Maybe there is oil in the Grand Canyon.

These people are like zombies, but instead of muttering "brains!" they're only after "oil!"

There's only 15 months left to take it. We better hurry.

So the whole "grateful Iraqis selling us their oil fields for peanuts" isn't working out?
Bummer.
But maybe they will rebuild that oil pipeline to Israel the INC promised to President Sucker.

I want to throw up.
We will have nothing left in our beautiful country that hasn't been privatized, sold off, or torn down and destroyed for corporate profit by the time this sorry excuse for a human being is out of office.

These people are like zombies, but instead of muttering "brains!" they're only after "oil!"

Just remember, Ness you hypocrite, you are "one of those people". Unless of course you don't drive, don't use electricity, don't shop at modern stores, don't use public transportation, don't use pharmaceuticals. If this is the case, please accept my apologies for calling you a hypocrite and allow me to congratulate you for living with stone age technology in the 21st century.

Just curious -- which is it?

I thought so.

The rest of you too who are screaming for energy independence . . .

Never mind. Message is lost on y'all

Goatman,

Quick question: What would make a bigger impact...getting every single imaginble drop out of ANWAR, or increasing CAFE standards by 2 mpg?

I don't know. There are too many unknown variables to accurately answer that question.

What does it matter? If we made cars that got 100 mpg, we would still need every single imaginble drop out of ANWAR in the long run.

Message is lost on y'all

Posted by goatman at 2007-09-16 12:23 AM

Obvious somebody just got back home to the Lone Star state *grin*

the eco-nazis have made it impossible to drill for anymore oil in Alaska, or in the Gulf of Mexico, or off the west coast or anywhere else. and we're not allowed to build anymore nuke plants, or power plants or oil refineries. We cant dig any new coal mines either. The result is we are now burning our primary food source as fuel.

What does it matter? If we made cars that got 100 mpg, we would still need every single imaginble drop out of ANWAR in the long run.

Posted by goatman at 2007-09-16 12:30 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Not for a very long time.

Larry

"I don't know. There are too many unknown variables to accurately answer that question."

Horse piss. The largest estimate, the most generous estimate of ANWAR, would satisfy Americas needs for all of two days.

Ingoring conservation while fighting a war for oil is the equivalent of shooting oneself in the foot just prior to your 100yd dash.

Senor Cabra,

You, being in the oil extraction industry, would certainly have a biased opinion. How can you claim hypocrisy when you are suspect yourself? You support an administration which seems oblivious to any legacy for future generations.

that you lie now & then & slander, too?

No, Larry, in a very short time when considering the history of mankind and what we have at stake on our dependence on energy.

Ingoring conservation while fighting a war for oil is the equivalent of shooting oneself in the foot just prior to your 100yd dash.

Are you saying that by conserving we will never have to drill in the Rockies?

That will merely put it off 50 years. How naive.

You support an administration which seems oblivious to any legacy for future generations.

I don't support the current administration, so exactly which one are you talking about? Please let me know who I support.

would certainly have a biased opinion.

Who doesn't?

That will merely put it off 50 years. How naive.

Posted by goatman at 2007-09-16 12:38 AM | Reply

Why use it up in one feld swoop. Why not conserve it so You can wait 50 Years before You need to touch it. Why drink the cow up in one day when You will need it a Year from now.

Larry

Why use it up in one feld swoop. Why not conserve it so You can wait 50 Years before You need to touch it. Why drink the cow up in one day when You will need it a Year from now.

Good idea, Larry. Just keep in mind that we can't keep from domestic drilling AND reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Personally, I like your idea. Save the domestic stuff for when we use up the rest of the world's supply.

We all Must Be Honest The Future Of Energy Is Alternate And Renewable Sources.

The Earth Holds But So Much Oil And You Can Only Conserve what You Know Will Run Out Eventually. So Both Are Dead End.

-Sarge

Just remember, Ness you hypocrite, you are "one of those people".

Oh, I didn't realize that I had anything to do with planning the energy policy of the U.S.

Sweet.

Save the domestic stuff for when we use up the rest of the world's supply.

When we use up the rest of the world's supply?

I didn't know that the U.S. had the exclusive ownership of the world's oil supplies.

Cool.

"That will merely put it off 50 years. How naive."

That would improve our situation immeasurably. How naive not to know that.

Oh, I didn't realize that I had anything to do with planning the energy policy of the U.S.

Now you do. ANyone who uses oil has something to do with policy. If we didn't use so much, policy would be different, right?

Happy to keep you informed.

I didn't know that the U.S. had the exclusive ownership of the world's oil supplies.

We don't. If we owned it we wouldn't pay for it. duh.

"I can only speak for myself and I'm a registered Republican, but last year I voted a straight Democratic ticket. First time in my life," said Bob Elderkin, 68, who heads the town of Rifle's chapter of the Colorado Mule Deer Association, a hunting group that has made common cause with environmentalists against drilling. "The Republicans have kind of lost touch with reality."

* * * *

It's private land. Last I checked, Republicans support stuff like using private land for private purposes, like making money by drilling for oil. Maybe if you didn't find the hunting of living animals so enjoyable, you wouldn't mind going after the fossilized remains of dead ones so you could fill up your tank without paying $79.50 a barrel to the Islamists. In other words, why did it take you so damn long to join the Democrats? You didn't recently just become this stupid, after all.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Chris: I think the idea of drilling for oil in the Rockies was borne of the idea of energy supplies, not to asthetically alter the landscape for the better.

Only a true Republican could look at this picture of the ROAN PLATEAU and think he could improve on God's handiwork by covering it with dirty oil derricks.

Posted by CalifChris
* * * *

Sorry, doesn't do much for me. Besides, you can use that line anywhere, to ban drilling everywhere.

"Only a true Republican could look at this picture of ______
the Gulf of Mexico
the North Sea
the Arabian peninsula
the Pacific off Santa Barbara
the wild prairie of North Texas
this blob of ice in the middle of the Arctic
or anywhere else.

My point was only that Mr. Elderkin doesn't mind hunting deer on private land, and would take umbrage were someone to tell him he can't. So when it comes to putting up an oil derrick on someone else's private land, the fact that he's bitching about it merely confirms he was probably a liberal all along.

If we didn't use so much, policy would be different, right?


Can't disagree with that. However, I'd like to see major changes made by the government before we start trying to hold every citizen responsible for gov't policy. Clearly, the citizenry has no real say in what the White House does. Call it a variation of "trickle down" economy.

My point was only that Mr. Elderkin doesn't mind hunting deer on private land, and would take umbrage were someone to tell him he can't. ...

I ask this question honesty -- not as some trick question -- but if this land is part of the Federal Reserve how come you say it's private property?

For some reason, Bush and Cheney oppose drilling on private land where known reserves lay and equipment lays unused and constantly beat the drum for drilling on public land His constant attempts at opening up OUR government owned reserves only is baffling.

I suspect it's because oil companies would much rather pay minimal royalties to the government for OUR oil than for oil drilled on private land. It's the only reason I can think of that hundreds of privately owned sources have a hard time getting oil companies interested in drilling there, or in the case of a friend of mine who owns 500 acres in Louisiana with oil all under it, permission to do so.

Gee, Republicans can get NIMBY too, big surprise. The only reason we're talking about drilling in ANWR is because just a few Inuit live there, fuck them. Have an environmental issue actually effects Republicans directly and they suddenly start to see God in the flowers and the trees.

Mark down another difference between Dems and Republicans - Democrats occaisionally think about somebody besides themselves.

That's the best reason for a draft imaginable - drag a few Young Republicans out of college and have the mean ol' Drill Seargant yell at them for a week, and suddenly Mater and Pater will be down marching with the filthy dirty hippies.

ARGH

drilling in ANWR is because just a few Inuit live there,

It's more incidious than that , ARGH.

The North Slope is predicted to start running dry in the year 2012 which means that the flow of oil through Trans-Alaskan Pipeline will be reduced by an unprofitable 50%.

The consortium of oil companies who own the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline are lobbying for drilling in ANWAR as a hedge against falling profits from the North Slope. They're claiming that if the oil flowing through Trans-Alaskan Pipeline falls to 50% they'll have to shut it down.

Drilling in ANWAR has nothing to do with reducing America's dependance on foreign oil because America will see nary a drop of it.

It has everything to do with the profits oil companies plan to rake in.

Dollars are the bottom line . . . as usual. When it comes to making big bucks, the oil companies couldn't care less about raping the environment.

"covering it with dirty oil derricks."

Posted by CalifChris at 2007-09-16 01:35 AM | Reply

Last I heard, there was more than 100 active oil wells within Los Angeles County. How many derricks do you know of?

Drilling in ANWAR has nothing to do with reducing America's dependance on foreign oil because America will see nary a drop of it.

Posted by Twinpac at 2007-09-16 05:40 AM | Reply

Petroleum is a global commodity. Any non-OPEC barrel affects America's supply and price. Even if it is drilled in Alaska and shipped to Japan.

North America is slopping over with oil, but we can't get it because of jackasses like you. As Goat says, you are the demand side of the equation. Drilling domestically -- or fighting a war in the ME -- is for you.

Drilling domestically -- or fighting a war in the ME -- is for you.

Carter tried to make us independent. The Trans-Alaskan pipeline was touted as being able to help in just that. As soon as it was built, the oil started heading overseas. It's all bullshit.

Facts are, oil drilled here doesn't neccessarily stay here and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Jimmy Carter tried. Others had other ideas, and thus we are where we still are....

stop the italics starting with the sentence "Here's a photo..."

Correct me if I'm wrong, Chris: I think the idea of drilling for oil in the Rockies was borne of the idea of energy supplies, not to asthetically alter the landscape for the better.

Posted by goatman at 2007-09-16 01:42 AM | Reply

My response -- a Bronx cheer

TWINPAC

It's more incidious than that , ARGH.

The North Slope is predicted to start running dry in the year 2012 which means that the flow of oil through Trans-Alaskan Pipeline will be reduced by an unprofitable 50%.

The consortium of oil companies who own the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline are lobbying for drilling in ANWAR as a hedge against falling profits from the North Slope. They're claiming that if the oil flowing through Trans-Alaskan Pipeline falls to 50% they'll have to shut it down.

Drilling in ANWAR has nothing to do with reducing America's dependance on foreign oil because America will see nary a drop of it.

It has everything to do with the profits oil companies plan to rake in.

Dollars are the bottom line . . . as usual. When it comes to making big bucks, the oil companies couldn't care less about raping the environment.

Terrific rebuttal.

VERNON

The last I read on this subject, the United States has enough domestic oil in the ground to sustain itself (at our current rate of consumption) for all of three years. Much less when military needs are taken into consideration.

For some strange reason, jackasses like me would like to hold onto our reserves in the likely event that a catastrophe would interrupt the import of our #1 supply of energy.

Three years or less isn't a very long time, is it? A drop in the bucket, so to speak. With stringent conservation and rations it might extend to four years.

Big deal, you might say.

Yes, it is a very big deal when you consider the alternative.

CHRIS:

Thanks . . . I crank one out every once in a while.

"North America is slopping over with oil, but we can't get it because of jackasses like you."

YEAH!

And now this guyhunt club!

People are seeing the real "price" of cheap energy and the long term cost of being wastefull and they don't like what they see (forsee)!

Anyway, no matter the claims of closet "liberals" or childish rants about "you use it too" the result (something you cult members ignore in favor of slogans) is you lose votes, you suffer the manority!

HAR~!HAR~!




Hunters Unite (for conservative use of finite wild and scenic lands)!

What does it matter? If we made cars that got 100 mpg, we would still need every single imaginble drop out of ANWAR in the long run.

Posted by goatman



When do we start to think BEYOND oil to what we will do when it DOES run out?

Honestly, I'm glad to be living now, because coming generations are going to have to pay the price for all of the failures of the past - irrespective of political party (but breathtaking in this admin).

History will regard all of this with bitter contempt, and rightly so. As Bush so brilliantly said when asked what his legacy would be - (paraphrased) : I don't know, I'll be dead.

Good thing, too.

My link above of a Los Angeles oil well/oil derrick (I don't know the difference)

An oil well is a hole in the ground from which oil is extracted. A derrick is the tower-like structure used to drill the hole. It is removed when drilling is finished.

"When do we start to think BEYOND oil to what we will do when it DOES run out?"

Thanks One Again !!

I'm glad to know at least someone can think past their own Nose and has their Eyes on the Future. I outlined a series of Alternate and Renewable Energy Sources At A 01:04 Post, but it always turns right back to "OIL" once again it is the 11 year Old Mentality Arguing over something that is "Finite" Drilling for Or Conserving a Substance that it's supply of Will END is Quite Silly. We can Drill every square inch of America it will still come to an end of Supply, then what do you do ? We have wasted Time and Resources to our Own End, Pretty Damn Dumb !!

-Sarge

Here's the rub.

No matter what your reasoned position on this matter, the fact is that the Bush administration doesn't care about what you or I pay for gas, nor do they care about energy independence. So, there may be valid reasons for drilling the Rockies, and there are definitely good reasons against it. However, in the Bush context, the impetus is strengthening someone's bottom line, and it's not America's.

There are no "honorable" intentions to be found. Bank on that.

Lastly, why do I think I won't be surprised when, in 20 years or so, the biggest breakthroughs in electric power and solar collection will come from patents held by Exxon/Mobil and BP?

Does anyone remember a couple Years back the Chinese was trying to get permission to drill in the Rockies.This isn't for Americans this is for CHINA.

Larry

Eva,

I agree with you, that "Tesla" is Hot and the will produce a sedan in a couple of years. The Nay sayers still Continue with the Artificial Range Issue, When across the country the Average Commute is "45 MILES ROUND TRIP"! There is "No Silver Bullet" but many sources of alternate Energy used in conjunction with each other will be the answer. So all this " BIOFUEL is not this, Solar can't do that, Wind Power will never..etc..etc.

All Lame excuses to prevent the Inevitable, so it is time to take action and I'm just waiting for one of the Candidates from the Left or the Right to do something other than Lip Service.
I have endured 2 Energy Crisis and this current "Oil Price Rise" which is just going to become worse unless Some Action is taken with Extreme Prejudice, this will only continue unabated.

-Sarge

In WWI & early WWII, the world's navies used torpedoes that were steam powered (they of the ever popular Hollywood long white wake running unerringly to their targets..Ha!). The torpedoes contained flasks of alcohol,and oxygen, and pressurized water. The alcohol and oxygen created the heat sourse, superheating a metal surface and the resulting steam exhausted through a turbine system driving the propellors. In the early 1900's, the Stanley Steamer ran on American roads, and was the fastest set of wheels around, topping 80mph. The limiting factor to both the steam propulsion applications was the exhausting of the steam to the atmosphere and the resulting loss of water that dictated relatively short cruising range.

With today's technology, cheap alcohol, closed loop steam recovery systems and lighter, stronger hybrid turbine materials, I don't see why we can't change this unwinnable petroleum argument into one more focused on alternative kinetic energy designs.

Early 1900's technology proves that we really don't have to burn every drop of petroleum on the planet. What say we elevate this debate a little?

As late as 1981 (that's when I was discharged) the MK 46 torpedoes ran on alcohol. I don't think they burned it for steam, though.

I could be wrong, but I don't think external combustion engines are as efficient as internal combustion. Therefore, I'm not sure a return to steam is on the horizon.

what fuel did the Model T use, hint "corn"
(there were no gas stations back then)

where does most Alaskan oil go, hint "Orient"
(how does that make us less dependent on Arabs)

what do right wingers drink, hint "koolaid"
(strawberry preferred)

Ah yes, the venerable MK-46. Put a lot of those in bombays and dropped a few. Sad part is even when it ran correctly, homed and detonated, the damn cherry-bomb warhead wasn't effective on anything except the thinnest skinned targets.

Now the MK-48, there's a weapon!

Ah yes, the venerable MK-46. Put a lot of those in bombays and dropped a few. Sad part is even when it ran correctly, homed and detonated, the damn cherry-bomb warhead wasn't effective on anything except the thinnest skinned targets.

Now the MK-48, there's a weapon!

As a sonarman, I did my share of handling torpedoes. But most of the ones we used were in ASROCs, though we could launch them from the ship.

I Flew On Of The Last Live Fire Canadian S-2 Tracker Missions. Saw Those MK -46 Launched!

-Sarge

"The last I read on this subject, the United States has enough domestic oil in the ground to sustain itself (at our current rate of consumption) for all of three years."

Well, you're wrong.

What's contained in the oil shales/tar sands of the Rockies can slake the oil thirst of the US for decades. Ask the Canadians who are already exploiting this resource in their end of the Rocky Mountains and providing upwards of 25% of both raw and finished petrol products to the US. The price per barrel of oil had to each a certain level in order to render the exploitation of oil shales/tar sands profitable. We are there.

Note that the Rockies will not be covered with the classic oil derricks. There are two methods to extract oil from oil shales/tar sands: digging out huge holes as in open pit mining, or employing steam extraction methods by injecting steam though holes to melt out and extract the oil. Either way, it is a very messy business.

OIL is Dead End Period !!!

Shale Is Short Term And Messy, Sorry it is time to Change !!

We Need To Stop This Crack Head Mentality And Work For Something New And Effective For The Long Run Period !

-Sarge

"What's contained in the oil shales/tar sands of the Rockies can slake the oil thirst of the US for decades."

And then?

Oh, and it has been almost three decades ("for decades") since July 15, 1979.

Hans

"Electric cars are the future. "

Batteries do not recharge themselves. Implication: additional power plant capacity.

Batteries for vehicles require an additional, huge manufacturing process outside of the traditional methods used for building internal combustion vehicles, with the implication that various highly toxic substances are involved in the manufacturing process.

Additional facilities will need to be built to safely dispose of/recycle batteries.

While looking at the supposed clean/green side of battery powered vehicles, you must also look at manufacture and disposal of batteries. When the beginning and the end of the battery process is examined, batteries ain't so green after all.

IC engines burning hydrogen is the most viable coming technology. Few mods need to be made to existing engines, thus the existing manufacturing infrastructure can remain mostly as is. What is lacking is: 1) Efficiently extracting hydrogen from whatever substance is locked up with, such as water; 2) Creating the delivery infrastructure to fuel up the hydrogen powered vehicles.

Hans, you must simply have missed this statement:

"The price per barrel of oil had to each a certain level in order to render the exploitation of oil shales/tar sands profitable."

Sarge-

S-2's! S2F's?

Wow and I thought I was ancient in Pigboats (P5M), P-2's and P-3's.

The 46 was a bitch to load, and we airedales had to have 500yd up doppler for attack criterion before we hit the pickle switch. Even at that, the odds of it penetrating the pressure hull of even an ancient Soviet Whiskey Class were slim, let alone the later generation Soviet deep diving nucs. Easy to find, tough to kill.

Some friends that stayed on after I retired said they'd stopped work on the ALWT (Advanced Light Weight Torpedo) when the Soviets folded their cards.

Sorry for the thread hijack; ya'll can go on eviscerating each other over oil burning again.

USN,

Yes I'm A AFSOC guy and we worked with alot of Foreign Forces and we would do a Training Mission with our Northern Buddies We would do Sub Lock Outs and Jump From Their Aircraft, during the Cold War. Wow the P5M !! The JDF still fly it, it is an Amazing Aircraft, I've seen it come in for a landing what looked like it was Hovering.

-Sarge

I don't know. There are too many unknown variables to accurately answer that question.

What does it matter? If we made cars that got 100 mpg, we would still need every single imaginble drop out of ANWAR in the long run.

Posted by goatman at 2007-09-16 12:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

Translation: "You got me there.....but it doesn't support my love for all things Bush so I'll have to dismiss it."

The 46 was a bitch to load, and we airedales had to have 500yd up doppler for attack criterion before we hit the pickle switch. Even at that, the odds of it penetrating the pressure hull of even an ancient Soviet Whiskey Class were slim, let alone the later generation Soviet deep diving nucs. Easy to find, tough to kill.

Some friends that stayed on after I retired said they'd stopped work on the ALWT (Advanced Light Weight Torpedo) when the Soviets folded their cards.

Sorry for the thread hijack; ya'll can go on eviscerating each other over oil burning again.

Posted by USN at 2007-09-16 02:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

There's always the MK50. Nice weapon.

My link above of a Los Angeles oil well/oil derrick (I don't know the difference).

>i>It [oil derrick] is removed when drilling is finished.

Posted by goatman at 2007-09-16 09:27 AM

So for however many years oil is being pumped from a particular well, that oil derrick stays on top of the ground forever spoiling the pristine scenic views of the Rockies. I see.

No, you don't see. Reread the sentence. "The oil derrick is removed when drilling is finished." Not, "when pumping is finished"

its about time! drill away. woot!

www.interstatetraveler.us

These people are like zombies, but instead of muttering "brains!" they're only after "oil!"

Posted by ness_gadol

I guess you don't use any.

These people are like zombies, but instead of muttering "brains!" they're only after "oil!"

Posted by ness_gadol

I guess you don't use any.

He doesn't. He's a paleolithic hunter/gatherer who lives in a cave. Otherwise it would be hypocritical to bitch about people who are after oil.