• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lake Mead is shrinking -- and with it Las Vegas' water supply

Or, we could not give in to blackmail like that and develop other parts of the nation to grow these things, and tell CA that they should wise up.

No one else has the right climate.
 
There are these inventions called greenhouses....We have the technology to grow anything anywhere....

Ah, yes, let's grow oranges in greenhouses in Minnesota. There's an idea.
 
Ah, yes, let's grow oranges in greenhouses in Minnesota. There's an idea.

Are you saying it can't be done? And why do you choose the extreme to highlight your argument? Are you saying that oranges for example can't be grown in Fl, La, Ga, Ms, or any of the south? Or how about any of the crops, are you saying that only Ca. can produce them? I don't think that is so.
 
Are you saying it can't be done? And why do you choose the extreme to highlight your argument? Are you saying that oranges for example can't be grown in Fl, La, Ga, Ms, or any of the south? Or how about any of the crops, are you saying that only Ca. can produce them? I don't think that is so.

Obviously, it could be done. It could not be done economically.
And, sure, oranges are grown in other parts of the USA as well. However, if you take out a major producer, the supply goes down, and the price goes up.
If you really try to grow the produce that comes from California's central valley in greenhouses, you will need about 20,000 square miles of greenhouses. Could it be done? Probably so. Would it be economical? Sure, about as economical as the train to nowhere that Sacramento is determined to build, but on a much larger scale.
 
Obviously, it could be done. It could not be done economically.
And, sure, oranges are grown in other parts of the USA as well. However, if you take out a major producer, the supply goes down, and the price goes up.
If you really try to grow the produce that comes from California's central valley in greenhouses, you will need about 20,000 square miles of greenhouses. Could it be done? Probably so. Would it be economical? Sure, about as economical as the train to nowhere that Sacramento is determined to build, but on a much larger scale.

Yeah, kind of reminds you of the argument against increased drilling for energy independence doesn't it?
 
You mean you don't know?

Check it out here.

You're trying to joke around with someone who has no sense of humor.
Good luck with that.
You'll probably be labeled a progressive because you think dairy cows can be happy and therefore, you don't want them slaughtered.....yet you believe in slaughtering babies.:shrug:
 
You mean you don't know?

Check it out here.

I don't care...... Anyone who believes they know if a cow is happy or not is delusional.

I think a cow would be happy anywhere there is food to eat, and a bit of liberty.

If Cows are so damn happy in California than why is Wisconsin the Cheese capitol of the US?
 
I don't care...... Anyone who believes they know if a cow is happy or not is delusional.

I think a cow would be happy anywhere there is food to eat, and a bit of liberty.

If Cows are so damn happy in California than why is Wisconsin the Cheese capitol of the US?

It appears radioman was right.

but, a joke isn't funny if it has to be explained. Maybe those commercials didn't play out of state.
 
Oh, sure, building 20,000 square miles of greenhouses is like drilling for energy independence. Both of them are pipe dreams.

Drilling is not a pipe dream. Unless, your world is just upside down.
 
Drilling is not a pipe dream. Unless, your world is just upside down.

Would you allow the oil found by this drilling to be sold on the world market, or would it have to be sold domestically?

If it's the former, then an increase in the world supply would have a couple of effects: For one, it wold lower the price a little bit. For another, it would be a cue to Saudi Arabia to cut back a bit in order to stabilize the price. If the price were much lower, then the more expensive recovery costs for any domestic oil we've found could be more than the price, shutting down the wells.

If it's the latter, no one is going to want to drill for oil that may not be profitable.
 
We have enough oil to offset that. We just have to get it.
 
We have enough oil to offset that. We just have to get it.

yes, we do.
The sticker is cost of recovery. If it costs more to get the oil out of the ground than the world price of oil, then no one is going to want to get it out. Most of the oil here is in the form of tar sand or oil shale, which is recoverable at a price. If the price is too high, then no one is going to want to try to exploit it until the world price of oil is high enough. Saudi Arabia is committed to seeing to it that the price doesn't go high enough, and they have lots of reserves that can be exploited cheaply.

Now, we could subsidize oil production and then insist it be sold domestically, that is, if you trust the government to get it right.
 
yes, we do.
The sticker is cost of recovery. If it costs more to get the oil out of the ground than the world price of oil, then no one is going to want to get it out. Most of the oil here is in the form of tar sand or oil shale, which is recoverable at a price. If the price is too high, then no one is going to want to try to exploit it until the world price of oil is high enough. Saudi Arabia is committed to seeing to it that the price doesn't go high enough, and they have lots of reserves that can be exploited cheaply.

Now, we could subsidize oil production and then insist it be sold domestically, that is, if you trust the government to get it right.

I disagree with your premise that it is too costly...Much of that cost is due to government standing in the way.
 
I disagree with your premise that it is too costly...Much of that cost is due to government standing in the way.

Getting oil shale out of the ground and into a tanker is expensive.

Technological limits could stifle Bakken oil potential

The vast Bakken Shale formation in North Dakota and Montana, a cornerstone of hopes for North American energy production, will need costly, advanced oil recovery strategies in order to tap its full potential over the next few decades, researchers and industry officials say.

Primary oil recovery methods centered on horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing will leave 90 to 95 percent of the Bakken and underlying Three Forks oil resource in the ground, said Albert Yost II, manager of exploration and production technology at the National Energy Technology Laboratory in Morgantown, W.Va.
 
I was at Hoover Dam this past weekend, and the lake line is very low.

That said, the same thing happened in the 1950s when the Pacific waters were last in their current state. In about 8-10 years, the waters will shift, and the drought will ease. That should return the levels to Lake Mead.
 
By your own article, states that they are working on it. But, I will say that your article seems to paint a rather one sided picture.

Yes, one sided, the side of the oil companies. I really think they should know about the costs of recovering petroleum deposits.
 
Yes, one sided, the side of the oil companies. I really think they should know about the costs of recovering petroleum deposits.

That's one area. What about all the other places out there purposely kept off limits? This is an artificial crisis.
 
I bet Lake Mead could use our floodwaters right now.
So could the polluted waters of WV and NC.

Too bad we don't have an Eisenhower Interstate of water pipelines.
Our Nation still moves because of OTRs on the Interstates.

Just run the overflow water into a small canal south of the Ohio/Mississippi confluence.
From there, a series of small power plants push the water west through ALL the parched states.
It isn't rocket science, it's engineering .
 
Back
Top Bottom