Boy, big oil really got you bamboozled.

I'll have Ms. Anne Korin call you.

Wait a minute, you never answered this question. Why?

My friend the same can be said of you. No matter what proof I provide you ignore it and continue to spout talking points. Not once can I remember you refuting what I posted, instead you dig up another persons words without any context and call that an answer. You may have connected the dots in your mind but you have yet to put them on the screen for me to see.

I and the good doctor have shown you how drilling for oil will bring down the price. You reject that with no evidence to back it up. You simply refused to address what was written and I know you think you are witty with your retorts but they fall short of making a point or addressing the topic. Mr. Pickens is one of those not in my back yard people. He refuses to put up wind turbines on his land. So much for him. Oh, yeah he also says you can’t drill your way out of this crisis but he still drills and pumps oil. Why is that? Once again I will tell you that wind power is not the answer by its self. And once again I will ask you what alternative fuel source is there that we can use to stop using oil? will you answer that question? Because without an alternative fuel all this crap about getting off of oil is a waste of time. You can’t get rid of the thing that runs our economy and not replace it. Without the replacement we will still have to use oil.
Here is a hint, you will know you found the fuel alternative when the price of a barrel of oil drops to about five cents. The price of oil will always drop to remain competitive so when there is competition the price will drop.

I don't think anyone is saying that it has to be either/or, Palidin77, the good doc and myself are merely stating that until an alternative fuel is viable we need to drill for oil so that we can bridge the gap. If we were to say tomorrow that all gas stations had to shut down because we were switching over to hydrogen fuel cell cars only people in Southern Califonia could get around, and only within a couple hundred miles of home (assuming they had a hydrogen car). If we were to all of the sudden stop running the fossil fuel power plants most of the US would be in an indefinite blackout. I know I am all for alternative energies, I want them as soon as possible the problem is that they just aren't ready yet. So while they are being researched and developed we need to increase our domestic supply of oil.

Yeah, what he said.



Because like all liberal ideas, America has to set the example and others will follow and we can save the planet. Just like during the cold war when the liberals said we should get rid of our nuclear arms to prove to the Soviet Union that we really were not a threat. These are the same people that foolishly believe that poverty causes terrorism, and since America is a rich nation we must be the cause of terrorism so we deserve what we get.

If you continually stress the immediate need of oil exploration, it inevitably will and deliberately upstage the alternatives.

We have been searching for alternative fuels since WWII, Germany and they untied states both invented a synthetic gasoline but it is too expensive to put on the market then and now. We have been improving solar power since the 70’s, I wrote on using sea currents as a generation source in 1975 they are doing it today but it can’t hope to replace petro generation. Wind power is also way short of doing anything useful. What alternative fuels are there? None! The oil companies screamed we need nuclear power plants back in the 70’s, to free up oil to keep it cheap and affordable. Our politicians at the time ignored this and their predictions came true. The oil companies did not build or own any nuclear power plants they make no money from them. They looked at what was happening and said this was what was best for the nation.

So you admit that there are no viable alternatives at the moment. At least we have gotten you to admit that. And the new oil is NOT potential, we know it's there it's just a matter of building the drilling rigs to extract it, and then the transportation system to carry the oil from the rig to the refineries. Both of these things can be done with known technology.

Alternative energies however are NOT a known technology and therefore would take more time to get to a point where they are economically viable. I have the utmost confidence in American ingenuity and the idea that we will one day no longer need oil, however as of today that day is not here yet so we need to free ourselves from foreign oil to bide our time until the alternative energies are ready.

You think she came up with the joke? I think you give her way too much credit. It doesn't change the fact that it's still rather pathetic though.

You're kidding, right? Bio, thermal, oceanic, wind, liquid coal, nuclear. Your problem is not wanting to give up the combustion engine.

No, I am quite serious. Please show me a Jet engine that can run on Bio, thermal, oceanic, wind, liquid coal, or nuclear fuel. Please provide for me the bio fuel that we have in supply to replace oil. Nuclear power is great but you can’t drive a nuclear powered car yet, electric cars are not affordable to the general public. Sure you have some pieces in place to start to begin to commence to get ready to maybe do something, but none of them are ready to replace the oil we consume today. They are still working out the bugs on all of them except Nuclear. Bio fuel has now been shown to pollute more that gas as far as CO2 goes. Once we find one that works we have to build a supply and infrastructure to support it then we will be ready to use this new wonder fuel. Today we produce enough bio-fuel to run a few thousand cars a year. How many millions of cars are on the road today?

Wait a second, we haven't been drilling because it would take "10 years" before we see any benefit, right?

It has taken much longer than 50 years to develop an alternative to oil, and we STILL have seen no effective alternative solution. Since that's WAY longer than 10 years, we shouldn't be wasting money on alternative fuel development, right?

The sad truth is we have 90% of the tech we need to convert to a nuclear/electric vehicle based economy RIGHT NOW. All that is needed is more cost-effective batteries with a massive capacity and better transmission lines to handle the heavy post-rush-hour loads (both things we could see in the next 10 years). Of all the alternative possibilities, an electric system would have the least difficulty in up-front startup costs.

Only if people stop with their NIMBY selfishness will it happen. Finally, we don't need nearly as many planes as we are currently flying, and last time I was there, the whole act of getting a flight is miserable. All we need are basic international routes across the ocean, and that would require MUCH less fuel than the hundreds of commuter lines we're currently running.

I have a nuclear plant practically in my back yard, and it isn't so bad! So why the hell can't the two parties unite behind a nuclear future? It baffles the mind.




What a logical load of Bullshit the eco-extremists in control of the Democratic party right now are feeding us...I hope Pelosi loses her seat soon.