Gas is on the way to $5 a gallon...the King has stated his energy crisis "solution"...a "solution" which has been a soundbite for decades with still no viable solution on the horizon. Thanks for nothing...again.
One of those big bad oil companies invests BILLIONS to find oil...they find it...lots of it...now...they can't go get it because they did not "factor in" the emmissions from an ice-breaking ship. Really? An ice-breaking ship? Who comes up with this stuff!? Oh yeah...that's right...the EPA.
No one seems to care about the emissions from harvesting more corn for ethanol...or care about what ethanol production is doing to the cost of food and diesel/gas for the farm machinery...or the fact that the farms emitting the emissions are alot closer to a alot more people than is the Alaska drilling in the link above.
We need leaders who will put an end to this type of lunacy and END our dependence on foreign oil by extracting OUR OWN OIL....NOW.
The King gets on TV and tells you that there are millions of acres leased by oil companies that are not being utilized.
What he doesn't tell you is that there are limited permits to actually go get the oil. Limited ultimately by HIM. Then he doesn't tell you about the EPA getting in their shutdown proclamations.
We need more refineries and more domestic drilling...starting RIGHT NOW!
Any other short-term plan is unacceptable...and ultimately far from anyone's reasonable expectation of short-term.
Quote: Gas is on the way to $5 a gallon...the King has stated his energy crisis "solution"...a "solution" which has been a soundbite for decades with still no viable solution on the horizon. Thanks for nothing...again.
One of those big bad oil companies invests BILLIONS to find oil...they find it...lots of it...now...they can't go get it because they did not "factor in" the emmissions from an ice-breaking ship. Really? An ice-breaking ship? Who comes up with this stuff!? Oh yeah...that's right...the EPA.
No one seems to care about the emissions from harvesting more corn for ethanol...or care about what ethanol production is doing to the cost of food and diesel/gas for the farm machinery...or the fact that the farms emitting the emissions are alot closer to a alot more people than is the Alaska drilling in the link above.
We need leaders who will put an end to this type of lunacy and END our dependence on foreign oil by extracting OUR OWN OIL....NOW.
The King gets on TV and tells you that there are millions of acres leased by oil companies that are not being utilized.
What he doesn't tell you is that there are limited permits to actually go get the oil. Limited ultimately by HIM. Then he doesn't tell you about the EPA getting in their shutdown proclamations.
We need more refineries and more domestic drilling...starting RIGHT NOW!
Any other short-term plan is unacceptable...and ultimately far from anyone's reasonable expectation of short-term.
(a) it isn't like EPA emissions standards were created under the Kings watch - put some some blame on whomever forgot to take that into consideration in the first place. As well, put some blame on whomever created the standards and the inflexibility of them. (b) in addition to some additional domestic drilling, we NEED viable alternative energies (c) remember those BILLIONS that the oil companies are spending to find oil - well they're pocketing multiple times that and not paying taxes on it. I'm sure that is the King's fault too
(b) in addition to some additional domestic drilling, we NEED viable alternative energies
Simple supply and demand concepts. Population keeps growing, need for oil keeps growing, miles driven keeps growing, power used keeps growing ...
Amount of oil continuously decreasing.
We need alternative energy because whether or not we care about the prices of gas, if we don't have a fallback plan we are going to be in REALLY big trouble in the next few decades.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
I don't even care whether or not we drill in the U.S. ... it would be a band aid solution. Because everyone would forget about oil when we saw gas drop to 2.50 a gallon again ... then we would forget about alternative energy until it was too late.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
Quote: I don't even care whether or not we drill in the U.S. ... it would be a band aid solution. Because everyone would forget about oil when we saw gas drop to 2.50 a gallon again ... then we would forget about alternative energy until it was too late.
The problem is we've been hearing about alternative energy for decades, have thrown billions, maybe hundreds of billions at it - and what we came up with was solar and wind power, which are still unaffordable options. Plus, those don't run vehicles.
Our economy needs oil - today. Keep working on alternative energy, absolutely. But with gas closing in on $4.00 a gallon everywhere, and some places hitting $5 - it's affecting the economy.
Throw in the dollar being printed at an alarming rate, and therefore oil producing nations getting tired of oil being sold in dollars - and we're in a jam. IF oil starts using a different currency to be sold - hold on to your hats.
Quote: The problem is we've been hearing about alternative energy for decades, have thrown billions, maybe hundreds of billions at it - and what we came up with was solar and wind power, which are still unaffordable options. Plus, those don't run vehicles.
Our economy needs oil - today. Keep working on alternative energy, absolutely. But with gas closing in on $4.00 a gallon everywhere, and some places hitting $5 - it's affecting the economy.
Right, but the problem was when the gas crises backed off in the late 70's early 80's ... that's when research and development dropped dramatically for alternative energy. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Also, in the same way that the cost of all other technologies decreases with better research and even economies of scale over time (look at the prices of a microchip over time for example ...), you also have some forms of alternative energy being more cost efficient than gas.
Many companies (just for example) have found that railroads are more cost efficient than semi trucks due to the current costs of fuel let alone the efficiencies involved and the estimated rising prices.
If our country created a high speed train (or a few) to connect different hubs like in China, then we could theoretically have the technology and infrastructure in even a decade to eliminate a great deal of our semi's on the roads. Not only would that help create jobs to build the railroads, it would also eliminate a great deal of the need for road construction / reconstruction when it comes to repair.
Oh yeah ... while estimates are far apart, you can search yourself and find some info suggesting that if we went more high speed trains and railroads, that would decrease the need for semis which could decrease fuel consumption in our country by as much as 10 to 20% ... Supply and demand would show a GREAT decrease in the prices at the pumps.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
Quote: Oh yeah ... while estimates are far apart, you can search yourself and find some info suggesting that if we went more high speed trains and railroads, that would decrease the need for semis.
High speed trains are for commuters only, not freight.
Quote: The electric car isn't ready for prime time today. it definitely wasn't ready in the 80's and 90's. range and refill time hinder it.
Not to mention that all it does is take the burden of energy generation from on-board fossil fuels and puts it on less-efficient fossil fuel burning power plants.
Perhaps, but at least the ball would have been rolling for 20 years on an alternative to oil, instead of several years. Those alternatives could also have lead to earlier development and technologies like fuel cells.
Instead it was business ans usual, to the delightment of the "big bad oil companies".
Power plants are dramatically more efficient than smaller automobile engines. This is one reason the electric car is far more energy-saving, also, typical charging hours are outside of peak electricity usage times.
What killed the electric car in the 80's was the same thing that killed in the 20's, and every other time it has been tried. No big conspiracy, just limited range.
The addition of an on-board generator is the solution to this problem. If used properly, the generator runs at a near-constant RPM for peak efficiency.
Yes, we need alternative energy sources. However, none of them will be ready to replace oil for many years. We cannot shut down the entire economy just to be environmentally correct, we must get more oil.
Did you read the article? Where it said shell has spent over $4 billion over the past 5 years to get ready to drill there?
Where it says the lease alone was $2.2 billion (payable to the fed. gov't. - yeah - $2.2 billion shell had to pay to the u.s. gov't. in order to drill there.)? And it gets shut down because there is a village, 70 miles away, a 1 square mile village with 274 residents - all because of an icebreaker not being accounted for??????
Quote: The electric car isn't ready for prime time today. it definitely wasn't ready in the 80's and 90's. range and refill time hinder it.
Not to mention that all it does is take the burden of energy generation from on-board fossil fuels and puts it on less-efficient fossil fuel burning power plants.
But didn't someone say.....I forget who.....didn't someone say that we are free to build coal plants? It's just that, with the cap and trade that person wanted, again, I forget who it was - but the cap and trade thing would bankrupt them? Meaning, we aren't going to get energy from coal.....
Quote: Power plants are dramatically more efficient than smaller automobile
How though??
For a Power plant, you would burn oil, which heats water, which turns to steams, which drives a turbine, which spins a generator, which generates electricity, which goes onto power-lines, which lose about 5-10% of it's juice in transition, which goes to your car, which charges a battery, that turns an electric motor that turns the wheels of your car.
For a car ... You burn gas in an engine that turns the wheels of your car.
I don't have the numbers ... but looking at it from a strict thermo-dynamics/laws-of-physics type point of view ... how can generating power from a power plant be more efficient?
I was under the impression that there was actually an oil glut--well, at least according to OPEC, and they were drawing down production. I was also under the impression that speculators were the main cause of the rise in prices.
So, if my economics 101 is right, as the demand decreases, the supply increases, the price drops. right? So to combat a potential price drop and subsequent drop in revenues they have to throttle back production.
I really think, right or wrong, the bed is being made for Obama in part by outside forces and in part by himself that he is a one termer.
I am getting more and more frightened about where our economy will be one year out from now with gas prices, inflation, the dollar, and health care reform.
Inevitably the question will be asked next year: Are you better off now then you were four years ago? At that point, there won't be enough Mac´s to vote yes for him.
I keep hearing that the prices are being driven up by wallstreet too... Why can't this be controlled? If OPEC dropped the price to $20 a barrel, what's to keep speculation from driving the price up at the pumps?
To me, one of the biggest things needed to fix the economy is to bring gas prices down. Lower fuel cost would drive prices down on consumables accross the board... BUT nobody profits and we would be moving away from the equalized world economy...
Cracks me up that places like India and China are growing strong middle classes at the expense of the american middle class' destruction.
World Economy = larger labor force with expendable income to be exploited by the elite. We've been sold down the river.
Quote: I keep hearing that the prices are being driven up by wallstreet too... Why can't this be controlled? If OPEC dropped the price to $20 a barrel, what's to keep speculation from driving the price up at the pumps?
To me, one of the biggest things needed to fix the economy is to bring gas prices down. Lower fuel cost would drive prices down on consumables accross the board... BUT nobody profits and we would be moving away from the equalized world economy...
Cracks me up that places like India and China are growing strong middle classes at the expense of the american middle class' destruction.
World Economy = larger labor force with expendable income to be exploited by the elite. We've been sold down the river.
True, to an extent. Speculators do have an effect on the prices. Also in play is, regardless of what the administration says, they are not allowing drilling of our own oil. Consequently, we buy more and more from overseas..
Throw in the value (or lack there of) of the dollar - and you have countries saying "hey, we don't want to play with dollars anymore - let's change currency in the oil market to a currency that actually has some worth.".......add all those together, and $5 per gallon? Here we come, and there we went.
Im not entirely sure what you mean by oil glut in this scenario. But... I think it's a very high contribution to the prices due to speculation. I 100% agree with you there.
Economics 101 would show you a shift of both supply and demand curves to the right... and since you don't know by how much for either one you can't officially tell whether relative prices will rise, fall, or stay the same.
You are right though because as *anything* needs to be transported, gas will continue to contribute to rising costs. Food, equipment, people ... they will all face choices and cutbacks in the short term and next few years at least until prices fall again. Inflation could kick up as well fairly high, depending on what signals you read and buy into ...
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
World Economy = larger labor force with expendable income to be exploited by the elite. We've been sold down the river.
perhaps ... but where you see competition against only like people as healthy, others see it as a global economy for competition (and resources) to be divied amongst the world and not just the states.
It will be an extremely beneficial long term gain, the problem is that there is always a short term "shakeout" to get rid of the lazy and complacent. Rather than allow those to be kicked in the ass - so to speak - we handed them bailouts at the expense of billions of dollars payable by taxpayers.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
I agree with you. Why worry about oil? If we tap into our own oil then its just another band aid on the problem. Sure we have a ton of oil at our disposals ... but right now we are eating up another country's natural resources and when it's gone it's gone ... but we will be the one's who control our own oil then. And, if every other country who is currently drilling has it used up, we will take another step forward as the most advanced country.
BUT rather than fix the long term problem, I see the "stop the dependence on foreign oil" cry almost as the next in a long line of short term, stop gap solutions in our country ... ones that could eventually come back and haunt us or our children.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
Oil glut meaning there is an abundance not a shortage hence the drive in prices is due to speculators not the supply of oil. I believe recently Saudi Arabia was talking about keeping oil production where it is at not boosting it and/or reducing it a tad.
Arch and I both are alluding to things that, in my mind, frightening the hell outta of me. Namely the value of the dollar. If our bond rating is bad, if our markets are bad, if our debt is bad, I am wondering how much longer it will be where our dollar is used as currency for the oil trade. I read a few years ago they were talking about going to the Euro. If that happens . . . I can't imagine the chaos here.
I firmly understand Obama did not create the mess, but he is doing squat to alleviate it.
Economies of scale, primarily. A 200,000 watt generator is more efficient than a 10,000 watt generator, assuming you need all 200,000 watts.
Sure there is some loss in transmission lines and battery charging inefficiency, but it's a drop in the bucket.
For those advocating alternatives, NONE repeat NONE will be ready to heat your home this winter, or at least the next 5 to 10 winters. Freezing to death may be environmentally sound, but I'll pass.
Right. I guess I was just confused because I don't think that there is actually a surplus of oil relative to the demand. China and India (the two highest populations in the world) are in the middle of an industrialization age and they need more and more oil all the time. Our needs as well continue to rise, and more or less the entire world needs more oil every day. I want to say that our need outpaces the ability to pump it out ... but I don't recall specific figures.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
Quote: Economies of scale, primarily. A 200,000 watt generator is more efficient than a 10,000 watt generator, assuming you need all 200,000 watts.
Yeah ... unfortunatly, you're not talking about a direct economy of scale. The gasoline in a car engine isn't being burned to generate local electricity to drive a motor to drive the car. It's burned to directly drive the car. So wouldn't economy of scale go out the window? Now it's much more about conservation of energy ...
Well, all I can tell you is that I am sorry that you are so terribly misinformed.
It's not even close, you are not thinking about this correctly, and I am frankly amazed that a functioning adult does not understand this concept.
A simple way to put it is that the inefficiencies remain small while the power output becomes very large.
There is more. With a power plant, you have ONE smokestack to clean and purify instead of hundreds of tailpipes. With a power plant, you have ONE place to deliver fuel instead of hundreds. With a power plant, you can deliver fuel by the trainload instead of dozens of individual semi trucks.
Power plants do not sit at stop lights idling. They do not speed up and slow down hundreds of times a day.
Even taking a generator and car engine of the same power output, the generator is more efficient because it runs at a near-constant RPM, and is tuned for best productivity at that RPM. The generator does not have to cover the wide range of power output a car engine is required to do.
Quote: When you compare battery to gasoline power, electricity wins hands down. A 2007 study by the non-profit Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) calculated that powering a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) would cost the equivalent of roughly 75 cents per gallon of gasoline—a price not seen at the pump for 30 years.
The calculation was made using an average cost of electricity of 8.5 cents per kilowatt hour and the estimated distance the car would travel on one charge, versus a car that gets 25 miles per gallon and is powered by $3 per gallon gasoline. Change any of those variables and the relative costs change. For example, substituting a car that gets 50 miles per gallon doubles the comparative electrical cost (though it still works out much cheaper than gasoline). On the other hand, in some areas where wind or hydropower is wasted at night—just when the PHEV would be charging—the utility might drop the kilowatt hour cost to two to three cents, making the charge much less costly.
And don’t worry that we’ll run out of electrical power: A 2005 study by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory estimated that three-quarters of the country’s current small vehicle fleet could be charged by our existing electrical grid without building new power plants. (And if all those cars were replaced by PHEVs, it would eliminate the need for 6.5 billion barrels of oil per day, or 52 percent of current U.S. oil imports.)
Regarding environmental impact, charging up your car with electricity from the grid also wins handily over filling up at the gas station. In the most comprehensive PHEV study to date, released in 2007 by EPRI and the non-profit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), results predict that all greenhouse gases will be reduced as PHEVs begin to penetrate the car market. Estimated cumulative greenhouse gas reductions from 2010 to 2050, depending upon how fast PHEVs take hold, range from 3.4 to 10.3 billion tons.
More than one half of our national energy grid is powered by coal, and in areas where PHEVs are charged through coal-provided electricity, says NRDC, there is the possibility of increased levels of soot and mercury emissions. However, charging up can be much less of a guilt-ridden affair where cleaner electrical sources like wind and solar are available. The website HybridCars.com points out that as more power plants are required to develop green power and emit fewer greenhouse gases, the environmental and health benefits will further increase.
Stupid question .... has anyone ever tried to propel a car using the magnetic currents of the earth itself? (or mass transit for that matter) Could it work? That's some seriously heavy duty magnetism .... could it propel a vehicle?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Could a three-inch lizard collapse the West Texas oil industry?
Share Posted: Saturday, April 23, 2011 10:30 pm
Mella McEwen Midland Reporter-Telegram
A three-inch lizard that thrives in desert conditions could shut down oil and gas operations in portions of Southeast New Mexico and in West Texas, including the state's top two oil producing counties.
Called the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard, it is being considered for inclusion on the federal Endangered Species listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A public rally to oppose this move is being sponsored by the Permian Basin Petroleum Association on Tuesday, April 26 at Midland Center beginning at 5 p.m. Congressman Mike Conaway will speak, as will Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson; other public officials have been invited.
"We are very concerned about the Fish and Wildlife Service listing," said Ben Shepperd, president of the PBPA, noting the service also has proposed listing the Lesser Prairie Chicken next year. "The wolf at the door is the lizard; we're concerned listing it would shut down drilling activity for a minimum of two years and as many as five years while the service determines what habitat is needed for the lizard. That means no drilling, no seismic surveys, no roads built, no electric lines."
The move would impact activity in Andrews, Crane, Gaines, Ward and Winkler counties in Texas and Chaves, Eddy, Lea and Roosevelt counties in New Mexico.
Not only would the move impact oil and gas operations but agriculture, Shepperd noted, shutting down agricultural activities like grazing and farming -- "anything that disturbs the habitat." While the industry is perfectly willing to undertake conservation measures to protect the lizard's habitat, he said, naming it an endangered species "would shut down activity and be devastating not only to Permian Basin economies but to the national economy. We are the one bright spot month after month; in our economic turnaround, the main driver is the oil and gas industry."
The concern is, he said, that the Fish and Wildlife Service lacks enough data to conclude that the tiny lizard is endangered and is basing its action on flawed methodology. "They didn't spend enough time looking for them or the right technique to find them," he said.
In New Mexico, where the lizard can be found on both private and public lands, Shepperd said a number of companies have entered into voluntary agreements to help conserve the lizard's habitat, mitigate threats to the lizard and remediate any damage while continuing to operate. He said he wants the same to happen in Texas. The association favors such joint agreements between the federal government and landowners to protect the lizard's habitat while allowing drilling operations to continue responsibly.
"The point is, we think the best way is for land owners and industry actually on the ground where the lizards are, who know how to protect the lizard, to be in charge instead of the feds putting up 'Do Not Enter' signs on every gatepost," Shepperd said.
A sign of hope is that four counties -- Lea, Andrews, Ward and Winkler, and the town of Monahans, have passed resolutions demanding to have standing during the comment phase, which ends May 16. Under the National Environmental Protection Act, or NEPA, Shepperd said, the federal government is required to work with local governmental entities when they make such a request.
"This will enable them to bring in the economic impact," he said. "We feel like the counties demanding to be part of the process should require the Fish and Wildlife Service to work with them to develop a reasonable conservation process that we all can live with."
He said he hopes those attending Tuesday's rally "will be inspired and better prepared to testify at the public hearing" being held by the Fish and Wildlife Service on Wednesday, April 27. The public hearing will also be at Midland Center, beginning at 6:30 p.m.
The public comment period is scheduled to close May 16, 2011, and the earliest date the Fish and Wildlife Service will make a final listing decision is, as of now, December 15, 2011.
Energy in America: EPA Rules Force Shell to Abandon Oil Drilling Plans By Dan Springer
Published April 25, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a ruling by the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits. The move has angered some in Congress and triggered a flurry of legislation aimed at stripping the EPA of its oil drilling oversight.
Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion. Shell Vice President Pete Slaiby says obtaining similar air permits for a drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico would take about 45 days. He’s especially frustrated over the appeal board’s suggestion that the Arctic drill would somehow be hazardous for the people who live in the area. “We think the issues were really not major,” Slaiby said, “and clearly not impactful for the communities we work in.”
The closest village to where Shell proposed to drill is Kaktovik, Alaska. It is one of the most remote places in the United States. According to the latest census, the population is 245 and nearly all of the residents are Alaska natives. The village, which is 1 square mile, sits right along the shores of the Beaufort Sea, 70 miles away from the proposed off-shore drill site.
The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling.
“What the modeling showed was in communities like Kaktovik, Shell’s drilling would increase air pollution levels close to air quality standards,” said Eric Grafe, Earthjustice’s lead attorney on the case. Earthjustice was joined by Center for Biological Diversity and the Alaska Wilderness League in challenging the air permits.
At stake is an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil. That’s how much the U. S. Geological Survey believes is in the U.S. portion of the Arctic Ocean. For perspective, that represents two and a half times more oil than has flowed down the Trans Alaska pipeline throughout its 30-year history. That pipeline is getting dangerously low on oil. At 660,000 barrels a day, it’s carrying only one-third its capacity.
Production on the North Slope of Alaska is declining at a rate of about 7 percent a year. If the volume gets much lower, pipeline officials say they will have to shut it down. Alaska officials are blasting the Environmental Protection Agency.
“It’s driving investment and production overseas,” said Alaska’s DNR Commissioner Dan Sullivan. “That doesn’t help the United States in any way, shape or form.”
The EPA did not return repeated calls and e-mails. The Environmental Appeals Board has four members: Edward Reich, Charles Sheehan, Kathie Stein and Anna Wolgast. All are registered Democrats and Kathie Stein was an activist attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund. Members are appointed by the EPA administrator. Alaska’s Republican senator thinks it’s time to make some changes.
“EPA has demonstrated that they’re not competent to handle the process,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski. “So if they’re not competent to handle it, they need to get out of the way.”
Murkowski supported budget amendments that would have stripped the EPA of its oversight role in Arctic offshore drilling. The Interior Department issues air permits to oil companies working in the Gulf of Mexico.
Shell should sue to get back all of the money that have paid for permits and other expenses for the site to date.
That's ridiculous.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: It's not even close, you are not thinking about this correctly, and I am frankly amazed that a functioning adult does not understand this concept.
Well thank you for the condesending response.
Thanks Florida for providing some numbers to back-up his point ... which is all I was looking for. Power plants are more efficient.
Look, I understand the concept. I also understand that you're mostly comparing apples to orange, because cars don't boil water to generate electricity, and power plants don't burn gas in an engine to turn a turbine. In most cases, the fuel is completely different too, so it's not as simple as saying ... "the plant is bigger, so it must be more efficient".
Quote: Stupid question .... has anyone ever tried to propel a car using the magnetic currents of the earth itself? (or mass transit for that matter) Could it work? That's some seriously heavy duty magnetism .... could it propel a vehicle?
I don't think it's that heavy duty ... it barely propells the needle on a water floating compass.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png)
