Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 12-22-2005, 08:54 PM
tolbiny tolbiny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 52
Default Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?

I never said that it shouldn't happen, i was just responding to the misconception that there might be enough oil to last for "years".
As another poster said the actual drilling will represent only a very small percentage of the actual impact. Getting the equipment in and the oil out is the tricky part, and a major spill would wreck huge portions.
I am against drilling in anwr, mostly because its simmply a red herring for powerfull people to act like they are addressing the energy problem (and a small group of people will make buttloads of money). We shouldnt let them get away with this in general principle- its like the gay marrige debate- Why the [censored] should any body care when comparing it to the number of people who have health insurance problems, the state of education in this country the war in iraq, government overpending, socila security... ect ect. But the best solution for most of these problems is to get teh government out of them, and no one wants to run on that ticket, so they pull up crap like this, and to a lesser extent abortion (by lesser i mean that it is actualy a legitimate problem to have a beef with). Any one who seriouly thinks that gay marrige is the number one issue in the country should be smacked, hard.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-22-2005, 09:32 PM
BluffTHIS! BluffTHIS! is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 375
Default Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?

[ QUOTE ]
I am against drilling in anwr, mostly because its simmply a red herring for powerfull people to act like they are addressing the energy problem

[/ QUOTE ]

Proves the point I made above.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-22-2005, 10:07 PM
tolbiny tolbiny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 52
Default Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am against drilling in anwr, mostly because its simmply a red herring for powerfull people to act like they are addressing the energy problem

[/ QUOTE ]

Proves the point I made above.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't, Firstly because you didn't have a real point above, just another moronic attack on the "libs". Secondly i am not a liberal. I am pretty hard core anti bush, but thats because i am hardcore anti morons trying to run my life. If your pro bush, you aren't a conservative.
Preventing ineffective measures like ANWR might be the only way to force some kind of resolution or progress.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-23-2005, 01:20 AM
Rockatansky Rockatansky is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Table \"unknown\"
Posts: 69
Default Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent logic. The right wants to drill just to screw the enviros, but at the same time really wants less oil. And the left chortles with glee as the right acts at cross purposes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad to see you're coming around. Proof positive that we shouldn't give up on the mentally handicapped.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-23-2005, 04:00 AM
Il_Mostro Il_Mostro is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sweden
Posts: 72
Default Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?

[ QUOTE ]
I note that the price to recover oil in Saudi Arabia and Iraq is between $2 and $3 a barrel if memory serves.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that's a bit on the low end, if my memory serves me that would be the cost to lift the oil, then there are additional costs to actually get the oil anywhere

[ QUOTE ]
Improving the effeciency and cost of current technologies that utilize oil will tend to reduce the demand for oil due to less consumption.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have any proof of this? Because everything I've read on the issue has stated otherwise. The whole Jevons "paradox " thing. The more efficient we become in using a certain energy source the more of it we use.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-23-2005, 09:44 AM
adios adios is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,298
Default Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I note that the price to recover oil in Saudi Arabia and Iraq is between $2 and $3 a barrel if memory serves.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that's a bit on the low end, if my memory serves me that would be the cost to lift the oil, then there are additional costs to actually get the oil anywhere

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm comparing the production costs cited for ANWR with similar costs for Middle East OPEC nations. I'm fairly certain that the poster I responded to is citing ANWR costs to lift the oil but not certain.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Improving the effeciency and cost of current technologies that utilize oil will tend to reduce the demand for oil due to less consumption.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have any proof of this? Because everything I've read on the issue has stated otherwise. The whole Jevons "paradox " thing. The more efficient we become in using a certain energy source the more of it we use.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see how this could be the case. However, I think it's fair to say that the post that I responded to is assuming that improving the effeciency and cost of current technologies will lead to less oil consumption. If that assumption is correct ... The idea I'm challenging is that reducing the rate of consumption of oil in the US will make the US less dependent on OPEC oil sources in the Middle East. The idea is based on the erroneous notion that all producers produce at the same cost and it's not true. Whether citizens in the USA like it or not as things stand now, the USA is dependent on OPEC oil imports and will continue to be dependent on OPEEC oil imports in order to fuel gasoline powered vehicles irregardless of the rate of consumption. A tariff that specifically targets OPEC oil would change the dynamic but I don't support such a thing.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-25-2005, 04:55 PM
Ray Zee Ray Zee is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: montana usa
Posts: 2,043
Default Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?

first if we want to be independent on oil we should not drill ours away but save it for the future if it becomes necessary. using it now is crazy.
next is that they computed that if we tapped it all then it would decrese our gas price at the pump about one cent a gallon during the period till it was exhasted.
then to top it off being so far away it is most likely most of the oil drilled would just be sold to japan anyway as it would bring more money there rather than shipping it to the lower states. so it really is just a money raiser for big oil. with subidies from us taxpayers. so you get to pay more anyway. watch what you wish for.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-27-2005, 04:24 AM
Cyrus Cyrus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Tundra
Posts: 1,720
Default Collision course

In 1997, when the world was negotiating the Kyoto Protocol, the U.S. Senate, by a vote of 95-0, passed a resolution that forbade any American involvement in a pact that limited American emissions - "unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce grteenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliace period".

Although the resolution did not cite China in particular, the testimony made it clear that China, and to a lesser extent India, were the nations everyone had in mind.

China, which currently ranks second in the world’s CO2 emissions, is projected to pass the United States sometime between 2025 and 2030 as the largest emitter of carbon dioxide. In an article titled “The Great Leap” in the December 2005 issue of Harper’s, Bill McKibben argues that it makes more sense to divide the atmosphere by people, not by nation.

China's current annual production of carbon dioxide was 2.6 tons per 1,000 people, while the average was 19 tons in the United States. Even when China passes the United States as the largest carbon emitter, the average Chinese person will still be producing only a quarter as much carbon as the average American.

China's GDP had risen fourfold from 1980 to 2000, while its energy consumption only doubled, showing the efforts by the Chinese government to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. In notable difference to American's position on the matter, China has pledged to raise its energy efficiency by 20 percent between 2006 and 2010.

We are faced with a tragedy, perhaps the ultimate tragedy in Man's history on Earth. The father of the current president had declared on his way to the Rio de Janeiro parley that eventually gave rise to Kyoto, that "the American way of life is not up for negotiation".

That's what defines a tragedy. An unavoidable, though visible, and theoretically preventable, course of collision with fate. Because China is not the bad guy in this scenario. (Americans aren't either.) As things stand, China's growth is accomplishing some very good things: Chinese people are enjoying some meat more regularly, are sending their brothers and offspring to school, are heating their huts and houses. America is burning nine times as much energy per person so that Americans can air-condition poker rooms, mow half-acre lots, drive SUVs on every errand and eat tomatoes flown in from Chile. (Yes, there are Americans living in poverty and some Americans are losing their jobs to Chinese competition, but this is simply America's shame -- the United States has all the money on the world and has not figured out a way to spread it around better.

So, in about a few years down the road (ten? twenty? sixty? -- it's still "a few years") the sh*t is going to hit the fan. Now, shuffle up and deal.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-27-2005, 02:09 PM
bocablkr bocablkr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 55
Default Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?

[ QUOTE ]
Bocablkr, there are many othere people that disagree with your "facts". Some say that there is enough to hold us for "years".


[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me who those 'some' are?

From reading the responses it appears many agree that there is a most a few years worth of recoverable oil that will reduce the price of gas a few cents, 8 - 10 years from now. Some have suggested that regardless of these facts we should pump the place dry. I contend the money that would be invested in ANWR should instead be used to fuel a 'Manhattan' style project on alternative energy research. It would seem to be a much better return on investment.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-27-2005, 08:47 PM
wacki wacki is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Bloomington, Indiana
Posts: 109
Default Re: Saving areas from oil exploration - realistic?

[ QUOTE ]
Will not the ever-increasing scarcity of oil eventually lead to exploration? (as benefit at some point will outweigh environmental costs)


[/ QUOTE ]

Anyway you cut it the environment is [censored]. Gotta love the shale oil.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.