It's a 2-ferTaggure wrote:In 2008 people and the mainstream Media were screaming that it was Bush's Fault Gas Prices were getting to $4 a Gal and were demanding him to do something about it.
Now in 2012 when it is getting close to $5 and do you hear a peep from any of the mainstream media screaming that it is Obamas fault ro demanding him to do something about it.
IMHO Obama does not want to do anything about it and wants to see it go higher as he wants everyone to go out and by the Volt.
Just Sayin
Stop paying your property taxes and then tell me you "own" the property the sheriff just tossed you from. And heck, thats not even federal.dorminWS wrote:Kruetz, I am not attacking you as a person. But your perspective seems to be that the government "grants" us the right to retain and use our own property.
Honestly, no one knows what you mean or what you really think. You are in a Catch-22. If "most environmentally sound" is inadequate, then no energy can be produced, but you say you want it and obviously use it. My answer is for you to find a lot of wood to cut, split and burn for light and heat. Don't know how you will get to the grocery store or if there will be a grocery store - you'll have to answer that on your own. Don't know how you will efficiently produce any food without fertilizer, fuel, herbicides and pesticides - but maybe you can but manure from a dairy farm and buy a hoe.Kreutz wrote:Do those scientists, engineers, and investors care that this happens when fracking does?OleMan wrote:With no intent to start a lengthy debate, and with respect for all fellow forum members here - there should not have to be any debate about oil or any other form of domestic energy. We have plenty of energy here and could EXPORT energy.
Why can't we? The short answer - THE GOVERNMENT.
We have around a 300 year supply of coal. We have reserves of shale oil that exceed the known reserves of Saudi Arabia and the new "in-situ" recovery methods recover more oil from the shale and have much less environmental impact. We can make all the electricity we want with clean coal plants which are already a fact, nuclear power which is already a fact, and burning waste material such as wood which is already a fact. We have large newly discovered reserves of natural gas in the eastern US.
What little third world country produces 30% of it's motor fuels from coal? South Africa.
Our liberal neighbor to the north has very large oil reserves in their "tar sands". They hoped to sell it to us but that seems to be killed off by our GOVERNMENT. Who owns and refuses to release most of the US shale oil? The US GOVERNMENT. Who is stopping offshore oil and natural gas exploration everywhere except the Gulf of Mexico? The US GOVERNMENT.
Who is working and investing to develop shale oil in the US in the most environmentally sound manner? Decidely not our GOVERNMENT. It is companies like Shell, Exxon and Chevron!
It has been decades since a new oil refinery has been built in the US 'cuz the GOVERNMENT don't like 'em.
Everything we do in our economy is dependent on ENERGY. Growing commodoties, producing commodities, transporting, manufacturing, and consuming all require energy. It even takes energy to sleep comfortably tonight and post to this forum. Took energy to grow, process, package, ship and for my wife to drive to and from the grocery store to buy the steak, potatoes and veggies we had for dinner.
Get the GOVERNMENT totally out of the energy business, which it has increasingly controlled for over 100 years, and put the scientists, engineers and investors in charge; and we'll have the biggest economic boom in our history.
For sources, one needs to research. There are tons of reliable information on the web. Search using terms like US reserves, oil, coal, shale oil, tar sands, natural gas, DOE, EIA, Rand. You will find that if we develop our shale oil, we will have oil reserves greater than Saudi Arabia.
Oleman
The fact these drilling companies will not release the chemicals they use to hydrofrack (they say its proprietary) tells me they're not the saints you make them out to be.
If corners can be cut for greater profits they will be, as they have been.
Yes we need energy, but total deregulation in the name of short term profits is not the way to go.
We also need potable water thats not flammable and loaded with carcinogenic neurotoxins.
You may want to look up the horrific health problems (cancers) and birth defects the Athabascan Indians near those Albertan tar sand sites have. "The most environmentally sound manner" is still not a very good alternative.
I get what you're saying, and oddly enough agree with the premise; we really do have alot of energy here and we should be tapping it. But going back to the days of uncapped oil geysers circa 1910 or just plowing mountaintops and into river basins isn't the way to do it.
Like it or not government is needed to intermediate between the legitimate needs for energy and the equally legitimate need to ensure getting it doesn't poison the air and water we all need too.
I'll do that research when you do the research of reading what you're responding to.OleMan wrote:Do the legitimate research I suggested and then really think about what you want to say.
By the way, my 40-plus year career was fully in companies engaged in oil, gas, coal, nuclear, electric, chemical (largely petrochemical) and environmental controls and remedies. So, I can honestly say I know whereof I speak - and the solution is not government control of everything in the energy industries! Government has to decide to largely get out of the way and limit their involvement to using scientists and engineers to ensure that workers and citizens aren't harmed.
Nor the dystopic Marxist nightmare you make it out to be. 
The only difference between the majority of Republicans and Democrats is arguing over HOW to spend the money, which ultimately decides how each side views it, either as a subsidy or incentive. Either way it big government social engineering and it contrary to limited, Constitutional government.dorminWS wrote:I’ll grant that grants or low or no interest loans paid from the government might be “subsidies”. They might also be more accurately characterized as incentives offered by the government to get private entities to do things the profit motive alone won’t motivate.
Quick side note...Popular Mechanics is hardly a gold standard of "science." At times, they are barely better than Wikipedia, which you love to bash so much.ratherfish wrote:Still might be a good idea to flip through the Popular Mechanics article...
Government controls simply drive all companies to the minimum the regulation requires. As always, regulation strangles innovation and leads to stagnation. The correct comparison is not 2012 with 1952, but rather with the 2012 which never happened because of regulatory induced inefficiencies.OleMan wrote:By the way, my 40-plus year career was fully in companies engaged in oil, gas, coal, nuclear, electric, chemical (largely petrochemical) and environmental controls and remedies. So, I can honestly say I know whereof I speak - and the solution is not government control of everything in the energy industries! Government has to decide to largely get out of the way and limit their involvement to using scientists and engineers to ensure that workers and citizens aren't harmed.
And now for the circular logic train...Kreutz wrote: Stop paying your property taxes and then tell me you "own" the property the sheriff just tossed you from. And heck, thats not even federal.
Kreutz wrote: Basic regulation isn't control.
I was starting him out easy with a pop science article from a fairly non-political site...gunderwood wrote:Quick side note...Popular Mechanics is hardly a gold standard of "science." At times, they are barely better than Wikipedia, which you love to bash so much.ratherfish wrote:Still might be a good idea to flip through the Popular Mechanics article...
>> I'll adopt your tactic - I'll bow down to yourn when you bow down to mine - you go first.Kreutz wrote:I'll do that research when you do the research of reading what you're responding to.OleMan wrote:Do the legitimate research I suggested and then really think about what you want to say.
By the way, my 40-plus year career was fully in companies engaged in oil, gas, coal, nuclear, electric, chemical (largely petrochemical) and environmental controls and remedies. So, I can honestly say I know whereof I speak - and the solution is not government control of everything in the energy industries! Government has to decide to largely get out of the way and limit their involvement to using scientists and engineers to ensure that workers and citizens aren't harmed.
Where did I say "the solution is government control of everything in the energy industries"? Because you said it's not, so I can only assume you're implying I said it was, since you were responding to me and all.
>> I did not quote you or imply that you said that, so there is no justification for your question. I simply stated my opinion that the current climate in Washington is increasingly leaning toward excessive government control.
Basic regulation isn't control.
>> I never used the term " Marxist nightmare" and did not make it out to be, nor did I rule out control for health and safety.
By your logic all industry should have ground to a halt when the EPA was created, yet that has not been the case. Or the auto industry should have died when minimum MPG standards were established.
Neither happened. Air and water is cleaner, and business is fine.
You can have it both ways.
>> No, industry has not totally ground to a halt because of the EPA, but some industries have been hurt way too much, and 'we the people' pay for that. I never faulted the earlier things the EPA did to improve the environment and improve safety.
Oh, by the way, my 10+ years working in healthcare finance and IT has shown me a single payer system is the way to go. So I can honestly say I know whereof I speak on that. Private for profit health insurance companies have to get out of the way as a company cannot be beholden to its customers and its shareholders at the same time.
>> To the best of my knowledge, this thread never mentioned healthcare so you are off topic there. But since you mentioned it I paid for private health insurance (from for profit companies) for more than 4 decades and for nearly all those years, I was also paying for Medicaid and Medicare, administering Medicare for multiple relatives, and then was forced to use Medicare myself. Based on the track record of those two government programs, I would sincerely hope that the "single payer" is not the US government - for all our sakes.
So I take it you will automatically agree and bow down before my expert opinion? I mean, I do know more about it than you and all just like you claim to know more about energy than me. Lets call it a trade?
I luvs me some ethanol, mmm hmmmm...gunderwood wrote:Government controls simply drive all companies to the minimum the regulation requires. As always, regulation strangles innovation and leads to stagnation. The correct comparison is not 2012 with 1952, but rather with the 2012 which never happened because of regulatory induced inefficiencies.OleMan wrote:By the way, my 40-plus year career was fully in companies engaged in oil, gas, coal, nuclear, electric, chemical (largely petrochemical) and environmental controls and remedies. So, I can honestly say I know whereof I speak - and the solution is not government control of everything in the energy industries! Government has to decide to largely get out of the way and limit their involvement to using scientists and engineers to ensure that workers and citizens aren't harmed.
