Comments on: A Pinprick of Potential Power

By: thelotuseater725

thelotuseater725 — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:42:31 +0000

I agree with Reboot 100% on this issue.
@ magnus

That is is if congress would pull their heads out of their asses and let the oil companies build new refineries period and pursue more off shore oil drilling we could lower our prices. Lousy democrats.

By: tiki god

tiki god — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:05:16 +0000

I do love the projected usages charts that end up going completely verticle after about 10-15 years, lol

By: mAgnUS BUTTfoorson

mAgnUS BUTTfoorson — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:14:03 +0000

the above comment resulted from a tip from tiki btw

By: mAgnUS BUTTfoorson

mAgnUS BUTTfoorson — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:08:51 +0000

Prices are high because of the same creative futures accounting as employed by Enron.

New refineries would take 10 years to make an impact on prices.

Its a bubble that will burst. The projected supply is WAY beyond the reality we’ll see.

By: DasMaus

DasMaus — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:03:54 +0000

Drilling in ANWAR would have such an incredibly small effect on the environment it’s totally appalling if that’s the real reason we’re not already in there. If it gives us (and by us I mean US) a little breathing room while we develop/produce a better means of energy (and by better I mean practical, affordable and effective) then just do it…do it wisely and responsibly but fucking do it.

…or do away with speculation trading and get gas prices back down to where people aren’t having to make a choice between gas or food.

By: deuce

deuce — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:59:29 +0000

ANWR is another one of those stupid issues that don’t actually matter in the real world that much, but that the two political camps have blown way out of proportion to serve as a rallying point.

If we’re allowed to drill in ANWR, then the big-business conservatives win. Gas prices go down 2 cents a gallon 10 years from now, and world oil capacity is bumped up an almost immeasurably small amount, but it opens the floodgates to further economic exploitation of protected lands.

On the other hand, if we continue to keep drilling out of the ANWR, then big-business conservatives get to keep another one of their hot-button issues alive.

By: nyoki

nyoki — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:12:12 +0000

@suicydking
The suprem court just reduced the punitive damages for Exxon from 2.5 billion to 500 million.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/27/scotus.exxon/index.html?iref=newssearch

By: storminator

storminator — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:05:47 +0000

I can’t help but wonder how many billions of dollars we’ve spent arguing about something that we’re going to drill eventually, anyway.

I lived in Alaska for 20 years. I’ve been to Prudhoe Bay and Kaparuk. I’ve driven the Haul Road. Let me tell you about the park. There’s a lot of caribou. Not nutritious or tasty. There’s some polar bears, occasionally a brown will go that far in the summer.

There’s a kazillion Mosquitoes, and that’s it. It’s tundra. No trees. No bushes. Moss and rocks.

Three square miles I’ve heard arguements about for 30+ years…

By: nyoki

nyoki — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:36:49 +0000

You may be right reboot but if we started at ANWR now, it would be 10+ years before we’d see that oil in the refineries. So, should we start now…just in case?

I haven’t made up my mind about drilling in ANWR.

By: suicydking

suicydking — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:27:40 +0000

Word up, reboot. As long as there are straw men for corporate jackasses to burn down, we can avoid the real issues. Sometimes you need the long view.

By: reboot

reboot — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:12:04 +0000

I’m not against drilling ANWR for environmental reasons. I’m against drilling there because I don’t think we should suck up every last drop of oil as fast as our SUVs can burn it. It might be a good idea to save some reserves so that when there is a real crisis (e.g. full-scale war in the middle east) we have some resources left to deal with it. Drilling ANWR now is selling out future security for corporate profit.

By: 42

42 — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:53:51 +0000

And getting stabbed with an ice pick leaves such a small hole! Why don’t people understand that the total surface area of your body compared to the very small puncture wound of an ice pick means the ice pick isn’t harmful? Why?

By: pauld

pauld — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:51:24 +0000

The final word on ANWR

By: GorillaMunch

GorillaMunch — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:26:04 +0000

read The energy non-crisis.

By: MaiNiaC_MicHaeL

MaiNiaC_MicHaeL — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:23:54 +0000

And the highest grade level for Texan adults is what? If they think that they have the largest state…if feel for Texans.

By: chandrielle

chandrielle — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:08:07 +0000

Here in Texas there are quite a lot of people who do believe it is the largest state. Natedog – you a Texan?

OMG someone think of the yetis!

By: suicydking

suicydking — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:34:06 +0000

Sorry for the double post.

The other issue here is that instead of investing in alternative energy, we’re looking for band-aids and stop-gaps. We should be running cars on everything but fossil fuels by now. The technology exists, it just not profitable yet.

By: suicydking

suicydking — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:32:08 +0000

Also at hand here is the issue of trust. Ask the folks in Prince William Sound what Exxon told them before vs. what happened after the Exxon Valdez spill. They’re still waiting for Exxon to make good on their promises.

Don’t worry, we know what we’re doing. Everything is going to be fine…

I know it’s not the same situation, but sometimes shit happens that we didn’t account for.

By: unknown

unknown — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:30:17 +0000

The rest of Alaska is fucking FULL! WE NEED THIS FREAKING PIECE OF LAND!

By: somoneelseschild

somoneelseschild — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:26:19 +0000

Even though it is a small piece of land, relatively. If drilling is allowed, that would set a presidence that “Hey, it’s ok to drill in National Parks.” Then those of us who like going to national parks will have to endure the sight of oil pumps and capitalism in the one place where we go to get away from that.

By: vandykebrown

vandykebrown — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:25:02 +0000

Texas = 262,000 square miles
Alaska = 572,000 square miles

572,000/262,000=2.2

2.2>2.0

By: rattybad

rattybad — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:23:01 +0000

It’s interesting to me that conservatives will reply to the gay marriage issue with slippery slope thinkingâ€””this will lead to marriages between humans and their pets!”â€”but don’t understand that drilling in a small portion of Alaska will lead to drilling throughout the state and killing every sled dog, polar bear and Yeti in existence, thus ending the world as we know it.

Hey! It’s slippery slopeness! If gays shouldn’t be married for our own protection, then the same goes for drilling in Alaska! No gay sex for oil!

Actually, let me restate that: gay sex for oil!

By: natedog

natedog — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:20:04 +0000

more than twice the size of Texas? not sure i want to believe that….

anyhoo, we have enough Crude Oil. getting it is not the problem. the problem is that we have not built any new refineries in 30 something years. yeah, 3 decades.

our demand for the products made from Crude has shot up in that time, while our capacity to refine it has not. we can’t turn enough crude oil into unleaded and heating oil/diesel.