Bush lifts executive ban on offshore drilling - Page 2




 
--
Bush lifts executive ban on offshore drilling
 
July 15th, 2008  
AikiRooster
 
 
Bush lifts executive ban on offshore drilling
Agreed Lt, Thank God cuz I don't feel like bending and thrusting my fat arse.

The excessive concern about the environment is a joke anyway in many ways, after all Al Gore uses more energy for his home than anyone except maybe John Edwards.

Great use of Ebonics in there Lt. I be likin.
July 15th, 2008  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AikiRooster
Agreed Lt, Thank God cuz I don't feel like bending and thrusting my fat arse.

The excessive concern about the environment is a joke anyway in many ways, after all Al Gore uses more energy for his home than anyone except maybe John Edwards.
Well if environmental concern is such a joke I heard there is some cheap land around Chernobyl available for immediate settlement, interested?

Putting aside the environmental impact of drilling and extracting oil from various locations because for the most part we can achieve both extraction and low impact the problem still remains that we are simply prolonging the agony and not curing the disease.

I am sure that we could squeeze a gallon of gas collecting oil from the faces of spotty teenagers if we really get desperate but eventually we will have to face the realities of a life without oil (putting aside the amazing refilling oil fields hypothesis) and we are doing nothing to address this.
July 15th, 2008  
AikiRooster
 
 
If I was in the position to move certain folks there I'd take it for them and have them moved there, not for me.

BTW, I didn't say the environmental concern was a joke and leave it at that, I did also say in many ways.
--
Bush lifts executive ban on offshore drilling
July 15th, 2008  
5.56X45mm
 
 
Start the drilling, build new refineries, and sell it at a lower price then what OPEC does.

If you have cheese pizzas and you sell them for $15 a pop and they cost you $5 to make that means you make $10 in profit. But if you only sell three in one day you only make $30 a day.

If I have cheese pizzas and I sell them for $1o a pop and they cost me $5 to make that means I only make $5 in profit. But because I have the same product at a lower price do you think people will buy more of yours of mine? Sure, you might make for per protect but if I sell thirty pizzas then that means I make $150 in profit.

Same with oil. During the 1980s oil dropped up to 42% in price per barrel for the same reason. After the Oil Embargo the US stated that we would drill for our own oil and would develop are coal and shale into oil. OPEC immediately lowered the price and increased production because they knew that if the US started producing their own oil that they would lose their main source of profit and also that they would have to compete against another major oil producer.

While we do this we must go into a huge industrial project to the same level that we went for atmotic weapons during WWII for an alternate source of fuel.

Biofuel from corn isn't the answer. It produces less energy, cannot be piped, and we're burning our own food source. To transport biofuels you must truck it period. Gasoline and oil can be piped. Biofuel produces less BTUs then Gasoline so for the same amount of distance you need to use more biofuel then gasoline. Lastly the energy needed to produce biofuels is more then what biofuels produce.

For electrical power for homes and services. Nuclear is the way to go. Cheap, long lasting, and reliable. It is safe. The Soviets weren't safe... they were a bunch of drunken chimps.

For transportation. Hybrid is currently the way to go but there are a few problems with it. One, price. There are not many people that can afford a $30,000 automobile. The price of Hybrids need to drop to the $10,000 range. Number two, it might seem small and trivial. Looks. Hybrids should not look like some small damn egg. Make then in standard designs and styles. Make them for pickup trucks and full side four door sedans.

As a replacement. Electrical cars don't work. They didn't work in the past either. The reasons are just as now as in the past the following. One, charge time. With gasoline it takes two minutes to fill up a tank and you're done. With electrical automobiles you need to have them charge for hours. Two, transportation of fuel. You can take extra jerry cans of fuel but you can't transport electricity the same way. Batteries are bulky and expensive to produce and transport. Three, battery life. You get no range for electric powdered cars. 40 miles is about the max for a full charge. Most people travel close to 40 miles one way to work. Doesn't work for our economy. Everything is transported by truck over long distance. Also during disasters, electricity is easily cut of during storms, quakes, tornadoes, etc... You can stock up on gasoline but you can do so with electricity. You can still manually pump fuel out of tanks but if you have no electricity flowing through the power lines you have no enegry for an electric car.

What we need for a alternative fuel source is possibly hydrogen or maybe some other easy transportable and productional fuel.
July 15th, 2008  
Chief Bones
 
 

5.56
You mentioned hydrogen hybrids and how expensive they are ($30,000-$40,00 or more). I agree with you ... the present technology requires an on-board tank and there are only a finite number of stations where hydrogen is available for sale. What you have NOT mentioned, are other hydrogen alternatives for older cars and trucks. My wife and I bought a set of plans for a "poor man's hydrogen conversion" kit {Charged Water System}, and now offer them for sale. What we have seen, is a gas mileage improvement of between 25% to 72% depending on how old the vehicle is, the condition of the engine, the vehicle mileage and other variables.

It is going to take these kind of ideas and a whole new approach to fuels and energy before we can wean ourselves from fossil fuels. Oil shale, tar sands, hydrogen on-demand engines and many other not-yet-thought-of-ideas are going to have to be used before the battle is over.
July 15th, 2008  
The Other Guy
 
 
Here's a thought: now that it's so expensive to buy gasoline, alternatives arent' so expensive. Devellop an electric battery/motor with a huge range where you can drive all day and charge all night. With the prices of gas and oil it's cost effective.

And 5.56, they do make family sedan hybrids. Honda Accord, Chevy Malibu, and Toyota Prius come to mind.
July 15th, 2008  
AikiRooster
 
 
How about SUV's?
I need big vehicle to fit my arse in.
July 15th, 2008  
mmarsh
 
 
Start the drilling, build new refineries, and sell it at a lower price then what OPEC does.

And how does drilling solve the the Climate Change Problem? Your police vehicle might be a canoe by then.Also keep in mind that it will take 22 YEARS before any effect on the price of oil.

"The US Energy Department's forecasting arm has said opening the Pacific, Atlantic and eastern Gulf of Mexico regions to drilling "would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030".

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/US-President-George-Bush-Lifts-Ban-On-Offshore-Drilling/Article/200807315035757?lpos=World%2BNews_4&lid=ARTICLE_15 035757_US%2BPresident%2BGeorge%2BBush%2BLifts%2BBa n%2BOn%2BOffshore%2BDrilling


America is addicted to oil, you don't treat an addiction by increasing the dosage. All you are doing by drilling more is increasing the damand for gas-gussing SUV, but the problem will still be there 20 years later.
This is yet again another high-five to the big oil industry, who has been pushing to end the memortium the day after Bush Senior 41 signed it. Bush as been such a puppet to the oil industry in the past, I dont see any reason to trust him on this.


Same with oil. During the 1980s oil dropped up to 42% in price per barrel for the same reason. After the Oil Embargo the US stated that we would drill for our own oil and would develop are coal and shale into oil. OPEC immediately lowered the price and increased production because they knew that if the US started producing their own oil that they would lose their main source of profit and also that they would have to compete against another major oil producer.

Your example is sorely flawed because Except in 1980 the World didnt have the demand for oil that China and India do now. Its essentially two countries whose growing economies will be larger than ours. Its a much different picture today, OPEC is not going to lower its prices. The only way to drop the price is not to use oil.

While we do this we must go into a huge industrial project to the same level that we went for atmotic weapons during WWII for an alternate source of fuel.

For electrical power for homes and services. Nuclear is the way to go. Cheap, long lasting, and reliable. It is safe. The Soviets weren't safe... they were a bunch of drunken chimps.

US Nuclear plants arnt much better, remember the 3 Mile Island accident? Our Nuclear plant infrastructure is at the same level as everything else: crumbling. The only way to do what you suggest is to build new plants which is time consuming, dangerous and extremely expensive.

For transportation. Hybrid is currently the way to go but there are a few problems with it. One, price. There are not many people that can afford a $30,000 automobile. The price of Hybrids need to drop to the $10,000 range. Number two, it might seem small and trivial. Looks. Hybrids should not look like some small damn egg. Make then in standard designs and styles. Make them for pickup trucks and full side four door sedans.

For a short term solution yes. The price of hybrids will drop (it already has) but Hybrids do not solve the problem completely because you are still burning gas. Oil has got to go, just as windpower and steam power went the way of the dodo so does oil. The problem is the oil cartel who loves the $400 Billion in profits they are making each year.

As a replacement. Electrical cars don't work. They didn't work in the past either. The reasons are just as now as in the past the following. One, charge time. With gasoline it takes two minutes to fill up a tank and you're done. With electrical automobiles you need to have them charge for hours. Two, transportation of fuel. You can take extra jerry cans of fuel but you can't transport electricity the same way. Batteries are bulky and expensive to produce and transport. Three, battery life. You get no range for electric powdered cars. 40 miles is about the max for a full charge. Most people travel close to 40 miles one way to work. Doesn't work for our economy. Everything is transported by truck over long distance. Also during disasters, electricity is easily cut of during storms, quakes, tornadoes, etc... You can stock up on gasoline but you can do so with electricity. You can still manually pump fuel out of tanks but if you have no electricity flowing through the power lines you have no enegry for an electric car.

What you are saying is about 30 years out of date. 40 Miles Max was the limit in the 1970s. Todays cars can do over 200 miles on a single charge. The technology is so improved you even have Shell Oil (yes an oil company) discussing their new battery technology. 200 miles is more than enough for short distance runs, which are 80 percent of Americas driving habits. Battery technology is so vastly improved oil companies such as shell are already pushing the technology.

What we need for a alternative fuel source is possibly hydrogen or maybe some other easy transportable and productional fuel.
July 15th, 2008  
AikiRooster
 
 
I've heard 3 to 7 years.
Had it been authorized before, we would be using our own stuff now. With the prices out of control, the used to be issues don't seem all that important these days compared to us giving terrorists 70 to 150 bucks a pop.
July 15th, 2008  
The Other Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AikiRooster
How about SUV's?
I need big vehicle to fit my arse in.
Ford Escape and the Chevy Silverado come to mind...
 


Similar Topics
Bush Listens Closely To His Man In Iraq
Bush Says McCain Will Stay The Course In Iraq
REMEMBERING SEPT. 11: BILL CLINTON'S ULTIMATE LEGACY
What was said on the 3rd presidential debate.
Government Insider Says Bush ordered 9/11