Why are Republicans so determined to invest in "foreign oil"?

[RGR]

But then, how do you reconcile that with your long history here of suggesting the U.S. can seamlessly transition off fossil fuels and conserve whenever it wants? I mean, it was a pillar of your "no problem" approach to net oil depletion denial. -

You mean you haven't been away seamlessly transitioning yourself off using those nasty liquid fuels? Damn Jiggs, what were you wasting all your time on in the interim, hanging out with the Amish, maybe learning some gardening tricks?

I suppose you were hoping no one called you on your latest round of intellectual dishonesty.

What, that you really ARE a parrot? Or that we wanted a full blown priest from the peak oil religion with a functioning brain to show up, lest we be subjected to endless Matt Simmons videos of how the twilight in the desert is coming....a decade ago?

Not to defend corporate DINO Clinton one iota, but NAFTA was one-term Bush's baby. Clinton was merely left to sign it into law, after adding a few "liberal" provisions, mind you, that the fascist before him never would have considered.

I'm sorry, so I was right when I referenced the person who SIGNED it....so obviously the Dems thought it was jim dandy great to ship all those manufacturing jobs out of the country, and you only have to look at the signature on the document to see who thought it was a-okay.

Worse, yet, it was under Chimpy Bush that Sarbanes–Oxley passed, bringing corporate tax dodging and U.S. labor destruction to whole new levels.

And it was his fault peak oil happened then as well....except...well....then it didn't happen...so now you want to blame it on the current administration? Peaks being so pesky and always moving down the road? Maybe it will happen...again....and there will be a Republicrat in office and you can blame it on them?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We've heard, not just Republicans, but even experts say the US will become the world's number one oil producer.

If that's the case, why invest in Canadian Oil? Just spend the money here. Make it cheap and safe and clean.

Isn't the Alaskan Pipeline about the same length as the Keystone? Won't the Keystone deliver significantly less than half what the Alaska pipeline delivers? How many maintain the Alaska pipeline? A hundred? Two hundred? I don't know. I could go look it up, but I suspect my figures are pretty close.

Looking at all the facts and the tiny number of jobs it will create, why do Republicans have this need to invest in foreign oil? They worked to send millions of jobs to China when they were in charge. They want to do it again? What's wrong with investing the US?

2001 to 2008 U.S. has lost 2.4M jobs to China

Report: 2.4 million jobs lost to China

Umm, what?

 

[TemplarKormac]

We've heard, not just Republicans, but even experts say the US will become the world's number one oil producer.

If that's the case, why invest in Canadian Oil? Just spend the money here. Make it cheap and safe and clean.

Isn't the Alaskan Pipeline about the same length as the Keystone? Won't the Keystone deliver significantly less than half what the Alaska pipeline delivers? How many maintain the Alaska pipeline? A hundred? Two hundred? I don't know. I could go look it up, but I suspect my figures are pretty close.

Looking at all the facts and the tiny number of jobs it will create, why do Republicans have this need to invest in foreign oil? They worked to send millions of jobs to China when they were in charge. They want to do it again? What's wrong with investing the US?

2001 to 2008 U.S. has lost 2.4M jobs to China

Report: 2.4 million jobs lost to China

You do realize that you're making the same arguments Republicans are making right? If you're serious, petition Obama to build the Keystone KL pipeline. And you're a big one to talk about not wanting to invest in the US. Since we aren't allowed to drill offshore, just where in the hell else do we get our oil? Mars? If you want to invest in the US, allow offshore drilling by AMERICAN companies. Stop making deals with the Venezuelans!

 

[JiggsCasey]

But then, how do you reconcile that with your long history here of suggesting the U.S. can seamlessly transition off fossil fuels and conserve whenever it wants? I mean, it was a pillar of your "no problem" approach to net oil depletion denial. -

You mean you haven't been away seamlessly transitioning yourself off using those nasty liquid fuels? Damn Jiggs, what were you wasting all your time on in the interim, hanging out with the Amish, maybe learning some gardening tricks?

I suppose you were hoping no one called you on your latest round of intellectual dishonesty.

What, that you really ARE a parrot? Or that we wanted a full blown priest from the peak oil religion with a functioning brain to show up, lest we be subjected to endless Matt Simmons videos of how the twilight in the desert is coming....a decade ago?

Not to defend corporate DINO Clinton one iota, but NAFTA was one-term Bush's baby. Clinton was merely left to sign it into law, after adding a few "liberal" provisions, mind you, that the fascist before him never would have considered.

I'm sorry, so I was right when I referenced the person who SIGNED it....so obviously the Dems thought it was jim dandy great to ship all those manufacturing jobs out of the country, and you only have to look at the signature on the document to see who thought it was a-okay.

Worse, yet, it was under Chimpy Bush that Sarbanes–Oxley passed, bringing corporate tax dodging and U.S. labor destruction to whole new levels.

And it was his fault peak oil happened then as well....except...well....then it didn't happen...so now you want to blame it on the current administration? Peaks being so pesky and always moving down the road? Maybe it will happen...again....and there will be a Republicrat in office and you can blame it on them?

Ha! You got caught being dishonest, and in typical fashion, you punt to this. Motivational reasoning as its finest.

This is why my work here was done long ago. You have nothing left in your arsenal besides straw man argument, and personal insinuation. You surely don't have the math.

 

[RGR]

This is why my work here was done long ago. You have nothing left in your arsenal besides straw man argument, and personal insinuation. You surely don't have the math.

There is a reason why you keep running away and then hoping folks forget your last nonsense. Don't need more than reality here Jiggsy.

TOD claimed peak oil in 2008. What were you claiming last time, 2010? Oops. How many more peak oils Jiggsy? What have we got in this graph, 3 or 4 or 5 claims of peak? Including your last one?

 

[JiggsCasey]

There is a reason why you keep running away and then hoping folks forget your last nonsense.

As always, this is what you tell yourself. The reality is that I leave your dumb logic face-first in the dung heap every time, because you have no answer for the question "at what cost?"

So then you dodge the data and resort to wild personal insinuation. I then grow bored, let you have the last desperate word you require, and wish you luck til next time.

There's a new study going around showing how facts actually make zealots dig in harder and end up appearing even dumber. You're a prime example of that affliction.

TOD claimed peak oil in 2008. What were you claiming last time, 2010? Oops. How many more peak oils Jiggsy? What have we got in this graph, 3 or 4 or 5 claims of peak? Including your last one?

LOL @ a 2 million barrel "increase" in 10 years. Major lol. ... Now show the associated cost chart overlapping that stretch of time.

Oh wait. Cost doesn't matter to people like you, so it mustn't matter to anyone.

 

[elektra]

If only we could use oil faster, maybe we will run out, and then the Peakers will be right.

So, lets use more oil to produce less electricity, by building the worlds largest in physical size electrical plants, using the largest amount of fossil fuels, providing almost nothing in return.

Use more, produce less, and when we run out because we used more to make wind turbines and solar plants, the Peak Oil theorists can say they were right?

 

[Spiderman]

Keystone would be built with Canadian money and provide jobs in this country.

It will cost us nothing.

 

[RGR]

.... because you have no answer for the question "at what cost?"

What? Excuse me, I assumed that your religion had prepared you with the best forward projections of both resource size and cost available that you might not look so...ignorant...by asking questions everyone knows the answer to?

Here is the price path answer from the US premiere energy statistical and analytic agency:

and cost of supply from the IEA, 2008 dollars:

Can you show us the matching price forward path and cost/supply curve from your church?

LOL @ a 2 million barrel "increase" in 10 years. Major lol. ... Now show the associated cost chart overlapping that stretch of time.

How about you show us the declines that were supposed to happen instead? At least TOD had the good sense to tuck tail and run, parrots just aren't that smart I guess.

How many more peaks would you like to be personally involved in Jiggsy?

JIGGSY ALERT!!

Oh wait. Cost doesn't matter to people like you, so it mustn't matter to anyone.

Matters quite a bit. Where might your price path and cost of supply reference be?

 

[RGR]

If only we could use oil faster, maybe we will run out, and then the Peakers will be right.

Oh, they have already been "right". You only have to define "oil" a certain way, then you can create a graph showing the peak of that particular subset. They began playing this game back when Colin Campbell declared peak in 1989 and it didn't work out so well. Then they figured out that if they just restricted their attention from things that are actually oil to some subset (onshore, light-sweet, not under water, no Arctic, no field growth, none in political dicey countries, basically things that have nothing to do with oil mostly) they can create peaks graphs whenever they wanted.

So, lets use more oil to produce less electricity, by building the worlds largest in physical size electrical plants, using the largest amount of fossil fuels, providing almost nothing in return.

I'm pretty happy using solar to fuel my car myself, but by all means, if you want to go hog wild on fossil fuels, be my guest.

Use more, produce less, and when we run out because we used more to make wind turbines and solar plants, the Peak Oil theorists can say they were right?

They don't need to BE right to declare they are right, just look at how many years Jiggsy has been declaring peak now, as oil production just keeps going up.

 

[Dot Com]

pretty simple. Repubs know that the taxpayers will have to foot the bill to police the xport routes means = more campaign funds from defense contractors. Repubs = prostitutes to big biz.