Alternative Energy
Eisboch
Has anyone else heard of this? I found it to be very interesting,
especially the last comment made by the speaker:
http://cc.pubco.net/www.valcent.net/i/misc/Vertigro/index.html
Eisboch
Short Wave Sportfishing
Yeah - I was reading an article about it the other day. MIT is
working on an adaptation of this system to increase the effectiveness
of photocells so they can work on cloudy days with infrared energy.
The interesting thing is that both systems produce lipids as part of
the process.
HK
I read a piece earlier this year in the Washington Post that seemed very
similar. I think the technique is called algaculture. If it is really
viable, I'd like to see it developed and brought to market in public
universities via federal and state funding, with the people owning the
patents and technologies.
John McCain - Same old Dubya, just a lot older.
Eisboch
"HK" <payer...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
news:6fpjtjF...@mid.individual.net...
Too late for these guys. It's a public corporation, based in Vancouver,
B.C.
Imagine .... corporations researching and developing solutions to our energy
requirements.
What's your middle name anyway .... Marx? :-)
Eisboch
D.Duck
"Eisboch" <r...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:DqudneghnOaIAArV...@giganews.com...
Those pesky corporations...
Calif Bill
"Short Wave Sportfishing" <em...@swsportsremove.org> wrote in message
news:h16f945r78ehl84r2...@4ax.com...
Shades of Soylent Green ;>)
Eisboch
"Calif Bill" <bmcke...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:sNudnfJL8YG0PArV...@earthlink.com...
Heh ... that crossed my mind as well, and I hadn't thought about that movie
in years.
Eisboch
Larry
0tCwrVnZ2dn...@giganews.com:
> http://cc.pubco.net/www.valcent.net/i/misc/Vertigro/index.html
http://www.valcent.net/s/Home.asp
Valcent Products Inc
Last 0.53
Change 0.02
% Change 3.64%
Time 15:39:48
Bid 0.53
Bid Size 25
Ask 0.54
Ask Size 25
Day Low 0.53
Day High 0.55
Open 0.55
Prev Close 0.55
Volume 150,956
10D Ave Vol 193,327
Evidently, the investors are near as fascinated as you are.....
They'll be on the pink sheets, soon....delisted and dead.
It's really a pity, too. it looks like an interesting technology.
-------------------------------------------
A Russian professor of microbiology in the USA has invented a bacteria that
produces a huge amount of HYDROGEN for its weight out of A) Sun and B)
Water. It, too is photosynthetic and creates its own food chain. The
byproduct gas is ENORMOUS! The little bugger is really flatulent!
Of course, just like this guy, he'll either sell his technology to Big Oil
so they can bury it, or have an accident on some backroad, somewhere....I
bet "they" find both of them drunk or on drugs.
Short Wave Sportfishing
Soylent Green is People!!!
hk
There's plenty of research in that field.
Calif Bill
Maybe they used the people as the food for the alga.
Eisboch
>> Eisboch wrote:
>>> Has anyone else heard of this? I found it to be very interesting,
>>> especially the last comment made by the speaker:
>>>
>>> http://cc.pubco.net/www.valcent.net/i/misc/Vertigro/index.html
>>>
>>> Eisboch
>>
>>
>> I read a piece earlier this year in the Washington Post that seemed very
>> similar. I think the technique is called algaculture. If it is really
>> viable, I'd like to see it developed and brought to market in public
>> universities via federal and state funding, with the people owning the
>> patents and technologies.
I have quite a bit of experience working with universities on federally and
state funded research projects and/or major programs. Although it can be a
viable way to develop technology, the academia culture that exists in the
universities does not lend itself to efficiently getting the job done.
Additionally, (and unfortunately) grants or research project funding are
often milked to the hilt because it justifies jobs. Budgets and schedules
are established to maximize the duration of the program rather than to find
the most expedient course to satisfy the project's goals.
In order to get the job done more efficiently and quickly, the carrot of
*profits* has to be introduced. Usually a university is not permitted to
show a profit on a federally funded program, so that's where a corporation,
public or private has the incentive.
Having also participated in major government funded programs managed and run
by large corporations (TRW, Raytheon, Boeing, etc.), I can clearly see the
difference in management attitudes when compared to university run programs.
I've also had the experience of hiring a person from the world of academia
to manage and run a key department within a small business. He has gobs of
talent and knowledge, but simply could not adjust to the concept of a fixed
price contract and a meaningful schedule. It was often a disastrous
experience.
I can think of a couple of major programs however, that were run and managed
by industry, but had specific components of the project researched or
developed by universities. These projects were much more successful in
terms of meeting schedules and within budgets than those managed solely by a
university.
Eisboch
thu...@takeoutgti.net
> I have quite a bit of experience working with universities on federally
> and state funded research projects and/or major programs. Although it
> can be a viable way to develop technology, the academia culture that
> exists in the universities does not lend itself to efficiently getting
> the job done.
It may not be efficient, but it is profitable for the government.
hk
I'd rather we follow the Norwegian model for the "next" generation of
energy production, rather than the corporate model. All Norwegians
benefit directly from that country's ownership and control of its oil
assets, and it has helped build and maintain a secure middle class
lifestyle for its citizens. The Norwegian GPF is also a model for the world.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2008/POL070908A.htm
I see no reason to allow multinational corporations to control our future.
D.Duck
"hk" <payer...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
news:2LKdnZLLgtywqgXV...@comcast.com...
Now if we could only get some drilling going in the Gulf or on the mainland.
What's with this Ballken field in Montana/ND I've been reading about?
Short Wave Sportfishing
It's the Bakken Shale Field - 400 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
The field is about two miles down and is largely horizontal only about
20 feet or so in height. But, it's huge and with new technology,
recoverable.
Then there is the Haynesville Shale field for natural gas under which
they think is a huge field as big as Bakken, only it's really deep and
will take a while to access.
And the potential field on the OCS off New Jersey which could dwarf
the amount of oil that has ever been produced by the Middle East.
Now that the price is high enough, the world appears to be awash in
oil.
Funny thing about that. :>)
D.Duck
Time to short oil futures? 8>)
Short Wave Sportfishing
I instructed our broker to get out of any oil future fund two months
ago.
~~ snerk ~~
thu...@takeoutgti.net
> Now if we could only get some drilling going in the Gulf or on the
> mainland. What's with this Ballken field in Montana/ND I've been reading
> about?
Do you mean the Bakken Formation that was discovered in 1951? Lots of
oil there, but with current technology most of it will stay there.
We are not going to drill our way out of this. In this country, oil
production peaked in the early '70s. We are still the third largest oil
producing country, yet we have to import more than 1/2 our oil. Seems to
me, there is a hell of a lot more we can do on the conservation side,
than on the producing side.
Short Wave Sportfishing
I don't disagree - we can't "drill" out of the mess we're in.
However we can, and must, attempt to ease the crush on the economy,
jobs and lives by utilizing what we have to solve our own problems
rather than rely on countries who are antithetical to our unique place
in history. That means drilling until we can develop other methods of
supplying the energy.
It's basic - the world runs on energy produced by fossil fuels.
Period. At this period of time, we have nothing to replace fossil
fuels. We can talk about wind power and solar power all we want - the
plain truth is unless and until we develop solid alternatives, we have
to use fossil fuels - oil/coal - there simply is no other mass
replacement for them. Meaning we have to drill.
What is interesting to me about this issue is that up until two years
ago, including one regular here who I respect greatly, peak oil theory
was all the rage. Oil hits $150 a barrel and now we're awash in oil -
there's freakin' oil everywhere. The Bakken Field is an older field -
you are correct. What you apparently don't know is that while the
original field is fairly well played out, the field UNDER the old
field is huge - 400 Billion (with a B) barrels of oil that can be
recovered with new vertical/horizontal drilling techniques.
There is another problem with alternative resources and it's a curious
dichotomy in terms of ideology. On the one hand, environmentalist -
climate change advocates are telling us we need to get off fossil
fuels. Ok fine. Let's use the Oklahoma/Texas wind corridor as T.
Boone Pickens proposes to generate electricity.
Whoops - can't do that because it's also part of the Mid-American
Flyway for ducks and geese. The largest area of constant wind in the
world and Picken's proposal is being assailed by the very people who
want less use of fossil fuels because of the potential damage to the
flyway. And let's not forget those who oppose the project because it
will change the scenic views and vistas.
In the US, it takes 12 years (and that's a conservative estimate -
there is one proposal by Clearwater to add additional reactor to an
existing site in Texas that will be twenty years into the process) to
get a nuke power plant approved and additional 5 years to actually
build it. Those 12 years are the result of legal challenges - pure
and simple. We could be entirely off fossil fuels in the US for power
generation by now if only...
The problem is this - there is no clearly defined energy policy - the
Democrats don't have one, the Republicans don't have one and the
environmentalists - climate change advocates don't have one. All sides
of the issue are at logger heads over inconsistent and frankly stupid
concepts and outdated theories of social progress.
I'll leave you with this thought. Recently, MIT researchers developed
a process by which solar panels were engineered using the process of
photosynthesis and two common chemicals to split water into oxygen and
hydrogen and a simple method of using the product into fuel cells -
the solar panels work during the day and the fuel cell works during
cloudy days or at night. Sounds like a real benefit to mankind
doesn't it?
Here's the hitch - there is no way to tax sun power. In short we
won't see this technology put into production because the power from
the sun can't be taxed. In short, there is no "use" tax on free power.
You heard it here first. :>)
thu...@takeoutgti.net
> And the potential field on the OCS off New Jersey which could dwarf the
> amount of oil that has ever been produced by the Middle East.
Interesting you should mention this. IIRC, you once mentioned that at
one time you worked for Texaco. At one time, I worked for ODECO and we
contracted several of Texaco's wells in the Baltimore Canyon, most of
them dry. We did find some gas, but I would be very surprised if the
Baltimore Canyon was commercially viable, let alone dwarf the Middle East.
Short Wave Sportfishing
According to some friends no longer in the production business (they
are in the exploration business) the original Baltimore Canyon test
wells were too shallow. I'm not a geologist so I have to take them at
their word. :>)
You have to remember that new seismic techniques have found huge domes
- that's what tipped off Petrobras to the Tupi and the Carioca-Sugar
Loaf fields off Brazil. Both of those fields combined are massive in
terms of quantity and are located in areas where previous test drills
produced nothing.
ODECO huh? :>)
When was that? Before or after Murphy Oil bought them out.
Know quite a few people who worked for ODECO.
Oh no - we may know each other in real life!! :>)
Eisboch
>
> In the US, it takes 12 years (and that's a conservative estimate -
> there is one proposal by Clearwater to add additional reactor to an
> existing site in Texas that will be twenty years into the process) to
> get a nuke power plant approved and additional 5 years to actually
> build it. Those 12 years are the result of legal challenges - pure
> and simple. We could be entirely off fossil fuels in the US for power
> generation by now if only...
>
I may have mentioned this before, but what the heck ....
I was talking to my neighbor not too long ago. He's a quality control/test
engineer at the Pilgrim Nuke Plant in Plymouth.
The discussion involved the need for new plants and the historical problems
and costs risks associated with getting permits.
He told me that has changed, fairly recently. Prior to the change, a
utility company or company who wanted to put up a nuke plant had to go
through all the engineering, design phases, get building permits, build the
thing, then apply for a permit to operate it.
The application for permit to operate is where the trouble started with all
the environmentalists and anti-nuke organizations, and they prevailed. As
a result, nobody wants to put up the money to design and build, only to be
refused a license to operate.
The new procedure changes that. A permit to operate is issued up front
.... contingent upon successful compliance with all inspections conducted
during the design and build phase. As long as the plant meets the approved
design and build conditions, a license to operate is already approved.
This may help get new plants off the dime.
Eisboch
Short Wave Sportfishing
They can build one in my back yard anytime they want. :>)
thu...@takeoutgti.net
> That means drilling until we can develop other methods of
> supplying the energy.
I wouldn't argue with that. Drilling is definitely a *part* of the
solution, but the days off cheap energy are over. We need a
comprehensive energy plan, including drilling, *and* including
conservation. All this bitching about $4 gas, is just that, bitching.
We had one wake-up call in the '70s, $4 gas is a second wake-up call. If
we don't deal with it, we deserve to go down the drain.
> What is interesting to me about this issue is that up until two years
> ago, including one regular here who I respect greatly, peak oil theory
> was all the rage. Oil hits $150 a barrel and now we're awash in oil -
> there's freakin' oil everywhere. The Bakken Field is an older field -
> you are correct. What you apparently don't know is that while the
> original field is fairly well played out, the field UNDER the old field
> is huge - 400 Billion (with a B) barrels of oil that can be recovered
> with new vertical/horizontal drilling techniques.
I disagree. We aren't awash in oil, we are awash in talk of oil. It's
true, the higher the price of oil, expensive oil fields become
profitable, but it is still a finite resource, and we are still running
out. We import 1/2 our oil, but we are exporting our wealth. This is
perhaps the greatest transfer of wealth in history, and who are we
transferring it to? Not our friends.
> The problem is this - there is no clearly defined energy policy - the
> Democrats don't have one, the Republicans don't have one and the
> environmentalists - climate change advocates don't have one. All sides
> of the issue are at logger heads over inconsistent and frankly stupid
> concepts and outdated theories of social progress.
30 years ago, Carter had one. He was laughed at.
> Here's the hitch - there is no way to tax sun power. In short we won't
> see this technology put into production because the power from the sun
> can't be taxed. In short, there is no "use" tax on free power.
Yeah, but it's past taxes. It's getting real close to survival. Perhaps
not literally, but definitely economically.
thu...@takeoutgti.net
> ODECO huh? :>)
>
> When was that? Before or after Murphy Oil bought them out.
>
> Know quite a few people who worked for ODECO.
>
> Oh no - we may know each other in real life!! :>)
IIRC, Murphy was always the parent company. It's just that now there is
no ODECO. Anyway, it was the late '70s, early '80s. Again, IIRC, we
were going down @12,000'. There was one hole that I wasn't on, that took
a kick a little over 13,000', and ran on choke for a week or so. There
were a lot of stories going round about that one. Salt water? Oil?
Beats me, but all the companies pulled out of the area.
thu...@takeoutgti.net
> The new procedure changes that. A permit to operate is issued up front
> .... contingent upon successful compliance with all inspections
> conducted during the design and build phase. As long as the plant
> meets the approved design and build conditions, a license to operate is
> already approved.
>
>
> This may help get new plants off the dime.
>
> Eisboch
The new procedure makes sense, as long as they don't try to sneak them
through in the middle of the night, so to speak. Besides the permitting,
there was another reason new nukes weren't built, cheap oil. Nuclear
energy is expensive. Coal, oil and natural gas, are, or were, cheaper.
D.Duck
And you could provide the flatus, if the nuke fuel wasn't available. 8>)
Short Wave Sportfishing
>On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:19:48 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
>
>
>
>> That means drilling until we can develop other methods of
>> supplying the energy.
>
>I wouldn't argue with that. Drilling is definitely a *part* of the
>solution, but the days off cheap energy are over. We need a
>comprehensive energy plan, including drilling, *and* including
>conservation. All this bitching about $4 gas, is just that, bitching.
>We had one wake-up call in the '70s, $4 gas is a second wake-up call. If
>we don't deal with it, we deserve to go down the drain.
We agree - I think we're just motivated by different details. :>)
>> What is interesting to me about this issue is that up until two years
>> ago, including one regular here who I respect greatly, peak oil theory
>> was all the rage. Oil hits $150 a barrel and now we're awash in oil -
>> there's freakin' oil everywhere. The Bakken Field is an older field -
>> you are correct. What you apparently don't know is that while the
>> original field is fairly well played out, the field UNDER the old field
>> is huge - 400 Billion (with a B) barrels of oil that can be recovered
>> with new vertical/horizontal drilling techniques.
>
>I disagree. We aren't awash in oil, we are awash in talk of oil. It's
>true, the higher the price of oil, expensive oil fields become
>profitable, but it is still a finite resource, and we are still running
>out.
Well, that's entirely in dispute. Some will say half, some say a 1/3,
some say a 1/4, some are somewhere in the middle. Personally, I
think the anecdotal evidence pretty much rests on the more side than
the less side. It seems to me that the discussion has, since the
'70's, always been price will find more oil. That seems to be proving
true.
Think about it for a minute - two years ago, peak oil was all the rage
- we're running out - it's all over but the shouting - we'll be out by
2015 - 2020, etc. Where is that discussion now?
I forget where I read this, but apparently the bulk storage facilities
are in crisis - they don't have the room to store all the oil that
being pumped. We went from having excess storage capacity to not
having enough in five years. Oil on old bulk tankers, barges, old
refurbished land based storage tanks - there's oil everywhere.
Admittedly, some of it is heavy/sour crude which requires a different
cracking process which also is in short supply, but the proof in the
pudding of oil supplies is the Indian ship breaking industry in Alang,
India - they are having a hard time finding old tankers to break
because they are all being used for storage.
Add the new discoveries, the Artic potential, offshore, yada, yada,
yada we have too much oil.
Lastly, the Chinese are exploring the Straights of Florida off Cuba
and the Russia's Rosneft and Gazprom are getting into the act - what
do they know that we don't?
> We import 1/2 our oil, but we are exporting our wealth. This is
>perhaps the greatest transfer of wealth in history, and who are we
>transferring it to? Not our friends.
I don't disagree with that - in fact, I'm in complete agreement.
Drill, drill, drill. :>)
>> The problem is this - there is no clearly defined energy policy - the
>> Democrats don't have one, the Republicans don't have one and the
>> environmentalists - climate change advocates don't have one. All sides
>> of the issue are at logger heads over inconsistent and frankly stupid
>> concepts and outdated theories of social progress.
>
>30 years ago, Carter had one. He was laughed at.
Um...I'll let that statement stand if only because...well, I'll just
let that one go.
Be that as it may, the current situation requires some forethought and
action - we need to do something. Less talk, more do. We can't have
politicians like Chuck Schumer saying we need to have the Saudi's
produce more oil instead of drilling on our own.
We can't afford to have moronic statements like keeping tires inflated
will save all the oil we can drill for the next five years.
It silly crap that is muddying up the waters and stopping us from
accomplishing what we can accomplish by using a comprehensive plan to
increase out independance - in short, use everything.
Weneed to really have a comprehensive plan from upgrading the grid to
distributed power generation - there's a ton of things we need to do
that we just aren't doing.
I've often thought that what we really need is a new WPA to put people
to work and get shit done.
Sorry for the language. :>)
>> Here's the hitch - there is no way to tax sun power. In short we won't
>> see this technology put into production because the power from the sun
>> can't be taxed. In short, there is no "use" tax on free power.
>
>Yeah, but it's past taxes. It's getting real close to survival. Perhaps
>not literally, but definitely economically.
Again, agreed, but the point is that there is a technology which has a
lot of potential - not only for us, but for the Third World and it's
not going to go anywhere because governments can't add revenue cost to
the process.
One of my buddies here in town has a development he started just
before everything went down the tubes. He managing to keep his crews
busys with this and that, but he's been really interested in turing
the development into a "green" development. Geo thermal
heating/cooling, solar power - state-of-the-art type homes. Did a
whole ROI for potential purchasers.
Up until the Planning, Zoning and Code Compliance folks started
getting involved that is.
It's a mess.
I think we're on the same side, we're just looking at it from
different angles. :>)
Wayne.B
>The new procedure changes that. A permit to operate is issued up front
>.... contingent upon successful compliance with all inspections conducted
>during the design and build phase. As long as the plant meets the approved
>design and build conditions, a license to operate is already approved.
>
>This may help get new plants off the dime.
I hope so. The scenario you describe is exactly what happened to the
New Shoreham nuclear plant on Long Island. After 4 or 5 billion
dollars and 10+ years of construction, then Governor Cumo caved to the
enviro-nutz and the reactors were scrapped.
Eisboch
"Short Wave Sportfishing" <em...@swsportsremove.org> wrote in message
news:72ig94dbs2kb8mg9n...@4ax.com...
>
> Here's the hitch - there is no way to tax sun power. In short we
> won't see this technology put into production because the power from
> the sun can't be taxed. In short, there is no "use" tax on free power.
Don't put it past the politicians to figure out a way. Maybe a surcharge
on your local or state taxes if you happen to be in a "high sunshine" area.
Eisboch
Vic Smith
Here's what puzzles me when I hear talk about "drilling our own oil."
Isn't oil price set by the world market?
Are "American" oil companies drilling here going to sell only to
American consumers?
That sounds like nationalization to me.
Doesn't seem like drilling more here will affect the world oil supply
significantly enough to lower prices as world demand increases.
Devil in the details, and I never hear anybody explaining how
drilling more here will have real effect in price.
Does the gov get so much per barrel on the leases? Etc, etc.
The stupidest thing I keep hearing is talk about tapping the strategic
reserves. Can't get more absolutely lame than talking about doing
that.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Building nukes as quickly
as possible and concentrating on converting most commuter cars to
batteries will be the fastest way to knock the edge off oil
dependency. NG and oil fired heating can be converted when the
electricity costs get there. Lots of work for the HVAC industry, and
real good for copper prices.
Just need the will to do it. Leadership.
Oil fuel will used mostly for boats. Navy and recreational. Yep.
--Vic
hk
The entire McCain "energy plan" was handed to McCain intact by the oil
industry. It's a plan to make more money for the oil industry.
Last November, McCain said:
""I will oppose any tax breaks or good deals for the gas and oil
industry also."
--John McCain at a town hall meeting in Rindge, NH, 11/18/07
For American Progress, "The McCain plan would deliver approximately $170
billion a year in tax cuts to corporations, including some corporations
that are very large and profitable. Just one of the proposals-cutting
the corporate rate from 35 percent to 25 percent-would cut taxes for
five largest U.S. oil companies by $3.8 billion a year." [Center for
American Progress, 3/27/08]
McCain Voted Against Reducing Dependence On Foreign Oil. In 2005, McCain
voted against legislation calling on the President to submit a plan to
reduce foreign petroleum imports by 40 percent. [Senate Roll Call Vote
#140, 6/16/05]
In 2005, McCain Voted Against a Windfall Profit Tax on Oil Companies At
Least Twice. McCain voted against a measure that would have provided an
income tax rebate to Americans by taxing enormous oil company profits
temporarily on an sale of crude above $40 a barrel. [S 2020, Vote #331,
11/17/05; S 2020, Vote # 341, 11/17/05; Houston Chronicle, 11/17/05; Las
Vegas Review-Journal, 11/18/05; Environment and Energy Daily¸ 11/18/05]
McCain Voted Against Taxing Oil Companies To Provide $100 Rebate To
Consumers. In 2005, McCain voted against an amendment to impose a
temporary tax on oil company profits from the sale of crude oil. The
funds would be used to provide every taxpayer with a $100 non-refundable
tax credit for 2005 for each person in their household. The amendment
failed 33-65. [S 2020, Vote #341, 11/17/05]
McCain Voted Against Temporarily Taxing Oil Companies to Finance Tax
Rebate For Consumers. In 2005, McCain voted against an amendment to
would impose a temporary 50 percent tax on oil company profits from the
sale of crude oil. Funds collected from the tax would be used to provide
a consumer tax credit for petroleum products. The amendment failed
35-64. [S 2020, Vote #331, 11/17/05]
Offshore Drilling
McCain Now: McCain Called For Lifting The Off Shore Drilling Moratorium.
During a press availability in Arlington Virginia, John McCain called
for a lifting of the federal moratorium on offshore drilling. McCain
said, "I think that's a subject of negotiation and discussion. But right
now, as you know there's a moratorium. And those moratorium, in my view,
moratoria, have to be lifted. And they have to be lifted so that states
can make those decisions. I'm not dictating to the states that they
drill or they engage in oil exploration. I am saying that the moratoria
should be lifted so they have the opportunity to do so. And by the way,
I would also like to see perhaps additional incentives if the states, in
the form of tangible financial rewards if the states decide to lift
those moratoria." [McCain Press Avail 6/16/07]
* Houston Chronicle: McCain Announced Drilling Stance To "Make
Amends With Texas Energy Producers." The Houston Chronicle Reported,
"Republican presidential candidate John McCain, seeking to make amends
with Texas energy producers who did not support him during the 2008 GOP
primary season, said Monday he wants to end a federal moratorium on
offshore drilling and create "additional incentives" for states to
approve new exploration ventures." [Houston Chronicle, 6/17/08]
McCain Said Coasts "Should Be Open To Exploration and Exploitation."
John McCain said, "So I do believe that there are places in the world,
as I said, that we should not drill. But I certainly think there are
areas off our coasts that should be open to exploration and
exploitation. And I hope that we can take the first step, by lifting the
moratoria in order to do so." [McCain Press Avail 6/16/07]
McCain Then: He Opposed Off-Shore Drilling At Least Three Times, and
Twice Supported Florida Efforts To Prevent Drilling Off Their Coasts.
* McCain Voted Against Off-Shore Drilling. In 2005, McCain voted
for an amendment that would strike language instructing the Interior
Department to conduct a comprehensive inventory of Outer Continental
Shelf oil and natural gas resources. The amendment failed 44-52. [H.R.
6, Vote #143, 6/21/2005]
* McCain Voted Against Off-Shore Drilling. In 2003, McCain voted
against a provision requiring a survey and inventory of possible
off-shore oil and natural gas deposits by the Secretary of the Interior.
He voted for an amendment striking the provision. The amendment failed
45-53. [S. 14, Vote #221, 6/12/2003]
* McCain Voted for One-Year Moratorium on Oil and Gas Exploration
in North Aleutian Basin. In 1989, McCain voted for a bill making
appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1990, and for other purposes.
The bill contained a total of $956.4 million for the Bureau of Land
Management of which $442.1 million is for management of lands and
resources; $535.5 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service. The bill
also imposed a one-year moratorium on oil and gas exploration and
development in the North Aleutian Basin and ensured that the Department
of the Interior will continue its assessment of damage from the Exxon
Valdex oil spill through September 30, 1990. The bill also contained
$1.5 billion for the Department of Energy, which includes $422.1 million
for the fossil energy research program; $192.1 million for the Naval
Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves; $413.3 million for energy
conservation. The bill passed 91-6. [H.R. 2788, Vote #241, 10/7/1989]
McSame As Bush: Bush Administration Called For End To Off Shore Drilling
Ban. The New York Times reported, "The Bush administration proposed on
Monday leasing out millions of acres along the coasts of Alaska and
Virginia to oil and gas drillers, a move that would end a longstanding
ban on drilling in those environmentally sensitive areas. ... ‘The outer
continental shelf is a vital source of domestic oil and natural gas for
America, especially in light of sharply rising energy prices,' said Dirk
Kempthorne, secretary of the interior." [New York Times, 5/1/07]
Renewable Energy
McCain Flip Flopped On Ethanol
FLIP: McCain Said Ethanol "Has Absolutely, Under No Circumstances, Any
Value Whatsoever." According to Roll Call, "John McCain, R-Ariz., called
ethanol "a product that we have created a market for which has
absolutely, under no circumstances, any value whatsoever except to corn
producers and Archer Daniels Midland and other large agribusinesses."
[Roll Call, 5/2/04]
* FLOP: McCain Said Ethanol "Ought To Be Something That Ought To Be
Carefully Examined." According to the Des Moines Register, McCain
"indicate[d] a slight softening of his earlier opposition to the
corn-based alternative fuel, which he said in the past was too costly to
produce." McCain "who once described ethanol as ‘good for neither the
environment nor the consumer,' said that rising oil costs make the
alternative fuel worthy of another look.'" "McCain emphasized ... that
his opposition to subsidies hasn't changed, and said that economics, not
politics, explains his revised position. ‘I think it ought to be
something that ought to be carefully examined' and researched, he
added." [Des Moines Register, 4/13/06, 4/14/06]
The reality is, McCain is as much in the pocket of big oil as Bush.
As soon as McCain announced his (their) energy plan, contributions began
to roll in from the oil industry.
Calif Bill
>
>
> The entire McCain "energy plan" was handed to McCain intact by the oil
> industry. It's a plan to make more money for the oil industry.
>
> Last November, McCain said:
>
> ""I will oppose any tax breaks or good deals for the gas and oil industry
> also."
>
> --John McCain at a town hall meeting in Rindge, NH, 11/18/07
>
>
> For American Progress, "The McCain plan would deliver approximately $170
> billion a year in tax cuts to corporations, including some corporations
> that are very large and profitable. Just one of the proposals-cutting the
> corporate rate from 35 percent to 25 percent-would cut taxes for five
> largest U.S. oil companies by $3.8 billion a year." [Center for American
> Progress, 3/27/08]
>
> McCain Voted Against Reducing Dependence On Foreign Oil. In 2005, McCain
> voted against legislation calling on the President to submit a plan to
> reduce foreign petroleum imports by 40 percent. [Senate Roll Call Vote
> #140, 6/16/05]
>
> In 2005, McCain Voted Against a Windfall Profit Tax on Oil Companies At
> Least Twice. McCain voted against a measure that would have provided an
> income tax rebate to Americans by taxing enormous oil company profits
> temporarily on an sale of crude above $40 a barrel. [S 2020, Vote #331,
> 11/17/05; S 2020, Vote # 341, 11/17/05; Houston Chronicle, 11/17/05; Las
> America, especially in light of sharply rising energy prices,' said Dirk
> Kempthorne, secretary of the interior." [New York Times, 5/1/07]
> Renewable Energy
>
> McCain Flip Flopped On Ethanol
>
> FLIP: McCain Said Ethanol "Has Absolutely, Under No Circumstances, Any
> Value Whatsoever." According to Roll Call, "John McCain, R-Ariz., called
> ethanol "a product that we have created a market for which has absolutely,
> under no circumstances, any value whatsoever except to corn producers and
> Archer Daniels Midland and other large agribusinesses." [Roll Call,
> 5/2/04]
>
> * FLOP: McCain Said Ethanol "Ought To Be Something That Ought To Be
> Carefully Examined." According to the Des Moines Register, McCain
> "indicate[d] a slight softening of his earlier opposition to the
> corn-based alternative fuel, which he said in the past was too costly to
> alternative fuel worthy of another look.'" "McCain emphasized ... that his
> opposition to subsidies hasn't changed, and said that economics, not
> Moines Register, 4/13/06, 4/14/06]
>
>
>
>
> The reality is, McCain is as much in the pocket of big oil as Bush.
>
> As soon as McCain announced his (their) energy plan, contributions began
> to roll in from the oil industry.
Evil Exxon. 11 billion in profits. 32 billion paid in taxes. Sounds more
like the taxers are the evil ones.
thu...@takeoutgti.net
> Just need the will to do it. Leadership. Oil fuel will used mostly for
> boats. Navy and recreational. Yep.
>
> --Vic
There are those that would argue oil is too valuable to use as fuel. Look
around you, medicines, fertilizers, plastics, etc. As it stands, we
can't get through the day without oil products.
Vic Smith
I watched that History or Discovery Channel episode called "Oil"
a bit back and they mentioned there are bio substitutes for just about
everything that comes from oil. They didn't go into much detail.
I still wonder if anybody knows the answer to my more "drilling"
question, so I'll pose it again:
Here's what puzzles me when I hear talk about "drilling our own oil."
Isn't oil price set by the world market?
Are "American" oil companies drilling here going to sell only to
American consumers?
That sounds like nationalization to me.
Doesn't seem like drilling more here will affect the world oil supply
significantly enough to lower prices as world demand increases.
Devil in the details, and I never hear anybody explaining how
drilling more here will have real effect in price.
Does the gov get so much per barrel on the leases? Etc, etc.
This isn't a "political" question per se, but one more related to
actual local and global economics as they are currently practiced.
--Vic
thu...@takeoutgti.net
> Here's what puzzles me when I hear talk about "drilling our own oil."
> Isn't oil price set by the world market? Are "American" oil companies
> drilling here going to sell only to American consumers?
> That sounds like nationalization to me. Doesn't seem like drilling more
> here will affect the world oil supply significantly enough to lower
> prices as world demand increases. Devil in the details, and I never hear
> anybody explaining how drilling more here will have real effect in
> price. Does the gov get so much per barrel on the leases? Etc, etc.
>
> This isn't a "political" question per se, but one more related to actual
> local and global economics as they are currently practiced.
>
> --Vic
Interesting question, and I don't have the answer, but a few facts. We
are still the world's third largest producer of oil, at 8.3 million
barrels per day (2005 est.) of which we export 1 million bbl/day. The
problem is we are also the biggest pigs on the planet. We consume 20 bbl/
day.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
If our production increases, the world's production increases, thereby,
lowering the world's prices. There is no reason to think all of the oil
produced here, would stay here.