"Drill Baby Drill" Noun+Verb=GOP EnergyPolicy(let's all chant)

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   
So let's say the US government decides to drill in Alaska. What would happen then if Canada just decided it didn't want the Alaska pipeline running through it anymore? How would this precious oil then get down to the continental US? Would they go back to tankers? That would be terribly inefficient.

As far as jsobecky's comment about reliance on oil for more than gas. If we came up with ways to power our vehicles without gas, we would have more than enough oil to produce all the plastic and lipstick we wanted.




posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Drill Baby Drill !!!

Or,

Kneel down on your prayer rugs and pray to Allah five times a day...

As for me...

Drill here.. drill now..



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 


So your point is to drill here so we don't have import oil from the middle east?
So simple, we had not thought of that.
You like bicycles?



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
Drill Baby Drill !!!

Or,

Kneel down on your prayer rugs and pray to Allah five times a day...

As for me...

Drill here.. drill now..


That makes no sense at all. *SNIP*

The US gets most of it's oil from Canada, not the ME. Maybe if you had done some critical thinking, a little research, you would not look like a uninformed jingoist.

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

Please refrain from personal attacks towards other members and stick to the topic at hand.

[edit on 9/4/2008 by maria_stardust]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 


Ok, seems like right now with our armies entrentched in the middle east for Allah's oil and the trillions we are paying for it, in one sense we are already praying to mecca. Why only two choices? Are you as limited in your thinking regarding energy solutions as most are when it comes to political parties? It seems like you are saying:
Fred: "Pray to Allah or start drilling here."
Bill: "Wow, only two choices, huh?"
Fred: "Allah or environmental devistation for your Hummer - two choices!"
Bill: "Ah, isn't there another way to get this done? Something that could cut our dependence on the "Allah juice" and reduce the need to tear up National Forests and sea beds?"
Fred: "NO! OIL THERE OR HERE! THAT"S IT!"
Bill: "Ok Fred, I guess you're right. I mean, you must know what you are talking about when you yell it so loud. Let's go get some Sonic"
Fred: "No! Carl's JR!"

ColoradoJens



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog


The world is changing, with or without the States on board, the whole world is EVENTUALLY going to turn to alternative/renewable/sustainable energy.


You do realize that the US is leading the alternative fuel innovation. The US is set to be a net gas exporter in the future. The future is not now though, as they are still experimenting with blends, plants, etc. Alternative fuels is a thing for the future, bot not now.

Originally posted by Krieger

Obama wants to get us off of oil. What does the price for a barrel of oil matter if we're all running on Hydrocell and water or electricity?


Hydro Cell's aren't going to be viable on a large scale for some years in the future. The technology is just too new. Who would support these hydro cell cars now? Training takes time. The technology needs some maturing still.

Also if you look at hybrid cars, if you aren't an electrical engineer, you damn well better know about capacitants, ohms, wiring and lith ion batteries. This technology also needs maturing to the point of a mechanic not an engineer can repair these cars. We just don't produce enough engineers.

For the forseeable future we will be using hydrocarbons. The best energy plans that will slowly wein us off of oil, which it will have to be slow will come from multiple sources. You can liquify coal and get gas. The new cellulose based ethanol's look promising also. You have oil shale, and sand. All of the things I mentioned are future non-mature thus expensive and not cost effective. Currently for more oil locally. We can slowly make the change, but it wont be instant that is the sad reality.

Here are some reasons why.
1. The cost to replace the vehicles, are we all supposed to throw our cars away now that we own. That is not feasible and a very elitist attitude. I can't afford a new car right now, nor do I want another car note.

2. Cost of alternative fuels, currently it is still cheaper to use oil then use the alternative fuels i mentioned above.



It appears to me some people in here are attempting to make us believe that we could be off of hydrocarbon in 2 or 3 years. I am saying this with 100% certainty that is an impossible goal. We are too vested in oil right now. Seeing how we will be on oil for the forseable future why not drill and refine it all here. Why send our wealth to other countries. That sounds well unacceptable to me.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rook1545

Originally posted by Fromabove
Drill Baby Drill !!!

Or,

Kneel down on your prayer rugs and pray to Allah five times a day...

As for me...

Drill here.. drill now..


That makes no sense at all. *SNIP*

The US gets most of it's oil from Canada, not the ME. Maybe if you had done some critical thinking, a little research, you would not look like a uninformed jingoist.

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

Please refrain from personal attacks towards other members and stick to the topic at hand.

[edit on 9/4/2008 by maria_stardust]


They would rather live in a pipe dream then reality. I think something like 75% of our oil comes from the western hemisphere. But they constantly talk about the middle east on here. Sounds to me like Europe has more of an oil problem the North America.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Krieger
Good point. The Democrats are looking at other means of fuel. They aren't going to drill for oil to get off of oil. They are going to replace oil with water, Hydrocell, battery, plug ins, other forms.


You guys have alot of faith in people who have done little once they got elected. I personally think they are all bums. Saying you won't drill definitly won't get my vote, I have 3 kids cheap gas is a must in the US. Those alternatives are a ways off, i need relief now. I know one thing, it wouldnt be bad if we could become a bigger energy exporter. Maybe we could then balance the budget. The rest of the world isn't going to stop drilling tomorrow either. Why not make a profit?



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
You are upset with - 'drill baby drill'?

Does 'O-bam-a, O-bam-a,' upset you as well?

I'm all for drilling here. So I'll join the chant - 'drill baby drill' and I'll add - what the hell have we been waiting for? Oh yes, the dems.


Gov. Palin said - drill, wind, solar, nuclear, ... everything ... and make it all in America and by Americans.

THAT is a great aim!


BTW - this is an oil driven system on planet earth. It can't change overnight. We still MUST drill. It's a matter of national security.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by greysave
 


Natural Gas is NOT renewable energy.
And yes I've seen the commercials with the gas guy on the back of the oil guy.
Snake oil everywhere.

Us is a leader.

You want to drill to achieve in 10 years a price cut in gasoline that happens when an analyst at the basement of etrade sneezes!

There's not enough oil in the states, you can't get it out efficiently, and we don't have enough refineries.

Why is this so difficult to understand?



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
It can't change overnight. We still MUST drill. It's a matter of national security.


How on earth is this a matter of national security? I just can't see how not drilling threatens the US in any way, shape, or form. That is like saying if we don't make more Twinkies, then babies will be born with 3 arms.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by greysave
 


Natural Gas is NOT renewable energy.
And yes I've seen the commercials with the gas guy on the back of the oil guy.
Snake oil everywhere.

Us is a leader.

You want to drill to achieve in 10 years a price cut in gasoline that happens when an analyst at the basement of etrade sneezes!

There's not enough oil in the states, you can't get it out efficiently, and we don't have enough refineries.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

How do you know? The oil companies don't even know. You are just spouting an OPINION that is completely baseless. Using 70's era estimates with 70's era equipment. No one really knows how much oil is in the shelf because they don't survey. They do know there is a pretty significant amount of oil in anwr. As others mentioned there is oil in ND. Not that I am for oil companies because i def am not, I am for cheap transportation fuel though. Another poster posted correctly that we can't get off oil over night. I am all for the alternatives, but to power my vechile today I need gas. I am def for more nuclear power plants. I also want more wing and solar and renewable.

And to comment on what you said, I never said that natural gas is renewable. It is though clean. That of course isn't good enough for you. You'd prefer that we have no gas at all.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rook1545

Originally posted by FlyersFan
It can't change overnight. We still MUST drill. It's a matter of national security.


How on earth is this a matter of national security? I just can't see how not drilling threatens the US in any way, shape, or form. That is like saying if we don't make more Twinkies, then babies will be born with 3 arms.


I think he is saying that depending on countries like Venezuela for oil, makes it a matter of national security. That we should drill in order to prevent them from cutting the gas off and shutting us down. All of the "left" communist countries are nationalizing there oil reserves.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by greysave
 


Are you kidding me? I'll maybe say Anwar is somewhat uncertain, but the gulf?
The whole gulf deep shelf and all is completely mapped and surveyed. Their biggest obstacle in the past was that it was technologically difficult to drill deep. They've solved that and are ready to go at a moments notice. This oil is included in the report that Bush's people released and still concluded 3-4 cent correction. And Anwar is tiny.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rook1545
The US gets most of it's oil from Canada, not the ME. Maybe if you had done some critical thinking, a little research, you would not look like a uninformed jingoist.


2003 Leading sources of US imports

Canada (17%)
Saudi Arabia (14.5%)
Mexico (13%)
Venezuela (11%)

looks like what we get from the ME is nothing to sneeze at, those were the most recent figures i could find...

between importing more from canada, producing our own petrol, and building new nuke power plants, we could effectively rid ourselves of depending on questionable sources like south america and the middle east

thats what a good start looks like...

drilling our own = good paying jobs for americans and an economy that can pay down the deficit without more taxes.

wheres the down side?



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rook1545
[How on earth is this a matter of national security?

You are kidding, right? We are sending billions of $$$ every year overseas to countries that hate us and that will always hate us due to their extreme radical religious beliefs. You don't think it's a matter of national security to try to keep billions of American $$$ out of the hands of those who hate us??



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by feydrautha
wheres the down side?


The downside is that the Dems have already come out in strong opposition of this, and can't change their minds now. Even though a majority of America wants us to drill in order to provide more energy, more jobs, and more security, they still oppose it.

This is all political for them.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rook1545

How on earth is this a matter of national security? I just can't see how not drilling threatens the US in any way, shape, or form. That is like saying if we don't make more Twinkies, then babies will be born with 3 arms.


our country operates on energy, we depend on it to exist

if that energy is controlled by unpredictable forces outside of our control, then that is a fundamental security risk, we can be brought to a halt... our economy, our emergency services, everything.

see? that is what a direct connection looks like, now as for twinkies and babies?

typical leftie... as clueless and logic free as ever



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by feydrautha
 


If there was enough to make a dent!

As for as creating jobs, helping the economy, and securing energy independence, green and renewable energy will provide all that.

Oil is like heroin to Republicans, you can see it in this thread alone, squeeze and squeeze the last drop and lick the needle.

It's like you got it in your head that democrats like paying $5 a gallon.

[edit on 9/4/2008 by schrodingers dog]

[edit on 9/4/2008 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by feydrautha
 


The thing that those reports fail to take into consideration is the oil sent to the States from Canada by American companies. Any oil these US companies such as Esso, Koch, Mobil, and the likes does not count as Canadian exports. That oil is pumped from the ground and shipped straight to the US via company owned pipelines.

Things might have changed in the past few years but that is how it used to be.





top topics
 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join