What if Oil Companies Fought Back?

by lewwaters

screwedSeems hardly a day goes by that leftist twits bash oil companies and demonize oil, forgetting or ignoring the many benefits of the product.

Of late, we see them pushing hard to block recovery of it and even facilities to store and ship it to various destinations where it is transformed into any one of the many products we depend each day.

Hoquiam mayor calls for moratorium on all future oil facilities in city

Even locally we see efforts to deny the many family wage jobs that stand to be created: Vancouver extends moratorium on crude oil facilities

Imagine now if the oil companies just said the hell with this and stopped shipping any of their refined product into these regions, completely.

How would the leftist twits manage to get to their rallies and protests after a while? How would rags like the Lazy C manage to deliver their propaganda to the few readers left?

$10 a gallon gas would be child’s play with absolutely none available as our economy and commerce ground to a halt.

11 Comments to “What if Oil Companies Fought Back?”

  1. Not only are the leftist twits wrong, they are _morally_ wrong about fossil fuels. I direct your attention to the Center for Industrial Progress, where a book entitled The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels is featured. The Center for Industrial Progress is independent from energy companies (though they’ll take contributions and the founder and executive director of CIP has consulted with several oil companies). The book is available from Amazon and from CIP, where you can read the first chapter online. (see http://www.industrialprogress.com )

    I note that one of the oil companies (I forget which one) was running an ad that pointed out all the good things that petroleum products do — and that they were “the place for energy.” I suspect that ad was, in part, encouraged by the CIP’s efforts.

    Like

  2. I have neighbors who are always preaching “environmental” damages by “Big Oil” and how “deny-ers” are oblivious to the horrible effects of “global warming” …. yet they re-financed their house with old windows and big wood burning fireplace and bought 2 big gas hog SUVs . . Their kids also have huge gas hog vehicles . And their neighbors went out and bought a huge V8 SUV when gas prices reached $2 per gallon. Leftist twits ? Yes, and they breed more than the intelligent people.

    Like

  3. If it weren’t for oil we would be in the Stone Age technology, oil is in everything we use every say and don’t even give it a second thought.. The list of products derived from oil is simply mind boggling..

    Like

  4. They are hypocrites plain and simple.

    Like

  5. What an ignorant post. The presence of gas in the oil trains is a clear danger. Sad to see the unqualified sycophantic replies, though. Carolyn, I keep thinking you would know better.

    Small nuclear generators are the obvious alternative, but somehow small-minded politicians can’t muster the courage to support them. The science supports small thorium reactors. Understandably, the politically powerful utiltiies oppose them (as well as modifications to code to mandate solar roof panels on new construction in the Sun Belt). The politicians buckle and the public is ill-served.

    Like

  6. Ignorant?

    Tell me, Josef, just what brand of shoe do you walk to work in or bicycle do you ride?

    And that computer you’re using now, what do you think the plastic case is made from?

    Since cars do not have those nuclear generators yet, surely you do not use anything that relies on fossil fuel (oil).

    Like

  7. I have not been clear. I support economically viable power production, which excludes wind, but includes nuclear. To me, nuclear is preferential to oil. However, oil has much more political support. I believe nuclear plus add’l local power (including hydro and local solar) trumps the foreign policy ramifications of relying on Middle East oil.

    Like

  8. Lew, you state “Since cars do not have those nuclear generators yet, surely you do not use anything that relies on fossil fuel (oil)”

    Sorry, I was unclear. When I talk about an optimistic future, I’m projecting five years into the future, where electric stations (such as those found at OMSI today) are powered by nuclear. So, an electric-powered car really doesn’t depend on the source of power. (In other words, what actually happens today). My hope is that power generation is shifted from coal to nuclear.

    Had Jimmy Carter really pushed for nuclear, we would have finished by now. We need less than 50 stations, at about 30 years construction (somewhat pessimistic).

    I hope that is clear.

    Like

  9. My only problem with nuclear is the waste. I understand some can be recycled, but there is still a lot sitting around now.

    We are fortunate to have an abundance of hydro-electric in the Northwest, but not every region is so fortunate.

    Windmills are unreliable and overly expensive. Solar panels have their own problems, not the least of which is frying birds flying over, shared with windmills flying into blades.

    We have an abundance of natural gas and with trading with Canada as well as known reserves sitting underground in North America, should not have to rely on Middle East Oil. Especially considering how what we pay them for it is used against us.

    For me, using petroleum is not so much political as it is remains the most efficient, reliable and affordable energy source we have, as well as a multitude of other everyday uses we have for petroleum: http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm

    Like

  10. Josef, electric cars have been around since the early days of automobiles. They were phased out due to being unreliable.

    Granted, technology has improved and they have gotten better now, but they still cannot fully match the reliability of fossil fuel vehicles.

    And don’t forget, as we see more EV’s on the road, even more power must be generated to recharge them which increases green house gases since nuclear generation is becoming more a thing of the past.

    As for Carter pushing for more nuclear, I don’t know how long you have been up here, but that was tried here in the late 70’s with an overly ambitious project known as WPPSS (Washington Public Power Supply System) aka Whoops. It became a disaster.
    http://www.context.org/iclib/ic07/myers/

    While I am more of an all the above type person, I also believe windmills and solar panels are just not worth it.

    Like

  11. Hi Lew,

    Believe me, I’m famiar w/ WPPSS (Wupps). A default should have resulted in prison time, am I clear? Of course, I refer to their bonds.

    I think nuclear waste can be dealt with, esp w/ breeder reactors.

    But, to be honest, my original issue was oil, and Carolyn Crain’s dishonest repsonse.

    I want to see the oil trains stopped. I also want to see nuclear power permitted (it is currently stalled solely due to politics). But Crain takes the easy road.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: