anwr?
what about the billions of barrels under nd and possibly in canada, that we can get without the same environmental impact that anwr would cause?
where is the msm on this one?
Posted by anthony at April 30, 2008 03:04 AMPossibly in Canada?
Canada is the number one oil source for the U.S.
Where ya been Tony?
And what environmental impact are you trying to compare?
Posted by jj at April 30, 2008 03:28 AM
ANWR is not the total answer. It,and other ares such as offshore, conservation and new technology are a large part of the answer.
Failure to source ANWR is a collossal mistake.
Posted by jj at April 30, 2008 04:28 AMIn the latest issue of the Progressive, this from someone who knows him: "Obama No."
"I’ve never been an Obama supporter. I’ve known him since the very beginning of his political career, which was his campaign for the seat in my state senate district in Chicago. He struck me then as a vacuous opportunist, a good performer with an ear for how to make white liberals like him. I argued at the time that his fundamental political center of gravity, beneath an empty rhetoric of hope and change and new directions, is neoliberal."
Check it out.
Posted by fafnir at April 30, 2008 05:07 AMANWR? Hell, there isn't enough oil in largely unexploited the "Oil Sea" of Iraq to depress oil prices.
This is Peak Oil. It means that the world will always have delining production, no matter what the price. And the price trend is just going to go higher and higher.
The Canadian tar sands anthony references will require incalcuable amounts of fresh water and natural gas to wash the oil out of them---likely impossible and an environmental disaster for Canada---plus it's very expensive oil, which is the main point: no more cheap fuel.
The ND Bakken "field" is another heavy oil formation, known about since the early fifties. The USGS just this month released its new appraisal of the deposit----3.6 billion barrels of very expensive to obtain oil, but it can be done.
The US currently consumes around 8 billion barrels a year, the world a touch under 32 billion. These expensive fields are puddles, a drop in the bucket of demand.
There is no "answer". The best we can do is a crash conservation program and start telling the Boobs WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF OIL!! No more gas guzzling!! No more wasting irreplaceable oil!!
And all the wishful thinking on earth isn't going to change that fact.
Posted by euzoius at April 30, 2008 05:41 AMAnybody know why Americans don't protest the rising gasoline prices? Why they'll remain quiet when the quarter report comes out saying again that the oil execs sweep up profits in the trillions? And flick us off again, as they did when they appeared before Congress a few weeks ago? Because Americans don't want to be tasered to death. The right to protest is no longer an option.
As for the Obama comment: he's a nice white man with a deep tan and he knows and Hill knows that McCain will win in November; that's the way things work in Amerika and nobody can deny it. So anything either of them get off on, is redundant.
Posted by Maniacal at April 30, 2008 05:51 AMYou evidently missed the part about making Bush's tax cuts permanent.
Drilling in ANWR won't work without the tax cuts!
It's like any other magical formula.
You ever tried eye of newt without toe of frog?
Doesn't work at all.
Peak Oil is a theory derived by folks who love the horse and buggy days.
Where do you get that garbage Ezzie?
Posted by jj at April 30, 2008 06:32 AMnotice how the fact that there hasn't been a new refinery built in the US for decades is constantly trotted out as a cause of high prices? It can't be because it costs too much to build one, the Oil companies are reaping record profits. So, could it be because it's helping make the record profits? Here is an idea...why doesn't our GOVERNMENT build a damn refinery. I suppose it would be simple if we were not sending all our money to Iraq to build them refineries that we blow up.
Posted by T2 at April 30, 2008 06:46 AMGNP grew by .6% in the first Qtr---that's surprising, even if microscopic.
Perhaps the Bushco mega-rich can on their own drag microscopic "growth" out of this economy, no matter how bad it gets for the ither schmoes.
For jj, the current geologic theory of oil = "garbage". Keep gorging at your Fox News garbage trough, jj!
Posted by euzoius at April 30, 2008 07:57 AMFYI Michael Moore will be on Larry King tonight for the full hour.
Posted by Judith at April 30, 2008 09:22 AMIgnore jj, he's an idiot.
The reason Americans aren't screaming about the high gas prices is because they know nothing they do will change anything. Hell, the truckers strike barely got any national coverage.
Posted by Judith at April 30, 2008 09:32 AM
Judith, Nice to see you commenting more. Missed your insight.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 30, 2008 10:01 AMSeven of Six, I don't know about the insight, but it was nice of you to leave your comment.
It's been a long 74 days taking care of Mom, but she is now in an independent living center, and loving it, thank God.
TLC has changed alot, hasn't it. The editorials come so fast, that no one has time to develop the comment section. Then the fighting is disheartening, and evidently, even some regulars are turning on the other regulars. Sad indeed.
I guess my problem is that I am not really for either candidate, so I am not passionate about who the candidate should be. I was really hoping for an Edwards campaign. Oh well.
I was really hoping for an Edwards campaign.
You and me both Judith!
One can only wonder of the dynamic if it remained a 3 person race. Can you imagine how many folks would be jumping on his bandwagon now... tired of the Clinton/Obama hysterics.
He must have realized he didn't stand a chance against the Obama money machine and the Clinton political machine.
I thought his populist message would have gone over a lot better.
Oh well, after careful thought, I made my decision. I HOPE it works out.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 30, 2008 07:59 PM"I thought his populist message would have gone over a lot better."
Absolutely! I also trusted Edwards, something I cannot say about the present candidates.