shape
carat
color
clarity

i don''t understand our government''s policy on oil exploration...

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Read this today, thought it was interesting: http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/06/19/drilling-mccain-on-oil.aspx

Also, I was talking to FI last night and he mention what Karen did. The oil companies are already sitting on reserves that they have not drilled so it makes no sense to give them license over more. So my question is, if you believe (falsely or not) that we would benefit from drilling in our reserves, why aren''t people pissed at the oil companies for sitting on what they already have instead of worrying about giving them more?!?!
33.gif
 
Date: 6/20/2008 11:38:07 AM
Author: MoonWater
Read this today, thought it was interesting: http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/06/19/drilling-mccain-on-oil.aspx

Also, I was talking to FI last night and he mention what Karen did. The oil companies are already sitting on reserves that they have not drilled so it makes no sense to give them license over more. So my question is, if you believe (falsely or not) that we would benefit from drilling in our reserves, why aren''t people pissed at the oil companies for sitting on what they already have instead of worrying about giving them more?!?!
33.gif
how can they drill if our government don''t pass a bill that would allow them to?
 
Date: 6/20/2008 7:20:59 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 6/20/2008 11:38:07 AM
Author: MoonWater
Read this today, thought it was interesting: http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/06/19/drilling-mccain-on-oil.aspx

Also, I was talking to FI last night and he mention what Karen did. The oil companies are already sitting on reserves that they have not drilled so it makes no sense to give them license over more. So my question is, if you believe (falsely or not) that we would benefit from drilling in our reserves, why aren''t people pissed at the oil companies for sitting on what they already have instead of worrying about giving them more?!?!
33.gif
how can they drill if our government don''t pass a bill that would allow them to?
oh fer cryin'' out loud...
 
Date: 6/17/2008 8:11:06 PM
Author: Dancing Fire


Date: 6/17/2008 7:56:43 AM
Author: ksinger





Date: 6/17/2008 12:42:35 AM
Author: Dancing Fire
get ready for higher gas prices if Obama becomes Prez....said he's gonna hit the oil Co's with windfall taxes.
20.gif
And it's only fair that the oil companies get taxed on windfall profits, since those windfall profits are a result of decades of subsidies to oil companies. The overall corporate tax rate is estimated at about 18%, while the oil companies pay a mere 11%. So much for the highly touted and yet utterly mythical 'free market'.
if our government don't sunsidies guess who's gonna end up paying more at the pump? plus the oil Co's only make a profit of 8%. the oil Co's have no control on the price of oil.
Exon Mobil made $36 billion dollars last year. I know people who work for the oil industry in Saudi; the profits are much higher than 8%. They don't want the prices to get lower, they are practically printing their own money with this stuff as long as it stays high.

I like that you object to the high prices, but not to th companies who cause them
 
Date: 6/21/2008 1:29:39 PM
Author: brazen_irish_hussy

Exon Mobil made $36 billion dollars last year. I know people who work for the oil industry in Saudi; the profits are much higher than 8%. They don''t want the prices to get lower, they are practically printing their own money with this stuff as long as it stays high.

I like that you object to the high prices, but not to th companies who cause them
oil prices are set by the commodity traders not oil Co''s. if you think Exon Mobil is such a great company then put all your life saving into their stock. you can''t lose, right?

here we go again....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080621/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_3;_ylt=AvnHNVZj_rLWhoRepGqQl7UE1vAI
 
Date: 6/21/2008 4:17:59 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 6/21/2008 1:29:39 PM
Author: brazen_irish_hussy


Exon Mobil made $36 billion dollars last year. I know people who work for the oil industry in Saudi; the profits are much higher than 8%. They don''t want the prices to get lower, they are practically printing their own money with this stuff as long as it stays high.

I like that you object to the high prices, but not to th companies who cause them
oil prices are set by the commodity traders not oil Co''s. if you think Exon Mobil is such a great company then put all your life saving into their stock. you can''t lose, right?

here we go again....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080621/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_3;_ylt=AvnHNVZj_rLWhoRepGqQl7UE1vAI
Didn''t you say in another thread that you did invest in the oil companies?
 
Date: 6/21/2008 4:17:59 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 6/21/2008 1:29:39 PM
Author: brazen_irish_hussy


Exon Mobil made $36 billion dollars last year. I know people who work for the oil industry in Saudi; the profits are much higher than 8%. They don''t want the prices to get lower, they are practically printing their own money with this stuff as long as it stays high.

I like that you object to the high prices, but not to th companies who cause them
oil prices are set by the commodity traders not oil Co''s. if you think Exon Mobil is such a great company then put all your life saving into their stock. you can''t lose, right?

here we go again....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080621/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_3;_ylt=AvnHNVZj_rLWhoRepGqQl7UE1vAI
"Bush sez". Yeah, "Bush sez" alot of things. Most of them fantasies or outright lies.

Well, Thomas L. Friedman says a couple himself in this op-ed piece entitled "Mr Bush, Lead or Leave".

A little clip to whet your interest....

Two years ago, President Bush declared that America was “addicted to oil,” and, by gosh, he was going to do something about it. Well, now he has. Now we have the new Bush energy plan: “Get more addicted to oil.”

Actually, it’s more sophisticated than that: Get Saudi Arabia, our chief oil pusher, to up our dosage for a little while and bring down the oil price just enough so the renewable energy alternatives can’t totally take off. Then try to strong arm Congress into lifting the ban on drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.


It’s as if our addict-in-chief is saying to us: “C’mon guys, you know you want a little more of the good stuff. One more hit, baby. Just one more toke on the ole oil pipe. I promise, next year, we’ll all go straight. I’ll even put a wind turbine on my presidential library. But for now, give me one more pop from that drill, please, baby. Just one more transfusion of that sweet offshore crude.”


It is hard for me to find the words to express what a massive, fraudulent, pathetic excuse for an energy policy this is. But it gets better. The president actually had the gall to set a deadline for this drug deal:


“I know the Democratic leaders have opposed some of these policies in the past,” Mr. Bush said. “Now that their opposition has helped drive gas prices to record levels, I ask them to reconsider their positions. If Congressional leaders leave for the Fourth of July recess without taking action, they will need to explain why $4-a-gallon gasoline is not enough incentive for them to act.”


This from a president who for six years resisted any pressure on Detroit to seriously improve mileage standards on its gas guzzlers; this from a president who’s done nothing to encourage conservation; this from a president who has so neutered the Environmental Protection Agency that the head of the E.P.A. today seems to be in a witness-protection program. I bet there aren’t 12 readers of this newspaper who could tell you his name or identify him in a police lineup.


But, most of all, this deadline is from a president who hasn’t lifted a finger to broker passage of legislation that has been stuck in Congress for a year, which could actually impact America’s energy profile right now — unlike offshore oil that would take years to flow — and create good tech jobs to boot.


Take the link above for the full piece....

 
Date: 6/20/2008 7:20:59 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
Date: 6/20/2008 11:38:07 AM

Author: MoonWater

Read this today, thought it was interesting: http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/06/19/drilling-mccain-on-oil.aspx


Also, I was talking to FI last night and he mention what Karen did. The oil companies are already sitting on reserves that they have not drilled so it makes no sense to give them license over more. So my question is, if you believe (falsely or not) that we would benefit from drilling in our reserves, why aren''t people pissed at the oil companies for sitting on what they already have instead of worrying about giving them more?!?!
33.gif
how can they drill if our government don''t pass a bill that would allow them to?

What are you talking about? No one is stopping them from drilling for the oil on the reserves they already have (which they are NOT drilling on) yet people are crying to give them more of our land so they can what? Sit on that too? Where is the logic?!?!
 
Per my saying I would figure out how to post the rig count info the DH found, well, I lied. I couldn''t figure it out for several reasons, 1) it was in an Excel spread sheet and I only have Excel document VIEWER and it doesn''t allow saving the doc, PLUS 2) I''m lazy. That said, here is the link to the Baker-Hughes Rig Count page. Lots of info. Much more than the DH had pulled in. I can''t say I''ve had much time to study it and make too much of it. I''ve got other things going on. But if people would like actual data rather than not, then here is some.

http://investor.shareholder.com/bhi/rig_counts/rc_index.cfm
 
Date: 6/7/2008 4:00:40 PM
Author:Dancing Fire
we have enough oil here in our own backyard to drown the whole middle east, but b/c of those 'environmentalist' we aren't allow to dill in our own backyard.
29.gif
we have the technology to dill for oil w/o harming the environment.


So I will try to answer the original question - and a few others that have come up along the way....

In its simplest terms... the above statement is one of the great partial truths about oil (and many other things).

Yes, The US is theoretically sitting on enough known oil reserves to last hundreds of years at even our current energy intensive consumption rates.

The reason it hasn't been tapped is that most of these reserves will be expensive to extract. In many cases - far more expensive than even the current price of oil.

Also, Yes; the industry has developed technology that is very environmental friendly compared to the old way of doing things. Using that level of technology is also a lot more expensive than the old way of doing things.

I heard a recent discussion on the cost of extracting a good portion of the currently known US oil reserves with relatively environmentally friendly methods (not the best - but a compromise between current standard methods and the best known).

The number being discussed was about $250 per barrel. Are we all ready for $8.00 per gallon gas, and the other economic consequence of that? Then lets go for it...

The reason Oil companies wish to drill in the arctic reserves and offshore is that the oil can be recovered for much less than $250 per barrel. A good portion of it for less than $100 per barrel. It is a lot easier to convince the public to buy oil at $100 per barrel than at $250 per barrel.

However, to everything the environmental risk must be weighed. In the world there have been some huge offshore oil disasters. What is the value of preventing that (think tourism/property values). The damage on land of using lower cost drilling, transportation, and processing is known far and wide as well. What is the value of preventing that.

So you are left with a balancing act based on perceived values:

-- Cost of extraction, transportation, and processing with cheaper methods vs cost of damage.

-- Cost of extraction, transportation, and processing with the best method vs cost (and lower likelyhood) of damage.

-- Many possible combinations of mixed technologies between these two.

The fact is that I can't think of a single material or product that the US needs to import (including diamonds and gemstones). The US could self produces everything. I propose that we would all be living a greatly reduced standard of living because the fact is that the US standard of living (and many other countries as well) is based on the fact that it is possible to import a great amount of something (or many somethings) from elsewhere cheaper than it is to produce that product internally.

Now concerning opening new areas for drilling:

I suggest that now that Oil has likely permanently risen above $100 per barrel that it is time for some evaluation. Lets look at the cost - cost of better technology - and risk for certain areas. It may be that it makes sense to open up some areas to drilling that are now closed. Yet, I personally doubt that it is worth it to open all or many of the areas currently being discussed.

I note that it will take 7 - 12 years for any new areas opened for drilling to start producing any noticeable quantity of oil.

I also note that the US could replace about 70% of its transportation fuel usage with Hydrogen in about 40 years by building large numbers of nuclear plants who's primary purpose was the production of hydrogen. It would take about 12 years before you would start to see the availability of the hydrogen to the public. I also propose that this would be very cost effective now that oil is above $100 per gallon (I think fuel cost would go down). The other 30% of transportation fuel usage could largely be domestically produced without having to tap oil at $250 per barrel (or more).

The key item I ask people to consider when they here that: the US has enough reserves. The US has the technology to do this in an environmentally friendly way (for whatever): Also ask what is the cost of doing so. The cost component is really the key reason that we do what we do - that is what free markets drive us to do.

Also, my belief is that if the US government is going to tax "large" profits. Then they need to focus on the percentage bases of the profits and which industries are making huge profits.

I believe you will find the software industry to have the highest profits - affecting most Americans (and others) to a larger extent per year than Oil company profits.

Perry
 
Perry, thanks so much for that well written and logical post. I couldn''t get my own thoughts and facts straight to respond properly to the OP without spluttering and stumbling. I vaguely recall that you are in the energy industry in some capacity, correct?

I don''t think we should create additional taxes based solely on large profits, necessarily, but my understanding is that oil companies are still subsidized and are paying taxes at a lower rate than other industries that are COMPARABLY profitable. I think their level of taxation should be brought up to the same level.
 
Great post, Perry. You are absolutely right that the cost of extracting the oil that is not being drilled currently in the U.S. would be very epensive. In addition, we wouldn't even see the production of that oil for another decade, so the thought of drilling that oil is certainly not any sort of short-term solution. I agree 100% that we should be looking at other technologies.

I aslo completely agree that the only other viable type of technology that can rival oil is hydrogen. I am completley in favor of building power plants for this sole purpose of producing hydrogen and think that it would be much more cost effective to do this than continue to rely on oil.

When it comes to oil and alternative technologies I think there are two very distinct camps: those who want to decrease our dependency on oil for enviromental reasons and those who simply would like the most economically viable option. I think Hydrogen power works extremely well for the latter camp, but not the former (because the term "nuclear power plant" is scary, though it shouldn't be).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I actually think the cost of oil has absolutely nothing to do with speculators in the market, especially because commercial forces in the market are much, much stronger than any speculation. Our oil consumption hasn't increased at all, nor has the supply decreased (I think everybody is producing at mass capacity right now). Developing countries like China and India are consuming 4x as much oil as they were even a decade ago...in a completely inelastic market such as oil consumption, that is going to make a huge impact. The bottom line is that even if oil were to go up to $400 a barrel, people would still need it.
 
Date: 6/22/2008 4:58:39 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady
Great post, Perry. You are absolutely right that the cost of extracting the oil that is not being drilled currently in the U.S. would be very epensive. In addition, we wouldn''t even see the production of that oil for another decade, so the thought of drilling that oil is certainly not any sort of short-term solution. I agree 100% that we should be looking at other technologies.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
we said that 10 yrs ago,20 yrs ago and 30 yrs ago.
5.gif
 
Date: 6/23/2008 6:37:41 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
Date: 6/22/2008 4:58:39 PM

Author: NewEnglandLady

Great post, Perry. You are absolutely right that the cost of extracting the oil that is not being drilled currently in the U.S. would be very epensive. In addition, we wouldn''t even see the production of that oil for another decade, so the thought of drilling that oil is certainly not any sort of short-term solution. I agree 100% that we should be looking at other technologies.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
we said that 10 yrs ago,20 yrs ago and 30 yrs ago.
5.gif


I''ll agree with DF on his timeliness point. Which is why I suggested that the issue of what to open up should be studied.

No matter what we do... It will take a decade to begin to see any kind of meaningful results. Nuclear Power plants take a decade in the US (we think). So do major coal fired power plants.

I have no problem with studying the options (for a short time); and then saying: OK - we will do the following starting now so we have made an impact in a decade.

The lowest cost - least environmentally sensitive areas would be opened for oil drilling, and other forms of energy utilization. But, it will not be everything - and it will not be enough to by itself supply the US as long as substantial energy resources can be imported for less money.

Perry
 
And now it comes out that the oil companies are sitting on 70 million acres (out of 90 million, so more than 80%) of leased oil claims, presumably with no governmental restrictions as in California, that they are not drilling. Why?

"With prices at $135 dollars a barrel, everyone is trying to pump as much as they can, he said. But fearing oil prices will eventually fall, the industry is leery about making too many investments in the fields it has - many of which are in deepwater areas that can be pricey to develop. Instead, they''re holding out, hoping the government will open areas closer to shore that would be cheaper to work on."

Why weren''t they working on developing these resources 10, 20, 30 years ago? Because it wasn''t economically beneficial to them. Not because anyone was holding them back from doing it. Now they sit there and whine that we need to open the protected lands? Which will take the same amount of time or more to develop. The more I read about this, the more irritated I get that the government, and especially the current administration, are simply pawns in the oil companies'' games.
 
Money, money, money, money, money.....seriously, I am sick and tired about hearing about money. Of course it will be more expensive to drill in America. Because we won't use slave labor and allow the companies to get rich off the backs of the workers. We will hold them accountable.

This is NOT the case for anything outside our span of CNN, FOX news and MSNBC sound bites. This still doesn't address the wise advice of many of the amazing posters on this thread to address the issue of lifestyle. Oil is a non-renewable source of energy. Period. It is was it is...

The fact that we are NOT investing the profits into alternative sources of energy, such as the ones that Perry discusses fascinates and scares me. It is the short-term profiteering attitudes that prevent us from the exploration of long-term solutions that is the crux of the current stand off.

It is almost as if Americans have learned nothing from Toyota. Here is an excerpt from the book "The Elegant Solution""

Exploiting Market Shift: Hybrid Technology

It's a spectacularly entertaining time in the automotive industry as we watch Detroits Big 3 do the hybrid shuffle. They were caught absolutely flat-footed by Toyota's foray into gas-electric bybrid technology. Business drama just doesn't get any better. Here's how it all started....

When Toyota debuted its new hybrid Prius at the Kyoto Conference on global warming in December 1997, Detroit was utterly astonished. The Prius was far beyond concept and production-ready--it was in production. Delegates were offered rides in the several new Prius models on site. With half the CO2 emissions and twice the fuel economy, the Prius garnered high interest and acclaim. According to those in attendance, the Big 3 affiliates at the conference were visibly shaken. Japan had committed to a 20% reduction in CO 2 emissions by 2010, while the United States had refused to commit at all. The Prius was launched immediately following the conference. The timing was impeccable.

On month later at the media opening for the Detroit Auto Show, a reporter confronted GM chairman Jack Smith on GM's EVI, a diesel hybrid to be production-ready by 2001. His question to Smith: Why would GM have the car only production ready, not in consumers' hands by 2001, when Toyota's hybrid had already hit the streets to a great reception? Smith responded: "That depends on how we can prepare the infrastructure, how we deal with cost issues, and also what kind of public support we can get. In Japan, there is a technological subsidy system..." Toyota in fact, received no goverment subsidy to develop the Prius. (my bold)

Toyota's decision to pursue eco-friendly alternative energy systems had begun nearly a decade earlier in 1990, when Eiji Toyoda issued the challenge of taking action immediately to restructure Toyota's entire approach to reasearch and development by saying, "I doubt that Toyota will survive in the twenty-first century without changing its way of doing R&D." The resulting shift away from model-based research represented the single greatest restructuring in the company's history. Advanced Energy Development was one of four technological centers to emerge from the move.

Two themes surfaced in early brainstorming sessions: "Natural Resources" and "Environment.: Toyota was acutely attuned to these two vital issues facing the planet, and finding solutions to these questions became the critical task for engineers and designers. In 1993, the decision was made to focus on developing an automobile that would reflect the very real environmental concerns while keeping all the advantages of conventional gasoline models.

"Toyota Earth Charter" had been founded the year before. It represented a detailed action index of Toyota's social contribution efforts--including environmental initiatives--in every stage of operations, from design and engineering to production, distribution, and disposal. It was above and beyond the call of duty, but in keeping with Toyota's core values. It was never publicized.

Fast-forward to the end of 1996, when Toyota's then-president Hiroshi Okuda decided to make Toyota's efforts to promote a cleaner earth more visible. So was launched the ECO Project with the tagline "Act Today for Tomorrow."

The following year, the Prius was launched at the Kyoto Conference. Earlier that year, Okuda had taken the stand at the "Toyota Environmental Forum" on the Tokyo waterfront to say" "Humans vested their dreams on automobiles in the twentieth century. For the automobile to sustain its position as a useful tool in the twenty-first century, the auto industry itself must lead society by making environmental efforts. Toyota will position preservation of the global environment as the top priority issue, and will allocte all necessary resources in our commitment."

Too bad the Big 3 didn't see it that way. Detroit failed to design for today. They were stuck in time and ignorant of the future, refusing to acknowledge an unarticulated market need. They didn't have to get left behind, they choose to. Ford, GM, Chrysler, and Honda all began researching alternative energy vehicles around the same time Toyota did. In fact, William "Bill" Ford, now Fords CEO, was on of the attendees at Kyoto who was taken for a spin in the new Prius in 1997. The Big 3 participated in a 1.2 billion government project sponsored by the Clinton administration called the Parnership for a New Generation of Vehicles to find a breakthrough automobile that could achieve 80 miles per gallon. The conclusion of the General Accounting Office in 2000: "An adequate market for a lighter-weight, fuel-efficient vehicle does not currently exist, nor is it expected to develop in the near future." Whoops.

End Quote....

So, I obviously have a serious problem with the corporate greed and apparent stupidity of our American corporations to be innovative and think beyond their short term profit margins. It seems as though we invest only in war, so we have to key on starting them....
 
Date: 6/23/2008 11:10:47 PM
Author: miraclesrule
Money, money, money, money, money.....seriously, I am sick and tired about hearing about money. Of course it will be more expensive to drill in America. Because we won't use slave labor and allow the companies to get rich off the backs of the workers. We will hold them accountable.


This is NOT the case for anything outside our span of CNN, FOX news and MSNBC sound bites. This still doesn't address the wise advice of many of the amazing posters on this thread to address the issue of lifestyle. Oil is a non-renewable source of energy. Period. It is was it is...


The fact that we are NOT investing the profits into alternative sources of energy, such as the ones that Perry discusses fascinates and scares me. It is the short-term profiteering attitudes that prevent us from the exploration of long-term solutions that is the crux of the current stand off.


It is almost as if Americans have learned nothing from Toyota. Here is an excerpt from the book 'The Elegant Solution'

....... ()


So, I obviously have a serious problem with the corporate greed and apparent stupidity of our American corporations to be innovative and think beyond their short term profit margins. It seems as though we invest only in war, so we have to key on starting them....

Unfortunately, it's not so simple.

The real culprit is the tax code and accounting rules within the US. The current (last several decades) of government subsidies has not helped either.

How many here remember hearing about Bell Labs all the time concerning scientific discoveries and Nobel prize winners.

Bell Telephone (the predecessor to ATT) used to maintain this huge laboratory that did nothing but pure scientific research. The payoff was that enough of the patents and technologies developed overall made money for ATT.

Then the US Congress changed the accounting rules and tax code.

Bell Labs is no more. No company can afford to fund research on that level anymore. It is now the realm of US government grants.

Under the current accounting rules and tax codes: R&D spending is treated as purely a current year expense (even thought the payoffs are multi-years away); and short term capital profits are emphasized as long term investments are not provided any benefits. Having a bad year - cut R&D spending to balance the books. Quick, easy, and makes the company profitable - while gutting the long term viability of the company.

Then, ask for Government subsidies to help with long term projects because you cannot compete and stay in business doing what you have just done to maximize short term profits.

Two simple changes would revolutionize how business in done in the US - and greatly enhance future US profitability and technical standing in the world.

1) R&D spending is to be amortized over future years based on the existing product schedules if you purchase the resulting items for business use (i.e.; Consumer electronics 2 to 5 years,..., Heavy equipment - 20 years).

2) Capital gains are to be heavily taxed for short term investments, with no tax for very long term investments. Perhaps 33% for profits on investments realized within 1 year. 25% for 1-2 years,...., 10% for 5 years, and 0% for greater than 7.5 years.

People, and investors would then be interested in the long term; and companies could not solve a short term profitability problem quickly by gutting their R&D.

The oil industry, and all energy industries, are heavily influenced by short term profits even when they they are working on long term projects (and hopefully long term profits).

I suggest that most of the needs for the current forms of government subsidies for the development of new infrastructure (of many kinds) would not be needed with those changes.

Toyota, and many other overseas companies structured their long term goals and developed their products under similar accounting rules and tax structures as above. They never would have done that if they were a public company under rules typical of the US system.

There are a few privately held companies that have focused on the long term; but they are in the extreme minority.

In the end though, under the current US accounting rules and tax code - you see the virtual exclusive focus on short term profits; and the dependence on government subsidies for long term projects.

This is a key problem when developing a long term energy strategy for the US.

I will also note - that there are other projects and technologies out their that will have to play a part in the future of US energy. However, the only technology that we have right now that can economically produce the baseload of energy needs is Nuclear. Even then, it will take 40 years of concerted effort to switch to a nuclear base (versus a carbon base). Overall, I forsee the possibility of nuclear supplying about 60% of the total energy needs of the US (80% electricity, and huge amounts of hydrogen), Coal and oil about 20%, and wind, solar, and others about 20% in 40 years (that's if we get off of our kiesters and get going).

Perry
 
I live in Illinois and this was supposed to be in my backyard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FutureGen


The 275 megawatt prototype FutureGen plant was planned to integrate advanced technologies for coal gasification, electricity production, emissions control, capture and permanent storage of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, and hydrogen production at a commercial scale.

It was going to be a big win as a pioneer in alternative energy. Not to mention the boost in economy in this area.
 
Date: 6/7/2008 4:00:40 PM
Author:Dancing Fire
we have enough oil here in our own backyard to drown the whole middle east, but b/c of those ''environmentalist'' we aren''t allow to dill in our own backyard.
29.gif
we have the technology to dill for oil w/o harming the environment.

"those damn environmentalist!"

Please, many have already stated the obvious. We need to adjust the way of life in America! Big, fancy gas guzzlers, waste and wanting more.

Here is a little advise from one of my favorite philosophers, Dr. Seuss. Mind he is a little long-winded.....

www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-Y0Az-4wUg
www.youtube.com/watch?v=w239_h1yRnk&feature=related
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLnJd7mPx1g&feature=related
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvjirBMcUfY&feature=related
www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2WDVamI2BA&feature=related
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBdiNRZFQ-Y&feature=related
 
Environmentalism is not a dirty word. Nuff said from me! Love the Seuss!
19.gif


female half 2Artists
 
i hope our government passes that DRILL bill soon.
 
Date: 6/19/2008 9:47:12 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
oil co''s don''t want oil to be sky high. high oil price will slow down the world economy. i think $70-$75 per barrel would keep everybody happy.

what percentage of the people in China that can afford to pay $4 per gal of gas if the Chinese government decided not to subsidize? the answer....probably less than 50%.
just as i predicted.
16.gif
$2.80 per gal of gas soon!!
36.gif
 
Thanks for posting Perry! I don''t know much about the viability of some of the solutions for decreasing our dependence on foreign oil, but your information seemed much more reliable & fact-based than any other I''ve seen on this thread.
36.gif


I do think it would be nice if the American people would make lifestyle changes but that option is not feasible so I think it''s best to concentrate our efforts elsewhere than condemning people for having big houses or cars. People have grown accustomed to these things, as opposed to in the past when SUVs & big houses were not "normal" to have, and the reality is that the majority of those who have them now will be hard-pressed to let them things go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top