100% free online dating, chat, forums, and friends...

when asked what he thought oil should be, he answered somewhere around 45 to 60 per barrel.

All the rest said near 100

As for the so called supply and demand idea.

Heres the figures, you decide. To the best of my recollection, of course. Its online and still on cable if you wanna see what 5 execs that smile through their teeth while pickpocketing America looks like.

20 some yrs ago our daily demand was near 470,000 barrels per day.

Today, its the same 470,000 per day.

Worldwide demand is up over the past three yrs by about 2.5 percent and production is down by about 3 percent, by choice.

So, how is it then that in the yr 2000 Exxon reported earnings of roughly 10 billion and now have 40 billion in earnings?

It sure doesnt look like supply and demand.

Part of the explanation is in the fact that so called old oil field long ago found that are still paying off like slot machines are being brought to the market at the higher prices. Why? Because the oil companies that we subsidized wont give us a fixed price on the oil they find with the funds they get from US tax dollars.

Heres one mans answer to the question of what is the answer.....

I have to paraphrase...the sarcasm is mine, the content is his.

Well we have 5 new refineries coming online, 3 more then we need, if you dont screw with the market everything will work out ok...and we have more oil sources that if you dont mess with the market...yada yada....

Sure sounded like they promised they were just sticking the head in...not to worry, it wont hurt if we just dont move around too much.

I'm finding CSpan.org more and more valuable ever since the elections took over the news...that and I always did like the BBC.

Remember the scare some months back when they said we could see 10 dollars a gallon at the pump? I'm just one of those people who believe that greedy people who have the money to do the research to find out the reaction to such a price hike will test the waters to the very limit of our patience.

in 2006 a major CEO of the Chevron corporation retired, his severance package was 50 million dollars.

With the exception of Arlon Spector (Iowa), the Republicans threw the oil execs mostly softballs, with Hatch openly supporting anything that the oil company's wanted to do, esp. with regard to "dirty oil" derived from sand or shale oil fields and Sessions (R) from Alabama being the least informed and easiest "pitcher" with the questions.

When Feinstein (D) started questioning them and telling them that they were doing nothing but complaining in their opening statements (while raking in record profits) that the execs stopped smiling and started taking notes.

And Durban (D) from Illinois was very pointed and on the mark. Leaving them with the fact that with regard to having to unnecessarily force the use of heavily polluting oil on the American people was the same as telling the American people that spend your money or lose your life (from the pollutants in shale oil derivatives.

And Spector was all about the use of Ethonal and having the oil companies going for that. Of course, states like Iowa, that derive most of their income from grains like corn stand to make a huge amount of money off of that bio fuel scam.

I used to think that ethonal was the answer until I really studied it more in depth. It takes 900 lbs of corn to produce an average tank of fuel (about 22 gallons) and would take over 90% of this country's tillable farm land to supply the country with enough ethonal to move us away from gas..

Anyway, after this session the Republians in thge Senate and Congress, once again showed that they are on the side of whatever company is making the big profits. That suprised me this time. I thought that they would have changed their tune.

Hunter, we all bare some responsibility. I'd like to see us declare a real war where we have a moratorium on gas guzzlers for just a while. Our parent rationed during WW2 to get by, they weren't selfish

The exceptions being contractors and people who live in mountainous and snowy regions. There's no reason anyone needs more then say 300 HP and they can do things with compression and gearing to get cars to move faster.

Biofuels arent the answer in this climate...I dont think.

I believe sugarcane in the Southern Hemisphere , in a small consuming country works well but I think the answer is in two phases and both were spoken about.

First, I have to hand it to the President of Shell, he was candid and he even owned up to the fact that they are an oil company but that they are looking for other sources.

He said the technology is almost here to extract oil shale. We have so much oil in shale it dwarfs all the oil in Saudi Arabia

The problem has been getting to it and the energy that it would take to convert it. As I understand it, it used to be it had to be dug up but new tech is almost here...thank God.....pumping in hot water or steam and converting it or extracting it out of the rock right in the ground and pumping it out.

Imagine the savings of not having to tanker it across the ocean, not to mention the last I checked...Teddy Roosevelt had it secured for our US Navy....so it belongs to the US Govt. Its ours. We could petition the Govt that even if some company gets to pump it out that no oil gets sold to anyone other than a true ally.

And I mean a true ally.

The Second piece was Capturing CO2. Norway is already ahead fo the game...they will sell this tech. All we need to do is build it....Capturing CO2 and pumping it back into the ground looks like a good idea. That connects with clean coal plants just fine also.

The Committee is ready to make some concessions...I just hope they do the or demand the right things be done. If shale can be done, it seems the least dangerous and theres no way to get completely off oil.

I thought Senator Session calls it completley right when he said that it costs OPEC roughly 10 dollars per barrel to pump it out and yet they set it at 130 per barrel....so maybe we cant do anything about that but certainly these oil /energy companies cna and should. It shouldnt all be put into oil development either.

The statistics are out there, Nuclear is clean and safe. Even the disastor that Russia had hasnt been presented fully to the American public. Not to mention theres been over 2,000 above ground nuclear test shots.

A smart Nuclear program , modeled like the French is something to study and discuss with the American public. The way I understand it is its one design.

Here in the US Westinghouse has one, GE another....When 3 mile Island happened, I was working on a Nuclear facility and because that system was different in design and each plant has about 10 bacvk up redundency fail safes systems ....that just scraped the second one we were building because to redsign all thos backup and bring them under the NRC code was a nightmare....whereas one design means one fix.

The NRC is such a controlling agency that a simple thing such as a nut and bolt that doesnt quite fit right has to undergo a whole quality control quality assurance regimine. Its thorough and yet its night marish as a worker sometimes.

Dayum hunter I hope we can agree on on more than one thing....such as we both like fast cars and faster women and I used to Chew but gave it up....

I used to think that biofuels was a good thing until I saw this piece on just what they are doing to the farmer and BTW....the farm bill...when the last shuttle blew up and Bush declared it a disaster over TX......guess what...it unlocked millions of dollars for so called farmers who aint growing sh*T...

I saw Jesse Ventura for a few seconds tonight while surfing on Larry King who said how is it that the US govt make you retire at age what? 65 and yet these congressmen and women can stay their until they mummify in those seats...well he didnt say mummify, I did.

google this Cowboy+starter+kits for one. Even a corn grower said all the negy that goes into making ethanol, its counterproductive but Bush signed subsidizes for that too...I dont get it...if you have land grow something on it and sell it.

In Australia this yr, their Wheat crop is empty coz of drought...worldwide food stores are down according to the UN.

Makes one wonder if Genocide and starvation isnt a good way of keeping the population down. The UN has a goal to keep it under some number

Ventura said he just might run for the Senate against Al Franken.

So The Woman asked like what? He said some company in Canada involved in Tar Sands, which of course sounds right except of course OPEC can only keep raping the west for so long before they drop oil to a livable level.

On the overnight Biz news, it was reported on the BBC that the Airline industry will be all but shut down by Xmas and Goldman Sachs is projecting oil to go to 200 per barrel.

The price of oil as admitted to last evening is connected to a list of things. Supply and Demand

Geo-Politicial

The Falling Dollar

My opinion is that theres no coincidence that the Bush Admin is on its way out, Hes trying to broker a deal in Palestine and it seems we have a new Democratic Admin coming in whose mantra is hey...whatever you want, We'll submit to.

While, the Demos might not think that is what they are projecting, that is exactly what is being shown. Coz they keep beating up on the Bush Admin so why shouldnt the Middle East....this is how dumb politics are today.

Having said that, that is just one component. Sooner or later, this will effect the income of the Chinas Genocide Olympics and maybe then, we might see a change in price.

one thing i would like to do that a friend of mine did with his F-150 about a year ago was switch to LP, he has shown a 20% increase in fuel millage. and a much cleaner engine, but it cost him around 2500 to do that.

Here's an interesting link on How Stuff Works that can answer a lot of your questions Rep.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question707.htm

This is an exerpt from this site: http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm

"David Pimental, a leading Cornell University agricultural expert, has calculated that powering the average U.S. automobile for one year on ethanol (blended with gasoline) derived from corn would require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year's supply of food for seven people. Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion into ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs.

Mr. Pimentel concluded that "abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuels amounts to unsustainable subsidized food burning".

Neither increases in government subsidies to corn-based ethanol fuel nor hikes in the price of petroleum can overcome what Cornell University agricultural scientist, David Pimentel, calls a fundamental input-yield problem: It takes more energy to make ethanol from grain than the combustion of ethanol produces."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/03/12/big_corn_and_ethanol_hoax

The Tesla car does 200MPH on batteries and the Carbon fiber subframes can be lifted with one hand snd glued together.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/car/experts.html

BTW...has everyones mingles writing box shrunk here today? I cany correct mine,,its a very small area.

We're all in a lot of trouble.

I agree with Scorp RE rationing, but not by government force, and for universal benefit -- how 'bout we ALL reduce our consumption, cease the unnecessary use of gas-guzzlers (sport included), drive more conservatively, turn off lights when we leave a room, reuse & recycle... and on and on. I'm not exactly Green Organa, but I do pretty well, I think!

But Scorp, you're wrong about daily demand being the same as 20 years ago - now, US crude oil imports to the US are over 10mil barrels/day, US petroleum consumption is over 20M b/day, US motor gasoline consumption is over 9M b/day! Check out eia.doe.gov (those stats updated every June, btw, so new numbers presumably will come soon).

And in regards to the "high profits" of Big Oil - sure the bottom-line profits are huge. So are the expenditures & requirements for continuing business! They have R&D, exploration, and alternatives segments, too.

I want to bitch-slap any senator (probably never had a "real" job) who suggests an oil exec who brings home $2M (TOTAL package, not straight salary) reduce his take. How 'bout you, Mr. Beltway? When's the last time you even CARRIED a wallet with you, much less decided to NOT write off every minute expense for the taxpayers to pay?!? Not to mention the freebies, perks and benes. Public servants my foot.

Why is the price of gas so high? The cost per gallon is: price of crude 73%, refining 10%, transportation and marketing 6%, taxes 11%. Did you see that? The BIGGEST CHUNK of the price, outside of the pure cost of the crude, goes to our government! Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black, Mr. Leahy?! CNN has some interesting stuff on this idea.

I agree with Cimm and Scorp on ethanol not being a viable answer but to explore other alternatives. Except maybe cellulite forms of ethanol - the name alone is repulsive.

LOL just kidding - I understand it (although don't know much about it yet either). Alternative locations and developments are what will bring us answers. But it sure would be nice if the government would set an example by lowering those taxes and reducing THEIR personal income, instead of telling the oil co's to shoulder all burdens alone.

Also, I apologize if I seemed confrontational, Scorp - I should've said "mistaken."

Ok, aftergiving it some objective reality...those comopsnies, execs aside are in fact international companies. Perhaps at one time they were US companies but over time they went exploring.

Lisa, I do agree, we can reduce our consumption of oil on the road for one. For one, the power does lay with us... A grass roots movement would do wonders but not some pink party who interrupts proceedings...lol.

Redesign a car for one. Put money into those lithium batteries and make them fire proof and look into how Tesla can produce a car that does 200 mph and looks good too. Its 92 g's right now but it will come down over time.

Geothermal is another. For the past 20 yrs Ive watched these new housing projects go up and thought..if only they dug down about 10 -15 feet they could exchange heat and cold season with pipes....going more radical....go deep into the earth near volcanoes and you can tap plenty of heat.

In Italy theres a city that did just that some 50 yrs ago and heat s about 1 million homes.

Photovoltaic cells. It used to be that silicon was the only way and that was expensive...now they have paint on processes'.

Theres also roofing tiles that can do the same thing...all that is needed is the wiring.

My belief is that its more to do with Geo political and the value of the dollar.

Announce tomorrow that we are gong to go back and back our dollar with GOLD and watch what happens to the value of the dollar the the price of oil.

And lastly...If you do s little digging youll find OPEC lies about its resources left in ground...we dont really know exactly whats left down there. As oil does run out, on thing is for sure..if we knew it the price would be pennies because we'd be looking elsewhere for oil.

Which brings me back to the oil Shale.

"Another method is to quarry the oil shale, pulverise the rock, cook the rock and extract hydrocarbons. Again, this is a very energy intensive and costly operation currently considered either margin or uneconomic. There are simpler ways to extract oil than mine or cook oil shales and the process requires a big electricity infra-structure and operating expense to extract the oil...."

http://www.energyinsights.net/content/articles/energytechnology.htm

So we dont have to dig it out and ugly up the lsndscspe like tasr sands. Jus cook it underground and suck it out. Neccesity is the Mother ofinvention s they say. I love the idea of one day telling the Arbs to kiss my ASS.

Plus, imagine...no shipping over seas, thst saves on costs also. We hve to do something for the near future...Lisa...I heard you guys in Chicago are paying the higest in the country for gas.

Her in Jersey , we have a deal for taking those refineries, we have lower prices always but still its high at about $3.75 per gallon. Plus,. here in Jersey they pump it for us.

I also heard the oil companies say they are up against nationalized oil companies....hmmmm. well..as much as I do agre with capiltalism , there might be a point here with this prticuasl product that is in our gorund tht we say...hey its ours...WE decide whsere it goes asnd who its sold to.

The time has come to stop thinking that Amrica is either being a Republican or Democrat...To me its about doing whatever is the right thing for the country regardless of others opinions.

Norway has so much money put aside because they were smart with their energy products , they have a half trilion for their elderly and helath care.....oh those socialists...they suck huh?

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4266609.html

"Document Type and Number:

United States Patent 4266609

Abstract: Kerogen and other combustible matter can be extracted from an area of oil shale or tarsand by drilling boreholes in a selected pattern through the overlying soil and rock without removing it.

Each borehole mouth is tightly closed by a cover provided with an air inlet pipe and a gas exhaust pipe. In the covers of one or several boreholes, the inlet pipe is centrally guided and longitudinally movable in an upward and downward direction, and a laser beam generated by a laser source is inroduced into the upper end of the pipe and directed centrally to its bottom where it is diverted toward the borehole wall by a mirror assembly. The laser beam moved along the borehole wall irradiates the oil shale or tarsand and ignites the combustible matter contained therein which liquefies and evaporates.

Combustion spreads from the initially ignited bore to the remaining bores in the area through the fissures in the formation and likewise serves to liquefy and evaporate the kerogen there. The combustion is maintained by pressurized air or oxygen introduced through the air inlet pipe, which also serves to cool the mirror assembly. The pressure thus created drives the evaporated kerogen out of the borehold through the exhaust pipe into a storage vessel. After the output has become too low, the process is discontinued and liquefied kerogen which has gathered at the bottom of the bores is pumped out or floated to the surface."

"Special Investigations Unit: Broken Government - Scorched Earth

Aired February 21, 2008 - 23:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: We'll have more on the impact of tonight's debate in Austin tomorrow morning on "American Morning" and as always here on 360 tomorrow night. Up next, Miles O'Brien with "Broken Government: Scorched Earth."

MILES O'BRIEN, HOST: Thanks, Anderson. Maybe the last things on earth you would expect to find a fierce political fight over are values like clean air and clean water. But the corporate lobbying and bitter partisanship in Washington have dramatically changed the political environment. And our broken government is not only failing to protect the environment, even supposed solutions turn out to do more harm than good.

Take corn ethanol for example. An energy source embraced by nearly all this year's presidential hopefuls, costing taxpayer dollars and by many accounts, it won't work.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL COUSER, CORN FARMER: This is perfect corn growing country. It doesn't get any better than this.

O'BRIEN: That's Bill Couser, life-long corn farmer and lately ethanol tycoon. He took me to some of the few stalks still standing this time of year.

COUSER: Now the free market is rewarding us for the job we're doing.

O'BRIEN: Well, actually it's not so free. As a matter of fact, you and I are fueling the fuel from corn frenzy with as much as $17 billion a year in government subsidies; even though corn ethanol is not as clean, efficient, or practical as the politicians claim. And what's worse, even the biggest corn ethanol advocates agree it won't make a dent in our addiction to foreign oil; more on that in a bit.

Let's go to the ethanol plant. Couser is a founder and chairman of this $90 million ethanol plant in his hometown of Nevada, Iowa.

COUSER: This is what we hope people will refer to as the Kuwait of the Midwest.

O'BRIEN: The place is humming; 24/7, 365. Trucks roll in, drop their loads of Iowa gold. Nationwide, there are now 139 corn ethanol plants and they are maxed out; distilling more than 6 billion gallons of the stuff every year. Nearly every drop loaded onto freight cars and sent down the line to be mixed in with gasoline.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The plant is making money right now.

O'BRIEN: The plant is profitable.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah.

O'BRIEN: You don't want to say?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's profitable.

SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY (R), IOWA: Everything about ethanol is good, good, good.

O'BRIEN: I went to Washington and sat down with Senator Charles Grassley, an Iowa corn farmer himself.

GRASSLEY: President Bush and I have worked together very closely --

O'BRIEN: He told me he's been pushing for your tax dollars to kick start ethanol.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The panic is real.

O'BRIEN: Ever since the oil crises of the mid and late '70s.

GRASSLEY: The people filling up their tank, would they rather have the American farmer and the American worker have that money or would they rather to give it to some Arab sheikh to shoot back at us in the war on terror? I think they would choose to leave the money in America.

O'BRIEN: Ethanol is one of the few issues on which Republicans and Democrats agree.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D) HOUSE SPEAKER: We will send our energy dollars to the Midwest, not the Middle East.

O'BRIEN: And the ethanol cause has a sure-fire insurance policy that renews every four years.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We're going to give you the fight.

O'BRIEN: The Iowa caucuses. Where candidates in both parties stand in line to kneel at the altar of --

RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: Ethanol.

OBAMA: Corn-based ethanol.

MITT ROMNEY, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Ethanol.

JOHN EDWARDS, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Corn ethanol.

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON, (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We're going to start here with corn.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Develop the ethanol necessary.

O'BRIEN: All of this is driving energy policy in Washington these days. In December, the politicians upped the ante big-time, setting an annual goal of 36 billion gallons of alternative fuels in the U.S. by 2022.

BUSH: This is a good bill.

O'BRIEN: 15 billion of that from corn ethanol. More than doubling what is produced now, costing you, the taxpayer, an additional $5 billion in subsidies.

BUSH: And I'm pleased to sign it.

O'BRIEN: Could this be the booming business if it weren't for the subsidies?

BOB DINNEEN, ETHANOL LOBBYIST: No. Government has a very important role to play here.

O'BRIEN: That's ethanol lobbyist, Bob Dinneen. In Washington, they call him Reverend Renewable...."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/21/acd.02.html

Then, if you have the time...look and see why GW declsred the shuttle blowing up a Disastor and how money it unlocked to farmers.http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04112008/transcript2.html

I found that comment to be more of the smoke and mirror routine that big oil uses.

If one deducts the government's 11% from the average cost of $3.83 per gallon (we're paying 3.89 [87 octane) to 4.59 [92 octane] a gallon here), that brings the price down to $3.75 a gallon. Not much difference. And certainly doesn't explain he huge percentage increase in the price of gas in the last year alone.

"But Scorp, you're wrong about daily demand being the same as 20 years ago"

From the Senate judiciary hearing on rising oil costs (the theme of this thread)

In January 1981 the amount of oil as raw material being supplied the U.S. was rougly 571 million barrels. In 2008, 27 years later, the amount being supplied to the U.S. is 573 million barrels. In 27 years that amount hasn't changed.

World wide consumption of oil increased 2.8% between 2004 and 2006. Yet oil costs at the pump increased 40%-60%! The line that oil demand has gone through the roof doesn't fly base upon that fact. The rising price of gas is not commenserate with the rising amount of consumption.

The oil companys rightly claim that the raw material prices are jumping. Yet, unlike other business, who experience a margin loss on their profits from that, the oil companies are making record profits.

The oil company's in their opening statements tried to put some of the blame on speculators.

But what came out in the hearings was statement by the chief economist of the Commodities Commission who stated that "when new information comes to light, it is the oil companies, airlines and utilities companies that change their price position, prompting speculators to change their position in response. Simply stated, there is no evidence that position changes by speculators proceed price changes for crude oil futures contracts." "The CFTC is saying oil companies are driving up the price of oil and other market participants are simply responding to those increases."

Yes, the oil companies need to earn profits in the billions of dollars, in order to expand, but there is a point when that money becomes something known as "enough, is never enough", i.e. greed

With regard to oil company expenditures, this came out in those hearings as well:

The oil companies "utilization refining capacity" is at 80-85% industry wide. It is the lowest that it has been since 1992. Yet the oil companies are begging to open up new refineries and new exploration (while destroying pristine environments).

While I agree with much about what Lisa said about our "public servents", that hearing, unlike "Whitewater", is what my tax dollars should be going to. To find out answers to that which immediately affects our lives. Not something like Whitewater, which wastes our tax dollars so that others can gain political power.

That hearing was about what the oil companies are doing to the U.S. economy, the extra billion or 10's of billions in profit that they are taking and what that is doing to the working families, small businesses, the farmers, the truckers.. to all of us.

And this is part of what I want my tax dollars to go for. Not bullshit witch hunts, like Whitewater, or an impeachment hearing over something as meaningless for our lives as Monica Lewinsky.

I found many of the Senators to be quite versed in the subject at hand.

Senator Durbin asked them point blank, "don't you care about what you're doing to the American economy, to the American people when you take that extra billion dollars in profit?".

Which is when Stephen Simon, V.P. of Exxon, tried say that "they were doing as much as they could to try and put out as much product as they can".

That was when Durbin interrupted him and brought up the point about utilization refining capacity being at it's lowest in 16 years. And the big oil execs didn't dispute that with him.

The point that Senator Durbin was making, is that the oil companys are intentionally holding back on refining oil at the expense of the American public.

They tried to make claims about taking some refinerys offline for overhaul, but when Derbin confronted them about their profits, Robertson VC of Chevron said that they reinvested it all. Derbin was not only incredulous at that, but pointed out that in the past several years the big oil companys have had a 300% increase in cash on hand and only a 81% increase in capital investment. Then Robertson tried to say that they are investing as capably as they can. Derbin then pointed out that they "are taking profits and holding it in hand (as cash) while the price of gasoline is breaking the backs of the American people."

He sounded to me like he did his homework when confronting these lying, DEGREED oil execs.

And it was interesting to see the worried expressions on the people sitting behind these gentleman, while Durbin, Feinstein and Kohl questioned them.

As was it to see that several oil execs said nothing through out the whole proceeding..

We are no longer a producing nation.

And that didn't just happen with NAFTA.

For over 30 years, less then 10% of our population produces food for the other 90%.

We no longer make our own steel, electronics, etc. I often wonder what part Harley Davidson means when they say "Made in America". Because most of the parts on those bikes are made over seas.

Car manufacturers last week, stated that they don't have plans to produce a non gasoline using engine anytime soon.

The big lesson in this is that OPEC holds ALL of the cards.

With the rise of ethonal, the price of grain becomes tied to oil.

I said it before, in less than 100 years, the world has become completely and totally dependent on oil.

No matter how much time you spend writing in here you aren't going to change the direction this country is heading in, nor the outcome.

You really want to do something Scorp? Get the fuc.k off this web site and get involved with organizations that are trying to come up with solutions. Take up your time with something productive, because this is just a dead end.

Or you'll end up being just like tck.

Thats a small point really. Ill concede that, that demand is up ok... and Im not taking their side however, everything they said was not a lie.

For one. Supply here is not a problem. I see tankers unload every week down river at mobil sand coastal to be fined. I worked for Transocean , they run the docks right down the street from here..I unloaded shipss from time to time a while bck when work was slow. Cimm...they are so efficient and they HAVE to have tht hip out of port by a date certain for the next ship or there are heavy fines. I worked long hours, boring also. Tha is the most boring work I ever did...deep down in the hold of a ship filled with steel, or in a frozen box of fruit that is shrinkwrapped and counted.

Not far form here is a filed of oil storgae tanks......I helped to build on as a young man and I can tell you, that filed is huge.

So, unless you see signs saying out of gas, supply is good. Second point is this...thes plant do often have to shut down for saftey resons and rebuid certain parts. The corode and if they arent fixed they could explode. During the 70's it was a common occurance around here to hear one explode every so often.

Same goes for Nuclear plants. Every 18 month they go off line for mantainence.

What bites my ass is this...the President of Shell told the truth whenhe said that old oil fields are still paying off quite handsomely. I'd like to know what those numbers are.

NINE YRS AGO A BARREL OF OIL COST NINE DOLLARS.

So, se, when we give these compasnies, we should get some kind of fixed price agreement or we should be able to collect interest at exhorbant rates on the subsidizes...They shouldnt be able to hsave it both ways...get thje money to go find the freeking oil , not give us some fixed price such as...sayt they wont ever charge us more than 75 % more than when high specualiton kicks in. It should be quite easy to determine when high Spec kicks in...for gods sake...when the prive of oil doubles in less then nine months...thats a start. Oil comspnaies couldnt charge us anyt more than 75% of that price.

I dunno but one thiung is foir sure...we aint getting off oil for about 29 yrs and we can get to ours right here. Its a no brainer.

Like I said in my other forum...lets Start a new arm of the US armed forces..oil is a weapon.

Dont fret too much. Senator Obama is going to pull out of Iraq, a country hees visited ONCE...snd afghanistan,,,whre he holds a a committee chair and has yet to hold an oversight committe....so lets just pull out of these wars and decommission the US Military...since we are the singlelargest purchaser.

Maybe that isnt such a bad Idea...Bring all those soldier to the Shale fields and start building the infrastructure for the future....as far as the middle Easst. We can defend them with a fleet of B2B bombers with nukes.

Need to stop looking like jerk offs anyway...herewe are at Bruma trying to get in with all that food...why not turn around and send it to plelestine. show some good will there...I doubt nyone really wants to shoot at us there. Or take it to sudan. wherer people are begging for food.

Let Europe worry about the middle east...the have all the answers anyway. My view remains that alot of it is geopolitical, stick it to America as the elections approach.

Americans should remember this!

That is incorrect.

The cost would be $3.41 per gallon. But my point still stands about the huge increase in the cost of gas. Last year it was $1.00 less (here in CA).

This is also in my post:

The rise world wid consumption for 2004 to 2006 is only 2.8%.

Well, me being the irreverant one, as you know...I started calling her...very afectionately Dr. Grasshopper(she still lafs at that one). Ill tell you , had it not been for her, I doubt I woulda made it through that yr. she steered me to all the literature.

So, I am telling you that coz... its just meant affectionately and not demeaningly..ok "

Economics:

There are plenty of ways we can siphon off energy from the planet other than drilling for and selling oil. A "New Deal" sort of initative to harness the tides, the deserts, the winds (Many coastal cities have initatives for offshore wind farms but are meeting political resistance...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/01/15/cape_wind_proposal_clears_big_obstacle/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174806,00.html

http://www.lioffshorewindenergy.org/index.php? )

Environment

The jury was out (at least among the thinking minds of the world) in the early '90's. Carbon emissions are killin the planet. No links need here. If GWB has to even reluctanly admit it the evidence must be overwhelming.

Terrorism

Or at least the current prevailing extremeists.Sadly, there will always be someone willing to kill innocents in the name of their cause.

America's use of oil as an energy source is funding an entire region's population that wants nothing more to obliterate us. We get off the oil...and they can go back to killing each other on horseback like they were doing 100 years ago...

My next car will be a Tesla:

http://www.teslamotors.com/

Completely Electric, 0-60 in under 4 seconds...sharp as hell and 200 miles or so on a fuel cell that takes 3 hours to charge...and I'm sure the fuel cells will only improve...with a sticker of $98k of the rack, expensive for sure...but the fuel costs rising with no end in sight and current charging costs about half that of gas...the car should pay for itself over its lifetime....which for an electric motor is sure to be twice that of an internal combustion engine....

You really want to do something Scorp? Get the fuc.k off this web site and get involved with organizations that are trying to come up with solutions. Take up your time with something productive, because this is just a dead end.

Or you'll end up being just like tck.****

Sounds personal. I suppose if I was an agreeable type you wouldnt writer that. I also Se that that what I kinda told you not to do, meaning being disrespectful had no effect right .

So, whats your point. Youre mad at me cause youre paying higher oil? or coz or what? To be honest...Cimm I can be on the net for as long as I please. This weekend Im headed fro the shore...was going to AC til I heard theres an airshow in NYC...as far as my contribution?

I havent paid for more than a tank of gas in over three weeks. How about you. Like Lisa said...self regulation is best. I also recycle coz my town got over 200, 000 dollars back last yr as we burn our trash and convert it to steam which is then sold to two companies.

Aside from that wise guy...I use the net to get informed not insulted. I have been looking at a stock called Spacehab...the only company in existence. you might want to check it out for yourself. See what kind of research they are doing on the ISSS and how they just stepped up they work to university level...The CEO Pickens said when they are ready yo go commercial, he has the investors.,...

it was at 8 dollars just on spec but its dropped off. yesterday it went from 30 something to 50 something cents.

I have akid in school...as soon as shes done I'm buying in...so these are my contributions. So while you wanna sit there and judge me and throw me in with TCK, youre quite wrong.

Like I told you in another forum...why not just steer clear if you find me offensive to your sensitivities..My life would not stop if you never spoke to me again really. despite the fact that I offered you an olive branch not once but twice.

I am involved with two organization Cimm, but they deal with cleaning up the neighborhood and helping the young.

Plus, I have a huge responsibility taking care of someone I love...you wouldnt know how challenging that is but trust me there are others here who do..they know intimate details of it so dont look like you know something when in fact you know nothing about my life really. Just like I know nothing bout yours.

The only thing I know about your is that you like to sky dive and any comment about the left runs right up your ass to the point that you have to become rude.

Since you are such a good policitican , why dont you run for office?

The Germans developed it in WW2. I don't know how polluting it is, but South Africa uses it for diesel fuel.

I know that Ferrari requires a very high grade of it for their Enzo (at something like $80.00 a quart!).

I don't know why it isn't being discussed as an option, but I assume there is a cost factor to it.

Anyway, I agree with Matt. I think that everyone does. But what is the most correct, immediate alternative?

If you care, as obviously you do, then why waste the time here where it is nothing more than a discussion? Why not get involved with those organizations that are involved in these topics that you like to write about and that can use someone who has the time to be online all the time writing essays or putting out the information?

As far as your continued use of insults with me (something that you once claimed to be impervious to doing).. I'll ignore those as I usually do. But like I told you before, you're sorely tempting me.

As far as the falling value of the dollar...Oil has much less to do with that. Want to shore up the strength of the dollar...might help if we make this counter stop:

http://zfacts.com/p/364.html

and that's just the up front costs...some estimate the true cost of this war to be in the trillions....

And HOW much would it cost to beta test one of those offshor wind farms....even if it was 300 million...??

I no longer agree with that matt.

I think that's a romantic concept that bears little, if any fruit in this day and age. Perhaps a long time ago, when populations were smaller. That and this is a chat/dating web site that some of us have been hanging out in. People come to this site, to go "shopping", not to educate themselves. It's not exactly high on the search engine lists as a source for information.

**

How old were you when you started tending line?

Its you who seem to be provoking me dude(you need to read over the parts where I said I have no problem with you)...you wont get the rise out of me so that you can then say...oh ...you want all out war...like I told you...you got as wide a berth as you need just dont confuse the facts with your feelings.

When ?hunter and I started down bad road Cimm...I grabbed hold of myself and sorted out what was mine and what wasnt...I apologized for what was mine and guess what...we've keep cool ever since. Seems like you cant do that and wont allow others to do it either. Maybe you might start be examining why that is. Now, you can take the last sentence as friendly advice , which it is meant or....you can take it as another attack , which it is not.

As I told you before, I am or was a builder...I see a problem and thin about answers...however, its doubtful that little ole me is going to solve the worlds problems. but letting people know what is out there and what is BS , like you did with regards to corn...that is a good thing

Hey Mr Matt.....Im going to be in NYC at Jones Beach on Sunday....where are you Im going to the airshow to See the Raptor....you in town? Ill buy...man its been so long.

Have you Been getting the time to see the show extreme engineering? The shanghai towers? or the Chinese Olympic Stadium and how they put that together?

I've never ever seen iron put together like that except a tank where bolts werent used. All that false work was used to prop it up and then it settled into itself over what 18 inches or something? I'm going to start photographing the Freedon tower Matt as it comes out of the ground.

I've been getting advice from Frckld and trying enlist Manny babe for advice too. Mostly for historical reasons and if I get lucky...and get some good pics, we'll see about getting it bound.

Hehe...you know Matt...I'd die to get on that job....but photographing it is good enough. I'm as amateur a photographer as it gets but I know what I want as far as capturing the erectors and the steel going up.

I just found a roll of undeveloped wide angle shots from the Ben Franklin I should have redeveloped.

You all but call me a waste a terminal cyber couch potato as if its impossible to post here and do anything else.. That my long post.

and proceed to tell me I sm insulting you????

Is it my long post that grit agaisnt you? or is that I wont shrink away from you and youre illogical reasons for doing what I dam please with what I own.

Rule number 1 Cimm

I dont argue over what belongs to me. My Pc is mine therfore I dont argue over what I use it for...I dont use it to cheat people and havent been in a smut site in about 5 yrs or more.

As far as dating on the net, in mingles?....what is going on behind the scenes and who I talk to aside from the forums is really none of yourbiz, so how would you know what Im doing here on mingles really?

Forum are for dicussion Cimm. 2, 3 and 4 word games are for cute stuff but if you see a serious header up top, you may assume that a serious discussion is going on. if its created by me or I am contributing, you may again asume I have alot to say, and therefore have the choice to read it or not. If someone has you tied down and is making you read it, let mr mingles know.

I like to email some of the ladies in my friends list. Aside from a few men like Mr Matt and Manta and Midnightoil and some other Guys I've met....I really dont have alot of time for guys Cimm. I do happen to trust Robbie and Captm. they are the exceptions.

Please stop insulting me and then when I respond accusing me of being the one who is the offender.

you mean they have expanded the internet to include forms of pornography??? when did this happen!!!??

I watched how much you cried when Cristo lobbed a couple of well placed shots at you and I'm about to do the same.

I use to go into the Hun dot net but gsve that up a long time ago. When my Grand daughters started susing my Pc I reset all my controls for content and just left them like that. It doesnt bother me in the least really. I will confess to checking in to a site called hornymatches dot com to see who is nearby but as of yet...nada...I aint paying nor playing. Its comical but there is this one hottie ...that keeps trying to get in touch with me from some god forsaken place.

Ok back to this....

Are you in the city? ok I gues youre busy...or maybe youre in TX...well anyway have a great weekend. Ill be on jones beach tomorrow...ill look for you.

I've been meaning to ask what do you guys weld with underwater? some sort of gas rod I imagine no? does it have a hole in the rod like an air arc rod for cutting?

When I learned to weld all we had was 6010...I hated that sh*t..then 7018 came along and then Jet wire for flat..I love jet wire...makes you look like a dam rocket science builder.

I kinda enjoyed Brazing though Matt, as a hobby of mine. I would make little things as gifts...like people golfing or fishing out of nails or wire. I even made a typist for a woman, she loved it.

How good are with a torch? Do you get to fabricate much? From watching modern marvels so much has changed.....I doubt I wouldknow my way around a modern fab shop thees days with plasma cutting and all.

Have you read anything at all as to why so many cranes are coming down.....geesh another one fell this week...that makes like 6 in 5 months. Thats unheard of Matt. I was in AC two weeks and saw 5 tower cranes up....11 new casinos going up.

I'm not much of a welder because I never did like the smoke(plus its boring, I like to be on the move) hunter..I can weld and get certified and even did some cad welding...that cad welding is wild stuff there but I got burnt pretty good by accident.

However...give me a regular torch and a straight edge or let me make my own and some tip cleaners I can cut fairly well up to about one inch thick without it looking like jaws bit into it and little slag also. Always keep the oxygen opening clean and the flow will be straight is what I was taught.

As for Welding...haha Im a big wussy....

out on the job...I always ask for jet wire...for flat welding..jet wire could make a monkey look like a pro it lays down so smooth as apposed to 6010 which is mild steel 7018 is low hydrogen and then then jet wire...thats just in stick welding... the pipe welders or the prima donnas use heliarc, hell they dont even get dirty.

you ever do any welding hunter? ever get to use jet wire? Its strickly for flat and as the name implies its aviation wire. you dont need much skill ...when youre done if you can imagine taking a roll of dimes and laying them down so they look just beautifully overlapped thats what you get with jet wire. with little work BTW

another reason I didnt care for welding was that was just one more thing I had to drag around...a hundred foot of wire getting tangled on every dam thing...getting cut and arcing...I didnt mind spot welding decking. My preference is sheeting on the side of buildings vertical sheeting out of baskets or erecting structural. All the rest I didnt care for but I did it...

You must have worked with some heavy equipment also in the service...I also put alot of that together. Alot to crawler cranes by Manitowoc.

you get to work with choppers? lifting and stuff like that? Have to take the static electricity off the hook first or get fried? Is that true? if so, how is it that men can board a chopper without relieving the static?

I watched how much you cried when Cristo lobbed a couple of well placed shots at you and I'm about to do the same.***

no I never cried Cimm, I made a point, if you missed it, then that is too bad...as I told you on the side...dont try to recruit.

1 you try to name drop people that I have handshake deals with to stay out of this petty bs

2 youve never really enumerated what youre exact problem IS to be honest...except that you seem to think I dont have a sense of humor from what Ive gathered. or you think that Im just supposed to be your doormat?

3. you try to solicit other minglers(by carom shots) who either dont like TCK so you use his name with mine or now you use Christos name with mine hoping that will ignite him and I again. this way at least you can have another ally.

Just exactly is your major malfuntion dude? really? I jumped into your biz once and apologized the other night you got mad and mailed me and I apologized behind the scene and explained to you that while I was reading your space post i was also listening to a phone conversation about a friend who was just admitted to the hospital..I apologized for that...so what is youyr freeking problem...are you some kind of saddist...The woman is blind and now terminal and I was supposed to drop all that for your felings at that second? but eventually I got around to you coz you seem to be sensitive.

Let me splain something to you...youre doormat is outside of your door. perhaps you need to get a blood test and get something checked.

Are you obvlious to the fact that other people read these dude...why dont you just take a chill pill and go about your biz whatever that iz.it dont include me.

Let me clue you into one thing

when I came back here I found you involved in debates with bucky and TCK mostly bucky one on one with rules and moderators...sorry but that wont happen here....if you wanna debate something worthwhile like Intelliegent design vs the theory of evolution yeah ok... or debate whether all fossils are are transitional ok. or did birds begin from learning to fly from the ground up or climbing and gliding top down but debating nonsense.....nah...you got the wrong pigeon. sorry.

If youre looking for an insult contest...I just dont have it in me to be honest.... you dont need to talk yourself into it..you already have...just roll with it and act like a monkey...

if you want to even debate which political system is best maybe....im not that keen on that but id give it a go just to learn something.

lets debate whether Senator obama has the tools to run foregn policy since hes been to iraq once and held no oversight hearings on afghnistan since beocming a Senator I ma candidate..or whatever he iz.

On second thought. you arent worth my time. your next move will be toopen a forum with my name on it lol...that way you can control the posts..hurry ill be right there.

Captn are you sure it wasnt galvinized? I'm trying to think....I dont recall using much aluminum its so expensive and if we did we probably cut it with a blade.

If you ever see a roadway on a bridgedeck being ripped up and redone right done to the beams , youll see these things that look like metal nails that are weleded on top. they have a head also. They are for attaching into the concrete.

In a building that is mostly concrete but has exposed iron that gets welded to, on the other side are nelson studs to hold it to the concrete. When you fab that piece, there might be so msny studs, that the heat can begin to wrap the plate. So sometimes pre-heating is mandatory so it doesn wrap or itgets rejected and cost the company money.

I learned alot form a man who was the best fabricator I ever knew. He learned during the war at the Ship yard building ships here down the street from me. I cant say I learned all that much but I learned enough fab work to see the fundamentals of how heat pulls oon metals as they cool.

Ill tell ya one thing I got a great appreciation for men who were black smiths, who took rocks from the earth and turned them into swords. You can see how a sword became a mystical piece that held power.

Thank you all for sharing & discussing all of this. RE the 11% taxes - not meant to be an excuse, just an illustration of how our pols put on a show for voters & don't make an effort toward situation improvement, when they could.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the more I learn, the more I realize how much I have yet to learn!

not gonna go there, if i do i get into trouble

Anyone else have a wager?

Well, won't consider myself an 'artist' with it - but I do blacksmithing as well. I won't say they are 'pretty' items - but there is some of my work in various "colonial" villages, houses and such. Nicest piece I made was a cross for a friend of mine.

Can weld steel pretty well, working on aluminum. Just having a b*tch of a time keeping things from blowing holes and warping to making cold joints. Will get there though - practice practice practice. I can get good results with everything 1/2 and below - after that my heat build up gets to be a bit much. Watched one of my welds handle all the torque and power a 1100 hp engine could put out. It held - but I was wondering the whole time!

Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee summoned top executives from

the petroleum industry for what Chairman Pat Leahy thought would be a

politically profitable inquisition. Leahy and his comrades showed up ready

to blame American oil companies for the high price of gasoline, but the

event wasn't as satisfactory as the Democrats had hoped.

The industry lineup was formidable:

. Robert Malone, Chairman and President of BP America, Inc.;

. John Hofmeister, President, Shell Oil Company;

. Peter Robertson, Vice Chairman of the Board, Chevron Corporation;

. John Lowe, Executive Vice President, Conoco Philips Company; and

. Stephen Simon, Senior Vice President, Exxon Mobil Corporation.

Not surprisingly, the petroleum executives stole the show, as they were far

smarter, infinitely better informed, and much more public-spirited than the

Senate Democrats.

One theme that emerged from the hearing was the surprisingly small role

played by American oil companies in the global petroleum market.

John Lowe pointed out:

I cannot overemphasize the access issue. Access to resources is severely

restricted in the United States and abroad, and the American oil industry

must compete with national oil companies who are often much larger and have

the support of their governments.

We can only compete directly for 7 percent of the world's available reserves

while about 75 percent is completely controlled by national oil companies

and is not accessible.

Stephen Simon amplified:

Exxon Mobil is the largest U.S. oil and gas company, but we account for only

2 percent of global energy production, only 3 percent of global oil

production, only 6 percent of global refining capacity, and only 1 percent

of global petroleum reserves. With respect to petroleum reserves, we rank

14th. Government-owned national oil companies dominate the top spots. For an

American company to succeed in this competitive landscape and go head to

head with huge government-backed national oil companies, it needs financial

strength and scale to execute massive complex energy projects requiring

enormous long-term investments.

To simply maintain our current operations and make needed capital

investments, Exxon Mobil spends nearly $1 billion each day.

Because foreign companies and governments control the overwhelming majority

of the world's oil, most of the price you pay at the pump is the cost paid

by the American oil company to acquire crude oil from someone else.

Last year, the average price in the United States of a gallon of regular

unleaded gasoline was around $2.80. On average in 2007, approximately 58

percent of the price reflected the amount paid for crude oil. Consumers pay

for that crude oil, and so do we.

Of the 2 million barrels per day Exxon Mobil refined in 2007 here in the

United States, 90 percent were purchased from others.

Another theme of the day's testimony was that, if anyone is "gouging"

consumers through the high price of gasoline, it is federal and state

governments, not American oil companies. On the average, 15% percent of the

cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents oil

company profits. These figures were repeated several times, but, strangely,

not a single Democratic Senator proposed relieving consumers' anxieties

about gas prices by reducing taxes.

The last theme that was sounded repeatedly was Congress's responsibility for

the fact that American companies have access to so little petroleum.

Shell's John Hofmeister explained, eloquently:

While all oil-importing nations buy oil at global prices, some, notably

India and China, subsidize the cost of oil products to their nation's

consumers, feeding the demand for more oil despite record prices. They do

this to speed economic growth and to ensure a competitive advantage relative

to other nations.

Meanwhile, in the United States, access to our own oil and gas resources has

been limited for the last 30 years, prohibiting companies such as Shell from

exploring and developing resources for the benefit of the American people.

Senator Sessions, I agree, it is not a free market.

According to the Department of the Interior, 62 percent of all on-shore

federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments, with restrictions

applying to 92 percent of all federal lands. We have an outer continental

shelf moratorium on the Atlantic Ocean, an outer continental shelf

moratorium on the Pacific Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on

the eastern Gulf of Mexico, congressional bans on on-shore oil and gas

activities in specific areas of the Rockies and Alaska, and even a

congressional ban on doing an analysis of the resource potential for oil and

gas in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico.

The Argonne National Laboratory did a report in 2004 that identified 40

specific federal policy areas that halt, limit, delay or restrict natural

gas projects. I urge you to review it. It is a long list. If I may, I offer

it today if you would like to include it in the record.

When many of these policies were implemented, oil was selling in the single

digits, not the triple digits we see now. The cumulative effect of these

policies has been to discourage U.S. investment and send U.S. companies

outside the United States to produce new supplies.

As a result, U.S. production has declined so much that nearly 60 percent of

daily consumption comes from foreign sources.

The problem of access can be solved in this country by the same government

that has prohibited it. Congress could have chosen to lift some or all of

the current restrictions on exploration and production of oil and gas.

Congress could provide national policy to reverse the persistent decline of

domestically secure natural resource development.

Later in the hearing, Senator Orrin Hatch walked Hofmeister through the

Democrats' latest efforts to block energy independence:

HATCH: I want to get into that. In other words, we're talking about Utah,

Colorado and Wyoming. It's fair to say that they're not considered part of

America's $22 billion of proven reserves.

HOFMEISTER: Not at all.

HATCH: No, but experts agree that there's between 800 billion to almost 2

trillion barrels of oil that could be recoverable there, and that's good

oil, isn't it?

HOFMEISTER: That's correct.

HATCH: It could be recovered at somewhere between $30 and $40 a barrel?

HOFMEISTER: I think those costs are probably a bit dated now, based upon

what we've seen in the inflation...

HATCH: Well, somewhere in that area.

HOFMEISTER: I don't know what the exact cost would be, but, you know, if

there is more supply, I think inflation in the oil industry would be

cracked. And we are facing severe inflation because of the limited amount of

supply against the demand.

HATCH: I guess what I'm saying, though, is that if we started to develop the

oil shale in those three states we could do it within this framework of over

$100 a barrel and make a profit.

HOFMEISTER: I believe we could.

HATCH: And we could help our country alleviate its oil pressures.

HOFMEISTER: Yes.

HATCH: But they're stopping us from doing that right here, as we sit here.

We just had a hearing last week where Democrats had stopped the ability to

do that, in at least Colorado.

HOFMEISTER: Well, as I said in my opening statement, I think the public

policy constraints on the supply side in this country are a disservice to

the American consum

HOFMEISTER: Well, as I said in my opening statement, I think the public

policy constraints on the supply side in this country are a disservice to

the American consumer.

The committee's Democrats attempted no response. They know that they are

largely responsible for the current high price of gasoline, and they want

the price to rise even further. Consequently, they have no intention of

permitting the development of domestic oil and gas reserves that would both

increase this country's energy independence and give consumers a break from

constantly increasing energy costs.

Every once in a while, Congressional hearings turn out to be informative.

"On the average, 15% percent of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents oil company profits. These figures were repeated several times, but, strangely, not a single Democratic Senator proposed relieving consumers' anxieties about gas prices by reducing taxes"

This is the oil companies using their powerful friends in Washington (as Senator Derbin from Illinois publicly predicted they would) to try and spin this.

And this is one of the most powerful ways to do it. You posted text from a right wing blog (Powerline? of FoxNews?) that has been copied and reposted verbatim on all of the other right wing blogs. These blogs are supported by the oil companies through back channele like Inofre and others. These are the people that oppose doing anything about Global Warming and or stand to make a lot of money off of both oil and giving land access to explore and drill for it, or to make money off of ethonal.

I saw the hearings. Almost to a man, the Republican Senators coddled these oil execs. With the exception of the Senator from Alabama (I forgot his name) who didn't have a clue about anything.

While many of the Senators didn't have much information, Derbin does. Waxman does.

The oil companys and their investors want or should I say, need to keep the world tied to a limited resource, because if they don't, they don't make the billions and billions of dollars and eventually will go out of business if they don't invest huge sums of money in alternative fuels. They believe that there are still enough reserves for the next 20 years..

I'm not saying that the government tax is a good thing, by any means... but the tax doesn't account for the cost of gasoline rising almost 80% and in some areas 90%, nor does it account for the oil companies earning 40 to 60% more in profits than last year.

The oil companies might tell congress that oil isn't a good investmenet, but that's not what they tell Wall Street..

And where does the government tax go to??? Do you think that some of it goes to pay Haliburton for their services in Iraq?

Tuth is the Democrats filibustered the Republican/Bush bill that would have allowed drilling in the USA. If they hadn't, oil would now be flowing.

The problem isn't the oil companies, IT'S THE STUPID TREE-HUGGING DEMOCRATS!

36 (An Independent)

I'm starting to think that "Democrat" is just another name for "stupid".

When that oil runs out, then what? That oil isn't going to change a thing. The prices would still be where they are today.

It's people like you, who, inspite of your so claim to Mensa membership, don't have the ability to see ahead. Your attitude is "lets just keep chasing oil and destroying the environment until we're gone and let the next generation deal with it".

open the areas up - let the US become less dependent on foreign oil - or indeed, glut the world market

economics works on supply and demand - right now we have huge demand and limited supply

demand isn't going to decrease - increase the supply; we can't get OPEC to do it, so we should

"updated 9:45 p.m. ET March 16, 2004

WASHINGTON - Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce Americas dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.

The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaskas Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025.

But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuges oil remained off the market."

If you want to see something stupid, look in the mirror. And while you're doing that, you might realize that all of the money that you spent on plastic surgery couldn't make up for your lack of intelligence or turn you into a beautiful person.

But thanks for the laugh! It's always fun to watch a little kid try and act like a grown up!

US demand for oil is at roughly the same as it was 20 some yrs ago. If supply is so short, wheres all the gas lines? Wheres all the "out of gas" signs. Even the oil people acknowledge supply is fine, demand is lower.

OPEC sets the price and we have no control over that. Not to mention Speculators, neither of which are transparent. My suspicion is that the speculators are made up of alot of oil people myself. And my main complaint is why we cant get a fixed price on oil when we subsidized those bastards to find it in the first place. Ok, so its an international company I suppose. There must be some way we could have made them lock into a price or a price ceiling. Theres so much nuance to the industry , tis hard to see the whole picture and say with certainty that I understand it.

That tantamount to saying listening to a bunch of surgeons and then pretenuously acting like I know what it takes to be a brain surgeon. It just doesnt work like that. We have to rely on ethical oversight. That is lacking.

Theres a book titlted "Twilight in the Desert". This book is now available in paperback. Its all about how the Saudis have been manipulating oil reseves and when we will reach "PEAK OIL" or begin to run out. Theres a few different estimates but most are right around the corner so why is it that Americans are still playing politics with their own futures?

Ok, so Anwar might not be THE answer. Best guess I heard was that oil from Anwar was 7 yrs away form your nearest gas station. I agree and I did see the same Nat Geo show that you saw Cimm. If you recall, theres but one well drilled there and no one is saying how much is there. Oil companies dont make prety footprints in that kind of environment for sure. Even if it were limited to a small amount of wells.

Are we to add ourselves to the andangered species because we cant find the engenuity to supply our own gas? and heating fuel, not to mention the truckers that are being killed by the cost of fuel.

I still maintain that Shale is the answer. And I am hearing more and more people in the energy biz say the same thing. !.5 Trill barrels or 5 times the stated amount of oil the Saudis claim they have. The answer seems simple.

Up until about 1970 the US drilled enough oil to satisfy its own needs. As demand rose however, why go drilling for more when oil was roughly 9 dollars per barrel?

When I worked For Bectel backed in the early 80's we thought we might be going after shale on our next project but that never happened. I've said it for maybe the past 2 yrs.

It wasnt profitable and the tech required us to dig it out but things have changed. At this price per barrel its worth going after and now we can melt it so we can suck it out of the ground. If anyone listened to the whole C-Span hearing, then they heard the President of Shell say it. Now two Governors of 2 States out West are doing exactly that.

We dont need to open Anwar and we dont need to kiss the Arabs Asses but we will need to stop petty politics. Not here of course because thats inherit to this site but in Wash DC things have to change no mater who is in office.

TWILIGHT IN THE DESERT: THE COMING OIL SHOCK AND THE WORLD ECONOMY By Matt Simmons comes as a highly recommended book to read by a friend of mine. It have alot of 5 star reviews and the guy is a member of the National Petroleum Council and the Council on Foreign Relations and not some nut. I'm going to look for it at the library. I've known or read that the Saudi's have long been mis-representing their supplies. All you have to do is look at the numbers they post and you can see someting isnt right.

http://www.dailyreckoning.com/rpt/OilShale.html

Heres a good site to view on the technology thats coming to extract the oil from shale. At one time, it would have had to been mined and scarred the desert and of course upset the environmentalists.

http://updates.spe.org/index.php/2008/02/01/oil-shale-extraction-technology-has-a-new-owner/

That's incorrect, I posted that figure above, but I will repost it here:

In 1981 oil demand in the U.S. was 571 million barrels, 27 years later, in 2008 we are at 573 million barrels. Roughly the same as 1981.

"Heres a good site to view on the technology thats coming to extract the oil from shale. At one time, it would have had to been mined and scarred the desert and of course upset the environmentalists."

The mari deposits in the Green River Deposits in the Colorado, Utah and Wyoming are estimated to contain 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels of this type of "oil".

The "think tank"; Rand Corp. published a report on shale oil extraction titled : Oil Shale Development in the United States, Prospects and Policy Issues https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG414.pdf

and addresses it's environmental impact on pages 35-40.

Shale oil extraction:

"Oil shale" typically is not shale and does not contain oil, but rather is a rock known as marl containing organic compounds like kerogen. When heated to high temperatures of 700 degrees (referred to as "retorting" ), one can obtain an oil-like substance from the rock which can be refined to produce a transportation fuel.

In the mean time you have created all kinds of nasty byproducts, have polluted the air and groundwater of wherever you have extracted it."

It is highly polluting when burned, retorting it (the act of extraction) produces such high green house emissions, that Australia closed down their demonstration plant.

It is also highly carcinogenic, two metric tons of rock are required to obtain one barrel of this synthetic crude. According to the Rand Corp's. report "Surface Retort" damages the environment permanently by virtue of the size of the excavation needed to extract the shale and the surrounding areas needed for the necessary infrastructure to store, move and or process it.

And any person, politician or company that says othewise, doesn't have our best interest in mind or is completely foolish.

When I first read what you just wrote, my first thought was "Well put!".

But then I started thinking.. Robert Kennedy had our best interests in mind.

Anyway, there aren't any more great, charismatic figures in our lives, like there were when I was younger.

People like JFK, Martin Luther King, RFK, Cesar Chavez, Winston Churchill... There is no one out there anymore that speaks for all of humanity. Edward Kennedy has come close, but even he has stopped certain things for ulterior motives.

But when the vote came up to give Bush the right to use force against Iraq, he was one of the lone Senators who voted against doing so. And for all of the reasons that we are seeing why we shouldn't have invaded Iraq.

He's voted for the right for women to chose whether they can get an abortion, for same sex marriages, for universal health care, for a raise in the minimum wage, etc. He was the first major political figure to back Obama (not that I agree with him, nor his previous stance on nuclear energy) because he wants something fresh for the American people, instead of a continuation of the political status quo, that has led this country into stagnation and worse.

The neo cons always attack him for his personal life.. because that's their M.O. when they try to undermine their political adversaries. Notice how they (the right wing) always take a shot at the popluarity of a rival by going after their spouses.

I think that Senator Derbin from Illinois, has the American people's best interests in mind, as was evident in the homework that he did when he confronted the top oil execs, which is what this forum is about.

Cimm, first thing is this....I will read your Rand Report however this pc is corrupted and my pdf download just flickers so when I get to the library, Ill check it out. I'm in the process of moving so when that might be I dunno right now. sometime in the next 3 or 4 weeks I guess..if its in html form, drop that link.

In the process I provided, the shale never leaves the ground, is never dug up, its heated via sound frequencies and pumped out as sweet oil.

I wont dismiss it out of hand but I would remind you that there are many problems and toxic wastes involved with cracking oil also. With every think tank that has a goal, they seek to reach that goal, so Ill have to review it but, for one, Im not a chemist I can read and fully comprehend most mechanical ideas and some overviews of chemistry. If you went into an oil refinery, you'd spend about one week getting a rudimentary education on just how dangerous and toxic that process is. There are bells and whistles and all sorts of emergency situations and rooms to evacuate in case of explosions.

Theres no free lunch in dealing with most of these substances.

And to say that it causes such and such without exploring ways and means to overcome them is to say that the necessity is the mother of invention no longer applies. I dont feel that way.

To the question of oil independence, let me ask you something rather than say something and have you say I mis characterized you. What are you saying, that we should not drill ANY of our own resources? There seems to be this push by some people and I personally find that to be unreasonable and foolish myself for a number of reasons.

I think everything should be on the table first and foremost in terms of big energy needs should be solar and nuclear. I'm pragmatic and look at it through a different lens.

The Sun is where the power is. Capture it and Mimic it. Its safe, nuclear power is safe even despite Chernobyl. That could be a whole other debate. those numbers , the true numbers havent been made public. It used to be very expensive to produce a solar panel because they made it out of silica. There are products now that can be applied as a paint product to materials.

In fact, if I recall, theres a shingle system that is coated with it that ties to not only to your meter but to your water and it heats your water.

Renewables, sure, I am in favor of them and wind but in the end, with all the new ideas. we need a new car and need to convince people they dont need 500 horsepower. Whose manufacturing and showing off those sleek 500 HP sporty cars to the American public? The Germans? BMW, BENZ and I dont see the Euros who seem to want to lead the world in Green tech doing that.

Ok, so we get America to cut back on high HP gas powered cars theres still a huge need for oil powered vehicles. No ones addressed, to my knowledged just what kind of vehicle where they are going to get the torque needed to pull the loads over the road that Tractors do? Nor have High I heard of what kind of Machines are going to replace construction equipment that are going to pick up 300 tons and place it 20 stories above.

Shipping. These Tankers. They take crude and run it right into those bores with those eight foot tall bores(or however tall they are) and burn it and the exhaust goes right out the top.

As far as I know most shipping doesnt have codified exhaust limits. They just blow it right out into the atmosphere. what kind of fuel will push these ships? Nuclear? I've unloaded some of these rust buckets and I wouldnt trust them to do the maintainence on a nuclear power plant. I live right down the street form a ship yard and when work was slow unloaded a few. Everything leaked, all the hyraulics. That was just on the furit and wood and steel laden ships.

Aviation fuels. What are we going to fly planes with.

For the near future Oil is going to be here and be needed, at least for the next 60 yrs.

So, oil is never going to be eliminated. If we want to have a real discussion we might as well have some kind of productive one. Its embarrasing to know that while every country in the world goes after its natural resources, we sit her with our thumbs up our asses and listen to people who say , you cant drill there and you cant drill here.

This is not an attack on you Cimm, dont take it that way. The best editorial I heard as on TV today. We are the Sons and Daughters of the "Greatest Generation" who at one time in history went abroad and fought the Nazi and the Japanese, not in a push button war but up lose and personl and at the same time dug out of a depression here at home and did it Stoicially. And here we are , cant decide which shoe to put on first. Its sad and disgraceful.

For my part, Ill take the bus, use the train, do whatever it takes but what I wont do is listen to non sense and not speak up. Congress and politicians in general are talking non-sense.

They ramp up the demagogues and get the little people like the people who post here and vote on issue while, in fact most of them are compoletely uneffectd by the laws they pass.

First is that while I am all for finding a new way to travel, I think that all things need to be on the table right now. We have oil and natural gas.

Finally, Norway, a Country I've spoken about again and again is the model the US should be using. They go after their resources. They pump their natarul gas and liquify it and put it on a tanker and guess where it goes? to the US...thats just part of what they do.

"Norways oil management regime

Norways sensible approach to oil wealth management deserves the attention it has received in other resource-rich countries around the world. Norways approach has several key features:

From the beginning, before the first drop of oil emerged, the oil and gas reserves within Norwegian jurisdiction were defined by law as common property resources, thereby clearly establishing the legal rights of the Norwegian people to the resource rents.

On this legal basis, the government has absorbed about 80 percent of the resource rent over the years, having learnt the hard way in the 1970s to use a relatively small portion of the total to meet current fiscal needs. Most oil revenue is set aside in the state petroleum fund, recently renamed the pension fund to reflect its intended use.

The government laid down economic as well as ethical principles (commandments) to guide the use and exploitation of the oil and gas for the benefit of current and future generations of Norwegians.

The main political parties have, from the beginning, shared an understanding that the national economy needed to be shielded from an excessive influx of oil money to avoid overheating and waste.

The Central Bank (Norges Bank), which was granted increased independence from the government in 2001, manages the fund ( around $400 billion or $85,000 per Norwegian) on behalf of the Ministry of Finance. This maintains a distance between politicians and the fund. The fund constitutes net government wealth as no offsetting government borrowing takes place...."

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/1199

"Abstract

This document examines Norwegian policy on managing natural and environmental resources. These issues, and more generally the challenges of sustainable development, are primary concerns of the authorities in Norway, a country richly endowed with natural resources. Substantial action has been taken, as can be seen in the development of an integrated institutional framework and in the major efforts undertaken to co-ordinate government policies in this area. The investment of a large share of the rent from o

Todays news:

AP IMPACT: Big Oil profits steered to investors

By JOHN PORRETTO (AP Business Writer)

From Associated Press

July 21, 2008 10:03 PM EDT

HOUSTON - As giant oil companies like Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips get set to report what will probably be another round of eye-popping quarterly profits, just where is all that money going?

The companies insist they're trying to find new oil that might help bring down gas prices, but the money they spend on exploration is nothing compared with what they spend on stock buybacks and dividends.

It's good news for shareholders, including mutual funds and retirement plans for millions of Americans, but no help to drivers already making drastic cutbacks to offset the high cost of fuel.

The five biggest international oil companies plowed about 55 percent of the cash they made from their businesses into stock buybacks and dividends last year, up from 30 percent in 2000 and just 1 percent in 1993, according to Rice University's James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy.

The percentage they spend to find new deposits of fossil fuels has remained flat for years, in the mid-single digits.

you only cut/pasted a partial of the first paragraph

the article went on to say how much money that the u.s. oil companies are putting into the other places (exploration, alternative fuel, etc) and also cited how the u.s. oil companies are now the smallest in the world where they used to be the biggest

additionally, the article spoke of the u.s. oil companies having their "hands-tied" by both drilling restrictions and the fact that "national oil companies" (venezuela, iran, saudi arabia - etc) control the market through supply limitations

it also talked about exactly how much money our "small" u.s. oil companies should "throw" into exploration without it being redundant or having a bad "return" to it's investors (the stockholders)

futher, the article talked about how a publicly owned corporation (stockholders) needs to balance it's "health" with stock-buy backs, etc - especially since there were so many GROUPS of people (major corporate retirement funds, i.e. california teachers retirement association) that dependended on the overall health of the oil company for it's members

actually, if you went past the first paragraph (beyond the "headline news" you posted) the article was very neutral towards oil companie's "greed" and more focused on "corporate health"

By JOHN PORRETTO (AP Business Writer)

From Associated Press

July 21, 2008 10:03 PM EDT

As giant oil companies like Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips get set to report what will probably be another round of eye-popping quarterly profits, just where is all that money going?

The companies insist they're trying to find new oil that might help bring down gas prices, but the money they spend on exploration is nothing compared with what they spend on stock buybacks and dividends.

It's good news for shareholders, including mutual funds and retirement plans for millions of Americans, but no help to drivers already making drastic cutbacks to offset the high cost of fuel.

The five biggest international oil companies plowed about 55 percent of the cash they made from their businesses into stock buybacks and dividends last year, up from 30 percent in 2000 and just 1 percent in 1993, according to Rice University's James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy.

The percentage they spend to find new deposits of fossil fuels has remained flat for years, in the mid-single digits.

The issue has become more sensitive as lawmakers and Americans frustrated by high gas prices have balked at gaudy reports of oil industry profits. ConocoPhillips is scheduled to kick off the latest round of Big Oil earnings reports Wednesday.

Oil prices are set on the open market, not by the oil industry. But that hasn't stopped public protests, a series of congressional grillings for top oil executives, and a failed attempt by lawmakers to slap Big Oil with a windfall profits tax.

In the first three months of this year, Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's biggest publicly traded oil company, shelled out $8.8 billion on stock buybacks alone, compared with $5.5 billion on exploration and other capital projects.

ConocoPhillips has already told investors that its stock buybacks for April to June of this year will come to about $2.5 billion nine times what it spent on exploration.

Stock buybacks are common throughout corporate America, not just for Big Oil. They shrink the amount of stock on the open market, essentially increasing its value and giving individual shareholders a bigger stake in the company.

But some critics say Big Oil focuses too much on boosting stock prices, in an industry that sometimes ties executive pay to stock price.

And in focusing on buybacks and dividends over exploring for new oil, some critics say, oil companies jeopardize its already dwindling share of world supply.

"If you're not spending your money finding and developing new oil, then there's no new oil," said Amy Myers Jaffe, an energy expert at Rice University who's studied spending patterns of the major oil companies.

Investor-owned companies like Exxon Mobil and Chevron hold less than 10 percent of global oil and gas reserves, way down from past decades. And finding new oil has become harder and more expensive.

State-run oil companies, like those in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, control about 80 percent of oil reserves and at today's prices, it's not surprising they're keeping a tight grip on what they have. Scarce equipment and hard-to-find labor also pose problems.

No one questions that Big Oil is rolling in cash. The cash the biggest oil companies bring in from running their businesses, or operating cash flow, is four times what it was in the early 1990s.

"It becomes a management decision," said Howard Silverblatt, a senior index analyst at Standard & Poor's. "It's not like they're going to the board and saying, 'Well, I can do one or the other or the other.' The balance sheets are flush with cash."

So what's Big Oil to do?

The companies say they are doing what they can to find more fossil fuels around the world, but the easy oil is gone. Exploring these days may mean expensive projects in thousands of feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico or costly ventures pulling petroleum from Canada's vast oil-sands deposits.

TransCanada Corp. and ConocoPhillips Co. just said they'd spend $7 billion to nearly double the amount of crude flowing through a pipeline from Canada's tar sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

And analysts point out that because there's no guarantee oil prices will stay in the stratosphere, oil companies should approach exploration projects with caution.

It's also important to remember it can take several years before a company produces the first barrel of oil from a new field.

One example is an oil field in the Gulf of Mexico called Thunder Horse. Operated by BP and partly owned by Exxon Mobil, the platform only last month began producing oil and gas nine years after the field's discovery.

At its peak, the multibillion-dollar project is designed to produce 250,000 barrels of oil and 200 million cubic feet of natural gas each day, which would make it the Gulf's largest producer.

"When you look at the spending that's going on, the companies are bringing on a lot of long-term discoveries," said John Parry, a senior analyst with John S. Herold Inc.

At ConocoPhillips, the capital spending budget for 2008, which includes exploration and production, is $15.3 billion, more than double the spending of five years ago.

"Could we spend $20 billion or $25 billion? Absolutely," spokesman Gary Russell said. "Could we do it effectively, in a way that provides ultimate value to our shareholders? Probably not."

Exxon Mobil, known for its disciplined approach to investing in energy projects, has drawn criticism for its reluctance to invest in alternative energy sources like wind and solar power.

The company expects to spent $25 billion to $30 billion on capital and exploration projects each of the next five years. Last year, it spent about $32 billion on share buybacks.

"You fund your investments that make sense," said spokesman Alan Jeffers. "You have criteria, and you have to meet that to be a good investment for the shareholder. And then if you've got cash that's left over, you're going to return it to the shareholder because it's theirs."

Exxon Mobil often touts its $100 million contribution to Stanford University's Global Climate and Energy Project. By contrast, BP says it plans to spend $8 billion over the next decade developing alternative energy using wind, hydrogen and other means.

Big Oil isn't alone buying back large amounts of stock, but the companies are certainly some of the biggest indulgers.

A boom in stock buybacks has been under way in corporate America since 2004. In the first quarter of this year, Exxon, ConocoPhillips and Chevron were all among the top 10 companies for share buybacks in the S&P 500.

In Washington, one Democratic proposal would impose a 25 percent tax on "unreasonable" profits of the top five oil companies, which together made more than $120 billion in 2007, and put the money toward a trust fund for investment in alternative energy sources. Republicans say it's a gimmick that won't help at the pump and will discourage domestic oil production.

But Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said the fervor for stock buybacks is a clear sign Big Oil isn't interested in new production or alternative energy.

"When you hear that," he said, "it screams out for a windfall profits tax."

I don't have disdain for "headline news" from unbiased sources, like the AP, BBC, PBS, NPR and Reuters, etc.

Anyway the point I was making with my cut and paste was not the amount of money that they are spending, but the percentage that they are spending.

And that had to do with this part of the hearings:

"Robertson VC of Chevron said that they reinvested it all. Derbin was not only incredulous at that, but pointed out that in the past several years the big oil companys have had a 300% increase in cash on hand and only a 81% increase in capital investment. Then Robertson tried to say that they are investing as capably as they can. Derbin then pointed out that they "are taking profits and holding it in hand (as cash) while the price of gasoline is breaking the backs of the American people."

The vice president of Chevron claimed that his company was reinvesting all of it.

My post stated that their reinvestment in oil exploration was in the mid single digits. That would be 5 to 7 %.

Anyway, I stand corrected for not posting the entire article.

http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/

And chev should have these out bye 2010 or shortly after

http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/

They used (and still use) a standard propane tank like on a regular gas-grill

I think they "came into use" not because of oil prices, but because of the oil embargo of the mid-70's and the "gas rationing"

I know construction equipment (everything from generators to fork lifts to tractors) uses propane because our family business had to buy "conversion kits" changing them from standard fuel to propane as required on some "inside construction" sites where standard fuel exhaust was an issue

I keep thinking that alcohol is the way of the future.. but not ethanol.. perhaps a mix of the many types... my only issue is with natural gas is that it's still a limited resource.. Renewable fuels logically make more sense... but what is the answer.... it isn't ethanol.. that turned out to be a huge scam...

there are 2 kinds........

one is a regular gas with ethanol that any vehicle can burn, priced between "regular" and "super" (the mid-grade) - no better mileage at all, in fact, people here use it in the winter because the higher alcohol content reduces the dreaded water/weather/condensation that happens during midwest winters - in fact, adding a bottle of "HEAT" (about 1.79) to regular gas is cheaper and does the same thing

the other is the true "ethanol" (corn) gas that costs about 30% cheaper per gallon and the new cars are made to use this (older cars can have an inexpensive conversion kit added) but fuel consumption is about 30% lower than normal so it's a trade-off as far as cost (this one is for the yuppies - you are spending the same amount of money and it's a "eco-green-feel-good" that you're using slightly less foreign oil

ethanol IS basically a huge scam because they can get away with it with the eco-green-people - there's actually no reason it couldn't be cheaper (it's price has increase percentage wise mirroring gas prices exactly)

Clearly the impact on other markets caused by diverting the material *corn* used to produce the ethanol needs to be considered in depth before jumping on a profitable but brown band wagon. Corn?? Must have been picked by a lobbyist. Although diverting the corn used to produce hfcs might have been a better solution, rather than using it to fatten us up.

Nuclear is looking better... I don't want drilling off the coast down here if it can be at all prevented, but it's looking like every drop of oil is going to be extracted from everywhere as it gets more scarce and expensive, if we don't find something to replace it with pretty quick...

It's nice to be informed about all of this.. But when one reads in the paper that the car manufacturers have for the foreseeable future, no intention of replacing the gasoline engine, it kind of makes you wonder what is going on and just who is in control of what we use.

When an oil well is first tapped, it's fairly easy to pump it and "cheap" to extract, because of all of the pressure that it's under in the ground. As the reserve gets down to about half, the pressure is also lower and it becomes harder to extract. And then they have to drill deeper into the reserve and try and literally get the pumps into all of the cracks and crannies where oil is deposited, making it more difficult and more expensive to extract....

The question that I've always had about pumping out all of the oil out of reserves the size of Texas, is what happens to that empty space? Can the earth cave in on that and create a seismic event?

I trust Geo Thermal and solar more than nuclear. .. But if you look at a map of European nuclear reactors, they are everywhere there.

This also belongs in the "Corporate Treason" thread.