Enviromentalists in bed with oil companies

Enviromental laws and regulations now prevent the United States from drilling on 81% of our coastline.

Envirowhackos love it because mythical enviromental reasons, and the oil companies love it because the less oil there is the more they can charge for it.

Sounds like a win/win situation for both, and a lose/lose situation for us Americans.

Another vote on drilling in ANWAR is soon coming to the Senate. Write your congressmen, and demand opening up drilling anywhere and everywhere in the United States, to end our dependence on foreign oil!

Originally posted by RRconservative
Enviromental laws and regulations now prevent the United States from drilling on 81% of our coastline.

But the same environmental laws do not prevent factories to spew forth deadly toxins? Lets not confuse general environmental law with our various governments compliance with those environmental laws that might restrict energy tapping/production.

Envirowhackos love it because mythical enviromental reasons, and the oil companies love it because the less oil there is the more they can charge for it.

The logic for the protection of the environment is most certainly not mythical and is in fact based on what is best for all of us. Lets not condemn environmental laws in general ( as achieved at great cost and many years of struggle's by a majority of American citizens) because our government selective enforces it to restrict our access to energy.

Sounds like a win/win situation for both, and a lose/lose situation for us Americans.

It sounds like it's a win win situation for those who seek to restrict our access to energy. I just do not believe that oil companies will shoot themselves in the legs in this way and understand that this scheme comes from much higher up in the pyramid of power.

Another vote on drilling in ANWAR is soon coming to the Senate. Write your congressmen, and demand opening up drilling anywhere and everywhere in the United States, to end our dependence on foreign oil!

Well i doubt they will open enough as the moment the US becomes independent of foreign oil ( and it's wars are in fact aimed at prevent foreign oil from reaching the worlds makets) it will lose that passive support from the section of the US public that believes that the US should intervene elsewhere to 'keep the oil flowing'.

Stellar

You are barking up the wrong tree.

We need to lessen our dependence on foreign oil by switching from oil to other sources.



There are many ways to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Drive more efficient vehicles. Drive the vehicles you have more efficiently. Those two factors can make the biggest difference. If everyone increased their current cars efficiency by 50%, that would impact our consumption immensely. If we bought cars that doubled to tripled our mileage, it would help even more. I can drive a 26 mpg car and get near 50 mpg out of it. I switched to a 50 mpg car and can get 60+ out of it. Consuming less is how we reduce our dependence before new infrastructure is in place.

Using bio-fuels, like bio-diesel ... if all diesels switched to a non dino-sourced fuels, it would save a lot.


In 2005, we vehicle consumption estimated 138,723,000,000 gallons of gasoline and 43,042,000,000 gallons of diesel in the U.S. 421,000,000 gallons of all other fuels combined (E85, CNG, etc.) Source: Download XLS - www.eia.doe.gov Estimated Consumption of Vehicle Fuels in the United States, by Fuel Type, 2003-2005



Think about it. If we reduced passenger vehicle consumption by half, that would save 69 billion gallons of gasoline. Don't know what true percentage of the diesel is biodiesel in that estimate ... it is not separate, but we can assume the share is on the low side, increasing it to 100% bio-diesel should be our goal.


A barrel of oil is 42 gallons of crude. A barrel gets us 19.5 gallons of 87 octane. So reducing our consumption of gas by half would reduce our need of 3.5 billion barrels of crude yearly. (This barrel also produces about 7 gallons of diesel.)

Ethanol helps as well, now take that remaining 70 billion gallons and make 85% of it ethanol (not a permanent solution, but temporary fix). Now we are down to only needing 10.5 billion gallons of gasoline a year, or 538 million barrels of crude a year (which also from the process nets us 3.77 billion gallons of diesel).


Our national security and independence could be seen in a short time through the use of 'green' technology, without off-shore drilling. And while we do that, the world supply lasts longer while we solve the problem of developing a new fuel that works, is clean, and renewable. Remember, until we master synthetic production of all products, we still need fossil fuels for making plastics and other daily objects we don't think about the source of.


Now, I am all for not burning coal and other fossil fuels for home energy as well. Whether it be nuclear, wind, solar, water, etc. power sources.

Magnitude 5.8
# Date-Time Sunday, September 10, 2006 at 14:56:07 (UTC) ... Depth 10 km (6.2 miles) set by location program ...

This is the largest of more than a dozen shocks that have been instrumentally recorded from the eastern Gulf of Mexico in the past three decades, and it is the most widely felt. The most recent significant earthquake in the region occurred on February 10th, 2006 and had a magnitude of 5.2. We have not associated this earthquake with a specific causative fault.

earthquake.usgs.gov

Drilling for natural gas and oil has been occurring in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico offshore Alabama and Florida for more than three decades

gomr.mms.gov


In the 70s we had a military ship that could drill nearly 6 miles down - 30,000 ft drilling depth, max water depth 10,000 ft. Drilling ship owned by U.S. Navy, used by CIA, first time 'neiter confirm nor deny' used with a FOIA request


Off-shore drilling can cause serious problems. Like Earthquakes. Pump enough out and let the Gulf of Mexico be more prone to shift ... just so a few morons can fill up their SUVs.


So, even though it is not attributed to drilling, it shows instability in the area, even if it is long term plate techtonics. Sort of how a window is strong, but crack it and it shatters. Do we really want to mess with it, since there is no guarantee that it won't have a negative effect, and it is for something that we can do without if the same money is invested in renewable energy instead of depleting energy, with a better net effect on national security and national independence?




So, it is not just environmentalists teaming up with big oil ... or anything else like that.

Disagreeing with offshore drilling does not make one an environmental whacko.

What it really comes to, there is more than one solution to every problem.


How about a bit more respect and understanding to those who you don't agree with, and try doing some research to understand them, even if you will never agree.

Slandering, profiling, labeling a group because they don't fit into what you believe in, or don't agree with the only solution you think exists does not show very well on the people who conduct such actions.

We should all try to actively deny ignorance, and try to show humility and respect towards all people. In fact, my Constitution has those very words, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' ... not just ones we agree with.

reply to post by RRconservative

Three weeks ago I wrote a whole thread that directly relates to this topic (with the help of various other posters.)

Not wanting to disparage environmentalists, many of them have been tools of big oil companies, dating back from the 1970 oil crunch. They have been well meaning, but hideously manipulated. One of the worst manipulations of big oil companies was the turning of the population AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER, and thereby preventing the electric car from being a feasible transportation alternative.

The thread I am talking about is here:

Consipiracy Against Nuclear Power in USA

I know a lot of people will reject this. (“You are being stupid! Quit blathering! Of course nuclear power is dangerous! Get real!” etc.) But it is the actual truth. Nuclear power was a cure all for our energy problems, and the public was specifically turned against it, for the profit of Big Oil companies.

The turning point was a Ford Foundation study: “A Time To Choose: America’s Energy Future”. This study, published at the time when the price of oil began to skyrocket, was one of the most successful frauds in history. We suffer from this today each time we go to the gas pump. Given our current trajectory, there is no end to this pain in sight.

If you want to review the above link, go the last page of the above, where I put my conclusion and final notes. Also, check out some of the final comments of other posters on that thread.

Starred and Flagged! Good thinking, RR. (Kudos also to FreeThinker, and StellarX, for defending their positions. I hope other people will pay attention at ATS, because this is a killer topic!) A big lie is being perpetrated. Deny Ignorance!

[edit on 25-2-2008 by Buck Division]