NFB: Its going up!

[Mark B]

How can the fact that a new refinery hasnt been built in the past 30 years be the fault of the "Clinton era?" I think clinton was a great president. If he was able to run again this year... I guarntee that he would get elected again. Not because of the "ignorant democrats" it would be because when he was president everything went smoother.

Im so tired of democrats blaming republicans and republicans blaming democrats. Thats why its so hard for me to believe anything I hear about our government or forgien affairs (Iraq). In every story I hear about Iraq, I find name calling of the other party. How can I trust someone that has degraded to namecalling? I know that most of the people on this board are republicans. I dont think I am a member of either party. I really dont know how I would classify myself. Each party has its faults & each one is too extreme for me.

[Dave M]

How can the fact that a new refinery hasnt been built in the past 30 years be the fault of the "Clinton era?" I think clinton was a great president. If he was able to run again this year... I guarntee that he would get elected again. Not because of the "ignorant democrats" it would be because when he was president everything went smoother.

Im so tired of democrats blaming republicans and republicans blaming democrats. Thats why its so hard for me to believe anything I hear about our government or forgien affairs (Iraq). In every story I hear about Iraq, I find name calling of the other party. How can I trust someone that has degraded to namecalling? I know that most of the people on this board are republicans. I dont think I am a member of either party. I really dont know how I would classify myself. Each party has its faults & each one is too extreme for me.

You'd be a good old fashioned moderate. But let's please not start another political flame war. Some people on this board can't have a political debate without resorting to that name calling you were talking about.

[markd79ta]

This really centers around a two part problem and special interest politics. I have used this statement many times. We need to send all the environmental nutjobs and the industrial execs to Mars and craft a long term incremental energy policy that maximizes what we have and invests in future technology. The fact that we don't maximize our own oil resources in the short term is nuts. The technology and safeguards exist to drill and pump safely with minimal impact to the environment...Alaska should be opened up...period. The fact that we don't use ethanol as well as vegetable oil based projects for gasohol and diesel is crazy. We have soooo much farm land being foreclosed, subdivided, and sold off...dumb move. The fact that people are driving a market for 12-18mpg SUVs as daily drivers is insane...the irresponsibility of this is outstanding. I love my truck, but it gets terrible gas mileage...however, I only fill it up about every two months or so...in other words, I don't use it unless I really need it to haul or tow something. When I have the finances to buy my next new car, it will be fuel efficient...manly for the responsibility of doing so. Regardless of how we increment new fuels into the mix, we need to look toward other fuels. I would drive an ethanol car if I could get the fuel at enough filling stations, but we have no choices. I know a lot of people look at electric and hydrogen and such of tomorrow, but we need doable alternatives today. Additionally, the environmental laws need to be cinched up so that there are only three blends of unleaded gasoline. It is so incredibly stupid that unleaded fuel are blended 5,000 ways across the country.

Additionally, the environmental policies of the 90s pushed the trend for gas-fired power plants. This is one of the dumbest things we ever did. It takes a horrific volume of cubic feet of gas to power these turbines that we are consuming horrific amounts of natural gas thus creating shortages. If people would soon realize that nuclear power is the best alternative until we can cost effectively harness the power of the sun, we be a lot better off.

Note on refineries: They are not that bad. There is a huge one about 13 miles from my house. You don't even know that it is there unless you drive right by it. Any industrial section of a city can easily house one. I am not sure of all the ridiculous regulations put in place by the Clinton years, but they can be undone.

Anyhow, of this will happen unless the members of congress and whatever administration sees fit to blow off both sides of the special interest war. Additionally, only the people can push a difference... don't buy the crap that the automakers are sending us. They have the ability and technology to build more fuel efficient vehicles. The oil and gas industry can also just as easily use corn or other products as they can crude. Well, I am very sceptical that we will do anything to solve this problem until there is truly a crisis. People as a whole are too stupid to change an impending fate unless it knocks them on their collective butt. I suppose we will anxiously watch for this rude awakening.

[markd79ta]

How can the fact that a new refinery hasnt been built in the past 30 years be the fault of the "Clinton era?" I think clinton was a great president. If he was able to run again this year... I guarntee that he would get elected again. Not because of the "ignorant democrats" it would be because when he was president everything went smoother.

The most damaging part of the Clinton administration occurred in the executive orders that crippled Alaska oil production. Most of the land use regulatory policy of that era was kind of a disaster. It is undeniable that these policies had a huge impact on increasing our offshore dependance on oil. Also, It is important to remember that Clinton quickly became a lame duck after the first biennium of his presidency when the other party took over after the '94 election. The only real "success" of the Clinton agenda in '93 was the huge tax hike that crippled business...this was soon gutted in the '95 budget. We all know how nice it was to have the taxes cut in the second half of the 90s and the economic boom that went with it.

The smoothness that is referred to is kinda interesting. Clinton didn't have to deal with the disasters that the current administration had to deal with. The current administration inherited the start of the recession largely caused by companies cooking the books in the 90s. There was no 9/11 in the Clinton administration...most of these smoldering fires were brushed under the carpet in those years. We all may have different views on the "War on Terror", but the problem exists theless. Given the numerous fires in our country right now, this is probably one of the most difficult time periods in the history of our country. Is Bush the best man for the challenge? ....maybe...maybe not. Personally, I am not all that fond of Bush or any politician from either the Republican or Democrat parties. However, I am grateful that Clinton is not the president in these hard years...trying to erase from memory that he was the president at all. He was an opportunist who told people what they wanted to hear and did something completely different. His personal life was shady at best...no thanks!

[Dave M]

Mark, do you really want to go back to the days before "environmental nutjobs"? When acid rain etched away paint and rivers caught on fire? We cannot simply destroy our country and our world in the name of progress and profits. It's our responsibility to find ways to do these things while staying environmentally concious. Once the damage is done, it's very hard to fix. Did you know that increasing the average mpg of autos by 1 mpg would save more fuel thanh we would get by drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge? Or if everyone inflated their tires to the correct pressure that we'd save 2 million gallons of gas every day? I don't consider myself to be an "environmental nutjob" but I don't think it matters how much gasoline we have if we can't breath the air, or take a swim in a lake for fear of pollution. The automakers are choosing to take the latest technology and use it to make larger, more powerful cars instead of keeping the cars the same size or go smaller and using the technology and efficiency we have developed to get better mpgs.

[markd79ta]

Mark, do you really want to go back to the days before "environmental nutjobs"? When acid rain etched away paint and rivers caught on fire? We cannot simply destroy our country and our world in the name of progress and profits. It's our responsibility to find ways to do these things while staying environmentally concious. Once the damage is done, it's very hard to fix. Did you know that increasing the average mpg of autos by 1 mpg would save more fuel thanh we would get by drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge? Or if everyone inflated their tires to the correct pressure that we'd save 2 million gallons of gas every day? I don't consider myself to be an "environmental nutjob" but I don't think it matters how much gasoline we have if we can't breath the air, or take a swim in a lake for fear of pollution. The automakers are choosing to take the latest technology and use it to make larger, more powerful cars instead of keeping the cars the same size or go smaller and using the technology and efficiency we have developed to get better mpgs.

There is a huge huge huge difference between being responsible and being fanatical. For instance, Weyerhaeuser has harvested and replanted its timberlands since the turn of the 20th certainly which is responsible. Environmental extremists say that we can't cut down old trees because they are old regardless if it is a renewable resource or not. Second case in point, not dumping toxic materials into a waterway is responsible. Not allowing a family to build a home because it is a so-called wetland because the ground is damp 12 inches down for a certain duration is fanatical. Setting restrictions on air output is responsible; not building refineries, power plants, etc. is fanatical. See what I am getting at? I am all for doing things the most responsible way possible, but eliminating the possibility of doing it at all is completely stupid. The environmental nutjobs that I am referring to are the preservationists who want to keep everything undisturbed...sorry, it ain't gonna happen. I fall in the conservationist camp that promotes the proper usage and replenishing of resources.

[markd79ta]

[QUOTE=.........I don't consider myself to be an "environmental nutjob" but I don't think it matters how much gasoline we have if we can't breath the air, or take a swim in a lake for fear of pollution. The automakers are choosing to take the latest technology and use it to make larger, more powerful cars instead of keeping the cars the same size or go smaller and using the technology and efficiency we have developed to get better mpgs.[/QUOTE]

Additionally, I want to address this part directly.

I thought that I talked about the irresponsibility of consuming SUVs in my post?

It is funny. Every time I hear the counter to a new plant, I hear that the world is going fall into a curtain of pollution. This is nothing but fear mongering. For instance, a coal fired plant with the new scrubbers that we have today, falls right in line with the emissions standards of today. If we use the technology that we have to our advantage, we can mitigate emissions output, but at the same time use what we have. New technologies will allows us to be more efficient both in use and emission output. It is amazing that environmentalists never talk about this. Coal...bad! bad! bad! Scrubber...oh, we don't talk about that. Nobody wants to dump a bunch of particulates and poisonous gas into the atmosphere. 'but, the voice that says we are not going to allow any of it regardless of improvement is causing us nothing but grief. At some point, if we are still here, we will have little or no use for internal combustion, but until then my stand is this, let the course of events unfold and allow technology to make the incremental improvements in the process.

[Dave M]

Additionally, I want to address this part directly.

I thought that I talked about the irresponsibility of consuming SUVs in my post?

It is funny. Every time I hear the counter to a new plant, I hear that the world is going fall into a curtain of pollution. This is nothing but fear mongering. For instance, a coal fired plant with the new scrubbers that we have today, falls right in line with the emissions standards of today. If we use the technology that we have to our advantage, we can mitigate emissions output, but at the same time use what we have. New technologies will allows us to be more efficient both in use and emission output. It is amazing that environmentalists never talk about this. Coal...bad! bad! bad! Scrubber...oh, we don't talk about that. Nobody wants to dump a bunch of particulates and poisonous gas into the atmosphere. 'but, the voice that says we are not going to allow any of it regardless of improvement is causing us nothing but grief. At some point, if we are still here, we will have little or no use for internal combustion, but until then my stand is this, let the course of events unfold and allow technology to make the incremental improvements in the process.

My point is that this technology would never be put to use if we didn't have laws requiring it. You can't trust businesses to do it just because it's the good thing to do. We've got decades, if not centuries, of experience to tell us that. You need laws and government agencies and environmentalists looking over the shoulder of big business to keep them in line. However, like anything else when left to business, environmentalism can be marketed. It's getting to the point now where businesses are actually doing the environmentally concious thing, just so they can say they did it. It's mart of the marketing sheme.. to be the greenest in your industry. However, a vast majority of businesses can't be trusted to think this way.

[markd79ta]

My point is that this technology would never be put to use if we didn't have laws requiring it. You can't trust businesses to do it just because it's the good thing to do. We've got decades, if not centuries, of experience to tell us that. You need laws and government agencies and environmentalists looking over the shoulder of big business to keep them in line. However, like anything else when left to business, environmentalism can be marketed. It's getting to the point now where businesses are actually doing the environmentally concious thing, just so they can say they did it. It's mart of the marketing sheme.. to be the greenest in your industry. However, a vast majority of businesses can't be trusted to think this way.

I will go one step further. It is up to the people to demand efficiency in a market based society. If a person (public) does not believe that a company isn't doing the environmentally appropriate thing, then the product shouldn't be purchased. Government regulation can be hurtful or helpful depending on how it is implemented. For instance, I have no problem with the Clean Air Act with the exception of the 'element of design' clause. I will accept that the government can regulate the output (I wouldn't drive a car daily that wasn't clean burning), but they have no right to regulate my property. If I can make changes to my property and meet the output guidlines...so be it!

Additionally, ANWR really chaps my backside. That was nothing but a political favor to the Sierra club and the like for campaign contributions...that was nothing but bad policy and government run amuck. Currently, the State of Alaska can't even open up its own lands for exploration because of the litigation caused by the environmental nutjobs that I am talking about. I am not for hosing down Alaska in petrol, but exploration with the proper safeguards and restrictions is not a bad thing if done properly.

[FroSSty]

Great reading guys...thanx for nonflaming...

[Al 96 Ram Air T/A]

I may not be "PC" in saying this, but why don't we get all the oil we need at cost from the Iraqii's? Kuwaitii's? Saudii's? Heck, they should be giving us oil (if not at cost) for a huge discount considering the hundreds of millions we've spent freeing them from Saddam's regime. While I do not think taking it by force is wise, taking it at $25 a barrel is justified. I read somewhere that the Iraqii people buy gasoline at pennies a gallon...PENNIES!!! If we claim to be a Superpower...let's not be afraid to use or muscle. We send billions to other countries in aid, yet nothing comes back (except maybe illegal immigrants)!!

[2Fbodcru]

I may not be "PC" in saying this, but why don't we get all the oil we need at cost from the Iraqii's? Kuwaitii's? Saudii's? Heck, they should be giving us oil (if not at cost) for a huge discount considering the hundreds of millions we've spent freeing them from Saddam's regime. While I do not think taking it by force is wise, taking it at $25 a barrel is justified. I read somewhere that the Iraqii people buy gasoline at pennies a gallon...PENNIES!!! If we claim to be a Superpower...let's not be afraid to use or muscle. We send billions to other countries in aid, yet nothing comes back (except maybe illegal immigrants)!!

Supply is not really the problem, because we can get all that we need from those countries. It is the lack of oil refineries in this country, to turn it into gasoline, that is the problem.

[Al 96 Ram Air T/A]

True...but for one point. The cost of refining PLUS the cost of crude per barrel equals $3.00 a gallon at the pump. Reduce the cost of crude, and everything diminishes accordingly. Heck, I'd be happy if they got oil for $10/barrel, and only passed 50% of the savings on to us, so long as the capital was being used to build more refineries.

[99 Fir3bird Chick]

Its finally up to 3.09 for reg here and 3.19 for super or whatever it is...Earlier today and yesterday our Gov. Joe Manchin was on TV saying he would NOT let the gas prices go up...Im kinda glad I have just a V6 right now lol. It sucks to because it'll probably be high tihs weekend and its labor day weekend :-( oh well I suppose ya just gotta live with it...

[Roger in Kensington]

My $3.00-worth:

There's some good discussion going on here (thankfully), so let me see if I can add to it.

According to this press release from the U.S. Department of Energy, there are 2 trillion barrels of oil to be obtained in oil shale deposits right here in America.

At current rates of U.S. consumption, that's enough to last 100,000 days. That's 270 years!

Canada is already producing over 1 million barrels of oil per day from her vast deposits of tar sands (with proven reserves greater than Saudi Arabia).

When oil was $3.00 a barrel, it made no economic sense to produce oil from oil shale or tar sands. But with today's prices, it does.

If I understand correctly, the majority of oil consumption in this country is used for other than transportation, electrical generation being the largest consumer (so turn off that light).

Having been on this orb for slightly more than 55 years and seeing these things develop, I cannot help but pin MOST (but certainly not all) of the blame on overzealous environmental regulations which have prevented drilling, the construction of new nuclear power plants, oil refineries, liquified natural gas facilities, etc.

France produces most of its electricity by nuclear power. Japan does, too, I think (or, at least, a substantial portion of it). And these countries have largely resolved the environmental waste disposal issues by extracting the highly radioactive components out of the spent fuel, recycling it into the nuclear reactor, encasing what is left in glass, and burying it.

As for the oil shale, there is at least one economic problem to be considered. There is so much oil available from conventional sources that if we were suddenly to start producing all our oil from shale (which is more expensive than by conventional drilling), then the major oil producers could simply flood the world market and undercut the price.

The only way oil-from-oil shale would work, then, is for the government to establish a floor price for oil. This would, of course, screw up the market (just as it has done for farm commodities).

Naturally, if our floor price was above the world price, oil companies and politicians would be accused of "price gouging" and "profiteering."

So, if I were an oil producer (like OPEC), I would protect my interests by making generous contributions to environmental organizations so that the status quo would be maintained (just as bootleggers contributed to politicians promising to maintain Prohibition).

One last observation: Automakers are not responsible for your purchase of an SUV anymore than McDonald's is responsible for your purchase of a Big Mac, chubby. When people didn't buy F-bodies, GM stopped producing them. Same thing holds true for SUVs.

Good discussion, buds (and buddettes).