Blame Bush, blame congress, blame green-idiots – but give me solutions

[Bob]

There is no consensus nor can there be on this board – but I wonder how many both left and right can agree on some solutions?

We need to lower the cost of fuel. Anyone here disagree with that? Anyone thinks that oil prices are going to trend lower this summer? Ok, what should be done about it?

How bout these radical ideas – if you disagree help me to understand with facts from non-blog sources ok?

1. Carter and I do not have much in common, but the coal to fuel program that he started during his presidency was not a bad idea. Problem back then was that OPEC was not producing at capacity and ramped up production thereby deflating the cost of a barrel of oil way below what coal to oil was – so the idea was scrapped. Coal to oil is something we can do for about $50.00 a barrel – we capture what C02 we can and reduce our dependence on forien oil. Yes, it would take 10 years or so to ramp it up – but why give speculators reason to bid up the cost? And if we always say "it will take ten years before we see anything from it" I guess they will be dead 10 years from now? Might as well not buy green bannanas either. Europe is building 40 coal to fuel plants – why not us?
2. Nuke power – good for France, good for us – you believe in global warming? Then why not replace some of the energy production in the us that is now coal and oil to nuclear power? It aint perfect – but if one really believes in global warming – it would make sense to me.
3. Why cant we drill in Alaska, and off our own shores – China and India are drilling just off our shores guys – are they going to be careful about it – or should we do it?
4. I say help create the infrastructure in California to trial the hydrogen option – in time the ost will go down, but this might be one instance where governmental support would be helpful to off-set the distribution infrastructure to jumpstart something that could later be used elsewhere.
5. People are buying smaller cars because of the cost of fuel. So is that the REAL reason legislators do nothing because there are those that are thrilled about the change in our behavor? And they are bought out not by big oil -- but are bought and paid for by Big Green (GE, radical environmental groups and the media that believe in the religion of global warming, or at least the taxes they can get?) Yup. Congress drilling the oil executives, while stopping them from drilling? It was like watching teh showboating of the baseball hearings. They drill them for their 4 cent per gallon profit, and say nothing of the 18 cent per gallon tax the government levies.
6. Last of all it is not any ONE thing that can fix this problem, it is combining many ideas – much of which could start if the government and lawsuits were dragged out of the equation. 60% of Americans want to drill for more oil, and that number would be much higher if the media wouldn’t be driving our economy off a cliff in a buggy. I blame George Bush, I blame congress as well – they only act when they are forced to. Think about how much inflation is going to trickle into everything we buy – if 70% of our economy is based on what we buy, its hard to be a world leader and have influence (environmental or otherwise) with China and India if we stay on the suicidal path of doing nothing, and become Amish by force.

[Spider]

you want to lower the cost of Fuel ?
**** whining about Carter , if we had listened to him , we wouldnt be in this mess ...... if you want to lower fuel cost , kick Ken Salazar in the ass ........

[spdirty]

6. Last of all it is not any ONE thing that can fix this problem, it is combining many ideas

There ya go...add in gettin that shale and we got most of it covered. But the the way CONgress behaves you might as well be preaching to a wall.

[spdirty]

if you want to lower fuel cost , kick Ken Salazar in the ass ........

:~ohyah!: ^5

[spdirty]

**** whining about Carter , if we had listened to him , we wouldnt be in this mess ......

he actually gave one of Carter's programs props dude

[Spider]

he actually gave one of Carter's programs props dude

;D I know .........but ken salazar is being pecker head butt munch...he is whining about not following Carters advice.........

[elsid13]

In reality there is nothing we can to solve current crisis, all we can do is to hope to lessen it and ensure that we position the country not to be similar strait 10 years down the road. It just to late in the decision process to make a meaningful change. If we are smart we should start seeing payback on our investment in the next 5 to 10 years. Why so long because it take time to design, engineer and manufacture/produce the solution.


Things to look at:

1. Increase fuel effiency. This should have been ages ago
2. Look at ways to incorporate micro wind turbines in cities
3. Strongly invest in nuclear plants.

[snowspot66]

We went from sitting on the ground with our thumbs up our ass to the moon in under ten years using the computing power of a calculator. Whenever we pull our collective heads out and decide to do something I'm sure we can get it going faster than those ten year estimates. At this point every year counts. Even 7 or 8 would be a major improvement.

[Dukes]

I remember when Clinton denied drilling in ANWAR because "It would be 10 years before we see any of it"

Well here it is 10+ years later when we need it the most. Jackass.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I remember when Clinton denied drilling in ANWAR because "It would be 10 years before we see any of it"

Well here it is 10+ years later when we need it the most. Jackass.

Then why haven't the oil compnies drilled ANWAR on Bush's watch yet?

Didn't they get the green light?

Answer: Because the oil companies know there isn't enough oil there to make it worth their while.

[Dukes]

You know jack ****

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You know jack ****

Wow - that was an incisive and well-thought-out rebuttal. :oyvey:

[Bob]

you want to lower the cost of Fuel ?
**** whining about Carter , if we had listened to him , we wouldnt be in this mess ...... if you want to lower fuel cost , kick Ken Salazar in the ass ........

I gave my props to Carter for starting the process -- I think honestly what happened was the cost of oil dropped to something like 10 dollars per barrel --and well, that suddenly took the steam out of being motivated to develop plants that could produce oil for 55 dollars per barrel...I'm not sure who eventually shelved it...I think it was short-sited, but I can see why they did.

Bottom line is I dont think anyone could deflate the cost to $55 dollars now -- people are always talking about not being dependent on oil from hostile countries -- well if they mean it they should get the hell out of the way. Those who complain the loudest -- obstruct companies from getting at it...

There are other issues for high costs --like the deflating value of the dollar, and speculation --I think however, even declairing that we were going to exlore for oil off our own shores would cause the cost of a barrel of oil to go down. Right now there are no indications that we are going to do anything to solve the issue so speculators think correctly they should ride the price upward.

[Bob]

There ya go...add in gettin that shale and we got most of it covered. But the the way CONgress behaves you might as well be preaching to a wall.

The more I see it unfold -- and their distractions I think they want it to go up.

[spdirty]

Wow - that was an incisive and well-thought-out rebuttal. :oyvey:

LOL coming from you?

[Bob]

I remember when Clinton denied drilling in ANWAR because "It would be 10 years before we see any of it"

Well here it is 10+ years later when we need it the most. Jackass.

Maybe -- but he is not the only one. I wonder if Bush went to the American people just after the Afghanistan invasion, and instead of going into Iraq said -- we are going to become energy independent as part of the global war on terror -- and spent his political capital on that instead of Iraq -- I think that would have been the better path -- but thats just me. Oh, yeah, and while he was at it -- sent 100,000 troops to both borders -- but thats just me again.

[Bob]

Then why haven't the oil compnies drilled ANWAR on Bush's watch yet?

Didn't they get the green light?

Answer: Because the oil companies know there isn't enough oil there to make it worth their while.

What is the truth here? Did they really get a green light -- I doubt it -- I sincerely do --

You cant be auguing that Bush doesnt really want to drill the hell out of ANWAR .. or did he buckle again?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What is the truth here? Did they really get a green light -- I doubt it -- I sincerely do --


Senate Votes to Allow Drilling in Arctic Reserve

Published: March 17, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/17/politics/17arctic.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So, even though the Senate voted to allow drilling in ANWAR, the broken records on the right continue to claim that the "enviro-whackos" are preventing Big Oil from drilling there. (Or to blame Clinton.)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LOL coming from you?

Invalid comparison.

[sisterhellfyre]

4. I say help create the infrastructure in California to trial the hydrogen option – in time the ost will go down, but this might be one instance where governmental support would be helpful to off-set the distribution infrastructure to jumpstart something that could later be used elsewhere.

What if... what if it's time for a paradigm shift?

We keep hearing that using hydrogen as a fuel is impractical because we don't have the infrastructure to store, distribute and sell large amounts. We don't have hydrogen stations on the interstate freeways like gasoline stations.

We keep hearing, too, that hydrogen-fueled vehicles are impractical because storing hydrogen is dangerous. It's a bomb waiting to go off, and who wants to be the next Hindenburg?

What if the problem is that we're thinking about using hydrogen in the same way that we use gasoline, when there are better alternatives to be found, by thinking about hydrogen in different ways?

http://www.runyourcaronwater.com

I don't even own a car, so there's no way I can test this at the moment... but it might be something to think about. The video clips are intriguing. At the very least, it's an entertaining exercise in thinking outside the box for creative ways to use new technologies and new materials.

After all, you don't control your car's engine with a buggy whip...

Regards,
m.

[TexanBob]

What did Bush do right after Katrina? He declared a moratorium on producing various exotic formula grades of gasoline that various states had put into law so that production could be sped up and refined more quickly and efficiently.

Result? Supply went up and prices went back down after a month of panic buying. So why not do that again, Mr. President?

Other suggestions: 1) Stop putting oil into the SPR while the price is sky high. Don't release it into the market but just stop buying it. Congress, I believe, recently passed something about this.

2) Arrange with Mexico to buy a big plot of land over in Baja and turn it into a refinery. The enviros will never let us build another refinery in the U.S., so let's cut a deal and start building one in Mexico. Good-paying jobs for the Mexicans = less illegals over here and will also increase oil supply to the hemisphere. More supply = lower prices. Easy delivery to the West Coast too which should drop prices where they have traditionally been the highest.

3) Long-term, do what is needed to increase domestic production while we also transition to alternate fuels (nuclear, coal, bios, etc) and common-sense conservation (no heavy-handed enviro ****, just explain how everyone can use a little less and be more efficient).

Like Bob says, there is no one silver bullet solution but we, as a country, need to get our heads out of our asses, tell Congress to shut up and treat the issue honestly and tell the enviros to shut the hell up or we'll make them all pull the rickshaws.

[TDmvp]

Liberal @sshole Broncos Fan please fact check your bull$hit a little better , i mean even me the big stoner can at least use google ...

Arctic Refuge drilling was again approved by the House of Representatives as part of the Energy Bill on April 21, 2005, but the Arctic Refuge provision was later removed by the House-Senate conference committee. The Senate passed Arctic Refuge drilling on March 16, 2005 as part of the federal budget resolution for fiscal year 2006. That Arctic Refuge provision was removed during the reconciliation process, due to Democrats in the House of Representatives who signed a letter stating they would oppose any version of the budget that had Arctic Refuge drilling in it.

On December 15, 2005, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) attached an Arctic Refuge drilling amendment to the annual defense appropriations bill. A group of Democratic Senators led a successful filibustering of the bill on December 21, 2005, and the language was subsequently removed from the bill

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Liberal @sshole Bronco please fact check your bull$hit a little better , i mean me the big stoner can at least use google ...

Arctic Refuge drilling was again approved by the House of Representatives as part of the Energy Bill on April 21, 2005, but the Arctic Refuge provision was later removed by the House-Senate conference committee. The Senate passed Arctic Refuge drilling on March 16, 2005 as part of the federal budget resolution for fiscal year 2006. That Arctic Refuge provision was removed during the reconciliation process, due to Democrats in the House of Representatives who signed a letter stating they would oppose any version of the budget that had Arctic Refuge drilling in it.

On December 15, 2005, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) attached an Arctic Refuge drilling amendment to the annual defense appropriations bill. A group of Democratic Senators led a successful filibustering of the bill on December 21, 2005, and the language was subsequently removed from the bill

Ain't that just like a rightard?

You are trying to blame the Democrats (who were the minority party at the time) for overturning that provision when, in fact, the opposition came from a group of Republicans who were worried about their chances for re-election in '06.

Your party controlled the executive branch and both houses up until '06, and you're trying to blame the Democrats for your failure to make drilling in ANWAR a reality?

BTW, please show us some evidence that the oil companies were sold on the idea to begin with.

Oh well, at least you got the "big stoner" part right. Ha! :puff:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

NY Times mischaracterized opposition to Stevens's ANWR plan

Summary: The New York Times falsely suggested that only Senate Democrats have "assailed" Sen. Ted Stevens's (R-AK) proposed move to ensure passage of a provision to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) by attaching it to the 2006 Senate defense bill. In fact, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a Republican and one of the conferees on the defense bill, is strongly opposed to the plan.

In a December 16 article by reporter Carl Hulse, The New York Times falsely suggested that only Senate Democrats have "assailed" Sen. Ted Stevens's (R-AK) proposed move to ensure passage of a provision to drill for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) by attaching it to the 2006 Senate defense bill. Hulse also reported -- without refutation -- the highly deceptive claim by unnamed Senate "aides" that no "chief defense spending negotiators" have objected to Stevens's proposal.

In fact, while it is unclear whether the chairman and ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services committee -- reportedly the primary negotiators of the bill in the Senate -- object to Stevens's plan, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who is one of the conferees and negotiators on the defense bill, is strongly opposed to the plan. McCain described Stevens's move as "disgusting" and "disgraceful," as both The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times noted. The Los Angeles Times also reported that Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) disapproves of Stevens's plan and that a bipartisan group of senators has begun drafting a letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) opposing the measure.

Although a December 8 CongressDaily report suggested that negotiations on the Senate defense bill (S. 1042) have been "limited largely" to the "chairman and ranking members of the [House and Senate] Armed Services committees," McCain, the second-ranking Republican of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is a conferee on the bill and has also been active in negotiations on it, sponsoring an amendment to it that would ban cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. McCain has expressed his steadfast opposition to Stevens's proposal to attach the ANWR drilling provision to the defense bill, as a December 16 Post article reported:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) also sharply criticized Stevens's effort as "disgusting." But asked how he would vote on such a bill, McCain said: "That's the dilemma. I'd have to look at the whole bill. I think it's disgraceful that I have to be put in that position."

Further, McCain is not the only Senate Republican who has objected to Stevens's proposal. As a December 16 Los Angeles Times article reported, Coleman also opposes the plan to attach the ANWR provision to the defense bill, while a group of "senators from each party" is drafting a letter to Frist stating that senators "ought not to exploit ... the well-being of our troops" in order to advance the ANWR provision by attaching it to the defense bill. From the Los Angeles Times:

Democratic leaders were pressing their rank and file to stick together to strip the drilling measure from the military spending bill. Their central argument -- that Arctic drilling did not belong in a military appropriations bill -- also resonated with some Republicans.

Several senators from each party who have opposed Arctic drilling acknowledged that adding the measure to the bill would put them in a difficult position.

A group was drafting a letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) saying that senators "ought not to exploit ... the well-being of our troops" to advance the drilling measure.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a drilling opponent, said he wasn't sure how he would vote if the bill included the drilling measure.

"That's the dilemma," McCain said in an interview. "I think it's disgraceful I have to be put in that position."

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), another drilling opponent, said that adding the measure to the military appropriations bill would make the vote "very uncomfortable for me."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512160010

[TDmvp]

Then why haven't the oil compnies drilled ANWAR on Bush's watch yet?

Didn't they get the green light?

Answer: Because the oil companies know there isn't enough oil there to make it worth their while.


so no dip$hit they didn't get the green light is basically what i was saying ...

and i think the real reason is based within my last post , they wanted to ... the tree huggers cried and it didn't happen ... or at least that what the facts seem to say .. but hey they are just facts who the hell would bother to take them into account .. i think there is more then enuff blame on this one ... everyone one of us could do more and all we do is bish and moan about it ...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

so no dip$hit they didn't get the green light is basically what i was saying ...

Yes they did - and Republicans who were worried about their chances for re-election squashed it!

Can't you read?


and i think the real reason is based within my last post , they wanted to ... the tree huggers cried and it didn't happen ... or at least that what the facts seem to say .. but hey they are just facts who the hell would bother to take them into account .. i think there is more then enuff blame on this one ... everyone one of us could do more and all we do is bish and moan about it ...

Wow - the Republicans controlled the WH and both houses for five years, but they couldn't get their ANWAR agenda past the "tree huggers."

Who knew tree huggers had that kind of power? :rofl:

[Spider]

I remember when Clinton denied drilling in ANWAR because "It would be 10 years before we see any of it"

Well here it is 10+ years later when we need it the most. Jackass.

Here is a the Problem with your ****ing ANWAR Pal ....... First off it was set aside as a National park , Secondly , it is a mud puddle ( as far as oil goes), and last it would cost too ****ing much to get oil down here .. ANWAR is a political football .......you want oil that isnt Shale ? Section 181 ( that some democrats are trying to push through ) In the Gulf of Mexico , How come Reps are dragging their feet on that ?
Then you have Shale oil , oh you can Believe these monkeys Posting here it is to hard to get , but I have seen the drilling myself , you want Shale oil ? Kick Ken Salazar in the ass ......

[Spider]

everyone one of us could do more and all we do is bish and moan about it ...

thats the thing ...... we dont have to do more about it .......The battle lines are blurred , everyone wants oil .But they dont want it drilled up in their own back yard ..prime example Dema are pushing for Section 181 , Massive oil / Natty Gas reserve in the gulf , Meanwhile dems are dragging their feet on shale oil ......when you have been up next to an oil driling rig drilling ,not stacked out , you will understand why people dont want them around ......

[spdirty]

everyone wants oil .But they dont want it drilled up in their own back yard

I do. I wake up to a beautiful mountain view every single morning, sometimes Elk and deer graze in my backyard. I would happily trade that away for a view of an oil drilling rig in my backyard. No bullshlt.

[Spider]

I do. I wake up to a beautiful mountain view every single morning, sometimes Elk and deer graze in my backyard. I would happily trade that away for a view of an oil drilling rig in my backyard. No bullshlt.

Ok , what about the water and Mud tanks ? do you know how loud one of those things are ? not to mention the grease , pipe , Bentonite , workers , Big trucks all hours of the night .....

[Meck77]

There is no consensus nor can there be on this board – but I wonder how many both left and right can agree on some solutions?

We need to lower the cost of fuel. Anyone here disagree with that? .

I'm sure I'm in the minority here but I'm seeing some real positive changes with higher fuel prices. It's pinching us all but people are being forced into reality.

This is an article from today's Denver post. http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9556819

Unfortunately American auto makers are behind the curve but maybe they'll see the light now. Big is out. Fuel efficiency is back in. :thumbs:

[The Lone Bolt]

The EV revolution is coming. Today the Aptera, in 2010 the Chevy Volt, Mitsubishi MiEV, Subaru S1e, Tesla Whitestar, etc etc etc . . .

In the meantime people will adapt like always to higher fuel prices: they will buy more fuel-efficient transportation, move closer to work, use public transportation and carpool, cancel unnecessary trips, practice hypermiling, etc. We may have a rough few years ahead in terms of fuel prices but EVs are coming soon and they will be here to stay.

[Bob]

Senate Votes to Allow Drilling in Arctic Reserve

Published: March 17, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/17/politics/17arctic.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Thanks for the post -- so what/who are really stopping it now? I dont see any Dems really being big proponants of drilling there. I think that we can do things to reduce demand that wont shut everything down -- but in my mind there seems to be a concerted effort in intentionally doing things to raise the cost -- one result in high cost is forced reduced consumption and inturn reduced CO2.

[Spider]

Thanks for the post -- so what/who are really stopping it now? that is simple , the oil companies themselfs , ANWAR was a perfect political Football , see those Dems wont allow drilling , well it has nothing to do with Dems , it has everything to do with cost .......


I dont see any Dems really being big proponants of drilling there. I think that we can do things to reduce demand that wont shut everything down -- but in my mind there seems to be a concerted effort in intentionally doing things to raise the cost -- one result in high cost is forced reduced consumption and inturn reduced CO2.

What we can do is this , drill off the Continental shelf , Drill up Gulf stream , let the Shale oil flow , BUILD MORE NUCLEAR Power Plants , Get oil from Coal , use low sulpher coal to power ,Power Plants ...... We can drill our way out of this ... buy at least 50 years time to come up with something new and exciting ;D

[Bob]

that is simple , the oil companies themselfs , ANWAR was a perfect political Football , see those Dems wont allow drilling , well it has nothing to do with Dems , it has everything to do with cost .......




What we can do is this , drill off the Continental shelf , Drill up Gulf stream , let the Shale oil flow , BUILD MORE NUCLEAR Power Plants , Get oil from Coal , use low sulpher coal to power ,Power Plants ...... We can drill our way out of this ... buy at least 50 years time to come up with something new and exciting ;D

I heard that they are voting on whether they are going to bring the subject about drilling off the continental shelf to the floor (this Weds.) Not if they are going to explore or drill -- but even if they will allow teh subject to go to the floor for a full debate.

The fact is there some folks who want high oil to get Americans to change their habits -- the problem is that the American economy is like a very large ship -- by the time they have raised prices up high enough (if they want people to change behavor and make other fuels more viable -- I think we are there) but now the price will continue to flow through the rest of the ecomomy with unintended affects...

I know your industry Spider has been one of the more badly impacted...

[elsid13]

Came across this - thought it was interesting

Radical turbine aims to take wind power to towns and cities

<LI class=byline>John Vidal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/johnvidal), environment editor <LI class=publication>The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian),
Friday June 2 2006
Article history (http://orangemane.com/BB/)Wind turbines are tall white objects with three long blades and they sit on hilltops spinning around to generate electricity, right? Wrong. In the first radical redesign of the turbine for many years, a small engineering firm has linked up with aerospace designers to devise a wind generator uniquely for urban areas.
The turbines, the first of which are being installed in the next few months in Bristol, Swindon and London, promise to change the face of renewable electricity, and perhaps end the cold reception that conventional wind turbines have encountered from heritage groups, say the designers and developers, XCO2.
The designers say they may have overcome two drawbacks of traditional turbines. The turbine's triple helix form and vertical axis are said to make it almost silent, and it is believed to perform better in urban areas, where wind direction can vary by the minute. While there are other vertical-axis turbines, this is believed to be the first with three blades.
Named Quiet Revolution, the turbine is about five metres in length without a pole, and the designers claim it can produce 10,000kWh a year on an average wind speed of 5.8 metres a second. The company claims this would provide electricity for perhaps five energy-efficient homes. The combined cost and installation charge for a 6kW turbine would be about £28,000.
"We are being inundated with inquiries from China, the US, Africa and Japan," said Robert Webb, chief executive of XCO2. "They are being proposed for the Dontang eco-city near Shanghai. London is already taking a lead in sustainable energy technologies, particularly in new buildings, where 10% renewable energy is already required on site. We would like to see its historic buildings use them."
Yesterday XCO2 applied to Westminster city council for permission to fix a 6kW turbine on the facade of Buckingham Palace. In the daytime it would be a spinning "flagpole", but at night it could become a glowing union flag hovering over the palace. Not only do the turbines generate electricity; they can double up as art or even advertising hoardings.
About this article

Close (http://orangemane.com/BB/)
This article appeared in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian) on Friday June 02 2006 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2006/jun/02) on p4 of the National news (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2006/jun/02/mainsection/uknews2) section. It was last updated at 15:15 on December 19 2007.

[Spider]

I heard that they are voting on whether they are going to bring the subject about drilling off the continental shelf to the floor (this Weds.) Not if they are going to explore or drill -- but even if they will allow teh subject to go to the floor for a full debate. Yeah trying to get behind who is mudding up the waters on this is a bitch .....

The fact is there some folks who want high oil to get Americans to change their habits -- the problem is that the American economy is like a very large ship -- by the time they have raised prices up high enough (if they want people to change behavor and make other fuels more viable -- I think we are there) but now the price will continue to flow through the rest of the ecomomy with unintended affects... Very astute observation , and I agree ......

I know your industry Spider has been one of the more badly impacted...Yeah I went through some old paper work I had when I was an O/O , if the price increase had been gradual , I probably would have survived it
.......I have a good job right now , damn nice truck , high pay ...... I just hate calling in , and taking orders ;D

[Bob]

Yeah trying to get behind who is mudding up the waters on this is a b**** .....

Very astute observation , and I agree ......

Yeah I went through some old paper work I had when I was an O/O , if the price increase had been gradual , I probably would have survived it
.......I have a good job right now , damn nice truck , high pay ...... I just hate calling in , and taking orders ;D

I heard recently that the USA’s economy and our energy policy (or lack of it) it is like finding one day that your house is one fire -- so a neighbor comes to help and throws gasoline on the fire -- you think -- hmmm -- that’s not helping, but you think you know him and want to trust him, but he comes with another bucket -- this time it must be water -- -- but no, it is more gasoline. After the tenth buck of gas -- one has to conclude that it is intentional. The government wants to blow up this economy and inflate fuel prices – they couldn’t possibly be this stupid. I don’t want to wreck the environment, but when I see everyone else going after energy Europe, India, China -- and we wont even go after what is right here -- or just off our shores? I think by the time folks in government decide its time to act -- when they begin to fear We The People more than the Sierra Club and Big Green -- our economy will be so badly hurt -- that we wont be able to lead anyone, and barely be able to defend ourselves. China is drilling just outside of Cuba – we all know that they will be MUCH more careful than our companies would ever be.

A country cannot change over an entire economy that is built around cheap energy in two years -- it has to be gradual over twenty. Like I have said for over two years now -- we are collectively committing suicide. Now, look for MUCH higher natural gas prices this winter --once again at least part of the blame is placed on those who are restricting our access to it .. in the name of some damn spotted gopher probably.

[Spider]

I heard recently that the USA’s economy and our energy policy (or lack of it) it is like finding one day that your house is one fire -- so a neighbor comes to help and throws gasoline on the fire -- you think -- hmmm -- that’s not helping, but you think you know him and want to trust him, but he comes with another bucket -- this time it must be water -- -- but no, it is more gasoline. After the tenth buck of gas -- one has to conclude that it is intentional. The government wants to blow up this economy and inflate fuel prices – they couldn’t possibly be this stupid. I don’t want to wreck the environment, but when I see everyone else going after energy Europe, India, China -- and we wont even go after what is right here -- or just off our shores? I think by the time folks in government decide its time to act -- when they begin to fear We The People more than the Sierra Club and Big Green -- our economy will be so badly hurt -- that we wont be able to lead anyone, and barely be able to defend ourselves. China is drilling just outside of Cuba – we all know that they will be MUCH more careful than our companies would ever be.

A country cannot change over an entire economy that is built around cheap energy in two years -- it has to be gradual over twenty. Like I have said for over two years now -- we are collectively committing suicide. Now, look for MUCH higher natural gas prices this winter --once again at least part of the blame is placed on those who are restricting our access to it .. in the name of some damn spotted gopher probably.
but if you look dems supported alot of drilling , but you are right in your overall theme

[mhgaffney]

Bob,

You are wrong about the first three items on your list. You need to quit looking in the rear view mirror at where we have been. Try looking ahead for a change.


The best place for oil and coal is in the ground. That's where we ought to leave it.

If the best scientists in the world cannot find a way to make hydrogen fuel workable -- then we deserve to go the way of the Dodo bird.

Hydrogen can be burned in your existing car engine with very little modification. It is clean -- no pollution -=- and because it is produced from water it is inexhaustible. We can use wind and solar electric power to make it -- which is also clean. You don't have to burn coal/oil to make hydrogen fuel.

Iceland has already begun the transition to a hydrogen economy -- and they have solved the storage problem by using methanol.

Methanol is the simplest alchohol. Yet it has enormous energy. I was shocked to learn they use methanol to power the Indy 500. So this tiny molecule packs a lot of power. You knee jerks who love fast cars will not have to give up your wet dream of going from zero to sixty in two blinks.

Who cares if you keep your "gas guzzler" so long as you are not polluting?

There is no way to drill our way out of the mess we are in. General Motors has been making and selling energy efficient cars for Europe for years -- yet -- incredibly these models are not available here in the USA.

The question is why not?

Some one has got a lot of explaining to do.

Finally, we need to protect ANWR. The last Arctic wilderness needs to stay that way -- as Mother Nature created her.

OOOOOMMMMM!

[Spider]

Bob,

You are wrong about the first three items on your list. You need to quit looking in the rear view mirror at where we have been. Try looking ahead for a change.


The best place for oil and coal is in the ground. That's where we ought to leave it.

If the best scientists in the world cannot find a way to make hydrogen fuel workable -- then we deserve to go the way of the Dodo bird.

Hydrogen can be burned in your existing car engine with very little modification. It is clean -- no pollution -=- and because it is produced from water it is inexhaustible. We can use wind and solar electric power to make it -- which is also clean. You don't have to burn coal/oil to make hydrogen fuel.

Iceland has already begun the transition to a hydrogen economy -- and they have solved the storage problem by using methanol.

Methanol is the simplest alchohol. Yet it has enormous energy. I was shocked to learn they use methanol to power the Indy 500. So this tiny molecule packs a lot of power. You knee jerks who love fast cars will not have to give up your wet dream of going from zero to sixty in two blinks.

Who cares if you keep your "gas guzzler" so long as you are not polluting?

There is no way to drill our way out of the mess we are in. General Motors has been making and selling energy efficient cars for Europe for years -- yet -- incredibly these models are not available here in the USA.

The question is why not?

Some one has got a lot of explaining to do.

Finally, we need to protect ANWR. The last Arctic wilderness needs to stay that way -- as Mother Nature created her.

OOOOOMMMMM!
you ****ing hippie , trucks have to move you dumb bastard , stock stores , clothes , lumber ........ I am against drilling in ANWAR , but for not the La La land reasons you give

[The Lone Bolt]

Bob,

You are wrong about the first three items on your list. You need to quit looking in the rear view mirror at where we have been. Try looking ahead for a change.


The best place for oil and coal is in the ground. That's where we ought to leave it.

If the best scientists in the world cannot find a way to make hydrogen fuel workable -- then we deserve to go the way of the Dodo bird.

Hydrogen can be burned in your existing car engine with very little modification. It is clean -- no pollution -=- and because it is produced from water it is inexhaustible. We can use wind and solar electric power to make it -- which is also clean. You don't have to burn coal/oil to make hydrogen fuel.

Iceland has already begun the transition to a hydrogen economy -- and they have solved the storage problem by using methanol.

Methanol is the simplest alchohol. Yet it has enormous energy. I was shocked to learn they use methanol to power the Indy 500. So this tiny molecule packs a lot of power. You knee jerks who love fast cars will not have to give up your wet dream of going from zero to sixty in two blinks.

Who cares if you keep your "gas guzzler" so long as you are not polluting?

There is no way to drill our way out of the mess we are in. General Motors has been making and selling energy efficient cars for Europe for years -- yet -- incredibly these models are not available here in the USA.

The question is why not?

Some one has got a lot of explaining to do.

Finally, we need to protect ANWR. The last Arctic wilderness needs to stay that way -- as Mother Nature created her.

OOOOOMMMMM!


Well first I think you have some misconceptions about how hydrogen is used as fuel. Rather than combusting, it's used in fuel cells which pass the hydrogen through a membrane which strips the hydrogen atoms of their electrons causing electric current. The remaining positively charges hydrogen nuclei (cations) then attract two oxygen atoms to share their electrons, thus creating water.

Personally I think "fool-cell" technology is a dead end. It's not energy efficient to convert electricity to hydrogen and back to electricity, and hydrogen is difficult to store.

EVs are the future. The battery technology has arrived and will only get cheaper and better in the coming years. Forget about hydrogen and buy a Chevy Volt.

[mhgaffney]

There is no problem storing methanol -- which is a liquid -- not a gas.

And Spider -- in Iceland they also plan to run buses and trucks off of it.

[Dukes]

The best place for oil and coal is in the ground. That's where we ought to leave it.
Right. So we leave our life blood in the ground while this country comes to a hault, just so we can feel good about the environment. Good call!


There is no way to drill our way out of the mess we are in.
Everyone knows that oil will not last forever. But that doesn't mean destroying our country in the process. Like Bob said, we will transition to alternative energy, but expecting it to happen within a couple years is just idiotic. So I disagree, we drill our way out until we can rid ourselves of it completely.

Finally, we need to protect ANWR. The last Arctic wilderness needs to stay that way -- as Mother Nature created her.

Protect what exactly? That barron land that even eskimos don't inhabit? There is only 2,000 acres set aside for drilling out of 19 MILLION. Why aren't we protecting Long Island? Why are we allowed to build anything, anywhere, ever? Good grief

[Spider]

There is no problem storing methanol -- which is a liquid -- not a gas.

And Spider -- in Iceland they also plan to run buses and trucks off of it.

Thats great for them , but not here , the miles we truck , the weight , the mountains , Look I wont be a prick , but man it takes alot of power to service a coutry this size , it is one thing to take care of a country with 30 million , it is a different ball game 300 million .......

[Dukes]

Thats great for them , but not here , the miles we truck , the weight , the mountains , Look I wont be a prick , but man it takes alot of power to service a coutry this size , it is one thing to take care of a country with 30 million , it is a different ball game 300 million .......

Good point. What do you think of biodeisel Spider? I've seen the pump at Sapp Bros here in Denver, but I haven't talked to anyone who actually uses it.

[Spider]

Good point. What do you think of biodeisel Spider? I've seen the pump at Sapp Bros here in Denver, but I haven't talked to anyone who actually uses it.

I havent used it yet , problem is that I can see is it isnt available like Diesel ...But if it does get like Diesel I am all for it

[Spider]

Right. So we leave our life blood in the ground while this country comes to a hault, just so we can feel good about the environment. Good call!
Agreed ;D



Everyone knows that oil will not last forever. But that doesn't mean destroying our country in the process. Like Bob said, we will transition to alternative energy, but expecting it to happen within a couple years is just idiotic. So I disagree, we drill our way out until we can rid ourselves of it completely. we can drill our way out of this .... should be no questions about that , I dont know if it is true or not , so dont hold me to this , but I heard yesterday that we have only explored 3% of our shale oil reserves



Protect what exactly? That barron land that even eskimos don't inhabit? There is only 2,000 acres set aside for drilling out of 19 MILLION. Why aren't we protecting Long Island? Why are we allowed to build anything, anywhere, ever? Good grief
Here is my problem with ANWAR , it wont take 10 years to get it producing , but it will take about 3 , besides that the $$$ of getting oil from ANWAR to the lower 48 , when we can drill and pump oil out of the gulf coast now , and for half the cost ......

[Dukes]

we can drill our way out of this .... should be no questions about that , I dont know if it is true or not , so dont hold me to this , but I heard yesterday that we have only explored 3% of our shale oil reserves
I think we should be exploring any and all posibilities. A local radio host had a guest on today saying that there's shale in Utah, Colorado and parts of Wyoming that could total over a Trillion barrels. I'm not gunna take that guys figure for granted, but there's no doubt that shale can contribute to getting us out of this mess.



Here is my problem with ANWAR , it wont take 10 years to get it producing , but it will take about 3 , besides that the $$$ of getting oil from ANWAR to the lower 48 , when we can drill and pump oil out of the gulf coast now , and for half the cost ......

I don't claim to be an expert, but if the experts want to drill in ANWAR then I think we should. And you're right about the coasts. Especially since competing countries are already doing it.

[Spider]

I think we should be exploring any and all posibilities. A local radio host had a guest on today saying that there's shale in Utah, Colorado and parts of Wyoming that could total over a Trillion barrels. I'm not gunna take that guys figure for granted, but there's no doubt that shale can contribute to getting us out of this mess. 1.5 trillion in colorado alone





I don't claim to be an expert, but if the experts want to drill in ANWAR then I think we should. And you're right about the coasts. Especially since competing countries are already doing it.
Drilling in ANWAR would help keep prices high , you would get right wingers saying , well it cost money to ship oil etc ...... ANWAR is a political football ...

[Spider]

we got Shale oil in texas , all the way to maine ....

[Dukes]

Spider, here's a transcript from Glenn Beck and Congressman Chris Cannon of Utah. Mostly about shale, thought you'd find it interesting.

CONGRESSMAN CANNON: Third congressional district, Glenn.

GLENN: Chris, tell me your idea on the oil shale.

CONGRESSMAN CANNON: You know, if we're going to bring down the price of gas, you have to have three things. You have to have a big reserve, you have to have the ability to develop oil out of that reserve quickly, and you have to be able to produce oil at a relatively low cost. And that's oil shale. In Utah and Colorado and to some degree in Wyoming we have an amazing amount of oil. If you compare the size of our reserves of Saudi Arabia and the whole Middle East, it's like three times as much as all of that combined and that's just the easily, readily available 1800 billion barrels and there are probably 3 billion barrels that are commercially just under that, available. And long term if we change the technology, perhaps as many as 4 trillion, with a T, 4 trillion barrels of oil. There's enough, marginally if we just supplied all of our use in America instead of importing oil, it would be enough for 100 years or so. There's just no energy crisis in the world. There's a regulatory crisis. So what I've done is I've introduced a bill that would give the President the authority to draw people together that can understand these issues in government and to sit down with people that want to develop that shale and say, okay, let's figure out what you need to do to do it in an appropriate, careful, environmental manner and then let's go forward with it. And that would mean fairly quick production of oil and that would have a big impact on the price of gas at the pump.

GLENN: Okay. Now, I know the environmentalists are against this, and I'm trying to find the name of this, the wilderness society says that the oil companies already own some land with shale on it and they can't come up with a technology to get a drop of oil out of it. Is that true?

CONGRESSMAN CANNON: No, that's actually ridiculous. The regulatory burdens are great. We do have the first commercial test of shale, extraction of oil from shale going on right now. It should be done by the 15th of this month. They could be -- and I don't want to speak for them, the company, but my understanding of their technology is that they could be in full production in relatively short order, within six or eight months of their test if they didn't have to spend two years waiting for air quality permits. Now, they are operating on school trust lands. That's essentially private land. So they don't have the big DOM problems that people with government leases have. I think that when society talks about owning it, they are talking about leases. But a lease is no good unless you have the ability to produce off that lease, and the problem is not technology. There are at least five, six technologies that are really good out there for producing oil out of shale and it's a seven year process to do that. I think the leading company on this has been Shell. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars on their technology, and the head of that operation came into my office a couple of weeks ago and dropped a couple of pieces of paper on my desk. It was a list of 46 agencies with multiple permits each. They have eight-year leases to do experiments on 160 acres, two parcels 160 acres. Those leases are for eight years. It's going to take them seven years to get the permits. O'Connor said to me, how do I tell my board of directors they should invest in that? Seven years of permits for one year production when it's a multiple year process to produce off that land? The technology is there. The regulatory hurdles are just plain too high.

GLENN: All right. So what is the -- your bill takes all of the burden out of congress and puts it on the President's desk?

CONGRESSMAN CANNON: Well, yeah. He is the executive and what it does is it gives him the ability to cut through seven years and make that seven weeks and so you sit down and you say, what do we need to do to protect the environment and what's the process we're going to use. And there are various processes that are very different and they are going to have different constraints. But then you give the President the authority to come to a conclusion and give a permit in a short time and then you monitor, see what's going on. You may have to adjust that permit over time but at least you get people producing oil.

GLENN: The will in the country with the American people is extraordinarily high.

CONGRESSMAN CANNON: Yes.

GLENN: Yet the will in congress is not. I've got a guy here who's been waiting for a while to talk on the air and I'm going to put him on the air. His question is don't you think that congress is intentionally trying to sabotage our economy for the election. Give me a reason here, Chris, why congress is doing the things that they're doing. Why are they doing this? This is not in our economic long-term health by any stretch of the imagination to keep us shackled to terror states.

CONGRESSMAN CANNON: Yes, Saudi Arabia funding Al-Qaeda, Iran funding Hezbollah, Hamas. Human events had an article two weeks ago about an Iranian funded terrorist camp in the Venezuela. You know, we're paying these people to undermine our interests and we're propping up a --

GLENN: So what is stopping the congress? What is the motivation of congress to not free our hands?

CONGRESSMAN CANNON: Well, if you look at the numbers, they're fascinating. The bulk of Republicans will vote to drill in ANWR, to drill in the continent she will, to drill in the Midwest to drill for shale. About 90%, in some cases a little more, a little less of Democrats vote against that and with the reps cans who vote against this and the Democrats who vote against this, we've not been able to get those things passed. We passed the right -- there's a prohibition against drilling in the Alaskan national wildlife preserve but we have to overcome what's positive law. We passed that in the House a couple of times and the Senate actually passed it as well but the times we passed it in the House and the Senate didn't pass it, then we had problems with a potential candidate being the critical vote there. So we have to get -- the American people have got to express themselves on this issue and we're about to put up a website called dollargas.us. I think it's up yet but we want the American people to be saying we want a dollar, a dollar and a quarter gas. That's where it ought to be. And if we were producing our own gas, our own oil out of our own resource here in America, one, we would have cheaper gas. And two, we wouldn't be funding our enemies.

GLENN: Chris Cannon from the great state of Utah. Thank you very much. We'll look at the bill. What is the bill number?

CONGRESSMAN CANNON: Oh, it's -- I think it's 6811, but I apologize.

GLENN: That's all right. No, that's in that left field question. We'll look it up. Thanks, Chris, I appreciate it.

CONGRESSMAN CANNON: Thank you.

GLENN: You bet. Bye-bye. You know, I've got to tell you. I told you a little while ago I wouldn't mind if congress got trapped on a golf course some place for the rest of eternity. This guy might be an exception. I mean, I don't want them doing anything unless they are doing something to get out of our way.

[Spider]

I just went rounds with 24champ bailey , he claimed I was talking out of my ass about this ........ sure could have used that glen beck piece , if you go through some of My post , I have been preaching this for 2 years now , I have seen Instiu process , work ........ though it is rumored , that boars tusk Wyoming is a massive reserve , supposed to be bigger then Pinaence creek ...

[Bob]

I'm sure I'm in the minority here but I'm seeing some real positive changes with higher fuel prices. It's pinching us all but people are being forced into reality.

This is an article from today's Denver post. http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9556819

Unfortunately American auto makers are behind the curve but maybe they'll see the light now. Big is out. Fuel efficiency is back in. :thumbs:

This might be a true statement if gas prices stayed where they were right now -- and that magicly did not affect the cost of everything that is shipped (damn near everything) This might be true if the full effects of the cost of a barrel of crude had already trickeled down to the price we see at the pump. This increase has been too much and too fast (basicly what Obama has said.)If we did not have significant inflation trickle down pinching folks to be more innovative is great (and just as important if teh government would get out of the way for exploration and drilling, and innovation.) I think that this will break many individuals and businesses -- I really do.

[Bob]

Bob,

You are wrong about the first three items on your list. You need to quit looking in the rear view mirror at where we have been. Try looking ahead for a change.


The best place for oil and coal is in the ground. That's where we ought to leave it.

If the best scientists in the world cannot find a way to make hydrogen fuel workable -- then we deserve to go the way of the Dodo bird.

Hydrogen can be burned in your existing car engine with very little modification. It is clean -- no pollution -=- and because it is produced from water it is inexhaustible. We can use wind and solar electric power to make it -- which is also clean. You don't have to burn coal/oil to make hydrogen fuel.

Iceland has already begun the transition to a hydrogen economy -- and they have solved the storage problem by using methanol.

Methanol is the simplest alchohol. Yet it has enormous energy. I was shocked to learn they use methanol to power the Indy 500. So this tiny molecule packs a lot of power. You knee jerks who love fast cars will not have to give up your wet dream of going from zero to sixty in two blinks.

Who cares if you keep your "gas guzzler" so long as you are not polluting?

There is no way to drill our way out of the mess we are in. General Motors has been making and selling energy efficient cars for Europe for years -- yet -- incredibly these models are not available here in the USA.

The question is why not?

Some one has got a lot of explaining to do.

Finally, we need to protect ANWR. The last Arctic wilderness needs to stay that way -- as Mother Nature created her.

OOOOOMMMMM!


Once again coservation is great -- but one cannot "conserve ourselves out the problem either" A big part of the problem is the cost of fuel that in part can be reduced by looking for more resources now. ( I get the ten years thing -- but I for one plan on being here ten years from now) and with India and China coming on line we are increasingly having to compete for resources. Another thing we could do to reduce cost is to stop deflating our dollar. The producing nations two days ago said that they have to wonder about a nation that like us that screams for more energy but is not willing to use what we have?

The transition that you are talking about IS part of the soulution -- but too many folks want to solve this by myopicly, and not by hitting it hard from any and all angles. Just as drilling will take time so will alternative sources...meanwhile the Titanic is slowing moving into the iceberg-- making the hole larger and larger.

[Spider]

I just reread the Guy from Utahs comments again , He isnt telling the whole story , drilling shale has been going on for 5 years that I know of , Glen Beck is wrong about who is holding up Shale oil , it is the oil companies themselfs holding it up .... the Biggest Obstacle facing Shale oil drilling was pollutants in the water .so the over all Message is right , they are just leaving alot of facts out and misleading people as to who is holding up oil ....... Let me put it this way , getting oil from Shale and Section 181 is alot cheaper then gettin oil from ANWAR .....

[Bob]

Good point. What do you think of biodeisel Spider? I've seen the pump at Sapp Bros here in Denver, but I haven't talked to anyone who actually uses it.

I will throw in my two bits on Biofuels in general --

Sometimes it is damn difficult to get at the core of truth – because so much money is invested in misdirection by big oil, big green and big idiots in Congress that feel beholden to everyone else but the American people. But this is how I understand bio-fuel. Brazil gets 15% of its energy from ethanol from SUGAR – not corn. Corn is not as efficient a source to create energy – it takes so much energy to covert it to fuel, that I don’t think we should be using it at all. I think this emphasis on Corn may be more connected to pleasing the corn farming industry and feeling warm and fuzzy by not using fossil fuels. With the flooding in the Midwest watch for corn prices to go up more – with huge corn prices increases (yesterday we hit $7.50 for corn yesterday that would be the equivalent of oil barrel prices going from $80 – $320 over the past year.) Damn those Big Corn folks! I say drag them before congress -- or better yet lets just Nationalize the whole corrupt farming industry -- YES WE CAN! Big Brother can always do it cheaper and better! So watch the rest of the world that depends on us for corn production blame us for burning up their food supply (and I don’t blame them for being pissed about it.)

[Bob]

I just reread the Guy from Utahs comments again , He isnt telling the whole story , drilling shale has been going on for 5 years that I know of , Glen Beck is wrong about who is holding up Shale oil , it is the oil companies themselfs holding it up .... the Biggest Obstacle facing Shale oil drilling was pollutants in the water .so the over all Message is right , they are just leaving alot of facts out and misleading people as to who is holding up oil ....... Let me put it this way , getting oil from Shale and Section 181 is alot cheaper then gettin oil from ANWAR .....

Yup get oil from shale and anywhere else.

Regarding ANWAR if we opened it up (and we will but a year from now -- when people go into panic mode) I don’t claim to be an “expert” about ANWAR – but I do know it is really in the middle of freaking nowhere, and the proposed drilling site is small relative to the geographic area we are talking about. Oh, yes, and also it would be another source of oil that would not be owned by countries that want us dead. IF we opened it up, and drilled it as cleanly as possible -- wouldn’t it be ok to let the oil companies decide if they can make money on it. Hell, with prices as high as they are -- I bet they could make a buck or two -- heaven knows everyone in Alaska wants to drill (except for a small minority of Druids) because they know they will get the tax revenues from it which is good for them, good for our National security, and good for the consumer because everywhere around the world countries are coming on-line and demanding more energy and if we don’t get as much as we can – we will be having to beg from other countries. We are slaves to them. Yes oil production from ANWAR doesn’t solve all our problem today – but get this – there is an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of estimated oil there – that is about ½ of the USA’s current proven reserves. And why are we not going after it? So hippies in LA can feel better about themselves as they use their public transportation while people in Montana and just about everywhere else -- and truckers get screwed? Again my basic argument is that the solution to our problem is very aggressive action NOW on every damn front you can (including conservation.) Spider, the reason why some folks don’t want to drill anywhere is because they care more about supposed global warming (and more likely the taxes they think they can get by perpetuating this myth) than they do about you keeping your job, or me my home. If we started to search for more oil off our shores tomorrow – there would be an immediate dip in oil futures – and in turn we take some of the wind out of the sails in this upward trend. Why add gas to our homes that are on fire? And by the way guys -- (call your freaking legislator about the OCS bill that will be debated tomorrow that will revoke the moratorium in developing our sources for off-shore drilling)

[Spider]

Yup get oil from shale and anywhere else.

Regarding ANWAR if we opened it up (and we will but a year from now -- when people go into panic mode) I don’t claim to be an “expert” about ANWAR – but I do know it is really in the middle of freaking nowhere, and the proposed drilling site is small relative to the geographic area we are talking about. Oh, yes, and also it would be another source of oil that would not be owned by countries that want us dead. IF we opened it up, and drilled it as cleanly as possible -- wouldn’t it be ok to let the oil companies decide if they can make money on it. Hell, with prices as high as they are -- I bet they could make a buck or two -- heaven knows everyone in Alaska wants to drill (except for a small minority of Druids) because they know they will get the tax revenues from it which is good for them, good for our National security, and good for the consumer because everywhere around the world countries are coming on-line and demanding more energy and if we don’t get as much as we can – we will be having to beg from other countries. We are slaves to them. Yes oil production from ANWAR doesn’t solve all our problem today – but get this – there is an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of estimated oil there – that is about ½ of the USA’s current proven reserves. And why are we not going after it? So hippies in LA can feel better about themselves as they use their public transportation while people in Montana and just about everywhere else -- and truckers get screwed? Again my basic argument is that the solution to our problem is very aggressive action NOW on every damn front you can (including conservation.) Spider, the reason why some folks don’t want to drill anywhere is because they care more about supposed global warming (and more likely the taxes they think they can get by perpetuating this myth) than they do about you keeping your job, or me my home. If we started to search for more oil off our shores tomorrow – there would be an immediate dip in oil futures – and in turn we take some of the wind out of the sails in this upward trend. Why add gas to our homes that are on fire? And by the way guys -- (call your freaking legislator about the OCS bill that will be debated tomorrow that will revoke the moratorium in developing our sources for off-shore drilling)
we dont have to search we know right where it is off shore ....... My point is we got more oil now in the lower 48 that we can get right now , then shipping it and using a pipeline from Alaska .......
we could be flooding the market tomorrow in shale oil

[Dukes]

we dont have to search we know right where it is off shore ....... My point is we got more oil now in the lower 48 that we can get right now , then shipping it and using a pipeline from Alaska .......
we could be flooding the market tomorrow in shale oil

What's stopping us from doing all three? God knows the market could use a good flooding of supply

[Spider]

What's stopping us from doing all three? God knows the market could use a good flooding of supply

Politics ...... Plain and simple ,see even with the way things are now as far as supply and demand , 60-70 per barrel is what should be going out right now , China is hoarding a **** load of Oil for the olympics .. Whats jamming us up is oil comodity speculators drivin the price up for a quick buck .......I am for drilling 2 out of 3 though

[Bob]

Spider, we agree we should get more now ... I guess I am not as particular where we get it --because I see what is coming – and think we will be lucky to get any more fuel from any source. So in my mind the more we multi-prong the hell out this problem the better, the more likely we are to get one of them passed the anti-industrialist, live-in-a-hut, bug eating, hemp wearing, DC loving, ride your bike 40 miles to work enforcing idiots.

Why is it that folks get on one little bandwagon issue -- like solar or wind, when there are many ideas out there that can conserve (use energy smarter) and increase production at the same time? Some think that the concepts are mutually exclusive. What they don’t get yet – is that these prices might be here to stay (that would force us to conserve and be creative) even if we started exploring/moving forward to produce more. They are petrified that we will get cheap oil again – so they are going to push it as long and as hard as they can, without being able to see what will happen several years from know and the intended consequences in significant trickle down inflation to everything we buy that is not made in your backyard. I think that if we head on this path another year don’t that there will be an unexpected backlash toward Big Green and those that are forcing the Amish way on the rest of us, and lowering our over-all standard of living and loosing our jobs overseas.

Last time I checked countries with lower standards of living don’t create alternatives to energy, and can’t lead the rest of the world. Countries generally don’t follow other countries because they believe they are the “most moral.” (I wish they did) but they generally follow those countries where they can see an economic advantage in maintaining a relationship. Who is waxing, who is waning in power? How much of that power shift is connected to growing or declining energy resources? The more power we have to get from hostile oversea sources, the more we literally shift the collective wealth of our forefathers to our enemies. We are selling our trucks, shipping industry and heavy cranes, not to mention the proposed sale of the Chrysler Building and our land to those living elsewhere – why? Part of it is that they are using our money to buy our stuff from us. I would rather give it to evil Exxon getting as much oil here as possible. Do you think (or anyone else) that China and India will follow our lead if we can give them nothing (in terms of consumption or production.) I guess they might keep us around for our porn production??? Hell, at the rate they are growing, and the rate we are declining, they will eventually come to the correct conclusion that the US well of consumption has finally run dry, (sped up by inflation) and that they need to turn their own huge populace from producers into consumers – and they don’t need what little we offer – as what we “export” (debt) is greater than what we “import” from them. They will conclude that propping up the declining US dollar no longer benefits them – and sell them off, dropping the value of the dollar even more. Maybe -- just maybe, after that implosion their growing thirst for oil will turn to our untapped pretty virgin reserves.

People are so damn arrogant and think that we can live in a fantasy world where we can return to a pre-industrial world, without the rest of the world seeing us for what we will become -- a country that has spent ourselves to death, and intentionally starved ourselves of our life-blood in the name of a false religion --and is decadently ripe for the picking.

[Spider]

Spider, we agree we should get more now ... I guess I am not as particular where we get it --because I see what is coming – and think we will be lucky to get any more fuel from any source. So in my mind the more we multi-prong the hell out this problem the better, the more likely we are to get one of them passed the anti-industrialist, live-in-a-hut, bug eating, hemp wearing, DC loving, ride your bike 40 miles to work enforcing idiots.

Why is it that folks get on one little bandwagon issue -- like solar or wind, when there are many ideas out there that can conserve (use energy smarter) and increase production at the same time? Some think that the concepts are mutually exclusive. What they don’t get yet – is that these prices might be here to stay (that would force us to conserve and be creative) even if we started exploring/moving forward to produce more. They are petrified that we will get cheap oil again – so they are going to push it as long and as hard as they can, without being able to see what will happen several years from know and the intended consequences in significant trickle down inflation to everything we buy that is not made in your backyard. I think that if we head on this path another year don’t that there will be an unexpected backlash toward Big Green and those that are forcing the Amish way on the rest of us, and lowering our over-all standard of living and loosing our jobs overseas.

Last time I checked countries with lower standards of living don’t create alternatives to energy, and can’t lead the rest of the world. Countries generally don’t follow other countries because they believe they are the “most moral.” (I wish they did) but they generally follow those countries where they can see an economic advantage in maintaining a relationship. Who is waxing, who is waning in power? How much of that power shift is connected to growing or declining energy resources? The more power we have to get from hostile oversea sources, the more we literally shift the collective wealth of our forefathers to our enemies. We are selling our trucks, shipping industry and heavy cranes, not to mention the proposed sale of the Chrysler Building and our land to those living elsewhere – why? Part of it is that they are using our money to buy our stuff from us. I would rather give it to evil Exxon getting as much oil here as possible. Do you think (or anyone else) that China and India will follow our lead if we can give them nothing (in terms of consumption or production.) I guess they might keep us around for our porn production??? Hell, at the rate they are growing, and the rate we are declining, they will eventually come to the correct conclusion that the US well of consumption has finally run dry, (sped up by inflation) and that they need to turn their own huge populace from producers into consumers – and they don’t need what little we offer – as what we “export” (debt) is greater than what we “import” from them. They will conclude that propping up the declining US dollar no longer benefits them – and sell them off, dropping the value of the dollar even more. Maybe -- just maybe, after that implosion their growing thirst for oil will turn to our untapped pretty virgin reserves.

People are so damn arrogant and think that we can live in a fantasy world where we can return to a pre-industrial world, without the rest of the world seeing us for what we will become -- a country that has spent ourselves to death, and intentionally starved ourselves of our life-blood in the name of a false religion --and is decadently ripe for the picking.
Long read ......but yeah we are heading up shot creek without a paddle

[Dukes]

People are so damn arrogant and think that we can live in a fantasy world where we can return to a pre-industrial world, without the rest of the world seeing us for what we will become -- a country that has spent ourselves to death, and intentionally starved ourselves of our life-blood in the name of a false religion --and is decadently ripe for the picking.

That's exactly what will happen if America doesn't wake up. We will cease being a super power. Which I believe is what extreme lefties want.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That's exactly what will happen if America doesn't wake up. We will cease being a super power. Which I believe is what extreme lefties want.

:stupid:

You have it bass-ackwards.

It has been Bush and the hard right/neocons who have done more to damage America's status as a super power in the last eight years than anyone thought possible - not "extreme lefties."

Bush has run the economy into the ditch, and allowed all of our good paying jobs and manufacturing to be outsourced and offshored.

The damage Bush's Iraq debacle has done to our standing in the world will take generations to repair.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Methanol is the simplest alchohol. Yet it has enormous energy. I was shocked to learn they use methanol to power the Indy 500. So this tiny molecule packs a lot of power. Indy cars are powered by 100% ethanol.

[Dukes]

:stupid:

You have it bass-ackwards.

It has been Bush and the hard right/neocons who have done more to damage America's status as a super power in the last eight years than anyone thought possible - not "extreme lefties."

Bush has run the economy into the ditch, and allowed all of our good paying jobs and manufacturing to be outsourced and offshored.

The damage Bush's Iraq debacle has done to our standing in the world will take generations to repair.

Blah blah blah blah I hate bush blah blah blah blah. You're the most predictable poster of this board.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Blah blah blah blah I hate bush blah blah blah blah. You're the most predictable poster of this board.

Translation:

"I can't deny a thing he just said, so I guess my only recourse is to go for the ad hominem."

Talk about predictable.

[Bob]

:stupid:

You have it bass-ackwards.

It has been Bush and the hard right/neocons who have done more to damage America's status as a super power in the last eight years than anyone thought possible - not "extreme lefties."

Bush has run the economy into the ditch, and allowed all of our good paying jobs and manufacturing to be outsourced and offshored.

The damage Bush's Iraq debacle has done to our standing in the world will take generations to repair.

A net negative -- too many liberal ideas have hurt him. He is not a fiscal conservative -- he has spent like a drunken sailor on everything.

[Drek]

I just went rounds with 24champ bailey , he claimed I was talking out of my ass about this ........ sure could have used that glen beck piece , if you go through some of My post , I have been preaching this for 2 years now , I have seen Instiu process , work ........ though it is rumored , that boars tusk Wyoming is a massive reserve , supposed to be bigger then Pinaence creek ...

Glenn Beck is a conservative mouthpiece who misleads, misconstrues, and flat out omits as necessary to push his agenda.

He's smart enough to find some very interesting topics, but I'd rather listen to just about anyone but him and Fox News cover them. They coat it in spin worse than the rest.

As for ANWR, the oil companies were given permission to start some drilling there back in '05, as long as they followed the guidelines to keep it from being an environmental rape and pillage job. They didn't see much profit in it and so are basically sitting on their hands waiting for the nation to be in a big enough panic that we let them rape and pillage as they please.

That is what it ultimately boils down to for oil companies. Thanks to the Enron loophole and rampant speculation on oil (which I'm sure all major oil companies played some part in) they're all sitting on giant war chests and can basically hold this country at ransom as we watch fuel prices rise higher and higher until we say to hell with it and let them do as they please as long as we get our fuel. It'd devastate the environment as they'd all immediately take the quickest smash and grab job they could, and in the process we'd probably even end up wasting our resources that given more dutiful management could have had higher yields.

Indy cars are powered by 100% ethanol.

Indy cars are a great place to use ethanol, but I really don't like the idea of betting on ethanol as even a short term answer. It burns up our food resources which further hurts our standard of living, its grossly inefficient to produce in its current form (from corn), and obviously by it being ethanol we know it mixes readily with water, so while you save your 20 cents a gallon on an ethanol compatible car you add a new mechanical risk of a part breaking and needing to be replaced, or worse it just not functioning correctly and getting enough water in your engine to produce significant steam pressure and leave you with a worthless piece of junk under your hood.

Its simply not feasible, especially when our current agricultural regulation system has basically started paying the average small farm to just get out of the major agro-crops' way, so we have plenty of prime farm land owned by people who know full well how to work it, but instead can get a gov't. subsidy if they simply don't.

There's all sorts of interesting talk about new bio-fuels created by bugs and bacteria that would consume CO2, sugars, etc. and produce nearly ready to use fuel, but that is still probably a long ways off. It deserves serious funding but that is a long term answer, not a short term.

The ideal solution is to simply stop the profiteering by speculators on oil, close the loophole, and we'll immediately see oil prices drop 25% in a month or two, probably faster. Then once the Olympics come and go we'll have another wellspring of fuel opened up to us.

Go ahead and take the best short term answer, off shore drilling not involving ANWAR, to help us regulate fuel prices over the next few years.

Also dip into big oil's record profits. Don't just stick your hand in their pocket, require a percentage of all profits made within the U.S. borders needs to go to funding legitimate future energies at major U.S. universities and research institutes. We develop new energy alternatives and also put additional funding in place to let the best and brightest of this nation do what they are most valuable doing, building our future, and at the same time their graduate assistants who can now get funding will be in training to give us yet another generation of the best and brightest to power us 20 or 30 years from now.

Just a few of my opinions.

[Bob]

Glenn Beck is a conservative mouthpiece who misleads, misconstrues, and flat out omits as necessary to push his agenda.

He's smart enough to find some very interesting topics, but I'd rather listen to just about anyone but him and Fox News cover them. They coat it in spin worse than the rest.

As for ANWR, the oil companies were given permission to start some drilling there back in '05, as long as they followed the guidelines to keep it from being an environmental rape and pillage job. They didn't see much profit in it and so are basically sitting on their hands waiting for the nation to be in a big enough panic that we let them rape and pillage as they please.

That is what it ultimately boils down to for oil companies. Thanks to the Enron loophole and rampant speculation on oil (which I'm sure all major oil companies played some part in) they're all sitting on giant war chests and can basically hold this country at ransom as we watch fuel prices rise higher and higher until we say to hell with it and let them do as they please as long as we get our fuel. It'd devastate the environment as they'd all immediately take the quickest smash and grab job they could, and in the process we'd probably even end up wasting our resources that given more dutiful management could have had higher yields.



Indy cars are a great place to use ethanol, but I really don't like the idea of betting on ethanol as even a short term answer. It burns up our food resources which further hurts our standard of living, its grossly inefficient to produce in its current form (from corn), and obviously by it being ethanol we know it mixes readily with water, so while you save your 20 cents a gallon on an ethanol compatible car you add a new mechanical risk of a part breaking and needing to be replaced, or worse it just not functioning correctly and getting enough water in your engine to produce significant steam pressure and leave you with a worthless piece of junk under your hood.

Its simply not feasible, especially when our current agricultural regulation system has basically started paying the average small farm to just get out of the major agro-crops' way, so we have plenty of prime farm land owned by people who know full well how to work it, but instead can get a gov't. subsidy if they simply don't.

There's all sorts of interesting talk about new bio-fuels created by bugs and bacteria that would consume CO2, sugars, etc. and produce nearly ready to use fuel, but that is still probably a long ways off. It deserves serious funding but that is a long term answer, not a short term.

The ideal solution is to simply stop the profiteering by speculators on oil, close the loophole, and we'll immediately see oil prices drop 25% in a month or two, probably faster. Then once the Olympics come and go we'll have another wellspring of fuel opened up to us.

Go ahead and take the best short term answer, off shore drilling not involving ANWAR, to help us regulate fuel prices over the next few years.

Also dip into big oil's record profits. Don't just stick your hand in their pocket, require a percentage of all profits made within the U.S. borders needs to go to funding legitimate future energies at major U.S. universities and research institutes. We develop new energy alternatives and also put additional funding in place to let the best and brightest of this nation do what they are most valuable doing, building our future, and at the same time their graduate assistants who can now get funding will be in training to give us yet another generation of the best and brightest to power us 20 or 30 years from now.

Just a few of my opinions.

I think we are admiring our problem -- too much, and by so doing it grows, and no one does anything. If congress did a small fraction of the ideas that have been shared on this board -- it would have a positive impact -- legislators aurgue, and position for credit or blame (and fiddle) as Rome burns. I dont see regulation of oil companies in America as pushing things the right direction as government mucks up almost every system everytime is touches anything. Who is holding up off shore drillling? I dont see as many Republicans wringing their collective hands worring about how low gas prices will go if we drill.

The government wont get the hell out of the way until Americans threaten their power -- and they become more frightened of the People rather than Big Green/Big Oil.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The ideal solution is to simply stop the profiteering by speculators on oil, close the loophole, and we'll immediately see oil prices drop 25% in a month or two, probably faster.


Hammer, nail, head.

The Democrats already included such a provision (to end speculative oil pricing) in the recent farm bill.

Bush (surprise, surprise) stands in the way.

(Remember this the next time you hear that lying sack of sh*t say "there's nothing I can do about high gas prices.")

[kappys]

Hammer, nail, head.

The Democrats already included such a provision (to end speculative oil pricing) in the recent farm bill.

Bush (surprise, surprise) stands in the way.

(Remember this the next time you hear that lying sack of sh*t say "there's nothing I can do about high gas prices.")

Speculation is now taking stron hold in other commodities as well, most notably food. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I too am infavor of ending speculation, commodity purcahsers should be require to actually purchase the commodity they are putting money on.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Quotes
"Wait, what did you just say? You’re predicting $4 a gallon gasoline? That’s interesting. I hadn’t heard that."

-- Der Monkey, February 28, 2008, shocked that his oil buddies are super-richer, Link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080228-2.html)

I guess that's another one of those "Who could have predicted?" deals?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

<center> http://www.bartcop.com/alternative-reality.jpg
</center>

[Bob]

<center> http://www.bartcop.com/alternative-reality.jpg
</center>

You plan on being dead ten years from now?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You plan on being dead ten years from now?

???

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Even billionaire investor and 'free market' apologist Wilbur Ross acknowledges that high gas prices are less about supply and demand and more about speculators driving prices up:

http://news.yahoo.com/i/3136

(Scroll down to "Ross reflects on oil.")

[Drek]

<center> http://www.bartcop.com/alternative-reality.jpg
</center>

It'd barely lower gas prices because the rampant speculation could continue.

You get rid of the speculation and start drilling off-shore and we'll be somewhat vested for a real oil shortage which is sure to come when the price per barrel starts to drop again.

Same with oil shale and ANWAR, we flip those switches in a sequence that buys us enough time to get new forms of energy off the ground, without breaking the wallets of average Americans.

Though in ANWAR's case that switch has already been flipped if oil companies were just willing to follow the environmental regulations in place to get it. They just don't think its profitable enough. What they really mean is that its more profitable to sit back and hold the average citizen hostage until we scream for oil and let them trash the Tongas to get the oil out ASAP.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Even billionaire investor and 'free market' apologist Wilbur Ross acknowledges that high gas prices are less about supply and demand and more about speculators driving prices up:
http://news.yahoo.com/i/3136
(Scroll down to "Ross reflects on oil.")
It's exactly about both right now. Without supply concerns speculation would be in check.

[Bob]

It's exactly about both right now. Without supply concerns speculation would be in check.

Yup, your right...I dont care for speculators, so cutt them off at the kness by doing what they would never, ever suspect -- drill somewhere, try coal to fuel, conserve, stop printing money like its TP -- do something different to take the wind out of the upward trend...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It's exactly about both right now. Without supply concerns speculation would be in check.

I'm not saying supply and demand do not factor into the equation at all - I'm saying that speculation is playing a larger role.

As Wright pointed out, demand has stayed relatively flat in recent years, and if there were really significant shortages, then you would see gas stations running out of gas and/or people lining up for blocks to buy gas like they did during the real shortages cause by the embargo in the 70s.

For the most part, this is just another deliberately engineered bubble - just like the credit/housing/equity swindle.

[Bob]

I'm not saying supply and demand do not factor into the equation at all - I'm saying that speculation is playing a larger role.

As Wright pointed out, demand has stayed relatively flat in recent years, and if there were really significant shortages, then you would see gas stations running out of gas and/or people lining up for blocks to buy gas like they did during the real shortages cause by the embargo in the 70s.

For the most part, this is just another deliberately engineered bubble - just like the credit/housing/equity swindle.

I dont have the numbers -- but one has to consider rising demand from China and India (any others?) The west are not the only consumers anymore, and some countries with very large populations are just coming on-line in their consumption , and that trendline is likely to climb for many years -- just at teh time production has peaked. So logic would say that figures into things with demand. I dare say over the past six months our consumption has been going down (just a guess, that $4.00 gas has something to do with it...)

[peacepipe]

I dont have the numbers -- but one has to consider rising demand from China and India (any others?) The west are not the only consumers anymore, and some countries with very large populations are just coming on-line in their consumption , and that trendline is likely to climb for many years -- just at teh time production has peaked. So logic would say that figures into things with demand. I dare say over the past six months our consumption has been going down (just a guess, that $4.00 gas has something to do with it...)
No disagreement here, but Supply & demand are not the only determining factors with gas prices. Putting an end to the "enron loophole" would drop gas prices overnight. Every expert I've heard has stated that we can't drill ourselves out of this mess.
Even if they were to lift the ban, California would not allow any drilling, neither would florida. Lifting the ban would be an excersize in futility.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I dont have the numbers -- but one has to consider rising demand from China and India (any others?) The west are not the only consumers anymore, and some countries with very large populations are just coming on-line in their consumption , and that trendline is likely to climb for many years -- just at teh time production has peaked. So logic would say that figures into things with demand. I dare say over the past six months our consumption has been going down (just a guess, that $4.00 gas has something to do with it...)

I just posted an article on another thread recently that showed how demand from index speculators was almost equal to demand by China and India.

As Wright pointed out, even with China and India becomming players in the global energy market, demand has still remained relatively flat in recent years.