|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Quote:
You will need to show me where they said this before I will believe it...
US Secretary of Energy: "America faces a major energy supply crisis....failure to meet this challenge will threaten our nation's economic prosperity, compromise our national security, and literally alter the way we lead our lives
Bush's Energy Advisor: "Under the best of circumstances, if all prayers are answered there will be no crisis for maybe two years. After that itâ??s a certainty."
Exxon-Mobil: "By 2015, we will need to find, develop and produce a volume of new oil and gas that is equal to eight out of every 10 barrels being produced today. In addition, the cost associated with providing this additional oil and gas is expected to be considerably more than what the industry is now spending."
And if you want pictures, here's something from Exxon-Mobil's latest Trend Report:
Quote:
What I am saying is that with oil demmand rising, we need to start looking for ways to get oil that we can't get to right now.
Except for the fact that the oil that "we can't get to right now" is only estimated by the most liberal estiamtes to be some 17% of the oil on the planet. That won't take us very long to go through, and is probably not worth the considerable investment to reach it.
Quote:
There are studies that say there are oil pockets deep under the ocean that are bigger than any field we have seen to date.
I've never seen any study saying anything CLOSE to this. In fact, the biggest oil fields we know we found over 40 years ago. We've been scraping the bottom of the barrel (no pun intended) since then. If we haven't found them in 40 years, it's not expected we'll ever find any. At least none that "are bigger than any field we have seen to date".
See that little tiny bit of Blue and White -- those are the projected reserves in Deep Ocean and Polar reserves. As you can see, it's a very very small portion of the oil and it wouldn't take long to suck it dry.
Quote:
Another solution to the U.S.'s oil woes (after all, it is the U.S.'s problems that we do care the most about right? )would be to allow drilling in formally protected areas, such as Alaska. I am not for clear cutting the forests to search for oil, but there are ways of getting the oil out of the ground that minimize harm to the land.
Just how much oil do you think is up in Alaska?
I'll tell you -- if our international sources wore out, we could survive on the oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for a whopping 6 months.
It's a source, but it's not a savior.
Quote:
If it won't be good in the short term, how can you think it will be good in the long term???
Higher gasoline taxes, if used correctly, will provide resources to create alternatives to our nation's reliance on oil -- at least gasoline produced from oil. It won't solve the problem with the abuse of other hydro-carbon-based products.
Quote:
It sounds like you don't have a problem with being forced out of driving your car that you worked hard to purchase, and you just say "oh well"?
I make plenty of money. I'll pay for gas no matter the cost -- at least for the forseeable future anyways.
You might as well accept the fact that you will be forced out of your car in the near future -- at least your gasoline-powered one.
Quote:
Everyone says that mass transit is an answer, but come on Sigma, you live in Denton, and I am sure you have been out in the sticks. Are you telling me there is going to be a train system in all those small towns?
Nope, not all of them, of course. Some people will have to pay for fuel. But they'll be more conservative with what they have and demand alternatives.
Right now we'll never see alternative fuel sources take off because no one is demanding them. Once gas breaks the psychological $5/gallon number, the demand will increase exponentially.
Unfortunately we don't really have an 'alternative' fuel that actually saves oil, since most of them take more oil to produce whatever they run on, then they would burn straight gas.
Quote:
Good God, as fast as gas prices are going up, you can still sit there and say we need to raise taxes on it??? A typical Democrat thought process if I have ever seen it! Why don't we just make ALL of the money raised from gas tax to go towards transportation instead of rasing taxes?!
Most of the money from gas taxes go straight into the Federal Interstate or State Highway funds already. Some doesn't, and we could probably make better use of that, but even if it all went to the proper sources it still wouldn't suffice.
Current gas taxes are Dollar based, not percent based. So, while time has passed on, what was a sufficient amount for new highway construction and maintenance hasn't increased, causing a severe shortage of funds. 28 cents a gallon isn't as much as it used to be, and while cars get better mileage the amount of tax they pay goes down, further decreasing the coffers.
Quote:
Or why dont we take some of that money and help pay for exploration for oil, so we can begin the process of being self dependant?
Because it simply cannot happen. Geologists haven't found a new field in the US since the early 70's. We'd have to produce several times what we produce now to ever think of being self-sufficient. And that's at current rates.
Consider that production in 2010 will be less than half of what it is today; we can't even find enough to supplement what we lose every year in production because our current wells are drying up -- you think we're going to find enough to counter the decrease of existing wells AND several times that so we can think about being self-sufficient.
By the time we find at tap any new sources, our demand will be even higher. We simply demand oil faster than we could ever hope to find and pump it.
Quote:
I know you wont agree with this, because you would rather see the government build more mass transit and keep raising gas taxes to fund it; effectively giving you no other choice BUT to use the mass transit.
You're right I don't agree with it, and simple fact is that you won't find any real expert who does.
You can throw all the money you want into exploration, but I would rather we work on developing alternatives to our dependence on oil rather than perpetuating a reliance on something that absolutely is finite.
I'm not saying throw it all into mass-transit -- just that that is an area that our nation is WAY behind on.
I'm far more concerned with the status of her nation's freeways than I am on mass-transit. By 2015 the ICC expects that interstate commerce will no longer be realistically possible. The rapidly deteriorating interstate system coupled with ever-increasing population that vastly outpaces construction adds up to a non-functioning interstate commerce system.
Significant government resources also need to be invested in the development of real alternatives to our depending on oil. Not just gasoline for our cars, but our dependency on hydro-carbons for virtually everything in our lives.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,166
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,166 |
Try looking beyond the next 5 years!!!! There is so much more we should be doing before drilling in Alaska, but its about corporate priorities, not enviromental. It is well known that GW is tied tightly to the Gas/Oil industry. Why would he be in a true hurry to help gas prices?
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
What I am saying is that with oil demmand rising, we need to start looking for ways to get oil that we can't get to right now. If we keep looking for it in easy places and the demmand keeps rising, we will be worse off than looking for oil in the harder places, and having to offset the additional cost of getting this harder to get oil.
Why are we looking for more oil when we know it is a finite resource?? How about searching for other more efficient energy sources? How about creating stricter emissions and MPG ratings? There are so many more answers than drilling for oil!
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Another solution to the U.S.'s oil woes (after all, it is the U.S.'s problems that we do care the most about right? )would be to allow drilling in formally protected areas, such as Alaska. I am not for clear cutting the forests to search for oil, but there are ways of getting the oil out of the ground that minimize harm to the land. To put an oil pump and accessories in the ground doesnt require all that much land to be cleared of trees. Also, the proposal on the table most recently would be to open up a whopping 10% of the protected land to oil drilling.
Have you even considered the enviromental impacts here? Also, it is well estimated that it will take in EXCESS of 10 years to get any oil from up there down to the Continential US. This is not an immediate solution, and it is ignorant to think of it as such.
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
If the Alaska pipeline is really leaking like you say it is, then that should be fixed. Also any new pipelines should be more secure and built better than the ones in place now. We certainly have the technology to pipe oil out of these new rigs safely. If it is going to bring oil prices under control, and allow us to begin to get away from OPEC, then we should do anything.
I'll say it again, 10 YEARS!!!
There is no immediate relief up there.
Additionally, ofcourse we have the technology to create leakproof lines, but that costs money, money that the oil companies have no interest in spending. Its not like the Corporate Friendly government is going to enforce any regulations on these pipelines. Its not like oil companies are willing to shut down the pipeline to repair corroding lines. That costs money.
Here is an interesting article. http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/Alaska-Pipeline-Leak.htm
A gunshot hole in the pipeline allowed oil to spill at a rate of 140 gallons a minute! And that's just a gunshot hole!!! It resulted in 285,600 gallons over 3 days.
In addition, 3/4ths of all releases from oil pipelines can be prevented by pipeline operators and their regulators.
Okay, if we need the money that another tax on gas will provide, say for fixing our roads, thats fine. But before President Bush's tax breaks when was the last time you have seen a tax go away after it has been implimented? You haven't, they don't go away, and when you get used to them being there, another one is slapped on.
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
[Quote]People will eventually be forced out of driving their automobiles.
But, in most of the US, there is no alternative. And, when gas prices finally break $5/gallon, no one is going to want to wait 20 years (the average for a light-rail construction plan) for their government to build a mass-transit system. By that time gas will be even more absurd.
It sounds like you don't have a problem with being forced out of driving your car that you worked hard to purchase, and you just say "oh well"?
Name one person that truly is being "forced out" of driving their cars. Hey, guess what, gas prices ARE NEVER coming down. These are the gas prices. This is where America's feeling of entitlement pisses me off! So maybe you won't be able to go joy riding anymore. Guess what, that's life! It might be time to step up and be a little more aware of your surroundings and the enviromental situation. Oil is finite, and we NEED it for many applications besides automobiles.
Quote:
Increasing the tax on gasoline, and sending it to where it needs to go, will provide areas with the money necessary to improve their rapidly decaying transportation infrastructure and finally be able to seriously look at mass-transit solutions before it becomes too late.
Good God, as fast as gas prices are going up, you can still sit there and say we need to raise taxes on it???
ABSOLUTELY!!! It is time to become less dependent on oil in this country. Clearly people and the government are not going to do this on their own, but I guarantee that raising gas prices will have the necessary global impact we need! Also, lets start regulating ALL recreational and All Terrain vehicles too!!! (Snowmobiles, ATVs) All of these unregulated vehicles are polluting the enviroment at exponential rates, but that's another topic altogether (don't get me started).
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Or why dont we take some of that money and help pay for exploration for oil, so we can begin the process of being self dependant?
How is drilling/exploring oil going to make us self dependent? This is not the answer. OIL IS GOING TO DRY UP! FIND ANOTHER MEANS!!!
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Or for all you environmentalists, why don't we as consumers start demmanding more fuel efficiant cars and trucks, and buying them when they are produced? Becomming completely unreliant on oil is unrealistic for the forseeable future, so why waste time on that when we can fix the gas prices right now?
This is the problem with people like you! It is not unrealistic, and it is certainly NOT A WASTE OF TIME! My god, how can searching for other means be a waste of time? Maybe we should wait 30-40 years when the ENTIRE oil supply is dry, and then start looking. Yeah, that's it. Lets wait until it is a CRITICAL situation, and then try and find a solution. Enough with these bandaid solutions, time to take some action. Again, I reiterate, gas prices in this country are the LOWEST IN THE WORLD BY A SIGNIFICANT MARGIN. Its amazing that the rest of the world seems to function with these higher gas prices. Its time we suck it up, tax the hell out of oil/gas, and become a little more conscience of the true problem, not the higher prices.
- Zack
WANTED: T-Red HEATED Side Mirrors
FOR SALE: 4 14" Alum Alloys and Nearly New Avid H4s Tires w/ Center Caps
2000 T-Red SVT
1995 LX V6 MTX (RIP)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,118
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,118 |
Here's one scientist's opinion on the same topic as what I have said: http://www.anomalous-images.com/news/news351.htmlAlso, this link was a pretty good read, as to the state of our oil situation. It provides a point and counterpoint that takes into account almost all of the doomsday evidence provided here. http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0129/p14s01-wogi.html" "I can see no peak for the next 20 or 30 years," says energy consultant Michael Lynch. Since Mr. Lynch has been a keen critic of such early-peak advocates as Mr. Campbell, setting even such a not-so-far-away date is seen as a concession of sorts. " So again, sigma, I am not the only one who feels this way. As much as you wish to believe in your opinion, I do mine. After all, thats all that we can do on this topic is argue opinions. For everything you or I believe, there is someone with just as much proof to the opposite. I am personally not as worried about the oil running out on us for quite some time. Without argument, it will run out someday, and we need to begin shrinking our consumption of oil. However, it is not taxes or government regulations that will do it, in the end it is up to the citizens of the world. If we continue to purchase cars that get 9 mpg, they will continue to produce them. When the public is ready to pay for the added cost of these hybrid vehicles they will produce them. Until that day comes though, we need to worry about right now. Right now gas prices are skyrocketing, and there are immediate responses that we can take, such as lowering taxes to the bare minimum they need to be to support the roadways. Once we get begin to get our situation under control today, then we can worry about getting our dependance on oil down. Today we depend on oil, and that will take a while to change. So just as we should worry about the future, we need to worry about today. -Nick
"Moore has also accused the American people of being the stupidest, most naive people on the face of the Earth. And after last weekend, he's got the box office numbers to prove it!"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
An email on a newsgroup and an article in the Christian Science Monitor whose only 'expert' is some random "energy consultant" is not really a viable argument.
And after reading it, I don't see how that article reaches the conclusion that it does.
It's full of facts from the side of the argument saying that we're screwed, and the only thing they have from the "optimists" (their word -- and fitting too) is a single quote from an "Energy Consultant" and the fact that Canada has oil sands, heavy oils, and shale. All of which usffer from a fundamental problem -- it takes more energy to pull the oil out of the sand than the sands yield.
Oh, and it uses the USGS, which is as wishy-washy on the issue as Kerry on the Economy. One day they release something saying we're running out, the next day they say there's lots. You should read the technical notes on a USGS estimate report -- you'll very amazed at how they reach their estimates sometimes.
And it talks a lot about oil contracts and the US' attempts to gain more access to oil, but that has nothing at all to do with the fact that oil itself is going away, that just means the US itself is trying to get a bigger piece of what's left.
The fact that there's so many ongoing attempts by the US government/companies to secure access to whatever little fields they can get their hands on speaks volumes.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Quote:
However, it is not taxes or government regulations that will do it, in the end it is up to the citizens of the world.
And when do you think people will actually start to care?
When the oil is gone and we'll still have decades of research to do to solve the imminent problem that we would then be facing.
Yeah, that's smart.
Quote:
Until that day comes though, we need to worry about right now.
Yeah, let's only worry about today. Forget EPA regulations, we don't need those! Who cares about tomorrow?! Until the day comes where we can't go outside anymore because the pollution is so bad why worry about it?!
Quote:
Right now gas prices are skyrocketing, and there are immediate responses that we can take, such as lowering taxes to the bare minimum they need to be to support the roadways.
Why the hell would you want to do that?
Do you want to speed up the inevitable, or what? Yeah, there's an idea. Let's makes gas cheaper so we can sell more unnecessary gas-guzzling SUVs to soccer moms.
And "bare minimum" to support the roads -- we're not even there now! And you want to lower the taxes?
While you're at it, why don't you cut school taxes so our kids can learn the "bare minimum" it takes to get by in life.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Check out petroleum research/discovery dollars that are spent by private companies (outside of China).
That should tell you all you need to know about what these companies feel where we are at in terms of oil supply...
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,118
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,118 |
Boy are you good at mis-quoting someone... Quote:
And when do you think people will actually start to care?
When the oil is gone and we'll still have decades of research to do to solve the imminent problem that we would then be facing.
Yeah, that's smart.
People will start to care when they believe there is a problem. If this was such a huge problem, it would be in the minds of alot more people and they would show their concerns by not buying gass guzzlers.
Quote:
Quote:
Until that day comes though, we need to worry about right now.
Yeah, let's only worry about today. Forget EPA regulations, we don't need those! Who cares about tomorrow?! Until the day comes where we can't go outside anymore because the pollution is so bad why worry about it?!
Please would you read my entire statement before trying to debate it. I said numerous times that we need to do both worry about today and the future. Why should we as citizens be put in a hard place today if it's only to worry about tomorrow when we can do both. We can lower the prices today, and at the same time begin lessening our reliance on oil.
Quote:
Quote:
Right now gas prices are skyrocketing, and there are immediate responses that we can take, such as lowering taxes to the bare minimum they need to be to support the roadways.
Why the hell would you want to do that?
Because they are too high.
Quote:
Do you want to speed up the inevitable, or what? Yeah, there's an idea. Let's makes gas cheaper so we can sell more unnecessary gas-guzzling SUVs to soccer moms.
You said it yourself before, we have no choice BUT to use the ammount of fuel we do today, with technology as it stands. I know liberals like yourself LOVE to blame as many problems as they can on SUV's, but dont be rediculous. Your Contour gets about 20mpg, why aren't you in a civic hybrid that gets 60mpg? Who are you to tell someone what is or isn't necessary? Thats one of the many great things about living in the U.S. People like you don't tell me what I do or don't need. I thank God that there aren't more people of your same mindset running this country, and why I pray that Kerry will be defeated.
Quote:
And "bare minimum" to support the roads -- we're not even there now! And you want to lower the taxes?
While you're at it, why don't you cut school taxes so our kids can learn the "bare minimum" it takes to get by in life.
Again, you completely miss my point. I am trying to say that if you quit using gas taxes on things other than the roadways, our roadways could improve without the need to raise taxes. But then I do see your point; if I was a liberal, I would want to raise taxes too...
And while I am at it, why don't I get rid of all these stupid government handout programs, and take that money saved and put it towards the education system, which could use some work. While you are at it, why don't you tax cigarettes more, so that way it would save lives. Yeah right 
"Moore has also accused the American people of being the stupidest, most naive people on the face of the Earth. And after last weekend, he's got the box office numbers to prove it!"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Pull the word "Liberal" outta your ass, and we can talk. A stance on a particular issue does not a liberal make.
Or do you want to call JaTo a liberal too?
I'm sure he'd love that.
Quote:
Why should we as citizens be put in a hard place today if it's only to worry about tomorrow when we can do both. We can lower the prices today, and at the same time begin lessening our reliance on oil.
And you complain about Kerry talking out of both sides of his mouth. You can't get it both ways.
Quote:
Your Contour gets about 20mpg, why aren't you in a civic hybrid that gets 60mpg?
My 'Tour gets about 32mpg actually. My 6s gets 20 though.
I'm not in a hybrid because I don't want one. I can afford to pay for gas no matter the cost. It wouldn't matter one bit to me if state taxes were doubled on gas, I'd pay a whole $15 more a month.
A small price to pay for the HUGE benefit that would have to our nation's transportation system.
Quote:
Who are you to tell someone what is or isn't necessary? Thats one of the many great things about living in the U.S. People like you don't tell me what I do or don't need.
You can buy whatever car you want, but you should be prepared to pay for it.
Quote:
Again, you completely miss my point. I am trying to say that if you quit using gas taxes on things other than the roadways, our roadways could improve without the need to raise taxes.
Prove to me that those tax revenues are spent on other things. Most states, and the Federal government, require that Gas taxes be spent on Highway construction/maintenance. Sure, some is lost in administration, but not enough to acutally LOWER taxes.
Provide research that says we can lower taxes and still maintain our roads, let alone improve them to where we will need to be in the near future.
Quote:
But then I do see your point; if I was a liberal, I would want to raise taxes too...
And if you were intelligent you could actually frame an argument.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,445
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,445 |
2000 Contour SE Sport
Originator of the Beowulf Headlight Mod and the Beowulf CAI
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,149
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,149 |
Originally posted by sigma:
I can afford to pay for gas no matter the cost. It wouldn't matter one bit to me if state taxes were doubled on gas, I'd pay a whole $15 more a month.
That's the second time you've mentioned the whopping $15/month increase in your bills for doubling gasoline taxes.
WOULD YOU PLEASE PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR BUM AND REALIZE THAT FIGURE IS DRASTICALLY HIGHER FOR OTHER CITIZENS!
Besides the obvious fact that millions of citizens drive more than you, and the similarly obvious fact that the price of ALL goods and services would also increase; I thought a deep thinker like yourself would realize that an increase in gasoline tax is a drastically regressive tax that penalizes the poor exponentially more than it penalizes the gas-guzzling-SUV-driving-soccer-mom. This effect is even more pronounced for the rural poor who would be geographically prohibited to improving their life with your tax.
I am dumbfounded that you can sit there and repeatedly throw out that $15 figure as a burden applying equally to all citizens.
-- 1999 SVT #220 --
In retrospect, it was all downhill from here. RIP, CEG.
|
|
|
|
|
