Drill baby Drill!! (in Debates)

http://news.investors.com/article/604303/201203141303/oil-abundant-in-the-united-states.htm

Open ANWAR, open the gulf (to all but BP), open the lands so we can get our own oil reserves and stop sending money to people who just want to kill us.

referencing entire nations or areas as "people who just want to kill us" is far more dangerous to our national security than dependence on foreign oil

Certainly ignore the world around us Novice. The sky is clear, the water is clean and there is free universal healthcare for everyone that grows on magic trees.

Well, not with all the oil drilling it isn't.

Certainly all that salt water in the Gulf is already polluted to the point of being non drinkable :)

*sigh*

Clean water isn't always fresh water.

Yes, I took it wrong.

My apologies.

Smog.
Natural gas.
Legalize it.

C'mon, Ranger, you HAVE to realize that the USA is playing "the long game", don't you ?

Why extract and use your OWN national resources when you can get OTHER people's national resources while it's still RELATIVELY cheap, and hold on extracting your own for as long as possible, for when the worldwide oil levels are scarce enough to make prices skyrocket to before-unheard levels. Also, side-bonuses, you let the other countries experience the environmental detriments of operating the business, and you also get to have your people buy cheap(er) second-hand extraction and processing gear later on, when other people are giving it up.
But that's just one side of the story.
The OTHER side of the story is that there's a reason you don't exploit shale oil and such with any predilection - because the environmental effects are greater, and the overall cost of extraction per barrel is higher.

Also, give it a rest with consumer fuel prices... in Europe, people pay the equivalent of 7 to 8 dollars per gallon and they're still not complaining about gas prices a tenth of what the USians are complaining about it, even if you guys still get it at almost HALF THE PRICE we're getting it at the pump.

And what exactly do you expect you'd be getting if you exploit those oil reserves NOW rather than in 10 or 20 years from now exactly ?
Sure, you might get slightly cheaper gas prices now (as if they're still not dirt-friggin-cheap anyway), then increase dependency on other oil sources in the future AND still end up suffering from noticeably higher gas prices further down the road, while also living in a noticeably more polluted environment significantly earlier and therefore longer.

So, no, the USA would be stupid and monumentally shortsighted to admit at a policy level that it could easily extract more oil, and it would be borderline irresponsible to actually allow that oil to be extracted sooner rather than later.
Of course, that assuming I would be a citizen of the USA.
But since I'm not... you know what ? SURE, go right ahead. PLEASE do extract all the oil you can extract now. You know what, start a price competition with OPEC countries while you're at it, and start exporting it. Since, you know, the companies that make a profit from its extraction will want to sell it as soon as they get it, and since they're not national nor regional quasi-monopolies but instead competing with eachother for market share... well, you get the idea. Or, hopefully, you don't. Like most of the rest of the USians that think drilling for more oil NOW would be a sweet idea.

P.S. Not to speak of the fact you're now buying the foreign oil on ever-balooning debt, out of which you WILL eventually get out of by inflating your currency so the debt becomes less and less meaningful either way.

I'm going to leave this right here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/opinion/krugman-natural-born-drillers.html?_r=1

Increasing our own production... Then you must emphatically support the Obama Administration for recent years? At least more than the previous guy in the White House?

Here is domestic oil production and pct change from http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=oil&graph=production

2000 5,821.60 -1.02 %
2001 5,801.40 -0.35 %
2002 5,745.55 -0.96 %
2003 5,680.70 -1.13 %
2004 5,418.85 -4.61 %
2005 5,178.38 -4.44 %
2006 5,102.08 -1.47 %
2007 5,064.25 -0.74 %
2008 4,950.32 -2.25 %
2009 5,360.54 8.29 %
2010 5,511.93 2.82 %

And here are yearly totals from a PolitiFact check article:

2003: 2,073,453,000
2004: 1,983,302,000
2005: 1,890,106,000
2006: 1,862,259,000
2007: 1,848,450,000
2008: 1,811,817,000
2009: 1,956,596,000
2010: 2,011,856,000

Bears out a similar trend.

Though, looks to be leveling-off-to-slightly-down in 2011 and this year, from what I've read. Still, 2010 was almost a 10 or 11% gain from the lowest point in 2008.

And anyway, a lot of oil produced/extracted ends up just going on the international market? Just because we get it here doesn't mean we keep it here, so the gains in domestic production don't end up being as dramatic in terms of end result for domestic gas/oil prices. That's why the whole Keystone thing is a mountain out of a molehill. It wouldn't create nearly as many long-term jobs as its biggest proponents tout, and even if it ended up at Gulf refineries, it would likely all go into the global market anyway.

Oops, missed LB's link -- interesting article, and the author knows a lot more about the jobs and global market stuff I mention in the last paragraph of my previous post. I had thought the oil industry had added way more jobs over the previous decade than they apparently have (if the facts in that article are to be trusted).

The increased production is due to drilling on private lands. Public/governmental drilling has decreased 10# over the past few years.

And Krugman? Really? The man is notorious for lying in his article and making up facts. Not to mention (I will do it anyway) his infamous 9/11 post. He lost me forever as a real human with that post.

Yes, one reason gas prices has become so high is our crappy monetary policy of just printing money. Gas and consumables are going through a period of inflation. But if we drill, gas prices will come down due to a higher supply, less need to import (which obviously costs money) and less dependancy on price fixing from the OPEC.

And we all know that it takes a long time, 5-10 years, from the permitting phase to the actually extraction phase.

So all the increase production we see is due to actions taken at the end of the Clinton and the Bush years.

The prices are rising as the current administration policies are quite negative towards oil and gas extraction. I think that is not a real debateable point. As the world sees our current hostility to fossil feuls, speculators and OPEC can effect prices in a negative way.

And to Sickone:

So if my next door neighbor pays full price for his Ultima, do that mean I have to? Is that not the argument you are making when typing about higher prices in Europe? And last I remember, France has little known or unknown oil and natural gas reserves. Big difference from the US.

Not necessarily, but having gotten it at a third of the full price in recent years then complaining you have to pay now half of full price still is kind of bad form, wouldn't you say ?

So? More is more. It was less and less under W. Why didn't he get all this drilling going? He had eight friggin' years! Facts are facts.

Speaking of, what facts to you suppose Krugman is making up? I have no bias either way. If you can disprove what he is saying, can you tell us where he is lying? Calling someone a liar (without proof) is a form of slander, isn't it? Can you back up your statement?

"Printing money" is how the economy works these days. I don't assume you think we should be back on a gold standard like Ron Paul would propose? Or maybe you're just talking debt/deficit. That's fine, but as Dick Cheney said, deficits don't matter -- Reagan proved that. Isn't Ronnie boy still the patron saint of all that is good and proper with GOP rule?

As far as gas prices, we still pay WAY less than folks in other countries do (I think were something close to #100 on the list from highest to lowest prices...). And also on that front, that's why Obama has gotten better MPG standards passed for 2016 and 2025 (IIRC). The deals with the auto industry had some "strings attached". Smart move. Because the best way to be less reliant on oil, in general, is to use less. Damn those government regulations! Surely Detroit would have just "done the right thing" if left solely to their own economic devices. I mean, I remember how great they were doing with changing mileage on their own during the SUV boom -- oh, wait, wrong direction.

That's a good point about permit and extraction time, but if permits were issued toward the end of the Clinton era and in the Bush years, and the time span is 5-10 years (I've no idea whether that is the time-frame or not, do you have a citation?), then wouldn't we have seen an uptick before 2009? More like 2006-2007 should have been where things started picking up?

Like I said, it is a good point, it just doesn't end up being consistent with the data. What am I missing?

Sorry, one more post... I don't mind you simply dismissing the Krugman article out of hand (doesn't make sense to me, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion).

But are you disputing that oil is part of a global market, so that more here does not mean appreciable price change here? I have read a lot of stuff (other than Krugman) that says the same thing: just because a region pumps more oil does not correlate to prices going down in that region. What are your thoughts on that?

The second main point was about the jobs. Do you really think building a pipeline is going to create thousands of jobs now and into the future? Do you have better facts/articles on how the oil industry is responsible for a much larger proportion of job growth than what Krugman mentions? Specifically: "Employment in oil and gas extraction has risen more than 50 percent since the middle of the last decade, but that amounts to only 70,000 jobs, around one-twentieth of 1 percent of total U.S. employment." I don't know whether that is true or not, but if it is one of the lies you mention, can you cite something more accurate so I can take a look?

Sut,

Do a google search on Krugman Truth Squad. You will find many examples of his misstatements and outright lies.

I try to read both liberal and conservative points of view but skip his articles completely due to their misrepresentation of facts. Even when he gets something right, I have no idea since he lies so often.

As to permits, I have no exact data on the time frame. 5-10 years ia an estimate some people use, others use decades from permitting to actual extraction. But permits are way down with Obama. And places he could get us oil from N. American (Keystone) he refuses.

Both Obama and his energy secretary have publically stated they want higher gas prices to "force" us into alternative energy. Which as we know from startups like Solyndra, are nothing more than handouts to his biggest donors at the tax payers expense.

You and I disagree on what role the gov't should play in trying to sway policy. And yeah, I get it, Solyndra was a (heavily publicized) mistake. That doesn't mean I'm going to now throw out every single idea involving the gov't trying to spur innovation in a certain direction (and again, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that).

You apparently trust the private sector to sort out everything in terms of innovation and going in the right direction. I do not.

Came here to post, but Sickone stated my thoughts already.

@ Sickone

We have over 200 years of oil if that article has any truth to it. By that time, I would hope technology catches up on the "green" energy boom and we are all driving cars with Mr Fusion.

So yes, we should drill our resourses as we have enough to last for a century or more. Driving the prices down globally for everyone.

Just because Europe pays 8 per gallon does not mean it has to be that way.

Technology will never advance, so long as the oil companies hold power and oil is still a profitable business.

It's the same reason as to why we'll never see a cure for the common cold...

You do realize that the virus for the common cold varies from year to year. One cannot make a "cure" for something of which we do not know. IE we do not know which viruses will be born next year.

We do have immunizations year to year for the most common strains that scientists think will be occurring.


Yes, let us all blame big bad ugly oil for all the problems.

Wonder how Nissan managed to make the Leaf without government subsidies cheaper and more reliable than the Volt.

We don't have a cure for the common cold only becuase it's more profitable for the pahrm companies to sell remedies, and not cures...

And lol. It it wasn't for the oil companies, we'd have higher investment in reneable enery than we do now. But again, they don't want to lose profits on a very lucrative business...

The "cure" is rather blatant I would think. You have a virus that constantly changes but is for the most part quite mild. The answer is to not fight on the side of against the virus but rather on the side of boosting ones immune system. Of course I suppose its highly unprofitable to make people more resistance/immune to basically everything in on go.

BP.
Bonk. We're still seen world wide as gas hogs. Speculators are also lying money pigs. Truth be told we've brought the "negativity" via over-consumption and the rest of the uninvolved world knows this. Whether you care to accept this or see the mention as unamerican shouldn't be an issue. As the world audience already shrugged. Then said Ayn Rand can shove it. ;) c wah i did thur? if not, u will
While we know it was a scandal, that was one start up. Not all. Nice to see your S word use is cleaning up.
You deserve personal attacks for such world damning idiocy.
Explain as the meaning is vague.

Saw something on the local Fox news saying Keystone project is taking land away from farmers already. Do you feel handicapping/challenging farmers is worth the marginal attempt at oil isolation?
This would be a loaded question of course as we will rely on Canada instead, sell the oil on the open market anyways, barely see a change in domestic prices, still get 50% of our oil from outside the borders, and impose on the common man's freedom. Go ahead and FORGET those are on the table for the time being *waves a magic staff in the air* and answer the question how you see fit.

Except that oil you drill in place A is not entirely (nor predominantly) used in place A, but rather sold to the highest bidder, wherever that bidder may reside. And it usually does not reside in place A.
What exactly makes you think that even DOUBLING the amount of oil extracted on USA soil would have any SIGNIFICANT impact on gas prices in the USA ?


Let me give you a pretty clear (I hope) example here.
Take a bottle of water and go to the beach. Dump the water in that bottle right at the edge of the sea. Now try to put the water back in the bottle to the best of your abilities. The water's still all there, isn't it ? It should be pretty easy to get enough to not go thirsty, right ?

Just because there might BE oil (even a lot of it) doesn't mean it's going to be CHEAP oil. In fact, chances are, it's going to be pretty expensive oil after you consider all possible costs (plus a reasonable profit margin).


Here's a huge "secret" I'm going to share with you - the price of CRUDE OIL in the USA is pretty much the same as that of crude oil in Europe !!!

Actually, Europe pays how much it pays because we have pretty steep excise taxes on fuel, and funny enough, that means we see far less of a percentage fluctuation in gas prices whenever crude oil prices fluctuate, unlike the USA, where gas prices go far closer, almost hand in hand with crude oil prices.

And you know what ? Those large excise taxes are a good thing for us.
Cars manufactured in Europe emphasize fuel efficiency over "raw power", mass transit is far more often used (and much better developed), and so on and so forth.

I would think the basic laws of supply and demand are clear.

If we drill our own oil there is more supply. Therefore the prices drop. Globally or locally, they drop.

And here is yet another example of selective statistics used by Dr. Krugman. And another reason he is a laughingstock among conservatives:

http://www.redstate.com/vladimir/2012/03/18/intellectual-bankruptcy-dr-krugman/

Let's say that you DO manage to increase supply. But here's the rub : demand IS NOT CONSTANT.
If anything, demand is going up rapidly. It takes a heck of an effort to just keep pace with demand, let alone overtake it.

The USA produces around 9% of the world's oil (about 8 mil barrels per day) and uses up almost 20% of it (19 mil barrels per day), with ABOUT TWO THIRDS used for trasportation. Two freaking thirds.

China was only using about 9.4 mil last year, but it was using 8.2 mil two years ago, and a mere 5 mil just ten years ago, with projected future use going up like a rocket. India went from just above 2 mil to over 3 mil in little over a decade too. The rest of Asia is going up radically too.

ANYTHING you can do in terms of supply of oil in the USA is just going to be soaked up by exponentially increasing global demand, and prices will KEEP GOING UP, NOT DOWN. And they'll keep going up until whatever energy alternatives that are now expensive will seem relatively cheap.

To put it into perspective even clearer, if it wasn't clear enough yet...
If China and India (and just those two countries) EVER get to the point where they would use the same amount of fuel per person as the USA does today, and that's assuming their population does NOT increase (yeah, good luck with that), those two countries alone would gobble up roughly 160 mil barrels per day, or in other words, VERY ROUGHLY DOUBLE THE CURRENT WORLDWIDE PRODUCTION LEVEL.

Yes, increasing oil in the global market should, all things being equal, bring the price of oil down.

But just do the math. The US, as Sickone says, does about 9% of the world oil. So we double production, meaning there is 9% more oil out there. Lets say that leads to a 9% drop in fuel prices.

Well, we'd just be back to where we were 30 days ago (and prices could very easily continue rising all summer). Because the prices does what the price does. And in just the last month, a DOUBLING of US oil production, all things being equal, was already wiped out.

Do you disagree with that math, or do you think the US could do way more than double production? And do you really think that will correspond to price at the pump?

None of this even gets into the COST of drilling the oil. Last I checked, we have very few "easy" reserves in comparison to Arabia's sweet gold crude. So if it costs more to refine the oil from US reserves, and we are playing by straight supply/demand/cost/profit curves, that makes the impact of more domestic production matter even less.

How much more oil do you see the US producing? Twice as much? Five times? Ten times? To do this, do we leave any lands undrilled, any stretches un-pipelined? To put a fine point on that, are you 100% OK with a refinery or drill rig being set up in your back yard? High pressure pipelines running through your vegetable garden and cattle pens?

Come on, you don't expect radical conservative mouthpieces to actually attempt to do any math, do you ? That would totally destroy the majority of their crusading goals ! :snicker:

Perhaps we could pray for an answer?

I say repeatedly flip a coin instead for each question, phrasing it as yes/no answerable.
MUCH higher chances of any answer whatsoever (infinitely higher, actually), and pretty decent odds for the right answer compared to the alternative.

I don't expect any politician to do math short of what a 5% raise is.

Or how much cash a SuperPAC can offer them...

Vs how much money a union offers liberals.

My SuperPAC comment applies equally well to conservative and liberal politicians already, Ranger, and was meant to. So I'm not sure I see your point (other than trying to polarize a civil situation for no good reason...?)

Be real Sut.

We all know that SuperPacs favor conservatives much more over liberals. Anyone up to date with politics knows this.

Considering this is a thread about drilling, a conservative cause, it is quite obvious, to me at least, what your comment meant.

And no, I am not mind reading, just looking at the obvious.

I also see a distinct lack of math-leaning answers from Ranger...

Ranger,

No, I didn't know that. I really didn't. I've read that PACs and SuperPACs raise a lot of money for both sides, and I didn't do an in-depth analysis of which way things go. I'm really not that interested, and I don't have the time (but thanks for telling me what I should know, that's very kind and shows a great deal of respect).

I know what I posted, and I know what I meant when I posted it, and I'm sick and tired of you shooting your mouth off about what other people do or don't know (or what they should and shouldn't know). You've no right. It really is simply despicable, and at this point I have no idea why you are allowed to get away with it on just about every disrespectful post you create.

Did you not read the article in the first post???

Here is the math:

We have 22 million barrels as proven reserves.

We have over 1T barrels of oil/oil shale that are technically recoverable.

How is that double?

While it may not effect the price immediately (which is up to debate), in 5-10 years, we will have enough oil to have to stop importing it from the mid east, or S. America leading to .... "energy independance".

How is that for math?

2x 22B is much much less than 1T.

I initially did not answer since the question was obvious from the OP and the article in the OP.

But then again, if drilling more would not lower price, then would not stopping all drilling not increase prices?

But there is another facet to more drilling. We get more people employed, which in turn means more tax revenues and less people on Medicaid, UE etc...

So there another consideration to Drill Baby Drill.

Works both way Sut, works both ways. What you do many times is despicable as well from my point of view. And how many disrespectful posts do you get away with towards me?

What are you talking about? When have I ever posted something telling YOU what you meant to say, completely misinterpreting your honest intent?

I know I have done it two or three times, and I know I have apologized each and every time when you clarified what you meant and I realized I had over-stepped in putting words in your mouth.

And when is the last time I even posted anything in regards to your character or intent? I'm not even sure what you are referring to? I know I posted a question on one of the other thread (can't even remember which and haven't checked in on that one), but I was asking a question in response to your extremely loaded subject (Ah, I remember now, it must have been the "Do liberals..." thread).

I'd love for you to find a single thread where I completely mis-read you and didn't apologize. You mis-read me here, wholly. And instead of being big enough to simply say you're sorry, you turn in a playground response. I don't know what bug is up you're backside. It's as if you simply can;t take anyone disagreeing with you on a fundamental level, then you resort to loaded debate titles completely unapologetic mis-interpretation of other people's comments. Actually, I shouldn't say other people -- maybe it's just me.

I think SuperPACs suck. I don't care if they raise 200 thousand dollars or 200 million dollars. That's more than I could come up with on short notice, so that means the people using those finds have more power than me. I don't like that, and I don't think any citizen in good conscience should like it either. That's my stance, and that's what I meant when I made my post in the context of the surrounding posts: discussing the math skills of politicians.

What on earth is your problem with that?

Ah, I see what you are saying. But the 87.5 million barrels the world produces is each year. You aren't going to bring 1 trillion barrels up all in one year. If you did, yeah, that would be quite an increase factor! And let's not forget that 1 trillion is an estimate, no? Do we really know for sure how much of that is recoverable in any feasible sense (you can't get it all, and the harder it is to get, the uglier it is to do so: pipelines, fracking, etc.)?

I was asking about production -- amount over time, as that is really the only metric that matters when one considers price in a global economy, isn't it? In ten years, what percentage of the global production will we account for, what will others create, and what will consumption be?

You didn't answer the question about infrastructure for all this, including the "backyard" facet. What will bringing 1 trillion barrels of oil, on any timeframe, do to the environment? Sounds like a LOT more refinery capacity (aren't we always told the existing refineries are running close to 100%? Then they break down and prices spike?) and a lot more high-pressure pipelines, especially when you get into the dirtier "shale" sorts of reserves. I've no idea how big the Arabian and Russian long term reserves are, nor how clean they are, but that is something to consider as well. Production vs. production, reserves vs reserves.

As far as the jobs, I don't know how many jobs more oil production will add. Krugman says not many, but he apparently can't be trusted. What to your sources tell you on that front, and are your sources unbiased?

Shouldn't we be working from the other side, too? Conservation? Not very sexy, and it is clear why it isn't as popular as drill-baby-drill: it's just no fun. It's no good for the economy if people consume less. I have a ten-year-old car, a fifteen year old TV, and my microwave that just died last weekend was 16 years old. I am patently bad for the economy.

So, on one hand we have the "more more MORE!" camp, with some real worries about sustainability and the environment to consider. On the other hand, we can try to conserve, but that ends up being anti-consumption. I think that is why R&D into new tech is appealing, on paper, because it can spur new consumption and innovation while hopefully being safer for everyone. But some of that speculative research ends up like Solyndra, with a whole new suitcase of regrets.

I think you mean 22 Billion (with a B) proven reserves.
You use up almost 20 million PER DAY. At that rate, if you'd only have 20 million reserves, all proven reserves (assuming all of it could be extracted at the current cost, which they can't) would vanish in just 3 years.

Most importantly, you're missing the more important point.
We're not talking double RESERVES, we're talking double EXTRACTION SPEED. Or triple. Or multiple of that, since with cheaper oil, your reliance on it will increase, you will consume more, and you'll need more.

And listen to yourself, "technically recoverable"... sure, but at what cost ? There comes a point where getting out one barrel of crude oil costs more than you can sell it for, at which point, YOU STOP EXTRACTION until you either get the technology to extract it cheaper (see:fracking et all) or the price goes up high enough above cost to make it economically feasible again.


USA even right now is BOTH IMPORTING AND EXPORTING OIL.
How exactly are you going to reach this fabled energy independence when you're selling your stuff and buying other stuff ?
This so-called "energy independence" of yours is just a balance sheet in which your exports become greater than your imports, not actual independence. You'll STILL depend on foreign oil, because your guys sell yours. You would just produce enough that in the case imports and exports of oil would be outlawed, you would not suffer, but that's still not proper independence.


Pretty weak, since it doesn't address the issue of how expensive it would be to actually exploit any of those oil reserves at the rate needed to fully cover demand.
And here's a small hint : it WON'T BE CHEAP. And as time goes on and easy to collect sources dwindle and you tap into increasingly more difficult to extract ones, it usually gets more expensive, not cheaper, barring a technological miracle (and even then, after a dip, it keeps climbing again).

Also, again, unless you put a *BAN* on USA oil exports, the energy independence is just talk, even if your production capacity exceeds then-current needs.
If you somehow miraculously DO manage to extract oil cheaper than the OPEC sells it for, somebody else WILL buy it from you, and your companies WILL sell it to them, because it's in their business interests to do so. And it will probably be China, India or other Asian countries that buys it. Or, heck, even the OPEC countries will buy it, since, eh, why not, prices WILL go up eventually and they already have truckloads of cash.


Your shortsightedness regarding the strategic importance of EASILY ACCESSED oil reserve and your oversimplified outlook on the global fuel supply/demand situation is astounding, Ranger.

Have you even read anything?

By technically recoverable that includes all the areas that the government now prevents us from getting to. Like ANWAR. Areas that cost the same but we are prevented from getting.


I see your "WON'T BE CHEAP" and raise you IT IS AS EXPENSIVE AS NOW BUT WE ARE PREVENTED BY REGULATIONS FROM GETTING TO IT.

And the price point for oil now on the open market makes it economically feasible to get the oil shale in some areas.

The only "technically recoverable at same price" are those in ANWR, and those are 12 billion barrels. At best a 50% increase in current production, most likely less, tappering off quickly.

The rest which might be at the same price are unproven but suspected coastal reserves of a mythical 86 billion, which will take a lot longer to properly exploit and carry a much higher risk of environmental accidents. Don't think BP was the exception, they were just the unlucky ones to go first.

And don't even claim shale oil can compete with traditional old style deposits as far as price goes.

Just to be clear, that very last remark was targeted at the idea that exploiting shale oil could lead to a noteworthy decrease of oil prices as opposed to merely slowing down the increase.

P.P.S. And even assuming that somehow you DO manage to FULLY exploit both the ANWR and the projected off-shore reserves and DO increase your extraction capacity three-fold in 10 years (which is nothing short of miraculous)... that's still just about 25% of the *CURRENT* global demand, and will likely represent way less than 20% of the global demand by then, if not less than 10%, given the rate at which global demand rises.
Even in this miraculous awesome-case scenario, AT BEST, in a decade, you end up with world oil prices about 10% cheaper (ASSUMING the other countries don't deliver less and less oil, which is also one heck of an assumption), or even just at about the same price as today in a more conservative scenario.
And you STILL won't be able to fully cover your own demand either, unless you take drastic measures to stop the increase of, or even decrease per-capita consumption.

So 10% cheaper as opposed to 10% more is bad?

10% cheaper is 40 cents a gallon, which is quite a lot.

P.P.P.S. Just to be absolutely and completely clear - unless you BOTH legally forbid oil exports from the USA *AND* drastically increase production while making every effort to lower consumption, you're NOT going to get any kind of semblance of the result you seem to think you will be getting.
And good luck trying to forbid corporations from exporting US oil when it's in their financial interest to do so.

Actually, 10% cheaper crude oil does NOT translate into 10% cheaper fuel pump prices, since crude oil price is not the full price of gas - you have refining, transport and other non-percentage-based added value things.
At best, 10% cheaper crude oil translates into 5% cheaper gas prices.

And that was the incredibly sparkly-eyes optimistic scenario no reasonable person would consider could actually happen.
A more realistic scenario would be that you need that increase in extraction capacity just to keep crude oil prices from rising further.

Obviously, in the SHORT RUN (months, a year), prices will not be determined by actual crude oil supply and global fuel consumption, but by speculative market forces, and expectations can make currently traded oil price jump up or down like crazy with no basis in reality.
What I'm talking about is stable long-term price level trends, after you smooth out the speculative noise.

i love these oil arguments. here's the cold hard truth.

we are going to run out. it is a finite resource with an increasing demand.

who cares how much we have. the focus should be put on finding a realistic alternative. not on squeezing every last drop we can from the source.

If I own a massive oil company, and we're gonna run out in 100 years, by then i'll be dead.

So why *don't* I oppose developing alternative energry sources, to keep the cost of *my* product high, and squeeze all the wealth out of it I can.

I don't care what happens after I'm dead.

And that's the American Way(tm) right? Make sure I get rich, because, well, I've *earned* it.

If you want to be a rich as me, you should simply have your own oil company, and a stranglehold on the economics of the product, now, shouldn't you?

You don't? Well, you've got no right to complain.

Work harder.

But keep buying my over inflated oil while you do so.

Thank you!

Get lost, hippie!

OK, Ranger sent me a link to a pretty neat link site, and the first article I read had this relevant blurb in it:

===========
Obama could speed the leasing of federal land to oil and gas companies, though the industry is already sitting on 7,000 approved onshore drilling permits that have been unused, along with millions of acres under lease in the Gulf that haven't been explored yet. If they want to drill, they should drill.
===========

It was a very liberal article (I think) from TIME magazine, but is the "fact" above true? I'm going to dig deeper, but if anyone has more immediate data on that, please post...

Apparently this is one reason:

After all, industry representatives say, not every lease is home to valuable oil and gas ﾗ and it can take years to find out. In the meantime, lease-holding companies pay the federal government annual rental fees, on top of the money they already spent bidding on the drilling rights.

A long path of geological surveying, exploratory drilling, construction and permitting separates the initial lease sales from energy production, if oil and gas is even located on the site.

A more important reason is simply that idle leases are not idle at all. When companies acquire a lease they must conduct geological analysis, seismic testing, drill a discovery well, and then attempt to determine if the lease has potential for further development and capital investment. The geological surveying alone can take years to identify whether a reserve is even capable of production. Also, a large percentage of the production in the Gulf of Mexico exists on leases that expired in the past and were re-leased from another company. Sometimes the ten-year lease process is not sufficient for many potential offshore prospects. Just because a company has a lease does not mean they are guaranteed production from the geological structures below that lease.

From this article:

http://thehayride.com/2011/03/interior-report-on-idle-leases-infuriates-oil-industry/

Apparently (also according to the NYTimes, but that is also fairly liberal), the data comes from the Bureau of Land Management, as in this link:

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/Energy_Facts_07/statistics.html

Can't find an exact figure on what is considered an "unused" approved permit, nor any reasoning as to why it might be left unused.

But even if there are only half that many approved, usable, but yet-unused sites, that would mean 3500 sites.

Why aren't these areas being utilized? According to the BoLM, permits over the years (from 1985 to 2011, a span covering several administrations) look like this:

3,318
1,886
1,486
1,772
1,851
2,617
1,969
1,947
2,222
2,113
1,870
1,959
2,580
2,171
1,639
3,066
3,439
3,372
3,802
6,052
4,579
6,738
7,124
6,617
4,487
4,090
4,244

Max = 7124 (in 2007)
Min = 1486 (in 1987)
Average = 3200

So even if the figure of 7000 unused permits is inflated by a factor of two, that's still more than a year ahead as far as permit issuance) on average.

Why is anyone, regardless of politics, still shouting "drill, baby, drill", in this case? Go ahead and get after it!

Because there are many more areas that we can potential get oil and gas from.

There is a potential for multifold more barrels of oil and gas as stated in the article.

We have 22B barrels of proven reserves. That is defined currently as the oil we can get to right now given the regulations.

We have 440B barrels of technically recoverable oil. So even if the leases went from 1k to 7k, Think of how many we could have going from 22B to 400B barrels. 150k leases and 20x more oil. Not to mention oil shale.

Yes, but that's not the point I'm making. If there are around 7000 approved but unused leases, that represents almost two year's worth of approvals (and approvals went UP from 2010 and 2011 -- these are Federal lands we are talking about, not private). So if approvals are recently on the way up, and there are already two years of approved sites not being used, at the very least you have to admit the GOP rhetoric of "Drill baby drill!" is entirely unfounded. It should be met with a simple, "OK, then, go ahead. GO!"

To put it another way, how large does the backlog of approved but unused leases have to be before the Obama Administration is concerned "oil friendly"? This smacks of classic GOP stymie-ing based on partisanship during an election year, doesn't it? You DESPISE when Obama and the Democrats play tricks or ram-rod things through, so don't you also find the Republican mantras about oil these days a bit despicable?

Another thought struck me... This non-drilling reminds me of far-right "job creators" that are holding off on hiring (even if they need people) just to be stubborn and make Obama look bad. Or at least calling for such behavior. I'm talking fairly far-right here, but we've seen it happen.

And if I were the oil companies, you damn right I wouldn't worry about increasing production -- what's in it for them? The price already goes up so that existing flow is worth more. What possible capitalist reason would Big Oil have to increase production, and if they want to, why aren't they using the two-year backlog of approved, Federal leases?

But are they really unused leases?

Or are they being explored, just not drilled?

This chart (from the same website):
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/oil___gas_statistics/fy_2011.Par.90242.File.dat/chart_2011_08.pdf

Shows the number of wells started each year.... looks like a more have gone in during Obama's first 3yrs than did under Bush II's first 3 yrs.

Oh, and Wyoming is putting a stunning number of holes in the ground (1/3rd of national total in recent years).

Those are excellent questions, and I'm still poking around the BoLM site, but I haven't found anything conclusive. I can't even really find anything about unused leases, because even if one totals things up over the years (approvals vs. active sites), it would still be a wild-butt guess to try to figure out current number of "unused" approvals.

I just figured since I did not see a Republican rebuttal to the 7000 permit figure that there _could_ be some truth to it. Otherwise why wouldn't the GOP immediately explain away those crazy liberals over at TIME and the NYTimes?

You and I have both used the "quack like a duck" idea, and I'm starting to hear a few light quacks. When you think about the global oil economy, record profits for oil companies across the board, and the uncertainty of an election year, it makes COMPLETE sense to me why the oil companies might have a larger than usual backlog of permits to use up. And I don't really have a problem with that. I have a problem with GOP leaders and Presidential hopefuls using empty, misleading rhetoric to bash Obama. That's reprehensible, and I don't care of it's politics as usual.

And that proves what exactly?

As we have discussed, it takes 5-10 years from permitting to drilling after all the initial exploration.

So will you give credit to Bush for all the permits that have now come to fruition? And some to Clintion as well as some may even take longer?

Almost none of the permits given by Obama would have made it to actual drilling by now.

I can see both sides when it comes to those timing questions.

But that's why a backlog is so intriguing, and why I'd love to see more articles about it. Because it doesn't matter where they came from, if there are as many "unused" sites as were approved during the highest-approval year since 1985 (roughly), how can anyone say that permits are the issue for "drill baby drill" on Federal lands?

Right, so with 10 to 15yr lag why are we upset at Obama for not drilling in ANWAR... it isn't going to fix anything today, and Bush and Clinton didn't do it either.

Allowing drilling in ANWAR right now will not have any real impact on prices or production for 10 yrs, nor will it likely have much impact at that point.

Loch, your link made me think of something -- did you see if this is all oil we are talking about, or is it also natural gas? I just realized that natural gas has been booming the last few years, and if some of these unused permits are for that, it was conveniently left out of the TIME and NYTimes article (or I skimmed too fast).

When people talk about gas prices at the pump, natural gas definitely has nothing to do with it, right? So if 5000 of those unused permits are for natural gas exploration, well, that would explain more of why there are so many "unused".

Did you run across anything on BoLM that splits natural gas from oil?

Well if we had that thinking 10 years ago about the Gulf, where would we be now?

But when we open ANWAR and other areas to drilling, that sends a message to the world that we are finally serious about obtaining our own resources.

And ANWAR has, IIRC, been explored to a much greater extent than deep water areas in the gulf. So the delay to drilling may be 5 or less years. ANWAR is not 5000 feet deep so exploration should be far quicker.

Well, I thought we all agreed on that, didn't we -- we know the 1 trillion barrels or whatever down there aren't going to come up overnight no matter what... When it comes to that, Ranger has said he was thinking more into the future of trying to reduce the cost of gas..

As in the stock market, the rise or fall of the market relies heavily on how people perceive the future.

The same can be stated in the oil market to a significant degree. Which is where speculators can manipulate the price.. to a degree.

If the world perceives we are not serious about obtaining our own resources, the price will go up. If the world sees us trying to obtain about own oil, the prices will go down.

Whether this is a large rise or drop, I do not know. But in 5 years from now, we will see a drop in the prices if we drill baby drill.

I, for one, do not wish to look back 5 years into the future and rue the day we just stood by doing nothing. Well not doing nothing, but rather giving tons of money to green energy companies that subsequently fold.

And not to mention the large amount of jobs that will be made in athe oil industry and its supporting sectors if we drill baby drill.

Again here is an article from someone who works in the industry about the job creation effect.

http://www.redstate.com/vladimir/2012/03/18/intellectual-bankruptcy-dr-krugman/

Yes, but your reserves are a pittance compare to your consumption. If you go all out and get all your oil it'll last you maybe 20yrs... and after it is gone you will see a whole new meaning for 'foreign dependence'. Do you want your kids in 35yrs to live in a nation entirely dependent of importing oil? What will that do to prices?

Right now US oil reserves are working much like the US nuclear weapons in the 1970s. They do more good as a threat than a tool.

I would have read the article, but this huge online petition urging me to stop Obamacare blocked my view... I'll assume it was in no way biased though.

Fossil Brinkmanship! I love it!

Who will deplete their resources first and become an energy-less pinata for the rest of the world to beat into pieces!

Who knows what technology will be there in 20 years that would let us get at technically unrecoverable oil now?

Also, what about all the oil shale?

If you read the article in the OP, estimates go up over time:

Back in 1995, for example, the USGS figured there were 151 million barrels of oil in North Dakota's Bakken formation. In 2008, it upped that estimate to 3 billion barrels to 4.3 billion barrels ﾗ a 25-fold increase. Now, some oil analysts say there could be as much as 20 billion barrels there.

I doubt we only have 20 years of oil left. The article states we have likely over 200 years left-minimum.

More than enough time to develop cost effective alternative energy sources.

What specifically in that article that you could not read due to a huge banner (one I did not fully see) do you disagree with.

Is it:

In NAICS 211, you find geologists, draftsmen and petroleum engineers like me, employed directly by the oil companies. NAICS 213 contains people that work for the ﾓservice companiesﾔ who work for the oil companies. These companies would include Halliburton, Transocean and Schlumberger, the companies that drill, frack, service and equip the wells. Job titles include roughnecks, roustabouts and service pump operators.

NAICS 213 is twice as big as NAICS 211: 379,100 at last count. NAICS 213 is where you find the really explosive job growth: nearly 200,000 jobs since 2004, including almost 70,000 just in the last year.

Do you disagree with these facts?

If I couldn't see it then I don't suppose I disagreed with anything, as I couldn't read it (seeing something being a necessary condition for reading it). I actually haven't argued with anything I didn't read in that article.

Biased or no, it had a good point about jobs. The part about the environment -- well, that was a little bit hand-wavy (not to mention that even with a perfectly non-polluting extraction and refining process, the carbon is still going to end up being emitted.

That's why, when I think about it, I don't even really care as much about the jobs. I mean, we could probably produce a lot of sellable product by using some of our fertile land for opium, too. Think of the jobs! I do think one has to think about the end result of the industry rather than just say, "jobs, jobs, jobs". The defense industry employed a lot of folks in the 1970s and 1980s building enough ICBMs to destroy the earth (for human life) several times over. Was that a "good" thing? Were those "good" jobs? I understand that gets pretty philosophical, but is there ever any point where we should say "we don't WANT more of those types of jobs?"

I got it too and couldn't even close the thing.

And it wasn't a banner so much as a giant screen blocking monstrosity that prevented access to the article.

Good point Loch,

However, everytime I go to view the article, it comes up quite easily and readable.

Good point, you don't know. Therefore there is a decent chance that it will still be unrecoverable.

I think the US is best served in the long term by titrating domestic and foreign production to meet domestic demands. If the technology increases as to maximize use of all potential oil reserves then it is a huge long-term win. If it doesn't, at very least you aren't set up for a disastrous long-term outcome.

Which browser?

I'm in Firefox 11.

I gave that link yet another try, what do you know, 5th time's a charm!

Yeah, nothing seems wrong with his criticism of the labour numbers that I could see, I'd say he makes a good point on employment. Future employment (and how quickly it occurs) may be speculative, but nothing egregious in what he suggests.

Recap and translation...

Oil companies don't want to go for the slightly less than convenient to get oil, much less the somewhat inconvenient oil that they can already get to, they want to get to the trivially easy to get oil in protected reserves, BECAUSE THEY WOULD PROFIT MORE FROM DOING THAT.

To do that, they get horse-shaded republican partisans like Ranger to believe that screwing up natural reservations would somehow magically solve a lot of problems (when in reality, the effect would be negligible for the common man), and that somehow it's the government's fault (but only as long as the government is democrat, of course).

There's enough oil that can be extracted in places where they are allowed to be drilled. People don't drill there yet because it's not likely to be making enough surefire cash by doing it. And gullible Ranger-type people are encouraged to whine about how the poor ole' corps are persecuted by the mean ol' govt' for not letting them do whatever the heck they would find the most CONVENIENT and PROFITABLE to do. And the Ranger-types see nothing wrong with that.

Man Sickone.

You cannot even understand a basic economic law, supply and demand.

No wonder you are having problems in this thread.

Not to mention more advanced ones like how the Stock Market actually works.

pretty sure UK fuel prices are still rising (with out tax or the price per barrel rising - ie the businesses are just raising the price because they can)) even though weve just discovered massive ammounts of oil off the Falkland islands

Try five hundred. Like me. :)
They have those permits already so they want more. The more assets you have, the better off you are, whether you use them or not. Much like a painting, an army of mutant spiders, the T virus, a Model T, insurance, great credit, or golden statue of Dick Van Dyke. Then we delve into the drug that is competitive capitalism. Which I won't. I'll speak the word ENRON and let the rest sort it self out.
Maybe the Big Oil play is to eventually bribe enough raving officials for an ANWAR discount, maybe the Oilers like being the underdog, or maybe the holdings make the spreadsheet that much better without a drill bit?
That's why hippies occupied it huh ;)
Brought up an important point. When they get drilling rights to ANWAR or pipelining, they will sell more stocks, which means free money. Sorta. With the baby at home trading stocks. Whether they drill in ten years or not. The house took someone's bet and at the end of the day the house always wins.
Even BP kept winning after their messes in Canada, so don't anyone say that debases the house, but ENRON & BP are non sequitur for the purposes of what I'm putting forth.

Yup, it's something like double the price it was last year.

It's obscene over here atm.

Ranger, that's sort of the whole point... Oil DOESN'T follow typical supply/demand curves because of speculation (and you even imply that by mentioning the Stock Market in the same post). The stock market doesn't follow typical supply and demand rules because speculators/futures DRASTICALLY change the landscape of all of that. The price of Apple's stock has nothing to do with supply and demand, per se, that's why metrics like P/E ratios exist to see just how far off the "standard" things are. Yes, there is still the simple supply/demand of the stock itself, as in, "I want that stock and you want to sell, and I will pay price X", but it has nothing to do with supply and demand of products any more than the price of gold or the price of diamonds (diamonds are a whole 'nother example of market manipulation away from supply/demand norms).

If oil reserves magically increased 10% tomorrow, the price of oil would not go down 10%. That would depend more on the news of the day. If on that same day, something drastic happened in Iran, the price would likely go UP, in fact. Supply has nothing to do with it. Even if everyone had reserves for a year, the price would still go up. As my dad would say about corn prices during dry times (when the price should be going up), if the price went down, he'd say, "Must have rained in Chicago today" (referring to speculators on the Chicago Merc Exchange). And you know what, he's probably right. Speculation plays hell with markets -- we know this. Speculation, going so far as to making a ton of bad loans and then hedging against them using still OTHER speculative financial vehicles, is what caused our most recent economic issues. It was an onion of speculation with very little "real" in the middle. Just layers and layers of meta-finance.

Anyway, I thought we were over the whole idea of disrespectful tone, telling someone else what they do (or do not) know. I assure you, Sickone knows a lot (including how supply and demand works), and I'm pretty sure you know that, too. To take a sideways shot at someones general knowledge, or lack thereof, well... It's just not necessary and doesn't really have any place in a civilized point-counterpoint discussion.

From the BBC News;


;)

Yeah, the last thirty days have been rough in that regard. I wonder how much increase in supply it would take for the speculators to relax. Would any amount be enough? Mr. Fusion can't come fast enough! What would the speculators speculate if we truly did have cheap, virtually unlimited energy? It almost sounds more ominous than hopeful, when you stop and think about it.

Oh, really ? Then explain to me how else than what I already mentioned YOU think supply and demand works, and how YOU think the stockmarket (better said, in this case, a commodities market) works, again, other than how I already said it does.

We have some pretty clear-cut numbers:
- USA extracts 8 mil/day and eats up 19 mil per day
- China extracts 4 mil/day and eats up 9.4 mil/day
- India extracts less than 1 mil/day and eats up 3 mil/day
- the entire world extracts about 87.5 mil/day (going down) and consumes about 86 mil/day (going up)
- oil consumption in China and India is going UP by anywhere between 5% to 10% per year ; combined, those two countries' increased demand represents the vast majority of worldwide demand increase in later years ; demand of oil from them is expected to go up FASTER in the coming years

So, which way do you suppose average pre-speculation-effects oil prices will trend towards, huh ?

In 10 years, China and India will gobble up an additional 7 to 12 mil ADDITIONAL barels of oil per day.
How much good do you suppose a doubling of USA oil production in 10 years will do ? That's right, it would barely match the demand increase from China and India, let alone the internal demand increase, and demand increase from other countries.

The discoverer would suddenly 'disappear', and someone else would make themselves *very* sickeningly rich off of it...

But, hey, since we're in the habit of posting articles, let's post articles...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2012/03/21/fact_check_more_us_drilling_didnt_drop_gas_price/

"A statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly, inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil production by The Associated Press shows no statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump."

"That's because oil is a global commodity and U.S. production has only a tiny influence on supply. Factors far beyond the control of a nation or a president dictate the price of gasoline."

"If more domestic oil drilling worked as politicians say, you'd now be paying about $2 a gallon for gasoline. Instead, you're paying the highest prices ever for March."

Or worse, the discovery would never see the light of day at all until fossil fuel prices simply could not be raised any higher. Then Mr. Fusion would be introduced a bit at a time, as an "evolving" technology (and, of course, expensive).

First, there's no such thing as "cheap, SAFE, virtually unlimited energy", not even with fusion (unless you somehow manage to harness H-H fusion safely instead of other much harder to come by elements like He3).
And even if cheap and practically unlimited (for a few generations) energy somehow existed via technological progress, demand will simply go up exponentially towards the new supply, and eventually you'd be back where you started in terms of supply and demand.
Also, much earlier than that, you would have a completely different (and more sinisted) limiting factor - HEAT. You can't do work without generating heat, and there's just so much heat that can be safely radiated off before we literally cook our own planet. If we somehow solve the energy crisis, we're still left with a heat crysis afterwards.

Did you read Sickone's post at 12:59? The one full of strawmen and lies?

Nice to see the liberal double standard well in play in CB. As long as it all for a noble cause, it is find to go after conservatives. But when conservatives do the same, they are the evil people. I am sure you think I am quite gullible and have no free will of my own. DWS would be quite proud of this site.

So what if we just stopped drilling everywhere? Would the price of oil not change at all? If we told the world we are closing shop on drilling?

And I see few chatting about jobs. Look at N. Dakota with its 3.8% unemployment rate. Or Texas with its rainy day fund. And all the taxes the oil companies pay. And their employees.

Hm, not sure I'm buying the heat crisis, Sickone. If that were the case, we would have already cooked from the millions of years of having the sun bombard us, no? Check out:

http://terra.nasa.gov/FactSheets/EnergyBalance/

A hot body will lose heat in the form of radiation, and that works even in the absence of conduction and convection. Yes, some factors can trap more heat near the ground (see Venus, with it's near-900 degree F surface temp), but a heavenly body, by default, isn't just going to keep getting hotter and hotter -- that simply isn't how energy works. If it did, as I said, the sun would have cooked us by now, as it sends us WAY more energy over time than anything already here (heck, it MADE what is already here, other than core heat, fissionable materials, and fusion-able materials, if we ever figure that out).

And the words "cheap" and "safe" are subjective. Better processes develop better energy and better energy conservation. Yes, we keep using more, that's why I posted years ago that without fusion, we'll eventually exceed the energy we get from the sun, deplete our fissionables, and I'm not sure about core heat (there's no such thing as "free" energy). I'm going to see if I can dig up that ancient link... I think The Great Maker even posted on that thread!

Which of Sickone's posts was 'full of lies'?

Really ? Strawmen and lies ? As opposed to an uncomfortable (for you) wake up call ? Care to actually point them out, those strawmen ? And prove that some of it was actually lies ?

Are you denying that a oil companies are massively lobbying and advertising to serve their own best interest above everything else ?
Do you have the audacity to suggest that drilling in places where oil is easy and therefore cheaper to get would not be in the financial interest of oil companies ?
Are you denying that oil is being exported from the USA by companies making a profit from it ?
Are you denying the scientifically proven fact that domestic oil production lacks any statistically significant effect on pump gas prices ?

Heh, "liberal double standard". You do love your talking points, don't you? Can you maybe work Solyndra in there?

In all seriousness, I honestly didn't read far enough up to see Sickone's post, and I certainly wasn't still up last night to catch it. If that is what you call a "liberal double standard", well, gosh. Then I guess you are judge, jury, and executioner, and you know everything about everyone's behavior. Really, Ranger. Is it necessary to attribute malice where a simple oversight is actually the case? I now have to be perfect, reading every single post in all of history so that I don't get accused of hypocrisy? This reminds of Bristol Palin whining that Obama didn't call her and apologize for Bill Maher's terrible words. Really? Obama, because he called out one misogynist butt-face now has to defend EVERY SINGLE other woman from EVERY SINGLE attack, or else he's a hypocrite? Nuh uh -- that's not how it works. If I am not intentionally singling you out, Ranger (which I'm not), I can't be held responsible and get called a hypocrite just because I missed something. Your words are hurtful and wrong, and I don't appreciate it.

And like I said, I thought we were sort of beyond that.

No matter, I'll analyze Sickone's post now:


Shouting aside, there's nothing in that about Ranger.


Yeah, there's a sideways bash in there, I think. We'll take it from the top: I would certainly classify Ranger as a conservative, though I've no idea if he is a registered Republican. In my opinion, "partisan" is accurate, and not a slight, because I do consider Ranger's style to be very polarizing by and large (he titled a thread "Do liberals really think like this?" -- you can't just overlook that). I assume "horse-shaded" is an insult, but I have no idea what it means. The rest of the content, put together, is enough that I do call this a tangential personal attack. Sickone, I think it's fine to say what you will about Big Oil and Republicans, but I don't see the point of attaching Ranger's name to any of that, do you? What's the upside of that? If you have a question for Ranger, ask it.


Again, I see zero upside to calling ANYONE some sort of "type", much less making it an insult by using Ranger as that type. And if you think Ranger is gullible, and think it is OK to call names, then I guess I was wrong to defend you in regards to your Econ 101 knowledge (that Ranger said you were lacking). Because, hey, isn't it so much more fun and destructive of we go ahead and let Ranger be called gullible and you be said to lack basic knowledge? Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. Why go to all the trouble to just have even, civil discourse?

Do you have the audacity to suggest that drilling in places where oil is easy and therefore cheaper to get would not be in the financial interest of oil companies ?
Are you denying that oil is being exported from the USA by companies making a profit from it ?
Are you denying the scientifically proven fact that domestic oil production lacks any statistically significant effect on pump gas prices ?

There you go. Direct questions, and other than a tiny use of "audacity", no personal attacks.

And in regard to the first question: Yes, they lobby. So does Coke, Wal-mart, etc. I can't really fault them for that, they aren't breaking the law or doing anything different from everyone else. My main issue is that they have plenty of MONEY to do so due to record profits while STILL getting some tax breaks. Add on unused permits (yet a vilification of the President for there not being Federal sites to drill on), and it's...irksome.

LIE, there are ways to drill without "screwing" up natural reservations. Do you realize that the area in ANWAR that oil companies want to drill is equivalent to a postage stamp on a football field. And it is multifold safer to drill there then in 5000 feet of water.

And a strawman. Magically solve the problems? Magic has nothing to do with it. Reality does. And we have a huge unemployment problem. Drilling helps put people to work. Both diretly and indirectly.


LIE, I am far from "gullible". I am well read and able to make my own decisions and form my own opinions thank you very much. And I am not for letting then do "whatever" the heck they want.

And here is one strawman. Horse Shaded Republican, like Ranger have no concern about the environment. We do not care if our natural reservations are ruined.

Again, another example of the liberal double standard. As long as they are on the side they perceive as right, anything they say is ok.

Unless the disapperer were someone involved with big oil, why with hold it?

Release it NOW (tm), and blow your competition away! Give it away for nearly free, and hook the entire world on your product. With no competitors.

It's worked well for Mr Gates. ;)

Oh, and then obviously increase prices once everyone's hooked, and no one produces oil any more. ;)

Or the oil runs out.

Whichever comes first!

They pay a LOT of taxes and they get almost no tax breaks that any other company would get. Out of the 4 tax breaks they use. only 1 is oil specific and it relates to researching new wells.

If you want to remove all tax breaks for all companies, fine. But targeting oil companies specifically is wrong and may in fact be unconstitutional. As in a Bill of Attainder

I wonder why it is that Sickone thinks that Ranger believes lies and Ranger thinks that Sickone believes lies?

Maybe we can merge this with the 'people think this way' thread?

I've already alluded to this, and even asked a question (you didn't answer it, you just went to extremes). I went in the other direction, asking what would happen if there was a LIMITLESS supply. You have posited the idea, what if there were NO new supply. Well yes, in these extremes the price would change. That does NOT mean a fractional change would have the same effect. Edge cases can be illustrative, but they are rarely, rarely continuous (and therefore applicable to anything other than the edge case itself).

We can see this in the last thirty days. Supply hasn't gone down 10%, right? Yet the price at the pump has increased something to that effect. Why? If supply/demand doesn't work on that fractional case, why do you think it would work in some other case? That's the definition of crazy, expecting different results from the same function. Hence, your function must be suspect.


Jobs are good, yes. I remarked above about how we should start opium fields if jobs are simply about getting people working in a profitable endeavor. Would you agree? Or, a more realistic example, why aren't farmers clamoring for Obama to open up more Federal lands for framing and grazing? There;s food and jobs to be had, after all? Why don't we just open up everything for drilling, mining, and agriculture. If you want jobs and think drilling should be allowed, why don't you feel the same way about mining and agriculture?

In regards to North Dakota, the population of ND is around 684,000 people. Let's go ahead and say 75% of that population is employable (I think that might be a little high). That means around, say, 500,000 employable people. Opening a few Wal-Mart Super-Centers would likely employ enough people to shift the employment rate. I don't think ND is a great example of a job creation silver bullet.

Please no more underhanded insults like these. I'm not asking as an admin, I'm asking as someone who enjoys reading level headed calm discussions. So, keep it calm for me :)

While I agree with this, on paper, I think it is a little bit specious to state so flatly. Just because the actual drilling area is small doesn't mean a thing unless you are going to magically transport the oil out of there (and equipment in). Oil is a physical product. And it's dirty, nasty stuff (it's called "crude" for a reason). And the dirtier it is (you keep mentioning shale reserves) the MORE infrastructure it takes to get the stuff out, transported, and refined (high pressure pipelines, more roads, more barges, etc.)

It's like urban sprawl, but on a MUCH larger scale, site for site. People think, hey, what's the big deal of putting a few nice houses out in the woods? Well, nothing. Until the people in those houses demand all the same amenities of homes in the city, on the grid that is engineered to deliver water, electricity, garbage pickup, sewer services, etc. When I see little housing developments carved into a hill way, way out in the Wisconsin country-side, and realize all the utilities needing to be piped out there, the houses themselves have very little to do with it. It's the infrastructure AROUND the site that will be the larger problem for the environment. (It's also what supporters leave out and environmentalists are quick to mention when discussing these issues...)

Something akin to "truer words ne'er spoken..." comes to mind...

Well, of course I was assuming the disappearer was from Big Oil, otherwise it is just run of the mill invention-stealing as opposed to gritty, conspiratorial industrial espionage!

Which one would you rather see the movie for, starring Jake Gyllenhaal as the ruggedly handsome kidnapped inventor and Daniel Dey Lewis as the crooked oil man (hey, he does it so well)!

It all depends on how much extra energy we're talking about and just how much higher temperatures we could live with.

The current average temperature of Earth is about 288 Kelvin (roughly 15 C), with variations from about -90 to +70C depending on location and time.
Now, I hope we can all agree that an increase of the average temperature to about 30C (a 15 degrees increase) would already be pretty inconvenient since, in comparison, the highest estimated global averages for the past half billion years ranged from about -2 to +8 C compared to current day averages.
But since I said "literally cook" (at least in most places), let's say we'd need an average surface temperature of about 105C (378K), a 90C increase to have a truly nightmarish scenario on our hands.

For the sake of simplicity (it won't change the order of magnitude of the result, and we're mainly interested in order of magnitude anyway) let's assume the entire planet would have that average temperature for radiated energy calculations (funny enough, the "day" side radiates away more heat than the "night" side, so the "day" side helps cool the planet more than the "night" side anyway).

Currently, the Earth's SURFACE (5.1*10^14 square meters) absorbs somewhere in the vicinity of 90 petawatts (9.0 × 10^16 watts) of energy on average (out of the about 175 petawatts that hit the outer atmosphere on average) and radiates it back out.
In comparison, the Sun produces about 4*10^26 watts.

At 333K, you could radiate away (378^4)/(288^4) -> approx. 3 times more than you do now, at 288K.
This means that if we DO manage to generate and use up 2*90= approx 180 petawatts (or, if you prefer, 180000 terawatts) more on average, then we would be screwed.

In comparison, we now only consume a bit under 17 petawatts (17000 terawatts) of energy on average nowadays, so we would need to ramp up worldwide energy consumption to almost 12 times our current consumption level for us to actually have a really big and pressing temperature problem.
However, even a 5-fold increase in worldwide energy consumption would lead to a 45-ish Celsius surface temperature increase to about 60C average, which would already mean some rather extensive places on the planet would literally be able to boil eggs by just having them sit in the shade.

Since linking articles is all the rage...
http://www.ehow.com/list_6154619_effects-oil-protected-wildlife-areas.html

"Oil spills that are caused by drilling and the transport of oil thereafter can have horrifying and lethal effects on nearby animals. [...] The impacts of drilling in protected wildlife areas reach further. [...] drilling can disrupt migratory patterns and displace animals from their homes. For example, the noises and vibrations associated with drilling oil and searching for oil using seismic tests have been known to cause polar bears to abandon their dens (which are vital for childrearing) and to move to places that are less suited to their needs. Drilling in protected wildlife areas can also disrupt food chains, as some animals are able to stop hunting and scavenging by feeding on the trash left by workers.
[...]
Oil spills can also disrupt the composition and fertility of soil, as well as the drainage patterns that form naturally within it. This can have devastating effects on plant growth, as soil becomes either too polluted or too wet or dry to support life.[...]drilling often releases alkaline dust into the air, which can coat plants and soil and cause further harm. Acid rain, which can form as a result of gas and particulate emissions from drilling equipment, can also alter a wildlife area's vegetation.
[...]
In addition to having negative effects on living things, drilling oil in protected wildlife areas can also harm the aesthetic quality of landscapes. The main purpose of these areas is to preserve the natural environment, and part of this entails preserving its natural beauty. Drilling often requires the construction of roads, lodgings, oil derricks, and other buildings, which can be unsightly and disrupt what would otherwise be beautiful natural vistas."


YES. "Magically" solve the problem. Even if you could get ANWR oil production up to the levels of long-established drilling areas (which will take far, far longer than 5-10 years), that's still at best a 50% increase in USA oil production, which means less than 5% of current worldwide production, which would translate AT BEST into 3% cheaper gas at the pump in the USA, assuming nothing else changes. WHICH IT WILL. To the worse, as explained before.
Also, it's not like the jobs that would be created there would be too pleasant. The environment alone is about as hostile as offshore oil rigs, but for different reasons.
Finally to this point, see the FACT that domestic oil extraction rates are seldom proportionate to oil prices explained in more detail a few posts above.


You aren't ? Then explain why your position does not make mathematical sense. See: just about every cold hard number I ever posted above.


First of all, I did not say that, that's only what you seem to think I meant when I wrote it (see:bias).
You CAN be somewhat concerned about the environment but be gullible about just how much of an environmental impact drilling in ANWR would have.
You CAN care about national reserves but believe the environmental costs would be manageable (doubtful) and no major accidents would happen (almost impossible even with great care) because the companies will not skimp at all on security measures (HA!) to the point of virtually eliminated any chance of any type of major disaster. And it only takes ONE of those.
I merely said that you (gullibly) believe the oil company propaganda that drilling in ANWR would be "safe enough", or that your definition of "safe enough" is far less drastic than other people's definition of it.
I merely implied that your position in the spectrum of possibilities falls at least one standard deviation away from the average. So, no, you're not Mr. Sludge, but you're no Captain Planet either.

I'm didn't say yo mommas fat.

She could be somewhat thin ...

:)

Please, please, please please please stop with the jabs.

I fail to see how that's a jab. Was I not just stating that his apparent interpretation of what I wrote was very different from what I meant to say, and explaining what I actually meant ?

If I say someone could be slightly the opposite of something bad, is that not slightly insulting?

You could be SOMEWHAT intelligent.

That seems insulting to me. Now I'm not saying I think me, or any other admins, should try to enforce this, or punish people for these "jabs." It's just I'd like discussion for it to be like you would with friends, or classmates, or co-workers. I'm not naive enough to think the discussion will always be like that, or that people won't get mad or angry or frustrated sometimes. I guess I'm just hopeful :)

Sickone, I'm still not going to buy the "cook" theory. As things get hotter, the earth will radiate MORE heat away -- it's all about the potential difference. If we are generating more heat and light, won't more if it radiate away? High concentration to low concentration, and all that? Energy doesn't like staying concentrate, and unless you have something like Venus (an atmospheric heat trap), I'm not seeing how the earth would hold all that energy in.

But maybe I'm just being dense and have simply never heard about the heat issue before. Are these your own calculations, or is there a page I can visit that discusses this phenomenon?

Space elevators with orbiting fusion reactors.

Problem.

Solved.

I agree Admins should not get involved with jabs. It is when things become non-PG they need to get involved.

But it is good to see someone finally realizing the double standard that conservatives have to endure in discussions of this type.

Well it's probably >100 years before the next singularity, so it's really fruitless for us discuss the future. That's why I always worry about the here and now, which is why I play video games all day ;)

Wait, what? This has nothing to do with that Titan was saying.

*smile*

So hurling insults and starting fights is fine, as long as nobody says any naughty words?

This is everything that is wrong with this community.

Aw, Ranger. You poor conservatives.

We liberals never have to put up with any conservative hypocrisy or double-speak, right? I mean, of we would just accept Fox News as the truth, we wouldn't have to worry about contradictions or consistency!

Let me know if I need to get my sponge and reed and I'll get you some sour wine. Don't worry, we'll take you down before the Sabbath.

I'm not saying do whatever you want, just don't say those dirty words. I'm just saying if we try to punish every little thing that someone *might* get offended by, it gets really hairy. If people just start right out insulting people heavily, action will be taken. It's just from me personally, I'd like if there was nothing but calm discussion 24/7.

By the way, I haven't used a single double-standard on this thread, unless you consider the simple, honest missing of a post as intentional double-speak (which I went ahead and took care of when I was made aware of).

So I don't actually have any clue as to what you're even talking about. Maybe it's just easier to rehash self-flagellating talking points?

For the record, Ranger has told flat out lies about me before, plain as day, and nothing was ever said. I don't think that _quite_ fits in the family of "something someone MIGHT get offended at".

I don't know anyone who doesn't get offended when words are put in their mouth and lies are told about them, do you?

So it is up to each admin, with his/her own biases to determine what is an insult?

Gee, nobody stated a thing when Gun called me a racist. I certainly would not expect an unbiased application of the rules in such a case.


I am typing about this and only this thread. It is perfectly acceptible for Sickone to lie about me, but when I say he has no knwoledge of even basic economic principles you go after me. That sir, is the double standard you claim to never have used in this thread. Again, read Sickone's 12:59 post today and tell me it was not quite the disrespectful post. And leave any biases at the door when you read it.

I can't read every thread (thought I get close), or change the past. So, obviously we need some help sometimes. I try to keep a close watch on threads that might get heated. But, feel free to message me if something someone posted you feel offensive.

I understand what you are saying Titan. I don't want heavy-handed moderators either. But it would be nice if the admins focused more on the trolling and mudslinging that always happens here and less on a few harmless f-bombs.

"SOCIALIST!", "RACIST!" = OK
"Well f#$%." = BANNED!

Moderation here is an utter joke. I think all admins should be required to change their avatars to a picture of Sheila Broflovski.
http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/Sheila_Broflovski

As conservatives should take MSNBsleeze as the truth? Yes, consistency. Works both ways. You cannot attack Fox while looking the other way at MSNBC.

Nobody stated a thing when you repeatedly called me socialist after several requests for you to stop.

And nary an apology out of you either. But you expect the rest of us to be all up in arms when Gun does the same thing to you.

Yet another example of your hypocrisy. I'll add it to the list.

We should just ignore all news stations, they are jokes.

So LB, the admins should watch for trolling and mudslinging?

I think the rules would certainly be applied much differently for some of us as inate bias would get in the way. Just as we discussed in Sut's thread.

And to equate being called a socialist to being called a racist is quite the leap in imagination.

I am typing about this and only this thread. It is perfectly acceptible for Sickone to lie about me, but when I say he has no knwoledge of even basic economic principles you go after me. That sir, is the double standard you claim to never have used in this thread. Again, read Sickone's 12:59 post today and tell me it was not quite the disrespectful post. And leave any biases at the door when you read it.

Ranger, I already addressed this. Please read my post after you mentioned Sickone's post. And, unlike you, I'm just assuming you unintentionally missed it rather than assume any malice on your part.

So, no, I've not done one single thing on this thread that could be construed as intentional double-speak. Not one thing.

I'm pretty sure if they started nixing the prickly speech there would be a surge in cries of 'censorship', etc...

Personally I have no inclination to call people, who filling a voluntary role under the guidelines of minimal interference, a 'joke'.

Though deleting that statement would be adhering to its wishes... is that irony deliberate?

You have on numerous occasions stated your views that give a socialistic appearance. Universal healthcare is one key point. And you do not just give the appearance of liking universal healthcare, it is a golden grail for you.

Where have I ever typed anything to lead anyone to think I was racist. Unless you inately think disliking Obama is being racist. Which is laughable to the extreme. As I would have preferred Rice or Powell (before he went liberal on us) over McCain.

Did you know that universal healthcare is also known as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine

You have made my point eloquently, Ranger. Thank you.

So, since it "works both ways",your own words, maybe you can stop whinging on about what conservatives have to put up with from those nasty liberals. People put up with things from other people all the time. If you want to weight in more on that meta-concept (because that's what it is, it isn't some sort of one-sided conspiracy), there's a whole other thread going on right now to discuss.

The duck is quacking loudly. If you can't see my point by now, and insist on carrying some sort of cross about how liberals are oppressing you with their hypocrisy, then you are being intentionally obtuse about the issue.

Yes, I agree. Given that Jon, Nightstrike, and Titan are conservatives, they may be more likely to rule in your favor (not that Jon is here anymore). Dudemus may do the opposite. I tend to think they would be more fair about it, but the possibility exists.

So you justify your hypocrisy with "well, I was called a worse name then I called you." Whether the names are as bad or not, the actions you took are the same. Your excuse is not sufficient.

So you see no double standard at all Sut? Sickone types something. I reply and you go after me first thing. Then and only after I state what Sickone did, you sort of backtrack a bit.


Yes I missed your writing at the end of a post where you addressed it, in a round about way.

Titan is a conservative? Ewww... and I was nice to him and everything.

I feel so betrayed.

So you then equate Rush calling that women a slut to Maher calling Palin the C word?

And Socialist is not a slur or slander. It is a political theory that some people embrace. I do not know of any person, aside for possibly hibblies in hibbliville that would embrace being called a racist.

But then again, you accept some of the principles of the socialists, like universal healthcare. Or socialized medicine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_America

On health care, yes, I have on numerous occasions expressed support for socialized health care under that specific name.

That does not make me, in more general terms, a socialist. Not in the broader sense. I'm pretty sure I've made this clear on previous threads.

So with respect to health care, I am a socialist. As a broader economic philosophy, not so much. I have equal contempt for the tenants of pure socialism as I do for ultra-capitalistic objectivism. If you do a bit of research and look at the people who have embraced the title over the last century, I have nothing in common with them, and find them as revolting as I find Rick Santorum.

So yes, I will take offense when you label me unjustly, and call you out on your blatant hypocrisy when you call someone else out for name calling.

No, and I've already explained this. You are talking about what I call "hypocrisy by omission". If anyone ever misses a post, then that person is a hypocrite. Unless someone can be perfect, they had better not say anything about anyone, because if they miss a single comment from then on, Ranger is going to come and say HYPOCRITE!

That's dead wrong. No one is perfect. I honestly missed Sickone's post, and when I was informed about it, I amended the situation as quickly as I could, no hesitation, no prevarication. What else do you want? A time machine? How can I possibly fix something I simply missed?


What did I do "in a roundabout way"? Why are you using language like that to make it sound like I am being sneaky or non-genuine? That's terrible, Ranger! I have done nothing but tell you the truth here and you are still treating me garbage. I don't get it. Then, worse, you say "liberal double-standard" in just about every post from there on, as if no other double-standards exist. Talk about hypocrisy of omission -- that's some right there. It's a nice bit of sophistry to use a phrase to make something look one-sided when you know damn well things work both ways (something you clearly state later on).

I addressed my opinion of that on the other thread. You know where it is if you want to retrieve it.

You seem to use it as one.

Aside from the liberal tarring and feathering I'm starting to wonder how much of this thread is related to oil drilling anymore.


(oh, and when I say 'liberal' I am, of course, using the more general definition of "Generous in amount; ample" and not playing politics so folks can just take a deep breath)

I have yet seen you type an love for the capitalistic society. All I read from you LB is that corporations are evil greedy entities. While unions are all good and happy and great for society.

We can debate this all day. But to equate being called a socialist to being called a racist is just mind boggling. But hell, if a conservative is being called a racist, it must be true since they are anti-Obama, who is a black man. Right?

Still about oil (tar), we just also added birds to the mix.

Ranger, read please.
I am not a capitalist. That does not make me a socialist. You seem to think the rejection of one implies acceptance of the other. It is not so binary. As stated before, I'm the guy standing in the middle, looking at both extremes and going "no, these are not good." Which is why, since I started posting on this stuff as far back as 2008, I have advocated a mixed economy like the one we actually have here in the United States. By any other standards other than the extremist right's Fox News and like minded others, that makes me a moderate.

And since you seem to be on a Wiki linking spree, I'll join you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist

This DOES NOT DESCRIBE ME IN ANY WAY. Why? Because I am not a socialist.

And yes, lumping me in with Stalin and Chairman Mao is at least as bad as calling you a racist. You're a hypocrite.

Well I guess since you have severe socialistic tendencies on a huge scale as to healthcare and never came out in favor of capitalism and have shown huge support for unions over companies that does not make you have any socialistic tendencies. None at all :) Reading your posts on workers right, union rights, big bad corporations and your approval of a socialistic healthcare society would in no way lead anyone to believe you may be socialistic. None at all, never, ziltch, nada. You are as neutral as you state. Right down the middle of the road. Equal parts capitalistic and socialistic. *sarcasm alert*

However, it is perfectly fine in the LB universe to use the word racist when the person in question has shown utterly ZERO tendencies towards racism. Since you equate calling someone a socialist equals a racist.

Yes, double standard up up and away!!!

*sigh*

Ranger, you're an idiot. You think that anybody that doesn't cling to the extreme right is a socialist. Yes, I want poor people to have health care, and I support unions. HOLY CRAP! That must mean I'm clamoring for the resurrection of Mao Zedong!

You clearly have a very flawed perception on the difference between a liberal and a socialist. A liberal, as I have been trying to explain to you for the past four years, advocates a mixed economy. Say it with me Ranger, a mixed economy. That is, capitalism with some socialist controls in place to make a better system. It is not a radical grasp at the kind of far left socialism that we fought against during the middle of the 20th century.

Let me try to dumb it down for as much as I possibly can. Let's assign point values to capitalism and socialism. Let's say capitalism is 100, and socialism is zero. 100 is Ayn Rand, and 0 is Lenin. And then let's say there is someone standing at the 50 point mark, and that person is disgusted by both extremes.

Do you call them a capitalist, or a socialist? You call them a socialist. But of course, that's dishonest unless you subscribe to the Fox News philosophy that anyone less than 90 is socialist, which you seem to accept. If you were fair, and you're not, if you called them a socialist you would have to call them capitalist as well. But the intelligent thing to do would be to just call them a moderate. But since the extremist right has redefined the word moderate to mean about the 80 point mark, and you seem to agree with this, we get crap like what we get out of you.

Sadly, you know very little about where I stand on the scale. Your only information comes from when you have stepped so far out of bounds that I've had to argue against you. Everytime I've agreed with you on anything you ignore it.

So maybe you're just trolling again.

Wow. Unbelievable.

From the Rules thread, March 19 3:47 AM EDT
http://www.carnageblender.com/main.tcl

You. Are. Trolling.

And on this thread, 1:20 PM EDT.

LB. you type more like a 20 on your 0-100 scale.

You think workers should share in the profits of a corporation. You think everyone is entitled to free healthcare paid by others.

No. More like 50~60 on a 100 point scale. But speaking of cognitive biases...

So do corporations apparently, since many of them give out profit sharing checks. Are they socialist now too?

Paid by all the taxpayers, just like the wars in the Middle East were. Like the local police and fire departments are. Yes, as previously stated on other threads, I am a socialist with respect to the issue of health care. If you qualify it with the phrase "with respect to the issue of health care," then you would be correct. But you're making a broader accusation, so you're wrong.

But I guess support for Unions, a living wage for workers, and a health care system more like England's makes me the scion of Joe Stalin. How utterly laughable.

Answer these questions Ranger (or if you're a Walking Dead fan, 'Mask you somethin'):
Do you kids attend public school?
Have you ever sent a letter through the US Post Office?
Are your parents on Medicare or Social Security?

My corporation shares profits with the workers.

I'd like to see you call one of our VPs (basically a founder of the company and high-up decision maker) of this place a "socialist" to his face. He's ex-Coast Guard and would break you over his knee if you did that. The criteria you are using to define terms like "socialist" and "anti-capitalist" aren't misleading or slightly biased -- they're just straight-up wrong.

But by all means, keep at it. You're only making yourself look stupid.

*** pops popcorn and wait for Ranger to start ranting about how long he went to school and how hard he worked... ***

Bingo.

There is an obvious difference between a corporation willing giving bonus checks to employees and having to under thread of a union. Or under threat from the government.

I thought that was understood.

Of course, but that is why LB and I are saying your definitions are skewed. From the way I read it, all of these statements would have you label me a socialist:

"I like the idea of free health care for all."
"I like it when I get a check from where I work sharing the profits, and I think that's a good idea!"
"I believe in a progressive income tax system."
"I'm not sure about capitalism sometimes."
"I think Stalin was the bomb, and Communism rocks!"

You equate all of these to "socialist". One word, no explanatory additions, just single damning moniker.

To use your own example, it IS as bad as calling you a racist because you say you don't like the President and he happens to be black (something LB and I have never done nor would we ever do!). It's the EXACT SAME THING. You have outlined the issue your very own self, yet Lord Bob makes a very concise statement, crystal clear to even the most casual of observers, and you don't get it?

Worse, you then continue to accuse HIM of a double standard? You're already at a meta-level of "double", and yet you still fabricate specious arguments to keep drumming that sentiment into others. Your lack of anything remotely close to cogent communication is is astonishingly full-bodied.

*smile*

Whoa there boy. Who ever said anything about profit sharing checks ordered by the government?

And it's not under threat from a union. The union and the corporation negotiate benefits. The corporation accepts by their own free will. If they choose not to, the union imposes consequences. How is that any different from the choice argument you make about people without health care?

And you didn't answer any of my questions.

Subvert the genre man! ;)

I *really* want to make a zombie (zombies again!) movie, where dispicable things happen. Like a father finds his wife and small children turned into zombies, and heartbreakingly kills them. Or a/some 'dudes' find a really hot chick zombie and tie her up in a basement, for, er, experiments (that involve breaking all her teeth), and other such nasty-ness that would occur during a zombie apocalypse.

Only for everyone to find out that weeks/months down the line, when it's all looking grim and futile, that 'zombie-ness' was just some form of virus, and finally people start to naturally overcome it.

Like a really bad case of the flu. ;)

Oh. Then the fallout sets in...

The father realises he killed his family when there was no need.

The 'dudes' find a traumatised girl tied up in the basement.

And how soiety copes with the actions it thought necessary to take in an extinction level event, that wasn't.

(Now if I see this on screen anywhere, I'll know one of you stole my idea! I'll hunt you down! :P)

All this talk of 'insults' and getting upset.

It's no wonder, when you grow up in a society where a celebrity cracks a joke (maybe in poor taste, but hey, most jokes are...) and the husband of someone mentioned in the joke asks the President to apologise...

LoL.

Here, have some thicker skin all round!

For what it is worth, Henry Ford was once called a socialist so it can't be that bad eh?

Let me help Ranger a bit further to understand how flawed his accusation is.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialist
n.
1. An advocate of socialism.
2. often Socialist A member of a political party or group that advocates socialism.

adj.
1. Of, promoting, or practicing socialism.
2. Socialist Of, belonging to, or constituting a socialist party or political group.

Ok, that didn't help much. On to the definition of socialism.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

The American Heritageﾮ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ﾩ2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

n
1. (Economics) an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels Compare capitalism
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system
3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in Leninist theory) a transitional stage after the proletarian revolution in the development of a society from capitalism to communism: characterized by the distribution of income according to work rather than need

Collins English Dictionary ﾖ Complete and Unabridged ﾩ HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

1. a theory or system of social organization advocating placing the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production in the community as a whole. Cf. utopian socialism.
2. the procedures and practices based upon this theory.
3. Marxist theory. the first stage in the transition from capitalism to communism, marked by imperfect realizations of collectivist principles. ﾗ socialist, n., adj. ﾗ socialistic, adj.

--------------------------------------------------

Wow, that doesn't look like anything I've ever advocated, not on this forum or any other! Note that there isn't anything in there about support for labor unions. Heck, there isn't anything in there at all - at all! - that even resembles American Progressivism!

So there you have it. I don't support any part of socialism as it is defined.
Therefore, I'm not a socialist.
Therefore, Ranger's accusation is false.
Therefore, his response to Gun's attack was absolutely a double standard.
Therefore, Ranger is a hypocrite.

QED.

Addendum: except with respect to health care. With respect to that industry, I'm a socialist. However, I do not advocate outlawing private options as well, so I guess that makes me a capitalist too. Eww.

Dude. The Walking Dead. Watch it.

It's /meh.

Rick's not Rick. The graphic novel is better.

And a room can be very clean, pretty clean, somewhat clean, relatively clean, clean-ish, relatively dirty, somewhat dirty, pretty dirty, very dirty and a few other things in between or to the sides of either.
So, if I say "this room is somewhat clean", do you understand that it's quite dirty, or that it's not quite perfectly clean ?
I guess it all depends on context and how you choose to interpret it given the context.
That's why I clarified my position in the first place, and seems I have to now also defend the wording of the clarification. Oh well.


My own back-of-envelope calculations, and sadly I got TWO things wrong, but a very, VERY important one was included : the units of measure for human power generation.
It's not 17000 terawatt (measure of power) used up, it's 17000 terawatt hour per year (energy) of electrical energy generated (that was the second mistake, but it's smaller and in the opposite direction), which converted into terawatt (power) yields a measly 20 terawatts (2*10^13 watt), or 9000 times lower than the number I used for current human waste heat generation.
After also compensating for other waste heat sources (somebody seemingly calculated that to also include fossil fuel burning) we get a measly 0.025 Watt per square meter, compared to the whooping 174 Watt per square meter the surface of the planet absorbs on average from the sun and then radiates away, or a mere 1/7000.

So, if we increase the amount of energy (in all its form) that we use a THOUSAND fold (to 25 Watt per square meter), that's almost 200 W/m^2 that needs to be radiated out instead of 174, which is achievable by a mere sqrt(sqrt(200/174))) approx.= 1.035, or 3.5% increase in average temperature in Kelvins, or at around 298K (25C), a mere 10 Celsius degrees higher on average.

To reach an average surface temperature of 80C (353K), we'd need to put out (353/288)^4 approx.=2.25 more W/m^2 than we do now, or around 392 W/m^2, a 118 W/m^2 increase, which would mean we'd have to be using 4720 times more energy than we do now.

It doesn't change the mechanism, math nor physics, only the amounts of energy needed to become problematic.
And in a "dirt cheap and virtually unlimited energy" scenario, 5000 times more energy used up compared to today doesn't sound like it would be impossible to get to.


Well, we wouldn't NEED to even get to the point where you could claim double standards if you would usually debate at least half of the actual data presented to you in debates instead of attacking the source (be it CBer or linked article author or anything else) or simply ignoring anything that looks even slightly inconvenient.

Ok, let's restart then.

First, I APOLOGIZE if I've neglectfully phrased my comments in a fashion that you can construe as a personal attack or anything of the sort, just to get that one out of the way. I will ATTEMPT to be more neutral in the future whenever debating you.

Now, that out of the way, can we get back to the actual data and the core of the argument ?



We have some pretty clear-cut numbers:
- USA extracts 8 mil/day and eats up 19 mil per day
- China extracts 4 mil/day and eats up 9.4 mil/day
- India extracts less than 1 mil/day and eats up 3 mil/day
- the entire world extracts about 87.5 mil/day (going down) and consumes about 86 mil/day (going up)
- oil consumption in China and India is going UP by anywhere between 5% to 10% per year ; combined, those two countries' increased demand represents the vast majority of worldwide demand increase in later years ; demand of oil from them is expected to go up FASTER in the coming years

A statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly, inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil production by The Associated Press shows no statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump. That's because oil is a global commodity and U.S. production has only a tiny influence on supply. Factors far beyond the control of a nation or a president dictate the price of gasoline. If more domestic oil drilling worked as politicians say, you'd now be paying about $2 a gallon for gasoline. Instead, you're paying the highest prices ever for March.
How do you reconcile that with the idea that drilling for more oil "right here, right now" would actually help pump gas prices go down noticeably ?


Even if you could get ANWR oil production up to the levels of long-established drilling areas (which will take far, far longer than 5-10 years), that's still at best a 50% increase in USA oil production, which means less than 5% of current worldwide production, which would translate AT BEST into 3% cheaper gas at the pump in the USA, assuming nothing else changes.
Is that HYPOTHETICAL best-case realistic scenario a good enough excuse to actually start drilling in ANWR ? And if yes, why ?

I wonder if Gabrielle Anwar will see this thread if she googles herself (by last name, obviously).

Here's hoping!
http://www.popculturemadness.com/interview/2010/pics/Gabrielle-Anwar.jpg

"Typical liberal."

Ranger - Last login: 6:37 PM EDT
Nope, still no answers.

It is not prudent for me to further discuss things in this thread if one takes the presumption that calling someone a racist = calling someone a socialist.

And if the CB community lets the cries of racism go unchecked.

Also, it is impossible to have a intellectual discussion when one gets such garbage personal attacking posts like Sickone is keen on doing.

And as all CB "debates" the degenerate into a 5 vs 1 pile on. Nope, no reason for me to continue when the rules obvious prevent a fail and balanced discussion without the specter of more personal attacks from Sickone and Gun.

Ah, back to the "his was worse" argument. What you and he did were the same.

Don't be so ridiculous and you won't have the more intelligent members of the forum piling on.

Yeah, the 2 other stupid conservatives appear to be busy. Oh wait, IA doesn't play anymore, guess it's just me and my stupid self :)

Please, Titan. You weren't brought up in this at all. Nobody attacked you.

I was mainly joking about the fact that Ranger, excluding me, is probably the only conservative on the site. I don't think any of you think I am unintelligent.

Yea, us conservatives should just go back to our caves where our womenfolk all are barefoot and pregnant since they cannot get free government birth control.


Ah, no wonder the liberals play the race card over and over and over again. They really do not see how spiteful it is after all these years.

And I am dismayed that such an intelligent person as yourself still cannot understand the difference between being called a socialist and a racist.

To be fair, I was surprised by this as well. It wasn't being a socialist that made those people bad. Capitalist and Socialist alike can be bad, and are not defined by the economic ideologies.

Well that's good news.

Ranger, I am not interested in which one you think is worse. You resorted to false accusations. Gun did as well. Ranting ad nauseum about what he did when you did the exact same thing makes you a hypocrite.

Idiot 1: "You're a butt hole!"
Idiot 2: "You're a turd eater!"
Idiot 1: "Did everybody see that! He called me a way worse name! That means I'm off the hook! GIVE ME SPECIAL TREATMENT!!!"

Well you are a turd eater...

*smile*

Oh, and stop claiming "the liberals" here are playing the race card against you. I've personally defended you against those accusations on several occasions, including on this thread. That's far better treatment than you have ever, ever offered me. It also makes you a liar.

You're a whiny little brat Ranger. Grow up.

I was a little confused about who called Ranger a racist. I haven't read every post in this thread; but damn near it.

It was Gun on another thread. Nobody but that one person. I'm not even sure of the context. But somehow all the rest of us liberals have to deal with the tantrum.

And who had his feeling hurt being called a "socialist"? Especially since they post time and time again socialistic viewpoints in many areas.

And yes, when someone calls me a racist, I get highly offended.

PS: Call me a capitalist and see if I get my panties in a wad like you?

What is next LB?

The 'I'm Rubber You're Glue' chant?

You're a racist Ranger.

Yea, I expected no less from you LB. No less at all. Especially from someone who cannot see the difference between calling someone a socialist and a racist.

Now who is acting like a 2 year old throwing a temper tantrum? Hmmm.

Nope, no tantrum from me. These are your rules Ranger. If you get to hurl around accusations in the face of proof that they are incorrect, well then let's do this. Words are supposed to mean things, and when they no longer mean things, well then we just get to hurl ridiculous insults around all day.

So, you're a racist. I've decided that you are a racist. Don't bother trying to prove me wrong. I'm playing by your rules, you racist.

Closed! This is not debate, this is drivel. Thanks for keeping it civil folks.