On October 1, 2008 the 30 year moratorium on offshore drilling expired and at that time the country was paying $4/gal at the gas pump. The chant of "Drill Now" was ringing across the country loud and clear but somewhere along the way as gas prices went down, guess what... the country lost its way.
Well guess what..... again?
Once again the country is going to see that $4 number at the pump as oil prices are rising and $100/barrel of oil plus is looming on the horizon. It is sitting at $77 a barrell right now. Any chance for economic recovery any time soon will be severely stunted by high gas prices and high gas prices brings inflation faster than you can say..."What the hell happen?"
I guess there are many reasons why oil prices rise and fall. One of the main reasons for the rise we are about to experience is the decline in the value of the dollar. As the dollar continues to decline and experts say, "... before the dollar bottoms out expect to see another 15% decline." Geez, Louise!
And how will the Washington political establishment respond to rising gas prices? I suppose as they always have done in the past...Blame "Big Oil".
What are they going to blame "Big Oil" for this time? For not drilling?? .... well who is stopping them? It is the government who is squeezing our energy supply. It is the government who has placed moratoriums on drilling.
Read from the Heritage Foundation..."Five Things Congress and the President Are Doing to Bring Back Sky-High Gas Prices." A very good eye-opening article. http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/wm2587.cfm
Well this time it won't work because the dirty little secret is out.... thanks to Rep. Waters... (I know this is over a year old but I had to throw it in here... It's so darn funny) Here is Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, representing the 35th district of California, (who btw has the I.Q. of the speed limit in a school zone) is caught spilling the beans back in May, 2008. Yep.... she gives away the game while grilling John Hofmeister of Shell Oil during Congressional hearings. She goes on to say that this government is intentionally causing the rise in oil prices so that they have an excuse to take over the energy sector in this country. (As er, ah, um, um as speed zone Maxine says...Nationalize, Socialize) LOL.... it takes all kinds, I guess.
But seriously, John Q. Public has been inundated with many issues facing the country but we can not let the issue of 'drilling' slip under the radar screen again. Petroleum is a key component to our industrialized society and we can not afford to be ever dependent on foreign sources for oil. This country has untapped oil and gas deposit resources in abundance. The problem is as it has always been for the last 30 years, the politics of environmentalist. In most countries they celebrate when new energy sources are found, like in Brazil recently..... in the United States we file lawsuits to limit discovery. What a crock!
Meanwhile, as we speak, the Great Russian Bear is laying claim to all the deposits in the Arctic Circle... China is subsidizing drilling off of Cuba.... Mexico has found new deposit in the Gulf... don't forget Brazil.... and the United States ??? ...the United States does nothing.
Does America really want to be dependent on Russia and China for our energy resources? The sobering fact is, if we continue on with our "no drill" policies our enemies will own us without firing a shot.
I'm sure Obama and his group will come and save us all with all of his ideas for alternative energy so that we are less reliant on oil. After all, that was one of his main campaign promises. To help us not be reliant on foreign oil and to save the planet. :P :P :angel:
You're right in saying that there was a plethora of reasons for the expensive oil. One of the biggest reasons has nothing to do with the government or oil companies at all. Its known as speculation. There was a commodities bubble because when the market started to tank, people shifted their cash from stocks into commodities, thus artifically raising the prices of things like corn, gold, and oil.
Commodities prices have since declined, the dollar has stabilized and many investment firms are projecting growth in the next year. Your article must be old. Oil has dropped almost $6 a barrel this week alone.
Interestingly, I found waters' comments to be entertaining, but she didn't say what you said she did. Well, she didn't say that the government was intentionally keeping the prices high. Although, i wouldn't put it past the corrupt republican leadership to do it. In fact, Bush helped Enron screw California out of billions of dollars by keeping energy prices high.
So do we keep looking at alternative energy sources or not? Start looking outside the box more that we already have? I saw something recently on Denmark's' electric car program. Looked very interesting.
In the Denver Post a couple days ago, was a photo of an electric Tesla that is being offered for sale in a Colorado show room this weekend. (In the case of this automobile, the sales place is called a gallery)
The price tag is $109,000. However, Coloradans who act quickly to buy the Tesla only have to endure a net payment of $67,000 due to a state tax credit law for alternative energy and zero emissions automobiles. The current tax credit on this automobile amounts to around $42,000.
That is, Coloradans can get that amount as a tax credit before January 1, 2010, when the credit drops to $6,000 and the Tesla will wind up costing a net $103,000.
May I please have a pair in matching colors? ;D
Regardless of whether or not our government decides to expand drilling, Alternative energy sources should continue to be developed.
We use about 21 million barrels of oil a day. 16 million of that is imported from other countries. It's a falsehood to say that we buy a lot of oil directly from the middle east, however we do support them indirectly by keeping demand high. Its in the best interests of our country to not be so dependant on oil. I'm not sure how any true patriot, regardless of their political leanings, can support the notion that we should abandon our quest for energy independance.
Drilling in ANWR and offshore drilling isn't going to cut it. For starters, the proven reserves are very small. ANWR is considered the biggest untapped reserve in the US and its only 7.7 billion barrells (average estimates) At 21 million barrells a day, it would last 366 days. Another argument people like to use is that opening ANWR and offshill drilling will ease oil prices. This isn't true for 2 reasons. First, the oil deposits are so small compared to other country's deposits, that the effect on the worldwide price is minimal. The department of Energy says it they expect that drilling in ANWR would lower oil prices by 75 cents a barrel at full production. Thats less than a 1% decrease in price. Furthermore, Oil prices are largely controlled by an international consortium called OPEC. The basic purpose of OPEC is to keep prices high, so that when someone comes out and tries to sell a bunch of oil on the cheap, the OPEC countries cut their production to keep prices high. Most of these countries have vast reserves of oil and cash so its pretty easy for them to keep the prices where they want them.
The only way out of this problem is alternative, renewable sources of evergy. We better get it done fast, because coal is running out. Frankly, this issue is much easier for the government to have fixed instead of starting in on health care. It would have been easy to get some bipartisanship efforts going to fix the problem.
Quote from: Anmar on October 29, 2009, 03:18:22 PM
We better get it done fast, because coal is running out.
State your source. We are running out of easily accessible coal. Low sulfer coal or what are you referencing?
I am all for alternatives but the implementation has taken for ever. We have proven wind, documented with 10 years or test towers 4 miles from a existing wind farm and still can't the towers planted in the ground.
Quote from: ADP on October 29, 2009, 07:50:26 PM
Quote from: Anmar on October 29, 2009, 03:18:22 PM
We better get it done fast, because coal is running out.
State your source. We are running out of easily accessible coal. Low sulfer coal or what are you referencing?
I am all for alternatives but the implementation has taken for ever. We have proven wind, documented with 10 years or test towers 4 miles from a existing wind farm and still can't the towers planted in the ground.
The US has about 300 billion tons of coal that they know of. It would take about 80 years or more to mine it out. So were not running out that fast.
The solution to energy is going to have to be Nuclear reactors. That is the only sustainable source for centuries to come.
I do agree that nuclear should be a major part of our energy moving forward. Hopefully there will be a push in tech that will give us some kind of way to safely store the waste.
Our only commercial plant in Kansas cost 30 years and $3 billion in 1985 dollars to build. It produces 1200mw of power. It cost $12.49 to operate per mw in 1992. We have enough onsite storage capacity for the spent rods only until the year 2025.
Current wind farms produce power at less than $0.05 per kilowatt. $0.035 per kw if financed by a wind developer. 2 1/2cents a kw if internally financed by a utility. 3 billion dollars in 1985 dollars would produce mountains of power today with lots of upside. Nofuel hazards(minus the tornados), no disposal, no NRC, 12 month turnaround, and abundant power supply. We live in Kansas the wind blows here more that almost anywhere else.
The new Solar film that nanosolar is producing is also very cheap in terms of capacity. As I mentioned, i think we need a mixture. The wind comes and goes as does the sun. I have to admit i don't know much about wind, but when it comes to solar, storing the energy has been a problem.
I'm a dreamer, so I'm always thinking about hydrogen fuel cells and the likes.
Patrick, I am an avid supporter of wind power, and I agree with your enthusiastic post. But there is one drawback to wind power as an ultimate solution. It cannot be considered or commissioned as "base load generation". You can't expect the wind to blow 24/7 at a constant speed. You also cannot always ramp it up to cover peak spikes.
If we could figure out a way to store the energy created from wind (and solar) to where it could be added to the grid as needed in a controlled manner, then we can put windmills and solar panels anywhere and everywhere.
My favorite solutions to this are:
1. Use electricity from wind or solar to create hydrogen from water, then use the hydrogen as we use natural gas now, either base load, or rampable peak load generation.
2. Use wind and solar generation to enhance current, and construct new, pump-back hydro generation facilities. Use wind and solar to augment power purchased at off peak times to pump water uphill, which is then dropped back through hydro turbines at peak load times.
Both of these processes are being experimented with, and hopefully one or both will prove to be a viable addition to our energy portfolio.
There is a cool tech. that combines wind with natural gas. It uses the wind power to pump natural gas to substrate and when the wind isn't blowing it burns gas.
Another possibility is to use wind to build up water potential. This has been utilized in mountainous terrain where great elevations can be easily achieved. You use the wind to pump the water then use the water to turn the turbine when the wind isn't blowing.
Both utilize smart grid control. The amazing thing about electricity is the ability for it to travel great distances. The cost is resistance and heat. New grid and superconductors would really help get Midwest power to power starved coasts.
The advantage of fuel cells are redundant systems. If one fails who cares you could have 20. If you need more just fire more up. If you need less they turn off.
You can peak load predict pretty easily. Spin natural gas gen sets and activate when peak loading is needed. That tech is in use today.
The wind doesn't need to be constant just the output of the unit. That technology is in use today also.
Its nice to see that people are actually doing some critical thinking and using the good ol american ingenuity instead of running around chanting "drill now" like a bunch of oil company execs.
We have already done that. At the base of every one of the current wind farm sites is a existing oil field. There are tank batteries underneath the windfarm at Beaumont, ks. The oil here is all but dried up. More is trickling out but there is no mass ocean.
The wind is blowing all the time some where. How do you put wind farms up every where to utilize the potential? It is never dead calm at 80m all across even the flat state of Kansas. I guess the same can be said for solar. The sun is shining somewhere all the time. How you tie it all together?
I'm actually against drilling now, and actually favor shutting in some fields domestically. (The uber-rightists wll love that line from me :D)
But, here's my reason:
Let's use the rest of the worlds' oil and gas first, and save ours for later, after most of the rest of the world has none. Then who would have a strategic advantage?
France they have more nukes than anyone else.
Quote from: Anmar on October 29, 2009, 08:38:31 PM
I do agree that nuclear should be a major part of our energy moving forward. Hopefully there will be a push in tech that will give us some kind of way to safely store the waste.
repeal the law that carter had passed preventing us from recycling the waste. If you follow the lifecycle of a rod, it should be used in one reactor, then reformulated, and used in another type of reactor, and on down til it's used up, and any waste leftover can be used for extraction of medical and industrial isotopes.