The argument against domestic oil exploration

[Classact]

What is the argument against domestic oil exploration verses importing oil form other nations?

Why is imported oil better than domestic oil? Be specific!

Is the high price of gas the prime concern for deciding whether or not to exploit domestic oil/NG or a secondary problem?

Canada and Mexico are net exporters of oil http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/northamerica/engsupp.htm and I would dare say that they could care less about Russia invading Georgia where oil pipelines are nor did they concern themselves with oil shortages when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990.

Some say domestic oil drilling will not lower prices because it will take one or two decades to see the first drop. If you look at it in a matter of priorities then one could say if we ground all aircraft the price of gas would drastically fall tomorrow, we would have more oil than we know what to do with, heating oil would be dirt cheap and gas prices would be dirt cheap. Why not ground all aircraft? Or, why not set a gas price trigger that grounds international flights or requires a surcharge to continue flying? If prices remain above the trigger then ground 10% of all cargo and domestic flights with the same option and on and on until gas falls below the trigger.

If you don't want to ground all aircraft then why don't you want to exploit all domestic oil to make them fly in ten to twenty years from now?

If we could develop enough domestic oil so that we only rely on oil imports from Canada and Mexico do you think we would worry as much about what Russia or Mid East countries do? Don't you think that if we had enough domestic oil that we only relied on Canada and Mexico then Asia and Europe would take care more responsibility over events involving Russia and the Mid East?

[Classact]

Let me try again:
The absolute quickest way to reduce carbon in the atmosphere is to use nuclear and natural gas to power autos and electricity If you consider availability natural gas is the quickest way to reduce carbon, autos of differing sizes could be easily converted to NG and in many countries already have been so converted. I understand American auto makers produce NG autos for these markets so no new tooling would be required, it could start once demanded by the government. Take a look at this link http://www.naturalgas.org/environment/naturalgas.asp Keep in mind this is T Boone Pickens plan, switch to NG for autos and remove much of the import stress from price fluctuations. See for yourself http://www.pickensplan.com/ While nuclear power plants require time and carbon producing impact to build they last a long time and produce zero carbon, they simply boil water to drive steam turbines. France has improved in the reprocessing of the fuel leaving very little waste to worry about storing. They can be built small allowing them to be installed nearby major cities/industries that consume large quantities of electricity requiring little worry over long right-of-ways for electric grids.

Now, back to the debate, Obama's energy plan will be assumed the Democratic Party plan: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy
The key points:

Provide short-term relief to American families facing pain at the pump

Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.

Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.

Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.

Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.

Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

Let's address each one:Provide short-term relief to American families facing pain at the pump He will give each American family $1,000 to offset high gas prices (each year I assume) at $45 billion a year paid for by a windfall profit tax on oil companies.

The American Petroleum Institute, which represents the major oil companies, has been reminding lawmakers that in the early 1980s, when the government imposed windfall profits taxes on oil companies domestic oil production dropped and imports increased. But Democrats reject the comparison. The Senate proposal would impose a 25 percent tax on profits over what would be determined “rreasonable and would allow oil companies to avoid paying the tax if they invest the money in alternative energy projects or refinery expansion.http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/10/harry...ll-profits-tax/ (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/10/harry-reids-jimmy-carter-memorial-act-senate-takes-up-windfall-profits-tax/) This action would place America at the will of OPEC or, more importantly the new players in the oil control agenda, namely Russia and Iran and the fears I've addressed earlier about a nuclear Iran. And again I reflect back to the 80's and point out gas prices went up along with the imports.

Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.Perhaps someone can tell me how this is funded? I think the plan is to use money from Cap in Trade carbon fund? Regardless it is $15 billion that comes from somewhere and cap in trade carbon offset money is produced by raising costs on high carbon... if you get electricity from a coal plant then the coal plant will be fined and the fine will be paid by the customers (you and me if you live in that area) maybe doubling or tripling our electric bill.

Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.More detail here http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy_more#oil along with more government spending but less than convincing details of how that can happen. That is a lot of replacing considering our daily use and the growth, I hope, that will continue into the future... http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html unless he is considering using NG to power many of the autos now on gas?

Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.At $7,000 incentive for each auto... $7,000 from where?

Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.If this were to include nuclear power it would be reasonable but the environmental lobby and the Democratic Party have a track record that would indicate it must be solar or wind.

Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.Both candidates support this measure. My personal opinion is that this will be the greatest tax increase on the American people in our history and will kill our economy. The cap-and-trade plan is exactly like the Farm Bill and maybe a little like the Highway Bill with its bridges to nowhere, it has something for every politician and only increased energy prices for the citizens.

Let me conclude with my assessment of Obama's energy/environmental plan, I see the plan to be based primarily on little domestic fossil energy production and primarily funded with taxes and policy changes on big oil and carbon users. The plan relies on an "expected" reasonable import price for oil into the future with a best case scenero of relative higher gas, electric, heating/cooling and related inflation on food and services. Any disruption of imported oil could place America in a catostrophic sceneenero where the economy could come crashing down. With increased energy prices comes increases in all of the government provided services meaning higher taxes at all levels of government. High energy prices hurt the poorest the most along with those on fixed incomes and will require many government expendtures for heating assistance along with increases in payments to government pensions and social security in order for people to survive. The primary funding of Obama's plan is American citizens paying for carbon usuage, regardless if he taxes oil companies or a coal fired electric plant the losses are passed on down the food chain to the citizen.

My concept has almost the same exact goals as the Obama's plan but doesn't pass the transition expenses to the citizens, it helps the citizens increase employment while enjoying inexpensive energy. T Boone Pickens says we export almost $700 billion a year for imported oil! If the federal government would encourage domestic oil/NG exploration on "all" federal lands that could replace the need for $400 billion of the export the leases and production fees would provide at least $40 billion a year to the federal government. Such a venture would spin the oil speculators in their seats as soon as it were put into law reducing the cost of domestic energy. Mandate that all federal land leases/productions will be accomplished with "made in America" materials/people and that the resources could not be exported without federal approval.

Rather than taxing carbon producers offer cash incentives to individuals, companies and corporations for "unit of carbon" offset as established in a government chart. This would not be a tax break but rather a tax free cash incentive payment from the governments $40 billion chest of domestic oil/NG profits.

Double the size of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory http://www.nrel.gov/ and place field offices in each state with an intergated state of the art computer system and require each state provide a state appointed energy coordinator to interface between individuals, companies and coorporations.

I think the key to the alternative energy transition from fossil fuels is how to pay for it while taking "more" control over our energy supply to minimize outside interfearance caused by natural/foreign policy related spikes. By reducing our export of oil import money while utilizing American industry/people to produce materials for green and oil/NG our economy would thrive while experiencing a very fast transition towards alternative energy. We cannot transition to alternative energy while riding to work on a bicycle because gas costs too much after leaving a cold home with expensive electric and expensive food in the cubbard not to mention helping out our parents because the government just can't keep up with cost increases associated with Obama's plan.

[Yurt]

as soon as a dem takes the high office, they will order domestic drilling and claim to save the day...al gore will proselytize the virtues and make a killing on the stock options...

[Classact]

as soon as a dem takes the high office, they will order domestic drilling and claim to save the day...al gore will proselytize the virtues and make a killing on the stock options...I don't think Obama is going to make it into office. Things are going to come to a head on the energy situation when congress comes back to town following the Republican convention. I think Obama will be challenged to show he can work across party lines and his tree huger friends/supporters will not allow him to move to far.

If the Republicans paint Obama, and Democrats in general as supporting high gas prices to support alternative energy save the planet while shutting down drilling or making silly offers of compromise the Blue Dog and moderate Democrats will protect themselves and disown them... Many of the BD conservative dems will lose their jobs on the same day Obama does if they support restricting drilling... these guys ran to the right of republicans.

[PostmodernProphet]

I think you're on the right track.....we are very close to the tipping point of public demand for non-petroleum vehicles.....once manufacturers know that the public will buy them they will produce them.....what keeps the public from demanding them is uncertainty about whether the vehicles will last five years or more.....

start by requiring all vehicles to run on flex-fuel by 2011....this can be done for $500 a vehicle already and with mass production, much cheaper.....require all to run flex fuel, hydrogen AND electricity by 2015....Toyota hybrids already do it for under $30k....

start setting up facilities in existing gas stations for electric and hydrogen supply by giving tax credits to station operators...or perhaps new companies will spring up to build hydrogen stations if they know the demand will be there.....

BUT....I still want increased domestic production so we import NOTHING from Venezuela and the Middle East......

[fj1200]

What is the argument against domestic oil exploration verses importing oil form other nations?

Why is imported oil better than domestic oil? Be specific!

Is the high price of gas the prime concern for deciding whether or not to exploit domestic oil/NG or a secondary problem?

Canada and Mexico are net exporters of oil http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/northamerica/engsupp.htm and I would dare say that they could care less about Russia invading Georgia where oil pipelines are nor did they concern themselves with oil shortages when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990.

Some say domestic oil drilling will not lower prices because it will take one or two decades to see the first drop. If you look at it in a matter of priorities then one could say if we ground all aircraft the price of gas would drastically fall tomorrow, we would have more oil than we know what to do with, heating oil would be dirt cheap and gas prices would be dirt cheap. Why not ground all aircraft? Or, why not set a gas price trigger that grounds international flights or requires a surcharge to continue flying? If prices remain above the trigger then ground 10% of all cargo and domestic flights with the same option and on and on until gas falls below the trigger.

If you don't want to ground all aircraft then why don't you want to exploit all domestic oil to make them fly in ten to twenty years from now?

If we could develop enough domestic oil so that we only rely on oil imports from Canada and Mexico do you think we would worry as much about what Russia or Mid East countries do? Don't you think that if we had enough domestic oil that we only relied on Canada and Mexico then Asia and Europe would take care more responsibility over events involving Russia and the Mid East?

Imported oil is cheaper. It's cheaper to get it out of the ground in the middle east than it is here, generally speaking. If we stopped buying oil from the ME, Russia, Venezuela, etc. the price of oil would plummet due to lessening demand from those areas (we would probably pay more to Canada and Mexico for the pleasure). The lower market prices would then encourage us to buy from those areas again, i.e. supply and demand.

Having said that, the reasons we need to explore and drill domestically is to increase our national security by not being reliant on unfriendly countries and to reduce the volatility that is a major reason the price of oil is so high currently (the other being the Fed).

[No1tovote4]

The reality is, the US people are looking for something to do, something that makes them believe they too are fighting this war. Asking them to pay a bit more to increase security by demanding our supplies come from domestic sources would go a long way for either candidate.

There is an estimated 800 billion barrels of oil shale under Colorado alone, that beats the Saudis by quite a bit, but we keep them from even experimenting with new technologies that would allow them to extract it without invading underground sources of water. Even on a small scale.

A drive towards independence could be a cornerstone of a sweep into the Presidency, if it is done with a bridge to the future rather than just a nod in the direction and continuing to fund both sides of the "War" on Terror. We can change over our power sources to nuclear, we can mine it from here as we did before, we can then use Natural gas that we used to use to power our houses to run our cars. Conversion costs about $3000 and it would allow you to use either gasoline or natural gas. The same companies would make money off it so infrastructure and capability of delivery would be a small barrier to overcome.

At the same time supplementing with domestic drilling, and (admittedly McCain's portion toward this part is a bit weak, but I believe it was made that way knowing that compromise would increase that portion in the Senate) a national drive, like the moon landing, towards the next generation of energy that we create and sell to other nations.

This is a plan that can get us off the foreign oil teat, and reinforce the US for another century as the economic powerhouse of the world.

[Classact]

I don't know the exact pollution offset of using LNG verses refined gas, I'd guess to produce LNG from NG requires a great deal of energy but so does the process of refining oil into gasoline. Another consideration is that if it were adopted it would require a nationwide refit of fueling stations or at least require a great deal of the stations be refitted to supply LNG according to range of the tank installed on the autos.

With those considerations in mind I think the prime reason for such a transition is the fact peak oil is on the horizon and the use of LNG would be equal to use of the objective of electric autos as it displaces imported oil. My push would be to develop alternatives to imported oil from hostile regions by using alternatives such as LNG and electric autos or hybrid autos allowing the US to shield itself from hostile trading partners, if we could reduce our import requirements to the point of importing from Canada and Mexico by using LNG and electric/hybrid autos then we could write binding contracts (oil future contracts) with friendly nations making us more energy secure.

Perhaps a priority to maximise the oil import reduction in regards to use of LNG would be to refit trains from diesel to LNG, fleets such as school buses, public buses, waste collection and other vehicles that work within a local region such as delivery trucks from warehouses distribution centers to local stores.

From a national security standpoint we need to be more energy independent, we can see how the EU is at the will of Russia for oil and NG in current news events involving the invasion of Georgia and America can be placed in the exact situation if we do not develop a domestic energy security plan. Alternative energy is the goal but there is none stating it will make us energy secure from a national security standpoint in the very near future. The threat is real, Iran could be a nuclear nation within two digit months and with the backing of Russia Europe and most of the world would rely on their fair trade of energy to fuel the needs we now require.

I think we should be drilling every place in the US that an oil company thinks has oil while developing LNG, electric and hybrid vehicles. We should be encouraging nuclear power plants, wind and solar farms along with hydro projects and clean coal technologies or any type of domestic energy that removes us from the control of Iran, Russia or OPEC as a source of energy supply. While exploiting domestic energy use the proceeds from federal land use to fund all sources of alternatives or energy that produce less pollution than is now being produced through cash incentives.

[No1tovote4]

I don't know the exact pollution offset of using LNG verses refined gas, I'd guess to produce LNG from NG requires a great deal of energy but so does the process of refining oil into gasoline. Another consideration is that if it were adopted it would require a nationwide refit of fueling stations or at least require a great deal of the stations be refitted to supply LNG according to range of the tank installed on the autos.

With those considerations in mind I think the prime reason for such a transition is the fact peak oil is on the horizon and the use of LNG would be equal to use of the objective of electric autos as it displaces imported oil. My push would be to develop alternatives to imported oil from hostile regions by using alternatives such as LNG and electric autos or hybrid autos allowing the US to shield itself from hostile trading partners, if we could reduce our import requirements to the point of importing from Canada and Mexico by using LNG and electric/hybrid autos then we could write binding contracts (oil future contracts) with friendly nations making us more energy secure.

Perhaps a priority to maximise the oil import reduction in regards to use of LNG would be to refit trains from diesel to LNG, fleets such as school buses, public buses, waste collection and other vehicles that work within a local region such as delivery trucks from warehouses distribution centers to local stores.

From a national security standpoint we need to be more energy independent, we can see how the EU is at the will of Russia for oil and NG in current news events involving the invasion of Georgia and America can be placed in the exact situation if we do not develop a domestic energy security plan. Alternative energy is the goal but there is none stating it will make us energy secure from a national security standpoint in the very near future. The threat is real, Iran could be a nuclear nation within two digit months and with the backing of Russia Europe and most of the world would rely on their fair trade of energy to fuel the needs we now require.

I think we should be drilling every place in the US that an oil company thinks has oil while developing LNG, electric and hybrid vehicles. We should be encouraging nuclear power plants, wind and solar farms along with hydro projects and clean coal technologies or any type of domestic energy that removes us from the control of Iran, Russia or OPEC as a source of energy supply. While exploiting domestic energy use the proceeds from federal land use to fund all sources of alternatives or energy that produce less pollution than is now being produced through cash incentives.
The pollution offset would be during the next generation introduction. It is a national security issue to stop funding both sides of this war. There already are many stations that actually carry LNG for cars that have been converted. And it is very much cheaper than the ethanol refits were and are also provided by the same companies that already provide us gasoline so there wouldn't be an objection from the oil companies. Again, attempting to say it will cost too much is rubbish when the Demoplan is to simply let costs rise, do nothing at all except research new sources, and continue funding the other side of this war.

There is no need if we change over to LNG to fuel most of the vehicles for the foreign sources of fuel, there is enough NG in the US to fuel our vehicles for 120 years, we only need about 10 before the breakthrough in next generation energy will be made. In the interim shale oil can easily replace the need to fuel from "friendly" neighbors, we just need to allow them to access it. It could definitely supply our future oil needs especially if we reduce from the current level by using fuel flexible vehicles that can use oil, ethanol, or NG and allow for competition at the pumps.

It appears as you and I agree, we should aggressively seek sources here and seek to provide the next generation and reduce the need by making more efficient vehicles.

[fj1200]

So you two are saying that because of the current perceptions of the energy situation we should burden our economy by creating a regulatory tax that will cause us to utilize less efficient means of powering our economy? It also seems that you are saying that the government should require, or at least incentivize, the development of infrastructure to insitutionalize a technology that may not be the optimal long run solution. Doing these things that raise the costs on American business, making us less competitive than China, India, Euros, etc. will create more harm than good in the long run.

[PostmodernProphet]

here's a thought for you......the US owns land with oil under it.....forget about leases....tell the Army Corp of Engineers to drop a well in a likely location.....start pumping.....sell the oil.....keep all the profit instead of just tax it......

[No1tovote4]

So you two are saying that because of the current perceptions of the energy situation we should burden our economy by creating a regulatory tax that will cause us to utilize less efficient means of powering our economy? It also seems that you are saying that the government should require, or at least incentivize, the development of infrastructure to insitutionalize a technology that may not be the optimal long run solution. Doing these things that raise the costs on American business, making us less competitive than China, India, Euros, etc. will create more harm than good in the long run.

You don't need a tax to implement domestic sources of oil. What made you think there needed to be some huge tax to go along with it? Whether you like it or not, it makes no sense to fund both sides of a war. If we continue to depend on foreign sources for our energy needs we will continue to do just that.

[fj1200]

You don't need a tax to implement domestic sources of oil. What made you think there needed to be some huge tax to go along with it? Whether you like it or not, it makes no sense to fund both sides of a war. If we continue to depend on foreign sources for our energy needs we will continue to do just that.

I was referring to the tax of increased regulation (or even more direct taxation) by mandate? of dual use or whatever to incentivize your changeover, or the tax of decrease efficiency by outlawing? foreign oil. I fully agree with developing domestic oil resources but as I said if we fully eliminate foreign oil the world price will drop dramatically (will we continue to utilize more expensive domestic oil?).

The "other" side of the war on terror will continue to get funding for their jihad against us whether it's our dollars or yuan or Rupee or Euro and we will have to fund our side because they don't like us. It's a complicated world, domestic oil drillling while a good thing will not solve all our problems.

[fj1200]

here's a thought for you......the US owns land with oil under it.....forget about leases....tell the Army Corp of Engineers to drop a well in a likely location.....start pumping.....sell the oil.....keep all the profit instead of just tax it......

Because it's not their job and Socialism has not fully engulfed our nation yet. Also, oil companies lease (i.e. pays $) the land and then they are taxed (i.e. pays more $).

[PostmodernProphet]

Because it's not their job and Socialism has not fully engulfed our nation yet. Also, oil companies lease (i.e. pays $) the land and then they are taxed (i.e. pays more $).

not talking about socialism.....socialism would be the government taking OVER oil companies....I am talking about capitalism....the government COMPETING with oil companies.....and obviously the profits from the sale of oil produced will be higher than the lease and taxes, or the oil companies wouldn't be bidding on leases.....

[No1tovote4]

I was referring to the tax of increased regulation (or even more direct taxation) by mandate? of dual use or whatever to incentivize your changeover, or the tax of decrease efficiency by outlawing? foreign oil. I fully agree with developing domestic oil resources but as I said if we fully eliminate foreign oil the world price will drop dramatically (will we continue to utilize more expensive domestic oil?).

The "other" side of the war on terror will continue to get funding for their jihad against us whether it's our dollars or yuan or Rupee or Euro and we will have to fund our side because they don't like us. It's a complicated world, domestic oil drillling while a good thing will not solve all our problems.

It would not take too much incentive to get car dealerships to offer vehicles that can use more than one source of energy. They get to make more money. The incentive would be profit not taxation. Just as the incentive to offer up that source by the very companies that bring us gasoline would be profit. Since they would not be gaining the profit from using it to create electricity because that would be converted to nuclear, it would behoove them to use what they pump in other places.

Whether they get their funding from those sources doesn't change that such dependence creates a need to maintain security in a portion of the world we would no longer have such interest in if it wasn't for oil supplies. Releasing ourselves from the dependence on foreign sources for energy is a National Security venture of great importance in many different ways. Only one of which is we should not be the source of their funds.

In addition, the next generation of energy produced would be sold from here to other nations, increasing the US as an Economic superpower.

You pretend in this argument that the only incentive that the government may create is from taxation and regulation. You are wrong.

Asking the citizens to take a part in the "war", by refusing to fund the other side of the war is the incentive and will help in the drive to personalize the war for each citizen. Many citizens are seeking a way to help, this is an opportunity to give them that path as well as to increase our security in reality, not with just words and it is far better than telling them to get duct tape and go shopping.

[fj1200]

not talking about socialism.....socialism would be the government taking OVER oil companies....I am talking about capitalism....the government COMPETING with oil companies.....and obviously the profits from the sale of oil produced will be higher than the lease and taxes, or the oil companies wouldn't be bidding on leases.....

It's not the governments job to compete....you are talking about socialism because you've created a nationalized company....they would have no incentive to streamline production....we would be incentivizing an inefficient operation....

[fj1200]

It would not take too much incentive to get car dealerships to offer vehicles that can use more than one source of energy. They get to make more money. The incentive would be profit not taxation. Just as the incentive to offer up that source by the very companies that bring us gasoline would be profit. Since they would not be gaining the profit from using it to create electricity because that would be converted to nuclear, it would behoove them to use what they pump in other places.

Whether they get their funding from those sources doesn't change that such dependence creates a need to maintain security in a portion of the world we would no longer have such interest in if it wasn't for oil supplies. Releasing ourselves from the dependence on foreign sources for energy is a National Security venture of great importance in many different ways. Only one of which is we should not be the source of their funds.

In addition, the next generation of energy produced would be sold from here to other nations, increasing the US as an Economic superpower.

You pretend in this argument that the only incentive that the government may create is from taxation and regulation. You are wrong.

Then please tell me the other government sponsored incentives or disincentives that would cause a massive retooling of major portions of the economy.

If the incentive is profit then there is government regulation or subsidy that causes us to shift to an alternate method. I see your proposal as akin to ethanol, theoretically a good idea that would use a renewable American resource that we could use to power our cars, in reality an inefficient method encouraged by government (where ADM and others make profit) that causes major upheaval in the US and foreign countries resulting in spiking food costs that has an inflationary effect across all products.

Your proposal will do nothing to increase our role as an economic superpower, that happens with a strong economy not by government mandate. China and Russia are gaining or regaining superpower status by creating growth and locking up oil as the critical economic resource.

[No1tovote4]

Then please tell me the other government sponsored incentives or disincentives that would cause a massive retooling of major portions of the economy.

If the incentive is profit then there is government regulation or subsidy that causes us to shift to an alternate method. I see your proposal as akin to ethanol, theoretically a good idea that would use a renewable American resource that we could use to power our cars, in reality an inefficient method encouraged by government (where ADM and others make profit) that causes major upheaval in the US and foreign countries resulting in spiking food costs that has an inflationary effect across all products.

Your proposal will do nothing to increase our role as an economic superpower, that happens with a strong economy not by government mandate. China and Russia are gaining or regaining superpower status by creating growth and locking up oil as the critical economic resource.
Again, you seem to ignore portions of the proposal in an attempt to gain what you perceive as an advantage in an argument. If we are the producer of the next generation of energy we will maintain a good economy. And again you ignore the basis of the personalizing the war. Incentive would be created because the population would demand the different sources to take their part in the war.

One of the reasons it was so easy to maintain a separation and to vilify those who supported the war was because Americans felt no personal connection with the war. This resolves that issue, makes it more difficult to vilify those who fight in and support a war against terror, as well as creates a very real way to increase, rather than just sit idly by and watch it wilt, our Economic superiority.

[Classact]

The goal for America's national security energy plan must include an ambition to move toward non-fossil fuel for everything with smoke coming out other than aircraft along with an ambition to move away from fossil fuel for electric power generation. The ambitions are grand and I think many have been fooled by the green folks and advertisements and so on.

To get an idea of green electricity ambitions as stated here http://www.greenforall.org/ fossil fuel free in a decade the first thing out of your mouth should be, who's going to pay for it?

Here is a way to wrap your head around how much investment it would take for just your home. Here is a calculator to play with http://store.altenergystore.com/calculator...rid_calculator/ Now I know no one is saying for every family to install an AE system but a central system with distribution is on the same degree of investment, and the investment is in the trillions of dollars!!! Where is that money to come from?

The facts are hard to refute, alternative energy [wind/solar] represents only about 3% of America's energy source. Many people would laugh out loud if you were to tell them "we can double that in four years" just because it seems impossible. Solar and wind costs a lot of money, for example to outfit a home for hot water costs $5,000.00, to replace the electricity costs $40,000.00 and if you want air conditioning and heat add another $20,000.00! Now I will admit that if every American family were forced to use solar/wind to replace their fossil source of energy the price would go down to maybe a total for heat, electricity and air conditioning to say $40,000 to $50,000.00.

The Al Gore Greenforall crowd on the link above sounds oh so wonderful, putting all of those ghetto blasters to work building solar panels and windmills and has a goal of being green in one decade! To be green in one decade would require an alternative energy investment of 100,000,000 families at $40,000 to $50,000.00 each! Oh crap, I forgot the workplaces that also have to turn green in that same period? And guess what we haven't addressed how we move around the nation, will we invest the $40,000 to $50,000.00 and buy an electric car at the same time? Will we do this in a decade or a century and who will pay for it.

This brings us to our first ambition of getting away from imported oil, the Democrats say it's simple, we change over our domestic electricity to green non-fossil green electricity and then we plug in our electric cars. My question remains where does the trillions of dollars come from to have non fossil electricity? What would cause a citizen to go out and buy an electric car?

I say it will take at least a half century to create green fossil free America wide electricity. The only way it can happen is if someone using fossil fuel to produce electricity is "paid off" to make the investment in non-fossil source. The Democratic Party doesn't support a pay off incentive, but rather prefers to fine fossil users and take those fines and give them to non fossil replacements... That means John Doe's electric bill will triple when the government fines a coal electric producer and if John Doe happens to be a coal miner his life really starts to suck.

The only way I can see going non fossil is to use a bridge of NG for autos, drill everywhere in our control and use the proceeds as the pay offs to electric producers for using non-fossil sources and use the same proceeds to give cash incentives for the folks to invest in electric cars so mass production can bring down the price.

[fj1200]

Again, you seem to ignore portions of the proposal in an attempt to gain what you perceive as an advantage in an argument. If we are the producer of the next generation of energy we will maintain a good economy. And again you ignore the basis of the personalizing the war. Incentive would be created because the population would demand the different sources to take their part in the war.

One of the reasons it was so easy to maintain a separation and to vilify those who supported the war was because Americans felt no personal connection with the war. This resolves that issue, makes it more difficult to vilify those who fight in and support a war against terror, as well as creates a very real way to increase, rather than just sit idly by and watch it wilt, our Economic superiority.

Such as...? We will be the producer of the next generation regardless if the proper incentives are there, i.e. reducing our high corporate tax rates and the price of oil remains high. If government forces/encourages development in a particular area you are betting that they will make the correct choice, they were wrong on ethanol because of political lobbying and would likely be wrong again; the market will make the correct decision. If the population demands different sources then I'm all for it, the market will provide it without mandate.

I don't ignore the need to personalize the war, it's a reality of fighting a regional war that doesn't impact most of America. To force economic costs on a country is counterproductive to personalizing a war and funding a war.

It appears the Iraq war is winding down and doesn't need personalizing anyway. It's the overall war on terror that continues to need to be prosecuted and will likely be done in a manner that is almost invisible to American society, like Abu Sayef in the Phillipines and military assistance in Somalia, Kenya.

[No1tovote4]

Such as...? We will be the producer of the next generation regardless if the proper incentives are there, i.e. reducing our high corporate tax rates and the price of oil remains high. If government forces/encourages development in a particular area you are betting that they will make the correct choice, they were wrong on ethanol because of political lobbying and would likely be wrong again; the market will make the correct decision. If the population demands different sources then I'm all for it, the market will provide it without mandate.

I don't ignore the need to personalize the war, it's a reality of fighting a regional war that doesn't impact most of America. To force economic costs on a country is counterproductive to personalizing a war and funding a war.

It appears the Iraq war is winding down and doesn't need personalizing anyway. It's the overall war on terror that continues to need to be prosecuted and will likely be done in a manner that is almost invisible to American society, like Abu Sayef in the Phillipines and military assistance in Somalia, Kenya.
It is ridiculous to ignore that the dependence on oil causes undue interest in a destablilized region and creates much of the national security issue just because you do not want to personally sacrifice even a minimum for your own security.

It does not need to be "invisible" when we can take direct action that will impact it by driving towards a new generation of energy production in a moon-landing type of drive, giving all of the nation a direction and a personal impact to the "war".

We need people to realize that it is them that provide their security in this type of "war" rather than Grandpa Government, we need people to understand their own responsibility towards "victory".

[fj1200]

The facts are hard to refute, alternative energy [wind/solar] represents only about 3% of America's energy source. Many people would laugh out loud if you were to tell them "we can double that in four years" just because it seems impossible.
...
The only way I can see going non fossil is to use a bridge of NG for autos, drill everywhere in our control and use the proceeds as the pay offs to electric producers for using non-fossil sources and use the same proceeds to give cash incentives for the folks to invest in electric cars so mass production can bring down the price.

The basis for that 3% needs to double just to keep up with the expansion of power generation let alone double to 6%. NG is a fossil fuel and isn't it usually found in the same place as oil?

The reason I think the focus is on the wrong area, besides the additional costs we would voluntarily put on ourselves, it's a protectionists dream to remove ourselves from the global economy. Protectionism is a bad policy for the US and the world.

[No1tovote4]

The basis for that 3% needs to double just to keep up with the expansion of power generation let alone double to 6%. NG is a fossil fuel and isn't it usually found in the same place as oil?

The reason I think the focus is on the wrong area, besides the additional costs we would voluntarily put on ourselves, it's a protectionists dream to remove ourselves from the global economy. Protectionism is a bad policy for the US and the world.
No, NG is found in places where oil is not. CO is one of the major suppliers. While there is much Oil Shale here, there is very little oil that is extractable by pumps.

[fj1200]

It is ridiculous to ignore that the dependence on oil causes undue interest in a destablilized region and creates much of the national security issue just because you do not want to personally sacrifice even a minimum for your own security.".

So the threat goes away just because they don't have "our" oil money? Iraq is an ally we don't want to run away from our "investment" there. We already don't buy from Iran, they still don't like us. We already get most of our oil from "friends". And as I said before, drill away.


It does not need to be "invisible" when we can take direct action that will impact it by driving towards a new generation of energy production in a moon-landing type of drive, giving all of the nation a direction and a personal impact to the "war".".

What is this magical "new generation of energy production" of which you speak? Is the government going to create cold fusion?


We need people to realize that it is them that provide their security in this type of "war" rather than Grandpa Government, we need people to understand their own responsibility towards "victory".

?

Them relying on Grandpa Government to launch another "moon landing" to save us all?

[fj1200]

No, NG is found in places where oil is not. CO is one of the major suppliers. While there is much Oil Shale here, there is very little oil that is extractable by pumps.

A. they both come out of the ground, B. you just said CO has both oil (shale) and NG, C. I didn't say exclusively.

[Classact]

The basis for that 3% needs to double just to keep up with the expansion of power generation let alone double to 6%. NG is a fossil fuel and isn't it usually found in the same place as oil?

The reason I think the focus is on the wrong area, besides the additional costs we would voluntarily put on ourselves, it's a protectionists dream to remove ourselves from the global economy. Protectionism is a bad policy for the US and the world.America has an abundance of NG and a new discovery has been found just east of Dallas close to Arkansas. We have tremendous amounts of NG in Alaska and if ANWR is developed a NG pipeline will bring it down here too. It could be converted into liquid natural gas right now and shipped down but the Dems have fought against it.

Using domestic energy isn't isolationism it is national security... look at Western Europe and how they are ready to go down on Russia so Russia won't turn off their winter heating fuel.

[No1tovote4]

So the threat goes away just because they don't have "our" oil money? Iraq is an ally we don't want to run away from our "investment" there. We already don't buy from Iran, they still don't like us. We already get most of our oil from "friends". And as I said before, drill away.



What is this magical "new generation of energy production" of which you speak? Is the government going to create cold fusion?



?

Them relying on Grandpa Government to launch another "moon landing" to save us all?
Again, our interest in the region is caused by the necessity for oil, because of that we support people they wish to remove, etc. We create our own enemy, not because we are "bad" but because in that region being a major player will attract them no matter what you do.

Getting out of there because the incentive to remain increases our National Security as well as funding only domestic sources with 700 Billion per year that we formerly spent on their oil. Do you honestly believe that 700 Billion invested in this economy wouldn't be a beneficial increase in domestic spending?

The threat will largely "go away" because it will be others there desperate to keep a secure environment who will become the new targets as the major players.

[No1tovote4]

A. they both come out of the ground, B. you just said CO has both oil (shale) and NG, C. I didn't say exclusively.
Wow, the ground. Yeah, NG and oil always comes from the same place when you are that general. :rolleyes:

Shale is not the same thing as "oil" and is in different places than where the NG is.

[No1tovote4]

So the threat goes away just because they don't have "our" oil money? Iraq is an ally we don't want to run away from our "investment" there. We already don't buy from Iran, they still don't like us. We already get most of our oil from "friends". And as I said before, drill away.



What is this magical "new generation of energy production" of which you speak? Is the government going to create cold fusion?



?

Them relying on Grandpa Government to launch another "moon landing" to save us all?
Silly. That is why we use the NG and domestic oil bridge. The US has enough NG to run all of our vehicles for over 120 years and that doesn't include improvement in technology to increase efficiency, to gather sources that are unreachable to us now, or have yet to be found.

[PostmodernProphet]

....they would have no incentive to streamline production.... ...

sure they would....same incentive everyone else would have.....competition.....

[fj1200]

America has an abundance of NG and a new discovery has been found just east of Dallas close to Arkansas. We have tremendous amounts of NG in Alaska and if ANWR is developed a NG pipeline will bring it down here too. It could be converted into liquid natural gas right now and shipped down but the Dems have fought against it.

Using domestic energy isn't isolationism it is national security... look at Western Europe and how they are ready to go down on Russia so Russia won't turn off their winter heating fuel.

I agree that it enhances our national security and that is one reason I think we should be exploring and drilling but your very argument is isolationist in nature.

[fj1200]

sure they would....same incentive everyone else would have.....competition.....

What competition is there when they have an ingrained advantage over for-profit oil companies?...........who have to perform the same operation and gain a profit for investors...............take a look at FNMA, FHLMC, Medicare, Social Security even, they have no competitors and have turned into monumental F jobs.............sure let's take an industry that is not broken and give them the same "advantages" over for-profit enterprises so they can F us all...........

[fj1200]

Again, our interest in the region is caused by the necessity for oil, because of that we support people they wish to remove, etc. We create our own enemy, not because we are "bad" but because in that region being a major player will attract them no matter what you do.

Getting out of there because the incentive to remain increases our National Security as well as funding only domestic sources with 700 Billion per year that we formerly spent on their oil. Do you honestly believe that 700 Billion invested in this economy wouldn't be a beneficial increase in domestic spending?

The threat will largely "go away" because it will be others there desperate to keep a secure environment who will become the new targets as the major players.

We have interests everywhere and we are not seen as "bad" everywhere we are. Another argument towards an isolationist worldview...

You act as if we are getting nothing for 700BB, we are getting a commodity and turning it into useful products than enhance our way of life.

I thought we were hated for our support of Israel, I guess we can throw another democracy under the bus for our own security.

[fj1200]

Silly. That is why we use the NG and domestic oil bridge. The US has enough NG to run all of our vehicles for over 120 years and that doesn't include improvement in technology to increase efficiency, to gather sources that are unreachable to us now, or have yet to be found.

Silly? if we have enough NG and oil for 120 years what do we need a bridge to?

[No1tovote4]

We have interests everywhere and we are not seen as "bad" everywhere we are. Another argument towards an isolationist worldview...

You act as if we are getting nothing for 700BB, we are getting a commodity and turning it into useful products than enhance our way of life.

I thought we were hated for our support of Israel, I guess we can throw another democracy under the bus for our own security.
Everywhere is not the Middle East. It is foolish to compare "everywhere" to some specific place and use it as an example. It's like saying, "If the world's population is really at least 1/3 Chinese, how come 1/3 of the people I know are not Chinese?"

The Middle East has its problems, one of which is constant battles and infighting in which we embroil ourselves just by creating the necessary security to protect our interest. It is foolish to pretend that action in the arena draws no attention, not the least of which is our responsibility towards Israel as an ally. Removing the necessity of messing around with their regional conflicts and infighting is a necessary step in removing the danger to the US national security.

[No1tovote4]

Silly? if we have enough NG and oil for 120 years what do we need a bridge to?
You are now just being deliberately obtuse. The incentive isn't just to be free of foreign sources but to provide the next generation of energy to the world and cementing ourselves as an economic powerhouse rather than watching our slow decline. The bridge provides security for us while we work towards that next generation of energy.

[Classact]

I agree that it enhances our national security and that is one reason I think we should be exploring and drilling but your very argument is isolationist in nature.Please explain. We cannot eliminate our need to import some of our oil but we can reduce the amount we import.

[fj1200]

You are now just being deliberately obtuse. The incentive isn't just to be free of foreign sources but to provide the next generation of energy to the world and cementing ourselves as an economic powerhouse rather than watching our slow decline. The bridge provides security for us while we work towards that next generation of energy.

I'm not being deliberately obtuse (maybe a little), it gets to the core of the argument. We have an energy source that powers the worlds economy, you want to end our access to a large portion of it in 10 years, and you want to create a bridge to something.

How are you going to keep American firms from making oil purchases on the open market?
How do you propose to fund the research to find something?
How do you propose to fund the transition to NG as the bridge?
You don't know what that something is and you don't know how long it will take to get there.
You assume that this is something that will be better than the current and that the world will beat a path to our door.

Our "decline" has nothing to do with our energy policy, or lack thereof.

[fj1200]

Please explain. We cannot eliminate our need to import some of our oil but we can reduce the amount we import.

Explain what? Your statement? I agree with it, we cannot, probably should not, eliminate oil imports. We should allow exploration and drilling in our territories. But, using shale as an example: we apparently have alot of it but it is expensive to get, I've heard 80$/bbl. If we start utilizing it at the current price of $120/bbl it is economical to process; what if, because of shale and other sources, the market price drops to $70; should we continue to use it because it's on our soil? If you say yes, who is to pay the subsidy for it's continued use. If you say no, what oil will replace its production?

Opening up domestic sources of oil will remove/minimize the volatility aspect of the current price of oil.

[No1tovote4]

I'm not being deliberately obtuse (maybe a little), it gets to the core of the argument. We have an energy source that powers the worlds economy, you want to end our access to a large portion of it in 10 years, and you want to create a bridge to something.

How are you going to keep American firms from making oil purchases on the open market?
How do you propose to fund the research to find something?
How do you propose to fund the transition to NG as the bridge?
You don't know what that something is and you don't know how long it will take to get there.
You assume that this is something that will be better than the current and that the world will beat a path to our door.

Our "decline" has nothing to do with our energy policy, or lack thereof.
What part of making it part of the war makes it so difficult for you to understand?

Our "decline" has much to do with the globalization of the economy, and the reality that all nations will decline over time. We cannot ignore the likelihood or that reality, well we can but it would be foolish to the level of the three monkeys.

I prefer to create plans using the creativity and drive of Americans to bring new solutions to the table that will drive a new economy and provide a sustained and lasting stability that will maintain us for at least my children's lifetime as the economic powerhouse we are.

The bridge is to the new economy that we will create as we reduce the demand for current technologies.

[fj1200]

What part of making it part of the war makes it so difficult for you to understand?

Our "decline" has much to do with the globalization of the economy, and the reality that all nations will decline over time. We cannot ignore the likelihood or that reality, well we can but it would be foolish to the level of the three monkeys.

I prefer to create plans using the creativity and drive of Americans to bring new solutions to the table that will drive a new economy and provide a sustained and lasting stability that will maintain us for at least my children's lifetime as the economic powerhouse we are.

The bridge is to the new economy that we will create as we reduce the demand for current technologies.

Did you miss the part where I said that I don't agree that it should be part of the war?

Our decline has much to do with the stagnation that we are experiencing due to excessive government regulations, a (corporate) tax policy that makes us an uncompetitive place to start a corporation (or continue a corporation, see off-shoring), a tax policy that has us on the verge of a huge tax increase (without even a congressional vote the Bush tax cuts will expire), and a Federal Reserve that has let the monetary situation get away from them (the primary reason for the runup in commodities). We were declining in the 70's for very similar reasons and it didn't take much to get back on track.

You are certainly proposing a plan to use the creativity and drive of Americans to solve a problem that you are going to create. Your bridge belongs in Alaska because it goes nowhere.

[No1tovote4]

Did you miss the part where I said that I don't agree that it should be part of the war?

Our decline has much to do with the stagnation that we are experiencing due to excessive government regulations, a (corporate) tax policy that makes us an uncompetitive place to start a corporation (or continue a corporation, see off-shoring), a tax policy that has us on the verge of a huge tax increase (without even a congressional vote the Bush tax cuts will expire), and a Federal Reserve that has let the monetary situation get away from them (the primary reason for the runup in commodities). We were declining in the 70's for very similar reasons and it didn't take much to get back on track.

You are certainly proposing a plan to use the creativity and drive of Americans to solve a problem that you are going to create. Your bridge belongs in Alaska because it goes nowhere.
Nonsense, the bridge to nowhere is already built, it's the drive to continue on the current path without regard to a future. Covering your ears, closing your eyes, and attempting to shout real loud that we don't need to do anything but buy more oil is, like a child, a bit foolish.

If we don't learn from the past, we are destined to repeat it. Allow the continued stagnation, continue the need to import technical knowledge and scientists and we have pushed ourselves into the path of mediocrity. We need to actually educate kids, not make them feel good. We need to drive towards a sustainable future rather than wallow and hope what we know will come just won't...

If the best you can do is this, then I fear for the nation's future as we see that you believe that we shouldn't be bothered to participate in our own security.

Who are you going to vote for? Either it's the one that sees no need for a bridge to the next generation of energy, or the one that does. Can you even tell me which is which?

[fj1200]

Nonsense, the bridge to nowhere is already built, it's the drive to continue on the current path without regard to a future. Covering your ears, closing your eyes, and attempting to shout real loud that we don't need to do anything but buy more oil is, like a child, a bit foolish.

If we don't learn from the past, we are destined to repeat it. Allow the continued stagnation, continue the need to import technical knowledge and scientists and we have pushed ourselves into the path of mediocrity. We need to actually educate kids, not make them feel good. We need to drive towards a sustainable future rather than wallow and hope what we know will come just won't...

If the best you can do is this, then I fear for the nation's future as we see that you believe that we shouldn't be bothered to participate in our own security.

Who are you going to vote for? Either it's the one that sees no need for a bridge to the next generation of energy, or the one that does. Can you even tell me which is which?

Oh please, the world is going to go down the road no matter what we do. The problem is you're trying to force us down a road, ala ethanol, and you have no idea where it goes. Your idea will have absolutely no impact on the problems that you see and the "energy crisis" is not the source of those problems either. Unleashing the creative spirit is done by unshackling the people not forcing a problem on them.

You assume we are doing nothing because government is not driving the solution, there are things happening all the time that you and I don't know about and will lead to the solution of the REAL problem. You ask if this is the best I can do while at the same time have no clue of the impact of your plan. We can learn from the past, it would be called the repealing of ethanol subsidies and opening up areas in the US in which to drill.

[No1tovote4]

Oh please, the world is going to go down the road no matter what we do. The problem is you're trying to force us down a road, ala ethanol, and you have no idea where it goes. Your idea will have absolutely no impact on the problems that you see and the "energy crisis" is not the source of those problems either. Unleashing the creative spirit is done by unshackling the people not forcing a problem on them.

You assume we are doing nothing because government is not driving the solution, there are things happening all the time that you and I don't know about and will lead to the solution of the REAL problem. You ask if this is the best I can do while at the same time have no clue of the impact of your plan. We can learn from the past, it would be called the repealing of ethanol subsidies and opening up areas in the US in which to drill.
So, you plan is to do nothing. Thanks for playing, but you are a fool. And ethanol is not NG, nor is it even remotely the same path.

No, I think we are doing nothing because government is providing blockades. First for domestic exploration, second at the pump by forcing one of two choices. The stupidity of Ethanol, or the continued use of foreign products.

We agree that we need to open the US to drilling, but we disagree on the need for a plan that can get us quickly off the dependence on foreign sources teat.

[fj1200]

So, you plan is to do nothing. Thanks for playing, but you are a fool. And ethanol is not NG, nor is it even remotely the same path.

No, I think we are doing nothing because government is providing blockades. First for domestic exploration, second at the pump by forcing one of two choices. The stupidity of Ethanol, or the continued use of foreign products.

We agree that we need to open the US to drilling, but we disagree on the need for a plan that can get us quickly off the dependence on foreign sources teat.

My plan is not to do nothing, my plan is we are already doing something, i.e. American (and others I'm sure) entrepreneurs engaging in research that will reach your goal long before government would. You are correct ethanol is not natural gas, in this case it is an allegory for the FAILURE of a government program the reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

I didn't realize we were being forced to use the most efficient method yet discovered of powering our economy and our motorcars. As prices change, as technology changes, as preferences change, so will economic realities. Sometimes all you have to do is wait.

Dirty Jobs was on the other day and a cattle? farm was or will be run entirely on cow crap via a methane distiller or some such thing. I don't know if the farm was doing this because energy prices went up or technology prices came down (hopefully not subsidies, but no guarantee) but it happened without you knowing about it.

[PostmodernProphet]

What competition is there when they have an ingrained advantage over for-profit oil companies?...........who have to perform the same operation and gain a profit for investors...............take a look at FNMA, FHLMC, Medicare, Social Security even, they have no competitors and have turned into monumental F jobs.............sure let's take an industry that is not broken and give them the same "advantages" over for-profit enterprises so they can F us all...........


and what "ingrained advantage" would that be.....you will still have to stick a pipe in the ground, pump out the oil and sell it, just like everyone else......it will BE a for-profit oil company...just that all the profit goes to us.....again, I am not proposing to do anything to existing oil companies....they will be free to operate just as they have always done....

[fj1200]

and what "ingrained advantage" would that be.....you will still have to stick a pipe in the ground, pump out the oil and sell it, just like everyone else......it will BE a for-profit oil company...just that all the profit goes to us.....again, I am not proposing to do anything to existing oil companies....they will be free to operate just as they have always done....

For you to even ask that question is ridiculous.
Low or nonexistant cost of capital
No leasing costs
No taxation costs
No accounting regulations
...

It's socialistic and hence it is inefficient.

[PostmodernProphet]

For you to even ask that question is ridiculous.
Low or nonexistant cost of capital
No leasing costs
No taxation costs
No accounting regulations
...

It's socialistic and hence it is inefficient.

????...in your world there is no cost of capital for the government?......and leasing and tax costs are not "saved".....the government would receive those sums in either case....it is the profit that the government would gain and that profit would have to be competitive with that earned by oil companies.....

[fj1200]

????...in your world there is no cost of capital for the government?......and leasing and tax costs are not "saved".....the government would receive those sums in either case....it is the profit that the government would gain and that profit would have to be competitive with that earned by oil companies.....

Do you even have a clue? FNMA and FHLMC borrow at below market rates due to government backing, so would your idea if they even bothered to incorporate it. Oil companies pay for leases up front, not so with your idea. Your idea would basically turn into a subsidy for the American consumer, enhancing demand, is that what you want?

[PostmodernProphet]

Your idea would basically turn into a subsidy for the American consumer, enhancing demand, is that what you want?

???...you mean as opposed to the subsidies for renewable energy or to encourage new oil exploration?......yes, that's what I want.....

[fj1200]

???...you mean as opposed to the subsidies for renewable energy or to encourage new oil exploration?......yes, that's what I want.....

I will admit that I thought as you once... Then my 10th birthday rolled around and I saw the light.

[PostmodernProphet]

and been blinded by the flash ever since?

[fj1200]

I can see clearly now, the rain is gone,
I can see all obstacles in my way
Gone are the dark clouds that had me blind
It’s gonna be a bright (bright), bright (bright)
Sun-Shiny day.

[fj1200]

Wow, the ground. Yeah, NG and oil always comes from the same place when you are that general. :rolleyes:


Minus a pipeline, Alaska's abundant gas largely ends up pumped back into the ground to be used to pressurize oil fields and aid in extraction. With oil production in Alaska's Prudhoe Bay region declining and Congress continuing to drag its feet on new oil drilling, one of the few things Alaska can do is sell some of the gas now.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...03693123946167

[NightTrain]

Drill now and Drill Deep!

The bullshit you hear about Caribou are wrong; they enjoy an object to hide behind to break the wind. They have actually gone up in population since the construction of the Alaska Pipeline!

Caribou and local wildlife enjoy a windbreak - local populations have increased. Greenies don't admit this fact, but it's true.

[Kathianne]

Drill now and Drill Deep!

The bullshit you hear about Caribou are wrong; they enjoy an object to hide behind to break the wind. They have actually gone up in population since the construction of the Alaska Pipeline!

Caribou and local wildlife enjoy a windbreak - local populations have increased. Greenies don't admit this fact, but it's true.

I've heard that, they like the 'warmth' of the pipes? Makes them 'frisky' as my ex used to say. :laugh2:

[Classact]

My plan is not to do nothing, my plan is we are already doing something, i.e. American (and others I'm sure) entrepreneurs engaging in research that will reach your goal long before government would. You are correct ethanol is not natural gas, in this case it is an allegory for the FAILURE of a government program the reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

I didn't realize we were being forced to use the most efficient method yet discovered of powering our economy and our motorcars. As prices change, as technology changes, as preferences change, so will economic realities. Sometimes all you have to do is wait.

Dirty Jobs was on the other day and a cattle? farm was or will be run entirely on cow crap via a methane distiller or some such thing. I don't know if the farm was doing this because energy prices went up or technology prices came down (hopefully not subsidies, but no guarantee) but it happened without you knowing about it.I will admit that I haven't read each and every post but I thought these points were pretty good.

My position is that if the government picks winners then we end up with a reel to reel tape in stead of a digital CD and a politician and a reel to reel manufacture gets rich.

I say offer incentives for alternatives to fossil fuel based on the amount of carbon they offset, it shouldn't matter if it is methane, ethanol, nuclear, fission, fusion, wind, hydro, solar or something someone hasn't discovered yet.

As far as subsidising oil exploration goes I say use a trigger system, if oil prices fall below (example only) $85 a barrel then give subsidies to explore and if oil goes over $100 discontinue the subsidies until they fall back to the lower trigger. The reason I support oil/NG subsidies is because the government has made it so difficult to explore with environmental and bureaucratic garbage they impose on private companies.

[NightTrain]

I've heard that, they like the 'warmth' of the pipes? Makes them 'frisky' as my ex used to say. :laugh2:


Yep!


We're talking 2,000 acres in a reserve totalling 20,000,000 acres. This is nothing, and this is in a wasteland that I have posted - there is nothing there, and the pipeline will provide welcome relief to the local wildlife - I've been there and seen it.

Somethings the liberals don't understand - sometimes progress and local wildlife enjoy the same goals. When you see a small herd of Caribou huddled on the downside of a wind past the pipeline, you know they like it.

You won't see video of grateful caribou huddling behind the pipeline.

[PostmodernProphet]

http://www.eskimo.com/~rarnold/Caribouandoil.jpg

http://www.eskimo.com/~rarnold/energy_independence.htm

http://arcticportal.org/uploads/LR/at/LRatHGJfkRBnpi8PHPJW4A/caribou-alaska-pipeline.jpg

sorry, couldn't find video

[eighballsidepocket]

We have 2/3rds of the world's known oil shale reserve in the Colorado region, and the amount of oil is nearly 3 trillion barrels after extraction.

Extraction costs are currently $80.00/barrel - break even, with current technology.

This reserve dwarfs many-fold all the oil reserve of the Middle East, Venuzuela, Mexico......etc..
******
This doesn't even include the massive oil sands reserve/deposits in Canada!
*******
So you should drill, drill, drill, but we should also think, mine, mine, mine..........:salute:

[fj1200]

I will admit that I haven't read each and every post but I thought these points were pretty good.

My position is that if the government picks winners then we end up with a reel to reel tape in stead of a digital CD and a politician and a reel to reel manufacture gets rich.

I say offer incentives for alternatives to fossil fuel based on the amount of carbon they offset, it shouldn't matter if it is methane, ethanol, nuclear, fission, fusion, wind, hydro, solar or something someone hasn't discovered yet.

As far as subsidising oil exploration goes I say use a trigger system, if oil prices fall below (example only) $85 a barrel then give subsidies to explore and if oil goes over $100 discontinue the subsidies until they fall back to the lower trigger. The reason I support oil/NG subsidies is because the government has made it so difficult to explore with environmental and bureaucratic garbage they impose on private companies.

Subsidies are so unnecessary as long as red tape is removed and BIG OIL BIG OIL BIG OIL big oil big oil... is not demonized when they make a not unreasonable profit margin.

[LuvRPgrl]

I think we should end all domestic oil production and save it until the rest of the world runs out. Change over to other sources of energy, and when the rest of the world needs the oil, and we are the only ones who have it, we can turn the table on them and demand exotic prices on it. Of course it wont happen, but if I were in charge, thats what I would do.
What is the argument against domestic oil exploration verses importing oil form other nations?

Why is imported oil better than domestic oil? Be specific!

Is the high price of gas the prime concern for deciding whether or not to exploit domestic oil/NG or a secondary problem?

Canada and Mexico are net exporters of oil http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/northamerica/engsupp.htm and I would dare say that they could care less about Russia invading Georgia where oil pipelines are nor did they concern themselves with oil shortages when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990.

Some say domestic oil drilling will not lower prices because it will take one or two decades to see the first drop. If you look at it in a matter of priorities then one could say if we ground all aircraft the price of gas would drastically fall tomorrow, we would have more oil than we know what to do with, heating oil would be dirt cheap and gas prices would be dirt cheap. Why not ground all aircraft? Or, why not set a gas price trigger that grounds international flights or requires a surcharge to continue flying? If prices remain above the trigger then ground 10% of all cargo and domestic flights with the same option and on and on until gas falls below the trigger.

If you don't want to ground all aircraft then why don't you want to exploit all domestic oil to make them fly in ten to twenty years from now?

If we could develop enough domestic oil so that we only rely on oil imports from Canada and Mexico do you think we would worry as much about what Russia or Mid East countries do? Don't you think that if we had enough domestic oil that we only relied on Canada and Mexico then Asia and Europe would take care more responsibility over events involving Russia and the Mid East?

[eighballsidepocket]

I think we should end all domestic oil production and save it until the rest of the world runs out. Change over to other sources of energy, and when the rest of the world needs the oil, and we are the only ones who have it, we can turn the table on them and demand exotic prices on it. Of course it wont happen, but if I were in charge, thats what I would do.

I've thought the same thing and posted it here and other places.

Eat up all the fossil fuel resources of the world and leave our's alone, and then "Look who's in the driver's seat?". ;)

Now we give OPEC countries their due..........or "doo doo".;)

[No1tovote4]

I've thought the same thing and posted it here and other places.

Eat up all the fossil fuel resources of the world and leave our's alone, and then "Look who's in the driver's seat?". ;)

Now we give OPEC countries their due..........or "doo doo".;)
We wouldn't be in the driver's seat, by that time a different source would be discovered and be manufactured. Let's use ours to get off the foreign teat while we work towards that next generation of energy making oil useless puddles of muck in the ground used to make plastics.

[eighballsidepocket]

We wouldn't be in the driver's seat, by that time a different source would be discovered and be manufactured. Let's use ours to get off the foreign teat while we work towards that next generation of energy making oil useless puddles of muck in the ground used to make plastics.

Hey, don't you see or read these last two posts as utopian thoughts?

They were just "wonderings", and obviously not applicable in the real world.

I'm for drilling, and going after that immense oil shale supply that is holds nearly 3 trillion barrels of oil.

Wind power, is still a pipe dream folks........Those windmills in their normal lifetime before needing major overhaul, won't pay for themselves in electricity produced without a government subsity. So that zero sum gain.

Also, solar panels don't last forever either, or fuel cells, and the amount of energy and resources needed to build them is way more than the amount of power they will produce in their normal life times.

Nuke power, and our vast oils shale reserves, opening up ANWAR, also getting that massive amount of natural gas down to the lower 48 that Sarah Palin has got going is objective, reasonable things to do.

[LuvRPgrl]

We wouldn't be in the driver's seat, by that time a different source would be discovered and be manufactured. Let's use ours to get off the foreign teat while we work towards that next generation of energy making oil useless puddles of muck in the ground used to make plastics.

Actually,this is why the free market should dictate it. It should be made AVAILABLE, in a FREE country, and if it is worth drilling for, then someone will.

If we get our domestic supply up to reduce gas costs, then the desire for alternative sources will diminish. You notice the public outcry only happens once the price goes up?

Now, in actuality, of course we would wind up using ours up near the end of the line of all oil reserves, when many gas powered engines would still be going, its not like suddenly one day they all dissappear, hey, we still feed horses hay, right?