[3aidlillahi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Someone told me that from the IP addresses of some of these people he can tell many of them are in Iran, North Korea and Pakistan.

[CarlosFerreira]

I see. We're not really discussing anything serious here, are we?

Silly me.

[Blacksmith]

I have to agree with the premise that there is plenty of oil, however there is not plenty of cheap oil.

[Vogelzang]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('3aidlillahi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Someone told me that from the IP addresses of some of these people he can tell many of them are in Iran, North Korea and Pakistan.

[eXpat]

I thought that there woudn´t be anything worst than OilisMastery. Silly me.

[Vogelzang]

VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!


Dims impede oil drilling

June 6, 2008
Who's to Blame for High Gas Prices?

For several decades, the Democratic Party has pursued policies designed to drive up the cost of petroleum, and therefore gas at the pump. Remarkably, the Democrats don't seem to have taken much of a political hit from the current spike in gas prices. Probably that's because most people don't realize how different the two parties' energy policies have been.

Congressman Roy Blunt put together these data to highlight the differences between House Republicans and House Democrats on energy policy:
ANWR Exploration House Republicans: 91% Supported House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Coal-to-Liquid
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed

SUMMARY

91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.

86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.

PAUL adds: It's useful to keep this sort of thing in mind when we hear (on something like a daily basis these days) that the Republicans have run out of ideas or that Republican ideas didn't work. The truth is that most major Republican ideas weren't tried because the Democrats blocked them. Increasing the domestic production of oil and gas (a move so obvious it barely meets the standard for being an idea) is hardly the only example. Social security reform and school choice also come quickly to mind. Republican-backed policies for increasing the number of Americans with health insurance were also blocked by Democrats. And so forth.

To comment on this post go here.

[Heineken]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Concerned1', 'Y')ou know, I've been coming here for a while now, trying to stay up on things. And I've been reading everyone's comments to see what they have to say. I think a lot of people who comment here are genuinely concerned about the future of energy. They're comments are genuine and their fears understandable. But I'm disturbed by the number of comments I've been reading by people who knock every bit of good news that comes along. Honestly, it almost sounds as if some of those here actually want things to get worse, are looking for bad news, and will denounce every bit of good news that gets posted as ridiculous. What do you want? If the point is to find solutions, good and well. Isn't that what it's all about? But if the point is to suggest that there's nothing we can do, everything is going to hell in a handbasket and we might as well just blow our heads off, I mean, what's the point of that? If anyone here actually wants things to get worse, whoa, scary!

[CarlosFerreira]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', 'L')et's face it, the world's media have pretty much ignored the doomer positions, all of which are now incontravertibly supported by hard facts.

I'm prepared to be more optimistic, but first I have to see recognition---just mere recognition---by the establishment of the true solutions. The true solutions involve drastic, painful, and self-sacrificial measures like controlling the human population and abandoning the current growth-centric economic model. The world's establishment continues to rigidly oppose such measures; in fact, the mainstream media won't even mention them---they're taboo.

[3aidlillahi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou're obviously an Islamic terrorist doing jihad on the internet. We will defeat you and all Al Qaeda members.

[CarlosFerreira]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'S')o you see no limit to growth on a finite planet? So you define 'growth' in an intellectual, spiritual, or cultural context? I define it physically.

[Heineken]

The 30-year update, I hope, Carlos.

[CarlosFerreira]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', 'T')he 30-year update, I hope, Carlos.

[Vogelzang]

http://www.dailytech.com/Greenpeace+Sue ... e12070.htm

Nature is bad

Nature is survival of the fittest, exploitation of the weak, dog eat dog, disease, poison and parasites. Everywhere in nature you have one organism, plant, animal or microbe, trying to sh*t on another organism. Organisms of the same species fight to become top dog only to pass their genes onto the next generation. Predators eat prey, who need predators to control their numbers to prevent overpopulation which would use up all of the prey's food supply.

Its man's mission on earth to conquer and control nature. Nature, alone, has no purpose. Now that man has arrived on earth, it is nature's purpose to serve mankind. Of course, it might be desirable to have some reasonable amount of conservation so nature can provide for man's needs long term. The most morally upright of mankind reduce the suffering of his fellow man by inventing and providing labor saving devices and other technology. To run the labor saving devices and provide synthetic materials of at least equal or better worth than natural materials, man has learned to use fossil fuels, such as oil, natural gas and coal. The companies and those working in those industries that provide these products are some of the most righteous people on earth as are the farmers who provide food for mankind. If it wasn't for synthetic chemistry, it would be impossible to provide enough food for the human race today.

The most noble life a human can lead is as a fair free trade capitalist owning or working for a company, especially a publically owned corporation which provides large amounts of wealth for its share holders and society. The highest level of society is those refered to as conservatives or neo-conservatives, in many ways modeled after Plato's Republic where the smartest and most educated run society for the benefit of all.

A number of deviant individuals oppose man's true nature as discussed here by opposing capitalism and setting up scams where these individuals pretend to be environmentalists with little or no knowledge of science. Many may have tried to get a traditional scientific education only to drop out and become involved with a leftist scam outfit. These people, especially, the fake environmentalists are in league with the devil. These deviants insist man is evil and claim he only exploits and damages the earth.

The deviants speak with a religious fervor and provide tainted evidence and pseudoscience and claim mankind is creating a catastrophy in order to encourage people to join their suicide pact. These left leaning deviants have failed in a fair capitalist system because of their sociopathic incompetence and want to destroy it and all those who are part of it.

The greatest evil they have concocted is the man made global warming scam where they try to blame all bad things that happen today on an alleged global warming caused by mankind's use of fossil fuels.

[Heineken]

So he can waste OUR time here!

[Vogelzang]

pstarr, you have been deemed genetically inferior and are required to report to the nearest office of the Department of Racial Purity for sterilization by order of the Commisioner of Eugenics.

http://images.google.com/images?client= ... 1&ct=title

[Judgie]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Vogelzang', 'p')starr, you have been deemed genetically inferior and are required to report to the nearest office of the Department of Racial Purity for sterilization by order of the Commisioner of Eugenics.

http://images.google.com/images?client= ... 1&ct=title

[ROCKMAN]

Concerned: here's another view one could take as pessimistic but it's really just another noncomforting reality,

In various threads I often see the phrase “all the easy oil has been found…the rest will be much more difficult to find”. Actually the truth is just the opposite. Many laymen would interpret that phrase to mean there’s a lot more oil out there but we just haven’t found it yet. I’ve been a petroleum geologist for over 30 years and oil exploration has never been as easy and relatively successful as it is now. It’s difficult to offer an easy understood example but I’ll make this comparison. Diagnosing a lung tumor 100 years would have obviously been difficult. Now with chemical and DNA markers as well as x-rays and CAT scans it pretty routine. In the last 30 years we’ve had technological advances on the same order of magnitude. We can now successfully explore for smaller targets with much higher probability of success in environments (such as 7000’ of water) that no one had dreamed of when my career began (600' water depth then). Despite their size many of the old mega fields were far from easy to find. Those were the days of real “seat of your pants” wildcatting.

A good current oil patch example would be the big North Sea play that developed in the 80’s. Even though they’ve produced over 25 billion bo since then few people know that it took 93 wells before the first big field discovery. I can only offer a guess but today it might have taken only a handful of wells. Additionally, currently completions designs would have depleted those fields much faster. The crisis is that the remaining conventional oil isn’t difficult to find but that there are just not many big fields of significant size left to find. The exceptions would be those areas of the world that have not been accessible for either political or logistical reasons. Applying new technology in these areas will have a significant impact but still limited to a small area compared to historic global exploration and production. The tar sands and other resource plays have been discussed by others so I’ll gloss over them . The tar sands have been known for hundreds of years. The issues there are ecological and economic.

If the general public interprets that phrase to mean we’ll just have to look harder and we’ll solve PO they will be in for a shock when it doesn’t happen. Even worse, they’ll want to put off the changes in our economy/lifestyles we need to begin today.

[CarlosFerreira]

So, that means it's not going to be harder to find, it will be more and more expensive to extract, right?

On a side note, for such a potentially crappy thread, this is turning very informative.