I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  


friendsmore friends | add your site
Gorilla Mask

Funny Games



123 Games

Not Healthy

Extreme Humor

Funny Stuff

Free Samples

FreeGame Heaven

Comics Alliance

Viva La Games

Comic World

Funny stuff

Old Age Humor

Fresh Pics

Hot Games


Anon email


Back to Listing

The Road We've Travelled

Hits: 7955 | Rating: (2.1) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: madest
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 2068 Posts
Saturday, March 17, 2012 10:00:16 PM
Well, I'm not voting against him.

Male, 30-39, Midwest US
 9 Posts
Saturday, March 17, 2012 1:48:44 PM
Thanks for protecting our liberties Barock!?!!1!4! You Rock. . .

http://www.aclu.org/ blog/national-security /angry-about-national-defense -authorization-act

Male, 50-59, Canada
 28503 Posts
Friday, March 16, 2012 10:37:38 PM
That's what I mean @simbha, I thought they both had lots of proven reserves, but it's largely "potential" reserves. Live & learn at IAB!
From what I've read, Mexico's "plan" is to keep their fields under-developed until oil is REALLY high, so it's worth a fortune (in the future). idk how that's better than getting money NOW in a poverty striken nation, but like you say, it's not MY country!

Agreed @robosnitz, Tom Hanks makes anything 'sound good' eh?

Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 2752 Posts
Friday, March 16, 2012 10:08:46 PM
WOW! What a bunch of horsesh*t propaganda.Can I get Tom Hanks to narrate my life from 2008 to now?

Male, 30-39, Southern US
 412 Posts
Friday, March 16, 2012 8:37:40 PM
[... Continued from previous post]

For example, Mexico's proved reserves include the Chicontepec field, which it's estimated contains around 130-140 billion bbl... roughly half of Saudi Arabia's reserves. However, the vast majority of this cannot be produced with current technology... AND the political situation in Mexico is such that the government looks at Pemex (the national oil company, which is the only company authorized to produce crude in the country) as a governmental revenue source - and thus siphons loads of money away from it, essentially allowing it to operate but never to invest in infrastructure of technological development.

In my opinion, that's a poor sovereign strategy - but it's not my country, so what relevance is it to me? What will likely happen is that Pemex will be unable to maintain its current revenue stream for much longer - and the government will have to either allow it to invest in technology/capital or open the country's reserves to fore

Male, 30-39, Southern US
 412 Posts
Friday, March 16, 2012 8:29:13 PM
@5Cats: the UK has a decent amount in the Shetland Islands but it's largely fragmented, making it economically infeasible to tap without either (i) a significant increase in oil prices to compensate operators (oil companies) or (ii) significant advancements in multi-directional drilling and production facilities. The latter's likely, but it probably won't become commercially viable at this scale for at least 3-5 years.

Mexico's issue is really one of political infighting.

The term 'proved reserves' doesn't indicate everything that's been discovered. It's a measure of those reserves which can be considered feasible for production given expected technological and price trajectories. There are some geological formations which contain oil but are currently not expected to contribute to future supply, given current technological progress and expectations of future crude prices. They're not likely to be developed, but who knows?

Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 5166 Posts
Friday, March 16, 2012 7:59:48 PM
You forgot the "research" part. It is backed up by "research".

(Although, I have seen this research before... it is not real research of course... but you know, it still counts.)

Male, 50-59, Canada
 28503 Posts
Friday, March 16, 2012 7:52:57 PM
@elkingo: Creationist, Veteran, bitterly clinging to your guns and Bible! Red-necked, Faux-News watching, Limbaugh worshiping HILLBILLY!

Did I miss anything @madest?

Oh yeah, fat, I forgot fat.

Male, 50-59, Canada
 28503 Posts
Friday, March 16, 2012 7:50:37 PM
Wiki: World Oil scroll down for charts.
Proven Reserves By Country

So yes, the USA seems to have 10 years of pumping left, but Canada has 170+! lolz!

Interesting: I thought the UK and Mexico had a fair amount of oil, but not according to these charts!

It's all a shell game really. Oil goes up? They make money. Oil goes down? They make money.

Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 5166 Posts
Friday, March 16, 2012 7:41:16 PM
Madest rule activated: If you vote less than 4.0 on this submission, you are an ignorant racist hate monger conservative white bigot. He has "research" that backs it up.

Male, 30-39, Southern US
 412 Posts
Friday, March 16, 2012 7:20:52 PM
[Correcting a recent post (below)...]

"is currently producing around MMbpd and consumes around 18-19 MMbpd."

should be...

"is currently producing around [8] MMbpd and consumes around 18-19 MMbpd."

Male, 30-39, Southern US
 412 Posts
Friday, March 16, 2012 7:19:23 PM
[... Continued from previous comment]

Furthermore, it's highly likely that OPEC or one or more of its member countries (independently) would significantly decrease production in the somewhat longer term, thereby maintaining global supply at today's levels and resetting prices again to what we're seeing now.

Unless US production were actually limited to transport within the US itself, an increase in domestic oil production would not likely result in a long-term reduction in prices. What it would do, however, is reduce the amount of proven reserves available in the US much faster than would occur today - thus resulting in even more influence by foreign entities in the not-so-far-flung future.

Male, 30-39, Southern US
 412 Posts
Friday, March 16, 2012 7:17:06 PM
@5Cats: You're right, in theory - but that (increasing production to contribute to global economic production, in order to offset price movements) can't last long.

The US currently has between 19 and 21 billion bbl in proven reserves, is currently producing around MMbpd and consumes around 18-19 MMbpd.

At the current rate of production - without replacement - the US will use up all its in-ground proven reserves in about seven years. Certainly, new finds will stretch this out, but it's impossible to tell now what that will be.

Increasing production significantly - let's say by 40% - would certainly have a short-term impact on oil production, adding about 3 MMbpd to the global market; however, this is only about 4% of the total 88 MMbpd that's produced globally. The price impact of this is unclear.


Male, 50-59, Canada
 28503 Posts
Friday, March 16, 2012 4:41:15 PM
Partly true @grindinblade, but more supply (overall) means lower (overall) prices, eh?

US production has gone up a bit lately (much to my surprise!) and also it is importing less forign oil too! A LOT more US production would mean a LOT less forign oil, and less "sensitivity" to international fluctuations.

Just 'Into Economics' really.

Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 229 Posts
Friday, March 16, 2012 4:29:20 PM
@5cats it wouldn't matter if the oil we get came from the middle east, canada, or the US. The market is what dictates oil prices, and with the problems in the middle east who produces the most oil, prices largely hinge on what is going on there. Just because the US is producing more oil doesn't mean that prices will suddenly drop as if we are buying all of oil from US suppliers the market doesn't work that way.

Male, 50-59, Canada
 28503 Posts
Friday, March 16, 2012 4:17:11 PM
Good for you then, @grindinblade, to be consistant is good!
I add that the Dems have been opposing more drilling for decades now. If drilling had started decades ago, Middle Eastern oil would not even be required! Canadian oil yes, but Obama has BLOCKED that too!
So yes, I think the Dems as a party and Obama as a President ARE to blame for high prices and dependance on Saudi oil.

Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 229 Posts
Friday, March 16, 2012 3:59:16 PM
@5cats I'm not saying that criticism on Bush for oil prices was deserved, and don't doubt the MSM bias. My point is that criticism on gas prices from either party is pointless party pandering. Just because dems criticized bush unfairly about gas prices doesn't mean that we should continue the trend with Obama. There are legitimate criticisms for both sides for the opposing party, gas prices aren't one of them.

I for one am furious over the drone killing of an American citizen and the MSM not really seeming to care about it.

Male, 50-59, Canada
 28503 Posts
Friday, March 16, 2012 3:55:01 PM
Oh lookie: Obama's Own Advertising blaming Bush and McCain (?!?) for high gas prices.
Say Barak, where's that "windfall tax" you promised? Where's the $1000 energy rebate?
The MSM has zero intrest in covering THIS! Too busy with Sandra Fluke...

Male, 50-59, Canada
 28503 Posts
Friday, March 16, 2012 3:50:03 PM
@grindinblade: Obama's Own Words This (and 100 other examples) is why conservatives say the MSM is 100% biased, eh?

And in case you think these are "cherry picked" try to find:
Praise for Bush / Criticism for Obama over gas prices at any MSM station.

Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 229 Posts
Friday, March 16, 2012 3:49:33 PM
@MeGrendel Bush was not to blame for the gas increase during his presidency, nor is Obama to blame now. Republicans under Bush said that gas prices can't be controlled by the president, now the roles are just switched.
This isn't a matter of incompetency it is political pandering and partisanship. Republicans will blame Democrats for problems they know can't be controlled when a dem is office, and the reverse is true when a Republican is office. I guess the main reason why there was more hype around Bush was due to his and Cheney's connection to oil companies and Halliburton, and their war in Iraq.

Male, 40-49, Southern US
 5285 Posts
Friday, March 16, 2012 3:20:54 PM
mcboozerilla-"The Tea Party racists... "

Anything after that statement can pretty much be ignored.

Yes, the Tea Party (who's membership includes all races) is 'racist', but you 'forgive the party that says these:
-'typical white person', Obama
-'He’s married to a white woman. He wants to be white.'-D. Watson-Dem
-'This city will be chocolate at the end of the day' -Gov.Nagin, Dem. New Orleans
-'I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.'-LB Johnson

You probably consider the Tea Party 'violent', too. Like those Tea Party gatherings where no violence occurred? Wheras the 'peaceful' Occupy movement had: Murder, Rape, Suicide, TB, Assault, Violence, Drugs and Riots and has cost the taxpayer MILLIONS to clean up and repair the damage. (and yet the Media would have you beleive the Tea Party is the violent one).

So, what flavor is the kool-aid today?

Male, 40-49, Southern US
 5285 Posts
Friday, March 16, 2012 3:18:32 PM
grindinblade-"Not sure why so many here are blaming Obama for the price of gas,"

Well, seeing as SENATOR Obama blamed BUSH for high gas prices in 2008, we're just holding him to his own standard?

So, did Obama lie? Or is he just incompetent (or both)?

grindinblade-"it is absurd to think that the president can control it."

Well, Hillary Clinton, Pelosi, Wasserman Schultz, Reid, Rahm Emanuel and other democrats, and a good part of the media, said that 'The President' controlled the gas prices. Of course, that was when Bush was 'The President'. Now that Obama is 'The President', they are strangely silent (or still blaming Bush).

Could it be that Obama is just not as influential as Bush was?

Male, 18-29, Southern US
 599 Posts
Friday, March 16, 2012 3:00:47 PM
@mcboozerilla Nice profiling, bro.

Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 229 Posts
Friday, March 16, 2012 2:28:16 PM
Not sure why so many here are blaming Obama for the price of gas, it is absurd to think that the president can control it. The large increase in the oil prices is largely due to oil speculators believing that Iran will cut off the straight of Hormuz through which a large portion of the world's oil supply travels. Despite the fact that oil production is rising and demand falling (which under normal economics would drive price down) we see the price increasing. After the housing crash and ensuing economic crisis a large portion of wall street banks began trading in commodities, mostly oil. However under prior law speculators were limited in commodities trading, but this was waived for large banks by the SEC. The gas prices now are due to over buying of oil creating a bubble, once the bubble pops and everyone begins to sell prices will hit rock bottom.

Male, 30-39, Australia
 25196 Posts
Friday, March 16, 2012 2:16:08 PM
17 mins... im just watching the star trek fan. I dont have that much time.

Page: 1 2 3 4 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account

Back to Listing ^top

Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2015 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.