One for the Oil bugs

[Raz]

Re: One for the Oil bugs

Reading your tirade completely void in argument or thought leads me believe you will continue "starving". There is no reason to believe you could be educated so I'll end it here.

ecofraud

Starving Steve did NOT imply that we could "drill our way out" of the problem. He said, "The answer is atomic power plus every kind of other power we can get our hands onto. Put so much power online that the cost of living drops.

This means running the eco-frauds out of the universities and out of government. It means building power plants everywhere, as soon as possible, regardless of planning delays and environmentalists. This means an activist pro-growth and pro-energy govn't, not what we see now in the Obama Administration."

As for the "Eco-frauds" - perhaps you should read this article. It was written by Bob Hoye - one of the smartest institutional research providers in North America. I was tipped off to the accuracy of his research in 1987 by the CEO of RNC Capital Management when I was a stockbroker. I've been reading his calls for the past six years and he's been as accurate as anything I've read on iTulip.

http://www.safehaven.com/article-13044.htm

[Raz]

Re: One for the Oil bugs

VIT wrote:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starving Steve This means drilling for oil everywhere and converting coal reserves into synthetic oil--- the way the Germans did in WWII. This means doing, not talking, DOING--- because doing without is no solution at all.

"Basically what you are saying is just keep going and postpone the solution. But the more we delay the problem with energy the more risk we pose on ourselves in the future."

Well, no, that is NOT what he said. He said the solution was through many sources of energy - expanding atomic power first and foremost. Perhaps some of you disagree with him, but it's not fair to pick out one or two sentences and represent that as his entire case.

Without crude oil we will have no feedstock for plastics, polymers, resins, and a hundred other products that our economy depends on. So there is a place for expanded exploration. But, if we reject nuclear power, just how do we solve the problem? I'm open to any suggestions since I don't have the answer. And while I'm open to the possibility that man might be contributing to "global warming", count me among the skeptics that we and our modern civilization are the singular cause.

[jandkmeyer]

Re: One for the Oil bugs

Raz,

Bob Hoye is NOT a climate scientist. The carbon effect is well known and you can run an experiment in a lab environment as proof. Is it the only effect or even the dominant effect? Can't be proven. But should we be using the earth for a giant experiment by continuing to add carbon? Sounds crazy to me since it is the only planet we have. I am not a climate scientist but I listen to a lot of smart people on this. I will actually be going to hear James Hanson this afternoon.

And then there's Steve's power plan. The answer to what? We already have cheap power to the point where we use twice as much power per capita than anyone else in the world and where has that gotten us? We're getting our ass kicked by efficient countries like Japan and Germany.

[KGW]

Re: One for the Oil bugs

[VIT]

Re: One for the Oil bugs

VIT wrote:
"Basically what you are saying is just keep going and postpone the solution. But the more we delay the problem with energy the more risk we pose on ourselves in the future."

Well, no, that is NOT what he said. He said the solution was through many sources of energy - expanding atomic power first and foremost. Perhaps some of you disagree with him, but it's not fair to pick out one or two sentences and represent that as his entire case.

All these "many sources" have a "short" life to exist. Soon as they will dry out we will face the problem again. And environmentally we were moving from bad (dirty) sources to good and from expensive to cheap, but this his suggestion looks like step back. So I am questioning if it is worth the price to be paid.

*If it is all about nuclear it needs to be said directly instead of mixing everything together and confusing others.

**I am not the oil & gas doom by any means. I think during next 20-50 years we will see the the switch from oil to gas (there are some substantial reserves out there). Now with LNG development we are just in the beginning of this cycle. Gas-to-fuels technologies will help to use some of the existing infrastructure with gradual change to gas based energy. But, 1) these energy will not be cheap and 2) as implication of the first - it will not be explosive grow of energy supply to human as happened with coal and oil era. So the main problem remains: constant grow of energy supply which is an Alfa and Omega of our development and economy grow. Climate and other resources depletion are secondary importance :-)

[vanvaley1]

Re: One for the Oil bugs

I figured it out right after you posted it (I think!). Blade Runner?

Sorry, Lukester. Wrong. This was a video presentation of the affects to the economy if Congress would pass TARP I and TARP II. Just joshin'...Yep...Blade Runner.

[Roughneck]

Re: One for the Oil bugs

After seeing and hearing the reports of obamas point man on energy coming down to get our "input" on the offshore drilling ban lifted by bush and conviently put on hold by the present administration, I'd say we are F'd. Clearly they have no interest in drilling off shore and they are just going thru the motions before they say no thanks. The guy was more interested in putting wind turbines in the gulf.Go ask the brits how thats working out. Not to mention the damage one hurricane would do. It's also clear why they need global warming. you can't sell a massive carbon tax without a doomsday scenario. And I thought this president was supposed to base his policy on science?

[GRG55]

Re: One for the Oil bugs

After seeing and hearing the reports of obamas point man on energy coming down to get our "input" on the offshore drilling ban lifted by bush and conviently put on hold by the present administration, I'd say we are F'd. Clearly they have no interest in drilling off shore and they are just going thru the motions before they say no thanks. The guy was more interested in putting wind turbines in the gulf.Go ask the brits how thats working out. Not to mention the damage one hurricane would do. It's also clear why they need global warming. you can't sell a massive carbon tax without a doomsday scenario. And I thought this president was supposed to base his policy on science?

Finally! One American that is able to see through the charade that passes for energy "policy" in the United States.

And by no means have Republican Administrations been any more coherent or sensible than the Dems. But then if Arnie is happy importing Russian supplied gas through a Mexican terminal, and somehow pass that off as "California green" [figure out the carbon footprint of that LNG...it's not trivial], why should anybody else give a damn...

[BadJuju]

Re: One for the Oil bugs

But then if Arnie is happy importing Russian supplied gas through a Mexican terminal, and somehow pass that off as "California green" [figure out the carbon footprint of that LNG...it's not trivial], why should anybody else give a damn...

He has to power his 'Green' hummer somehow. :rolleyes:

[c1ue]

Re: One for the Oil bugs

It would be amusing if California became a Germany of the United States: green by becoming dependent on imported natural gas.

Maybe Arnie is just a deep mole for annexing California into Germany... ;)