Newt Unveils Plan for $2.50 Gas to Kickstart Campaign Comeback

[9MMare]

Originally Posted by ArmyVet

That was not the first deepwater well. We've been drilling wells at that depth for a long time. The reason for chosing a well that far offshore can easily be explained since it actually would have minimum environmental impact on both fisheries and coastline. (had it not gotten out of control)

You should do more research into deepwater wells. There are only a very few others, in the North Sea...very different conditions and still fairly new technology.

The Deepwater Horizon was cutting-edge technology at record-breaking depths. They would have to have been even more stupid to pull a stunt with that rig.

There are a million other rigs they could have messed with...and they wouldnt sabotage that deepwater rig because they want that technology...big time, they wouldnt want any doubts cast on the safety or standards of those still experimental rigs.....opens up a whole new range of drilling for them.

[Lord Darwath]

Originally Posted by 9MMare

Newt's plan has NOTHING about renewable, non-polluting, sustainable energy.

Might have something to do with the fact that it does not exist.

[9MMare]

Originally Posted by Lord Darwath

Might have something to do with the fact that it does not exist.

Solar energy, wave energy, wind-turbine energy dont exist?

I read too much science fiction!

[9MMare]

Btw, if we use alternative sources of energy for home and commercial heating, we can wean ourselves from a great deal of oil dependence pretty quickly. Then switching, gradually, all non-commercial vehicles to electric or other....if we do that, then domestically we will have plenty of oil left for commercial transportation and manufacturing.

[Lord Darwath]

Originally Posted by 9MMare

Solar energy, wave energy, wind-turbine energy dont exist?

I read too much science fiction!

On the scale necessary to replace fossil fuels? No. They are too expensive, inefficient, unreliable... and solar and wind are NOT non polluting. They require some means of storage, which so far means batteries. Batteries are some of the most polluting items manufactured on the planet.

[Lord Darwath]

The majority of home and commercial heating is done with natural gas. Switching to something else would not save much oil.

[graytape2000]

we get most of are oil from canada so i do not see the middle east play a big part in the prices the news makes a big deal about it to get rattings and it gives the oil companies a reason to jack the prices up to put more money in there pockets and for the whole keystone pipe line deal i do dont see why every one is so oppose to that we already have pipe lines coming in from canada i dont see what one more will hurt and for oil refineries there has not been a new one built in america since 1976 when the population of the usa was 218,000,000 and now there are 311 millions americans so we need more refineries and the whole oil speculation and oil future has got out of hand and again let companies make tons of money not much the president can do except lower the regulations for opening new refineries


http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/i...il-imports.png

http://www.pipeline101.com/overview/crude-pl.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/busine..._shortage.html

http://www.infoplease.com/year/1976.html

[HiroProX]

Now I'd love to replace the 4.6L V8 in my F150 with a RTG generator and electric drivetrain. But if oil gives environmentalists headaches, that'd give them an aneurism.

[9MMare]

Originally Posted by Lord Darwath

On the scale necessary to replace fossil fuels? No. They are too expensive, inefficient, unreliable... and solar and wind are NOT non polluting. They require some means of storage, which so far means batteries. Batteries are some of the most polluting items manufactured on the planet.

Yes, they are NOW. If we had started investing in research in those technologies back in the oil crisis of the 70s, we'd have them much more integrated into the mainstream now.

But no, we'll keep pandering to the oil companies (who are also investing in these other technologies...waiting until the 'tipping point' where there will finally be profit there)....because they have the money and the leverage.

Americans refuse to believe that you must make some sacrifices for change and the politicians just feed on that.

[Lord Darwath]

Originally Posted by 9MMare

Yes, they are NOW. If we had started investing in research in those technologies back in the oil crisis of the 70s, we'd have them much more integrated into the mainstream now.

We HAVE been researching those technologies since the '70s. And some major improvements have occurred, but the fundamental flaws have not been overcome. If you want to claim we just haven't put enough money into it, I will call BS. Yes, scientific progress requires money, but in terms of "green energy" what is needed to make it viable is dramatic innovation. Innovation is NOT money dependent. You cannot guarantee a breakthrough just by throwing dollars at a problem.
We have viable technologies -right now- that could make the US very nearly, if not completely, energy independent for the next 100 years or more, without any major hazards to the environment, but the "green" whackos block it all. They have their sights set on pie-in-the-sky visions of solar and wind and operate on knee-jerk false assumptions that anything else is an automatic environmental tragedy.

[Conman2U]

What I don't get about Obama is that he doesn't want to drill here, but he is giving away 7 Oil rich Alaskan Islands to Russia, why not drill there. You can be sure that the Russians will