It was all a lie?

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/OilGiantBacksOffGree nPush.aspx

Agreeing with both Trixter and MSN might be too much for one day, but I agree with them.

The only thing that is going to help us out of the oil mess is the development of a radical new form of energy, something oil companies will fight, not help.

what lie, Our country and Canada need increases in domestic oil production, as well as new energy sources, oil sand and oil shale are just now becoming economically viable.

That's why I asked....

It was all a lie???

You don't agree Nwokie??? GREAT! Just asked a question!

Because their developing a new source of oil, makes all their other "environmentally frienldy" operations a lie? We are going to be dependent on oil for at least a half a century, and its better to have domestic sources.

The sooner we start digging into the colorado mountains for oil shale, the better off we are.
And while we're at it, we need to start using all that coal in Utah, President Clinton gave national park status to.

Just asked a question!

"The only thing that is going to help us out of the oil mess is the development of a radical new form of energy, something oil companies will fight, not help."

And don't expect any help from the radical right wingers who are in the pockets of the oil companies. It will take liberal thinking to solve this issue, and we all know that right wingers are incapable of thinking outside the box.

The liberals were in power and did nothing. What will be different now?

"The liberals were in power and did nothing. What will be different now?"

Talk about being funny, Deane, that takes the cake. The GOP ran Congress from 1994 to 2006. How does that equivocate to "liberals were in power?" Please explain. Oh, you mean Clinton, a Democrat, was the president. That was hardly an impediment for the GOP Congress. Please cite an example. I'll venture a guess you can't. The Republicans got almost everything big business interests wanted with a few small concessions to the Clinton administration in return.

Well, what were Clinton's efforts that were torpedoed by the Republican Congress?

What bills were introduced by the Democrats in Congress that were destroyed by the Republicans?

Truth is, there has been no serious effort by anyone. There's not need for the libs to play holier than thou.

Hell, it was supposed to start with Carter. The guy had it right, way back then.

Remember the solar panels on the white house?

The GOP took them down, and began their current path with Reagan. From there, the party basically owns the oil dependence issue.

Damn, I just knew this would all be the Republicans fault. Why did I ever think otherwise?

Good question.
When there is so much evidence, why don't you think otherwise?

Hey, the Dems didn't exactly push it when they could have too. Fair is fair Deane. I'm not happy with the party for that.

But the GOP does own it.

House Select Energy Committee Chairman Edward Markey (D-MA) brings top-level executives from the five largest oil companies to discuss the current state of oil & gas prices, renewable fuels, and pollution.

I urge you all to watch yesterday's hearing on C-Span. Yes, it is lengthy, and the facts are going to piss you off big time. Yes, there are some pretty obvious partisan divisions on the subject, including blocking testimony from Representatives who waited hours to have a turn. The Congress is doing their job by grilling executives, but this is just the start of a long battle. Regardless of your party, if you feel strongly about this, let your Representatives know that you have their back in the fight for our future.

We don't need a radical new substitute for oil, all we need to do is make moderate increases in the use of alternate power sources.
If we got 10 % of our energy from solar, 10% from wind, 10% from nuclear, 10% from oil shale/tar, 10% drom tides, we would be energy independent.

If we got 10 % of our energy from solar, 10% from wind, 10% from nuclear, 10% from oil shale/tar, 10% drom tides, we would be energy independent.

You'll have a hard time getting most of those past the tree huggers.

Can't have big fans in the Gorge. It might kill Tweety Bird.

Tidal power might kill Nemo.

And Nuclear, we all know that's bad.

Let the tree huggers watch their TV in the dark!

I'm not saying to hell with the environment, but there has to be some give somewhere.

We NEED alternative sources of energy.

Thats why i say, use a moderate amount of each, yes I know the lib's will fight it all, they want some magic source, that has no bad side affects, at all.

We could make oil out of baby seals.

We could make oil out of your head to but why?

Skybill sez: "Can't have big fans in the Gorge."

In the Gorge???!!!

Heck, lets put a train switching yard/hub & spoke system in Yellowstone park!

I'm for fans, but lets keep them out of scenic areas!


ps: I've a few old semi-trailers I need to park somewhere. Can I use your front yard SkyBill?

This isn't just tree huggers.

It's about oil peaking. If it hasn't happened, it's going to happen.

The energy density and portability of oil has yet to be matched.

We feed ourselves and live under the assumption we will always have that energy density available to us. Well, we won't.

If we have not built out infrastructure and technology to make use of other, SUSTAINABLE, energy sources, a lot of people are going to simply die.

Look around man. It's a closed club with a lot of people to feed. Nearly every aspect of our lives is oil based. The materials we use, how we move our food, our technology, all of it.

If that energy density is gone, without the appropriate build outs, we will go into a dark age, unable to make use of the technical skills we have, and feed ourselves at the same time.

Oil is required for the transition, and it's required to keep everybody alive. That is what is not always talked about on these things.

Doing those things in a clean manner is one problem. Simply doing them is another one.

The priority is very simple really. Get it happening first, then get it clean second.

I'm far more worried about the lack of sustainable energy sources than I am about clean and sustainable energy sources.

All of the petro-stuff is NOT sustainable. It is finite, and is required for materials and high technology build outs.

This means, even if we end up with alternatives for transport and heat, we will still need oil for core materials. Polymers, for example, are an oil based tech. No oil, no polymers = most common materials either gone, seriously comprimised, or very, very expensive.

We could cross a point where we've peaked, and find ourselves in a position where we choose who lives and who dies during the forced build out stage!

That does not need to happen, and that's really what should drive this whole thing. It's not a liberal thing, tree hugger thing. This is a simple, human problem that all humans have a serious and growing interest in solving.

BTW: Coal, shale, sand and all similar deposits require OIL to extract, and in many cases the cost of extraction is nearly equal to the amount extracted.

(next)

And here's the thing.

If that ratio exceeds parity, it's all over for the petro-economy.

Any serious build out needs to happen before that time, or lots of us die of simple starvation and thermal death, in some cases.

If we've done our build out, then we will reach and cross the parity point. We then extract for those uses we must extract for, and it's just a cost issue, not an issue of lives.

Again, that build out will have to happen on OIL. It's the core of our tech. We've nothing else!

Build early, and we get the time to develop what we need for the very long term. Build late, people die and we may not get the time to develop and risk a dark age, where we've tech all around us, useless for lack of fuel.

I see this issue as being very similar to big tobacco's recent marketing efforts. Due to a changing public perception of tobacco, Phillip Morris and others figure they can win the public perception war by discouraging people to smoke on an official level though "thoughtful" quit-smoking ads, because their product is so well-known and relied-upon that they don't really need to advertise. They simply use their advertising dollars to mitigate the public backlash that comes from selling a dangerous product in this era of informed consumers. They see that as a better use of advertising dollars now that the law prohibits most forms of cigarette advertising. It's a smart PR move, but it's as insincere as can be.

Skybill sez: "Can't have big fans in the Gorge."

In the Gorge???!!!

There are already wind generators in the Gorge. They might be out of the "Scenic Area", but they are in what I still consider the Gorge.