Bush to lift offshore drilling ban

[aggie99]

Originally Posted by reservecops

Why is it that every liberal has a "friend" or "relative" that has "just got back from [insert European country name here], and according to this "friend" or "relative", everybody hates Americans?

I grew up in England until I was 12, most of my family still lives there, I am no talking about relatives or friends traveling there. Because I moved over here so young I have lost most of my accent. They live there and they have seen over the past decade the rapid change of opinion of the US. I think the biggest problem is the rest of the world thinks Bush and his policies are idiotic and he shouldn't be the leader of the free world. I didn't say "everyone" either, just from what I have heard it is now in the majority. Plus, my English grandfather fought in World War II and from talking with him America didn't win the war, they just shortened the time to victory. By the time the US entered the war the USSR had bled the German armies almost dry and England had held out for so long and were finally gaining ground. Economically America won the war. A good article about the World War and US war economics:

World War II is generally known as "the good war."

Best quote: "When Americans landed in Normandy in June 1944 and captured their first German trucks, they discovered that these vehicles were powered by engines produced by American firms such as Ford and General Motors. Corporate America, it turned out, had also been serving as the arsenal of Nazism."

[reservecops]

Originally Posted by SlvrDragon50

Its not empirical because these findings are new...

So, because it's "new", it's "right"? Please ...

Also, its pretty clear to see that there have been fewer hurricanes seeing as the past 3-4 years, I havn't had to miss school due to a hurricane nor having to watch the news for hours hoping the eye wont pass over my house.

Number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has doubled over 35 years
Number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has doubled over 35 years
"Category 4 and 5 storms are also making up a larger share of the total number of hurricanes," said Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech and coauthor of the study. "Category 4 and 5 hurricanes made up about 20% of all hurricanes in the 1970s, but over the last decade they accounted for about 35% of these storms."

Again, none of that supports causation, only correlation.

[SlvrDragon50]

No, I'm saying give it time.

Also, in the articles I posted above, they gave a perfectly fine reason for causation.

Plus, this ^ does not relate to offshore drilling whatsoever.

You never responded to the fact that off shore drilling would last only 8-10 years. If your "trillion barrels of oil" will only last us 8-10 years, then we are in a much larger problem.

[OH-JJ]

Originally Posted by SlvrDragon50

No, I'm saying give it time.

Also, in the articles I posted above, they gave a perfectly fine reason for causation.

Plus, this ^ does not relate to offshore drilling whatsoever.

You never responded to the fact that off shore drilling would last only 8-10 years. If your "trillion barrels of oil" will only last us 8-10 years, then we are in a much larger problem.

really where are you getting these numbers that off shore drilling will only last 8-10 years?

are they coming from geologist with petroleum exploration expertise, or any source with direct expertise in the oil industry? Or are you getting the numbers from source opposed to any expansion of oil resources who thusly would be biased?

[ReefHound]

Originally Posted by SlvrDragon50

You never responded to the fact that off shore drilling would last only 8-10 years. If your "trillion barrels of oil" will only last us 8-10 years, then we are in a much larger problem.

That's pure nonsense. Such time estimates are usually based on the estimated reserves as if they were supplying 100% of our consumption but such isn't the case. How often have we been told that ANWR is only a "six month" supply? Yet the pre-drilling estimates of ANWR exceed the pre-drilling estimates of Prudhoe, which is still pumping oil to us daily more than 30 years later. The oil companies have been drilling and tapping the gulf coast along Texas and Louisiana for over 30 years.

Let's redefine the basic question. Who would support drilling NOW to address the immediate short term needs IF it were solidly linked to serious cuts in consumption AND aggressive development of alternative energy?

Many who oppose the drilling have done so with arguments that it would only lead us to go back to wasteful consumption and delay alternative energy development. So let's take those two arguments out of the equation.

[reservecops]

Because I moved over here so young I have lost most of my accent.

I never would have guess that. You sound so North American!

They live there and they have seen over the past decade the rapid change of opinion of the US.

So you have some familiy members who have an opinion.

I think the biggest problem is the rest of the world thinks Bush and his policies are idiotic and he shouldn't be the leader of the free world.

Abraham Lincoln was seen in a very similar vein during his presidency. That's because there were many people who did not agree with him, but he stood firm. Time has proven, however, that he was right and they were wrong. I feel the same will be said of Bush 100 years from now, when viewed through the prism of time.

I didn't say "everyone" either, just from what I have heard it is now in the majority. Plus, my English grandfather fought in World War II and from talking with him America didn't win the war, they just shortened the time to victory. By the time the US entered the war the USSR had bled the German armies almost dry and England had held out for so long and were finally gaining ground. Economically America won the war.

Grandfather or no grandfather, you need to bone up on your WWII history and America's involvment.

The US didn't wait to enter WWII until the end, and show up for the presentation of the medals.

WWII started at the end of '39 when Germany invaded Poland.

Less than a year later, the United States was protecting the British conveys in the Atlantic.

By '41, Britain and many other countries were broke. All the fighting in Europe during WWI left most nations, including Britain, China, France, and Russia, were broke.

You all had no money, but the Allies (including UK) needed war stuff for WWII. The US supplied this material (look up Lend-Lease program).

Germany & the Axis invaded USSR, the US placed massive embargos on Japan, and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor (after which we declared war on Japan, then Italy & German declared war on the US).

Lots of stuff occurred between '41 and '44, when the Allies liberated Paris. By mid '45, Germany surrendered, Hitler commited suicide, Mussolini was killed, and Japan surrendered.

I'm sorry, but your claim that America had little to do with the winning of WWII is plain and simple crap.

A good article about the World War and US war economics:

You're quoting a Canadian source about America's involvement in WWII? Why would I expect it to NOT be biased?

[reservecops]

Originally Posted by OH-JJ

really where are you getting these numbers that off shore drilling will only last 8-10 years?

are they coming from geologist with petroleum exploration expertise, or any source with direct expertise in the oil industry? Or are you getting the numbers from source opposed to any expansion of oil resources who thusly would be biased?

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winner, folks!

[reservecops]

Originally Posted by ReefHound

Let's redefine the basic question. Who would support drilling NOW to address the immediate short term needs IF it were solidly linked to serious cuts in consumption AND aggressive development of alternative energy?

Two Bingos! in one day, Reef!

Many who oppose the drilling have done so with arguments that it would only lead us to go back to wasteful consumption and delay alternative energy development. So let's take those two arguments out of the equation.

Most reasonable and knowledgable people understand that we have to do EVERYTHING: increase supply, reduce demand, and develop future sources of energy.

We can't simply stop using oil and put all our faith in unproven, unavailable alternative energy. As you said earlier, it doesn't happen overnight.

[SlvrDragon50]

Originally Posted by OH-JJ

really where are you getting these numbers that off shore drilling will only last 8-10 years?

are they coming from geologist with petroleum exploration expertise, or any source with direct expertise in the oil industry? Or are you getting the numbers from source opposed to any expansion of oil resources who thusly would be biased?

Quite the opposite.. Someone who is avid for the drilling of oil..BUSH

I wouldn't say he is the smartest man in the world... If he did make up a number (which i doubt, he probably got it from some oil researcher that he owns), you really have to wonder why he wouldn't make a number larger than 10.

Also, I never said we should make a direct transition. Nothing happened overnight (anything of this size anyways).

Heres a question for you, and answer it honestly. Did you think about hydrogen cars back when the price was 1.25/a gallon or did you simply continue your day?

I highly doubt ANYONE other than the people doing the research was thinking about an alternative fuel source.

[OH-JJ]

has anyone noticed what has happened to the price of crude oil this week....