America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 20 years ago by dbguru. 25 replies replies.
OIL FOUND ON MOON
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#1 Posted: Tue, Jan 13 2004, 4:39 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
halliburton to build pipe line.
Da-Glyde Offline
#2 Posted: Tue, Jan 13 2004, 4:40 PM EST
Joined: 10-25-2003
Posts: 892
HAHA funny!

GIG'EM,

Dan
smelly4tay Offline
#3 Posted: Tue, Jan 13 2004, 5:05 PM EST
Joined: 11-15-2003
Posts: 2,775
As long as Alaska is spared!
pabloescabar Offline
#4 Posted: Tue, Jan 13 2004, 7:55 PM EST
Joined: 02-25-2005
Posts: 30,183
is their any fish left in alaska.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#5 Posted: Wed, Jan 14 2004, 2:36 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
Da-Glyde

GIG'EM,

i know this has meaning to you, but please explain it to me/us. thanks
eleltea Offline
#6 Posted: Wed, Jan 14 2004, 4:41 AM EST
Joined: 03-03-2002
Posts: 4,562
Rick, I must confess. There is something about the thought of an individual, Saudi or Texan, owning and monopolizing a natural resource like oil, that nags at me. What if Exxon figured out a way to extract all the oxygen from the atmosphere and charged a small fee to everyone who wanted a few litres a day for breathing purposes? Should a libertarian be having these maddening thoughts?
xibbumbero Offline
#7 Posted: Wed, Jan 14 2004, 6:48 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2002
Posts: 12,535
Being that Libertarians are all mad,that would be the logical progression,LOL. X
jazzman Offline
#8 Posted: Wed, Jan 14 2004, 6:54 AM EST
Joined: 11-06-2000
Posts: 1,012
RICK, it's a Texas Aggie thing...Go Horns
dbguru Offline
#9 Posted: Wed, Jan 14 2004, 7:07 AM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
Hey Rickamaven.

This is no joke. There is a new government contract in place for Haliburton if oil is found on Mars. This is one major unmentioned item of the Bush space initiatives. Aren't most Bush administration initiavites done in consultation with oil company executives and if there is oil on Mars.....

Of course most geo/bio aware among us know that oil is a fossil fuel and that sigificant biomass would be a prerequisite. Unlikely that oil is on Mars but just in case... make sure contracts are in place......

Our country is so much run by the oil companies right now it makes me sick. And my grandchildren will be very warm, living on islands we used to call mountains (ok I'm exaggerating a bit). Unless perhaps they get to Mars.
Sylance Offline
#10 Posted: Wed, Jan 14 2004, 7:25 AM EST
Joined: 06-19-2003
Posts: 592
dbguru,

Do you have a source for that information? I'm not saying it isn't true, but the ability for us to get to Mars is decades away... and the ability for us to ship a reasonable amount of oil from Mars to Earth is more than 50 years away. In fact, by the time we have that ability, fossil fuel burning engines will be an unhappy memory.
al'Thor Offline
#11 Posted: Wed, Jan 14 2004, 7:28 AM EST
Joined: 06-17-2003
Posts: 2,793
lol at Rick - that was indeed funny
dbguru Offline
#12 Posted: Wed, Jan 14 2004, 8:00 AM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
my soucres are:
From radio commentary last night on 2 talk shows commententing on recent interview with Cheney.

Also look at
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3910698

Here is an excerpt(notice last sentence)

New technologies and energy sources
The new space plan was spearheaded in large part by NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe, Reuters reported. O'Keefe was appointed by Bush to restore credibility to an agency plagued by budget troubles, including billions of dollars in cost overruns at the space station.

Vice President ****** Cheney also was involved in the policy development, along with other senior Bush advisers. The administration was said to see the initiative as an important national security measure, and experts said it could lead to new technologies and potential new sources of energy.
Sylance Offline
#13 Posted: Wed, Jan 14 2004, 8:12 AM EST
Joined: 06-19-2003
Posts: 592
dbguru,

I’m sorry; I’m either misunderstanding you or the article. Where does it say that Bush awarded oil contracts to Halliburton if oil is found? It says “potential new sources of energy.” Of course we are looking for potential new sources of energy, I myself hope they find some. I believe the idea is, the research involved in getting humans to Mars quickly will have a bi-product of creating a new energy source for us on Earth.

The very idea of oil on Mars is far fetched enough, but the idea of shipping oil from Mars to Earth is just plain stupid. The amount of resources it would take to ship several hundred tons of oil, billions of miles across space would far outstrip the gains. Am I the only one who thinks this idea is stupid? If you heard this on the radio then someone was smoking crack.
dbguru Offline
#14 Posted: Wed, Jan 14 2004, 8:33 AM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
Radio commentators smoking crack?? This does happen, I will give you that. Sylance, isn't it amazing how drugs and radio talk show hosts can occassionally mingle in a Rush Rush Rush (ditto) of allegations that may stretch facts for political objectives.

Well, Cheney was in my town yesterday, the commentary was from interviewers who are fairly well respected but here and the MSNBC article simply puts the everything into perspective. You and I are on common ground here scratching our head on why any source of energy would ship from Mars to Earth. On that point we agree.

Why would Cheney consider exploration of energy sources on Mars as vital as mentioned in the MSNBC article (except as it makes logical sense for potential development on Mars). Even if it is just Mars energy for Mars development you don't think Cheney is thinking about opportunities to get Haliburton involved with energy development on Mars?
C'mon, the man has his motivations which are fairly obvious.

Where we may disagree is on the conclusions drawn, and that's ok. You have yours and I have mine and in that space we can respectfully agree to disagree.

I still think this administration is completely motivated by oil company interests and little else. and the radio commentary and MSNBC article fuels my beliefs.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#15 Posted: Wed, Jan 14 2004, 10:28 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
the best possible energy source, the sun, with improved solar panels, and new methods of storage, the sun's energy would last as long as earth and not cause any pollution.

with all our scientific advances, including all our new toys, ie: a little thing that holds all your music and fits in your pocket, a phone that takes pictures and sends them through the air waves (i don't understand this, but i never understood the need to have a phone in your ear while you are walking or trying to park your car), lcd's, cd's and all the other d's i haven't even read about yet, wouldn't you think some effort to develop and improve solar energy should be some where in the mix?

only one problem, the big corporations have not figured out how to put a meter on the sun so they could charge you.
Sylance Offline
#16 Posted: Wed, Jan 14 2004, 12:39 PM EST
Joined: 06-19-2003
Posts: 592
Is it the “big corporations” fault, or is it society’s fault for their lust for 400 horse power cars, big screen TV’s, and 700 watt home theater systems. Solar power can’t generate enough to power these things.

I myself am guilty of two out of three of the above. There are cars that are run on electricity and are cleaner for the air and don’t (directly) burn fossil fuels. Do you own one… I don’t. In fact, these cars have sales that are so miserable that car manufactures are struggling to find the value in offering them.

Okay, gotta run now. And no, I’m not turning off my computer to save electricity because I like my screen saver so much…. will I at least turn off the light as I leave?
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#17 Posted: Wed, Jan 14 2004, 4:07 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
Sylance

if they make it we will buy it, but they have to make the solar cars go faster and run longer. solar power keeps us in the solar system, there must be enough energy to drive a little 2500 lb car 80 miles an hour, and go 0-60 in 5 seconds or less.

if the storage unit were made properly, we could even drive during an eclipse.

i am driving a 1995 chrysler that i bought new. i made the last payment in aug 2003. i have 49000 miles on the odometer. sort of like your screen saver, not much energy used.

tell me about your screen saver.
Sylance Offline
#18 Posted: Wed, Jan 14 2004, 6:27 PM EST
Joined: 06-19-2003
Posts: 592
I think we agree with each other. But it's a matter of ROI. There's a tremendous amount of research involved in getting solar power as advanced as your saying. Research equals cash.

Screen saver = SETI
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#19 Posted: Wed, Jan 14 2004, 7:01 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
what have your heard from the grey's?

do you have voice mail in case they call when you are out?

ask them about these crop circles. can they spell my name in my grass?
THL Offline
#20 Posted: Thu, Jan 15 2004, 6:35 AM EST
Joined: 10-22-2002
Posts: 3,044
Our original push to get to the moon spawned whole industries and created many products that we take for granted today. Couldn't this program do the same? May be it would be a better idea if Goredeankerryclark had suggested it.
And Rick, I can "write" your name in the snow if you'd like.
dbguru Offline
#21 Posted: Thu, Jan 15 2004, 6:46 AM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
You might not know it from my last comments, but I'm a huge fan of space exploration. Frankly I think Clinton screwed up by not diverting shrinking military commitments and resources more into space exploration initiatives. But the effort just doesn't feel right with Bush. I just think he wreaks with too much corporate cronyism to make these efforts fair and productive. I'm not confident that research, engineering and development opportunities will land in the laps of those most competent to do the job. Also I wish these efforts could be more internationalized. We should set forth into space as a united people, not as individual nations. This effort should bring the world together. International co-operation is just not one of Bush's strong suits. Sadly, he's lost too many friends in the world.
THL Offline
#22 Posted: Thu, Jan 15 2004, 7:12 AM EST
Joined: 10-22-2002
Posts: 3,044
Unfortunately, international co-operation means we foot the bill anyway. And as I said in my previous post, if a Dem had suggested it, it would be more right. Wake up and smell the LOX,(not salmon)! All politicians are in the business of rewarding their friends. And in many cases, they are the same friends the opposition has! Do you actually think campaign contributors expect nothing in return?
dbguru Offline
#23 Posted: Thu, Jan 15 2004, 8:25 AM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
Here is another source on the Haliburton Mars stuff.

http://www.petroleumnews.com/pnarch/010228-49.html
dbguru Offline
#24 Posted: Thu, Jan 15 2004, 8:53 AM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
On political contributions

Personally I give to support a candidate I believe
will be best for the welfare of my city, state or country. My hope and expectation is that that city, state or country and its citizens are better off as a result of that candidate representing us in office.

Corporate special interests make political contributions in the interest of their own bottom lines which benefits a very limited list of shareholders and senior executives in those organizations.

I don't deny that some of those resulting tax breaks and other corporate benefits can trickle down to some new jobs for regular people, but that is only at the discretion of these senior executives and only done as a necessity when demand for that company's products and services requires extra employment. Otherwise these breaks become a straight transfer of wealth to those at the top of the ladder with no main benfits to the welfare of our country.

So why don't we stop this transfer of our tax dollars into corporate interests. This contractual inititive between Geoffrey Briggs of NASA and Haliburton for Mar drilling is not money well spent in space exploration!!

Contracts and tax breaks like these with Haliburton which benefits Cheney and his friends but no one else. Is there a demand in the market for drilling on Mars?? HELL NO!!

We need economic policies that invest in stimulating consumer spending first, not business investment. This creates more customers for businesses and that increased demand that forces business to create jobs. If customers are there, investments will be made and jobs will be created to meet the demand. You can call it Supply side economics and the 1990's were proof that it works.

When demand for drilling on Mars becomes a reality and Haliburton proves its the best company to do the job from a fair pool of competitors on an open bid situation, I'll be ok with it.

RICKAMAVEN Offline
#25 Posted: Thu, Jan 15 2004, 2:18 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
dbguru

halliburton, which directly benifits the vice president because he receives differed compensation, was awarded many no bid contracts in iraq.
dbguru Offline
#26 Posted: Fri, Jan 16 2004, 7:04 AM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
Iraq was expected but Mars????
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top