Quote:
Originally Posted by sailaway21
CD,
You're obviously hysterical. But then I'm used to that. (g)
I think I've stated well enough previously that we do not have to supply all the oil we use to alleviate the situation, but we do-now-have to supply some. It now makes sense, and dollars, to drill for American oil. Why are we not?
Your claims about how long it will take to get that oil to market fall on deaf ears. You haven't a single alternative energy source that is going to do diddly-squat to reduce the demand for oil within the same time frame. You're sounding like one of those conspiracy theorists, the kind who cite GM of buying up and shelving the trolley car industry!
Since you feel so strongly about the efficacy of alternative energy I would encourage you to invest in it. Heavily. I'll meet you in the market crash thread in ten years and we can discuss how things worked out.
There was a congressman on the radio tonight, Glen Beck's program, talking about oil from shale. He said that there may even be as much as a trillion barrels available there. Problem is, and he cites a company that could be up and running in under a year, it takes seven years to get a permit which something like 23 federal agencies have to approve before they can go ahead. Perhaps you'd like to concentrate your efforts there as a hedge against any set-backs on the alternative front.
I'm not against oil from coal it just seems kind of stupid to advocate not drilling, as you do, and instead start bulldozing down more mountains for more expensive energy than we can pump. Perhaps we should do both since the latter is now closer to being price competitive.
I did read the entire link I posted-about a day before you showed up. Just because it was in a link I provided doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with everything in it. It was cited due to it's referencing the amazing discrepancies on how much oil could reasonably be expected to be withdrawn from the Bakken formation.
If you cannot keep your deep draft Catalina clear of underwater oil wellheads I'm not sure there is much I can do. Those that are a hazard to navigation are charted and I believe the minimum depth they can be capped at is fifty feet below the surface, but I'm not sure on that. I tended to stay within those shipping lanes that are so nicely printed on the charts. Smaller ships will often not do so operating on local knowledge. The Gulf is full of shrimp boats, fishing boats, oil supply boats and every other type of waterborne craft. Are you informing me that they can navigate but that certain models of Catalina are unable to do so within the Gulf of Mexico?
How old were you in the 1970's, ten maybe at the end of the decade. You'll forgive me if I don't trust your recollection of matters relating to the world oil market from that decade. Are you related to Paul Ehrlich? (google that one along with Julian Simon, you might then think twice about your investments)
I watch the same BP commercials you do, I just don't believe everything I see on TV. If we're "beyond oil" you might just take a look at the balance sheet for BP to see just how far beyond we really are. My suspicion is that you'll find that alternative energy is a net money loser for BP at this point in time; the same way that the Prius doesn't bring home a dime to Toyota.
And, btw, we built the Alaska pipeline for what was predicted to be a decade's worth of oil. Apparently you have knowledge that the geologists do not; they only speculate on what they think might be down there and how much they can get out. I'll bet they'd like to borrow your underground goggles. In fact so would I!
I offered my support to you in that I am in favor of pursuing all energy sources. I'm not in favor of the government pursuing them though. I'm in favor of the government getting out of the way so that private business can do what it does best. You on the other hand are doing everything but say that you're in favor of massive government involvement. We had that too, back in the seventies and it didn't do a thing for energy because the price went down in the eighties. I remember being taxed for it though, at 50% of gross income. Probably another thing you don't really remember from the seventies unless President Carter had a secret Little League tax I was unaware of.
Answer one single question. What energy sources do we have locally that can be sustained for a decade or two (your words) that are anywhere near capable of replacing even 25% of the btu's we get from oil? I'll wait.
|
Sway,
Meeting me in the middle, are you? Did a debate on the internet actually help change a person's mind!!!!! (smile).
It has been a good civil debate. To answer your last question, I would have to do more research which I cannot right now to answer it truthfully and with good information. My first guess is nuclear, but geothermal, solar, and wind would be worth considering too. Still, a good answer requires a LOT of research - and I have invested too much time in this already at this point.
At any rate, I think we agree in principle not to avoid any energy possibilities. That would include oil. My argument has never been one of "Don't drill because it is bad for the environment (or) don't drill oil because solar is the way..." my argument is that drilling for oil here is like trying to sopt a shaft seal leak on the Titanic after she hit the ice berg. We simply do NOT have enough to sustain even a small percentage of what we need. Go to something else.
We HAVE to, HAVE TO, find another source. If we had concentrated on that years ago, with a well thought out Energy Plan, I truly believe we would be in a different situation. What will happen (mark my words) is that the price of oil (which is likely a bubble) will drop and we will go back to cheap oil and forget about the realities that face us... we just don't have enough here.
Gotta catch up on other threads (and actually do some work today).
- CD