Date: 2/9/2002 11:59:00 AM
From Authorid: 45551
actually, you will be relieved to know the US has plenty of oil,enough to last generations and generations, the reason we buy foriegn oil is we figure we might as well use all of thiers first and then come crunch time we will have plenty of our own.  |
Date: 2/9/2002 12:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 27028
England is very rich in oil through mining out the islands such as the forkland in which its produces an avergae of 2.7 million pounds a day. however, if there were to be the debate that more jews should join the israelite cabinet, then there should be the change of the catholics being the lead in the northern island political debate between the prejudice of protestants and catholics. in which case it should remain neutral and fair since Israel is oil city but its unavailable due to the fact they're refusing foreign imports. Leaving many oil profits decreasing and oil being wasted on vbery little on the industry of israel. soon, we'll have to make terms witht he israeli goverment on allowing foreign buyers to purchase when a global oil crisis arrises in some years time  |
Date: 2/9/2002 12:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 33088
Hugo, what about thinking of ways of reducing our dependance on petroleum products? It is estimated that the world's oil resources will be depleted by 2050. That is within my son's lifetime. I think we should be looking at alternatives other than policies that will ensure we continue to use up the world's supply of this finite resource.  |
|
Date: 2/9/2002 12:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 27028
When there is a depletion the world will come to a stand still and will have a declining, we'll need to rely on conventional synthetic man made oil which may be crude but neccasary. We're going to be doomed with lack of resoruse and each time we progress the more negative effects will come that will eventually make life hell |
|
Date: 2/9/2002 12:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 33088
Doc, everything you are saying... That's what they said about the depletion of the world's COAL resources. |
|
Date: 2/9/2002 12:55:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 37354
150 years ago people were predicting we would be knee-deep in horse manure by now. Advancing technologies will find a cheaper substitute for oil without any assistance from government. Hugo |
|
Date: 2/9/2002 1:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 27028
they never said that coal was going to end and start to deplete, it was merely dropped because of various campaigns of polution in which it was expensize to incenarate coal and due to the negative effects of smoke making most environments dirty. however, oil is less common as coal,there have been lack of oil periods such as the british fuel dispute which was arioused through a flaw in the export of oil. We'll need a global rule for the exportation of oil soon, becasue eventually countries that are withhelding oil from the world will end up making things difficult for paorts of the world, that don't have the oil resource in their country |
Date: 2/9/2002 1:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 17525
Oil is not the way of the future. Solar is. The technology is here but the government refuses to invest in it because of it's heavy involvement in oil, and nuclear. It's all a money thing. JMO  |
Date: 2/9/2002 3:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
There are many alternatives to oil out there. All we have to do is demand that our government start funding them, and stop throwing so much money behind big oil. That will not happen though, because big oil supports politics. In 1978, I bought a new car which could get 40mpg on the highway. In 1985, my new car of comaprable size only got 32mpg highway. Because of the oil situation of 1973, companies were making vehicles that were more fuel efficient. Later, once the government said there was no lack of oil, the auto makers cut back on fuel effecient vehicles. Take a look at the number of SUVs on the road. These status symbols are not exactly the most fuel effecient vehicles out there, yet they account for a large number of sales. Pickup trucks are another high fuel user. I have two, one that I use for work, which I have to sacrifice fuel economy for towing and hauling capability, and the other I use for personal use and travel. That one only has a six cylinder in it, and does get decent milage for a truck. In Europe, mass transit is alive and well, but America has become to dependent on their personal vehicles. Maybe when gas prices finally go over $2.00/gallon and stay there, Americans will push for a better public mass transit system, and end our constant demand for oil. ...<Warrior Spirit>  |
Date: 2/9/2002 3:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 27360
I love big oil companies. I tried refining my own oil but it didnt work. Someone has got to do it and if they get rich doing it so be it, but of course that is not the subject of the debate is it? The subject is if we should just throw Isreal to the wolves for the sake of Oil. I dont think that it would be a prudent thing to do. There is just something about turning your back on an ally that just doesnt sit well with me.  |
|
Date: 2/9/2002 6:51:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 37354
We do not need government to invest in new technologies. Private enterprise left alone will solve our energy problems.I love my SUV. Hugo |
|
Date: 2/9/2002 6:54:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 37354
El Toro, I would never advocate we turn our back on Isreal. My real point is, contrary to the beliefs of many on this site, our current Middle East policies are not pro-oil.If they were Isreal would be history. In fact the opposite is true. Hugo |
Date: 2/9/2002 7:02:00 PM
From Authorid: 46266
Stop stressing, you could always pull off yet another "Justification for Military Intervention in (fill in the blank)" program on the next untapped country in line. Isn't Hugo the same guy who accuses every 2nd person of being anti-semetic? Leaving Israel to the dogs for the sake of oil seems somewhat anti-semitic to me... Vert.  |
|
Date: 2/9/2002 7:05:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
Private enterprise is about making money, and a lot of that money is tied to big oil. ...<Warrior Spirit> |
|
Date: 2/9/2002 7:27:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 37354
It is tied to big oil because oil is at this time a very efficient source of energy compared to the alternatives. When this is no longer true big money will move to other sources of energy. Hugo |
|
Date: 2/9/2002 7:29:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 37354
Did you read the statement right before your typically unlearned reply, Vert. Hugo |
|
Date: 2/9/2002 7:33:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
Hugo, oil is one of the least effecient fuel sources around. When used as an energy source, be it for your vehicle, or for electric power generation, it only partially burns. One of the most effecient, and readily renewable power sources is hydroelectric. There are hydro turbines sitting idle throughout the United States because they generate more power than can be consumed. ...<Warrior Spirit> |
|
Date: 2/9/2002 7:33:00 PM
From Authorid: 27360
Jugo I see your point . |
|
Date: 2/9/2002 7:33:00 PM
From Authorid: 27360
^^^sorry about the j. fingers too big keyboard too small |
|
Date: 2/9/2002 7:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 27360
You cant make plastic out of Hydroelectricity |
|
Date: 2/9/2002 8:04:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 37354
If they were more efficient dollar wise they would be being used. Hugo |
|
Date: 2/9/2002 8:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 46266
No I never, because I loaded the page before that was posted. My comments still stand, because the title of your post is "WE NEED Pro-Oil policies" and your modus operandi proposed to accomplish that end entails forsaking Israel to curry favor with the sheiks. As for your last comment - no, if hydroelectricity was more PROFITABLE it would be in use. You know that. Vert. |
|
Date: 2/9/2002 8:54:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 37354
The post , Vert, intention is to state that our positions in the Middle East are not compatible with oil interests. Economically efficient goods are more profitable. Hugo |
|
Date: 2/10/2002 7:36:00 AM
From Authorid: 27028
oil contains 10% cooking saturates 1% methane 15% oil for plastic and other commercian goods and 30% for vehicle use. that leaves 44% raw oil which we could figure out what to use with it instead of disposing it |
|
Date: 2/10/2002 9:32:00 AM
From Authorid: 47296
Hugo, I did some research on present and proposed policies concerning oil, and while some were good, some of them will create definite enviromental problems down the line. Now, I'm no tree hugger, but I do believe it is time we started looking for alternatives that will stop the destruction of the enviroment. One major alternative that big oil constantly attacks is the use of biofuels. These cleaner burning fuels are a renewable resource. They also would help the one industry in this country that has been getting the shaft for many years now, the American Farmer. ...<Warrior Farm> |
Date: 2/10/2002 10:18:00 AM
From Authorid: 22080
did you know industrialized hemp can be made into oil and it can be regenerated  |
|
Date: 2/10/2002 11:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 46266
"Economically efficient goods are more profitable." - Hugo. Oh, so the Fiat line made more profit last year than did Porsche? LOL, Vert. |
|
Date: 2/10/2002 5:05:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 37354
I should have qualified that by stating in an environment close to pure competition. Consumers of energy, with the exception of a few environmentally conscious individuals, do not care what the source of their energy. They just want the cheapest. In an economic environment approaching pure competition the most efficient product is the most profitable.Fiat vs. Porsche is an example of monopolistic competition, where producers of goods with a similar utility are able to differrentiate their goods from the competition. Hugo |
|
Date: 2/10/2002 5:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 17525
Kindred spirits we are :-) |
|
Date: 2/10/2002 5:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 17525
Hugo the "spoon"! Always stirring up Sh*t! |
|
Date: 2/10/2002 6:14:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 37354
We have fun do we not, Osiris? Hugo |
|
Date: 2/10/2002 6:16:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 37354
Careful Osiris, I had a comment deleted when I referred to my female dog as a word starting with B. Hug |
|
Date: 2/10/2002 11:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 46266
Electric-powered vehicles have been successfuly tested since the early 90's. That would be a LOT cheaper than petroleum, yet once that technology is in place, close to 70% of the petroleum market is gone. More economical? Yes, by far. More profitable? No, so it hasn't happened. I rest my case Hug ;-) Vert. |
|
Date: 2/10/2002 11:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 46266
Ohhh, this post was just for fun, Hug? And here I was thinking you had a defensible point... Vert. |
|
Date: 2/11/2002 6:28:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 37354
There is no electric vehicle that has won a place in the hearts and minds of the consumer. The consumer is the one who decides what products succeed and which fail. Hybrid vehicles that use both electricity and gasoline may be in the future. As of now they are either lacking in horsepower, or too expensive. Sorry, Vert, no conspiracy here either. I am trying to teach you but you are an incredibly slow learner. Hugo |
|
Date: 2/11/2002 6:59:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 37354
Increasing technology will sooner or later result in commercially successful alternative fuel vehicles. Most of the major automotive companies have developed hybrids and electrical automobiles, some of which are not overly high priced. new devices take time to develop a market. One factor delaying switches in technology is consumer tastes.There is not one person today who cannot buy an alternative fuel vehicle, if he so wishes. A consumer does not care how the electricity for his home was manufactured just how much it costs. Consumers care about how there car looks, how fast it will go, and how far it will go in the case of electrical cars as much or more than the cost of getting from point A to point B. Transition costs also slow the speed new technology takes over. It is going to be many years before my fuel efficient Range Rover is ready for the junkyard, until then advancements in technology will not effect me. Similarly automotive companies tread gently in the transition to less pollutting, more efficient vehicles for two major reasons: 1) They need to gauge consumer demand 2) They have transition costs when switching from gasoline powered to alternative energy source powered cars.Consumer demand will determine the fate of the gasoline engine, not government (I hope), not big oil, not, in the long run, the automobile companies. I am currently writing a book tentatively titled The Socialist Space Alien anti-Semites view on Macroeconomics vs Mainstream Macroeconomics.Hugo |
|
Date: 2/11/2002 7:06:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 37354
Let me stress one more time automobile companies are involved in monopolistic competition with each other.They are have one major purpose, to get from point A to point B. They differentiate in size, features, reliability, fuel economy, etc. At this time fuel economy is low on the automobiles list of priorities. Utility companies deliver units of energy into homes, they are engaged in pure competition, the consumer only cares about costs. The most efficient source of energy will be the most profitable source of energy in a DEREGULATED economy. Hugo |
|
Date: 2/11/2002 7:14:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 37354
Unocal, everyones favorite so-called benefitor of Sept 11, dropped six bucks a share after the attack and still remains a couple bucks below where it was on Sept. 10. You conspiracy theorists should be investing heavily in Unocal. Hugo |
|
Date: 2/11/2002 8:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 46266
It takes a remarkable amount of focus on 1 industry (and a good set of blinders) to believe that we have the technology to split atoms and, more recently, develop a sustainable womb outside the body - yet come up short in the relatively basic field of combustion. That's almost like trying to say there is really no cure for cancer. I know almost a dozen people who have used the methods of a close family friend (who died mysteriously in '99) to cure themselves of acute cancer. Just another conspiracy theory I suppose you would say. It's not the pharmaceutical companies that are hampering progress in that area - it's the medical associations who would lose millions if they did away with chemotherapy and radiation treatment - much the same way as it's not the vehicle manufacturers who are hampering progress in alternates to petroleum combustion, but it's the petroleum organizations themselves who cannot have the incomprehensibly profitable market of the automobile taken away form them. Consider that carefully, and have fun debunking those aliens-lovers and anti-semites - just try not to resort to their selfsame tactics of browbeating and mockery. Vert. |
Date: 2/12/2002 7:58:00 AM
From Authorid: 33817
Hugo, there ARE things more important than money. And when I figure out WHAT THEY ARE, I'll be back.  |
|
Date: 2/12/2002 8:15:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 37354
No cancer cure is being covered up either, there are too many competing interests to pull off the capitalist shenanigans people on this site always fear. Evil capitalism allowing people to die, be a socialist, that is what it comes down to. There are plenty of companies with no cancer drugs on the market that would quickly market a cure for cancer. What incentive do the automobile companies have to be the toadies of the oil industry? None. Anyone who wants to purchase an alternative fuel vehicle may do so. The demand so far is low. It does not mean in the near future things will not change. Initial demand for the automobile was not that high. I guess the horse traders held it up for quite a while. Hugo |
|
Date: 2/12/2002 8:27:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 37354
Power One, whoever said money can't buy happiness never bought a six-pack. Hugo |
