Jump to content
IGNORED

gas prices


Note: This thread is 3170 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts



Originally Posted by mtsalmela80

The world is running out of oil? We have barely been pumping oil for 150 years, and we are running out of it already? Spare me the bleeding heart talking points.



Ok, well, if you know anywhere there's vast oil reserves, Exxon and BP would love to hear it.

I'm sure there's plenty of oil in the rock you're living under. I, for one, have to live in this world for another 60 years, while the older generations don't care about leaving me a burnt out husk with no social security.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It is what simple math tells you as the pipeline would at something like 3% more oil. The amusing part is that it would actually increase gas prices in the midwest due to more efficient distribution.

Not Obama, just a little thing called common sense.

Oil shale.  Est. 800 billion to 1.5 trillion barrels. (about 200 years worth at current demand)

Bakken Fields, North/South Dakota.  Est. 100 billion barrels.

Outer continental shelf.  Est. 90 billion barrels.

Tar sands.  Est. 75 billion barrels.

ANWR.  Est. 10 billion barrels.

We don't have a crude supply problem.  We have a refining problem.

BTW, Exxon and BP do know of these....

Link to post
Share on other sites

And 200 years at current demand is what about 50-75 years once you factor in demand growth? We are not going to run out of oil. We are going to run out of cheap oil.

Quote:

Originally Posted by glock35ipsc

Oil shale.  Est. 800 billion to 1.5 trillion barrels. (about 200 years worth at current demand)

Bakken Fields, North/South Dakota.  Est. 100 billion barrels.

Outer continental shelf.  Est. 90 billion barrels.

Tar sands.  Est. 75 billion barrels.

ANWR.  Est. 10 billion barrels.

We don't have a crude supply problem.  We have a refining problem.

BTW, Exxon and BP do know of these....



  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't allow yourself to be a pawn for the environmentalists that would like everyone to believe that we will soon run out of oil or that fossil fuels are the cause of global warming (assuming you believe global warming is something to be concerned about and not a normal phenomenon).  Do your own research and draw your own conclusions.  Both the republicans and democrats have their own agendas when it comes to the environment and neither side tells the complete truth.

Originally Posted by LuciusWooding

Ok, well, if you know anywhere there's vast oil reserves, Exxon and BP would love to hear it.

I'm sure there's plenty of oil in the rock you're living under. I, for one, have to live in this world for another 60 years, while the older generations don't care about leaving me a burnt out husk with no social security.



Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades



Originally Posted by mtsalmela80

Is that what Obama told you? LOL. That is the attitude that keeps this nation a slave to overpriced foreign fuel "well its not going to help much, so why do it at all".



Not Obama, just a little thing called common sense.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by newtogolf

Don't allow yourself to be a pawn for the environmentalists that would like everyone to believe that we will soon run out of oil or that fossil fuels are the cause of global warming (assuming you believe global warming is something to be concerned about and not a normal phenomenon).


Seriously?  Wow...

Link to post
Share on other sites




Originally Posted by TitleistWI

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Don't allow yourself to be a pawn for the environmentalists that would like everyone to believe that we will soon run out of oil or that fossil fuels are the cause of global warming (assuming you believe global warming is something to be concerned about and not a normal phenomenon).

Seriously?  Wow...



Ditto.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Global warming is no problem if you don't need to live with it. If you're 60 years old and will be dead in 20, or if you think Jesus is coming back soon anyway, I can see how it's a laughable concept. I live in reality, and I trust science.

FWIW, Democrats and Republicans are both liars, I admit. But Republicans are bigger, greedier liars.

Edit: Also, I'm not a big environmentalist, but there's too many reasons to move on in terms of energy. Price is a big one, at the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades



Originally Posted by LuciusWooding

Global warming is no problem if you don't need to live with it. If you're 60 years old and will be dead in 20, or if you think Jesus is coming back soon anyway, I can see how it's a laughable concept. I live in reality, and I trust science.

FWIW, Democrats and Republicans are both liars, I admit. But Republicans are bigger, greedier liars.

Edit: Also, I'm not a big environmentalist, but there's too many reasons to move on in terms of energy. Price is a big one, at the moment.



After working for the government that is not remotely true it's more about who's agenda it fits not about party. They are both greedy and you can easily spin it for which party is bigger greedier liars but it's not even close to being one party is greedier than the other. Honestly I used to heavily favor one party but after years of working there I don't think highly of either party both are greedy and both have agenda's to benefit themselves. In terms of oil, it's still the cheapest option we have at the moment once hybrid/electric cars start to come down in price more people will buy them. I know there is a savings on gas once you buy a hybrid but the cost up front is what turns people off if they start to compete with regular cars you will see a change.

Link to post
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by clubchamp

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuciusWooding

Global warming is no problem if you don't need to live with it. If you're 60 years old and will be dead in 20, or if you think Jesus is coming back soon anyway, I can see how it's a laughable concept. I live in reality, and I trust science.

FWIW, Democrats and Republicans are both liars, I admit. But Republicans are bigger, greedier liars.

Edit: Also, I'm not a big environmentalist, but there's too many reasons to move on in terms of energy. Price is a big one, at the moment.

After working for the government that is not remotely true it's more about who's agenda it fits not about party. They are both greedy and you can easily spin it for which party is bigger greedier liars but it's not even close to being one party is greedier than the other. Honestly I used to heavily favor one party but after years of working there I don't think highly of either party both are greedy and both have agenda's to benefit themselves. In terms of oil, it's still the cheapest option we have at the moment once hybrid/electric cars start to come down in price more people will buy them. I know there is a savings on gas once you buy a hybrid but the cost up front is what turns people off if they start to compete with regular cars you will see a change.



Cars are the problem, not whether or not they're electric, gas, diesel, or even hydrogen. Do you know how they generate electricity. Typically they burn fossil fuels.

Hybrids are not the answer. Current hybrids use just as much fossil fuels, because the hybrid portion just bumps the horsepower. And who's gonna support those huge batteries in 10 years. Where do they go once they're spent. Everything being invented right now just seems to be made so we can continue on the same path and ekes out a little more time from the dwindling supply. Meanwhile time is wasting on finding a way to harness the one energy source that will outlast us all. Nature. Wind, geothermal, tides, and of course that glowing ball of gas 93e6 miles away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Happily floating between AUD$1.29 - $1.49 for quite some time here in Adelaide. It's different in other states. Makes me sick thinking about the $0.38c per litre tax...

Link to post
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by newtogolf

Why am I not shocked Sean, you seem to know everything about everything or think you do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Ditto.



What exactly is your agenda for people not reducing their current level of hydrocarbon consumption? The most inefficient and wasteful use of hydrocarbons is burning them in an engine. That's not opinion. It's science.

Link to post
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by clubchamp

After working for the government that is not remotely true it's more about who's agenda it fits not about party. They are both greedy and you can easily spin it for which party is bigger greedier liars but it's not even close to being one party is greedier than the other. Honestly I used to heavily favor one party but after years of working there I don't think highly of either party both are greedy and both have agenda's to benefit themselves. In terms of oil, it's still the cheapest option we have at the moment once hybrid/electric cars start to come down in price more people will buy them. I know there is a savings on gas once you buy a hybrid but the cost up front is what turns people off if they start to compete with regular cars you will see a change.



Oil is currently cheaper than other sources of energy, but it's a band aid fix. There's also the problem that most of our electricity still comes from fossil fuels, so electric cars are a better option, but still mostly require fossil fuels in the long run. At least a car that can plug in can be powered by nuclear, solar, fusion, etc. It's just that those alternatives aren't widespread yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I took an energy policy class last year taught by a member of the Nobel-prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and I could email people PDFs of relevant articles if them want. I've got some good, level-headed stuff. [quote name="newtogolf" url="/t/55957/gas-prices/36#post_685839"] Why am I not shocked Sean, you seem to know everything about everything or think you do.  [/quote] And how are your posts different? You're assuming LuciusWooding is a "pawn" and that he hasn't done his own research. Who is to say he hasn't? [quote name="sean_miller" url="/t/55957/gas-prices/36#post_685844"] What exactly is your agenda for people not reducing their current level of hydrocarbon consumption? The most inefficient and wasteful use of hydrocarbons is burning them in an engine. That's not opinion. It's science. [/quote] Slowly, companies and government organizations called sustainable energy utilities are being created that develop ways for people to actually lessen their energy usage. They actually profit by you saving money and using less energy. Seems like a novel concept and good for everyone, no? You'd think, but the energy companies lobby hard against them, so their adaptation has been slow. There's a similar problem with what's called net metering. If you install your own solar panels or thermo heating, many U.S. states will let you sell excess power back into the grid at a reduced rate. Many states, however, don't allow it, which is a shame. It's been met with heady lobbying by energy companies.
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I have no agenda, I encourage people to do their own research and come to their own conclusions about what is "science" and what isn't.  I've seen many reports by "scientists" who concluded what those that paid them wanted them to conclude.  Do some reseach on clinical trials for drugs, and tell me about "science".  "Science" can't agree on the cause of global warming, science doesn't agree on a number of things, which means we need to research for ourselves, maintain an open mind,  draw our own conclusions and not just accept what the democrats or republicans tell us is science.

Originally Posted by sean_miller

What exactly is your agenda for people not reducing their current level of hydrocarbon consumption? The most inefficient and wasteful use of hydrocarbons is burning them in an engine. That's not opinion. It's science.



Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

See actually we agree, I'm all for harnessing the power from nature (wind, geothermal, tides).  Unfortunately here in the U.S. most are brainwashed to believe hybrids are the answer despite what you already stated, which is fossil fuels are used to generate electricity, there's an environmental issue with disposing of the batteries that no one seems worried about, not to mention their higher cost to purchase over very fuel efficient non-hybrids.

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Cars are the problem, not whether or not they're electric, gas, diesel, or even hydrogen. Do you know how they generate electricity. Typically they burn fossil fuels.

Hybrids are not the answer. Current hybrids use just as much fossil fuels, because the hybrid portion just bumps the horsepower. And who's gonna support those huge batteries in 10 years. Where do they go once they're spent. Everything being invented right now just seems to be made so we can continue on the same path and ekes out a little more time from the dwindling supply. Meanwhile time is wasting on finding a way to harness the one energy source that will outlast us all. Nature. Wind, geothermal, tides, and of course that glowing ball of gas 93e6 miles away.



Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

You're right, I was wrong for making the assumption.  The statement about the planet being a "burnt out husk" sounded like rhetoric the environmentalists (democrats) use to further their cause to promote hybrids and electric cars.

Originally Posted by jamo

And how are your posts different? You're assuming LuciusWooding is a "pawn" and that he hasn't done his own research. Who is to say he hasn't?



Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 3170 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Support TST Affiliates

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    Whoop
    SuperSpeed
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo and the code "iacasfeb21" for 10% off SuperSpeed.
  • Posts

    • You’re right that you’re probably better off with a provisional. But just to clarify: if the local rule is in effect, the drop is in the fairway. https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules-hub/rules-modernization/major-changes/golfs-new-rules-stroke-and-distance.html
    • That’s a solid post Erik. 
    • Day 505 - May 16, 2021 Played 18 holes of irons-only (hit one driver on 15) with Sculley. Really focused on some short game shots, too.
    • Seriously. Also, we saw your post earlier, @David in FL, but it's as dumb the second time as it was the first time. In addition to what Dan said above, here is another article from the WHO: The effects of virus variants on COVID-19 vaccines The text in bold is quotes from that article: The COVID-19 vaccines that are currently in development or have been approved are expected to provide at least some protection against new virus variants because these vaccines elicit a broad immune response involving a range of antibodies and cells. Hmmmm. How can we prevent future new variants of the COVID-19 virus? Stopping the spread at the source remains key. Current measures to reduce transmission – including frequent hand washing, wearing a mask, physical distancing, good ventilation and avoiding crowded places or closed settings – continue to work against new variants by reducing the amount of viral transmission and therefore also reducing opportunities for the virus to mutate. Scaling up vaccine manufacturing and rolling out vaccines as quickly and widely as possible will also be critical ways of protecting people before they are exposed to the virus and the risk of new variants. Why is it important to get vaccinated even if there are new variants of the virus? Vaccines are a critical tool in the battle against COVID-19, and there are clear public health and lifesaving benefits to using the tools we already have. We must not put off getting vaccinated because of our concerns about new variants, and we must proceed with vaccination even if the vaccines may be somewhat less effective against some of the COVID-19 virus variants. So the scorecard: Vaccinated people: Are nearly 100% protected from the majority of strains/variants of COVID-19. Are "somewhat" protected against every variant of COVID-19. Have a very low chance of catching COVID and an even lower chance of passing it on to someone. Are helping to reduce the creation of new variants. Dave's peeps: Aren't protected at all against the majority of strains/variants of COVID-19. Aren't protected against any variant. Have only a reduced chance of catching COVID-19 because other people are being good members of society and getting vaccinated. Are not helping to reduce the creation of new variants. Your "we don't know how the vaccine handles new variants" is a bullshit excuse not to get vaccinated because every vaccine out there is more effective against every variant than not getting vaccinated at all. You're being selfish while conning yourself into thinking you're being "prudent." Nobody would rationally define "prudent" the way you're choosing to. Nobody who understands the mountains of data out there. What you are calling "prudent" is what most may call "selfish."
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. abco72
      abco72
      (59 years old)
    2. Bccgolfpro33
      Bccgolfpro33
      (34 years old)
    3. BogeyDylan
      BogeyDylan
      (25 years old)
    4. curtanderse
      curtanderse
      (37 years old)
    5. Finn chou
      Finn chou
      (23 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...