• 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!

Wal-Mart: Our shoppers are 'running out of money'

Catawba said:
Is there even a single refinery in the US capable of refining shale oil?
Click to expand...

Yes and no

Shale oil is pretty much useless ( the stuff from Utah called kerogen) without upgrading and refining. Of course so is the oil from the tar sands in Alberta.

Rather idiotically Alberta is sending raw heavy crude from the oil sands down to southern US for upgrading and refining rather then building or expanding refineries and upgraders here in Alberta. Also the US does a fair bit of refining of Venezuelan crude which is rather heavy and sour. So the US does have the capability of refining shale oil. It is the extraction and the cost of upgrading such oil that is the issue. Without nuclear power the costs of extraction outweigh the economic benifits ( without subsidized natural gas oil sand extraction in Alberta would be far less profitable
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Sure there is

A country can only use so much oil. To increase supply to such an extent that the price of oil drops below the cost of production would be counteproductive
Click to expand...

that's the balancing act best left to the companies themselves - today they do the same thing with their regular wells.

Secondly ANWAR and the oil of the coasts could be kept as a strategic reserve, to be used when world wide production starts to decrease to such an extent that oil truly becomes scarce.
Click to expand...

we shouldn't exploit it because in the future that means we would be able to exploit it? if oil is going away as rapidly as some seem to be suggesting, then opening up ANWR and the Coasts isn't really going to extend it that much at such a time. The world will be transitioning to some other source. Better to make the money while we can and before that switch get's made. You don't want to be the guy with all your eggs in whale oil when kerosene comes down the pipeline.

While the Bakken play can be exploited to its fullest. Thus ensuring the US coast lines are kept beautiful for the tourists, and the seafood safe to eat.
Click to expand...

I will take any compromise that increases exploitation of our resources here, while continually pushing for more exploitation. the coast lines of the gulf are beautiful and the seafood safe. the one time this hasn't occurred was the result of our drill bans - we pushed them out beyond the ability of the technology and we suffered for it. wells 5 miles offshore don't have those issues.

That is of course if the Bakken oil formation is as big as you suggest
Click to expand...

well, let's hope.
 
cpwill said:
that's the balancing act best left to the companies themselves - today they do the same thing with their regular wells.



we shouldn't exploit it because in the future that means we would be able to exploit it? if oil is going away as rapidly as some seem to be suggesting, then opening up ANWR and the Coasts isn't really going to extend it that much at such a time. The world will be transitioning to some other source. Better to make the money while we can and before that switch get's made. You don't want to be the guy with all your eggs in whale oil when kerosene comes down the pipeline.



I will take any compromise that increases exploitation of our resources here, while continually pushing for more exploitation. the coast lines of the gulf are beautiful and the seafood safe. the one time this hasn't occurred was the result of our drill bans - we pushed them out beyond the ability of the technology and we suffered for it. wells 5 miles offshore don't have those issues.



well, let's hope.
Click to expand...

The coast lines are beautifull because of the lack of oil washing up on shore and the lack of visiable oil platforms. Not many tourists would go to Daytona beach to be covered in petroleum oil rather then suntan oil, to see oil rigs, rather then topless chicks. Florida and Califonia make far more money in tourism then they could in oil royalties, and if I am not mistaken both state governments are against drilling on the coastlines of their states for just such reasons.

Lastly having a reserve of strategic resources is something I believe most people would find to be a good thing. Selling limited resources at cheap prices is never a good idea from any economic point of view, consuming a stragetic resource to the point of having no reserves is definately not a good idea from a national defense point of view. Something you overlook is that any transition to a new energy source would take time, and having a supply of oil to assist in that transition would be a good thing from an economioc and sociological point of view
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
The coast lines are beautifull because of the lack of oil washing up on shore and the lack of visiable oil platforms. Not many tourists would go to Daytona beach to be covered in petroleum oil rather then suntan oil, to see oil rigs, rather then topless chicks. Florida and Califonia make far more money in tourism then they could in oil royalties, and if I am not mistaken both state governments are against drilling on the coastlines of their states for just such reasons.

Lastly having a reserve of strategic resources is something I believe most people would find to be a good thing. Selling limited resources at cheap prices is never a good idea from any economic point of view, consuming a stragetic resource to the point of having no reserves is definately not a good idea from a national defense point of view. Something you overlook is that any transition to a new energy source would take time, and having a supply of oil to assist in that transition would be a good thing from an economioc and sociological point of view
Click to expand...

John McCain spoke to this point when he voted last year against drilling in ANWR. He said, "We ought not drill in the Everglades, we ought not drill in the Grand Canyon, and we ought not drill in ANWR!
 
Catawba said:
John McCain spoke to this point when he voted last year against drilling in ANWR. He said, "We ought not drill in the Everglades, we ought not drill in the Grand Canyon, and we ought not drill in ANWR!
Click to expand...

ANWR can be drilled from a very small 2000 acre footprint already designated.
Tourism in ANWR is minimal.
We can drill there any time now, as far as I am concerned.
AS far as being a strategic reserve, shouldn't our reserve be in a more accessible place?
But I still say we should work on efficiencies and conservation more, so we need less energy of all kinds.
 
UtahBill said:
ANWR can be drilled from a very small 2000 acre footprint already designated.
Tourism in ANWR is minimal.
We can drill there any time now, as far as I am concerned.
AS far as being a strategic reserve, shouldn't our reserve be in a more accessible place?
But I still say we should work on efficiencies and conservation more, so we need less energy of all kinds.
Click to expand...

The 2000 acre foot print is missleadiing due to the pipelines or roads required to take the oil from the well head to the battery site for initial processing. The area that would be effected would be far greater then just 2000 acres
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
The 2000 acre foot print is missleadiing due to the pipelines or roads required to take the oil from the well head to the battery site for initial processing. The area that would be effected would be far greater then just 2000 acres
Click to expand...

and would be about as bad an eyesore as a windmill farm in Texas....out in the sticks where only a few hundred people per year might see it.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
The 2000 acre foot print is missleadiing due to the pipelines or roads required to take the oil from the well head to the battery site for initial processing. The area that would be effected would be far greater then just 2000 acres
Click to expand...

OMG. ROADS?!?! Good heavens, not ROADS!!! why, there are only 586,412 square miles in Alaska, wherever will they put them all??
 
Catawba said:
John McCain spoke to this point when he voted last year against drilling in ANWR. He said, "We ought not drill in the Everglades, we ought not drill in the Grand Canyon, and we ought not drill in ANWR!
Click to expand...

yes. chalk that up as reason #219 why Republicans should be glad that Obama beat him.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
The coast lines are beautifull because of the lack of oil washing up on shore and the lack of visiable oil platforms.
Click to expand...

oil lapping up on shore so far has been a result of the banning of close-drilling. we pushed the rigs out past the technology and that's where we had trouble. rigs that are in our shallower water don't have those troubles because we're not pushing them out past our solid abilities.

as for the sight - really? of several miles? i doubt people will on the beach will complain that if they were to hop in a boat and ride for 20 minutes they would be able to see a rig. hell, i would love to see a rig, though i would be (stupidly) tempted to get drunk and make wagers with my friends as to who could swim out to one fastest. Seeing a rig would tell me that the local region had a good steady flow of income and was helping to power America.

Our coasts and our shale isn't a "reserve", it's a resource, and it's a massive one. When the transition comes (many many many years hence) it will come gradually; it's not like we're going to wake up one night and oops all the oil is gone now where did I put it last... oil supply will slowly dwindle and cost will slowly rise and innovations to pick up the slack will slowly get integrated. We needn't keep ourselves poorer now just so that we will have less disposable wealth to help us make the transition then.
 
cpwill said:
yes. chalk that up as reason #219 why Republicans should be glad that Obama beat him.
Click to expand...

Obama didn't beat McCain as much as McCain sabotaged his own campaign. I think Romney could have beat Obama, but it was McCain's turn at bat.
The GOP needs a new strategy, one that involves new blood, new thinking. Old is so passe'.:2razz:
 
cpwill said:
yes. chalk that up as reason #219 why Republicans should be glad that Obama beat him.
Click to expand...



We all vote for whom we consider to be the lesser of evils. Who's your favorite to win the short straw draw on the GOP side to have to run against Obama this time?
 
UtahBill said:
ANWR can be drilled from a very small 2000 acre footprint already designated.
Tourism in ANWR is minimal.
We can drill there any time now, as far as I am concerned.
AS far as being a strategic reserve, shouldn't our reserve be in a more accessible place?
But I still say we should work on efficiencies and conservation more, so we need less energy of all kinds.
Click to expand...

Obama getting the increased CAFE standards alone saved more oil than could be produced from ANWR, and we still have that strategic reserve for the future and have not spoiled one of the few pristine wilderness areas left in the world.
 
TheNextEra said:
Funny that some dumbass conservatives don't think the problem can be fixed overnight, but they think the problem just happened because of Obama
Click to expand...

No, but the liberals fought oil drilling even under Bush. Remember "Drill baby drill", and how you guys said oh it will be ten years before you see a drop. Well had we started we'd be a lot closer by now, not to mention no one ever provided evidence it would take ten years.
 
Catawba said:
Obama getting the increased CAFE standards alone saved more oil than could be produced from ANWR, and we still have that strategic reserve for the future and have not spoiled one of the few pristine wilderness areas left in the world.
Click to expand...

CAFE rules just encourages us to drive more....
People will be saying, "look at how much we are saving" without realizing that they are "spending" gasoline by the gallon while saving it by the pint.
Remember the first oil embargo? People traded in paid for cars that got 15 mpg to finance economy gars that got 25 mpg. The smart move was to just drive the old car less.
 
UtahBill said:
CAFE rules just encourages us to drive more....
People will be saying, "look at how much we are saving" without realizing that they are "spending" gasoline by the gallon while saving it by the pint.
Remember the first oil embargo? People traded in paid for cars that got 15 mpg to finance economy gars that got 25 mpg. The smart move was to just drive the old car less.
Click to expand...

Outlaw cars!!
 
Dirty Harry said:
Great source.
Click to expand...

who, chu?

we need "to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to levels in europe"

or the slasher hussein?

"if somebody wants to build a coal powered plant they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted"

know the man

seeya at the polls, progressives
 
The Prof said:
who, chu?

we need "to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to levels in europe"

or the slasher hussein?

"if somebody wants to build a coal powered plant they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted"

know the man

seeya at the polls, progressives
Click to expand...
Obama will bankrupt the coal industry - National Right Side Politics | Examiner.com
Try this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GehK7Q_QxPc&feature=related
 
Last edited:
American said:
You still didn't explain that executive order I quoted for you from Reagan. How about it?
Click to expand...

Which one, the one to scrap the first energy plan the country ever had, or the one, when he learned of the study connecting air pollution to increased cases of skin cancer, said that people would just have to wear broad brimmed hats and sun screen because industry couldn't stand to spend more than one-half of one percent of their profits on pollution control?
 
UtahBill said:
CAFE rules just encourages us to drive more....
People will be saying, "look at how much we are saving" without realizing that they are "spending" gasoline by the gallon while saving it by the pint.
Remember the first oil embargo? People traded in paid for cars that got 15 mpg to finance economy gars that got 25 mpg. The smart move was to just drive the old car less.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The same argument could be made for drilling in ANWR, but increasing the CAFE standards avoids plundering our strategic resereve for the future and one the most pristine wilderness areas left in the world. The ascending gas prices due to peak oil will discourage excess travel.
 
Catawba said:
I disagree. The same argument could be made for drilling in ANWR, but increasing the CAFE standards avoids plundering our strategic resereve for the future and one the most pristine wilderness areas left in the world. The ascending gas prices due to peak oil will discourage excess travel.
Click to expand...

which part of this pristine wilderness is being plundered? I will have to find it again, but seems I read that the scenic parts aren't being considered for drilling. Most land based oil wells are on flat plains.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom