PDA

View Full Version : What the USA doesn't want you to know



blaker00
04-27-2004, 12:16 AM
War is about Economics not about politics. This is what you guys aren't understanding.



1) Do any of you understand what an oil peak is? The CIA have been studying it for years. Fact is OIL is a Finite resource. We are running out of oil in the world as well as natural gas. Do you realize what happens to countries when they run out of oil?

a) they fall apart economically
b) they go to war to steal other people's oil

according to the top geophysicist that the current oil peak might have already hit. Total oil production will be gone by 2050. Problem is it will be on a steady decline after 2010. Since the population is growing and energy is needed it's a major problem.
Anyone notice gas prices are starting to escalate? This is why.

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/images/cam18.gif
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/images/peakall.gif

If you know anything about analyzing intel then you probably have heard of Janes.com. Read this article... It just came out yesterday.

http://www.janes.com/business/news/fr/fr040421_1_n.shtml

Anyone know anything of Eurasia oil facets? There's a war right now and it's not on terrorism it's a race for Caspian’s sea oil. Afghanistan is the key.

President Bush has appointed a former aide to the American oil company Unocal, Afghan-born Zalmay Khalilzad, as special envoy to Afghanistan. The nomination was announced December 31, nine days after the US-backed interim government of Hamid Karzai took office in Kabul.


The key people on this are all competing for this country Azerbaijan.

Allies = Usa, Britain, Turkey
Foes = Russia, Asia, Iran

Allies want turkey to have an oil pipeline so that the west can control the flow and not rely on radical countries for our oil.

Russia use to own Azerbaijan. They want an oil pipeline built with Iran. They want to make sure the oil goes to their territories.

The war in Chechnya has heavily damaged a pipeline from Azerbaijan to the Russian terminal at Novorossiisk on the Black Sea.

In November 1999, various countries approved another pipeline to run 1,000 miles running from Baku, Azerbaijan, across Georgia, and to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan, Turkey. Analysts remain divided, however, on whether the $2.4 billion project will be economically viable.

That project was heavily pushed by the United States. Iran had attempted to block its construction, offering to sell Azeri oil in northern Iran, while selling oil from southern Iran on Azerbaijan's behalf on the world market.

Russia has accused the US of blocking its plan to build a pipeline bringing oil from Turkmenistan under the Caspian and into Russia. However, in 1993 Russia closed down a natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan because it competed with Russian attempts to develop its own natural gas industry. Turkmenistan currently uses a pipeline through Iran, which has irritated the US.


Eurasia is the key.

Problem is

1) America is on the other side of the world it's a geographical hurdle.

2) Oil is running out on all countries.

3) alliances have already built up

4) Iraq and Afghanistan was taken because it gives usa a foothold in these territories.

5) Yes osama is still a nutcase, but al qaeda is all over the world not just Afghanistan. Iraq was taken to give usa a foothold over there


There's more but I'm tired of writing. You try and decipher it yourself.


http://www.caucasus.dk/publication8.htm (this document
will knock you on your ass)

drags
04-27-2004, 12:29 AM
you stole my thread idea :(
"great minds think alike" ;)

The fall of the soviet union has been linked to peak oil. Mostly because the USSR had economic sanctions on them imposed by the USA.

http://www.museletter.com/archive/cia-oil.html

blaker00
04-27-2004, 12:47 AM
Yes, I read that before as well. Freaky thing is no one is talking about this in the media. The current administration has fooled everyone in the media even in our own congress.

drags
04-27-2004, 01:05 AM
there is no mention on shortages on oil in the mainstream media, i don't think they want to scare people because the majority of people get their new from the TV.
There a number of respected internet news sites that raise the issue of shortages in oil in the next 10 years not even. Well now that America has a strangle hold in the middle east, most countries will have to bow to the USA's demands and conform to their wishes if they want oil.
A war with Russia is seeming ever so likely with Bush spending a huge amount of money on nuclear weapons and the issue of the caspian sea oil which Russia will not give up easily. But i pray to god that that day doesn't come because it will be one that the world will not likely survive.

TranceNRG
04-27-2004, 01:22 AM
Good post bro

irpker
04-27-2004, 01:38 AM
OIL IS A FINITE RESOURCE.HOLY ****. I THOUGHT IT JUST CAME OUT OF THE GROND FOR EVER FROM THE ARAB COUNTRIES!!!!11!!!1111!

All resources are finite, jack-ass, that's the whole point of economics. We live in a world of scarce-resources, therefore, it is our goal to use them as efficiently as possible.

Oil prices are actually LOWER then they were twenty years ago. There's a big difference between REAL prices and NOMINAL prices.

Also, stop falling for this environmentalist propaganda:

"As the world's natural resources shrink and global warming changes the environment, competition for unimpeded access to them has intensified and will continue to do so. About four-fifths of the world's known oil reserves lie in politically unstable or contested regions"

blaker00
04-27-2004, 01:54 AM
read about 70's oil embargo.

When the top geophysicist and others are warning oil peaks maybe you should contemplate and than react and maybe you will just start to realize what is really going on in the world. Get mad at me, call me any name in the book. Doesn't mean it's going to change a damn thing and you know it.

This isn't propaganda this is what's really going on.
Facts tell stories sell. These can all be backed up. Go read up on oil companies and the caspian sea.

--

like drags was saying, go here:
www.foia.cia.gov. In the document search field type er 77-10147.

Thats our own government interested in oil peaks. By the way CIA aren't known for being Environmentalist.

supergarr
04-27-2004, 03:45 AM
speaking of gas, do you know that our tanks only get 3 mpg, hehehe

ComfortEagle
04-27-2004, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by blaker00
2) Oil is running out on all countries.

Waaaaay off. It's pretty obvious you have no connection to the oil and gas industry. There's plenty of oil worldwide to last a helluva long time yet. Hell, the US has enough oil so that it could pretty much stop relying on OPEC if it wanted to. Of course, environmentalists don't want that to happen.

The Kurgan
04-27-2004, 10:08 AM
I've been saying this stuff on this board since they made this section.

aserecuba
04-27-2004, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by irpker
OIL IS A FINITE RESOURCE.HOLY ****. I THOUGHT IT JUST CAME OUT OF THE GROND FOR EVER FROM THE ARAB COUNTRIES!!!!11!!!1111!


lol

FiveOneNine
04-27-2004, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by ComfortEagle
Waaaaay off. It's pretty obvious you have no connection to the oil and gas industry. There's plenty of oil worldwide to last a helluva long time yet. Hell, the US has enough oil so that it could pretty much stop relying on OPEC if it wanted to. Of course, environmentalists don't want that to happen.

Alright, that's just wrong. Did you even read the whole post?

FiveOneNine
04-27-2004, 11:22 AM
baker00, excellent post. :D

Person
04-27-2004, 01:58 PM
The media definitely talks about oil being a finite source, at least, the news stations I was do... (FOX, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc etc.) I don't know what stations you people are watching.....

honeybbqgrundle
04-27-2004, 02:08 PM
It's not about the oil as an energy source as much as money for the companies. You don't think there's the technology to develop alternate energy sources within the next 10-50 years? Of course there is, but then the oil companies would be done for and they won't let that happen. So it's about oil, but not so much for the obvious reasons

axiombiological
04-27-2004, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by honeybbqgrundle
It's not about the oil as an energy source as much as money for the companies. You don't think there's the technology to develop alternate energy sources within the next 10-50 years? Of course there is, but then the oil companies would be done for and they won't let that happen. So it's about oil, but not so much for the obvious reasons

This is simplistic. Do you really think that oil companies are not working on alternative fuel projects? Why would they not want to be the ones to produce such products, think of the money they would make from say economical hydrogen fuel cells. This idea that oil companies have supressed alternative fuels is weak.

Reborn79
04-27-2004, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by axiombiological
This is simplistic. Do you really think that oil companies are not working on alternative fuel projects? Why would they not want to be the ones to produce such products, think of the money they would make from say economical hydrogen fuel cells. This idea that oil companies have supressed alternative fuels is weak.

They don't want competition, simple as that. As long as their is oil, they will continue to make money, so long as the other forms of energy remain on the back burner. Do you realize exactly how pervasive the use of oil is in our society? It goes beyond vehicles, though that is a major consumption. It is used for things such as creating plastics, electricity, and so on.

It is ignorant to think that the oil companies openly invite competition. And the argument that they fund it themselves is pointless, as it would only reduce the amount of money they could make from oil once the other sources of energy begin to be widely used.

ComfortEagle
04-27-2004, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by FiveOneNine
Alright, that's just wrong. Did you even read the whole post?

What oil company do you work for?

My beef was specifically with number 2. Even if no more oil reserves are found, hydrocarbon fuel is still going to be the dominant fuel well into this century. They thought we were going to run out of oil in the 70s or 80s too, then they found a lot more.

The United States has significant untapped oil reserves off the coast of California, Florida, Alaska, Carolina.... all of which is off limits. If we start drilling these, it would lower the amount of foreign oil we need dramatically.


Originally posted by honeybbqgrundle
It's not about the oil as an energy source as much as money for the companies. You don't think there's the technology to develop alternate energy sources within the next 10-50 years? Of course there is, but then the oil companies would be done for and they won't let that happen. So it's about oil, but not so much for the obvious reasons

Oil companies do research on fuel cell technology, for one. And do you seriously think that if suddenly a brand new technology appears on the market that it will elminate the need for hydrocarbon fuel?? Get real.

enjoyincubus
04-27-2004, 04:06 PM
what people fail to mention are the untapped reserves here in the states. for some reason the same people calling this a war for oil are calling to leave our areas untapped for the enviroments sake.

Reborn79
04-27-2004, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
what people fail to mention are the untapped reserves here in the states. for some reason the same people calling this a war for oil are calling to leave our areas untapped for the enviroments sake.

Or maybe... *gasp*...we could pump more money into developing earth-friendly forms of energy production (solar/wind/low-impact hydro), so that eventually they can be cheap and convenient enough for the average user.


...Of course, that will take years. In the mean time, I suggest we cut down on our oil use and increase natural gas use (which can be found WITH oil underground. As it stands many companies simply pump the natural gas BACK underground after it comes up, to increase pressure in the oil wells and bring more oil to the surface).

blaker00
04-27-2004, 07:00 PM
they didn't think we were running out of fuel in the 70's. Reason why our gas was so expensive in the 70's was because of the middle east oil embargo with the united states, that and the iranian revolution screwed up the market.

even with the vast amount of oil reserves are country is growing and so is it's resources needed to fuel the country... How long do you think the reserves will last? How long before other countries start looking at the us for gas? How many enemies do you think you will have if you have the only abundant energy left?

Starsky
04-27-2004, 07:08 PM
This begs the question: If thats the purpose, why didn't the US save itself the time/troops/money and invade Azerbaijan?

honeybbqgrundle
04-27-2004, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by ComfortEagle

Oil companies do research on fuel cell technology, for one. And do you seriously think that if suddenly a brand new technology appears on the market that it will elminate the need for hydrocarbon fuel?? Get real.

They do research so that when there is absolutely no alternative but to use these new energy sources they won't be left behind. Do you seriously think that the oil companies making huge amounts of money want anything to change if it doesn't have to? You need to get real.

honeybbqgrundle
04-27-2004, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
This begs the question: If thats the purpose, why didn't the US save itself the time/troops/money and invade Azerbaijan?

Maybe because there's no reason to do that. Even if Bush made something up the world wouldn't believe him. People believed him about Iraq because they were known to be dangerous and sneaky beforehand. This is all assuming Iraq is about oil, which I believe it is at least partially. Even if the primary reason isn't oil, you seriously think it hasn't crossed Bush's mind and gave him all the more reason to invade?

Starsky
04-27-2004, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by honeybbqgrundle
Maybe because there's no reason to do that. Even if Bush made something up the world wouldn't believe him. People believed him about Iraq because they were known to be dangerous and sneaky beforehand. This is all assuming Iraq is about oil, which I believe it is at least partially. Even if the primary reason isn't oil, you seriously think it hasn't crossed Bush's mind and gave him all the more reason to invade?


It wouldn't be a primary motivation, as there would be less political risk to drill domestically. Oil drilling takes up less than 19% of the land stamp that it used to. Also, do you notice oil prices dropping from all this American-owned Iraqi oil hitting the market?


Would it be a benefit? Yes, but one far counterwieghed by the 200 billion dollar pricetag of the war and the fact that the Iraqis still own and profit from the oil. If the US wanted to take advantage of the situation, and it could easily supress this insurgency out of existence and assume ownership of the oil. But that hasn't been the case. If you want to argue about going to war for "profit", thats another story. Saddam Hussein added alot instability to the world economy, and as such it is a positive economic step, if Iraq were a peaceful nation.


The oil theory does not line up. It's the type of thing, that if you *want* to believe, you will.

blaker00
04-27-2004, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
It wouldn't be a primary motivation, as there would be less political risk to drill domestically. Oil drilling takes up less than 19% of the land stamp that it used to. Also, do you notice oil prices dropping from all this American-owned Iraqi oil hitting the market?


Would it be a benefit? Yes, but one far counterwieghed by the 200 billion dollar pricetag of the war and the fact that the Iraqis still own and profit from the oil. If the US wanted to take advantage of the situation, and it could easily supress this insurgency out of existence and assume ownership of the oil. But that hasn't been the case. If you want to argue about going to war for "profit", thats another story. Saddam Hussein added alot instability to the world economy, and as such it is a positive economic step, if Iraq were a peaceful nation.


The oil theory does not line up. It's the type of thing, that if you *want* to believe, you will.


During the Soviets' decade-long occupation of Afghanistan, Moscow estimated Afghanistan's proven and probable natural gas reserves at around five trillion cubic feet. In the mid-1970s, production reached 275 million cubic feet per day.

But Afghanistan's significance to the balance of energy and power in Central Asia stems from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea.

In January 1998, an agreement was signed between Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and the Taliban to arrange funding for a proposed 890-mile, US$2 billion natural gas pipeline project. The proposed pipeline would have transported natural gas from Turkmenistan's Dauletabad natural gas field to Pakistan, and most likely would have run from Dauletabad south to the Afghan border, through Herat and Kandahar in Afghanistan, to Quetta, Pakistan. The line would then have linked with Pakistan's natural gas grid at Sui. U.S. oil company Unocal was to finance the bulk of the project. As it happened, Unocal pulled-out of the deal, citing political instability in Afghanistan.

In addition to the gas pipeline, Unocal also had considered building a 1,000-mile oil pipeline that would link Chardzou, Turkmenistan with Pakistan's Arabian Sea coast via Afghanistan.

Currently, a pipeline brings natural gas from Uzbekistan to Bagram and another brings natural gas to Shindand.


""

look theres so much detail in this question you are going to have to do the research. The answer is there. Even with a 2billion dollar price tag we are still going to take profits from the oil and make the iraqis tote some of the bill. Theres no reason to drill domestically until you are out of oil. We keep reserves in case of an all out war.

Just look at the location in with iraq and afgan. to eurasia oil incluing tajikistan, uzkekistan, turkmenistan. THink about pipelines, if you were to run a pipeline through it would affect india and pakistan. Both would benefit thereby building up a relationship. Were talking about dollars and political stability.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/images/enronmap.jpg

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/pipelines.htm

enjoyincubus
04-27-2004, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
This begs the question: If thats the purpose, why didn't the US save itself the time/troops/money and invade Azerbaijan?



or canada.

there are easier ways to get oil other than going to war. mainly buying from stable countries like canada, mexico, and other south american countries.

Debaser
04-27-2004, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by ComfortEagle


The United States has significant untapped oil reserves off the coast of California, Florida, Alaska, Carolina.... all of which is off limits. If we start drilling these, it would lower the amount of foreign oil we need dramatically.


Right, at the expense of the environment. Fuel sources are expendable, the environment is not.

enjoyincubus
04-27-2004, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
Right, at the expense of the environment. Fuel sources are expendable, the environment is not.


i rest my case!

theres no winning with these naysayers. bush is damned if he tries to find an alternate fuel source, hes damned if he drills here in america, hes damned if he goes to war for it(which is more of an insult than any actual fact. noone goes to war for oil)and hes damned if he continues to rely on outside sources.

maybe we are all doomed to die because thewres no pleasing some.

Debaser
04-27-2004, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
i rest my case!

theres no winning with these naysayers. bush is damned if he tries to find an alternate fuel source, hes damned if he drills here in america, hes damned if he goes to war for it(which is more of an insult than any actual fact. noone goes to war for oil)and hes damned if he continues to rely on outside sources.

maybe we are all doomed to die because thewres no pleasing some.

When I say 'fuel sources' I mean alternative sources. I.E. hydrogen, electric, solar, etc. Your case is far from rested :)

axiombiological
04-27-2004, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79
[B]Or maybe... *gasp*...we could pump more money into developing earth-friendly forms of energy production (solar/wind/low-impact hydro), so that eventually they can be cheap and convenient enough for the average user.

HAHAHA...solar/wind/hydro are cheap and earth friendly?? Are you for real?? All of these sources require large amounts of land, thus they "impact" the ecology and environment and in the cases of solar and wind are not efficient. Have you ever seen the tracts of land that are needed for wind power?

axiombiological
04-27-2004, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
Right, at the expense of the environment. Fuel sources are expendable, the environment is not.

This quote is meaningless. It implies that the environment remains in some stasis if left untouched or that it disappears when used. It is the mantra of those who place their heads in the sand, since our world is dynamic and will change with or without man. It is only man who can alter it to his will and as demonstrated over the last several decades can improve it after he alters it.

axiombiological
04-27-2004, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79
They don't want competition, simple as that. As long as their is oil, they will continue to make money, so long as the other forms of energy remain on the back burner. Do you realize exactly how pervasive the use of oil is in our society? It goes beyond vehicles, though that is a major consumption. It is used for things such as creating plastics, electricity, and so on.

And you have not proven why these uses will disappear with the advent of newer fuel sources. Why would petroleum not be needed for chemical industry, plastics, fuels, etc.? Just because a newer fuel enters the market, does not mean that the need for petroleum will become obsolete.


It is ignorant to think that the oil companies openly invite competition. And the argument that they fund it themselves is pointless, as it would only reduce the amount of money they could make from oil once the other sources of energy begin to be widely used.

This demonstrates a lack of economic thinking. If an oil company did produce a new fuel source, they would have patent rights for 20 years. Thus they could implement such a fuel for high prices all while still selling petroleum, since the world would still demand it -the demand would diminish over time, not overnight.

Debaser
04-27-2004, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by axiombiological
HAHAHA...solar/wind/hydro are cheap and earth friendly?? Are you for real?? All of these sources require large amounts of land, thus they "impact" the ecology and environment and in the cases of solar and wind are not efficient. Have you ever seen the tracts of land that are needed for wind power?

Usually the land is uninhabitable (by human standards) and are in the middle of nowhere such as the desert. Obviously we have to compromise a little and choose the lesser of the two evils. You do the math.

Debaser
04-27-2004, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by axiombiological
This quote is meaningless. It implies that the environment remains in some stasis if left untouched or that it disappears when used. It is the mantra of those who place their heads in the sand, since our world is dynamic and will change with or without man. It is only man who can alter it to his will and as demonstrated over the last several decades can improve it after he alters it.

It is very meaningful I think. The environment isn't something that is easily repaired. You know our world is in such disrepair when all of our drinking water needs to be boiled. You can't exactly go into a secluded forest and drink the river water without boiling it...unless you want to get severly ill.

I don't get what you're trying to say. Are you saying that we should do whatever we want with the environment without any concern because the world is already "damaged"? Do you approve of drilling wherever the hell we want?

In most instances, man is what makes the world change for the worse. This isn't always the case, but it is an easy assertion.

blaker00
04-27-2004, 10:00 PM
what you guys aren't understanding, even with the reserves it's still not enough.

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/us/

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/experts/

irpker
04-27-2004, 10:29 PM
You know when it's time to really be concerned?

When the god damn sun burns out in a few billion years.

Or when they're nuclear clouds above us blocking sun-light from entering the Earth (of course, assuming you survived the nuclear war and the radiation hasn't caused a nasty cancer to consume your body).

Also, enviromentalists are the second largest threat to America, closely trailing Islamic fundamentalists. They do not believe in rational throught, and would rather use sensational myths to scare people into joining their cult. They elevate the discussion to matters of MORALITY. This goes beyond any science. Of course, environmentalists are on the moral highground.

"War for resources"
"Unbreathable air"
"Toxic water"
"Global Warming"

Blah blah blah, the list goes on. It's pure bull****. There is no [B] conclusive [B/] evidence for any of their claims.

axiombiological
04-27-2004, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
It is very meaningful I think. The environment isn't something that is easily repaired. You know our world is in such disrepair when all of our drinking water needs to be boiled. You can't exactly go into a secluded forest and drink the river water without boiling it...unless you want to get severly ill.

I am a microbiologist. You take a risk drinking any naturally occuring water source, no matter how pristine you think it may be. We decreased the risk of infections with the concept of sterilization, this included water.

Our earth is not in disrepair. Are you really going to tell me that you live in an area that is near uninhabitable? That the very air and water are a threat to your life? I doubt it.


I don't get what you're trying to say. Are you saying that we should do whatever we want with the environment without any concern because the world is already "damaged"? Do you approve of drilling wherever the hell we want?

I do not approve of doing anything one wishes, but this is not what environmentalists are arguing against. They want man to return to a near agrarian lifestyle, because they construe any change to the earth as unnecessary.

Man has needs and through his rational capacity can use the resources of the world for these goals. Such actions cause change, but this is not necessarily bad. Man can and does protect animals from extinction, something that has occured throughout history, even before the advent of man. Man can correct some alterations, such as water purification, planting of trees, etc.


In most instances, man is what makes the world change for the worse. This isn't always the case, but it is an easy assertion.

It is true in some cases, but it is often times acceptable for the goal man has in mind. The cutting of trees is necessary for man to build homes, the mining of ores to use for production and technology, the drilling for petroleum for energy, etc. All of these actions cause a change in the world, but the alternative is to live as animals, to live at the mercy of mother nature. The computer you are typing on is provided you by some alteration of the world. Just as the medicines and equipment which save your life or your loved one are composed of resources derived from the earth.

ComfortEagle
04-27-2004, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by blaker00
they didn't think we were running out of fuel in the 70's. Reason why our gas was so expensive in the 70's was because of the middle east oil embargo with the united states, that and the iranian revolution screwed up the market.

I'm not talking about the 70s oil scare, with the hiked up prices and all. What I'm talking about is in the early 80s, late 70s, somewhere around that time, oil companies believed they were going to run out of hydrocarbon fuels. Then they found a ton more wells.



even with the vast amount of oil reserves are country is growing and so is it's resources needed to fuel the country... How long do you think the reserves will last? How long before other countries start looking at the us for gas? How many enemies do you think you will have if you have the only abundant energy left?

Like I said, as of right now, factoring in continued growth of contries, there is enough hydrocarbon fuels to last well into this century, without a problem. That's straight from a report by ExxonMobil.


Originally posted by honeybbqgrundle
They do research so that when there is absolutely no alternative but to use these new energy sources they won't be left behind. Do you seriously think that the oil companies making huge amounts of money want anything to change if it doesn't have to? You need to get real.

So basically you want someone to develop an alternate energy source... so long as it isn't an oil company? As axiombiological has already pointed out, if they develop this new technology ahead of everyone else, they get in on the ground floor. This means more money for them. I've said this before, but even if new technology is developed that can completely replace the use of hydrocarbon fuels, there will still be a huge market for them, because practically everything now uses them. Unless the new technology is an absolute miracle, it will be cheaper just to gradually phase it in, rather than abandon hydrocarbons alltogether. Regardless, evil oil companies want to make money either way: you said it, they don't want to get left behind.


Originally posted by Debaser
Right, at the expense of the environment. Fuel sources are expendable, the environment is not.

Just how destructive do you think an oil well is? The technology today is fantastic.

honeybbqgrundle
04-27-2004, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by ComfortEagle

So basically you want someone to develop an alternate energy source... so long as it isn't an oil company? As axiombiological has already pointed out, if they develop this new technology ahead of everyone else, they get in on the ground floor. This means more money for them. I've said this before, but even if new technology is developed that can completely replace the use of hydrocarbon fuels, there will still be a huge market for them, because practically everything now uses them. Unless the new technology is an absolute miracle, it will be cheaper just to gradually phase it in, rather than abandon hydrocarbons alltogether. Regardless, evil oil companies want to make money either way: you said it, they don't want to get left behind.


Yeah I know that but the point is they're making huge amounts of money right now, so why would they want anything to change? If they had it their way, from a business standpoint, they would keep things the way they are forever. So they might as well try to control the oil for as long as they can. But since they know they can't they have to keep up with the new technology to stay in business.

This may not even be the case, they may see more money in alternative fuel sources and are working towards them as fast as possible, but I seriously doubt it.

SYRIANKID
04-28-2004, 12:59 AM
It's not only because of environmentalists that people don't drill for oil in the U.S. and parts of Canada.

The extraction cost of oil depends heavily on its location. Off-shore oil, or oil hidden deep under thick shelves of rock, will have extraction costs that are too high for excavation to be profitable.

In some places, the oil can cost >>30 dollars per barrel, so it's cheaper to keep it in the ground and look for it somewhere else. In Saudi Arabia, it costs $1 to extract a barrel of oil.

Jcfreak_02
04-28-2004, 10:23 AM
If they didn't want us to know that petrol is running out than why in my math class did we make models of about when we will run out of oil worldwide? This is something they have been teaching in public schools for years... I don't see the significance...

FiveOneNine
04-28-2004, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by a. americanus
What do you mean, doesn't want me to know. I've known about that kooky theory for a long time. It hasn't been hidden.

'kooky theory'? This coming from a guy that believes that Iraq was responsible for the Oklahoma City Bombing. What do you think? That we have enough oil to all drive around in 16 cyclinder cars getting 5 mpg for the rest of eternity? Probably. :rolleyes:

Debaser
04-28-2004, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by axiombiological
I am a microbiologist. You take a risk drinking any naturally occuring water source, no matter how pristine you think it may be. We decreased the risk of infections with the concept of sterilization, this included water.

Our earth is not in disrepair. Are you really going to tell me that you live in an area that is near uninhabitable? That the very air and water are a threat to your life? I doubt it.


Obviously we wouldn't need the level of sterilization if the water wasn't as polluted as it is. People lived off it many years ago without too many problems. I will say that in some cases the water is a threat to your well being. Look at the problem in the Washington DC area right now.




I do not approve of doing anything one wishes, but this is not what environmentalists are arguing against. They want man to return to a near agrarian lifestyle, because they construe any change to the earth as unnecessary.

Man has needs and through his rational capacity can use the resources of the world for these goals. Such actions cause change, but this is not necessarily bad. Man can and does protect animals from extinction, something that has occured throughout history, even before the advent of man. Man can correct some alterations, such as water purification, planting of trees, etc.



It is true in some cases, but it is often times acceptable for the goal man has in mind. The cutting of trees is necessary for man to build homes, the mining of ores to use for production and technology, the drilling for petroleum for energy, etc. All of these actions cause a change in the world, but the alternative is to live as animals, to live at the mercy of mother nature. The computer you are typing on is provided you by some alteration of the world. Just as the medicines and equipment which save your life or your loved one are composed of resources derived from the earth.

I don't disagree with using the earth's resources. We are here to consume, to an extent. We are not here to completely destroy the place, as we have in many areas. This I do not agree with. I feel there should be a balance between man and nature. We can still live our 'pampered' lives, but we need to be conscious and protective of the environment, as it is the fiber that keeps us alive. No one would dare trash their own home, so why should we trash our earth home?

Debaser
04-28-2004, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by ComfortEagle



Just how destructive do you think an oil well is? The technology today is fantastic.

To be quite honest with you, I do not know. It is also arguable that you don't know the extent of damage oil drilling can bring.

axiombiological
04-28-2004, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
Obviously we wouldn't need the level of sterilization if the water wasn't as polluted as it is. People lived off it many years ago without too many problems. I will say that in some cases the water is a threat to your well being. Look at the problem in the Washington DC area right now.

Do you know anything about environmental microbiology? Water is naturally polluted, sometimes in very small concentrations, small enough to not cause any harm, sometimes in greater concentrations, enough to cause harm. The problem is exacerbated by numerous factors: temperature, movement, surrounding area, animals, etc., man being only one of many. Your idea that people long ago had no problems is based on nostalgic ideas of yesteryear; it ain't true. But you are correct that man can harm himself by harming his environment, the problem is that such occurances tend to happen in un-industrialized nations, where technology does not correct the alterations man makes to his environment. The most contaminated bodies of water occur in nations where there are no sewage treatment facilities, where raw sewage is dumped directly into the rivers from which people get their drinking and bathing water. Such problems demonstrate the value of technology and progress, it does not demonstrate that man "destroys" as he creates, but precisely the opposite.

D.C.'s "problem" (which really is not a problem) is not due to polluted waters, but due to old lead piping and environmentalist scare-tactics:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115906,00.html


I don't disagree with using the earth's resources. We are here to consume, to an extent. We are not here to completely destroy the place, as we have in many areas.

Which areas have we completely destroyed?


This I do not agree with. I feel there should be a balance between man and nature. We can still live our 'pampered' lives, but we need to be conscious and protective of the environment, as it is the fiber that keeps us alive. No one would dare trash their own home, so why should we trash our earth home?

The question is not that we "trash our home", but what is the level that is harmful vs the level which is acceptable pollution? There is a level of acceptable pollution, where no harm can be demonstrated, but environmentalists are generally to myopic to recognize this; they attempt to go for "zero tolerance" programs, which are punitive to man.

supergarr
04-28-2004, 10:41 PM
cold fusion :cool: