User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 47

Thread: Drill More Oil

  1. #21
    Senior Member Jive A Turkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nozflubber View Post
    Why is more drilling bad?
    Hey Nozflubber,
    You're a Floridian, right?
    What's the sentiment towards offshore exploration over there?

  2. #22
    Senior Member htb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    The real question is "Why haven't INTPs invented cold fusion for us?" Or "Why will INTPs invest more time in explaining to me why 'cold fusion' is the wrong term than inventing cold fusion for us?"

  3. #23
    DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    Hype
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jive A Turkey View Post
    Hey Nozflubber,
    You're a Floridian, right?
    What's the sentiment towards offshore exploration over there?
    Many are against it because it would be unsightly for the boating/coastal folks and on the basis that it would be a high environmental risk. All the more reason to stick it to the alaskan carabou if you ask me!

  4. #24
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Not sure what externalities have to do with government largesse, unless we're talking about unintended consequences (like ethanol making produce more expensive). Or are you making one of those "government started the Internet, so it also made people rich in the 1990s" arguments?

    BTW, I don't think I've ever heard people use the word "externalities" so much as I have in the past year. Was the concept explained in a movie or something? I've had a person tell me with a straight face that "corporations make the majority of their profits by passing along externalities to the rest of society." I was agog.
    Externalities cause the market price to not reflect the actual cost or benefit to society. When there is an externality the market alone is not effective in remedying the situation. The government should get involved. Specifically the development of some alternative energies should be subsidized, because they have a positive benefit to all of society. Although it would be nice if they implemented the policies in a way that makes sense. Ethonal made from sugar cane has eight times the yield that ethonal made from corn has. Ethonal is perfectly reasonable in Brazil but is not really a good idea in the US.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  5. #25
    Senior Member Jive A Turkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Ethonal made from sugar cane has eight times the yield that ethonal made from corn has. Ethonal is perfectly reasonable in Brazil but is not really a good idea in the US.
    I favor the production of ethanol because it emphasizes the formulation and production of new fuels. It gets the people thinking, generating ideas.

  6. #26
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Drilling for more oil is lame-brained. It's not going to provide anything in the short term, and it's barely going to provide anyhting in the long time. If people want to reduce gas prices, the over all impact of drilling in places like ANWR is so miniscule that it's not relevant.

    On top of that, has anyone considered how much oil it takes to develop new sources of oil? Major operations for fossil fuels often seem kind of retarded when considering how much fossil fuel it takes. Take all those people whining about our unexploited shale oil. That oil is so worthless, and so tedious to scrounge up, that it wouldb't be worth the crude oil used to do it.

    I also feel that people need to stop looking to oil for answers. All the money that would go into these drilling operations should go into alternative energy advancement. Oil is filthy and running out.

    Environmental concerns do exist, although there's an interesting point to consider. All the oil that we don't extract, we compensate for with foreign oil. A lot of the places we get oil from are much poorer, have less precise technology, and are arguably more precious and threatened environments. So, if we displace the work of extracting oil onto those countries, it might be environmentally worse than drilling ANWR or off the coast of Florida.

    However, I come back around to the point that this is just more reason to kick oil altogether. I am very pro-active about the idea of doing this. I do not subscribe to Mercury's point of view that we can just let this sit until large enough imperatives naturally manifest themselves. I really don't trust society to react in due time without some pre-emptive initiative. This is a complex, broad, and long-term issue. It's not the kind of thing you just get around to after your chores are done and clean up in a jiffy.
    I think the idea that things will successfully play out if left to their own devices is strangely stoical/fatalist.

    I am willing to pay a large price now to spare the human race of the crisis in the future. If human beings are not properly prepared for the energy crisis when it really sets in, the impact will be of such a kind that it would trivialize the great depression. High prices and the side effects of so-called market distortion in the mean time seem rather petty. I don't like the idea of risking doom in the not-so-distant future because people don't want to get their shoes scuffed in the present.
    Last edited by Magic Poriferan; 06-20-2008 at 06:21 PM. Reason: Cleaned up
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  7. #27
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Drilling for more oil is lame-brained. It's not going to provide anything in the short term, and it's barely going to provide anyhting in the long time. If people want to reduce gas prices, the over all impact of drilling in places like ANWR is so miniscule that it's not relevant.
    The moratorium on drilling has changed expectations, so opening up drilling will change those expectations in the short term. In the long term, it increases supply.

    On top of that, has anyone considered how much oil it takes to develop new sources of oil? Major operations for fossil fuels often seem kind of retarded when considering how much fossil fuel it takes. Take all those people whining about our unexploited shale oil. That oil is so worthless, and so tedious to scrounge up, that it wouldb't be worth the crude oil used to do it.
    It's expensive, based on current technology. No one is asking for the government to subsidize the extraction of shale oil, so I don't even see how your point is relevant. When people talk about drilling, they're almost always talking about light, sweet crude, not shale oil.

    I also feel that people need to stop looking to oil for answers. All the money that would go into these drilling operations should go into alternative energy advancement. Oil is filthy and running out.
    Should? That's entirely subjective.

    Environmental concerns do exist, although there's an interesting point to consider. All the oil that we don't extract, we compensate for with foreign oil. A lot of the places we get oil from are much poorer, have less precise technology, and are arguably more precious and threatened environments. So, if we displace the work of extracting oil onto those countries, it might be environmentally worse than drilling ANWR or off the coast of Florida.

    However, I come back around to the point that this is just more reason to kick oil altogether. I am very pro-active about the idea of doing this. I do not subscribe to Mercury's point of view that we can just let this sit until large enough imperatives naturally manifest themselves. I really don't trust society to react in due time without some pre-emptive initiative. This is a complex, broad, and long-term issue. It's not the kind of thing you just get around to after your chores are done and clean up in a jiffy.
    I think the idea that things will successfully play out if left to their own devices is strangely stoical/fatalist.
    Because naturally manifested imperatives have failed us in the past? I'm lost as to your reasoning, here. Did government create small pox outbreaks to force civilization to develop vaccines? Did government create food shortages to force civilization to develop more effective farming techniques?

    Also, you need to define 'due-time'.

    I am willing to pay a large price now to spare the human race of the crisis in the future. If human beings are not properly prepared for the energy crisis when it really sets in, the impact will be of such a kind that it would trivialize the great depression. High prices and the side effects of so-called market distortion in the mean time seem rather petty. I don't like the idea of risking doom in the not-so-distant future because people don't want to get their shoes scuffed in the present.
    You're willing to pay the price, and you also want to force others to pay the price. That price is borne most heavily by the lower classes. The rich always get theirs.

  8. #28
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    The moratorium on drilling has changed expectations, so opening up drilling will change those expectations in the short term. In the long term, it increases supply.
    In the long term that increase in supply is minute. In the long term, oil is a burning blimp.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    It's expensive, based on current technology. No one is asking for the government to subsidize the extraction of shale oil, so I don't even see how your point is relevant. When people talk about drilling, they're almost always talking about light, sweet crude, not shale oil.
    You're actually wrong about that. Not too long ago I was watching a bunch of whiny Republican congressman on C-span spend their time in the house blabbering about our energy woes, and many of them kept dangling numbers regarding our potential shale oil production.

    Oooooh. Precious shale oil!

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Should? That's entirely subjective.
    Society is driven by the word "should". That's subjectivity you cannot possibly claim to escape.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Because naturally manifested imperatives have failed us in the past? I'm lost as to your reasoning, here. Did government create small pox outbreaks to force civilization to develop vaccines? Did government create food shortages to force civilization to develop more effective farming techniques?
    I have several responses to that.

    First of all, you are using totally silly comparisons. You are using the creation of disaster to motivate people as examples. I'm talking about taking the initiative to create those vaccines and farming techniques, not bringin the disaster here. Those inventions wouldn't even serve a purpose wihout the disasters happening in the first place, so would what be the point of spurring them in that manner? I'm proverbially talking about developing improved farming before suffering from famine forces us.

    Which leads to my second point. The human race may not have gone extinct yet, or suffered a truly word-wide regression in civilization at any point, but that doesn't change the fact that we have suffered extraordinary losses that could have neen prevented. Unnecessary losses.

    Point three is that the problems we face right now are arguably incomperable to anything we've had in the past. The energy crisis threatens the entirety of advanced society, and the environmental crisis threatens life on earth as we know it. These are probably the two biggest problems in human history.
    Life evolves too much to assume that the past represents the future. We have to make logical projections to deal with future problems.

    So, we come to my fourth point. You are basically suggesting that we just let things go, becuase they've always worked out before. This is like the person who argues that they can keep running with scissors, because nothing has happened to them yet. Their reasoning gaurantees that they will continue to run with scissors until they suffer for it. You are advising humanity to wait until someone loses an eye.




    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Also, you need to define 'due-time'.
    Before crises concerning energy or the environment reach a level that damage is irreperable or irreversible. You know how rabbies is basically uncurable once the major symptoms appear? I mean like that. We have to deal with it before the rabbies becomes uncurable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    You're willing to pay the price, and you also want to force others to pay the price. That price is borne most heavily by the lower classes. The rich always get theirs.
    Well, I'd hope to persuade more than force. That's what all of these PR campaigns are for.
    I'd also like to say that I know how much the poor get screwed in these situations, but who are you to talk about that? You don't seem to like my ideas about removing the problem of economic inequality.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  9. #29
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    In the long term that increase in supply is minute. In the long term, oil is a burning blimp.
    I've been looking at this thread in a more general sense. Sure, the ANWR, alone, isn't another Saudi Arabia. By restricting oil drilling, I believe we're limiting our options.

    You're actually wrong about that. Not too long ago I was watching a bunch of whiny Republican congressman on C-span spend their time in the house blabbering about our energy woes, and many of them kept dangling numbers regarding our potential shale oil production.

    Oooooh. Precious shale oil!
    I was talking about the people in this thread. I don't want subsidies for oil drilling any more than I want subsidies for anything else.

    Society is driven by the word "should". That's subjectivity you cannot possibly claim to escape.
    But you want to define what 'should be' for everyone else.

    I have several responses to that.

    First of all, you are using totally silly comparisons. You are using the creation of disaster to motivate people as examples. I'm talking about taking the initiative to create those vaccines and farming techniques, not bringin the disaster here. Those inventions wouldn't even serve a purpose wihout the disasters happening in the first place, so would what be the point of spurring them in that manner? I'm proverbially talking about developing improved farming before suffering from famine forces us.
    Are they really silly? They're certainly more applicable than your 'running with scissors' analogy. You advocate government intervention in speeding up the depletion of oil reserves in order to force people to develop alternate energy sources. That's very similar to deliberately spreading disease to force people to develop a vaccine.

    Which leads to my second point. The human race may not have gone extinct yet, or suffered a truly word-wide regression in civilization at any point, but that doesn't change the fact that we have suffered extraordinary losses that could have neen prevented. Unnecessary losses.
    You're basing this all on the assumption that your measures will bring about alternate energy sources faster than would be done without government intervention. I don't believe that is necessarily the case. You may only succeed in hastening the crises you seek to avoid.

    Point three is that the problems we face right now are arguably incomperable to anything we've had in the past. The energy crisis threatens the entirety of advanced society, and the environmental crisis threatens life on earth as we know it. These are probably the two biggest problems in human history.
    Life evolves too much to assume that the past represents the future. We have to make logical projections to deal with future problems.
    And nothing has threatened civilization in the past?

    So, we come to my fourth point. You are basically suggesting that we just let things go, becuase they've always worked out before. This is like the person who argues that they can keep running with scissors, because nothing has happened to them yet. Their reasoning gaurantees that they will continue to run with scissors until they suffer for it. You are advising humanity to wait until someone loses an eye.
    That analogy is horrible.

    Before crises concerning energy or the environment reach a level that damage is irreperable or irreversible. You know how rabbies is basically uncurable once the major symptoms appear? I mean like that. We have to deal with it before the rabbies becomes uncurable.

    Well, I'd hope to persuade more than force. That's what all of these PR campaigns are for.
    I'd also like to say that I know how much the poor get screwed in these situations, but who are you to talk about that? You don't seem to like my ideas about removing the problem of economic inequality.
    I believe that your programs harm the poor more than they help. That is my problem with your views. In my opinion, people of your ideology use the idea of 'helping the poor' as an excuse to force your will on others.

  10. #30
    Senior Member millerm277's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jive A Turkey View Post
    I favor the production of ethanol because it emphasizes the formulation and production of new fuels.
    Production of corn/soy-based ethanol is a terrible idea. It is highly inefficient, most likely to the point of requiring more energy to produce/transport than it produces. Some of the other Bio-fuel solutions are far better. Switchgrass based ethanol is a better idea, and Algae-based gasoline (chemically identical, does not require any vehicle modifications), is the best so far, and the only one that is likely to be both feasible and clean.

    Also, Brazil's production of it's ethanol (I think sugar-cane based), while more efficient than corn/soy ethanol, is still too inefficient to be feasible, and is causing major deforestation of the amazon because the land is being cleared for farming.
    I-95%, S-84%, T-89%, P-84%

Similar Threads

  1. do you think if a far better more efficent alternative to oil was found,
    By jcloudz in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-26-2013, 12:55 AM
  2. BP planned to consult dead man on oil spill's effects on marine life, and more
    By Haphazard in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-10-2010, 10:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO