Drilling for more oil??? Are we brain dead or just retarded???

You guys are aware that it would take time to get rid of every oil using device in the country. We need something to provide power to these while we are working on replacing them.

There was some news on the costs of one oil rig a few days ago which was supposedly was in the billions?

What are the cost comparisons and timely output with these wind farms?

I would imagine wind farms might be built quicker and more productive than off shore oil wells.

It would be a problem if these wind patterns changed dramatically though. I think we should focus more on what we can project in more realistic numbers rather than these untrustworthy oil corproations have done throughout history.

It reminds me of some unions with four guys watching one guy work and $1,000 screw drivers called something else. This is probably just another bs shell game hustle with bs numbers and false facts.

Supply and demand is obviously manipulated for the best profits. Greed is their motive, not humanity. What's really changed besides the prices and the profits?

Originally posted by aleon1018
There was some news on the costs of one oil rig a few days ago which was supposedly was in the billions?

Depending on the 'rig' in question, that might not be too hard to believe. Some of the offshore platforms, particularly the ones in deep water, can easily hit the billion dollar mark. Given the highly dangerous and specialized nature of the skills needed to erect one, and the sheer size of the project, the price tag doesn't seem unreasonable.

What are the cost comparisons and timely output with these wind farms?

I would imagine wind farms might be built quicker and more productive than off shore oil wells.

You're comparing apples to oranges here, in both cases. You'd need to compare the cost and output of a wind farm to the cost and output of a conventional electrical generating plant to get valid numbers.

It would be a problem if these wind patterns changed dramatically though. I think we should focus more on what we can project in more realistic numbers rather than these untrustworthy oil corproations have done throughout history.

I don't follow the logic in this paragraph. Long-term wind patterns are fairly predictable...just ask people who live along the California cost, or in Kansas and Nebraska. I'm not sure what oil corporations, trustworthy or otherwise, have to do with projections of future wind patterns...could you explain whatever linkage tied that thought into that paragraph?

It reminds me of some unions with four guys watching one guy work and $1,000 screw drivers called something else. This is probably just another bs shell game hustle with bs numbers and false facts.

What, exactly reminds you of the things you're mentioning? The cost of an oil platform? The cost of a wind-power farm? Given the sudden shifts in your train of thought, either of those could apply.

Supply and demand is obviously manipulated for the best profits. Greed is their motive, not humanity. What's really changed besides the prices and the profits?

Wow...imagine that. People who invest in a business are doing so to make money. There's a radical concept. I really hate to bust your bubble, but the vast majority of humanity is motivated by self interest, not some nebulous "humanitarian" instinct. You want to put an end to the era of oil, take Robert Heinlein's advice: "Never appeal to a man's better nature. He probably doesn't have one. Appeal to his self-interest. You're on much safer ground." The desire to make money is what built the oil companies that you seem to hate so much, and the desire to make money is what will build their successors.

Just a few points I would add to try and correct some of the thinking here:

1) We don't use nearly as much agricultural land as we could, a lot of it is idle. It is not obligatory to make food production go down so energy goes up.

2) There's dumb agriculture and smart agriculture. Remember that some ethanol producing plants will actually result in a subproduct that is animal feed. And since some of them are basically grasses they can be rotated with food crops, so you can have constant output out of your land, contrary to what happens now.

3) Ethanol and biodiesels can be made from almost everything, so the waste products would actually be a commodity, which would make for happy farmers.

4) It would be a minor conversion to get current petroleum running cars to run on ethanol, we would not have to trash any car we didn't want to.

5) This sort of economy would be beneficial for farmers and would reduce the unemployment rate, plus it would allow money to stay local in communities and would make them richer. It would be bullet proof because it simply would not allow for a centralized energy cartel. The advantages of this, besides being huge, should be obvious to anyone who watches the news.

And much of what is said about biofuels can be said about the solar-hydrogen combo, although the first would probably be a smoother transition.

Please wake up folks and stop thinking crude is the be all and end all of energy policy, because the reality is it was a very unfortunate path the elites of this planet conned the uninformed population into, thus enslaving them in an artificial scarcity permanent war economy.

Err, think I'm done

reply to post by Brother Stormhammer


The comparison between drilling for oil offshore and the timeline is suggesting one is more favorable and predictable than the other. Unless the wind patterns did change dramatically for a wind farm. Oil rigs can most likely be relocated easier than a windfarm but damaged more likely at sea by wind and storms.

I would much prefer the wind farm or other alternatives to more offshore oil drilling that takes longer to produce energy for the same costs.

My point is that this could all have been seen coming 'down the pipe' and those who may be found responsible should be punished, especially, investors, lobbyists or their corporations and politicians. Just because all of these people are in bed together, doesn't mean everyone else is a whiner or completely stupid. Saying that's just the way it always was, isn't good enough.

That's like saying you're right, but, you're still wrong because you're not in charge.

I wouldn't doubt there are cheaper alternatives that are shelved as if some threat to our current system.

LOL

Hey all, please do not go to college. It will take years before it makes a noticeable impact to your income.

But really, we have no choice but to utilize fossil fuels in the near-future until numerous "viable" replacements are available.

The problem we are going to have is "patent law".

The powers that be can buy out anything viable and make it not viable or sit on it.

Ever hear of "sovereign wealth funds?"

Patent law has to be changed or alternatives will take a very long time.

Check out Kunstler analysis of energy economics. (The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century. James Howard Kunstler)

In many cases it takes more energy (oil) to produce the oil equivalent. So unless you want the Amish to produce your crops for Alcohol energy...OH AND by the way the USDA is busy driving the Amish, Mennonite and others family farms out of the USA. checkout the lawsuit at www.farmtoconsumer.org...

Of course given the energy crisis driving out people who are NOT oil dependent seems just plain stupid. Oh yes, the USDA, FDA and Homeland Security are intent on making sure ONLY large corporate Agriculture like Monsanto and Cargill are licenced to grow food in the USA so forget a backyard garden it will soon be illegal if that lawsuit above is not won. (This is no joke, I only wish it were)

I am very skeptical about claims it takes more energy to produce than yields. Usually those are disinformation or just plain lies. Was said report paid for by anyone who could stand to gain with the status quo?

As for the fascism of corporate america... well, it's up to the americans if they want to live under such a system, isn't it? Democracy or no democracy the will of people is the basic decider of what happens, and nothing can really stand in it's way. People can plant what they want to plant, and other people can chose to repress them. Yet more people can chose not to give a damn. Others might choose to lead a revolution. There is always freewill, even if the system says there is not.

Believe me there are a whole bunch of us farmers fighting the USDA. I suggest you google "Henshaw pig slaughter" or "Fallice Mad Sheep" to see what we are up against. It is reallyhard to keep farming with a gun up your face like Danny and Cindi Henshaw had to put up with for days. The USDA means to make a point and I imagine all of us who have been vocal against the USDA can expect to lose are farms if not our freedom next year.

It sure would help if we could wakeup the sheeple and get them to believe Big aAg plans a monopoly on the world food supply. This not a USA problem but a World Trade Organization problem affecting all nations. If you think the oil situation is bad wait until Rockerfeller and Rothchild control your food supply!

reply to post by crimvelvet


Yes, I am aware of the whole codex alimentarius and GMO plotline. Imo it's the biggest threat to mankind after warfare. It also ties into supermarket monopolies, and the way I see it play out is they try to get tip toe fascism into place up to a point where they can just ban everyone from planting a vegetable garden and get people to eat solely from the hypermarkets. Over time the quality of the food will drop incrementaly and they will try to get humanity to fall into slumber.

It's an attempt to lower our frequency, I am aware of it.

The solution is to join the real green revolution and start to eat natural foods whenever possible, to live in smaller and less centralized communities, to link up to nature more, and to teach kids how to plant and take care of stuff, because schools soon won't.

We need to skip a lot of the life style of the 20th century and return to the social structure of the 19th, where farmers were more important and the money flowed more freely through more hands. With the technology we have now adapted to the economy we had them we would thrive. And meanwhile people need to throw lawsuits against the big food corporations untill they fold, as well as make their employees wake up to what they are doing till it comes a point where nobody will even want to work there.

Are most of those who visit ATS aware of the Codex and WTO threat to the world food supply? I just joined so I would not know if this is "Old News"

I spend my weekends handing out flyers about the threat. And yes I buy my food from locals. Dr. M has more or less roped me into helping with the local farmers market and farmer support group. We are trying to organize help for grants/technology for farm energy self-sufficiency.

reply to post by crimvelvet


A lot of people are becoming aware of it, yes. But then ATS is kinda like an early warning system in that regard. One thing that is happening is normal people are becoming aware of the benefits of healthy living and a good diet. There is a natural foods as medicines book in portugal, it has sold 400 000 copies in a population of 10 million, which gives you an idea just how hopeless the idea of trying to control the people's food supply is. I have read it myself, and the recipies there tie into what specialists have said, even stateside on programs such as coast to coast. People's awareness of foods is increasing, and people are getting a knee jerk reaction to the big corporate food chains, like McDonalds and Burger Kind, which aren't that popular anymore. Lots of people are abandoning mall type diets. I personally haven't eaten a hamburger there for over 18 months. Hypermarkets here now all have eco foods sections, although I wouldn't trust everything they sell there.

Codex will fail, and if they try to push it I guess it will be time to start hanging elitists from lamp posts. I'm more worried about the GMO's polluting nature and ruining the good crops, although nature does seem to have a lot of safeguards and geneticists are generally fumbling about like elephants in china shops.

I apologize for taking this thread over to a side issue, but I feel traditional farming as practiced by the Amish ital. is very important when discussing the energy/oil issue.

I am not against chemicals or GMOs, however I certainly think they need to be used much more wisely.

GMOs – I have not studied the gene splicing techniques so I do not know if they are a health risk. However the fact that FDA required NO testing because of corporate pressure is wrong. Also the predatory actions of Monsanto, and the “official seed” list of EU and FAO is scary. Biodiversity in plants and animals is a first line of defense against disease. To ignore it is suicidal.

The use of chemicals in farming. - Mono-culture Farming absolutely requires chemicals because the checks for weeds and insects are removed. From experience I learned if you grow apples you spray or you have pigs or goats to eat the drops (infected with larva) and guineas or chickens to eat insects. Codex would never approve of animals run with fruit and vegetable crops but that type of diverse farming is what is required to run without chemicals. (geese are great weeders for cotton and corn)

On windmills - Were you aware that Sen. Ed Kennedy nixed windmills in his area because of the view? Off shore wind farms make sense but beach front property is owned by the wealthy who do not want them (NIMBY) and have the political clout to keep them from being built. Corporations and the wealthy run this country and it is going to take major eye opening to get anywhere.

reply to post by crimvelvet


Amish is smart farming, they are being pegged as primitives by everyone else, but it's one of those cases of the clueless criticizing the wise. What they do is sistemic naturalistic farming, and if there were statistics about how the amish fair healthwise I am sure it would be a shock to all the sheeple to see just how much better off they are than everyone else.

I'm no fan of forced austerity, but I can see good agriculture and healthy living for what it is, and they do have these latter aspects in their lives. We could to and still have modern convenience with it.

Modern industrialized agriculture is, in a word, crap.

And this is tied into the main issue, because farming is indeed the key to prosperity, as it can provide energy AND foods, all with health added. Respect and care for nature and nature respects and cares for you. Modern farming only respects profits, and as such we're choking on it. Towns folk are so disconnected from farm life that they can be conned into thinking oil is the only option, which is totally retarded for anyone that has a clue.

[edit on 14-8-2008 by Zepherian]

reply to post by Zepherian


I'm really glad you mentioned hemp. We really need to bring this back. It is a very harty plant that can grow in almost any condition and requires very little fertilizer. Also it has a miriad of uses from paper to oils to you name it. When compared to paper products (that use trees from our forests) hemp paper can be recycled many more times. Also a terrific plant for making synthetic oils for our energy. Farmers could benifit, the forest wouldn't need clear cuts as often (so good for the air and animals).

Star...for the hemp plant!

Also I blellieve dupont and Rockafeller had a hand in prohibition of hemp. It should be leqal for recreation and medicine value as well and we could empty out nearly half of the 7 million or so incarcerated in the multi billion dollar prison industry in for petty drug charges, or self medicating for some other untreated issue...What a country eh? "land of the free"..."let freedom ring"..."sweet land of liberty"??? Where?

Originally posted by ThreeDeuce
Riddle me this, Leftist.

Why can't we drill for oil AND work towards renewable energy?

I don't know why it has to be one or the other.
Obviously we need oil. Our economy is based on a liquid fuel for transportation of goods and people. Until we have a replacement liquid fuel, or efficient renewable resource then we need oil.

We can still drill and look for alternatives. It is not one or the other. We can do both. We need to do both.

Even if we cut down our use of Oil, other countries coming online with cars will use it all.

Its as if Mom is asking us if we'd like Milk or Cookies. My response is "Both Please!" They go so well together, why choose just one?

[edit on 13-8-2008 by ThreeDeuce]

You have a point and you are correct, but what I'm trying to point out is we have had methods of alternative fuels for a long time... We should have been developing these alternate methods 100 years ago... We definitely shouldn't have waited till now... That's the point I'm trying to make here... I'm also showing that our leaders don't care about that stuff because they control the oil and only now that there is global pressure to reduce oil consumption and develop new fuels are we "they" doing it..

Originally posted by counterterrorist
reply to post by ElectricUncleSam

 

easiest and quickest solution is to use water for fuel - very simple process with minimal electricity breaks water into hydrogen and oxygen.

80% of globe's surface is water.

Yes I agree, water and sun would the best 2 resources for our needs... Water because of what you mentioned and the sun because it's available all the time as well... Use water for fuel and use sun light for energy production... I'm serious, if we put some money and time into developing solar and water technologies we could have something ready in a few years tops... Because when people put their minds to something it doesn't take long to accomplish.. That is if we can get through all the red tape and politics which might hinder the development...

reply to post by ElectricUncleSam


It is an interesting question. Why push to drill more? The additional drilling that the US government is discussing is not to produce more oil. We have tens of thousands of acres of land that is already approved to be drilled.
If we needed more oil now we would drill that land. Right now we have lots of oil, possibly more than we need.

The reason people want to approve drilling in ANWAR and offshore is to game the Oil Speculation Market. If you approve the drilling of more oil, that will say to the speculators that there will be more oil in the future so we do not need to charges so much for our oil today. This is a way to POSSIBLY lower the cost of oil to consumers without adressing the real problem.

The real problem right now is that we are speculating on the demand and supply of a good. This negates the rule of Supply and Demand, and increases profits to, as you have no doubt seen in the news, record highs.
Many powerful people do not want to address the issue of a speculative market, because it makes lots of people lots of money.

The reason they are not talking about alternitive fuels is becasue that will do nothing to affect the market. It would if we were working on a real market, were the oil a company buys today is the gas you will soon buy, not the gas you will maybe want in 5 years. Alternitive fuels and things like that will however save consumers money, and that is why Democrats like Obama say things like keep your tires inflated. This will not affect the price of gas because the REAL demand doesn't matter, but it does affect your pocketbook.

I got distracted and can't remember if I had any more points to make. I wrote a lot though, so I feel I can leave it where it is.

Originally posted by infolurker
Hey all, please do not go to college. It will take years before it makes a noticeable impact to your income.

Great Analogy! Starred!!

I completely agree. If everyone can agree that drilling can help down the line, why not do it.........

Since when did we focus on short term solely, and not long term solutions.

stocks are full and since the demand for oil has dropped and iran is selling cheeper but no one wants to buy , id call it idiocy by denile

it just shows how far from reality the corporate U.S is