Hi Guys,

Quote:
Scotomas are a figurative blinder that allows you to see only what you choose based on your conditioned mind.

Hopefully both sides will have blinders removed or partially removed for a glimpse, of what the other is saying.

Notice how it's the politicians, most loudly clamoring for the new drilling. The political babble plays well, to an uninformed public, which makes the politician seem knowledgeable & caring, which will be beneficial for re-election. It's boring & does not make headlines, when the politicos, support CAFE standards etc. Boring in the sense, headlines are not made, which insure the probability of re-election.

The challenge come up with an honest figure to bring ANWR oil to market, include all aspects, when calculating the cost. Billions! And I'll show you a way to spend that figure, which will significantly improve our energy independence, far more than ANWR oil.

Take Care
Rico

Hal,

The public is not informed in this area (sans geophysicist, etc) most are looking for a quick fix, with little impact on them. Politicians (mostly Right wingers) have planted the seed (conservative radio & tv) with the public that this will benefit them. This is how polls are influenced, to achieve the desired result.

The point you seem to be overlooking (most important) is that the energy & cash to market the ANWR oil, could be put to much better use, with greater benefit, for reducing our oil habit.

Quote:
But, once again, don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument, especially when they don't support your position.

Hal - Your comment is argumentative & not supported by your post. You allude, (somewhere) there are facts, but fail to follow through by, showing examples.

Take Care
Rico

Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:
Quoting Rico:

Quote:

The public is not informed in this area...

Take Care
Rico

And I suppose you now speak for the public? I'm public, and I'm well informed on this issue.

Ditto

Quoting Rico:

Quote:

I tried to distinguish between informed & non informed public by including:

Quote:
(sans geophysicist, etc)

the exceptions.

Right. So, according to you, if I'm not a geophysicist, then I'm uninformed? Are you a geophysicist? If not, then you too must be uninformed and anything you say here is pure rubbish.

Quote:
I look forward, to reading your comments on this topic.

No, you look forward to injecting more or your leftwing rhetoric...be honest

Quote:
Quoting 8ballMax

Quote:

And I suppose you now speak for the public?

Quoting Rico

Quote:
Is this sarcastic?????????? What kind of reaction does sarcasm, often get??????

No...that was a rhetorical question. You obviously can't tell the difference.

Take Care
8ballMax

Drilling for more is not going to help on a long term basis, it's just postponing the inevitable and that's looking for and using alternatives. Even if we all just try to consume half of the fuel we need by buying a more efficient car, like I did, or by using public transportation, we will be out of oil eventually.

Quoting Daddy DVD:

Quote:
Drilling for more is not going to help on a long term basis, it's just postponing the inevitable and that's looking for and using alternatives. Even if we all just try to consume half of the fuel we need by buying a more efficient car, like I did, or by using public transportation, we will be out of oil eventually.

You cannot just "switch" to alternative energy overnight.  Not everyone can afford to go out and buy a new car just to reduce their energy consumption, especially given the prices of hybrids and the lack of availability of fuel stations.  It will take years to build and get alternative energy generation methods (wind, solar) on line and it will be much longer before they will entirely replace oil-based energy (if ever).  But unlike the left, I say go for it.  Take whatever time you need to go and make that happen

Add to that the fact that the environmentalists continue to block nuclear, coal and shale oil expansion and have done so for the past 30 plus years (here in the U.S.).  These policies have led directly to the current crisis.

In spite of that crisis, the left wing and the environmentalists continue to argue that we should only pursue the "new" alternative energy sources....that is, the ones they like.  Their argument is that if we continue to drill for oil, we will never switch to alternative fuels.  I don't believe that for a minute.

I think the industrialized countries of the world (at least some of them) have finally come to the realization that things have to change.  Those changes will take time, and we need a "bridge" to get us through until we have had time to build and implement the alternatives that are required to allow us to stop using oil.  That day is a long way off...probably decades.

In the meantime, we have to meet the current energy demands and figure out ways to reduce that demand.  We need every source of energy currently available to get us free of our dependence on foreign oil.  This need is not just one of energy demand, but one of national security.  Continuing to buy foreign oil (which will not stop for decades under the most aggressive plans) means we will continue to send hundreds of billions of dollars overseas, often to countries who are hell bent on our destruction as well as the destruction of our allies.  I for one want to stop funding those regimes ASAP, keeping both the money and the jobs that go with that, right here in the U.S.

The analogy is that the ship is sinking and there are no lifeboats on board.  It will take about three hours before it goes under.  Part of the crew is saying lets patch the holes, but they know they don't have time to patch them all.  But if we patch some of them we can prolong the time before the ship finally goes down.  In the meantime, we can build some rafts for the passengers and then wait for the rescue boats to show up.

The lefties want to build rafts and ignore the huge holes in the ship.  The problem is that they can only build one raft in three hours and they need at least twenty.

Not a good plan.

Hi Guys,

Quote:
Hal Wrote:

Please explain to me where the public or the government has the right to tell private corporations where to make investments.

Confused, you can't be talking to me! Free markets with minimal government interference is what I advocate.

Quote:
Hal Wrote:

That would require nationalization of the oil companies.  Is that really what you are proposing?

Absolutely NO! Where is this coming from, the only person I see talking about nationalization is Hal. Confusion abounds.

Quote:
Hal Wrote:

Again, with a little research, you will quickly find out how well that has worked elsewhere.

Lack of examples, strictly academic your position is more credible, makes more sense to the reader with examples. Example! Look how well nationalization as worked for the citizens of Venezuela. ETC. I'm not trying, to put you or anyone else down, arguments & positions, make sense to the reader with examples. If I'm guilty of not providing examples, then this can cause confusion as well.

Quote:
Hal Wrote:
You cannot just "switch" to alternative energy overnight.

True! No argument.

Quote:
Hal Wrote:
Not everyone can afford to go out and buy a new car just to reduce their energy consumption, especially given the prices of hybrids and the lack of availability of fuel stations.

Well! Fuel sippers are selling like hot cakes; common questions to knowledgeable sources are what should I do with my SUV, source WSJ etc. What has happened is a shift in consumer buying habits, with Detroit playing catch-up. Detroit products are not selling (evidence economic malaise of Big 3). What lack of fuel stations are you referring to?

Quote:
Hal Wrote:
Add to that the fact that the environmentalists continue to block nuclear, coal and shale oil expansion and have done so for the past 30 plus years (here in the U.S.).  These policies have led directly to the current crisis.

30 plus years ago the energy problem really did not exist. Free markets then ( as now ) dictated price, the cost of gasoline was pretty cheap back then.

More importantly, let's PRETEND & take environmentalists out of Hal's comment. We most likely would have built many more nuke's, experienced more 3-Mile Island situations. Error on the side of caution. Also economic conditions did not make implementation of nuke's a priority, why cheap oil. Coal with the environmentalist still gone; cheap high sulfur content coal, would have been the source. Which would begat acid rain, dead lakes etc. Shale oil was just curiosity, & was not implemented due to cheaper sources of energy. The fruit on the low branches is always picked first, because its more expensive to get the fruit on the upper branches. The left & right act as a 'check & balance' so neither side gets too strong , for too long, & where middle ground comes from.

My guess, is the energy crisis began with the ouster of Iran's Reza Palivi. This brought a new way of thinking regarding energy.

Quote:
Hal Wrote:
I think the industrialized countries of the world (at least some of them) have finally come to the realization that things have to change.  Those changes will take time, and we need a "bridge" to get us through until we have had time to build and implement the alternatives that are required to allow us to stop using oil.  That day is a long way off...probably decades.

Change is the only 100% certain thing in life! Institutions resist change by definition, & in time will wither away, or change. The bridge can also be built (like it is now) by improving what we already have. High energy prices brought us: people driving less > change in auto choices > increased usage of mass transit > increased bicycle sales etc etc. This is the bridge, which is happening now.

Quote:
Hal Wrote:
In the meantime, we have to meet the current energy demands and figure out ways to reduce that demand.  We need every source of energy currently available to get us free of our dependence on foreign oil.  This need is not just one of energy demand, but one of national security.  Continuing to buy foreign oil (which will not stop for decades under the most aggressive plans) means we will continue to send hundreds of billions of dollars overseas, often to countries who are hell bent on our destruction as well as the destruction of our allies.  I for one want to stop funding those regimes ASAP, keeping both the money and the jobs that go with that, right here in the U.S.

True!

Quote:
Hal Wrote:
The analogy is that the ship is sinking and there are no lifeboats on board.  It will take about three hours before it goes under.  Part of the crew is saying lets patch the holes, but they know they don't have time to patch them all.  But if we patch some of them we can prolong the time before the ship finally goes down.  In the meantime, we can build some rafts for the passengers and then wait for the rescue boats to show up.

The lefties want to build rafts and ignore the huge holes in the ship.  The problem is that they can only build one raft in three hours and they need at least twenty.

Not a good plan.

Nobody is wrong 100% of the time. As reasonable people, let's cherry pick, the best ideas from the left & right, caution vested interests are plentiful, & formulate a good plan!

Hi Brian I agree with allot of your post & will comment on a few items. I'm getting lazy!

Paragraph #1 Agree except oil companies are not evil or bad, (where does this come from) I own (many years) Chevron stock etc. Also should the windfall actually make it to govt. The funds would most likely be used for everything but funding for alternative energy funding

I agree "No large pot of money" exists where we can choose a direction for spending. Used primarily to illustrate & alternative.

CAFE - Auto companies have resisted this for years.  Rightfully so! Auto companies have a vested interest in opposing, anything & everything that represents an expense to them, has to do with shareholder value! Hence it's common & expected bellyaching comments, from auto companies when it comes to CAFE. R&D is good you will find companies in general (stock market screening) with the highest R&D expenditures, are the most profitable. Poor decision making, reduces a companies R& D spending - aka selling SUV's during a energy crunch.

Food prices  - A large part of the recent increase in food prices is due to government intervention in free markets. Bush, meaning well mandated, x-amount of cropland, for alternate fuel. This meddling by govt in free markets, raised food prices world wide.

Last paragraph! We do have plenty of our own oil, however, apply the low hanging fruit theory here. It's not profitable, to go after, much of our oil, until the price of oil is high. Keep in mind oil from ANWR is akin to the ocean missing a, bucket of water. As for your use of the term speculators, not exactly correct. Commodity traders, brokers job is to maintain, a stable market, over time. The lifting of a ban on ANWR oil, would/should momentarily drop the price of energy. The drop in oil prices would not be sustained, as the amount is to trivial, for long lasting results. Free markets, constantly adjust, to maintain an orderly market.

Take Care
Rico

Hello Hal,

Thank You! I can see how the quote can & was mis-construed. As I previously stated, this is to illustrate better  usage.

Quote:
Hal Wrote:
It is the oil companies that would be making the investment to bring this oil to market.  Therefore, the fruits of their labors are theirs to do with as they wish.

100% Correct!

Quote:
Hal Wrote:
If they continue over the next several decades to ignore alternatives, then they will perish as surely as the dinosaurs.  First off, the oil will eventually dry up.  Secondly, other companies will be far ahead of them in the alternative energy market.

Who are referring to as 'They?'

Quote:
Hal Wrote:
The 3-Mile Island reference also betrays your liberal position.  Accidents happen in every industry.  Deaths as a result of nuclear accidents is actually minuscule compared to other industrial deaths.  There were NO deaths and NO injuries at Three Mile Island, BTW, and average exposure to radiation was less than one chest X-Ray (100 millirems at 3-Mile Island vs 300 millirems for a chest x-ray).  This is a huge red herring that is constantly raised by the anti-nuke fanatics and has no basis in fact and is nothing but pure fear-mongering.

You seem to miss the larger point, Hal. The one I made about checks & balances. You tend to only accentuate the positive, & ignore problems for this industry. 

Take Care
Rico