View Single Post
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 08-03-2008, 02:42 PM
john doe's Avatar
john doe john doe is offline
Head Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sao Tome and Principe
Posts: 2,706
Thanks: 305
Thanked 480 Times in 278 Posts
Laughs: 56
Got Laughs 179 Times in 67 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarginOfError View Post
I agree, we should have been looking at the options for drilling about 20 years ago. At this point, however, it really isn't worth it. On the one hand, we don't have the infrastructure for a massive drilling program. So the oil companies would have to shell out the money to get it set up. To pay for it, they raise the price of gas. Then they have to transport the crude oil to the refineries. That means either a lot of ships and trucks or new pipelines. Both options are very expensive. Costs get passed to the consumer. So, producing domestic oil, unfrotunately, won't relieve the price at the pump much at all for at least 20 years.

So, if newer technologies and better energy sources are within 20 years of feasibility, why not invest the money in creating the infrastructure for distribution of that energy source?
Which new energy source do you propose that we force the oil companies to invest in? What makes you think they can't build an economically feasible oil infrastructure?
__________________
Pressure: It can turn a lump of coal into a flawless diamond, or an average person into a perfect basketcase.
-from despair.com


Except for ending slavery, fascism, nazism, & communism, WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING!
From protestwarrior.com
Reply With Quote