Taxing big oil

[Korriken]

well thats what Clinton wants to do. put huge taxes on oil in order to fund alternative energy research.

great idea! ..... except how are we gonna pay for gas when the prices go through the freaking roof?!

Unless Clinton has some kind of plan to stop oil prices from soaring and/or to put people into hybrid or electric cars, this could put a huge burden on the lower to lower/middle class. We all know what happens when the price of anything goes up for a company, the costs are passed on to the customer because the company is not willing to let go of a penny if it doesn't have to.

I remember reading about Reagan's idea of trickle down economics. the only thing that trickles down is the cost. Obama's plan to auction off greenhouse gas credits might work out quite a bit better.

energy independence is a fantastic idea, and I would love to see it happen, but can it be done without killing those of us who don't have a sizable pile of cash to spend on better vehicles? reckon we'll find out.

This aint a rant against Hillary or Obama, this is an open question. How can this be done? Can it?

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 2/16/08 04:00 AM, Korriken wrote: great idea! ..... except how are we gonna pay for gas when the prices go through the freaking roof?!

You don't. You take the bus or walk to wherever it is you need to go instead.

Double Whammy energy policy from Clinton! Decrease C02 emissions from making people walk and use public transport AND fund research into reneweable energies from those who still drive everywhere.

I see no problem with this. Those who choose too pollute the environment should foot the bill for it.

Unless Clinton has some kind of plan to stop oil prices from soaring and/or to put people into hybrid or electric cars, this could put a huge burden on the lower to lower/middle class.

How much of a burden exactly? How many of the lower and middle classes actually *need* to drive all the places they do? Can't they get the bus to work? The train? Could they not just walk to the shops instead, thus getting excercise and saving them money?

The only people that would have an particular affect on are those that drive for a living, so truck drivers etc. You can make an argument that it's unfair for them or something, though something tells me the companies they work for are more likely to foot the bill than they are personally.

I remember reading about Reagan's idea of trickle down economics. the only thing that trickles down is the cost. Obama's plan to auction off greenhouse gas credits might work out quite a bit better.

Does Obama's plan include Airlines? I seem to recall that the whole C02 trading thing we have in Europe is a bit daft to an extent because airlines get special treatment or some such nonsense.

In all honesty though, if you actually want to make a noticeable imapct, you'll have to do both Clinton and Obama's policies in all likelihood.

This aint a rant against Hillary or Obama, this is an open question. How can this be done? Can it?

Easily.

Just decrease the energy use, and / or increase taxes and/ or incentives to develop cleaner renewable fuels.

[The-evil-bucket]

The idea is that you don't drive, bus, bike, walking. And that the alternative energy research is going to work in the end, and we won't have to use so much oil.

[ABsoldier17]

No energy costs will go through the roof. About 50 cents of what you pay at the pump is gas tax. The problem with alternative fuel is that it's not as efficient as gasoline, and it's more expensive to make. The only way to lower costs is to get more oil. In which case the US needs to start drilling in the US. Heck, we don't even have to drill, in the 80"s we caped a bunch of full wells, just need to un-cap those and my god, oil surplus! Then we also have ANWAR.... even more oil. Do this and gas prices are sure to drop, and the cost of corn will go back down.

[Slizor]

No energy costs will go through the roof. About 50 cents of what you pay at the pump is gas tax.

That is tax on the sale of the petrol, not tax on the companies themselves. Considering that oil companies are currently enjoying record profits the tax will not necessarily be passed on to the consumer.

The problem with alternative fuel is that it's not as efficient as gasoline, and it's more expensive to make.

Generally, yes it is. However, there are a number of alternative fuels and they are mostly emerging technologies and, as such, will be subject to decreased cost of use and production in the future.

The only way to lower costs is to get more oil.

Or, more sensibly, reduce demand.

In which case the US needs to start drilling in the US. Heck, we don't even have to drill, in the 80"s we caped a bunch of full wells, just need to un-cap those and my god, oil surplus!

Erm, do you have any links to this? Because I've never heard of this and it sounds like a pretty stupid thing to do.

Then we also have ANWAR.... even more oil. Do this and gas prices are sure to drop, and the cost of corn will go back down.

I think you're heavily overestimating the impact of US oil on world oil prices.

[Memorize]

Congrats, let's raise the price of oil for the consumer even more simpley because of an overblown, greatly exaggerated sci-fi story about people causing global warming.

Fascinating idea.

[Bolo]

At 2/16/08 03:32 PM, Memorize wrote: Congrats, let's raise the price of oil for the consumer even more simpley because of an overblown, greatly exaggerated sci-fi story about people causing global warming.

Fascinating idea.

The fact that oil is running out is not a sci-fi story.

And that's a fact.

You wanna be caught with your pants down trying to start a sudenly-useless car that has no gasoline to fuel it? Be my guest. In 20 years, I imagine you'll look back at this moment and facepalm.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 2/16/08 03:32 PM, Memorize wrote: Congrats, let's raise the price of oil for the consumer even more simpley because of an overblown, greatly exaggerated sci-fi story about people causing global warming.

Fascinating idea.

Who cares about global warming? Personally, I'd just like to be able to breathe non polluted air. And cutting down on Oil consumption increases the ability of the US to be energy dependent. There's more than one reason to decrease C02 emissions.

[SmilezRoyale]

If oil independence is strictly the goal in mind; Invade Alaska; We don't HAVE to accept oil from people who hate us, and we don't HAVE to give up on oil simply to end independence.

If saving the planet is strictly the goal in mind; Nuclear Power, nothing ticks people off about it except for the fact that Nuclear power has the connotation as wrong; which is just one of those thoughts that cost people money.

You know... 6 feet underground, in most places in the world, it remains as 60 degree's in the hottest and coldest times of the year; I don't see why we aren't using Dirt power to heat our homes.

[familyguyninja78]

I just understand how most of the U.S. is about to face a recession, but over the past three months, Exxon made $77,000 A MINUTE.

[ABsoldier17]

At 2/16/08 09:58 AM, Slizor wrote:

I think you're heavily overestimating the impact of US oil on world oil prices.

These measures are only meant to help the US price of oil. Currently we are the largest importer of foreign oil. The only way to brake this is to drill for our own. Alternative fuels are a great idea, but they are a long ways off from being effective. So why make more pain at the pump for something that is not comparable to gasoline?

[familyguyninja78]

Sorry, hit the button too fast, it should say I can't understand...

But my point is, the U.S. shouldn't be close to an economic recession while the provider of one of our major resources is making such record profits...

[ABsoldier17]

The problem with looking at gas sales is that the price is adjusted to compensate for money spent. Sunco (for example) is going to make the same amount because the gas price reflects the amount of affordable gas, and the amount taxed. The person who takes it on the chin is the consumer. They are the ones who pay the steep price. The way you change it is by providing more affordable gasoline (that way they don't have to buy from countries like Iran who drive the price up), and lowering/eliminating the gas tax (so that the extra 50-or-so-cents doesn't get tacted on).

[Memorize]

At 2/16/08 03:40 PM, Bolo wrote:

You wanna be caught with your pants down trying to start a sudenly-useless car that has no gasoline to fuel it? Be my guest. In 20 years, I imagine you'll look back at this moment and facepalm.

Lol, you fucking idiot.

You think I was talking about oil as the sci-fi story?

At 2/16/08 03:44 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

Who cares about global warming? Personally, I'd just like to be able to breathe non polluted air. And cutting down on Oil consumption increases the ability of the US to be energy dependent. There's more than one reason to decrease C02 emissions.

Oh please.

As much as I agree that oil has its hands around the throat of this country, you shouldn't punish the consumer for simpley using what they have to get their business done.

Besides, the world is growing more green with each passing year, and even still, CO2 isn't even the cause of global warming to begin with! haha!

As much as I would like "cleaner air", I don't give a damn unless I notice a difference. And if people are fine breathing in the air that will have no effect on their daily lives, then why should be slam down everyone at the cost of their lives/jobs just for the sake of a few nutty enviornmentalists?

I'm all for cleaning the air. Or for factories to clean up after their mess. I don't like the destruction of a beautiful enviornment. I would gladly be called an enviornmentalist if it were for those nutjobs causing people to lose their jobs over a mere sci-fi story that is global warming.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 2/16/08 05:10 PM, Memorize wrote: Oh please.

As much as I agree that oil has its hands around the throat of this country, you shouldn't punish the consumer for simply using what they have to get their business done.

Getting their business done? You imply that the vast majority of people driving cars is essential, that people could not live without driving their cars to these places.

They can get the bus or train to work. They can walk to the shops. Don't you have school buses to get kids to school?

What do people *NEED* their cars for that they can't utilise some other form of transport instead?

Besides, the world is growing more green with each passing year, and even still, CO2 isn't even the cause of global warming to begin with! haha!

I never said it was the 'cause of Global Warming. I'm actually of the opinion that the role of C02 has been over hyped. I think it's had an affect, but only a small one.

As much as I would like "cleaner air", I don't give a damn unless I notice a difference. And if people are fine breathing in the air that will have no effect on their daily lives, then why should be slam down everyone at the cost of their lives/jobs just for the sake of a few nutty enviornmentalists?

How exactly would it cost people there lives and/ or jobs? They would still be able tog et to work, shops, visit family, go out, be social.

Also, it isn't for the sake of a few ' nutty environmentalists'.

Cleaner air and the like, whilst you may not be able to notice the difference, will have a positive affect on kids for things like Asthma. Less asthma means kids and actually, potentially at least though would need to be combined with other things, do more exercise and the like so you can then start to deal with obesity and the like.

Generally, cleaner environment= happier people. Happier people = more efficient people = stronger economy etc etc etc.

You can also look at it like this: There isn't a major problem at the moment, but why let a problem develop in the first place? why not nip the problem in the bud when it's easily dealable. That's what business people do, so why not run the Government like a business in that regards?

[ABsoldier17]

Public transport is all well and good, but it's only practical in an urban enviroment. But in an rural enviroment public transport is impractical. Even in a suburban enviroment public transport in impractical.
Remeber "necessity is the mother of invention" and right now there is plentty of oil still going around.

[The-Hydra-of-Spore]

At 2/16/08 05:33 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote: Remeber "necessity is the mother of invention" and right now there is plentty of oil still going around.

The way we're consuming it at such a rapid rate many scientists believe we're going to run out quite soon.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 2/16/08 05:33 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote: Public transport is all well and good, but it's only practical in an urban enviroment. But in an rural enviroment public transport is impractical. Even in a suburban enviroment public transport in impractical.

I don't know about the US but I live in the arse end of my home town in the suburbs and I still have easy access to public transport in all forms. It is possible to do.

Remember "necessity is the mother of invention" and right now there is plentty of oil still going around.

'Necessity' requires last ditch efforts and a sense ' oh shit! We have a problem!' to be effective.

Why not actually try to address problems that are obviously going to arise, before they arise?

[ABsoldier17]

At 2/16/08 05:45 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 2/16/08 05:33 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote:

Why not actually try to address problems that are obviously going to arise, before they arise?

Because it's not necessary.

[The-Hydra-of-Spore]

At 2/16/08 05:49 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote:

At 2/16/08 05:45 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 2/16/08 05:33 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote:

Why not actually try to address problems that are obviously going to arise, before they arise?

Because it's not necessary.

But it will be. Soon. And when it is necessary it's going to be a hell of a lot harder.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 2/16/08 05:49 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote: Because it's not necessary.

Preventing problems isn't necessary?

So are you suggesting that we should in no way plan for anything because, using your logic, it isn't necessary as it isn't happening yet?

Awesome, guess we can all throw away plans on how to respond to natural disasters, invasions, terrorist attacks and the like, cause they aren't happening at the moment!

Who cares about Nuclear attacks. If it aint happening now why worry about it, eh?

Starting to see the flaw in your logic yet?

PREVENTING problems is an important job the government does, whether those problems be military, domestic, foreign, economic or whatever. If you don;t plan and try to prevent stuff then you end up in a situation where everyone gets royally fucked.

[Korriken]

I love how many people are saying "zomgz use public transportation!!" without even considering that not everyone live in the major cities across america. some people live 20 mins to an hour or more away from towns, out in the countryside. most of americas villages, towns, and small cities lack public transportation. For these people its not as simple as hop a bus in the morning to work. for these people the only option is to either walk for several hours to and from work (yeah right) or drive. I live 45 miles from where I work and there is no public transportation that can get me there, or even close. As a matter of fact there is NO public transportation at all where I live.

when gas hits $10 a gallon, then what? how will the common working man get to work to make his meager paycheck that barely covers bills and now will have to pay absurd amounts to buy the gas he needs to get to work?

sure the simple answer would be to just make him buy a hybrid or electric car, but if he can barely pay bills, then he CANT afford to get a new car!

you can always raise the minimum wage, but the cost of everything will go up to compensate.

[Memorize]

At 2/16/08 05:25 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

Getting their business done? You imply that the vast majority of people driving cars is essential, that people could not live without driving their cars to these places.

Thanks, I'll be sure to remember that on my next 25 mile walk to work and school, since no busses come out where I am.

They can get the bus or train to work. They can walk to the shops. Don't you have school buses to get kids to school?

Heh, no.

What do people *NEED* their cars for that they can't utilise some other form of transport instead?

Why do you need a computer?
Why do you need clothes?
Why do you NEED a house?

After all:

You don't need to watch tv or access the internet
You don't need to buy clothes.
You don't need a house when you can live in a car, church, charity.

I never said it was the 'cause of Global Warming. I'm actually of the opinion that the role of C02 has been over hyped. I think it's had an affect, but only a small one.

Then there's no point.

How exactly would it cost people there lives and/ or jobs? They would still be able tog et to work, shops, visit family, go out, be social.

US senate comitte
USA today
akhistorycourse.org

And I recall reading of a few court cases stating that building development could not occur because of the "enviornment" last year.

Also, it isn't for the sake of a few ' nutty environmentalists'.

Oh, yes it is.

As much as they'll claim their fighting for the environment for all people; to stop global warming, to help the poor animals in the artic, they're just using those slogans to appeal to the masses.

Cleaner air and the like, whilst you may not be able to notice the difference, will have a positive affect on kids for things like Asthma. Less asthma means kids and actually, potentially at least though would need to be combined with other things, do more exercise and the like so you can then start to deal with obesity and the like.

And as I said: I don't mind cleaning the air.

But if the people of such community as a whole vote against such restrictions, then those restrictions should not be imposed on them. It's their community/county/city/state.

Generally, cleaner environment= happier people. Happier people = more efficient people = stronger economy etc etc etc.

And I suppose the stronger economy is all part of the Kyoto Treaty, right?

You can also look at it like this: There isn't a major problem at the moment, but why let a problem develop in the first place? why not nip the problem in the bud when it's easily dealable. That's what business people do, so why not run the Government like a business in that regards?

Oh please. Volcanic eruptions will do more damage than humans ever possibley could.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 2/16/08 06:16 PM, Korriken wrote: I love how many people are saying "zomgz use public transportation!!" without even considering that not everyone live in the major cities across america. some people live 20 mins to an hour or more away from towns, out in the countryside. most of americas villages, towns, and small cities lack public transportation.

That is easily fixed. Just create the public transportation where it is needed.

Yes that's a blatant simplification of the problem, but you get what I mean.

For these people its not as simple as hop a bus in the morning to work. for these people the only option is to either walk for several hours to and from work (yeah right) or drive. I live 45 miles from where I work and there is no public transportation that can get me there, or even close. As a matter of fact there is NO public transportation at all where I live.

You actually put up with no public transport? Holy shit. I'd be up in arms over it.

And you live 45 miles away from work? That's obscene. CAn you not get a job closer to home or move closer to your job at least?

when gas hits $10 a gallon, then what? how will the common working man get to work to make his meager paycheck that barely covers bills and now will have to pay absurd amounts to buy the gas he needs to get to work?

His job should account for the fact that its workforce can no longer afford to get to work, and increase pay checks/ reimburse payments for petrol and the like. Otherwise, they go out of business.

sure the simple answer would be to just make him buy a hybrid or electric car, but if he can barely pay bills, then he CANT afford to get a new car!

you can always raise the minimum wage, but the cost of everything will go up to compensate.

OR you could cut down on the spending in various government projects that are totally wasteful and use that money to provide better public transport to areas that currently aren't covered. Thus allowing people like you to get to work without forking out shit loads of their own money.

Is the public transport situation really that bad in the US? I thought it would have been a lot better than that.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 2/16/08 06:21 PM, Memorize wrote: Thanks, I'll be sure to remember that on my next 25 mile walk to work and school, since no busses come out where I am.

I will say that iw ans't aware that you're public transport really was this bad. I was under the impression that consdering the US role of a superpower in economics and the like that Public transport would be soemthing they'd have sorted out quite well.

You don't need to watch tv or access the internet

I don't. I'm prepared to admit that. If push came to shvoe I could quite easily live without them.

You don't need to buy clothes.

Society and laws about walking around naked say otherwise :P On top of that you have the fact that in winter and the like

You don't need a house when you can live in a car, church, charity.

Except 1) I don;t have a car as I don't drive. 2) Churches in Britain don't tend to let you sleep in whenever you want 3) 'Charity' shelters in the UK such as the YMCA cost cash and work out at less value for money than my current flat.

US senate comitte
USA today
akhistorycourse.org

Ohhhh the whole ' It will kill the economy!' argument. Gotcha. Yeah, considering most western nations no longer make their money through production but through tertiary jobs such as the retail sector and finances ( as well as research and the like though I can;t recall the term for those sorts of jobs..Quaternary?), I'm not buying it that much. Would it have an affect? Of course. Would it kill the economy? I'd be rather surprised, though I'm not an economist so I could be totally wrong here.

And I recall reading of a few court cases stating that building development could not occur because of the "enviornment" last year.

' The Environment' covers everything from C02 emissions to protecting habitats of animals and polluting water. Far to general unless you can give specifics.

Oh, yes it is.

As much as they'll claim their fighting for the environment for all people; to stop global warming, to help the poor animals in the artic, they're just using those slogans to appeal to the masses.

Appeal to the masses? What would they have to gain from appealing to the masses on soemthing they don;t give a shit about? Most environmentalists aren't politicians, they're normal ( relativley speaking, some of them are a bit freaky) people. Fair enough if you're referring to the Dems, as I can believe they're just riding on the coat tails of the whole scenario, but environmentalist sin general?

I fail to see what they would have to gain if what you suggest is true. They wouldn't gain any real power or anything, so why would they bother?

But if the people of such community as a whole vote against such restrictions, then those restrictions should not be imposed on them. It's their community/county/city/state.

If they vote to do this though that's equally as alright? 'Cause people are voting for politicians and the like who want to do these things. Therefore, they are voting for the sort of things we're discussing

Oh please. Volcanic eruptions will do more damage than humans ever possibley could.

I don't know exactly how much c02 on average volcanoes release a year, but something tells me it's less than what humans release. When you factor in the fact we're also destroying things like the rain forest which kept the natural balance of C02 at alright levels and the like, then you're whole argument that humans aren't the problem isn't really that valid as I see it.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 2/16/08 06:51 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 2/16/08 06:21 PM, Memorize wrote:

I will say that iw ans't aware that you're public transport really was this bad. I was under the impression that consdering the US role of a superpower in economics and the like that Public transport would be soemthing they'd have sorted out quite well.

See, the problem isn't that so much.

I mean, in area's where it's profitable, as in Cities are large urban areas, it's there and it may or may not be well funded(depens on local interest, local taxation that sort of thing)

But you have to remember, that America is a giant of a country (4th largest I think, maybe 5th. I know China is up there, and so is Russia and Canada) with a population distributed over a large area of land.

I mean, in some areas of the midwest, they have an average population of a couple of people per mile.

Hell, one of the states near me in Maine is currenlty boasting an average of 41 people per square mile, and most of that being average out from the populated coast and south.

There's a part of the Appalachian Hiking in there called the Hundred Mile Wilderness, where there's not a single habitat for the one hundred miles.

I've seen the UK before and I love it's public transportation( except for the ability of the Unions to fuck it up), but your comparing a single countr that almost the size of some of our states.

[CommanderX1125]

At 2/16/08 06:31 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 2/16/08 06:16 PM, Korriken wrote: I love how many people are saying "zomgz use public transportation!!" without even considering that not everyone live in the major cities across america. some people live 20 mins to an hour or more away from towns, out in the countryside. most of americas villages, towns, and small cities lack public transportation.

That is easily fixed. Just create the public transportation where it is needed.

Yes that's a blatant simplification of the problem, but you get what I mean.

It is logistically impossible to have public transport for every community, for every stop, for every person. It just doesn't work.

For these people its not as simple as hop a bus in the morning to work. for these people the only option is to either walk for several hours to and from work (yeah right) or drive. I live 45 miles from where I work and there is no public transportation that can get me there, or even close. As a matter of fact there is NO public transportation at all where I live.

You actually put up with no public transport? Holy shit. I'd be up in arms over it.

And you live 45 miles away from work? That's obscene. CAn you not get a job closer to home or move closer to your job at least?

Moving to another place, or getting another job isn't always an option. You act as though jobs and homes are easy commidities to come by, which is simply unrealistic for several reasons.

1. Not everyone can afford to purchase a home in a new community. This problem is then heightend by the fact that in some instances there are no homes available to purchase which means that the person must either; A. Build a new home, or B. Convince someone to sell their home for far more than it would be worth on the open market.

2. Not everyone can just drop a job. This is especially true of the impoverished and lower middle class, as they often times need the money from their current job just to keep the bills paid and food on the table.

when gas hits $10 a gallon, then what? how will the common working man get to work to make his meager paycheck that barely covers bills and now will have to pay absurd amounts to buy the gas he needs to get to work?

His job should account for the fact that its workforce can no longer afford to get to work, and increase pay checks/ reimburse payments for petrol and the like. Otherwise, they go out of business.

Brilliant idea, our people cant afford to live without their jobs, and so we can either force business to bite the bullet on some how transporting the large majority of its workforce, or shutting down. Nah, there couldn't possibly be any side effects caused by the removal of jobs that can't meet that standard. -.-

sure the simple answer would be to just make him buy a hybrid or electric car, but if he can barely pay bills, then he CANT afford to get a new car!

you can always raise the minimum wage, but the cost of everything will go up to compensate.

OR you could cut down on the spending in various government projects that are totally wasteful and use that money to provide better public transport to areas that currently aren't covered. Thus allowing people like you to get to work without forking out shit loads of their own money.

Once again, a bus going out that far just for one or two, or on a good day, five people in a town is not economical in any sense. I am however all for the cutting of usesless government projects, I agree 100%.

Is the public transport situation really that bad in the US? I thought it would have been a lot better than that.

It is just fine actually, you just seem to have an unrealistic view on thing in this area.

[ABsoldier17]

At 2/16/08 05:55 PM, The-Hydra-of-Spore wrote:

At 2/16/08 05:49 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote:

At 2/16/08 05:45 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 2/16/08 05:33 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote:

Why not actually try to address problems that are obviously going to arise, before they arise?

Because it's not necessary.

But it will be. Soon. And when it is necessary it's going to be a hell of a lot harder.

Only if you believe that oil is a fossil fuel. I subscribe to the theory that the earth naturally makes the stuff and pushes the oil up through the earth via rotation. This seems validated because russia has developed technologies for deeper drilling and they are projecting some very large oil wells, what they're doing is getting the oil as it comes up.

[The-Hydra-of-Spore]

At 2/16/08 07:18 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote:

At 2/16/08 05:55 PM, The-Hydra-of-Spore wrote:

At 2/16/08 05:49 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote:

At 2/16/08 05:45 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 2/16/08 05:33 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote:

Why not actually try to address problems that are obviously going to arise, before they arise?

Because it's not necessary.

But it will be. Soon. And when it is necessary it's going to be a hell of a lot harder.

Only if you believe that oil is a fossil fuel. I subscribe to the theory that the earth naturally makes the stuff and pushes the oil up through the earth via rotation. This seems validated because russia has developed technologies for deeper drilling and they are projecting some very large oil wells, what they're doing is getting the oil as it comes up.

Or they are digging to the older fossil fuels from older creatures which are located deeper in the earth. I must admit I have never heard of an opposing theory of Oil being a fossil fuel could you give me a link so I may learn more?

[ABsoldier17]

At 2/16/08 07:51 PM, The-Hydra-of-Spore wrote:

At 2/16/08 07:18 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote:

At 2/16/08 05:55 PM, The-Hydra-of-Spore wrote:

At 2/16/08 05:49 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote:

At 2/16/08 05:45 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 2/16/08 05:33 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote:

Only if you believe that oil is a fossil fuel. I subscribe to the theory that the earth naturally makes the stuff and pushes the oil up through the earth via rotation. This seems validated because russia has developed technologies for deeper drilling and they are projecting some very large oil wells, what they're doing is getting the oil as it comes up.

Or they are digging to the older fossil fuels from older creatures which are located deeper in the earth. I must admit I have never heard of an opposing theory of Oil being a fossil fuel could you give me a link so I may learn more?

here's one
anothersome more
I hope this is enough, I tried not to find too many links that were repetitive.