Considering the disaster in Considering the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, off the Louisiana coast, what do you think of oil exploration and extraction?
UCGal
April 29, 2010 @
12:21 PM
I think we need to move away I think we need to move away from an oil based economy – at some point we’ll run out of dead dinasaurs and we need to plan for that transition.
But I voted yes with good oversight regulation. Our global economy is totally entwined with oil consumption. It’s going to be a painful transition when we figure out alternatives. TPTB will not give up their interests easily.
I’m reading a very interesting book (about 1/3 of the way in) about how oil interests have effected politics for the past century… It’s called A Century of War. So far its a very interesting read.
UCGal wrote:
I’m reading a [quote=UCGal]
I’m reading a very interesting book (about 1/3 of the way in) about how oil interests have effected politics for the past century… It’s called A Century of War. So far its a very interesting read.
briansd1 wrote:UCGal [quote=briansd1][quote=UCGal]
I’m reading a very interesting book (about 1/3 of the way in) about how oil interests have effected politics for the past century… It’s called A Century of War. So far its a very interesting read.
Brian: You read Bill Engdahl? Huh. I find that very interesting. Ever read any H. Rap Brown? Just curious.
NotCranky
April 29, 2010 @
2:00 PM
briansd1 wrote:UCGal [quote=briansd1][quote=UCGal]
I’m reading a very interesting book (about 1/3 of the way in) about how oil interests have effected politics for the past century… It’s called A Century of War. So far its a very interesting read.
“When the Rivers Run Dry” is interesting but covers water resources.(Fred Pearce).
It covers some pretty devastating scenarios that have happened, or are happening. around the globe w/r to rivers and ground water.He goes into the large humanitarian and other geopolitical ramifications.
Arraya
April 29, 2010 @
12:52 PM
We pretty much know where all We pretty much know where all the oil is by this point in history. We know how much we could get if we open up ever piece of land in the US. Which is why we are in Iraq. There is not much unexplored in the world besides under the ice caps and deep water which is all theoretical at this point. We actually used to be the Saudi Arabia of the world up until the 50s.[img_assist|nid=13220|title=..|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=350|height=260]
This just was put out by the DOE. Once you wrap our head around that, which a group of scientists have had there eye one for at least 10 years, while officialdom has denied it, is quite profound. It marks probably the biggest event in industrial civilization’s and quite possibly, human history.
Opening up all the land in the US does not change that picture
Doofrat
April 29, 2010 @
12:58 PM
I think that human nature I think that human nature dictates that we will always go after the cheapest (cheapest meaning lowest short term cost) sources of energy and use them up until they’re gone or more expensive to extract than the next cheapest source.
So far, oil and coal are the cheapest to extract and transport, so we’ll use them till they’re gone or become more expensive than an alternative regardless of the long term consequences.
I don’t see a way out of this dependence on oil until we’ve used it up.
briansd1
April 29, 2010 @
1:08 PM
doofrat wrote:I think that [quote=doofrat]I think that human nature dictates that we will always go after the cheapest (cheapest meaning lowest short term cost) sources of energy and use them up until they’re gone or more expensive to extract than the next cheapest source.
So far, oil and coal are the cheapest to extract and transport, so we’ll use them till they’re gone or become more expensive than an alternative regardless of the long term consequences.
I don’t see a way out of this dependence on oil until we’ve used it up.[/quote]
I agree doofrat. That’s unless a breakthrough in technology creates something cheaper than oil and coal. But I’m not holding my breath.
briansd1
April 29, 2010 @
1:18 PM
Arraya, does the graph mean Arraya, does the graph mean that it’s time to buy oil futures?
Arraya
April 29, 2010 @
1:53 PM
briansd1 wrote:Arraya, does [quote=briansd1]Arraya, does the graph mean that it’s time to buy oil futures?[/quote]
I think it means the Mayans predicted peak oil;)
Anonymous
April 29, 2010 @
2:05 PM
Drill and do everything else. Drill and do everything else. Why does it take forever to get windfarms off Mass.? because rich people live their? Build the nuclear plants, build the windmills (yes even here in sunny CA), get the solar on the roofs, do it all. I am still waiting to see these green jobs come forward that are going to save CA.
Veritas
April 29, 2010 @
6:16 PM
Windmill welfare queens
By: Windmill welfare queens
By: David Freddoso
Online Opinion Editor
03/04/10 6:39 AM EST
Windmill welfare queens” — the corporations who stand to benefit from carbon regulation, and who already benefit from massive subsidies — are telling Americans that they can “have their cake and eat it too” when it comes to emissions controls and so-called “green jobs.” A FOIA request now reveals that as the Obama administration scrambled to respond last year to strong evidence that “green jobs” are a massive an economic drain, costing 570,000 Euros apiece, Department of Energy officials relied heavily on Big Wind and its monied backers. The paper concluded that Spain’s “green jobs” program was an economic failure, in fact costing Spain many jobs.
Washington Examiner dot com
Coronita
April 30, 2010 @
6:54 AM
I don’t care, except I hope I don’t care, except I hope BP stock goes on a fire (pun intended) sale soon so I can pick up some cheap shares relative to its peers.
briansd1
May 3, 2010 @
6:54 PM
The question now is “can you The question now is “can you drill after the spill”
Schwarzenegger pulls support for offshore plan
California governor withdraws backing of drilling plan after Gulf oil spill
This played right into Schwarzenegger’s hand. He never wanted to open more off shore leases anyway.
Further, one failure cannot be applied to the thousands of existing, safe, decades in production oil wells.
This illustrates the typical knee jerk reaction usually by the political left to, ‘do something’ before understanding exactly what went wrong on this rig.
briansd1
May 3, 2010 @
8:55 PM
Hobie wrote:
This illustrates [quote=Hobie]
This illustrates the typical knee jerk reaction usually by the political left to, ‘do something’ before understanding exactly what went wrong on this rig.[/quote]
Humm.. about knee jerk reaction… two disastrous wars come to mind.
Arnold is a Republican.
At least the oil reserves will still be there for when oil prices increase and when technology is further improved.
I actually believe that every drop of oil in the ground will eventually be extracted and used up. But there’s no need to rush and do it right now.
Hobie
May 3, 2010 @
9:13 PM
briansd1 wrote:
Arnold is a [quote=briansd1]
Arnold is a Republican.
[/quote]
In name only 😉
And about the wars, why doesn’t your guy stop them like he promised in his campaign? They have gone on way too long without any exit strategy. Indeed it is not very easy to simply pull up stakes and leave but I am tired of giving American lives to be the world police. We were right to bring the battle to them on their turf. Hammer them, then leave. If they needed another lesson after that, so be it.
briansd1
May 3, 2010 @
9:24 PM
Hobie wrote:briansd1 [quote=Hobie][quote=briansd1]
Arnold is a Republican.
[/quote]
In name only 😉
[/quote]
If wonder if Maria Shriver had anything to do with it.
Too bad that Arnold can’t run for President. I bet he’d win if he could run.
poorgradstudent
May 3, 2010 @
10:26 PM
briansd1 wrote:If wonder if [quote=briansd1]If wonder if Maria Shriver had anything to do with it.
Too bad that Arnold can’t run for President. I bet he’d win if he could run.[/quote]
Hard to say in the current political atmosphere. Could a socially moderate, pro-gay Republican from California win the nomination? Arnold could do well in the general election, but he’d have to make it there without getting teabagged.
April 29, 2010 @ 12:15 PM
Considering the disaster in
Considering the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, off the Louisiana coast, what do you think of oil exploration and extraction?
April 29, 2010 @ 12:21 PM
I think we need to move away
I think we need to move away from an oil based economy – at some point we’ll run out of dead dinasaurs and we need to plan for that transition.
But I voted yes with good oversight regulation. Our global economy is totally entwined with oil consumption. It’s going to be a painful transition when we figure out alternatives. TPTB will not give up their interests easily.
I’m reading a very interesting book (about 1/3 of the way in) about how oil interests have effected politics for the past century… It’s called A Century of War. So far its a very interesting read.
http://www.amazon.com/Century-War-Anglo-American-Politics-World/dp/074532309X
April 29, 2010 @ 12:41 PM
UCGal wrote:
I’m reading a
[quote=UCGal]
I’m reading a very interesting book (about 1/3 of the way in) about how oil interests have effected politics for the past century… It’s called A Century of War. So far its a very interesting read.
http://www.amazon.com/Century-War-Anglo-American-Politics-World/dp/074532309X
[/quote]
I read that book. Very interesting.
April 29, 2010 @ 1:22 PM
briansd1 wrote:UCGal
[quote=briansd1][quote=UCGal]
I’m reading a very interesting book (about 1/3 of the way in) about how oil interests have effected politics for the past century… It’s called A Century of War. So far its a very interesting read.
http://www.amazon.com/Century-War-Anglo-American-Politics-World/dp/074532309X
[/quote]
I read that book. Very interesting.[/quote]
Brian: You read Bill Engdahl? Huh. I find that very interesting. Ever read any H. Rap Brown? Just curious.
April 29, 2010 @ 2:00 PM
briansd1 wrote:UCGal
[quote=briansd1][quote=UCGal]
I’m reading a very interesting book (about 1/3 of the way in) about how oil interests have effected politics for the past century… It’s called A Century of War. So far its a very interesting read.
http://www.amazon.com/Century-War-Anglo-American-Politics-World/dp/074532309X
[/quote]
I read that book. Very interesting.[/quote]
“When the Rivers Run Dry” is interesting but covers water resources.(Fred Pearce).
It covers some pretty devastating scenarios that have happened, or are happening. around the globe w/r to rivers and ground water.He goes into the large humanitarian and other geopolitical ramifications.
April 29, 2010 @ 12:52 PM
We pretty much know where all
We pretty much know where all the oil is by this point in history. We know how much we could get if we open up ever piece of land in the US. Which is why we are in Iraq. There is not much unexplored in the world besides under the ice caps and deep water which is all theoretical at this point. We actually used to be the Saudi Arabia of the world up until the 50s.[img_assist|nid=13220|title=..|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=350|height=260]
This just was put out by the DOE. Once you wrap our head around that, which a group of scientists have had there eye one for at least 10 years, while officialdom has denied it, is quite profound. It marks probably the biggest event in industrial civilization’s and quite possibly, human history.
Opening up all the land in the US does not change that picture
April 29, 2010 @ 12:58 PM
I think that human nature
I think that human nature dictates that we will always go after the cheapest (cheapest meaning lowest short term cost) sources of energy and use them up until they’re gone or more expensive to extract than the next cheapest source.
So far, oil and coal are the cheapest to extract and transport, so we’ll use them till they’re gone or become more expensive than an alternative regardless of the long term consequences.
I don’t see a way out of this dependence on oil until we’ve used it up.
April 29, 2010 @ 1:08 PM
doofrat wrote:I think that
[quote=doofrat]I think that human nature dictates that we will always go after the cheapest (cheapest meaning lowest short term cost) sources of energy and use them up until they’re gone or more expensive to extract than the next cheapest source.
So far, oil and coal are the cheapest to extract and transport, so we’ll use them till they’re gone or become more expensive than an alternative regardless of the long term consequences.
I don’t see a way out of this dependence on oil until we’ve used it up.[/quote]
I agree doofrat. That’s unless a breakthrough in technology creates something cheaper than oil and coal. But I’m not holding my breath.
April 29, 2010 @ 1:18 PM
Arraya, does the graph mean
Arraya, does the graph mean that it’s time to buy oil futures?
April 29, 2010 @ 1:53 PM
briansd1 wrote:Arraya, does
[quote=briansd1]Arraya, does the graph mean that it’s time to buy oil futures?[/quote]
I think it means the Mayans predicted peak oil;)
April 29, 2010 @ 2:05 PM
Drill and do everything else.
Drill and do everything else. Why does it take forever to get windfarms off Mass.? because rich people live their? Build the nuclear plants, build the windmills (yes even here in sunny CA), get the solar on the roofs, do it all. I am still waiting to see these green jobs come forward that are going to save CA.
April 29, 2010 @ 6:16 PM
Windmill welfare queens
By:
Windmill welfare queens
By: David Freddoso
Online Opinion Editor
03/04/10 6:39 AM EST
Windmill welfare queens” — the corporations who stand to benefit from carbon regulation, and who already benefit from massive subsidies — are telling Americans that they can “have their cake and eat it too” when it comes to emissions controls and so-called “green jobs.” A FOIA request now reveals that as the Obama administration scrambled to respond last year to strong evidence that “green jobs” are a massive an economic drain, costing 570,000 Euros apiece, Department of Energy officials relied heavily on Big Wind and its monied backers. The paper concluded that Spain’s “green jobs” program was an economic failure, in fact costing Spain many jobs.
Washington Examiner dot com
April 30, 2010 @ 6:54 AM
I don’t care, except I hope
I don’t care, except I hope BP stock goes on a fire (pun intended) sale soon so I can pick up some cheap shares relative to its peers.
May 3, 2010 @ 6:54 PM
The question now is “can you
The question now is “can you drill after the spill”
May 3, 2010 @ 7:35 PM
the reserves are always
the reserves are always cruddy forecasts,
the issue is demand vs production.
May 3, 2010 @ 7:56 PM
briansd1 wrote:The question
[quote=briansd1]The question now is “can you drill after the spill”
[/quote]
This played right into Schwarzenegger’s hand. He never wanted to open more off shore leases anyway.
Further, one failure cannot be applied to the thousands of existing, safe, decades in production oil wells.
This illustrates the typical knee jerk reaction usually by the political left to, ‘do something’ before understanding exactly what went wrong on this rig.
May 3, 2010 @ 8:55 PM
Hobie wrote:
This illustrates
[quote=Hobie]
This illustrates the typical knee jerk reaction usually by the political left to, ‘do something’ before understanding exactly what went wrong on this rig.[/quote]
Humm.. about knee jerk reaction… two disastrous wars come to mind.
Arnold is a Republican.
At least the oil reserves will still be there for when oil prices increase and when technology is further improved.
I actually believe that every drop of oil in the ground will eventually be extracted and used up. But there’s no need to rush and do it right now.
May 3, 2010 @ 9:13 PM
briansd1 wrote:
Arnold is a
[quote=briansd1]
Arnold is a Republican.
[/quote]
In name only 😉
And about the wars, why doesn’t your guy stop them like he promised in his campaign? They have gone on way too long without any exit strategy. Indeed it is not very easy to simply pull up stakes and leave but I am tired of giving American lives to be the world police. We were right to bring the battle to them on their turf. Hammer them, then leave. If they needed another lesson after that, so be it.
May 3, 2010 @ 9:24 PM
Hobie wrote:briansd1
[quote=Hobie][quote=briansd1]
Arnold is a Republican.
[/quote]
In name only 😉
[/quote]
If wonder if Maria Shriver had anything to do with it.
Too bad that Arnold can’t run for President. I bet he’d win if he could run.
May 3, 2010 @ 10:26 PM
briansd1 wrote:If wonder if
[quote=briansd1]If wonder if Maria Shriver had anything to do with it.
Too bad that Arnold can’t run for President. I bet he’d win if he could run.[/quote]
Hard to say in the current political atmosphere. Could a socially moderate, pro-gay Republican from California win the nomination? Arnold could do well in the general election, but he’d have to make it there without getting teabagged.