SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: RetiredNow who wrote (387182)5/29/2008 5:36:35 PM
From: combjelly  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574683
 
"So your plan to continue using oil by producing all of our own needs, doesn't hold water."

You are looking at it wrong. If we only used what we could produce, then we would have to drastically cut consumption.

You just have to have faith. Maybe we missed a few 100 billion barrel fields.



To: RetiredNow who wrote (387182)5/29/2008 9:16:05 PM
From: steve harris  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1574683
 
My facts hold plenty of water. There's more oil out there than just ANWR. Didn't they just discover some in North Dakota?

courierpress.com

If there is no oil where the politicians have blocked drilling, then why are you afraid of letting the mean old oil companies drill dry holes?

Too bad you didn't get any responses from Z, ted, John, Chris, Sheppard, combjelly, or Mike. At least Al responded, kudos to him.



To: RetiredNow who wrote (387182)5/30/2008 6:31:57 AM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574683
 
If preventing drilling in likely oily territories doesn't hurt us, why not ban all oil drilling in the US? After all, any particular well will ONLY produce a finite amount, thus you could say it isn't a longterm solution, like you've said about ANWR, and therefore, by your logic, we shouldn't bother.

ANWR wouldn't be produced out of 2 years, of course. In reality, ANWR is only a part of a long term solution.