Comments for How to break free of oil »
Posted By STONERS 1 year, 4 months ago in Business & FinanceWhen the Founding Fathers declared our independence, they could not have imagined that, 232 years later, the United States would be so spectacularly dependent on foreign countries. It would be roughly eight more decades before oil gushed from a well in Titusville, Pa., marking the beginning of the global oil economy.
Read Full Story at delawareonline.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 148 of 149 Comments
-
Neutral
STONERS1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Real energy independence can be achieved only through fuel choice and competition. That competition cannot take place as long as (according to the Department of Transportation) we continue to put 16 million new cars that run only on petroleum on our roads every year, each with an average street life of 16.8 years -- locking ourselves into decades more of petroleum dependence."
"So let's remember the saying: When in a hole, stop digging. If every new car sold in the United States were a flex-fuel vehicle and if millions of Americans could plug in electric cars, gasoline would be facing fierce competition at the pump and the socket. Moreover, our money would have migrated from Exxon to Pepco, from the Middle East to the Midwest -- as well as to scores of poor, biomass-producing countries in Africa, Latin America and South Asia, including countries that don't yet hate our guts.This is the road to independence."
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
svensun1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Disregard? What?
A plea for 'competition' that would use the GOVERNMENT to MANDATE what kind of car I buy?
That's not 'competition'! That's STATIST FASCISM, of the worst sort!
Why not just call it 'the People's Car', and have done with it! (That's Volkswagen, for you non-history buffs)
So, I am on 'the dark side' because I don't want to use the power of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to force people to buy certain kinds of cars? And this from one of the people who thinks Bush is setting up a fascist state?
Talk about chutzpah!
Reply -
Neutral
svensun1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Is it 'hearty support' for oil companies to want to INCREASE PRODUCTION? I thought it was the oil companies who are 'gouging' us now, in this tight market?
How does increasing supply, which will drive down the price, support the oil companies, to the detriment of the consumer?
Just WHAT is it that you object to? Oil companies making a profit, or Americans driving their cars 'too much'?
Reply-
Neutral
svensun1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
MY suggestion for how to lower oil prices, while preventing foreign oil producers from damaging our production, would be to eliminate ALL domestic energy taxes, every single last one of them. No gas tax, no electricity tax, no fuel tax, NOTHING.
I would have ZERO taxes on domestic energy production, of ANY kind: nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, wind, solar, etc, to encourage competition between them.
Instead, I would charge a TAX on all FOREIGN ENERGY IMPORTS, a sort of VAT tax, which the importer must pay as he brings it into the country, not on the consumer at the pump, or on his bill. That would mean that companies that mostly import oil or natural gas would be at a price disadvantage versus those who do not, and it might just cause downward pressure upon oil prices, as Americans find other domestic fuels that are more competitive with foreign oil.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Reduce, cut back, etc. what a bunch of commie lefty crap from the 70's. Son, we're in a global economy now, we cut back someone will still buy. Again, this isn't the 70's. I'm in the energy world so I'll try to make this easy. Picture you work at Dunkin's, no offense. Last year you had a police station across the street but now you had two new police stations move in next door. So now instead of just having your old station, you now have 2 more. That's what happened to the oil markets. In the past it was the EU and USA. Now you have China and India using just as much and growing.
Reply-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Efficient? How? Please tell me how your version of cold fusion works. Right now the Chicoms are kicking your lazy ecco friendly butts. My firm, which is here in the USA is building 9 plants that will convert coal to gasoline. China is thinking ahead. In America, using Carter's economic plan, we're burying our heads in the sand and turning thermostats down. We need to increase our energy. Drilling is one solution, the other is coal. We have it, use it.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
bigurn1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Stoner, most of the countries in your article increased internal petroleum production. Only two switched to electricity.
Also, none of them have our Federalizing program for safety, economy or emissions. There are real technology barriers. Brazil is the closest to the U.S., and the last time I was there everything ran on gasoline - Brazilian gasoline.
Reply-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here is a thought,let's drill for oil here in the US.
Not drilling here because it will take 5 years to retrieve is more stupid than idiotic. It's like a Major League team saying let's none participate in the draft because it will take 5 years to develop players.
It sure will reduce our ridiculous trade deficit which is as big a problem as the price of oil. By the way, the price of gasoline in Europes most prosperous countries is about $9.50/gall so 4.50/gall doesn't seem so bad! Anyone at this point in congess who is stopping us from drilling should resign Monday morning!
Besides that, 9 out of 10 caribou in the ANWAR area herd support drilling
Reply-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Besides that, 9 out of 10 caribou in the ANWAR area herd support drilling"
Why does the Right have such a hard-on for ANWR when the oil companies are sitting on thousands of oil leases they are not bothering to take advantage of?
Drilling in ANWR should be done very carefully and ONLY if we can get assurances that the oil derived therefrom is ONLY made available to the US.
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Drilling in ANWR should be done very carefully and ONLY if we can get assurances that the oil derived therefrom is ONLY made available to the US."
Drilling in ANWR should never be done. Even if it 'should,' it certainly shouldn't be done until the oil companies take advantage of the oil leases they've been sitting on and receiving tax-breaks on for decades before even asking to drill in some of our last untouched places.
Reply-
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Drilling in ANWR should never be done. Even if it 'should,' it certainly shouldn't be done until the oil companies take advantage of the oil leases they've been sitting on and receiving tax-breaks on for decades before even asking to drill in some of our last untouched places."
Did it ever occur to you that the leases they've been sitting on, are not likely to produce OIL.
When oil exploration began in Alaska's Prudhoe Bay 30 years ago, environmentalists claimed it would yield only a "few months' supply" of oil and would wreck the ecosystem. Prudhoe Bay turned out to be the largest deposit of oil ever found in North America. Caribou frolic and play by the pipeline. In 20 years, the caribou population has skyrocketed, from 3,000 to almost 27,100.
Your argument is not sustainable in any rational discussion!
Reply-
Neutral
joey-evans1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Did it ever occur to you that the leases they've been sitting on, are not likelt to prouce OIL."
Well, if that's the case, let them give those useless leases up. According to you they are not likely to produce OIL....right? Why would they care to give them up? They are not producing anyway?
I imagine they are not producing because the lease holders are not drilling. That's one way to make sure they don't produce anything....don't work them. Come on, you can't really mean what you write can you?
JOEY EVANS
Reply -
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Did it ever occur to you that the leases they've been sitting on, are not likely to produce OIL."
Then they would be 'oil leases' would they?
Did it ever occur to you the reason they don't want to drill on existing leases is because they like the prices just fine the way they are? They want something that'll take five-or-so years to reach the market. Big Oil has posted record profits for the past several quarters, what incentive do they have?
Reply-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
Neutral
saintetienne1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"before even asking to drill in some of our last untouched places."
....untouched, unused, unpopulated, unvisited, unseen, uncared about....
Tell me WHY, again, are we not utilizing the resources under the ground in ANWAR? Because it seems to me that - outside of a few caribou that might have to migrate a few miles in one direction or another - drilling there can be nothing but positive. Less dependency on foreign oil.... jobs created in Alaska.... more tax revenue.....
Is there a good reason why we're not drilling there? Libs?.... Enviro-nazis?.... Any of you want to field this one?
Reply-
Neutral
globalwarmer1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think its strategic. Lets use up the worlds oil and when its gone, everyone (with oil dependency) will come running to papa for more and then papa can name his price. It doesn't make much sense to produce more oil only to sell it cheaper, at least that is how i would play my hand if I was papa.
Reply-
Neutral
MacR1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would say with more oil being discovered everywhere else, that theory does not fly.
You see they are finding oil of the coast of Brazil. Then there are the fields and other minerals in Africa and Mexico not being touched.
No I used to think the way you do on this. And too much oil has been found recently for that theory to hold water.
Reply-
Neutral
globalwarmer1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Perhaps but what if the thousands of oil leases have more oil than their letting on to, it would still make sense to buy up as much crude from foreign sources if you can still make a profit at it. If hostile foreign governments get rich from it, then all the better for the war machine. Besides Mac, you make it sound like there really isn't an energy shortage...hmmm.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Vote republican, because burning more and more fossil fuel and drill drill drill more more more is the mantra of Exon, who's only motive is to make more and more and more money.
Vote republican, don't worry at all about Global Warming, becasue increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has nothing to do with rising global temperatures, we just need to drill more, burn more, more tax cuts for Exon, more cheap gas, more drilling in an endless spiral, because Exon is the only profit that matters, and we need cheap fuel for walmart to sell cheap chinese goods, and the military runs on cheap fuel, and the entire american economy is based on cheap fossil fuel, and that trumps choking the children any day. Vote republican!
Reply-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm as conservative as they come and couldn't give two ripps about that frozen zone of crap. I have a more reliable, less costly solution. In the late 1920's the Germans converted coal to a gas. The coal is ground into a slurry and that slurry is processed like crude oil. There's a little more to the process but it could be on line with in 24-30 months. We're building 9 plants in China and will be on line within that time frame. Current technology, not difficult.
Built by American workers, run by American workers, with the taxable profits staying in America. Has anyone else noted the American theme?
Reply-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user6 Replies
-
-
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
" Here is a thought,let's drill for oil here in the US. "
"Not drilling here because it will take 5 years to retrieve is more stupid than idiotic."
It'll take more than 10 years to see the first barrel.
The 'major impact' drilling in ANWR or offshore will have is one tenth of one percent of the international oil market -- in other words no impact whatsoever on price. Even if we could (and would) use the oil for the US only it would have an impact of about 4-7% of our yearly needs.
Better to spend all that money (and yes, the government does spend the money, not the oil companies for the most part) on alternative energy sources, increasing effeciency and companies that will actually do something to solve the problem rather than continue it.
Even a modest increase in efficency in a number of areas of energy use would easily surpass drilling in all these sensitive areas.
Reply-
Neutral
bigG1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Even a modest increase in efficency in a number of areas of energy use would easily surpass drilling in all these sensitive areas."
I read where the estimate of potential recoverable oil reserves in all of the areas now off limits to drilling was around 18 billion barrels. At our present rate of consumption, that would supply about 2.5 years by itself and then it would be gone. The answer has to be a combination of things including conservation and alternatives, not just drilling.
Reply-
-
Neutral
bigG1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Pal, you are a little confused. The trade deficit, caused by trading less to other countries than other countries trade to the U.S., and the national deficit, caused by government spending more than they take in are NOT THE SAME THING. The latter is what causes the national debt.
Drilling in ANWR will have no effect on the national debt, but would effect the trade deficit.
The dollar will increase in value as soon as government quits spending like drunken sailors and having to borrow money to finance things like, oh, effing stupid unnecessary wars.
Please don't get involved talking with adults about adult things. Now go play with yourself, just don't let mommy catch you.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think we need to clarify a few statements you've made. First, conservation will cause a further down turn in all economical sectors. If running us from a mild recession to a full blown depression is your goal, then you're doing a fine job.
It is far less than 10 years to develop the oil fields and there is far more oil. There are many left leaning people creating "new data that no one else knows"... "proving" we should drill. It's almost entirely fake info based upon old data. On the 10 years, only if the Sierra Club gets involved.
We have many different products available to make gasoline. I'm in favor of converting coal, it's inexpensive and the technology exists. We can also use shale. It won't offer the sweet crude but it will offer a high sulfur, bitter crude, but we can use it. Biofuels are a total rip of as are solar and wind. It isn't a matter of money, we're peeing money left and right on research, the technology simply isn't there yet.
Reply-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Which technology? Coal to gasoline has been around for the last 80 years last month. Germany designed a process for this. Back then there was waste that the greenies wouldn't let us try in the 1970's. We now have commercial uses for that waste so the actual costs is you based it on a barrel price would be in the $ 35 to 50/barrel.
On solar or wind, from a completely industrial way, you're looking at technology that simply isn't there. Wind, for all the hype can't meet our requirements. Ever. From the bearings on the genset to the contactors to the breakers or the harmonics it causes to the grid, or the lack of reliability, wind isn't a good source. Solar, if the greens were honest, it still takes more energy to build and maintain a commercial solar plant then the energy it produces. Don'tforget the carbon foot print to build.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
vor1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If we start now and drill with little restriction we might be able to add 5%-10% to our needed supplies in five years. Unless demand is greatly curtailed demand would easily swallow up that 5%-10%. Nor will it ever be easier to drill into the sea floor from a floating platform or from frozen tundra than to extract oil straight out of the desert. The Arabs will always win this cost equation. At least until they run out of oil.
Increased drilling is a canard. We need to find alternative sources. Our continued reliance on petroleum will only lead to more situations like Iraq where we act to protect our supposed interests only to find we have shot ourselves in the foot. Cheney never was a good shot but he didn't miss this time.
Reply -
Neutral
quackpot1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ANWAR oil might provide an extra few percent.
Reducing waste via smaller cars, shorter commutes, better freight hauling options (e.g. trains), more efficient buildings would save FAR FAR FAR more than ANWAR drilling could ever produce.
Reply-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
Neutral
MacR1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah you hit the nail on the head.
The trade imbalance.
Free trade is a joke really, it has never been free and the playing field is not on equal footing, has never been and wont be until Congress gets off their butt and do something about it. But, we know they wont, since it will cost them lobbying money, that wont be in their pocket anymore.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Wolfie20071 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah, they will still be saying that 5, 10 or 20 years if we don't start now. If we had been drilling and adding to our reserves all along we wouldn't be in this mess now.
I want to know why we can't do it all. Wind, solar, electric cars and nuclear. Tell us why oh, liberal sages, why can't we drill and do the other stuff, too.
I know why, it's the liberal are afraid we might become energy independent.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We CAN drill and develop alternatives. The problem right now is the Oil companies are sitting on thousands of leases already. Also, we don't have the refining capacity since Big Oil mothballed refineries in the mid-90s to choke supply.
And no, it's not the PETA-philes that are keeping new refineries from being built either. Oil companies have only asked for ONE permit to build a refinery in the past several years, and that was granted.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Lincoln851 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Let the caribau get a room like everyone else. It's not like the small footprint drilling will have will effect the millions of acres they can reproduce on. If someone found a cure for cancer from some fungi in the Mississippi River...some socialists leftist nut job group would protest it because it endangers the habitat of the red freckled river frog. There is a reason we are a republic and not a pure democracy..and that is to overrule cooks like these. Don't get me wrong..I love the red freckled river frog just as much as the next socialist...just saying.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Exon is bigger than saudi arabia. Exon has been for years funding Charlatan political anti-global warming think tanks. Exon does not need america to make billions of profit a quarter. Exon paid its CEO a 350 million dollar bonus in 2006, which is more than all union members (9% of the amerian workforce) made in a year.
What Exon wants, Exon gets. That's the republican way. Exon and Israel. Send your children to death to preserve them. Jesus loves a good war profit.
Reply-
Neutral
simonsez1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Exxon is the 14th largest oil company in the world. Most of the 13 ahead of it are much larger than Exxon.
"With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States , the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, ExxonMobil, a "small" oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e, mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies charge ExxonMobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up as the value of the American dollar goes down. They will eventually bleed this country into printing even more money and we will go into runway inflation once again as we did under the Carter Democratic reign."
Reply -
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Exon (sic) paid its CEO a 350 million dollar bonus in 2006, which is more than all union members (9% of the amerian workforce) made in a year."
According to the US Dept. of Labor's Jan. 25, 2008 summary, there are 15.7 million union members in the US. If they made as much as $23 each, then your statement is false.
Were you a math major?
Reply-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm
Reply -
Neutral
BB641 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Once again you're playing with the DNC/Union play book. The evil CEO makes so much more than the over worked sweeper.... Tell you what, how much did you pay for taxes to the federal government? Exxon paid in over $30,000,000,000. That doesn't seem fair. That would put their taxable income bracket at 41%. So for all of their work, you feel it's okay for the government to charge 41% for doing nothing. Other than charging taxes.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/63131-exxon-s-2...
As to unions, I'm willing to bet the folks at the GM Janesville plant would like to talk to Senators Foolsgold and do nothing Kohl. Both like high gas prices so the little people can take public transport. Germany made public bus verses driving your own American made SUV. Yep, I bet the future former union members of GM would like to talk to a lot of their former friends at the Sierra Club DNC.
Reply-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You persist in behaving like a complete a$$. The man made a statement that was demonstrably false. When I pointed that out, you tore off in all directions about paying taxes and talk about a senator named "Foolsgold." apparently, there's more than one fool where you come from.
Last year I paid about $320,000.00 in federal taxes. Some years I have paid more, some years I have paid less. Does that figure disqualify me from commenting here, or is your question simply another manifestation of your childish idiocy?
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
jmopinion1 year, 4 months ago
-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Congress won't listen
They are in the pockets of special interests
Congress needs to get out of the way and STOP picking winners and losers through subsidies
Everything needs to be encouraged and let the chips fall where they may
In the short term there needs to be more drilling while the alternatives are developed
Reply-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
bigG1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, the dollar has fallen so much in the last four or five years against other currencies(Euro and pound sterling), that if the dollar strenghtened back to a 1 to 1 with the Euro then oil would be $88 a barrel right now.
In the last year it has gone from $1.35 per Euro to $1.58 per Euro. That alone accounts for better than $20/ barrel.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hydrogen is problematic. Hydrogen is extracted from good ol' water through electrolysis, but the energy exerted is less than the energy derived (unless we went to solar or wind for the electricity). Storage and distribution are also large hurdles.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, not really. Natural gas would require congress to release more lands for drilling. Most of the unused lands currently leased are not worth drilling. In most cases, there's nothing to drill for. Transport is always a problem.
On hydrogen, it seems like such an easy solution. To make hydrogen you simply use water and electricity and split the atoms. The problem, it takes more energy to make the hydrogen then the hydrogen will ever be able to produce. Transporting hydrogen is also a problem. It doesn't compress well. The tanks currently required to transport the gas often times is larger than the full size of a sedan's trunk. It will take time to develop the technology here.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
skeptic2711 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
According to the Energy Information Administration's official energy statistics from the U.S. government our refineries have a total capacity of 17,593,847 barrels per day. They are currently operating at 17,225,797 or about 98%. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_cap1_...
You can drill all you want but if the refinery capacity isn't increased it won't increase our supply.
Reply-
-
Neutral
skeptic2711 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://earth2tech.com/2008/07/14/pges-ceo-on-t-...
PG&E CEO Peter Darbee, at the Silicon Valley Leadership Group's Energy Summit at Stanford on Friday, told us that he was "concerned" about the plan unveiled last week by oil baron T. Boone Pickens to get the U.S. off oil. While reducing foreign oil consumption is the right thing to do, he said, the idea of replacing foreign oil with natural gas is a problematic one.
First of all, Darbee said, there isn't that much domestic natural gas to go around, and the foreign natural gas providers are the same ones that currently provide us with oil. And from a national security perspective, converting our cars to natural gas wouldn't change our energy-based security issues, he said; electric cars and hydrogen-based cars are a better alternative.
Reply-
Neutral
jmopinion1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Natural gas has not gone up nearly as much as oil and we have been finding some pretty substantial natural gas finds lately with more promising ones like in the shales in many parts of the country. Also, we have off shore LNG terminals that we can import liquefied natural gas. There are also plans that are going forward for a Nat gas pipeline out of Canada which would be great. This would definitely take the pressure off of oil imo.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
kboy1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Congress has not shown us any leadership in the last 20 years. They have tried to force us into smaller cars while the trucks get larger. The Greens are no better. They have blocked all fossil power plants except natural gas and then blocked the pipelines to deliver the natural gas. Both sides have blocked nuclear plants and electric transmission lines as well as drilling for oil in our coastal waters (China will now be drilling there for Cuba). Electric cars may be an answer. Place outlets at every parking meter and charge for parking and electric. Spend money for research and development grants for promising technology, not subsidizing inefficient stills and wind machines (idle 62% of the time)
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ACtually, congress has shown great leadership, for the rich. The income redistribution for the rich over the last 8 years was the greatest in the history of the world, with the exception that the rich no longer are bound by nations, they are international aristrocracy of billionaires and CEO's and drug Warloards and rock stars and military dictators whos money is not kept in their nations.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
simonsez1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why would we want to "break free" from oil? It's our natural fuel, stored below ground until we need it, used in thousands of products we depend on, formed over millions of years from all things that have ever lived. It's a gift, not a threat.
Jackson should work on Al Gore instead of Obama ...
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Why would we want to "break free" from oil?"
Um, because it's a finite resource? Because it makes us reliant on whack-jobs in the most unstable region on the planet? Because it's highly polluting?
That's just off the top of my head...
Reply-
Neutral
MacR1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But we will never break free from oil. You see the one thing we will need is lubricant. We make a synthetic version, but, this version is still a derivative from oil.
No what you want to say is we want to break free from using oil as a fuel source.
Look we all know we are not going to have our, speeders, speeder bikes, back to the future mode of transportation, with oil.
But even with these products you will need a lubricant. And oil will have to be it until we find another substance. Something better than oil, could be found off planet, too.
But till then oil is the main product for that lubrication of the machines that we all use everyday.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
Jaydee401 year, 4 months ago
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are asking the rich and powerful to give up their income source and their power. Not going to happen if we keep voting republican. but of course, the republicans can count on their evangelical army of christian zionist crusaders to keep voting abortion, guns, gays, and flag, like the rich give a flying faarrt about any of those issues or would be caught dead in a red inbred flyover state.
Reply-
Neutral
Jaydee401 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Only when the American public realizes there is no difference between Dems and Reps will they see it's up to them self to take control of their government back and act. The rich would steal the coins of a dead mans eye if they are given half a chance.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
Nowalive1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As a mechanic I have been saying this for years. I have suggested a SHORT TERM solution here several times. Here it is again.
1. Eliminate ethanol. Ethanol REDUCES performance, REDUCES vehicle mileage, and currently burns NO CLEANER. Ethanol also costs more to produce than a gallon of raw gasoline. Recover the $1.08 susidy from ethanol and use that to fund the highways, thereby eliminating the 18.5 cent per gallon Federal Highway Tax. Ethanol costs $4.59 per gallon and the oil companies purchase it at the subsidized rate of $3.51.
2. Eliminate the over 30 "boutique blends" of gasoline and produce one blend, the cleanest burning possible, and mass run it at every non specialty refinery. Lower refining overhead results in lower cost to the consumer.
3. Recover methane from landfills for use in municipal vehicles. There is no shortage of garbage produced by this country. Utilize NG, LP for vehicles.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Nowalive1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ghost,
If you truly believe that please take a look at my sites. Sadly STILL under construction.
http://www.freewebs.com/nowalive
http://www.we-the-people.50megs.com
Vote Hamilton in 2012
Common sense is genius dressed in it's work clothes.
Reply-
Neutral
Jaydee401 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Common sense is genius dressed in it's work clothes."
That is worth a post alone but the rest of what you said is true as well. The problem is big business is always looking for a way to take advantage of the latest crises and distort it to make money. Much of the money invested in wind turbine was filtered through to big business with zero results. They must be real proud lining up at the government trough for a living, corporate welfare.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The ethanol producers are small farmers and local economy. Exon no likey.
You want to reduce vehicle mileage, regulate the auto industry to higher mpg, but exon no likey.
Brazil imports no gasoline, has an ethanol economy, fuel flex automobiles, and exon no likey.
Good idea about methane.
Reply-
Neutral
Nowalive1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How am I reducing vehicle mileage?
Ethanol is produced mainly from corn, an inefficient source at best, and mainly by large scale farming. Perhaps if we utilized another source for ethanol, our food costs would be reduced by putting corn back into realm of FOOD. Grocery costs across the board are effected by a reduced supply of corn. Meats, dairy, eggs, poultry, cereal, bread all have risen due to the diversion of corn to the ethanol industry.
Why not harvest the red tides that are growing (algeal blooms) and produce ethanol from that? this would help to prevent cases of toxic poisoning in humans from eating tainted shellfish. That would be a win-win.
Reply-
Neutral
quackpot1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In the U.S. ethanol is made from corn because that is what the corn states like and it is what the big agribusiness folks like.
Ethanol-from-corn is not about energy, it is about subsidies for agribusiness. Ethanol (or methanol) from other sources might be a very good source of fuel.
Reply -
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Like cold fusion, it's a nice thing to say in a political campaign but how? We're reaching the limits of our current technologies. To maintain safety standards, we're basically in a beer can with air bags. Any weight has been reduced including the gas tank. Engines are made with more light weight plastic and ceramic parts. They're about as aerodynamic as possible. Hybrids are actually more costly and use more energy. It's all the batteries. We're not looking at the "Obama" quick fix. This will take a lot of time, money and effort. We need a reliable energy source for the next 25-50 years for this to happen.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We've found the corn and sugar cane ethanol to be terrible for the environment. Too bad the left didn't study the inpack this would have.
Where is your proof that we can do this more efficiently and environmentally friendly. I've read preliminary studies but nothing explained what the longterm would be.
On the hemp, go away. It's simply a lefty scam. Our mother company has no problems with the growing of hemp. We found it wasn't a good product and shut the research down.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Jaydee401 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Small farms don't exist anymore, big companies have swallowed them all up and plant large tracks of land with no regard for the damage they do. By and large the family farm is a thing of the past. The bio fuel is just another nail in it's coffin.
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The farmers are still alive, and are producing corn now for biofuels, and are a pigmy dwarf compared to big oil, which is financing the propaganda against ethanol. Exon is dead set against biofuel, make no mistake. Exon makes billions a quarter, but its never enough.
Reply-
Neutral
Jaydee401 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you get digging into who owns stocks in oil companies and these corporate farms you will find family connections. Irving in Canada is one of the largest oil companies and agricultural companies as well, one family member runs one branch and another runs the other. It's the same all over. Sure farmers are still there but now they work for some one else and are called farm labourers.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nowalive
Well said, but let's back you up a bit.
1) Ethanol takes between 4-5 gallons of fossil fuel to produce and then additional energy for the trucks to haul it. It can't be sent via pipeline. Also it leaves a very bad waste product that currently is classified as toxic waste.
2) Get rid of all the blends. In most cases it really doesn't help anything.
3) Methane has been pulled from waste dumps for years by Waste Management. My first paid engineering gig was to convert 2 "junked" rail road yard generators for gasoline to methane. SC Johnson wax has been doing that for years off of several of their dumps.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Nowalive1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
By blends, I was not referring to ethanol. There are over 30 individual blends of gasoline from blends of raw gas to 85% ethanol. Los Angelos County has it's own blend not available anywhere else. Formulate one clean burning raw gas blend and mass run it. Retooling refineries helps to reduce supplies.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Nowalive1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
CONT.
4. Reopen ALL capped wells, idle refineries to increase our own supplies reducing imports.
5. Build 30 new refineries. We have not built a new refinery in 33 years.
6. Mandate increasing vehicle economy by an additional 50%. Well within the scope of current technology.
7. Expand public transportation where possible. Currently I have to drive 26 miles to my job as there is not PT to that area.
8. Encourage more electric vehicle use in urban areas. By reducing the number of IC engine vehicles within metropolitan areas air quality will also be improved.
9. More solar, wind, and nuclear power for electricity generation. A large number of electricity providers utilize NG for gas turbine generators. Reduce this and home heating and cooking costs will come down.
Again these are only SHORT TERM solutions and MUST be treated as such, even if gasoline were to drop to $2.00 again.
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That is as you say short term. Here's what would fix it entirely.
NATIONALIZE american oil. 100% of profits to build high speed rail service, funded by just one quarter's profit. This would also be a national security issue, as burning oil is causing a catostrophic increase in global temperatures and climate change.
We need a new industrial revolution/new deal, the kind of sacrifice shown in WWII, otherwise our children are F*Ked, inheriting a unsustainable economy with an unsustainable ecology.
Not that that matters to republicans, whos only thought is profit, greed and preservation of power in the hands of the super rich and to continue the permanent american war against the non white poor of the planet, 2 billion of which are living on less that 2 bucks a day, that's 1/3 the planet population.
Another solution, tax the f*ck out of the rich. 1% of the american population own 85% of american stock. .01% have more than the lowest 50%, 3 billion people.
Reply-
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We as a country have 5% of the population of the world and use 25% of the energy, burning 25% of all oil produced. That is insane, and unsustainable. the answer is of course, the only answer is of course, CONSERVE and cut back the amount of fossil fuel burned. We have no choice, the CO2 concentration increase will destroy the freaking planet.
We don't need foreign oil. We can pick up ice chips on mars but we can't stop burning oil?????? What a load. Solar, geo thremal, Nuclear, ......laws for 75 miles per gallon on ever car, massive train system paid for by massive tax rates for the rich who want to live here, 95% inheritance taxes for billionaires. F*ck the rich who are enslaving this country.
Reply-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Anti brain, it's nice to see our communist stand, it makes the evil capitalists look so much better, thank you.
But seriously how? The 70's under Carter tried that. Energy went up, business pulled out, conserving isn't a good answer. Unless you're planning on reducing the population through some sort of forced control method. We're continuing to grow and will continue to need energy. Again, unless your using the Stalin methods.
On your dream of 75 miles/gallon. It's not possible with current technology. It simply doesn't exist and won't without a real energy policy. Doing an Obama and pulling a number out of the air doesn't mean anything.
And finally, on your green house problems. There really isn't one. Now before you start with the ice in the north pole, let me ask. What effect does the two or three massive volcanoes under the north pole ice caps have on the ice? The volcanoes are each as large as Texas. Bet that would cause your poles to melt no matter what you do.
Reply-
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A lot of Utopian thinkers here BB, with pie in the sky solutions. Obama supporters no doubt. All these imaginery solutions don't have a chance to replace oil. The big US problem is environmental nonsense and a populace not familiar with the facts.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They simply think that by cutting back the oil will reappear or some magic machine will create unlimited amount of power without leaving waste behind. That's simply not possible with today's technology. As to oil, we should have been building coal conversion plants like we're doing in China 30 years ago. Without the easy oil money many of the terrorist groups would lose their sponsors. But again, we're talking about Carter's time in the WH. The man was a nuclear engineer and he failed to explain 3 mile island. What's worse, he helped to kill off nuclear power. Once again, thanks for nothing Jimmy.
Reply-
Neutral
Dicax_Maximus1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BB - Ignore Fission, Fusion COULD supply the entire worlds "raw" energy requirements, IF the "rich" govt's of the world would fund it's research..... Trouble is, they won't as it might upset their major contributors.....
Sad, isn't it ?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Ratskii1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Went out and looked on the web. There were 653 hits on "exxon taxes," not 333. Also the tax bill was 27 billion. But that didn't say whether or not the $16 billion in subsidies to Exxon were included or not. I suspect they weren't. If Exxon's profit margin were as slim as you are implying, would they be paying their top executives as much as they are?
I'm of a naturally suspicious mind. If you're going to toss around figures please give me sources with facts and figures, not opinions from right-wing blogs.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
jossch1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oil production has peaked around 1970 in the US . Congress has known of this impending crisis and has done little to prevent this economic and security related crisis. This country has sent billions of dollars to some of the most hideous governments on the face of this planet who will use this money to finance terrorism . The bottom line is we need more energy to run this economy and there is only one way to obtain that result until we can find alternatives to oil. Enviornmental lawsuits have done more to halt production of oil, build refineries, stop nuclear facilities from coming on line,etc,etc, than anything I can think of. Our first obligation is to our families, our friends and the security of this nation not the polar bear, owls or some other animal.
Reply -
Neutral
vor1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Our first obligation is to our families, our friends and the security of this nation not the polar bear, owls or some other animal"
Pathetic hubris laden man speaking....we are more important than the earth beneath us? It won't be any God teaching us a lesson when we go extinct ourselves. The odds against our longevity are staggering and we make them shorter everyday. We have only been on the Earth a small fraction of her existence. Not only do we have little clue as to our Creation, we make up myths to explain those questions away. We make ourselves important to the equation by our actions although we are but a tiny piece of the puzzle. We don't learn when we destroy the rainforests and see the results, we just continue the devastation. Man is by far the most destructive inhabitant of this planet. What exactly have the animals done to diminish her?
Reply -
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This garbage about "it's going to take 10 years (or 15, or 20, or 30 depending on who's telling the lie)" is pure crap. In the event of a reasonably accessible puddle of oil, it shouldn't take more than a couple of MONTHS. I've seen it on TV - putting up a rig, drilling 10,000 feet, and getting the pumps running simply does NOT take as long as the tree-huggers/idiots are claiming. Even deep water drilling - which IS pretty difficult - doesn't take that long any more. It's a well understood process at this point. The ONLY thing that takes that long: the idiotic bureaurocracy that has to be overcome simply to start the operation.
Reply-
Neutral
bigG1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
joeblowe - One must FIND the oil first before drilling. That takes time. Additionally, studies must be done to ensure placement of the wells to get the best oil recovery/depletion rate - assuming there is enough there to bother with. Not having a proper plan for the reservoir can damage the formation and lose much of the recoverable oil. There also has to be facilities and infrastructure built. Gotta have a way to get the oil from the wells to a storage facility.
All of this figures into the economics, and whether you like it or not, oil companies are in the business of making money so the economics weighs heavily.
It isn't near as easy or quick as you try to make it sound.
Oh, and I am not a "tree hugger/idiot" - I am in the business.
When you make statements like that clearly without knowing what you are talking about you appear to be the latter.
Reply-
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'll agree - it isn't as simple as plopping down a drill and merrily pumping out oil. And everything you mention is certainly true. BUT! I'll maintain that 10 years is still a horrible exaggeration. Even in ANWR it seems unlikely that it would take that long to develop the necessary infrastructure to move the crude. IF a determined effort were made. At nearly $150/bbl there is plenty of economic incentive to get 'er done. Defeatists CLAIMING it would take 10 or more years isn't helping. And, frankly, it should have been started 20 or more years ago - so we shouldn't be 10 years out, we should be 10 years in. The problems of the '70s faded a little too quickly and easily it seems. Is it your position then that 10 years or more IS a reasonable figure? And if so, perhaps you could outline what it would take to significantly REDUCE that time?
Reply-
Neutral
bigG1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ten years is the outside, but remember that once a project or series of same are built, it takes a concerted drilling effort to ramp up production. So, if every project was started today, peak production could take around seven years, possibly a little less due to circumstances, from those projects.
From a practical standpoint, all of the projects cannot be started at once due to resource problems across the board. It isn't easy to even find an idle rig, and finding experienced people is nearly impossible, from drillers to engineers et al. Paying more money will just result in the proverbial robbing of Peter. Delivery times for materials are longer than I can ever remember in my career, and suppliers cannot build new facilities overnight.
There isn't much that can be done to reduce the time. We try to get everything we can as fast as we can because it benefits the bottom line. It's somewhat like the old adage - nine women can't have a baby in a month.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
One of the problems with getting ANWR up and running is its location at the tip-top of the continent. Either an oil port would need to be constructed nearby or a pipeline connecting to the Trans Alaskan pipeline would need to be built.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Bojoco271 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You people need to wake up, oil is not the answer, even Bush said these off shore drillings would be good for about 10 years of consumption, if you believe him, what then???
We should spend the money on renewable resources now, and we won't have the international issues we have now. Release our independence on foreign oil, take back our future.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
jumpmaster1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of course not. Just like I don't want all the toxic waste from hybrid vehicle batteries in my back yard. Put it in someone else's backyard where it belongs.
Lead, sulfuric acid, heavy metals, plutonium, what's the difference. If I can be a nimby with hybrid batteries, why can't I be a nimby with nuclear waste?
Plus we have gotta be green first and foremost. And nuclear power plants do not emit greenhouse gases.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Today's nuclear power plants create far less waste. America's commercial nuclear program died during the Carter years over an over hyped under explained problem at 3 mile island. Between that and a hostile press, it literally killed the whole business. At least here. In France and other countries, the plants have become very efficient. With the current US plants, we're taking 20-30 tons of waste per reactor, per year. With the modern one, 5-15 tons. Also, the old systems had water pumps, drives and tones of mechanical items, all of which could fail. The new plants are designed to use gravity fed solutions. No motors, pumps, etc. to fail.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
CHAM1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Haven't read all the comments, so has anyone mentioned:
South Africa has been non dependent on oil since the 30's when an American Company (ITT )and others developed a coal slurry for them.
Atlantic Research developed a reduced sulpher, coal slurry that would stay in suspension in tanks and pipelines and they licensed it to several foreign countries ( Guess America wasn't interested). The United States has enough Coal to supply our current energy needs for the next 1000 years.
Then there's enough untilled land in the south to raise enough Sorghum ( 8 times better than corn for energy )to
supply a good portion of Americas energy needs. Then there's our rich reserves of Natural Gas, not to mention the capped oil wells in America (more capped wells than uncapped). Finally we have Nuclear, Wind,Geo-Thermal,
Sun,Tidal,and a myraid of other synthetics.
You can bet your last nickel we could go Energy independent any time we decide to. But will we?
Reply -
Neutral
bigbrain1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There will always be oil, but the days of cheap oil are over, never to return. There are vast reserves of shale oil, for instance, which used to be too expensive to extract, but is now almost at the point of being profitable. We will have oil for as long as we want it, provided we are willing to pay higher and higher economic, social, geopolitical and evironmental prices for it. It has taken the western world 200 years to become as dependent upon fossil fuels as we now are, and we can not expect to replace them overnight. We shall have to adjust to the fact that more and more of our disposable income will be devoted to heating our houses and driving our cars from now on...
Reply -
-
-
SwampFox-82ndComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
Cityslicker1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
One thing , no matter what is used Oil , Gas , Electricity , Water , someone will exploit it and make people dependent on that product so they can control the price or prices of more than one product .
Seen Natural Gas used in the 70's , someone figured out people were using it cheaply , up goes the prices .
Same with Diesel , cheap fuel , impose regulations , up the price .
Perfect world everyone would share and all would be equal , but face it the Rich rob the poor to get Richer .
Someone must have bought Natural Gas stock .
Reply-
Neutral
CHAM1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Oil Companies and Energy Companies. NObody mentioned compressed Air but that is also something that could be used in conjunction with other fuels.
There is no reason for America to be energy dependent. And we are not energy dependent on any foreign power, we are energy dependent on Big Oil, Big Gas, Big Farms, Big Big.
That is the problem, not some little nation sitting on a pool of oil.
Reply
-
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.