Post a New Topic
Original post made
by Mike, College Terrace,
on May 15, 2008
Can We Use Polar Bears to Make Ethanol?
That would surely confound the so-called environmentalists.
Pro-environmentalists welcome high gas prices. Why? Because it will force people to drive less, consume less, find more efficient ways to use energy, and develop alternative energy.
Gas prices are high both because demand around the world from developing nations is growing, and because the U.S. currency, aka, the dollar has fallen. The rest of the world views the U.S. economy as somewhat unstable. Oil has become now both a commodity and a currency.
Oh, and added to that, you can thank the Republicans for high gas prices. Instability in the Middle East where we get most of our oil has contributed to high gas prices. Thanks President Bush!
You are welcome my son
rest in peace boy
You are welcome my son
rest in peace boy"
Ha, ha. Good one!
Imhoff has been pretty much spot on, regarding global warming and energy supplies. Global warming is a ruse, to gain political power. It was created by Margaret Thatcher.
The real tipping point is the price of gasoline and diesel. If the Democrats continue to pound this issue, they wll pay a HUGE price within a few years.
We need oil drilling in ANWAR and off our coasts. We need nuclear power for electricity.
Imhoff might be a viaable candidate for president in 2012.
Odd how the gas prices started rising after the Dems took control...
Of course gas prices are going to go up; a gallon of gas (or the equivalent) in Europe costs twice as much as in the U.S. Somehow Europeans have managed to adjust why can't we!!!
"Of course gas prices are going to go up; a gallon of gas (or the equivalent) in Europe costs twice as much as in the U.S. Somehow Europeans have managed to adjust why can't we"
Let them eat cake???
Oil costs more because Bush has trashed Iraq, a former major-league producer, totally failed to face the problems in Africa's oilfields, and has further driven up the market futures with his threats to take out Iran, also a huge exporter of oil. He also failed to drill a single hole in the ANWAR. Oil was $30/bbl when Bush came to Washington, as of this writing it's $126/bbl. The connection and causes are clear. What can you expect from the guy whose first crater job was his own Arbusto Energy?
"Oil costs more because Bush has trashed Iraq, a former major-league producer"
Nonsense, as usual, Paul.
Oil production in the five years prior to the invasion, compared to the the five years post-invasion is about the same. Peak production (approx. 2.9 mbd will be achieved in the next year or so). It is currently approx 2.4 mbd.
Oil costs more now, becasue demand is up, and the suppliers can make money by meeting, but not exceeding, that demand. If we want to lower oil prices in the USA, then we need to demonstrate that we can add to supply, decrease demand, or both.
Drilling in ANWAR was supported by Bush, Paul, but the Dems blocked him. At least try to get your accusations straight. Bush also supports nuclear power, but where are Dems on that one? Where are you on that one, Paul?
You are amusing, if nothing else.
Uh-huh. Five years after Mission Accomplished, Iraqi oil production stumbles back to Saddam's levels. Iraq is capable of far better, but at least that beats Arbusto Inc's track record. Remember when we were promised that all that Iraq oil would pay for the whole war?
And au contriare on the ANWAR. Giving lip service to drilling in ANWAR is easy and cheap and fools enough of the people enough of the time, but it's way short of pulling oil out of the ground. You think Bush was blocked by the Dems? Those wusses? C'mon. Only a bigger wuss could lose a fight to them.
"Production is expected to pass the prewar level of 2.6 million barrels by the end of the year, and Hussain al-Shahristani, the Iraqi Oil Minister, told The Times that he expected production to reach six million barrels a day within four years. "
( Web Link )
One of the big issues in Iraq now is how to spend all of its money. Saddam knew how to build palaces, but that is no longer part of the deal in Iraq (of course, Saddam needs neither them them, nor his torture chambers, anymore!). May he rest in hell, with his sons, just out of reach of the virgins in heavan.
Iraq is sitting on over 100 billion barrels of proven reserves, and perhaps that much again in undiscovered reserves. This oil is very easy to recover. There now only about 2000 wells in the entire country (compared to Texas, with over 1 million wells).
Despite all the whining from the hatriots, Iraq is well on its way to being a huge success story. It's a done deal. Only a presdient that does not stay the course can prevent that.
If GWB had 60 votes in the Senate, we would be drilling ANWAR as we speak. The Dems blocked him. Same for nuclear power.
At what point do the Dems wake up to the fact that low cost energy equals relative prosperity for poor folk? $20/gal will not stop me from driving my car, but it will definitely stop a lot of poor people from doing so.
"Global warming is a ruse, to gain political power. It was created by Margaret Thatcher."
Did you read that in "The Star" or "The Globe" while waiting in line to pay for your Kool-Aid Slurpee at the 7-11?
"Imhoff might be a viable candidate for president in 2012."
President of what? West Virginia? (He'll have to duke it out with Hilliary for that one, but he'll likely win the in-breeding vote!)
Bush could have and should have stolen a leaf from Clinton's book and opened ANWAR by executive order. Sadly Bush did not.
Gary, I always enjoy reading your posts..factual, I can google your data and back it up, logical.Thanks
For those who oppose our own increased oil drilling: what do you think is going to happen when the rest of the world realizes they are running out of oil? Do ya think they will keep selling it to us?
Then, what do you think will happen when they realize all the oil we are sitting on? Hmm, let's think about it. Which scenario is more likely?
1) They will ask us "pretty please, open your wells and share with us", and we will slap our foreheads and say "oh! darn, I didn't think about that!" and we will all live in peace, working together to develop alternatives to the last huge oil reserves, as we charge just enough for the recovery of the oil and share like we learned in kindergarten.
2) Human behavior will remain true to history, and the other countries will invade us to take over our country. We will not be able to defend ourselves because they will bring us to our knees by the simple expedient of not sending us more oil.
Now, if the libs are right and the earth is running out of oil..shouldn't we be developing our own oil energy independence before the rest of the world invades?
"Now, if the libs are right and the earth is running out of oil..shouldn't we be developing our own oil energy independence before the rest of the world invades?"
I never know, or even predict, how much oil is left in the world. It is safe to say that Iraq has a ton of it. The USA has a very large amount, yet we refuse to drill it. I think we should be drilling it, for reasons of national security and poverty reduction. The left, in this country, doesn't care about either of these issues, except as props to undermine both.
Nuclear power, for electrcity production, has been shut down by the left, although there are sometimes exceptions, like Obama. I think nuclear will be given the green light within the next few years...the rational thinkers are starting to regain the mantel of political intelligence.
BTW, thanks for the compliment about backing up with facts. What is the alternative, if one is to be believable?
gary, you remind me of european peasants who, before the coming of coal, insisted that more cows should be grazed so as to increase the supply of 'cow chips' for fuel. they weren't too far from the neanderthals. and you?
"gary, you remind me of european peasants who, before the coming of coal, insisted that more cows should be grazed so as to increase the supply of 'cow chips' for fuel. they weren't too far from the neanderthals. and you?"
not a neanderthal,
It is interesting that you choose that handle. Coal displaced cow chips, because it was more energy dense, and cheaper. Nuclear fuel is very energy dense, and cheap. Oil is more energy dense than solar, and still much cheaper. Therefore, the true progressives are those who support the biggest bang for the anti-poverty dollar: Oil and nuclear. Coal is a major national security backup, but it is very dirty and dangerous. Solar is always about hopes, but it should not be allowed to stop real progress.
The Neanderthals existed mostly using solar energy...then they were killed off by the Homo sapiens, who were smart enough to understand the value of cow pies and coal. The left, in this country, exhibit many of the Neanderthal characteristics.
"Bush could have and should have stolen a leaf from Clinton's book and opened ANWAR by executive order. Sadly Bush did not."
"The Dems blocked him."
Wrong, Gary. Read Walter's post quoted above again. But part right. Just between you and me, I think Nancy stole his conejos.
Yep. Five years after he grabbed Iraq, your hero is still digging the US in hock to Red China to finance his adventure in Iraq because he can't persuade his pet government over there to spend its growing oil revenues on something useful like rebuilding the country. But I bet they fix those palaces soon.
Bush's latest junket shows how much leverage he and the US have in the region five-plus years after Mission Accomplished. Even the old Bush family friends in the Saudi royal family snickered at him. Just like 72% of Americans.
Coffeebar opens in Menlo Park
By Elena Kadvany | 2 comments | 5,218 views
Couples: So You Married Mom or Dad . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 815 views
Spring College Fairs
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 774 views
The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 0 comments | 295 views
Home & Real Estate
Send News Tips
Express / Weekend Express
Circulation & Delivery
Mountain View Voice
© 2018 Palo Alto Online
All rights reserved.