Alaskan pipeline shutdown

[Phlegm]

BP is shutting down the oil pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez due to leakage. Expect higher oil prices.

[Tossica]

Sweet!

[Diekan]

Who wants to bet me 10000 goat points that the price of gas will now shoot up by as much as 10 cents per gallon now?

8% production should mean at least a nice 10 cent increase... gotta keep those record profits coming in you know!!!

[Arlos]

These are the same asshats who had a 200,000 barrel spill just recently, and are now in deep trouble for a) not reporting it and b) letting it happen to begin with. Yet we're supposed to trust them that they'd not pollute ANWR if we let them drill there? Riiiiiight. Fuck no.

As for the pipe shutdown, it can be directly traced to the fact that they didn't bother to do proper regular maintenance on their pipe system for the last 30+ years. When oil was cheaper, they didn't want to lower their profits slightly by spending on maintenance. Once oil got expensive, they would have had to cost themselves even more in shutdowns to do the maintenace. So, they just sat with head in sand hoping everything would continue working without any issue. Serves them right to be now out MASSIVE profits and money because their short-sightedness means they have to shut it ALL down.

It's just further proof we really need a comprehensive energy plan to wean this country off as much oil as possible. Solar power, getting rid of people using oil-based heaters by replacing them with natural gas systems, biodiesel, etc. etc. etc. Of course, it will never happen, especially while the Republicans are in office, as they are completely in the hip pockets of the oil companies. Not that both sides aren't to some extent, the Repubs are just moreso.

-Arlos

[Spazz]

Ok mr liberal. Dems are just the other head of the monster and they arent gonna do shit about the problem either. Both parties are determined to make money hand over fist at our expense. What ya gonna do vote for hillery ? Shes got some great fuckin ideas bout how to fix our country.....

[Guntaag Gorefeast]

Of course, it will never happen, especially while the politicians are in office

fixxed

[Arlos]

I'd vote for Gore; I believe he's actually someone who WOULD try and do it, based on his background on the issues.

Notice I DID say that both sides are in the hip pockets of big oil, it's just the republicans are worse about it. Hell, Bush used to BE an oilman. Of course, he ran his company into the ground due to mismanagement, but hey...

-Arlos

[Spazz]

I think gore in power might have been ok cept tipper scares the bejesus out of me.

[Guntaag Gorefeast]

dont mind me,i just saw a pseudo snazzy way to express my disdain for politics=P

[Lyion]

The funny thing is Democrats have really done this to people by blocking new drilling, blocking the building of new oil refineries, blocking the building of new safe clean nuclear plants and preventing a new decent energy plan being put in place. All of that is squarely on the DNC, even if they try to play Clue with bullshit fake stories and divert attention off the real facts, with ridiculous conspiracy theory garbage.

The liberals have prayed for gas to be 5 bucks a gallon, like in Europe, and through blocking any decent energy plans, we're getting that. They pretend concern, but many are happy to see this.

They want to blame the GOP, but the facts easily refute what they're saying. It takes 2 seconds for someone intelligent to see who is promoting taxing the bejesus out of oil and blocking real energy reform.

Unfortunately, too many people are sheep and post wild speculative bullshit instead of looking at the cold hard facts.

[Spazz]

I think they get blocked cuz those oil and power companies have such a good track record for keeping things neat and clean . I doubt the Ds are sitting there hoping for gas to be 5 a gallon so they can laugh at how fucked we are and blame the gop. Your post sounds a little bit like fox news sir.

[Narrock]

A lot of animals make their dens under the pipeline for warmth.

[Arlos]

blocking new drilling, blocking the building of new oil refineries

And this would've helped prevent the pipeline shutdown HOW exactly? And if BP tried to cover up a 200,000 barrel spill, but got caught at it, how much OTHER environmental damage has been happening up there that they have SUCCESSFULLY covered up? And you want to open MORE areas to ecological rape by these companies that have proven time and time again that they care nothing for the environment, and will cheerfully destroy it if given half a chance?

Not to mention, you missed the point. How, exactly, does EXPANDING our oil generation capability wean us off the USE of oil? I'm not talking FOREIGN oil, I'm talking oil, period.

blocking the building of new safe clean nuclear plants

There's no such thing. Period. Any attempt to claim otherwise is as specious as a tobacco company scientist claiming smoking cigarettes is completely healthy for you. There is ALWAYS the risk that something will go catastrophically wrong, as in 3 Mile Island, though I will grant you that the risk is much smaller now than it was 30 years ago. Also, EVERY nuclear plant produces waste. Some of these wastes are dangerous for tens of millions of years, and are such that if even a miniscule quantity should escape into groundwater, it could contaminate everything. These're literally some of the most dangerous substances there are. Yucca Mountain is NOT a reasonable long-term solution, I'm sorry to tell you. Until a type of nuclear power plant is developed that produces no waste (say, a fusion plant), I will continue to oppose any new nuclear plants.

As for the GOP's energy policy... Oh yes, I am certain a policy crafted in secret session with Cheney, et al, by the energy company representatives themselves is SURE to benefit the average citizen in the long run, and do lots to attempt to wean us away away from oil usage. Yeah, those secret sessions were SURELY the best possible way to produce an energy policy. Riiiiight.

I say again: If we really want to lessen our dependence on oil, period, several things need to happen:

1) Homeowners & landlords should be required to replace old oil-heating systems with electrical or natural gas, and funds must be made available, at least as guaranteed governmental loans, to allow people to do this.

2) We need to dramatically increase our money spent on research, development and implementation of completely non-polluting sources of renewable energy: solar, wind, geothermal, etc. with a goal to quickly get enough capacity from such sources to phase out all use of oil for power generation.

3) We need to rapidly ramp up our biodiesel production, perhaps tie farm subsidies to expansion of oil-based crop growth (hemp, algae, palm, whatever, doesn't matter). The ultimate goal is to have 100% of the diesel fuel used in the country be biodiesel instead of petrodiesel.

4) Do what California did (before it got neutered), and require automakers to attain certain levels of increasing base fuel economy targets for all new vehicles, and require them to offer a certain percentage of their lines in clean-air vehicle types, whether that be electric, fuel cell, natural gas, etc.


You do all of the above, and you will have cut down this country's dependence on oil to vastly less than it was, and almost certainly to levels that would be easily sustainable on current domestic production, and we wouldn't need to do any more drilling. As time goes on, assuming more and more cars go the fuel cell route, our need for oil should continue decline faster than the decline in our production.

-Arlos

[Martrae]

I doubt the Ds are sitting there hoping for gas to be 5 a gallon so they can laugh at how fucked we are and blame the gop.

Actually, Gore wrote in his book Earth in Balance that he thought that low prices for energy are actually bad for the environment, and that $5 a gallon gasoline is what it will take to make a change. Or words to that effect.

[Phlegm]

BP announced today that it will replace 73 percent of the pipelines and that production would be closed for months. The shutdown will cut production by 400,000 barrels a day, about 2.6 percent of supply including imports.

[Phlegm]

[Harrison]

I think they get blocked cuz those oil and power companies have such a good track record for keeping things neat and clean . I doubt the Ds are sitting there hoping for gas to be 5 a gallon so they can laugh at how fucked we are and blame the gop. Your post sounds a little bit like fox news sir.

And here is where you fail at understanding politics.

[Lyion]

And this would've helped prevent the pipeline shutdown HOW exactly? And if BP tried to cover up a 200,000 barrel spill, but got caught at it, how much OTHER environmental damage has been happening up there that they have SUCCESSFULLY covered up? And you want to open MORE areas to ecological rape by these companies that have proven time and time again that they care nothing for the environment, and will cheerfully destroy it if given half a chance?

The pipeline isn't disrupting supplies at all. OPEC is still overproducing. However, due to our current extraordinary high taxes pushed by the democrats and the lack of new technology and nuclear we are really getting raped at the pump. Put the blame where it belongs, on the DNC who offer no real solutions except more government spending.

As I said, liberals want gas at $5/gallon, and prevent an expansive energy policy.

The comedy is when they boycott real plans, and then blame the other party with bullshit when prices skyrocket.

Corporations need accountability, and incentive to move to other fuel. However, that has nothing to do with the day to day Americans current needs.

Not to mention, you missed the point. How, exactly, does EXPANDING our oil generation capability wean us off the USE of oil? I'm not talking FOREIGN oil, I'm talking oil, period.

A comprehensive real world plan for energy and helping the middle class has nothing to do with weaning us from foreign oil, but with fixing our energy problems and allowing us to continue if there are oil disruptions which there have been since 1973 on and off.

blocking the building of new safe clean nuclear plants

There's no such thing. Period. Any attempt to claim otherwise is as specious as a tobacco company scientist claiming smoking cigarettes is completely healthy for you. There is ALWAYS the risk that something will go catastrophically wrong, as in 3 Mile Island, though I will grant you that the risk is much smaller now than it was 30 years ago. Also, EVERY nuclear plant produces waste. Some of these wastes are dangerous for tens of millions of years, and are such that if even a miniscule quantity should escape into groundwater, it could contaminate everything. These're literally some of the most dangerous substances there are. Yucca Mountain is NOT a reasonable long-term solution, I'm sorry to tell you. Until a type of nuclear power plant is developed that produces no waste (say, a fusion plant), I will continue to oppose any new nuclear plants.

Scientists and Federal organizations disagree with you. It's interesting that your scientists are ok, but the tons who believe Nuke power is fine are bad. Who decided this again?

Nuclear power is the long term solution for power for the U.S. The power is safe and would wean us from oil, unlike pie in the sky fake ideas that cost the taxpayers money with no real world promise of success.

Again, the statistics and facts do not lie. We should build the holy shit out of these until we really get independence from oil.

As for the GOP's energy policy... Oh yes, I am certain a policy crafted in secret session with Cheney, et al, by the energy company representatives themselves is SURE to benefit the average citizen in the long run, and do lots to attempt to wean us away away from oil usage. Yeah, those secret sessions were SURELY the best possible way to produce an energy policy. Riiiiight.

No facts. Silly assertations of conspiracy. Again, you think Cheney is soulless and evil, How about a fair and reasonable discussion about this administrations desired goals, with no attacking based on innuendo and rhetoric.

I say again: If we really want to lessen our dependence on oil, period, several things need to happen:

1) Homeowners & landlords should be required to replace old oil-heating systems with electrical or natural gas, and funds must be made available, at least as guaranteed governmental loans, to allow people to do this.

In other words, government should regulate more and throw more cash that isn't guaranteed to do anything. W does enough of that. There are tax incentives already.

2) We need to dramatically increase our money spent on research, development and implementation of completely non-polluting sources of renewable energy: solar, wind, geothermal, etc. with a goal to quickly get enough capacity from such sources to phase out all use of oil for power generation.

Hey, that should be done by 2080 or so, if we're lucky

More tax and spend without any verifiable results. You can't dictate innovation. The funny thing is we are doing some of this, but you would never give W credit for anything right, I'd wager.

This is not a replacement for oil. Not by a long shot.

3) We need to rapidly ramp up our biodiesel production, perhaps tie farm subsidies to expansion of oil-based crop growth (hemp, algae, palm, whatever, doesn't matter). The ultimate goal is to have 100% of the diesel fuel used in the country be biodiesel instead of petrodiesel.

This is a pie in the sky fake solution for oil replacement, as has been explained by many, many scientists. Biodiesel cannot replace oil, and would require our entire current corn crop to even break the oil import barrier at all. Again, not an answer but a false hope.

Hey, even the most liberal scientist types thing Biodiesel is a bad idea.

4) Do what California did (before it got neutered), and require automakers to attain certain levels of increasing base fuel economy targets for all new vehicles, and require them to offer a certain percentage of their lines in clean-air vehicle types, whether that be electric, fuel cell, natural gas, etc.

More regulation and taxation and government control. Incentives are good. Requirements requirements requirements. Not good. I'd rather we didn't turn socialist.

You do all of the above, and you will have cut down this country's dependence on oil to vastly less than it was, and almost certainly to levels that would be easily sustainable on current domestic production, and we wouldn't need to do any more drilling. As time goes on, assuming more and more cars go the fuel cell route, our need for oil should continue decline faster than the decline in our production.

You've given no real solutions, just propaganda and green talking points.

If we did everything you wanted, we'd possibly lower our oil demand by 10% while having monstrous new taxes and regulations run with the typical government inefficiency and overcost.

None of your solutions are real. That's the whole problem with the DNC. They live in a fantasyland and do not provide answers.

Meanwhile, they prevent real help for expanding energy to be implemented, hamstringing the average American and preventing us from really being able to have a valid and good policy that would enable us in the long term to break free from foreign oil needs.

[Markarado]

I know very little about all of this, but damn this is interesting!

[Diekan]

In actuality there hasn’t been a single death related to nuclear energy since the inception of America’s civilian nuclear energy program. While Three Mile Island may seem like a failure to most, it was actually quite a success. It showed that the technology we have in place along with the planning, engineering and construction of our nuclear energy plants work as intended during moments of crisis. Had we [the US] used the same planning and engineering of the then Soviets, 3-Mile would have been a disaster of epic proportion. Furthermore, we have the technology to “reuseâ€

[Spazz]

Harri you allways say little one liners bout people not knowin shit but your posts have very little substance themselves. Hows bout you enlighten me big guy.

[Narrock]

Harri you allways say little one liners bout people not knowin shit but your posts have very little substance themselves. Hows bout you enlighten me big guy.

Rofl. That's the funniest thing I've read all day.

Oh, and btw...

[The Kizzy]

TLDR liked the pretty pictures though!!!

FACT: NOTHING can be done. This is the way our politicians are, it doesn't matter WHO you vote into office, the same things will continue to get worse and worse. My company is offering transfers to China, maybe I should take it. It can't be any more fucked than the US is. Greedy politicians.

[Narrock]

And this would've helped prevent the pipeline shutdown HOW exactly? And if BP tried to cover up a 200,000 barrel spill, but got caught at it, how much OTHER environmental damage has been happening up there that they have SUCCESSFULLY covered up? And you want to open MORE areas to ecological rape by these companies that have proven time and time again that they care nothing for the environment, and will cheerfully destroy it if given half a chance?

The pipeline isn't disrupting supplies at all. OPEC is still overproducing. However, due to our current extraordinary high taxes pushed by the democrats and the lack of new technology and nuclear we are really getting raped at the pump. Put the blame where it belongs, on the DNC who offer no real solutions except more government spending.

As I said, liberals want gas at $5/gallon, and prevent an expansive energy policy.

The comedy is when they boycott real plans, and then blame the other party with bullshit when prices skyrocket.

Corporations need accountability, and incentive to move to other fuel. However, that has nothing to do with the day to day Americans current needs.

Not to mention, you missed the point. How, exactly, does EXPANDING our oil generation capability wean us off the USE of oil? I'm not talking FOREIGN oil, I'm talking oil, period.

A comprehensive real world plan for energy and helping the middle class has nothing to do with weaning us from foreign oil, but with fixing our energy problems and allowing us to continue if there are oil disruptions which there have been since 1973 on and off.

blocking the building of new safe clean nuclear plants

There's no such thing. Period. Any attempt to claim otherwise is as specious as a tobacco company scientist claiming smoking cigarettes is completely healthy for you. There is ALWAYS the risk that something will go catastrophically wrong, as in 3 Mile Island, though I will grant you that the risk is much smaller now than it was 30 years ago. Also, EVERY nuclear plant produces waste. Some of these wastes are dangerous for tens of millions of years, and are such that if even a miniscule quantity should escape into groundwater, it could contaminate everything. These're literally some of the most dangerous substances there are. Yucca Mountain is NOT a reasonable long-term solution, I'm sorry to tell you. Until a type of nuclear power plant is developed that produces no waste (say, a fusion plant), I will continue to oppose any new nuclear plants.

Scientists and Federal organizations disagree with you. It's interesting that your scientists are ok, but the tons who believe Nuke power is fine are bad. Who decided this again?

Nuclear power is the long term solution for power for the U.S. The power is safe and would wean us from oil, unlike pie in the sky fake ideas that cost the taxpayers money with no real world promise of success.

Again, the statistics and facts do not lie. We should build the holy shit out of these until we really get independence from oil.

As for the GOP's energy policy... Oh yes, I am certain a policy crafted in secret session with Cheney, et al, by the energy company representatives themselves is SURE to benefit the average citizen in the long run, and do lots to attempt to wean us away away from oil usage. Yeah, those secret sessions were SURELY the best possible way to produce an energy policy. Riiiiight.

No facts. Silly assertations of conspiracy. Again, you think Cheney is soulless and evil, How about a fair and reasonable discussion about this administrations desired goals, with no attacking based on innuendo and rhetoric.

I say again: If we really want to lessen our dependence on oil, period, several things need to happen:

1) Homeowners & landlords should be required to replace old oil-heating systems with electrical or natural gas, and funds must be made available, at least as guaranteed governmental loans, to allow people to do this.

In other words, government should regulate more and throw more cash that isn't guaranteed to do anything. W does enough of that. There are tax incentives already.

2) We need to dramatically increase our money spent on research, development and implementation of completely non-polluting sources of renewable energy: solar, wind, geothermal, etc. with a goal to quickly get enough capacity from such sources to phase out all use of oil for power generation.

Hey, that should be done by 2080 or so, if we're lucky

More tax and spend without any verifiable results. You can't dictate innovation. The funny thing is we are doing some of this, but you would never give W credit for anything right, I'd wager.

This is not a replacement for oil. Not by a long shot.

3) We need to rapidly ramp up our biodiesel production, perhaps tie farm subsidies to expansion of oil-based crop growth (hemp, algae, palm, whatever, doesn't matter). The ultimate goal is to have 100% of the diesel fuel used in the country be biodiesel instead of petrodiesel.

This is a pie in the sky fake solution for oil replacement, as has been explained by many, many scientists. Biodiesel cannot replace oil, and would require our entire current corn crop to even break the oil import barrier at all. Again, not an answer but a false hope.

Hey, even the most liberal scientist types thing Biodiesel is a bad idea.

4) Do what California did (before it got neutered), and require automakers to attain certain levels of increasing base fuel economy targets for all new vehicles, and require them to offer a certain percentage of their lines in clean-air vehicle types, whether that be electric, fuel cell, natural gas, etc.

More regulation and taxation and government control. Incentives are good. Requirements requirements requirements. Not good. I'd rather we didn't turn socialist.

You do all of the above, and you will have cut down this country's dependence on oil to vastly less than it was, and almost certainly to levels that would be easily sustainable on current domestic production, and we wouldn't need to do any more drilling. As time goes on, assuming more and more cars go the fuel cell route, our need for oil should continue decline faster than the decline in our production.

You've given no real solutions, just propaganda and green talking points.

If we did everything you wanted, we'd possibly lower our oil demand by 10% while having monstrous new taxes and regulations run with the typical government inefficiency and overcost.

None of your solutions are real. That's the whole problem with the DNC. They live in a fantasyland and do not provide answers.

Meanwhile, they prevent real help for expanding energy to be implemented, hamstringing the average American and preventing us from really being able to have a valid and good policy that would enable us in the long term to break free from foreign oil needs.

Look, it's the Hannity & Colmes show

[Markarado]

My company is offering transfers to China, maybe I should take it. It can't be any more fucked than the US is. Greedy politicians.

Where in China exactly? I would strongly advise against taking a transfer to anywhere other than Shanghai, Beijing, or Hong Kong. The other parts of China are completely fucked.