Q&A: why do the liberals say it would take 7 years to get the oil from anwar alaska?
by Jeremy Levine Design
Question by Joe E: why do the liberals say it would take 7 years to get the oil from anwar alaska?
to the market? when it would take 30 to 40 years before we can benifit from the so called “green” technologies. It would cost trillions of dollars to replace gasoline engines with there green engines. what are we going to do for fuel until then? in 40 years I will be 78 years old and I probably will not be driving.
if your going to say bio fuel or ethanol dont bother we all know those are worse for the environment than fossil fuels and makes bread worth 7$ a loaf. also global warming is total horse crap so dont say that either.
Skeptic could you please explain how solar water heaters relate to oil consumption? I know I cant power my car with a water heater. the water heaters might cause us to be less dependant on domestic coal but that is not the issue here. this is a typical liberal answer it makes no sense and does not even relate to the topic that is being discussed in this question.
Best answer:
Answer by Jacob
It not even a guarantee that we will see it in seven years. That is the speculation on the time it would take to find the oil. And if they do find it they will end up destroying the natural beauty. Now green tech will only work if governments around the world all invest and make it a major priority. It will not take as long as you think with proper funding. Here is a little trivia for ya. Did you know jimmy carter predicted this would happen when he was president the only thing is the govt. figured it would happen by 2000, just a few years earlier than it did. Oh and he put solar panels on the white house which at the time took care of 75% of all of the white houses energy needs and Regan took them off once he got into office.
What do you think? Answer below!
| Print article | This entry was posted by mosotech on September 3, 2010 at 8:02 pm, and is filed under Green Technology. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
![Modern Warfare 2: The Ken Burton Show Part 50: Thermonuclear War (MW2 Gameplay/Commentary) [HD]](http://moso-technology.com/wp-content/plugins/wordpress-popular-posts/favicon.ico){kind=small}
about 1 year ago
you need time to make changes, if you want to change fuel source, you can’t make all those who work in the industry unemployed, including mechanics, automakers, factories
you need to educate with the new ttechnology so you’ll have the support, like mechanics and so on, so 40 years is a fast turn.
about 1 year ago
news and magazine-
http://scribling.net/
about 1 year ago
Great question. I think their position on ANWR is the most baffling case of governmental ignorance of the the actual minimal effect the ANWR E
about 1 year ago
In the Pacific Northwest we have cheap plentiful power from hydroelectric and wind power. Given the projected exponential cost of oil and the fact that 86% of US energy is from fossil fuels, we need to rapidly expand renewable energy sources.
If you review “Hubbert’s Peak Theory” and specifically “peak oil”, you will learn that oil prices are on the up side of a U curve. We cannot afford to rely totally on oil.
Inexpensive solar water heaters are a dramatic way to significantly reduce our dependence on oil. According to all the experts I’ve met the fact is: conservation and efficiency is the only way the US is going to deal with the current energy crisis. Obama was absolutely correct: “We cannot pump our way out of this crisis”
about 1 year ago
You are so right
We need to be drilling for oil anywhere and everywhere we can now and meanwhile continue to work on alternative power sources.
It is going to take much longer to have alternative fuel cars mainstream than it will to start to benefit from drilling here in America.
The liberals are only going that route because the republicans stood up first as being for drilling in Anwar. Whatever the republicans come up with the liberals try to stop-regardless of what the issue is.
about 1 year ago
If everything went right, it would take time to find the stuff and get it refined and to market. Considering the inevitable court challenges, seven years might be on the fast side.
about 1 year ago
They’re Wrong. It’s gonna take at LEAST 10. By the time the Contracts are Negotiated, Environmental Impact Statements done, pipelines are Surveyed
about 1 year ago
we need alternative fuel.
about 1 year ago
the oil crisis is fake and is Bush cartel pay off to its oil cronies in th elite rich ranks of world billionaires something a working person such as you has no hope of understanding…follow the $ $ $ that’s the crimminal trail..it has nothing to do with patriotism..its all about $ $ $ $ $ darling…BTW there are already 6000 oil leases that are not even mined so why give them anymore…its extortion..
about 1 year ago
It is not just liberals (people in the industry say this too) but the argument is disingenuous. While it will take about that long (first seismic surveys must be planned and contracted, then data analyzed, then decisions made on where to drill, then the actual drilling, then getting the oil from the field to the terminals), delaying only means it will take that much longer and we’ll be in even worse shape then we are now.You are correct in saying that the so called greenhouse technologies do not exist and are a long ways off. Most current ideas can only provide a drop in the bucket (if all crop land in the USA were converted to corn for fuel, that would provide 2% of the gasoline needed).
We need to get started now on finding and pumping more oil or western civilization will be something future archaologists dig up.
about 1 year ago
We have been drilling and pumping oil up here in Alaska since 1977. The wildlife are just fine with the pipeline. We simply don’t have enough oil up here to satisfy all the needs and wants of the entire USA. Gas here in Palmer, AK today was $ 4.46 and diesel $ 5.39.
about 1 year ago
Joe, you make the usual mistake of assuming we will continue to use internal combustion engines at an increasing rate. You claim global warming is not a problem (got a science degree to back that up?) so presumably you have no problem with increasing use of coal fired power stations to supply electricity and a slew of nuclear stations to supplement them?
Gas engines won’t be “replaced”- they will be improved and made more efficient, at the same time we need to face the fact that we can no longer assume that using an auto is a Right hidden in the Constitution, the US needs to invest billions in alternative energy, public transport (trams, electric buses and subways in larger cities, passenger and freight rail lines to remove the guzzling 18 wheelers from the Freeways).
Getting more and more desperate for more and more oil, of which there is a finite reserve will only delay, not stay the gradual decline in production and a corresponding rise in price.
Increasing crude oil supply poses another problem, no new refineries have been built in the US for some 30 years, the existing ones are at almost full capacity already and many are reaching the end of their useful life.
Can we persuade the oil companies to spend some of those billions of profits to find land, get local authorities to agree to the building of environmentally damaging and astonishingly ugly complexes, negotiate State and Federal regulations and build and operate them?
We’ve had it too easy for too long, and our gas is still HALF the price of that in Europe, we need to wake up and get ALL politicians to face facts, give us the bad news and DO something to fix things, not just continue to make obscene profits for their oil buddies.