jonny5
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2012
- Messages
- 27,581
- Reaction score
- 4,664
- Location
- Republic of Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Or maybe the oil companies want to lock up the land until it makes better economical sense to extract the oil. Since oil company profits always remain high as ever, why would they want to create more supply when it would only lower the price?
While I'm not for opening ANWR for reasons which consist of saving natural beauty and wildlife to not turning National Parks into oil fields, I'm also realistic enough to think we should save ANWR's oil for a rainy day. The Mojave is a vast desert and can certainly absorb solar panels, windmills can be built in non-migratory paths, Bonneville Dam, for one, has locks for spawning salmon.
The nuclear waste issue needs to be solved and as far as NG is concerned, again, I'm not opposed to drilling, just not on, or near, our national treasures. Hydrogen needs advances in technology. If the country can back lunar landings and space exploration, it should also back alternative energies. We're going to need it.
I made up the numbers just like you did. The nation doesnt own ANWR. The people of Alaska do. They can do what they want with it.
We can prove our beliefs by our committal to them, and in no other way. If you hate Big Oil, give up your car. If you think coal causes global warming, close your account with the electric company. To not do those things makes you a hypocrite.
I'm working on all those things and have been since 1984.
What are committed to?
And what are you doing to show your commitment?
28 years and you still haven't gotten it done?
I'm committed to bash Obama as badly as the Liberals bashed Bush for years till the time come that he heads back to Chicago.
It's evidenced by my postings on the Forums and comments on news sites.
p.s. My electric bill is $41 a month level pay, my average cost for natural gas (heat) is about $32 a month and my average water use is $1.87 a month, of course they tack on all kinds of bull crap charges and it costs me $21 for $1.87 worth of water. My house is insulated like a refrigerator and use the sun for heating and conserve the cold in closed off rooms for cooling. Do I do it to save the Earth? Absolutely NOT! I do it so I can save money for other things.
Further along than most.
What have you done to improve the world?
OK, you are anti-progress, what else?
Isn't it great how conservation pays off! I know it must be hurtful though to know that you are polluting the environment less while you save money!
Did I mention I live less than 2 mile from where I work? Conservative MEANS conservation, what part of that don't libs understand?
Did I mention I live 40 feet from where I work? Conservation also means less pollution of our environment. What part of that win/win situation don't the cons get?
Re-read my posts, are you saying I don't get it? Or I don't get it for all the wrong reasons liberals believe?
If you want to go with that, fine. In ten years ANWR would enable us to pay $1.44 less for a barrel of oil. Which means instead of paying probably by then $150 for a barrel of oil, it will only cost us $148.56 a barrel.
Hoo-ray! We are saved from peak oil!!!! I don't know why someone didn't think of this sooner! :roll:
Its not whether I want to go with that or not, it's your selective choice of numbers which were wrong to begin with, and then you didn't mention all the facts at the time or even later when the numbers were obvious.
That EIA report is clearly rubbish, as well the way the story was presented, and that you present it as fact, even if you did skew them, is just silly.
I've seen no evidence in your posts that you have an understanding of the fact that conservation and being less polluting are symbiotic and necessary for a sustainable economy.
Why would you, I don't care about being less polluting, symbiotic and necessary for a sustainable economy. I care about costing myself less money.
Who's study do you think is more credible than the EIA's? Post it on up here.
Just as I suspected. That explains it, thanks!
Did I mention I live less than 2 mile from where I work? Conservative MEANS conservation, what part of that don't libs understand?
All you need to do is ask, I always tell the truth.
There is no study which can predict the price of oil in 2025. None. And that you actually believe it can be done, especially within pennies, is lunacy.
You miss the main point of the study, how little oil is there compared to our demand. Where are your studies that refute the EIA studies?
I think you are just blowing smoke which is fitting because that is what the GOP is doing when they suggest that drill baby drill is some kind of affordable option.
See the numbers above from the EIA. I was only off by 20 cents a barrel. Not surprised to hear you made up your numbers though!
You ask an irrelevent question, you get an irrelevant answer. Im still waiting for you to explain how producing more oil will make prices go up.
There is a limited amount of oil that is able to be drilled.
There is a greatly growing demand for oil.
As we continue filling the increasing demand with an depleting resource the price will go up.
Two things commonly drive pricing. Supply and Demand. As the supply of oil continues to shrink it will become more expensive. As the demand for oil continues to increase it will become more expensive. Considering the supply is shrinking, and the demand is growing the price will only continue to grow.
Except supply isnt shrinking. The world produces more oil than ever before. The proven reserves of oil are greater than ever before. So, supply is increasing, demand is increasing faster. Logically, increasing supply faster would stablize prices.
What part do you not get? The study is a farce, It's nonsense!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?