The Executive Ban? It's Gone! <sniker>

[ZetaNine]

Ask the same question about George Bush Sr. and why he put the ban in place to start with.. 

to pacify whining libs?

[lazs2]

so let me get this straight..   everyone here agrees that the ban.. no matter who was responsible or why...  should be lifted?

That even if seemed like a good idea at the time.. that it was a mistake of monumental proportions?   that government (either side) really screwed the pooch on this one and that we ought to get busy so 10 years from now we aren't kicking ourselves over our inaction?

and... how bout them nukes?  can we build some nuclear power plants now or are we gonna pacify the environmentalists some more on this one too?

lazs

[crockett]

crockit.. you are missing the point.. they can be damaged but the main (stated) concern of your socialist buddies is that it will be an ecological disaster.. 

No oil spills occurred.   Just as france in not a glowing nuclear wasteland because they allowed nuclear power.

no drilling for oil.. no nuclear power plants..  no new refineries..  those are all democrat ideals..  just listen to your boy osamabama talking... he says that it won't do any short term good.. of course.. if we had started ten years ago...

Nope..  as we explore the cost of oil will stay about the same or go down.. with nukes and whatever other tech we come up with... in ten years cost for gas may still be around $4 a gallon but it will seem like now big deal with inflation and all.

lazs

So tell me this Lazs..

When have Republicans been openly been pushing for more nuclear power plants? Why isn't Bush pushing for more wind farms or more solar power? If it's all about making us energy efficient, you can't get much better than wind and solar power. It's practically no risk at all.

Hell while Bush was Governor of Texas in between signing off on executions he helped make Texas the biggest producer of wind power.  Texas now has more wind farms than the liberal tree huggers in Cali. So why is it he could do that in Texas and it seemed like a good idea then, but he has yet to push any sort of plan to do it nation wide?

If the goal is truely making us less energy dependant why won't he sign bills to support higher milage standards? If the average car got 30 mpg like they do in Europe that would reduce the need for oil and likely more than off set the amount of oil gained by drilling.

Why is it, oil drilling was a none issue while Bush had both the Senate and Congress at his fingertips? I find it quite ironic that things like boarder security and drilling for oil only became issues after the Republicans lost contol of the House and Senate. I wonder why that is...

[Yossarian]

I stand by what I said about the actual reason for rising oil prices...reply #29 (bottom of page 2) in case someone missed it

<S>

Yossarian

[crockett]

I stand by what I said about the actual reason for rising oil prices...reply #29 (bottom of page 2) in case someone missed it

<S>

Yossarian

That's just part of the rise in cost there are many factors. Also govts in the middle east subsidize fuel prices to keep them low. Oddly enough the countries that produce most of the worlds oil also subsidize the cost of gas.

Saudi Arabia, Iraq ,Iran and Venezuela all subsidise their fuel prices to keep the pices low inside their own countries.

[Yossarian]

I don't know how much what you said about subsidising is true, but I still think that the rising oil prices are more to do with transportation and processing of the crude oil (into gasoline, petroleum etc) have a much larger role in the price rises than people think they do, and than the availability of the crude oil itself.

<S>

Yossarian

[Hornet33]

Oh your right about that. Pumping it out of the ground isn't the expensive part. Transporting the crude and THEN refining it is were the costs are located at. Anyone know how many different types of gas are refined in this country? Do you think that 87 octane gas is the same everywhere you go and it's all made the same no matter where it's refined?

NOPE!!!! There are OVER 250 different blends of 87 octane fuel used in the US. WHY? Because a bunhc of local and state governments wanted their very own blend of fuel and here's the kicker, it's ILLEGAL to sell those special blend fuels anywhere else in the country.

So for the limited amount of refineries we have they have to shut down cracking towers all the time to retool for a run of Las Vegas gas. Gas that can ONLY be transported to and sold in Las Vegas. When that's done they have to shut down, retool and run a production of San Francisco gas that can ONLY be transported to and sold in San Francisco.

These boutique blend fuels are a MAJOR reason why gas prices are so high. If every refinery in this country only had to make 87, 89, 91 octane gas from one blend, supply, production and transportation costs would drop by a large margin, but you have to love all these politicians that want their own special blend of gas. The local and state governments get to tax these special blend fuels a little more to make themselves just a bit more money and tell you the consumer that it's better for the enviroment and the extra taxes will benefit everyone in the long run.

[Nashwan]

For Nash:

iirc, those estimates on the oil available from the untapped sites is based on surveys from the 70s. I'd be interested in seeing what a survey using modern tech would say and how big the difference would be.

The survey was done in 1998.

I don't know how much what you said about subsidising is true, but I still think that the rising oil prices are more to do with transportation and processing of the crude oil (into gasoline, petroleum etc) have a much larger role in the price rises than people think they do, and than the availability of the crude oil itself.

No, transport is a very minor factor.

The thing to realise is the price of oil isn't based on the cost of producing it. It's based on the price people are willing to pay for it.

Transport costs are in the region of $1 a barrel, iirc.

So for the limited amount of refineries we have they have to shut down cracking towers all the time to retool for a run of Las Vegas gas. Gas that can ONLY be transported to and sold in Las Vegas. When that's done they have to shut down, retool and run a production of San Francisco gas that can ONLY be transported to and sold in San Francisco.

These boutique blend fuels are a MAJOR reason why gas prices are so high. If every refinery in this country only had to make 87, 89, 91 octane gas from one blend, supply, production and transportation costs would drop by a large margin,

I agree the US has too many different blends, and some of them are no doubt more expensive than they need to be. But by far the main factor in the cost of gasoline is the high price of crude oil.

According to the EIA, as of May the average price of a gallon of gasoline in the US was $3.76. That broke down to:

Crude oil - $2.81
Refining - $0.38
Distribution - $0.18
Taxes - $0.40

[Slash27]

So why wasn't anything done when the republicans ran everything?

So do nothing now?

[Gunslinger]

So tell me this Lazs..

When have Republicans been openly been pushing for more nuclear power plants? Why isn't Bush pushing for more wind farms or more solar power? If it's all about making us energy efficient, you can't get much better than wind and solar power. It's practically no risk at all.

Hell while Bush was Governor of Texas in between signing off on executions he helped make Texas the biggest producer of wind power.  Texas now has more wind farms than the liberal tree huggers in Cali. So why is it he could do that in Texas and it seemed like a good idea then, but he has yet to push any sort of plan to do it nation wide?

If the goal is truely making us less energy dependant why won't he sign bills to support higher milage standards? If the average car got 30 mpg like they do in Europe that would reduce the need for oil and likely more than off set the amount of oil gained by drilling.

Why is it, oil drilling was a none issue while Bush had both the Senate and Congress at his fingertips? I find it quite ironic that things like boarder security and drilling for oil only became issues after the Republicans lost contol of the House and Senate. I wonder why that is...

Why you have not heard those things is because your head has been in the sand.

1.  Bush and the republicans TRIED 7 years ago to open up ANWR.  THey had a majority but everytime a vote would go to the floor or it would try and leave committee the dems filibustered it.
2.  Bush has said TIME AND TIME again that the key to energy independence is NOT things like kyoto treaty and new limits on green house gasses that will KILL our economy but the investment in new technologies.

[REP0MAN]

I'm still just as uncertain as ever when it comes to confidence in my congressional government.

Some here want me to turn blame on the Republican controlled congress from years past or, on the scapegoat of all scapegoats, Mr. G.W.Bush. Like I said before, I'm no political science major but, before today, I've never seen gas at $3.90 per gallon. I do know, in 1999, in Vinita, Ok. I was able to fill my tank at the Quick Trip for .99 cents per gallon. What happened? I have a good idea. But, my question still stands, why is our government NOT allowing for new refineries, drilling wherever there IS oil and then, and only once we are dependent on ourselves for the current method of energy, starting to fund the research for new methods to power our homes and cars. I'm all for finding something better but right now, it is breaking people and it's, IMO, the current plague of our nation.

I don't care what's on your voter registration Congress-person,  do something......

 

[Donzo]

So tell me this Lazs..

When have Republicans been openly been pushing for more nuclear power plants? Why isn't Bush pushing for more wind farms or more solar power? If it's all about making us energy efficient, you can't get much better than wind and solar power. It's practically no risk at all.

Do you know how efficient wind and solar power are?  If they are such a gold mine, why isn't the market jumping all over these technologies?  Why is it up to the gov to mandate things like this?

[Holden McGroin]

I work for a company that has 800MW of Natural Gas fired production, and 2,000+ MW of wind in the US.

U.S. Wind Power capacity grew by 46% in 2007, with 5,329 MW added and $9 billion invested.

The 5329 was about double the installations for 2005 and 2006.

You want a job? Wind producers are begging for wind turbine technicians.

[rpm]

Do you know how efficient wind and solar power are?  If they are such a gold mine, why isn't the market jumping all over these technologies? 

There is a lot of misinformation floating around this thread. They ARE jumping all over these technologies. Texas leads the nation in wind production. I watch new turbines being trucked past my house every day on the way to a new windfarm north of me.

T. Boone Pickens just placed the largest order for wind turbines in history. 667 of them, $2 billion dollars worth.The $2 billion order is just one quarter of the total amount he plans to purchase. Sorry about the fact checking, I know it ruins your theory.

[Donzo]

There is a lot of misinformation floating around this thread. They ARE jumping all over these technologies. Texas leads the nation in wind production. I watch new turbines being trucked past my house every day on the way to a new windfarm north of me.

T. Boone Pickens just placed the largest order for wind turbines in history. 667 of them, $2 billion dollars worth.The $2 billion order is just one quarter of the total amount he plans to purchase. Sorry about the fact checking, I know it ruins your theory.

You left out the last part of my post...my theory revolved around the gov getting their hands in the whole thing and subsidizing.  If wind and solar are profitable and there ARE people jumping all over them, GREAT!  Let the millions be made in the market.  I'm all for it!