SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Newt Gingrich's website for ticked off voters!

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Newt Gingrich's website for ticked off voters! (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=138355)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Well, I see people like you uneccesarily starving us of needed energy supplies because of speculative concerns and wishful/idealistic thinking.

http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/prod...ce_kit_mat.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/prod...ce_kit_mat.jpg

Now this is a riot. Ducimus accusing someone else of jumping to conclusions. :roll:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Well, I see people like you uneccesarily starving us of needed energy supplies because of speculative concerns and wishful/idealistic thinking.

http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/prod...ce_kit_mat.jpg

Actually Ducimus, this chart you produced here is more appropriate for this gem from you:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I may as well say flat out, topics like this strike me as basically saying:

"I dont want to change", or "i dont give a rats ass so long as it doesn't happen in my lifetime",

Especially since people who want the US to produce more of it's own oil have never said anything like that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

A) I am not a Democrat, environmentalist, or gullible. But it seems anybody around here who doesn't unquestioningly believe that the US has enough oil for itself is automatically insulted. Which leads me to believe there is a flaw or two in that logic.
B) We have been in the Middle East before 1990, of course. There is an American military presence in 100s of countries. But we were never in the Middle East at levels even approaching 1990 before that time.
C) We need foreign oil to drive our current infrastructure/economy for a period greater than three years. Period. Dot. While there is a lot of oil here domestically, all the easy to get stuff is gone for the most part. And since it's not easy to get, it will be very expensive to get at for the oil companies and for the consumer to buy. Of course, we could try and change our current infrastructure.

Suggesting that it is the left's fault we are so entrenched in the Middle East and bending over for countries we wouldn't give two ****s about otherwise is absolutely asinine.

And for the record, I do support heavy domestic oil exploration. Even if it hurts the poor animals in Alaska.

PD

No insult intended. But I believe that those voters who vote in a way to prevent us from being self sufficient in oil production, in as much a capacity as we can be, is not a vote I value. Actually, the oil companies have said they could get the oil in these areas if they can get the access to do so. We maintain a presence in the Middle East to ensure delivery of these needed resources. If we produce more locally, we would need less of a presence over there. The cost savings with that in mind would be enormous. I'm sick of arguing with people over whether we should drill our own domestic supplies or not. The reasons not to do so are poor, often emotionally irrational, and never address the true realities of the economic supply and demand issues. I notice they never account for dollar devaluation adjustments to commodity pricing, nor do they address real concerns over the amount of people putting a strain on the same amount of oil resources, and no additional infrastructure to address those concerns. Often, the gullible think that Exxon-mobile is price gouging without actually looking at global indexes and comparing it to our own supply versus our increasing demand. That's a chunk of the stupid electorate my friend. They'll pay the high prices at the pump, complain loudly, and vote for those same Democrat/enviro's who've ensured it will be this way.

Agreed, to a point. But I believe if there was a way to get at all this domestic oil cheaply, it would have happened by now. The environmental lobby just pales in comparison to the power of the oil lobby.

My logic is this: if oil can assure a massive American military presence in the Middle East, as well as whacking a fews countries to make sure their product is economically viable; would it not be able to assure that the animals in Alaska/fish in the Gulf of Mexico get whacked?

I know its simplistic, but it does seem to me the treehuggers are a convenient scapegoat in this.

PD

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

US military camped out in the Middle East since 1990.

Just thoguht id take this opportunity to gripe, that anyone who think's were leaving there anytime soon (soon being within a time span of 5 to 10 years) is sorely mistaken. From what ive heard, more concerete has been poured there then all the allies poured in WW2. Coming from engineering circles, this , to me, speaks volumes. We don't bed down like that unless were planning a lengthy stay.

It's a good bet that Iraq, is going to be the next "overseas remote short tour" like Korea, once things settle down to some point that vaguely resembles stability. Troops will be rotating out of there for 365 days and a wake up for the next 50 some odd years. Only difference is, they're wont be a DMZ, just inside or outside "the wire".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

US military camped out in the Middle East since 1990.

I agree with you 110%.

PD

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

I actually think you got it backwards. The environmental lobbies, while currently decreasing in influence in the U.S., has had a hold on this issue for over three decades. The domestic suppliers have been saying they can get to these sources, tap them, and bring them online since the 90's. And that doesn't even address the squeeze from environmental groups and their resistance to increase refinery capacity to match demand from growing population demographics. The tree-huggers as you call them drive this policy directly. Most often through Democrat Party elected officials. Follow the policies, and listen to their words. Even this week, we hear nothing but the same rhetoric designed to delay action on it. It's not scapegoating as you say. But it is holding those accountable who have driven policy that is causing higher gas prices, increased costs of food and goods, and will not address our supply vs. our ever increasing demand. We need oil, we have oil, and they stop us every step of the way while offering non-specific "alternative sources" only policies that will not help us today or in the foreseeable future.

I won't address your second paragraph because it would divulge into a whole other topic. Why we went to Iraq. It would require going back to the UN resolutions and all kinds of stuff beyond the scope of this topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I think most people realize this. And realized this during Gulf War 1.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea Demon
Well, I see people like you uneccesarily starving us of needed energy supplies because of speculative concerns and wishful/idealistic thinking.

Actually Ducimus, this chart you produced here is more appropriate for this gem from you:

People like me eh? Your making assumptions about people like me. Thats not a general comment, thats a specific one. aimed directly at me, not any group of people at large.. So heres what im really thinking now:

---SNIP No personal attacks----

People like me? You have any idea how offensive that is? Heres what i think about people like YOU:

--SNIP No personal attacks---

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I may as well say flat out, topics like this strike me as basically saying:

"I dont want to change", or "i dont give a rats ass so long as it doesn't happen in my lifetime",

Especially since people who want the US to produce more of it's own oil have never said anything like that.

Because i said what most people are afraid to admit? People are resistant to change, its human nature.

Ill add you to my ignore list now along with august. ---SNIP No personal attacks---

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

People like me eh? Your making assumptions about people like me. Thats not a general comment, thats a specific one. aimed directly at me, not any group of people at large.. So heres what im really thinking now:

Because i said what most people are afraid to admit? People are resistant to change, its human nature.

Ill add you to my ignore list now along with august. Screw ya both.

Well, since you put me on ignore, you may never read this. But I'm sorry to have offended you. I didn't mean it that way. But if some people vote to stop us from accessing our own domestic supplies of oil when there is a great need to access it, I see those people as people who are starving us of something we need. I looked at your paragraph, and you don't seem to support drilling for domestic supplies. You may as well have made the comment in your paragraph as a specific comment about me in your post. I took it as such, but I wasn't offended by it. You're saying the whole motivation to want to drill for more of our own domestic supplies is only because of some irrational "resistance to change". That's not the motivation. Take a look at your current climbing gas prices, take a look at how many people we bring in annually, take a look at how we haven't worked to increase any supply or refinement capacity in over 30 years, and realize that we need oil to drive our economy. No desire for a "green" world is going to change that, and certainly not in the near future. I'm not against researching and implementing alternative sources of energy where we can, but we need oil. Too bad you took insult over something trivial, but that is your prerogative.

Welcome to the Ducimus hates us club SD. :lol:

Digging trench now...
...putting helmet on...
popping popcorn.

and now for something completely different.

I'm just sick of the enviormental lobby wanting to drag us down. I don't doubt we need to get away from oil, but every other option they (greenies) don't like for some reason or another. (like wind power) All of the windy places, they bar the building of the windmills.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

We need oil, we have oil, and they stop us every step of the way while offering non-specific "alternative sources" only policies that will not help us today or in the foreseeable future.

I am not convinved we have enough oil to make drilling anything more than a holding action, but an important one. The last big find (as far as I know), Jack#2 in the Gulf of Mexico, would keep the country going another 2 years (and that is assuming the high end 15 billion estimate, IIRC). Which would equate to a 50% increase in our reserves. Oil exploration is important, and we might find a lot more. But that's a pretty foolish bet to make when you look at discovery numbers in the past 50 years.
Believe me, I would love to believe drilling is the answer but the numbers just aren't there. I think a lot also depends on making oil shale and synthetic fuel a viable alternative; economically, technically, and politically.

I would say they are non-specific because there are no credible alternatives as of yet. Which we do need to invest more in, because things are looking pretty bleak right now to me. Betting everything on oil is not a good idea.

Quote:

I won't address your second paragraph because it would divulge into a whole other topic. Why we went to Iraq. It would require going back to the UN resolutions and all kinds of stuff beyond the scope of this topic.

It would require discussing a lot more than Iraq. Iraq is far from our first coup de crude.

PD