Yes, but U.S. imports from all OPEC nations combined far exceeds those of Canada.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Printable View
Yes, but U.S. imports from all OPEC nations combined far exceeds those of Canada.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
These people that want to boycott BP products strike me as short sighted idiots. Someone is going to have to pay for cleaning up the mess. It's going to be us. The choices are, bankrupt BP through a boycott and have the government tax us more to clean it up, or, continue to purchase BP products and have BP pay for it out of their profits. Like I said, either way you're gonna pay but at least with BP you get a tank of gas out of the deal. With the government you'll get nothing except the bill to pay for all of them to fly around looking at oil.
If people really gave a cr@p about the environmental, they would ditch their cars and walk, thus not giving companies like BP a chance to cause environmental "disasters". People, like me, who drive cars, fly in planes, ride the bus etc have no right to complain about oil spills etc.
Ha! vehicle fuel is merely the tip of the iceberg. If you could stop the use of oil completely immediately, probably 2/3 rds of the world's population would be dead within a year. The very ones calling for the end of oil would probably be amongst the first to go. Petroleum is used as fuel for shipping, air transport, and agricultural equipment. Petroleum is used as a lubricant, used in most modern plastics, synthetic fabrics, various polymars and numerous chemical processes that produce modern materials.Quote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
I'm all for developing realistic alternative energy sources but right now oil provides a lot of bang for the buck. Imagine the effect on food production if you eliminate oil. We can also go back to sailing ships and hunting whales to use their oil for lubricants. It took chemists a long, long time to develop lubricants that worked as well as sperm whale oil.
OPEC isn't just the Middle East. It is Venezuela....and that would be with Mexico the two other major nations of imported oil to the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
Supertankers leaving the Persian Gulf are more likely to go to Europe and Asia than cross the Atlantic. That is just the reality of it. Why ship oil from the Middle East AROUND Africa if they can pipe it south from Alberta or a short jaunt by tanker up from Venezuela?
Cleanliness isn't debatable it all. It IS CLEAN and it works. 80% of France's electricity comes from Nukes. It isn't as CHEAP as oil or gas and that is the fly in the ointment. With proper safety procedures and fail safes it is safer than oil and gas. You can put Chernobyl down to stupidity by the operators in a nation with no accountability (the USSR didn't worry about public oversight or safety standards) and 3 Mile Island was actually much ado about what "might have been". Those are the only two nuclear accidents of note in the age of nuclear power. How many people die in refinery accidents? How much damage to the envionment has the oil spill in the Gulf Caused?Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
No, for electricity, nuclear power may be our best option now that we have run out of good sites for hydro power. Tidal power is an option in some areas, and that should be explored, but wind and solar are not there yet and really cost as much if not more per kw/h than nukes.
I live with 15 miles of 2 plants producing almost half of Ontario's power, and I can sleep at night knowing that it is safe nuclear power. It just isn't always cheap...lol.
That said, for cars, oil, and its byproduct gasoline is going to be the way things are done for a while....
Don't let logic and reality get in the way of a good rant against "big oil".....Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7
I wish we could avoid disasters like this in the Gulf. I think the science of drilling in the deep of the ocean floor needs to be rexaimined and rethought before any new platforms are authorized.
Ironically, because no platforms were allowed within sight of land in the Gulf, one could argue that the reason BP is way the heck offshore is because of the enviromentalists and NIMBY types and if they were drilling in the much easier to work with shallow waters off shore, the oil would be stopped.
We have a Winner!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Still doesn't excuse BP or any other oil company working off shore if something happens. They came to government and said this would NEVER happen. For 50 years, they pretty much were right. But boy...one time, and look what happens....Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
This whole mess just shows you how complicated this can be. In theory, the "Experts" all said this couldn't happen. They didn't have the contingency plan to stop it. Government never really questioned it, and in many cases, forced them way off shore in the deep water rather than allowing them to slant drill into the oil pockets from shallow waters in shore. That said, it is more proof positive of "$hit happens".....
BP is going to lose a lot in this, the US Government looks feckless and that is nothing compared to the enviromental damage and the loss of fisheries in Louisana and along the Gulf Coast. This is a catastrophie that is much more insidious and longer lasting than the cleanup snafu's with Katrina. How Obama handles this will define his presidency..and so far, he looks just like a spectator.....pointing fingers.
Ironic indeed. This sort of thing will crop up from time to time, as long as there is a vast need for oil to supply increasing population and manufacturing, ambition combined with greed, and unacceptable demands placed on department heads and their workers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Hopefully this will be a learning experience, calling for stricter guidelines, like it was off the coast of Santa Barbara in the 1960's.