The former Gulf of Mexico

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, it was signed off early last year, 1 1/2 months into Obama's administration. The whole of MMS is corrupt. It did not suddenly become so January 20, 2009. It became so under the oil men of the Bush administration. But Salazar did little to nothing about it after he was appointed director of MMS when Obama became President.

and three months ago Obama was saying

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/sc.../01energy.html

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

and three months ago Obama was saying

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/sc.../01energy.html

Yes, the "Drill, baby, drill" crowd was very disappointed with that. A political bone was thrown to them, and of course, being the party of "no", they threw it back.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, the "Drill, baby, drill" crowd was very disappointed with that. A political bone was thrown to them, and of course, being the party of "no", they threw it back.

physically impossible, have you seen Obama throw?

[joeydb]

If you are not in favor of domestic offshore drilling, you're in favor of $10 per gallon gasoline.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

If you are not in favor of domestic offshore drilling, you're in favor of $10 per gallon gasoline.

No, I do not see it a black or white choice as you say. We need to use our oil for gasoline for cars, and develop other greener sources for the rest of our uses.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, I do not see it a black or white choice as you say. We need to use our oil for gasoline for cars, and develop other greener sources for the rest of our uses.

It is absolutely that black and white in the near term. A sudden decrease in the supply of oil will cause an equally sudden rise in the price, since the demand is relatively constant. That demand is of course due to the fact that our cars are designed to run on gasoline, and that form of demand will take quite a while to change, even when a viable alternative is available. It is not currently available.

Over the long term, probably decades, yeah, there is likely to be a superior fuel alternative in most regards, and will render oil-based fuels obsolete. But we have a long way to go to get there, and it starts with an invention or discovery that government action cannot accelerate.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by joeydb

It is absolutely that black and white in the near term. A sudden decrease in the supply of oil will cause an equally sudden rise in the price, since the demand is relatively constant. That demand is of course due to the fact that our cars are designed to run on gasoline, and that form of demand will take quite a while to change, even when a viable alternative is available. It is not currently available.

Over the long term, probably decades, yeah, there is likely to be a superior fuel alternative in most regards, and will render oil-based fuels obsolete. But we have a long way to go to get there, and it starts with an invention or discovery that government action cannot accelerate.

In 10 years or so Iranian sponsored nukes will be blowing up all over the world anyway so it really a moot point...

[Riot]

It is absolutely that black and white in the near term. A sudden decrease in the supply of oil will cause an equally sudden rise in the price, since the demand is relatively constant.

Did you even read what I wrote before you answered? I said: "We need to use our oil for gasoline for cars, and develop other greener sources for the rest of our uses."

That demand is of course due to the fact that our cars are designed to run on gasoline, and that form of demand will take quite a while to change, even when a viable alternative is available. It is not currently available.

Were you aware there are a good number of mass-produced, affordable, good hybrid cars available right now?

Over the long term, probably decades, yeah, there is likely to be a superior fuel alternative in most regards, and will render oil-based fuels obsolete.

I am not saying to get rid of oil, I am saying to decrease our use of it in non-transportation uses. There are plenty of viable alternatives available right now, and we have to embrace them, make them ever more affordable and available.

But we have a long way to go to get there, and it starts with an invention or discovery that government action cannot accelerate.

Saying government can't accelerate R & D seems to fly in the face of history. It's not that long a way. Tax credits for alternative fuel uses, approval of nuclear power plants, credits for decreasing one's energy useage, tax credits for R & D into new technology, etc. all have worked in the past - and currently work - to encourage research and development in alternative fuel sources.

I think the problem with alternative fuel is that there seems to be both a lack of education about them, and lack of will to consider embracing them.