What's new
  • Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

5000 barrels a day of oil (210,000 gallons) leak off the coast of Louisiana

Status
Not open for further replies.
That link was good for a laugh.

Let me go mentally unstable too.....Hmmm Oh yeah, GWB took out the towers. He planned it, ordered it and saw it through.

Come-on where the bulbs are produced has nothing to do with the green movement or communism. That page just illustrates how sad it is that the large oil and fossil fuel producers control sooo much of this country, that any industry that would want to produce something that reduces the use of fossil fuels is shot down here.

If they controlled so much how is it that the looters and moochers outlawed incandescent light bulbs? That would seem to me to be a lack of control.

And the free market usually shoots down dumb shit ideas. Incandescent - 50 cents
Flourescent - $5

Incandescent, throw in the trash. Flourescent, call the hazmat team.

Personally I choose flourescent just because of laziness. And they go right to the landfill (like I give a fuck). Hate changing bulbs every 1000 hours. Prefer to do it every 1-2 years. And no, they don't last 7 years like the propaganda said.

Unless they force me to use it at gunpoint. Then I don't want to.
 

Azeotrope

Well-known member
Veteran
What is the long term cost of not using flouros and disposing of them correctly??

When you make a budget does it only plan for now? I hope not. You can live your selfish/self indulgent life. I'm not suggesting someone should hold a gun to your temple. I just look at the little kids of today and think of the amount of quality lost in the environment in my life time..... Then I wonder what are we condemming them to see and suffer?
 
E

elmanito

They harvest the oil because YOU demand it. You want it, you use it, you MUST HAVE IT, so they provide it.

Bloody bogus to me.They harvest the oil because they wanna have the big bucks.They made the world dependent on oil since they blocked all other energy alternative for many many years.Oil companies are just like heroin dealers.When you're hooked you're dependent on them.

The Exxon Valdez was a warning but the world didn't listen because the world was hooked and now we have to deal with the biggest oil catastrophe you can't imagine.

Namaste :plant grow: :canabis:

 

hoosierdaddy

Active member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Anybody talking green is making sense, plain and simple. There might be enough oil to keep it around for parts of industry that isn't green-able. Doesn't mean the rest of us have to burn the nasty stuff.
Yes, it does indeed mean you have to burn the nasty stuff. You have no alternative. From the clothes on your back, to the food that you eat, you have NO choice.
And talking green is just that, talk. Stop talking and come up with a solution, and then we have something to talk about. But don't just think that talking is going to get it done. All talking is going to do is accomplish what they want done in the first place, which is to use this issue to push forth a green agenda cap&tax scheme. Really has little to do with the subject at hand, but look how easy it was for Obama to use it. No, you DO have to burn the nasty stuff.

elmanito said:
hey made the world dependent on oil since they blocked all other energy alternative for many many years.
OK, the root of your argument states that the oil companies have blocked any alternative energy sources that we could be using other than petroleum products. I would like you to tell us just what those viable energy sources are that the oil companies have blocked for so long? Could we see just what these sources are, and how the oil companies have managed to thwart the free market system for so long?
 
E

elmanito

OK, the root of your argument states that the oil companies have blocked any alternative energy sources that we could be using other than petroleum products. I would like you to tell us just what those viable energy sources are that the oil companies have blocked for so long? Could we see just what these sources are, and how the oil companies have managed to thwart the free market system for so long?

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-110-1-64

In the land of Shell only one fuel station can be found with E85.Wonder why ??? :chin:

Oh yeah, think about the fishing community at the Gulf who are unemployed right now because of the oil spill.No fish or shrimp = no money. :wave:

Namaste :plant grow: :canabis:



Namaste :
 

hoosierdaddy

Active member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
You haven't answered the questions. E85 is available in about the same volume as vehicles that utilize it. Not a big demand for it. And if ALL vehicles were to change over to a gasahol engine, there isn't enough corn, or enough trucks, to take it to enough distilleries to make it even close to a viable alternative. The arguments for ethanol are weak, and when the math gets looked at, it is completely not a feasible alternative.

But, I want to know what the oil companies have kept under wraps?

I am not minimizing the event at all, it is a bad deal for the whole nation, if not the world.
But, I charge to you that there have been LOTS more jobs put in jeopardy by Obama's moratorium on further drilling, than the oil has caused in the seafood industry.
A stupid move by an incompetent president and administration.
Only the folks who are being hurt by this are screaming...the rest seem to think it is just fine to stop the drilling. But, it will be those very same screamers who will figure out too late that they have been backing the wrong side of things.
 
E

elmanito

Food crops is not the answer what we have been noticing since the prices went up before the financial crunch, so we need other energy sources like zero point energy for instance or just water.Cars driven on water have been build, but kept away from us till even at this moment.The technology is there to build them and even salt water can be used.

But, I charge to you that there have been LOTS more jobs put in jeopardy by Obama's moratorium on further drilling, than the oil has caused in the seafood industry.

The oil spill is not only affecting the Gulf region but affects a much larger area and even the Atlantic Ocean is under threat by the oil spill through the currents.The total damage on the environment is still not known at this moment but could be more devastating you ever can imagine.The oil already reached Florida, so what more can we expect from this oil spill.

Sure you can continue with oil drilling in the Gulf but what sort of message would this give to the locals and the world while you still have to deal with a oil spill which is still leaking large quantities of oil.

Namaste :plant grow: :canabis:

 

Aeroguerilla

I’m God’s solider, devil’s apostle
Veteran
A good friend of mine from back home traveled down recently to do some scuba diving in the spill itself. She had to cover all her skin with Vaseline. When she went down she noticed that the dispersant there using to break up the oil creates little beads of oil in the water that the small fish think are plankton. so then the small fish get eaten by the big fish and we now have a tainted food supply. sad sad times. If we were using alternative energy this wouldnt be happening. This is the earths way of saying its time to change.
 
I still say if we want to make a change the focus should be on clean electricity first then pesticides, fertilizers, and plastic like products that arent petroleum based. What good is an electric car if the power plant giving you electricity is burning coal or natural gas and the car is made out of mostly oil?
 
E

elmanito

What good is an electric car if the power plant giving you electricity is burning coal or natural gas and the car is made out of mostly oil?

Who says we need coal or natural gas when we can get electricity straight out of the sky.

picture.php


Namaste :plant grow: :canabis:

 
I think alot of people misinterpret Tesla's work when it comes to free energy. His idea was to broadcast electrical energy around the world with out wires. The energy would need to be generated still but would be free to use and very low transmition losses
 

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
Yes, it does indeed mean you have to burn the nasty stuff. You have no alternative. From the clothes on your back, to the food that you eat, you have NO choice.
And talking green is just that, talk.

Stop talking and come up with a solution, and then we have something to talk about. But don't just think that talking is going to get it done. All talking is going to do is accomplish what they want done in the first place, which is to use this issue to push forth a green agenda cap&tax scheme. Really has little to do with the subject at hand, but look how easy it was for Obama to use it. No, you DO have to burn the nasty stuff.

Spoken like a true, big-oil pawn. :jump:
 

hoosierdaddy

Active member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
OK, so big oil has kept Tesla's inventions and these elusive water driven cars from us, just to keep oil the source we need and demand.

el, I love you man..but you need to talk weed instead of this.
 

hoosierdaddy

Active member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
discostilldoesn'tgetit said:
Spoken like a true, big-oil pawn.
I am no big oil pawn at all. No more than you are, and that is an undeniable fact.
I think what you refer to is my mind and way of thinking. But I assure you it is clear and objective thinking that sparks most of my responses in here. Most of what I have repsonded to has been quite the opposite of clear and objective. More knee-jerk and misguided.

I am a realist, not a pawn. I use my brain instead of my emotions to guide my critical thinking.
 

Danks2005

Active member
I think alot of people misinterpret Tesla's work when it comes to free energy. His idea was to broadcast electrical energy around the world with out wires. The energy would need to be generated still but would be free to use and very low transmition losses



Yeah, I see this all the time. His work was not free energy, just free distribution of energy. He takes energy from the power plant, runs it through a massive transformer to very high voltages, and releases it out the top of his tower like lightning. I've seen it light lightbulbs in a room on small scale, but it seems scary to me. You can thank Tesla for the AC power you use today, and many other inventions, he was a true electrical genius. Edison was way off with DC, at least for distribution.
 
E

elmanito

el, I love you man..but you need to talk weed instead of this.

:thank you: Big kiss to you mate, but i like to hear you talking when the oil price has gone back to $150,- a barrel.If it wasn't better to look for a replacement.Chinese economy still needs oil.

BTW i didn't live in the woods for 30 years as you can see :wave:

picture.php


Namaste :plant grow: :canabis:

 

Azeotrope

Well-known member
Veteran
Hoosier - Just an FI on the E85. When the potential for E85 started to bloom, the major petrol/gasoline producers started to rewrite their contracts with vendors. If an independent wanted to open up and sell large quantities of E85 along with gasoline, they had to get it approved and buy the E85 through the petrol/gas producer. Otherwise they would not be able to buy gas and other petrol products to sell. Existing had to keep supply to a minimum.

The reality is that in order to sell enough to stay open they have to have a bit of everything for now. So, large fossil fuel forced stations into agreements that prevented them from selling over a certain % of their product in E85 versus petrol. Therefore controlloing supply and price. This helps them to make the argument that the supply is not sufficient for an increase in vehicles that require E85. It also gave them price control to achieve the same. Then they inserted themselves in to the middle on the supply chain by requiring the stations only carry fuel products with their company name. So, they could force the E85 producers to jump into contactual spider webs with them.

Due to their level of political bribery (and that is what campaing contributions by corporations are) no legisator or court would touch the matter. This was big news in Seattle years ago as many independent stations were trying to go E85. They even had start-up trouble as the large oil corps owned or had leins on many of the existing stations and would not sell or lease the land or equipment to E85 start-ups without the above mentioned conditions.

Not to mention, large oil owns a lot of the equipment end of the business..... I.e. Pump manufacturers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top