Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Carter Doctrine (Our N. American future)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by astralis View Post
    our problem with him was that he would have controlled so much, he would be able to seriously influence the price of oil.
    That, to me, is continuity of supply.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

    Comment


    • #17
      :Sighs: Where to start...
      Originally posted by glow View Post
      Either way you look at it, we're going to run out. Your biggest ally Canada which is supplying you with 15-20% of your oil can only supply so much. Yeah its 15-20% but thats 50+% of their oil per year.
      I'm not American and Canada isn't 'my' ally, although most of them do seem to be quite lovely people.
      Originally posted by glow View Post
      The evolutionary debate analogy you gave me was amusing
      I didn't give you an 'evolutionary debate analogy'
      Originally posted by glow View Post
      Evolution exists, hate to tell ya. Dinosaurs did exist too. People were around longer than 6000 years.
      I know, can you point to where I said it didn't, or are you debating a gremlin in your own head?
      Originally posted by glow View Post
      Are you one of those folks who goes to church and asks forgiveness if you break the law too? I hope not you seem smarter than that and maybe not that quite brainwashed.
      I don't go to church.
      Now, are you going to actually pay attention to what people are saying to you and who it is that is saying it, or continue to rant against imaginary bogeymen?
      In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

      Leibniz

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by glow View Post
        Did you also believe there wasn't a hole in the ozone too? I bet you thought that was bunk. You realize that theres more and more health problems resulting from c02 emitions I don't think you can fight that.
        Oh, and I live with the consequences of Ozone depletion, which is more than you do, and am completely aware of it's causes, which you apparently are not.....
        Ironically, you are shielded from the full ravages (I'm assuming you're from the northern hemisphere) of ozone depletion because of the filtering effects of the carbon you pump into the atmosphere.
        In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

        Leibniz

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by glow View Post
          If some of you disagree you guys need to go take a first year geology or simple science class at a university.
          Amidst all of your rambling crap I pull this to illustrate that I can pull out my B.S. in Astronomy and 2 years of grad work in Geology and beat you with it for as long as you want and I still disagree with you. So take your "simple science" and "geology" class challenge and cram it up your blow hole.

          "peak oil" and all the other scares are pointless, and ALWAYS incorrect.

          Besides, and I'm not the first guy to point this out either, even if we found out tomorrow that we could get cheap power from doing the Macaraena inside of a magnetic field, we'd STILL use oil in addition because a growing economy and society will ALWAYS use all available cheap energy.

          We're going to use it all until there ain't no more, because it's deliciously energy-riffic, bottom line.

          -dale

          Comment


          • #20
            glow I invite you ponder the fact that the US has the largest recoverable oil reserves on Earth (in fact US reserves are nealry 400 billion barrels more than all of the rest of the world combined). US reserves via Kerogen ammount to 3.3 trillion tons or 1.5 trillion barrels.

            Now that oil has past 50 a barrel and not collapsed the economy the stuff is commerically viable, now what were you saying about peak oil?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
              :Sighs: Where to start...


              I think he's talking about me.

              He seems to think anyone who's smart believes in global warming. Anyone who doesn't believe in global warming, is a Christian conservative working for the oil company in the south while married to his cousin pumping out buck-toothed inbred offspring.

              What a prime example of "tolerant and open-minded" liberal we have here.

              I'm an atheist who lives in southern California, driving a compact station wagon, using all energy efficient florecent bulb at home (have been for 10 years), recycling maniac, who just happens to disagree with global warming hoax.
              "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                When we run out, we switch to something else. What is so difficult to understand?
                Ummm.. like what? We're running outta fossil fuels. Your contention is that when we run out of gas we'll come up with a solution? You really think we can wake up and switch all our automobiles(Arguing of course that industries can switch relatively easier) to some alternate one fine day? or even one fine year? Every other alternate : wind, tide, solar all have scale of generation problems.

                There is no reasonable alternate to oil today. Not in the quantities we use. Cold fusion is still a dream and nuclear fuel disposal is still a problem. (Admittedly thats a better solution than fossil fuels) Still barring the discovery of a stable fuel-cell alternate I see nothing on the horizon.

                So where does that leave us? Control of oil is strategically vital. It would be criminal of the US govt to not do all they can to control oil. War with China? Would they even dare?

                Also on another point:
                There is Global warming. Are we responsible? Even arguing we're not I'd rather wake up a decade later and find we erred on the side of caution than wake up to a flooded SF. And then what? Oops?
                "Of all the manifestations of power, restraint impresses men the most." - Thucydides

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by chankya View Post
                  Ummm.. like what? We're running outta fossil fuels. Your contention is that when we run out of gas we'll come up with a solution? You really think we can wake up and switch all our automobiles(Arguing of course that industries can switch relatively easier) to some alternate one fine day? or even one fine year? Every other alternate : wind, tide, solar all have scale of generation problems.
                  Oil will not run out in one day. It'll get more expensive until finally it won't be economically viable in comparison to other forms of energy. The change will be gradual. You probably won't even realize it until one day you say "hey I can't believe it's been 15 years since half of our cars stopped using gasoline."

                  Originally posted by chankya View Post
                  There is no reasonable alternate to oil today. Not in the quantities we use. Cold fusion is still a dream and nuclear fuel disposal is still a problem. (Admittedly thats a better solution than fossil fuels) Still barring the discovery of a stable fuel-cell alternate I see nothing on the horizon.
                  Sure there is. They are just not economically viable when oil is still cheap. People will switch to ethanol, nuclear, or something else that's too expensive for now.

                  Originally posted by chankya View Post
                  So where does that leave us? Control of oil is strategically vital. It would be criminal of the US govt to not do all they can to control oil. War with China? Would they even dare?
                  Why would it be criminal? Aren't we trying to DECREASE the reliance on foreign oil, or even oil altogether?

                  Originally posted by chankya View Post
                  Also on another point:
                  There is Global warming. Are we responsible? Even arguing we're not I'd rather wake up a decade later and find we erred on the side of caution than wake up to a flooded SF. And then what? Oops?
                  Flooding SF? Great! Where do I sign up?

                  The arrogance of the global warming cult is:
                  1. They believe humans are responsible for heating up the earth
                  2. They believe the climate that we have right now is OPTIMAL
                  3. They believe we can change or hold the climate to what they consider to be optimal
                  "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by chankya View Post
                    Ummm.. like what?
                    Gas hydrates

                    Originally posted by chankya View Post
                    Cold fusion is still a dream and nuclear fuel disposal is still a problem.
                    Cold fusion was always a dream. 'Hot' fusion, though, isn't. Spent fuel can, and should, be reprocessed. Disposal of activated reactor components is problematic, but only as much as we make it.

                    And I also have a hard time seeing the down side to a flooded San Francisco.
                    The more I think about it, ol' Billy was right.
                    Let's kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight.
                    - The Eagles

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                      William, the market will provide. That is a fact. Your contention is that it won't provide it "cheaply." Which I never said will be the case. A transition might be painful, but bearable. We have gone through many different economic and industrial transitions in our history. Each time we come out better and stronger.
                      Sure, but the market has to have something to provide. Right now, as far as energy is concerned, the market is overstretched so it cannot accomodate the panaceas du jour that are the new darlings.

                      The market was going to supply ethanol to ease are problems but that drives up the cost of corn, beef, fertilizer etc.

                      The market was going to supply syncrude but that puts a heavy burden on the water supply.

                      The way the market is going, it cannot provide something new, it has to feed on itself and that is not exactly a healthy condition. That is not growth.

                      I see where your coming from; I just do not share your optimism. I think the issue at hand has a degree of complexity that management rather than markets is more likely to fix.

                      The market has failed to provide energy solutions in the past. This is why management was required to float the Synthetic Liquids Act of 1944, The Energy Security Act of 1980, the JBUFF, just to name a few. Where was the market while all of this was going on?

                      Your assessment of 2 oil men meddling in the mideast is interesting, especially with regards to throttling China and India's development. However, that requires quit a bit of foresight and conspiracy. Maybe Bush and his team hatched the plan. Maybe that was a US plan, hatched prior to Bush's term. Maybe that's just a conspiracy theory.
                      I don't see any conspiracy, just business as usual.

                      Objective, rational analysis of United States foreign policy since 1945 viz. the Middle East yields three consistent themes:

                      1. Energy (e.g. oil);

                      2. Keep competing powers out/at bay;

                      3. Honor the Quincy Pact.

                      The Bush Administration seems to be following the general, long term trend in U.S. policy.

                      But here's the central issue that the left can't seem to wrap their brains around. Bush and just about all capitalists believe that oil is a commodity, not a utility. Commodity can be and should be bought and sold on the open market. We have no need to invade anyone if we can buy this stuff. Wars are expensive. A simple cost-benefit analysis will show that a war for oil is simply not economical. The only people who will launch a war for oil are non-capitalists.
                      I am not of the war for oil crowd. I merely stated that it would be a lapse in judgement to assume that two oil men engaged in military adventurism in the World's oil bread basket would not be thinking about oil. They know as readily as I do what the U.S. long term program has been in the Middle East.

                      Regards,

                      William
                      Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Major Dad View Post
                        Gas hydrates
                        Trapped in ice but potentially recoverable, North American exposure, etc.; not a bad angle to pursue.

                        Cold fusion was always a dream. 'Hot' fusion, though, isn't. Spent fuel can, and should, be reprocessed. Disposal of activated reactor components is problematic, but only as much as we make it.
                        Fusion power and Martian exploration have one thing in common: they are twenty years away in perpetuity.

                        As to fission, moving towards a Thorium 232/Uranium 233 fuel cycle adresses many issues quite nicely. It is not vaproware. It has been done for decades and really needs more attention in this country.

                        And I also have a hard time seeing the down side to a flooded San Francisco.


                        Have a good afternoon,

                        William
                        Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Creationism states that god created everything. New creatures cannot come about on their own. Things stay static. Species can only extinct, not emerge.
                          -posted by gunnut

                          Off topic, and this is all I'll say about it. Creationists believe that things can adapt, and that new species can come about. We have problems with apes to human type thing that takes millions of years...
                          "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
                          - Thomas Jefferson

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by glow View Post
                            People pulling research from scientists who've been paid by oil companies/ governments aren't exactly educated I'de say misinformed. You know global warming and signs of it keep popping up all over but never all at once. Kinda like plane crashes. Well **** happens time to time but obviously until it starts happening in horrendous numbers people really never seem to make a big deal out of them.
                            Uh, scientists have little to gain, and everything to lose by reporting against global warming.

                            Originally posted by glow View Post
                            Who was that Oil industry exec a while ago came out and said we knew what was happening but "whats the big deal, everyone likes warmer weather anyways" Something like that.
                            That's just it. People dispute whether or not it's a bad thing; just a natural cycle.

                            Originally posted by glow View Post
                            I agree with Swift Sword, Especially on Alaskan Oil, at the rate the US uses oil even if it grabbed it out of Alaska we could use it up in 4 days. Not only that but it would be a huge expense to even get it. It already takes 1/3 of a barrel of oil to get 1 barrel of Oil from the Oil sands in Alberta.
                            There is oil in the rocky mountains, and off the gulf. The U.S. has enough unexploited oil to be in OPEC.

                            Originally posted by glow View Post
                            Either way you look at it, we're going to run out. Your biggest ally Canada which is supplying you with 15-20% of your oil can only supply so much. Yeah its 15-20% but thats 50+% of their oil per year.
                            When we do run out, we'll be able to switch. We'll probably switch long efore because of price hikes. The price hikes of late have nothing to do with supply. It's just retaliation for Iraq. Which is why we should drill our own.

                            Originally posted by glow View Post
                            The evolutionary debate analogy you gave me was amusing but none the less, I really don't see how you can debate it. Did you also believe there wasn't a hole in the ozone too? I bet you thought that was bunk. You realize that theres more and more health problems resulting from c02 emitions I don't think you can fight that.
                            How do we know that there hasn't been a hole for centuries?
                            Health problems? And would you care to list those health problems. They've obviously helped humans, or at the very least, not affected them when it comes to the lifespan.

                            Originally posted by glow View Post
                            So if it's not good for Organic creatures how could it be good for anything else? c02 is about 350ppm and increasing. Kinda ironic things are changing more and more with it. The bush administration has finally recognized it, the world has, and theres been study after study altered and edited to show that it might not exist.
                            Again, the agenda that there is global warming is mainstream; not the agenda that says it's a hoax. And those who go against the mainstream are not usually doing it for personal profit. As it is, they're not reported by the mainstream media.

                            Originally posted by glow View Post
                            I mean c'mon. I always here this from generally brain washed conservatives who live in Southern states where the oil industry and jesus tend to play a big roll. Well move to a climate where it is vastly different than the one you might get in California or Southern US. I don't think anyone in Scandinavian or Northern regions share your views.
                            gunnut lives in California, so he's not an inbred southerner. And you're a bigot to believe that everyone in the south is inferior because of the conservative Christian majority. I was born and raised in Maine, and I tell you, global warming would make a lot of people there happy.

                            Originally posted by glow View Post
                            Evolution exists, hate to tell ya. Dinosaurs did exist too. People were around longer than 6000 years.
                            Hehe. I haven't debated evolution on this forum yet. You're faith in that statement would be greatly shaken if I had. Too bad this isn't the right type of forum.

                            Originally posted by glow View Post
                            Oil industry has lied about global warming and your in some sort of denial. I mean c'mon Bush put an Oil man incharge of environment. Gimme a break
                            How do you prove that we're in denial, and you're not the nutjob spouting off conspiracies in Macdonalds hamburgers.

                            Originally posted by glow View Post
                            This really sounds like the Ogallala aquifer debate. It's going down every year in the US. Use of it goes up every year, has use slowed or has there been any real stops on over use? not really. So what do people do? Oh just dig deeper wells. Same concept.
                            So what happens when farmers cant produce as much and get in an uprawr even though they screwed themselves over for water? Go after the great lakes, well thats not so broght since they screwed themselves over. Or what is the US going to go "spread democracy" like it did in Iraq to control another commodity it didn't bother to regulate and over use in the first place?
                            I really couldn't make sense out of that.

                            You should read about the Tragedy of the commons.

                            Originally posted by glow View Post
                            Gunnut what are you talking about why would you want to slow Indias economy or Chinas other than preventing them from using more oil? Think also who's fueling chinas economy more than anyone really? So if they wanted to slow Chinas economy hell stop flooding walmarts and everywhere else full of Chinese goods. That will hurt more than anything. At least China is goeing to be approaching ZPG. (zero population growth) not like some other countries.
                            Originally posted by glow View Post
                            India is a good ally in the world and despite the Billion+ people they have they use hardly any energy. Less than even Canada a lot less actually.
                            Underdeveloped countries tend to use less oil then 1st world countries. India is growing very fast economically, and they'll overtake China in population within 50 years. They'll become a great energy consumer.
                            "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
                            - Thomas Jefferson

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by ExNavyAmerican View Post
                              -posted by gunnut

                              Off topic, and this is all I'll say about it. Creationists believe that things can adapt, and that new species can come about. We have problems with apes to human type thing that takes millions of years...
                              That's a common misperception of people who don't understand the mechanics of evolution, even those who believe in evolution.

                              Humans did not evolve from monkeys or apes. Apes will not evolve into humans, not even in a million years.

                              Humans shared a common, but distant ancestor with monkeys and apes.
                              "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                                That's a common misperception of people who don't understand the mechanics of evolution, even those who believe in evolution.

                                Humans did not evolve from monkeys or apes. Apes will not evolve into humans, not even in a million years.

                                Humans shared a common, but distant ancestor with monkeys and apes.
                                Bingo.

                                -dale

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X