.
royalfan5
6/10/2008, 02:28 PM
More oil would just make it easier for developing countries to subsidize overconsumption of oil with the excess of dollars coming from the cheap **** Americans buy at Wal-Mart.
Sooner_Havok
6/10/2008, 02:29 PM
this thread seems like it came from an email forward.
Maybe 85Sooner is pink floyd's troll :D
OklahomaRed
6/10/2008, 02:35 PM
Speculators on Wall-Street are driving oil prices up as well. If more was on the market, then speculation on future oil prices would be more risky. Democrats are swayed to easily by environmentalists. Republicans are swayed to easily by big oil and Wall-Street. Worker continues to get stuck with the bill either way. The Democrats will stick us with the bill to salve their own guilt, as well as their platform that big government is needed because we are too stupid to take care of ourselves. The Republicans will stick it to us by giving away all the money to the rich and salve their guilt by saying that some of it will trickle down to the working class. Like a dog eating crumbs from the master's table. Either way, the working man (woman) gets bent over and screwed. IMO (this has been going on for a long time) - MODERN DAY FORM OF SLAVERY. :D
SoonerInKCMO
6/10/2008, 02:43 PM
* For 31 years the congress of the united states has prevented the building of any new oil refineries. Dems controlled for 19 yrs: repubs controlled for 12 years :8 of those with a Dem President.
As many people here have mentioned many times: we are below 90% utilization of our current refining capacity. According to this (http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasoline/index.html) page, our refineries supplied 90% of the gasoline we used in 2007. According to this (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mopueus2m.htm) page from the same site, utilization for 2007 was slightly less than 90% - some simple cipherin' tells me we have enough refinery capacity to produce all of the gasoline used in our country.
* From 1992-2000 US oil production declined 19% or 1,349,000 barrels per day while imports increased 45% or 3,574,000 barrels per day.
Ever hear of the phrase "peak oil"?
* In 1995, oil was 19$ a barrell. The President at that time vetoed legislation passed by the house and senate to begin drilling in ANWAR. This would be producing 1,000,000 barrels a day if it would have been implemented. About the same as we import from Saudi Arabia every day.
At the peak of 1m bbl it would be producing almost 5% of what we use.
*One party has defeated everybill that would allow the US to drill within one hundred miles of our shores. China is currently drilling within 5o miles of the US shoreline.
FYI: if you standing on the shore on a clear day you can only see about 12 miles.
Huh?
*Congress imposed a windfall profits tax on the Oil industry in 1980. US oil ouput dropped 8% while we increased imports 16%.
Oil production in the U.S. peaked a long time before 1980; it's hard to say what, if any, effect the new tax had in the small drop of 8%.
*The AEPA of 2008 (American Energy Protection Act of 2008 Would have allowed exploration and drilling in ANWAR and off shore whch currently contain 24 Billion Barrels of Oil . That is Billion with a B folks. Enough to supply the US independently for 5 years with no additional supplements. Two of the main Current Presidential candidates voted against this bill.
More like 3 years. Then what?
* Senate Bill 2958 Would have removed commercial leasing restrictions in colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. That would open up drilling to access 2 Trillion barrels of oil. Thats Trillion with a T! One party voted unanimously to deny this drilling.
That can't possibly be conventional oil. I need to do some more research on this to figure out what form it is in.
* Since 1985 Oil Consumption has increase 30% and Production of Domestic oil has fallen over 40%.
Since prices have gone up tremendously and production continues to fall, it looks like something other than governmental or economic forces might be at work. Something like, oh, I don't know... maybe we're running out??
* According to the Dept of the interior, there are over 19 Billion barrels of oil under US owned public lands that are off limits to drilling.
2.5 years worth of oil. Then what?
SoonerInKCMO
6/10/2008, 02:45 PM
Speculators on Wall-Street are driving oil prices up as well. If more was on the market, then speculation on future oil prices would be more risky. Democrats are swayed to easily by environmentalists. Republicans are swayed to easily by big oil and Wall-Street. Worker continues to get stuck with the bill either way. The Democrats will stick us with the bill to salve their own guilt, as well as their platform that big government is needed because we are too stupid to take care of ourselves. The Republicans will stick it to us by giving away all the money to the rich and salve their guilt by saying that some of it will trickle down to the working class. Like a dog eating crumbs from the master's table. Either way, the working man (woman) gets bent over and screwed. IMO (this has been going on for a long time) - MODERN DAY FORM OF SLAVERY. :D
I'm no high-finance whiz... but some respectable economists have said that some more regulation of the commodities markets could help. Perhaps we should look at tighter limits on the amount of leverage one can use when trading in futures.
Pink_Floyd
6/10/2008, 02:57 PM
well take this into account as you evaluate the
candidates for your local offices,and congressional seats etc....
Without naming names You can figure out who needs to be held responsible.
* For 31 years the congress of the united states has prevented the building of any new oil refineries. Dems controlled for 19 yrs: repubs controlled for 12 years :8 of those with a Dem President.
* From 1992-2000 US oil production declined 19% or 1,349,000 barrels per day while imports increased 45% or 3,574,000 barrels per day.
* In 1995, oil was 19$ a barrell. The President at that time vetoed legislation passed by the house and senate to begin drilling in ANWAR. This would be producing 1,000,000 barrels a day if it would have been implemented. About the same as we import from Saudi Arabia every day.
*One party has defeated everybill that would allow the US to drill within one hundred miles of our shores. China is currently drilling within 5o miles of the US shoreline.
FYI: if you standing on the shore on a clear day you can only see about 12 miles.
*Congress imposed a windfall profits tax on the Oil industry in 1980. US oil ouput dropped 8% while we increased imports 16%.
*The AEPA of 2008 (American Energy Protection Act of 2008 Would have allowed exploration and drilling in ANWAR and off shore whch currently contain 24 Billion Barrels of Oil . That is Billion with a B folks. Enough to supply the US independently for 5 years with no additional supplements. Two of the main Current Presidential candidates voted against this bill.
* Senate Bill 2958 Would have removed commercial leasing restrictions in colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. That would open up drilling to access 2 Trillion barrels of oil. Thats Trillion with a T! One party voted unanimously to deny this drilling.
* One bill that would allow the governors of coastal states to have the power to allow exploration off their own states coast was defeated.
* Since 1985 Oil Consumption has increase 30% and Production of Domestic oil has fallen over 40%.
* According to the Dept of the interior, there are over 19 Billion barrels of oil under US owned public lands that are off limits to drilling.
to put into prespective...
Paying 1920s prices
When measured on an inflation-adjusted basis, the current price of gasoline is only slightly higher than it was in 1922. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 1922, a gallon of gasoline cost the current-day equivalent of $3.11. Today, according to the EIA, gasoline is selling for about $3.77 per gallon, only about 20% more than 86 years ago.
mdklatt
6/10/2008, 03:09 PM
When measured on an inflation-adjusted basis, the current price of gasoline is only slightly higher than it was in 1922.
This is just as irrelevant as comparing what it costs here to what it costs in Europe. It's the rise in gasoline prices that's the problem, not what the price actually is. This country has made a lot of poor decisions based on the foolish idea that oil would always be cheap. Now we're starting to see the effects of peak oil and the awareness that the true cost of oil is far more than what we pay per barrel.
Sooner_Havok
6/10/2008, 03:21 PM
Know we don't like this guy around these parts, but he is a multi-billionaire that called the price of oil last year. I ain't going to say his name, but you all know who I am talking about, and you know he ain't no pinko. Well, he is a believer that we passed peak oil sometime in the last 5-10 years. Also says we need to do something to force big oil to become big energy. Need to make them invest these record profits in solar, wind, and nuclear.
Question: even if we were drilling in ANWAR wouldn't we still need refineries to turn the oil into a usable product?
Sooner_Havok
6/10/2008, 03:26 PM
Question: even if we were drilling in ANWAR wouldn't we still need refineries to turn the oil into a usable product?
See:
*
As many people here have mentioned many times: we are below 90% utilization of our current refining capacity. According to this (http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasoline/index.html) page, our refineries supplied 90% of the gasoline we used in 2007. According to this (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mopueus2m.htm) page from the same site, utilization for 2007 was slightly less than 90% - some simple cipherin' tells me we have enough refinery capacity to produce all of the gasoline used in our country.
The first rule of posting is to not read beyond the first post when responding.
Sooner_Havok
6/10/2008, 03:36 PM
The first rule of posting is to not read beyond the first post when responding.
:texan:
soonerboomer93
6/10/2008, 03:56 PM
As many people here have mentioned many times: we are below 90% utilization of our current refining capacity. According to this (http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasoline/index.html) page, our refineries supplied 90% of the gasoline we used in 2007. According to this (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mopueus2m.htm) page from the same site, utilization for 2007 was slightly less than 90% - some simple cipherin' tells me we have enough refinery capacity to produce all of the gasoline used in our country.
um, you're right and wrong on this. The refineries will never run at 100% capacity. This in large part to what they are. My company alone is currently on jobs involving work on atleast 8 different refineries. When they're doing that work, portions of the refinery will be shut down. This is sometimes expansion work, and some of it is basically maintenance.
Along with that, we're doing work involving the 1 new refinery currently under construction in the US.
Fraggle145
6/10/2008, 04:01 PM
I thought the oil companies said they dont want anymore refineries? :confused:
Scott D
6/10/2008, 04:02 PM
I just wanted to say there is a Sunoco refinery in Toledo...
In
Toledo.
soonerboomer93
6/10/2008, 04:32 PM
I thought the oil companies said they dont want anymore refineries? :confused:
i've never seen anything stating that
infact, they launch multiple FPSO's every year
Pink_Floyd
6/10/2008, 04:32 PM
This is just as irrelevant as comparing what it costs here to what it costs in Europe. It's the rise in gasoline prices that's the problem, not what the price actually is. This country has made a lot of poor decisions based on the foolish idea that oil would always be cheap. Now we're starting to see the effects of peak oil and the awareness that the true cost of oil is far more than what we pay per barrel.
then let the geologist do thier work and find the oil
let the congress do what they do--hearings on roids
much less pass bills that they know nothing about.
soonerboomer93
6/10/2008, 04:42 PM
*One party has defeated everybill that would allow the US to drill within one hundred miles of our shores. China is currently drilling within 5o miles of the US shoreline.
FYI: if you standing on the shore on a clear day you can only see about 12 miles.
um, they're drilling in Cuban territorial waters, and as long as they're not drilling into US territory, do have a right to do as long as they have a legal agreement with Cuba (they do).
Sooner_Havok
6/10/2008, 05:15 PM
um, they're drilling in Cuban territorial waters, and as long as they're not drilling into US territory, do have a right to do as long as they have a legal agreement with Cuba (they do).
But they are drinking our milkshake!
Here's the democrat plan for energy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d53lspwDeI
MR2-Sooner86
6/10/2008, 05:50 PM
Just to jump in here. The two trillion barrels of oil we have is in the form of oil shale. If we have two trillion barrels that's enough to last us the next 300 years. Lets not forget the reserves we have off of California, Florida, and Alaska.
People seem to be in this panic of "OH MY GOD THE WORLD IS GOING TO END THERE IS NO OIL!!!". There's plenty of oil out there we just have to go get it. However the big bad vaginas we call environmentalist have made people think oil = pollution = bad and we must "go green" and ride around on bicycles. **** the environment! I don't want a bike I want a gas guzzling Cobra spitting out about 600 hp.
Pink_Floyd
6/10/2008, 05:57 PM
Here's the democrat plan for energy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d53lspwDeI
it will be about/about/about...what tha dems want
to take over your companies
where was she from?
did you see all people laughing in the background
priceless
Harry Beanbag
6/10/2008, 06:18 PM
it will be about/about/about...what tha dems want
to take over your companies
where was she from?
did you see all people laughing in the background
priceless
She's from Kalifornia. And she's very very stupid.
r5TPsooner
6/10/2008, 06:30 PM
Obama's 1st order of business will be to destroy the 2nd Amendment.
Pink_Floyd
6/10/2008, 06:30 PM
She's from Kalifornia. And she's very very stupid.
that figures same as barbra boxcar...old hags from
californication
Sooner_Havok
6/10/2008, 06:42 PM
Obama's 1st order of business will be to destroy the 2nd Amendment.
And McCain's will be to destroy the 1st Amendment? Really, what is it that drives you guys into making these blanket statements? From what I have seen, McCain doesn't have a good track record on gun control, at least not from the pro-gun view point.
r5TPsooner
6/10/2008, 07:00 PM
And McCain's will be to destroy the 1st Amendment? Really, what is it that drives you guys into making these blanket statements? From what I have seen, McCain doesn't have a good track record on gun control, at least not from the pro-gun view point.
You're kidding right?
BTW, I'm not voting for McCain but his recent stance on guns gives me hope. Not so much with the most liberal Senator in congress not to mention the worst Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter.
Really, what is it that drives you guys into making these blanket statements?
His voting record, both as a US Senator and as Illinios state rep. As I have pointed out before, Obama refused to support a bill that would have exonorated a homeowner from shooting an intruder in his own home.
You can't get much more anti-self-defense than that.
mdklatt
6/10/2008, 07:11 PM
**** the environment!
You know you live in "the environment", right?
Sooner_Havok
6/10/2008, 07:14 PM
You're kidding right?
BTW, I'm not voting for McCain but his recent stance on guns gives me hope. Not so much with the most liberal Senator in congress not to mention the worst Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter.
About McCain getting rid of the 1st Amendment, yes. About Blanket statements, no. About McCain and guns, no.
This has been posted before, but what the hell, I feel like rehashing sh*t :D
GunOwners.org (http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm)
On The Issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/John_McCain_Gun_Control.htm)
snubnose.info (http://www.snubnose.info/wordpress/rkba/john-mccain-on-gun-control/)
(This one is pretty detailed on how he voted.)
He flip flops on the issue. What McCain will you get?
Don't hold gun manufacturers liable for crimes.
or
Ban cheap guns; require safety locks; for gun show checks
Sooner_Havok
6/10/2008, 07:20 PM
His voting record, both as a US Senator and as Illinios state rep. As I have pointed out before, Obama refused to support a bill that would have exonorated a homeowner from shooting an intruder in his own home.
You can't get much more anti-self-defense than that.
Ok, fine. I won't point to McCain being a gun-lovers gamble any more. I am going to bring up one more fact though, ok. Just one. Follow me that long K.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Done reading? Know where that is from? Pop quiz!
Can Obama repeal the 2nd amendment?
About McCain getting rid of the 1st Amendment, yes. About Blanket statements, no. About McCain and guns, no.
This has been posted before, but what the hell, I feel like rehashing sh*t :D
GunOwners.org (http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm)
On The Issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/John_McCain_Gun_Control.htm)
snubnose.info (http://www.snubnose.info/wordpress/rkba/john-mccain-on-gun-control/)
(This one is pretty detailed on how he voted.)
He flip flops on the issue. What McCain will you get?
or
I know what I'll get Obama: someone who will vote the wrong way on this issue every single time. McCain may have supported some forms of gun control and not supported others, but he is no prohibitionist.
mdklatt
6/10/2008, 07:21 PM
He flip flops on the issue. What McCain will you get?
How are those two positions mutually exclusive?
Ok, fine. I won't point to McCain being a gun-lovers gamble any more. I am going to bring up one more fact though, ok. Just one. Follow me that long K.
Done reading? Know where that is from? Pop quiz!
Can Obama repeal the 2nd amendment?
Nope. It'll be treated like the 10th amendment: completely ignored.
Sooner_Havok
6/10/2008, 07:26 PM
How are those two positions mutually exclusive?
Just showing he has love for gun rights sometimes, and thinks that those rights should be curtailed at other times.
Look, if I was a gun toting Montana militia man, I would vote for McCain too. Depending on what meds he is on, he might have a more favorable view of gun rights that day than Obama would. Fact is though, neither has any hope of ever repealing the 2nd Amendment.
Sooner_Havok
6/10/2008, 07:28 PM
Nope. It'll be treated like the 10th amendment: completely ignored.
Hey, I am for states rights, but they found a loophole in the Constitution that allowed them to usurp power from the states, it's called the commerce clause. Don't agree with it, but that loophole was found a long time ago. I would imagine if there were a loophole around the 2nd, a democrat president would have used it a long time ago too.
Just showing he has love for gun rights sometimes, and thinks that those rights should be curtailed at other times.
Look, if I was a gun toting Montana militia man, I would vote for McCain too. Depending on what meds he is on, he might have a more favorable view of gun rights that day than Obama would. Fact is though, neither has any hope of ever repealing the 2nd Amendment.
I'd wager that Obama doesn't even believe that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals, so how could he violate it (in his own mind) if he believes this?
Sooner_Havok
6/10/2008, 07:31 PM
I'd wager that Obama doesn't even believe that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals, so how could he violate it (in his own mind) if he believes this?
You do know a president cannot introduce legislation, right?
Sooner_Havok
6/10/2008, 07:33 PM
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
Seems to indicate people there. So, again, guns don't go bye-bye less you revoke the 2nd amendment. That would take 3/4 of the states. Not going to happen, stop freaking out.
Hey, I am for states rights, but they found a loophole in the Constitution that allowed them to usurp power from the states, it's called the commerce clause. Don't agree with it, but that loophole was found a long time ago. I would imagine if there were a loophole around the 2nd, a democrat president would have used it a long time ago too.
They've already tried.
mdklatt
6/10/2008, 07:35 PM
Just showing he has love for gun rights sometimes, and thinks that those rights should be curtailed at other times.
OMG he's a moderate!!! :eek:
Sooner_Havok
6/10/2008, 07:36 PM
They've already tried.
Did it work?
Look, what do you guys always say, "You take take my guns over my cold dead body." If they try again, and through some miracle the succeed, why don't you put up or shut up? Just saying. The damn thing is there so people will be armed to overthrow the government.
You do know a president cannot introduce legislation, right?
Yes, I realize this, but they can push for it, sign it, and execute it.
Sooner_Havok
6/10/2008, 07:39 PM
OMG he's a moderate!!! :eek:
OMG!! NO HE'S NOT!! HE IS A FILTHY STINKING LIBERAL!:eek:
You talk to gun nuts, there is no such thing as a gun control moderate. They either want you to be able to own your guns, no questions asked, or they want to use white-out on the 2nd amendment. "You're either with us, our against us!" I think that is a popular Republican mantra, right?
Did it work?
Look, what do you guys always say, "You take take my guns over my cold dead body." If they try again, and through some miracle the succeed, why don't you put up or shut up? Just saying. The damn thing is there so people will be armed to overthrow the government.
Well, I agree with you, but many people either think it's for:
a) State militias (the National Guard)
b) Duck hunting
-or-
c) Totally not relevant to our modern society.
Sooner_Havok
6/10/2008, 07:41 PM
Yes, I realize this, but they can push for it, sign it, and execute it.
And a judge would strike that sh*t down faster than pack of dogs on a 3 legged cat.
Question, would you be bitching about "damn activist judges" when that happened?
mdklatt
6/10/2008, 07:42 PM
You talk to gun nuts, there is no such thing as a gun control moderate.
I guarantee that if the choice is between no guns and unfettered gun access, the NRA is going to be sorely disappointed.
I guarantee that if the choice is between no guns and unfettered gun access, the NRA is going to be sorely disappointed.
Nice hypothetical. Not useful in the real world, though.
Sooner_Havok
6/10/2008, 07:45 PM
Well, I agree with you, but many people either think it's for:
a) State militias (the National Guard)
b) Duck hunting
-or-
c) Totally not relevant to our modern society.
So what if they think it for A or B? Can you hunt a duck with a Desert Eagle? Can you shoot a "enemy combatant" with a Desert Eagle?
C, no judge would let any legislation stand on that ground. Any judge worth being a judge would say that if times have changed, and the 2nd amendment is no longer a vital right in this day and age, then a constitutional amendment must be passed to repeal it. Then we are back to the 3/4 of the states thing
mdklatt
6/10/2008, 07:48 PM
Nice hypothetical. Not useful in the real world, though.
That was my point. No way this country votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment, unless maybe a Republican-packed Supreme Court--ahem--rules that the 2nd Amendment makes any type of gun control whatsoever unconstitutional. If you want guns, you better learn to live with background checks.
So what if they think it for A or B? Can you hunt a duck with a Desert Eagle? Can you shoot a "enemy combatant" with a Desert Eagle?
The point is that they will say the over/under bird gun or papa's lever-action .30-.30 deer gun is okay, but they will ban the handgun and the semi-automatic rifle, or any other weapon deemed 'offensive.' After those are banned and taken, then the bird gun becomes a 'street-sweeper' and the .30-.30 a 'sniper-rifle.' It is a strategy of incrementalism that they're using.
Sooner_Havok
6/10/2008, 07:53 PM
I guarantee that if the choice is between no guns and unfettered gun access, the NRA is going to be sorely disappointed.
I don't know, they seem to be for Assault Weapons.
Linky (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQ/?s=18)
Hey Jerk, short of a M198 howitzer, a tank, or a shoulder launched RPG, can anything else f**k you about any worse or any faster than a M4 Carbine?
MR2-Sooner86
6/10/2008, 07:54 PM
You know you live in "the environment", right?
I live in a environment, not the environment.
Anyway on the whole gun thing lets break it down.
Obama is a liberal.
Liberals hate guns.
Obama hates guns.
What's so hard for people to understand?
Sooner_Havok
6/10/2008, 07:55 PM
It is a strategy of incrementalism that they're using.
Has Obama already started? :eek:
Sooner_Havok
6/10/2008, 07:56 PM
Anyway on the whole gun thing lets break it down.
McCain is a liberal.
Liberals hate guns.
McCain hates guns.
What's so hard for people to understand?
Dude, I have no clue
S008NER
6/10/2008, 07:57 PM
Oil companies own the GOP. Remember in November.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080610/ap_on_go_co/congress_oil_profits
mdklatt
6/10/2008, 07:58 PM
I live in a environment, not the environment.
Alright there, Corky. You go ahead and hang your hat on that distinction.
That was my point. No way this country votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment, unless maybe a Republican-packed Supreme Court--ahem--rules that the 2nd Amendment makes any type of gun control whatsoever unconstitutional. If you want guns, you better learn to live with background checks.
I don't have a problem with background checks. I also don't think people should have missiles or tanks. I believe that the 2nd only applies to arms which fire an unguided and non-explosive projectile and are portable by one man. Anything that needs wheels and a tow-truck or shoots a warhead that can think and/or explode, is a crew served weapon.
Problem is, I take a semi-automatic AR-15 and put a standard-capacity mag, a bayonet lug, and a flash-hider on it, then some guy like Clinton comes along and bans them like he did in 1994.
Oil companies own the GOP. Remember in November.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080610/ap_on_go_co/congress_oil_profits
What good would a 'windfall' tax do and who would ultimately pay for it?
Now that bill right there is a real life example of the saying: "simple solutions for simple minds"
mdklatt
6/10/2008, 08:06 PM
What good would a 'windfall' tax do and who would ultimately pay for it?
Consumers would pay for it, obviously. We can't expect ExxonMobil to sacrifice any of their "razor thin" trillion dollar profits. But gas prices are hugely subsidized, so that wouldn't necessary be a bad thing. We can't make rational energy choices unless we know what the true costs are.
Sooner_Havok
6/10/2008, 08:12 PM
Oil companies can go **** themselves right now. We pay twice for gas. Pay for it once at the pumps, then again on April 15. And you know what? We are damned if we do, damed if we don't. Tax their profits, or end subsidies, they jack up the prices to maintain their profit margins. Let the system ride as it is, we keep paying for gas twice. Hell, maybe we should just tax the **** out of gas so that no one will buy it, and those that do would be helping the US more than Exxon.
Consumers would pay for it, obviously. We can't expect ExxonMobil to sacrifice any of their "razor thin" trillion dollar profits. But gas prices are hugely subsidized, so that wouldn't necessary be a bad thing. We can't make rational energy choices unless we know what the true costs are.
My point is, it won't accomplish anything. It's an emotional response to high prices by 'sticking it to da man.' You know, to make people feel good because they're getting even. Why should all this money be taken and given to a government which doesn't do one thing to explore, drill, pump, transport, and refine one drop of oil? And these 5 U.S. companies are small fish in a world market. It seems that would just encourage them to move to Dubai or somewhere else over-seas and discourage domestic exploration, which, is, what I think the dems want to do anyway.
mdklatt
6/10/2008, 08:22 PM
Why should all this money be taken and given to a government which doesn't do one thing to explore, drill, pump, transport, and refine one drop of oil?
Who has been protecting oil shipments out of the Persian Gulf since at least the Iran-Iraq war? Not the USS Conoco. At the very least, maybe the survivors of the victims of the USS Stark should get free gasoline for life.
We don't pay anywhere near the true cost of gasoline ($13/gallon by one estimate (http://www.icta.org/doc/Real%20Price%20of%20Gasoline.pdf)) at the pump.
Who has been protecting oil shipments in and out of the Persian Gulf since at least the Iran-Iraq war? Not the USS Conoco.
And who pays the taxes to keep the Navy afloat?
I'm sure their tax rate is just fine.
BTW - I do say that the military is one area where government excels.
Sooner_Havok
6/10/2008, 08:34 PM
And who pays the taxes to keep the Navy afloat?
Me, for one. The Navy going to follow behind my cruise ship this summer to make sure I don't get hit by pirates? Can't take my Desert Eagle on the boat :(
mdklatt
6/10/2008, 08:39 PM
And who pays the taxes to keep the Navy afloat?
Mostly people in the highest income bracket according to the Republican chattering classes. So should Bill Gates and Warren Buffet be paying for our gasoline?
Well, with this 'windfall' tax proposal, maybe the Navy should just pirate the oil directly from the tanker on the high seas.
For our government, of course.
mdklatt
6/10/2008, 08:46 PM
Well, with this 'windfall' tax proposal, maybe the Navy should just pirate the oil directly from the tanker on the high seas.
For our government, of course.
Apparently not all "redistribution of wealth" is bad. Here's one for you. Who pays for an asthmatic's inhaler during ozone alerts?
Sooner_Havok
6/10/2008, 08:51 PM
Well, with this 'windfall' tax proposal, maybe the Navy should just pirate the oil directly from the tanker on the high seas.
For our government, of course.
May as well, they work for me every bit as much as they do the oil companies!:texan:
I don't know, they seem to be for Assault Weapons.
Linky (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQ/?s=18)
Hey Jerk, short of a M198 howitzer, a tank, or a shoulder launched RPG, can anything else f**k you about any worse or any faster than a M4 Carbine?
I missed this post.
I absolutely love the AR. It is like having the accuracy of a bolt-action rifle with the firepower of an automatic. I can go on and on praising this rifle, but the one problem I do have with the M-4 is that I think the barrel is too short (at 14") and thus the bullet loses a lot of velocity, which, is really the only thing that the 5.56 NATO has going for it. The military has tried to compensate this by using heavier bullets, but I'd rather have the speed myself. It's all a trade-off. You want a short barrel? You have less velocity, thus less downrange energy and lethality. But you do gain by having a weapon that is much more maneuverable and "handy" in close quarters. I think an AR Carbine with a 16" barrel would have been a better choice, but this issue will be studied for years to come by people who are a lot smarter than I am. You can bet that what's going on in Iraq will be studied for years and years after it's all said and done.
Apparently not all "redistribution of wealth" is bad. Here's one for you. Who pays for an asthmatic's inhaler during ozone alerts?
I don't know. I did hear, however, that the government is making the drug companies use something other than CFC's in inhalers starting soon....to stop the ozone hole from growing, of course .
Sooner_Havok
6/10/2008, 08:56 PM
I missed this post.
I absolutely love the AR. It is like having the accuracy of a bolt-action rifle with the firepower of an automatic. I can go on and on praising this rifle, but the one problem I do have with the M-4 is that I think the barrel is too short (at 14") and thus the bullet loses a lot of velocity, which, is really the only thing that the 5.56 NATO has going for it. The military has tried to compensate this by using heavier bullets, but I'd rather have the speed myself. It's all a trade-off. You want a short barrel? You have less velocity, thus less downrange energy and lethality. But you do gain by having a weapon that is much more maneuverable and "handy" in close quarters. I think an AR Carbine with a 16" barrel would have been a better choice, but this issue will be studied for years to come by people who are a lot smarter than I am. You can bet that what's going on in Iraq will be studied for years and years.
:D to that post.
mdklatt
6/10/2008, 08:57 PM
I did hear, however, that the government is making the drug companies use something other than CFC's in inhalers starting soon....to stop the ozone hole from growing, of course .
So this is somehow bad?
So this is somehow bad?
If the inhalers work as good as they used to then I suppose it makes no difference.
mdklatt
6/10/2008, 09:04 PM
If the inhalers work as good as they used to then I suppose it makes no difference.
Since the ozone layer is what keeps the sun from literally microwaving us all, I think its probably a worthy trade-off.
Pink_Floyd
6/10/2008, 09:05 PM
I don't know. I did hear, however, that the government is making the drug companies use something other than CFC's in inhalers starting soon....to stop the ozone hole from growing, of course .
that is bill's love call to hillary--ozone hole
:pop: :pop: :eek:
:D to that post.
The sad thing is that I could have said a lot more. Now you have me going on something I'm actually interested in.
The M-4 is a great multi-purpose weapon, but not 'the best' at any specific role. It probably comes close to being 'the best' when it's used in urban house-to-house warfare.
It's kind of like the german shepherd dog...they can be used as drug dogs, blind dogs, police dogs, guard dogs, rescue dogs, but there are other breeds which do better at each of those specific jobs, but no breed can do them all like the GSD.
You see what happens when I get going?
Since the ozone layer is what keeps the sun from literally microwaving us all, I think its probably a worthy trade-off.
If a few asthmatics die, it's okay?
Not releasing that little bitty bottle of CFC's into the air was worth it?
(I'm not saying this is your position, but I'm asking you if it is, which, I doubt it is, but I must ask)
soonerscuba
6/10/2008, 09:14 PM
Liberals hate guns.
What about Howard Dean?
mdklatt
6/10/2008, 09:21 PM
If a few asthmatics die, it's okay?
Not releasing that [SIZE=1]little bitty bottle [SIZE]of CFC's into the air was worth it?
Since it affects a lot more than one little bitty inhaler that's not even the question to ask. Regardless, it's a fallacy to assume that even a small amount of something is harmless.
Assume that inhalers are damaging to ozone, but that CFC-free inhalers are less effective (more likely they're simply more expensive). How many asthmatic lives saved are worth how many skin cancer deaths in Australia? That's not just an abstract question. While we're at it, how many asthmatic deaths due to air pollution are worth the benefit of "cheap" oil? Again, this is not an abstract question. I don't pretend to have the answers, but I don't hear too many people acknowledging that the question even exists.
Ok, well, if you believe that those little bottles of CFC inhalers actually affect the environment of the entire planet, then I have nothing else to say. I mean, what else is there to say? Holy sh*t, batman.
mdklatt
6/10/2008, 09:39 PM
Ok, well, if you believe that those little bottles of CFC inhalers actually affect the environment of the entire planet, then I have nothing else to say.
I said assume that they do. What evidence do you have that they don't?
r5TPsooner
6/10/2008, 09:59 PM
Consumers would pay for it, obviously. We can't expect ExxonMobil to sacrifice any of their "razor thin" trillion dollar profits. But gas prices are hugely subsidized, so that wouldn't necessary be a bad thing. We can't make rational energy choices unless we know what the true costs are.
So, when did it become a bad thing for companies to make money? If you don't like the price of gas DON'T ****ING BUY IT!
mdklatt
6/10/2008, 10:05 PM
If you don't like the price of gas DON'T ****ING BUY IT!
I buy about 8 gallons/month. I'm trying.
sooneron
6/10/2008, 10:11 PM
I say that we spend the billions now for the oil exploration/drilling instead of spending it 8-10 years from now on other alternatives. I mean, that makes perfect sense. Maybe I'll be retired, let my kids foot the bill.
S008NER
6/10/2008, 10:24 PM
The Democratic energy package would have imposed a 25 percent tax on any "unreasonable" profits of the five largest U.S. oil companies, which together made $36 billion during the first three months of the year. It also would have given the government more power to address oil market speculation, opened the way for antitrust actions against countries belonging to the OPEC oil cartel, and made energy price gouging a federal crime.
It is speculation at the benefit and perhaps encouragement of big oil that is driving record prices and profits
tommieharris91
6/10/2008, 10:24 PM
Consumers would pay for it, obviously. We can't expect ExxonMobil to sacrifice any of their "razor thin" trillion dollar profits. But gas prices are hugely subsidized, so that wouldn't necessary be a bad thing. We can't make rational energy choices unless we know what the true costs are.
How is gasoline subsidized in the US? There really isn't that much of a markup from when it goes from the refinery to the gas station? FYI, European countries tax the heck outta their gasoline and then use that money to create super-nice public transit systems.
tommieharris91
6/10/2008, 10:26 PM
I say that we spend the billions now for the oil exploration/drilling instead of spending it 8-10 years from now on other alternatives. I mean, that makes perfect sense. Maybe I'll be retired, let my kids foot the bill.
If there was a way that I wouldn't have to pay Social Security, I wouldn't pay it to spite people like you.
Harry Beanbag
6/10/2008, 10:30 PM
Apparently not all "redistribution of wealth" is bad. Here's one for you. Who pays for an asthmatic's inhaler during ozone alerts?
You mean a breathalizer?
KbpWonUzlrc
More Barack with a mic magic. :D
Big Red Ron
6/10/2008, 10:30 PM
Here's the democrat plan for energy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d53lspwDeIThe really sad/funny thing is, that she's just stupid enough to have actually said what "liberals" really want to do. Take over energy and nationalize and control it.
Guess who the single most liberal US Senator in America is? Here's a clue, he's running for POTUS and is also of African descent.
Oh, and that "Liberal" needs a new weave.
mdklatt
6/10/2008, 10:32 PM
How is gasoline subsidized in the US?
Start here (http://www.icta.org/doc/Real%20Price%20of%20Gasoline.pdf). Forget about the stuff that's dubious to attribute to oil itself, like free parking and traffic accidents, but do pay attention to the real costs of air pollution and the significant portion of our military budget devoted to keeping the oil flowing. Even if their numbers are way off, it's clear that gasoline in this country is subsidized by the population at large.
Big Red Ron
6/10/2008, 10:32 PM
You mean a breathalizer?
KbpWonUzlrc
More Barack with a mic magic. :DCan you imagine the media's wrath if Bush said that or looked that absolutely clueless and confused?
Harry Beanbag
6/10/2008, 10:34 PM
Can you imagine the media's wrath if Bush said that or looked that absolutely clueless and confused?
You should check out the other thread I started today. It's being totally ignored. :D
SoonerInKCMO
6/10/2008, 10:36 PM
Looking through this thread, I'm sitting here thinking that I might want to argue with someone about something... mabye pull up some facts that counter someone's claim or msyabe pull some weird idea aoutta my *** or somthing and then start a ****in' match ot a "whose is bigger" constsest or whathaveyou... but then I remember that I just came back from a nice restaurant where I know the hostess and where they were out of the dessert I wanted so I got my second choice of dessert comped and then the bartender liked me because the hostess likes me and I got all of the 'mistake' wine pours taht people didn't want FOR FREE and I'm all liquored up and my belly is full of creme bruleed and... well... I dont'; give two ****s about what y'all are arugin about.
Suck it loowsers!! :D
Harry Beanbag
6/10/2008, 10:40 PM
Looking through this thread, I'm sitting here thinking that I might want to argue with someone about something... mabye pull up some facts that counter someone's claim or msyabe pull some weird idea aoutta my *** or somthing and then start a ****in' match ot a "who's is bigger" constsest or whathaveyou... but then I remember that I just came back from a nice restaurant where I know the hostess and where they were out of the dessert I wanted so I got my second choice of dessert comped and then the bartender liked me because the hostess likes me and I got all of the 'mistake' wine pours taht people didn't want FOR FREE and I'm all liquored up and my belly is full of creme bruleed and... well... I dont'; give two ****s about what y'all are arugin about.
Suck it loowsers!! :D
That's pretty much the right attitude to have. The politicians certainly don't give two ****s about what any of us says or thinks so we might as well just get ****faced. :)
SoonerInKCMO
6/10/2008, 10:43 PM
Especially when drinks and dessert end up costing $5.72. :)
sooneron
6/10/2008, 10:43 PM
If there was a way that I wouldn't have to pay Social Security, I wouldn't pay it to spite people like you.
WOW, Go on with your bad self. I am too stupid for you to pay into SS. I'm sure that's a huge sum. :rolleyes: Please keep sucking upon Exxon's teet. Lemme guess, you work for an oil co.? Well, be ready to welcome in the 21st Century Mr. Buggy Whip Salesman.
I am a capitalist by nature, prepare to be absorbed. Or expunged. Take your pick.
sooneron
6/10/2008, 10:44 PM
You should check out the other thread I started today. It's being totally ignored. :D
I
am
shocked
:D
sooneron
6/10/2008, 10:56 PM
Now that I think about it, Tommie, you may want to turn your sarcasm detector on.
Harry Beanbag
6/10/2008, 11:46 PM
I
am
shocked
:D
I wish I could say the same. :D
SoonerKnight
6/10/2008, 11:59 PM
to put into prespective...
Paying 1920s prices
When measured on an inflation-adjusted basis, the current price of gasoline is only slightly higher than it was in 1922. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 1922, a gallon of gasoline cost the current-day equivalent of $3.11. Today, according to the EIA, gasoline is selling for about $3.77 per gallon, only about 20% more than 86 years ago.
Yes and in 1922 did the price of gas go up as fast as it has today?
NO!!!
A couple of months ago I was paying $2+ for gas now it is about $4 and rising and you want us to go yippee everything is all right. How about we figure out a new way to fuel cars! I don't know Hydrogen will cost us reletively nothing. I know Big Oil won't go for well let's make them go for it!! Gas is something that we all need and therefore the normal supply and demand market forces do not apply.
tommieharris91
6/11/2008, 12:38 AM
WOW, Go on with your bad self. I am too stupid for you to pay into SS. I'm sure that's a huge sum. :rolleyes: Please keep sucking upon Exxon's teet. Lemme guess, you work for an oil co.? Well, be ready to welcome in the 21st Century Mr. Buggy Whip Salesman.
I am a capitalist by nature, prepare to be absorbed. Or expunged. Take your pick.
No, I wouldn't pay Social Security because I'm 24 and I won't see a single penny of it. I hate paying it as is.
OklahomaTuba
6/11/2008, 08:56 AM
We should be drilling for oil, in all 58 states.
Condescending Sooner
6/11/2008, 09:08 AM
It cracks me up when all the dems fall over them selves defending the fact that we haven't drilled in ANWAR and other areas, and then in the next breath blame Bush for high gas prices. Historically, the democrats have voted overwhelmingly against more drilling and the republicans have voted for it. Supply and demand folks.
sooneron
6/11/2008, 09:12 AM
No, I wouldn't pay Social Security because I'm 24 and I won't see a single penny of it. I hate paying it as is.
I'm A MAN, I'M FORTY!!! [hairGel] and I won't see it either.:(
mdklatt
6/11/2008, 10:28 AM
It cracks me up when all the dems fall over them selves defending the fact that we haven't drilled in ANWAR and other areas, and then in the next breath blame Bush for high gas prices. Historically, the democrats have voted overwhelmingly against more drilling and the republicans have voted for it. Supply and demand folks.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/05/23/arctic-drilling-wouldnt-cool-high-oil-prices.html
[T]he U.S. Energy Information Administration, an independent statistical agency within the Department of Energy, concluded that new oil from ANWR would lower the world price of oil by no more than $1.44 per barrel—and possibly have as little effect as 41 cents per barrel—and would have its largest impact nearly 20 years from now if Congress voted to open the refuge today.
$1.44/barrel 20 years from now--the answer to all our prayers! I wonder if that number has been corrected for stagflation?
Frozen Sooner
6/11/2008, 10:30 AM
It really cracks me up that several people have acted like they know that drilling in ANWR would solve all of our energy problems in this thread but don't seem to know how the acronym is spelled.
sooner_born_1960
6/11/2008, 10:35 AM
Forget ANWR. We should drill for oil in America.
mdklatt
6/11/2008, 11:03 AM
Forget ANWR. We should drill for oil in America.
US oil conumption: 20.6 million barrels/day
Proven US oil reserves: 20.9 billion barrels
So we have 1000 days worth of oil in the ground that we know about at our current consumption rate. Higher CAFE standards?? Crazy talk! MORE OIL MORE OIL MORE OIL!!! IT'LL NEVER RUN OUT!!! YIPEE!!!!!!
The AEPA of 2008 (American Energy Protection Act of 2008 Would have allowed exploration and drilling in ANWAR and off shore whch currently contain 24 Billion Barrels of Oil . That is Billion with a B folks. Enough to supply the US independently for 5 years with no additional supplements. Two of the main Current Presidential candidates voted against this bill.
24 billion/20.6 million is only 3 years not 5, but who's counting. Even that number is suspect, because "The [EIA] stuck with the U.S. Geological Survey's 1998 estimate that the amount of oil in the portion of ANWR being considered for development is 10.4 billion barrels." 24 billion, 10 billion, whatever it takes.
But we're still not getting the whole story, because the EIA analysis says that ANWR would only produce 0.5-1.5 million barrels/day. I guess somebody confused "5%" with "5 years".
"Two of the main Current Presidential candidates"...that would be Obama and McCain, right?
I know this is a fool's errand to even ask, but is it possible to stop regurgitating every mistake-laden screed that ends up in our inbox?
mdklatt, as you probably know that I work in the oil field. We are currently drilling in the old OKC oil field. Hundreds of wells are scattered everywhere. the operator that is doing the drilling is primarily a natural gas, but if they do get oil from a formation, it is a big bonus.
They have several wells that are producing 2500+ barrels a day, and this area was long thought to be depleted of any crude.
mdklatt
6/11/2008, 11:15 AM
mdklatt, as you probably know that I work in the oil field. We are currently drilling in the old OKC oil field. Hundreds of wells are scattered everywhere. the operator that is doing the drilling is primarily a natural gas, but if they do get oil from a formation, it is a big bonus.
They have several wells that are producing 2500+ barrels a day, and this area was long thought to be depleted of any crude.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html
We're using 20 million bbl/day, and producing 5 million bbl/day. Are we going to be able to quadruple production any time soon? Even if we do, US oil pollutes the same as OPEC oil. Petroleum is a deprecated energy source. The sooner we take our medicine and switch to something else--should have started 30 years ago--the better.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html
We're using 20 million bbl/day, and producing 5 million bbl/day. Are we going to be able to quadruple production any time soon? Even if we do, US oil pollutes the same as OPEC oil. Petroleum is a deprecated energy source. The sooner we take our medicine and switch to something else--should have started 30 years ago--the better.
so you are saying by "take our medicine", you would like for the US to go down the ****ter so we will learn not to use gasoline/petro products?
I agree that something else needs to be done, but for the moment we need to drill domestically.
and no one should use the "we have to wait 10 to 15 yrs for a well to be worth anything". That is false.
Condescending Sooner
6/11/2008, 11:29 AM
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/05/23/arctic-drilling-wouldnt-cool-high-oil-prices.html
$1.44/barrel 20 years from now--the answer to all our prayers! I wonder if that number has been corrected for stagflation?
See what I mean. Mike and klatt falling all over themselves. If you guys believe that the price of oil would not drop if we found another large domestic supply of oil, you are more ignorant regarding the oil market than I thought. The prices are based largely on speculation, which makes it jump anytime someone in Nigeria sneezes. More stable supply = lower prices.
But hey, keep fooling yourselves if that is your wish. Just don't expect everyone else to buy into it.
mdklatt
6/11/2008, 11:30 AM
so you are saying by "take our medicine", you would like for the US to go down the ****ter so we will learn not to use gasoline/petro products?
I agree that something else needs to be done, but for the moment we need to drill domestically.
Same thing we've heard for 30 years. The longer we wait, the worse it's going to be when the bottom really does drop out. Nobody wants to do anything but sit on their thumb when oil is cheap because we have the memories of a goldfish and the forethought of a gnat. Then oil is expensive, and it's too late to do anything.
The time to take action was back in the late 90s, but instead of spending money for research we were passing tax increases to prop up the oil industry. Maybe it's time for them to return the favor? "Low margins" my ***. Serious question: Does it cost drilling companies more to pull oil out of the ground at $140/bbl than $70/bbl? If so, why?
JohnnyMack
6/11/2008, 11:33 AM
Simple question. Is it cheaper in the current structure of the oil industry to import oil from overseas or to pull it out here?
I think most of what we import is crude that is refined here. Is that accurate?
Thanks, I'll take my answer off the air.
mdklatt
6/11/2008, 11:33 AM
If you guys believe that the price of oil would not drop if we found another large domestic supply of oil, you are more ignorant regarding the oil market than I thought.
It will drop alright. $1.44/bbl.
Condescending Sooner
6/11/2008, 11:34 AM
It really cracks me up that several people have acted like they know that drilling in ANWR would solve all of our energy problems in this thread but don't seem to know how the acronym is spelled.
Great comeback!!!! Did you even notice the part about who has voted for more drilling or did you ignore it?
Condescending Sooner
6/11/2008, 11:35 AM
It will drop alright. $1.44/bbl.
Please. Do you think the price increases lately are all about production costs?
mdklatt
6/11/2008, 11:36 AM
Great comeback!!!! Did you even notice the part about who has voted for more drilling or did you ignore it?
According to 85sooner, Obama and McCain both voted against it.
Does it cost drilling companies more to pull oil out of the ground at $140/bbl than $70/bbl? If so, why?
it is just like any other market, when demand is high, so are the prices.
Drilling operators(Devon, Exxon) are having a tough time getting rigs to drill with. They will even lock a rig or two down in a contract for 2,3,4 years so they can be the only ones to use it.
Service companies are stretched thin as is, so people are working harder, and making more money
mdklatt
6/11/2008, 11:37 AM
Please. Do you think the price increases lately are all about production costs?
Take it up with the Energy Information Administration.
mdklatt
6/11/2008, 11:45 AM
it is just like any other market, when demand is high, so are the prices.
Drilling operators(Devon, Exxon) are having a tough time getting rigs to drill with. They will even lock a rig or two down in a contract for 2,3,4 years so they can be the only ones to use it.
Service companies are stretched thin as is, so people are working harder, and making more money
So we're primed for another boom/bust cycle in the industry? More demand will eventually create more drilling capacity, but because of the lag, the economic forces behind that demand will have changed and we'll have excess capacity. If there's a refinery bottleneck at that point, could we still be seeing $4-5 gasoline along with a downturn in the Oklahoma oil industry?
I say we become baby oil dependant. babies are easily intimdated, unlike our Arab business counterparts
mdklatt
6/11/2008, 11:50 AM
I say we become baby oil dependant. babies are easily intimdated, unlike our Arab business counterparts
Sadly, I think baby oil is for babies not from babies. What about salesmen? They're generally pretty oily.
Scott D
6/11/2008, 11:51 AM
with as many lawyers as we have in this country, it'd be a bottomless supply...that and killing Pat Riley, and John Calipari.
Frozen Sooner
6/11/2008, 11:54 AM
Great comeback!!!! Did you even notice the part about who has voted for more drilling or did you ignore it?
I'm sorry, this isn't about "comebacks," it's about people passing themselves off as experts who obviously don't even know enough about the subject to spell it correctly.
It's only four letters. It's really not that tough.
And as far as drilling in ANWR, I noticed it didn't pass with a Republican in the White House for 20 of the last 28 years and a Republican-controlled congress for six of those years-so it looks like the problem isn't just Democrats on this issue.
Personally, I'd like to see part of ANWR opened for oil exploration. Both major Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives in Alaska and the candidate for Senate in this election support drilling in ANWR. Both major party presidential candidates have consistently voted against it. One major presidential candidate has endorsed building a natural gas pipeline from the North Slope to my knowledge (though the other might have-just haven't heard him talk about it.)
Harry Beanbag
6/11/2008, 06:01 PM
I'm sorry, this isn't about "comebacks," it's about people passing themselves off as experts who obviously don't even know enough about the subject to spell it correctly.
There's a lot of that going on around here. Why should it end now?
soonerhubs
6/11/2008, 06:57 PM
Okay, I'm no expert, but I'd love to hear some solution talk instead of playing the blame game. Obviously oil is not an eternal source, so I'd like both a short term and long term solution to the oil problem combined to become the ultimate solution.
Is it allowing some drilling while at the same time quelling our thirst for oil by drastically subsidizing efficient transportation and other sources of energy such as hydrogen technology, solar, wind, and nuclear power?
r5TPsooner
6/11/2008, 07:12 PM
Okay, I'm no expert, but I'd love to hear some solution talk instead of playing the blame game. Obviously oil is not an eternal source, so I'd like both a short term and long term solution to the oil problem combined to become the ultimate solution.
Is it allowing some drilling while at the same time quelling our thirst for oil by drastically subsidizing efficient transportation and other sources of energy such as hydrogen technology, solar, wind, and nuclear power?
Start drilling in Alaska and the coast line. In the meantime, look into building Nuclear Power Plants as well as building coal to oil refineries.
I love trees and the wildlife as much as the next guy but if we don't get out **** together energy wise, my kids will be riding a horse and buggy to work or have no place to work at all.
MR2-Sooner86
6/11/2008, 07:21 PM
Oil shale hits roadblock in Senate (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/15/oil-shale-hits-roadblock-in-senate/)
WHAT!? Democrates not wanting us to go after our trillion barrel shale oil reserves!? :eek: I thought Republicans were the evil ones!?
Gee while we're at it lets bring up California being a pain in the *** in not allowing drilling off it's shores for oil. Which they think has 20 billion barrels of oil.
So with ANWAR and California there's 10 years of just using our own oil. That could help bring some relief.
Then with oil shale that's oil to last us well over 150 years.
If we want we can throw in that coal can be made into oil and the U.S. has the largest coal reserves on the planet. Our coal reserves right now can last us for 200 years. Gee if we go completly to nuclear plants we won't need coal for power and can turn it into oil!
What the **** are we fighting about? There's no oil shortage. It's nothing more than money, percentages, and quarter earnings.
r5TPsooner
6/11/2008, 07:28 PM
Oil shale hits roadblock in Senate (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/15/oil-shale-hits-roadblock-in-senate/)
WHAT!? Democrates not wanting us to go after our trillion barrel shale oil reserves!? :eek: I thought Republicans were the evil ones!?
Gee while we're at it lets bring up California being a pain in the *** in not allowing drilling off it's shores for oil. Which they think has 20 billion barrels of oil.
So with ANWAR and California there's 10 years of just using our own oil. That could help bring some relief.
Then with oil shale that's oil to last us well over 150 years.
If we want we can throw in that coal can be made into oil and the U.S. has the largest coal reserves on the planet. Our coal reserves right now can last us for 200 years. Gee if we go completly to nuclear plants we won't need coal for power and can turn it into oil!
What the **** are we fighting about? There's no oil shortage. It's nothing more than money, percentages, and quarter earnings.
It's the ****ing tree huggers I tell ya, and I bet there the ones bitching about gas prices the most.
Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too.
soonerboomer93
6/11/2008, 08:27 PM
Personal
High oil prices are the best thing to happen to the US in a while.
Personal
High oil prices are the best thing to happen to the US in a while.
dont you just love wiping your *** with twenty dollar bills? I feel super rich when I do that
Sooner_Havok
6/11/2008, 08:35 PM
Coal to oil, oil shale, drill ANWR. These are great options! Hey, let's go topple all the wind turbines, shatter all the solar cells, and cut every dime of funding from biofuels and other alternative fuels. Hell, we don't need em, and think how low gas would be if we didn't have to pay for that pointless research.
Why, I hear we have enough oil in ANWR to last us 5 years! Enough coal to make enough oil to last us 10 years! Enough oil shale to make enough oil to last us another 10 years!
That's 25 years of energy people! 25 years at current rates, and I bet our consumption won't rise any over that time! I bet by the time we run out of oil in 25 years, our kids will have come up with some great ideas on where else to get energy. They pretty much have to, so why bother even funding research?
Oh, and one more thing. Global warming is bull ****! I mean, the earth may be warming, but it has nothing to do with human activity. Nothing humans do has any affect on the earth, it is huge! And if a few animals and such go extinct because of this "Global Warming" hoax, we have cameras, take pictures of the, before they die! See you hippie liberal ******s, by killing off all the critters and replacing zoos with pictures, no poor stupid animal has to suffer in a cage.
soonerboomer93
6/11/2008, 08:36 PM
actually, because I'm back in the states, I'm making alot less money then I was last year (i'm also working about 1/2 the hours too)
I work with energy companies, and yeah, it's currently with a lot of oil and natural gas, but the higher prices will atleast force the average person to look more at alt energy. It will make them look at how they consume oil and if they need a gas guzzling suv because "we have a kids". That's a good thing to me.
soonerboomer93
6/11/2008, 08:37 PM
Oh, and if getting oil shale = more strip mining the rockies then I'd prefer the shale stays right where it is.
Sooner_Havok
6/11/2008, 08:39 PM
actually, because I'm back in the states, I'm making alot less money then I was last year (i'm also working about 1/2 the hours too)
I work with energy companies, and yeah, it's currently with a lot of oil and natural gas, but the higher prices will atleast force the average person to look more at alt energy. It will make them look at how they consume oil and if they need a gas guzzling suv because "we have a kids". That's a good thing to me.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe some people don't want to live close to work? Or that some people just feel safer in a huge SUV or truck? If I run into some ******* in my H3, I know I will be ok. The prick in the Civic should have been driving a big *** car if he didn't want to be forced off the road:texan:
Sooner_Havok
6/11/2008, 08:41 PM
Oh, and if getting oil shale = more strip mining the rockies then I'd prefer the shale stays right where it is.
Stupid tree hugger! Why should we all pay higher prices for gas, just because looking at some stupid mountains make you feel good? No thanks,
Mountains<gas
Chuck Bao
6/11/2008, 09:16 PM
I don't know the US, but I do know Thailand.
Here the gross refinery margin is currently about US$10 per barrel and they are making windfall profits.
Back when crude was US$20-30 per barrel, they were making about US$2-3 per barrel gross refinery margin and most of the refineries were profitable with that margin.
Now, the Thai government orders them to reduce their margins by US$1-2 a barrel and they are squeeling like a stuck pig.
This is a rip off of consumers and should be looked into as anti-competitive practices.
Refineries do not deserve a 10% margin regardless of the price of crude.
With profit margin going up five fold over the last five years, why aren't there more building of refineries in the US?
I'm not getting this. Will someone please explain.
MR2-Sooner86
6/11/2008, 09:38 PM
Coal to oil, oil shale, drill ANWR. These are great options! Hey, let's go topple all the wind turbines, shatter all the solar cells, and cut every dime of funding from biofuels and other alternative fuels. Hell, we don't need em, and think how low gas would be if we didn't have to pay for that pointless research.
Why, I hear we have enough oil in ANWR to last us 5 years! Enough coal to make enough oil to last us 10 years! Enough oil shale to make enough oil to last us another 10 years!
That's 25 years of energy people! 25 years at current rates, and I bet our consumption won't rise any over that time! I bet by the time we run out of oil in 25 years, our kids will have come up with some great ideas on where else to get energy. They pretty much have to, so why bother even funding research?
Oh, and one more thing. Global warming is bull ****! I mean, the earth may be warming, but it has nothing to do with human activity. Nothing humans do has any affect on the earth, it is huge! And if a few animals and such go extinct because of this "Global Warming" hoax, we have cameras, take pictures of the, before they die! See you hippie liberal ******s, by killing off all the critters and replacing zoos with pictures, no poor stupid animal has to suffer in a cage.
Translation...
WHY CAN'T YOU PEOPLE SEE THAT OIL IS BAD! BAAAAAAAADDDDDDD!!!! B..A..D! BAD!
Why do you want to dig up or get more oil? Don't you people see these high prices are a blessing!? We can finally live a life a life of freedom. We can all ride around on bicycles and become vegitarians. We don't need cars! Cars are bad!
If we make more oil people will have cheap gas to run those nature kill cars! DON'T YOU SEE YOU'RE KILLING MOTHER NATURE!!!! YOU BASTARDS!!! We MUST think of the environment! The spotted owl, the sewage beetle, and the spotted yellow skinned twin oak hickery nut tree are all in danger of those stupid carbon clouds cars make. Don't you care!?
You see people the sooner we ban oil, destroy coal plants, NOT build nuclear plants, and turn all power stations into wind turbines we'll be much better! Sure electric cars are no fun and fun things as tuning and racing will disappear forever, who cares!? Only rednecks and people with a low I.Q. like those "racey" cars. Us higher thinking folk know we're doing good with our homosexual looking electric and hybrid cars.
So in closing DON'T drill in ANWR or off the coast. DON'T support oil shale. Accept the high oil prices and switch to hybrids and electrics as the "new way" and be happy about it.
Trust me. My fellow San Fransiscians and myself know what's best for this country.
Yeah, I can warp things waaaaay out of context too.
Lets state this again. We have ways to get oil, in our own borders, to last us a while. Why not use it? We can keep the technologies to cut back and use current oil to help lead to alternate fuels. We can keep on the current track we're on. Why pay out the ***? Why not make things easier on people by tapping current wells and opening up one of the largest sources of oil on earth that's in our own country? Why buy all of our oil from other people when we can use some of our own?
Jacking up prices won't lead to new fuels or new technologies. Oh it will eventually after everybody gets done jumping through their own ***hole in shock at the situation. Guess when Toyota developed their hybrid technology, that's right, during the 90's when oil was cheap.
Fraggle145
6/11/2008, 09:50 PM
Why not make things easier on people by tapping current wells and opening up one of the largest sources of oil on earth that's in our own country?
Because then it isnt a problem, and people will continue to use and consume just like they always have.
soonerhubs
6/11/2008, 09:52 PM
I think the solution is in home gardening. If everyone raised a home garden demand for shipping would drop making for cheaper gas for everyone. If you don't have a garden then shut your mouth. ;) :D ;)
Chuck Bao
6/11/2008, 09:58 PM
I think the solution is in home gardening. If everyone raised a home garden demand for shipping would drop making for cheaper gas for everyone. If you don't have a garden then shut your mouth. ;) :D ;)
Nomination for post of the thread.
Yeah, and don't go buying shoes you don't need. One pair of garden shoes should be enough.
mdklatt
6/11/2008, 10:09 PM
Okay, I'm no expert, but I'd love to hear some solution talk instead of playing the blame game. Obviously oil is not an eternal source, so I'd like both a short term and long term solution to the oil problem combined to become the ultimate solution.
Is it allowing some drilling while at the same time quelling our thirst for oil by drastically subsidizing efficient transportation and other sources of energy such as hydrogen technology, solar, wind, and nuclear power?
Our electricity generation is very independent of oil as is. Get rid of the coal and we'll really have something: wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, and even natural gas in the medium term. The big problem is transportation. The answer is more electricity. No you can't get in an electric car and drive 400 miles nonstop (yet!), but how often do people do that anyway? Mass transit is going to have to play a part too. Over distances of a few hundred miles, trains are better than flying or driving. The Heartland Flyer is quicker than flying door-to-door from Oklahoma City to D/FW, and that's not even a high speed train. Why in the world hasn't average fuel economy improved in 20 years? In part because the auto lobby has fought higher CAFE standards tooth and nail, US manufacturers in particular. How's that working for ya Ford, GM, and Chrysler?
mdklatt
6/11/2008, 10:22 PM
Guess when Toyota developed their hybrid technology, that's right, during the 90's when oil was cheap.
American companies have the attention span of a hamster with ADHD. Honda and Toyota first took hold of the American market in the 70s with their fuel-efficient cars. It took a decade or so for American manufactures to catch on, but that didn't last very long. As soon as oil prices dropped again, we had dozens of American SUVs and 400 HP mid-sized cars to choose from. The Japanese companies realized that just maybe the price of oil might go up again one day, so they kept making efficient cars.
Sooner_Havok
6/11/2008, 11:13 PM
Translation...
Yeah, I can warp things waaaaay out of context too.
Lets state this again. We have ways to get oil, in our own borders, to last us a while. Why not use it? We can keep the technologies to cut back and use current oil to help lead to alternate fuels. We can keep on the current track we're on. Why pay out the ***? Why not make things easier on people by tapping current wells and opening up one of the largest sources of oil on earth that's in our own country? Why buy all of our oil from other people when we can use some of our own?
Jacking up prices won't lead to new fuels or new technologies. Oh it will eventually after everybody gets done jumping through their own ***hole in shock at the situation. Guess when Toyota developed their hybrid technology, that's right, during the 90's when oil was cheap.
Yeah, why not tap the last remaining known resources in America? That would help us out for a while. But what then? No really, tell me? What do we do when the fossil fuels run out? Why the hell do you want to push this problem off on the next generation? The current generation needs to nut up and stop being cowards! But hey, passing problems on to the next generation is the easy thing to do, right? I mean, that's what those in the industrial revolution did, and thats what the Greatest Generation did. Oh, I'm sorry, those people sacrificed to make sure their children had better lives than they did, the current generation only cares about them being able to drive their Hummers and what not. Thanks. I am hoping more than ever now that Social security fails so the baby boomers can have a small taste of the **** fest they are leaving my generation.
soonerboomer93
6/12/2008, 12:17 AM
I don't know the US, but I do know Thailand.
Here the gross refinery margin is currently about US$10 per barrel and they are making windfall profits.
Back when crude was US$20-30 per barrel, they were making about US$2-3 per barrel gross refinery margin and most of the refineries were profitable with that margin.
Now, the Thai government orders them to reduce their margins by US$1-2 a barrel and they are squeeling like a stuck pig.
This is a rip off of consumers and should be looked into as anti-competitive practices.
Refineries do not deserve a 10% margin regardless of the price of crude.
With profit margin going up five fold over the last five years, why aren't there more building of refineries in the US?
I'm not getting this. Will someone please explain.
why do refineries not deserve a 10% margin?
when i ran a book/comic store the markup from cost to suggested retail was 100% - a 50% margin
we went 10% of msrp, and then ended up making about 25% on the books after bills
soonerboomer93
6/12/2008, 12:19 AM
i'd rather pay higher oil prices and **** up other peoples countries then **** up parts of ours
oh, and I do think they should reconsider the ban on drilling anwr, and change the offshore drilling limits
soonerboomer93
6/12/2008, 12:21 AM
oh, and why are lng vehicles common other places (i've been in them in korea, manila, shanghai) but not common here. **** the taxi's use them in all 3 of those countries. our natural gas reserves vastly out number our oil reserves
Chuck Bao
6/12/2008, 12:45 AM
why do refineries not deserve a 10% margin?
when i ran a book/comic store the markup from cost to suggested retail was 100% - a 50% margin
we went 10% of msrp, and then ended up making about 25% on the books after bills
You're kidding, right?
Because my attempt to see why refineries deserve to earn five times the profit margin just because crude prices have risen five fold is full of FAIL.
Sooner_Havok
6/12/2008, 01:06 AM
At this point the oil companies deserve every penny they earn. They convinced our country that oil would be cheap forever, and that investing in other areas was a waste of money. They were very good business men. It doesn't matter, China is coming on hard, as is India, it is only a matter of time till the Russians really get things going into high gear, and South America and Africa will eventually become "developing" areas. Before to long, demand will far out pace supply. The oil companies will be making fist fulls of money then, until the oil runs dry. When that happens, I hope this country will be the one that developed a source for alternative energy first. Although with they way things look now, we may be the last industrialized country in the world still dependent on oil when it runs out.
Let them enjoy their profits, they've earned them.
NYC Poke
6/12/2008, 01:53 AM
ROADTRIP!!!
Back in my first Sophomore year, a friend and I talked a designated driver into driving up I-35 with us and a case of beer. When the gas tank was half empty, we pulled over and drank all the beer. Then we turned around and drove home. That was a fun night.*
*Sheep-free!
soonerhubs
6/12/2008, 07:39 AM
We've been talking about oil drilling restrictions and what not, but how much of these outrageous prices are due to low interest rates? Why doesn't the Fed raise rates to get the dollar back up?
when i ran a book/comic store....
This explains so much.
:D
mdklatt
6/12/2008, 08:43 AM
i'd rather pay higher oil prices and **** up other peoples countries then **** up parts of ours
This causes some unfortunate foreign policy side effects that shouldn't be overlooked....
Also, burning the stuff causes a lot more environmental problems than getting it out of the ground.
mdklatt
6/12/2008, 08:46 AM
We've been talking about oil drilling restrictions and what not, but how much of these outrageous prices are due to low interest rates? Why doesn't the Fed raise rates to get the dollar back up?
I hear they're going to soon, so maybe I'll start making more money from my savings account than I can from picking up spare change on the sidewalk. But raising interest rates might slow down the economy even more. I don't care, though. Screw the debtors! It's the savers' turn. :mad:
JohnnyMack
6/12/2008, 09:10 AM
i'd rather pay higher oil prices and **** up other peoples countries then **** up parts of ours
oh, and I do think they should reconsider the ban on drilling anwr, and change the offshore drilling limits
America! **** Yeah!
mdklatt
6/12/2008, 09:14 AM
The oil companies will be making fist fulls of money then, until the oil runs dry. When that happens, I hope this country will be the one that developed a source for alternative energy first.
We're already losing that game when it comes to wind and solar.
OklahomaRed
6/12/2008, 10:28 AM
Heck. If we are the first to develop alternative energy sources we won't be able to sell it cause the chinese will just steal our technology! :D If they are all about being a developing country, why don't they frickin' develop something first !! :D
Scott D
6/12/2008, 11:14 AM
Heck. If we are the first to develop alternative energy sources we won't be able to sell it cause the chinese will just steal our technology! :D If they are all about being a developing country, why don't they frickin' develop something first !! :D
because they are all about taking something someone else makes and making it cheaper :D
Sooner_Havok
6/12/2008, 12:07 PM
because they are all about taking something someone else makes and making it cheaper :D
I here their iPhone knock offs are pretty good :D
Bourbon St Sooner
6/12/2008, 12:10 PM
Oh, and if getting oil shale = more strip mining the rockies then I'd prefer the shale stays right where it is.
The new technology that's been developed to extract the oil shale uses heaters put in the ground to heat the oil and make it more viscous allowing it to flow to producing wells. It doesn't involve mining.
Big Red Ron
6/12/2008, 10:59 PM
America! **** Yeah!Better them than us.
heh, love it or leave it. Or hide behind the 1st.:O
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.