America Energy Independent, through... Oil?

AlphaMale · #1 04-12-2008, 02:54 AM

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/...news2.13s.html

Good for your wallet, but not the environment; what do you guys think?

Bad Brains · #2 04-12-2008, 03:38 AM

The environment will cleanse itself eventually. Humans have only been destroying it a fraction of it's existence. It will be fine.

So I say live it up.

i_got_a_mohawk · #3 04-12-2008, 04:41 AM

I have to agree, the environment will recover after we've been washed from the planet.

I say fair enough to using your own sources of oil, however i'd always be keeping renewable methods coming along too. With some major oil fields having dried up, so they can guage roughly how much will be in a field, you have to worry about it only being a temporary solution.

AlphaMale · #4 04-12-2008, 04:43 AM

But it's not only us that will be wiped off, it will be tons of other living creatures and that's simply not fair. But seriously we need to move on from the internal combustion machine, that's old technology, it is seriously from around the same time as the telegraph. But It is good that people won't be cleaned dry anymore.

i_got_a_mohawk · #5 04-12-2008, 04:53 AM

It's old technology, but it works well, is rugged and easily produced.

While the first one may have been made a century ago, modern one's are quite different.

Hawaii Islander · #6 04-12-2008, 04:55 AM

A transition to alternative fuels and new transportation technologies is essential. The added availability of US petroleum is needed, not only for fuel, but for pharmaceuticals, plastics and other synthetics. There are many more uses for the petroleum than fuel for running automobiles and heating homes and businesses. It'll be a very long time before alternatives for those others uses are found.

ehque · #7 04-12-2008, 05:05 AM

This being the same website that has overunity (read : FREE ENERGY) videos on their site...

Even if it was true, it'd only last 80 years at current consumption rates. Half that if rising trends are taken into account. That's not exactly a long term game plan.

Masher88 · #8 04-12-2008, 05:14 AM

Really...More oil is not the solution here.

ChiliPepper · #9 04-12-2008, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawaii Islander

A transition to alternative fuels and new transportation technologies is essential.

+ 1

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tXUnlcLJzLM

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/ma...nt&oref=slogin

WRBass · #10 04-12-2008, 06:33 AM

We (US) get 60% of our oil from our neighbors in Canada and Mexico. For economic reasons, we should be getting it here instead.

The most efficient alternate energy source is nuclear power. France gets 75% of it's electricity from nuclear power and is a large exporter of electricity. The oil and coal burning power plants in North America are big polluters.

peterbright · #11 04-12-2008, 06:56 AM

Lets use all the used french fry oil

Philbiker · #12 04-12-2008, 10:22 AM

(1) If it seems too good to be true, it usually is. This is generally true for everything in life.

(2) When you find something like this which appears too good to be true, cross-reference it. Is the article from a legitimate news source or in an oil company press release? No? That's a clue! There are no other articles on any legitimate news sources accessible through google. There are only blogs and other commentaries referencing this articule from an extremely questionable source. Kind of like the mind-numbingly stupid commentary about how much more environmentally friendly Hummers are than Priuses from last year.

(3) The closest thing I could find regarding this was this article at MSNBC which discusses the large amount - 4.5 billion barrels as opposed to the article's ridiculous statement of 200 billion barrels - of "shale oil" in the region.

(4) "shale oil" is a sham. It's been a boom-bust industry for well over a hundred years. No-one has ever found a way to get the "oil" out of the stones in a way which is net energy positive (meaning you get more energy out than you put in). And don't think that no-one has tried.

(5) "best case scenario" if we could get this "oil" out of the shale the environmental impact on the extraction would be catastrophic. Think Mountaintop coal mining times Alberta Tar Sands times 1,000. You're talking about turning giant portions of the states of North Dakota and Montanna into toxic wastelands.

Ericman197 · #13 04-12-2008, 12:14 PM

If they can drill it, I'd rather buy it from Dakota than OPEC. I couldn't care less about the mess it'll make.

AlphaMale · #14 04-12-2008, 02:09 PM

But who is To say that whoever in North Dakota owns the oil Reserves won't take us for all we have too!

fenderhutz · #15 04-12-2008, 02:12 PM

Or sell it to third world emerging economies for a profit that are willing to pay more for the oil?

This is the land if highest bidders. Capitalism at work.

AlphaMale · #16 04-12-2008, 02:29 PM

Fender has a great point, they'll probably sell it to the UK and japan.

hbarcat · #17 04-12-2008, 03:46 PM

What individual humans want as a well thought out, environmentally sound, economically sustainable in the long term energy policy is totally irrelevant.

The mob based decision of six billion people on this Earth each looking out for his own short term interests will completely overwhelm any planning or foresight that individuals, groups or governments can make.