# Do you believe in drilling?



## wihosa (Aug 20, 2008)

It's like saying if everyone on the Titanic had simply started bailing she wouldn't have gone down.

Even if we produced every bit of oil under American soil, every drop, we would still import over half the the oil we use.

All renewed drilling would accomplish is to delay the day of reckoning by a few years at best. And in the meantime, we cede leadership in the technologies of the future.

The truth is, the idea of drilling for oil as an answer to our energy needs is only good for the bumper sticker makers.


----------



## glockmail (Aug 20, 2008)

wihosa said:


> It's like saying if everyone on the Titanic had simply started bailing she wouldn't have gone down.
> 
> *Even if we produced every bit of oil under American soil, every drop, we would still import over half the the oil we use.*
> 
> ...



1. Lie.
2. Pot meet kettle.


----------



## wihosa (Aug 20, 2008)

glockmail said:


> 1. Lie.
> 2. Pot meet kettle.



Ok, what percentage would we still import? Are you claiming that if the "damn environmentalists" would just let the multi national corporations drill where ever they wished that we would not have to import any oil?


----------



## glockmail (Aug 20, 2008)

wihosa said:


> Ok, what percentage would we still import? Are you claiming that if the "damn environmentalists" would just let the multi national corporations drill where ever they wished that we would not have to import any oil?



Zero.

Damn straight.


----------



## wihosa (Aug 20, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Zero.
> 
> Damn straight.



Really think so?


----------



## Denny Crane (Aug 20, 2008)

wihosa said:


> It's like saying if everyone on the Titanic had simply started bailing she wouldn't have gone down.
> 
> Even if we produced every bit of oil under American soil, every drop, we would still import over half the the oil we use.
> 
> ...



I agree. I'm not totally against drilling for off-shore oil but thinking that is anything but a short-term solution isn't being realistic. IMO. We need to let oil companies go after this oil without pushing them into it and concentrate on other energy resources.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 20, 2008)

Denny Crane said:


> I agree. I'm not totally against drilling for off-shore oil but thinking that is anything but a short-term solution isn't being realistic. IMO. We need to let oil companies go after this oil without pushing them into it and concentrate on other energy resources.



If you guys want to have honest debate about this, then stop talking out of your asses and find some real UNBIASED numbers.

Numbers like how many barrels of oil do we we consumer in a year?  How many barrels of oil do we currently know are in the ground?

This of course assumes that everything remained status quo, that is the percentage of homes using solar panels will remain the same and the percentage of automobiles running on gas will remain the same, etc.


----------



## Denny Crane (Aug 20, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> If you guys want to have honest debate about this, then stop talking out of your asses and find some real UNBIASED numbers.
> 
> Numbers like how many barrels of oil do we we consumer in a year?  How many barrels of oil do we currently know are in the ground?
> 
> This of course assumes that everything remained status quo, that is the percentage of homes using solar panels will remain the same and the percentage of automobiles running on gas will remain the same, etc.



If you think I'm talking through my ass what's the point? I made a case aginst drilling for off-shore oil versus conservation in another thread but that might be biased because it used Department of Energy figures.


----------



## wihosa (Aug 20, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> If you guys want to have honest debate about this, then stop talking out of your asses and find some real UNBIASED numbers.
> 
> Numbers like how many barrels of oil do we we consumer in a year?  How many barrels of oil do we currently know are in the ground?
> 
> This of course assumes that everything remained status quo, that is the percentage of homes using solar panels will remain the same and the percentage of automobiles running on gas will remain the same, etc.



Do you deny that we are importing almost 70% of the oil we burn? Do you really think that is because there is that much under American soil and we're just not allowing oil companies to drill for it? Do I really have to go search for facts and figures only for you to deny them anyway? Do you think that oil deposits can't be pumped dry? Would oil companies go half way around the world for their raw materials if they were sitting on top of it?

Just proves, common sense isn't all that common.


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 20, 2008)

wihosa said:


> Really think so?



We import 12 Million barrels a day, or 60% of all the oil we use. Yes Drilling could replace it all, eventually.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 20, 2008)

wihosa said:


> Do you deny that we are importing almost 70% of the oil we burn?



No, but not what I asked either



wihosa said:


> Do you really think that is because there is that much under American soil and we're just not allowing oil companies to drill for it?



Some estimates suggest there is as much as 9 trillion barrels in the rockies.  And yes it is exactley because we aren't being allowed to get it.




wihosa said:


> Do I really have to go search for facts and figures only for you to deny them anyway? Do you think that oil deposits can't be pumped dry?



Nice but old strategy.  The "I'll baseslessly assume your response so I don't I have to actially prove my point" argument.  And yes sinc oil is finite it can be pumped dry.  The question is in how long.  Some quick research I looked at showes the entire world uses about 30 billion barrels of oil a year.  If what is under the rockies alone is even close to accurate I'm thing we're gonna be okay as far as supply goes for a while (by while I mean a long while)



wihosa said:


> Would oil companies go half way around the world for their raw materials if they were sitting on top of it?



When they don't have to deal with the EPA, Green Peace or the Sierra Club here?  yeah i think so


----------



## Moon (Aug 20, 2008)

wihosa said:


> It's like saying if everyone on the Titanic had simply started bailing she wouldn't have gone down.
> 
> Even if we produced every bit of oil under American soil, every drop, we would still import over half the the oil we use.
> 
> ...



Why is it an either-or proposition?


----------



## wihosa (Aug 20, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> We import 12 Million barrels a day, or 60% of all the oil we use. Yes Drilling could replace it all, eventually.



Eventually? Well sure in a few hundred million years there may be new petrolium reserves under what is presently America...

You can't really believe that drilling could increase domestic production by 12 million barrels. Even the oil companies don't say that.

Wait, let me guess, global warming is just a get rich scheme by Al Gore, evolution is "just a theory" and... oh hell what's the point.

There are none so blind as those that *will* not see.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 20, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> We import 12 Million barrels a day, or 60% of all the oil we use. Yes Drilling could replace it all, eventually.



Then what?  Isn't oil a global commodity?  Do we nationalize it?


----------



## Denny Crane (Aug 20, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Some estimates suggest there is as much as 9 trillion barrels in the rockies.  And yes it is exactley because we aren't being allowed to get it.



This is oil shale correct? Where did the 9 trillion barrel figure come from?


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 20, 2008)

Denny Crane said:


> This is oil shale correct? Where did the 9 trillion barrel figure come from?



I have read it is from 800 Billion to 1.5 trillion Barrels. In shale oil. I have never heard it said it was as high as 9 trillion.


----------



## Denny Crane (Aug 20, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> I have read it is from 800 Billion to 1.5 trillion Barrels. In shale oil. I have never heard it said it was as high as 9 trillion.



Those seem to be the same figures I found.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 20, 2008)

Denny Crane said:


> This is oil shale correct? Where did the 9 trillion barrel figure come from?



That is what is suspected.  The 9 trillion was my mistake.  Just a few sources suggest anywhere from the high hundered billions to the low trillions in shale.  The issue is getting it.  However, if Kirk and Wihosa can use the argument that technology will improve for these 'clean' alternatives, which it will, then certainly the same can be said for these oil deposits.

Rocky Mountain Oil

Stansberry & Associates - Matt Badiali's Oil Report


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 20, 2008)

wihosa said:


> Eventually? Well sure in a few hundred million years there may be new petrolium reserves under what is presently America...
> 
> 
> You can't really believe that drilling could increase domestic production by 12 million barrels. Even the oil companies don't say that.



Man you are a stupid one arn't you.

Yes, domestic drilling and Shale oil production could increase Domestic supply by 12 million barrels a day, or even more eventually.




wihosa said:


> Wait, let me guess, global warming is just a get rich scheme by Al Gore, evolution is "just a theory" and... oh hell what's the point.



No Global Warming is an undeniable fact, and is happening.

However Gore is getting rich off his movie, book, and Carbon Credit trading scams.

I believe whole heartedly in Evolution.




wihosa said:


> There are none so blind as those that *will* not see.



You are right about that, You are just wrong about who is Blind. I suggest a visit to the Eye Doctor pal.


----------



## Denny Crane (Aug 20, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> That is what is suspected.  The 9 trillion was my mistake.  Just a few sources suggest anywhere from the high hundered billions to the low trillions in shale.  The issue is getting it.  However, if Kirk and Wihosa can use the argument that technology will improve for these 'clean' alternatives, which it will, then certainly the same can be said for these oil deposits.
> 
> Rocky Mountain Oil
> 
> Stansberry & Associates - Matt Badiali's Oil Report



The 9 trillion figure had me scratching my head there for a minute. 

From one of your links:



> Ultimately, the study concluded, Under high growth assumptions, an oil shale production level of 1 million barrels per day is probably more than 20 years in the future, and 3 million barrels per day is probably more than 30 years into the future. This means that any investments based on oil shales future are significantly speculative and long-term.



This seems to be more of a resource that we can develop along with other sources, but it seems to be a long term investment. I also read in an article that this grade of  oil isn't good for gasoline, though I'm still researching that.


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 20, 2008)

We do not necessarily have to replace all 12 Billion barrels we import. I would focus on replacing the Oil we import from Middle eastern nations, and Venazullah. We also get a lot from Mexico and Canada, and I do not see that as, as big of a problem. 

Plus we could hopefully use Alternatives to replace some of the Imports as well. 

The Goal should be to get us off of as much of Foreign oil as we can. Simple as that. Then if we can replace Oil all together some day in the future. Great, but in the meantime lets stop sending Billions to Saudi Arabia and Other Middle eastern nations.

At any rate it is rather stupid to argue that because we can not completely get off of Foreign Oil, that we should not get off it as much as we can. It is only common sense that we would be better off, and our economy would be better off, if we used more of our own oil.


----------



## Denny Crane (Aug 20, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> At any rate it is rather stupid to argue that because we can not completely get off of Foreign Oil, that we should not get off it as much as we can. It is only common sense that we would be better off, and our economy would be better off, if we used more of our own oil.



The problem I found was we hit out "peak oil" quite a while ago in regards to domestic oil reserves, and our current wells are dropping in production faster than we are developing new ones. That is what seems to be contributing the most to our increasing reliance on foreign oil.


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 20, 2008)

Denny Crane said:


> The problem I found was we hit out "peak oil" quite a while ago in regards to domestic oil reserves, and our current wells are dropping in production faster than we are developing new ones. That is what seems to be contributing the most to our increasing reliance on foreign oil.



Ah but we keep finding more. We have found more off our coasts, we have found a shit load in the arctic, and now we have the Shale oil reserves. 

Yes some wells are running out, but we are finding new sources all the time. We simply have to get the Politicians in DC to let us go get it. in fact a big part of Why we are "tapped out" is because we are not allowed to go get new sources, or in many cases to even look for them.


----------



## glockmail (Aug 21, 2008)

wihosa said:


> Really think so?


 Yup.


----------



## CA95380 (Aug 21, 2008)

"*Pelosi made clear she would not allow it to come to a vote*."  Say what??   This broad thinks she is "Wonder Woman" 



> Several weeks ago House Speaker Nancy Pelosi denounced efforts to expand offshore oil exploration as a hoax that would do nothing to solve our country's energy woes. Though it was clear that firm majorities in both houses of Congress support opening the outer continental shelf and restricted portions of the Gulf of Mexico to drilling, _Pelosi made clear she would not allow it to come to a vote. Why? She said she was "trying to save the planet."_ So she adjourned the House for a five-week vacation.



Nancy Pelosi's drilling smoke screen


----------



## Denny Crane (Aug 21, 2008)

Pelosi is showing signs she is willing to consider changing the Democrat stand on the issue of off-shore drilling.This is from August 17.



> The stance of US Democrats against offshore drilling shifted more on Saturday, with House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi signaling she was willing to consider opening up more areas off the nations coastlines to oil and gas exploration.
> 
> In her partys weekly radio address, Pelosi said opening portions of the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling would be a part of energy legislation House Democrats will put forward in coming weeks to address the countrys dependence on foreign oil and high gasoline prices.
> 
> House members will be able to consider opening portions of the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling, with appropriate safeguards, and without taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil, said Pelosi, a California Democrat.



Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 21, 2008)

Denny Crane said:


> Pelosi is showing signs she is willing to consider changing the Democrat stand on the issue of off-shore drilling.This is from August 17.
> 
> 
> 
> Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan



Nothing buy lip service in the face of Overwhelming Public demand for Drilling.

He the bitch really cared she would have allowed a vote before taking 5 weeks off.


----------



## CA95380 (Aug 21, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Nothing buy lip service in the face of Overwhelming Public demand for Drilling.
> 
> He the bitch really cared she would have allowed a vote before taking 5 weeks off.



I agree!  But ... *"Pelosi made clear she would not allow it to come to a vote."* ... is the most arrogant statement made by anyone in her position I have ever heard!  With the exception perhaps of the statement made by Alexander Haig - the day Reagan was shot ...



> While we were there in the hallway, recalls presidential counselor Ed Meese, the president was being wheeled from the emergency room to the operating room and he saw the three of us standing there and he said, Whos minding the store?
> 
> Over the next few hours, three men would assert control of the Situation Room and U.S. nuclear forces. When it was clear the president was unconscious, *Haig famously declared himself in charge*.   The Day Reagan Was Shot, Fears Of A Soviet Plot - CBS News





.... who in the hell is she to *allow* anything?


----------



## Denny Crane (Aug 21, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Nothing buy lip service in the face of Overwhelming Public demand for Drilling.



Or it could be that she realizes that a lot of voters are in favor of off-shore drilling. I also realize that a politician changing their stand on an issue because it is something the voters want is a new concept in Washington, something the Republicans haven't quite got the concept of yet.


----------



## glockmail (Aug 21, 2008)

CA95380 said:


> ... is the most arrogant statement made by anyone in her position I have ever heard!  With the exception perhaps of the statement made by Alexander Haig - the day Reagan was shot ...


  "I'm in control here." A permanent part of the American lexicon: to Al Haig something is to assume control or authority when none has been authorized. We still call the TV remote control the Al Haig Device.


----------



## glockmail (Aug 21, 2008)

Denny Crane said:


> Or it could be that she realizes that a lot of voters are in favor of off-shore drilling. I also realize that a politician changing their stand on an issue because it is something the voters want is a new concept in Washington, something the Republicans haven't quite got the concept of yet.


Sure. That's why the Democrats are so bent on Queer Marriage and Socialized Medicine.


----------



## busara (Aug 21, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Sure. That's why the Democrats are so bent on Queer Marriage and Socialized Medicine.



More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey published on Monday.
US doctors support universal health care - survey | Reuters

In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system. 
ABCNEWS.com : U.S. Health Care Concerns Increase


----------



## glockmail (Aug 21, 2008)

busara said:


> More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey published on Monday.
> US doctors support universal health care - survey | Reuters
> 
> In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system.
> ABCNEWS.com : U.S. Health Care Concerns Increase


Last I heard not all Americans are doctors.

With regards to your second citation, the rest of the story speaks for itself: 





> That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments. ..
> 
> Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage.


----------



## busara (Aug 21, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Last I heard not all Americans are doctors.
> 
> With regards to your second citation, the rest of the story speaks for itself:



and? a universal healthcare system is favored by a majority of americans. that is inherently a socialistic system. and it is favored. so you were wrong. the fact that they dont want a completely govt run system doesnt change that. 

and the fact that the majority of doctors want it, the people who would be most affected, must show it isnt as bad or evil as the repubs want to show it to be.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 21, 2008)

busara said:


> and? a universal healthcare system is favored by a majority of americans. that is inherently a socialistic system. and it is favored. so you were wrong. the fact that they dont want a completely govt run system doesnt change that.
> 
> and the fact that the majority of doctors want it, the people who would be most affected, must show it isnt as bad or evil as the repubs want to show it to be.



But you don't address the major caveat's of the doctors.  Unless you believe those types of circumstances to be so unlikley that they don't warrent discussion.  unfortuntely I think basic economics says otherwise.


----------



## DiamondDave (Aug 21, 2008)

busara said:


> More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey published on Monday.
> US doctors support universal health care - survey | Reuters
> 
> In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system.
> ABCNEWS.com : U.S. Health Care Concerns Increase




And thank GOD we do not have a government based on popular whim... 

Hmmm.. and I wonder if those voting in favor or being in favor would have something to gain from having it... having something paid for by someone else, or having a failing practice suddenly become loadd with government patients, etc...

You may want guaranteed sex written into federal law too... does not mean it should be provided to you.... just because you want or need something, does not mean the government exists to give it to you

grow up... and those others in the country supporting this entitlement attitude also need to grow up, grow a pair, or start putting as much energy into taking care of their own responsibilities as they do screaming that they need something for free or at someone else's expense


----------



## glockmail (Aug 21, 2008)

busara said:


> and? a universal healthcare system is favored by a majority of americans. that is inherently a socialistic system. and it is favored. so you were wrong. the fact that they dont want a completely govt run system doesnt change that.
> 
> and the fact that the majority of doctors want it, the people who would be most affected, must show it isnt as bad or evil as the repubs want to show it to be.


That's not the way I read it. What I see is when Americans are told just some of the details of a socialized system, most back away. That points to an original question suggesting a utopian system, perhaps one where they would get the same benefits at lower cost. Of course, ABC doesnt want us to see what the actual questions of the poll were. The link provided at the bottom of the article goes nowhere:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/results_healthcare031020.html


----------



## wihosa (Aug 21, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Yup.



Well you could argue with reasoning like that?


----------



## wihosa (Aug 21, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Man you are a stupid one arn't you.
> 
> Yes, domestic drilling and Shale oil production could increase Domestic supply by 12 million barrels a day, or even more eventually.
> 
> ...



Do you know that extracting oil from shale is very labor and energy intensive?

Do you even know what shale is? Shale is rock and the only way to mine it in the quantities needed to boost oil production enought to compensate for imported oil is by strip mining, the most ecologically destructive form of mining.

Even with the price of oil as high as it is today obtaining oil from shale is just not cost effective.

I see the eye doctor regularly because I am legally clind in one eye, unfortunately nothing can be done for my right eye. You on the other hand are blind because you simply refuse to open your eyes.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 21, 2008)

wihosa said:


> Do you know that extracting oil from shale is very labor and energy intensive?
> 
> Do you even know what shale is? Shale is rock and the only way to mine it in the quantities needed to boost oil production enought to compensate for imported oil is by strip mining, the most ecologically destructive form of mining.
> 
> ...



Someone who is all for putting up massive arrays of wind turbines doesn't really have a leg to stand on calling somene elses idea cost innefective.


----------



## glockmail (Aug 21, 2008)

wihosa said:


> Well you could argue with reasoning like that?


If you could you would.


----------



## wihosa (Aug 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Someone who is all for putting up massive arrays of wind turbines doesn't really have a leg to stand on calling somene elses idea cost innefective.



Look, wind farms are going up all around the country but oil shale operations are not. If you want to talk about pie in the sky then talk about oil shale. The oil corps are trying like hell to make oil recovery from oil sands economincaaly feasible but even that is not panning out. Oil sands are much easier to mine and process than shale but still way more expensive a way to make electric power than simplt letting the wind turn the turbine for free.

Time to wake up now!


----------



## busara (Aug 21, 2008)

glockmail said:


> That's not the way I read it. What I see is when Americans are told just some of the details of a socialized system, most back away. That points to an original question suggesting a utopian system, perhaps one where they would get the same benefits at lower cost. Of course, ABC doesnt want us to see what the actual questions of the poll were. The link provided at the bottom of the article goes nowhere:
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/results_healthcare031020.html



im glad you can interpret an article in the way that makes you feel most comfortable


----------



## wihosa (Aug 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Someone who is all for putting up massive arrays of wind turbines doesn't really have a leg to stand on calling somene elses idea cost innefective.



What a lame argument, wind power is demonstrably cheaper.


----------



## glockmail (Aug 21, 2008)

wihosa said:


> What a lame argument, wind power is demonstrably cheaper.


I'm still waiting for your proof in the other thread.


----------



## glockmail (Aug 21, 2008)

busara said:


> im glad you can interpret an article in the way that makes you feel most comfortable


 I calls it likes I see it. So what happened to ABC's link?


----------



## busara (Aug 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Someone who is all for putting up massive arrays of wind turbines doesn't really have a leg to stand on calling somene elses idea cost innefective.



i guess oil shale is the only way to go

well, maybe not.




> It's difficult and costly to get a final usable product from shale, and in the end it is "worthless" in Clemens' eyes. Worse, the process to turn shale oil into something desirable will be too polluting for air and water. "There's not even a dirty way of extracting oil from shale that's economically viable," he added. If so, Clemens said, Exxon would have done it back in the 1980s.


Will Oil Shale Turn into a Boon or Environmental Mess? - Science - redOrbit


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 23, 2008)

busara said:


> i guess oil shale is the only way to go
> 
> well, maybe not.



I never said it shale was great either.  I simply pointed out that wind tubines aren't exacltey cost effective either.





busara said:


> Will Oil Shale Turn into a Boon or Environmental Mess? - Science - redOrbit



What I understand of oil shale mining operations I've seen are generally strip mine operations.  Oil shale mining is already being conducted in the northern parts of Canada. 
What I don't get is this mentality of a couple people (Wihosa and Kirk) that must abandon fossil fuels altogether. A simple exercise of putting things in perspective shows would show that just isn't neccessary.

First off, presumabely this whole get off fossil fuels deal is to prevent global warming.  So right of the bat were being asked to do drastically alter our economy and standard of living for in idea that evidence is showing more and more probably isn't accurate.  In following keep in mind that all the U.S. can control is the U.S.; Now CO2 makes up a very small fraction of the atmosphere, mans contribution to that CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 2% of that.  The U.S. contribution to that 2% is also a fraction.  So we get off fossil fuels, (unproven) man made global warming stopped right?  Probably not see as how all we did is remove a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the CO2 from the atmosphere.

Now going forward: We know the land required to meet the same power demands with wind and solar will have to be many times more than what is currently used with current power plants (and remember according to the two kooks nuclear, the cleanest of all is off the table).  It is at this point that I contend they really haven't thought about the logistics of such a massive conversion to the point that they have pretty much lie to themselves to rationalize it (i.e animals love wind turbines


----------



## glockmail (Aug 23, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> I never said it shale was great either.  I simply pointed out that wind tubines aren't exacltey cost effective either.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I say instead of listening to arrogant liberals who never risked their own capital or even graduated with a science degree, we ought to tell the damn politicians to get the hell out of the way and let the market decide what type of energy will be used to get us through the 21st century.


----------



## trobinett (Aug 23, 2008)

wihosa said:


> It's like saying if everyone on the Titanic had simply started bailing she wouldn't have gone down.
> 
> Even if we produced every bit of oil under American soil, every drop, we would still import over half the the oil we use.
> 
> ...



Yea, so says YOU, big fucking deal.

We were once the worlds leading oil producer, and in reality, if you care to do just A LITTLE research, we can be again.

You people, give up, jump ship, cut, and run.  I'm just damn glad your not watching my "six".

What a bunch of fucking losers..................


----------



## Denny Crane (Aug 23, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> We know the land required to meet the same power demands with wind and solar will have to be many times more than what is currently used with current power plants (and remember according to the two kooks nuclear, the cleanest of all is off the table).  It is at this point that I contend they really haven't thought about the logistics of such a massive conversion to the point that they have pretty much lie to themselves to rationalize it (i.e animals love wind turbines



I think that wind turbines are going to make a huge impact in my state, Maine. Land is something we have a lot of and evidently wind is something that we have a good supply of also. I'll post a few projects we have here to give you an idea of what I'm referring to.

Mars Hill:

The wind farm, when operating at full capacity, generates approximately 42 megawatts of power, enough to power 45,000 average Maine homes. Even at 35% capacity, the project generates enough power to accommodate at least 22,000 homes. The electricity produced from the Mars Hill Wind Farm results in a reduction of approximately 65,000 tons of carbon dioxide and over 350 tons of other damaging pollutants every year.
Mars Hill Wind Farm

This one in Franklin County:

 TransCanada Corp's planned 132-megawatt wind power plant in Maine has won state approval and a federal permit is expected shortly, the company said on Wednesday.

The Maine Land Use Regulation Commission has granted unanimous approval to the $320-million Kibby Wind Power Project in Franklin County, not far from the Quebec border in northwestern Maine, the company said.

The project, which will involve building 44 three-megawatt wind turbine generators, is awaiting a permit from the U.S. Corps of Army Engineers. It has already received local approvals.
TransCanada's Maine wind farm wins state approval | Environment | Reuters

Another ongoing Aroostook County project beside the one already operating:

Horizon Wind Energy hopes to build as many as 400 wind turbines in the farm fields and forests of Aroostook County, thereby transforming northern Maine from a producer of world-class potatoes to the premier exporter of wind energy in the northeastern United States

Four hundred turbines would generate roughly 800 megawatts of pollution-free electricity at capacity, enough to power more than one-third of Maine's homes at peak load on a hot summer day. 

Because the power would feed into the New England grid, this premium-priced electricity potentially could offset dirtier, fossil fuel-burning power plants to the south. It also would move Maine a giant step toward greater energy independence.
www.windaction.org | Officials of Texas-based company negotiating with landowners

Here is a link to other potential projects in and around Maine:
www.windaction.org | Maine

There are concerns with some of the projects but sometimes Mainers are a bit hard to convince that change is a good thing. I think as economic times get tougher these projects will get more support.


----------



## busara (Aug 23, 2008)

glockmail said:


> I calls it likes I see it. So what happened to ABC's link?



well, seeming as I'm not the web administrator for ABC.com, i have no idea. you think this shows youre right? whatever dude


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 24, 2008)

Denny Crane said:


> I think that wind turbines are going to make a huge impact in my state, Maine. Land is something we have a lot of and evidently wind is something that we have a good supply of also. I'll post a few projects we have here to give you an idea of what I'm referring to.



And that is exactley what boggles the mind.  Why in God's name would we want to erect a bunch of eye sores in the middle of the few green areas we have left?  I thought environmental whackos were whackos becuse they were rabid about preservering the environment.  yet that can not be reconciled with the amount of land we will have to use up covered in turbines to replace the way we currently get power.

I'm a conservationist for god's sake.  I like to go enjoy the outdoors and wild places.  I don't know if you're anything like me or not but do you really want to see a wind turbine every place you look?


----------



## Denny Crane (Aug 24, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> I'm a conservationist for god's sake.  I like to go enjoy the outdoors and wild places.  I don't know if you're anything like me or not but do you really want to see a wind turbine every place you look?



I'm for conservation too, but within reasonable limits. Wind turbines are a fairly new concept up here but folks will come around and the examples I showed in previous posts show wind to be a feasible energy source.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 24, 2008)

Denny Crane said:


> I'm for conservation too, but within reasonable limits. Wind turbines are a fairly new concept up here but folks will come around and the examples I showed in previous posts show wind to be a feasible energy source.



So there is no misunderstanding I think ultimately there isn't going to be just one thing used for energy.  Despite are fringe friends on here would like, we aren't going to be able to completely stop use of oil for the foreseeable future.  Things like solar panels I can get behind as they don't require significant land use and in most cases no additional land use.

But wind turbines?  If drop fossil fuels all together is what you really want it's going to take a lot of turbines. In total area we are talking teh size of mid size states. Is that really what you want?  There is a windfarm here as well about 45 minites from where I live it is probably an area about 10 square.  If u could should me that could power a small city maybe sacrafcing that much habitat would be worth it.  But they can't, they simply aren't reliable.

When you say people will 'come around' to wind turbines, what does that mean?  They won't mind haveing an eye sore in their back yards? That they will get over the habitat that is destroyed for a relatively ineffecient form of elctricity?

In the future we will have to change the way and medium in which energy is used and possibily start haveing to make some sacrafices, but sacrafcing the huge amounts of open land for an inefficient power, non cost effective power source really shouldnt' be one of them.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

glockmail said:


> I say instead of listening to arrogant liberals who never risked their own capital or even graduated with a science degree, we ought to tell the damn politicians to get the hell out of the way and let the market decide what type of energy will be used to get us through the 21st century.



Seems like T. Boone has the right idea, and he is a hard core Republican.


----------



## glockmail (Aug 24, 2008)

busara said:


> well, seeming as I'm not the web administrator for ABC.com, i have no idea. you think this shows youre right? whatever dude


 ABC is known for its leftist spin, and this appears to be more of the same. They are obviously hiding the truth. 

Have you ever been called by a pollster? The questions can be worded to steer a response one way or the other. Since ABC won't come clean with what the actual poll questions were, I suspect that this was done here.


----------



## glockmail (Aug 24, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Seems like T. Boone has the right idea, and he is a hard core Republican.


 People are willing to pay more for renewable power. Pickens knows that, and more "power" to him. As long as the government doesn't mandate/ subsidize.


----------



## busara (Aug 24, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> And that is exactley what boggles the mind.  Why in God's name would we want to erect a bunch of eye sores in the middle of the few green areas we have left?  I thought environmental whackos were whackos becuse they were rabid about preservering the environment.  yet that can not be reconciled with the amount of land we will have to use up covered in turbines to replace the way we currently get power.
> 
> I'm a conservationist for god's sake.  I like to go enjoy the outdoors and wild places.  I don't know if you're anything like me or not but do you really want to see a wind turbine every place you look?



are you against offshore windfarms as well?

i think cell towers and telephone/electric polls are eyesores, but nobody complains about them


----------



## busara (Aug 24, 2008)

glockmail said:


> ABC is known for its leftist spin, and this appears to be more of the same. They are obviously hiding the truth.
> 
> Have you ever been called by a pollster? The questions can be worded to steer a response one way or the other. Since ABC won't come clean with what the actual poll questions were, I suspect that this was done here.



oh, obviously.

must be nice to simply dismiss any evidence that doesnt fit with your view. RGS is good at that as well


Majorities of Americans support universal healthcare, tech-pro policies
Public Opinion Snapshot: Universal Health Care Momentum Swells
Americans Favour Universal Health Care: Angus Reid Global Monitor
Universal Health Care Pros & Cons, Info, Description, Benefits  Insurance Specialists.com

ignore all of these sites. they must be lefty sites and dont represent the true will of the people. everybody actually hates the idea of all americans having access to health insurance, but they were all tricked into saying they supported it


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 22, 2008)

busara said:


> are you against offshore windfarms as well?
> 
> i think cell towers and telephone/electric polls are eyesores, but nobody complains about them



I don't like them.  But true it isn't much different then a cell tower or *gasp* oil rig.  The issue is if the numbers I've read are even close to accurate, it is going to talk and awful lot of wind trubines to replace fossil fuel electricity. 

Secondly it can't be argued that wind power is as reliable as fossil power.  What that amounts to then is taking up an awful lot of land for an inefficent, non cost-effective power source.  That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 22, 2008)

Denny Crane said:


> Or it could be that she realizes that a lot of voters are in favor of off-shore drilling. I also realize that a politician changing their stand on an issue because it is something the voters want is a new concept in Washington, something the Republicans haven't quite got the concept of yet.




Maybe,  but I doubt it after all she has a planet to save and all.


----------



## Mr. H. (Aug 18, 2014)

Just look at how the oil and gas industries have transformed since this thread was started. 
Amazing.


----------



## Mr. H. (Aug 18, 2014)

There may be more posts after this one.


----------



## boedicca (Aug 18, 2014)

Do I believe in Drilling?   Like, do I believe in Ghosts?

The answer is yes to both.


----------



## Sgt_Gath (Aug 18, 2014)

Hell! I just applied for a job with a drilling company last week! lol


----------



## RGR (Aug 19, 2014)

I wonder what the original poster was even thinking? Do you "believe" in drilling? As though, even back in 2008 when it was looney tunes land for peak oilers, there were still rigs all across the country, doing what they do, and have been doing, in 3 different centuries in this country now.


----------



## Mr. H. (Aug 19, 2014)

RGR said:


> I wonder what the original poster was even thinking? Do you "believe" in drilling? As though, even back in 2008 when it was looney tunes land for peak oilers, there were still rigs all across the country, doing what they do, and have been doing, in 3 different centuries in this country now.


Newly-minted Obamabots feeling their oats?


----------



## Youch (Aug 19, 2014)

wihosa said:


> It's like saying if everyone on the Titanic had simply started bailing she wouldn't have gone down.
> 
> Even if we produced every bit of oil under American soil, every drop, we would still import over half the the oil we use.
> 
> ...




Your assertions are not based upon fact.  Perhaps it is you that is posting bumper stickers? 

Try again....Cite actual (that means real) data that supports your contention.  You can't.  But in the meantime, your post is merely an emotional and baseless contribution to a forum that I am likely more and more each day!


----------

