Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: REP0MAN on July 14, 2008, 11:44:57 AM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080714/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
WASHINGTON - In another push to deal with soaring gas prices, President Bush on Monday will lift an executive ban on offshore drilling that his stood since his father was president. But the move, by itself, will do nothing unless Congress acts as well.
ADVERTISEMENT
The president plans to officially lift the ban and then explain his actions in a Rose Garden statement, White House press secretary Dana Perino said.
There are two prohibitions on offshore drilling, one imposed by Congress and another by executive order signed by former President Bush in 1990. The current president, trying to ease market tensions and boost supply, called last month for Congress to lift its prohibition before he did so himself.
But Perino said Bush no longer wants to wait. She pinned blame on the leaders of the Democratic Congress, noting that no action has been taken on this issue.
"They haven't even held a single hearing," Perino said. "So we are going to move forward, and hopefully that will spur action by the Congress."
Asked if Bush's action alone will lead to more oil drilling, Perino said, "In terms of allowing more exploration to go forward? No, it does not."
The president, in his final months of office, has responded to record gas-prices with a series of proposals, including more oil exploration. None would have immediate impact on prices at the pump, according to White House officials, who say there is no quick fix. But starting action now would help, they say.
Bush's proposal echoes a call by Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain, to open the Continental Shelf for exploration. Democrat Barack Obama has opposed the idea and instead argued for helping consumers with a second economic stimulus package including energy rebates, as well as stepped up efforts to develop alternative fuels and more fuel-efficient automobiles.
"If offshore drilling would provide short-term relief at the pump or a long-term strategy for energy independence, it would be worthy of our consideration, regardless of the risks," spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. "But most experts, even within the Bush administration, concede it would do neither. It would merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for thirty years."
Congressional Democrats have rejected the push to lift the drilling moratorium, accusing the president of hoping the U.S. can drill its way out a problem.
Bush says offshore drilling could yield up to 18 billion barrels of oil over time, although it would take years for production to start. Bush also says offshore drilling would take pressure off prices over time. In addition, the president has proposed opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling, lifting restrictions on oil shale leasing in the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming and easing the regulatory process to expand oil refining capacity.
Congressional Democrats, joined by some GOP lawmakers from coastal states, have opposed lifting the prohibition that has barred energy companies from waters along both the East and West coasts and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. A succession of presidents, from Bush's father — George H.W. Bush — to Bill Clinton, have sided against drilling in these waters, as has Congress each year for 27 years. Their goal has to been to protect beaches and coastal states' tourism economies.
I like this move. I think it puts the stink eye on the incompetent Congress. Now, the real question; will the Congress lift their ban? Will it work?
:aok
-
If the oil is there, drill for it. And ease the regulations that make it take years to get production going.
-
Of course it wont work. The Democrats in congress will say it's bad for the enviroment, Bush only did it because him and all his oil buddies stand to make a bunch of money, blah blah blah.
Never mind the fact that if it was lifted the speculators would HAVE to take into account ALL the new production, and availability when those fields come online, and have to reduce their prices because, hey we now have a ton of oil and we don't have to spend a fortune to ship it. The reduced price would benifit everyone in this country but then the government wouldn't be able to control the sheep like they want too, so they will never pass it.
-
why was there ever a ban on drilling?
-
environmental concers.......same with building refineries, coal-burning furnaces, hydro-electric dams and nuke plants......now wonder we are energy starved. few to none since th 1970's..and sadly..technology has vastly improved the integrity and emissions danger related to these sources of energy.
can't have an industrial superpower do this to itself..........or you get............well.......... ..this.
-
environmental concers.......same with building refineries, coal-burning furnaces, hydro-electric dams and nuke plants......now wonder we are energy starved.
can't have an industrial superpower do this to itself..........or you get............well.......... ..this.
And the funny thing is, they're making better drilling stations that arent very messy from what I heard...
-
true that....the hurricane that swept new orleans and came up through the gulf right on top of hundreds of rigs did not damage one of them.
the other thing they won't tell you.......is that rigs are very safe from leaking and disasters.....it's the shipping of oil that is the danger.
-
Soooooooo... It was a Presidential ban? So the Repundits harping on the libs keeping us from drilling were all... wet?
Say it ain't so!
-
sooooooo....... MT what will your democratic congress do now?
-
true that....the hurricane that swept new orleans and came up through the gulf right on top of hundreds of rigs did not damage one of them.
the other thing they won't tell you.......is that rigs are very safe from leaking and disasters.....it's the shipping of oil that is the danger.
Wherever you got that info is dead wrong. Here is a map of rigs and platforms damaged by Katrina.
(http://h1.ripway.com/warpig41/pics/katrina.jpg)
Here is the source for the map http://gom.rigzone.com/katrina.asp (http://gom.rigzone.com/katrina.asp).
-
sooooooo....... MT what will your democratic congress do now?
We'll see. I hope those pesky folks in the minority don't cause all of our problems like the republicans have claimed for the last 12 years.
-
I'll bet $100 the Democraps vote against opening up those fields and maintain the ban on drilling.
Any takers???
-
Wherever you got that info is dead wrong. Here is a map of rigs and platforms damaged by Katrina.
(http://h1.ripway.com/warpig41/pics/katrina.jpg)
Here is the source for the map http://gom.rigzone.com/katrina.asp (http://gom.rigzone.com/katrina.asp).
I should have been more clear....thank you for that. damaged to the point of leaking oil.
-
Soooooooo... It was a Presidential ban? So the Repundits harping on the libs keeping us from drilling were all... wet?
Say it ain't so!
The President said some time ago that he'd lift the presidential restriction if Congress lifted theirs. Dems in Congress said, "You first, Mr. President." He's now called their bluff, and the onus is on them. Congress could have asked the president to lift his moratorium order anytime, but the plain fact is they don't want it lifted. Now, they either have to lift theirs or be seen as the ones responsible for continuing high energy prices.
Regarding the claim that no oil rigs were damaged, that's not the issue. Of course there was damage (most of it minor, if I recall correctly). The point is that predictions of an environmental disaster were proved false, and the off-shore drilling technology proved to be extremely robust and enviro-friendly.
-
Obviously Congress has no interest in protecting the environment, it's a smoke and mirror act from my POV. So, one must ask, what is holding them back from allowing the OCS and ANWR to be opened and the building of more refineries? What is the underlying reason Congress doesn't want to increase our nation's oil supply, decrease our dependence on foreign oil and, hopefully, lower gas prices?
I'll be the first to admit that I am not the political mind that most of you here are. I haven't the time to read and watch all that happens. I am probably like most Americans when I look at this situation and ask the questions above.
Why wont our Congress do something, anything to help?
-
We'll see. I hope those pesky folks in the minority don't cause all of our problems like the republicans have claimed for the last 12 years.
9% approval rating..........or is that ranting?
-
Soooooooo... It was a Presidential ban? So the Repundits harping on the libs keeping us from drilling were all... wet?
Say it ain't so!
It was a presidential AND congressional ban.......
-
It was a presidential AND congressional ban.......
So why wasn't anything done when the republicans ran everything?
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080714/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
I like this move. I think it puts the stink eye on the incompetent Congress. Now, the real question; will the Congress lift their ban? Will it work?
:aok
You do understand it was a Republican and the father of our current President whom put the ban in place in the first place. I also hope you understand even if we started drilling today, it would do nothing at all to gas prices or oil prices for at least 5 years and then it will just be minimal at best.
That is the argument in question, in reality lifting the ban will do very little in the scope of changing oil prices or making us less energy dependent. It comes at a high risk with little to gain. We would be far better off spending the money on solar and wind farms to generate electricity renewable energy and putting strict rules for more fuel efficient cars. That would do more than off shore drilling and making us less energy dependant.
-
What is the underlying reason Congress doesn't want to increase our nation's oil supply, decrease our dependence on foreign oil and, hopefully, lower gas prices?
I think it's the fact that drilling in the off limits areas of the US won't make much difference.
The Energy Information Administration reported on the effects of opening up ANWR earlier this year. They estimated production would peak in 2027, at 780,000 barrels a day. Current US oil consumption is about 20 million barrels a day.
They predict ANWR would lower oil prices by about $0.75 a barrel, which would be about 1 - 2c a gallon for fuel.
The other off limits areas like around Florida and California, collectively, have less oil than ANWR, so will have a smaller effect.
Of course that doesn't mean they shouldn't be opened up for drilling, but what it comes down to is a minor, delayed benefit. Not much to attract politicians in that.
-
why was there ever a ban on drilling?
Because George Bush Sr put it in place. It's quite funny how the Republicans put in place out of greed back then and now they realized they screwed up so it's suddenly all the Democrats fault.
-
For the finger pointing in politics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWZ_4EXeyaA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWZ_4EXeyaA)
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. I actually had an internship writing code for a company that did seismic oil exploration. The gear they had just 10 years ago was so far beyond anything before it, that it was amazing.... wonder what they have now considering they were on pentium 1's back then. :huh
-
I also hope you understand even if we started drilling today, it would do nothing at all to gas prices or oil prices for at least 5 years and then it will just be minimal at best.
So are you saving for your retirement? You wont see that money til you are a geezer so why bother?
Drill here and now, as well as working towards alternate sources including nuclear.
-
Maybe he should have lifted the ban when he had control of congress for six years, wonder why he didn't?
shamus
-
true that....the hurricane that swept new orleans and came up through the gulf right on top of hundreds of rigs did not damage one of them.
the other thing they won't tell you.......is that rigs are very safe from leaking and disasters.....it's the shipping of oil that is the danger.
umm is that sarcastic reply or do you really believe that? If you do believe that where the hell did you hear that nonsense? There were several oil rigs taken out of production after Katrina due to damage. There might have been a few that were unharmed but even 6 months after the hurricane 25% of them were still not capable of pumping oil.
The hit they took after Katrina was the beginning of the current oil surge. Oil was around $33 a barrel before and settled in around $60 range after Katrina. That storm doubled the price of oil because of the loss of production.
Shell was at 400,000 barrels a day before the storm and only at 3/4 production even 6 months later.
Chevron was at 300,000 barrels a day before and was only at 2/3rds production 6 months later.
-
Maybe he should have lifted the ban when he had control of congress for six years, wonder why he didn't?
shamus
Geee I wonder...
-
Obviously Congress has no interest in protecting the environment, it's a smoke and mirror act from my POV. So, one must ask, what is holding them back from allowing the OCS and ANWR to be opened and the building of more refineries? What is the underlying reason Congress doesn't want to increase our nation's oil supply, decrease our dependence on foreign oil and, hopefully, lower gas prices?
I'll be the first to admit that I am not the political mind that most of you here are. I haven't the time to read and watch all that happens. I am probably like most Americans when I look at this situation and ask the questions above.
Why wont our Congress do something, anything to help?
Ask the same question about George Bush Sr. and why he put the ban in place to start with.. :)
-
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
-
umm is that sarcastic reply or do you really believe that? If you do believe that where the hell did you hear that nonsense? There were several oil rigs taken out of production after Katrina due to damage. There might have been a few that were unharmed but even 6 months after the hurricane 25% of them were still not capable of pumping oil.
The hit they took after Katrina was the beginning of the current oil surge. Oil was around $33 a barrel before and settled in around $60 range after Katrina. That storm doubled the price of oil because of the loss of production.
Shell was at 400,000 barrels a day before the storm and only at 3/4 production even 6 months later.
Chevron was at 300,000 barrels a day before and was only at 2/3rds production 6 months later.
I answered that a few posts later.
I should have been more clear....thank you for that. damaged to the point of leaking oil.
-
Part of the reason why this won't work is because the already high and still rising prices for oil and petrol (or gas or whatever you want to call it) are NOT caused by a lack of supply, but because of the price of TRANSPORTING the oil from wherever it's extracted to the USA.
That's the reason why, in Bahrain (where I am at the moment), the price for a full tank of petrol for a standard sedan is equal to that of two cups of Starbuck's coffee. The crude oil extracted in the Middle East doesn't have to travel very far to be delivered to its consumers also in the Middle East, however the cost of transporting some of that crude oil to America is what's driven up the fuel prices.
Whilst this is not the only factor, it is (one of) the biggest.
<S>
Yossarian
-
Ask the same question about George Bush Sr. and why he put the ban in place to start with.. :)
to pacify whining libs?
-
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
-
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...
-
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 :P
<S>
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 :P
<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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
So why wasn't anything done when the republicans ran everything?
So do nothing now?
-
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.
-
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......
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
So why wasn't anything done when the republicans ran everything?
For the same reason the democrats won't do anything. Both parties are to blame. Both the Legislative and Executive branches of our government are to blame. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are currently *broken*. We need a new, viable, third party that will actually put the interests of America first because the current two parties sure aren't getting it done.
-
For the same reason the democrats won't do anything. Both parties are to blame. Both the Legislative and Executive branches of our government are to blame. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are currently *broken*. We need a new, viable, third party that will actually put the interests of America first because the current two parties sure aren't getting it done.
You are mistaken, Sir. People are working under a false premise, that their political parties are designed to do XYZ good thing for the nation, and then are shocked when they invariably do nothing or just the opposite.
The RepubloCrat/Demopublican party that controls this country is working perfectly to design parameters and is doing everything it is supposed to do. For instance, in the matter of assuring that third parties never become viable, it has a near perfect record.
-
People are working under a false premise, that their political parties are designed to do XYZ good thing for the nation,
That was the intent of our founding fathers. That our elected officials should do what is best for the country and not what is best for themselves and their campaign contributors. I for one, still believe in the intent of our founding fathers.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080714/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
I like this move. I think it puts the stink eye on the incompetent Congress. Now, the real question; will the Congress lift their ban? Will it work?
:aok
this could be good.
but why in gods name does everyone believ that our prices will drop???????? they WON'T.
look at almost enything tht has gotten more expensive. when things ease up, they'll drop a few cents, but that's all. gas will never again go below $3.00 a gallon. hell...it'll never go back down to $3.50. ever. the oil companies know we'll pay this price for it, so why should they lower their prices? look how it is now......in my aea, it got up to $4.12/gallon. tht was only for a day or 2, and it was weeks ago. it then dropped to $3.85 or so. now people come in to my shop telling me how cheap they got their gas, when they paid over a dollar MORE than just 1 year ago.
-
Of course it wont work. The Democrats in congress will say it's bad for the enviroment, Bush only did it because him and all his oil buddies stand to make a bunch of money, blah blah blah.
Never mind the fact that if it was lifted the speculators would HAVE to take into account ALL the new production, and availability when those fields come online, and have to reduce their prices because, hey we now have a ton of oil and we don't have to spend a fortune to ship it. The reduced price would benifit everyone in this country but then the government wouldn't be able to control the sheep like they want too, so they will never pass it.
it doesn't matter, democrat or republican. all he's doing is political posturing.
here in the PRNJ, they're already trying to ban offshore drilling all the way down to VA. they say it "might" hurt the envirenment.
-
Wherever you got that info is dead wrong. Here is a map of rigs and platforms damaged by Katrina.
(http://h1.ripway.com/warpig41/pics/katrina.jpg)
Here is the source for the map http://gom.rigzone.com/katrina.asp (http://gom.rigzone.com/katrina.asp).
funny, i had heard only 1 or 2 rigs were damaged to the point of affecting their capacity?
-
That was the intent of our founding fathers. That our elected officials should do what is best for the country and not what is best for themselves and their campaign contributors. I for one, still believe in the intent of our founding fathers.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
If you really think the founding fathers made all this for US, then you really need to hit the history books again.
-
no matter who is at fault or what their reasons were 15 years ago.. things have changed and we now really do need to drill for our own oil and build some nuclear power plants.
We can let private industry continue to try to find a cheap and effective substitute for oil and we can have our toy windfarm and solar farm projects but we need to do some real work on getting more or our own oil and using less by not burning it or natural gas to make electricity.. we need nukes.
can anyone tell me what the price of oil the arabs are charging changed from 4 years ago till now?
lazs
-
Soooooooo... It was a Presidential ban? So the Repundits harping on the libs keeping us from drilling were all... wet?
Say it ain't so!
Start Drilling and refining Oil and Gas on & off our shores, by Exective Order Now . ! May 21, 2008 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 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. You be the judge as to why our gasoline prices are high. ===========================================
Like most problems in this country,
People the likes of Nancy Pelosi & the rest of Sierra Club puppets in the government,
is not the solution,
............it is the problem!!
-
The survey was done in 1998.
Link it pls!
-
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.
Yes he saying we need to be energy independent yet what has he done? Again I ask you why was it he helped get wind farms in Texas but he wont push for more nation wide? Or solar power?
Energy independent is just a catchy phrase for blundered speeches which pretty much means nothing more than drilling for oil to produce maybe 5% of our needs on a good day. The American people came behind FDR during WW2 because he was a leader. Bush has failed to lead this country. He could have done what ever was needed to make us energy independent after 9/11 and the country would have supported him.. If he were a leader.
Instead he's nothing more than a puppet..
-
Start Drilling and refining Oil and Gas on & off our shores, by Exective Order Now . ! May 21, 2008 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 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. You be the judge as to why our gasoline prices are high. ===========================================
Like most problems in this country,
People the likes of Nancy Pelosi & the rest of Sierra Club puppets in the government,
is not the solution,
............it is the problem!!
Holy Molly paragraphs please..
-
after bush made the announcement the price of a barrel of oil dropped $10.
and the democrats say more drilling will not reduce the price of oil. :lol
-
the thing that really REALLY PISSES ME OFF about the democrats whenever they talk about drilling offshore is "well, that wont help for ten years" and Im thinking if we are having a problem now we are going to have a HELL OF A PROBLEM in ten years.
What the hell is it with these assanine liberal democrats?
-
Link it pls!
The EIA report is at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf
The USGS report it's based on: http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/OF98-34/
-
The EIA report is at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf
The USGS report it's based on: http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/OF98-34/
Oh this is about ANWAR. I'm in the wrong conversation. I thought this was about the offshore reserves. The situation with those is a joke. You can get the lease on the land, but then have to wait half a decade to maybe get the permit to actually drill it.
-
About time the ban was lifted.
-
Yes he saying we need to be energy independent yet what has he done? Again I ask you why was it he helped get wind farms in Texas but he wont push for more nation wide? Or solar power?
Energy independent is just a catchy phrase for blundered speeches which pretty much means nothing more than drilling for oil to produce maybe 5% of our needs on a good day. The American people came behind FDR during WW2 because he was a leader. Bush has failed to lead this country. He could have done what ever was needed to make us energy independent after 9/11 and the country would have supported him.. If he were a leader.
Instead he's nothing more than a puppet..
Mr. Bush is one man, one president. The crunch of this energy problem started to become apparent after 9/11. Stop, it wasn't a conspiracy. Bush has led our country in liberating one of the most oppressed countries, with one of the most vile of Regimes, in world history. Now, he is doing his part. He's been saying for years that things needed to get to this point, he hasn't had much in the way of support from those who use the cloak of environmentalism to force alternate, and probably extremely deep in congressional kickback, energy sources. This congress knows what is upon us in the future if this crisis, yes crisis, continues. Yet, they lay dormant, tossing partisan insults and talking points back across the line, trying every way they can to tweak the smoke and mirror show of environmentalism on the hardworking people that make America, America. Congress wants failure. To the point where millions are homeless, broke or in such financial disarray that they have no choice to depend heavily on the monster (government) and it's bogus programs. All while they collect fat paychecks, health care benefits and pensions for their 'work'. Billions are spent in campaigns that get people full of hope for 'change' but end up netting the public with another leach in a leather office chair in DC. We get to pay for their lavish lifestyles, private jets, alcohol addictions and brain surgeries when we get nothing but mudslinging windbags who are as impotent as a 95 year old Billy Goat when it comes to getting something, ANYTHING done.
-
Mr. Bush is one man, one president. The crunch of this energy problem started to become apparent after 9/11. Stop, it wasn't a conspiracy. Bush has led our country in liberating one of the most oppressed countries, with one of the most vile of Regimes, in world history. Now, he is doing his part. He's been saying for years that things needed to get to this point, he hasn't had much in the way of support from those who use the cloak of environmentalism to force alternate, and probably extremely deep in congressional kickback, energy sources. This congress knows what is upon us in the future if this crisis, yes crisis, continues. Yet, they lay dormant, tossing partisan insults and talking points back across the line, trying every way they can to tweak the smoke and mirror show of environmentalism on the hardworking people that make America, America. Congress wants failure. To the point where millions are homeless, broke or in such financial disarray that they have no choice to depend heavily on the monster (government) and it's bogus programs. All while they collect fat paychecks, health care benefits and pensions for their 'work'. Billions are spent in campaigns that get people full of hope for 'change' but end up netting the public with another leach in a leather office chair in DC. We get to pay for their lavish lifestyles, private jets, alcohol addictions and brain surgeries when we get nothing but mudslinging windbags who are as impotent as a 95 year old Billy Goat when it comes to getting something, ANYTHING done.
Oh no.....
-
it will do no good to lift the ban on drilling, the environmentalists will just file lawsuit after lawsuit to delay the drilling. I have stock in a wildcat drilling company that had leases to drill offshore in state of Fla. controlled areas, the environmentalists with the help of the state tied up the leases for over 25 years with law suits. They would lose a suit and just file another one, a state official said "we will keep them ( the oil company) in court until they run out of money."
-
it will do no good to lift the ban on drilling, the environmentalists will just file lawsuit after lawsuit to delay the drilling. I have stock in a wildcat drilling company that had leases to drill offshore in state of Fla. controlled areas, the environmentalists with the help of the state tied up the leases for over 25 years with law suits. They would lose a suit and just file another one, a state official said "we will keep them ( the oil company) in court until they run out of money."
Exactly.. so why not put the resources into something that has been proven to work and is "real" renewable energy.. IE Solar Power and wind farms..
All bush did was create another media spectacle for nothing more than an attempt for some sort of political gain and hopes for better public approval. Essentially all he did was tossed a flat ball into the hands of congress.
Lets just say Congress approved it with no questions asked. Next step each state's governors and local governments have to approve the drilling. Drilling for oil is a dead issue and it will do little to nothing for the price of gas or making us energy independent. Oil in short is a diying form of energy and we need to be working on the future not the past.
Meanwhile those very resource could be put into solar power and wind farms for cheap renewable power sources that would actually bring this country into the future rather than continuing on the path of a dead future. Have you ever heard of anyone who was against wind power or solar power? Assuming of course they aren't next to some one's house making them an annoyance.
edit..
The simple point I'm making here is we know there will be resistance to oil drilling even if it's passed by congress. Think of it like this Florida for instance relies heavily on tourism. Florida's beaches are major parts for that tourism. Drilling offshore puts the entire state's tourism industry at risk with very little to gain for that risk.
The state doesn't see much of that oil money, so why should people of this state not fight against a possible loss of tourism to something they get no benifit from? So of course people will fight it.
Nuclear power is fine by me as I said before we have 6 or 7 nuclear power plants in this state with zero issues. However there are many people that don't like them so again it's another issue that wastes time with little to gain.
On the flip side we have Solar and Wind power that can be used and there is very few people who fight against it yet we don't do it. Water takes the path of least resistance when flowing down hill because it has a simple job to do.. That's get to the bottom of the hill.
The bottom of the hill for us is cheap renewable energy. So we can choose to argue about something that will never happen.. (drilling offshore or adding more nuclear plants) or we can start working on proven systems that get very little resistance..
Too me the choice seems simple, but seem too many want to toss around the flat political ball and re spew what the talking heads on TV yap about, while claiming they are better than the other guys.. Rather than just getting the job done with the tools available.
-
Mr. Bush is one man, one president.
JFK was one man and one president and his plans and leadership put us from zero to the moon in 10 years.
-
Exactly.. so why not put the resources into something that has been proven to work and is "real" renewable energy.. IE Solar Power and wind farms..
Why not stop the frivolous lawsuits? Waste of taxpayer money.
-
JFK was one man and one president and his plans and leadership put us from zero to the moon in 10 years.
8 Years, and he wasn't even alive for 5 of them. It wasn't just his plans, it was the plans hatched by his advisors that he approved.
-
crockett and obama want me to drive my car with wind power. :rofl
-
it will do no good to lift the ban on drilling, the environmentalists will just file lawsuit after lawsuit to delay the drilling. I have stock in a wildcat drilling company that had leases to drill offshore in state of Fla. controlled areas, the environmentalists with the help of the state tied up the leases for over 25 years with law suits. They would lose a suit and just file another one, a state official said "we will keep them ( the oil company) in court until they run out of money."
AND YET china i think is drilling these very same places now?
-
AND YET china i think is drilling these very same places now?
Hey, we all drive their cars, might as well use their oil too...... :rolleyes:
Oh no.....
(http://www.barackobama.com/static/Website_Chat/Site_Badges/normalcolor.jpg)
Oh no, Indeed....
EDIT: NEW YORK - Oil prices fell harder than they have in 17 years Tuesday.....
Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080715/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices
-
Why not stop the frivolous lawsuits? Waste of taxpayer money.
Why not live in reality and just do something that's less likely to have lawsuites and be completed much faster.
-
crockett and obama want me to drive my car with wind power. :rofl
If you cut down on oil used in our power gird, it means there is more oil left over for fuel.
-
AND YET china i think is drilling these very same places now?
China might be drilling in Cuba but they aren't drilling in Florida waters.
-
8 Years, and he wasn't even alive for 5 of them. It wasn't just his plans, it was the plans hatched by his advisors that he approved.
It was still his leadership that put us there, had it not been for him we would have never gone to the moon. In case you haven't figure it out yet, being a leader means delegating your authority. A president is there to set mandates and set a path for the nation to follow not do the actual grunt work.
G.B. could have set a mandate to upgrade our national power grid to use renewable energy sources. He could set mandates to make the auto companies produce cars that are more fuel efficient. He could set a mandate to give home and business owners tax breaks for adding solar panels or wind turbines to their houses or buildings to save power.
These are all things a president could do that would "trickle down" through the system and help this nation much more than trying to plop a few oil rigs off the coast and crying because Democrats see through the BS and vote no.
-
China might be drilling in Cuba but they aren't drilling in Florida waters.
They are drilling mebbe 50 miles off ....likely SIDE drilling into the area the FLA legislature is preventing US from hitting
Aside: I saw a report that Iraq was pumping 6 million a day before the war, and is only NOW up to 2.5 mil? Anyone have info on this? This seems like the fastest way to put world production up a few million a day, with some more infrastructure help...and by ALL means, lets protect the Anwar mosquito refuge! :aok
-
G.B. could have set a mandate to upgrade our national power grid to use renewable energy sources. He could set mandates to make the auto companies produce cars that are more fuel efficient. He could set a mandate to give home and business owners tax breaks for adding solar panels or wind turbines to their houses or buildings to save power.
These are all things a president could do that would "trickle down" through the system and help this nation much more than trying to plop a few oil rigs off the coast and crying because Democrats see through the BS and vote no.
And JFK's brother could have welcomed the wind power farm being planned for just off shore of the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/05/07/kennedy_doesnt_play_by_the_rules/ (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/05/07/kennedy_doesnt_play_by_the_rules/)
But he and RFK jr http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2006/01/12/capecod/ (http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2006/01/12/capecod/)fought the wind farm even though 84% of MA wanted the green power on the grid.
So it seems environmental stewardship only applies if you have to compromise and I don't have to.
It seems both sides of the aisle have forgotton how to lead.
-
They are drilling mebbe 50 miles off ....likely SIDE drilling into the area the FLA legislature is preventing US from hitting
Aside: I saw a report that Iraq was pumping 6 million a day before the war, and is only NOW up to 2.5 mil? Anyone have info on this? This seems like the fastest way to put world production up a few million a day, with some more infrastructure help...and by ALL means, lets protect the Anwar mosquito refuge! :aok
Well not much we can say about 50 miles off. International waters starts at 20 miles doesn't it?
-
Territorial waters is a 12 mile (22km) limit
Exclusive economic zone is 200 miles.
But when it's only 90 miles from Florida to Cuba, 50 miles from us is them when it comes to exclusive economic zone.
-
And JFK's brother could have welcomed the wind power farm being planned for just off shore of the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/05/07/kennedy_doesnt_play_by_the_rules/ (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/05/07/kennedy_doesnt_play_by_the_rules/)
But he and RFK jr http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2006/01/12/capecod/ (http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2006/01/12/capecod/)fought the wind farm even though 84% of MA wanted the green power on the grid.
So it seems environmental stewardship only applies if you have to compromise and I don't have to.
It seems both sides of the aisle have forgotton how to lead.
Yes, that's pretty much the problem with this country, we have no real leaders. To follow any of them is to be nothing more than being a sheep following a blind shepherd.
-
Territorial waters is a 12 mile (22km) limit
Exclusive economic zone is 200 miles.
But when it's only 90 miles from Florida to Cuba, 50 miles from us is them when it comes to exclusive economic zone.
Yea I figure it was likely they were doing it between us and Cuba if they were that close. Using Cuba's claim to territorial waters and an excuse.
-
Am I the only one who feels that if, and when, the time comes that these new drilling rigs are in service, that we will not have as much of a demand for oil as we do now? Or maybe the question should be that, with all of the technological advancements and new engineering ideas, are we closer to widely used alternative sources of energy, or new, in service, offshore oil riggs??
-
It was still his leadership that put us there, had it not been for him we would have never gone to the moon.
I'm gonna haul the up BS flag on that one. When the USSR made it into space all of America was embarrassed that the communists got into space and we really didn't even have a space program . No matter who was the president when that happened, we would have had a space program started and made it not only into space, but to the moon as well. That was inevitable given the Cold War attitudes.
In case you haven't figure it out yet, being a leader means delegating your authority.
That's only one aspect of leadership and a good leader knows when to delegate authority and when not to.
G.B. could have set a mandate to upgrade our national power grid to use renewable energy sources. He could set mandates to make the auto companies produce cars that are more fuel efficient. He could set a mandate to give home and business owners tax breaks for adding solar panels or wind turbines to their houses or buildings to save power.
Why is this only on our current president? Oh wait....thats right....you hate him. Fact is, this is on every president for the past 40 years. Even so, the president can't do all of those things himself. Congress would have to pass laws giving tax breaks and to force the auto makers to produce cars with better mileage.
These are all things a president could do that would "trickle down" through the system and help this nation much more than trying to plop a few oil rigs off the coast and crying because Democrats see through the BS and vote no.
A few oil rigs? I'm guessing if the outer continental shelf was opened up to drilling that it would end up being a lot more than just a few. It's just plain dumb to not use the resources we have. Granted, with America's vast consumption of oil it won't make us independent of other countries for oil imports but it would lessen that dependence. Anything that lessens our dependence on others for our energy needs is a step in the right direction.
-
Yes, that's pretty much the problem with this country, we have no real leaders. To follow any of them is to be nothing more than being a sheep following a blind shepherd.
I actually agree with you on something.......
Eww...I feel so....dirty! :D
-
All this would be interesting if China was actually drilling anywhere off shore of Florida or Cuba. They are not. Don't be angry at China. You should be angry that you were lied to again and the false story never corrected, again, by the media.
-
No kidding?
-
No kidding. It's a myth. A Chinese company reportedly has a contract for exploratory drilling on land, but nothing has been drilled. A Norwegian company drilled a test well in 2005 (on shore) and this story was mixed with the Chinese story by a dumb Congressman because Cuba is 90 miles off the shore of Florida. Vice President Cheney repeated the myth on a Sunday news show with a new distance and the myth was reborn.
How about some photos of those Chinese oil rigs? ;)
It worked though. The end result was opening up drilling to provide a few years worth of oil. This oil price increase is just another warning from the marketplace to do something different. The legislation is just another aspirin to mask the pain from the tumor. Spot price is not much different than future prices. It's moot.
-
If you cut down on oil used in our power gird, it means there is more oil left over for fuel.
The US uses very little oil for electricity generation. The oil that is used is likely to be either petroleum coke or residual fuel oil, both of which are left over products from the refining process, and of no use for cars.
-
I'm starting to be in favor of mandating micro-generation on new home construction. Drives small-scale solar/wind/hydro development, feeds power back into the grid when there's an excess, doesn't suffer nearly as bad during grid failures if it has a battery backup, and still can get energy from the grid if it's there's no wind and an overcast.
Cost of the system depends on the house size, but going with Texas prices, you can add about 10%. An 80k home would have a more than sufficient system for 8k. With Cali pricing, with that same postage stamp home being 300k, you're looking at 3% of the cost... and it can pay for itself in under 10 years based on energy prices from 4 years ago. I'd imagine it'd be quite a bit quicker now. Add to that the buying power of developers, and costs drop even further.
-
I don't want no stinking oil rigs off the NC coast. I like it just the way it is. Vote No to lifting the ban congress!
-
when I lived in LA in the fifties there was an oil derric down the street in a vacant lot.. they were all over.. no one minded.. now.. if there is one 20 miles out to sea.. panties get in a bunch.
If we can keep gas at $4 a gallon for 10 years or so it would be worth it.. it doesn't have to go down and.. we are America.. we can do more than solar or wind or bio whatever or oil.. we can do it all at the same time.. and we don't need no stinking government to do it.. just get em out of the way.
I seen this before.. people sold all the muscle cars cause gas got to $1.50 a gallon and there was a "shortage"... the price never went down from there but those cars are worth $100,000 to a million bucks right now.. you couldn't give em away in the 70's.
What a bunch of rutabagas we have become...... again....
lazs
-
I don't want no stinking oil rigs off the NC coast. I like it just the way it is. Vote No to lifting the ban congress!
of course, here comes the not in my back yard syndrome.
you probably won't be able to see them
-
you two have assumed i am also pissed off about gas prices. But you would be wrong :rock
-
you two have assumed i am also pissed off about gas prices. But you would be wrong :rock
nope.....not assuming that. but you DO use oil products, and DO need them.......so you DO want oil, you just don't want it in produced your own backyard. as long as it comes from somewhere else, you're ok with it........
-
I'm gonna haul the up BS flag on that one. When the USSR made it into space all of America was embarrassed that the communists got into space and we really didn't even have a space program . No matter who was the president when that happened, we would have had a space program started and made it not only into space, but to the moon as well. That was inevitable given the Cold War attitudes.
It appears you need a bit of a history refresh. There were many that totally apposed us going into space and wasting the money. It was JFK's leadership that took us there, allowing us to beat the Soviets. Sure maybe we would have went there 20 years later (maybe) had it not been for his drive and leadership we sure as hell wouldn't have done it in 10 years.
part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTyYM-dUgCI
part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfhIjI_N1Pk&feature=related
That's only one aspect of leadership and a good leader knows when to delegate authority and when not to.
I think it's becoming clear that you like nothing more than to just argue.
Why is this only on our current president? Oh wait....thats right....you hate him. Fact is, this is on every president for the past 40 years. Even so, the president can't do all of those things himself. Congress would have to pass laws giving tax breaks and to force the auto makers to produce cars with better mileage.
Because it's under his watch we have come into these problems.. Under no other president has oil doubled it's price every three years. Partly due to the actions of this president and his saber rattling in the middle east. His action by taking us into war with Iraq has caused much of the current rise. It's his duty to do something when the nation is in crisis, not some president from 20 years ago..
A few oil rigs? I'm guessing if the outer continental shelf was opened up to drilling that it would end up being a lot more than just a few. It's just plain dumb to not use the resources we have. Granted, with America's vast consumption of oil it won't make us independent of other countries for oil imports but it would lessen that dependence. Anything that lessens our dependence on others for our energy needs is a step in the right direction.
The estimated oil that will be gained by oil rigs in all the area's effected by the ban will be no more than 5% of our consumption and of course it will eventually run out. Meanwhile Solar and Wind power are renewable power and will never run out. Humm.. I assume it must take a rocket scientist to figure out which the better option is, because the reality sure seems to fall on daft ears around here.
-
No kidding. It's a myth. A Chinese company reportedly has a contract for exploratory drilling on land, but nothing has been drilled. A Norwegian company drilled a test well in 2005 (on shore) and this story was mixed with the Chinese story by a dumb Congressman because Cuba is 90 miles off the shore of Florida. Vice President Cheney repeated the myth on a Sunday news show with a new distance and the myth was reborn.
How about some photos of those Chinese oil rigs? ;)
It worked though. The end result was opening up drilling to provide a few years worth of oil. This oil price increase is just another warning from the marketplace to do something different. The legislation is just another aspirin to mask the pain from the tumor. Spot price is not much different than future prices. It's moot.
lol that's pretty funny and typical. I was kinda suprised by the news that we had Chinese oil rigs off our coast and I had heard nothing about them. So now the truth comes out.. :rofl
-
The US uses very little oil for electricity generation. The oil that is used is likely to be either petroleum coke or residual fuel oil, both of which are left over products from the refining process, and of no use for cars.
The problem is the ones that have been converted off of oil are switching to natural gas. So we are just switching them from one fossil fuel to another that requires expensive recovery process which drives up our energy costs. Meanwhile we have clear alternatives that can be used that are renewable "renewable" energy sources. Solar and wind power don't require expensive drilling operations.
Once the farms are built they only require maintenance which would bring our costs down.
-
I'm starting to be in favor of mandating micro-generation on new home construction. Drives small-scale solar/wind/hydro development, feeds power back into the grid when there's an excess, doesn't suffer nearly as bad during grid failures if it has a battery backup, and still can get energy from the grid if it's there's no wind and an overcast.
Cost of the system depends on the house size, but going with Texas prices, you can add about 10%. An 80k home would have a more than sufficient system for 8k. With Cali pricing, with that same postage stamp home being 300k, you're looking at 3% of the cost... and it can pay for itself in under 10 years based on energy prices from 4 years ago. I'd imagine it'd be quite a bit quicker now. Add to that the buying power of developers, and costs drop even further.
yes that's what I'm talking about when I say the govt should be pushing a national tax break for people who build homes that are more efficient and produce their own power. It works and the technology is already out there it's not like it's 20 years away.
This is an example of a very large house in Main of all places that uses solar power and sells electric back to the power company.
http://www.solarhouse.com/
There are quite a few of them around, you just don't hear much about them. But the technology and ability is here and has been here for many years.
-
The problem is the ones that have been converted off of oil are switching to natural gas. So we are just switching them from one fossil fuel to another that requires expensive recovery process which drives up our energy costs. Meanwhile we have clear alternatives that can be used that are renewable "renewable" energy sources. Solar and wind power don't require expensive drilling operations.
Once the farms are built they only require maintenance which would bring our costs down.
Wind farms are not that efficient though. It takes ALOT of generators to equal one coal fired plant. ALOT! I like the Idea of building solar farms out in Nevada and arizona. There is land apon land out there that is doing absolutly nothing and with sulinght 330+ days out of the year it would be pretty efficient.
(http://techfreep.com/images/solarfarm.jpg)
$320 Million for 154 megawatts
I can't find any stats on costs of a new nuke plant but I have to assume it's in the billions of dollars price range but you get 2-3000 megawatts.
I say turn Those desert states into solar farms.
-
nope.....not assuming that. but you DO use oil products, and DO need them.......so you DO want oil, you just don't want it in produced your own backyard. as long as it comes from somewhere else, you're ok with it........
I do use oil products. I could survive without them too.
Been riding my bike to work and campus. Not buying plastic crap from walmart layered in more plastic crap for a while now. Using cotton bags for the groceries that I can carry on my bike racks. I'm even using some of my recent savings from this to budget money to pay a little more on the power bill for green energy.
Reduce, reuse, and recycle. People have to start somewhere.
Are you doing anything to help?
I don't want it in my backyard because I'd like to think we are smart enough to not need it from anyone's backyard. Stop assuming and communicate some, not just preaching your way or the highway. <S>
-
the horizon is 15 miles, you can't see a oil rig 20 miles offshore.
actually by drilling offshore you would be protecting the environment by stopping the natural oil seepage in to the sea.
save the environment by removing the oil before it can pollute the pristine seas.
-
the horizon is 15 miles, you can't see a oil rig 20 miles offshore.
actually by drilling offshore you would be protecting the environment by stopping the natural oil seepage in to the sea.
save the environment by removing the oil before it can pollute the pristine seas.
thank you!!
i wasn't sure how far it was to post it here........
-
I do use oil products. I could survive without them too.
Been riding my bike to work and campus. Not buying plastic crap from walmart layered in more plastic crap for a while now. Using cotton bags for the groceries that I can carry on my bike racks. I'm even using some of my recent savings from this to budget money to pay a little more on the power bill for green energy.
Reduce, reuse, and recycle. People have to start somewhere.
Are you doing anything to help?
I don't want it in my backyard because I'd like to think we are smart enough to not need it from anyone's backyard. Stop assuming and communicate some, not just preaching your way or the highway. <S>
well, what we could do then, is to run a poll.......find all the people like you that don't want this in your backyard....and then since because of you, we'd have to leave a natural resource lay in waste, you will survive completley without the benifit of anything at all that could have anythign to do with oil products. considering that virtually EVERYTHING you own, touch, or use has been involved with oil in some way shape or form. :D
-
I do use oil products. I could survive without them too.
Been riding my bike to work and campus. Not buying plastic crap from walmart layered in more plastic crap for a while now. Using cotton bags for the groceries that I can carry on my bike racks. I'm even using some of my recent savings from this to budget money to pay a little more on the power bill for green energy.
Reduce, reuse, and recycle. People have to start somewhere.
Are you doing anything to help?
I don't want it in my backyard because I'd like to think we are smart enough to not need it from anyone's backyard. Stop assuming and communicate some, not just preaching your way or the highway. <S>
i do recycle, i drive my geo prism rther than my dakota as the geo gets 35mpg. i turn out lights when i leave the room. i recycle. i don't use plastic cups, plates eating utensils etc.
i do what i can.
the fact is that until an infrastructure is built for some other form of energy, we will continue to need oil for many many years to come. it still has to come from somewhere. it would be better to drill and use it rather than waste a valuable resource. it would help your local economy with jobs. it would help your local economy with workers spending money when they come ashore.
did i communicate enough yet? :D
-
Wind farms are not that efficient though. It takes ALOT of generators to equal one coal fired plant. ALOT! I like the Idea of building solar farms out in Nevada and arizona. There is land apon land out there that is doing absolutly nothing and with sulinght 330+ days out of the year it would be pretty efficient.
(http://techfreep.com/images/solarfarm.jpg)
$320 Million for 154 megawatts
I can't find any stats on costs of a new nuke plant but I have to assume it's in the billions of dollars price range but you get 2-3000 megawatts.
I say turn Those desert states into solar farms.
Yea granted the wind isn't as efficient but it is clean and renewable, I do agree that solar is a way better option. I read somewhere that a 100 square mile solar farm would produce enough electricity to power the entire country.
-
Apparently Solar is ultimately less interesting than one or two other alternative energies.. I can't recall which. And won't there be a lot of energy losses with solar farms in the middle of nowhere?
-
the horizon is 15 miles, you can't see a oil rig 20 miles offshore.
actually by drilling offshore you would be protecting the environment by stopping the natural oil seepage in to the sea.
save the environment by removing the oil before it can pollute the pristine seas.
Personally just like nuclear plant's Oil rigs don't bug me that much assuming the companies are responsible. However I'm trying to be a realist here and I pretty much see off shore drilling as a major dead issue. As others have pointed out it would be tied up in law suits for a long time and by the time we ever see a benefit from them it's wont likely make much impact.
I see the same with nuclear power. It's by far the best option, but again it comes down to the "not in my backyard" problems as others have posted. Hence the reason I think we should just start pushing things that we can get into production fairly fast.
Granted as Gunslinger said wind farms aren't as efficient as other forms but it's still something that can be universally used throughout a large portion of the US. Then on the flip side we have solar that can also be used directly on individual homes and businesses but also in most of the US.
So it just seems like as a country we are gong in the wrong direction in regards to our energy needs. I will give props though to FPL (Florida Power & Light) because Florida is one of the cleanest power grids in the US. As I posted before We have 6 or 7 nuclear plants but they have also converted or are in the process of converting all the oil based power plants over to natural gas. Then add in the kicker that FPL is the company that has built and owns the largest wind farms in the US (ironic enough it's the wind farms in Texas).
On the natural gas I'm not really apposed to it as it's a much better option than oil and can be burned in cars just the same as oil based fuels once you convert it. The draw back I see with gas is it's costly to get just like oil is and I think the price will keep going up on it just like oil.
I think the perfect solution would be a combo of nuclear, wind and solar for our actual power grid and then use natural gas for cars. If we did that we wouldn't need oil anymore and this country could be truly energy indepent. (I leave coal out because even the so called cleaner coal isn't that great and costs more)
-
Apparently Solar is ultimately less interesting than one or two other alternative energies.. I can't recall which. And won't there be a lot of energy losses with solar farms in the middle of nowhere?
Well you couldn't toss them out in the middle of nowhere and expect to send the energy all the way across the country. Each state would need their own farms much like each state has their own power plants now. The thing is if we started giving incentives for home owners to add their own solar power to their houses and businesses we would need less as a whole. If every house in the US helped produce it's own electric we wouldn't need as many larger solar farms.
On that solar house website I'm pretty sure I read that it's about $20k to the price of a average house to set it up with solar. So it's still pricey but if it was more common the prices would come down. They claim it's going to be China that makes Solar affordable because they are using it a lot now.
-
Well you couldn't toss them out in the middle of nowhere and expect to send the energy all the way across the country.
Umm yes you can....that's why we have a "NATION WIDE" energy grid. It's all connected. The lines are allready ran accross the desert, all you gotta do is connect to them. I'm also not talking about solar farms of vast solar panels. I'm talking more about solar towers. Several thousand mirrors pointing at a single point to creat and store heat. Clean and efficient use of the land (WICH ISN"T BEING USED ANYWAYS) Wind turbines require alot more land and cannot stand up to high gusts of wind.
Nuke plants are the way to go though. France uses them and they aren't glowing in the dark.
-
Wind turbines require alot more land and cannot stand up to high gusts of wind.
?? You can get one for your house that kicks in at 8mph, hits peak efficiency at 20mph, and can stand up to 140mph winds. If you're in winds that high... a turbine staying put is the last of your problems.
-
?? You can get one for your house that kicks in at 8mph, hits peak efficiency at 20mph, and can stand up to 140mph winds. If you're in winds that high... a turbine staying put is the last of your problems.
Link please, I'd be interested in buying one. Maybe it could run my Air Conditioner.....
-
crock-it... all this tapdancing... aren't your feet getting tired?
You say that offshore oil rigs will only give us 5% of our demand.. I have heard numbers that range from 15% to 100% but let's use your lowball figure of 5%... let's further say that ANWAR gives us a further reduction of 5%...
That is 10% of our demand.. that is a lot of oil we are not buying.. what possible reason could you have for not doing it?
lazs
-
Link please, I'd be interested in buying one. Maybe it could run my Air Conditioner.....
http://store.altenergystore.com/Wind-Systems/Wind-Turbines-Electric/Grid-Tie-Wind-Turbines/Southwest-Wind-Power-Skystream-37-120V60Hz/p5994/ (http://store.altenergystore.com/Wind-Systems/Wind-Turbines-Electric/Grid-Tie-Wind-Turbines/Southwest-Wind-Power-Skystream-37-120V60Hz/p5994/)
You'd probably need some other equipment to tie it in... but basically with a grid-tie system, power that you're not using is fed back into the main grid. Generate more than you use, you get a check back from the power company. The same gear will also let you drop in solar panels, hydro, or other sources.
edit: Go to Barnes & Nobles, get a copy of Home Power magazine. It's loaded with good stuff.
-
http://store.altenergystore.com/Wind-Systems/Wind-Turbines-Electric/Grid-Tie-Wind-Turbines/Southwest-Wind-Power-Skystream-37-120V60Hz/p5994/ (http://store.altenergystore.com/Wind-Systems/Wind-Turbines-Electric/Grid-Tie-Wind-Turbines/Southwest-Wind-Power-Skystream-37-120V60Hz/p5994/)
You'd probably need some other equipment to tie it in... but basically with a grid-tie system, power that you're not using is fed back into the main grid. Generate more than you use, you get a check back from the power company. The same gear will also let you drop in solar panels, hydro, or other sources.
edit: Go to Barnes & Nobles, get a copy of Home Power magazine. It's loaded with good stuff.
35ft tower with a 12ft rotor diameter. The HOA will LOVE that!
-
In response to the "not in my backyard" mentality, any company would be welcome to come in and use my backyard for a nuclear plant. All I ask is that I can have my power for free. If we would get away form this mentality that nuclear is unsafe we would be fine. It is safe. The major incident, of course was Chernobyl. Remember, they were using Soviet technology. Also, two of the operators were in an argument and let things get out of control. Todays nuke plants are almost run by computer and those problems won't happen. France, has been using it for years without issue. It is time to start using cheap and safe and we can say CLEAN power.
-
35ft tower with a 12ft rotor diameter. The HOA will LOVE that!
HOA = the devil. Gotta get out of the cookie cutter neighborhoods and into a place where you can actually do what you want on your own property.
-
It appears you need a bit of a history refresh. There were many that totally apposed us going into space and wasting the money. It was JFK's leadership that took us there, allowing us to beat the Soviets. Sure maybe we would have went there 20 years later (maybe) had it not been for his drive and leadership we sure as hell wouldn't have done it in 10 years.
part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTyYM-dUgCI
part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfhIjI_N1Pk&feature=related
The Soviets beat us into space. American's were ticked off and outraged that the Soviets were able to do something like that and beat us there. Public opinion is what got the White House moving on the space program, w/o the Soviets actions our inaction would have continued. It wouldn't have mattered who was President when these events occurred, public opinion was going to force the issue. As far as how long it would have taken if someone else had been in office, that would be pure conjecture on the part of either of us. The Soviets also crash landed an unmanned vehicle on the moon and beat the US to the moon as well.
That's only one aspect of leadership and a good leader knows when to delegate authority and when not to.
That is a statement of fact and an expansion of your own statement, not an argument.
Because it's under his watch we have come into these problems.. Under no other president has oil doubled it's price every three years. Partly due to the actions of this president and his saber rattling in the middle east. His action by taking us into war with Iraq has caused much of the current rise. It's his duty to do something when the nation is in crisis, not some president from 20 years ago.
I agree that the price of oil has gone up considerably why Bush has been in office. Yet, if other administrations (including this one) over the last 40 years had done things to push alternatives we wouldn't be in this mess today. It's a chain of failures by multiple administrations that has landed us where we are today. You just hate Bush so it's convenient for you to ignore the previous failures and put it all at his feet.
The estimated oil that will be gained by oil rigs in all the area's effected by the ban will be no more than 5% of our consumption and of course it will eventually run out. Meanwhile Solar and Wind power are renewable power and will never run out. Humm.. I assume it must take a rocket scientist to figure out which the better option is, because the reality sure seems to fall on daft ears around here.
That's 5% that we don't have to import and that's assuming there isn't anymore than 5% out there that hasn't been discovered. Solar and wind power can't replace things like lubricants and plastics both of which are derived from oil and our society uses both on a daily basis. Solar and wind power can only replace the electricity we use. Many of our electrical generation facilities are coal powered. Until we can find a replacement for plastics, lubricants and gasoline we are stuck with using oil. Just because those offshore oil deposits will run out we shouldn't use them at all?
Just for the record, I am actually in favor of nuclear power facilities. As someone else has pointed out, France gets the majority of their electricity from nuclear power and it's been quite safe. Only Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island incidents have been major accidents and 3 Mile Island was contained. I'm also in favor of solar and wind power, sure, lets make use of those things because they are an endless source of energy.
-
meh.....
-
crock-it... all this tapdancing... aren't your feet getting tired?
You say that offshore oil rigs will only give us 5% of our demand.. I have heard numbers that range from 15% to 100% but let's use your lowball figure of 5%... let's further say that ANWAR gives us a further reduction of 5%...
That is 10% of our demand.. that is a lot of oil we are not buying.. what possible reason could you have for not doing it?
lazs
I'm not tap dancing anywhere.. I'm using the same number that's been reported by both pro and anti on the oil platforms. That's the number that's been all over the news. If you think 15 to 100% you are smoking the crack pipe a bit much.
Why is it you continue to ignore what I've said.. Lets say it does add up to 10% or 15%. We could cut more than that much by just going with non oil power plants and making auto manufacturers produce cars that got 30mpg average.
You always ignore this after I post it time and time again.. Your like a broken record and only thing to do is drill for oil.. yep that will solve everything drill drill drill.. Don't worry about curbing consumption nah that's a dumb idea.
If anyone is tap dancing it you because you actually seem to think drilling offshore would somehow make us energy independent.
-
Umm yes you can....that's why we have a "NATION WIDE" energy grid. It's all connected. The lines are allready ran accross the desert, all you gotta do is connect to them. I'm also not talking about solar farms of vast solar panels. I'm talking more about solar towers. Several thousand mirrors pointing at a single point to creat and store heat. Clean and efficient use of the land (WICH ISN"T BEING USED ANYWAYS) Wind turbines require alot more land and cannot stand up to high gusts of wind.
Nuke plants are the way to go though. France uses them and they aren't glowing in the dark.
Our power grids are interconnected by regions, but there is enormous amounts of power lost via the lines into thin air by leakage. It's not efficent to send the power those kinds of distances.
-
Resistance is a b....itch :)
shamus
-
I'm not even going to bother with the first part about space anymore.. If you don't think JFK was a major reason for us doing what we did.. well it's no sence arguing with you.
I agree that the price of oil has gone up considerably why Bush has been in office. Yet, if other administrations (including this one) over the last 40 years had done things to push alternatives we wouldn't be in this mess today. It's a chain of failures by multiple administrations that has landed us where we are today. You just hate Bush so it's convenient for you to ignore the previous failures and put it all at his feet.
So why is it, now that we know we are in this mess that Bush still can't push alternative energy? Why is it, his only answer is to drill for oil and push ethanol? Again I ask you why is it Bush could push for wind farms in Texas yest wont push for a national plan to clean up our power grid and make us more self sufficient?
That's 5% that we don't have to import and that's assuming there isn't anymore than 5% out there that hasn't been discovered. Solar and wind power can't replace things like lubricants and plastics both of which are derived from oil and our society uses both on a daily basis. Solar and wind power can only replace the electricity we use. Many of our electrical generation facilities are coal powered. Until we can find a replacement for plastics, lubricants and gasoline we are stuck with using oil. Just because those offshore oil deposits will run out we shouldn't use them at all?
Just for the record, I am actually in favor of nuclear power facilities. As someone else has pointed out, France gets the majority of their electricity from nuclear power and it's been quite safe. Only Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island incidents have been major accidents and 3 Mile Island was contained. I'm also in favor of solar and wind power, sure, lets make use of those things because they are an endless source of energy.
Read my other responce to Lard on the 5%..
-
If you don't think JFK was a major reason for us doing what we did.. well it's no sence arguing with you.
Public opinion is the major reason JFK did what he did. It all has to do with the Cold War attitudes. No matter who made it to the oval office, it would have been political suicide to NOT do something. Was JFK a good leader in getting the space program moving? Sure he was. Would he have done anything if the Soviets weren't already doing it? Probably not, simply because public opinion wouldn't have demanded that something be done.
So why is it, now that we know we are in this mess that Bush still can't push alternative energy? Why is it, his only answer is to drill for oil and push ethanol? Again I ask you why is it Bush could push for wind farms in Texas yest wont push for a national plan to clean up our power grid and make us more self sufficient?
Why are you asking me those questions? Ask the President himself. He's the only one that knows those answers. I'm not denying that this administration should be doing more to promote alternative sources of energy. I am saying that this is a problem that goes far beyond just this administration, this problem goes back for 40 years or so. There is a lot of blame to be shared by a lot of people, and Bush is just one person amongst many.
We knew this problem could occur at least as far back as the 1973 Oil Embargo and we did virtually nothing since then. From a strategic standpoint, we've known since the start of the Cold War that our supply lines to our energy sources, and those of our western allies, (oil in the middle east) were vulnerable and still did virtually nothing to promote alternate sources of energy. So yeah, laying all the blame at Bush's feet is perfectly reasonable. :rolleyes:
-
I agree that the price of oil has gone up considerably why Bush has been in office. Yet, if other administrations (including this one) over the last 40 years had done things to push alternatives we wouldn't be in this mess today. It's a chain of failures by multiple administrations that has landed us where we are today. You just hate Bush so it's convenient for you to ignore the previous failures and put it all at his feet.
GWB doesn't control the Taxes on oil. It's CONGRESS, for christs sake.
(http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh71/1pLUs44/0000000000000moregas.jpg)
(http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh71/1pLUs44/0000000000000000chinagas.jpg)
(http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh71/1pLUs44/000000000000000000000000000000gas.jpg)
So why is it, now that we know we are in this mess that Bush still can't push alternative energy? Why is it, his only answer is to drill for oil and push ethanol? Again I ask you why is it Bush could push for wind farms in Texas yest wont push for a national plan to clean up our power grid and make us more self sufficient?
Because congress wont let us make more nuclear power plants, congress wont let us drill for more oil, congress will tell GWB and pressure him to do something calling him a nazi, and as soon as he does it, they find something else to rub in his face. Bush doesn't push for ethanol, the democrats and Al Gore does...
-
GWB doesn't control the Taxes on oil. It's CONGRESS, for christs sake.
It is a fact that the price of oil has gone up considerably while Bush has been in office. (Whether or not he is directly to blame for every red cent of the price increase is certainly debatable. :D )
How many new taxes on oil has Congress implemented since Bush has been in office?
-
GWB doesn't control the Taxes on oil. It's CONGRESS, for christs sake.
Because congress wont let us make more nuclear power plants, congress wont let us drill for more oil, congress will tell GWB and pressure him to do something calling him a nazi, and as soon as he does it, they find something else to rub in his face. Bush doesn't push for ethanol, the democrats and Al Gore does...
So who's fault was it the last 6 years before the Dem's took control? Dems haven't even had control a year yet but everything is their fault. :rofl
We really need a sheep hearder in here because some of you are seriously out of control..
(http://newscoma.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/sheep_racing.jpg)
oh and btw.. when was the last time Congress raised the tax on gas?
oh and another btw... in case you didn't bother to read this full topic.. the whole China drilling in our backyard is a lie and total BS. China has a lease from Cuba but they "ARE NOT" drilling or even building any oil platforms. So get your facts straight and quit passing along lies..
-
Why are you asking me those questions? Ask the President himself. He's the only one that knows those answers. I'm not denying that this administration should be doing more to promote alternative sources of energy. I am saying that this is a problem that goes far beyond just this administration, this problem goes back for 40 years or so. There is a lot of blame to be shared by a lot of people, and Bush is just one person amongst many.
We knew this problem could occur at least as far back as the 1973 Oil Embargo and we did virtually nothing since then. From a strategic standpoint, we've known since the start of the Cold War that our supply lines to our energy sources, and those of our western allies, (oil in the middle east) were vulnerable and still did virtually nothing to promote alternate sources of energy. So yeah, laying all the blame at Bush's feet is perfectly reasonable. :rolleyes:
Your the one making excuses for him by blaming it on Presidents of the past... See I live in the "here and Now", we know something needs to be done now so why isn't he doing anything?
-
Your the one making excuses for him by blaming it on Presidents of the past... See I live in the "here and Now", we know something needs to be done now so why isn't he doing anything?
I look at the big picture, I see failures all down the line, including this administration. You only see failures w/ this administration because your hate for a single man that you most likely have never met, blinds you to all else. Show me where I didn't blame all administrations for the last 40+ years? The failures certainly haven't started with a single man all of a sudden. Selective reasoning at it's worst.
The energy policies of this nation by every administration since the Cold War started have been a failure.
Otoh, it's never to late to do *something*, whether that something is building more Nuclear plants, hydro-electric damns, wind farms, more solar power cells, or even drilling for more oil to help out in the short term. All of those things could be beneficial if we had a government (regardless of party affiliation) that actually gave a damn about something other than themselves.
-
Your the one making excuses for him by blaming it on Presidents of the past... See I live in the "here and Now", we know something needs to be done now so why isn't he doing anything?
I don't want him to do anything at all. If he and every politician across the nation took a year-long vacation on an island cut off from civilization, we'd all be better off.
This is ridiculous because we've been through all of this before, as Elfie said.
Oil prices are up because of risk and uncertainty. The risk of war against Iran is maybe 1/3 of the price hike.
The uncertainty about cheap, pumpable supplies and the competition to buy it is another 1/3. Reserve figures have been politicized and manipulated so much that there is uncertainty about them. Iraq has the worlds 2nd largest oil reserve, but five years after the US invasion and occupation, less oil is in the marketplace than before the invasion. Can anyone say with any certainty that there will be investment into the Iraqi oil infrastructure within the next five years, or if any of the oil will be in the market a decade from now?
The debasing of the dollar is the last third. Speculation has little to do with it.
I have to say that it is very interesting to watch the gnashing of teeth in the US about gas prices. Most of the rest of the world has been paying the same price the US is paying now, for decades in some cases. It was more in taxes, but the result at the pump was the same. Prices are not going to decline any significant amount in the foreseeable future. The question is - again and again and again - how will the US addresses it. If some form of subsidy or market aberration is used to reduce the apparent pump price, the country will not be preparing for a more fuel-efficient future that will be forced upon you by high prices.
The higher the price, the sooner you will do something. Get out of the way of the market.
-
I look at the big picture, I see failures all down the line, including this administration. You only see failures w/ this administration because your hate for a single man that you most likely have never met, blinds you to all else. Show me where I didn't blame all administrations for the last 40+ years? The failures certainly haven't started with a single man all of a sudden. Selective reasoning at it's worst.
The energy policies of this nation by every administration since the Cold War started have been a failure.
Otoh, it's never to late to do *something*, whether that something is building more Nuclear plants, hydro-electric damns, wind farms, more solar power cells, or even drilling for more oil to help out in the short term. All of those things could be beneficial if we had a government (regardless of party affiliation) that actually gave a damn about something other than themselves.
Yet you still can't see the big picture in what I've posted. I'll give you the basic theme... "What are we doing Now". You can sit around are worry about what some guy did 10 years ago or 50 years ago but it will do little to change what needs to be done NOW.
-
I've seen guys with a ton of electrical/physics know-how do some back of the envelope math on the resistence loss problem with solar energy (whatever the solar collection scheme), and the gist of it was that you couldn't power the whole US with just a few states hooked up to the rest of the national grid. I can't double check or back this up because I can't freakin find the page where the exact math was, but that's what it equated to.
So solar power will be good if you're in the same state, or maybe one state over.. But it doesn't look like it would go much further than that. Not without much higher working temperatures for superconductors and a big budget to pay for them.
-
If he and every politician across the nation took a year-long vacation on a island cut off from civilization, we'd all be better off.
That statement just might have more truth to it than any other statement made in this thread so far. :rock
-
I've seen guys with a ton of electrical/physics know-how do some back of the envelope math on the resistence loss problem with solar energy (whatever the solar collection scheme), and the gist of it was that you couldn't power the whole US with just a few states hooked up to the rest of the national grid. I can't double check or back this up because I can't freakin find the page where the exact math was, but that's what it equated to.
So solar power will be good if you're in the same state, or maybe one state over.. But it doesn't look like it would go much further than that. Not without much higher working temperatures for superconductors and a big budget to pay for them.
Well current solar panels still waste about 80% of the Sun's energy but they are getting better with time. If we actually invested in the technology like we do oil, we would make much more efficient and cheaper cells. Even though they still only use @ 20% it's still much cheaper energy to produce vs using oil or natural gas and it's renewable unlike oil and gas.
I think the problem with transfer of energy is the line leakage problem. It's nothing really do do with the solar cells, we pretty much couldn't put a bunch of nuclear reactors in one or two states and power the whole country either. No matter if the energy is produced by solar,wind,coal oil or what ever it's still energy the only difference is how it's produced.
That's why I say we should be doing a national campaign to get solar on new houses being built and convert existing if possible. If you had entire neighborhoods producing their own electric you wouldn't need such large solar farms to replace the actual same kilowatts from say a normal power plant.
-
Yet you still can't see the big picture in what I've posted. I'll give you the basic theme... "What are we doing Now". You can sit around are worry about what some guy did 10 years ago or 50 years ago but it will do little to change what needs to be done NOW.
When you acknowledge the policy mistakes of administrations other than the Bush administration, I'll stop harping on it. You act like this is a new problem created by Bush himself, it's not. It's a decades old problem.
Will changes happen now? Change is not likely for several reasons. First, change is not something most people are comfortable with. Second, changes will be expensive. When the changes become less expensive than the status quo, then and only then will changes be made. I am also of the belief that neither current parties have the intestinal fortitude to make the necessary changes.
Is that the way it should be? Of course not, but it is the way things are. The only way these things will change is by a 3rd party acting in the best interests of the country.
-
That's why I say we should be doing a national campaign to get solar on new houses being built and convert existing if possible.
That would take decades to convert existing homes. The costs would be enormous. Who is going to pay for that?
-
Why wont our Congress do something, anything to help?
Because doing the right thing for the american people isn't what congress and washington are all about. :mad:
-
Well current solar panels still waste about 80% of the Sun's energy but they are getting better with time. If we actually invested in the technology like we do oil, we would make much more efficient and cheaper cells. Even though they still only use @ 20% it's still much cheaper energy to produce vs using oil or natural gas and it's renewable unlike oil and gas.
I think the problem with transfer of energy is the line leakage problem. It's nothing really do do with the solar cells, we pretty much couldn't put a bunch of nuclear reactors in one or two states and power the whole country either. No matter if the energy is produced by solar,wind,coal oil or what ever it's still energy the only difference is how it's produced.
That's why I say we should be doing a national campaign to get solar on new houses being built and convert existing if possible. If you had entire neighborhoods producing their own electric you wouldn't need such large solar farms to replace the actual same kilowatts from say a normal power plant.
That's what I'm saying. The ultimate efficiency of solar is quite a bit below that of a few other alternatives. I can't freakin recall the numbers, but it was pretty big. Now, solar might get ahead of everything else in the mean time (before all alternatives reach max efficiency), but eventualy it won't be competitive anymore... The exact numbers are required to really say to what degree, but I just can't find em.. And I think it either included resistance losses, or showed solar being uncompetitive right off the bat solely on an energy production basis.
The campaign thing wouldn't be optimal way to go about it.. You can't just tell people to put up relatively huge bits of unaesthetic equipment on their property, which would have to be replaced over and over as the tech evolves. It wouldn't sell.
-
Will changes happen now? Change is not likely for several reasons. First, change is not something most people are comfortable with. Second, changes will be expensive. When the changes become less expensive than the status quo, then and only then will changes be made. I am also of the belief that neither current parties have the intestinal fortitude to make the necessary changes.
I think we are going to have an opportunity to institute changes again.
At the current rate of oil its not going to be expensive, we have not seen any of the costs yet.
A year from now if gas is still at 4.20 a gallon we are going to be saying..holy toejam inflation during tho 70's wasn't all that bad.
Anyone who thinks that alternatives to oil are a waste of time are fools.
Yeager you're on :lol
shamus
-
Because doing the right thing for the american people isn't what congress and washington are all about. :mad:
Why? Why has it gotten to the point where politicians campaign one thing, then do nothing. Why do we keep nominating the lazy idiots. I say cap the salary of Congressmen at 30k per year and anyone caught taking kickbacks gets an M-16 and a ticket to Islamistan. It's ludicrous. The way we get congressmen and other lawmakers needs to change. We need honest people who WANT to work for Americans. The system is flawed.
:noid
-
Why? Why has it gotten to the point where politicians campaign one thing, then do nothing. Why do we keep nominating the lazy idiots. I say cap the salary of Congressmen at 30k per year and anyone caught taking kickbacks gets an M-16 and a ticket to Islamistan. It's ludicrous. The way we get congressmen and other lawmakers needs to change. We need honest people who WANT to work for Americans. The system is flawed.
:noid
I agree...no argument here Bud :salute
Since the last voting cycle I have changed the way I vote. I am a registered Republican. But , I vote for those that I have either heard from and agree with dem or repub....or vote out the incumbant. If the incumbant has a Repub. running against him...then more than likley I'll give them a shot. '
My days of the same people in office for MY vote are over. I vote em out after every election....UNLESS.....I KNOW FOR SURE...they worked hard on my interest and behalf. Sadly.....thats not been the case yet.
-
Because doing the right thing for the american people isn't what congress and washington are all about. :mad:
So sad....and yet so true.....
Yet, the same can be said for all branches of our government. :(
-
Since the last voting cycle I have changed the way I vote. I am a registered Republican. But , I vote for those that I have either heard from and agree with dem or repub....or vote out the incumbant. If the incumbant has a Repub. running against him...then more than likley I'll give them a shot. '
Voting against the incumbant is a good idea regardless of party. If we make it so that the average term of office for a rep is maybe 6 years max, we might have a congress which answers to the only special intrest group they should worry about, the American People.
As far as solar goes, on my new shop I have the south facing slope roof area to install about 10kw of solar. I was seriously considering it and had a inslatter come out and look.
$8 per watt installed cost.
I need 1500 or 2k to become a net zero electricity user, so $16,000 is the cost of my system.
Our state government (along with the feds) has rebate programs that cut the installed cost to $6 per watt.
Subsidize green power... good little Oregon liberal.
In Germany, they have a program that if I were to overproduce, the extra is purcahsed by the grid at a 50% markup to my cost per kwhr if I were to buy. They are paying like 40c /kwhr, but if they send some back to the grid, the homeowner gets 60c/kwhr check from the utility.
Germany is buying like 75% of PV's made in the world.
In Oregon, the program is if I make more than I need during the summer, the utility banks it and I can withdraw from the bank during the winter. Along comes March 31, and we zero my account. If I made less than I needed, I send a check to the power company. OK, that's fair. If I made more than I needed, by state law I have just contributed the extra power to the low income assistance program.
Take away and incentive for me to make more power than I use.... idiotic little Oregon liberal.
-
That's what I'm saying. The ultimate efficiency of solar is quite a bit below that of a few other alternatives. I can't freakin recall the numbers, but it was pretty big. Now, solar might get ahead of everything else in the mean time (before all alternatives reach max efficiency), but eventualy it won't be competitive anymore... The exact numbers are required to really say to what degree, but I just can't find em.. And I think it either included resistance losses, or showed solar being uncompetitive right off the bat solely on an energy production basis.
The campaign thing wouldn't be optimal way to go about it.. You can't just tell people to put up relatively huge bits of unaesthetic equipment on their property, which would have to be replaced over and over as the tech evolves. It wouldn't sell.
Yea but even though they aren't as efficient they still work pretty damn good and can be a cheap long term solution. Take for example that house from the web page I posted. It produces @ 4,500 kWhr year in electricity. The national average usage is 6,000 kWh per household per year for 3 residents. So by setting up the average household with the same type of system it would only require a extra 2,000 kWh + or - per year.
That means the power grid doesn't have to produce as much power because each house would be producing most of it's own electricity. So even at only 80% efficiency it's clearly a good choice assuming we could make it more affordable by mass production. To make things more interesting Cali is trying to get the average 1500 sq ft home down to 4140 kWh per year by giving people incentives to switch over to various power saving utilities and so on.
At that point the solar system would produce excess power and in reality if someone was investing in solar it's very likely they would also be making the rest of the house as energy efficient as possible. Then further down the road as better more efficient panels are produced the generated kWh per year would surely go up. The deal is even at the current efficiency they come pretty damn close to producing enough power for the average home.
Jay Leno's garage is run on a solar power/wind turbine system and his garage is the size of a large business (17,000 sqft). Granted it doesn't make all the electric he needs but it makes a real big chunk of it. His system was pretty expensive but as I say the prices will come down and the efficiency will likely go up if we started putting more investment into it.
This is a pretty good article on his shop.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/jay_leno_garage/4228638.html
In the end if we had a system like this on a national level, we would be reducing consumpion with out having to cut back on actual usage or make major changes to lifstyle.
-
Voting against the incumbant is a good idea regardless of party. If we make it so that the average term of office for a rep is maybe 6 years max, we might have a congress which answers to the only special intrest group they should worry about, the American People.
As far as solar goes, on my new shop I have the south facing slope roof area to install about 10kw of solar. I was seriously considering it and had a inslatter come out and look.
$8 per watt installed cost.
I need 1500 or 2k to become a net zero electricity user, so $16,000 is the cost of my system.
Our state government (along with the feds) has rebate programs that cut the installed cost to $6 per watt.
Subsidize green power... good little Oregon liberal.
In Germany, they have a program that if I were to overproduce, the extra is purcahsed by the grid at a 50% markup to my cost per kwhr if I were to buy. They are paying like 40c /kwhr, but if they send some back to the grid, the homeowner gets 60c/kwhr check from the utility.
Germany is buying like 75% of PV's made in the world.
In Oregon, the program is if I make more than I need during the summer, the utility banks it and I can withdraw from the bank during the winter. Along comes March 31, and we zero my account. If I made less than I needed, I send a check to the power company. OK, that's fair. If I made more than I needed, by state law I have just contributed the extra power to the low income assistance program.
Take away and incentive for me to make more power than I use.... idiotic little Oregon liberal.
Do you get a 1 for 1 credit?, if you do its a good deal. In most states you get something under 100% of what the power companies charge, some companies pay less than 50%.
shamus
-
As far as solar goes, on my new shop I have the south facing slope roof area to install about 10kw of solar. I was seriously considering it and had a inslatter come out and look.
$8 per watt installed cost.
I need 1500 or 2k to become a net zero electricity user, so $16,000 is the cost of my system.
Our state government (along with the feds) has rebate programs that cut the installed cost to $6 per watt.
Subsidize green power... good little Oregon liberal.
In Germany, they have a program that if I were to overproduce, the extra is purcahsed by the grid at a 50% markup to my cost per kwhr if I were to buy. They are paying like 40c /kwhr, but if they send some back to the grid, the homeowner gets 60c/kwhr check from the utility.
Germany is buying like 75% of PV's made in the world.
In Oregon, the program is if I make more than I need during the summer, the utility banks it and I can withdraw from the bank during the winter. Along comes March 31, and we zero my account. If I made less than I needed, I send a check to the power company. OK, that's fair. If I made more than I needed, by state law I have just contributed the extra power to the low income assistance program.
Take away and incentive for me to make more power than I use.... idiotic little Oregon liberal.
hehe yea that's typical.. They almost get it right, but then totally screw it up at the end. Here in Florida it's even worse on the buy back, it's $0.05/kWh for PV and $0.03/kWh for solar water heating.
The systems are tax exempt and they have set prices for the rebates which are pretty good IMHO.
Solar Photovoltaic System $20,000.00 for residential and $100,000.00 for commercial but I dunno if the 20k would cover a garage as in your case. in all honestly I'm really surprised there are more people taking up the offer.
edit...
I guess the 20k/100k was the max they will pay. They do base it on the wattage after all and it's only $4 per watt. :rolleyes:
The rebate amount shall be set at $4 per watt based on the total wattage rating of the system. The maximum allowable rebate per solar photovoltaic system installation shall be as follows:
Twenty thousand dollars for a residence.
One hundred thousand dollars for a place of business, a publicly owned or operated facility, or a facility owned or operated by a private, not-for-profit organization, including condominiums or apartment buildings.
-
Do you get a 1 for 1 credit?, if you do its a good deal. In most states you get something under 100% of what the power companies charge, some companies pay less than 50%.
shamus
You get 1 for 1 until you make as much as you use. If you make more than you use, it's a 0 for 1.
There is no incentive but a warm feeling to make more than you use.
-
I dunno if the 20k would cover a garage as in your case. in all honestly I'm really surprised there are more people taking up the offer.
20 k after subsidies would get me about 2500 watts, which would be more than I need, and about 1/4 what I have roof room for. But my electricity bill is maybe $80 / mo, (no heating or cooling w/ electricity)
20 k in a 5% interest bearing acct would yeild 1000 / yr, or about $80 / mo. simple interest.
The way the law is I should size for maybe 80% of my needs. No incentive whatsoever to be a net producer.
-
20 k after subsidies would get me about 2500 watts, which would be more than I need, and about 1/4 what I have roof room for. But my electricity bill is maybe $80 / mo, (no heating or cooling w/ electricity)
20 k in a 5% interest bearing acct would yeild 1000 / yr, or about $80 / mo. simple interest.
The way the law is I should size for maybe 80% of my needs. No incentive whatsoever to be a net producer.
Yea I think at this point solar is just too expensive for somthing like yours. It's likely more benifical for people with larger electric bills.
-
the cost of install rises with larger electric bills.
Somebody that has a 200 / mo ebill will need 3 times the initial install cost, and the payback is still prohibitive.
Right now solar is a luxury that people pay for just cause they wanna. Like getting a Mercedes Benz instead of that Chevy. Both will get you to work in relative comfort, and one costs twice as much.
-
No kidding. It's a myth. A Chinese company reportedly has a contract for exploratory drilling on land, but nothing has been drilled. A Norwegian company drilled a test well in 2005 (on shore) and this story was mixed with the Chinese story by a dumb Congressman because Cuba is 90 miles off the shore of Florida. Vice President Cheney repeated the myth on a Sunday news show with a new distance and the myth was reborn.
How about some photos of those Chinese oil rigs? ;)
It worked though. The end result was opening up drilling to provide a few years worth of oil. This oil price increase is just another warning from the marketplace to do something different. The legislation is just another aspirin to mask the pain from the tumor. Spot price is not much different than future prices. It's moot.
I've heard that too, and I'm pretty sure you're correct....but the bigger thing is they have the permission to drill, in pretty much the same area we do not . I'd have to assume rigs will spout up sooner or later, and drill or not, yes we DO need a more long-term plan than to find more oil....but there's no reason we can't do both? “If they [Saudi Arabia] produced half a million barrels more oil a day the price would come down a very significant amount and, at the same time, it would stop the speculation that keeps driving up the price of oil,” Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) said on the Senate (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDY1NTUyN2ZhM2I0MzIxMzQwYWVlNWRiYThiMTdlNDM=) floor Wednesday.
In the short term, if a half million barrels a day (on our part) could fix the recent pain, why not do it? Has it escaped EVERYONE'S attention that Bush ended the ban on Monday, and oil dropped $10 a barrel over the next 2 days? (This assumes the Left in House/Senate isn't secretly happy with high prices, as it furthers green agenda)
REALLY isn't as hard as it's made out to be to put a rig online:
Last December, at the behest (and expense) of the American Petroleum Institute and Shell oil, I flew down to the Gulf Coast to visit an offshore oil platform. They helicoptered me 165 miles out into the gulf and I stepped onto Brutus, a tension-linked platform anchored to the seafloor 3,000 feet below. It would be an understatement to say I was in awe. Until you’re actually standing on one you can’t begin to appreciate the sheer size and complexity of such a thing.
The platform is the size of a few football fields jammed together, and the top of the derrick was easily a few hundred feet off the water. Dozens of people lived on board, and everything — from the computer systems to the actual drilling rig — was state of the art. Brutus produced over 100,000 barrels of oil a day — down from over 300,000 at its peak capacity.
That sounds impressive. But here’s what truly floored me: Shell decided Brutus’s location in the gulf would be profitable for drilling in April 1999. The company then built the massive oil platform, transported it to the right location in the gulf, anchored the floating leviathan onto the seafloor 3,000 feet below, drilled 17,000 feet below that, and began producing oil in July 2001. It took only two years to get Brutus online.
Of course, it helps that the oil companies have plenty of money to throw at the problem. Constructing oil platforms can cost in the billions of dollars. A few new oil platforms equivalent to Brutus off-shore in the U.S. could easily account for the half a million barrels Senator Schumer claims are driving prices up.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2M3YWQ5MTE3Yzc0ZmY3OGM1YmU0OTVhZWUwZjQ0ZTk=
-
and oil dropped $10 a barrel over the next 2 days?
I'm pretty sure this drop had nothing to do with Bush undoing his fathers ban.
-
Bush's comments had little if any effect. Nothing he said or did will put more oil into the global supply.
OPEC said global demand for OPEC oil in 2009 would be less than the demand for 2008. Lower demand, lower price. Another reason was the fed hanging a temporary window dressing for the US economic condition.
-
Rolex, what are your current thoughts on where to invest?
The US markets don't look that promising over the next year or two to me.
-
Has it escaped EVERYONE'S attention that Bush ended the ban on Monday, and oil dropped $10 a barrel over the next 2 days?
Why is it some of you guys will say that Bush's speech made oil drop $10 but if any of us say oil price rose because we invaded Iraq and the saber rattling with Iran.. Then we are just whiny liberals.
"Higher U.S. oil supplies, along with evidence of quickening inflation and slowing economic activity in the world’s largest economy, have helped pull prices down from last Friday’s record above $147 a barrel, said Victor Shum, an oil analyst with consulting firm Purvin & Gertz in Singapore."
-
ah yes, a "oil analyst " with a "consulting firm ", he must know everything.
-
This thread made a statue of Ronald Reagan cry.
-
I think that rolex is correct and that the government should get out of the way and let the private sector get to work.
We are going to need oil for a long time yet. crock-it is missing the big picture in that 15% less dependency on foreign oil will be good no matter what else we do or what comes down the pike.
build the nuclear plants to free up natural gas.. run more cars on natural gas..
let the development of solar and wind and whatever go forward
AND drill for oil where we can right now so that 5 years or so from now we are not in an even worse spot. Who knows... every country out there is now exploring for oil offshore.. we need to be too.. maybe a field of oil bigger than any found so far will be the result.. instant 100% end of problem.. maybe not.. maybe only 15% reduction will occur.. probly more.. it is simply not smart to throw it away.
If china finds a huge field.. they will not put demand on the world market.. the price will stabalize.. if we figure out a cheaper way to use oil shale the price will stabalize.
If we do nothing.. or.. if we put all our eggs in the wind or solar basket we are being foolish.
What the situation was 20 years ago is not what it is today.. we need to quit worrying about who stopped all the exploration 20 years ago and stopped the nuke plants 20 years ago..
We need to worry about who is dragging their feet TODAY.
lazs
-
Or we do something even easier: REDUCE!
As stated the recent $10 decline in oil per barrel is due to demand forecasts for next year remaining steady with this years demand. Hmmm... so if we reduce our usage we reduce the pricing.
BRILLIANT!
-
or.. we could do ALL OF THOSE THINGS.. wow!!! what a concept huh? We could become less foreign oil dependent by doing all of those things including drilling for more of our own and solar and nuke and wind and any nutball or good idea that comes down the pike.
Your agenda is showing.
lazs
-
and yours isn't? :rofl
-
and yours isn't? :rofl
I don't see an agenda from Lazs on this. He is saying use all available ideas and resources. I agree with him. Use solar, wind, nuclear, hydro-electric, coal, off shore drilling....whatever. Anything that makes us less dependent on other countries for our energy.
-
and yours isn't? :rofl
His agenda is freedom, your's isn't. I pick his.
-
What the situation was 20 years ago is not what it is today.. we need to quit worrying about who stopped all the exploration 20 years ago and stopped the nuke plants 20 years ago..
We need to worry about who is dragging their feet TODAY.
Vote the feet draggers out of office.
-
His agenda is freedom, your's isn't. I pick his.
Cool, your opinion not mine. I'd like to be FREE of the TVA clogging up my air up by dragging their feet on their cleanup act. FREE of polluted air and FREE of our dependence on foriegn influence.
At least the high energy prices are finally making some people step back and reconsider their choice of vehicles and lifestyles. Maybe they aren't doing it for the environment or well being and just their wallets, but its still a change for the better.
Free from huge government handouts to oil companies reporting record profits? That'd be cool too.
-
Or we do something even easier: REDUCE!
As stated the recent $10 decline in oil per barrel is due to demand forecasts for next year remaining steady with this years demand. Hmmm... so if we reduce our usage we reduce the pricing.
BRILLIANT!
.
you don't seriously thing gas will drop back into the $2 range, do ya?
-
Couldn't care really, with my lifestyle and travel methods $2-4 gas prices only affect a very small percentage of my budget.
-
Cool, your opinion not mine. I'd like to be FREE of the TVA clogging up my air up by dragging their feet on their cleanup act. FREE of polluted air and FREE of our dependence on foriegn influence.
At least the high energy prices are finally making some people step back and reconsider their choice of vehicles and lifestyles. Maybe they aren't doing it for the environment or well being and just their wallets, but its still a change for the better.
Free from huge government handouts to oil companies reporting record profits? That'd be cool too.
Freedom from foreign influence is good, we agree. Let's not trade a foreign dictator for a domestic.
-
Couldn't care really, with my lifestyle and travel methods $2-4 gas prices only affect a very small percentage of my budget.
Lucky you.
-
The US market is unattractive to me too, Toad. There is too much volatility for my taste. I've pulled back and reduced my debt to almost zero. You might want to look into the medical equipment industry. I'm not a fan of health care staffing, service, software or IPO/new companies right now, but mid-cap medical equipment could be a nice harbor for a while.
-
Bush's comments had little if any effect. Nothing he said or did will put more oil into the global supply.
OPEC said global demand for OPEC oil in 2009 would be less than the demand for 2008. Lower demand, lower price. Another reason was the fed hanging a temporary window dressing for the US economic condition.
Those are the sorts of things that rightly convince speculators to bet that the price will go down, so the afore-mentioned count in that column, but Bush pledging to do something (7 years too late) that can increase supply by a few % doesn't? Went down again today.....I can't wait for 77-odd days, when the congressional ban is up for renewal....will be right before the elections too....bet we see a lot of 'present' votes on this one
-
Speculators are not the cause. That is a calculated campaign to deflect blame.
Oil prices are global, bj229f. Perhaps you might be a little US centric in your thinking? ;) I'll say again that it will not put more oil in the global supply. It will stay in the US and be only a tiny blip in global prices. Another thing I would caution is that you might be trying to frame this too much on internal US bickering, cough, politics.
-
Lucky you.
With the right lifestyle choices you could be "lucky" too you know.
-
With my "lifestyle" it affects my utility, transportation, and food bills. What is your lifestyle Grizzly Adams?
-
Its funny to see this environmental booby trap set by George Sr and sprung on his own son. I think he also got hit with the mercury-in-the-water trap set by Clinton and sprung not even a year after George Jr took office.
-
but Bush pledging to do something (7 years too late)
So it's Bush' fault. What about the lame brains that sit in Congress. Why are the Democrats still hemming and hawing on the issue. At least Bush did something. Now, you cannot place all of the blame on him when Congress has done the most to stifle growth in refining, drilling and exploration.
-
You know what pisses me off. Right now ALL the politicians are doing NOTHING but blaming all the other politicians about this crap. I could really care less about who did or didn't do something last year, 5 years ago, 20 years ago. I'm not paying the politicians to bicker about the past, I'm paying them to DO SOMETHING right now. Right or wrong I really don't care but DO SOMETHING. If it ends up being screwed up we will fix it in the future but blaming someone for what they did or didn't do is NOT what I'm paying them for. Like the old saying goes, "Chit or get off the pot!!!" Right now ALL of them are sitting on the pot in their own stick while we, the Americian public, are ignored.
-
You know what pisses me off. Right now ALL the politicians are doing NOTHING but blaming all the other politicians about this crap. I could really care less about who did or didn't do something last year, 5 years ago, 20 years ago. I'm not paying the politicians to bicker about the past, I'm paying them to DO SOMETHING right now. Right or wrong I really don't care but DO SOMETHING. If it ends up being screwed up we will fix it in the future but blaming someone for what they did or didn't do is NOT what I'm paying them for. Like the old saying goes, "Chit or get off the pot!!!" Right now ALL of them are sitting on the pot in their own stick while we, the Americian public, are ignored.
Kinda hard to get anything done with a congress who won't send Bush the legislation he wants and anything they want he will veto.
-
Here's an idea for the dumbaxes in Congress.
Remember the idea to suspend Federal gas taxes from Memorial Day to Labor Day?
The 18.4 cents-per-gallon gas tax and the 24.4-cents-per-gallon diesel tax would equal about $9 BILLION.
OK, here's the plan... we DON'T suspend the taxes, that would only make the deficit worse. However, we do take ~50%, let's round it at $5 Billion, and divert it into an award fund.
We give $500 million to the winner of the 100 MPG car X-prize contest.
Another $500 million to anyone that can come up with a design to double solar panel efficiency in the next 5 years.
Another $500 million to anyone that can double wind power efficiency in the next 5 years.
Another $500 million to anyone that can get a Fischer-Tropsch process coal plant going that produces fuel at $75/bbl and can meet a realistic output while avoiding damage to the environment.
Another $500 to anyone that can get ethanol out of agricultural waste (see Iogen) at a competitive price.
There's more... that's only $2.5 billion. I'm sure we can think of other areas to push using incentives like this.
That would be DOING something. Right now, we're stuck on stupid in DC.
-
You know, that's legislation I could get behind. Of course that makes too much sense so it would never happen :frown:
-
write your representatives. would be cool to see a bill on the floor pitched from the AH2 bbs. probably never happen but who knows!?!
-
You know, that's legislation I could get behind. Of course that makes too much sense so it would never happen :frown:
This sort of tragedy is what someone ought to pick up on and communicate to the public. If britney and rev. jackson can get the public to listen to their BS, surely someone can make a 10 second ad/sounbite that succintly exposes such a basic and pertinent disfunction's importance and coresponding solution to the general public.
-
Algae, let's not forget algae.
They're trying to make biodiesel out of algae, water and sunlight out in the desert areas of the US. It has some promise but they're not there yet.
$500 million to those guys if they can put out bioidiesel at $75 a barrel.
There's details to work out but the idea is to get the dreamers, inventors, innovators and doers in motion.
-
toad and bongaroo.. (sorry.. no intent to lump you together)
I have nothing against the government offering a billion dollar prize for the first practical and cheap car that get's 100 mpg while carrying 4 people and doing o-60 in say 7 seconds and with a range with all the accessories on of oh.. 200 miles?
I have no problem with them using road tax money to fund the prize.
I have no problem with the government offering a billion dollar prize for the first solar panels that are 50% or better efficient and cost less than 10k to run a medium sized house. they can take it out of energy tax.
But... we need to be practical and offer incentives to explore and open up all areas to drilling at the same time.. so long as there is a reasonable safety margin.. I believe the record for offshore rigs is good enough now to put any hand wringing in the proper perspective.
So far as "freedom" how much "freedom" will you have if there are riots and cities burning or forests burning with no hope of putting em out? How much freedom will you have if you spend yourself into a depression with some dead end tech that you are married to that doesn't play out? How free is the guy who can't heat his home in the dead of winter? How free when federal troops get called in to stop the riots.
The air today is so bad that people only manage to live 10 years longer than they did a few decades ago.. The water has never been safer. We have never had such a high standard of living.. I can see how you could want to get rid of all this evil...
and.. you are doing your part.. after all.. you ride a bike huh bongie? I bet I waste less than you do. I don't say I have the right to make everyone mimic my lifestyle tho.
nope.. we need to quit being a bunch of women and get hot on the problem... and from a lot of angles.. we will need oil no matter what for the foreseeable future.. lets explore and drill.. we can work on all the other stuff at the same time including nuclear plants and wind and solar.
lazs
lazs
-
But... we need to be practical and offer incentives to explore and open up all areas to drilling at the same time.. lazs
lazs
Hey, I got money left, no problemo.
$50 million each to the first 10 offshore rigs that begin producing in 5 years or less.
Another $50 million to the first 10 producing rigs in each of 10 all new (previously untapped) land areas.
And I would STILL have money left... so come up with some more ideas! :rock
-
toad.. I agree completely that you have a workable solution.
It is so logical and simple that it will be impossible to happen. No one will be made dependent and government will feel left out and not be able to take as much credit as they like... They will have a hard time manipulating all that juicy money.
It is like my solution to the illegals problem of just having a federal clearing house like on buying a gun.. instant background check.. no pass.. no job.. employer hires em without the check? he goes to prison.. mandatory 6 months. It would work it is simple.. it will never happen
Too harsh? what do you think happens to a gun dealer who skips or falsifies the background check?
lazs
-
Here's an idea for the dumbaxes in Congress.
Remember the idea to suspend Federal gas taxes from Memorial Day to Labor Day?
The 18.4 cents-per-gallon gas tax and the 24.4-cents-per-gallon diesel tax would equal about $9 BILLION.
OK, here's the plan... we DON'T suspend the taxes, that would only make the deficit worse. However, we do take ~50%, let's round it at $5 Billion, and divert it into an award fund.
We give $500 million to the winner of the 100 MPG car X-prize contest.
Another $500 million to anyone that can come up with a design to double solar panel efficiency in the next 5 years.
Another $500 million to anyone that can double wind power efficiency in the next 5 years.
Another $500 million to anyone that can get a Fischer-Tropsch process coal plant going that produces fuel at $75/bbl and can meet a realistic output while avoiding damage to the environment.
Another $500 to anyone that can get ethanol out of agricultural waste (see Iogen) at a competitive price.
There's more... that's only $2.5 billion. I'm sure we can think of other areas to push using incentives like this.
That would be DOING something. Right now, we're stuck on stupid in DC.
Toad for president? :aok
-
Right now, we're stuck on stupid in DC.
And why do people keep on insisting it is Bush. Blame Congress at the same time. They just defeated a stupid proposal by the Dems to force oil drilling in areas where the oil companies have leases. Most of that land is not feasible or would cost more to drill in than it is worth to the Joe Blow American. Let's let some common sense people make the decisions rather than some lifer politician that hasn't had to wipe his own butt in years.
I agree with the plan by Toad. Makes alot of sense. People and companies always work a little harder and a little faster when their is an incentive put out.
The only issue that I have, is the time frame to get that technology out there. What do we do in the mean time? Keep paying ridiculous prices for gas? We still need to drill in the meantime.
-
That is by God right Laz.
Make something that costs people less in gas to run and is just as good, and people WILL buy it. Build something that doesn't have the power to haul a family and all their stuff and is a complicated maintenace nightmare and costs at least $30K new and don't whine to me about the American consumer.
Americans right now need a car that is 1. Fuel effecient. 2. Reliable. 3. Easy to work on if something does go wrong. 4. As inexpensive as possible. (The trend of having to haul your car to a mechanic everytime a little something goes wrong because its got computers in it that would put NASA to shame is bad IMO.) Instead, we get cars that have t.v.s in them, that lock themselves, that ring little bells if you want to leave the keys in the ignition, and are otherwise full of complicated crap that is mostly annoying and entirely a head-ache to work on.
I have two tractors I use for work on my farm, a bulldozer and a backhoe I work for money on the side. You can't put any of them on a trailer and pull'em behind a Prius. Diesel fuel is expensive enough right now. So yeah, I don't have much time for anyone who wants regulate my truck out of existence or kick me when I'm down with higher fuel taxes.
-
That is by God right Laz.
Make something that costs people less in gas to run and is just as good, and people WILL buy it. Build something that doesn't have the power to haul a family and all their stuff and is a complicated maintenace nightmare and costs at least $30K new and don't whine to me about the American consumer.
Americans right now need a car that is 1. Fuel effecient. 2. Reliable. 3. Easy to work on if something does go wrong. 4. As inexpensive as possible. (The trend of having to haul your car to a mechanic everytime a little something goes wrong because its got computers in it that would put NASA to shame is bad IMO.) Instead, we get cars that have t.v.s in them, that lock themselves, that ring little bells if you want to leave the keys in the ignition, and are otherwise full of complicated crap that is mostly annoying and entirely a head-ache to work on.
wanting all of the above isn't too realistic anymore, unforttunatly. to get fuel efficiency, since the internal combustion engine is still very very inefficient, we need to add computer controls, to keep tabs of and constantly adjust fuel, spark, and in some cases, even valve timing. fuel timing is critical to efficiency in an injected engine. quite a few cars now, control the spark timing individually from cylinder to cylinder to help With mileage. THE fuel timing and fuel curve are constantly adjusted for the same reason. finally, the hondas mostly, and some mazdas and fords have variable valve timing. this is controlled through it's own computer.
with all of these computers networked together, there is nothing really simple if they break.
unfortunatly, simple is gone. even cars simple by todays standards are fairly complicated. if some people would spend a week doing diagnosis and repairs on these things, they'd get a whole new idea of what a mechanic/technician has to deal with.
you best defense against expensive repairs is to keep up with basic maintenance. you'd be very surprised at how many people will plunk 30k on a car, and then avoid the simplest of maintenance on that 30k investment.
-
you best defense against expensive repairs is to keep up with basic maintenance. you'd be very surprised at how many people will plunk 30k on a car, and then avoid the simplest of maintenance on that 30k investment.
oh man, i could tell some car horror stories that all begin with avoidance of simple maintenance.
the best of the best: "you still have to change the oil in new cars?" :rofl
-
Algae, let's not forget algae.
They're trying to make biodiesel out of algae, water and sunlight out in the desert areas of the US. It has some promise but they're not there yet.
$500 million to those guys if they can put out bioidiesel at $75 a barrel.
There's details to work out but the idea is to get the dreamers, inventors, innovators and doers in motion.
It's not just out west... My uncle owns a large fish farm here in Florida and works with the University of Florida with it. One of the side projects they are working on is doing testing with algae oil. It looks promising but I still think we would be better off using natural gas for cars simply because it's like oil and can be used as the one common fuel for the entire country.
The only down side of NG is if we try to use it both for power and a fuel the prices would be driven up just like oil.
-
The only issue that I have, is the time frame to get that technology out there. What do we do in the mean time? Keep paying ridiculous prices for gas? We still need to drill in the meantime.
Good point. We scale the rewards. The faster you get it done, the more money you get. Still have to keep it so that even if it takes 5 years the reward is still a very strong incentive.
-
It looks promising but I still think we would be better off using natural gas for cars simply because it's like oil and can be used as the one common fuel for the entire country.
The biodiesel is a direct substitute for diesel is it not? Think how many trucks from pickups to semis could use it. If it was workable and really cheap, you'd see more diesel cars too.
-
The biodiesel is a direct substitute for diesel is it not? Think how many trucks from pickups to semis could use it. If it was workable and really cheap, you'd see more diesel cars too.
It is, but I don't think there is any one bio diesel that could be used as a replacment for the entire country. That's why I say NG is the best option, because we have enough to provide for the entire country's fuel needs assuming we didn't keep using it for producing energy for our power grids.
-
Speculators are not the cause. That is a calculated campaign to deflect blame.
Oil prices are global, bj229f. Perhaps you might be a little US centric in your thinking? ;) I'll say again that it will not put more oil in the global supply. It will stay in the US and be only a tiny blip in global prices. Another thing I would caution is that you might be trying to frame this too much on internal US bickering, cough, politics.
Lol, thank you Mr Condescension! If global output is ~85 million a day, and several wells are opened up which add...2 million a day? Would be slightly over 2% increase, and we have already heard from Senator Schumer that if the Saudis pumped another 500 THOUSAND per day, the supply/demand crunch would end? (psstt....went down again today a small bit...that's 5 days in a row since Boosh ended the Executive part of the ban)--NEW YORK (AP) - A stunning (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D920GS884&show_article=1) sell-off dragged oil prices to their biggest weekly drop ever and gas prices at the pump slipped by the more than they have at any point since February, giving consumers a rare breather in a year of record fuel prices.
The national average for a gallon of regular fell by the most since February, AAA data show, and could ease further in the days to come.
and did I say speculators are uniquely Amuurican? And I didn't say they CAUSE the high prices, they are rather a barometer. Static supply and growing demand are what they have noticed, even Paul Krugman acknowledges it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
-
It is, but I don't think there is any one bio diesel that could be used as a replacment for the entire country. That's why I say NG is the best option, because we have enough to provide for the entire country's fuel needs assuming we didn't keep using it for producing energy for our power grids.
There are several variants of the bio-diesel, if just one of them takes off it could be a replacement for regular diesel across the entire country.
-
You misunderstood, bj229r. I'm not interested in arguing or name calling.
-
If global output is ~85 million a day, and several wells are opened up which add...2 million a day?
Where on earth do you get the 2 million figure from?
The EIA estimates ANWR production would peak at 780,000 barrels a day, and production in the currently off limits parts of the outer continental shelf at about 200,000 barrels a day. That's a bit less than 1 million barrels a day, production won't start for about 10 years, and won't hit those peaks until 20 years from now.
As to prizes for much more efficient solar panels, cheap ethanol etc, there are already multi billion dollar prizes on offer, via the patent system. If you can make ethanol for $75 a barrel you can sell all you can make. If you produce a solar panel that produces electricity for less, there are a lot of manufacturers waiting to licence your technology, and millions of people who want to put it on their roof.
Prizes work well in fields where there is little commercial potential for the end product, like cheap spacecraft. They are redundant in fields where success brings multi billion dollar rewards.
-
It is, but I don't think there is any one bio diesel that could be used as a replacement for the entire country. That's why I say NG is the best option, because we have enough to provide for the entire country's fuel needs assuming we didn't keep using it for producing energy for our power grids.
i get 10% bio diesel at pilot truck stops now!
i don't think that NG is going to work in the big trucks for a long time,, when you convert a diesel engine to ng you lose about 60% of its HP! and your not going to see it in the airlines, the tanks for the compressed NG would have to be pretty big!
did you know that the shipping or transportation industry of oil,, uses 2 billion barrels of oil alone? combined with airlines and trucking, as well as rail transport, you still are going to have alot of need for oil, so we still need to find and drill for more of it in our own country, as well as finding other ways to power our homes and auto's
no single solution exists, it can only be solved by doing all we can in every direction, IE, solar and NG as well as nuke and more oil from home
i do love tho that the price has fallen since the pres. lifted his ban on drilling!
i really hope the congress does the same!
they need to remember they are the congress,
of the people,
by the people,
and for the people!
not the caribou,
or the polar bear,
or the spotted owl
JUST THE PEOPLE
-
nashwan.. I think 780,000 barrels a day is darn close to a million.. if we get a couple more million a day from offshore rigs.. and if we "conserve" a couple million a day by whatever means...
well.. a million barrels a day here another couple million a day there.. pretty soon you are talking real relief.
In any case.. even a million a day is better than nothing at all. We need to start now.
lazs
-
Lazs, the problem is if China increases their oil consumption to the same levels as western Europe, China will need another 25 million barrels a day. India will need close to 30 million.
And all the time we are bringing new, small fields on line, older fields are drying up. For example, the Cantarell field in Mexico produced over 2 million barrels a day in 2003. It is now declining at over 10% year. The North Sea oil fields peaked in 1999 and are now producing about 25% less oil, and declining at a rate of about 10% per year. Cantarell and the North Sea are producing about 500,000 barrels a day less than last year.
The oil industry has to run very fast to stand still, and standing still results in huge oil price increases, as we have already seen.
-
nashwan.. I think 780,000 barrels a day is darn close to a million.. if we get a couple more million a day from offshore rigs.. and if we "conserve" a couple million a day by whatever means...
well.. a million barrels a day here another couple million a day there.. pretty soon you are talking real relief.
In any case.. even a million a day is better than nothing at all. We need to start now.
lazs
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about, this time being...what has driven gas prices up. Even OPEC has said that the demand has remained "static" It isn't based on supply and demand anymore.... futures traders have driven it up artificially, using the "enron loophole". Drill all you want, until that's fixed, gas will go on up. It's a commodity, something they thought they fixed after the stock market crashed in the 30's. The ENRON brigade successfully lobbied to repeal that particular law....and here we are today....takin it up the tailpipe. Around 55% of the current price rise since 1990 is due to this single act. The other 45% is due to the weakening dollar, which is the currency that OPEC set to trade oil at. An increase in supply will do NOTHING.
Now be a good little child and read up on what I've just taught you.
-
You misunderstood, bj229r. I'm not interested in arguing or name calling.
I wouldn't understand the big words anyway :lol
-
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about, this time being...what has driven gas prices up. Even OPEC has said that the demand has remained "static" It isn't based on supply and demand anymore.... futures traders have driven it up artificially, using the "enron loophole". Drill all you want, until that's fixed, gas will go on up. It's a commodity, something they thought they fixed after the stock market crashed in the 30's. The ENRON brigade successfully lobbied to repeal that particular law....and here we are today....takin it up the tailpipe. Around 55% of the current price rise since 1990 is due to this single act. The other 45% is due to the weakening dollar, which is the currency that OPEC set to trade oil at. An increase in supply will do NOTHING.
Now be a good little child and read up on what I've just taught you.
Hmmm...Moray you need to see Rolex's post where he contradicts all you just said re: traders....and on what basis is demand 'static', other than the last few months, where we have finally found out where the invisible line is where people will change their behavior?
-
There are several variants of the bio-diesel, if just one of them takes off it could be a replacement for regular diesel across the entire country.
Yea I know there are several different types. The problem is, it's unlikely anyone of those types could supply the entire country. The fuel needs to be the same across the entire country.. Hence the reason I say natural gas is likely the one one fuel that can do it all.
-
Where on earth do you get the 2 million figure from?
The EIA estimates ANWR production would peak at 780,000 barrels a day, and production in the currently off limits parts of the outer continental shelf at about 200,000 barrels a day. That's a bit less than 1 million barrels a day, production won't start for about 10 years, and won't hit those peaks until 20 years from now.
ANWR production could *easily* start in 3-4 years with peak production occurring as quickly as you want to pay to bring it on line. The "10 year" plan is stupid and assumes that work on the delivery system (estimated to take about 3-4 years) would not start until year 5 or 6. Also the first 2-3 years of the plan are *solely* for paperwork. What a load!
The entire USGS ANWR assessment, including the 780,000 barrels a day, is based on estimates that are 10-15 years old and assume an oil price of $20-25/barrel until 2020. Lots of things have changed. There's lots more ANWR oil at $130/barrel.
The US needs to drill everywhere while working on conservation and alternative energy. No logical reason not to, only political/ideological reasons stand in the way!
-
ANWR production could *easily* start in 3-4 years with peak production occurring as quickly as you want to pay to bring it on line. The "10 year" plan is stupid and assumes that work on the delivery system (estimated to take about 3-4 years) would not start until year 5 or 6. Also the first 2-3 years of the plan are *solely* for paperwork. What a load!
No, the EIA analysis assumes the first 2 - 3 years are for issuing the permits and for collection of seismic data. As they point out:
The primary constraints to a rapid development of ANWR oil resources are the limited weather “windows” for collecting seismic data and drilling wells (a 3-to-4 month winter window) and for ocean barging of heavy infrastructure equipment to the well site (a 2-to-3 month summer window).
Their actual timeline is:
2 to 3 years to obtain leases, including the development of a U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) leasing program, which includes approval of an Environmental Impact Statement, the collection and analysis of seismic data, and the auction and award of leases.
2 to 3 years to drill a single exploratory well. Exploratory wells are slower to drill because geophysical data are collected during drilling, e.g., rock cores and well logs. Typically, Alaska North Slope exploration wells take two full winter seasons to reach the desired depth.
1 to 2 years to develop a production development plan and obtain BLM approval for that plan, if a commercial oil reservoir is discovered. Considerably more time could be required if the discovered oil reservoir is very deep, is filled with heavy oil, or is highly faulted. The petroleum company might have to collect more seismic data or drill delineation wells to confirm that the deposit is commercial.
3 to 4 years to construct the feeder pipelines; to fabricate oil separation and treatment plants, and transport them up from the lower-48 States to the North Slope by ocean barge; construct drilling pads; drill to depth; and complete the wells.
Apart from the extreme conditions in Alaska, another problem is that the oil industry is already working pretty much to capacity. The number of drilling rigs in operation in the US, for example, is more than double what it was in 2002.
The entire USGS ANWR assessment, including the 780,000 barrels a day, is based on estimates that are 10-15 years old and assume an oil price of $20-25/barrel until 2020. Lots of things have changed. There's lots more ANWR oil at $130/barrel.
No, the analysis was produced in 2008. It does take in to account higher prices, it's just that they don't have much impact in the early years. Higher prices make it more cost effective to use advanced recovery techniques, but they mainly have an impact as a field declines.
The price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil, which typically has a price premium of $5 to $8 per barrel over Alaska North Slope crude, has recently exceeded $120 per barrel.
Considered in isolation, higher prices alone might raise an expectation of higher ultimate recovery from whatever oil resource exists in place.11 Higher prices can motivate efforts to increase the recovery factor through more intensive drilling and through the application of advanced techniques to increase recovery factors. While the menu of available methods may in some cases be limited by the features of the Alaska North Slope environment, for example, steam-injection enhanced oil recovery of the near-surface West Sak heavy oil deposits could endanger the permafrost, some techniques would likely still be suitable. Higher prices also make it more attractive to go after very small fields that are in close proximity to the larger fields that are presumed to be the initial development targets. However, as discussed below, the main impact of such approaches on the amount of oil actually recovered from ANWR is likely to occur after 2030, the current time horizon for EIA analyses.
<snip>
In summary, the basic intuition that higher crude oil prices would likely result in higher ultimate recovery from whatever resource exists in place is sound. However, given the timing and cost considerations outlined above, EIA does not expect the recent increase in oil prices to affect the projected profile of ANWR development and production activities prior to 2030, the end of the time horizon for this analysis.
The US needs to drill everywhere while working on conservation and alternative energy. No logical reason not to, only political/ideological reasons stand in the way!
Oh, I'd agree with that. Placing substantial oil fields off limits was a stupid idea in the first place. The 10 year timeline shows why.
-
Id have to assume offshore drilling has a much faster startup than the mosquito refuge--I pointed out an article earlier that showed from the time Shell identified a spot in the Gulf they wasnted to drill---exactly 2 years later it was producing oil, eventually up to 300,000 barrels a day...ONE well!
-
Yes, the EIA estimates production would begin 5 years after the area was opened up.
-
moray. you need to read what I write instead of just putting words in my mouth.. I never said the price of oil was up only because we are importing so much.
It seems to be a complex combination of factors.. one of which is that we do not produce enough of our own oil..
Now.. it hurts nothing to drill for as much of our own oil as we can.. if we increase our production a couple of a million and reduce our consumption a couple of million.. it starts to make a difference.. even in the speculation and the value of the dollar.
gas may never get below $4 a gallon again but.. it was due for a correction for a long time. I may not go lower .. it never does but this is deja vu all over again.. if we drill.. it may be 5 years before we get the benifiet and it may small or it may be huge... for sure if we don't it will go up much more in 5 years than if we don't.
Ten years from now if the price stays at $4 it won't seem so much. just like in the 70's when it doubled.. 10 years later it didn't seem so much.
Who knows where batteries and solar panels will be in ten years.. who knows where computers will be.
lazs
-
"The bigger our victories, the more bipartisanship there'll be in the congress."--Speaker of the House Pelosi
So bipartisanship is defined as demo victories...
Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls for the president to tap into the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve, saying this would “expand available supplies and help reduce the record prices.” She then turns around and describes as “an absolute hoax” the idea that prices would drop as a result of building supplies through increased production.
In November I hope we all remember that it is the entrenched in DC who are mucking up the works and vote out incumbants regardless of party.
-
No, the analysis was produced in 2008. It does take in to account higher prices, it's just that they don't have much impact in the early years. Higher prices make it more cost effective to use advanced recovery techniques, but they mainly have an impact as a field declines.
The new report was from the EIA, not the USGS. The USGS is the only US organization that can legally change the estimated amount of oil. The EIA hopefully did the best they could and put new makeup on the pig. The estimated amount of oil in ANWR was *not* updated to adjust for new recovery techniques, higher prices, etc and that is a real problem.
The EIA report was issued in 2008, written in 2007 and based on the same old USGS data from the 1990s. ANWR needs a new assessment. For example, the USGS recently updated the 1995 Bakken oil field estimate (ANWR's estimate is from 1998). The USGS now estimates the Bakkens have 25 times more oil then the USGS estimated from 1995. USGS estimates are notoriously conservative. Give the USGS a barrel of oil and they'd estimate it contained 5-10 gallons. :D
-
yep.. she says that 500,000 more barrels a day production of foreign oil production will save the day but one million barrels a day from ANWAR of our own oil will be nothing. that a million from offshore drilling will do nothing...
the point is.. we can use more.. it is silly to not drill for more.
Both the liberals here on this board and the conservatives seem to agree that we need more for the forseeable future and.. it seems that we all agree we should drill for our own.. sooo.. it matters not who is at fault at this point.. Bush now says go ahead and drill...
Congress should say the same and let's get going. to say that it will do no good for 5 years is beyond short sighted. it is also the idiocy of not learning from the past. we had an "oil crises" in the 70's.
So who cares who's fault the non drilling is.. let's get together here and start drilling. Or is "bipartisan" in this case what holden says it is?
lazs
-
Plain and simple, the congressional ban will not lift until Obama is elected and sworn in. I think the Dems will make this an election point a few weeks before the vote. "Vote for Obama! We'll start drilling for oil!" Sad really.
As Lazs said, it's not about who is at fault in the past anymore. We're beyond the childish, schoolyard name calling and blame pointing. Congress knows exactly what needs to be done here. Open drilling nationwide, allow Nuclear power to flourish and increase funding for alternative energy research and development.
-
We're beyond the childish, schoolyard name calling and blame pointing.
That's just the problem. We have 535 professional chidlish name callers back to DC.
-
Plain and simple, the congressional ban will not lift until Obama is elected and sworn in. I think the Dems will make this an election point a few weeks before the vote. "Vote for Obama! We'll start drilling for oil!" Sad really.
As Lazs said, it's not about who is at fault in the past anymore. We're beyond the childish, schoolyard name calling and blame pointing. Congress knows exactly what needs to be done here. Open drilling nationwide, allow Nuclear power to flourish and increase funding for alternative energy research and development.
Actually, the ban MAY end before that....if it doesn't, won't be as much as Dem landslide as it initially looked
link (http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/07/17/gasprice.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101)
Although House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., have blocked Republican efforts to end the 27-year moratorium on offshore drilling, few people realize that Congress is required to approve the prohibition on an annual basis.
Tucked away in the annual spending bill for the U.S. Department of Interior is a section that forbids the federal government from spending any money to offer leases to oil companies off the coasts of California, Oregon and Washington, in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic seaboard.
Earlier this summer, Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., a member of the House appropriations committee, offered an amendment to strike the ban from the bill. House Democratic leaders responded by canceling all committee votes on the measure.
But because the government runs out of money at the end of the federal spending year on Sept. 30, at some point the House and Senate must approve a temporary spending bill to finance the Interior Department. That could give House and Senate Republicans a chance to offer an amendment to end the ban.
Hopefully they can't weasel out of an actual vote by some sort of procedural rulewhich prevents the topic from coming up
-
Regarding ANWR, I just heard on the news this morning that some of the prime spots to drill are only 70 or so miles from the Alaskan pipe line. So, the estimate of 10 years to see production is nonsense, and even five years borders on outlandishly conservative.
Pelosi's double-speak (releasing Strat reserves will help but increasing domestic production will not) is so rediculous I can't believe SHE believes people can't see it. And if the past is any indication, IF Congress lifts their ban on off-shore drilling, we'll see an almost immediate drop in the price of a barrel, just as we did when Bush lifted his. If ANWR were opened up as well, it would further deflate the price. The speculation bubble is ripe to put a pin in it.
-
Yea I know there are several different types. The problem is, it's unlikely anyone of those types could supply the entire country. The fuel needs to be the same across the entire country.. Hence the reason I say natural gas is likely the one one fuel that can do it all.
Fuel does not need to be the same across the entire country, it isn't now, there is something like 200 different blends of gasoline being used across the country as I type this.
Here's two links to one type of bio diesel that if it takes off could supply the entire country and possibly enough left over to export as well.
http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anything-Into-Oil1may03.htm
http://www.changingworldtech.com/
That is just one example.
-
IF Congress lifts their ban on off-shore drilling, we'll see an almost immediate drop in the price of a barrel, just as we did when Bush lifted his. If ANWR were opened up as well, it would further deflate the price. The speculation bubble is ripe to put a pin in it.
It's still dropping. $4 yesterday. Pelosi is an idiot. Anyone who agrees with that twit needs to donate their brain to science. They aren't using it anyway.
-
Anyone who agrees with that twit needs to donate their brain to science. They aren't using it anyway.
i reckon anyone with a different ideology should be entitled to say the same of you? just saying :aok
-
Is it too early to call it a trend?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/oil_prices
By ADAM SCHRECK, AP Business Writer 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
NEW YORK - Oil prices tumbled more than $3 a barrel Tuesday as Tropical Storm Dolly grew increasingly unlikely to threaten supply, knocking out one more reason traders had to prop up prices.
The sell-off was a throwback to last week's sharp declines, and dragged crude to its lowest level since early June. A stronger dollar helped keep prices in check.
Light, sweet crude for August delivery fell $3.09 to settle at $127.95 a barrel in its last trading day on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Earlier the contract, which will be replaced by September crude Wednesday, dropped as low as $125.63. It was crude's fourth decline in the last five sessions.
An interim report released Tuesday by a federal task force set up to examine the sharp run-up in oil prices said that fundamental supply-and-demand factors are most likely to blame.
A number of lawmakers and other critics have blamed the historic rise in prices on speculators that they say are manipulating prices.
The Interagency Task Force on Commodity Markets, chaired by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, was formed last month to examine investment practices and fundamental market factors.
The drop in prices Tuesday offered further evidence that investors who only a week and a half ago drove prices to a new high above $147 a barrel are now quickly pulling money out of the market. It was also a reminder that the lack of major news can push the market down in the same way that incremental supply concerns previously pushed prices sharply higher.
"This is more of the long exit from the market by the hedge funds," said Jim Ritterbusch, president of energy consultancy Ritterbusch and Associates. "A lot of these investors who have been supporting prices are hitting the road."
There are also new indications that high oil prices are killing off demand, especially in the U.S., the world's largest oil consumer.
In its weekly pump spending survey, MasterCard found U.S. gasoline demand dropped last week for the thirteenth week in a row. Demand fell 3.3 percent compared with the same week a year earlier, according to the survey. Since the start of 2008, gasoline demand is down 2.2 percent.
At the same time, three more airlines posted hefty quarterly losses — including a $2.3 billion charge by No. 2 carrier United — primarily because of rising fuel costs.
Oil prices rose Monday as Tropical Storm Dolly bore down on oil and gas installations in the Gulf of Mexico, but that did little to dent the steep declines left over from last week's sell-off.
"Most people I knew were looking for a stronger price rally," Ritterbusch said. "When we can't muster up much steam," he added, large investors dump bets that prices will rise because they sense there is little support for sustained gains.
At 11 a.m. EDT Tuesday, the center of Tropical Storm Dolly was located over the Gulf about 230 miles southeast of Brownsville. It was moving west-northwest at about 12 mph, putting it on course to miss major U.S. oil and gas platforms.
"Unless new projections put the storm on a more northerly track, it is unlikely to have a bullish impact on oil and natural gas prices," Addison Armstrong, director of market research at Tradition Energy, said in a research note.
Oil prices came under added pressure from a stronger dollar. The currency rose sharply against the euro after Charles Plosser, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia and a voting member of the Fed's Open Market Committee, said the central bank will probably need to boost interest rates "sooner rather than later."
The dollar's decline has been a major factor in oil's ascent, as investors bought dollar-denominated crude contracts as a hedge against inflation and a weakening greenback. When the dollar strengthens, such currency-related buying often unwinds.
Other energy commodities followed crude sharply lower.
Natural gas fell below $10 per 1,000 cubic feet for the first time since April. Prices for the power generation and cooking fuel dropped to $10.032 per 1,000 cubic feet, down 47.8 cents. Earlier, prices dipped as low as $9.889.
Natural gas has plummeted since early July, when it reached its highest point in more than two years following a sharp run-up fueled by expectations of strong summer demand.
"We're not getting a real hot summer as some had forecast," reducing the need for gas-fired electricity to power air conditioning, Ritterbusch said. "Natural gas had a much larger rally than crude this year. Now we're seeing a much larger decline."
Oil's decline lifting some weight from motorists. Retail gas prices continue to fall away, with the cost for a gallon of gas dropping more than a penny overnight to $4.055, according to AAA, the Oil Price Information Service and Wright Express.
It is the first time since January that gas has fallen for two consecutive weeks, analyst and trader Stephen Schork said. Still, a gallon of gas still costs 30 percent more than it did last year, or more than 80 cents, he said.
In other Nymex trading, heating oil sank 6.97 cents to settle at $3.6782 per gallon, while gasoline futures tumbled 7.01 cents to settle at $3.147 per gallon.
In London, September Brent fell $2.27 to settle at $129.55 a barrel on the ICE Futures exchange.
-
I need to find the link to back it up but I've read that this is contributing the most to falling oil prices:
1) Bush and crew backing off the war with Iran talk
2) Demand for next year seen leveling, not increasing as before
-
I need to find the link to back it up but I've read that this is contributing the most to falling oil prices:
1) Bush and crew backing off the war with Iran talk
2) Demand for next year seen leveling, not increasing as before
But one key section from the above Yahoo story is:
Oil prices came under added pressure from a stronger dollar. The currency rose sharply against the euro after Charles Plosser, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia and a voting member of the Fed's Open Market Committee, said the central bank will probably need to boost interest rates "sooner rather than later."
The dollar's decline has been a major factor in oil's ascent, as investors bought dollar-denominated crude contracts as a hedge against inflation and a weakening greenback. When the dollar strengthens, such currency-related buying often unwinds.[ /quote]
-
That is certainly a major issue.
-
Umm yes you can....that's why we have a "NATION WIDE" energy grid. It's all connected. The lines are allready ran accross the desert, all you gotta do is connect to them. ...
Not really.
Texas has it's own grid, the Western Grid and the Northeast Grid are seperate... There are 6 or 8 grids that cover the 48 and they are amazingly independant. Texas wind power (about 4 to 5 GW) cannot effectively power Nashville.
There are several variants of the bio-diesel, if just one of them takes off it could be a replacement for regular diesel across the entire country.
This just in:
EUGENE, Ore. (AP) — Lane Transit District is ending its yearlong test of 10 biodiesel buses, saying the alternative fuel was too expensive and caused maintenance problems.
The transit district found biodiesel cost was an average of 5 to 16 cents more per gallon than conventional diesel.
Because the high cost of conventional gas is causing the district to cut service, the added cost to test alternative fuel seemed unreasonable.
“We want to have practices that are sustainable in the sense they’re economically sustainable as well as environmentally,” spokesman Andy Vobora said.
Oregon-based SeQuential Biofuels provided biodiesel for the bus district. Co-founder Ian Hill acknowledged that cost concerns can be an issue.
“You are buying a more valuable product than the petroleum diesel you’re replacing,” Hill said. “We’re certainly working as hard as we can to bring down the cost of biodiesel, but we’re being impacted like everybody else by a weak dollar and a strong export market.”
And Eugene Oregon is not a hub of right wing conservatism.
-
"Amazingly independent" and yet all linked. My friend who works for Progress Energy here in NC's job is to buy and sell power to and from other power companies.
-
I need to find the link to back it up but I've read that this is contributing the most to falling oil prices:
1) Bush and crew backing off the war with Iran talk
2) Demand for next year seen leveling, not increasing as before
And the fact that oil has dropped every day since Bush announced the end of the 18-or-so-year-old end of the executive ban (an obvious attempt by the government to increase supply) is mere coincidence....
-
I'd say Bush sending that diplomat to sit and listen (not talk as they keep saying) is actually a bigger factor. If congress lifted the ban and the prices dropped I'd agree. But they haven't.
People who support Bush (a minority of the country now for years) are looking for anything to say he's done something good. Stretching it a bit.
-
"Amazingly independent" and yet all linked. My friend who works for Progress Energy here in NC's job is to buy and sell power to and from other power companies.
I work for a 600 MW combined cycle power plant in Oregon and our company also has 4,000 MW of installed wind generation across the USA.
Only that wind installed in Calif, Oregon, Colorado, and Wyoming, effects our 600 MW CS powerplant. That which is in ND, Iowa, NY etc. are on a different grid, and are sold to central and Eastern markets. If the grid goes down as it did in what 2002? (shortly after 9-11 anyway) did not effect western or Texas grids as they are 99%autonomous.
(http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/aencmed/targets/maps/map/000a5302.gif)
I thought it was about 6, but it is 3 grids in the USA.