Forum: pol
Page 3118
Subject: Environmentalists-Friend of Big Oil and Terrorists

  Posted by: Jag - [28457122] Thu, May 22, 2008, 01:38
People complain about gas prices, but few know where to place the blame. The answer is simple 'Environmentalists'.

The increase in oil price is directly tied to supply and demand, if were drilling in Anwar, shale in South Dakota and off the continetal shelf, we still may not have all the oil we need, but the increase in supply would drive down the price.

Because of the incompetence of those in office not being proactive for new drilling, our economy is suffering and terrorists are getting better financing.

This is simple economics, but seems to go Right over the heads of both Liberals and many of the general public.

I wouldn't be surprised if Exxon funds the Sierra Club just to increase their profits.
 
1Texas Flood
      ID: 154452116
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 09:03 		Not to mention the fact that there has not been a new refinery
opened in the US in about three decades. I think a lot of the
problem lies in refining capacity rather than in actual oil
production, drilling and exploration.

I'm all for the protection of the environment. I love hunting,
fishing and all outdoor sports. Thats one of the reasons I live in
Northern Michigan. You can explore and drill for oil and protect
the environment at the same time.

It's also important that we ween ourselves away from oil and
develop new sources of energy. With oil now trading at over
$135 a bbl it won't be long before many people will not be able
to afford gas to go to work.
 
2Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 09:41 		i'm still trying to figure out why we need to drill more - seems to me, oil companies are doing just fine, making record profits. ya know, they could make 500 billion instead of 600 billion, and that could help (just tossing random numbers out there)...

also - the answer isn't more oil. it's, as TF pointed out, searching for new forms of energy.
 
3Perm Dude
      ID: 154482114
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 09:54 		The increase in oil price is directly tied to supply and demand

Not exactly. Supply and demand pricing models work only when the companies providing the product can increase or decrease supply based upon demand. As it is, oil companies sell all of their stock no matter what the demand is.

Jag should know this, but refuses in his efforts to blame someone. Oil demand is at an all-time high, yet so are prices.

There are many factors at work here (limited refineries, the many versions of gasoline that those refineries have to make, cost of crude, etc).

But this is like debating the price of crack, and whether we should look for a new supplier in addition to our current guy.
 
4Seward Norse
      ID: 297412913
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 09:55 		The average net profit margin is not that great for oil companies compared to other fortune 500 companies. I also don't understand why we can't get more oil WHILE searching for new forms of energy. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
 
5Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 10:04 		because as long as we HAVE oil, we won't search for anything else. the last 35 years have shown that.
 
6Richard
      Dude
      ID: 204252420
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 10:05 		#1 Not to mention the fact that there has not been a new refinery opened in the US in about three decades. I think a lot of the problem lies in refining capacity rather than in actual oil production, drilling and exploration.

True but not the complete story. As it turns out refinery capacity has increased nearly 1.7 million barrels in the last 15 years (the equivalent of one new, start-of-the-art refinery a year, each with a capacity to refine 150,000 to 300,00 barrels per day). The oil industry has found it costs less money and takes less time to expnad existing facilities rather than buildong new ones. Besides, nobody wants a new refinery built in their backyard.

Refinery Capacity has Increased

Richard
 
7Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 10:07 		I also don't understand why we can't get more oil WHILE searching for new forms of energy. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

One problem is that the industry puts off R&D until the market demands it, which only happens when oil/gasoline are expensive enough for demand to decrease.
 
8Seward Norse
      ID: 297412913
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 10:26 		I don't understand why we're not doing everything in our power to eliminate any sort of dependancy on middle east oil. Would we be in this war right now if we weren't so dependant on their oil?

If we find a viable alternative to oil - great. But if we don't, shouldn't we have something else in place?
 
9Perm Dude
      ID: 154482114
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 10:30 		Yeah, we should.

I don't really take oil companies to task for not changing to other forms of energy R&D. They are oil companies--despite the cosmetic changes of now calling themselves "energy companies." (Changes seemingly more marketing driven than anything else).

 
10Texas Flood
      ID: 154452116
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 10:39 		Richard, I thought about the increased production after I made
the comment about no new refineries being built. There were
also a lot of refineries that were closed several years ago, but
IIRC oil was at about $20-$25 per bbl at that point in time, and
gas was about $1.19 per gallon.

I'm sure that nobody wants a refinery in their back yard, however
when refineries were closed in Michigan a lot of people were
pretty disappointed about losing good paying jobs. It was not
unlike, auto plants closing in Flint, Whirlpool closing production
facilities in Benton Harbor and Dow closing plants in Midland.

I'm sure many of those people would welcome new heavy
industries and the good paying jobs that go with them.
 
11Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 11:10 		I don't understand why we're not doing everything in our power to eliminate any sort of dependancy on middle east oil. Would we be in this war right now if we weren't so dependant on their oil?

when the leader of your nation routinely takes it in the behind from the Saudis, and smiles while doing so, it's easy to understand why we're not trying to eliminate the middle east oil dependancy.
 
12boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 11:20 		Not exactly. Supply and demand pricing models work only when the companies providing the product can increase or decrease supply based upon demand. As it is, oil companies sell all of their stock no matter what the demand is.

yes they do sell there stock no matter what the demand is but the price changes accordily. this is the supply and demand model. the place where oil industry deffers is that if the price goes up they should in theory look for more oil to sell which they may or may not do.
 
13Perm Dude
      ID: 154482114
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 11:59 		Price goes up (or rarely, down) not based on supply and demand, but upon other things that affect the product. Cost of extraction, crude oil prices, even changes in gas prices make the delivery of gasoline more expensive to deliver to the individual stations.

What doesn't affect the price of gasoline is the standard supply and demand rules. In fact, there is no evidence at all to suggest that additional supply will lower prices at the pump.
 
14nerveclinic
      ID: 5047110
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 12:05
What doesn't affect the price of gasoline is the standard supply and demand rules. In fact, there is no evidence at all to suggest that additional supply will lower prices at the pump.

PD what is your basis for making this statement? I keep hearing experts say the best way we can reduce the cost of oil is conservation which will lower demand and increase supply therefore lowering cost.

If more peple drove a car that got 40 MPG rather then an SUV, are you suggesting the decrease in demand wouldn't over time lower cost?

 
15Perm Dude
      ID: 154482114
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 12:14 		The only way to change the rules for gasoline prices, nerve, is to re-inject supply/demand back into the equation. And even then I don't think it will be any real long-term solution.

My point was that we are not operating under those rules right now, and having the oil companies with more supply on hand in and of itself will not change prices.

However, a situation in which there is actual inventory will cause those supply/demand rules to come into play. Both an increase in supply combined with decreased demand might trigger it. It seems more likely, however (as most experts I've read agree) that lower oil prices will simply cause more wasteful use to come back. If gas dropped to $1.50/gallon, will SUV sales remain low? I think what is primarily forcing the move to more fuel efficient vehicles is gasoline prices, and if prices drop there is less pressure to drive the smaller and more efficient vehicles.

That all said, there is a huge infrastructure based upon an oil and gasoline delivery system. Oil companies will continue to find it much easier to keep doing what they are doing rather than sink a ton of money into new energy sources.
 
16Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 12:16 		PD seems to be in the process of forming a new school of economic theory in which commodity price is not affected by supply and demand. I'm very interested in hearing more on this.
 
17Perm Dude
      ID: 154482114
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 12:18 		Damn, I meant to add:

I had to study gasoline pricing as part of my Econ class in college. I think my professor assigned it because he hated me. There are just a ton of factors that go into gas prices (including the factor of truck delivery of the product, in which high gas prices actual cause higher prices because of the delivery method).

But pricing as a result of complicating (even competing) factors mean that there are probably many different ways of attacking the problem. No one solution will solve them all, but some things are certainly worth looking at--many of them mentioned by others above.
 
18Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 12:21 		Heh..What was the price of a gallon of gas when you were in school, PD? $0.39?
 
19Perm Dude
      ID: 154482114
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 12:26 		Back then the evil oil barons were all Texans.
 
20Texas Flood
      ID: 154452116
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 13:54 		Here in Northwest Michigan gas just went to $4.19 per gallon. We
live in a resort area and the outlook for tourism this summer is
quite somber to say the least.
 
21biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 14:02 		You'd think Michigan would have a gas subsidy instead of a tax.

I just came back from Cali where gas was ringing in at the upper 4s, about $.30 higher than Washington.
 
22biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 14:04 		Don't quite understand how supply and demand aren't having an effect, PD. Unless there is hoarding, which there is no evidence of, supply, or lack of it, is having a strong effect.
 
23Texas Flood
      ID: 154452116
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 14:24 		bili, our gas taxes are about .36-.37 per gallon + 6% sales tax.

Don't you think it's a lot of speculators just bidding up the price of
oil or am I wrong in this thinking? I know demand is up on the
world market, but is the demand really that much stronger than
last year?

All hell will break loose if we have a rough hurricane season or
god forbid another terrorist attack.
 
24Perm Dude
      ID: 84462211
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 14:35 		It is having an effect, bili, just not the way we think of it as in other industries. Typically when supply rises and demand stays the same, an inventory builds up and the price drops in order to encourage more purchasing of the supply. There is also the small side effect of increase supply often costing less per unit to convey to the consumer.

On the other side, when demand drops theninventory builds up again and prices drop to do the same thing--encourage the purchasing of the product.

But oil companies are selling all they can get out of the ground. There is no warehouse of gas & oil waiting to be ordered. And yeah--a concerted effort to reduce oil demand could make such an inventory occur (or, like TF points out, have the appearance of making speculators think it will occur which is just as important in that industry). But it is so much better to just get off the oil as our means of fuelling our cars.

Eventually we'll look upon gasoline like black & white TVs. But I don't think we'll get there by tinkering with the cost of the black & white sets to the consumer.
 
25sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 14:45 		8 years on car lots, I have to agree with PDs contention in post 15 above. Gas prices rose and fell many times between 1997 and 2006. When they rose, SUV sales tanked, SUV trade-ins increased and small car sales increased. Then when the prices came back down, small car sales declined, SUVs flew off the lots fast as we could get them, and the whole time...people bitched about the price of gas.

Yes, back when I was in Grade School, gas sold for $.169/gal. Of course, Dad grossed $65/wk then too, the monthly mortgage was $80 and a brand new Ford Mustang fresh off the lot was around $2,000. Individually, the demand HAS dropped since then. Cumulatively its up, because there are more of us. (I say its down individually, because back then, 16 mpg for a CAR wasnt half bad. Now, 30mpg and you're not necessarily happy with your cars gasoline consumption.)

I think gasoline, more so than many other commodities, is subject to manipulation on the part of the supplier. It makes no difference how much they pump out of the groun, or howmuch they refine. They can sell all of it and they know it. By keeping "supply" limited, or by simply claiming that its limited, the oil companies can raise their prices and what exactly are we gonna do? Pay it. Then after the prices run up $.75/gal, the companies can look like good guys by cutting prices $.40. End result? They gouge us for an additional $.30/gal and WE...feel good about it.
 
26biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 14:52 		I'll let Krugman explain it.

Imagine what would happen if the oil market were humming along, with supply and demand balanced at a price of $25 a barrel, and a bunch of speculators came in and drove the price up to $100.

Even if this were purely a financial play on the part of the speculators, it would have major consequences in the material world. Faced with higher prices, drivers would cut back on their driving; homeowners would turn down their thermostats; owners of marginal oil wells would put them back into production.

As a result, the initial balance between supply and demand would be broken, replaced with a situation in which supply exceeded demand. This excess supply would, in turn, drive prices back down again — unless someone were willing to buy up the excess and take it off the market.

The only way speculation can have a persistent effect on oil prices, then, is if it leads to physical hoarding — an increase in private inventories of black gunk. This actually happened in the late 1970s, when the effects of disrupted Iranian supply were amplified by widespread panic stockpiling.

But it hasn’t happened this time: all through the period of the alleged bubble, inventories have remained at more or less normal levels. This tells us that the rise in oil prices isn’t the result of runaway speculation; it’s the result of fundamental factors, mainly the growing difficulty of finding oil and the rapid growth of emerging economies like China. The rise in oil prices these past few years had to happen to keep demand growth from exceeding supply growth.

Saying that high-priced oil isn’t a bubble doesn’t mean that oil prices will never decline. I wouldn’t be shocked if a pullback in demand, driven by delayed effects of high prices, sends the price of crude back below $100 for a while. But it does mean that speculators aren’t at the heart of the story.

Why, then, do we keep hearing assertions that they are?

Read the whole thing.
 
27Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 16:09 		The biggest reason the price of oil has gone up is because the dollar has gone down the toilet. The price of oil has not gone up as much in Euros or yen.
 
28biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 16:19 		The biggest reason?

Oil prices have quadrupled, B7. Has the Euro quadrupled against the dollar?
 
29Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 16:39 		Do you have a bigger reason?
 
30biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 16:51 		China.

Difficulty in finding new reserves and expanding output for current ones.
 
31Texas Flood
      ID: 154452116
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 17:41 		I heard on FOX news today and it was also a story on CNN that
China is presently drilling for oil just 60 miles off the FL coast in
Cuban waters.

I guess the Chinese are tired of walking, riding bikes, scooters and
driving small cars. We had better get used to it!
 
32Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 18:24 		Oil prices have quadrupled, b. Has China quadrupled the world demand?

Any discussion about rising oil prices, should include something about the falling dollar.
 
33Perm Dude
      ID: 84462211
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 18:34 		Only if the oil is originally priced in US dollars. And China delinked its currency from the US dollar more than 3 years ago.

China is sucking up (pdf) oil at an amazing rate. That CBO paper is already 2 years old-China is still increasing its consumption.
 
34nerveclinic
      ID: 5047110
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 18:40

I think B7 and Bili are both right but post 30 sums it up for me. The falling dollar has had an effect but China...and India...and difficulty drilling are the major causes.

New drilling is coming from deep sea and it just costs a lot more to drill there then dry land.

China and India and other emerging nations are chewing up more oil.

Now throw the weakened dollar on the bonfire and you have a perfect storm.

SUV's don't help.

 
35biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 19:22 		The demand curve is very steep for oil, so you don't need to see the demand (from China and elsewhere) quadruple to see the price quadruple. That's not true when you discuss the inflationary/carry effects that you say are the biggest reason. I grant it's a reason, but a comparatively minor one.

 
37Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 19:54 		Jag: People complain about gas prices, but few know where to place the blame. The answer is simple 'Environmentalists'......

Those people talk out of both sides of their mouth and their ass at the same time.

We're supposed to get off of foreign oil (I think both sides of the aisle can agree.), but at the same time we're supposed to save the polar bear, spotting squirrel, and flying moose. Both can't be done overnight.

We as a country need to sit down and figure some things out. Like when a marriage is having problems, we need to put the kids to bed, turn off the TV and have a chat.

Yes or no. Are we OK with $4 and rising gas prices?

The consensus SEEMS to be no. If that's the case then both sides need to be serious about short/medium/long term solutions and stop worrying about things that pale in comparison to our energy problem.
 
38Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 20:06 		Completely lost on today's political right is that the environmentalists and the left in general have been been pushing for R&D for alternative energy sources for decades.

The left was proposing long term solutions back when it was a long term problem - only to get shouted down and laughed at in our faces at every turn.

Now Jag wants to blame those very people for the mess that was created by ignoring and mocking them decade after decade.
 
39biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 20:07 		I'm ok with $4 gas prices.

I would prefer that we have jacked the gas tax to 100% 10 years ago and jammed the tax revenue into R&D and transit infrastructure, but we can it the bass-ackwards way as well. It gets to the same result eventually, but with a lot more pain, and too many profits to oil companies.

Of course we can always go ahead and jack into $8 now. I'd be fine with that too. Even though I just topped off my truck at $99.62 an hour ago.

Just clearing out the recycling so I can get my bike to the shop to hook up the trailer to it.

Of course food, calorie for calorie, is more expensive than gas. Hopefully I'll save on cardiology bills down the line.
 
40Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 20:14 		How would you fix things Mith? What's your plan?

I'm ok with $4 gas prices.

You and I may be economically and psychologically fine with it, but there are millions of poor people that are not and they need to figure out a way to get to work.

I don't see how taxation helps them one bit.

We need a comprehensive short/medium/long term approach that involves new drilling, exploration, and funding into the implementation of alternative energy sources (solar, wind, etc.), not ethanol, to help alleviate this problem.
 
41biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 20:21 		You're recommending subsidizing exploration and drilling even more than we already do!?!

That's your solution?

I just love when professed capitalists get all socialist on you when it comes to corporations.
 
42biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 20:22 		I agree with you on ethanol, however. That's a dead-end.
 
43Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 20:39 		I said "subsidizing" exploration and drilling? What I'm saying is to not care so much about the spotted owl or the moose. As part of a short/medium term fix we need to open up areas, like ANWR.

I would like you to point out where I said "subsidizing" though.
 
44Perm Dude
      ID: 84462211
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 20:41 		We're supposed to get off of foreign oil

Actually, we need to get off oil. Period.
 
45biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 20:51 		ANWR, even if we sucked it dry tomorrow, wouldn't even keep our hummers humming for the summer. Drop in the bucket.

We gotta stop living in the 1960s.
 
46Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 21:07 		ANWR, even if we sucked it dry tomorrow, wouldn't even keep our hummers humming for the summer. Drop in the bucket.

We gotta stop living in the 1960s.

And what exactly about what I've posted indicates that? I've said "comprehensive approach". Between your statement of me using the word "subsidizing" and now this perhaps you need to take some time off and refresh your reading comp skills. I really mean that as constructive criticism because this is now two in a row that you've really missed and it appears that you're one of the respected ones around here. So either you're having a bad day or need some training.
 
47Tree
      ID: 454172220
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 21:28 		We're supposed to get off of foreign oil (I think both sides of the aisle can agree.), but at the same time we're supposed to save the polar bear, spotting squirrel, and flying moose. Both can't be done overnight.

actually, we're supposed to off oil period.

we don't need to drill for anymore oil. there is no point in that.

we need to put and money we can into alternative fuels. Oil companies sure aren't going to look for anything other than oil - that's what they do!
 
48Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 21:31 		How would you fix things Mith? What's your plan?

There is no "short term" solution. Medium and long term answers are R&D in energy efficiency, investment in the power grid and shifting some energy reliance that way, R&D in alternative energy sources and R&D in more cost-effective and eco-friendly metods of extracting oil deposits that are currently less accessable or inefficient, such as off-shore and shale.
 
49biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 22:31 		Damn. I never asked to be respected. How did that happen? I obviously have to post more drunk.

Sorry Box. I'll try and engage in reasoned debate, since you seem to be giving it a shot. Maybe the inaugural post up there gave me reason be believe this post to be reason-free on the conservative side.

I assumed that you were talking about something our representatives could actually do. That's why assumed when you starting talking about drilling and exploration, since that's generally done by private industry, subsidies are the only thing that occurred to me. Giving/lending parts of our national wilderness to the oil companies is just a different form of subsidy, btw. Not paid in gold but in flesh and our ecosystem's long-term sustainable future. We can debate the extent of the damage, but I don't think any reasonable person will suggest that there will be none, so I stand by it being a subsidy. Socialism for oil corporations that are making obscene profits on the backs of hard-working Americans.

How would you recommend we spur or pay for the other parts of your comprehensive plan beyond subsidizing drilling and exploration?
 
50Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 22:42 		The senator from Colorado [Wayne Allard off the top of my head] said on WLS radio a couple days ago that congress is holding up 3 trillion barrels of known USA reserves between prohibitted offshore, ANWR and shale. He said congress refuses to allow language to be passed which would lay down environmental guidlines for shale development which was profitable at $60 a barrel and wildly profitable at $130 per barrel.

If I remember correctly recovery of oil from shale today involves pumping in superheated gasses and has virtually no above ground environmental impact. It isn't at all the strip mining you might be imagining.
 
51Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 22:56 		Just one USA oil shale deposit contains between 800 billion barrels of easily recovered oil to upwards of 1.8 trillion barrels. USA oil consumption is 20 million barrels a day. My simple math tells me that's at a minimum, 109 years' worth of USA's current demand.

And it's also three times the known Saudi oil reserves.
 
52astade
      ID: 1533770
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 23:47 		Boldwin et. al.,

While I appreciate you bringing up alternatives to the current predicament we are in it would be appreciated if you are more forthcoming w/ your data. Please present the positives and negatives. I am not picking on you, because shale deposits should always be considered, but your mention of just the potentital oil recovered is deceiving.

As someone that works in the O&G industry (no, not for a major petroleum supplier), I think it imperative to discuss the entire issue. In doing so, it will become apparent that the answer is NOT clear cut.
 
53Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 00:31 		It is clear cut, that we should be drilling more or else we will be buying oil from third world countries from wells 60 miles from our boarder.
 
54biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 00:36 		Well, you seem to vaguely understand exactly 1 variable in the equation, Jag.

You are a shining example of what a little bit of knowledge gets you.
 
55Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 00:39 		Drill first, then we can talk. I am all for alternative energy, but I know the Libs will have looney ideas like every one needs to use mass transit (my Liberal buddy) and everyone needs to lower their thermostat. (Obama)
 
56astade
      ID: 1533770
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 00:41 		Jag,

Does that mean you are upset with Sempra for their Azul project? or are you upset with our government for letting it go to another country?

Just curious...
 
57biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 00:42 		I'd take your advice if I were your dentist. Or more usefully for society as a whole, your trepanist.
 
58Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 00:51 		I have heard of Sempra, but not the Azul Project.

Nice joke Bili, altho I have to adnit it tok me a few minites to catch the puncline.
 
59Perm Dude
      ID: 84462211
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 00:52 		The big news in PA the last year or two on the energy front is that companies are now able to drill for natural gas profitably from the Marcellus Shale.

Close or running under a large number of cities, this is good news, particularly those of us who use home heating oil as their primary source for winter heat.
 
60Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 06:13 		Biliruben: How would you recommend we spur or pay for the other parts of your comprehensive plan beyond subsidizing drilling and exploration?

First, I'm not in favor of subsidizing drilling and exploration. I want to open up new areas, like ANWR and the coastlines, for drilling and exploration. I do not want the gov't paying for that. Let the oil companies assume the costs.

I would end subsidies to the oil companies (The infamous 6 billion.) and would slash farm subsidies while commodity prices are sky high. Using that money, I would increase gov't research spending on alternative methods. I've also stated in another thread that residential solar needs to have a serious program along the lines of actually paying for people's residential systems (Ex. Up to $40k each x up to 1,000,000 homes per year = 40 billion). They should own these free and clear provided they maintain a 95% or so rate of independancy from the electric grid. A relief of 1,000,000 homes annually off the electric grid would be a huge help especially when looked at over time. I think people would sign up for it; especially since it would be free. There might actually be a waiting list for it.

Ethanol is never going to work, but if we can lower the tariffs on Brazilian ethanol made from suger cane I think we may have something.

I think if anyone is serious about the problem they've got to realize that new oil discoveries are part of the solution just like how solar and wind are part of it. They are just different components along the timeline of energy indepedence.
 
61Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 06:19 		Astade

The math is as transparent as it could be. The link enumerates the current daily demand. I used the low figure listed in the link for easily recovered oil from the deposit discussed in the link. I just divided the size of the deposit by the size of the demand.

I'm not saying the demand would remain the exact same size. Oil being a fungible resource, it wouldn't really be used domestically exclusively neccessarily.

The real point is that there is a hole in the peak oil theory the size of a galactic tanker and by the time the deposits run dry, even if they don't naturally replenish as I believe they do, batteries for hybrids will weigh a tenth what they do now, solar cells will return a higher percentage of the sun's output and cost far less to produce, vehicles could weigh half what they do today with the same performance. Given the rate of scientific discovery of the last century I wouldn't scoff at the notion that you could power your daily drive with table scraps like 'Back To the Future', or cold fusion, or zero point energy, we can only guess what 100 years of development will come up with.

Some people have a vested interest in pretending oil is the only key and it's 'Mad Max' valuable and we should just all fork over our gold for it like every gallon was the last we would ever see. Some wanna be Tina Turner, and I guess some just want to drive the armored tanker, no detours from the thunderdome.
 
62Tree
      ID: 50434235
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 06:41 		Drill first, then we can talk.

typical conservative methodology. working well, metaphorically, in Iraq, ain't it?

I am all for alternative energy, but I know the Libs will have looney ideas like every one needs to use mass transit (my Liberal buddy) and everyone needs to lower their thermostat. (Obama)

not necessarily refuting you, but if you're going to say something is loony tell us why. why are mass transit, and lowering your thermostat, loony?
 
63Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 07:14 		Looney left is telling us to ignore ANWR when gas is $130 a barrel because it would take 10 years to come online, ignoring the fact that their opposition to ANWR is more than 10 years old.

Pretending they have the solution to anything is looney.
 
64Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 08:42 		Getting us the energy, government-style. Thirty years of empty promises, populist treachery and resources locked away not competing and driving the price down.
 
65Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 08:49 		Looney left is telling us to ignore ANWR when gas is $130 a barrel because it would take 10 years to come online, ignoring the fact that their opposition to ANWR is more than 10 years old.

Pretending they have the solution to anything is looney.

but nowhere near as loony as you staying on point and answering a pretty clearly stated question.

drilling for MORE oil is NOT the answer. as long as we have oil, we won't seriously look for alternate solutions.

oil companies will NEVER seriously look for alternate solutions, and nor should they, unless oil shortages start to see it affect their bottom line, and they have no choice but to find an alternative.

but as long as we keep supporting them, and allowing them to willy nilly drill everywhere, we won't fix the problem - we'll just postpone it until a Mad Max world of people hijacking fuel trucks becomes a daily thing.
 
66Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 08:58 		Are you under the delusion that the search for more efficient batteries and solar cells is languishing in some R&D backwater not getting a dime?

Or maybe you are even more conspiracy minded than I am and hold to the belief big oil is buying up and locking away alternatives?
 
67Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 09:59 		Are you under the delusion that the search for more efficient batteries and solar cells is languishing in some R&D backwater not getting a dime?

with how far technology has come, it is unfathomable that we haven't really progressed in regards to a serious, affordable, renewable way to power our automobiles and homes since the oil crunch of the 70s.

we have computers on our persons smaller than a pack of cigarettes, yet, we're still guzzling gas like a thirsty man guzzles water in the desert.
 
68sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 10:34 		The Internal Combustion Engine, came along what? According to wiki, the first functional and reasonably "mass" produced gas version came about circa 1860.

Since then, they've become more powerful and efficient true, but essentially the tehnology has flat-lined. The working principles, are still the same. Cylinders, pistons, connecting rods etc.

Since 1860, we've gone from hot air balloons for flight, to manned space flight. We've gone from the abacus to computer technology that would fit inside a cigarette pack. We've gone from Morse Code wire transmissions, to wireless planetary wide instant communications with audio AND visual components. We've gone from leeching in medicine to artificial organs and organ transplants. We've advanced from candles and kerosene lanterns to instant on-demand electric powered homes and we no longer haul water up from the creek three times daily.

Most all of these advances, were achieved in a relatively short time frame, yet the ICE remains essentially the same. Why? I have to believe, Tree is spot on in his contention that the oil companies aren't about to "solve" the dilemma. Why would they with gas at $100+/barrel? Its in their own vested interest, to KEEP oil as the driving (no pun intended) force behind our energy needs. Oh they'll no doubt pay lip service to R&D for alternative sources, but I doubt any REAL effort beyond PR is being expended on the part of big oil in quest of a viable alternative. Rather, I think the automotive manufactuirers are seeking alternative methods, but I dont look for energy companies heavily vested in the existing distribution model to seriously undertake this effort.
 
69Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 10:41 		Well the beauty of the free market system is that it doesn't matter who doesn't want to take advantage of an opportunity. Either we have some unbroken conspiracy to keep out alternatives or someone will make a killing selling an alternative to $130 a barrel oil.
 
70sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 10:51 		And the flaw with the system, is that those with the gold make the rules. The oil companaies, are and have been, sitting on a pot of gold for many decades.
 
71Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 11:04 		Jag -

I have heard of Sempra..

i haven't. could you enlighten me?

Either we have some unbroken conspiracy...

or, we just have a really strong oil lobby. much the same way tobacco, alcohol, and lots of questionable pharmaceuticals are perfectly legal, while marijuana is not.
 
72Perm Dude
      ID: 3345239
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 11:09 		Either we have some unbroken conspiracy to keep out alternatives...

There are huge barriers to entry in an energy market. Right now we seem to be hoping that the "free market" will cause oil companies to spend oodles of their own money to look for completely different products to sell, pay for a massive distribution network, and then wean their own customers off of a product that those companies are making record profits off of.

Hmmm. Must be a conspiracy that this isn't happening!
 
73Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 12:04 		That's just awful when we have a successful American company making money. We should do something to prevent that from happening.
 
74biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 12:10 		Nothing wrong with making money. Just skip the subsidies and make sure competitive forces haven't been short-circuited in some way.

Even you would agree that taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing collusive profiteers, right B7?
 
75Perm Dude
      ID: 3345239
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 12:14 		I don't think anyone in this thread has said oil companies shouldn't make money.

My point in #72 was that their huge profit margins make it less likely that they will spend much time trying to find non-traditional energy sources which will make them less money. And that this is purely the free market at work--no conspiracy theory necessary.
 
76Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 13:10 		Since when was this the oil company's job to put oil companies out of work?

It may be that they have found [barely] legal means to hold onto a monopoly situation. If that's true then prove it and you have a case any normal person would accept as justifiable grounds for trust busting.

The burden is on people who believe that to prove it.
 
77Perm Dude
      ID: 3345239
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 13:14 		Since when was this the oil company's job to put oil companies out of work?

Exactly. Which is why there is no conspiracy.

It is also why the government (who helped build up the barriers to entry in the energy field in the first place) needs to step up direct help. They can do it by getting rid of oil company subsidies and plowing that money back into R&D, probably at the university level.
 
78Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 13:15 		I think this is barking up the wrong tree tho. I think alternatives will reach a point of critical mass when they are competitive and they will succeed overnight. When photovoltaics become cheap and effective enuff to payback investment in a year or two everyone will suddenly be selling power back to the energy company. When they get even better they'll be part of the hybrid design of your car. As I've stated before when the batteries on an electric car weigh 300 instead of 3000 pounds you'll be driving around in silence.
 
79boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 13:26 		It is not big oils resposiblity to find alternative sources of energy. In free market econony it is those who are not making large profits to look for alternatives. the only incentive big oil has to look for alternatives is to allow them compete in the future. with that said i have allready read where some compaines like exxon maynot even bother trying to compete in future markets and are just going to slowy self dissolve over time.

Either we have some unbroken conspiracy to keep out alternatives...

honestly can someone here tell me that if I showed up on GM's door step with car that runs off a small solar panel and gets the same performace as ICE they are not going to be jumping for joy.
 
80biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 13:28 		Who's saying alternative energy is big oil's responsibility? Where did that straw-man come from?
 
81boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 13:32 		post 72 response...
 
82Perm Dude
      ID: 3345239
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 13:33 		Ah, but Big Oil has strongly implied that this is exactly what they are doing. I think it is a strawman, however, and designed to deflect criticism more than anything else.

The effect is that people are awaiting those oil companies to come up with the alternatives in question, based upon the "free market." But it is exactly the free market which prevents that from happening.
 
83biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 13:35 		Uh... I do not think he meant what you think he meant.

Maybe I misunderstood, but 77 seems to suggest I didn't.
 
84boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 13:39 		i posted at the same time as 77 so think what you want...do oil compaines actaully get subsidies at this time?
 
85boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 13:48 		Nevermind i answered my own question, I just wish they would say what tx break inentives were designed to do...

speaking of conspricies, i heard this one today that reason we are not drilling for new oil in US is that it is all part of plan to run dry the rest of the worlds supplies first.
 
86Perm Dude
      ID: 3345239
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 14:02 		Some of those tax breaks are included with other, general domestic production tax breaks, much of it having to do with Internal Revenue Code section 199 deductions.

To encourage domestic production, the IRS grants a 9% break (I believe that is the right number--haven't looked through it in some time).

My (dim) recollection from late last year is that this had the effect of being an almost $2 billion/year subsidy.
 
87Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 14:17 		Boldwin #61 The real point is that there is a hole in the peak oil theory the size of a galactic tanker and by the time the deposits run dry, even if they don't naturally replenish as I believe they do,

So you believe in this theory that oil comes up from middle earth and replenishes deposits or caverns or something. As opposed to the dead dinosaur theory.....fossil fuel theory. If that's true, then peak oil is not here, and may never be here.
 
88Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Fri, May 23, 2008, 19:25 		B7

Well the 'replenishment theory' may not contain the salvation either because it begs the question of how fast the replenishment occurs.

I've come across plenty of evidence to suggest it can happen surprisingly fast but I'm not buying up 'exhausted wells' just yet either.

But that it happens and it isn't a one time present from the dinosaurs...well if anyone wants to sell me the biogenesis of oil they had better have a whale of a 'dinosaurs on Titan' story to regale me with to explain the methane oceans on Titan.
 
89Perm Dude
      ID: 420241913
      Sat, May 24, 2008, 13:23 		The theory isn't that it comes from the dinosaurs, but from biomass in general (of which dinosaurs might have been a very tiny part).
 
90bibA
      ID: 174361914
      Sat, May 24, 2008, 14:02 		I think the theory as to the source of methane extraterrestrially is that it is created abiotically, from influences such as the sun, water, atmospheric gases, components in the soil, climate, and how they react to various temperatures.
 
91Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Sat, May 24, 2008, 21:23 		biba

You don't suppose all those 'dirty snowballs' which coalesce to form planets and moons, might contain hydro-carbons do you? Ya'know, the dirty part.

There is a LOT of carbon from supernovas spread out in space and hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.

What do you suppose happens to that stuff cooking deep in planets and moons? Think it, being lighter than heavy elements, might tend to rise?
 
92Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Sun, May 25, 2008, 08:24 		The theory isn't that it comes from the dinosaurs, but from biomass in general (of which dinosaurs might have been a very tiny part).

What does fossil fuel theory mean?

 
93Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Mon, May 26, 2008, 10:24 		That oil was produced by ancient living matter as opposed to abiotically.
 
94Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, May 26, 2008, 10:26 		How do large quantities of methane on Titan challenge that?
 
95Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Mon, May 26, 2008, 11:29 		I guess, since there is no known living matter on Titan, then there would not be any ancient living matter to create methane. Something like that. Thus, the fossil fuel theory is wrong, and the abiotic one is correct.

I'm not sure which theory is correct.
 
96Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, May 26, 2008, 11:34 		Right, but why would abiotic production of methane on Titan necessarily preclude the fossil fuel theory as an explanation for oil deposits in the Earth's upper crust? Why can't both occur?
 
97Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Mon, May 26, 2008, 15:30 		MITH

If you have abiotic oceans of hydrocarbons already present on other bodies in this solar system...

...and at least one oil deposit refilling itself in under a decade as I am aware of...

...and russians finding oil no matter how many miles below any layers that ever contained life they go...

Then my friend Occam's razor says you don't need to invent a biotic alternative method.
 
98Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, May 26, 2008, 15:59 		While I appreciate the response, links to supporting details rather than snooty passing references would better make your case.
 
99Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Mon, May 26, 2008, 22:29 		We've been thru the examples before, MITH. Russian deep wells, refilling wells below the Mississippi delta, Methane oceans of Titan, you don't need a link to that.
 
100Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Sat, May 31, 2008, 12:50 		I find it comical that Jag, who consistently espouses the claim that anyone(he uses the generic term "liberals") who isn't in line with his radical views is wrong on just about every issue, has the audacity to make the claim in the thread title.

To begin, people concerned with environmental issues come from every political stripe, hard as Jag attempts to paint them all as radical leftists. I know this first hand because my politically conservative father(a Reagan Republican) was one of the world's foremost ornithologists until his death 3 years ago, a past president of the Southern California Audobon Society, member of the Sierra Club for decades, active with the World Wildlife Fund, owner/editor of Ibis Publishing(naturalist books, mostly birds) and himself an author of naturalist books, the last one being "Birds of Peru," considered an essential field guide for any serious birding expedition to that country. Many of his associates were/are successful capitalist businessmen, because, after all, it takes a certain amount of wealth to travel to exotic parts of world where some of the rarest and most fragile ecosystems that provide habitat for the planet's diminishing species exist. So you'll excuse me if I find your characterization of environmentalists to be based on ignorance and a generally biased political viewpoint.

It's especially ignorant to claim that enviromentalists are the root cause of high gasoline prices because of opposition to drilling in environmentally-sensitive areas. Perhaps the cause is more related to this country's NASCAR mentality, a phrase that the Jags of this country refuse to acknowledge because it offends the political correctness of the anti-environment, rampant consumerism that they worship.

NASCASR mentality? It's basically the promotion of blatant irresponsible use of precious energy supplies for entertainment, recreation and environmental degredation. Now, you might say that the fuel used in weekend NASCAR races is a drop in the bucket percentage-wise as to this country's gasoline consumption, and you'd be right, even taking into consideration the fuel used by fans to attend these events. But take into consideration the entirety of what are innocuously deemed motorsports.

Jag, I believe, lives in Florida.

That's 86 racetracks of varying degrees from Daytona International Speedway to Volusia Speedway Park in Barberville in Florida alone. Just about every one of these will have events today and tomorrow, and some of them have events almost daily, year round.

Even an environmentally-conscious state like Washington has a website that proudly proclaims:

The list of racing bodies therein is an attempt to inform both the causal and avid race fan
of the many active racing organizations participating as part of the strong fan base which
NASACAR and other circuits have produced over the past decade or so. NASCAR,
Champ Car, Formula One, Indy Racing League, Sports Car Club of America, Grand
American Road Racing Association, International Race of Champions, ARCA Racing
Series, NHRA Drag Racing, National Auto Sport Association, NASA Pro Truck, U.S.
Touring Car Championship, and NASA Formula TR Series are all included in the article
below. Each sanctioning body has its own unique spin on the racing industry and a
different story to tell. With NASCAR’s economic prosperity leading the way, this
document will give an outline of each racing organization, and provide the reader with
additional information in the form of official/unofficial informative websites.
There are approximately 30 race tracks in Washington State alone. This includes paved
oval tracks, clay & dirt oval tracks, dragstrips, road & street courses, and others.

Nationwide there are over a thousand racetracks that draw millions of Americans, many who emulate their need for speed heroes by taking to the highways oblivious to speed limits and general consideration for their fellow drivers. And driving any type of vehicle which is conservative in the consumption of fuel would be blasphemous to most of these emulators, as that would detract from their macho image and make them weenies in the eyes of their peers.

So, do the math. After a while, it all adds up to more than just a drop in the bucket. Add in all the 5th wheel trucks towing gigantic RVs so people can take the city and all its creature comforts into national parks, state parks, national forests and other scenic and once pristine places. Add in all the trucks towing trailers with OHVs, jet skis and snowmobiles into ecologically-sensitive areas, some of whom feel that there should be absolutely no restrictions whatsoever concerning motorized vehicles on public lands.

Then blame the couple with the Subaru wagon, the tent and backpacks for the price of gas and accuse them of being friends of big oil and terrorists.

Of course, it's just as ignorant to characterize every motorsports fan, every RV, OHV, jetski(I'm one) and snowmobile owner as enviromentally insensitive as it is to claim that enviromentalists are the cause of high gas prices. In fact, there are some involved in motorsports who risk ridicule from the Jag's of the world with their outright support for environmental issues.



Racing for wildlife

BROOKLYN MI (5-29-08) - Further strengthening its commitment to preserving the environment and its natural resources, Michigan International Speedway will proudly host the Racing For Wildlife 200 ARCA RE/MAX Series event for the next three years, track officials announced today. The race entitlement is a joint venture with The Conservation Fund and the Ryan Newman Foundation, which formed Racing for Wildlife in 2007. That partnership is a first-of-its-kind initiative that invites sports fans, race sponsors and other conservation-minded individuals to join NASCAR driver Newman and The Conservation Fund to save America's scenic lands.
The Racing for Wildlife 200 at MIS is set for Friday, June 13.

Now there's a partnership that should be applauded.
 
101Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Sat, May 31, 2008, 13:09 		NASCAR is the reason for high gas prices? This is as absurd as PETA's cow faart's aiding global warming.

Environmentalists keep us from drilling off shore, so now we will have to buy oil from 3rd world countries drilling in the same spot we are not allowed. We can't drill in Anwar, because it may or may not disturb a Caribou and I have no idea why we can't drill for the shale.

It is complete lunacy and why Liberals must be stopped. They will trash the country, while blaming Conservatives the entire time. It worries me that with their control of the MSM and educational system they could gain a stronger hold on the political machine.

Capitalism has never destroyed a country, but Socialism/Communism has.
 
102Tree
      ID: 13432317
      Sat, May 31, 2008, 13:11 		fantastic post PV.

it got me thinking about a group like Ducks Unlimited...

when i was younger and a bit more naive and ignorant, i couldn't for the life of me understand them. i mean, how on earth could they be in favor of conservation, but also gun ownership and the kill kill kill mentality i presumed all hunters to have.

then a roommate of mine during my senior year of college, who considered himself a democrat but definitely more on the conservative side of things, started a discussion over a few beers on the very topic.

and he went on to explain Ducks Unlimited more to me - as he was a member - and it really opened my eyes to things. it was one of my first experiences that politically, not all is black and white and there is a heckuva middle ground.

i wonder if that's the problem with people like Jag and Baldwin, who can't see anything other than labels like "liberal" and buzzwords like "terrorists".

they simply never had anyone sit down with them and help educate them, or, perhaps they did, but preferred the path to ignorance over enlightenment.

anyway, again PV, fantastic post.
 
103Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Sat, May 31, 2008, 13:32 		Or perhaps you are wrong, Tree. I wouldnt give a damn if you guys shut down hunting completely, or if you turned every area, not being used, into a Spotted Owl Sanctuary, just let us drill.

You guys need to quit coming up with these lunatic ideas to make every American citizens comform to your nonsensical elitist ideology. You are not only wromg, but dangerously wrong, you would rather see the economy destoyed than admit your Liberalism is a false god.

Let's see which would be easier, we simply start drilling or we launch a compaign to turn every American in a wrong thinking Liberal.
 
104Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Sat, May 31, 2008, 14:11 		just let us drill.

We are drilling. If you ever crawled out of your cave and actually did some research, instead of relying on propoganda rhetoric, you'd know that.

There are currently 229 million acres of public and private land in 12 western states for oil and gas drilling, with thousands of leases producing different levels of success, natural gas being the most successful product.

I have a golfing buddy who spends two weeks on and two weeks off working the fields in Rio Blanco County, Colorado. His company can't even get enough employees to live in the on-site trailers in this desolate region for them to operate at full capacity.

A client of mine works for an oil company out of Vernal, Utah. They are currently developing high tech oil shale extraction techniques that they hope to use for mass production in the near future.

I'm have more knowledge in my left foot about domestic energy production, leases and environmental concerns than you do in that excuse for a brain.

You guys need to quit coming up with these lunatic ideas to make every American citizens comform to your nonsensical elitist ideology.

This is a perfect example of someone with no arguement, no real position. You're a moron.

 
105Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Sat, May 31, 2008, 15:15 		Great you know more about shale. If you can read, then you know I stated I know nothing about it. I do know, that you Eco-Terrorists have stopped us from drilling offshore and in ANWAR.
 
106Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Sat, May 31, 2008, 15:49 		I want a Liberal to explain the logic of not allowing us to deep ocean drill, when we are many times more careful than say China, who is drilling a few miles off our coast.
 
107Tree
      ID: 13432317
      Sat, May 31, 2008, 16:00 		you Eco-Terrorists

the irony of that, on the heels of what i said in post 102, is so lost on you, it will never be found...

buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
 
108Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, May 31, 2008, 17:10 		Pancho Villa: Then blame the couple with the Subaru wagon, the tent and backpacks for the price of gas and accuse them of being friends of big oil and terrorists.....

It's not the fact that you guys backpack and drive Subarus. It's that you try and stand in the way of significant progress of coastal drilling and ANWR. As I've stated in several posts, we are going to need an all options on the table approach to our energy problem.

This means that Big Oil, profit loving capitalist pigs like me will need to listen and implement alternative sources from environmentalists like you and you will need to listen to guys like me and allow drilling in new places. There's got to be a short/medium/long term approach to this problem.

It's time to start working together on this issue otherwise we'll all be paying $8 a gallon in a couple of years and we will still be having the same arguments with no solutions or relief on the horizon.

Now Pancho, to be very honest with you, I want you guys (the environmentalists) to win out on this one in the LONG term. I think renewable, eco-friendly things like solar and wind and battery powered cars are great ideas. (I would LOVE to own a Mustang in the future that didn't run on gas but had the same power. How cool would that be?) In the meantime, your side of the coin has to realize that we aren't even close to replacing oil significantly and new discoveries and drilling expeditions are necessary in the short to medium term.

Fair?
 
109Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Sun, Jun 01, 2008, 08:55 		Fair?

Here's what would be fair, IMO. If we're going to set a precedent to drill in an area that has been designated a national wildlife area, it needs to be accompanied by an effort to reduce our gluttonous energy consumption habits, several glaring examples of which I illustrated in #100(although I left out Monster Truck Shows).

If we set the precedent while continuing to consume 25% of the world's oil, we have accomplished nothing, except to encourage the NASCAR mentality. If we set the precedent, what's next, drilling in Yellowstone? After all, Old Faithful and surrounding environs are an abundant source of geothermal energy.

As for offshore drilling, consider these facts:

As of early 2006, there were 118 deepwater projects on production. Production from deepwater by the end of 2004 was approximately 950,000 barrels of oil and 3.8 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. More than 980 deepwater exploration wells have been drilled since 1995 and at least 126 deepwater discoveries have been announced from that effort. In the last six years, there have been 22 discoveries in water depths greater than 7,000ft (2,134m), with 11 of those discoveries in the last two years. Approximately one-third of the world’s deepwater rig fleet is committed to GOM service. The average size of a deepwater GOM field discovery is several times larger than the average shallow-water discovery, and deepwater fields are some of the most prolific producers in the GOM. Announced volumes for these deepwater discoveries are more than 1.8 billion barrels of oil equivalent (BOE).

The growth of activity in the deepwater GOM has accelerated over the last few years, although it has been developing for over two decades. Deepwater production began in 1979 with Shell’s Cognac field, and it took five more years before the next deepwater field (ExxonMobil’s Lena field) came online. Both developments relied on extending platform technology to greater water depths.

Over the last 14 years, all phases of deepwater activity have expanded. There are over 8,200 active GOM leases with 54% of those in deepwater. Contrast this with approximately 5,600 active GOM leases in 1992, with only 27% in deepwater. On average, there were 30 rigs drilling in deepwater in 2005 compared with only three rigs in 1992. In the period 1992–2002, deepwater oil production rose by over 840% and deepwater gas production increased by about 1,600%. The Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (DWRRA), which provides economic incentives to develop leases in deepwater, has clearly had a significant impact on deepwater GOM activities.

Deepwater exploration and production growth have been enabled by remarkable technology advances over time. These advances continue today, with many new technologies currently in the research phase for future deployment.

So, despite Jag's immature and unfounded claim that you Eco-Terrorists have stopped us from drilling offshore , the facts say different.
Where there is opposition to off-shore drilling, it is often supported by conservatives and moderates, as evidenced by the Republican governors of Florida and California.

New discoveries and drilling expeditions are necessary, and they are happening. Those who suggest a complete relaxation of environmental restrictions, or attempt to demonize any effort to protect sensitive eco-systems for future generations as terrorism are the ones who aren't being fair.

 
110Boxman
      ID: 211139621
      Sun, Jun 01, 2008, 09:22 		If we're going to set a precedent to drill in an area that has been designated a national wildlife area, it needs to be accompanied by an effort to reduce our gluttonous energy consumption habits, several glaring examples of which I illustrated in #100(although I left out Monster Truck Shows).

I'm all for increased mileage standards. How about the allowance for drilling in national wildlife areas in exchange for substantial increases in gas mileage requirements across all forms of automobiles? I think this is good because, despite the short term pains of the cost of implementing these new vehicles that gets passed along to consumers, it would be good for innovation and may lead to more jobs.

If we set the precedent while continuing to consume 25% of the world's oil, we have accomplished nothing, except to encourage the NASCAR mentality. If we set the precedent, what's next, drilling in Yellowstone? After all, Old Faithful and surrounding environs are an abundant source of geothermal energy.

The whole point of this exercise for me is so that we DON'T consume 25% of the world's oil. Let the Chinese and Indians deal with the loons in the Middle East and be held hostage to them.

I know your comment about Old Faithful/geothermal was tongue in cheek, but I think geothermal (using the Earth's heat as a source correct?) has potential too. Just probably not in Yellowstone Nat'l Park :)

Where there is opposition to off-shore drilling, it is often supported by conservatives and moderates, as evidenced by the Republican governors of Florida and California.

Yes, the governator is a Republican, but his policies have indicated a more moderate tone.

While typing this post I ran across a letter written by the governator to W asking him not to relax moratoriums on offshore drilling. You have a point. I believe that W should relax those moratoriums and led industry in there.

New discoveries and drilling expeditions are necessary, and they are happening. Those who suggest a complete relaxation of environmental restrictions, or attempt to demonize any effort to protect sensitive eco-systems for future generations as terrorism are the ones who aren't being fair.

I don't think any serious person is demanding a "complete relaxation". I see your point about Yellowstone. What I don't see is the big deal over ANWR and the deep west coast/deep gulf region in light of the fact that we need the resources until alternatives come on line. There has to be compromise on this issue or quite frankly we're screwed as a country.

With oil at around $130 per barrel it allows for the profitable exploration of these areas. I think now is the time to let Big Oil at it in these locales while the gov't eliminates their $6 billion subsidy and subsidies alternative sources like solar and wind.

 
111boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Mon, Jun 02, 2008, 10:27 		clearly anyone who is favor of drilling off the coast of california, florida, or anwr does not live there or atleast not near were they would be drillilng. slightly cheaper oil would be nice but having your coast look like that of loiusanna and texas to know that off shore drilling is terrible thing to do a place.
 
112Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Jun 02, 2008, 10:31 		Actually from what I understand a very large majority of Alaska residents want drilling in ANWAR.
 
113Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Mon, Jun 02, 2008, 11:44 		a very large majority of Alaska residents want drilling in ANWAR.

Irrelevant. ANWR is public land, so it belongs to all Americans and is immune to the wishes of Alaskans, except as it relates to their federal representatives.

 
114Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Mon, Jun 02, 2008, 13:25 		Actually from what I understand a very large majority of Alaska residents want drilling in ANWAR.

Well, no one lives near ANWAR, many of the jobs created would be filled by Alaskans, and they probably think that their Permanent Fund Dividend would increase.

Huge majorities of people who live near National Forests want continued logging because they are loggers. Simple self interest does not make it right.
 
115Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Mon, Jun 02, 2008, 21:40 		Well the caribou have voted for it. Why don't they count?
 
116J-Bar
      ID: 144352617
      Mon, Jun 02, 2008, 22:41 		sz---Simple self interest does not make it right.
damn sz i believe i said that same phrase (close) in another thread.
 
117Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 08:58 		Reading Articles Like This Really Convince Me We're Screwed

WASHINGTON — With gasoline prices topping $4 a gallon, Senate Democrats want the government to grab some of the billions of dollars in profits being taken in by the major oil companies.

Senators were to vote Tuesday on whether to consider a windfall profits tax against the five largest U.S. oil companies and rescind $17 billion in tax breaks the companies expect to enjoy over the next decade.

"The oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy," said Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, warning that if energy prices are not reined in "we're going to find ourselves in a deep recession."

.......

Most Senate Republicans have a different approach to dealing with the growing energy crisis — pump more oil and gas.

The GOP energy plan, rejected by the Senate last month, calls for opening a coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil development and to allow states to opt out of the national moratorium that has been in effect for a quarter century against oil and gas drilling in more than 80 percent of the country's coastal waters.

"Republicans by and large believe that the solution to this problem, in part, is to increase domestic production," said McConnell.

Both sides yelling at each other, pointing the finger while regular people suffer and not a comprehensive plan in there.
 
118Tree
      ID: 155351018
      Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 19:38 		and how did that vote go?

Senate GOP blocks windfall taxes on Big Oil

but, that's not all.

Shortly after the oil tax vote, Republicans blocked a second proposal that would extend tax breaks that have either expired or are scheduled to end this year for wind, solar and other alternative energy development, and for the promotion of energy efficiency and conservation. Again Democrats couldn't get the 60 votes to overcome a GOP filibuster.

seems pretty cut and dried right there. Breaks for oil, but no breaks for alternative fuel development - thanks Republicans!

now do you see why those on the left don't have much faith that those on the right REALLY want to see an alternative to big oil?
 
119Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 00:46 		Maybe I am not up on this subject as much as I should be, but I would like to know from some of the Conservatives on the forum, what they don't like about the bill. It seems to me Big Oil hasn't invested in refineries so far and giving them breaks for alternative energy is like putting the fox incharge of the hen house.
 
120Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 01:26 		Obviously taxing big oil doesn't lower the price which is what we really need.

A man-on-the-moon rigorous national approach to becoming energy independent is what would eliminate rampant oil futures speculation and drop the price of oil immediately.

Drill here, drill now, offshore, ANWR, oil; shales, etc. Windmills off Cape Cod...right outside Ted Kennedy's house preferably. I am all for federal tax incentives for alternative energy but don't have a clue why we would insist that big oil play a role in that. Let Apple do it. Or Hewlett Packard, Texas Instruments, Richard Branson, DARPA or who cares...why is that Big Oil's job?
 
121Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 06:16 		I would like to know from some of the Conservatives on the forum, what they don't like about the bill....

I don't think legal profits (and until a court of law decides otherwise, these are legal) should be subject to a windfall profits tax. I do want the much talked about 6 billion oil subsidy gone, but I don't want the gov't to start "windfall" profit taxing the oil companies.

10 years now, or sooner hopefully, we'll go from oil companies being the profitable story to something else and then this windfall profits tax will just make it easier for them to tax those folks too.

The money isn't the gov'ts.
 
122Tree
      ID: 53533115
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 06:35 		and what of the Republicans blocking a proposal to aid the development of alternative energy?
 
123Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 07:22 		why is that Big Oil's job?

As far as I understand big oil spent the bulk of the 20th century thwarting attempts at alternative energy sources, particularly fuel for cars. It would seem that subsidies which give them a piece of the new action, whatever that turns out to be, would be in their best interest. But I agree - if big oil isn't game or isn't up to it, so be it.
 
124Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 07:23 		Tree, just do a cursory look at my posting about the need for a comprehensive bipartisan approach to this. As you like to say, "My body of work on this has been far better than yours."

On the surface, I'm digusted about the blocking of alternative energy research. What I need to know is how will this be paid for.

If it's paid for via windfall profit taxing oil companies, then that's not the way I want to fund it. I would rather eliminate oil subsidies and decrease farm subsidies (given high commodity prices) to pay for it.
 
125Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 08:50 		Tree, just do a cursory look at my posting about the need for a comprehensive bipartisan approach to this.

no question.

On the surface, I'm digusted about the blocking of alternative energy research. What I need to know is how will this be paid for.

that was a simple answer to a simple question. that's all i was asking.





 
126Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 09:23 		How do you feel about the Democrats by comparison Tree?
 
127Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 09:28 		Windfall profits tax = < Oil exploration companies = < oil = > price

Re: this windfall profits tax. How does that work exactly. I can assure you that the Exxon accountants will run circles around the government accountants.
There won't be much "windfall profits" to be taxing when they get done. Transfer pricing, allocations of overhead, accruals of everything under the sun, new subsidiaries, new affiliates, off shore operations, subleasing to affiliated concerns not subject to windfall profits. Those are just the legal moves. They'll do things like replace their fleet of Fords with a fleet of BMW's instead of forking the money to the government. In person meetings vs. teleconferences. It is rarely a good idea for the government to interfere with market forces.

Who owns Exxon anyways? Those big wigs they haul in front of Congress own some. It's less than 5%, my guess. So do over one million other people. Little old ladies in their retirement accounts. Me. In fact anybody with about $500 can own it. Instead of whining about high gas prices, join the party.


 
128Razor
      ID: 4532926
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 09:46 		It amazes me that the same people who fear an oppressive government not only don't fear increasingly powerful corporations, but suckle at their teat. Thankfully, both Presidential candidates appear to want to limit the tremendous influence of Big Business, at least on the surface.
 
129Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 09:58 		Who owns Exxon anyways? Those big wigs they haul in front of Congress own some. It's less than 5%, my guess. So do over one million other people. Little old ladies in their retirement accounts. Me. In fact anybody with about $500 can own it.

Very good point, Building. In fact, given the relatively limited quantity of choices in our 401k's, a large, large fraction of the US population owns some Exxon. A windfall profits tax, to the extent that it works, is essentially designed to take money from our retirement funds and give it to the government. This is "new politics".

Not to mention the perverse incentive structure it establishes. Normally, we want people to buy and nurture assets that will become more valuable to society in the future. If you instead tax away "windfalls" from asset appreciation, you harm the incentive to properly manage and invest.
 
130Perm Dude
      ID: 43545118
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 10:03 		I think taxing windfall profits ranks about up there with the gas tax holiday on the pandering scale. The government would simply be chasing money around in a circle. Even Paul Krugman thinks the windfall tax plan is a waste.

 
131R9
      Leader
      ID: 02624472
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 11:18 		#117, Yup. :(

I wrote a post a few months ago a about pretty much the same thing. What we need is massive bipartisan efforts to get this thing started. Instead we get politicians and political parties playing their stupid games, blocking any progress. Heck, I think real progress would be difficult even WITH everyone working together...

But, when you consider the average politician's day/week/month/year is it any surprise they have no common sense on this issue? It takes the average person hours/days/months to see the importance of this issue in the long term. They probably have the time to give it a few minutes thought.
We ARE screwed.
 
132Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 12:33 		How do you feel about the Democrats by comparison Tree?

who voted against against helping with alternative energy?

disgusted.
 
133Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 12:39 		I am disgusted with just about everyone in politics, from the President to Congress. We need a Newt.
 
134boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 15:20 		seems pretty cut and dried right there. Breaks for oil, but no breaks for alternative fuel development - thanks Republicans!

now do you see why those on the left don't have much faith that those on the right REALLY want to see an alternative to big oil?

my question is where is Europe? they have high gas prises for decades and to not seemed to be "controled" by big oil why is it that they have not come up with all kinds of great alternatives. I mean the germans have been looking for alternatives since before WW II yet they all seem to be stuck on oil. this leads me to beleive that our dependence on oil has been as much technological as any big oil conspircy to hold down the 100 mpg car.
 
135Perm Dude
      ID: 435511110
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 15:28 		The Germans, in particular, have a huge committment to solar power with massive amounts of government funding. But it take some time for alternative energies to build up efficiencies and so on.
 
136Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 15:36 		I don't believe Europeans drive nearly as much as Americans. France's power grid full or almost fully nuclear powered.
 
137boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 15:37 		I think in the case of germans it has been atleast 70 years since they relized that they depend oil a resourse they have not natural access too. which i think is pretty much true for all of europe.

on a side note i wonder if increase in gas prices will lead to the fleeing of suburbs to that of urban centers at least for the poor and lower middle class who are the ones who are truley hurt by high gas prices.
 
138biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 15:40 		That's an interesting question. The math isn't straight-forward, however, given that housing in urban cores is typically much more expensive.

There was an interesting article I read a few days ago about the foreclosure wasteland that Temecula, CA has become, partially because it's so far from urban centers I would guess. And that was an upper-middle class community.
 
139sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 15:43 		136 is in my experience spot on. Europeans dont drive as much as we do here in the states. Of course, back in the 70s and 80s when I was over there and there were two Germanies, W Germany was the apporx same size as Utah. It would be very difficult FOR them to driva as much as we do. Secondly, and heavily governmentally subsidized I might add, the Europeans have an absolutely outstanding public transit system which is widely utilized.
 
140Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 16:52 		I talk to Euros daily and they have had mpg limits on their cars for years, very few have 2 cars and most are forced to live near their work.

Things are not as hunky dory as you think in Europe.

2 die in gas protest
 
141Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 16:54 		Ben Stein on Your World right now arguing that the fastest way to lower the price of oil is to move seriously toward balancing the budget.
 
142Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 16:55 		...by raising taxes on the rich ($2 million+ per year income earners).
 
143Razor
      ID: 4532926
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 17:20 		The math isn't straight-forward, however, given that housing in urban cores is typically much more expensive.

The math is pretty straight-forward, bili. Higher gas prices will lead to people wanting to and, in some cases, needing to have shorter commutes, long run.

A large part of the reason inner city land is more pricey is because there is premium on it due to the other cost involved with commuting - time. And time equals money. People just have different valuations for how much money their time is worth.
 
144biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 17:39 		I agree, Razor. All I was saying is it's not as simple as "gee, gas is expensive, lets move closer to work and save money. You have to balance the cost of housing with the cost of gas. As you point out, time is valued differently for different people as well, so you have to also add that into the equation. The type of car, the impermanence of the job, where your spouse works. Your kid's school. The freedom for your kids to have access to open space.

The math isn't straight forward.
 
145Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 10:49 		on a side note i wonder if increase in gas prices will lead to the fleeing of suburbs to that of urban centers at least for the poor and lower middle class who are the ones who are truley hurt by high gas prices.

Wow ... can't believe I wrote that post and then come here and read this ... Hamilton's post is worth reading, as well (short and sweet)

bili -- The math isn't straight forward. Actually, it is under some reasonable simplifying assumptions. For example, when I bought my house, the price of gas was roughly $2/g (off the top of my head). All those elements you are concerned about *plus* the $2/g were factored into the market. My caculation in the link suggests that for my area, a $1 increase in the price of gas either consumes $5000ish in assets (present value) for those who remain in the suburbs or is money that could be freed up if they moved closer.

Now, my house might appreciate more or less than that depending on local peculiarities and if the market was initially out-of-equilibrium, providing either them or me with unpriced surplus. But the financial part of the calculation is clear: relative to living in my house, people in the x-burbs lose $5k of wealth per $1 increase in gas prices. (actually, I think I prefer the $3k calculation) What people do because of that wealth shock is up to them.
 
146boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 11:06 		I was accually kind of thinking about it in slightly different way. When i said urban centers i ment areas that have access to mass transit. For example about how southern cites had more exstitive transit cities before the civil rights movement and then began to lose them after "white flight" movement. would there be a reversal of this. would there become a centralizing of smaller cities.
 
147Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 11:15 		would there be a reversal of this. would there become a centralizing of smaller cities.

I think gas prices would have to rise a ton to cause this to happen. For most city-type trips, I drive a hybrid and we get 45-50 mpg in town. We live 1.5 miles from two grocery stores. That means we use 6% of a gallon of gas to get groceries. Even if gas went to $30 per gallon, that's only $1.80 to get as many groceries as you want.

I'm just describing the degree to which the LR city itself is sprawled. If you insist on going to north little rock to shop (they have the biggest shopping district in Arkansas, and we almost never go that far), that's a bigger deal ... a gallon of gas. Again, however, compared to, say, county and state sales taxes, this simply isn't that large of a deal (even if gas goes to $10 per gallon, that's the tax on $150 of goods).

LR is small relative to Birmingham, Atlanta, etc. The bigger burbs are going to have bigger mass transit pushes. Obviously. But I don't see the price movements we've seen so far being anywhere close to enough to force this.
 
148biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 11:39 		Interesting, Madman. In Seattle it's more a sliding scale, not binary. The old, close-in neighborhoods in-city have maybe 100K premium over the next neighborhoods out, and they, in turn, have a 100K premium over the bordering suburbs, which have a 100 K premium...

You get the picture.

Our immediate problem is that the outer rings are finally seeing significant declines, but the bust is only slowly moving into the in-city neighborhoods we are interested in. I'm not sure we are going to have the patience to wait it out, and may end up farther out as a consequence.
 
149Perm Dude
      ID: 125251210
      Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 11:49 		Doesn't it really depend upon commuting destinations? That is, there might be pressure to go to the city based upon gas prices rising (since presumably there would be less driving in the city), but if that isn't where your work is then it is a wash.

Many people move out of the city to get closer to their jobs, as businesses move out of those inner ring areas for cost reasons.
 
150boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 12:07 		After reading your analysis this would lead me to believe that until gas hits atleast $10 a gallon there is not going to be anylarge scale effects on daily life. though i would have to think that vacation travel would change dramatically.
 
151biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 12:57 		Yeah, PD. That's another thing we need to be concerned with. My wife actually works in a suburb, and I work in a close in neighborhood; though not downtown (though I could get a job downtown soon). Just to confuse the issue.

If we were going to make a decision based solely on gas and today's situation, We'd buy a place near her work, and I'd ride my bike to my work.

But I want to live in Seattle, damnit. ;)
 
152Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 13:55 		The politics of oil shale

I'm disappointed in the extension of the moratorium. While Salazar may have good intentions, and he is correct in his analysis of the water issue, it's time to begin to develop this resource in a responsible manner.

But as is usually the case with Orin Hatch, one can expect public ignorance on display:

Fortune: Sen. Salazar insists he just wants to take things more slowly.

Sen. Hatch: Sen. Salazar and the Colorado governor [Democrat Bill Ritter] say they don't want it to happen too fast. Well, the existing law that I sponsored [which became part of the 2005 energy act] makes it abundantly clear that each governor gets to decide how quickly developments should move forward in their respective states. [Salazar and Ritter] know that. What they're really doing is making sure that the governor of Utah and the governor of Wyoming never gets to make that decision for themselves.

Fortune: One of Sen. Salazar's environmental concerns involves water and the big draw on local water supplies required for oil shale production. Based on my reporting in western Colorado last year, this seems like a legitimate concern. What's your take on this?

Sen. Hatch: Let's compare it to ethanol. Corn needs about 1,000 barrels of water for the energy equivalent of a barrel of oil. That's a crazy amount of water, but it's worked out alright so far because corn is grown in rainy areas, for the most part. But if you want to increase the amount of ethanol, you're going to have to go to irrigation, and then there will be major water limits on how much we can afford to grow.

On the other hand, the Department of Energy estimates that oil shale will require three barrels of water for every barrel of oil.

Fortune: Of course, water is a lot scarcer in western Colorado than it is in Iowa.

Sen Hatch: It is, but remember the oil companies are going to use and recycle the water. And while we're on the environmental impact, let's talk about land use and wildlife habitat. One acre of corn produces the equivalent of 5 to 7 barrels of oil. One acre of oil shale produces 100,000 to 1 million barrels.

Uh, Orin, we're talking about water needed for large-scale production of oil shale in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming, not ethanol. Most of us know ethanol is a disaster. But diverting the subject doesn't address the water issue concerning oil shale, an issue that is at the heart of the subject.
Additionally, Orin fails to mention that none of the water necessary for development originates in Utah. Besides that, Utah is dealing with its own water issues from the same river system, further
downstream.

ST. GEORGE - A "pipe dream" was how John Wall described a proposal to build a pipeline from Lake Powell across 150 miles of desert to quench the water needs of nearly a million future residents of three southern Utah counties.
Wall was one of more than 40 people who spoke Wednesday night on the project in St. George. It was the second of three public meetings held by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which is preparing the necessary environmental documents for the project's approval.

There seems to be a Jag( just let us drill)and Baldwin(Drill here, drill now, offshore, ANWR, oil; shales, etc.) mentality that permeates the rightwing blogosphere, with little regard to reality. Take
Victor Davis Hansen, and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson as today's examples. According to Senator Hutchinson,

Federal laws also prevent us from exploiting one trillion barrels of shale oil in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah - an amazing amount that is three times what Saudi Arabia has on reserve. Our bill, The American Energy Production Act of 2008, would allow us to tap these resources with environmental safeguards.

The reality is that there is no way to exploit one trillion barrels of shale oil and have any regard for environmental safeguards. And none of the "drill now, drill everywhere" proponents has offered a plan as to how to extract this oil at massive production levels given the already strained Colorado River system.

Obstruction is not the answer and neither is panic, which the right is using as a propoganda tool when it comes to oil shale. Perhaps if some of these bloggers and politicians were to actually visit the Yampa, Green and White Rivers, they might recognize that their dreams of extracting a trillion barrels of oil from their watersheds would cause devastation beyond repair, a legacy that would rob future generations the pleasures of these wild and remote rivers.

Salazar and the Democrats should allow the moratorium to expire next year, but Republicans should be realistic in how much oil is realistically recoverable while respecting not only the environment where the extraction originates, but the ultimate effect on all areas downriver that depend on the Colorado River.





 
153Razor
      ID: 4532926
      Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 13:56 		In Seattle it's more a sliding scale, not binary

It almost always is because proximity to city center is a sliding scale. Regardless, the only variable that is changing is the cost to travel, so we don't need to talk about how much people value their time, their yard space, or their safety. Those stay the same.

Many people move out of the city to get closer to their jobs, as businesses move out of those inner ring areas for cost reasons.

The city is the city because that's where the majority of people work. The burbs cease to be the burbs in the traditional sense when they start to become the major center for jobs. One notable case of this that I can think of is Overland Park, KS.

Here in Atlanta, we have a a fairly spread out city in that there are three major business districts - Downtown, Midtown and Buckhead, each separated by a few miles. The burbs, however, only begin when you leave the 10 mile radius from the three business districts. Atlanta has a pretty bad urban sprawl problem, and rising gas prices will almost certainly have an influence here. People live in cities to have access to amenities that are largely available only in the city, like restaurants, theatres, sporting events, public transit, work opportunities, etc. When the cost of going to these things rises, people will people reevaluate; some will stay put, some will move away and some will move closer in. The worse the urban sprawl, the more movement we will see.
 
154Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 14:09 		Doesn't it really depend upon commuting destinations? ... but if that isn't where your work is then it is a wash. Is this a version of the "downtown is so busy nobody works there anymore" argument?

I agree that overall commute times will decline, and that to accomplish this, some businesses will move out of the city. But cities and downtown areas will still be very attractive in most places. In LR, there are satellite communities in virtually every direction. My employer, for example, faced fierce resistance to move to the west. A big problem was that although it would be more convenient for some employees, it would have been much less convenient for all those coming from the NE or SE (which is a lesser problem).

Smaller employers will have more flexibility, at least until they need to find workers.

It all equilibrates. But that doesn't change the underlying dynamics, it just makes the conclusions less harsh.

After reading your analysis this would lead me to believe that until gas hits atleast $10 a gallon there is not going to be anylarge scale effects on daily life. though i would have to think that vacation travel would change dramatically.

That's just my 2 cents. I also simplified a lot. For example: The definition and location of retail outlets may change as gas prices rise. At this point, I don't know whether a mail-order model or a ship-to-megaMart model or a small-neighborhood-store-model actually uses less fuel. But that's the cool thing about the free market, I don't have to know. As prices rise, certain models will lose out and others will take hold.

My analysis, however, implicitly assumes that the basic structure of retail will either be unaffected or it will be cost-effective to increase centralization. At some cost level, this *may* cease to be the case, although I suspect it holds for quite large price increases.

An empirical reason to believe this: centralization in retail is high in rural areas where transportation costs are already quite high, both in terms of time and fuel used. I.e., Wal-Marts in rural Americas draw from a large geographic area. What shoppers do is take fewer trips but buy more when they do shop. I think that phenomenon extrapolates. Although we may invent some entirely new mechanism, who knows.
 
155biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 14:15 		Regardless, the only variable that is changing is the cost to travel, so we don't need to talk about how much people value their time, their yard space, or their safety. Those stay the same.

I don't understand that. At least not here they don't. Time obviously changes. Yard space certainly changes. It's nearly unheard-of to get a larger than 5000 sq ft lot within 5 miles of downtown. Living in a condo in Belltown is much less safe than living in a suburb. These are all considerations that are not static with distance to downtown.

Seattle is actually considerably more complex than I stated earlier. We are a city of hills and water. Hills and water. Some neighborhoods have breathtaking views of ocean or lake with snow-capped mountains behind. Some neighborhoods sit in dark valleys with stubborn flood problems (a woman drowned in her basement last year). These influence prices to a huge degree. Sometimes much more significantly than proximity to downtown. It makes every seller think their home is somehow unique, and makes comping homes a nearly impossible task.

Also we have Microsoft, which chose to not locate in the urban core, but in Redmond. So Bellevue and Redmond have grown to be their own job centers. And we have Boeing, which obviously is also not in the urban core, but scattered about the Puget Sound, confounding prediction of the driving habits of thousands of Aeronautical Engineers.

I assume that many cities near coasts have similar extenuating variables.
 
156Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 15:30 		Now the good news

What you see here is a potential for an environmentally friendly extraction of shale for the first time: no surface problems, nothing on the surface, an underground refinery. That is a change not available in 1981. But it has to be done by way of creating from Shell's conception, under today's social and environmental standards, protection of water. So Shell is developing the technology of an ice wall around the action of heating the shale, and the ice wall that they're going to put up—they're doing it experimentally now—must contain liquids from going into groundwater and protect the thermal process from water intrusion.

Los Alamosjoined the shale development technology just three months ago and signed an agreement with Chevron. Chevron is going to use another unique technology; it is going to approach the rock itself, rubbleize it by explosives, and then flush the kerogen out with a critical liquid, which is CO2. CO2 is utilized as another method to reduce greenhouse gases or global warming.

These technologies are still in the development stages, but I still feel the moratorium should have been lifted this year.

It's in my best interest, economically, for this to move forward, as I have sattelite operations in Vernal, Ut. and Grand Junction, Co., two cities that will be most affected growth-wise as the support infrastructure goes nuts.

 
157Perm Dude
      ID: 125251210
      Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 15:35 		As I pointed out in #59, new extraction techniques for shale is affecting Pennsylvania too. Apparently the "Fort Worth technique" is actually opening up old drilling sites that had been thought to be tapped out.
 
158Razor
      ID: 4532926
      Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 15:40 		bili, I mean the value associated with those other various elements does not change.. That is, I might value my free time at $25/hr. Moving 20 miles closer to city center certainly will affect how much free time I have (more), but moving will not affect how much I value it. The other variables will play a role, however, as you note since keeping all else equal is next to impossible. Some people won't do a thing because they value their safety and their yard space. Some will be tipped towards paying more in rent/mortgage or getting a smaller home or moving to a more dangerous neighborhood. In other words, people will reprioritize.

Granted, the simplest solution is to get a more efficient vehicle rather than moving altogether, but for some, moving is actually easier than changing cars. Renters, for example. But that's more of a mid-term solution. Long term, cities will compress. Not NYC, but places like LA and Atlanta that are big time commuter cities with room to shrink.
 
159biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 16:16 		Ah. Gotcha, Razor. I see what you are saying now.

I think you are probably right that density will increase. It's being pushed very hard here by the Mayor and city counsel. Seattle is one of the very few cities I've ever been to where you can go only a mile or two out of the very heart of downtown, and find practically a suburban experience, with single-family homes with lawns.

We are zoned multiple occupancy on only about 6% of our land, iirc. If you compare the City of Seattle's population with what it was in 1960, it is the essentially unchanged. The surrounding counties, however, have seen huge growth.

So they are building condos downtown, which is fine, but they are also infilling on a massive scale the close in neighborhoods with the most hideous, poorly constructed townhouses you can imagine...




4 packs, they call-'em because the can jam 4 on a lot without any review. I've watched these go up, because they are next to where I often play tennis. They are built of 90% sawdust and formaldehyde, from what I can tell, and the regs force them to be so contorted that the garages are essentially unusable. Most won't last the length of the mortgage before they rot and fall down, is my guess.

There's gotta be a better answer than that.
 
160R9
      Leader
      ID: 02624472
      Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 07:42 		We're seeing a ton of that here in Montreal too bili. Condo towers are going up everywhere, from retirement homes to basic townhouses to middle and high class appartments. No complaints about the building quality though. It started a few years back when alot of the suburbs in the greater Montreal area merged with Mtl. A main goal of the new Mayor was to promote density over sprawl. Which I not only agree with, but support heavily. While the phenomenon wasn't neccessairily caused by high energy prices, that influence will surely help keep it going now.

My only beef is with the lack of future foresight. Condo towers are going up all over the major arteries in the West Island suburbs, increasing density exponentially. The same roads that were traffic-clogged are now seeing 2x or even 3x the cars on them daily. Haven't any of these city engineers ever played Sim City? 2x population + no new roads = congestion... duh! ;)
 
161Perm Dude
      ID: 54531139
      Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 10:35 		Factcheck.org takes McCain to task for saying that the poor drive more than the wealthy.

As an excuse for his "gas tax holiday" McCain has been relying on inside-the-beltway anectdotes instead of the facts, it appears.
 
162boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 10:40 		It is the wrong excuse, but the right idea. yes rich people drive more but if you look % of income that goes to gas the poorer you are the much worse off you are. The less money you have the more you are hurt by higher gas prices.
 
163Perm Dude
      ID: 54531139
      Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 10:48 		This is a good way to not lower the price of gas for those people (or anyone, for that matter). McCain shows he's out-of-touch by continuing to make the case for a proposal which doesn't lower any gas prices, but uses tax dollars to make it appear that is might.

The "gas tax holiday" won't actually lower the price at the pump. Being paternalistic and pandering toward "the poor" and relying on anectdotes for a proposal which won't, in fact, do what it is intended seems to be a more traditional "liberal" way of doing things, won't you agree?
 
164biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 11:10

slideshow.
 
165Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 11:49 		McCain shows he's out-of-touch by continuing to make the case for a proposal which doesn't lower any gas prices, but uses tax dollars to make it appear that is might.

It wouldn't lower gas prices if enacted immediately. However, if the federal government eliminated the tax every summer, it would lower prices.

This issue has been used as an example of political stupidity. But I'm also not entirely sure that it doesn't reflect flaws in economics.

For example, you may recall this issue being brought up a couple of years ago. Some prominent economists claimed that a state-level holiday couldn't have an impact. I presented evidence on DPS that, in fact, Georgia did this and the price did fall. They changed their minds.

The national issue, in the long run, is analogous to the Georgia example.

Further, since that time, I've wondered if there isn't something else missing from our thinking. For example, many other countries have a negative tax rate on gasoline, yet are afraid that if they remove that negative tax rate that the price to the end user will increase. Most, if not all, companies don't have rigorous theoretical demand models to set their prices. There's a large degree of estimation and guess work involved, and cost-plus pricing mechanisms. I haven't heard the institutional or behavioral economists weigh in much on the issue, and I'd be interested to hear what they say. Too much Econ 101 arrogance, in my opinion, and not enough really thinking through the issue.

And evidence for that is the degree to which economists claim that McCain's proposal is "bad", which is a normative judgment. Economists should simply say that their best estimate is that prices won't fall much, if at all, with the remainder accruing to stockholders and pension plans and investors. Lastly, there would also be less money for highway funds. Although most people may not take that tradeoff, some would.
 
166biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 11:56 		Lastly, there would also be less money for highway funds.

NPR quoted Obama as rebutting McCain with that argument. That was the only argument they mentioned that he used.
 
167biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 12:05 		No complaints about the building quality though.

Yeah, R9, I'm not in construction, so I can't really give a knowledgeable assessment. I do know that the builders and developers have fought like mad in Olympia against regulation that would make them liable for shoddy construction.

The typical process here is that they form an LLC, throw up 1, or 4 or 8 units (under the limit for full review), sell the units, and dissolve the LLC. Then repeat next-door.

Then a year or 5 down the road leaks and mold are discovered because of shoddy construction, and the owner(s) has to spend 100s of thousands on remediation. In a place where it rains all the time, you better get your seals right, and you better not seal wet wood/sawdust inside the siding. These things happen routinely here, but anything slowing development and "greater density" with the resultant tax-dollars pouring into the coffers, gets no traction.
 
168boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 12:06 		This is a good way to not lower the price of gas for those people (or anyone, for that matter). McCain shows he's out-of-touch by continuing to make the case for a proposal which doesn't lower any gas prices, but uses tax dollars to make it appear that is might.

The "gas tax holiday" won't actually lower the price at the pump. Being paternalistic and pandering toward "the poor" and relying on anectdotes for a proposal which won't, in fact, do what it is intended seems to be a more traditional "liberal" way of doing things, won't you agree?

i agree i was just pointing out the fact that saying he is wrong by showing that poor drive less emplies that the poor are not hurt by higher gas more than the rich, which i do not agree with.
 
169Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 23:01 		Population (in billions) . Year.... Years elapsed
1................................. 1804......millions
2................................. 1927.......123
3................................. 1961.......34
4.................................1974........13
5.................................1987........12
6.................................1999........12
7.................................2011........13

In the last 40 years, the world population has doubled. It is now at 6.7 billion, adding another billion every 12 years.
More people using more oil. Perhaps it's not that there is not enough oil, but that there are too many
people wanting to use that oil. There's a bubble in people, if you were to chart it long-term. It would start rocketing
upwards around 1960-1970.

Less people would solve a lot of the world's problems. Water, food, and mineral shortages, the purported man-made global warming,etc.
I suspect there are people working to solve this "problem" Not that I want to volunteer to leave, but just another way to lok at it.
 
170Boldwin
      ID: 85241823
      Thu, Jun 19, 2008, 02:02 		Considering that first world countries are often not even replacing their population [with the exception of immigration] and given that the moslem birthrate is far higher I think I can see where 'people working' are headed. Not a recommendation, merely an observation.
 
171astade
      ID: 1533770
      Thu, Jun 19, 2008, 02:17 		Boldwin,

I don't want to steer this thread in another direction but using the term 'moslem' is very unnecessary. If you want to make a point regarding population growth and oil demand, please do so. Being offensive at the same time is petty and denigrating for we both know that it is not a spelling that is appreciated by Muslims.
 
172Boldwin
      ID: 85241823
      Thu, Jun 19, 2008, 03:35 		Both are actually acceptable AFAIK [that was the conclusion I reached researching right after 9/11]. No differant that Koran, Qu'ran, Qu'raan and AlQu'ran
Different approaches and methods for the romanization of Arabic exist. They vary in the way that they address the inherent problems of rendering written and spoken Arabic in the Latin alphabet; they also use different symbols for Arabic phonemes that do not exist in English or other European languages.

Any transliteration system has to make a number of decisions which are dependent on its intended field of application. One basic problem is that written Arabic is normally unvocalized, i.e. many of the vowels are not written out, and must be supplied by a reader familiar with the language.
You are entirely off base if you thot I meant that spelling as an offense. Telling that you just leapt to that conclusion. People draw a lot of those false assumptions about me.

If you research my posts using the tools Dave Hall provides you will see I usually use the other spelling and it was just a random decision to use this one this time.
 
173Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 06:57 		Boldwin, you know by now that the false accusation of bigotry is one of the liberals tools of last resort in any debate. What makes the spelling of the word muslim even more intriguing is that it fits the agenda of NewSpeak AND the scarlet letter of bigotry all at the same time.

It's the liberal version of a BOGO (Buy One Get One Free) sale.
 
174Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 08:41 		What makes the spelling of the word muslim even more intriguing is that it fits the agenda of NewSpeak AND the scarlet letter of bigotry all at the same time.

You don't know anything about astade's politics. He misunderstood Boldwin when he saw a spelling that he wasn't familiar with. B told him he was mistaken, I don't know why that shouldn't that be the end of it. For all either of us know he's a devoted conservative. This person whom you've never read a politics post from doesn't deserve the benefit of doubt that he simply wasn't familiar with the term and made an honest mistake?

Take a step back from attack mode and realize how much your rabid behavior this morning (you basically opened up every active thread to call the liberals at this forum a bunch of @$$holes) actually resembles all the comments you've made.
 
175Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 08:45 		Astade

I know you've been around the Rotoguru boards a long time, not sure how often you foray into politics section but hopefully you're thick skinned enough to weather the occassional (OK sometimes not so occassional) disparraging comment. Whatever your politics, this forum is always refreshed by new blood.
 
176Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 08:52 		You don't know anything about astade's politics.

On that issue he is in alignment with you in the quest for NewSpeak and I'm glad Boldwin corrected him. Maybe Astade will change his mind and learn.
 
177Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 08:53 		you basically opened up every active thread to call the liberals....

You say they're liberals, Tree says they "lean left".

Which one is right in your opinion and why?
 
178Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 08:56 		I miss Toral.
 
179Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 09:44 		toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe.
poe-tay-toe, poe-tah-toe.

good lord.
 
180boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 10:45
More people using more oil. Perhaps it's not that there is not enough oil, but that there are too many
people wanting to use that oil. There's a bubble in people, if you were to chart it long-term. It would start rocketing
upwards around 1960-1970.

Less people would solve a lot of the world's problems. Water, food, and mineral shortages, the purported man-made global warming,etc.
I suspect there are people working to solve this "problem" Not that I want to volunteer to leave, but just another way to lok at it.


no one will ever except the true cause of the worlds problems
 
181angryCHAIR
      ID: 561401810
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 13:21 		Man---Jag---your title of this thread and so many others are just flat out predictable and caustic! Nice job, Brownie!
 
182Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 14:15 		no one will ever except (accept?) the true cause of the worlds problems

What is that Mr. boiken, and what does it have to do with my post?
 
183Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 16:51 		I miss Toral.

I miss answers to questions instead of pointless drivel responses like yours.

Do you fail to see the difference between the two terms? Then again, you do have problems with words that have double meanings.
 
184Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 17:15 		Do you fail to see the difference between the two terms?

do you fail to see they came from two different people?
 
185Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 17:56 		Not at all. I am curious to see if Mith thought certain people are liberals or lean left.

You never answered my question about your economic stance. It would give me a better framework for when we talk about the issues.
 
186 Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 18:14 		Then why do you address me? Seriously, what have I done to incur your wrath today? Or every other day in recent memory? It was early or mid April when we agreed to a more respectful discourse.

I don't believe I've prompted the erosion of that agreement.

Honsetly, I don't believe you've authored a post today without insulting someone.

Even the primary purpose of your Ann Coulter thread is to piss people off. You just paste her full column in there every week, no matter the topic, even when her positions are are contrary to your own, never with commentary of your own to add.

On one recent occassion I offered a response to her column, citing rather blatent factual errors in arguments she used to support one of her greater claims. I then asked you if you really bought into what you had just presented but didn't answer that question. And you didn't bother to respond to the issues I rasied with her column. Instead you wrote (post 33).

You called me a "native" (compared with you and Boldwin who are "missionaries") called me "the most lopsided poster here" called my post a "limp defense" of Barack Obama (in actuality I didn't mention or refer to Obama at all) characterized that alleged defense as "laughable" and said that it is "proof positive" (presumably of the claim that I am the most lopsided poster here).

I really don't see why I'm among the group that gets accused of hostility lately. And I really don't know what to do about it. I'd like to contine posting here but I don't have the discipline to consistantly ignore hostile posts.

In another thread this morning Boxman wrote "If some more (AZD is a superhero.) join up here we can push them back and do to them what Reagan said of communism." So you've made it clear in no uncertain terms that what you'd really like is to drive the liberals/leftists (in answer to your question, at this forum, as is often the case but not always, most of the leftists here also happen to be liberals) from th eboard all together. Which interestingly is exactly the thing that Baldwin accuses 'liberals' here of doing to conservatives. If that's your goal and you are devoted enough to the tactic of destroying every discussion by lobbing insult after I just don't see the point in hanging around any more.

I won't deny that I've regrettably resorted to ad hominem from time to time as well or that enough other posters on either side are guilty of the same behaviour as Boxman's. But the additions of Boxman and Jag to this forum and in particular, this recent tirade Boxman has set himself on, have tipped the balance far from respectful discussion to an all out insult-fest.

So congratulations, Boxman. Cross one liberal and leftist off your list of people to drive off the forum. You're that much closer to you own stated goal. I tend toward doubt that azdbacker will answer your call to crusade. While I disagree with his opinions, I appreciated his openness to respectful discussion and regret that I won't get the chance to engage him on the issues here. Hopefully he won't mid my posting an occassional dissenting opinion at his blog. If anyone needs to contact me for fantasy sports or other purposes, there's my email. I don't think you'll see me post in the politics forum anymore. I'm sure the other "conservatives" on the board will congratulate you your triumph.
 
187Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 18:19 		You were an ass to me from day one. Good riddance.
 
188angryCHAIR
      ID: 561401810
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 19:03 		MITH---Don't do it! Let Hannity, I mean Boxman, spout his venom!

Don't mean NOTHIN'!

 
189Tree
      ID: 515122019
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 20:31 		you really feel that way Boxman? you really relish the loss of one of the better posters here because you were on the rag today?

damned shame, but not surprising you feel that way. says a lot about you as a person.
 
190J-Bar
      ID: 235171912
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 22:20 		I don't like to see anyone leave, give up, or just be done with it. BUT i have been the brunt of numerous attacks in which i was discussing the issues and have left for periods of time because the need for people to hit those softballs, because they either misread or misinterpreted what i was saying or didn't care to try, was so great. and those attacks were praised and lauded.
 
191Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Sat, Jun 21, 2008, 09:45 		Here is an example, according to Jag, of a friend to terrorists

Colorado's renewable energy standards - along with "net metering" requirements that mean homeowners who install renewable energy systems can essentially sell to the utility any excess power they produce at retail rates - have proven to be a powerful driver of the market.
To help meet its targets, Xcel Energy offers generous rebates of $4.50 a watt to homeowners who install solar panels.
Make no mistake, solar is still a substantial investment with a long pay-back period. In our case, the rebate paid for about 55 percent of our 4.3 kilowatt system, and the federal tax credit cut the cost by another $2,000. But our net cost was still about $13,000.
We regard that not so much as a way to cut our electric bills as an investment in the world our children will inherit and a personal contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Tom Kenworthy should receive nothing but praise for his committment to renewable energy, and Colorado should be praised for providing incentives that ease, at least somewhat, the financial burden associated with the committment.

Jag, don't you feel the least bit silly for calling Tom a friend of terrorists.
 
192Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, Jun 21, 2008, 10:01 		Tom Kenworthy should receive nothing but praise for his committment to renewable energy, and Colorado should be praised for providing incentives that ease, at least somewhat, the financial burden associated with the committment.

I am a huge proponent of net metering and I totally agree with you about praising Colorado for giving ample incentives to spur the actual implementation of renewable energy.
 
193Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Sat, Jun 21, 2008, 10:21 		PV, I have new job that requires a lot of hours, so I don't have the time to research a decent reply. To the enjoyment of many, I will not be posting much anymore.

I hope Mith returns, he is an excellent poster and works hard on his details. I look forward to reading the Right-Left battles.

Most of my posts and titles were meant to be semi-tongue in cheek, altough at times there was some anger, mostly I was just having fun.

I don't want to give you guys a big head, but you have some of the best political pundits on the web and while I may not have been worthy, it was fun having a go at you.
 
194Tree
      ID: 23143812
      Wed, Feb 24, 2010, 16:03 		not really sure where this goes, but its newsworthy...

Hummer to close after collapse of Chinese deal
 
195Biliruben movin
      ID: 358252515
      Wed, Feb 24, 2010, 16:31 		Coikydink. Just reading the dead suv thread last night. Fuh2
not as popular these days.
 
196Boldwin
      ID: 111562213
      Thu, Feb 25, 2010, 03:11 		Wierd, my wife and I say coinkydink all the time.