PDA

View Full Version : Drill-and-Burn Energy Victory



Rojo
03-16-2005, 02:22 PM
Senate Votes to Allow Arctic Drilling (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20050316/ap_on_go_co/arctic_drilling)

Senate Votes to Allow Arctic Drilling

2 minutes ago Top Stories - AP


By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Amid the backdrop of soaring oil and gasoline prices, a sharply divided Senate on Wednesday voted to open the ecologically rich Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling, delivering a major energy policy win for President Bush (news - web sites).

The Senate, by a 51-49 vote, rejected an attempt by Democrats and GOP moderates to remove a refuge drilling provision from next year's budget, preventing opponents from using a filibuster a tactic that has blocked repeated past attempts to open the Alaska refuge to oil companies.

The action, assuming Congress agrees on a budget, clears the way for approving drilling in the refuge later this year, drilling supporters said.

The oil industry has sought for more than two decades to get access to what is believed to be billions of barrels of oil beneath the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the northern eastern corner of Alaska.

Environmentalists have fought such development and argued that despite improve environmental controls a web of pipelines and drilling platforms would harm calving caribou, polar bears and millions of migratory birds that use the coastal plain.

Bush has called tapping the reserve's oil a critical part of the nation's energy security and a way to reduce America's reliance on imported oil, which account for more than half of the 20 million barrels of crude use daily. The Alaska refuge could supply as much as 1 million barrels day at peak production, drilling supporters said.

"We won't see this oil for 10 years. It will have minimal impact," argued Sen. Maria Cantwell (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash., a co-sponsor of the amendment that would have stripped the arctic refuge provision from the budget document. It is "foolish to say oil development and a wildlife refuge can coexist," she said.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., argued that more oil would be saved if Congress enacted an energy policy focusing on conservation, more efficient cars and trucks and increased reliance on renewable fuels and expanded oil development in the deep-water Gulf where there are significant reserves.

"The fact is (drilling in ANWR) is going to be destructive," said Kerry.

But drilling proponents argued that modern drilling technology can safeguard the refuge and still tap the likely though not yet certain 10.4 billion barrels of crude in the refuge.

"Some people say we ought to conserve more. They say we ought to conserve instead of producing this oil," said Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., "But we need to do everything. We have to conserve and produce where we can."

The vote Wednesday contrasted with the last time the Senate took up the ANWR drilling issue two years ago. Then, an attempt to include it in the budget was defeated. But drilling supporters gained strength last November when Republicans picked up three additional seats, all senators who favored drilling in the refuge.

zombie-a-go-go
03-16-2005, 02:26 PM
With gasoline prices upward of 2.10 a gallon right now, I'm finding tears for the Alaskan caribou hard to come by.

Ravenlord
03-16-2005, 02:54 PM
heh...doesn't matter how much oil is there. it wouldn't matter if the US somehow got direct control of 100% of the World's Oil Supply. it still avoids the biggest problem with the price: not enough refinerys.

Reds4Life
03-16-2005, 02:56 PM
With gasoline prices upward of 2.10 a gallon right now, I'm finding tears for the Alaskan caribou hard to come by.

Me either bro. Let the drilling begin. :gac:

pedro
03-16-2005, 02:59 PM
With gasoline prices upward of 2.10 a gallon right now, I'm finding tears for the Alaskan caribou hard to come by.

That may be true, but drilling in the ANWR isn't going to do diddly to curb gas prices. We won't see any of that oil for 10 years.

High gas prices right now are due to uncertainty in the middle east caused by the Iraq war and competition for oil with countries like china who are increasing their consumption of oil. Oh, and some old fashioned price gauging for good measure.

We should be investing that money in alternative sources of energy.

pedro
03-16-2005, 03:01 PM
oh, and what ravenlord said.

Rojo
03-16-2005, 03:05 PM
With gasoline prices upward of 2.10 a gallon right now, I'm finding tears for the Alaskan caribou hard to come by.

After all, why not make the wildlife pay for our Humvees.

Pray that we really do have a merciful God.

Ravenlord
03-16-2005, 03:16 PM
High gas prices right now are due to uncertainty in the middle east caused by the Iraq war and competition for oil with countries like china who are increasing their consumption of oil. Oh, and some old fashioned price gauging for good measure.there's something else that people forget too about the jump in price each spring and fall. refinery production is reduced for about 7-10 weeks to retool the refineries to make the different mixes of gas (winter and summer formula). we've been discussing this heavily since the start of my econ class.

the 20 centish jump in gas prices doesn't really have much to do with instability, rather than the built in cost of re-tooling. anything beyond that point is your normal market panic about things in the Mid East. the conclusion we came up with in class is that if you take out the re-tooling cost and most of the markets irrationalities (i mean c'mon, prices shoot up today for the threat of terrorism in the Mid East? when isn't there a threat of terrorism in the Mid East???), gas would actually be about $1.75ish at it's equilibrium price, ceteris paribus.


We should be investing that money in alternative sources of energy.
something i found out recently that i thought was kind of interesting is that Shell actually spends more money than anyone/anything on alternative energy solutions...including $20million/year for Wind Farms and $30million/year for research on water/hydrogen blends.

Ravenlord
03-16-2005, 03:19 PM
something else i found kind of interesting...a dude i work with found some of his dad's Popular Mechanics magazines from the 70's...in one of them there was this guy who built this attachment onto his carberator (sp) and got a massive jump in his gas milege...talking a jump of more 20 miles/gallon.

i would much like to hear more about that.

Reds4Life
03-16-2005, 03:23 PM
After all, why not make the wildlife pay for our Humvees

Just so you know, there are plenty of cars out there that get just as poor gas mileage as SUV's.

westofyou
03-16-2005, 03:26 PM
We should be investing that money in alternative sources of energy.

Something that could convert Caribou into pure energy would be nice.

Dan
03-16-2005, 04:11 PM
For one, I"m not entirely against ANWR drilling.

HOWEVER...

I would only want it under the following caveats:

1.) Oil companies work WITH environmentalists to find the most ecologically sound way to do the drilling
2.) ALL oil that comes out of ANWR can ONLY be consumed by the United States for fuel.

Red Heeler
03-16-2005, 04:28 PM
Diesel engines could help U.S. beat fuel crunch if feds wake up


By Daniel Howes / The Detroit News

FRANKFURT, Germany--There's a word in German that says an awful lot about how many Europeans regard America's growing energy-crisis angst.
The word is "schadenfreude," which means broadly means feeling joy at someone else's pain or misfortune. Many here are looking on with gleeful bemusement and outrage as Americans, branded the world-champion consumers of natural resources, are staring at a fossil-fuel comeuppance.
Take the man who stopped my wife in the park Monday and asked where she was from. Upon hearing her answer, he launched into a tirade about selfish Americans, irresponsible energy policy and a slavish devotion to, of all things, air conditioning.
Such stereotypical ranting aside, Europeans are right to think something is wrong when they see the global evangelists for free choice in the free market effectively denying American citizens the option to drive diesel-powered cars, perhaps the single best way to reduce fuel consumption over the next decade.
Diesel engines, the hottest auto trend in Europe, are being regulated out of existence in the United States. Only one automaker, Volkswagen AG , offers diesel engines as an option in the U.S. market. The rest don't bother because they figure restrictive regulations and the expense associated with persuading Americans don't justify the investment.
That's too bad. Diesels like the one my Canadian friend Tim Gray is driving, a 2001 VW Jetta powered by a 1.9-liter TDI diesel, can cut fuel consumption by 30 percent, reduce carbon-dioxide emissions and save money without sacrificing the performance Americans expect of their engines. But given the current regime, you won't be able to buy them at all come 2004.
"I'm surprised how quiet it is, how smooth it is and how much pep it has," says Gray, a tax consultant who drives about 6,000 miles per month to cover his region of eastern Ontario. His cost for a fill-up has dropped 33 percent while the distance he can travel on a tank of fuel has nearly doubled.
The argument that Americans won't try diesels because they remember the disastrous diesels of the late 1970s and early '80s is silly. Times and technologies change. It's like saying Americans won't buy Volvos or Chevys because they recall the problems in, say, 1981.
VW's TDI diesels pack a wallop of torque, scream down the highway and can run forever on a tank of fuel. They meet California's strict requirements for carbon dioxide and hydrocarbon emissions, but fail to meet the guidelines for nitrous oxide -- a precursor of smog -- and particulate, or soot, emissions. That could change.
With low-sulfur diesel fuel like that already burning in European diesels, VW thinks it could meet California's air-quality rules, which are to be adopted by the federal Environmental Protection Agency in 2004. The sooner oil companies deliver low-sulfur fuels to the U.S. market, the better.
What should end, but won't, is the snide condescension from environmentalists and their allies in the talking classes. They exude German-style "schadenfreude" at a potential U.S. energy reckoning, then belittle Americans for the cars they drive, the food they eat and the houses they live in.
Saying no -- to diesel engines, nuclear power, energy exploration and more sport-utility vehicles -- isn't an answer. It's a cop out.

jmcclain19
03-16-2005, 04:28 PM
I still haven't heard any solid evidence that people have any idea exactly how many millions of barrels worth of Oil is in ANWR anyway.

Sad day for the environment.

Thumbs down on this one.

GoReds
03-16-2005, 04:33 PM
I still haven't heard any solid evidence that people have any idea exactly how many millions of barrels worth of Oil is in ANWR anyway.

Sad day for the environment.

Thumbs down on this one.

Agreed. Wonder what would happen if we invested the money slated for ANWR into alternative fuel sources?

Falls City Beer
03-16-2005, 04:35 PM
Agreed. Wonder what would happen if we invested the money slated for ANWR into alternative fuel sources?

Vision?

This administration?

Red Heeler
03-16-2005, 04:46 PM
Agreed. Wonder what would happen if we invested the money slated for ANWR into alternative fuel sources?

You mean like this? http://www.biodiesel.org/

What is Biodiesel?
Biodiesel is the name of a clean burning alternative fuel, produced from domestic, renewable resources. Biodiesel contains no petroleum, but it can be blended at any level with petroleum diesel to create a biodiesel blend. It can be used in compression-ignition (diesel) engines with little or no modifications. Biodiesel is simple to use, biodegradable, nontoxic, and essentially free of sulfur and aromatics.

Biodiesel can be used as a pure fuel or blended with petroleum in any percentage. B20 (a blend of 20 percent by volume biodiesel with 80 percent by volume petroleum diesel) has demonstrated significant environmental benefits with a minimum increase in cost for fleet operations and other consumers

Biodiesel is the only alternative fuel to have fully completed the health effects testing requirements of the Clean Air Act. The use of biodiesel in a conventional diesel engine results in substantial reduction of unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter compared to emissions from diesel fuel. In addition, the exhaust emissions of sulfur oxides and sulfates (major components of acid rain) from biodiesel are essentially eliminated compared to diesel.

Of the major exhaust pollutants, both unburned hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides are ozone or smog forming precursors. The use of biodiesel results in a substantial reduction of unburned hydrocarbons. Emissions of nitrogen oxides are either slightly reduced or slightly increased depending on the duty cycle of the engine and testing methods used. Based on engine testing, using the most stringent emissions testing protocols
required by EPA for certification of fuels or fuel additives in the US, the overall ozone forming potential of the speciated hydrocarbon emissions from biodiesel was nearly 50 percent less than that measured for diesel fuel.

Biodiesel can be operated in any diesel engine with little or no modification to the engine or the fuel system. Biodiesel has a solvent effect that may release deposits accumulated on tank walls and pipes from previous diesel fuel storage. The release of deposits may clog filters initially and precautions should be taken. Ensure that only fuel meeting the biodiesel specification is used.

RedFanAlways1966
03-16-2005, 04:58 PM
Alternative fuel? Would be nice... might be possible.

But what President, in his/her right mind, is going to take it on the chin? Take what on the chin, you might ask? The chin that causes massive unemployment in the oil/gasoline industry (anyone want to guess at the number of jobs that this industry represents?). They will have new jobs in the new alternative fuel industry, you say... no one can be sure. And no president will take that chance... regardless of party affiliation. Pres. Clinton wouldn't and neither will Pres. Bush. Neither will anyone that follows them in my lifetime IMO. If they did, some might call it political suicide.

Wonder what gasoline prices would be today if we had started drilling 10 years ago in the ANWR? I always hear, "It'll be 10 years." I am glad that NASA didn't have the same attitude when we first had visions of sending a manned spacecraft to our own moon. Apollo would have still represented only a Greek God to Americans.... nothing else. There would be no Eiffel Tower in Paris. There would not be a tunnel under the English Channel. Heck, we might not have telephones or computers with that attitude. "It'll be 10 years"... not a good attitude to have about anything. Unless you are 95- years-old and care only about yourself.

Is there a Caribou extinction problem up there? I hear concern for Caribou, but I have not seen evidence that they will be hurt or killed off permanently. Will there still be Caribou in 10 years? My guess is yes. Is this Caribou talk just talk? Or is there concrete evidence that shows otherwise? If we all cared this much about the wildlife (if there is concrete evidence that there is a concern with this and it is not just idle blabber), then why do we have the nerve to go home each night when that land used to be the animals' land?

jmcclain19
03-16-2005, 05:04 PM
Alternative fuel? Would be nice... might be possible.

But what President, in his/her right mind, is going to take it on the chin? Take what on the chin, you might ask? The chin that causes massive unemployment in the oil/gasoline industry (anyone want to guess at the number of jobs that this industry represents?). They will have new jobs in the new alternative fuel industry, you say... no one can be sure. And no president will take that chance... regardless of party affiliation. Pres. Clinton wouldn't and neither will Pres. Bush. Neither will anyone that follows them in my lifetime IMO. If they did, some might call it political suicide.

Wonder what gasoline prices would be today if we had started drilling 10 years ago in the ANWR? I always hear, "It'll be 10 years." I am glad that NASA didn't have the same attitude when we first had visions of sending a manned spacecraft to our own moon. Apollo would have still represented only a Greek God to Americans.... nothing else. There would be no Eiffel Tower in Paris. There would not be a tunnel under the English Channel. Heck, we might not have telephones or computers with that attitude. "It'll be 10 years"... not a good attitude to have about anything. Unless you are 95- years-old and care only about yourself.

Is there a Caribou extinction problem up there? I hear concern for Caribou, but I have not seen evidence that they will be hurt or killed off permanently. Will there still be Caribou in 10 years? My guess is yes. Is this Caribou talk just talk? Or is there concrete evidence that shows otherwise? If we all cared this much about the wildlife (if there is concrete evidence that there is a concern with this and it is not just idle blabber), then why do we have the nerve to go home each night when that land used to be the animals' land?

The only problem RFA is that this particular area, is a federally sanctioned Wildlife Reserve. That's where I begin to worry. Why was it turned into a Reserve in the first place? I don't really know the back history, but logic tells me it wasn't because people think caribou are pretty. It was most likely because there is no other place like it on earth.

There is a slippery slope element here I'm not happy or comfortable with.

Johnny Footstool
03-16-2005, 05:31 PM
But what President, in his/her right mind, is going to take it on the chin? Take what on the chin, you might ask? The chin that causes massive unemployment in the oil/gasoline industry (anyone want to guess at the number of jobs that this industry represents?).

Your point is well taken. No president would willingly make a dramatic switch to the status quo.

Unfortunately, some president in the future will end up getting hit by a gas shortage because none of his predecessors took steps to lessen America's dependence on fossil fuel.

Yachtzee
03-16-2005, 06:19 PM
You mean like this? http://www.biodiesel.org/

What is Biodiesel?


IT'S PEOPLE! BIODIESEL IS PEOPLE! ;)

TeamCasey
03-16-2005, 06:27 PM
IT'S PEOPLE! BIODIESEL IS PEOPLE! ;)

:MandJ:

paintmered
03-16-2005, 06:55 PM
The scientists say they can do it without having much effect on the surrounding environment. Whether they really can or not remains to be seen, but we're going to find out.

This isn't a done-deal until the final budget gets approved btw.

And I realize this is a drop in the ocean, but OPEC announced they are increasing production today. At 56 bucks a barrel, I'd be drilling more too.

Phoenix
03-16-2005, 09:41 PM
Finally.

GoReds
03-16-2005, 09:57 PM
But what President, in his/her right mind, is going to take it on the chin? Take what on the chin, you might ask? The chin that causes massive unemployment in the oil/gasoline industry (anyone want to guess at the number of jobs that this industry represents?). They will have new jobs in the new alternative fuel industry, you say... no one can be sure. And no president will take that chance... regardless of party affiliation. Pres. Clinton wouldn't and neither will Pres. Bush. Neither will anyone that follows them in my lifetime IMO. If they did, some might call it political suicide.


This is rather alarmist and totally not true. Many wondered what would become of the phone companies when internet phones started to become more popular. The answer? The phone companies have started to offer internet phone service.

There isn't going to be some magic switch that someone flips off and we are suddenly into the alternative fuel age. Cars as we know it today will still be around 20 years from now. There is NO WAY that everyone is going to be able to replace their cars overnight.

What happens in the meantime?

Well, jobs! Car companies are going to have to start the process of producing both kinds of cars (as they are now with hybrids) while the balance slowly shifts to the alternative fuel cars.

More jobs there.

Gas stations will have to be modified. New equipment engineered and constructed, etc. etc.

What we are seeing here is similar to the introduction to the car at the turn of the last century. Slowly but surely, cars started to take the place of the horse drawn carriage. As that happened, jobs were created and the economy flourished. As long as businesses had the foresight to see the changes coming, they could plan for and adjust to those changes. How can there be anything but a positive outcome to this?

How many new jobs - outside the few hundred building and manning the pipeline - are going to created through the hundreds of millions of dollars it's going to take to build this pipeline?

This is America, for chrissake. What happened to that pioneering spirit that provided leadership for most of the last century. We don't lead because we have the biggest guns and ships, we lead because we have the biggest ideas. Other countries have looked to us in the past for direction. Now, they have to drag us kicking and screaming into the future.

What sort of president will it take to go down this "risky" path? I would suspect a 2nd term president hoping to leave his mark in history would be a likely candidate. Looks like we'll have to wait for another one to come along to see that happen.

paintmered
03-16-2005, 10:07 PM
A few more refineries should be in the shopping cart too.

Nobody wants them in their back yard though.

Spring~Fields
03-16-2005, 10:12 PM
Reminds me of the days when they wanted to sell all of us on the great benefits of the Alaskan pipeline, they still sell the oil on the worlds open market to the highest bidders, and today our prices our not lower and we are still dependent.

Red Heeler
03-17-2005, 12:09 PM
After all, why not make the wildlife pay for our Humvees.

Pray that we really do have a merciful God.

I really don't have a big problem with SUVs and cars with big motors. It would be pretty hypocritical if I did, since I drive a 3/4 ton diesel truck.

What I have a problem with is the fact that nobody seems very interested in pushing forward the already available alternative fuels. Any gasoline engine can run on up to 15% ethanol (in fact, most midgrade gas is 15%). Most of the manufacturers have flex-fuel engines that can run on anything from straight gas to 85% ethanol. All diesel engines can run on 100% biodiesel, though they still have some issues with cold weather to ovecome. A 20% biodiesel combination pretty well overcomes these problems.

The problem is availability. Flex fuel cars/trucks are only available to fleet buyers. 15% ethanol fuel is readily available, but 85% ethanol is very difficult to locate. I believe that Volkswagon is the only manufacturer who offers a diesel car in the US, though bigger pickups are available with diesels from the big 3. The problem is that biodiesel is also difficult to find. There is a station on my way home from school that wil be offering 20% biodiesel soon. It will become my filling station of choice when it does.

Hydrogen cells may be the way of the distant future, but grain based fuels can be ready to go much sooner. If the production were available, every semi truck, every house heated by fuel oil, every diesel train, and every diesel pickup could be using 20% less fossile fuel overnight.

RedFanAlways1966
03-17-2005, 12:54 PM
This is rather alarmist and totally not true. Many wondered what would become of the phone companies when internet phones started to become more popular. The answer? The phone companies have started to offer internet phone service.

There isn't going to be some magic switch that someone flips off and we are suddenly into the alternative fuel age. Cars as we know it today will still be around 20 years from now. There is NO WAY that everyone is going to be able to replace their cars overnight.

This is America, for chrissake. What happened to that pioneering spirit that provided leadership for most of the last century. We don't lead because we have the biggest guns and ships, we lead because we have the biggest ideas. Other countries have looked to us in the past for direction. Now, they have to drag us kicking and screaming into the future.

Do you have proof that my comment is not true? Give me a name. Give me proof to back it up. We have only had about six presidents since fuel became an "issue" in our lives. Give me a name. Give me the legislation that he proposed. I want proof that this is not true. We can put man on the moon, we can send people up in space to repair damaged satellites but we cannot find an alternative to gasoline? I'm not buying it. GM/Ford and the others are though.... they buy patents from the inventive types who create things. They make those inventors and many generations of their families comfortably rich.

So what do you think about comments from Senate members who say, "Not worthy. It will take 10 years." Is that American like? It was uttered by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash).

What you say is probably true in principle. But "easier said than done". Telephones and it's industry are minscule compared to the gasoline/oil industry. You obviously have an internet connection. Probably have a cell-phone too. Do you still have a phone in your house (the conventional kind)? I do... and I have a cell phone and internet at home.

I have yet to hear concrete proof of damages to this part of the world. But I hear comments from Senate members who say, "The fact is (drilling in ANWR) is going to be destructive." (Sen,. John Kerry, D-MASS). Is that it? Is his one sentence fact... or is there some real fact that I can read which explains this?

I still stand by the comment that no President will seriously try to find an alternative fuel.

Rojo
03-17-2005, 01:17 PM
Jimmy Carter probable came the closest to trying to do something about America's oil addiction (55 MPH, 62F Thermostat, CAFE standards) and was promptly shown the door. Americans want lies and theater. Tell us oil will last forever. Tell us our obscene cars aren't the problem. Tell us that we can spend our way out of any problem.

Over the last few years there's been a lot of reverence for "The Greatest Generation" - that generation of Americans who braved the Great Depression, defeated Totalitarianism and made this country the strongest on earth. But, they weren't any better than past or future generations. Rather, they received a hard dose of reality with the Depression. It turned them into grown-ups. Someday soon that might happen to my kids or my kid's kids.

GoReds
03-17-2005, 01:51 PM
Do you have proof that my comment is not true? Give me a name. Give me proof to back it up. We have only had about six presidents since fuel became an "issue" in our lives. Give me a name. Give me the legislation that he proposed. I want proof that this is not true. We can put man on the moon, we can send people up in space to repair damaged satellites but we cannot find an alternative to gasoline? I'm not buying it. GM/Ford and the others are though.... they buy patents from the inventive types who create things. They make those inventors and many generations of their families comfortably rich.

So what do you think about comments from Senate members who say, "Not worthy. It will take 10 years." Is that American like? It was uttered by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash).

What you say is probably true in principle. But "easier said than done". Telephones and it's industry are minscule compared to the gasoline/oil industry. You obviously have an internet connection. Probably have a cell-phone too. Do you still have a phone in your house (the conventional kind)? I do... and I have a cell phone and internet at home.

I have yet to hear concrete proof of damages to this part of the world. But I hear comments from Senate members who say, "The fact is (drilling in ANWR) is going to be destructive." (Sen,. John Kerry, D-MASS). Is that it? Is his one sentence fact... or is there some real fact that I can read which explains this?

I still stand by the comment that no President will seriously try to find an alternative fuel.


Well, you certainly have the inflammatory attack-speak down. Thanks for taking it to that level for no apparent good reason. If it's okay with you, I'll dial it down a notch.

The point that I was referring to being untrue concerned how new alternative fuel sources would cripple the auto and gas industry. My point is that companies that have the foresight to transform their business to match the new demands are the ones that will be the most successful in the longterm. That doesn't mean that Ford, Chrysler, Exxon or any of the other companies are in danger - it simply means that they have to start "re-tooling" for what will inevitably occur. We already have evidence that they are starting down this path as the demand for alternative fuel vehicles rises, but they are hardly setting any standards - nor are they being pushed to do so.

Why haven't any presidents before now taken the plunge? Too many factors to list, I'm sure, but I would think the primary reason would be lack of pressure. As long as we could keep gas prices low, there really is no incentive to spend the amount of money necessary to start the transformation on any grand scale. So, what you get is small scale indicators - fleet cars, hybrids, ethanol, etc. Major change requires major commitment. When you are talking now about the amount of money that will be used to drill in ANWR, you are starting to talk about major commitment. That money could be used to start down the road of alternative fuel sources while relieving our dependence on foreign sources.

I also can't get past the idea that, even if there is a huge reserve of usable oil available in Alaska, by the time it's ready to be introduced for consumption, the demand will have swallowed up whatever advantage that would have given us. Of course, there is always the lack of refineries issues as well.

I'm not trying to debate the environment or blame any president for any inaction - both parties have had chances - but this just seems like a short-sighted exercise when we should be planning for long-term growth.

RedFanAlways1966
03-17-2005, 01:56 PM
Well, you certainly have the inflammatory attack-speak down. Thanks for taking it to that level for no apparent good reason. If it's okay with you, I'll dial it down a notch.

Sorry... don't mean to be that way. However, you did say my comment(s) were totally untrue. That kind of comment can be interpreted as inflammatory-speak down. I don't want to argue or bicker though. Sorry that I came off that way!

GoReds
03-17-2005, 02:01 PM
Not a problem. I can see where my initial comment could be interpreted that way.

Peace.

Oh, and I'm now 18 away from 2000!

Ravenlord
03-17-2005, 02:30 PM
A few more refineries should be in the shopping cart too.

Nobody wants them in their back yard though.
when i still lived in a house, i was willing to destroy it and donate the land for a refinery.:)

Ravenlord
03-17-2005, 02:37 PM
the ANWR drilling damage to the eviroment would be minimal. unless shot at, the caribou aren't really going to care it's there.

most of the things i've read on alternative energy (at a practical level) say we're 30-40 years off, if funding was upped by 35%-60%. i wonder how much the total cost of setting up everything to drill ANWR is going to cost?

another thing, Europe has these wonderfully fuel effiecient diesel cars...but we can't go them. why? because in 2006 the EPA is changing the standards for American diesel (that'll cause probably a year long spike in diesel price). the new standard would still be dirtier than European engines, but it would also be impossible to run the European engine off of it. :dflynn:

Red Heeler
03-17-2005, 03:42 PM
most of the things i've read on alternative energy (at a practical level) say we're 30-40 years off, if funding was upped by 35%-60%. i wonder how much the total cost of setting up everything to drill ANWR is going to cost?

I really don't see how that can be true if we are talking about plant derived fuels like ethanol and biodiesel. The current gasoline and diesel delivery, storage, and distribution infrastructure can be used for both. The only problem is the production facilities. How long can it take to get them online? Huge factories go up in just a couple of years.


another thing, Europe has these wonderfully fuel effiecient diesel cars...but we can't go them. why? because in 2006 the EPA is changing the standards for American diesel (that'll cause probably a year long spike in diesel price). the new standard would still be dirtier than European engines, but it would also be impossible to run the European engine off of it. :dflynn:

That is not really true. The European motors will run just fine on American diesel. The issue is whether or not they can meet emissions standards with American fuel. I have read a couple of articles which say that they can meet emissions with the 2006 standard for fuel.

Ravenlord
03-18-2005, 07:30 AM
I really don't see how that can be true if we are talking about plant derived fuels like ethanol and biodiesel. The current gasoline and diesel delivery, storage, and distribution infrastructure can be used for both. The only problem is the production facilities. How long can it take to get them online? Huge factories go up in just a couple of years.i can see that. but i generalized too much in the first statment i made. alternative fuels is meant by: Wind, Solar, Water, Hydrogen, in that order. the way it'd be set up is kind of neat too, IMO...massive wind farms in Texas, Oaklahoma, Mississipi, and other massively windy places...solar farms in Arizona, Death Valley, Utah, Nevada and the like...hydro in many moutainous regions. hydrogen is a bit trickey though, because it has a higher cost to transport. however, that can in part, be alleviated by collecting the energy from your source, e.g. wind farm, sending the electricity cross-country to the plant, that then takes it and converts it into use for the hydrogen cell.




That is not really true. The European motors will run just fine on American diesel. The issue is whether or not they can meet emissions standards with American fuel. I have read a couple of articles which say that they can meet emissions with the 2006 standard for fuel.
from what i've read emissions isn't the problem, just that the engines are finicky about the mix. as i understand it, they could run on the current mix of American diesel.

to me, these emission standards are something that probably should be regulated by WHO or WTO or whatever.

GAC
03-18-2005, 08:06 AM
heh...doesn't matter how much oil is there. it wouldn't matter if the US somehow got direct control of 100% of the World's Oil Supply. it still avoids the biggest problem with the price: not enough refinerys.

That's true; but why aren't there enough refineries? Maybe because that also helps to control the supply/pricing? ;)

I say drill the fields and shot the caribou to feed the oil field workers. :allovrjr:

Roy Tucker
03-18-2005, 08:20 AM
From Thomas Friedman's column at the NY Times. I thought about posting just the part I thought interesting but then decided to post the whole thing to give context. I italicized the part gemaine to this dicusssion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/17/opinion/17friedman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and %20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fThomas%20L%20F riedman


Bush officials have always been eager to pose as the tough guys willing to make the tough decisions. On Iraq and Afghanistan, they did. But when it comes to China, the Bush administration is engaged in one of the greatest acts of unilateral disarmament ever seen in U.S. foreign policy.

National security is about so much more than just military deployments. It is also about our tax, energy and competitiveness policies. And if you look at all these areas, the Bush team has not only been steadily eroding America's leverage and room for maneuver vis--vis its biggest long-term competitor - China - but it has actually been making us more dependent than ever on Beijing. Indeed, if the Bush policies were wrapped into a single legislative bill it could be called "The U.S.-China Dependency Act."

The excessive tax cuts for the rich, combined with a total lack of discipline on spending by the Bush team and its Republican-run Congress, have helped China become the second-largest holder of U.S. debt, with a little under $200 billion worth. No, I don't think China will start dumping its T-bills on a whim. But don't tell me that as China buys up more and more of our debt - and that is the only way we can finance the tax holiday the Bush team wants to make permanent - it won't limit our room to maneuver with Beijing, should it take aggressive steps toward Taiwan.

What China might do with all its U.S. T-bills in the event of a clash over Taiwan is a total wild card that we have put in Beijing's hands.

On energy, the Bush team's obsession with drilling in the Alaskan wilderness to increase supply is mind-boggling. "I am sure China will be thrilled with the Bush decision to drill in Alaska," said the noted energy economist Philip Verleger Jr. "Oil in Alaska cannot easily or efficiently be shipped to our Gulf Coast refineries. The logical markets are on the West Coast of the United States and in Asia. Consumers in China and Japan, not the U.S., will be the real beneficiaries of any big Alaska find.

"With a big find, China and Japan will be able to increase imports from a dependable supplier - the U.S. - while consumers in the U.S. will still be at the mercy of unreliable suppliers, such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. It is simple geography. [Also], a big find will lead to lower prices in the short term, promoting more emissions and more warming."

Moreover, focusing exclusively on squeezing out a little more supply will only discourage conservation, Mr. Verleger added, setting the stage for higher prices again in three or four years - "when exhausting oil reserves and burgeoning demand from China and India will drive the price of oil to well above $100 a barrel." That will put even more money in the pockets of some of the world's worst governments.

That's why America urgently needs what I call a "geo-green" strategy, which combines geopolitics with environmentalism. Geo-greenism starts with a $1-per-gallon gasoline tax, which would help close our budget gap and force the U.S. auto industry to convert more of its fleet to hybrid and ethanol technology, thereby reducing the amount of money going to Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Iran for oil. It would also reduce our dependence on China to finance our debt and the chances that we will end up in a global struggle with China for energy.

Finally, on competition policy, the Bush team and Congress cut the budget of the National Science Foundation for this fiscal year by $105 million. I could not put it better than Congressman Vern Ehlers, one of the few dissenting Republicans, who said: "This decision shows dangerous disregard for our nation's future ... at a time when other nations continue to surpass our students in math and science and consistently increase their funding of basic research. We cannot hope to fight jobs lost to international competition without a well-trained and educated work force."

In addition, at a time when China is encouraging its new companies to offer employees stock options to get Chinese innovators to stay at home and start new firms, the Bush team has been mutely going along with a change in accounting standards that will force U.S. companies to expense stock options by June 2005. This is likely to dampen the growth of our own high-tech companies and encourage U.S.-educated Indian and Chinese techies to go back home.

I am not a China basher. We need to engage China, and help accommodate its rising power with the world system, but the only way to do that is from a position of strength. But everything the Bush team is doing is ensuring that it will be from a position of weakness.

GoReds
03-18-2005, 08:55 AM
That's why America urgently needs what I call a "geo-green" strategy, which combines geopolitics with environmentalism. Geo-greenism starts with a $1-per-gallon gasoline tax, which would help close our budget gap and force the U.S. auto industry to convert more of its fleet to hybrid and ethanol technology, thereby reducing the amount of money going to Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Iran for oil. It would also reduce our dependence on China to finance our debt and the chances that we will end up in a global struggle with China for energy.


I agree with a majority of the article, but I don't think a $1 increase in gas is the correct answer here. While a majority of people could suffer through this, an increase of this magnitude while wages remain the same really only hurts the people who can barely make it now.

If this occurred WITH an increase in the minimum wage of a similar amount - to offset the increase - then I could see it happen.

He is right, however, that this would drive the market in regards to alternative fuel cars.

Red Heeler
03-18-2005, 12:08 PM
I agree with a majority of the article, but I don't think a $1 increase in gas is the correct answer here. While a majority of people could suffer through this, an increase of this magnitude while wages remain the same really only hurts the people who can barely make it now.

If this occurred WITH an increase in the minimum wage of a similar amount - to offset the increase - then I could see it happen.

He is right, however, that this would drive the market in regards to alternative fuel cars.

Since the technology is already available, the emphasis should be on making green fuels more available rather than making petro fuels more expensive. If B20 (diesel with 20% biodiesel) and E85 (gasoline with 85% ethanol) were readily available to consumers at a price that was competetive with pure dino fuels, consumers would buy them.

The short term energy policy that I would like to see implemented would ramp up the building of biodiesel and ethanol production facilities. Then require that all gasoline sold contain a minimum of 15% ethanol and all diesel and heating fuel contained a minimum of 20% biodiesel. I would also like to see incentives for auto manufacturers to make flex fuel and diesel cars and trucks more available to the general public. In truth, I'm not sure that the last part would be necessary. I think that if the fuels were readily available, the public demand for the vehicles would be enough for automakers to make them more available.

GoReds
03-18-2005, 12:12 PM
Since the technology is already available, the emphasis should be on making green fuels more available rather than making petro fuels more expensive. If B20 (diesel with 20% biodiesel) and E85 (gasoline with 85% ethanol) were readily available to consumers at a price that was competetive with pure dino fuels, consumers would buy them.

The short term energy policy that I would like to see implemented would ramp up the building of biodiesel and ethanol production facilities. Then require that all gasoline sold contain a minimum of 15% ethanol and all diesel and heating fuel contained a minimum of 20% biodiesel. I would also like to see incentives for auto manufacturers to make flex fuel and diesel cars and trucks more available to the general public. In truth, I'm not sure that the last part would be necessary. I think that if the fuels were readily available, the public demand for the vehicles would be enough for automakers to make them more available.


Yup, right with you there. There might be a job or two created by this as well.

Red Thunder
03-18-2005, 12:49 PM
With gasoline prices upward of 2.10 a gallon right now, I'm finding tears for the Alaskan caribou hard to come by.

How about a change of mentality instead?

If more and more people choose to drive gasoline-thirsty cars like SUV's, Jeeps etc. (especially in urban areas) it seems unreasonable to moan about high gas prices at the same time. I would rather put a higher tax on such cars. When it comes to building fuel-saving cars, the US is behing both Japan and Europe. Why?

Also, drilling oil in Alaska will hardly have a positive effect on the oil prices as the quantities are rather low. In my opinion there should be a different approach when it comes to the environment and nature. For example concerning driving fuel saving cars, or - what I found very disturbing - the use of one-way plastic dishes in restaurants, high schools and colleges.

The US leads the list for energy consumption per citizen worldwide. Just imagine how many resources could be used more effective or over a longer period of time if more people would realize how important it is to save energy.

http://www.simovative.com/energy/documents/2-Energieverbrauch%20intern.pdf

westofyou
03-18-2005, 01:03 PM
BTW, concerning Caribou, anyone ever see a bunch up close, trumpeting, herding alpha males the whole she bang?

Really quite cool...... I'd tell ya more but I have to run to McDonalds to get some food and I have to warm my car up first.

ochre
03-18-2005, 01:12 PM
How about effective Mass transportation as a national initiative?

Rojo
03-18-2005, 01:18 PM
Our addiction to cars is a byproduct of the Cold War. We decided in the 50's to build highways instead of rail lines. Highways, it was thought, would lead to production of cars and jobs. It would also disburse people out of the cities to suburban homes that people had to stock with gadgets. More production, more jobs.

Red Heeler
03-18-2005, 01:29 PM
How about effective Mass transportation as a national initiative?

That ship sailed during the Eisenhower administration. It would be really tough to get Americans back into the idea of using the rail as a means of transportation. Besides that, it would take an HUGE investment in time and money to build the infrastructure. Other alternatives are available right around the corner.

gonelong
03-18-2005, 03:06 PM
How about a change of mentality instead?

If more and more people choose to drive gasoline-thirsty cars like SUV's, Jeeps etc. (especially in urban areas) it seems unreasonable to moan about high gas prices at the same time. I would rather put a higher tax on such cars. When it comes to building fuel-saving cars, the US is behing both Japan and Europe. Why?



I am not moaning about the prices, and I am not giving up my SUV unless we have separate lanes/roadways for larger vehicals such as buses, dump trucks, semi-s, and RVs.

I have felt this way for some time and just had my thoughts confirmed when I rear-ended by a dump truck on I-70 earlier this year.

$11,000+ damage to my SUV and I didn't get a scratch. I was damn happy that I was no longer driving my fuel-efficient Ford Escort when it happened.

GL

Ravenlord
03-18-2005, 03:11 PM
Since the technology is already available, the emphasis should be on making green fuels more available rather than making petro fuels more expensive. If B20 (diesel with 20% biodiesel) and E85 (gasoline with 85% ethanol) were readily available to consumers at a price that was competetive with pure dino fuels, consumers would buy them.the problem there is people are stupid. they won't really begin to demand it until gas prices reach incredible highs and it begins to directly affect them. :(

pedro
03-18-2005, 03:16 PM
the problem there is people are stupid. they won't really begin to demand it until gas prices reach incredible highs and it begins to directly affect them. :(

One thing is for sure. We're going to burn every drop of oil on the planet as fast as we possible can, then we're going to act like it's a surprise that it's gone.

I'm waiting for a methane powered car. Talk about a never ending supply of "gas"

GoReds
03-18-2005, 03:18 PM
I'm waiting for a methane powered car. Talk about a never ending supply of "gas"

If you've ever seen Southpark, you'll know why that is such a dangerous proposition.

Johnny Footstool
03-18-2005, 03:53 PM
If you've ever seen Southpark, you'll know why that is such a dangerous proposition.

We could all drive "IT" as an alternative.

Red Heeler
03-18-2005, 06:06 PM
the problem there is people are stupid. they won't really begin to demand it until gas prices reach incredible highs and it begins to directly affect them. :(

Well, you are probably right about that. On the other hand, I don't think that a lot of folks know that plant derived fuels exist or are readily available. The government officials, environmentalists, and media have a fixation on more "advanced" conceps like hydrogen cells, hybrids, and many of the options you mentioned earlier.

Another problem is that energy company execs are a whole lot like baseball execs. They will continue to do things the way they always have come Hades or high water. I figure that some little oil company is going to stumble into a forward thinking CEO who will understand that fossile fuels won't last forever. They will start producing E15, E85, B20, and B100 fuels and whack the crap out of the big boys.

Ravenlord
03-21-2005, 07:05 AM
Well, you are probably right about that. On the other hand, I don't think that a lot of folks know that plant derived fuels exist or are readily available. The government officials, environmentalists, and media have a fixation on more "advanced" conceps like hydrogen cells, hybrids, and many of the options you mentioned earlier.why do you suppose that is?

Red Heeler
03-21-2005, 08:51 AM
why do you suppose that is?

I think that biofuels face two challenges from two different groups.

Obviously, the oil companies want to sell as much oil as possible. The dumb part is that they seem to be willing to ride oil right into extinction. Rather than spend a ton of money to defend their turf and gain new drilling rights, they would be better served to begin the transition to other fuels. Instead of drilling in Alaska, BIGOILCO could begin producing more fuel (and profits) faster by opening up a few ethanol distilleries and biodiesel plants.

The other challenge, I think, comes from the environmental lobby. Many of the environmental groups don't like agriculture much better than oil. As a result, they have fixated on the more advanced technologies.

Phoenix
03-23-2005, 10:33 PM
Most of the USA's problems in the world are based on its need for foreign oil. Would you disagree?

We're sitting on all this oil in an uninhabited area on the arctic circle. And you DON'T want to drill there? Are you kidding? Give me a friggin break. Let's ignore the irrational and get to it pronto! Let the wacko environmentalists cry whatever they want...we're going to get our oil whether we take it from the mother earth in the middle east or on the artic circle. At least this way we can make a dent in the dependence on the middle east. (And I'm all for curbs on SUV's and Hummers in the form of higher oil consumption taxes)

But DEFINATELY Drill in ANWR!

GoReds
03-24-2005, 07:08 AM
Phoenix - did you just skip the rest of the previous messages to type your response at the end? If so, I would highly recommend looking over Roy Tucker's post - particularly the area in italics.

Ravenlord
03-24-2005, 07:13 AM
Phoenix - did you just skip the rest of the previous messages to type your response at the end? If so, I would highly recommend looking over Roy Tucker's post - particularly the area in italics.
or where anybody talks about refinery capcities....