fill up your tanks!

[dmarc117]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1697136,00.html

 

[Guest THEbigred]

That does suck but since we don't get most of our oil from the Middle East, I'd say any dramatic price increases are yet just another way for oil companies to ream us.

[Deacon Bill]

I wish I knew how to attach pix at the Huddle. Someone just sent me an email with several pix of an indoor ski resort in Dubai, Saudi Arabia. 115 degrees outside...25 degrees inside. Complete with downhill and slalom ski slopes. I guess we know where some of our $$$$ is going.

[Randall]

That does suck but since we don't get most of our oil from the Middle East, I'd say any dramatic price increases are yet just another way for oil companies to ream us. 

 

1294384[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Where we get our oil.

 

We need leaders who aren't getting their money from oil companies. If we can develop new sources of energy our economy could go through the ceiling, but even if we even were self sufficient our problems would cease.

 

We need some real leaders.

[Ursa Majoris]

I wish I knew how to attach pix at the Huddle.

 

1294418[/snapback]

 

 

 

Can't be done. You could post the pic at Photobucket and link to it.

[Deacon Bill]

Can't be done.  You could post the pic at Photobucket and link to it.

 

1294442[/snapback]

 

 

 

Thanx for the advice Ursa. I'll check it out. Although I'm a rooktard when it comes to computer technology.

Edited January 29, 2006 by Deacon Bill

[Front Row]

What we need is to drill in ANWAR and stop pandering to the tree hugging Rosie O'Donnell's.

Hard to be self sufficient with out building new refinery's.

Thank the idjut environmental types, not the admin.

Edited January 29, 2006 by Front Row

[Guest THEbigred]

if we even were self sufficient our problems would cease.

 

 

1294435[/snapback]

 

 

 

Yeah all our problems would just melt way.

 

And thx for working on turning this into yet another political rant thread, we need more of those.

 

[Ursa Majoris]

What we need is to drill in ANWAR and stop pandering to the tree hugging Rosie O'Donnell's.

Hard to be self sufficient with out  building new refinery's.

Thank the idjut environmental types, not the admin.

 

1294451[/snapback]

 

 

 

Or we could spend $200,000,000,000 in three years on alternative energy development.

[dmarc117]

i bought a rickshaw.....great workout

[isleseeya]

we need electric cars and quick ...

[MikesVikes]

Where we get our oil.

 

We need leaders who aren't getting their money from oil companies. If we can develop new sources of energy our economy could go through the ceiling, but even if we even were self sufficient our problems would cease.

 

We need some real leaders.

 

1294435[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

[MikesVikes]

I just drove a hybrid car this week. There's no reason not to have more alternatives to oil.

[AtomicCEO]

What we need is to drill in ANWAR and stop pandering to the tree hugging Rosie O'Donnell's.

Hard to be self sufficient with out  building new refinery's.

Thank the idjut environmental types, not the admin.

 

1294451[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Yeah. That's the solution.

 

That would make an oil company some money. That's about it. It wouldn't affect our oil supply noticeably.

[Azazello1313]

even if everybody starts driving hybrid cars and burning bamboo or cow chit or whatever the f*ck to heat their house, we're still going to need a lot of oil for the foreseeable future. which is why the people who get all uppity about maximizing our domestic output (i.e., ANWR) really chap my ass. they always try and change the subject -- "we should be researching ALTERNATIVE energy sources " -- yeah well no chit, but what about all the oil we need between now and then, idjuts? obviously there's not enough oil in ANWR to make us oil-independent, not even close, but if it increases domestic production 25% that is a very significant amount. makes it that much easier for us to blow off some dodo in venezuela or iran trying to use oil as a diplomatic weapon against us. more oil produced by us means more power for us in the international oil market, which in turn means less power for the OPEC oil pimps. but no, too many people want to impose artificially high oil prices to help bring about their dream of people driving around in cars fueled by kittenfarts, and they care about that more than our immediate vulnerability to oil cartel diplomacy. and to top it off, the senseless morans accuse the people who UNDERSTAND all this chit of being "shortsighted"

Edited January 29, 2006 by Azazello1313

[Azazello1313]

  Yeah.  That's the solution.

 

That would make an oil company some money.  That's about it.  It wouldn't affect our oil supply noticeably.

 

1294701[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

what a clueless ninny. increasing domestic production by 25% isnt noticeable? even if it was only 5%, it would be a no-brainer...and definitely "noticeable".

[whomper]

Doesnt South America have oil ?

[AtomicCEO]

  what a clueless ninny.  increasing domestic production by 25% isnt noticeable?  even if it was only 5%, it would be a no-brainer...and definitely "noticeable".

 

1294711[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Where are you getting that figure? From the same honest government folk that gave us "Iraq has WMDs", "New Orleans doesn't need our help", and selective editing of environmental reports?

 

I must be making this stuff up off the top of my head.

 

Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.

 

I can think of some other stuff that would lower the cost of oil by 50 cents a barrel. Like, a less stupid foreign policy run by oil men.

[Azazello1313]

Where are you getting that figure?  From the same honest government folk that gave us "Iraq has WMDs", "New Orleans doesn't need our help", and selective editing of environmental reports?

 

I must be making this stuff up off the top of my head.

I can think of some other stuff that would lower the cost of oil by 50 cents a barrel.  Like, a less stupid foreign policy run by oil men. 

 

1294721[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

i think you would notice if oil prices worldwide dropped by 50 cents a barrel. (and this is an old article...all of their assumptions are based on oil at $37/barrel...it's close to twice that right now. which makes all these seemingly small percentages that much more relevant.

 

interesting though that your argument against drilling oil on our own soil in the middle of nowhere is that it will ONLY reduce our imports by 5% and lower the price of oil worldwide by 50 cents, so we might as well not do it.

[AtomicCEO]

 

i think you would notice if oil prices worldwide dropped by 50 cents a barrel.  (and this is an old article...all of their assumptions are based on oil at $37/barrel...it's close to twice that right now.  which makes all these seemingly small percentages that much more relevant.

 

1294725[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

That "old" article hasn't been refuted. That Energy commission study is still the best info we are working with.

 

That small percentage of difference really would not matter to you or me. You know who it would matter to? The guys running oil companies and contributing to the GOP. That's my point.

 

No difference to you or me. Huge difference to the oil men who were just dragged before congress for price gouging. I really want to help them out. Really. I do. What can I do to help them?

[Azazello1313]

That "old" article hasn't been refuted.  That Energy commission study is still the best info we are working with.

 

That small percentage of difference really would not matter to you or me.  You know who it would matter to?  The guys running oil companies and contributing to the GOP.  That's my point.

 

No difference to you or me.  Huge difference to the oil men who were just dragged before congress for price gouging.  I really want to help them out.  Really.  I do.  What can I do to help them?

 

1294738[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

oh so now your argument against maximizing our domestic output is that somebody might make money. brilliant.

 

the oil men are going to make money either way, as long as you and me like driving cars and such. when the price of oil goes up 30 cents in a year because OPEC-created scarcity and the feints of douchbags like hugo chavez, the oilmen make gobs of money. some would make money off drilling in ANWR, others would hate to see that extra oil on the market. either way it's a really f'n retarded argument against doing it.

 

there really is only one relevant question here: is increasing our domestic oil supply by simply leasing out some land in the f'n north pole worth while?

[Savage Beatings]

We need to build more refineries and we need to lighten the restirictions upon the existing refineries. That would do wonders for the price of a gallon of gas.

 

We also need to get hopping on the reverse engineering of that space ship in Area 51.

[Ursa Majoris]

when the price of oil goes up 30 cents in a year because OPEC-created scarcity and the feints of douchbags like hugo chavez and artificial scarcity scares like Katrina, the oilmen make gobs of money.

 

1294775[/snapback]

 

 

 

Edited for completeness.

[Azazello1313]

Edited for completeness.

 

1294795[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

katrina (and more relevantly, rita) were "artificial"?

[Egret]

I wish I knew how to attach pix at the Huddle. Someone just sent me an email with several pix of an indoor ski resort in Dubai, Saudi Arabia. 115 degrees outside...25 degrees inside. Complete with downhill and slalom ski slopes. I guess we know where some of our $$$$ is going. 

 

1294418[/snapback]

 

 

 

Here you go.