Comments for GOP Deceptions on Energy: The Little, The Big, The Hysterical »
Posted By Spadecaller 1 year, 4 months ago in NewsA closer look at the Republicans' disinformation campaign on offshore drilling for oil. Where are the legitimate journalists? Who in the mainstream media has enough guts to say a lie is a lie?
Read Full Story at huffingtonpost.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 202
-
93%
Spadecaller1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Schneider: "It is certainly remarkable. And the vast majority of Americans do support offshore oil drilling. They support anything, anything that will give them relief from high gas prices." Lou Dobbs Tonight, July 29, 2008
Reply
FTA:
"No experts said any such thing. For obvious reasons. "[Bush's] move to end the moratorium, in place since 1992, won't have any effect until a separate congressional prohibition expires or is overturned," said The Wall Street Journal on July 15. Instead, analysts "point to two distinct trends that may take the wind out of this year's price spike: an easing of tensions over Iran and evidence that demand for oil in the U.S. is falling faster than many believed."(The Wall Street Journal, July 18, 2008)
The American people are being scammed again. Paid for politicians and paid for journalists perpetuate the lies to line their own pockets. Those not beholden to special interests need to get the truth out. Preying on a public desperate for relief at the pumps is the kind of fear mongering the GOP is good at.
Will the public wise up in time before they realize again that they have been duped by the Washington syndicate?-
24%
Endoscopy1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What is the liberal agenda.
Reply
Don't drill
Don't build refineries.
Don't build nuclear power plants.
Spend even more money on alternative sources that don't work yet and will have problems being economically viable.
Norway PROVED that drilling and using their own oil can bring down the cost of oil to them. They have drilled, drilled, drilled and have cheap gas. Proven idea at work.
France has built nuclear power plants to supply 70% of their power and are building more. Proven idea at work.
Liberals have allowed different regions of the country require specific formulas of gasoline to meet different clean air standards. They then require that all refineries make all formulas. This made a burden on the refineries that the smaller companies could not meet. Therefore many were tor down. Now those left are working near capacity. Can't build any more though. If a company has money enough they can take an existing one and totally refurbish it and upgrade its capability but can't go the cheaper route of building one from scratch. Liberal policies at work. How to make things cost more money.-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user11 Replies
-
79%
Grrr1 year, 4 months ago
-
14%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Demonstrate the lies instead of an ad hominem attack.
Reply
Is the liberal agenda wrong?
Norway has drilled and has low wholesale rates before the government taxed it to death. Is that wrong?
Has France built nuclear reactors to make that much electricity?
Are the rules concerning refineries wrong?
Please tell me.-
100%
Natureboy1 year, 3 months ago
-
100%
mesodude1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hehehe...Exactly. Norwegians don't vote in our elections, right cons? We shouldn't care what they say just like we don't care about hundreds of thousands of Germans greeting Obama a few weeks ago, right? What the rest of the world does is irrelevant. That's what you've always taught us. ;-)
Reply-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
29%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You people say that drilling is not the answer. Then when an example is presented that proves you wrong you go into this rant. Liberals kept us from drilling because of the environment that would be harmed. Norway did it and was environmentally friendly. Something that the liberals said could not be done. I believe if we get out of the way our American know how could do it better than Norway. However the answer from liberals is always no.
Reply
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.-
-
75%
mesodude1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Norway has gun rights, too but for the same reason I don't think Americans should have guns, I don't trust our own people to drill with serious regard for our environment. Cons. OMG, cons... YOU are the people who allowed Bush and the oil companies to destroy our planet for the last 8 years with impunity! Republicans did no oversight and said yes to everything Bush asked forand then CONS--holy CRAP you people make me sick--you turned around and freaking REWARDED that disgusting weasel with a second term in office?! And what did you get out of the deal? FOUR DOLLAR GAS! ROTFLMAO How braindead can cons BE?! So I ask you, WHAT in the name of all that's holy could possibly make you think ANYONE trusts you people to drill for oil responsibly?! What kind of DRUGS are you taking, Endo?! ;-(
Reply-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
-
88%
GWHayduke1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And complicit nonsense from Capey.
Reply
Suggesting that we ELIMINATE oil from usage altogether is how any kind of opposition to alternative energy sources describes dissenting strategy.
Its counterproductive, AntiAmerican, anti-competitive and outright foolish to go on about business utilizing archaic technology as if it is cutting edge and will be viable long into the future.
Black or White.
Somehow their strategy for success relies on taking two steps backward and repeating the same idiotic consumer behavior patterns that got us into the 'energy crisis' we face.
Innovation and future competitiveness is absolutely dependent upon insight, development and exploitation of supplemental energy resources.-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
33%
protoham1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Have you looked into what these alternative energy sources cost to manufacture. People are doing stupid things in the name of Green, Green is big business, but it is not smart.
Reply
A simple solar panel takes 20 years of energy to manufacture, I have news for you, a solar panel on your roof will not last 20 years. So in the end it is anti-green. Ethanol in your gas costs more energy to grow and manufacture than it outputs - another loss. I also looked into windmills, I live on a ridge of a mountain and have lots of wind, but after looking at the output and cost. It boils down to a marginal gain.
There is still nothing as cheap as oil to power your car. Nuke and Hydro are the best for Electric. But try to build one of these and you will be fighting lawsuits from the eco-nuts all the time.
Maybe about the best we can do is add air to our tires.
-
-
kobzikovComment removed: Spam
-
90%
kobzikov1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're a riot, Endo.
Reply
Did you get the "liberal agenda" from Rush? Because I've never heard it from any of my liberal friends.
As a matter of fact, I'm gonna guess that you won't find a liberal on the board who's against drilling on currently leased millions of acres or against oil companies utilizing almost ten thousand stockpiled drilling permits.
http://www.shameonbigoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/truth-about-americas-energy.pdf
I also imagine that most liberals would not object to building of refineries in most of the locations where they used to be before oil companies started closing them down. You see Endo, US used to have more than 300 refineries in the 1980s, but now has only 149.
http://www.bizmology.com/2007/12/26/why-aren%E2%80%99t-there-more-oil-refineries-in-the-us/
I'm not sure how liberals feel about nuclear power plant construction, but I can tell you that personally I have no problem with it if the companies are willing to finance the whole thing, would pass the environmental standards that of French nuclear reactors and all relevant regulation. Hell I wouldn't even mind if it's built where I live instead of the Wal-Mart.
By the way, do you know that both Norway and France have mostly nationalized energy sectors? Is that what you are advocating for US? Just curious.
What concerns the whole different regions having different clean air standards that seems like a state rights issue. Or does US federal government have some kind of a right to dictate to states what their environmental standards should be?
By the way, since 1975 until 2000 EPA has approved every request for construction of a new refinery; there was only one.
Building a new refinery is not cheaper then upgrading an existing one. As a matter of fact it costs double or triple of modernizing an old refinery.
/fact_check_have_federal_...html">http://blogs.chron.com/txpotomac/2008/07/fact_check_have_federal_...html
Show me the experts with relevant analysis that support your backwards assertions.-
0%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I listen to all the liberals here and elsewhere. I then say what they are saying is their agenda. Where am I wrong?
Reply
Every time a nuclear power plant is proposed a pack of tree huggers come out of the woods and get the law suits going. Whose side are they on? I have observed this over the years. Block them any way they can. Laws are passed that make it almost impossible to build. Get the laws to conform to France's and get the tree huggers out of the way and watch what happens.
Same thing with refineries. It is very much cheaper to tear down ANY building over a certain age and start fresh than to refurbish an old building where the place has to be gutted. It is very expensive to remove everything while not harming the structure. Look at all the lawsuits to protect older buildings from destruction. When the liberals allowed different regions to make rules for the formula for gas they then required ALL refineries to make ALL formulas for all regions. The smaller companies could not bear that cost so they tore them down.
Was that part of the liberal agenda? Does not matter because that was the effect. Liberals never figure the cost of what rules and laws they create.-
91%
tchef1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am what you would call a "liberal". I support Obama for President. I've even contributed to his campaign. I would support drilling if it will help but I also want us to do whatever we can to get off oil. We had the chance to make a difference in the 70's and we blew it. I don't want to blow it again. We need to change our habits. We need to find new ways to produce energy. If our forefathers had followed your mantra we would still be plowing fields with horses.
Reply-
20%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The problem is that we have kept up research into alternative methods from that time onward. Nothing has been created that will make a significant difference. If you have been paying attention to these things you would have heard the different kinds of results of the research.
Reply
What you seem to be saying is that we should do nothing to bring down the price of oil until there is a breakthrough. Guess what. Since Carter there have been incremental advances in many areas There is nothing on the horizon to really solve the problem. Magic does not happen.
There was a hybrid Pinto made under Carter. They took out the engine and put in a small engine driving a generator that charged a bank of batteries. There was an electric motor on each wheel. The car could go forever on the flat but had to stop once in a while if climbing a mountain. That was then and look at them now. They have overcome some technical problems and do it a little differently but the basic principle is the same. This is in automobiles and other areas have had the same kind of development.
Again there has been research but no magic.
-
-
75%
Sabretooth1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is very much cheaper to tear down ANY building over a certain age and start fresh than to refurbish an old building where the place has to be gutted.
Reply
How about a link to support this crap...man, do you just make everything you say up? The only time new is likely cheaper then rebuilding is when the building is historical, please keep to stuff you know about, like lying.
-
-
-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
-
88%
mesodude1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Spend even more money on alternative sources that don't work yet and will have problems being economically viable."
Reply
--Cons seem to forget that the oil industry wasn't built in a day but we agree on one thing: new technologies will have "problems" getting off the ground--as long as Big Oil and Republicans continue to throw up roadblocks to progress. You want us to drill yesterday but you don't have the same attitude regarding conservation or alternative energy technologies.
"France has built nuclear power plants to supply 70% of their power and are building more. Proven idea at work."
--I actually would be more in favor of this but look at what cons have done to our regulatory bodies over the last 8 years. Just LOOK at the horrifying mess Bushco has caused by deliberately sabotaging agencies like CPSC, EPA, FDA, Agriculture, Justice and on and on. Everyone knows Republicans love power but they hate responsiblity and accountability. Who REALLY thinks we could trust cons to keep an eye on the operation, safety, and handling of nuclear waste, etc? Exactly...These people are absolutely dangerous in every conceivable way. Btw, France let's gays serve in the military too, Endo. ;-P
"Liberals have allowed different regions of the country require specific formulas of gasoline to meet different clean air standards."
--Stop crying, Endo and take some personal responsibility for once in your life. Aren't cons the ones who are clucking their teeth and preaching to homeowners in foreclosure about how they should've known home prices weren't gonna go up forever? What happened to that sense of personal responsibility where gas prices are concerned, Endo?! BAM! Suddenly cons find themselves in the crosshairs of Bush and his oil buddies and now everything is Nancy Pelosi's fault! Waaaaaaaaaahhh...That Nancy lady is bein' mean to us! We just want to fill our tanks for 20 bucks and drive 80mph in huge gas guzzling vehicles (cause we and our con spawn are God's gift to humanity and we must be protected by riding around in a tank). You're out of your mind, Endo. You're not gettin' anymore cheap oil unless you use less of it. Get over yourselves, cons. You cannot possibly be serious. LOL
--
"Norway PROVED that drilling and using their own oil can bring down the cost of oil to them. They have drilled, drilled, drilled and have cheap gas. Proven idea at work."
--LOL... We're back to this logic again. I love how the rest of the international community is relevant to cons when it serves your interests. Norway allows gays to marry and serve in the military too, Endo but I bet you sure as hell don't think we should follow their lead in THAT regard, do you? LMAO con hypocrisy and lies for Big Oil slay me. ;-0-
0%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Typical head in the mud conspiracy buff. Big Oil is the problem and killing them will solve all of our problems. Bush the EVIL president is helping them. Exxon Mobile is so big they control 3% of the oil. They then parlay that into keeping the price high and making obscene profits that they use to stop development on all research into alternative methods. I thought that one died about 20 years ago. But spadecaller and now mesodude have bought into that one. Bush is just a small new wrinkle.
Reply
What technologies have they stopped?
I love how you rewrote the foreclosure problem. Do you understand what subprime is? It means that a person given that kind of loan will be less likely to keep paying the loan. Liberals felt sorry for people who were unable to get a loan for a house. Since liberals wanted everybody to have a loan they changed the rules for the poor people. They have no equity and/or have limited ability to repay. Therefore the interest is higher making the problem worse. The better banks only made those kinds of loans to the top level of those people. Therefore the foreclosure rate for them is less and the increased interest kept them in the black. The more foolish banks made the loans like the liberals wanted. They are in big trouble. Liberals create the problem so the liberal answer is to bail out the people who are having this problem they created. Taxpayers have to pay for the liberals mistake. What else is new.
Then you accuse people of having cars too big for running around. I have a Montana SV6. It seats 7. I quite often have 8 to carry around. Tight fit and a good thing two of them are little. By myself I have an S-10. But I guess we should all get skateboards right?
You are so into having everybody be squeezed until they have to conform to your view of the world.-
100%
Sabretooth1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Exxon Mobile is so big they control 3% of the oil. They then parlay that into keeping the price high and making obscene profits..."
Reply
Actually the terrorist in charge Bush, helps to keep oil high by destabilizing the Middle East, what did you think he was doing there, bringing democracy? Wow, no wonder your government gets away with so much, you folks are about as uninformed as a third world country.
-
-
-
100%
splitrch1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm liberal in a lot of ways but I support drilling if we have additional domestic refining capacity to make a difference. As for Nuclear - I think it is clean, renewable and safe. We also need to transition to solar, wind, fuel cell, etc...
Reply
What we need more than anything is to be as energy independent as possible. I hate giving my money, ultimately, to people who want to see us brought down. From a National Security point of view alone the above should be given the status of the Space Race.
Using algae to produce ethanol seems to hold great promise and can help stabilize the grain markets. If I'm not mistaken crude oil is a byproduct of algae being buried under great pressure for millions, if not billions of years.
So where do you get the notion that it is a liberal agenda to hurt the country by forcing people to pay more for energy?
What it really is, is the "NIMBY Syndrome". You know - not in my backyard.
-
-
40%
linkster1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is a simple case of supply and demand. We have resources domestically, but we choose not to produce them for environmental reasons. We are now dependent on foreign resources for oil, which makes us dependent on petty dictators, totalitarian regimes, potentates, etc, for a key resource. Oil is a commodity, like air, water and food. We need it or economy and our lives stop. Even if we use less, we still have to have it. Oil is used for gasoline, but also for plastics, medicines, computers, energy, food production - everything. This is not a conspiracy - that is just nonsense. We can produce at home, or remain dependent. Your inane comments lack clarity and insight. Conservation and alternative energy are part of the answer, especially long-term, but at present, we need domestic oil. You idiotic Washington conspiracy theories are nonsense. Open your mind to reality.
Reply-
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, it appears the right loves to stop reading at the point where it says we have untapped supplies at home and then missthe part thatsays however that untapped supply wont meet demand. Kinda like the same cherry picking mentality that got usinto Iraq.
Reply
-
-
-
-
84%
Will13131 year, 4 months ago
-
9%
Endoscopy1 year, 4 months ago
-
100%
Will13131 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"This is crazy," exclaimed one Norwegian tourist after being charged NOK 12.14 per liter at a gas station in Kjøllefjord in Finnmark. That amounts to about USD 7.40 per gallon.
Reply
---------------
OSLO (AFP) - In Norway, many motorists are up in arms over why they have to pay the highest petrol (gasoline) prices in Europe when the country is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter and a recent tax hike has done little to cool tempers.
"It is really strange: we have lots of oil and we're a rich country. Why do we have to pay so much?" asks Per-Arne Skjerpingstad, a 38-year-old hospital porter as he fills up the tank of his Peugeot 307 at an Oslo gas station for 750 kroner (94 euros, 148 dollars).
Diesel costs 14.23 kroner (1.78 euros, 2.82 dollars) a litre (quarter gallon) and 95 unleaded 13.84 kroner, putting it at the top of the European league, EU figures show.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080722/bs_afp/norwayoilpricetaxclimate
looks real cheap... if you were Pinocchio you wouldn't be able to fit into a room...
Norway has some of the highest gasoline prices in the WORLD.... -
-
100%
Will13131 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
no it isn't.. he simply doesn't have any clue as to what he speaks.....
Reply
NORWAY HAS THE HIGHEST GAS PRICES IN EUROPE....
they tax the crap out of oil to fund other alternative energy .....
WIND for instance...
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/norway-wind-power-europe-battery-hydro.php-
9%
Endoscopy1 year, 4 months ago
-
-
-
100%
flyonthewallzz1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is not to hard to look up the windfall profits tax thing.
Reply
I try not to play partisan even though I am a lib.
The truth is that Carter had it for a year and Reagan had it the rest of the time. The Reagan administration received more than $73 billion in revenue from the tax. And fuel prices dropped more than any other time in history.
I kind of dig what I think it means to be a conservative, and if the numbers supported it, I would not hesitate.
The more I dig, the more the numbers hold me back from changing my mind.
-
-
-
dunkirkComment removed: Spam
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
epiphannyy1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endoscopy.....you're being disingenuous when you talk about Norway and oil drilling and implying it has been a cure all. It hasn't. I see where you've gotten your information, however, because this Salon article dated June 25, 2008 calls John McCain out on his deception and spin on the topic.
Reply
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2008/06/25/mccain_offshore_oil/
If solutions to our energy crisis were truly the concern of the American public, looking to other countries isn't a bad idea. Some have made some amazing advances. Take Iceland and their geothermal and hydroelectric power plants. Clean burning, very cheap, entirely renewable energy that, despite your claims to the contrary, work very well. In fact, more than 80% of Iceland's energy comes from these two sources and they are actively working to reach 100% within the next few years. How, if what you said earlier is true, could that be possible? If, as you claimed, alternative energies don't work or are far too cost prohibitive to explore, how has the entire country of Iceland managed to do this and prosper? And prosper they have. Their economy is one of the healthiest in the world, while ours is one of the sickest at present. Could it be that converting and committing to a clean burning, renewable alternative is the answer to putting more money back into the pockets of the average citizen? Considering the energy is cheaper and not price fixed by corrupt corporations, that might just be the case.
Its truly sad that we are so advanced in so many areas, yet in technology we refuse to keep pace with the world. It makes no logical sense. Just goes to show how powerful corporate America is in their ability to brainwash the masses into believing that getting less and paying more is the preferable option. I just hope those of you who refuse to open your eyes wake up to the fact that your loyalty to the American way of procrastination earns nothing but multi-billion dollar profits for the CEO's of Exxon, Chevron, et al. -
-
-
-
-
90%
Spadecaller1 year, 4 months ago
-
-
-
15%
Endoscopy1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Look at the depths that liberals will go to to try to remake the country to use less energy.
Reply
No drilling
No nuclear power plants
No building new refineries
The liberal answer to the foreseen oil problem was and remains:
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.-
9%
BB641 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There are a few yeses. yes to any form of rail. An inflexible public transit system that will cost billions to build and even more to operate. Forces land use is another yes for them. Don't forget costly and wasteful things like wind mills, ethanol and solar. None of which ever returns enough energy to justify their construction.
Reply-
100%
Will13131 year, 3 months ago
-
0%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROTFLMAO
Reply
Ethanol has to be subsidized, creates shortages of the grain, and degrades the millage of the vehicle.
Solar panels have to be used for 21 years to get the 20 years of energy they produce back.
Windmills will wear out major parts before they become an energy plus. The blades cause a shock every time they pass the supporting pole.
With the liberal way of doing things that caused this mess I can believe it will go much higher. Some liberals want that to force Americans to use less energy. Are you one of those?-
100%
flyonthewallzz1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Some liberals want that to force Americans to use less energy. Are you one of those?"
Reply
Force is a strong word.
I am one of those liberals that would like to "encourage" Americans to use less energy.
It worked before.
The energy industry really took a beating as a result.
Take a look at their rainbow tears from 1989.
Look at all the stuff we gave them just to do their job.
They did not produce in spite of the gifts.
On the coldest day of the year refrigerators kick on in big numbers.
Automobile brakes turn kinetic energy into heat.
And we keep paying more.
Is this conservative?-
Neutral
BB641 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fly cut back if you want. But that won't find new energy sources. That won't lower costs. There are two new players in the market today. China and India. They are buying up anything and everything.
Reply
I'm not sure what energy system took a beating in 1989. I was active duty Navy at the time.
-
-
100%
tchef1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So let's just keep using oil, and be slaves to the most unstable countries around the world where most of the oil is located. That's an answer!
Reply
With research the problems with alternative sources can and will be overcome. This is something that we need to do. We need to free ourselves from oil. You and I can make a difference right now by driving less, and inflating our tires. These are proven methods. They will not solve the problem but they are things that can make an immediate impact on our consumption.-
Neutral
BB641 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Tchef, not at all. My firm designed and is building 9 plants for China that will take coal convert it to a slurry and process it just like sweet crude. We pitched the same idea to the US Senate and the didn't care. With plants of this nature we could take care of our fuel needs for the next 250 years. Build the plants here. Use American coal mined by Americans and refine the products here, keeping the whole process here. Meaning the taxes on the profits and the high paying jobs stay here in the USA.
Reply
-
-
50%
brutishtax1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Where on earth do you get your information? The Comptrollers Board in the eastern US installed solar cells on their homes to see how well they would work, around a couple of years ago. This was after the electric power companies insisted they would "help", but would NEVER be the answer. In short the results they obtained were incredible, they actually had electric bills that were $0.00 the first year, with the power companies actually owing them! You also need to look into how many kilowatts a windmill produces, based on its size and how its serving on the power grid before you make any presumptions that you obviously can't back up!
Reply
Ethanol, unfortunately was utilized from corn and grains, instead of from switch grass and other alternatives-switch grass can be grown more cheaply, and has 3 times the ethanol yield of corn. But I do diagree with degrading the mileage of vehicles with the use of ethanol. A proper conversion of a well maintained vehicle or one designed to run ethanol, should last as long as a gasoline powered one.-
Neutral
BB641 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
First, ethanol will never replace gasoline as a viable product. It's a total scam. You rip on the oil industries, take a closer look at the ethanol world. Makes Chicago politics look honest.
Reply
As to the other drivel. Easter USA? I'm unfamilar with this supposed study. I know of no solar panel that will produce enough energy to break even. In your study did the convert the home to 24VDC or 48 VDC? You cannot store AC electricity. If they're using batteries, what was the carbon footprint, costs and types. Also take into account the recycling of those batteries. I suspect you will find the study slanted at best and fraud at worst. I've seen too many folks present the "sunny" side of things, pardon the pun and show only the positives. Neglecting to show the total costs of the project.
-
-
-
-
-
GWHaydukeComment removed: Spam
-
100%
GWHayduke1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy/pdfs/0610review_15wyatt.pdf
Reply
ROI in 5 years! $200 million in profit in 20 years?
-"Don't forget costly and wasteful things like wind mills, ethanol and solar. None of which ever returns enough energy to justify their construction.-"
Being such a global energy magnate that you are, one would think that you would be clued in to reality rather than spouting your opinionated falsehoods.-
13%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROTFLMAO
Reply
I was working with NASA engineers when they developed the Wind Turbines. I went to most of the wind turbines they had set up. The only one I didn't get to was in Hawaii.
They only work effectively in areas where there is almost constant wind.
Electric prices have to be over a high level to make them profitable.
Vibration caused by the blade going past the support causes maintenance problems.
They can only be about three or four deep because they slow the wind that passes by them. This limits the way the farms are laid out.
This is pie in the sky.-
100%
GWHayduke1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
-"They only work effectively in areas where there is almost constant wind"-
Reply
Gasp.......! Now THERES some genuine WISDOM!!!
A wind turbine needs wind?
Goooleeeee Endo, them NASA fellers tell you that?!?
Those turbines require MAINTENANCE?!?!
They will generate their own industries to EMPLOY people to maintain them?!?
Your obfuscation and obstructionism is as transparent as your paper thin argument.
ROTFLMAO indeed.-
0%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You would not know the ignorance that I have run into on this site and just talking to people about the subject. Some think they can just put one in their back yard and get all that electricity. Tall oaks all around, areas where there is little wind, etc. Ignorance abounds.
Reply
The only way that that project can make any money is to have a private grid and use the electricity for themselves instead of buying it from the electric company. The Federal Government made a law requiring Electric companies to buy any electricity that anybody can give them. There are two separate meters. One is incoming electricity and the other is outgoing. The outgoing rate is much lower than the incoming rate. Selling electricity to the power company is a no win situation. They buy low and sell high.
If the wind is right a wind turbine will output 24/7. You don't use a lot of electricity 24/7. So you are chugging along selling electricity to the power company for less than expenses. Then you increase the use of electricity and what ever the wind turbine supplies you don't need from the utility company. For that period of time the wind turbine is creating money for you. It takes careful planning to select a wind turbine that is not too big or small for your needs. You also have to get used to the thump, thump, thump as the blades pass the post. If it is far enough away no problem.
-
-
100%
flyonthewallzz1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hi Endoscopy:
Reply
I am about to make a big mistake here.
I have been reading a bit a about the (TVA) Tennessee Valley Authority.
I really should keep my fat mouth shut until I have read enough to have an opinion.
At any rate the TVA is a totally New Deal Lib type thing, Federal corporation that may be one of the biggest producers of electrical energy in the country.
Forgive me for being fuzzy: I think they are the major nuclear plant holders and that they provided material for the "Manhattan Project". and that our tritium comes from them. (I am a moonbat and think it is cool that mega nukes shelf life requires tritium).
Oh: In addition to providing electricity at what used to be the lowest rate in the country, Their Hydro electric dams also provide flood control, and I do not recall a major flood catastrophe down river from them.
I believe that they have been operating at a profit in spite of filling a dual role capacity.
I was reading somewhere (don't want to spam) that $2 trillion of their assets had been recently leased out and that the folks are now paying a lot more for their juice.
I have not locked in on an opinion yet, but I think it is interesting to look at. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
93%
jordan111 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Drilling off our coasts will not affect oil prices until the product is flowing. That will take a decade.
Reply
But one reason for high barrel prices hasn't been addressed, at least that I've seen. The value of the U.S. dollar has plummeted. The Saudi's accept our dollar in payment, which means they would lose money by holding prices lower. Fix our economic mess, regain the value of our currency, & prices should drop. Just my 'humble' opinion.-
92%
dunkirk1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That is very true, the inept economic policies of the this administrations which favors lining the pockets of a few at the expense of the many is one of the biggest causes of this mess. There are no shortages of oil. Unlike the 70's and early 80's when there was NO gas this isnt the case now.
Reply -
-
30%
Endoscopy1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROTFLMAO
Reply
The reason it takes a decade is all the liberal red tape they have to jump through. That takes at least 6 years. I am a deacon and 6 years ago we built a new church. It took over a year to jump through all the hoops to get started. Even with knowledgeable lawyers etc. getting everything done we were halted because one organization had not had their paperwork filled out. This is minor compared to everything the liberals throw in the way of drilling and building Nuclear power plants or refineries. Way to go libs. Make everything take forever and cost more.-
-
100%
jordan111 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The reason it takes a decade is all the liberal red tape they have to jump through. >>>>>
Reply
I don't know what to say, other than to ask if you're daft! WTH do you think drilling for oil entails in an ocean? What? You think they can do it in a month, or two, or one year, or two years, or what? My gawd, it's impossible to communicate with someone of your mentality.This isn't a 'whang bang thank ya ma'm' endeavor! We need the resources of our oceans as much as we need oil! And no one in their right mind hands these resources over to care & keeping of a few dynasties who want nothing more than profit!
-
-
-
85%
not2needy1 year, 4 months ago
-
93%
dunkirk1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The very noteworthy thing is to look at the number of leases the oil companies hold that they refuse to explore or develop. If you think the oil companies have a vested interest in reducing prices then I have some land in Florida for you.
Reply-
-
10%
Endoscopy1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of course Liberals say drill, drill, drill where they are likely to have dry wells. What a concept. Where there is known oil they say no, no, no. How to make oil companies go out of business. Is that your plan? They are not just oil leases but mineral rights as well. I like the loaded way you talk about drilling. Pillage is such a nice term.fits your mentality though.
Reply-
-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
too tired to verify tonight.
Reply
I think the number of proven reserves for this country is 22Bbls
I read that there are two leased fields that contain 5Bbls of proven reserves that are are not producing.
I also read an IRS thing about how to audit the oil industry. Way over my head. But I did learn that when a private individual decides to go the trouble of leasing his land for oil drilling and the lessor does not make an effort to produce there is a fee that can be deducted. Federal leases do not charge this fee. I think the fee was hefty.
-
-
0%
BB641 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The lease offers the oil company no protection or guarantees. Here's the deal. I'll drill if you sign a guarantee there's oil in my leased land. In order for us to do any exploring we have to have signed leases. No oil. Here's a better one, I'll drill if you put your home and pension on the line. We hit oil great we don't you cover the costs.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
80%
hyperbola1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Would you accept the condition that oil drilled in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, ... should only be sold in those countries? Why do you think the US should have a privileged position?
Reply
Why do you think that the 4-5% of our consumption that we could get by drilling the proposed areas would make much difference?
Do you see any way to increase oil production by 15-20 fold so that the rest of the world can flame off oil at the same rate as Americans? If not, what do you propose - oil wars all around the world to guarantee our "access"?
We need to halve our use of oil every decade for the next 3-4 decades. -
davidhallstromComment removed: Spammer23 Replies
-
90%
Spadecaller1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
davidhallstrom,
Reply
Why should anyone be offended for stating you opinion in a respectful fashion. You made no insults to those with differing opinions. You did not label any one a "lefty -pinko-socialist -liberalnazi" as some dissenters on Propeller do. No, your opinion was well stated, but wrong. LOL! The vast consensus of opinions from experts not paid or working on behalf of the oil companies do not agree with you.
FTA:
"No one in the industry is falling for the scam. Nowhere in the Oil & Gas Journal, The Financial Times or in any respected source does anyone say that U.S. offshore drilling will bring down oil prices within the foreseeable future.
As the Energy Information Agency said, 'Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant'
INSIGNIFICANT
But, 'the average field size in the Pacific and Atlantic regions tends to be smaller than the average in the Gulf of Mexico, implying that a significant portion of the additional resource would not be economically attractive to develop at the reference case prices.'
In other words, oil companies might not even drill there if they could. The EIA estimates that it takes about five years, after the regions became open for drilling, before any oil production would commence."
To imply or pretend that offshore drilling will resolve the current dilemma is bogus and just a ploy to keep the oil companies in control of their continued prosperity, while they exploit the American public.-
davidhallstromComment removed: Spammer2 Replies
-
10%
beavith11 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
fortunately, i'm not as polite as that pantywaist davidhallstrom. ; )
Reply
just kidding.
DHS. you're right. don't let any of the dem neigh sayers convince you that you're wrong.
SC, before you continue your "lefty -pinko-socialist -liberalnazi" : p rant, go to the EIA estimates and see what prices they ascribe to 'the reference case prices.'
its, like, $45.00/bbl. at $100/bbl wouldn't it make much more economic sense to drill like maniacs? wouldn't it make smaller fields economically justifiable?
will it fix the current dilemma? no, but it'll cut the pain and suffering that's going to occur 5 and 10 years down the road. and that's ONLY if the dems get their act in gear and take off the handcuffs we find ourselves in, now.-
94%
RickyDawkins1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Con Rhetoric:
Reply
"it'll cut the pain and suffering that's going to occur 5 and 10 years down the road"
Little Known Fact:
Even if we drill like crazy for the next 20 years, (such as by destroying the wildlife reserve in Alaska) and inundating our beautiful coastlines with "offshore" oil rigs, that would only provide us with about 1 percent of our daily oil demand.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html-
0%
beavith11 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
read your own link. 99 billion bbls available if the dems get their dead hands off the rudder.
Reply
plus, as i mentioned previously, the reference case price for oil is about $45/bbl. the volume of extractable oil at $100/bbl is even greater.
nobody has to destroy anything. drilling tech in the arctic uses 1/16 the area of an equivalent construction of the Prudhoe Bay operation.
care to guess how much off shore oil rigs 'spill?' check out he WSJ of last week. (sorry. can't recall the exact date). CA won't drill off their coast thanks to the god awful spill off Santa Barbara in, what, 1969? it turns out that so much oil is seeping from the seafloor that the Santa Barbara channel sees as much oil as that spill every year. say.. beautiful coastlines? i bet you're one of those NIMBY types that don't like windmills off the coasts or on mountains either.-
67%
mesodude1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah...I trust scientists paid for by the same people who just weaseled their way out of a multi-billion dollar judgement for trashing our environment beyond recognition a couple decades ago. We're told it's all safe now and when the spills come, they cry that they're being excessively punished.
Reply
-
-
-
80%
mesodude1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"DHS. you're right. don't let any of the dem neigh sayers convince you that you're wrong."
Reply
--What's the matter, beavith? Afraid you might actually learn something if you listen to someone with an opposing point of view rather than following your training and simply rejecting anything that comes from someone left of center?
"its, like, $45.00/bbl. at $100/bbl wouldn't it make much more economic sense to drill like maniacs? wouldn't it make smaller fields economically justifiable?"
--That's just it...Lots of things make sense besides drilling. What would happen if we conserved like we did during WWII for a while? Oh wait...You probably totally forgot that we're actually fighting wars in two countries right now (since we aren't doing any of those things we did in previous wars). But why should we trouble ourselves to support the troops by using less gas (so they don't have to risk their lives guarding oil pipelines thousands of miles from their homeland)? Who cares if they're dying? They signed up for it, right? ;-(-
Neutral
beavith11 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i get no training. i observe and draw my own conclusions.
Reply
in WW2, we didn't conserve, we redirected. all that fuel that wasn't used going to picnics and sunday drives were being used by the military. that's when we all had a common goal of victory.
now its up to the adults to fight and the libs to complain.
the US has national interests in promoting a free flowing world economy. efforts by the taliban, saddam, and now russia put that world trade at risk. yeah its about oil and the trade thereof. but not only to us, but to our allies like japan and europe. loser dictatorships like iran and venezuela, now russia, along with free riders like north korea and sudan, do nothing to promote the greater economic good.
you can say that so-called 'alternative energy'' sources and the political suport thereof will make fossil fuels moot.
let me be the first to dispel this myth for you. if there were cheaper more economic alternatives, business would be rushing to them. as a medium of fuel energy, fossil fuels can't be beaten. really. there's more hydrogen in gasoline by weight than there is in liquid hydrogen. (find a periodic chart and do the addition). wind is great for peaking power, but the only other real baseline power source isnuclear.
in both cases, the libs, who hate fossil fuels, in both those above cases, prevent running high tension wires for wind and also prevent the construction of nuke plants.
short of magic, the libs have no power sources for the fairly near term horizon.
what's the plan? what's the answer? from the libs, there is no plan. there is no answer.
-
-
-
0%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The EIA estimates that it takes about five years"
Reply
The time for paperwork is about 6 years. After that depending on where they drill it takes anywhere from a few months to 3 years. That is from the oil drilling companies. Go to the horses mouth next time.-
-
-
dunkirkComment removed: Spam
-
-
-
-
-
-
93%
cowboygrandpa1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Spadecaller:
Reply
The propaganda is laughable.
The only reason that oil fields that were once not producing went back to pumping was the rise in prices. See my submission of The oil fields in Taft CA back in June.
The prices go down the oil production stops. It is that simple. They want to keep prices up for their own profitability.
Off shore drilling, drilling anywhere is expensive and gives them figures to artificially raise prices in the near term for oil that won't be received for years. In other words we will paying for the oil we will get??? Maybe?? Years in advance.
Cute little accounting and marketing techniques that allow for maximizing profits while promising no return to the payeees, which is the public and private sectors.
Yeah they are scam artists and snake oil pushers deluxe.
But hey that is something both parties have in common, they want to get as much as they can for as little real product as possible. -
91%
Charlson1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"When Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman, Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne, Mike Huckabee, Mitch McConnell, Bobby Jindal, Trent Lott, George Will, and Bill O'Reilly, all echo the McCain campaign's lie - that "we withstood hurricanes Rita and Katrina and did not spill a drop" of oil - it's not a coincidence. When Norm Coleman, Jean Schmidt, Mary Matalin , Rudy Giuliani all repeat **** Cheney's lie - that the Chinese are drilling for oil off the coast of Cuba - it's not a coincidence. It's a strategy. Those are the small lies which create an aura of plausibility for the big one, told by John McCain, that, "there's abundant resources in the view of the people who are in the business that could be exploited within a period of months. So offshore drilling is something we have to do."
Reply
And the lies continue...-
100%
flyonthewallzz1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Both the story that China is drilling of the coast of Florida.
Reply
And that the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita did not significantly damage the industry.
Are not true!!
The China thing was retracted from its sources.
More than 100 platforms where destroyed by the hurricanes.
There had never been as much oil spilled in the continental US.
1% of the SPR was released the first month.
less than 1% of the oil reserves was released the next.
Fuel prices dropped more from the release than they rose from the catastrophe.
If the hurricane damage was insignificant?
Why release oil from the SPR?
If +$4 per gallon gas is significant?
Why not release oil from the SPR?
-
-
88%
Spadecaller1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I just don't understand why they are considered small lies. The other day, I lied to my wife and told her that I ate the left-over chicken when in fact I had a slice of frozen pizza that the kids made. (I gave the left-over chicken to the cat.) Now, that was a small lie. (Though my wife didn't think so at the moment.)
Reply-
-
30%
simonsez1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Comments on energy from Motley Fool article.
Reply
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.aspx?Feed=FOOL&Date=20080716&ID=8908306&Symbol=CNQ
-
-
10%
beavith11 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
simonsez! that a GREAT article!!!
Reply
in one place, it defuses most crackpot delusions that seem to spout legs and get a good run by the democrats.
my god. and i thought microsoft was going to kill the world. there still is a littel good in it.... -
airwick1944Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
82%
Spadecaller1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Simonez! I can always count on you. What a joke! Motley Fool is a privately owned British company that pretends to provide "objective" articles and advice, but they are heavily invested in BRITISH GAS, a huge British company that boasts of providing cheap gas and electricity.
Reply
As usual, Simonez, your cherry picked references are less than credible. LOL... -
14%
simonsez1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The above article is an objective look at the situation. Oil found and delivered anywhere will be sold at world prices and OPEC controls enough of the world supply to set that price.
Reply
When new supplies come on, however, OPEC then has to try to reduce members output. They cheat on this and produce more than they're supposed to, thereby causing over supply.
Then price comes down.
What is important is that new supplies of our own keeps the money in our economy creating good new jobs and opportunities for Americans.-
100%
Will13131 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i'll agree with MOST of what you say....
Reply
but you stop short...
cutting demand... by producing alternatives to oil....including but not limited to....
NUCLEAR
SOLAR
WIND
GEOTHERMAL
TIDAL
HYDROGEN
by cutting demand .. you also increase supply and CREATE JOBS....you also aren't sending 700 or so billion dollars to people that hate us......
part of the argument about the alternatives is cost... well we simply can at this price afford some of the alternatives and the research necessary to bring their costs lower....
another thought A LOT of the oil that is not being drilled is simply because it is in areas that did not make financial sense until the price of a barrel reached certain levels.... you don't make money selling oil at $50 per barrel if it costs 100 to get it out of the ground...... -
-
-
-
-
20%
lloydm651 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
please let be scammed forever,Today 09 / 20 /08 I filled my tank for 336.9 a gallon for regular unleaded.it may spike again ,who knows so lets start drilling .and keep drilling.Lets keep conserving,lets looking other sources of energy ,Oh yeah lets keep our eyes on certain democrats who for profit sake would block our efforts.I don't know her name, but her initials are Nancy Polosi.
Reply-
100%
ironworker1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What a joke! Do you think that even if we did open up more drilling off of our shores, that we would see any of it? The rest of the world (look at what Europe pays per gallon) pays more for gas than we do. Do you really think that oil companies are going to sell the crude and refine gas to sell to us for less that they can the rest of the world? Wake up and make some sense. The oil companies like the situation the way it is now. They are reaping profits at incredible levels. They already hold leases on sites where they have no intention of drilling. They have yet to even explore. They want the leases so they can get them and then sit on them. Any oil they get their greedy hands on will go to China or other counties that are paying top money.
Reply
You may have not been around for the gas shortages in the 70s. After more gas was available, things went right back to "business as usual". If we allow drilling, there will be no incentive to look for alternative sources. Again, do you really think the oil companies will spend their profit money looking for aternatives? They will spend it on more drilling sites.
Give us all a break and use some common sense.-
100%
Charlson1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Drill, drill, drill...so big oil can make even more profit by exporting it to other countries that pay a lot more for their gas than us. This is the con's dream and a nightmare for the rest of us. What domestic oil we drill now, the majority is exported for more profit, that's why we import foreign oil for our consumption. And that's why big oil wants oil prices to rise on the international market. PROFIT ahead of national security. There are not many instances that corporations would forego obscene profits for the benefit of our country, their concern is only company profits that in the end benefits the top 10% of Americans while the rest will have to wait for the trickle down excretions. And if you think this is not true then why is it that the reditribution of America's wealth has gone from the bottom to the top and America is in the mess it is in now? The wealthy rarely use their own money and insist that our government borrow to pay for their consumption.
Reply -
Neutral
beavith11 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
europes pricing is higher thanks to their tax policy that restricts consumption. they pay the same price for a barrel of oil that we do. the differnce is what gets paid to those Gov'ts.
Reply
is that what you want for the US?
wake up and read a book.
profits? 8% ROI is not huge. its not even big. retail clothing runs on a 21% ROI. let's have a windfall profits tax on clothing.
when tehy buy a lease, they want to wring every drop of oil out of it. every lease doesn't hold oil. if it did, you could sink wells anywhere. got any oil in your back yard? yeah. me neither.
know why there were gas shortages in the 1970s? tax policy that ripped the heart out of drilling and drilling incentives. tax policies that favored just buying oil overseas. windfall profits taxes that the current crop of democrats want to resurrect from the economic scrap heap.
those that don't remeber the past are doomed to relive it.
just vote in the dems. it'll be the 70's all over again.
alternatives? AHAHAHAHA!!!! if there were economic alternatives, we'd be using them now. every alternative is MORE EXPENSIVE!!!! the dems rush to 'alternatives' when they aren't economically viable will crush the poor and middle class.
please. only apply common sense if you know what you are talking about.
-
-
-
88%
Cityslicker1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jordan11 said ; "Fix our economic mess, regain the value of our currency, & prices should drop. Just my 'humble' opinion." Yep there you go the whole thing in a nut shell .
Reply
Fannie and Freddie needed money as well as several other Lenders for writing bad papers , who pays , Middle America . -
90%
jordan111 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fannie and Freddie needed money as well as several other Lenders for writing bad papers , who pays , Middle America .>>>>>
Reply
Actually, those papers were written by predatory loan brokers, who bundled up bad loans, & sold them to the big guys. The conservatives deregulated lending practices, & the predators came out from under their rocks. The brokers got rich, along with their investors, and the banks got caught holding the bag. (Although they do certainly share responsibility for assuming the loans were viable).-
100%
Will13131 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The conservatives deregulated lending practices, & the predators came out from under their rocks.
Reply
---
the same under Reagan and Bush I.....
the S & L scandal... .. that one took almost 11 years to clear out the foreclosures and depressed properties so the market could return to normal.....
this one will take longer...
-
-
-
88%
ConsAreNonGrata1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why do people listen to Cons on these matter anyway? We listened to them thirty years ago and how did that work out?
Reply
Oh right we're in this mess.
Driving a gas guzzling SUV at 85 mph is a RIGHT to Cons.
Why do Cons have to drive so fast you ask? To get to Congress to vote on statutes that persecute gays. Controlling bedroom activities are more important to national security than energy.-
14%
BB641 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You were listening to cons in 1978? How? Carter was in the White House. Libs held the courts. The senate and house were controlled by the DNC. What you were one of three people listening to Reagan's radio spots?
Reply
As to gas, if your side would have permitted, we'd be building plants to convert coal to gas. Trust me with the threat of your largest client dumping you, the oil suppliers would have lowered costs. My firm is building them for China, too bad we're too scared of the evil carbon foot prints or the pretend global warming. Had we maintained a lower fuel cost there would be more jobs for the future former GM workers. I wonder how many of them will be voting for Barry and his new cleaner air people. Every time a plant gets close to meeting a clean air standard, they raise the bar. With the American car going away so goes the middle class. And you're trying to lay this solely on conservatives.... Clean air, Dem issue. No drilling, Dems. No reasonable alternative fuel for cars, Dems. Yea, I can see why it's all the conservatives fault.-
100%
ConsAreNonGrata1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When oil dropped, Cons ran away from alternative fuel subsidies like scared children. We could have invested a little then and saved ourselves a lot of pain now. That does not even include making ourselves more OIL EFFICIENT in the mean time which would have helped even more.
Reply
And convert coal to oil? Too scared of a carbon footprint?
Hey, Cons, NEWSFLASH -
Coal provides around FIFTY PERCENT of America's power.
So it would be a great idea to start cannibalizing coal reserves to make oil which would drive the price for both up (and require even MORE ENERGY), would it not?
I mean after all, these fossil fuels are going to last forever, right, Cons?
Hi Ho, Cons PWNED AGAIN!!!.
-
-
-
flyonthewallzzComment removed: Spam
-
100%
Will13131 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well we have a stand-off.....
Reply
Liberals -- DON'T WANT TO DRILL....
Conservatives -- DON'T WANT TO PURSUE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES.....
till we actually get together on this... THE ARABS WILL LAUGH ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK..... AND MY ACTUALLY ACQUIRE ENOUGH MONEY DO DEVELOP ARMS TO DESTROY US....
SAUDIS OUR FRIENDS.. 15 OF 19 HIJACKERS WERE SAUDI... GET REAL...-
14%
BB641 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually you will find conservatives willing to discuss alternative energy more frequently than the libs want to discuss current options. First, the technology doesn't exist to create energy without causing some sort of emission. If you're going to talk solar or some other fringe solution, you need much more energy to make the the solar panels and support equipment then they will ever produce. Wind wouldn't be here if it had to survive without gov. subs. First, a windmill only manages to produce power for about 30% of their operational lives. Wind is not a constant. They're very noisy and the power the do produce is very "dirty" requiring harmonic mitigation solutions that is also very carbon intense and costly. Maintenance is very high on them also. There are studies from the EU claiming this isn't the case. As someone who supplies those cash cows with contactors, breakers, motor/generator components, capacitor banks and most of their controls, they're in no way shape or form a good solution for the consumer.
Reply
Ethanol was another knee jerk reaction. If we were driving the cars from the 60's or early 70's then perhaps but with today's cars all we're doing is screwing up the O2 sensors and other components. Also, it takes 5 gallons of fossil fuel to produce 1 gallon of ethanol. It can't be shipped via pipeline, only truck or rail car. If that's not funny for you how about your reduction in mileage? For every percentage of ethanol you add to your fuel, your efficiency drops by the same percentage. Did I mention the toxic oily substance they try to dispose of? At first the EPA permitted them to dump it down the drain. That was until they killed off a few rivers. It has no actual use and they're trying to figure out what to do with it. Once again to save fuel we're spending millions more. That's why we don't trust the libs and most of their science.
So you're asking us to brand all Saudis because of the 15? Sounds very racist to me. Is that what you always claim the GOP does? Kettle-Black.-
100%
Ratskii1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think he is just reiterating the lack of logic in justifying the invasion of Iraq by using 9-11. I don't know anyone among liberals or left who seriously wants to invade or declare war on Saudi Arabia.
Reply
Ethanol can pay for itself if done right. Abandon the subsidies for corn and soybean ethanol and get it from scrub grass and other sources that can be grown on marginal land with little cultivation. That will make ethanol part of the solution. I agree that corn and soybeans shouldn't be used to produce it.
I think you may be cherry-picking your information on solar. There are sources of solar that are less expensive and pay their own way. How do you stand on the bill for renewing the subsidies for alternative energy that is currently before congress?
There are two overlooked things we need to be doing to assure energy independence later this century. 1) There are two competing systems of fusion power under development. Most money is going to the large scale Tokamak generators that probably can't be brought on line before 2050. However, the smaller Bussard fusion plants, with proper funding could start contributing to our energy equation in 10 to 15 years. 2) This is looking further into the future, but needs to be talked about now. Space solar stations need to be put in geosynchronous orbit. They will be able to beam energy to Earth in the form of diffuse microwave energy that can be a major source of public power by the time oil really begins to disappear.
-
-
-
-
-
100%
ConsAreNonGrata1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
From reading above...
Reply
Norway, Cons? You want to talk about Norway drilling for oil, Cons?
Norway - around 4.6 million people
US - around 300 million people
We have more people than Norway by nearly a magnitude of two, Cons. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess they need less oil as well.
Good Lord, Cons, how we compare apples to apples? -
100%
Cityslicker1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The price of retail gasoline could fall by half, to around $2 a gallon, within 30 days of
Reply
passage of a new law to limit speculation in energy-futures markets, four energy analysts told Congress on Monday .
Fadel Gheit of Oppenheimer & ; Co., Edward Krapels of Energy Security Analysis and Roger Diwan of PFC Consultants
agreed with Masters' assessment at a hearing on proposed legislation to limit speculation in futures markets .
Krapels said that it wouldn't even take 30 days to drive prices lower , as fund managers quickly liquidated their
positions in futures markets .
"Record oil prices are inflated by speculation and not justified by market fundamentals," according to Gheit .
"Based on supply and demand fundamentals, crude-oil prices should not be above $60 per barrel." -
100%
Ratskii1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There's an elephant in the living room and I don't see anyone discussing it. The democratic leadership has proposed a compromise bill that will increase drilling somewhat. It will also renew subsidies for alternative forms of energy. Those subsidies are going to expire on Dec 31st of this year. If they do they will be putting a lot of companies out of business.
Reply
McCain and most republicans are against this bill. Subsidies are good for big oil, but not for small alternative energy businesses. -
ML2007Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
100%
flyonthewallzz1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The male child of a dog!
Reply
I went to a bit of trouble to show the relationship of government attempting to influence our out of pocket fuel costs.
The comment was removed as spam!
My patience hit its end.
The Jist was that : In spite of what we have been told, the offshore rigs took a big hit as result of hurricanes. More than 100 platforms where destroyed. and the amount of oil spilled was only topped by the Valdez.
The hurricanes brought about a draw down of about 1% of the SPR and caused a significant drop in the price of fuel.
I had provided information and links to the EIA website that show a clear and direct link between the cost of fuel and the fill and draw down of the SPR.
After Katrina about 1% was released and the price of fuel dropped more than it had risen as a result of the catastrophe.
Excrement!
My numbers are no longer clean and I am too lazy to chase them down again tonight.
The SPR fill has been suspended and the last contracts have been filled recently, I think that may have a thing to do with the recent drop in gas prices.
Every time oil has been released from the SPR fuel prices have gone down. And every time there has been a major fill they have gone up.
The data is there to look at. Yet it seems that if I try to share it, it turns to canned meat! -
100%
Tango571 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is enough blame to go around to each and every person on the planet. As far as journalists acutally reporting truth in reporting, it goes back to the person signing the paycheck. It would take more than guts to do it. It would require money, backing and a marketing team to promote it. Of course after all that is in place, they person paying the bills would be offered a more than generous offer for sell off, and accept it. Isn't that what has happened over the last 30 years?
Reply
I do agree with one point made and that is the transfer of wealth occuring by purchasing oil overseas. I don't know how much actually ends up in the wrong hands, and doubt anyone really knows the answer to that. -
Neutral
Cityslicker1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Who is charge or Congress right now , Dems or Repubs ?
Reply
Who ever it is they should stop the mockery of justice going on right now .
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The price of retail gasoline could fall by half, to around $2 a gallon, within 30 days of
passage of a new law to limit speculation in energy-futures markets, four energy analysts told Congress on Monday .
Fadel Gheit of Oppenheimer & ; Co., Edward Krapels of Energy Security Analysis and Roger Diwan of PFC Consultants
agreed with Masters' assessment at a hearing on proposed legislation to limit speculation in futures markets .
Krapels said that it wouldn't even take 30 days to drive prices lower , as fund managers quickly liquidated their
positions in futures markets .
"Record oil prices are inflated by speculation and not justified by market fundamentals," according to Gheit .
"Based on supply and demand fundamentals, crude-oil prices should not be above $60 per barrel."
loading ...
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.